In the continuing nightmare we call Fukushima, the radiation levels are now 8 times the ‘official’ government ‘allowable’ levels! Read about it here. Does anyone think this might be a problem? I do and have been taking steps to counter what I consider to be the inevitable increases in radiation here in the U.S.
Namely, super greens, loaded with chlorella and spirulina and seagrasses from the atlantic (of course I admit to being jaded here and only use Enerfood). Eating simple, non processed foods as often as possible-definitely staying away from GM products-and exercising as often as possible, usually about 4 times per week and shooting for 6.
While iodine supplements can be a great addition to our regimen-since most people have ‘under active’ thyroids, I don’t usually recommend it since all these iodine supplements are not made equally and improper use can do more damage than good! Using a really good clean super green should get your body in condition to combat the invisible, radioactive onslaught!
New research from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden shows that men who take vitamin C supplements regularly run a higher risk of developing kidney stones. The study, which is published in the scientific periodical JAMA Internal Medicine, did not however observe an increased risk between kidney stones and multivitamins – which contain lower concentrations of vitamin C.
The research is based on data from a large population-based study of men from Västmanland and Örebro counties, who were monitored for 11 years. A total of 23,355 men were identified who had no history of kidney stones and who took either no dietary supplements or supplements in the form of vitamin C only. During the study period, 436 of the participants developed kidney stones that required medical attention. The researchers then compared the risk of kidney stones in vitamin C-takers with that in men who did not take any supplements. The analysis was then repeated for men who took multivitamins.
The results of the study indicate that men who take vitamin C supplements (typically 1000 mg per tablet) are twice as likely to develop kidney stones as men who do not take any dietary supplements. The risk was also found to increase with the frequency of vitamin C supplement use. The regular use of multivitamins was not found to be associated with the risk of kidney stones.
As the FDA continues its apparent goal to stymie access to supplements several senators have shown themselves to be on our side. We must all get active to keep our access free and unfettered.
Will it be enough to rein in FDA’s outrageous power grab?
ANH-USA, together with a number of supplement trade organizations, went to Capitol Hill to plead our case about the FDA’s profoundly flawed NDI (new supplement) draft guidance in the offices of two powerful senators and longtime friends of natural health, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Our visit was preceded by all the letters you have been sending to Congress, which have immeasurably increased the visibility of this issue. As you know, if this draft guidance stands, it would allow FDA to arbitrarily deny the sale of any supplement created (or modified) in the past seventeen years. Immediately after this meeting, Sens. Harkin and Hatch wrote to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and formally asked the FDA to withdraw its guidance document.
The senators urged FDA to begin work on a new draft that provides needed clarification on what constitutes a New Dietary Ingredient (NDI)—but, in their words, does not undermine Congress’s desire to provide consumers with access to safe, affordable dietary supplement products. Exactly!
These senators were uniquely qualified to make such a request, since they were the principal authors of DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. “When Congress included language in the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) directing FDA to clarify when a dietary supplement ingredient is a new dietary ingredient, the expectation was that the guidance would be consistent with DSHEA,” they write. “Unfortunately, the draft guidance serves to undermine DSHEA in a number of important respects.”
They go on to outline the various arguments that we have been making in these pages for some time:
* The requirement for a manufacturer to submit an NDI notification for every dietary supplement containing an NDI is directly contrary to the language of DSHEA, which requires notification only of the intent to use an NDI;
* This new requirement is burdensome and would impose substantial additional costs on manufacturers, would not provide additional safety benefits, and would undermine access to the safe, affordable nutritional supplements that DSHEA was designed to ensure;
* The NDI guidance’s assertion that synthetic copies of ingredients can never be a dietary ingredient is without any statutory basis, and is contrary to longstanding FDA policy; and
* This guidance is contrary to Congressional intent by grandfathering in only ingredients that were marketed before the enactment of DSHEA—such an argument is particularly specious since “the term dietary supplement wasn’t even defined prior to DSHEA”!
