This web site was founded in 2014 by Dr. Shiv Chopra and Marilyn Cosway and called, The Canadian Council on Food Sovereignty & Health. In 2017, the name was changed to Canadian Council on Food Safety and Health.
On Sept 7th, 2017, after 14 years in the Federal courts, and over $10 million dollars spent by the Federal government, Dr. Shiv Chopra was found guilty by 3 judges of 'Insubordination' for speaking out on food safety. Three months later, on Jan 7th, 2018, Dr. Shiv Chopra died.
CCFSH honours Whistleblower Dr. Shiv Chopra and his tireless efforts to make Health Canada more accountable and educate Canadians on how Canadians can have the healthiest food in the world if we adhere to the Five Pillars of Food Safety.
Join the movement in honouring whistleblower Dr. Shiv Chopra and help these goals to come through by sharing our web site and getting involved by signing up for 'FOOD Justice NEWS' or one of our 3 Activism Groups called 'Shivista Collectives'.
A new study conducted at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington(HealthData.org) and published in The Lancet medical journal finds that a shocking 20 percent of global deaths are caused by toxic foods, junk foods, processed foods and harmful food ingredients. In essence, the study reveals that the toxic food industry is now about as dangerous as Big Tobacco.
The study, based at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, compiles data from every country in the world and makes informed estimates where there are gaps… Diet is the second highest risk factor for early death after smoking. The problem is often seen as the spread of western diets, taking over from traditional foods in the developing world.
In other words, all the toxic food ingredients, processed foods, junk foods and fast foods that we’ve been warning you about for years are now being recognized by the science establishment to be one of the leading killers of human beings across our planet. Many of these foods are saturated with glyphosate and pesticides, and an increasing number are also genetically engineered. The food industry, in other words, is about as dangerous to human health as the tobacco industry, yet while Big Tobacco is highly regulated, there are virtually no enforced regulations that limit heavy metals, pesticides or dangerous chemical ingredients (like aspartame) in the U.S. food supply.
Once again, this emerging science confirms Natural News as being scientifically correct and way ahead of the curve. We’ve been warning readers about the toxicity of the food supply for almost 15 years, even as the corrupt food industry attempted to discredit anyone who dared report the truth about toxic ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup or partially hydrogenated oils.
Watch the full report in the Natural News videos here:
Food industry monopolists are behind the dismal economic reality of rural America.
According to data compiled by the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2012, the four largest food and agriculture companies controlled 82 percent of the beef packing industry, 85 percent of soybean processing and 63 percent of pork. Market concentration drives up the prices that farmers pay for inputs, such as seeds, and forces them to accept lower prices due to the lack of any pretense of a competitive marketplace.
Farmworkers – according to some estimates numbering approximately three million – are forced to work for next to nothing as the landowners that employ them receive prices that are well below the cost of production. The inequity of the market that oppresses farmers and farmworkers does not benefit consumers either. According to Food and Water Watch, the prices that consumers pay at the grocery store have remained steady as those who produce our food struggle to make ends meet.
Not everyone in the food industry is hurting. In 2018, Brazilian agribusiness giant JBS, the world’s leading beef and pork processor, Land O’Lakes, a major player in dairy processing and seeds, grain marketer Cargill and the meat processor and marketer, Tyson, all increased their profits over the 2017 fiscal year.
Many of these same actors have been accused of breaking antitrust laws. Recently, Tyson, Cargill, and JBS have been accused of fixing prices to increase profit margins at the expense of farmers and ranchers. In another settlement, Tyson agreed to an out of court payment to food system workers for wage theft. Land O’Lakes, has also settled out of court for fixing prices on eggs and milk, while Dean Foods, paid dairy farmers millions just a few years ago for price fixing.
The economy is rigged and Washington has done nothing outside of the $12 billion “farmer aid package” that was issued in 2018, and yet another ad hoc $16 billion bailout that was announced May 23rd. With a final twist of the knife, the USDA eliminated the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), and with it, any hope for anti-trust enforcement in the meatpacking industry.
Truth is, farmers don’t want to put taxpayers on the hook. Farmers want fair trade and an end to Trump’s tariffs, a personal fight that has created uncertainty in the marketplace. The Booker/Pocan/Tester Bill is a start, but more can be done. The Democratic candidates need to talk about corporate concentration and antitrust seriously, starting with the Progressive Era Sherman, Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts. Over one hundred years ago, these laws were created to investigate and punish corporations for anti-competitive practices — such as mergers, price fixing and rigging contracts.
