'Nother great slideshow.
Great slideshow.
... It would seem that the only thing that can pull me out of this Post-TDW (three-day weekend) funk is a dress made entirely out of Marshmallow Peeps. But now the dilemma: what shoes do I wear?
Lightning Santas and Marshmallow Peeps Cutouts!
by -RoG- on 12/13/2006, 4:54 am
... Peeps Cutouts are just like regular Peeps, only they're shaped and flavored like sugar cookies that we all love to scarf down during the holidays. In all honesty though, the marshmallow flavor overpowers the holiday cookie flavor by a mile. Still, as the package says, they make for a good stocking stuffer and it's always fun to bite the head off of one of the Peeps while the other one continues to hold its hand, not realizing his friend has been decapitated....
by -RoG- on 12/13/2006, 4:54 am
... Peeps Cutouts are just like regular Peeps, only they're shaped and flavored like sugar cookies that we all love to scarf down during the holidays. In all honesty though, the marshmallow flavor overpowers the holiday cookie flavor by a mile. Still, as the package says, they make for a good stocking stuffer and it's always fun to bite the head off of one of the Peeps while the other one continues to hold its hand, not realizing his friend has been decapitated....
... Okay, these things are honestly incredible. Fans of Marshmallow Peeps -- the stretchy yellow chicks that were formerly an Easter-only affair -- have enjoyed the series' expansion over the past few years. For the spooky season, we've already seen "ghost" and "pumpkin" Peeps, but it wasn't until this afternoon that I experienced the holiest of the holy -- "Marshmallow Cocoa Bats" aren't just season-appropriate Peeps, they're by and large the ultimate Peeps. Combining a new flavor with a size that will MAKE YOU EXPLODE, these bats should quickly rise to that upper echelon of the Halloween candy aisle, joining decades-spanning luminaries as another prime sweet that can never, ever, never ever go away. These things deserve all the hype they can get. ...
Jonathan Safran Foer: The truth about factory farming
In this disturbing extract from Eating Animals, the novelist reveals the unpalatable truth about factory-farmed poultry
Monday 22 February 2010
... We spend several minutes like this, looking for an unlocked door. Another why: Why would a farmer lock the doors of his turkey farm?
It can't be because he's afraid someone will steal his equipment or animals. There's no equipment to steal, and the animals aren't worth the herculean effort it would take to illicitly transport a significant number. A farmer doesn't lock his doors because he's afraid his animals will escape. Turkeys can't turn doorknobs. It isn't because of biosecurity, either. Barbed wire is enough to keep out the merely curious. So why? In the three years I will spend immersed in animal agriculture, nothing will unsettle me more than the locked doors.
As it turns out, locked doors are the least of it. I never heard back from any of the companies I wrote to. Even research organisations with paid staff find themselves consistently thwarted by industry secrecy.
The power brokers of factory farming know that their business model depends on consumers not being able to see (or hear about) what they do. ...
In this disturbing extract from Eating Animals, the novelist reveals the unpalatable truth about factory-farmed poultry
Monday 22 February 2010
... We spend several minutes like this, looking for an unlocked door. Another why: Why would a farmer lock the doors of his turkey farm?
It can't be because he's afraid someone will steal his equipment or animals. There's no equipment to steal, and the animals aren't worth the herculean effort it would take to illicitly transport a significant number. A farmer doesn't lock his doors because he's afraid his animals will escape. Turkeys can't turn doorknobs. It isn't because of biosecurity, either. Barbed wire is enough to keep out the merely curious. So why? In the three years I will spend immersed in animal agriculture, nothing will unsettle me more than the locked doors.
As it turns out, locked doors are the least of it. I never heard back from any of the companies I wrote to. Even research organisations with paid staff find themselves consistently thwarted by industry secrecy.
The power brokers of factory farming know that their business model depends on consumers not being able to see (or hear about) what they do. ...
introBananas Brulee
Nothing says "Dessert!" like a propane torch. This dessert is fast and easy to make, and most guests are impressed by the visual appeal of combining of dangerous tools and food!
Also, since Valentine's Day is coming up, this is a good way to make your special someone a unique treat while also wooing them with your torch wielding skills. Maybe if you have some properly curved bananas you can arrange them in the shape of a heart! ...
Ta much, dear Anneliese
Nothing says "Dessert!" like a propane torch. This dessert is fast and easy to make, and most guests are impressed by the visual appeal of combining of dangerous tools and food!
Also, since Valentine's Day is coming up, this is a good way to make your special someone a unique treat while also wooing them with your torch wielding skills. Maybe if you have some properly curved bananas you can arrange them in the shape of a heart! ...
Ta much, dear Anneliese
Pensioner astonished by 'double banana'
A pensioner, Cedric Hooper, who bought some bananas at his local supermarket was astonished when he got home and found one skin contained two bananas.
23 Jan 2010
Mr Hooper bought the bananas in the Asda store in Wellington, Somerset.
But it wasn't until the 69-year-old got home that he noticed the odd feature of the bunch. ...
