Diane Rehm did a show yesterday on this topic that may be of interest to
some. Part of the discussion covers the fact that the FDA did not
include the chemical breakdown agents in its risk analysis of melamine
in chickens and other products. Yet, scientists think these chemical
byproducts (ie - cyanuric acid) are far more dangerous than the melamine
and may be the cause of most of the unhealthy effects.

<http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...ast?id=1609931
27&s=143441&i=15914869>

Once again, my personal assessment is that the FDA appears to go to
great lengths, both unethical and illegal, to ensure that the food
industry profits are in no way affected by these contamination
scenarios. If it does not kill people outright, they appear to get away
with ignoring the contamination almost completely. After all, if some
of us get liver (or whatever) cancer 15 years from now as a result, they
can always say it is impossible to blame it on any specific trigger.

Emma

On 2007-05-09, Emma Thackery > wrote:

> Once again, my personal assessment is that the FDA appears to go to
> great lengths, both unethical and illegal, to ensure that the food
> industry profits are in no way affected by these contamination
> scenarios.

Appears? Well, duh! Why would this particular US govt agency be any
less susceptible to the corruption and palm-greasing all the rest are?
I recall the Frontline expose on the USDA that showed the example of a
CA based lady USDA inspector that was "let go" because of her
tenacious and unrelenting attempts to bring several CA beef processors
up to the we-got-em-but-we're-not-gonna-enforce-em USDA requirements.

Bottom line: they don't really care if you die. It's just a statistic
they use to expand their bureaucracy come appropriations time.

nb

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> Emma T: Consumer Watch Dog. You oughta syndicate your own show.
> I thought we were cooking here?
>
> ObFood: Hormel Chili with No Beans microwaved with Jalapeno Jack
> cheese, mixed with some jalapeno juice, and used as a dip for
> HEB's Jalapeno Tortrilla Chips (best corn chip on the planet).
>
> Hmm. That's a lot of jalapeno stuff come to think of it.
>
> -sw

Better follow all that with some ice cream... ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
...
> Diane Rehm did a show yesterday on this topic that may be of interest to
> some. Part of the discussion covers the fact that the FDA did not
> include the chemical breakdown agents in its risk analysis of melamine
> in chickens and other products. Yet, scientists think these chemical
> byproducts (ie - cyanuric acid) are far more dangerous than the melamine
> and may be the cause of most of the unhealthy effects.
>
> <http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...ast?id=1609931
> 27&s=143441&i=15914869>
>
> Once again, my personal assessment is that the FDA appears to go to
> great lengths, both unethical and illegal, to ensure that the food
> industry profits are in no way affected by these contamination
> scenarios. If it does not kill people outright, they appear to get away
> with ignoring the contamination almost completely. After all, if some
> of us get liver (or whatever) cancer 15 years from now as a result, they
> can always say it is impossible to blame it on any specific trigger.
>
There's also this: the companies, farms, and/or states affected are never
immediately divulged. The risk is always downplayed as no signficant risk or
minimal risk in the press reports even when the companies, farms, and/or
states are finally divulged.

With the pet food, Menu Foods did their recall, but when another pet food
company was involved, the name of the company was not immediately divulged
until several of their products were involved.

Now this is also happening piecewise with the human foods. First, chickens
that may have been fed contaminated feed, now it's farmed fish that may have
been fed contaminated feed.

By the time the companies, farms, and/or states affected are divulged--if
any of the food made it to the stores, there is always the possibility that
some of it was already purchased and consumed.

The followup question then becomes: if any amounts of the toxins are in the
food as a raw ingredient, what does cooking the food do in terms of weaking
or increasing the effects of those toxins?

Then again, this is the same FDA that is also considering allowing
irradiated foods to be called "pasteurized" if irradiation is used to kill
bacteria and can be shown to be as effective as the traditional
pasteurization process. The same FDA that isn't mandating labels for
irradiated foods or even meats from cloned animals. The same FDA that also
seems to be slow to recall or even add critical warnings to prescription
medicines, even if there is evidence of life threatening side effects.