B io ph ile Issu e 18 - Biophile Magazine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INBOX: OUR READERS WRITEHow muchcrueltycan youswallow?magine you've just eaten an enormouslunch. So enormous that you can hardlyImove. In fact, you are finding it difficultto breathe. You feel bloated, swollen and inagony."Why did I do it?, you ask yourself."Never again!" Now imagine you didn't havethe choice. What if, like the geese usedto produce foie gras, you were forced torepeat the process time and time again?What if, for the next 16 days, at regular - alltoo short - intervals, somebody pusheda rigid metal tube down your throat andfilled your stomach with food.The pain, discomfort and utter miseryyou would feel can only be imagined.Importing it, supplying it, ordering it,buying it and eating it means you are partof the cruelty, pain and suffering! You don´thave to be a bunny-hugging vegetarian towant to outlaw deliberate animal cruelty.It may be tradition, it may be culture,but times have progressed and the undeniablepain and suffering caused by modernfarming methods are unacceptable. foiegras is one of many unspeakably cruelitems we eat, but unlike chicken whichis the mainstay for many South Africanhouseholds, foie gras is trendy and forthose with the funds to spend outrageousamounts on a small plate consisting of 85%fat and 100% suffering.The foie gras industry often tries tojustify its practices by saying they are justan extension of the natural, pre-migrationgorging behaviors of migratory fowl, firstnoted by the Egyptians thousands of yearsago. However, this claim is patently falseon several accounts. First, migratory geesenever gorge themselves up until the pointof death before migration. Such extremebehaviors would be physically incapacitatingand would be antithetical to theirsurvival. The livers of wild ducks and geesemay expand up to twice their normal size,prior to migration, not a ten-fold expansionas found in forced-feeding production.Second, the duck species (MuscovyDavid Hill, the director of Good Relations(the Monsanto public relations in theUK), ran the media campaign for Blair’sLabour Party in the General Election victoriesof 1997 and 2001. Another eminentresearcher, Stanley Ewen, said that hewas told the same story by another seniorfigure at Rowett:“That conversation is sealed in my mind.My jaw dropped to the floor, I suddenlysaw it all – it was the missing link. Untilthen I couldn’t understand how on MondayArpa had made the most wonderfulbreakthrough and on Tuesday it was themost dreadful piece of work and rejectedout of hand.”The vicious campaign against Dr Pusztaiwas as coordinated as it was callous.Reports attacking him were published bythe Illuminati, Royal Society and ScienceTechnology select committee of the Houseof Commons with its pro-Blair majority.Cabinet Minister Jack Cunningham,another Blair lapdog, condemned DrPusztai’s “wholly misleading results” andsaid that all GM food in Britain would besafe to eat. But how does a#+”$@ like Cunningham know thatcompared with the world’s leadingauthority? It has nothing to do with truthor protecting the public. It is politicalbusiness. GM food is a done deal. The Blairgovernment is one of the most corrupt inall British history and it has fundamentalties to the biotech industry. In its first twoyears in office GM food companies metgovernment officials 81 times.Blair’s unelected Science Minister LordSainsbury is a dedicated supporter of GMfood.When he was appointed he held largeshareholdings in biotech companies Datatechand Innotech which were placed ina blind trust so that he could not knowinglybenefit from decisions he makes ingovernment – hummmm has he forgottenhe has them? He made 20 million UKPounds profit in four years from Innotechand such wealth allows him to be the biggestsingle donor to Blair’s Labour Partywith payments of more than 8 million UKPounds since it came to power.But what of Professor James, the head ofRowett, who also felt the wrath of dictatorBlair? At the time he enjoyed good relationswith Blair and he’d been chosen tohead the planned Food Standards Agency.But that changed after Dr Pusztai madehis comments.“You destroyed me” he told Dr Pusztai.