Horrifying: Toxic chemical in Pepsi known to cause DNA breaking, fragmentation

Image: Horrifying: Toxic chemical in Pepsi known to cause DNA breaking, fragmentation
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
February 22, 2017

High-fructose corn syrup is’t the only ingredient found in sodas that consumers should be concerned about. Pepsi and other sodas contain a toxic byproduct known as 4-Methylimidazole, or 4-MEI for short, that may be increasing your cancer risks.

Pepsi has come under fire for violations of California’s Proposition 65 in relation to 4-MEI. The Center for Environmental Health even filed a complaint against the beverage giant in 2013 due to their violations. Pepsi has since paid the organization some $385,000 and provided them with updates on product compliance, and a settlement was reached in 2015. Following that settlement, Pepsi “agreed to require its caramel coloring suppliers to meet certain 4-MEI levels in products shipped for sale to the United States, to ensure that the carcinogen’s levels will not exceed 100 parts per billion.”

As of 2016, a newer settlement will now be requiring Pepsi to apply the same product standards nationwide.

What is 4-MEI and why should it be regulated?

4-MEI is an impurity that is created during the manufacturing of caramel colors III and IV. The FDA maintains that they have “no reason to believe” that 4-MEI is carcinogenic. The agency is reportedly re-evaluating the public’s exposure to 4-MEI to ensure manufacturers are using it safely but is not currently recommending dietary changes.

This is rather perplexing because studies conducted by the federal government clearly showed that long-term exposure to 4-MEI increased the incidence of lung cancer in both male and female mice. The federal government’s findings even prompted the state of California to add 4-MEI to their Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. While there are no federal limits yet for 4-MEI, the state of California requires products that contain more than 29 micrograms (mcg) to be labeled.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment chose 29 micrograms as the “cut off point” because they concluded that amounts at that level or above pose a one in 100,000 risk of cancer — meaning that being exposed to that amount daily for a lifetime will result in no more than one excess cancer case per 100,000 people.

Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., toxicologist and executive director of Consumer Reports’ Food Safety & Sustainability Center, believes that this amount is too high. “It’s possible to get more than 29 micrograms of 4-MEI in one can of some of the drinks we tested. And even if your choice of soft drink contains half that amount, many people have more than one can per day.”

Rangan explains that because colorants are deliberately added to foods, they should pose a negligible risk, which is defined as no more than one excess case of cancer per one million people. To meet that level, the experts at Consumer Reports say that sodas need to contain no more than 3mcg of 4-MEI per can.

Research on 4-MEI in soda

In 2014, Consumer Reports led investigative research on the amount of 4-MEI found in a number of different sodas. Between April and September of 2013, they tested 81 samples of different soft drinks from five separate manufacturers. In December 2013, another 29 samples were collected from the same five manufacturers. All of the samples were purchased in the California or New York metropolitan areas.

What they found was shocking: there was a tremendous amount of disparity and inconsistency among the samples. Most notably, samples of regular Pepsi from the New York area gathered during the first round of testing was revealed to contain an astronomical average of 174 mcg of 4-MEI. During the second round, samples from the same area averaged  32 mcg. The researchers also found that in general, New York samples boasted much higher levels of 4-MEI than their Californian counterparts.

The findings prompted Consumer Reports to petition the FDA for 4-MEI regulation and labeling. “Europe has labeling requirements and consumers in the United States should have the right to make an informed choice about what they are drinking and eating,” said  Dr. Rangan.

Following the Consumer Reports 2014 study, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future conducted their own research, which was published in 2015. Their research estimated average exposure to 4-MEI and modeled the potential cancer burden owed to the ingredient. What they found was that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of 6 consumed at least one can of soda per day.

Their data showed that current average 4-MEI exposure from soft drinks poses a cancer risk that exceeds the accepted negligible risk of one extra case of cancer per one million people.

Senior study author, Keeve Nachman — also the director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the center, and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — stated that their research indicated soft drink consumers were being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk thanks to an ingredient that is added for purely aesthetic purposes.