... "Both tasted fine," he added.
A pensioner, Cedric Hooper, who bought some bananas at his local supermarket was astonished when he got home and found one skin contained two bananas.
23 Jan 2010
Mr Hooper bought the bananas in the Asda store in Wellington, Somerset.
But it wasn't until the 69-year-old got home that he noticed the odd feature of the bunch. ...
... "Both tasted fine," he added.
I'm posting the whole story because yahoo are such yahoos and delete stories after 5 minutes have passed.
Sun Dec 13, 1:45 pm ET
ST. LOUIS – Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.
With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.
Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.
The company has used the agreements to spread its technology — giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.
For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission — giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.
Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.
The suburban St. Louis-based agricultural giant said it's done nothing wrong.
"We do not believe there is any merit to allegations about our licensing agreement or the terms within," said Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles. He said he couldn't comment on many specific provisions of the agreements because they are confidential and the subject of ongoing litigation.
"Our approach to licensing (with) many companies is pro-competitive and has enabled literally hundreds of seed companies, including all of our major direct competitors, to offer thousands of new seed products to farmers," he said.
The benefit of Monsanto's technology for farmers has been undeniable, but some of its major competitors and smaller seed firms claim the company is using strong-arm tactics to further its control.
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies.
The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.
Monsanto's broad use of licensing agreements has made its biotech traits among the most widely and rapidly adopted technologies in farming history. These days, when farmers buy bags of seed with obscure brand names like AgVenture or M-Pride Genetics, they are paying for Monsanto's licensed products.
One of the numerous provisions in the licensing agreements is a ban on mixing genes — or "stacking" in industry lingo — that enhance Monsanto's power.
One contract provision likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits "shall be destroyed immediately."
Another provision from contracts earlier this decade_ regarding rebates — also help explain Monsanto's rapid growth as it rolled out new products.
One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto's products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory. In its 2004 lawsuit, Syngenta called the discounts part of Monsanto's "scorched earth campaign" to keep Syngenta's new traits out of the market.
Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn't yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.
The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.
Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.
"I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees."
Independent seed company owners could drop their contracts with Monsanto and return to selling conventional seed, but they say it could be financially ruinous. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene has become the industry standard over the last decade, and small companies fear losing customers if they drop it. It also can take years of breeding and investment to mix Monsanto's genes into a seed company's product line, so dropping the genes can be costly.
Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment.
A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases.
Monsanto chairman and chief executive officer Hugh Grant told investment analysts during a conference call this fall that the price increases are justified by the productivity boost farmers get from the company's seeds. Farmers and seed company owners agree that Monsanto's technology has boosted yields and profits, saving farmers time they once spent weeding and money they once spent on pesticides.
But recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on the farm.
"It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line," said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. "They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."
Any Justice Department case against Monsanto could break new ground in balancing a company's right to control its patented products while protecting competitors' right to free and open competition, said Kevin Arquit, former director of the Federal Trade Commission competition bureau and now a antitrust attorney with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New York.
"These are very interesting issues, and not just for the companies, but for the Justice Department," Arquit said. "They're in an area where there is uncertainty in the law and there are consumer welfare implications and government policy implications for whatever the result is."
Other seed companies have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace.
Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys.
First came the science, when Monsanto in 1996 introduced the world's first commercial strain of genetically engineered soybeans. The Roundup Ready plants were resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray Roundup whenever they wanted rather than wait until the soybeans had grown enough to withstand the chemical.
The company soon released other genetically altered crops, such as corn plants that produced a natural pesticide to ward off bugs. While Monsanto had blockbuster products, it didn't yet have a big foothold in a seed industry made up of hundreds of companies that supplied farmers.
That's where the legal innovations came in, as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them.
Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops.
The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers.
Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors.
"It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult," Boerma said.
The rules also can restrict research. Boerma halted research on a line of new soybean plants that contain a trait from a Monsanto competitor when he learned that the trait was ineffective unless it could be mixed with Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene.
Boerma said he hasn't considered asking Monsanto's permission to mix its traits with the competitor's trait.
"I think the co-mingling of their trait technology with another company's trait technology would likely be a serious problem for them," he said.
Quarles pointed out that Monsanto has signed agreements with several companies allowing them to stack their traits with Monsanto's. After Syngenta settled its lawsuit, for example, the companies struck a broad cross-licensing accord.
At the same time, Monsanto's patent rights give it the authority to say how independent companies use its traits, Quarles said.
"Please also keep in mind that, as the (intellectual property developer), it is our right to determine who will obtain rights to our technology and for what purpose," he said.
Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.
Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.
"If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things — destroy things they paid for — if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw."
Quarles said some of the Monsanto contracts let companies sell their inventory for a period of time, rather than be required to destroy it. Seed companies also don't have to pay royalty fees on the bags of seed they destroyed.
"Simply put, it was designed to facilitate early adoption of the technology," he said.
Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry.
"They have the capital, they have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're Wall Street," said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. "It's very difficult to compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto."
