Take the Gag off Food Safety issues

[Guest guest]

Take the Gag off Food Safety issues

JoAnn Guest

Jun 27, 2004 20:22 PDT

 

 

 

Laws that say you can sue food critics

keep the public from knowing the dangers in what they eat.

by J. Robert Hatherill

http://www.veg.ca/lifelines/julaug/gag.htm

 

Times are tough when you have to talk in hushed tones about

hamburger safety. These days, merely implying that a food is unsafe

can land you in court, as Oprah Winfrey learned with her now-famous

comments against ground beef.

 

The lesson swiftly became a personal one when my publisher stripped

lengthy passages from my new book. Simply put, I was not allowed to

disclose dangers inherent in some common foods like dairy and meat

products, as well as over-the-counter medicines like calcium

supplements and nonprescription pain remedies.

 

The problem had nothing to do with whether there was sufficient

evidence to support the claims—there is—it came down to fear of

litigation.

 

I was told, " We could win the lawsuit, but it would cost us

millions, and it's just not worth it. "

 

My disturbing experience is part of a trend that is sweeping the

country. We are losing one of the basic tenets our country was

founded upon: free speech.

 

The safety of food is mired in a deep, politically charged battle

being waged on many fronts: in Congress, convincing legislators of

the safety of many types of food and drugs; in the courts, silencing

consumers from voicing opinions; and in the media, via huge

advertising budgets.

 

Behind all of this is the fact that North America's food has

undergone a startling change since World War II. The pastoral days

of food production have been replaced by a gigantic, mechanized

industrial complex.

 

In the last half-century, the modern food purveyors have centered

their efforts on the use of chemicals—many of which are harmful—to

produce larger crops, plumper livestock and better textured and

flavorful food with long shelf lives.

 

To achieve these goals, the food industry has assailed Congress with

more than 200 food-lobby groups.

 

The deftly concealed agenda of the food industry is not to nourish

or even feed but to force consumers into an ever-increasing

dependence on processed foods.

 

Rather than valuing food for its ability to sustain health, it has

now become the object of catchy commercials with celebrity

endorsements.

 

Modern food processing not only strips away natural anti-cancer

agents, but searing heat forms potent cancer-producing chemicals in

the process.

 

In the end, it is consumers who suffer from the alien food. These

profound changes in our diet are leading to enormous health

consequences.

 

Unfortunately, it is no coincidence that since 1950 cancer rates

have steadily increased and are now at the highest point in history.

 

In the past few years, the food junta unveiled its new business

strategy. While parceling out a new wave of junk foods, fresh from

its chemistry laboratories, it conspired and began its ominous push

for food-libel laws.

 

The fight began with a report about Alar, the popular growth-

regulator for apples that lessens bruising and imparts a richer

color. The Alar controversy erupted in 1989, after a CBS-TV " 60

Minutes " episode depicted it as a cancer-causing agent. Promptly,

apple sales plummeted. Many schools banned fruit treated with Alar.

 

The angry apple growers sued CBS and lost. The manufacturer

eventually stopped making it. The food industry, embittered by the

high-profile defeat, but intensified efforts toward the new food

libel laws.

 

During the last decade, at least a dozen states enacted these laws.

Traditional libel laws have stated that only a corporation or a

living person can be disparaged.

 

But with the current food-libel statutes, former President George

Bush could be hauled into court for disparaging broccoli.

 

The mere presence of these libel laws is forbidding. They can

entangle one in costly litigation, regardless of who wins the

lawsuit. The Texas cattlemen's case against Winfrey cost nearly $1

million to defend at the trial level alone. That does not include

the costs of the federal case that is on appeal and another

proceeding in state court.

 

Winfrey's victory is largely a symbolic gesture, a last gasp of free

speech, since big industry can still drag anyone into court for

merely discussing food safety.

 

The end result is the silence of the majority of people who do not

have the deep pockets or the time necessary to stage costly legal

battles.

 

Food is shipped to market from all corners of the world, and

consumers now have more reason to be watchful than ever before. Free

speech is vital to those who speak on food safety issues.

 

Food libel laws have made a mockery of our rights to free speech and

need to be quickly repealed. The public has every right to know

about the safety and nutritional value of the food it purchases and

eats. J. Robert Hatherill, a Research Scientist and Faculty Member

of the Environmental Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara, is the

author of Eat to Beat Cancer (Renaissance Books 1998).

 

www.VegSource.com

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi- ]

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest

[Guest guest]

Please send this information to editor. This is a wonderful

site on organic farming and clean foods production. Please see their

website.. www.acresusa.com

-

" JoAnn Guest " <angelprincessjo

 

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:14 AM

Take the Gag off Food Safety issues

 

 

Take the Gag off Food Safety issues

JoAnn Guest

Jun 27, 2004 20:22 PDT

 

 

 

Laws that say you can sue food critics

keep the public from knowing the dangers in what they eat.

by J. Robert Hatherill

http://www.veg.ca/lifelines/julaug/gag.htm

 

Times are tough when you have to talk in hushed tones about

hamburger safety. These days, merely implying that a food is unsafe

can land you in court, as Oprah Winfrey learned with her now-famous

comments against ground beef.

 

The lesson swiftly became a personal one when my publisher stripped

lengthy passages from my new book. Simply put, I was not allowed to

disclose dangers inherent in some common foods like dairy and meat

products, as well as over-the-counter medicines like calcium

supplements and nonprescription pain remedies.

 

The problem had nothing to do with whether there was sufficient

evidence to support the claims-there is-it came down to fear of

litigation.

 

I was told, " We could win the lawsuit, but it would cost us

millions, and it's just not worth it. "

 

My disturbing experience is part of a trend that is sweeping the

country. We are losing one of the basic tenets our country was

founded upon: free speech.

