We showed yesterday that global banking neo-liberals are installing the same deregulation of CHEMICAL EXPOSURE STANDARDS in UK---in Europe------as in US/Canada. They do this because TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT----TRANS ATLANTIC TRADE PACT is MOVING FORWARD even as our global banking pols are pretending to fight them.
'Trade implications: Extensive restrictions could create unnecessary barriers to trade and violate the EU’s commitments under the Agreements of the World Trade Organization. The apparel industry is a global industry; a rapidly-imposed ban on CMRs in apparel may lead operators in this sector to temporarily or permanently stop marketing certain products in the EU'.
Here we see European 99% being told total deregulation of chemical restrictions must be done for TRADE reasons and of course JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. We do not want global corporate factories in our US Foreign Economic Zones---so there is NO TRADE ISSUES. Local and regional manufacturing WILL adhere to last century's safety standards.
Again, these deregulation policies are being installed because Euro and US Foreign Economic Zones will operate as they do overseas---
Upcoming European Chemical Restrictions in Apparel Raise Concerns
By Charlotte Ryckman and Roberto Yunquera Sehwani on July 29, 2016
Posted in Fashion & accessories, Regulatory & government affairs
The European Commission intends to ban the use in apparel of hundreds of Cat. 1A and 1B carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction substances (“CMRs”) within the next year. To do so, the Commission expects to use the so-called “fast-track” procedure to ban CMRs under Regulation 1907/2006 (“REACH Regulation”), instead of the standard procedure for prohibiting substances. Historically, the fast-track procedure has been reserved for mixtures that contain CMRs and are intended for the general public. The Commission has indicated that its proposal to ban the use of CMRs in apparel is a “test-case” of its intention to also ban Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in articles (i.e., objects) intended for consumers on a regular basis in the near future. This fast-track procedure allows less scientific input from the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) and industry, and the related restrictions would create significant barriers to international trade.
“Standard” vs. “Fast-Track” Procedure
Title VIII of the REACH Regulation empowers the European Commission to restrict the use in mixtures (e.g., inks, paints) and articles (e.g., apparel) of substances that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Restricted substances are listed in Annex XVII of the Regulation, which is regularly updated.
There are two different procedures for adding new restrictions:
the “regular” and the “fast-track” procedure. In both cases, the Commission proposes the restrictions, and its final proposal is then adopted through “comitology” (i.e., a process involving the input of Member States). The road towards the final Commission proposal, however, is very different for each procedure:
- Standard procedure: The standard procedure is generally highly regarded for the sound scientific input it gathers. Articles 69 – 73 of the REACH Regulation include important steps, such as ECHA’s or a Member State’s preparation of an Annex XV dossier analyzing the restrictions, assessments by the Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee (“RAC”) and Socio-Economic Assessment Committee (“SEAC”), and consultation of the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement (“Forum”).
- Fast-Track Procedure: Article 68(2) of the REACH Regulation, however, empowers the Commission to ban the use of substances that are classified as Cat. 1A or 1B CMRs in mixtures and articles that could be used by consumers without the preparation of a dossier, the opinions of the RAC and SEAC or the consultation of the Forum. As the Commission recognized in its Article 68(2) Paper of 2014, the legislation provides little to no guidance on the use of this procedure.
The procedure was historically intended for mixtures due to the potential high exposure of consumers using them. In contrast, there is scientific uncertainty on the risk of exposure of consumers to CMRs contained in articles. As the Commission recognizes in its Article 68(2) Paper, the “main difference between articles and substances and mixtures is that there might be cases where there is no or very limited possibility of exposure of consumers to a CMR substance contained in an article.”
The Proposed CMR Restrictions
The Commission’s long term strategy is to use the REACH fast-track procedure to restrict the use of Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in a broad range of consumer products. The upcoming ban in apparel is intended as a “test-case”.
Following concerns raised by the industry, the Commission recently announced that it intends to restrict the use of Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in textiles in two phases. First, it will restrict CMRs in textiles that are in direct contact with the skin. This concerns primarily apparel, but also products such as footwear and bed linen. We understand that these restrictions could be adopted by spring or summer of 2017.
Second, the Commission will restrict Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs in textiles that are not in direct contact with the skin, such as accessories (e.g., buttons), floor coverings, and carpets. The Commission will not start this second phase until it presents its final proposal for textiles that are in direct contact with the skin.
It is still unclear which Cat. 1A and 1B CMRs the Commission will target. Initially, it had proposed to restrict 286 CMRs. The Commission should only restrict those substances for which there are validated detection and measurement methods.
Analysis of the Planned Restrictions
The Commission’s initial proposal to restrict no less than 286 CMRs in a wide category of textile products raises significant concerns. These include:
Duplication: Of the CMRs that the Commission intends to restrict under the fast-track procedure, several are already subject to other restrictions in the REACH Regulation. The resulting double bans or restrictions might create confusion and duplication. The Commission indicated last June that it is aware of this issue and that it “is committed to avoid double regulation for the same substance and use.”
- Trade implications: Extensive restrictions could create unnecessary barriers to trade and violate the EU’s commitments under the Agreements of the World Trade Organization. The apparel industry is a global industry; a rapidly-imposed ban on CMRs in apparel may lead operators in this sector to temporarily or permanently stop marketing certain products in the EU.
- Socio-economic impact: It is questionable whether the Commission has sufficiently considered the cost of compliance with the upcoming restrictions. Widespread and simultaneous restrictions may represent a significant burden for industry, including numerous small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”), and increase the price of apparel for consumers.