Sun Dec 13, 1:45 pm ET
ST. LOUIS – Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.
With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.
Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.
The company has used the agreements to spread its technology — giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.
For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission — giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.
Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.
The suburban St. Louis-based agricultural giant said it's done nothing wrong.
"We do not believe there is any merit to allegations about our licensing agreement or the terms within," said Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles. He said he couldn't comment on many specific provisions of the agreements because they are confidential and the subject of ongoing litigation.
"Our approach to licensing (with) many companies is pro-competitive and has enabled literally hundreds of seed companies, including all of our major direct competitors, to offer thousands of new seed products to farmers," he said.
The benefit of Monsanto's technology for farmers has been undeniable, but some of its major competitors and smaller seed firms claim the company is using strong-arm tactics to further its control.
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies.
The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.
Monsanto's broad use of licensing agreements has made its biotech traits among the most widely and rapidly adopted technologies in farming history. These days, when farmers buy bags of seed with obscure brand names like AgVenture or M-Pride Genetics, they are paying for Monsanto's licensed products.
One of the numerous provisions in the licensing agreements is a ban on mixing genes — or "stacking" in industry lingo — that enhance Monsanto's power.
One contract provision likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits "shall be destroyed immediately."
Another provision from contracts earlier this decade_ regarding rebates — also help explain Monsanto's rapid growth as it rolled out new products.
One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto's products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory. In its 2004 lawsuit, Syngenta called the discounts part of Monsanto's "scorched earth campaign" to keep Syngenta's new traits out of the market.
Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn't yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.
The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.
Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.
"I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees."
Independent seed company owners could drop their contracts with Monsanto and return to selling conventional seed, but they say it could be financially ruinous. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene has become the industry standard over the last decade, and small companies fear losing customers if they drop it. It also can take years of breeding and investment to mix Monsanto's genes into a seed company's product line, so dropping the genes can be costly.
Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment.
A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases.
Monsanto chairman and chief executive officer Hugh Grant told investment analysts during a conference call this fall that the price increases are justified by the productivity boost farmers get from the company's seeds. Farmers and seed company owners agree that Monsanto's technology has boosted yields and profits, saving farmers time they once spent weeding and money they once spent on pesticides.
But recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on the farm.
"It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line," said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. "They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."
Any Justice Department case against Monsanto could break new ground in balancing a company's right to control its patented products while protecting competitors' right to free and open competition, said Kevin Arquit, former director of the Federal Trade Commission competition bureau and now a antitrust attorney with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New York.
"These are very interesting issues, and not just for the companies, but for the Justice Department," Arquit said. "They're in an area where there is uncertainty in the law and there are consumer welfare implications and government policy implications for whatever the result is."
Other seed companies have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace.
Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys.
First came the science, when Monsanto in 1996 introduced the world's first commercial strain of genetically engineered soybeans. The Roundup Ready plants were resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray Roundup whenever they wanted rather than wait until the soybeans had grown enough to withstand the chemical.
The company soon released other genetically altered crops, such as corn plants that produced a natural pesticide to ward off bugs. While Monsanto had blockbuster products, it didn't yet have a big foothold in a seed industry made up of hundreds of companies that supplied farmers.
That's where the legal innovations came in, as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them.
Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops.
The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers.
Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors.
"It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult," Boerma said.
The rules also can restrict research. Boerma halted research on a line of new soybean plants that contain a trait from a Monsanto competitor when he learned that the trait was ineffective unless it could be mixed with Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene.
Boerma said he hasn't considered asking Monsanto's permission to mix its traits with the competitor's trait.
"I think the co-mingling of their trait technology with another company's trait technology would likely be a serious problem for them," he said.
Quarles pointed out that Monsanto has signed agreements with several companies allowing them to stack their traits with Monsanto's. After Syngenta settled its lawsuit, for example, the companies struck a broad cross-licensing accord.
At the same time, Monsanto's patent rights give it the authority to say how independent companies use its traits, Quarles said.
"Please also keep in mind that, as the (intellectual property developer), it is our right to determine who will obtain rights to our technology and for what purpose," he said.
Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.
Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.
"If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things — destroy things they paid for — if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw."
Quarles said some of the Monsanto contracts let companies sell their inventory for a period of time, rather than be required to destroy it. Seed companies also don't have to pay royalty fees on the bags of seed they destroyed.
"Simply put, it was designed to facilitate early adoption of the technology," he said.
Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry.
"They have the capital, they have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're Wall Street," said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. "It's very difficult to compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto."
Beef sold in two states recalled over salmonella concerns
December 6, 2009
Washington (CNN) -- More than 20,000 pounds of beef have been recalled by a California company amid worries the meat is linked to two cases of salmonella, a federal food safety agency said.
Beef Packers Inc., based in Fresno, California, recalled 22,723 pounds of ground beef products produced on September 23, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said in a statement. The labels on the beef include the establishment number "EST. 31913," the agency said.
The beef was repackaged at a distribution plant in Arizona, then sold under different retail brand names, the agency said. The agency's statement did not identify brand names.