The Reagan administration, challenged the federal government’s antitrust philosophy, claiming that “bigger was better,” and that relaxing antitrust law enforcement would benefit everyone. Since the Reagan era, efforts to dismantle antitrust enforcement have been put on steroids in every sector of the economy. We know how the game has played out. Corporations cash in as farmers and farmworkers see their incomes plummet, and consumers get swindled at the grocery store.
The Department of Justice – at the federal and state levels must launch serious investigations into the illegal practices of agribusiness corporations, including the effects of mergers and acquisitions on food system workers. Next, breaking up corporations must be seriously considered – this means overturning past mergers, as well as looking into breaking up the corporate processors, retailers, and distributors that currently control the food system.
Anti-trust enforcement, like the greed it seeks to beat down, is never ending . The enforcement of anti-trust laws means continual oversight and regulation of corporate practices. This will require increased funding for the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to support a staff committed to public, not corporate service.
For decades Democrats and Republicans have let corporate concentration and power grow, while the incomes of farmers and farmworkers shrink. We have seen a steady erosion of regulation, when we need more of it. It’s heartening that the Democrats have realized that rural America is out there, and that market concentration is a very real problem. Taking on the monopolists is a serious task; now, it’s up to the Democrats to decide if they are truly willing to invest in our food system and rural America.
Anthony Pahnke is the Vice President of the Family Farm Defenders and Assistant Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University.
Following the recent bans on the use of glyphosate-based herbicides by cities and institutions in the U.S., including Key West, Los Angeles, the University of California and Miami, Sustainable Pulse decided to research which countries around the world have banned or restricted the use of the world’s most used herbicide.
This research has led to the discovery that there is a growing swell of government level support worldwide for bans on glyphosate-based herbicides for both health and environmental reasons.
17 countries have now banned or restricted the use of this carcinogenic herbicide.
Previous research by Sustainable Pulse on the number of countries that have banned GM Crops has reached millions of people and we look forward to our latest research reaching an even wider audience. Sustainable Pulse welcomes additions or edits to the list below from readers and experts from around the Globe.
Malawi: Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development announced the suspension of import permits for glyphosate in April 2019.
Vietnam: Vietnam announced that it banned the import of all glyphosate-based herbicides with in March 2019 following a cancer trial verdict from San Francisco
Sri Lanka: In 2015 a full import ban on all glyphosate-based herbicides was put in place by the then newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena. This ban was partly lifted in July 2018 but only for use on tea and rubber plantations.
Six Middle Eastern countries banned the import and use of glyphosate-based herbicides in coordination with each other in 2015 and 2016:
United Arab Emirates
Bermuda: Bermuda’s Environment Minister Cole Simons confirmed the ban on glyphosate-based herbicides at a public meeting in January 2017.
St Vincent and the Grenadines: In August 2018 Agriculture Minister Saboto Caesar called on all stakeholders to be understanding of the new suspension on glyphosate-based herbicides “in light of the nation’s quest to promote a safe working environment and good agricultural health and food safety practices.”
Belgium: In October 2018 the ban on the sale of broad-spectrum herbicides (including glyphosate) to non-professional users entered in to force across Belgium.
Czech Republic: In 2018 the Czech Republic put strict restrictions on the use of glyphosate and banned pre-harvest spraying; “These substances (glyphosate-based herbicides) will only be employed in cases when no other efficient method can be used,” Agriculture Minister Miroslav Toman said.
Denmark: In July 2018, the Danish government implemented new rules banning the use of glyphosate on all post-emergent crops to avoid residues on foods.
France: In 2016 France banned the use of glyphosate and all other pesticides in public green spaces. In November 2018 President Macron said he would take all measures necessary to ensure that glyphosate-based herbicides are banned in France as soon as an alternative is available and at the latest within three years. However, he has since stated that this deadline may only be 80% met.
Italy: In August 2016 Italy’s Ministry of Health banned the use of glyphosate in public areas and also as a pre-harvest spray.
The Netherlands: From the end of 2015 the sale of glyphosate-based herbicides has been banned to all non-business entities.
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
Legislators in Minnesota have introduced four separate resolutions aimed at restoring the provisions once contained in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that recognized the constitutional right of Americans injured or killed by vaccines to pursue rightful justice against vaccine manufacturers in a court of law.