The senators requested that FDA meet with interested parties to work through all of the issues raised in our and others’ comments. Fortunately, FDA can’t just ignore the senators’ request, because the agency is required to work within legislative intent. Otherwise they would be creating new law—which legally they cannot do. This is one of the arguments we have been making all along—that FDA is in fact making new law with this draft guidance, and now Congress is calling them on it!
We would like to thank Senators Harkin and Hatch for being such stalwart champions of natural health, and for their leadership in this battle to prevent the FDA from usurping powers that they are not legally entitled to. We also want to thank every one of you for contacting Congress and the FDA and being such a vital part of this process.
We aren’t out of the woods yet—we’ll have another update soon with additional action items for you. The time may come for more specific legislative action, and we may find ourselves battling FDA in the courts as well. That’s why your continued support and activism is so terribly important. Together we can win this one, preserve your access to supplements, and keep supplements from costing as much as drugs.
Even the mighty FDA can be brought to its knees and that is what we must do. They must be forced to play by the same legal rules as we the people. The good news is that a big lawsuit is taking place to make sure they do just that. Read below!
Bolstered by a massive outpouring of support from you, we are asking the agency to withdraw its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) draft guidance completely!
The period for comments to the FDA on the draft guidance on NDI notifications closed on December 2. Along with the hundreds of thousands of messages you sent and the 20,000 phone calls you made to FDA and Congress, ANH-USA also submitted formal comments.
The problem with the FDA’s draft guidance on New Dietary Ingredients is that it allows FDA to arbitrarily deny the sale of any supplement created (or modified) in the past seventeen years. If you’re a supplement manufacturer or distributor or possibly even a health food store, and you don’t file a NDI “notification” (actually a request for approval) for each ingredient in each product developed since 1994 in just the way prescribed by the FDA, and the court later decides the FDA is right, then you are guilty of product “adulteration,” which is punishable by prison. With your favorite supplements off the market, it also would allow the drug industry to adapt and patent them, and sell them back to you—by doctor’s prescription only—for 10 or 100 (or even more) times what you’re paying now.
Our comments, drafted by acclaimed attorney Jonathan Emord on our behalf, show that the FDA is engaged in substantive new rulemaking, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA). “The APA says if an agency’s action is legislative in nature, that’s rulemaking,” explained Emord. “The guidance distorts the plain language of the laws that govern supplements. FDA needs to comply with the APA’s formal rulemaking requirements, not issue unilateral guidance as a deceptive means of creating new rules.”
We argue that the FDA is acting illegally. The FDA circumvented the regulatory process by issuing a guidance, which gives them cover and flexibility, instead of going through the rulemaking process, which is required when creating a new law—and we believe the guidance in fact does create new law. As a result, FDA’s actions leave interested parties little recourse within the regulatory system.
In technical terms, a guidance is supposed to be legally non-binding. It is meant to simply present the FDA’s interpretation of the rule. However, the NDI guidance goes well beyond an interpretation, and we believe it is in fact a legislative rule with legal implications:
- The NDI guidance is a departure from the FDA’s previous standards for NDI notifications. It alters and broadens the meaning of what qualifies as an NDI, and creates new—and very expensive—requirements to comply with the NDI notification process (creating what we would call a de facto pre-approval system), counter to what is outlined in Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).
- Not fulfilling the NDI notification requirements outlined in the guidance ensures that the supplement will be considered adulterated and therefore illegal. This indicates there’s a clear, legally binding impact to the NDI guidance.
- Supplements that are considered illegal can be confiscated, and under the Food Safety Modernization Act, as we noted lasted week, can now be subject to administrative detention as well.
You may recall that Joanna M. Shepherd Bailey, PhD, professor of law and economics at Emory University, demonstrated that FDA grossly underestimated the economic cost of the NDI guidance. Her report found that:
- Between 22,240 and 41,700 nutritional supplements would likely be removed from the market, at an economic loss of between $5.6 billion and $10.5 billion;
- The nutritional supplement market could shrink by between 28% and 52.5%, producing an annual loss for the industry of between $7.84 billion to $14.7 billion; and
- Between 55,720 and 104,475 jobs in the supplement industry could be lost.