The products were sold in Arizona and New Mexico, said Mark Klein, spokesman for Cargill Inc., which owns Beef Packers, Inc. Consumers in those states should check with stores where they purchased meat to determine if they bought the recalled beef.
Investigators have found an association between the meat and two Arizona people who have the "Salmonella Newport" strain, the Food Safety and Inspection Service said. That strain is resistant to many commonly prescribed drugs, increasing the risk of hospitalization or ineffective treatment, the agency said. ...
December 6, 2009
Washington (CNN) -- More than 20,000 pounds of beef have been recalled by a California company amid worries the meat is linked to two cases of salmonella, a federal food safety agency said.
Beef Packers Inc., based in Fresno, California, recalled 22,723 pounds of ground beef products produced on September 23, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said in a statement. The labels on the beef include the establishment number "EST. 31913," the agency said.
The beef was repackaged at a distribution plant in Arizona, then sold under different retail brand names, the agency said. The agency's statement did not identify brand names.
The products were sold in Arizona and New Mexico, said Mark Klein, spokesman for Cargill Inc., which owns Beef Packers, Inc. Consumers in those states should check with stores where they purchased meat to determine if they bought the recalled beef.
Investigators have found an association between the meat and two Arizona people who have the "Salmonella Newport" strain, the Food Safety and Inspection Service said. That strain is resistant to many commonly prescribed drugs, increasing the risk of hospitalization or ineffective treatment, the agency said. ...
Sexy, vast, eggy popover sort of thing.
C'est magnifique.
C'est magnifique.
... If America were ProFood we wouldn’t accept food with dangerous ingredients in it. Unfortunately there are chemicals in our food that aren’t good for us kids. My mom just finished a book called The Unhealthy Truth by Robyn O’Brien, and she told me about the problem with artificial colors and artificial growth hormones. Think about it. We are kids and are still growing, think what happens when we drink milk or eat meat where the cow has been given artificial growth hormones. What do you think it does to kids’ bodies? I’m sure someone would tell me “Oh don’t worry about it, it won’t get into your body.” I don’t believe that. It just doesn’t make sense. If you feed it to the cow, and I drink the milk or eat the meat, you’re feeding it to me. I don’t want it. I’ll grow on my own.
Why do I think someone will tell me not to worry about it?
I think because everyone expects that the food we eat won’t be bad for them. We expect all food to be safe and maybe even good for us. Did you see the article on the front of the New York Times on October 4, 2009? Whoa. A girl named Stephanie was paralyzed from eating meat that was considered safe. Why would a company make something that is so dangerous? Think about all the chemicals in some candy. It isn’t good for us. I imagine it is hard work to make everything safe all the time, but it seems as if this should be the top priority of a food producing company. ...
Why do I think someone will tell me not to worry about it?
I think because everyone expects that the food we eat won’t be bad for them. We expect all food to be safe and maybe even good for us. Did you see the article on the front of the New York Times on October 4, 2009? Whoa. A girl named Stephanie was paralyzed from eating meat that was considered safe. Why would a company make something that is so dangerous? Think about all the chemicals in some candy. It isn’t good for us. I imagine it is hard work to make everything safe all the time, but it seems as if this should be the top priority of a food producing company. ...
Peasants Worldwide Rise up Against Monsanto, GMOs
La Via Campesina carries out Global Day of Action against Monsanto
MEXICO - October 16 - Today, International World Food Day, as declared by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, La Via Campesina is mobilizing globally along with allies in an overwhelming expression of outright rejection of Monsanto and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), in the name of food sovereignty.
In the United States today, protests and teach-ins against Monsanto are taking place in Maine and Wisconsin. In Brazil, Via Campesina members are carrying out actions in the headquarters of Monsanto and Syngenta. In Europe, where nine countries have prohibited GMOs, Via Campesina organized an anti-Monsanto brigade traveling throughout the region. In India, thousands of farmers and allies are carrying out hunger strikes and occupying lands. Actions are being carried out in at least 20 countries and all nine regions where La Via Campesina is present.
Meanwhile, world leaders are preparing to meet at the FAO World Food Summit in Rome in November, where the powers of global governance and agribusiness will utilize the desperation of starving nations to accelerate the expansion of GMO-based agriculture throughout the world. The Obama administration's proposal to dedicate over a billion dollars of emergency funding to developing countries for agriculture, and the U.S. government's Global Food Security Initiative are thinly veiled efforts to this end.
Peasants, landless workers, migrants, indigenous peoples and consumers, identified transnational corporations, especially Monsanto, which, together with Syngenta, Dupont and Bayer control over half of the world's seeds, and are thus the principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples. La Via Campesina is in a daily struggle to protect native seeds, patrimony of humanity, from corporations and patents. Today, October 16, the strength of the movement is pushing the public opinion to reject Monsanto's take-over of the food system.
"It's time for all civil society to recognize the gravity of this situation, global capital should not control our food, nor make decisions behind closed doors. The future of our food, the protection of our resources and especially our seeds, are the right of the people," said Dena Hoff, coordinator of Via Campesina North America. ...
