Dr. Nandi is petitioning the FDA to include GE food labeling on the new food labels, but he needs your help. Please sign the petition that Dr. Nandi will send with a personal letter to the FDA. Don't wait, the FDA's comment period ends on June 2, 2014. Dr. Nandi is speaking up for patients and consumers all over America, so sign the petition and let the FDA know you want them to label whether the product is made with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. We have the right to know what's in our food. Last week my co-leader, Tanya Hawley, and I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with Dr. Nandi and his staff for the "Ask Dr. Nandi" show, a national television show filmed in Detroit, Michigan. Dr. Nandi has asked our organization, NoGMO4Michigan to work together with his team to get GMOs labeled. Our goal is also to educate the public about GMOs and help you to avoid GMOs in your diet. We want to help you to "Be Your Own Health Hero" as Dr. Nandi advocates.

Please share this message and help NoGMO4Michigan to help Dr. Nandi help us.

Share on Facebook

On April 3, 2014, "Ask Dr. Nandi" featured an episode on GMOs and invited, NoGMO4Michigan's Detroit leader and member of our Board of Directors, Zachary Schafer to be on the show.

Watch the episode about GMOs on "Ask Dr. Nandi Show" online

JOIN THE FIGHT: TELL THE FDA YOU NEED TO KNOW IF THERE ARE GMOS IN YOUR FOOD

SIGN the PETITION - THANK YOU!

Unfortunately, the wheat of our ancestors and the wheat of today are very distant relatives. In order to gain revenue the food industry has, for decades, used cross-breeding and hybridization to create a kind of wheat that has been lovingly named Frankenwheat.

This term is used to describe modern wheat that generally all Americans eat today. These modified crops have undergone serious genetic modifications to produce a “dwarf stalk” that is about 2 ½ feet shorter than a stalk of 50 years ago.

According to William Davis, a cardiologist and author of Wheat Belly, it’s the extreme techniques used to produce these dwarf stalks that should be cause for concern:

“New strains have been generated using what the wheat industry proudly insists are “traditional breeding techniques,” though they involve processes like gamma irradiation and toxins such as sodium azide. The poison control people will tell you that if someone accidentally ingests sodium azide, you shouldn’t try to resuscitate the person because you could die, too, giving CPR. This is a highly toxic chemical."

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has developed a type of genetically modified (GM) wheat that may silence human genes, leading to disastrous health consequences.

Last year, University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann released results from genetic research he conducted on the wheat, which showed with “no doubt” that molecules created in the wheat, which are intended to silence wheat genes to change its carbohydrate content, may match human genes and potentially silence them.

University Professor Judy Carman agreed with Heinemann's analysis, stating in Digital Journal:

"If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat -- well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.”

Heinemann reported that his research revealed over 770 pages of potential matches between two GM genes in the wheat and the human genome. Over a dozen matches were “extensive and identical and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems,” he said.

Experts warned that eating the wheat could lead to significant changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, which could be potentially deadly for children and lead to serious illness in adults.

Since this adverse effect is extremely plausible, long-term studies are needed before the wheat is released into the environment and the human food chain – but a new review states that the risks are still not being adequately assessed.

So does this go for the wheat that was found in Oregon?

The biotech company Monsanto did create varieties of wheat that tolerate the weed killer glyphosate, or Roundup — just as it created "Roundup Ready" corn, soybeans, cotton and canola. It also carried out field trials of this wheat in 16 different states.

But the country's wheat growers told the company that they did not want it.

"We are not in favor of commercializing any biotech trait unless it's gone through regulatory approvals in the U.S. and in other countries," says Steve Mercer, vice president of communications for U.S. Wheat Associates. Many countries, including some that import wheat from the U.S., are quite hostile to genetically engineered crops.

Monsanto dropped the wheat project. It never asked for government approval, and it ended its field trials of wheat in 2005.