FDA’s analysis did not take into consideration the costs of the expanded reach and requirements of the NDI guidance. The agency therefore misled the Office of Management and Budget, in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.
FDA has arbitrarily determined that supplement companies need to show at least “25 years of widespread use” in order it to meet the “history of safety” standard in NDI notification. In other words, only supplements on the market before October 1986 could be considered “safe.” This is patently ridiculous, since the cutoff date for grandfathered ingredients assumed to be safe, according to DSHEA, is October 1994.
The NDI notification system was intended to ensure safety. The very reason pre-DSHEA supplements were grandfathered is because they had proven themselves safe through years of use by hundreds of thousands of consumers! If safety is of utmost concern to FDA, why does the guidance document burden the supplement industry with regulatory requirements that have nothing to do with proving the safety of the supplements? It appears FDA is acting out of spite—and not in the public’s best interest. Moreover, many of the provisions in the guidance are totally unrelated to safety and serve only to limit consumers’ access to nutritional supplements.
We believe FDA will be unable incorporate enough changes to their draft guidance to bring it in line with existing law, preserve supplement access for customers, and remove needless regulatory hurdles for industry. Because of this, we asked FDA in our formal comments to withdraw the draft guidance at the earliest possible moment.
Now that the FDA’s comment period is closed, the agency is supposed to review the comments and prepare a final version of the guidance document—though they are under no legal obligation to do so. In fact, because it is guidance, they are under no legal obligation even to take public comments into consideration. Nor is there any timeline: the agency is still sitting on a guidance, now nearly three years old, that was meant to create a distinction between beverages and liquid dietary supplements.
Even worse, since this is presented as guidance and not formal rulemaking, the FDA is very likely to enforce the provisions in the draft guidance as though they were final—with limited legal recourse for affected parties!
We believe FDA’s actions require them to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for a formal rulemaking procedure. Under this law:
- FDA will be forced to have a formal comment period, and to review and consider all comments before they issue a final rule. This includes a rulemaking record that shows the data and analysis behind a proposed rule, and sometimes even public hearings.
- If the result is not to the liking of interested parties, “Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” This means, that unlike a guidance, it is possible to challenge a rule in court. It is very likely that FDA conveniently issued a guidance, instead of going through the rulemaking process, to avoid this very outcome.
Now that the NDI comment period is closed, we will start implementing the next phase of our strategy—which will include both legal and legislative components. We will, of course, keep our supporters and allies in the loop.
Thank you all again for your tremendous outpouring of letters and phone calls! It has laid important groundwork for our next actions.
As promised here, the new ‘Food Safety’ bill that just passed (and I am using the word Safety very loosely) is an abomination!!
Codex is supported and ‘harmonization’ is required under this nasty piece of legislation. So expect to see Big Brother telling all of us how much and of what we can partake when it comes to supplements.
And it gets worse. Fortunately Mike Adams has done a terrific job on this one and i am embedding his article from today on this.
(NaturalNews) Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill — especially not those lawmakers who voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know there’s a global FDA power grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and I’ll quote text straight out of the bill itself.
Section 305 is entitled “BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY” and it gives the FDA authority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, on page 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…):
SEC. 308. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL. – The Secretary shall establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration in foreign countries selected by the Secretary.
It then goes on to say:
(a) The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory food safety capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.
Huh? The FDA is now going to run the food safety programs of foreign governments? Look out, world: I’m from the FDA and I’m here to help!
Homeland Security and U.S. Treasury also involved
So who is involved in creating this? Believe it or not, the global “food safety” plan is to be developed under consultation to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the U.S. Treasury. As the bill states:
(b) Consultation – In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders.
