Posts
Paylean: Drug in Conventionally Raised Meat Linked to Cancer and Heart Disease
Just some facts about what you're eating .. if you like BACON (or most other pork products)
The active ingredient in Paylean is ractopamine hydrochloride, a drug that belongs to the class of beta-adrenoceptor agonists. This class of drugs binds to beta-receptors on cardiac and smooth muscle tissues. Overall, the effect of beta-agonists is cardiac stimulation, including increased heart rate and systemic dilation of blood vessels. Some drugs of this class have been determined to be carcinogenic.
Short term animal studies have shown destabilization of heart rate, reduced testicular and uterine weight, and heart weight increase. Studies with rats have shown reduction in mean litter size and an increase in total number of fetal resorptions.
No long term studies have been conducted to determine the safety or the effects of ractopamine hydrochloride in humans, and no data exists relating to the long-term exposure of humans to the chemical. Since some beta-adrenoceptor agonists have been found to be carcinogenic, Dr. L. Ritter of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs at Health and Welfare, Canada, has recommended studies of Paylean's genotoxicity and pharmacology, and surveys of all non-therapeutic effects that follow long term use of beta-adrenoceptor agonists in humans to assist in the prediction of the consequences from long term intake of residues of raptopamine by consumers of animal meat.
One hog producer whose family-owned farm produces 40,000 swine each year refuses to use Paylean for several reasons. He cannot get his arms around the idea that the USDA requires no clearing time for Paylean and yet people are warned not to touch it with bare hands or breathe it. "My scientific training says how can an animal be fed this drug and in just a few hours that animal is ready to eat. Obviously the USDA says Paylean is broken down before consumption, but we know it goes into the cells to form more muscle, so how can that be?"
Get more facts here
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The FDA Needs to ban Paylean
From Change:
The latest drug being trotted out to the agriculture industry is Paylean, a feed additive that causes an 8 percent reduction in pig manure and maintains pork production with fewer pigs. They say it's "green."
What they don't say quite as eagerly is that they've received reports from farmers on stressed out, hyperactive, vomiting, shaking, and downer pigs, plus a 10 percent mortality rate in animals who had been given Paylean-laced feed. The industry doesn't care about the increased death and disability rate in animals because they're getting more output per animal, which is the faulty logic they use to claim Paylean is a green drug.
Manufacturers note that the drug is FDA-approved for feed, but it is also labeled "Not for use in humans" and is banned in 160 nations. Protective clothing and eyewear, impervious gloves, and dust masks are recommended when handling the drug, particularly for people with cardiovascular disease. (All this for a little less manure!)
But once a farmer suits up to distribute the Paylean to his pigs, that's not the last he'll see of it.
Paylean is given close to slaughter, and up to 20 percent of the drug remains in the animal's tissue. At least some of the other 80 percent ends up in groundwater and runoff from the farms. Thanks, to the power of lobbying, similar drugs are also given cattle and turkeys, with similar pain and suffering for the animals and similar disregard for human safety.
Here's the other piece that factory farmers, and some sustainable food advocates, keep forgetting: Something is "environmentally-friendly" because it doesn't harm to the world around it -- not just the water and air, but also the people and animals. Some people tend to forget, or ignore, the "cradle-to-grave" aspect of environmentalism. In other words, the impact of the entire life cycle (a term that refers to products, which in this case are living things) needs to be considered.
If your practices continue to cause animal suffering -- whether it's pre-birth in the gestation crates or a crippled downer before death -- it doesn't matter if there are fewer pigs with less manure on the land during their lives. So in addition to being cruel, Paylean is decidedly not green.
I'd stay far away from that so-called green ham, Sam-I-am. The drug is used in 45 percent of U.S. pigs, so, like every other abhorrent factory farm practice, it's not easy to avoid if you're still eating meat, unless you're buying from a local farmer whose practices you can vouch for.
The latest drug being trotted out to the agriculture industry is Paylean, a feed additive that causes an 8 percent reduction in pig manure and maintains pork production with fewer pigs. They say it's "green."
