The last part of your post from them was a dissappointment.

FDA is sort of become/stll is like a drug or Gawd or something to some folks I guess.
They say Jump and many still ask How High.

{actually around this household, FDA is a 3 letter dirty word!}

Aha!

Hmmm, who do you think might detect something?

MidWest advised me they felt the FDA was on top of this.

“The food industry and foreign governments, who rightfully view country-of-origin labeling as an anti-import law, oppose the law” The more I find out about the imported foods, the more I am FOR an anti-import law! Sheesh!!

http://www.countryoforiginlabel.org/overview.html

“A highly prescriptive country-of-origin labeling mandate for meat, produce, seafood and peanuts sold at retail was included in the 2002 Farm Bill. The measure was supported by groups opposed to imports of certain foods because of the perceived competition they pose. In an effort to give the law a mantle of virtue, they called it a “consumer right to know” law, although research has yet to demonstrate that consumers are seeking this information. The food industry and foreign governments, who rightfully view country-of-origin labeling as an anti-import law, oppose the law.”

http://www.countryoforiginlabe.....afety.html

“Imported Produce Saftey

Without imports, the United States would not be able to supply the fruit and vegetable needs of the population, and consumers’ health would be at risk. Without imports, U.S. consumers would have no bananas, would eat grapes only in the summer and fall, and would have fewer than half the winter salads they enjoy now. U.S. government tests have shown that imported produce and U.S.-grown produce are safe. Because of the rigorous U.S. food safety system, imports have to meet the same strict standards that U.S.-grown products are subject to. Growers outside the United States understand the importance of meeting U.S. market demands, including food safety demands. Finally, retail and foodservice buyers have exacting food safety standards that they require of their suppliers in the United States and throughout the world. ”

WOW, if we don’t import food, our health could be a risk. Gee, we better thank them for importing all that clean healthy food then!

According to Cormark Securities analyst Aleem Israel, the company in question is Procter & Gamble, who own the Iams pet care brand.

In a note to clients, he said P&G sent notice to Menu Foods that it would no longer purchase cuts and gravy products for its Iams brand.

P&G accounted for approximately 11% of MenuFoods total cuts and gravy sales before putting a hold on orders in the first quarter, according to the company release.

The lost contract is a huge blow for MenuFoods whose stock price dropped in half in March after announcing a recall of 60-million containers of dog and cat food that follow several pet deaths.

David Pett
dpett@nationalpost.com

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/sto.....ports.html

CBC News June 12, 2007

“Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, says that consumers have a right to know where their food was grown.

“”Secrecy is not something that we should be having to fight here,” he said.

“Under current federal regulations, goods can be stamped with a “Product of Canada” label if 51 per cent of the production costs are Canadian. For example, companies can label their juice Canadian by adding water to imported fruit concentrate and bottling the product.”

Chilling Effect on Scientific Candor
Agency scientists report being afraid to speak frankly about safety
concerns and feel constrained in their roles as scientists:

- One-fifth (20 percent) say they “have been asked explicitly
by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate
or misleading information to the public, regulated
industry, media, or elected/senior government officials.”
In addition, more than a quarter (26 percent) feel that
FDA decision makers implicitly expect them to “provide
incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information.”

- Two in five (40 percent) said they could not publicly
express “concerns about public health without fear of
retaliation.” More than a third (36 percent) did not feel
they could do so even inside the confines of the agency.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientif.....mmary.html

Just one from 21 pages of comments from FDA Scientists:
“We use or are mandated to use ancient scientific methods and it’s almost impossible to update.”

And you HAVE to read the Survey Summary brochure. it’s at the top of the page under “related links”.

- Almost one in five (18 percent) responded, “I have been
asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately
exclude or alter technical information or my conclusions
in an FDA scientific document.”

- More than three in five (61 percent) knew of cases in
which “Department of Health and Human Services or
FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected
themselves into FDA determinations or actions.”

-Three in five (60 percent) also knew of cases “where commercial
interests have inappropriately induced or
attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal or modification
of FDA determinations or actions.” Fifty percent also
felt that non-governmental interests (such as advocacy
groups) had induced or attempted to induce such changes.

And that’s just the beginning. Not a surprise given what we know now, but, stil, OMG.