Hi,Although this article is about what is happening in the USA, it is quite possible, and highly probable, that a similar scenario is unfolding, or already occurring, wherever you happen to live in the world. It is already happening with some imported foods in Australia, with very little public awareness.
FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foodsby Mike Adams (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."
In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.
Foods that are exempt from irradiation labelingAccording to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.
However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)
That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):
Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.
How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiatedAs stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)
On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:
FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.
This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.
Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!
FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."
This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."
And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."
But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.
How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):
FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.
Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."
The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."
So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?
I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"
Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"
It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!
What the FDA really wants to accomplishLet's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:
1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)
2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)
Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.
That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.
That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:
"Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry."
Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?
WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)
Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:
Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.
If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...
So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"
Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDAOf course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?
The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.
Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible.
If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.
Eat up, guinea pigs!Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.
I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.
I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.
In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.
Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!