What they don't say quite as eagerly is that they've received reports from farmers on stressed out, hyperactive, vomiting, shaking, and downer pigs, plus a 10 percent mortality rate in animals who had been given Paylean-laced feed. The industry doesn't care about the increased death and disability rate in animals because they're getting more output per animal, which is the faulty logic they use to claim Paylean is a green drug.
Manufacturers note that the drug is FDA-approved for feed, but it is also labeled "Not for use in humans" and is banned in 160 nations. Protective clothing and eyewear, impervious gloves, and dust masks are recommended when handling the drug, particularly for people with cardiovascular disease. (All this for a little less manure!)
But once a farmer suits up to distribute the Paylean to his pigs, that's not the last he'll see of it.
Paylean is given close to slaughter, and up to 20 percent of the drug remains in the animal's tissue. At least some of the other 80 percent ends up in groundwater and runoff from the farms. Thanks, to the power of lobbying, similar drugs are also given cattle and turkeys, with similar pain and suffering for the animals and similar disregard for human safety.
Here's the other piece that factory farmers, and some sustainable food advocates, keep forgetting: Something is "environmentally-friendly" because it doesn't harm to the world around it -- not just the water and air, but also the people and animals. Some people tend to forget, or ignore, the "cradle-to-grave" aspect of environmentalism. In other words, the impact of the entire life cycle (a term that refers to products, which in this case are living things) needs to be considered.
If your practices continue to cause animal suffering -- whether it's pre-birth in the gestation crates or a crippled downer before death -- it doesn't matter if there are fewer pigs with less manure on the land during their lives. So in addition to being cruel, Paylean is decidedly not green.
I'd stay far away from that so-called green ham, Sam-I-am. The drug is used in 45 percent of U.S. pigs, so, like every other abhorrent factory farm practice, it's not easy to avoid if you're still eating meat, unless you're buying from a local farmer whose practices you can vouch for.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Don't Believe the Hype
Don't think that corporate media can be bought? Don't think that you can spread your propaganda through various channels to "adjust" your public image? Take a look at this piece on Monsanto on Forbes' web site:
This article is dated January 18th.
The Planet Versus Monsanto
Here's a little excerpt:
Monsanto needs crowd-pleasers like this to get past its image problems. In economic terms, the company is a winner. It has created many billions of dollars of value for the world with seeds genetically engineered to ward off insects or make a crop immune to herbicides: Witness the vast numbers of farmers who prefer its seeds to competing products, and the resulting $44 billion market value of the company.
Even better is this:
Farmers complain about Monsanto's prices, but they still buy the seeds. Ninety percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn crop and cotton crop are grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. Other countries are also growing Monsanto's biotech crops, including India, with 20 million acres of cotton; Brazil, with 35 million acres of soybeans; and Argentina, with 43 million acres of soybeans. (Brazil once blocked genetically modified plants, but farmers planted the crops anyway, and it eventually legalized them.) Packaged foods with corn syrup or soybean oil likely contain the fruits of Monsanto's gene-modified agriculture.
This article is dated January 18th.
The Planet Versus Monsanto
Here's a little excerpt:
Monsanto needs crowd-pleasers like this to get past its image problems. In economic terms, the company is a winner. It has created many billions of dollars of value for the world with seeds genetically engineered to ward off insects or make a crop immune to herbicides: Witness the vast numbers of farmers who prefer its seeds to competing products, and the resulting $44 billion market value of the company.
Even better is this:
Farmers complain about Monsanto's prices, but they still buy the seeds. Ninety percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn crop and cotton crop are grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. Other countries are also growing Monsanto's biotech crops, including India, with 20 million acres of cotton; Brazil, with 35 million acres of soybeans; and Argentina, with 43 million acres of soybeans. (Brazil once blocked genetically modified plants, but farmers planted the crops anyway, and it eventually legalized them.) Packaged foods with corn syrup or soybean oil likely contain the fruits of Monsanto's gene-modified agriculture.
Biodiversity and GMO's
(from the Organic Consumers Association)
Biodiversity, already decaying fast as a result of climate change and intensive farming, is under further threat by genetic modification (GM) of seeds, says a leading German ecological activist.
Genetic modification of seeds is dangerous, "since it is at the beginning of the agricultural chain, and can spread all over," says Benedikt Haerlin, former campaign manager at the environmental organisation Greenpeace and former member of the European Parliament.