You might reasonably wonder “What does the Department of Homeland Security have to do with the FDA’s food safety plan?” Or “Why is the U.S. Treasury involved in the food supply?” Learn more about the Federal Reserve and you’ll have the answers to these questions. I don’t have space for all the details here, but read Ed Griffin’s book and visit http://www.realityzone.com if you really want to know what’s behind a lot of this.
Codex harmonization, data sharing and more
So what does this global food safety plan actually entail? It’s all spelled out right in the language of the law. You can view this yourself on page 195 of the bill text in the PDF file at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…
(c) Plan – The plan developed under subsection (a) shall include, as appropriate, the following:
• “Provisions for secure electronic data sharing.”
This is so that the FDA can electronically track and monitor the food production activities of foreign nations. That way, if somebody in Spain tries to sell raw almonds to the USA, the FDA can make sure those almonds get irradiated or fumigated with chemicals first. Because raw almonds are so dangerous they have actually been outlawed in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html).
• “Training of foreign governments and food producers on United States requirements for safe food.”
This is designed to shove the FDA’s “dead food” agenda down the throats of other nations. The FDA, you see, believes that the only safe food is dead food — that’s why, along with the USDA, they have declared war on raw milk, raw almonds and many raw vegetables (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f…).
Now, with this law, the FDA will begin pushing its dead foods agenda globally, essentially exporting the FDA’s agenda of death and disease by making sure other nations destroy the nutritive qualities of their food supply in the same way the U.S. is doing. It’s all great for the global Big Pharma profiteers, of course. The more disease they can spread around the world, the more money they’ll make from selling medications.
Codex Alimentarius is also promoted in the bill
The “Plan” described in this bill continues with the following:
• “Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius.”
This is included so that the FDA will “harmonize” the U.S. food and dietary supplement industries with global Codex requirements which outlaw virtually all healthy doses of vitamins and minerals. Under full Codex “harmonization,” America will be left with a dead food supply and the health food stores will be virtually stripped bare of dietary supplements. Selling vitamin D at a reasonable dose such as 4,000 IU per capsule will be criminalized and products will be seized and destroyed by FDA agents who recruit local law enforcement to bring in the firepower.
All this will, of course, ensure a diseased, nutritionally-deficient U.S. population. This actually seems to be the goal the FDA has been trying to achieve all along because the more diseased the population, the more money gets collected by Big Pharma for “treating” sick people with medication and chemotherapy.
It’s all right in the bill!
The text mentioned in this article is taken straight from the bill itself. You can search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov by searching for “S.510” as the bill number.
It makes me wonder why some food book authors so wholeheartedly supported this bill. Why were so many progressives on the left so enamored with this law? Didn’t they realize this was a huge FDA power expansion that would destroy many small farms and put farmers out of business while subjecting the USA to possible Codex harmonization?
Did they even know the FDA is now on a global food-killing agenda that will seek to pasteurize, fumigate, cook or kill virtually every piece of food that enters the United States?
Did they not know that the bill does absolutely nothing to limit the use of chemical pesticides on imported food? According to the FDA’s stance on all this, foods laced with DDT and other pesticides are perfectly “safe” for human consumption, but foods teeming with probiotics — such as raw milk — are deadly and dangerous! (Seriously…)
How is it that popular food book authors and food documentary producers could possibly support this bill? Do they also think small dairy farmers who sell raw milk should be criminalized? Do they agree with the Codex harmonization agenda? Do they think the FDA should run the world’s food safety systems and that the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Treasury should be shaping our global food safety agenda?
You really just have to shake your head and wonder about the true intentions of some people. I just have to ask: Were the supporters of this bill really so naive that they could somehow believe the FDA would actually seek to protect small, local organic farms? What about raw milk producers? What about the single-family farms that must now apply to the FDA for exemption status by authoring research reports, collecting tax returns and producing a pile of documentation the FDA will soon require?
