FDA Ready To make Scores Of Supplements Illegal To Purchase In The US

by: Fp

Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 14:08:18 PM PST

1.  On Your Mark - The FDA Is At It Again!
2.  Get Set -  To Act
3.  Go - Contact Your Congress Persons!

In July, the FDA lost its collective mind. Let's trust that we can stop them before real damage is done: done to us, the supplement-purchasing public; done to the natural products industry; and done to the possibility of good health for everybody.

What Is It? It's the FDA's "New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Draft Guidance". More      clearly, it's proposed guidelines for the natural products industry to follow in bringing new dietary ingredients onto the market. (Of course, there are already guidelines. They have been followed diligently for the last 17 years.)

What Does It Do? It changes the requirements for bringing new supplements to market. In 1994, due to tremendous public pressure, Congress passed the Dietary Health and Education Act. Commonly referred to as "DSHEA" [d'shay], that law has protected       supplements from the FDA unless the feds can prove the supplement isn't safe. The FDA is taking advantage of a loophole in DSHEA, allowing it to regulate new ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.

What's The Big Deal? Here it is. The FDA is changing the definition of the word "new". In addition, they are reversing the burden of proof onto the manufacturers. The proposed new means:

• When a supplement includes more of an ingredient than was used 17 years ago, it becomes "new" 1...
• When an ingredient is produced using a different extraction process than previously...
• When a supplement contains an ingredient at a different "life stage", say a ripe rather than unripe fruit...
• When a supplement contains an ingredient that has been duplicated in a lab rather than extracting it from food - even though it's chemically identical...
• Last, if a probiotic formula contains a strain of bacteria that wasn't found in yogurt 17 years ago, it becomes a new ingredient and subject to testing.
Ingredients which actually are new are covered also. This includes ingredients like resveratrol, ubiquinol, curcuminoids, vitamin E factors, and the jillion phtyo nutrients.

What Kind Of Proof Is The FDA Demanding? Manufacturers are mandated to 1) go back to the lab for a year AND 2) conduct animal studies using a dosage that's 1,000 times the typical dose!!! Not kidding, folks. In a recent example, a fish oil manufacturer would have to conduct a one-year study, force-feeding animals the human equivalent of 240,000 mg of fish oil daily. It doesn't take a PhD to realize that these amounts are bound to harm the animals, resulting in an excuse for the FDA to pull the product from the market.
If the study happened to pass, other manufacturers could not ride the victory. Rather, they are each required to run their own studies on their particular products.
Further, the studies are expensive, running from $100,000 to $200,000 per ingredient. If a company has 6 products with 6 "new" ingredients in each, that company is looking at a bill of at least $3.6 million. Some larger companies could be looking at testing more than 50 products, each of them containing other new ingredients. Yikes!
It's obvious that this is a blatant abuse of power by the FDA. The agency is making an end run around existing law.

What Can We Do? SPEAK UP!!! We can win this! We, the public, have until Friday, December 2nd, 2011!!!!

ACTION: Give Your Farmers Some LOVE on Valentines Day

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 13:41:02 PM PST

Do you appreciate the hard work that our family farmers and ranchers do?

If so, please take a few moments of your day this Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday to call the White House and tell President Obama that you support the proposed Fair Livestock Competition rule [PDF] that helps independent farmers and ranchers get a fair price for their hard work. (It's also called the "GIPSA rule".)

On February 14, 15 and 16 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, hundreds will participate in "Love the American Farmer and Rancher" call in day because the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) proposed Fair Livestock Competition rule would greatly benefit livestock producers across the country. However, the meatpackers and processors have pushed back against the rule, spreading false information to protect their own greedy bottom line.

You can help!

   * Call 202-456-1111 to reach the White House Comment Line (you may need to call back if the line is busy)
   * Share the message below (or something similar)
   * "My name is _____ from _______ (city and/or state) calling in support of USDA's proposed livestock rule. This rule would level the playing field for livestock producers. Livestock producers need this rule finalized to protect them from retaliation and level the playing field. I encourage USDA to finish and implement the GIPSA proposed rule as quickly as possible. Thank you."

For more information on issues related to fair competition in livestock, go to http://www.cfra.org/competition Thank you for supporting independent livestock farmers and ranchers!

One way to go call is to use this website - you enter your phone number, receive a call, and when you pick up, it connects you to the White House comment line. If you can't get through, call (202) 863-8000 instead, and tell them that you couldn't get through on the White House comment line, but you want to leave a message for President Obama.

Big Food toying with the health of your kids

by: Corporate Accountability International

Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:15:41 PM PDT

More than a third of U.S. children are at risk of developing - or already suffering from - chronic conditions related to what they eat, such as Type 2 diabetes. Yet the vast majority of edibles currently advertised do more to make kids sick than to nourish them.

Every four days, the food industry spends more on advertising directed at children than the nation's leading funder of childhood obesity initiatives - the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - spends in an entire year on health education, as Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale Rudd Center, has pointed out.

ACTION: Don't Fund School Lunch by Cutting Conservation or Food Stamps!

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 21:15:45 PM PDT

ACTION: Tell the USDA to Reject GM Alfalfa!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 13:36:19 PM PST

Food Democracy Now says:

During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its GMO alfalfa by convincing USDA regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In 2007, a court reversed this decision, ordering the USDA to complete the legally required environmental impact statement (EIS).

Shockingly, the Obama Administration's recent review would approve Monsanto's GMO alfalfa.

The draft USDA EIS was issued in December 2009 and is poised to allow Monsanto's GMO alfalfa on the market, despite the fact that the USDA admits that these seeds will contaminate organic feed that organic dairy farmers rely on to produce organic milk.