 

The safety of food is mired in a deep, politically charged battle

being waged on many fronts: in Congress, convincing legislators of

the safety of many types of food and drugs; in the courts, silencing

consumers from voicing opinions; and in the media, via huge

advertising budgets.

 

Behind all of this is the fact that North America's food has

undergone a startling change since World War II. The pastoral days

of food production have been replaced by a gigantic, mechanized

industrial complex.

 

In the last half-century, the modern food purveyors have centered

their efforts on the use of chemicals-many of which are harmful-to

produce larger crops, plumper livestock and better textured and

flavorful food with long shelf lives.

 

To achieve these goals, the food industry has assailed Congress with

more than 200 food-lobby groups.

 

The deftly concealed agenda of the food industry is not to nourish

or even feed but to force consumers into an ever-increasing

dependence on processed foods.

 

Rather than valuing food for its ability to sustain health, it has

now become the object of catchy commercials with celebrity

endorsements.

 

Modern food processing not only strips away natural anti-cancer

agents, but searing heat forms potent cancer-producing chemicals in

the process.

 

In the end, it is consumers who suffer from the alien food. These

profound changes in our diet are leading to enormous health

consequences.

 

Unfortunately, it is no coincidence that since 1950 cancer rates

have steadily increased and are now at the highest point in history.

 

In the past few years, the food junta unveiled its new business

strategy. While parceling out a new wave of junk foods, fresh from

its chemistry laboratories, it conspired and began its ominous push

for food-libel laws.

 

The fight began with a report about Alar, the popular growth-

regulator for apples that lessens bruising and imparts a richer

color. The Alar controversy erupted in 1989, after a CBS-TV " 60

Minutes " episode depicted it as a cancer-causing agent. Promptly,

apple sales plummeted. Many schools banned fruit treated with Alar.

 

The angry apple growers sued CBS and lost. The manufacturer

eventually stopped making it. The food industry, embittered by the

high-profile defeat, but intensified efforts toward the new food

libel laws.

 

During the last decade, at least a dozen states enacted these laws.

Traditional libel laws have stated that only a corporation or a

living person can be disparaged.

 

But with the current food-libel statutes, former President George

Bush could be hauled into court for disparaging broccoli.

 

The mere presence of these libel laws is forbidding. They can

entangle one in costly litigation, regardless of who wins the

lawsuit. The Texas cattlemen's case against Winfrey cost nearly $1

million to defend at the trial level alone. That does not include

the costs of the federal case that is on appeal and another

proceeding in state court.

 

Winfrey's victory is largely a symbolic gesture, a last gasp of free

speech, since big industry can still drag anyone into court for

merely discussing food safety.

 

The end result is the silence of the majority of people who do not

have the deep pockets or the time necessary to stage costly legal

battles.

 

Food is shipped to market from all corners of the world, and

consumers now have more reason to be watchful than ever before. Free

speech is vital to those who speak on food safety issues.

 

Food libel laws have made a mockery of our rights to free speech and

need to be quickly repealed. The public has every right to know

about the safety and nutritional value of the food it purchases and

eats. J. Robert Hatherill, a Research Scientist and Faculty Member

of the Environmental Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara, is the

author of Eat to Beat Cancer (Renaissance Books 1998).

 

www.VegSource.com

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi- ]

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please pass this message or article on to someone else so that they may

learn also.

 

Community Newsletters.

http://www.alternative-medicine-newsletter.info

 

Community Message Boards.

http://www.alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

" Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians mislead you.

Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions about how to live a

happy life and how to work for a better world. " - Linus Pauling

 

Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health and

well being.

 

.

list or archives:

 

:........ -

post:............. alternative_Medicine_Forum

digest form:...... -digest

individual emails: -normal

no email:......... -nomail

moderator:........ -owner

:...... -

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Nora Gottlieb "

<nwgott@i...> wrote:

> Please send this information to editor@a... This is a wonderful

> site on organic farming and clean foods production. Please see

their

> website.. www.acresusa.com

 

Thanks for the link Nora. I can see that they already have many very

fine articles regarding organic agriculture. This is a rather old

article I believe. The Oprah lawsuit was the turning point really in

my opinion. Although she won her case, unfortunately,they also

reinforced their point. I think this event did more to squelch our

freedom of speech...at least regarding food safety, than any other

event that occurred recently. This issue is close to my heart, for I

am convinced it was the utterly poor quality of inorganic

foods that led to ALL my health issues!

 

JoAnn

 

 

>

> Times are tough when you have to talk in hushed tones about

> hamburger safety. These days, merely implying that a food is unsafe

> can land you in court, as Oprah Winfrey learned with her now-famous

> comments against ground beef.

>

> The lesson swiftly became a personal one when my publisher stripped

> lengthy passages from my new book. Simply put, I was not allowed to

> disclose dangers inherent in some common foods like dairy and meat

> products, as well as over-the-counter medicines like calcium

> supplements and nonprescription pain remedies.

>

> The problem had nothing to do with whether there was sufficient

> evidence to support the claims-there is-it came down to fear of

> litigation I was told, " We could win the lawsuit, but it would

cost us millions, and it's just not worth it. "

>

> My disturbing experience is part of a trend that is sweeping the

> country. We are losing one of the basic tenets our country was

> founded upon: free speech.

> The deftly concealed agenda of the food industry is not to nourish

> or even feed but to force consumers into an ever-increasing

> dependence on processed foods.

> Rather than valuing food for its ability to sustain health, it has

> now become the object of catchy commercials with celebrity

> endorsements.

> Traditional libel laws have stated that only a corporation or a

> living person can be disparaged.

> But with the current food-libel statutes, former President George

> Bush could be hauled into court for disparaging broccoli.