“This is how the Illuminati work to stifledissent and mislead the public. You wantto advance your career? OK do what wewant and you’ll be fine. Speak your mindand we’ll destroy you.”Anonymousand Mulard or Moulard) used in foie grasproduction are non-migratory and notpredisposed to gorging as are wild geese.In addition, wild birds who do migrateexpend the excess fat for migration, unlikethe severly confined birds in foie grasfacilities. Artificially-induced gorging isextremely painful and debilitating to thesebirds, as noted by the European ScientificCommittee on Health and Animal Welfare's1998 report, which concluded that"Whilst the domestic goose might well beadapted to store food before migration,it is less likely that a cross between thedomestic duck and the Muscovy duck, theMulard, has such potential for food."The foie gras industry also defends theirproduction methods by claiming it is along-held tradition. However, ducks andgeese fattened with figs in olden timeswere not forced to endure living insidedark warehouses in cramped and dirtywire cages with little or no water andforce-fed with wide, inflexible and nonlubricatedpipes.The inherent cruelty of foie gras hasresulted in the production being banned inmany countries around the world, includingSouth Africa, the UK, most USA states,Isreal and others and many states arestarting to ban the supply in restaurants.It is still available in South Africa throughimports however, and the cycle of crueltycontinues.Kindly visit www.sentience.co.za to seehow you can help end the supply and availibilityin South Africa with a click of yourmouse. We welcome 'no foie gras' pledgesfrom restaurants and any companies whohold large functions, stating they will notserve foie gras at their functions or establishmentsand these will be advertised onthe website as caring companies.Toni Brockhoven8 Biophile Issue 18
BlatantDeceptionJohnson & JohnsonrespondsRe: False Statements by Biophile TeamDear Ms. Torr:I represent Johnson & Johnson ConsumerCompanies, Inc. who markets theJohnson’s® Soothing Naturals® line ofproducts. We have become aware of yourpublication in which you make numerousfalse and irresponsible statementsregarding our Soothing Naturals BodyWash product. A copy of your publicationis attached. You claim that the productnot only contains ingredients that aredangerous and should not be applied to anyskin, especially that of babies, but also thatit contains “a cocktail of chemicals thatshould not be near any babies skin.” Thesebroad accusations are completely false.Our company is made up of mothers andfathers who take the safety of our productsfor all consumers, including babies, veryseriously. Our products are rigorouslyreviewed, tested and proven safe and effectiveprior to distribution.In addition to your general statementsthat our products contain dangerous ingredients,you purport to list which ingredientsyou believe are dangerous and why.Your intent is clearly to scare consumersbased upon falsehoods and misleadingstatements. For example, you suggest thatINBOX: OUR READERS WRITEEcocert has “banned” certain ingredientsand therefore that those ingredients areunsafe. Simply because a product hasnot been certified by Ecocert (or as youstate “not allowed”) as organic or natural,does not make the ingredient unsafe. Infact, as you well know, many “natural” or“organic” substances can be extremelydangerous. All of the ingredients includedin our products have been carefully chosenfor their safety and efficacy. Any suggestionthat these ingredients, as formulatedin our products, are carcinogenic, toxic orotherwise unsafe, is false.We take this matter very seriouslyand are prepared to defend our productsand their safety. We expect that you willimmediately stop making these false andmisleading statements.We look forward to your responsewithin 7 business days. You may reach meat 908-874-2430 if you wish to discuss thismatter.Sincerely yours,Clayton Paterson,Assistant General CounselDear Clayton,The following is in response to your letter.We are sorry that you have taken offenceto our article, but we continue to stand bythe information. There is nothing false ormisleading about it.The newly launched range of products"Naturals" is by very virtue of the name,insinuating that you are putting on theshelf a pure and 'natural' product. Thedefinition of 'natural' is: "according to orprovided by nature and NOT