Sunday, April 08, 2007

Nuking American Milk

More on the same theme.....    J.D.

PS.  As a point of orgonomic science, we had a student at the Lab a few years ago, who undertook a summer Independent Study project wherein she charged up ordinary fruits and vegetables in the orgone accumulator.   The idea was to see if they would be better preserved and have a longer shelf-life.  Exactly the opposite occured.  They "rotted" faster.  But by "rotting" what we really mean is, the fruits began to sprout more quickly, the vegetables growing tubers and offshoots more rapidly.  By nature, what we call the "edible" part of the plant is nutritional material for the sprouting seeds of the plant.  In short, a strong life-energetic charge enhanced and speeded-up the overall life process.  So we should expect, natural foods with a strong charge of life-energy will have inherently shorter shelf-lives as compared to toxic or dead food, which will last nearly forever.  Exposure of foods to intense nuclear radiation, we can surmise, leads to a "preserving" of the food by virtue of killing off its life-process, just as intense nuclear radiation kills off the life-process in a more general way.  This is in additional to any bacterial-sterilization effects which might occur, and which are considered desirable by the food processing industry. So the larger question remains: Of what nutritional value would nuclear-irradiated foods be?  Aside from all other concerns, the life-energetics of food irradiation suggests a very bad prognosis.  J.D.

++++++

From: "Russell Olinsky" <stachy@earthlink.net>
Subject: FDA  may allow irradiation to be labeled pasturized
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:51:32 -0700

In keeping with the trend to dumb down society (i.e. good/bad cholesterol)
the FDA seems to have been working overtime this time to benefit unclean food producers/suppliers.

Irradiation was discussed to treat ground beef, so we know were that'll go.....
taking "bad" meat and turning it into a bacteria-free product.
It's bad enough that most spices are irradiated. Go organic! RBO
 
FW from J. Jonik
At the behest of irradiation industries and food
producers who'd rather not go to the trouble of
keeping foods free of disease-causing contamination,
the FDA may allow labeling of Irradiated foods as
"Pasteurized". Swell, the crap, pus, and
god-knows-what etc will remain but will be
sterilized.

Louis Pasteur did not create or even possibly
imagine such a process.
Also not addressed yet is...what does the dairy
industry think about the co-opting of the word
"Pasteurize" to mean Irradiated? Will milk consumers
begin to think their milk is irradiated too?

The irradiation flacks say that the public would be
unduly frightened by irradiation labels. Indeed. We
have millions of people who have been convinced that
the universe is 6000 years old, and we have a system
that can convince the people that what's going on in
Iraq is a "war", that Bush is really president, that
private funded broadcasting is "public", and that
Depleted Uranium is harmless...yet they don't have
media and PR power to make irradiation seem nice and
cozy?? That darn stubborn public.

A bottom line here is that this is mass
experimentation on the public without informed
consent. Irradiation creates changes in the food that
no humans have had a evolutionary chance to adapt to,
if they could in the first place. And there have not
been independent studies to determine the long term
effects of such "foods".

Here's a link to one news story...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/03/irradiated.food.ap/index.html

...and a rap on the topic from Food and Water Watch.

FDA Considers Mislabeling Irradiated Food

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/fda-considers-mislabeling-irradiated-food

Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director
Wenonah Hauter
ìThe Food and Drug Administration announced today
that it may allow irradiated food to be mislabeled
with alternate terms such as ëpasteurized.í This move
by FDA would deny consumers clear information about
whether they are buying food that has been exposed to
high doses of ionizing radiation.

ìConsumers have been reluctant to buy irradiated
food, and rightly so. Irradiation damages many foods
and can ruin their flavor, odor, and texture. The
process destroys vitamins, protein, essential fatty
acids and other nutrients ñ up to 80 percent of
vitamin A in eggs and half the beta carotene in
orange juice, the FDA has noted.

ìThe proposal is a clear gift to the irradiation
industry, which has been struggling for years. The
request to change labeling rules for irradiated food
is not a new one. In 2002, the Farm Bill instructed
the FDA to re-consider its labeling rules for
irradiated food, which require irradiated food to
bear the radura symbol and a disclosure statement
(ëtreated with irradiationí or ëtreated by
irradiation.í)

ìThe public is no more enthusiastic about changing
the label than about irradiated food itself.
Thousands of Americans submitted comments in
opposition to proposed changes irradiation labels in
1999 and 2002, and polls consistently demonstrate
consumer support for accurate labeling with the word
ëirradiation.í
ìConsumers have a right to know if their food has
been exposed to ionizing radiation. FDA should be
implementing rules that guarantee that right, not
allowing the meat and irradiation industries to
mislead consumers into buying something they might
otherwise avoid. We urge FDA to abandon this proposed
rule change and will urge consumers to object to the
agencyís dangerous proposal.î
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And here is one way to send your Public Comment on
this issue to the FDA. Don't procrastinate.
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/fwwatch/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=7188
 
Russell B.Olinsky, M.S.
Environmental Specialist
 
 

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home



-----------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL: http://www.orgonelab.org/donation

Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore: http://www.naturalenergyworks.net

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?