Fast forward eight years. About a month ago, a farmer in eastern Oregon noticed some wheat plants growing where he didn't expect them, and they didn't die when he sprayed them with Roundup. The farmer had planted winter wheat in the fall of 2011 and harvested the crop in spring of 2012, Firko explained.  The field lay fallow for one year until the farmer, preparing for the spring 2013 planting, sprayed the “volunteer,” or unwanted, wheat plants with glyphosate. The farmer sent the surviving plants to Carol Mallory-Smith, a scientist at Oregon State University who has investigated other cases in which genetically engineered crops spread beyond their approved boundaries.

She found that this wheat was, in fact, genetically engineered. She passed samples on to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which confirmed her results.

Bernadette Juarez, an official with the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said in a statement that her agency is collecting more samples from the farm, conducting more tests. "We have a team of dedicated investigators working on the ground daily to figure out what's going on here," she says. USDA confirmed that field tests did occur in Oregon, but did not say whether the field in question is the same as or near a former field test site.

Nobody knows how this wheat got to this farm. Monsanto's last field trials in Oregon were in 2001. After all such trials, the genetically engineered crops are supposed to be completely removed.

Also, nobody knows how widely this genetically engineered wheat has spread, and whether it's been in fields of wheat that were harvested for food.

If further tests show that this unapproved wheat has spread into the food supply, it could play havoc with wheat sales.

In 2006, a large portion of the American long-grain rice crop was found to be contaminated by an unapproved experimental strain from Bayer CropScience, prompting import bans in Europe and Japan. That incident led to sharply lowered market prices, and the company eventually agreed in 2011 to pay $750 million to farmers as compensation.

The wheat harvest is much bigger.

Following the USDA’s confirmation that GMO wheat was present, Japan immediately canceled a 25,000-ton import of soft white wheat, and both South Korea and Europe announced more stringent testing of American wheat shipments for possible contamination.

And now, American Farmers have launched two class action lawsuits against biotech giant Monsanto following the discovery of unapproved genetically modified wheat growing in Oregon. According to farmers, the company’s negligence has ruined sales.

Farmers contend that Monsanto was aware of the "potential detrimental market effects arising from the use of such crops" but failed to enact safeguards. 

"Due to Monsanto's wrongful conduct, soft white wheat destined for export markets for use in food products has been rejected for the purposes for which it was intended. Because scheduled shipments already have been postponed and canceled, the presence of genetically engineered wheat has detrimentally impacted the domestic and global wheat markets and damaged plaintiffs and other wheat farmers," states one complaint. 

Plaintiffs now seek compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages for negligence, nuisance and product liability, according to Courthouse News. Farmers are also asking that Monsanto decontaminate farmland, equipment and storage facilities that may be tainted by GMO seed.

So will this new Frakenwheat found in Oregon silence human genes? It doesn't seem like anyone is waiting around to find out.

Monsanto and the FDA claim that GMO corn and other crops are completely safe and nutritionally equivalent.  A 2012 report, titled “2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn,” tells a different story.

The study revealed GMO corn is essentially nutritionally DEAD and laced with toxins in amounts that exceed those the Environmental Protection Agency deems “safe.”

Here’s a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:

• Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
• Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
• Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)

This is quite significant and well worth remembering.

According to the report, GMO corn contains 13 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Round Up, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. According to the EPA, the maximum amount of glyphosate allowed in drinking water is 700 parts per billion, or .7 ppm. So GMO corn contains 18.5 times the “safe amount” as set by the EPA.

Glyphosate is a strong chelator, meaning it immobilizes critical micronutrients, rendering them unavailable to the plant. As a result, the nutritional efficiency of genetically modified organisms is profoundly compromised. Micronutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc can be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent in GMO plants

Europe allows only .2 ppm of glyphosate. Countries like Argentina, glyphosate is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. This may be due to its similarity to DDT, which is well-known to cause reproductive problems, among other things.

Another health hazard associated with glyphosate is its effect on gut bacteria. Not only does it promote the growth of more virulent pathogens, it also kills off beneficial bacteria that might keep such pathogens in check—both in the soil, and in the gut of animals or humans that ingest the contaminated crop.