What lies ahead? The Commission has agreed to gather additional expert input over the next few months. This will include input from the Forum, ECHA, and a group of experts, including industry representatives. Subsequently, the Commission will open its proposal for a public consultation, likely by the end of 2016 or early 2017. Once this public consultation is closed, the Commission will adopt its final proposal.
Although much remains to be decided, it is clear that a ban of hundreds of CMRs in all skin contact textiles will significantly affect apparel and footwear companies that market their goods in the EU and EEA. In the mid-long term, the Commission’s plans will likely also have a significant impact on the wider global textile and consumer goods industry.
All US citizens understand the US has these few decades had CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA pols working for global banking and global corporate profits. We know EPA------FDA-------all Federal agencies have been captured and laws protecting against public health exposure to toxic chemicals. This is why there was a CANCER ALLEY in Louisiana and Texas---it is why our coal workers are seeing lung disease soar---it is why fracking killing our fresh water aquifers and fertile land went unabated---it is why PHARMA is being found to be toxic and deadly AFTER it has been released for several years------there has been no enforcement of last century's CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING REGULATIONS.
As well, LAUTENBERG of NJ has been in office these few decades as top gun global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal. Just because a pol backs a few bills that sound good does not make that pol a left social progressive on public policy. We see in Maryland all the time pols pushing social progressive policies knowing none of it will be enforced. So, LAUTENBERG did good work in cigarette smoking exposure----a CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING REGULATION----BUT, he was bound to global banking, global corporations and his bill for 21ST CENTURY STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL REGULATIONS----will end as deregulation looking just like BREAKING GLASS STEAGALL.
So, US is MOVING FORWARD these same CMS deregulation as in UK and Europe----wrapping the policies in titles making it sound public interest. Was START TREATY about de-nuclearization as national media and Clinton neo-liberals stated? NO, it was about retooling the nuclear arsenals and distribute decayed nuclear materials.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
Sign up for TSCA and Other Chemical Safety News
Get email alerts Enter email address
New Chemicals Review Progress under Amended TSCAAs of February 13, 2018:
- 30 new chemical reviews were completed in January 2018.
- 1278 new chemical reviews have been completed since enactment.
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Nation’s primary chemicals management law was signed into law.
The new law, which received bipartisan support in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, includes much needed improvements such as:
- Mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines;
- New risk-based safety standard;
- Increased public transparency for chemical information; and
- Consistent source of funding for EPA to carry out the responsibilities under the new law.
We would ask Bonnie Lautenberg why are you not shouting that the BLENDED CIGARETTES being sold as lowest costing cigarettes across the nation are the same chemically-filled tobacco banned during these tobacco industry fights------all regulations protecting public from toxic chemicals in cigarettes have been ignored and shelves restocked. A 30 year CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL Lautenberg as head of EPA-----oh, we KNOW what is MOVING FORWARD.
This is why REAL left social progressive shout----we cannot get REAL LEFT social policy installed while Congress, statehouses, and city councils are still filled with far-right wing global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. So, now Trump will simply take this structure to totally deregulate US chemical manufacturing laws just as in UK.
The hazardous nominee who could lead the EPA's chemical safety program
By Bonnie Lautenberg
Updated 6:40 PM ET, Wed December 6, 2017
(CNN)As a Senator, my late husband, Frank Lautenberg, made it his mission to fight for the health of Americans -- especially kids. He fought to protect them from exposure to toxic chemicals in our air, water, consumer products and cigarette smoke.
Frank's passion for defending the most vulnerable of Americans came from his father -- a Polish immigrant who worked in silk mills. As an adult, Frank's dad took great pride in his own personal health. Yet he only lived to the age of 43, dying of colon cancer after years of working in the silk mills.
Frank's final fight during his last year in Congress was to ensure strong public health protection would guide our decisions about chemical safety. To do this, he sought to fix the nation's badly broken chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Inspired by Frank's vision, his colleagues continued working towards a bipartisan solution -- culminating in 2016 with the signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. The Lautenberg Act aimed to plug the holes in our chemical safety net, to better protect Americans from toxic chemicals tied to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and other serious health impacts.
But today that progress is endangered. Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety program, has made his living helping the chemical industry in its efforts to weaken safety standards for their chemicals. If confirmed, he would be in charge of reviewing the safety of chemicals that our kids have exposure to.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to evaluate chemicals using the "best available science," but Dourson has made a career practicing what has been called "mercenary science." Over and over again, through his consulting company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), Dourson downplayed the health threats of his clients' products.
Study ties pesticides in food to reduced fertility in women
For example, in a study funded by the American Chemistry Council, Dourson has argued for a safe exposure level of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE) that is up to 15 times higher than the EPA's recommended level. He did similar work on PFOA, a chemical that was used to make Teflon, 1,4-dioxane, a frequent drinking water contaminant -- and many more.
But it isn't just unfamiliar chemicals with confusing names -- all of us are familiar with tobacco and its dangers. The health impacts of secondhand smoke were already on Frank's radar as far back as 1987, when he worked to ban smoking on airplanes. Yet Michael Dourson was working with a tobacco industry front group as recently as 2001 -- helping it downplay the dangers of its products.
Dourson is certainly not unique in doing this kind of work: There are plenty of scientists who worked for big tobacco, and more recently the chemical industry. But why on earth should someone with that background oversee our federal chemical safety program? How could anyone trust Dourson to put public health before the interests of the clients he has spent decades defending?
Senators acted to pass the Lautenberg Act because toxic chemicals pose a threat to all of our families. And clearly President Trump cares deeply about his own children and grandchildren. I'm surprised any of them would entrust the safety of their loved ones to Dourson.