Haerlin now leads the global 'Save our Seeds' campaign in cooperation with some 300 environmental organisations across Europe.
The campaign is currently calling attention to plans by the European Commission (EC) to tolerate "accidental or technically unavoidable" contamination of conventional seed with GM varieties.
In September 2004, the EC sought to pass a directive allowing up to 0.7 percent of GM organisms (GMO) in maize and oilseed rape seed without being labelled.
But fierce protests by organic farmers and environmental organisations forced the EC to withdraw the proposal. Since then, EC has not submitted any new recommendations.
Some commissioners, such as Stavros Dimas, who was in charge of environment between 2004 and 2009, have even questioned whether thresholds are necessary. Although the mandate for the present EC ended last October, Dimas is still serving as commissioner for environment until a new commission is approved and takes office.
"The official position of the EC remains, however, that a new proposal for the specification of threshold values for genetic contamination of seed is in the works," Haerlin told IPS.
Haerlin said that calling such contamination "accidental or technically unavoidable" with GMOs is misleading. "For fodder or even food, that genetic contamination under 0.9 percent is not declared can be acceptable," Haerlin explained. "At least, I can be sure that such contamination won't spread to other areas of life."
This is not the case with seeds, he said. "GM seeds can contaminate the fields of peasants and farmers who oppose them. After contamination, they would be forced to prove the origin of the pollution.
''Farmers using what they believe are organic seeds, but which have been genetically contaminated, would continue using part of the polluted crop as seeds for the next season, and multiply and spread the contamination, " he said.
"The most important impact of GM agriculture is on the social and economic conditions of farmers," Haerlin told IPS. "In general, GM agriculture makes farmers dependent on the big agrochemical business, and also provokes conflicts between peasants and landowners."
Haerlin accused the agrochemical giants that control the market for GM seeds to use "back doors and bad legislation to put their seeds on the market. They know that otherwise they would not sell their seeds."
Haerlin warned that research and development in agriculture is taking place "more and more only in the chemistry labs, and not on the field, and are concentrated in only a handful of companies." Because of this, organic, traditional seeds are disappearing, he said.
"The environmental consequences are enormous and extremely dangerous, and, once they have happened, it will be too late to turn back the tide," Haerlin said.
According to environmental and agriculture experts, 25 years ago there were at least 7,000 seed growers worldwide, and none of them controlled more than one percent of the global market.
Today, after a takeover spree, ten major biochemical multinationals, including Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, BASF and Dow Agrosciences, control more than 50 percent of the seeds market.
"The goal of these companies is, of course, to make profits," Haerlin told IPS. "In order to improve their profits, they all apply one strategy to increase their control of the market: they impose upon farmers worldwide the so-called vertical integration of inputs, from seeds to fertilisers to pesticides, all from one brand."
Such "vertical integration of agricultural inputs" has transformed agriculture in developing countries into a two-class business, Angelika Hillbeck, researcher on bio-safety and agriculture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told IPS.
"In the developing countries there is a class of farmers with large plantations and enough money who can afford to buy all inputs from the major biochemical companies, from seeds and fertilisers to pesticides and conservatives,'' she said.
But there are small farmers for whom the biochemical markets are out of reach. Additionally GM seeds have crowded out organic seeds, reduced botanical diversity, especially in developing countries, and contributed to a further decimation of biodiversity.
All European Union (EU) member countries have joined the United Nations campaign declaring 2010 'The Year of Biodiversity' in an effort to emphasise the need to protect variety in flora and fauna. The U.N., which launched the campaign on Jan. 11 in Berlin, has recognised that the objective set in 2003 to stop the decimation of biodiversity by 2010 would not be reached.
This European engagement in favour of biodiversity appears to be only lip service to the environment cause since, in reality, European institutions support biochemical multinationals that are out to make genetic contamination legal.
Biodiversity, already decaying fast as a result of climate change and intensive farming, is under further threat by genetic modification (GM) of seeds, says a leading German ecological activist.
Genetic modification of seeds is dangerous, "since it is at the beginning of the agricultural chain, and can spread all over," says Benedikt Haerlin, former campaign manager at the environmental organisation Greenpeace and former member of the European Parliament.