It’s important to understand that the glyphosate actually becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. It’s inside the plant. And once you eat it, it ends up in your gut where it can wreak total havoc with your health, considering the fact that 80 percent of your immune system resides there and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria.

Genetically modified (GM) vaccines are already being produced – some are even on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule – even though, as is the case with GM foods, we know very little about their long-term effects.

Nobody Knows What Happens When You Inject People with GM Vaccines

There have been some fair warnings, though. In 2006, researchers wrote in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health:

"Genetically modified (GM) viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards... Horizontal transfer of genes... is well established. New hybrid virus progenies resulting from genetic recombination between genetically engineered vaccine viruses and their naturally occurring relatives may possess totally unpredictable characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing potentials.

...There is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications."

Though this was six years ago, little has changed even as the technology has advanced. Today we have several different types of GM vaccines in production, development or research phases, such as:

-DNA vaccines: DNA for a microbe's antigens are introduced into the body, with the expectation that your cells will take up that DNA, which then instructs your cells to make antigen molecules. As the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (a division of the National Institutes of Health) put it, "In other words, the body's own cells become vaccine-making factories."

-Naked DNA vaccines: A type of DNA vaccine in which microscopic particles coated with DNA are administered directly into your cells.

-Recombinant Vector vaccines: Similar to DNA vaccines, but they use a virus or bacteria to act as a vector (or "carrier") to introduce microbial DNA into your cells.

Use of foreign DNA in various forms has the potential to cause a great deal of trouble, not only because there is the potential for it to recombine with our own DNA, but also there is the potential for it to turn the DNA “switches,” the epigenetic parts of the DNA, on and off.

GM vaccines are already in use and are being administered to American infants, children and adults. This has been going on for many years.

Here are some examples:

Hepatitis B vaccine: An inactivated recombinant DNA vaccine licensed for newborn infants and children in 1991, in which parts of the hepatitis B virus gene are cloned into yeast.

Rotavirus vaccine: Live attenuated vaccines first licensed for infants and children licensed in 2006, which either contain genetically engineered human rotavirus strains or human-bovine hybridized reassortment rotavirus strains.

HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Cervarix): A recombinant vaccine licensed in 2006, which is prepared from virus-like particles (VLP's) and may also include use of an insect-cell Baculovirus expression vector system for production.

The companies that make vaccines and GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are profoundly intertwined, only recently spinning off or merging to specialize in one or the other.

Most vaccine revenues are earned by five companies that together held nearly 80 percent of the market in 2010:

Sanofi Pasteur
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co.
Pfizer
Novartis

These companies, which use genetic engineering to produce vaccines, are also primarily responsible for the introduction of genetic engineering into the food supply.

It's been only 70 years since World War II, and the mad scientists from companies like I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer, who created the gas chambers and tested dangerous vaccines on innocent Jews, didn't just go away. In fact, they went to work for U.S. corporations and pharmaceutical companies that run the vaccine industry today. At least a dozen of these cold blooded killers were hired fresh out of prison, just 4 to 7 years after the Nuremberg trials found them guilty of mass murder and enslavement.

Research reveals that Hitler also invested heavily in Merck and other pharmaceutical companies.

 Nazi convicted mass murderers became executives for major U.S. chemical and pharmaceutical companies

Fritz ter Meer, found guilty of slavery and mass murder at Auschwitz, served only seven years in prison and became Chairman of the Board at Bayer in 1956.

S Carl Krauch, Executive Member of IG Farben and Head of Military Economics for Hitler, found guilty of slavery and mass murder, served just 6 years in prison, then became Chairman of the Board for BASF in 1952.

 Still want to get those flu shots? How about that HPV shot for your daughter or son?

This is the same vaccine industry today which protected and employed Nazi war criminals. The very industry that produced the Nazi gas chambers was purchased by Bayer. So, exactly whom are you trusting with your children's health and welfare?

Want more research before you or your children get injected with a new concocted disease for which there is no cure? Listen to stunning admissions by vaccine industry experts, including Dr. Maurice Hilleman (formerly w/Merck), who admitted to the deadly nature of the most trusted vaccines.