Michael Dourson will only serve to undermine Frank's legacy and threaten the safety of families and children across our country. Now it's up to members of the Senate to recognize this and keep our health out of his hands.
SOUND CREDIBLE SCIENCE------this is what backs AFFORDABLE CARE ACT handing health policy to IPAB-----they are supposed to give sound credible science-----we discussed the difference between public interest VALUE-ADDED and corporate profit VALUE ADDED. What we have today in our Federal agencies are CORPORATE PROFIT-VALUE-ADDED executives---including EPA. They will say CLEAN COAL is good----they will say FOOD MANUFACTURED using no food is good.
We know COREY BOOKER---OBAMA----LAUTENBERG all raging far-right global banking neo-liberals---this is how we know this structure is MOVING FORWARD 21ST century deregulation of all last century's public health and workplace chemical safety research just as in UK, Europe.
'The EPA would set priorities for evaluating chemicals and would not first have to show they pose a potential risk. Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs'.
'Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs'.
Obama signs new law named for Lautenberg to stem toxic chemical risks
Updated on June 22, 2016 at 9:52 PM Posted on June 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM
President Obama signs the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
By Jonathan D. Salant
NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed into law legislation to regulate toxic chemicals, a measure championed by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg until the day he died.
With Lautenberg's widow Bonnie and several New Jersey lawmakers looking on, Obama affixed his signature to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
"Frank was passionate about this," said Obama, who served in the Senate with Lautenberg. "For him to be able to see this legacy completed must be greatly satisfying. He's looking down on us and feeling pretty good right now."
The bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to test chemicals using "sound and credible science" and impose regulations if they are shown to pose a health risk.
The EPA would set priorities for evaluating chemicals and would not first have to show they pose a potential risk. Manufacturers could ask the EPA to evaluate a particular chemical if they are willing to cover those costs.
It updates a 40-year-old federal law requiring chemicals be tested for safety. That bill prevented the U.S. government from regulating asbestos even after it was linked to cancer.
U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who now holds Lautenberg's seat in Washington, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th Dist.) were among those standing behind Obama on stage as he signed the legislation in an auditorium in the executive office building adjacent to the White House.
"It is truly a great testimony to not only bipartisan efforts but the legacy of Frank Lautenberg," Booker said. "That's why I rolled up my sleeves and worked even harder. I felt an extra personal obligation to get things done."
Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the bill would allow New Jersey to keep its tougher regulations on chemicals and would allow consumers to know whether chemicals in their products were safe.
"Without this bill, people really don't know what's harmful," Pallone said.
In the audience were Reps. Donald Norcross (D-1st Dist.), Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.), Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-9th Dist.) and Donald Payne Jr. (D-10th Dist.)
Bonnie Lautenberg said after the bill signing that the bill was a top priority of the senator's.
"Frank worked very hard on this," she said "I wish he was here to see this day come. I hope he knows what happened."
'In May, a Trump administration appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical unit directed the rewriting of rules on toxic chemicals that would make tracking their health risks more difficult'
AND here is Trump taking that 21st century chemical manufacturing toxicity structure and doing just as we said-----making it about ending last century's public interest public health toxicity data-----and making it about creating data putting corporate profits FIRST.
THIS WAS THE GOAL OF OBAMA AND LAUTENBERG POLICY CHEERLEADER COREY BOOKER------TRUMP SIMPLY MOVING FORWARD REQUIREMENTS OF TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT HAVING US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ALLOWING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS TO OPERATE IN US AS THEY DO OVERSEAS.
'It is possible to both support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals on education and healthy lives, as well as business growth'.
Well, since UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABILITY is global corporate sustainability of profits-----the opposite of US and global 99% SUSTAINABILITY ---then yes, TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD far-right wing global banking sustainability ----by totally deregulating chemical manufacturing policies and creating data making corporate products known to HARM-----look public interest. Who built overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and filled them with global corporate factories that then were allowed to devastate both environment and public health of communities and workers?
UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL 1% NEO-LIBERALS------
Directed to rewrite the rules on toxic chemicals.
Education Plus Development
Chemical warfare on children’s brains: Where environmental toxins meet education
Virginia Rauh and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek Monday, November 13, 2017
Education Plus Development
In May, a Trump administration appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical unit directed the rewriting of rules on toxic chemicals that would make tracking their health risks more difficult. Easing regulations on certain toxic chemicals—regulations that aim to keep dangerous toxic exposures out of the air, public drinking water, and the nation’s food supply—can result in a “chemical brain drain” that strangles the learning potential of children. This is clearly problematic as early childhood development programs show strong evidence of long-term impact and are among the few areas in the U.S. that enjoy strong bipartisan support. Exposing environmental toxins to children provides a new and insidious form of chemical warfare that can thwart these efforts to raise educational outcomes.
What are the effects of toxins?
For adults, exposure to toxins, including organophosphate pesticides, is known to cause impaired memory, convulsions, and parkinsonism, among other serious health effects. Currently, these pesticides are among the most widely used in the U.S. and globally for agricultural insect control and food production. Although banned for indoor residential use by the EPA in 2001, these chemicals continue to be used on numerous crops in farming communities, where residents are exposed via airborne drift and the general public is exposed via food residues.
One of us, Virginia, has demonstrated the potency of these chemicals on baby brain growth. Exposures during pregnancy have been linked to lowered birth weight, motor delays, ADHD-type behaviors, and working memory problems and tremor—and these adverse effects have been corroborated by published reports from other groups in California and New York, despite differences in populations, geographical locations, and ways of measuring exposure in the body. Most dramatically, behavioral effects have been backed up by changes in brain structure, persisting into adolescence.