HF 2862, HF 2825, SF 2781, and SF 2831 all take aim at the Supreme Court ruling that was made in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, which “immunized” Big Vaccine against liability for adverse effects caused by its vaccines.
“In 1986, there were seven vaccines that were routinely administered to American children. Yet, there were so many catastrophic injuries caused by this schedule that some of the vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing them, due to the large damage awards that they were ordered to pay when people were injured,” stated Representative Jeremy Munson, a Republican from Crystal Lake, Minnesota, and the man leading the charge to make vaccine corporations liable again, during a recent press conference.
“So, the pharmaceutical industry heavily lobbied Congress to pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, or the NCVIA, in 1986. This unprecedented law established a compensation program administered by the government, and funded by a tax on vaccine consumers themselves. This was to compensate those whom were killed or harmed by vaccines.”
One of the requirements provisioned in the NCVIA mandates that doctors report any adverse vaccine reactions they observe as a result of vaccination in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Another mandates that doctors provide parents with vaccine risk and benefit information before vaccinating these parents’ children.
When it was first enacted, the NCVIA also provisioned that vaccine-injured or vaccine-killed petitioners who did not receive a proper judgment within a 240-day window, or who were simply not satisfied with a judgment they did receive via the NVCIP, could withdraw from the program and sue vaccine manufacturers directly in civil court. But this provision was removed in 2011 by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case, which means that the vaccine-injured and vaccine-killed no longer have an option at their disposal to seek justice.
“Overturning this decision, and returning the NCVIA to its original intent, is what our resolution is about,” Rep. Munson added. “This is an important check and balance that we have set up to ensure that vaccines will be safer.”
Senator Jim Abeler, a Republican and another of the resolution’s authors, also stated during the press conference that there are now so many vaccine injury claims being filed that increasingly fewer of them are being resolved in a timely and proper manner.
“How tortuous the route is to actually get a claim resolved,” Sen. Abeler stated, adding that, “we’re in a world where the Department of Health calls [vaccines] ‘exceedingly safe’ – I think that nothing is further from the truth.”
Because of the way the NCVIA has been manipulated, it has also become exceedingly difficult to keep track of what the vaccine industry is doing behind closed doors. Nobody knows for sure whether or not Big Vaccine is even safety testing its vaccines anymore, let alone conducting the “post-marketing surveillance reporting” that’s required as part of the VAERS program.
“If everyone believes that vaccines are safe, that they cause no injury or they can’t cause injury, then there should be no problem with … going back to the law that we used to have, that allowed people to seek civil cases against vaccine manufacturers,” Rep. Munson concluded.
For more news about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines, the only products sold in American today whose manufacturers aren’t held liable when they injure or kill people, be sure to visit Vaccines.news.
Want to understand your society and economy and the fate of petro-industrial civilization? If so, don’t “follow the money.” The stock market casino, quantitative easing, derivatives and other “financial innovations,” and the trillions of e-dollars that flit through the global monetary system each day obscure the real economy—the production and destruction of actual wealth: mining, farming, processing, transport, manufacturing, consumption, disposal. To understand where we are and where we may be going, we must follow more tangible flows—things that are real. We must follow the oil, coal, steel, concrete, grain, copper, fertilizers, salt, gravel, and other materials.
Our cars, homes, phones, foods, fuels, clothes, and all the other products we consume or aspire to are made out of stuff—out of materials, out of wood, iron, cotton, etc. And our economies consume enormous quantities of those materials—tens-of-billions of tonnes per year.
The graph above shows 250 years of actual and projected material flows through our global economy. The graph may initially appear complicated, because it brings together seven different sources and datasets and includes a projection to the year 2100. But the details of the graph aren’t important. What is important is the overall shape: the ever-steepening upward trendline—the exponential growth.
In 1900, global material flows totalled approximately 7 billion tonnes. The technical term for these material flows is “utilized materials”—the stuff we dig out of mines, pump up from oil or natural gas wells, cut down in forests, grow on farms, catch from the sea, dig out of quarries, and otherwise appropriate for human uses. These tonnages do not include water, nor do they include unused overburden, but they do include mine tailings, though this last category adds just a few percent to the total.