Let me just say it bluntly: The Food Safety Modernization Act is the destroyer of local organic farming. It will gut small farms and local farms, greatly increasing the price of local organic food while decreasing America’s food security. Farmers’ Markets will be targeted by FDA agents who raid the operations of local farmers and imprison them for not having the right paperwork. Families will be destroyed, and those who have been successful at local food production will scale back their operations in a desperate effort to duck under the $500,000 / year rule (which can easily be surpassed by producing just ten acres of organic carrots, by the way).
The real agenda behind the bill
From another point of view, however, this bill is doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Destroy small farms, wipe out family farm operations, imprison raw milk producers and centralize food production in the hands of the big corporate food producers whose operations are steeped in pesticides and soil degradation.
This bill should have been called the “Big Agriculture Monopoly Act” because that’s what it does. It will ensure that America’s food supply will be controlled by Monsanto, DuPont and other agricultural giants who have been at odds with small organic farms for years.
The global food control agenda is a conspiracy, not a theory
It’s all part of the global food control agenda that we now know to be 100% true based on the leaked Wikileaks cables which revealed that the U.S. government conspired to push GMOs into Europe and “create a retaliatory target list” for any nation that resisted GMOs (such as France). Read that full report right here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G…
Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the global GMO conspiracy is quite real. It’s something that U.S. diplomats and government officials scheme on in order to appease their corporate masters in the agriculture industry. Now, with the Food Safety Modernization Act, this global conspiracy extends beyond GMOs and encompasses the global food supply, too.
It has become clear that U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats will not stop until they have killed the entire global food supply, rendering living foods, raw foods and dietary supplements illegal or impossibly difficult to grow. You can thank your U.S. Congresspeople and Senators for all this, of course. In the end, every Senator in office today caved in and voted to pass this bill. You can also thank those who publicly promoted this bill even while having no real idea of the horrors they were supporting.
Such begins a new era of global food destruction headed by what can only be called the most dangerous government agency in North America: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If they do to your food what they’ve done to prescription drugs, annual food deaths will increase to over 100,000 a year.
Watch for the FDA to now set up enforcement offices in nations all around the world and start outlawing living foods on a global scale (if they can get away with it).
Also, watch for a new push for Codex harmonization which is a truly evil agenda to criminalize healing foods and nutritional supplements that prevent and even reverse chronic disease.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_food_safety_bill_Codex_Alimentarius.html#ixzz19XLd7s5N
So, time to begin educating your state representatives to resist implementation of this legislation in your state! I would begin now!
I urge everyone to be very cautious about the latest round of Swine Flu news and of course, the urging by MSM to get vaccinated. I can’t support that sort of recommendation considering the toxic chemicals used to make said vaccines. Not only are the vaccines toxic but there is virtually zero evidence that they actually keep one from getting the flu.
My advice is to stay far away from vaccines in general.
Swine flu woman dies in hospital
(UKPA) – 30 minutes ago
A pensioner suffering from swine flu has died in hospital, an NHS Trust said.
The woman, in her 70s, died in the critical care unit at Wolverhampton’s New Cross Hospital on Monday.
A spokeswoman for The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs the hospital, said the patient, who has not been named, had an underlying respiratory condition.
Trust Chief Executive David Loughton CBE said: “Sadly we had a death in our Critical Care Unit on Monday. This was a woman who had an underlying respiratory condition who was confirmed as having swine flu.”
He added: “Of course deaths and serious illness from swine flu are a rare event but we would still urge people out in the community to have their flu jabs done.
“Particularly those in at risk groups suffering with chronic illnesses or respiratory conditions. Older people, pregnant women and children are also encouraged to take up the vaccine.”
The spokeswoman said there had been three confirmed swine flu cases at the Trust, adding: “This is expected to rise over the next couple of days as swab results come in.
“The Trust is working hard to deal with and treat those admitted with flu and has yet to turn away elective patients.”