According to the CEO of the largest farmer-owned organic dairy coop in the U.S., GMO alfalfa "threatens the very fabric of the organic industry." We can't allow this to happen.

Despite massive public outcry in the past, the USDA's environmental review went so far as to say that U.S. organic consumers don't care about GMO contamination.

Tell Secretary Vilsack that you care about organic contamination and that you want him to stand up for the organic industry and organic consumers.

What you can do BY END OF DAY TODAY:

1) Calling is absolutely the best, and the hold time is not onerous:
White House Comments: 202-456-1111

2) It's also a good idea to submit a written comment by email:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

And also to the USDA:

3) Kathleen Merrigan
Kathleen.Merrigan@usda.gov

4) Tom Vilsack's office
202-720-3631 (they will refer you to the comment line below, but calls might make an impression)

5) and last but not least, USDA Animal Plant Inspection Office Comment Line!!! if this is the ONE call you make:

202-720-3668

ACTION: School Lunch, the EPA, and Climate Change

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PST

First, from CREDO, school lunch should be better than fast food. Kind of a no-brainer, except for the fact that a recent USA Today article revealed that fast food joints often have higher standards than the USDA's school lunch program. Ouch!

Second and third are alerts by the Organic Consumers Association. There's one about the EPA and one about the role organics can play in fighting climate change.

ACTION: Food Safety Is Needed - But Not at the Expense of Sustainable Ag

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:30:00 PM PST

Note that action is required before November 18. That gives you just less than a week. To take action on a second alert, one for the Organic Farming Research Foundation, go here.

Ohio Food Co-op Swat Team Raid Trial This Week

by: Miep

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:08:53 AM PDT

Help Save the Mint Farm

by: Idgie Threadgoode

Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:27:38 AM PDT

The Crosby Mint Farm in St. Johns, Michigan is the oldest working mint farm in the country.  The owners are facing foreclosure on Friday, 8/14/09, unless they can sell enough product.  

Call to Action: Cut NAIS funding

by: JudithM

Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM PDT

The costs of NAIS, in both time and money, will drive many sustainable livestock farmers out of business and place heavy burdens on people who are simply trying to raise food for themselves or their local communities.

Right now, we have an opportunity in the Senate to cut back on the funding for NAIS, an important step in stopping this program.  Please keep reading and take action!

ACTION: Speak Out Against the LGMA!

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:58:33 AM PDT

Please give a quick phone call to the committee at 202-225-6427 or fax them at 202-225-2392. The good news is that the subcommittee chair is Dennis Kucinich. If you call, tell the briefly that you oppose the LGMA and any expansion of it because it is harmful to the environment and sustainable agriculture and it is also ineffective. If you want to give them a longer message, either send a fax, or call and ask for an email address you can write your comments to.

ACTION: Say No Thanks to Carcinogenic Strawberries

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:19:27 AM PDT

You can take action here. Think of me when you sign the letter. The pesticide drift mentioned below, well... that's in my county. I'll have the enormous pleasure of breathing that stuff. Thanks, but no thanks.

There is overwhelming evidence of potential harm from exposure to this pesticide - a chemical so toxic that scientists take precautions to use methyl iodide in a ventilation hood in very small quantities. In contrast, if registered as a soil fumigant, methyl iodide would be applied in agricultural fields at rates up to 175 pounds per acre. Since fumigants spread as a gas, they drift from the application site, poisoning neighboring residents and farm workers in nearby fields.

Methyl iodide is a clear threat to public health, could contaminate groundwater, and is not needed to build a secure, viable and healthy agricultural economy in California. Again, we strongly urge you to not fast-track the registration of methyl iodide, and instead allow DPR's process that incorporates independent scientific review and public input to proceed as planned.

After you sign the petition, do me another favor. Don't support these dumbasses with your business. Buy a bunch of strawberries in season, locally, and freeze them. Then don't buy the California strawberries available when they are out of season where you live.

Tell Forbes: We Want Better Reporting

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

I just sent them the following letter, and I would very much appreciate if you'd send them a piece of your mind as well. Send your letters to readers at forbes.com and be sure to include your name, address, and phone number. Keep your letters brief - under 150 words is best.

I am deeply concerned over the article "How Now, Green Cow?" which summarizes the recent Cornell study that claims factory farming produces more environmentally-friendly milk. The study's conclusion is tainted by the affiliations of its authors. The Cornell researchers involved in the study have previously received funding from Monsanto, the original owner of rbGH, the controversial growth hormone that makes cows produce more milk, and the study included a consultant from Elanco, the current owner of rbGH.

Comparing 1944 milk production to modern day organic production is quite misleading. Due to advances in breeding and other production practices, organic cows produced an average of 13,601 lbs of milk per cow in 2005 according to a recent USDA report on emerging trends in organics compared to 4555 lbs of milk in 1944. That is just one of many flaws in the study and its conclusion that factory farming is "greener" than organic methods.

Dairy farmers need a fair milk price!

by: jenfahy

Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 19:29:23 PM PDT

As a staff person of an organization hearing from dairy farmers across the country on our hotline and through our website, I wanted to respond to your question. The answer, as far as we're concerned, is that the dairy crisis affects all of us.  

Feeding America: A Weekend of Hope: Teaching Us To Fish

by: Timroff

Sun May 10, 2009 at 19:06:54 PM PDT

There have been a number of absolutely terrific diaries on this subject this weekend, thanks to the arganizing skill and cheerleading of our beloved noweasels, but I'm going to take a minor detour to close this series, because I believe that producing our own food locally is the clear path towards solving our increasing food poverty.