artificial".Your product is NOT 'natural' and you arepretending that it is by calling it such andthis is false and misleading. I think thatthe only 'natural' thing in it is the waterand sodium. The vast majority of thepublic is totally ignorant and sadly 'trust'well established names such Johnson &Johnson.It is not 'new' news now in the industry,and the latest responsible and ethical researchshows that many of the ingredientsthat have been included in the "Naturals"range pose a serious threat to the healthof people when they are regularly absorbedinto the skin. This is even worsefor children, whose systems are still in thedevelopmental stages and their organs areoften not as efficient in the elimination oftoxins. This is often not apparent immediately,but over time the effects are serious.And I am sure that you are well aware ofthe fact that up to 60% of what goes ontothe skin goes in, and in many cases issystemic.If you are in any doubt as to the authenticityof our information please read the recommendedpublications at the end of thisletter. You will discover for yourself thatit is true and verified by some of the bestindependent researchers who are honestand not paid by big business to promotethe lies, deception and pure callous greedthat motivates them in their serious businessof 'profit before people'.Johnson & Johnson are in a position toprovide a product that is ethical andharmless but they choose to go the 'cheap'route and make millions instead. Butwhat is so disgusting and unethical is thatthey are now 'cashing in' on the latest andfastest growing movement in the world;namely 'natural and organic'. It costs ahuge amount more to formulate productswithout the undesirable chemicals andthe profits are much less. If you are goingto call a product 'natural' then you havea moral obligation to formulate it fromorganic and natural ingredients set downby the strict standards of the organiccertifying organizations. If organic ingredientsare not used, in the main part,it is certainly not natural, and this is notdifficult to understand.If an ethical approach was adopted theproducts would be removed from theshelves forthwith and reformulated withproper ingredients.As is our custom, we shall be printingyour letter of complaint together with ourresponse in the next issue of Biophile.Regards and hoping for a healthier andmore ethical planet.Anthea TorrRecommended reading:Cosmetics Unmasked by Antczak S & GChemical Exposures: Low levels and highstakes by Miller N AshfordCleaning yourself to Death by Pat ThomasWhat's in this Stuff by Pat ThomasChemicals in everyday products by Lewis GRossDr Samuel Epstein - Many papers exposingthe links between cancer and ingredients inperson care productsBiophile Issue 189
Page 6 and 7: INBOX: OUR READERS WRITEQuestioning
Page 8 and 9: Earth SongI tried to imaginealways
Page 12 and 13: 10 Biophile Issue 18
Page 14 and 15: the biofiles news from around our w
Page 16 and 17: BIOFILESget active! what you can do
Page 18 and 19: Sounding the AlarmMore than forty y
Page 20 and 21: SOUNDING THE ALARMRachel Carsonchan
Page 22 and 23: Sandbag HouseAn eco-friendly house
Page 24 and 25: SSay'No!' toAnimalsinPetshopsPetsho
Page 26 and 27: Roll on, our own "special period"!W
Page 28 and 29: "Our 'cleverness' has led to an uns
Page 30 and 31: FAsTing drinksFAsTing drink FOr PiT
Page 32 and 33: The GreatAwakeningby Michael Sharph
Page 34 and 35: SUSTAINABLEARCHITECTUREDesign and C
Page 36 and 37: Subscribe to BiophileSave Money,Sav
Page 38 and 39: epression has become very big.A rec
Page 40 and 41: Who’s that Girl?In 1994 a Siberia
Page 42 and 43: aw food lifeEnergetic Eating by Ber
Page 44 and 45: Today, more than ever before,life m
Page 46 and 47: individuals are doing what they can
Page 48: Want to save the planet, do somethi
Page 51 and 52: Honouring Traditional Wellbeing - N
Page 53 and 54: Biophile Issue 1851
Page 55 and 56: herbsforhealthHerbs foreveryday ail
Page 57 and 58: not satisfied with what you experie
Page 59 and 60: food from treesPerhaps one of the b
Page 61 and 62:
Muslim sailors from Zanzibar, joine
Page 63 and 64:
Greening the Webwithurban sprout is
Page 65 and 66:
lo#*;4:bflo#*;lo#*;4:;4:Burnun Burn
show all

B io ph ile Issu e 18 - Biophile Magazine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?