The question is now whether the Swine Flu will reach epidemic proportions (real or imagined) and then be ‘exported’ from the UK. Then what will you do if it reaches the US and the government mandates vaccination?
In a previous article posted here the cost of obesity to the country were estimated at 76 billion, now this research is saying 170 billion is the cost! Which is correct or does it really matter? Either way the cost is way too high and sadly it is the obese person that has the power to change their ways and lose weight.
Urge your fat friends to lose weight, it is good for the country perhaps? It is definitely a positive health benefit for that individual.
While 170 billion is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the Fed printing 100s of billions of dollars in the blink of an eye….it all adds up.
Obesity costs U.S. $168 billion, study finds
ATLANTA (AP) — Nearly 17% of U.S. medical costs can be blamed on obesity, according to new research that suggests the nation’s weight problem may be having close to twice the impact on medical spending as previously estimated.
One expert acknowledged that past estimates likely underestimated the costs and said the new study — which places obesity-related medical costs at around $168 billion — probably is closer to the truth.
“I think these are the most recent and perhaps statistically sound estimates that have come out to date,” said Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy researcher at Emory University who has focused on the cost of health care.
The new research was done by John Cawley of Cornell University and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University. It was released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.
An influential recent study released last year — which has been cited by federal health officials — estimated that obesity-related medical costs have reached $147 billion, or about 9% of total medical costs.
The earlier study also estimated that obesity adds about $1,400 to a person’s annual medical bills. The new study suggests the added cost is double that, exceeding $2,800.
Cawley and Meyerhoefer used a database that other obesity researchers have used — a federal survey of U.S. citizens and their doctors and other medical providers, which is considered the most complete information on the cost and use of health care in the country.
The new study looked at the data base’s information on nearly 24,000 non-elderly adult patients from the years 2000 through 2005. Results were reported in 2005 dollars.
Why did Cawley and Meyerhoefer come up with larger estimates?
— Past studies have relied just on self-reported weight, and many people understate their actual weight. The new research made statistical adjustments to come up with what are believed to be truer figures.
— The authors tried to better establish that excess weight was a cause for the medical costs. Previous studies stopped short of saying obesity caused the costs because there was too great a chance other factors could be responsible. Cawley and Meyerhoefer tried to overcome that problem by also looking at the weight of study subjects’ relatives to determine if obesity ran in the family. If so, they labeled the medical costs of a fat person in that family to be caused by obesity.
The two researchers at first were a bit surprised by how large their estimates were, but obesity is clearly a major burden on society, said Cawley, an associate professor of policy analysis and management.
“It’s hard to find conditions that aren’t worsened or made more expensive by obesity,” he said.
Thorpe said the new estimates highlight a need to invest more in obesity-fighting programs.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Tell them about the Amino Acid Balanced Meal Replacement from EnerHealth Botanicals or the EnerFood from the same company to lose weight. If they try the products they will not regret it!
A. you should not be exposed to this recall if you listen to survive2thrive.net radio B. These cereals have GMO ingredients and should be avoided as a matter of course C. if you are consuming them, well then this is your wake up call!
Kellogg recalls 28 million boxes of cereal
By Julianne Pepitone, staff reporterJune 25, 2010: 2:58 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Kellogg Co. is recalling 28 million boxes of several popular cereals due to an unusual flavor and smell, the company said Friday.
The recall includes some boxes of Kellogg (K, Fortune 500) brands Corn Pops, Honey Smacks, Froot Loops and Apple Jacks. The recalled products were sold across the country, Kellogg said.
The company said potential for serious health problems is low, but an “uncharacteristic off-flavor and smell coming from the liner in the package” could cause temporary symptoms including nausea and diarrhea.
Only boxes with the letters “KN” following the “better if used before” date are included in the recall. Products with “KM” are not being recalled, nor are any products in Canada.
In a statement, Kellogg Chief Executive David Mackay apologized to consumers and said the company is “working diligently to ensure that the affected products are rapidly removed from the marketplace.”