“This unnecessary exposure poses a threat to public health and raises questions about the continued use of caramel coloring in soda,” Nachman said.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheHeartySoul.com

FDA.gov

FoodNavigator-USA.com

OEHHA.CA.gov

ConsumerReports.org

Journals.PLOS.org

Hub.JHU.edu

Selling Food From Home Should Be Legal But It’s Not

organicchoice

Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 17, 2017

Make It Legal to Sell Home-Cooked Food … As food delivery becomes ever more popular in the U.S., some innovators have been looking to do for meals what Uber and Lyft have done for rides. Good cooks or even professional chefs working at home can produce tasty food for people nearby, income for themselves, and tax revenue for cities and states. Or they could if it were legal to sell home-cooked food. In most states, it’s not. – Bloomberg

Have you ever been sickened by home-cooking? We’ve had problems sometimes with food bought elsewhere but never with food that is prepared at home. Never that we can remember anyways.

We’d venture to say that food prepared at home is probably as safe or safer than any other food.

But that’s not what regulators think. For them, food cooked at home is subject to myriad difficulties and dangers.

Regulators have all but banned food cooked at home from being sold commercially.

More:

In some states, it’s simply illegal to sell most food that’s been prepared at home, no matter what technology is in the kitchen.

… Even if the risk from home-cooked food were as high as or higher than that from restaurant-cooked food, the danger would have to be extraordinarily great to justify a ban.

Some home-cooking startups have tried to get around the present ban by using shared cooking spaces that meet restaurant-grade safety standards. But food prepared in such kitchens may run afoul of other legal requirements.

The article gives examples of the many kind of requirements that confine food to the home. It goes over licenses an ice-cream maker might need. You have to get a license from the Department of Public Health to sell to consumers.

But if you want to sell directly to restaurants, you have to get a license from the Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services.

But this license doesn’t actually exist. You can sell to consumers directly but not indirectly to a restaurant. That’s just one example.

Old laws, the article says, were established for hub-and-spoke distribution. But now we want a more flexible market.

We tends to think this is not true entirely. We believe it is the Internet itself that is giving rise to discontent about what can be sold and from where.

It’s one reason top elites are so set on reconfiguring the Internet so that it avoids controversial topics.

We’ve been right about the Internet. The ‘Net began by suggesting certain changes and is now suggesting changes to almost everything.

Additionally, despite suggestions that parts of the Internet are run by the alt.right, many important and influential sites are still libertarian oriented. This is driving top elites nuts.

Their idea is to virtually ban all but properly approved concepts, but even if this ban goes into effect, it won’t last. Inventions like the Internet are not static and tend to be used, one way or another until their innovations have been exhausted. That could take a long time.

The article also states that, “To determine what safety requirements are most appropriate for home kitchens, states need to build on our existing knowledge about food safety — including data gathered by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control — to put together a clear picture of the risks involved.”

No it doesn’t. The market simply needs to do away with this “knowledge about food safety.” Leave it up to individuals. That’s what is going on anyway. You’re simply punished after-the-fact for any kind of food poisoning.

And chances are there won’t be any. Do you get food poisoning from food you cook at home? If you are trying to build a business you are going to be pretty careful about what you give customers to eat.

Conclusion: It is the market itself that disciplines you and makes sure you provide what is timely and necessary. If you do not do not deal with food in this manner, you go out of business. Regulations have little or nothing to do with it.

Scientists Discover New Link Between Sugar And Cancer

sugar cubes wikimedia
Source: ReadyNutrition.com
Joshua Krause
February 18, 2017

It’s no secret that sugar is incredibly bad for you. The typical American diet, which probably has more added sugar than any national diet in the world, is known to cause obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, liver disease, tooth decay, nutrient deficiencies, and of course, cancer (and that’s just the short list). Cancer in particular, has been connected to sugar consumption for some time now, by both mainstream and alternative medicine. Plenty of theories have been posited to explain the precise mechanism for how sugar fuels cancer growth, and it seems that modern science has just discovered another compelling link.

A study conducted by Lorenzo Cohen at the University of Texas was recently published in the Cancer Research journal. It found that sugar influences a metabolic pathway called LOX-12, which affects how cancer spreads in the body. This is big news, because as Cohen noted in an interview with NBC, “The majority of cancer patients don’t die of their primary tumor. They die of metastatic disease.” They discovered this link after feeding mice copious amounts of sugar.

Cohen’s team used mice for their study but say they took many steps to make sure the process was as close as possible to what happens in people. They fed sugar to the mice in doses very similar to what Americans eat every day, and they used mice that are genetically predisposed to breast cancer in much the same way that many people are.