The developing brain does not expect to be exposed to toxic chemicals that threaten its very structure and connections. Moreover, the developing brain is particularly vulnerable to lead and some pesticides—a sensitivity that is greatest in utero and throughout early childhood. Why? First, the structure and connections in the brain of an unborn child are fragile and “unfinished”. Second, young children have disproportionately heavier exposures to widespread chemicals, reflecting their higher metabolic rate, greater consumption of food, water, and air per pound of body weight, as well as reduced capacity to clear or expel chemicals from the body.
The negative consequences of early chemical exposure are both long lasting and potentially irreversible, with effects on school success, physical and mental health, and quality of life in adulthood. Protecting brain development from toxic chemical threats should be a global priority. This will require that regulatory agencies are aware of the impact their decisions can have on young children.
From one perspective, this example from the U.S. highlights conflicting economic and public health interests. On the one hand, governments hope to create environments in which children thrive—be it in school or out. Conversely, businesses enjoy greater profits when they are free from regulation. However, economic and public health interests should not be in conflict—they should be completely aligned. The workforce of 2042 is in utero today and we need to ensure policies provide enabling environments for successful development.
It is possible to both support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals on education and healthy lives, as well as business growth. To do so, however, requires that policymakers look across sectors—beyond the traditional bins in which they practice—to see how they influence one another. This means that educators need to understand environmental context, and science/public health professionals need to broaden their outcomes to include key indicators of learning.
As we prepare for success in a rapidly changing world, child health and education must remain a central priority. Ensuring that our children are ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century will require that we are mindful of the many factors that enhance or restrict future thinkers, actors, and doers. The use of toxic chemicals is high on the list of those policies that may yield short-term benefits to industry at the expense of long-term capacity of our children (and future workforce) to contribute to a vital and healthy national economy. True investment in early childhood is more than a budgetary issue; it means having the foresight to remove toxic exposures from our environment to create the conditions for optimal learning that will enable our children to thrive.
We already mentioned the obvious dangers of 21ST century deregulation of chemical manufacturing toxicity-------it places our US citizens and global 99% of labor pool inside global factories filled with the most toxic of materials just as is done in Asia-----we must be competitive in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. There will be no more Federal testing or university research setting toxicity guideline data for humans et al-----
Below we see what is a GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue only able to MOVE FORWARD if total deregulation of toxicity is installed. Remember, GREEN REVOLUTION gave us BIG AG MONSANTO filling our food supply with fertilizers and pesticides =====killing our US soil making it arid ====killing our pollinators and soil symbiosis-----now these same far-right wing global banking 5% players are MOVING FORWARD FAKE FOOD.
We read in national media one of those global 1% are starting a global corporation tied to manufacturing food that has no food sources. We have had artificial taste additives-----many people doubt if there is any real food in a MCDONALD'S hamburger for example. Now they are manufacturing what will be sold as food---with the tastes of what people are used to being food-----but having no real food in it.
REMEMBER---THIS IS VERY PLANETARY MINING SLAVE COLONY SCIENCE.
'Establish a Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII), a public-private partnership, through the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) focused on advanced manufacturing in the U.S. food industry'.
TANG is that artificial drink substance------but people do not drink TANG for their body nutrient content. We KNOW vitamins and minerals introduced through artificial supplements are not processed as vitamin and minerals attained from REAL FOOD. So, any manufactured food containing NO REAL FOOD----will not provide nutrients body needs---it will simply make people feel they have eaten.
It's all so TRANSFORMATIONAL-----we use this one example of how 21ST century deregulation of chemical manufacturing will allow this to MOVE FORWARD----even though it creates human detriment. The same as saying MONSANTO is good as all wild seed sources are privatized and chemicals are harming humans and flora/fauna.
UNL College of Engineering Transformational Food Manufacturing Innovation Institute (TFMII)
UNL College of Engineering
The Transformational Food Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Advanced Food Manufacturing (TFMII) is a shared vision that began in 2015 to create a national public‐private partnership focusing on improving the quality, volume, safety and security of food through advanced manufacturing.
As part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NNMI Competition, an initial proposal was submitted in April 2016. NIST then requested a full proposal, which is due July 22, 2016. (resource: http://www.nist.gov/amo/upload/NNMI2016FAQ.pdf)
The Institute has been proposed to help the U.S. government define the critical needs of the U.S. food and beverage industry for advanced manufacturing and research. If selected, the breadth and depths of the organizations of the TFMII will serve as a resource and a catalyst for innovative research and commercialization of technologies currently needed in the food industry and as rapid response and expert advice to the government. The TFMII will be headquartered at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, with branches at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of California, Davis.
In May 2016, a workshop was held in Washington, D.C., completing a critical follow‐up from the first workshop of the Transformational Food Manufacturing initiative held in May 2015 at the University of Nebraska‐Lincoln (Food Factory of the Future Workshop).
The D.C. workshop created a technology roadmap to identify the few critical technology areas the TFMII will focus on in order to fulfill its mission. Representatives from approximately 25 companies, manufacturing partnerships, state and regional development entities and universities worked to do the following:
- Identify the gaps in the current technology universe of the food and beverage industry
- Create a future roadmap proposal of realistic and proven technological solutions to help propel the industry to the next evolutionary level.
Establish a Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII), a public-private partnership, through the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) focused on advanced manufacturing in the U.S. food industry.