October 4, 2009
Help, quick – I’ve unscrewed the top on a ticking bomb
Jeremy Clarkson
... I like a hot sauce. My bloody marys are known to cure squints. And at an Indian restaurant I will often order a vindaloo, sometimes without the involvement of a wager. So when I accidentally found that bottle of Insanity, I poured maybe half a teaspoonful onto my paella. And tucked in.
Burns victims often say that when they are actually on fire, there is no pain. It has something to do with the body pumping out adrenaline in such vast quantities that the nerve endings stop working. Well, it wasn’t like that for me.
The pain started out mildly, but I knew from past experience that this would build to a delightful fiery sensation. I was even looking forward to it. But the moment soon passed. In a matter of seconds I was in agony. After maybe a minute I was frightened that I might die. After five I was frightened that I might not.
The searing fire had surged throughout my head. My eyes were streaming. Molten lava was flooding out of my nose. My mouth was a shattered ruin. Even my hair hurt.
And all the time, I was thinking: “If it’s doing this to my head, what in the name of all that's holy is it doing to my innards?” I felt certain that at any moment my stomach would open and everything — my intestines, my liver, my heart, even — would simply splosh onto the floor. This is not an exaggeration. I really did think I was dissolving from the inside out.
Trying to keep calm, I raced, screaming, for the fridge and ate handfuls of crushed ice. This made everything worse. So, dimly remembering that Indians use bread when they've overdone the chillies, I cut a slice, threw it away and ate what remained of the very expensive Daylesford loaf, like a dog. ...
Well, it's hot stuff, yeah
An' it's everywhere I go!
- Memphis Minnie
Help, quick – I’ve unscrewed the top on a ticking bomb
Jeremy Clarkson
... I like a hot sauce. My bloody marys are known to cure squints. And at an Indian restaurant I will often order a vindaloo, sometimes without the involvement of a wager. So when I accidentally found that bottle of Insanity, I poured maybe half a teaspoonful onto my paella. And tucked in.
Burns victims often say that when they are actually on fire, there is no pain. It has something to do with the body pumping out adrenaline in such vast quantities that the nerve endings stop working. Well, it wasn’t like that for me.
The pain started out mildly, but I knew from past experience that this would build to a delightful fiery sensation. I was even looking forward to it. But the moment soon passed. In a matter of seconds I was in agony. After maybe a minute I was frightened that I might die. After five I was frightened that I might not.
The searing fire had surged throughout my head. My eyes were streaming. Molten lava was flooding out of my nose. My mouth was a shattered ruin. Even my hair hurt.
And all the time, I was thinking: “If it’s doing this to my head, what in the name of all that's holy is it doing to my innards?” I felt certain that at any moment my stomach would open and everything — my intestines, my liver, my heart, even — would simply splosh onto the floor. This is not an exaggeration. I really did think I was dissolving from the inside out.
Trying to keep calm, I raced, screaming, for the fridge and ate handfuls of crushed ice. This made everything worse. So, dimly remembering that Indians use bread when they've overdone the chillies, I cut a slice, threw it away and ate what remained of the very expensive Daylesford loaf, like a dog. ...
Well, it's hot stuff, yeah
An' it's everywhere I go!
- Memphis Minnie
May you have great and tasty, most fortunate rebirths Mr Floyd!
Only in texass......or Scotland. XD
The Automatic Pancake Machine: 200 Pancakes Per Hour--Is it Enough?
By Gendy Alimurung in Baking, Breakfast
Monday, Aug. 24 2009 @ 6:33AM
Every now and then, technology does not screw us over. This machine pops out pancakes at a rate of 200 pancakes per hour. Two. Hundred. Pancakes. Per hour. You want one, and you want to lie beneath it and let the pancakes fall off their little conveyor belt directly into your mouth. [Ed. Note: Yr damn right I do!]
This costs $3,500 and is the size of a countertop microwave. The company, Seattle-based ChefStack, says the possibilities are "infinite." They suggest traditional three-cake stacks, savory sausage-filled pancakes, and the imaginative "folded sleeve" pancake. Plus, if ever a hole ruptures in the time space continuum and the only way to fill it is with hot, steamy pancakes, we are set. ...
By Gendy Alimurung in Baking, Breakfast
Monday, Aug. 24 2009 @ 6:33AM
Every now and then, technology does not screw us over. This machine pops out pancakes at a rate of 200 pancakes per hour. Two. Hundred. Pancakes. Per hour. You want one, and you want to lie beneath it and let the pancakes fall off their little conveyor belt directly into your mouth. [Ed. Note: Yr damn right I do!]
This costs $3,500 and is the size of a countertop microwave. The company, Seattle-based ChefStack, says the possibilities are "infinite." They suggest traditional three-cake stacks, savory sausage-filled pancakes, and the imaginative "folded sleeve" pancake. Plus, if ever a hole ruptures in the time space continuum and the only way to fill it is with hot, steamy pancakes, we are set. ...