Consumers who have questions or want a replacement box of cereal can call Kellogg at 888-801-4163 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET.
Stop taking these products or suffer the consequences.
I guess it is ‘good’ news that we Americans aren’t the only fat people on the planet! Ireland and several other countries have reached the ‘epidemic’ stage with us now.
Wonder what it will take to get people more aware of the connection between what the eat, their weight and how they feel? Buy some EnerFood…make a smoothie for lunch!
Experts warn on rising obesity levels
Obesity levels in Ireland have reached “epidemic proportions” affecting up to a fifth of all adults and resulting in 2,000 premature deaths annually, according to experts.
In a joint statement issued today, the Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU), the Diabetes Federation of Ireland and healthcare firm GlaxoSmithKline said the cost of treating obesity in Ireland was now more than €400 million a year.
Their statement is designed to raise awareness of the issue ahead of European Obesity Day on Saturday.
IPU president Darragh O’Loughlin said an ongoing awareness programme was needed to ensure people are continually warned about the dangers of excessive consumption of foods high in fat, sugar and salt and also of the benefits of regular exercise.
“While the population may be aware of the benefits of healthy eating, evidence would tend to suggest that they may not be aware of the dangers of regular consumption of fatty foods and snacks,” he said.
Anna Clarke of the Diabetes Federation of Ireland said: “Being overweight increases your risk of developing several serious health problems such as Type II diabetes, heart disease and certain types of cancer.
The spread of Type II diabetes is a serious risk in this county – the incidence of Type II diabetes is currently rising by at least 3.7 per cent annually,” Dr Clarke said.
She said obesity is endemic in Ireland and this has major implications for future population health and health service provision.
Recent data from Department of Health and Children on self-reported Body Mass Index (BMI) shows an increase in obesity of over 30 per cent for both men and women between 1998 and 2007.
The data suggests 59 per cent of men and 41 per cent of women are now self-reporting as either overweight or obese.
GlaxoSmithKline’s Niall O’Shea said: “Weight is not a vanity or beauty issue — it is a health issue and it is one that can be addressed, if people are willing to take control of their own circumstances”.
“Being obese is extremely dangerous and can lead to significant health problems, which can sometimes be fatal. We are working to help raise awareness of the seriousness of this issue and of the solutions that are available, to people who are currently obese,” he said.
Further details about the health risks associated with obesity can be found on the official European Obesity Day website at www.obesityday.eu
Buy some EnerFood and see what can happen by just replacing one meal a day with a smoothie with Enerfood in it.
I will never ceased to be amazed. The U.S. Military and Slow Food USA have a common goal now-seeing that school lunches improve. Both come from different perspectives, the military can’t get healthy kids and feel that these horrible lunches are at least in part responsible. Slow Food on the other hand is a much deeper and ultimately more peaceful in philosophy and intent, they want everyone and everything to be healthy all the way down to the soil.
For whatever reason, at this point we need some action here considering the sorry state of nutrition in schools. There might be a day coming soon that a kid can only get a square meal in school…food prices are skyrocketing and with the economy in the dumps and income as well…who can afford a healthy meal?
Working to enrich school lunch programs
By Judith Lerner, Special to The Eagle
Wednesday April 28, 2010
It is not often that Slow Food USA and the U.S. military can be seen working to solve the same issue at the same time, but that is what happened last week.
Slow Food USA President Joshua Viertel came to Williams College from New York on April 20 to talk about changes his organization is encouraging in school lunch programs across the country.
That same day, retired Navy Rear Admiral James Barnett, Jr. and other retired officers from “Mission: Readiness” were on Capitol Hill in Washington urging the Senate to pass a more effective Child Nutrition Act in order to bring healthy food into public school cafeterias and get junk food out.
They said that seductive, fattening foods such as french fries are creating a generation unfit to serve in the military. Right now, 27 percent or 9 million young people aged 17 to 24, are so overweight that the military will not take them. according to the “Mission: Readiness” report.