They fed mice four different diets that were either heavy in starch or heavy in different types of sugar.

“A human study reported that dietary sucrose/fructose/glucose but not starch is associated with increased risk of breast cancer,” they wrote in their report.

When the mice were six months old, 30 percent of those fed a starch-dominant diet had breast cancer. But half the mice that had been fed extra sucrose had breast tumors. And the more sugar they were fed, the bigger the tumors grew.

While all forms of sugar contributed tumor growth, it was fructose that had the biggest effect. Mice that were fed the most fructose had stronger LOX-12 pathways, and as a result, grew the largest tumors. Considering that there is significantly more high fructose corn syrup (which is 55% fructose) in the American diet today than there was a few decades ago, this may explain why the United States has one of the highest cancer rates in the world.

What the study didn’t address however, is the relationship between naturally occurring sugars and cancer, or if there’s any link there at all. Fructose is of course, commonly found in fruit, and in smaller amounts, certain vegetables. That’s one of the reasons why representatives for the food industry claim that their sugary drinks and candies are relatively safe for human consumption.

Lorenzo Cohen stated that it’s simply a matter of quantity, since our bodies only need sugar in small amounts. “We need glucose. We need sugar. It is an energy source and we need it to live. We refine sugar that’s extracted from its source and consumed in extremely high quantities.”

On the other hand, the way these sugars are delivered to our bodies may be just as important as their quantity. While it’s true that the sugar in a candy bar is made of the same glucose and fructose as the sugar in fruit, it’s also wrapped up in fiber and other nutrients when found naturally in food. This serves to significantly slow down the absorption of sugar in our digestive tract.

So if you only ate sugar from natural sources, not only would you be eating less sugar since those foods usually don’t contain nearly the same amount found in processed foods, but that small dose of sugar would also be delivered to your body at a much slower rate. There’s a good chance that this LOX-12 pathway would be exposed to a negligible amount of sugar, if we stuck to a strictly natural diet.

Though the study doesn’t address the difference between natural and added sugar, it does sound like added sugar is the real culprit here. The recommended amount of added sugar for any diet, is no more 6 teaspoons a day for women and 9 teaspoons for men. Even when Cohen fed the mice an equivalent to those small amounts, it still contributed to tumor growth.

So it’s very possible that no amount of refined sugar is safe. The human body is simply not built to digest it in a healthy manner, and cutting it out of your diet should be your highest priority if you want to reduce your cancer risk.

Read More At: ReadyNutrition.com
_______________________________________________________

Joshua Krause was born and raised in the Bay Area. He is a writer and researcher focused on principles of self-sufficiency and liberty at Ready Nutrition. You can follow Joshua’s work at our Facebook page or on his personal Twitter.

Joshua’s website is Strange Danger

Nestle, Pepsi Fined for Concealing GMOs as Campbell Soup Announces Voluntary Label

Source: NationOfChange.org
Lorraine Chow
January 10, 2016

As the food fight over genetically modified food (GMOs) rages on in the U.S., six major food manufacturers—including Nestle, PepsiCo and Mexican baking company Grupo Bimbo—have been slapped with fines by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice for concealing the presence of GMOs in their products.

According to teleSUR, the respective companies are facing fines ranging from $277,400 to just over $1 million, amounting to $3 million in total.

The ministry’s decision came after a 2010 investigation carried out by Brazil’s Consumer Protection Agency, Senacon, which detected GMOs in various food products sold by the companies in Brazilian markets.

Senacon accused the companies of violating Brazilian consumer rights, including the right to information, freedom of choice and the right for protection against abusive corporate practices, teleSUR reported.

Since 2003, Brazilian law has required food products containing more than 1 percent of GMOs to carry a warning label—a yellow triangle with the letter “T” inside, standing for “transgenic.”

Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense researcher Ana Paula Bortoletto praised the ministry’s decision to enforce GMO labels.

“The decision confirms the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to require all products that use genetically modified ingredients to include this information on their labels,” she said.

Although the ministry’s decision spells victory for Brazilian consumers demanding food transparency, the country’s relationship with GMOs has been fraught with contention in recent decades.

