World's largest pork producer ditches Big Pharma's chemical feed additive, angering drug-pushing FDA

Monday, July 01, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: Smithfield Foods, ractopamine, China

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041018_Smithfield_Foods_ractopamine_China.html#ixzz2XmiSrNtk

(NaturalNews) A significant percentage of the U.S. pork supply could soon get a little bit healthier, thanks to a recent game-changing policy shift by the world's largest pork producer and processor. Reports indicate that Smithfield Foods is gradually ditching the use of a controversial animal feed additive known as ractopamine, which triggers high production of lean meat in pigs. But the decision, which is apparently in preparation for a buyout by a major Chinese counterpart, has prompted the drug-pushing U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to come out in defense of the dangerous additive.

Like with most other pharmaceuticals currently on the market, ractopamine has never been long-term safety tested for low-level intake in humans. In other words, nobody can say for sure whether or not residues of the drug, which admittedly persist in pig muscle after the time of slaughter, are safe for human consumption. Likewise, the drug's negative effects on the animals it was fed to have also not been taken seriously by regulators, as the FDA welcomed the drug into the factory farm fold with open arms back in the late 1990s without requiring that any independent science be produced to verify its safety and effectiveness both in animals and in the food chain at large.

However, many other countries around the world, including China, have rejected the use of ractopamine, which is presumably why Smithfield is now opting to eliminate it from its production protocols. Like Russia and the European Union, China currently does not allow the import of meat products containing any traces of ractopamine. And since a Chinese company is considering the purchase of Smithfield, it only makes sense that the U.S.-based producer is making changes to meet growing demand in the Chinese market.

But this decision, which benefits everyone, has apparently angered the FDA, which continues to insist that ractopamine is safe. In a recent statement, the drug industry-backed agency said it "remains confident" that ractopamine is safe and effective "when used in accordance with the approved labeling." But the FDA has absolutely no legitimate science to back up this claim, hence the agency's ambiguous use of the term "confident" to describe its position on a drug that it was carelessly approved with little scrutiny.

Ractopamine extremely damaging to animals, causes them to endure extreme stress and sometimes go crazy

Besides the unknown effects on humans, ractopamine is also known to cause extreme pain and suffering in animals to whom it is given. A report compiled by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) explains how factory farm animals fed ractopamine can develop severe and even permanent stress, as they oscillate between states of excitement and calm. The drug can also cause severe heart problems, as well as other physical harm, all to increase production and boost corporate profits.

"Ractopamine is known to cause tremors, chronically elevated heart rates, broken limbs, higher risks of hoof lesions, and death in farm animals," explains a report published by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). "Scientists associate the drug with both non-ambulatory ("downer") and over-excited behavior. The effects are no small matter: 60 to 80 percent of U.S. pigs are treated with ractopamine, and the FDA has received over 160,000 reports of pig suffering since the drug was approved in 1999."

Adding to this, ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells is quoted as saying that the FDA's own data shows that more pigs have been adversely affected by ractopamine than by any other animal drug currently on the market. He has also described the effects of ractopamine as "cruel and completely avoidable," calling for an end to its use in American livestock.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com

http://advocacy.britannica.com

http://aldf.org/article.php?id=2279

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041018_Smithfield_Foods_ractopamine_China.html#ixzz2Xmi9Eeba

Harmful Ingredients in Personal Care Products

There are dozens of chemicals that could be harmful and shouldn't be used,so here is a list of chemicals in personal care products:

1. Synthetic fragrances often contain phthalates (pronounced THAY-lates), synthetic chemicals commonly used to stabilize fragrances and make plastic more pliable. These endocrine disrupters mimic hormones and may alter genital development. Avoid products that list fragrance as an ingredient unless the label states that it’s derived from essentials oils,
or look for a phthalate-free label on the packaging.

2. Parabens, ubiquitous in skincare, preserve other ingredients and extend a product’s shelf life–but these antimicrobial chemicals also have hormone-disrupting effects.

3. Ureas, formally known as diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, or DMDM hydantoin and sodium hydroxymethyl-glycinate, are preservatives that have the potential to release formaldehyde in very small amounts and are a primary cause of contact dermatitis.

4. 1,4-dioxane, a chemical carcinogen, is created when ingredients are processed with petroleum-derived ethylene oxide. Common ethoxylated compounds include sodium laureth sulfate and polyethylene glycol (often listed as PEG). To avoid it, skip any product with the following ingredients: myreth, oleth, laureth, ceteareth (or any other -eth), PEG, polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, polyoxyethylene, or oxynol.

5. Petrochemicals are derived from crude oil. Petroleum-based ingredients such as petrolatum, mineral oil, and paraffin (derived from nonrenewable sources) form a barrier when applied to the skin that does not allow it to breathe and can clog pores.

6. MEA/DEA/TEA are “amines” (ammonia compounds) and can form harmful nitrosamines when they come in contact with nitrates. Used as foaming agents, synthetic stabilizers, and to adjust the pH of cosmetics, they can cause allergic reactions, eye irritation, and dryness of the hair and skin.

7. Sulfates, such as sodium lauryl and sodium laureth, are harsh detergents that give cleansers, soaps, and shampoos their latherability. Often derived from petroleum, sulfates can also come from coconut and other vegetable oils that can be contaminated with pesticides. Sulfates can cause eye irritation and skin rashes.

8. Chemical sunscreens, such as oxybenzone and octyl methoxycinnamate, have been shown to disrupt endocrine activity. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are safer alternatives.

9. Quats, such as benzalkonium chloride, steardimonium chloride, cetrimonium bromide, and cetrimonium chloride, give a positive charge to conditioners in order to prevent static. They are necessary for conditioners, but we have allowed only the mildest quats in our Beauty With a Conscience standard: guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, hydroxypropyltrimonium oligosaccharide, and SugaQuats.

10. Antibacterial compounds, such as triclosan and chlorphenesin, do not break down in the environment and may contribute to bacterial resistance.

11. Synthetic polymers, such as sodium polyacrylate and carbomer, come from petroleum and give viscosity to skincare products. They are highly processed and their manufacture
creates toxic by-products.

12. Synthetic colors are made from coal tar. They contain heavy metal salts that may deposit toxins onto the skin, causing skin sensitivity and irritation. Animal studies have shown almost all of them to be carcinogenic. They will be labeled as FD&C or D&C, followed by a color and a number.

13. Chelators, such as disodium EDTA and tetrasodium EDTA, are used in personal care products to remove impurities from low-quality raw materials. They do not readily biode-
grade in the environment.

14. Nanos are a new technology with inconclusive but potentially hazardous study results. Research suggests that when tiny nano particles penetrate the skin, they may cause
cell damage.

15. Animal testing: A grim history of cruelty to animals lies behind many cosmetic ingredients. But scientists are developing new technologies to test cosmetics before a European Union ban on animal testing begins in March 2009.