The MII opportunity:
- $70M from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce over 5 years
- Minimum 1:1 match from industry, academia, state and local governments (past winners have demonstrated ›2:1)
- This is an open topic competition; 2 MIIs will be awarded
- Proposal deadline: July 22, 2016
- The growing global population (~9 billion people by 2050) can be destabilized by a lack of healthy and plentiful food supply.
- 50% of the world’s food supply is lost to waste.
- In the U.S., the $300B food manufacturing industry is in a state of crisis.
- Energy and water intensive production methods have changed little since the early/mid 20th century.
- Much of our food is handled by humans who transfer and introduce contaminants and pathogens, creating recent recalls.
- Low margins, activist investors and industry inertia are drastically reducing R&D from the industry in favor of short returns.
- At the same time, there has been a dramatic increase in food safety-related recalls.
- The U.S. economy, global security and stability depend on our ability to make more abundant, higher quality, safer, less expensive and more secure food for a growing global population.
- Establish a pre-competitive public-private partnership (i.e., an MII) to transform how food is made.
- Focus primarily on food safety, security and automation as the unifying pre-competitive themes for the partnership.
- Industry executives identify the following three areas as highest priorities:
- Traceability – advanced sensors and big data analytics are necessary to detect and monitor transmission and growth of pathogens/allergens along the entire supply chain.
- Sanitation – this is a water, time and labor intensive process representing a cost of 3% of gross revenues industry wide
- Raw material prep-processing (disassembly) – these are dangerous (deboning), difficult, repetitive processes where humans can transfer contaminants across the entire production process.
Deploy transformational advanced manufacturing teams across four major technology areas:
- Automation and Control – This will allow workers to elevate their technical skill sets and operation away from the production floor.
- Sensors – State of the art sensors, both for automation and control, as well as for real-time detection of contaminants will be necessary.
- Big Data – Advances in information technology are making it possible to track critical food data along the entire supply chain.
- Antimicrobial Materials and Coatings – Significant cost reductions can be realized if coatings can be developed that are hostile to contaminants or better protect the final product.
- Sanitation – Savings in sanitation costs can be used to capitalize the food manufacturing transformation into the future.
- Raw Materials Preparation – The challenge is handling and cutting ingredients that are variable in size, shape, material properties, etc.
- Food Production Processes – This is at the heart of the transformation, making the food remotely away from the production floor
The ability to automate and control food production opens tremendous opportunities to tailor foods to individual customer tastes and preferences.
This will create opportunities for:
- Ultra-Customization – Like cars and consumer goods, food in the future can be customized for different personal and cultural tastes.
- Reduced Waste – Smaller lots with targeted ingredients will lead to significant reduction in the amount of food discarded in western societies.
- Sustainability – Production methodologies will be far more efficient, reducing the demand for ingredients, preservatives, energy and water.
- Safer, Wholesome Food Supply – This will drastically reduce the change of external microbial contamination and the risk of expensive food recalls.
Successful transformation of the food manufacturing industry will require solutions to and result in additional critical challenges:
- Standards and Certifications – Current codes and standards in the industry are often confusing (multiple agencies), antiquated, and impediments to positive change.
- Workforce Development – This transformation will create the need for a highly skilled technical workforce.
- Consumer Education/Public Policy – Success of the transformation will ultimately depend on a well-informed consumer who understands precisely what constitutes ‘high quality food’, how to keep it safe and protect the consumers.
'The Transformational Food Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Advanced Food Manufacturing (TFMII)'
Of course all this must be PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP in order to send all Federal and state taxes to subsidize what is global corporate private profits.
A public–private partnership facilitated by:
The University of Nebraska–Lincoln|Georgia Institute of
Technology|University of California–Davis
TRANSFORMATIONAL FOOD MANUFACTURING INNOVATION
INSTITUTE (TFMII) TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP WORKSHOP:
TRANSFORMING THE FOOD FACTORY TO THE CULINARY
CENTERS OF THE 21ST/22ND CENTURIES
10‐11 MAY 2016 /WASHINGTON, DC
Agriculture is the natural (but increasingly engineered and therefore less natural) transformation of biomaterials from one form to another form more valuable to humans. Advances in biomimetic materials and processes and the promise of biomanufacturing are gradually blurring the line between agriculture and manufacturing'.
'Both isolates are a byproduct of factory cheese production and cannot be efficiently broken down by the body in high concentrations.
Why I’m Breaking Up with Quest Bar, and You Should Too'
So, what we are seeing is reprocessing of what would be waste food products in processing REAL FOOD----making them taste like something else. We are seeing as well protein replicated under lab conditions being called natural. As this article states-----it is not natural and our bodies are not digesting much of what these 'food' products are. Increasingly these NEW INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS PATENTED are being distributed in third world nations as nutritional sources and are now entering our US food source supply for low-income people. Do high-protein as high-caffeine products harm people? YES.
The ''#1 Protein Bar'' may not be as perfect as we all think.
Lila SeeleyAmerican University
May 04, 2015
Protein bars are all the craze these days, serving as “healthy” on-the-go snacks for our generation’s busy lifestyle. One brand in particular has gained recent popularity: Quest Bar. These protein-packed bars have taken over social media as fans share their favorite flavors and clever ways to transform the bar into cookies and even cereal.
Photo courtesy of Instagram.com/questnutrition
Quest Bars boast an impressive amount of protein and fiber with only 1 gram of sugar in one low-calorie bar. For any diet conscious, busy consumer, Quest Bars seem like the perfect grab-and-go snack.
Although the brand advertises itself as such, a closer look at the ingredients label reveals that this bar may not be as healthy as we once thought.