GMOs in the South American country were initially banned after the Institute of Consumer Defense won a lawsuit in 1998. In the ensuing years, however, black market GMO seeds spread widely into the agricultural space and ultimately forced the nation into adopting the technology in 2003. As Reuters described back in a 2005 report:

So sought after is the cost-cutting technology on the black market that over a third of Brazil’s massive soybean crop—the main farm export worth 10 percent of total trade revenues—is seen planted with pirated GMO seeds. And nearly all the country’s cotton seed has been contaminated by GMOs.

“There is strong demand, industrially and scientifically, for biotechnology in Brazil,” Jorge Guimaraes, president of Brazil’s CTNBio biotechnology regulator, told Reuters.

In 2003, faced with cracking down on the entire No.3 soy producing state of Rio Grande do Sul and thousands of other producers in other states, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after taking office opted to push for legalization and regulation of GMOs.

GMOs are now rampant in the country—Brazil is currently the second-largest grower of GMO crops in the world after the U.S. According to the Genetic Literacy Project, Brazil had 104 million acres of GMO crops in production in 2014, and “more than 93 percent of the country’s soybean crop is GM and almost 90 percent of the corn crop. GM cotton, more recently introduced, makes up 65.1 percent.”

While producers of bioengineered seeds tout its resistance to certain pathogens over organic seeds, as EcoWatch reported in 2014, Brazilian farmers found that “Bt corn” no longer repelled the destructive caterpillars it was genetically modified to protect against. In turn, farmers were forced to apply extra coats of insecticides, racking up additional environmental and financial costs.

The Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of the Mato Grosso region called on Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow companies to offer solutions as well as compensate the farmers for their losses, who spent the equivalent of $54 per hectare to spray extra pesticides.

As for how the Brazilian public feels about GMOs, a 2014 study from the University of São Paulo suggests that despite the major presence of GMOs in the country, many consumers are skeptical of the food.

The authors of the study concluded that even after Brazil imposed the GMO label law, “the majority of Brazilians consumers still do not have a positive image of genetically modified foods, and do not consider it a buying option.”

The negative reputation of GMOs in Brazil could perhaps explain why Nestle, PepsiCo and the others decided to skirt the country’s label law.

Over in the U.S., one food company has decided to take the GMO label debate into their own hands. Campbell Soup Co., the world’s largest soup maker, has initiated plans to include a GMO label on its products.

Campbell is the first major food company to respond to growing calls for food transparency spurred by food safety advocates and concerned consumers, as well as states such as Vermont, Maine and Connecticut that have passed mandatory GMO labeling laws.

According to Just Label It, 89 percent of American voters are in support of mandatory GMO labeling.

The Camden, New Jersey company said in a statement that it will support federal legislation mandating all foods and beverages regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be clearly labeled for GMOs.

Campbell “continues to oppose a patchwork of state-by-state labeling laws, which it believes are incomplete, impractical and create unnecessary confusion for customers,” according to the statement.

The company “continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods.”

As EcoWatch exclusively reported, food industry groups have heavily lobbied politicians and spent millions in court to block states from mandating GMO labels.

In December, Congress decided not to include a policy rider in the federal omnibus spending bill that would have blocked states from implementing mandatory genetically engineered food labeling laws.

Read More At: NationOfChange.org

Your Health – Your Future [Part 1 of 2] – A conversation with Robin Falkov

Source: ForumBorealis.net
February 14, 2017

Dr. Robin Falkov comes on and accounts for all matters health – everything from Health Freedom Rights to practical home remedy tips. Some of the questions discussed are: Nazi connections to Big Pharma? What is Codex Alimentarius? Health Cartels have sinister agenda beyond ruthless profits? Is GMO taking over? What health care system works? What’s the problem with Vaccines? Are there homeopathic Vaccines? The status of Complementary Medicine? What is healthy nutrition? What food substances to avoid? Why is local cultivation important? And many more issues big & small, like what sugar substitutes are safe & sound…

‘In absence of regulation, consumers need to be aware of dangerous chemicals’ – nuclear physicist

Source: RT
February 12, 2017

Could your Big Mac kill you? According to a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, the answer is yes – but not for the reason you might think: Harmful chemicals called PFCs, which have been linked to cancer and other illnesses. Graham Peaslee, professor of experimental nuclear physics at Notre Dame, joins RT America’s Anya Parampil to explain why PFCs are so widely used and the dangers they pose to consumers.