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=13EAAF22CDA367BB3C2F94D2CD90EF7B

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is respected as one of the country’s most knowledgeable and outspoken physicians regarding the impact of vaccines on health.  She presents sound information regarding vaccination hazard and warnings that are rarely portrayed by conventional medicine.

Erin Chamerlik, The Real Food Revivalist, interviews Dr. Sherri Tenpenny who says that NO VACCINE IS SAFE!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/getbetterwellness/2012/08/17/erin-chamerlik-the-real-food-revivalist

It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that in many state public health laws you still have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you or your child do not want to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 17 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

Know your rights and do your own research before injecting your family with GMOs and known toxins.

SAY NO TO VACCINES!

New Study shows a direct link between Genetically Engineered (GE) corn and obesity.

Professor  Åshild Krogdahl and her collaborators study, at the Norwegian Veterinary College in Norway have released results from experimental feeding studies, carried out over a ten year period. The work was a multi-national collaboration with researchers from Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Turkey and Australia. The purpose of the study was to determine if eating genetically modified grain had any adverse effects on animals.

 The results were clear, animals fed a GE corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GE grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon achieving the same results.

The animals were fed a diet of GE corn and soy which contained toxic proteins from the bacteria Bt or Bacillus thuriengensis. Bt is an insecticide that works by killing larval insect pests which damage corn, soy, cotton, canola and other crops. By inserting and gene stacking various Bt toxins along with herbicide resistant gene sequences, the plants DNA is altered or genetically engineered for a specific purpose.

Researchers also found that rats, fed a diet of fish who consumed GE grain, had the same result – both got fatter faster. Translated to humans, the study suggests: if you eat meat from an animal which was fed GE grains or consume products made from GE grains like corn, you could get the same adverse life changing effects. You could get fatter faster and retain the weight. These GE foods transfer their effects to you.

The project not only focused on weight gain but looked at the effects on organ changes too. Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs.  Major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more were found to be effected.   Krogdahl notes:” The ones who had fed on GM corn were slightly larger, they ate slightly more, their intestines had a different micro-structure, they were less able to digest proteins, and there were some changes to their immune system.”

The fact that ‘they were less able to digest proteins’ has huge implications in the biochemistry of amino acids necessary for all life processes. This not only may relate to a rise in obesity, but to increases in many modern diseases. These diseases include diabetes, digestive disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, colitis, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (ADD), autoimmune diseases, sexual dysfunction, sterility, asthma, COPD and many more.

The professor went on to note: “A frequent claim has been that new genes introduced in GM food are harmless since all genes are broken up in the intestines. But our findings show that genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments to be identified ….. The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”

This is a very significant discovery which refutes Monsanto’s and other bio-tech seed producing company assertions that GE food is harmless.

There are currently no laws in America requiring genetically engineered food, or GMOs to be labeled. The biotech corporations which include Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer don’t want you to know. The sales of their seeds, herbicides and other industrial farm chemicals depend on you not knowing what you are being exposed to.

 Studies have shown given a choice most consumers would not buy GMOs or products derived from GMOs.

YOU have the power to get rid of GMOs. Vote With Your Fork every day and share this information with anyone and everyone you care about.

The time has come to start planning ahead to purchase and sprout seeds for the garden.  What an exciting time of year. Whether you have a large backyard garden, a window box, or a farm, NoGMO4Michigan is here to help you keep GMO's AND MONSANTO out of your garden.

What seeds will you sow in your spring garden this year? Luckily, enthusiastic gardeners are catching on to the green movement and have been purchasing more and more organic or heirloom seeds over the years.  But planting a sustainable home garden is much more than just choosing certified organic seeds and seedlings now and days as the evil corporate Monsanto owns 40% of the US vegetable seed market after acquiring Seminis in 2005.

This means that the unsuspecting home gardener could be supporting the development of genetically modified crops if the seeds they are using are from Seminis. Monsanto has shrewdly positioned itself to make money on the home gardening trend. This means that even if you buy organic or heirloom seeds from a completely independent company some of your purchase might be supporting Monsanto.