Between 1900 and 2000, global material tonnage increased sevenfold—to approximately 49 billion tonnes (Krausman et al. 2009). Tonnage rose to approx. 70 billion tonnes by 2010 (UNEP/Schandl 2016), and to approx. 90 billion tonnes by 2018 (UNEP/Bringezu 2018). At the heart of our petro-industrial consumerist civilization is a network of globe-spanning conveyors that, each second, extract and propel nearly 3,000 tonnes of materials from Earth’s surface and subsurface to factories, cities, shops, and homes, and eventually on to landfills, rivers and oceans, and the atmosphere. At a rate of a quarter-billion tonnes per day we’re turning the Earth and biosphere into cities, homes, products, indulgences, and fleeting satisfactions; and emissions, by-products, toxins, and garbage.
And these extraction, consumption, and disposal rates are projected to continue rising—to double every 30 to 40 years (Lutz and Giljum 2009). Just as we increased material use sevenfold during the 20thcentury we’re on track to multiply it sevenfold during the 21st. If we maintain the “normal” economic growth rates of the 20th century through the 21st we will almost certainly increase the volume and mass of our extraction, production, and disposal sevenfold by 2100.
But 2100 is a long way away. Anything could happen by then. Granted. So let’s leave aside the long-term and look only at the coming decade. Material throughput now totals about 90 billion tonnes per year, and is projected to rise to about 120 billion tonnes per year over the coming decade. For ease of math, let’s say that the average over the coming decade will be 100 billion tonnes per year. That means that between 2019 and 2029 we will extract from within the Earth and from the biosphere one trillion tonnes of materials: coal, oil, wood, fish, nickel, aluminum, chromium, uranium, etc. …one trillion tonnes. And we’ll send most of that trillion tonnes on into disposal in the ground, air, or water—into landfills, skyfills, and seafills. In the coming decade, when you hear ever-more-frequent reports of the oceans filling with plastic and the atmosphere filling with carbon, think of that trillion tonnes.
At conferences and in the media there’s a lot of talk of “dematerialization,” and its cousin “decarbonization.” The idea is this: creating a dollar of economic activity used to require X units of energy or materials, but now, in countries such as Canada and the United States, creating a dollar of economic activity requires only two-thirds-X units. Pundits and officials would have us believe that, because efficiency is increasing and less material and energy are needed per dollar, the economy is being “dematerialized.” They attempt to show that the economy can grow and grow but we need not use more materials or energy. Instead of consuming heavy steel cars, we will consume apps, massages, and manicures. But this argument is wrong. Global material and energy use increased manyfold during the 20th century. The increases continue. A business-as-usual scenario will see energy and materials use double every 30 to 40 years. And just because the sizes of our economies, measured in abstract currencies, are growing faster, this does not change the fact that our use of energy and materials is growing. “Dematerialization” has no useful meaning in a global economy in which we are using 90 billion tonnes of materials per year and projecting the use of 180 billion tonnes by 2050. Our rate of extraction and consumption of materials is rising; the fact that the volume of dollar flows is rising faster is merely a distraction.
A group of organic farmers say the organic movement has ceded too much power to the big food multinationals, who are now trying to dilute its core values to make organic fit the free-market business model.
The key global forum at which the multinational food industry has been trying to dilute core values of the organic movement is the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Established in 1963, the main functions of Codex involve drafting global standards, guidelines and other related texts for foods, including food supplements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) uses the texts produced by Codex in its adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods.
For some years now, Codex has been watering down global organic standards to permit the use of substances such as sulphur dioxide, which can cause allergic reactions in some people; and carrageenan, for which there is evidence that it is associated with the formation of ulcers in the intestines and cancerous tumors in the gut. Worse still, however, Codex now allows kiwifruit and bananas to be labeled as organic even when they have been artificially ripened through the use of ethylene.
Why is this happening? On a basic level it is simply because organic foods fetch higher prices than ordinary, non-organic foods. The large non-organic food producers see an opportunity to break into the market for organic foods and make larger profits.
On a deeper level, however, organic foods promote better health than non-organic foods, by virtue of the fact that they contain higher levels of micronutrients. In addition, of course, organic foods don’t contain pesticides, residues of veterinary drugs or genetically modified (GM) organisms either. Bearing in mind therefore that good health is not in the interests of the ‘business with disease’, this ultimately makes the increasing demand for organic foods a threat to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. This is not only because organic foods promote good health, but also because they result in a lower demand for pesticides, veterinary drugs and GM foods.