Na fo'get da pumpkin soup, Mon.
Typing of wonky veg, dear Anneliese brings us Jalapeñis!!
As dear Ar0cketman said,
"Monsanto, the company that brought us Agent Orange, saccharin, DDT, dozens of Superfund toxic sites now wants to be your only food supplier. What could possibly go wrong?"
"Monsanto, the company that brought us Agent Orange, saccharin, DDT, dozens of Superfund toxic sites now wants to be your only food supplier. What could possibly go wrong?"
Fuck you, monsteranto.
Fuck you, bill gates.
Fuck you, bill gates.
... That consumers might buy a meal containing recalled meat is legal ---
and wholesome --- according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The federal agency must OK the company's plans for recalled meat.
Cooking recalled meat is common practice in the food industry.
"I think we can say any product that is cooked per the guidelines
established by the USDA and recommended by the Colorado
Department of Health is perfectly safe for human consumption and
to indicate otherwise is irresponsible," ConAgra spokesman Jim Herlihy said.
Consumers watching the ConAgra recall, however, may think differently.
"They're asking me to trust them again, and that's outrageous," said Lisa
Scannell of Longmont. Her five-year-old son, Alec Scholhamer, was
sickened last month after eating a hamburger made with ConAgra meat.
"They always blame people for not cooking the meat even though they're
the ones who put the E. coli there. I'm supposed to trust them now to cook
it, too?" A Colorado health official said recalled meat shouldn't end up as
human food again.
"By definition of the federal recall, it's not fit for human consumption,"
said Patti Klocker, assistant director of the Colorado Department of
Health and Environment Consumer Protection Division. "We recommend
that humans don't consume it and that it shouldn't be turned into something edible."
Herlihy said he did not know how much of the meat has already been
cooked or processed. He could not say if it will be sold to outside
companies or to ConAgra-owned businesses, or how much will become
nonfood products such as fertilizer and tallow. ...
WTF, USDA?
and wholesome --- according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The federal agency must OK the company's plans for recalled meat.
Cooking recalled meat is common practice in the food industry.
"I think we can say any product that is cooked per the guidelines
established by the USDA and recommended by the Colorado
Department of Health is perfectly safe for human consumption and
to indicate otherwise is irresponsible," ConAgra spokesman Jim Herlihy said.
Consumers watching the ConAgra recall, however, may think differently.
"They're asking me to trust them again, and that's outrageous," said Lisa
Scannell of Longmont. Her five-year-old son, Alec Scholhamer, was
sickened last month after eating a hamburger made with ConAgra meat.
"They always blame people for not cooking the meat even though they're
the ones who put the E. coli there. I'm supposed to trust them now to cook
it, too?" A Colorado health official said recalled meat shouldn't end up as
human food again.
"By definition of the federal recall, it's not fit for human consumption,"
said Patti Klocker, assistant director of the Colorado Department of
Health and Environment Consumer Protection Division. "We recommend
that humans don't consume it and that it shouldn't be turned into something edible."
Herlihy said he did not know how much of the meat has already been
cooked or processed. He could not say if it will be sold to outside
companies or to ConAgra-owned businesses, or how much will become
nonfood products such as fertilizer and tallow. ...
WTF, USDA?
Go die, monsteranto.
Somewhat like scrambled eggs?
Pfui!
Ackee's exactly like scrambled eggs!
Pfui!
Ackee's exactly like scrambled eggs!
Codfish fears conquered
Published: Tuesday | May 19, 2009
Robert Lalah
So a couple of weeks ago, I was in Norway and came across the much-maligned codfish head that Jamaicans so often say is the ugliest part of any living thing that you will ever come across.
Now, the one I saw was, in fact, detached from the body and, to make matters worse, was dried for more than two months. So, if the head of a cod was ever going to be ugly, it was now.
I have to say, though, that it wasn't all that bad. Maybe it was a serious case of oversell, because I had heard so much about how ugly it was supposed to be before I made the trip, but I was a little disappointed with the outcome. It seemed like a regular fish head to me, not a demonic embodiment of all things evil from the depths of fish hell, as some have made it out to be.
But what do I know? I decided to consult the experts, so I headed to the hills of Clarendon to seek audience with Maleva Wright, the 78-year-old pastor of the Jesus of Nazareth Praise Sanctuary in Hayes. She, I am told, has been spreading both the gospel and the codfish myths all across Clarendon for more than 30 years. I took a picture along with me to find out what she thought.
"Dis yah? No man, yuh coulda neva ah carry salt-fish head fi mi look pan! Yuh wah bring crosses dung pan me?" she yelped at first glance. She took a few steps back.
It took a considerable amount of time to calm her down, but eventually she came around. I asked her to have another look at it.
The woman, her hair grey with age, whispered a verse from Psalm 23, then looked at the picture again.
"Allright, it ugly, but it nuh ugly to dat. Maybe when it did alive it did uglier," she said, handing the picture back to me. ...
"Codfish Head."
"What'd you say?"