Photo by Lila Seeley
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but when it comes to the food (or food-like substances) we’re consuming, truth triumphs over any wishful thinking. So, we at Spoon AU did our own little research into some of the ingredients behind the oh-so-famous Quest Bar.
Protein Blend (whey protein isolate and milk protein isolate)Photo by Malia Budd
Although whey protein is infamously used by body builders for increased muscle growth, whey protein isolate and milk protein isolate are far from natural sources of protein. Both isolates are a byproduct of factory cheese production and cannot be efficiently broken down by the body in high concentrations.
For many, these protein sources are known to cause digestion complications resulting in bloating, gas and constipation. No thank you Quest Bar.
Isomalto-Oligosaccharides (IMO)Photo by Lila Seeley
Yes, Quest Bar makes an effort to point out that this ingredient is derived from plant sources. However, the ingredient is added only after a lengthy processing method that results in a thick sticky syrup. IMO is not considered a natural fiber and is harder for your body to digest, causing even more havoc on your digestion.
Are 17 grams of fiber and 20 grams of protein in one serving really worth an achy cramping belly?
SucralosePhoto courtesy of Purepharma.com
This artificial sweetener, also known as Splenda, finds itself at the very end of the bar’s ingredient list, following a few other low-sugar sweeteners like erythritol and stevia. Some speculation exists surrounding the actual health consequences of Sucralose, but studies have found that Sucralose increases the chances of cancer and digestive diseases.
Regardless, artificial sweeteners are highly processed compounds that do not have a place in a healthy, balanced diet.
Photo by Lila Seeley
Quest Bars can be tasty, convenient forms of high concentrated protein. Not to mention, they’re fun to bake, broil and microwave into creative low-calorie treats. But next time you’re reaching for a protein bar snack, think twice about what you’re consuming. There are many other healthier options out there for a nutritious on-the-go snack.
We need to know that FDA is global BIG AG BIG MEAT------the one giving us the junk food having given billions of people around the world a host of industrial food disease vectors-----
We shared what was protein taken from non-meat sources ---here is yet another claiming to be 'vegan'. We have lab manufactured meat------having nothing to do with natural food sources. IT'S CHEMICALLY SIMILAR ------IS THE SAME MODUS OPERANDUS FOR PATENTING NEW BRANDS FROM GENERICS.
There is almost no CLINICAL TRIAL RESEARCH being done with what is completely artificial blending of chemical compounds with goals of tasting like FOODS PEOPLE LIKE.
'Government, Meet the Future. The Future, Government
In 2014, Impossible Foods filed what’s known as a GRAS notice, or “generally recognized as safe,” with the FDA. In it, the company listed the reasons it considered soy leghemoglobin safe for humans to consume. Leghemoglobin, they argued, is chemically similar to other globins considered safe, so it should carry the same confidence with consumers'.
This is today's FDA showing rightful concern over public health and safety-----what 21st century deregulated chemical manufacturing policy does is eliminate these global corporations even having to come to FDA for approval------if people can eat it and not die immediately there is no safety issue
'Hansen takes issue with the idea that leghemoglobin is similar to other edible globins are therefore safe. “As the FDA pointed out in their response, just because proteins have similar functions or similar three-dimensional structures, doesn't mean that they're similar," Hansen says. "They can have a very different amino acid sequence, and just slight changes can have impacts."'
This same repackaging of PHARMA untested and allowed to be patented because a former brand is similar----is creating widespread harmful reactions and/or death.....BIO-SIMILARS. Note that vegans are people wanting MOST PURITY AND NATURAL in their foods---they are being PLAYED.
The Impossible Burger: Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat That 'Bleeds'
The cook, complete with hair net, lays the red patty down on the grill and gives it a press with a spatula. And there, that unmistakable sizzle and smell. She flips the patty and gives it another press, lets it sit, presses it, and pulls it off the grill and onto a bun.
This is no diner, and this is no ordinary cook. She's wearing not an apron, but a lab coat and safety goggles, standing in a lab-kitchen hybrid in a Silicon Valley office park. Here a company called Impossible Foods has over the last six years done something not quite impossible, but definitely unlikely: Engineering a plant-based burger that smells, tastes, looks, and even feels like ground beef.
There are other veggie burgers on the market, of course, but Impossible Foods wants to sell consumers a real meat analog—one that requires a very different kind of engineering than your Boca or black bean burgers. So WIRED wants to take you on the deepest dive yet into the science behind the Impossible Burger.
Biting into an Impossible Burger is to bite into a future in which humanity has to somehow feed an exploding population and not further imperil the planet with ever more livestock. Because livestock, and cows in particular, go through unfathomable amounts of food and water (up to 11,000 gallons a year per cow) and take up vast stretches of land. And their gastrointestinal methane emissions aren’t doing the fight against global warming any favors either (cattle gas makes up 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide).
This is the inside story of the engineering of the Impossible Burger, the fake meat on a mission to change the world with one part soy plant, one part genetically engineered yeast—and one part activism. As it happens, though, you can’t raise hell in the food supply without first raising a few eyebrows.
The Lean, Mean Heme Machine
What makes a burger a burger? The smell, for one, and taste and texture, all working in concert to create something animal. It’s loaded with all manner of proteins that interact with each other in unique ways, creating a puzzle of sorts. But Impossible Foods thinks the essence of a meat lies in a compound called heme, which gives ground beef its color and vaguely metallic taste—thanks to iron in the heme molecule. In blood, heme lives in a protein called hemoglobin; in muscle, it's in myoglobin.
