The Longterm Health Impact of Toxic Food Packaging

Link to Article

Heather Callaghan, Contributor
Waking Times

There once was a guy who wrote a book about his journey out of crippling brain fog. He warned that to get out of it he and others needed to use extreme caution about what they brought into the house. With gloves, anything he purchased was unwrapped and placed into more natural vessels like glass, wood and stainless steel. Furthermore, most of those purchases were avoided in the first place.

Does that seem extreme to you?

Researchers are slowly, surely and quietly admitting the cumulative effects of handling food packaging and eating its contents over the years. What are they, and what can you do? Without having to wear a biohazard suit, of course.

Food packaging chemicals may be harmful to human health over the long term caution environmental scientists in a commentary in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Sure it’s a commentary, but if this sounds like radical alarmist scaremongering let’s remember that researchers probably knew about these materials (approved as safe) from the beginning and, perhaps, due to consumer concern, more than mere chemicals are the things finally leaking out.

It’s on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops

(NaturalNews) The next wave of farmer backlash against Monsanto has just been unleashed by Ernest Barnes, a wheat farmer in Morton County, Kansas. He filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, alleging that Monsanto’s genetic pollution has financially damaged himself and other farmers.

Barnes’ case appears to be well supported by the facts: Last week the USDA announced the shock discovery that genetically engineered wheat strains from Monsanto’s open-field experiments had escaped and spread into commercial wheat farms. Almost immediately, Japan and South Korea cancelled wheat purchase contracts from the United States, and more cancellations are expected to follow. The more countries reject U.S. wheat due to GMO contamination (genetic pollution), the lower wheat prices will plunge and the more economic damage will be felt by U.S. farmers.

Monsanto now a confirmed genetic polluter

GMO wheat (i.e. “GE wheat”) has never been commercially grown in the United States… at least not on purpose. Experimental fields were approved by the USDA and planted across 16 U.S. states. Until now, it was not known that these GE wheat experiments escaped their designated field plots and began to spread as a form of self-replicating genetic pollution.

For the record, Natural News openly warned about this possibility in a 2012 article called, “Stop Out-of-Control Science.” There, I wrote:

Why Do We Allow Pesticides In Baby Formula?

Posted Friday, May 31, 2013 By: Elisha McFarland

(NaturalNews) It has been established that infant formula increases the risk of severe, debilitating and even fatal childhood diseases through a wide range of epidemiological studies. Is it really any wonder when we allow chemicals such as Cupric sulfate a known pesticide, herbicide and fungicide in baby and infant formulas? (1,4,5,6,7)

What is cupric sulfate?

Cupric sulfate is an inorganic salt which is widely used in industry, agriculture, and veterinary medicine. (2) Cupric sulfate is also used in copperplating, in dyeing (as a mordant), in wet-cell batteries, in pigments, and algicides. (1). So what in the world is this doing in baby formula? This chemical is listed plainly on the ingredient label of many prominent baby food formulas, including Enfamil (3, 4), Similac , (5), and Earth’s Best Organic (6). You can even find it in Centrum and One-a-Day vitamins. Research has identified a link between cupric sulfate and many negative conditions such as arsenic poisoning, DNA damage, heavy metal toxicity and mercury poisoning. Much of this research dates as far back as 1991, so why are companies still allowing this chemical in consumer products, and notably in baby formulas?

What’s the risk?

The following information is taken directly from the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for Cupric Sulfate:

Section 3: Hazards Identification, of the Material Safety Data Sheet for cupric sulfate show Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. (7)

Monsanto Planting New GM Soybeans in 20 Locations Despite Recent Activism

Alex Pietrowski, Staff
Waking Times

The imperative nature of marching this Saturday, May 25^th, in the March Against Monsanto couldn’t ever be more stressed than now, with recent news that Monsanto keeps forging ahead with its repugnant plans to poison us all by planting more altered seeds – yet again. Monsanto and other mega- pharmaceutical companies, with the USDAs complicit agreement to keep them afloat with both tax dollars and federal court shenanigans, are already targeting a crop called the ‘Xtend’ soybean to be planted in more than 20 farms across the United States.

This particular strain of frankenfood is chemically altered so that it can withstand a huge shower of the herbicidal stew containing glyphosate and dicama chemicals. Glyphosate causes cancer. Dicama is a known carcinogen and causes all sorts of health issues.

Additionally, Monsanto is no longer even attempting to maintain the charade that these GM science experiments are tested, and in this case, it appears that Monsanto hasn’t even yet provided the USDA with basic safety studies, although the USDA is approving these crops anyhow.

“U.S.-based Monsanto is setting up 20 field locations around the United States to test and market its “Xtend” soybean product at the same time that company officials said they would be working quickly to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture with additional study data to show the product’s safety.” [Reuters]

Still Eat Conventional Meat or Poultry? Preservatives, Antimicrobials, Antifungals, and Viral Sprays Saturate Factory Farmed Sources

Natasha Longo, Prevent Disease

Waking Times

70 percent of all beef and chicken sold in the United States, Canada, UK and Australia and many other countries contain a growing number of preservatives, meat glues, and antibacterial/antifungal/antiviral sprays. They also are commonly treated with carbon monoxide gas injections to make meat appear more fresh than it actually is.

Synthetic preservatives are added to 70 percent of all factory farmed meat and poultry to prevent spoilage, rancidity and mould growth.

Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Proprionate and Benzoic Acid

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has amended regulations that once banned the use of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid in meat and poultry products, the Food and Drug Administration has announced.

In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate form benzene, form known carcinogens. If a individual happens to consume any of these toxins after consuming ascorbic acid, a carcinogenic process may initiate.

The three preservatives had been on the list of prohibited antimicrobial substances the FSIS considered to have the potential to conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry.

The change follows a petition by Kraft Foods Global Inc., which wants to use the substances to help inhibit the growth of bacteria.

After consideration, the FSIS said it has “determined that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid, under the conditions proposed in the petitions, are both safe and suitable for use as antimicrobial agents in certain RTE (Ready-to-Eat) meat and poultry products.”

Nitrites/Nitrates