"I said, 'Codfish Head.'"
"What'd you say?"
"I said, 'Codfish Head.'"
"What'd you say?"
"I said 'Codfish Head.'"
"What'd you say?"
"I said, 'Codfish Head.'"
A gold star to anyone who knows what I parody above.
Published: Tuesday | May 19, 2009
Robert Lalah
So a couple of weeks ago, I was in Norway and came across the much-maligned codfish head that Jamaicans so often say is the ugliest part of any living thing that you will ever come across.
Now, the one I saw was, in fact, detached from the body and, to make matters worse, was dried for more than two months. So, if the head of a cod was ever going to be ugly, it was now.
I have to say, though, that it wasn't all that bad. Maybe it was a serious case of oversell, because I had heard so much about how ugly it was supposed to be before I made the trip, but I was a little disappointed with the outcome. It seemed like a regular fish head to me, not a demonic embodiment of all things evil from the depths of fish hell, as some have made it out to be.
But what do I know? I decided to consult the experts, so I headed to the hills of Clarendon to seek audience with Maleva Wright, the 78-year-old pastor of the Jesus of Nazareth Praise Sanctuary in Hayes. She, I am told, has been spreading both the gospel and the codfish myths all across Clarendon for more than 30 years. I took a picture along with me to find out what she thought.
"Dis yah? No man, yuh coulda neva ah carry salt-fish head fi mi look pan! Yuh wah bring crosses dung pan me?" she yelped at first glance. She took a few steps back.
It took a considerable amount of time to calm her down, but eventually she came around. I asked her to have another look at it.
The woman, her hair grey with age, whispered a verse from Psalm 23, then looked at the picture again.
"Allright, it ugly, but it nuh ugly to dat. Maybe when it did alive it did uglier," she said, handing the picture back to me. ...
"Codfish Head."
"What'd you say?"
"I said, 'Codfish Head.'"
"What'd you say?"
"I said, 'Codfish Head.'"
"What'd you say?"
"I said 'Codfish Head.'"
"What'd you say?"
"I said, 'Codfish Head.'"
A gold star to anyone who knows what I parody above.
Hail, hail to the herein fail upon fail.
we got the chance to create a sculptured cake based on one of my all-time-favorite movies: "Monty Python & the Holy Grail". The client's daughter was turning 17, and happened to be a huge Python fan (a girl of good taste... no doubt!)
Her mother was tickled by my enthusiasm during our phone conversation -- I even quoted dialogue from the movie to prove my knowledge of it, and my excitement over the theme(... and that I'm a complete movie NERD). It was a once in a lifetime cake to do -- I mean really... how often do we get a call for "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" at our cake shop?! ...
Her mother was tickled by my enthusiasm during our phone conversation -- I even quoted dialogue from the movie to prove my knowledge of it, and my excitement over the theme(... and that I'm a complete movie NERD). It was a once in a lifetime cake to do -- I mean really... how often do we get a call for "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" at our cake shop?! ...
Welcome back! We've missed you!
Caribbean nations to launch survey on food-borne diseases
Published: Friday | February 13, 2009
Jamaica, along with six other Caribbean islands, is set to embark on a yearlong study which seeks to identify the cause of some food-borne diseases that continue to plague the region and other parts of the globe.
The Jamaica Burden of Illness Study will be carried out by the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre and is slated to begin February 21. The study will carry two components, including a population survey - also to be done in two phases, one at the lower peak of the diarrhoeal disease season and the other during the higher peak.
The second part of the study will seek to assess the capabilities of the country's National Public Health Laboratory in isolating pathogens that cause food-borne illnesses, with the aim to improve the capacity of the lab to handle these kinds of specimens. ...
Published: Friday | February 13, 2009
Jamaica, along with six other Caribbean islands, is set to embark on a yearlong study which seeks to identify the cause of some food-borne diseases that continue to plague the region and other parts of the globe.
The Jamaica Burden of Illness Study will be carried out by the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre and is slated to begin February 21. The study will carry two components, including a population survey - also to be done in two phases, one at the lower peak of the diarrhoeal disease season and the other during the higher peak.
The second part of the study will seek to assess the capabilities of the country's National Public Health Laboratory in isolating pathogens that cause food-borne illnesses, with the aim to improve the capacity of the lab to handle these kinds of specimens. ...
FBI joins investigation of peanut-related illnesses
February 9, 2009
The FBI announced Monday it is helping the Food and Drug Administration in its investigation of the Peanut Corporation of America, the Georgia company whose peanut products have been linked to a nationwide outbreak of salmonella poisonings.
On January 30, the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations opened its probe into the company, which the agency said shipped tainted products that it knew had tested positive for the bacteria.
The outbreak has been linked to 575 illnesses, including eight deaths, in 43 states. ...
February 9, 2009
The FBI announced Monday it is helping the Food and Drug Administration in its investigation of the Peanut Corporation of America, the Georgia company whose peanut products have been linked to a nationwide outbreak of salmonella poisonings.