Interestingly, you’ll find globins (a class of proteins) not just across the animal kingdom, but in plants as well. Soy roots, for example, carry a version called leghemoglobin, which also carries heme. Leghemoglobin in soy and myoglobin in meat share a similar 3-D structure consisting of what's known as an alpha helical globin fold, which wraps around the heme.
So what if you could extract the heme from a plant to obtain that secret ingredient in ground beef? Well, the main problem, Impossible Foods found, is that you'd need a heck of a lot of soy: One acre of soybeans would yield just a kilogram of soy leghemoglobin.
Impossible Foods founder and CEO Pat Brown figured out how to hack together a better way. Technicians take genes that code for the soy leghemoglobin protein and insert them into a species of yeast called Pichia pastoris. They then feed the modified yeast sugar and minerals, prompting it to grow and replicate and manufacture heme with a fraction of the footprint of field-grown soy. With this process, Impossible Foods claims it produces a fake burger that uses a 20th of the land required for feeding and raising livestock and uses a quarter of the water, while producing an eighth of the greenhouse gases (based on a metric called a life cycle assessment).
Now, engineering a “beef” burger from scratch is of course about more than just heme, which Impossible Foods bills as its essential ingredient. Ground beef features a galaxy of different compounds that interact with each other, transforming as the meat cooks. To piece together a plant-based burger that’s indistinguishable from the real thing, you need to identify and recreate as many of those flavors as possible.
To do this, Impossible Foods is using what's known as a gas chromatography mass spectrometry system. This heats a sample of beef, releasing aromas that bind to a piece of fiber. The machine then isolates and identifies the individual compounds responsible for those aromas. “So we will now have kind of a fingerprint of every single aroma that is in beef,” says Celeste Holz-Schietinger, principal scientist at Impossible Foods. “Then we can say, How close is the Impossible Burger? Where can we make improvements and iterate to identify how to make each of those particular flavor compounds?”
This sort of deconstruction is common in food science, a way to understand exactly how different compounds produce different flavors and aromas. "In theory, if you knew everything that was there in the right proportions, you could recreate from the chemicals themselves that specific flavor or fragrance," says Staci Simonich, a chemist at Oregon State University.
Then there’s the problem of texture. Nothing feels quite like ground beef. So Impossible Foods isolates individual proteins in the meat. “Then as we identify what those particular protein properties are, we go and look at plants for plant proteins that have those same properties,” says Holz-Schietinger. Plant proteins tend to taste more bitter, so Impossible Foods has to develop proteins with a cleaner taste.
What they’ve landed on in the current iteration is a surprising mix. Ingredients include wheat protein, to give the burger that firmness and chew. And potato protein, which allows the burger to hold water and transition from a softer state to a more solid state during cooking. For fat, Impossible Foods uses coconut with the flavor sucked out. And then of course you need the leghemoglobin for heme, which drives home the flavor of “meat.”
For something that so accurately mimics the taste and look and feel and smell of meat (and trust us, it does), the Impossible Burger is actually not all that complex. “Earlier iterations were much more complex because we didn't fully understand it,” says Holz-Schietinger (experiments with cucumber and the famously smelly durian fruit didn't ... pan out, nor did trying to replicate the different connective tissues of a cow). “Now we understand which each component drives each sensory experience.”
At the moment, the Impossible Burger is only available in select restaurants, though Impossible Foods just opened a plant with the idea of increasing production from 300,000 pounds a month to a million. But as they focus on expansion, some critics are raising questions about the burger of tomorrow.
Government, Meet the Future. The Future, Government
In 2014, Impossible Foods filed what’s known as a GRAS notice, or “generally recognized as safe,” with the FDA. In it, the company listed the reasons it considered soy leghemoglobin safe for humans to consume. Leghemoglobin, they argued, is chemically similar to other globins considered safe, so it should carry the same confidence with consumers. Food companies aren’t required to tell the FDA when they’re introducing new ingredients, and filing this sort of self GRAS determination is not mandatory, but Impossible Foods says it did so in the name of transparency.
“Leghemoglobin is structurally similar to proteins that we consume all the time,” says Impossible Foods’ chief science officer David Lipman. "But we did the toxicity studies anyway and they showed that that was safe.” They compared the protein to known allergens, for instance, and found no matches. The company also got the OK from a panel of experts, including food scientist Michael Pariza at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
But the company didn't get the blessing it was looking for from the FDA. As detailed in documents FOIA'ed by environmental groups and published by The New York Times in August, the FDA questioned the company’s conclusions. “FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively, do not establish the safety of SLH [soy leghemoglobin] for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety…,” the FDA wrote in a memo. That is not to say the FDA concluded leghemoglobin to be unsafe, just that it had questions.
The FDA also noted that the company's engineered yeast doesn't just produce leghemoglobin—it also produces 40 other normally occurring yeast proteins that end up in the burger, which "raises further question on how the safety argument could be made based solely on SLH." Impossible Foods insists these proteins are safe, and notes that the yeast it has engineered is non-toxic, and that its toxicity studies examined the whole leghemoglobin ingredient.
Impossible Foods withdrew its GRAS notice in November 2015 to perform a new study. They fed rats more than 200 times the amount of the leghemoglobin ingredient than the average American would consume if the ground beef in their diet—an average of 25 grams a day—was replaced with Impossible's fake meat (adjusted for weight). They found no adverse effects.
Meanwhile, the Impossible Burger is on the market, which has some environmental groups peeved. That and there's the larger question of whether GRAS notifications should be voluntary or mandatory. “The generally recognized as safe exception was meant for common food ingredients, not for the leading-edge products, especially the innovative like the leghemoglobin,” says Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, which was not involved in the FOIA. “We don't think it should be a voluntary review, we don't think the law allows it.” Accordingly, the group is suing the FDA over the agency’s GRAS process.