Haerlin now leads the global 'Save our Seeds' campaign in cooperation with some 300 environmental organisations across Europe.
The campaign is currently calling attention to plans by the European Commission (EC) to tolerate "accidental or technically unavoidable" contamination of conventional seed with GM varieties.
In September 2004, the EC sought to pass a directive allowing up to 0.7 percent of GM organisms (GMO) in maize and oilseed rape seed without being labelled.
But fierce protests by organic farmers and environmental organisations forced the EC to withdraw the proposal. Since then, EC has not submitted any new recommendations.
Some commissioners, such as Stavros Dimas, who was in charge of environment between 2004 and 2009, have even questioned whether thresholds are necessary. Although the mandate for the present EC ended last October, Dimas is still serving as commissioner for environment until a new commission is approved and takes office.
"The official position of the EC remains, however, that a new proposal for the specification of threshold values for genetic contamination of seed is in the works," Haerlin told IPS.
Haerlin said that calling such contamination "accidental or technically unavoidable" with GMOs is misleading. "For fodder or even food, that genetic contamination under 0.9 percent is not declared can be acceptable," Haerlin explained. "At least, I can be sure that such contamination won't spread to other areas of life."
This is not the case with seeds, he said. "GM seeds can contaminate the fields of peasants and farmers who oppose them. After contamination, they would be forced to prove the origin of the pollution.
''Farmers using what they believe are organic seeds, but which have been genetically contaminated, would continue using part of the polluted crop as seeds for the next season, and multiply and spread the contamination, " he said.
"The most important impact of GM agriculture is on the social and economic conditions of farmers," Haerlin told IPS. "In general, GM agriculture makes farmers dependent on the big agrochemical business, and also provokes conflicts between peasants and landowners."
Haerlin accused the agrochemical giants that control the market for GM seeds to use "back doors and bad legislation to put their seeds on the market. They know that otherwise they would not sell their seeds."
Haerlin warned that research and development in agriculture is taking place "more and more only in the chemistry labs, and not on the field, and are concentrated in only a handful of companies." Because of this, organic, traditional seeds are disappearing, he said.
"The environmental consequences are enormous and extremely dangerous, and, once they have happened, it will be too late to turn back the tide," Haerlin said.
According to environmental and agriculture experts, 25 years ago there were at least 7,000 seed growers worldwide, and none of them controlled more than one percent of the global market.
Today, after a takeover spree, ten major biochemical multinationals, including Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, BASF and Dow Agrosciences, control more than 50 percent of the seeds market.
"The goal of these companies is, of course, to make profits," Haerlin told IPS. "In order to improve their profits, they all apply one strategy to increase their control of the market: they impose upon farmers worldwide the so-called vertical integration of inputs, from seeds to fertilisers to pesticides, all from one brand."
Such "vertical integration of agricultural inputs" has transformed agriculture in developing countries into a two-class business, Angelika Hillbeck, researcher on bio-safety and agriculture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told IPS.
"In the developing countries there is a class of farmers with large plantations and enough money who can afford to buy all inputs from the major biochemical companies, from seeds and fertilisers to pesticides and conservatives,'' she said.
But there are small farmers for whom the biochemical markets are out of reach. Additionally GM seeds have crowded out organic seeds, reduced botanical diversity, especially in developing countries, and contributed to a further decimation of biodiversity.
All European Union (EU) member countries have joined the United Nations campaign declaring 2010 'The Year of Biodiversity' in an effort to emphasise the need to protect variety in flora and fauna. The U.N., which launched the campaign on Jan. 11 in Berlin, has recognised that the objective set in 2003 to stop the decimation of biodiversity by 2010 would not be reached.
This European engagement in favour of biodiversity appears to be only lip service to the environment cause since, in reality, European institutions support biochemical multinationals that are out to make genetic contamination legal.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Writer Lost
For everyone who's been coming to this blog lately, I'm sorry, I've had a few things at my day job that fell apart and needed my attention. That's taken me a lot longer than I expected but now that things have finally started to settle down, I should be able to post some more information soon. Please keep reading and don't forget to comment or e mail me if you like a story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)