On January 30, the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations opened its probe into the company, which the agency said shipped tainted products that it knew had tested positive for the bacteria.
The outbreak has been linked to 575 illnesses, including eight deaths, in 43 states. ...
The Georgia company whose peanut products have been blamed for a nationwide salmonella outbreak shipped some products even though they had tested positive for the bacteria and no other tests indicated they were safe, the Food and Drug Administration said Friday. ...
Fallout from peanut recalls spreads in Michigan
BY MEGHA SATYANARAYANA
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
February 6, 2009
One of the broadest recalls in U.S. history -- 1,554 foods containing peanuts, peanut butter or peanut paste -- is being felt throughout Michigan by consumers, grocers and food producers.
The dizzying array of snacks, prepackaged meals, fund-raiser candy and pet treats on the recall list continues to grow. Legislators including U.S. Reps. Bart Stupak and John Dingell, both Michigan Democrats, are lining up bills to empower the Food and Drug Administration, which has come under fire for what some say is a slow response to an outbreak that began last fall.
A dozen Michigan-based companies are bracing for losses from recalling their products, including national giant Kellogg in Battle Creek and regional operations such as Hudsonville Creamery in Holland.
Stores such as Kroger are using data from customer loyalty cards to warn customers by phone, mail and e-mail of items they purchased that could make them sick. Others are barring recalled products from leaving the store.
"When the bar code is scanned at the register, it alerts the cashier, and it's stopped at the point of sale," said Frank Guglielmi, spokesman for Grand Rapids-based Meijer. It's a fail-safe, he said, as recalled products are pulled. ...
BY MEGHA SATYANARAYANA
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
February 6, 2009
One of the broadest recalls in U.S. history -- 1,554 foods containing peanuts, peanut butter or peanut paste -- is being felt throughout Michigan by consumers, grocers and food producers.
The dizzying array of snacks, prepackaged meals, fund-raiser candy and pet treats on the recall list continues to grow. Legislators including U.S. Reps. Bart Stupak and John Dingell, both Michigan Democrats, are lining up bills to empower the Food and Drug Administration, which has come under fire for what some say is a slow response to an outbreak that began last fall.
A dozen Michigan-based companies are bracing for losses from recalling their products, including national giant Kellogg in Battle Creek and regional operations such as Hudsonville Creamery in Holland.
Stores such as Kroger are using data from customer loyalty cards to warn customers by phone, mail and e-mail of items they purchased that could make them sick. Others are barring recalled products from leaving the store.
"When the bar code is scanned at the register, it alerts the cashier, and it's stopped at the point of sale," said Frank Guglielmi, spokesman for Grand Rapids-based Meijer. It's a fail-safe, he said, as recalled products are pulled. ...
By Christopher Doering
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration lacks access to food safety tests that could have helped identify problems at a peanut plant at the center of one of the biggest food recalls in U.S. history, members of Congress said on Thursday.
The salmonella outbreak traced to a Peanut Corp. of America plant in Blakely, Georgia, has sickened more than 550 people, more than half of them children, and may be linked to eight deaths.
"We would like to have more information. There is no question," Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Under law, a company does not have to notify the agency if it discovers salmonella or other contamination. The only time FDA can require information from a plant is if tainted product was shipped from it. ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration lacks access to food safety tests that could have helped identify problems at a peanut plant at the center of one of the biggest food recalls in U.S. history, members of Congress said on Thursday.
The salmonella outbreak traced to a Peanut Corp. of America plant in Blakely, Georgia, has sickened more than 550 people, more than half of them children, and may be linked to eight deaths.
"We would like to have more information. There is no question," Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Under law, a company does not have to notify the agency if it discovers salmonella or other contamination. The only time FDA can require information from a plant is if tainted product was shipped from it. ...
ATLANTA -- CBS Atlanta News learned Wednesday that health officials were forced to use a federal anti-terrorism act to get a south Georgia plant to reveal the results of internal food safety inspections.
Those inspections found salmonella bacteria at the Peanut Corporation of America plant in Blakely, Ga. The bacteria has sicked hundreds of people across the country.
The records weren't shared with inspectors. The plant was directly linked to the outbreak.
Meanwhile, a Connecticut lawmaker is calling for a federal probe of possible criminal violations at the plant. ...
Those inspections found salmonella bacteria at the Peanut Corporation of America plant in Blakely, Ga. The bacteria has sicked hundreds of people across the country.
The records weren't shared with inspectors. The plant was directly linked to the outbreak.
Meanwhile, a Connecticut lawmaker is calling for a federal probe of possible criminal violations at the plant. ...
MONDAY, Jan. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.
HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.
"Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply," the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies, said in a prepared statement.
In the first study, published in current issue of Environmental Health, researchers found detectable levels of mercury in nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS.
And in the second study, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit watchdog group, found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments. ...
HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.
"Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply," the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies, said in a prepared statement.
In the first study, published in current issue of Environmental Health, researchers found detectable levels of mercury in nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS.
And in the second study, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit watchdog group, found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments. ...