DOthers are concerned that leghemoglobin—again, a new ingredient in the food supply, since humans don't typically eat soy roots—hasn’t gone through enough testing to prove it’s safe, and agree with the FDA that Impossible Foods’ GRAS notification came up short. “The point of some of us that are being critical of this is not that everything that's engineered is unsafe or anything like that,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at the Consumers Union, which was also not involved in the FOIA. “It's like, look, any new food ingredient, some new food additive, of course it should go through a safety assessment process.”
Hansen takes issue with the idea that leghemoglobin is similar to other edible globins are therefore safe. “As the FDA pointed out in their response, just because proteins have similar functions or similar three-dimensional structures, doesn't mean that they're similar," Hansen says. "They can have a very different amino acid sequence, and just slight changes can have impacts."
This is what happens when the future of food lands on the government’s plate. The central question: Should Americans trust companies to do their own food safety testing, or should that always be the job of the feds?
The reality is, different kinds of modified foods attract different levels of regulatory attention. "It is a patchwork system with little rhyme or reason," says crop scientist Wayne Parrott of the University of Georgia. "It depends on what is done, how it is done, and its intended use." You hear plenty about the crops, and most certainly about the long hullabaloo over that GM salmon. But not engineered microorganisms, which are extremely common. Why?
"Out of sight, out of mind," says Parrott. "And people also get more emotional over animals than they do over other things. With the salmon it was political. Very, very political."
Really, there's no inherent danger in genetically modifying a food. After all, the FDA wasn't raising its voice about soy leghemoglobin because it comes from genetically engineered yeast. The agency's job is to determine the safety of foods. "Any risk that's associated comes from traits," Parrott says. "It doesn't come from the way you put those traits in there."
This is only the beginning of a new era of high-tech, genetically engineered foods. Because if we want to feed a rapidly expanding species on a planet that stays the same size, we’re going to need to hack the food supply. Our crops will have to weather a climate in chaos. "We want to improve efficiency so we can feed 9 billion people without more land, without more water, without more fertilizer or pesticides," says Parrott.
And humanity will sure as hell have to cut back on its meat consumption. “We'll change the world more dramatically than any company possibly in history has ever done it,” says Impossible Foods founder Brown. “Because when you look at the impact of the system we're replacing, almost half of the land area of Earth is being occupied by the animal farming industry, grazing, or feed crop production.” That system, of course, will not give up ground quietly.
But who knows. Maybe shocking the system isn’t so impossible after all.
'As more biosimilars come to market, patients need to know that their treatments they rely on are safe and up to standard with other drugs approved by FDA. To make this happen, the FDA must instill ironclad patient safety standards that ensure biosimilars are as safe and effective as the reference innovative biologics'.
What we are seeing with INNOVATIVE MANUFACTURED FOOD is mirrored in INNOVATIVE uses of old brand patents made NEW again----as BIO-SIMILAR treatment any number of disease vectors---and NO----they are not brought through any clinical trial or safety standards because FAST-TRACKING to market is the VALUE-ADDED.
21st century reforms of CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING SAFETY-------is designed to open these kinds of markets-----no public safety ----not much real public health.
All of this falls under the far-right wing global banking 1% GREEN REVOLUTION which is today's GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY.
03/31/2011 08:25 am ET Updated May 31, 2011
Biosimilar and Counterfeit Meds: When Do They Become Dangerous?
By John Horton
A recent 60 Minutes special blasted open the dark and dangerous world of counterfeit drugs — a multi-billion dollar market that potentially affects the health and safety of anybody taking a prescription drug. The tens of thousands of fake prescription drugs that enter the U.S. each year range from sugar pills that fail to deliver necessary medical benefits, to those containing actual toxins that can kill (and indeed, have been linked to fatalities).
Over the last few decades, regulators and private industry, working together, have improved their collective sense of what works and what doesn’t, to fight counterfeiters. What if they were able to go back in time and apply these “lessons learned” decades ago, saving countless lives?
They can’t, of course — but there is an opportunity to apply that collective wisdom to a class of relatively new drugs called “biologics.” Precisely because biologics, which are made from living organisms, show significant promise, they will inevitably be a target for counterfeiters intent on making outrageous profits at the expense of patient safety.
So what can be done to prevent prescription drug counterfeiters from injecting the U.S. market with fake biologics?
First, the FDA is currently considering what is called an “abbreviated pathway” for approving legal knock-offs of biologics (called “biosimilars“) that will enable copycat and thus cheaper versions of these life-saving medications to become FDA-approved. It’s important to ensure that this process doesn’t cut corners: the FDA should hold biosimilars to the same standards of safety as the original biologics. Unlike non-biologic medicines, where a “generic” version is more or less an exact chemical replica, biosimilars can never truly be identical to the original biologic. Hence, the only way to ensure the same level of safety is to require similarly rigorous clinical testing for biosimilars as is required for the original biologics.
Second, it’s important to be open-eyed about how counterfeiters operate. Some have been known to insert convincingly real-looking counterfeits into the normal prescription drug supply chain. “Track and trace” technology affords regulators and drug companies the ability to follow a drug’s supply chain back to the origin.
Third, it’s important to empower pharmacists, physicians and patients. When a biosimilar is approved, labels and product names should adequately educate the reader as to whether the drug is the original biologic or a copycat biosimilar. As with any product, it’s tempting for copycat manufacturers to want to cash in on the original creator’s trademark, suggesting that the products are identical; but when it comes to medicines, is it safe to allow that?