The Continuing Decline of McDonald’s

Source: TheInternationalForecaster.com
James Corbett
January 11, 2017

Long-time Corbett Reporteers might recall my 2015 video, “Celebrate! McDonald’s is Dying!” where I detailed the many, many woes the fast “food” giant was dealing with at the time, including: The first quarterly loss in the firm’s 38 years as a publicly traded company ($343.8 million). Its first full-year loss ($186 million) in Japan in 11 years. A 58 cent per share drop on the back of a global comparable sales drop of 3.3%.

Since then, McCancer’s has been undergoing a sweeping “restructuring” that has seen many layers of lipstick slapped on their factory-farmed pig. This restructuring includes not only cosmetic changes (“All-day breakfasts and new value menus for everyone!”) but behind-the-scenes efforts to trim $500 million from the company’s operating expenses, including buyouts and layoffs at company headquarters and the re-franchising of 4,000 corporate “restaurants.”

The global giant’s influential PR machine has used sleight-of-hand and other tricks to make this restructuring look like a smash success. They used their cheerleaders at the Wall Street Journal to hype “stronger-than-expected” profit and sales figures and their boosters at US News & World Report to hype some highly-selective earnings comparisons suggesting that this “turnaround” is, to use the WSJ’s phrase, “sustainable.”

But one doesn’t have to scratch too hard to reveal the rusty reality beneath this PR paint job.

McPinkslime’s might have “beat expectations” for sales and profits, but beating diminished expectations is hardly a sign of booming business. Just look at the nuts and bolts of the Q3 2016 earnings report: Year-on-year revenue is down 2.9% and net income is down 2.6%. And keep in mind, those numbers are in comparison to the already-terrible 2015 figures.

And that “re-franchising” operation? It cost $130 million in pre-tax charges.

But don’t worry, everyone, they “beat expectations!” Pay no attention to the hemorrhaging corporation behind the curtain!

And now the latest sign of McDonteat’s global retreat (via Corbett Report member “BuddhaForce”): “McDonald’s gives up control of its China business in $2 billion deal.”

The story is fascinating enough in its own right, what with McDonteats throwing in the corporate towel on the largest and fastest-growing consumer market in the world. But the devil is, as always, in the details. Who is purchasing the majority stake in the company’s mainland operations? None other than The Carlyle Group and CITIC Group.

The Carlyle Group’s name will likely ring a bell as one of the largest swamp pits “private equity firms” in the world, and one with its fingers in many a pie, including, of course, 9/11.

CITIC Group, meanwhile, will be familiar to The Corbett Report faithful as a key player in “China and the New World Order,” a Chinese state-owned investment company that helped serve as the Rockefeller-Kissinger nexus between the Deng Xiaoping-era “capitalist roaders” and their western finance oligarch recolonizers.

That these two cesspools are converging on the giant turd of American fast food is fitting enough. The McDonaldization of China is proceeding apace, and the usual crew are there to profit from it.

But as to what this story says about the continuing decline of the once-mighty golden arches, there are two main takeaways to the story, one depressing and one positive.

On the depressing front, there is a simple reason for the across-the-board slowdown in fast food sales in recent years (despite the predictable attempts to overcomplicate the problem in clickbait-y listicle format). For once, the Wall Street Journal gets it right: It’s the economy, stupid. What greater rebuke to the easily-disprovable economic “recovery” nonsense of the Obama years could be possible than pointing out the simple fact that people are too worried about their economic future to splurge on a $5 value meal?

But on a positive note, we can take McFatfood’s woes as a sign that, try as they might with their considerable propaganda resources, the corporate chieftains can’t put their egg McMuffin back together again. People are fed up with fast food. And although some, concerned with cost, are turning to eating at home as the cheaper option, others are more concerned with what’s in their food, where it’s sourced from, how it’s being prepared and who is being paid for it. Who wants instant, nutritionless, food-like substitute rolled up in plastic and slapped down on a tray by surly, overworked servers (or, increasingly, robots) anyway?

For those interested in how they can take part in the real food revolution that will render the McFastfood economy obsolete, may I humbly offer this podcast on guerrilla gardening? Bon appétit!