The mission of Slow Food is different from the military one, but works toward the same end. The movement evolved as a reaction to fast food and speeded-up modern life, putting emphasis on enjoying fresh, local foods in convivial settings.
Since Viertel became president in 2008, he has been traveling around the country “to encourage Americans to buy local and eat organic.” His talk at Williams focused on successes Slow Food’s “Farm-to-School” initiative is having in bringing fresh local foods to school
Last Wednesday morning, he stood in the kitchen of The Nutrition Center here, drinking freshly ground and brewed coffee. Then he joined about 25 local Slow Food Berkshire core members to talk in the dining room.
Klara Blades, a Slow Food member and baker of Klara’s Cookies here, had supplied crisp, but not-too-hard almond-anise-orange biscotti and a bundt coffee cake.
Sheffield’s Stagecoach Tavern chef and very active Slow Food member and promoter Sarah Dibben brought two freshly baked quiches: one filled with just picked wild ramps and the other filled with Taft Farms sweet corn, red bell pepper and cheddar.
Barth Anderson brought, ground, brewed and tended coffee from his Barrington Coffee Roasting Company in South Lee.
Adults, teens and a tot sat around the table or on chairs and a sofa with small, colorful plates of food.
“This is a very social, convivial way to come together with colleagues,” Viertel said.
Enjoying food with other people as well as taking responsibility to protect food’s heritage and local traditions is central to Slow Food philosophy.
Viertel sees Slow Food as “concentric circles going out” with a core of some 500 workers nationwide supporting local initiatives.
Sam Levin, who was there last Wednesday and is now 16 and a junior at Monument Mountain High School, is a prime example of the initiatives Viertel was talking about.
In 2008, while still a freshman, Levin and other students got permission to plant a garden (and last year build a greenhouse) on a school soccer field smack up against Route 7 traffic. It is known as “Project Sprout.”
That same year, Levin traveled to Slow Food’s annual summer gathering called, “Terre Madre,” in Turin, Italy, and told the gathering: “The plan was simple. Create a student-run organic vegetable garden on school grounds that would be used as an educational tool for students ages 3 through 18; provide delicious vegetables for school lunches; and ultimately build connections with nature for the children of our district.”
Last summer the garden fed an average of 150 people at local community dinners and food pantries. When school reopened in the fall, the produce fed students in the cafeteria; leftovers were given to homeless shelters.
Viertel, himself, co-founded and co-directed a similar project to develop a sustainable dining program at Yale University, while he was a graduate student. He developed educational programming around food and agriculture and a garden on campus. He left in 2008 to become Slow Food USA’s president.
Viertel expects the upcoming Child Nutrition Act reauthorization to pass and become law.
“We’re gonna win $5 billion over the course of 10 years,” he estimated
He has been a visible supporter of first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” initiative, speaking around the country on changes happening and needed in school lunch programs.
In a statement in February, he encouraged Slow Food’s 90,000 members and advocates as well as other citizens to put pressure on their legislators to add at least $1 billion more to the Child Nutrition Act so that “a healthful lunch with sufficient fruits, vegetables and whole grain,” can be served to school children.
He has also urged congress to strengthen nutrition standards and help schools start farm-to-school programs.
“Right now,” Viertel said in the statement, “Congress gives schools $2.68 for each lunch served, of which only about $1 goes towards ingredients.
“School lunch is so under-funded, he went on, “that most schools can only afford to serve the cheap processed foods that fuel obesity and diabetes.
Even the additional $1 billion, he explained, would only add 20 cents to each meal. It would cost at least $1 more per lunch, he said, to bring the meals up to real health standards.
Yet, he argued, Congress gives industrial processed-food producers $13 billion annually to subsidize the very foods that make children, and adults ill and obese.
Congress get its priorities straight and put the health of the American people over the wealth of American agribusiness, he said.
Consider the long term costs of poor nutrition, sickness and bad mental attitude! We need to be healthy to push back against the madness!