It is a good idea for home gardeners to learn where to purchase their seeds so they aren’t inadvertently doing business with companies that maintain a working relationship with Monsanto-Seminis or were acquired by them.

Here are some of the best ways to buy seeds and seedlings for your home garden without one cent going to Monsanto.

Buy from this list of companies Monsanto HASN’T bought and are not affiliated or do business with Seminis.

Ask seed companies if they have taken the Safe Seed Pledge.  Here’s a list of companies that have done it.

Avoid buying from the seed companies affiliated with Monsanto. Here’s a list of these seed companies.

Avoid certain heirloom varieties because Monsanto now apparently owns the names. This article lists the seed varieties to avoid.

Don't be afraid to call the company and ask questions! Tell your friends to do the same!

Be informed this spring so you can make the best and healthiest decisions for your home garden and your family.

Let’s make this the year when Monsanto’s grip on the worldwide seed market loosens and the movement to seed sustainability gains momentum!

Stay tuned to this blog for more information and tips on how to grow organic this summer!

Something very scary is going on with our food system.  GMO's are taking over and most people don't even know about it! The ones affected most, our babies and the future of this planet, are being poisoned everyday by unsuspecting parents thinking they are doing good for their kids.  

We are Putting Our Infants and Children at Risk

"Bottle fed babies could be undernourished if given genetically modified infant formula milk because of inadequate regulations and testing regimes for GE food."

-The Royal Society Group on Genetically Modified Food

Infant formula can and has saved lives. In the minority of cases where a woman cannot breastfeed, where there is no mother to breastfeed, no wet nurse available and human milk cannot be obtained from any other source it may be the only alternative. But the belief that breast milk substitutes have equal benefits and are a safe alternative to breastfeeding, which leads to mode of feeding being seen as essentially a lifestyle choice, needs to be countermanded.  Artificial feeding has real and serious health risks yet we seldom hear of them.

Low breastfeeding rates are, in large measure, due to the substitutes industry’s claim that its products are health-promoting and a safe alternative to human milk with equivalent benefits. In recognition of the harm done to infants by a lack of breastfeeding, the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes was issued by WHO in 1981, which contains measures to control the promotion of artificial feeding. Unfortunately, not all WHO signatory member states have instituted the Code and breast milk substitutes continue to be promoted around the world, though there have been successes in some locations.

● In India, infant formula packaging must display a conspicuous health warning about artificial feeding.
● In Iran, the government controls import and sale of breastmilk substitutes and infant formula is only available on prescription.
● In Papua New Guinea, the sale of feeding implements (bottles, etc) is strictly controlled and there is a ban on advertising breastmilk substitutes and feeding implements.
● In the UK, the advertising of infant formula is banned.
● In Saudi Arabia, the government is in process of instituting an advertising ban on infant formula.

Most infant formula sold in the US contains Genetically Engineered (GE) ingredients, either soy or milk from cows injected with GE hormones. Some also contain corn syrup and corn derivatives from genetically modified corn.  

The process of genetic engineering is imprecise and random. Inserted genes can interfere with a plant's natural growth and development and cause it to function differently than expected. As a result, genetically engineered foods can have unintended effects, with potentially harmful consequences for human health. The end result could be the bio-synthesis of food molecules that are toxic, allergenic, or carcinogenic - hardly the perfect food for babies.

According to Infact Canada, the daily exposure of infants to Isoflavones in Genetically Engineered soy infant formulas is 6–11 fold higher on a body-weight basis, than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults that consume soy foods. The effect on those poor babies is unknown.

The attempt to replicate human milk has produced increasingly complex concoctions. Most formulations are based on cow’s milk, which must be modified. The protein and mineral content is reduced and carbohydrate content increased, usually by the addition of sugars such as lactose, fructose, glucose and maltodextrose. Infant formula contains high levels of sugar. Ingredients added to modified cow’s milk: carbohydrate (corn maltodextrin, modified corn starch, corn syrup solids), protein (casein, whey, soy protein isolate), fat (soy oil, coconut oil, corn oil, sunflower oil, palm or olein oil), vitamins, folic acid, pantothenic acid, calcium, minerals, phosphorus, iodine, sodium chloride, potassium chloride and other nutrients.

