FDA’s Latest Nutrition Label ‘Make Over’ Warns Consumers About Toxic Calorie Counts While Ignoring Noxious Genetically Modified Food & Toxic Chemical Additive

FDA
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
June 10, 2016

When will the government of the United States of America ever actually help Americans get healthy, and duly inform consumers about all food ingredients by utilizing honest food labels instead of using trickery and deception? Every year, the FDA and the USDA approve more and more food toxins, while covering up the health detriment they cause, all while leading people down a dark corridor of poor health.

Does it really matter if you “count calories” if all those calories are empty ones, devoid of all nutrition? Will it be helpful to limit or eliminate your “fat” intake, if you only limit or eliminate all the good fats – the kind your body needs to function properly? Did your MD bother to educate you about the difference between good fats and molecularly-altered “bad” fats? Labels were first focused on how much fat you eat, but since the FDA doesn’t educate anyone on bad fat versus good fat, it never mattered.

What if you get excited about some new labels on food because you’re supposed to watch your cholesterol, only to find out that you need cholesterol and your medical doctor and the labels steered you completely wrong? And then there’s sugar – the sugar that comes from genetically modified corn, highly concentrated (HFCS) which contains bug-killer and weed-killer that leads directly to cancer and diabetes. What difference does it really make if you “moderate” your poison intake? It’s still poison. Will you brag to your friends that you’re regulating and “reducing” your own poison intake because some new food labels are helping you?

The Associated Press recently published this new food label update: BigStory.AP.org

More ‘Big Food’ propaganda disguised as food label modifications

The FDA is actually announcing that serving sizes will be “less misleading.” How about not misleading at all? What if someone told you they would be less abusive to you – would you be excited about that? The size of the “calories” number will be much bigger and bolder. Now we are to “count calories” more easily, as if it matters whether you eat the whole can of toxic chili or half, or whether you eat six donuts or four, or you chomp down half the sack of hydrogenated-GM-oil-soaked chips or the whole bag.

Labels will give a new “percent daily value” for sugars, letting you know how much sugar is recommended for your “daily intake.” This is supposed to influence food manufacturers to put in less sugar at the factory. Does that mean they will simply insert more of those deadly chemical sweeteners in order to compensate for America’s sweet tooth, like aspartame, sucralose, sorbitol, saccharine and acesulfame potassium?

Basically each whole package of food will be a serving, so obese people feel less obese, and diabetics may feel less diabetic. No more guilt for eating that party-size bag of chips. That’s just one serving! Wait, you ate a whole box of cookies and drank a half-gallon of conventional milk? No problem. That was just a single serving.

The FDA is saying that, by law, serving sizes should be based on actual consumption habits and not ideal consumption, and since more than a third of Americans are obese, and half of the rest are overweight, that “Big Gulp” at 7/11 will become one serving. Are two double cheeseburgers and some super-sized fries just one helping? What’s next, a two-liter bottle of diet soda becoming one serving? Hey, look, no calories!

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Boston Glove Now A Big Biotech Monsanto Puppet…Says Honest Genetically Modified Food Labeling Is “Misleading Consumers”

Boston Globe
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
June 3, 2016

Mounting research suggests that human consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses innumerable risks, including a proclivity for food allergies, nutritional deficiencies, sex hormone disruption, immune-suppression, cancer and general toxicity. Agriculture reliant on GM crops and their associated pesticides generates environmental risks as well, including soil degradation, water pollution and significant harm to wildlife and essential plants.

Based on the aforementioned risks to humans and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to know whether or not their food contains ingredients that have been genetically altered to contain foreign DNA. However, the Boston Globe would beg to differ.

In March, the Globe published a despicable editorial waging an all-out assault on GMO-labeling and its supporters, which constitutes 89 percent of Americans. The piece, which is suspiciously missing author information, claims that GMO-labeling is “an impractical and potentially burdensome solution that will cause unwarranted alarm and needless expense.”

Boston Globe attacks American values

Yes, you read that correctly. The Globe believes that America’s call for clearly labeled foods is impractical and a burden to poison-pushing, multi-million dollar food companies – which by the way, have no problem spending money on meaningless “all-natural” labels attached to items such as Lays potato chips.

Not only does the Globe discount citizens’ quest for better health while favoring profit-driven corporations, but it actually encourages lawmakers to vote against the needs and wants of their constituents.

Referring to Massachusetts’s recent proposal to establish GMO-labeling, the Globe says simply: “Lawmakers should reject the bill.” Consumers interested in purchasing non-GMO foods can already do so, it adds, downplaying the need for all genetically modified foods to be labeled.

But what about people who cannot afford food that’s Non-GMO Project Verified or USDA certified organic? After all, such products are significantly more expensive than conventionally processed foods.

The Globe seems to be insinuating that individuals of lower socioeconomic status do not reserve the right to know whether or not their food contains highly controversial ingredients – products that have been rejected by numerous governments around the world due to their potential toxicity.

Audaciously, the Globe says that GMO-labels are misleading and will do nothing but confuse customers. Hmm. … Sound familiar? If you’ve followed this debate closely you are probably aware that this is one of Monsanto’s key talking points.

A Monsanto website addressing the growing demand for GMO-labeling links to a statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) explaining “why mandatory labeling could create confusion for consumers.”

AAAS of course, is a mouthpiece for Monsanto, as well as other major biotech companies.

A quick Google search using the keywords “AAAS” and “Monsanto” retrieves some pretty telling headlines, including a Grist.org story entitled “Is a major science group stumping for Monsanto?” a Huffington Post article entitled “Is AAAS Serving Science or Monsanto?” and a US Right to Know article entitled “Who’s Behind the Attacks on US Right to Know?”

You get the picture.

The Globe’s attack on GMO-labeling steals another Monsanto talking point when it falsely reports that there is a lack of scientific evidence distinguishing GMOs from non-GMOs. Not only is this untrue, but it is a downright lie.

Several studies have indicated that organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventional. In fact, the British Journal of Nutrition just released a study this year concluding that organic dairy and meat contain 50 percent more omega-3 fatty acids versus conventional.

“Omega-3s are linked to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and function, and better immune function,” wrote the study authors.

How the Globe fails to consider that a distinguishable trait between GM foods and non-GM foods is beyond me. But the truth is, they know the truth, and are simply concealing it from you because they sold their souls to powerful industries long ago.

Unfortunately, the Globe’s piece is one of many callous attacks on consumer rights, financed in full by the very industry seeking to destroy public health under the disturbing guise of humanitarianism. Nonetheless, their efforts have failed to stop the health food movement currently sweeping the globe.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com