Seafood Mercury Levels Trigger Federal Lawsuit Against FDA

Consumer protection and environmental advocates filed a lawsuit on Monday in federal district court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to respond to a July 2011 petition which asked the agency to give consumers clear, accurate and accessible information about toxic mercury in the seafood they eat. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest?(CSPI) and the Mercury Policy Project. They are seeking a court-ordered deadline for the FDA to respond to its request by requiring signs at market seafood counters and labels on packaged seafood to inform shoppers of the relative amounts of mercury in fish and other seafood, according to?Earthjustice.? Under its own regulations, the FDA had six months to respond to the petition, but failed to issue a final decision on the matter, which technically violated federal law.? Mercury exposure through seafood consumption has been a health concern for decades, originating mainly from coal-fired power plants and small scale gold mining operations. Regarding seafood, airborne mercury is deposited into the ocean and its aquatic ecosystems, where it converts into methylmercury?a neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to developing fetuses and children. Methylmercury accumulates in fish and shellfish and exposure to the chemical has been linked to learning disabilities, lowered IQ, and impaired cognitive and nervous system functioning. In 2004, the FDA and EPA issued an online advisory, What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish?warning consumers. Clearly, they were aware of the health risks of mercury in seafood, yet ignored the petition and failed to protect us as consumers.

Survey Finds GE Contamination of Organic Farms

New data finds that organic farmers are growing increasingly concerned with genetically engineered (GE) crops cross-pollinating and contaminating their fields. This contamination can lead to serious economic losses for organic farmers and has created tension between neighbors. The data comes at a critical time as USDA is advancing the notion that ?coexistence? between GE and non-GE growers?presents no problems for the?organic market.?USDA has been widely criticized in organic circles because its decisions to deregulate numerous GE crops?place?the burden of reducing contamination on non-GE growers. A survey,released by Food and Water Watch and Organic Farmers? Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM), finds that a third of U.S. organic farmers have experienced GE contamination in their fields due to the nearby use of GE crops, while over half of these growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination. These rejections can lead to big income losses for farmers, with a?median cost of approximately $2,500 per year, according to the?survey. Additionally,?several farmers report annual losses of over $20,000 due to the need to establish buffer zones, while limit the threat of contamination from their neighbors by taking contiguous farmland out of production. In the survey, organic farmers also express their frustration that efforts to reduce?contamination fall squarely on their shoulders. Nearly half (45 percent) of respondents say that they would not purchase crop insurance intended to cover costs associated with GE contamination. Of the 35 percent of respondents who answered that they would purchase insurance for GE contamination-related losses, more than three-quarters of them (78 percent) believe that the added premium for coverage should be paid by GE patent holders or GE patent holders and GE users. One farmer responded to the survey, ?If [GE] was not here this would not be going on. It?s their contamination that?s the problem but we have to guard against something we have no control over. How do you even get a patent on something you can?t control? The whole object is control and that is not our [organic farmers?] problem.?

Europe Installs Raw Milk Vending Machines While U.S. Rules Unpasteurized Dairy Illegal

As the U.S. government continues to issue warnings regarding raw dairy products, several European countries have done just the opposite by expanding access through unpasteurized raw milk vending machines.?Given the known benefits of raw milk, multiple European nations have installed self-service vending machines that provide 24-hour access.?Compared with pasteurized and homogenized dairy, the? raw milk offers a wealth of nutrition?all without the?drawbacks?of oxidized fats, denatured proteins, antibiotics or growth hormones typically found in pasteurized and processed milk products.?Given the purported benefits of raw milk, multiple European nations have installed self-service vending machines that provide 24-hour access. Michel Cantaloube, who helped introduce the machines in France, the UK and Spain, hopes to expand the venture into a similar vending machine for raw yogurt.?Other countries like Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands have begun to install their own raw milk vending machines as well. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), warns of the health risks of consuming raw milk despite the amazing self-protective properties this living food is known to have.