The contents of the ‘other’ category of ingredients fluidly shift in response to research findings on the properties and beneficial effects of breastfeeding, and the substitutes industry’s ever-watchful drive to replicate. The most recent innovation also highlights inadequacies in regulation.

Following research that showed the positive cognitive effects of the long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs) docosahexaeonic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) found in breastmilk, nutrition-scientists came up with the latest novel ingredient: LC-PUFAs manufactured from plant sources. These LC-PUFAs contain triglycerides not found in human milk and are thus structurally different to the LC-PUFAs in human milk.

The DHA in infant formula is extracted from fermented microalgae, Cryptecodiunium cohnii, and ARA is extracted from soil fungus, Mortierelle alpina. These are both grown on GE corn. Cryptecodiunium cohnii and Mortierelle alpina are new to the food chain – therefore any long-term effects cannot yet be fully known. Moreover, the manufacturing process of these LC-PUFAs causes concern. The solvent used to extract the oil is hexane, a petroleum-refining by-product and a known neurotoxin and air pollutant.

A 2002, research study raised concerns of a link between ARA in infant formula and obesity.

In 2008, two studies emerged which show that DHA and ARA added to infant formula do not improve the physical, neurodevelopmental, or visual outcomes in either term or pre-term infants.

In 2011 it was announced that the DHA derived from Cryptecodiunium cohnii grown on GE corn, was allowed in USDA Certified Organic Formula.

It is imperative to know and recognize hidden GMO ingredients when buying baby food.   Some of the "Top" brands of baby formula contain the most genetically modified ingredients. Be sure to check out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide for a list of hidden GMO Ingredients.

It’s important to remember that negative outcomes are not certainties, there are always many exceptions in statistical evidence. However, artificial feeding IS a lottery. Human breastmilk is the best choice for our children. It is wrong that this information isn’t provided by healthcare providers, so that mothers can make an informed choice. 

Most likely, many mothers who chose to feed their children with infant formula were not aware of the full implications.  Mothers are not in a position to make an informed choice, because information about risk factors is not made readily available. That is why NoGMO4Michigan is giving the power back to the people and is dedicated to educating the people about whats in our food.

Anyone disturbed by the content of this blog post should see suggestions for optimizing the health of formula-fed infants at: this website

It is no fun dealing with the flu and possible dehydration, which can be a very serious condition.

Do you reach for Pedialyte or Gatorade to replace electrolytes and rehydrate?

U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, and 17 other dairy products.

If you don't already know, the FDA has declared war on raw milk and helped to fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. And now, things have gotten even worse.

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition asking the FDA to alter the definition of "milk" to secretly include GMO's, chemical sweeteners such as sucralose and aspartame.

Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of "milk," so that when a company lists "milk" on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you're trying to avoid aspartame, you'll have no way of doing so because it won't be listed on the label.

This isn't only for milk either. A total of 17 dairy products including sour cream, whipping cream, egg nog, yogurt and cream.  

The petition states: 

IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener — including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.

This is all being done to “help the children,” we’re told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would supposedly reduce calories. 

As the petition states:

IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk — including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

This is a clue to stop drinking processed milk and milk products altogether.

There’s a bigger story here than just the industry hoping to get FDA approval to secretly put aspartame in milk products while not listing aspartame on the label.

The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?

 This topic has gotten some pretty heated comments from Facebook.

Multiple commentors have said they have an allergic reaction to aspartame. One even stated that aspartame closes her throat up and she goes into anaphlactic shock.  

Another comment said that aspartame causes them seizures.  A person with MS said that aspartame causes their MS symptoms to flair up. 

It sounds like the dairy industry is trying to hide aspartame to harm the consumers NOT HELP THEM!!!

YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! 

The FDA is requesting comments on this petition. You have until May 21st, 2013!

Go to this website for information on how to submit your comment!