Shocking 10 Foods Americans Eat that are BANNED in Other Countries!

cancer causing foods

Photo credit: bigstock

Most Americans assume that if the FDA has approved a food or dairy product, then it’s perfectly safe to eat. This is a dangerous assumption friend! Now it’s true that the FDA passed some new regulations to keep the fresh food supply safer, however, for some reason known only to the FDA, they continue to allow certain foods to be sold in the U.S. that are banned in other countries.. The sad truth is, America is the richest country in the world yet, and its food is incredibly inferior to that of other countries. An American nutritionist, Mira Calton, and her husband, Dr. Jay Calton, traveled to more than 100 countries to study more than 150 ingredients and food products that are forbidden by other governments due to their damaging effect on human health. Here is a list of the top 10 foodstuffs and ingredients that are banned in many other countries but allowed in the USA.

1. Olestra aka Olean


This is a calorie and cholesterol free fat substitute made by Procter and Gamble to make fat free snacks such as potato chips and French fries. There have been several reports of terrible intestinal reactions to this products including cramps, severe diarrhea, and leaking bowels. It also keeps the body from absorbing vitamins such as A, D, E, and K, so much so that the FDA demands that these vitamins be added to any product that contains Olean.

This product is banned in the UK and Canada.

PrevPage: 1 of 10Next
  • tevra

    I call B.S. even if any of this is true and the author has not even tried to make a prima facie case only scare tactics, it is only a problem if you ingest massive amounts daily. Just as with the deceitful corn syrup propaganda all you need is to use a little common sense and take everything in moderation and you can avoid problems.

  • Makeprogress

    Zero evidence presented that Hawaiian papayas are dangerous at all! Notice the writing immediately switches to other foods and very vaguely suggests “lots of evidence lately” without citing any at all. GM foods have actually been around 20 years and there has been no linkage *at all* to tumors, etc. And no we aren’t getting more sterile either! Total BS! And while the EU political divisions have banned GM foods, the EU science divisions are unanimous that the politicians are wrong. What a surprise!

    • yoda716

      so you are saying that their is no BVO in sport drinks….

      • Makeprogress

        Reading is an important competency most of us acquire at an early age. No, didn’t say anything about BVO in sport drinks. Just commented on the usual BS about GMO food.

    • Tossaway

      GM foods have been around for thousands of years. It’s only in the last few decades that it’s been done in a laboratory. On the other hand GM foods have helped reduce hunger by both reducing losses and by creating foods that can grow in drought areas and other adverse conditions. This article implies that “banning” something somehow means other parts of the world have better food. It’s part of the same lie that says “organic” is better, *as if there were any other kind of food*. All food is organic. Motor oil is organic. Arsenic and asbestos are natural. Hell, crude oil is raw, natural, AND organic.

      • Vinnie Creation

        The difference is the fact that organic veggies have the absence of pesticides. Pesticides are a know carcinogen

        • Tossaway

          “organic veggies” ALL veggies are organic. There is no food that is not organic. It’s all made of carbon compounds. Good lobbyists managed to convince the USDA that there is something special about the word “organic” and thus allow some food producers to overcharge their naive and gullible customers. Saying that some food is not organic is similar to saying that some water is not wet. You’ll find that most pesticides are organic, as well.

          • Bluetoe2

            The indoctrination and propaganda efforts have been a complete success in your case. Monsanto would be pleased.

          • Tossaway

            Well, there’s someone who didn’t pay attention in science class. Otherwise you’d know that the definition of “organic” is “carbon based”, and all food, as with all life on Earth, is carbon based. You can involve Monsanto all you want, but only by admitting you don’t understand that organic chemistry, and the related definitions, came about long before there was a Monsanto. It’s you who have fallen for the demonstrably false propaganda of the anti-science crowd. *God* made all food organic, and most pesticides as well. You’d have to do a little research using actual science instead of regurgitating propaganda to know that.

          • Bluetoe2

            Let me guess. You’re a “free market” libertarian. By all means eat all the GMO’s your heart desires. Monsanto is counting on it.

          • Tossaway

            “Let me guess. You’re a “free market” libertarian. ” I’m a guy who actually paid attention in science class and who does his homework before posting. And I see that you responded in no substantive way to my posts, thus admitting that you don’t understand science or history, and in no way refuting the scientific fact that all food is composed of carbon compounds and therefore all food is organic. Hatin’ Monsanto won’t change that verifiable fact in the least.

          • Greg Willis

            No. You’re a guy who is arguing a false premise that organic chemistry is the same as organic agriculture when you know full well it’s NOT TRUE.

          • Tossaway

            Actually, my premise is that all food has carbon based molecules in it, such as cellulose or chlorophyll, and as such all food is organic by at least one definition, regardless of the method of production. Using the chemistry definition of “organic”, all food is organic. Using the means of production definition, some food is organic. Since the same word applies to all food using one definition and also applies only to some food using a different definition, that means it applies to all food because at least one definition is always applicable, thus all food is organic. Now, if you are talking about the means of production, then say so by using the phrase “organically grown” or “organically produced”, but if you are simply going to use the word “organic”, then you are talking about all food, even those drenched in artificial pesticides. Don’t use a word that has multiple meanings if any of those meanings apply in a way you don’t mean.

          • Ken

            I see the issue. You cannot assume the definition remains the same in your statement:

            “Using the chemistry definition of “organic”, all food is organic. Using the means of production definition, some food is organic.”

            That is true, but the two are different definitions and are not related. Just like my server vs server example. You can change your statement to read:

            Using the chemistry definition of “organic”, all food is carbon based. Using the means of production definition, some food is grown without harsh pesticides and fertilizers.

            Truly, I think the error here is confusion on your part (no offense) on when to use which version of the word.

            This has nothing to do with science (fyi I am software engineer that used to be an nurse and who enjoys growing my own food).

          • Tossaway

            There’s no confusion on my part. One definition always applies to food. If someone is using a definition that only sometimes applies, then that person needs to clarify. Instead of calling food “organic” when referring to the means of production, then a far better term would be “produced organically”, since that term only applies to the means of production. Just using the word “organic” defaults to the broader definition which applies to all food and a lot of non-food stuff. Or, to ease the “confusion” further, invent an entirely different word for the means of production that is currently called “organic”. As the other definition under discussion here has been in use longer, it gets to keep the word “organic”. There are also several other definitions for the word “organic”, most of which do not apply to food, so creating an entirely new word for use with food production would completely solve the issue.

          • Ken

            Then your argument rests on semantics, which is not a valid argument as the two have defined definitions separate from each other. The concept you are apparently arguing is seen in all aspects of life where an idea, item, or methodology uses a similar phonetic reference, or word in this case. I reference you back to the easy to understand network server vs web server. They are not the same thing but use the same word. Both do serve, only in different ways. Both are part of an information system.

            I cannot stress enough you are being restricted by a certain amount of confusion as to what the argument is here. If the argument is simply that you do no like that one word is being referenced in two ways (and with two definitions), that is not something you can prove as it becomes your opinion. In that case, you are entitled to that opinion and I have nothing else to say. But trying make this out as though if someone thinks differently than you on this then they do not understand science is an ‘argument from ignorance’ (which is a concept, I am not calling you ignorant, you obviously are an intelligent person ).

          • Tossaway

            When one definition of a word always applies, and another definition of the same word sometimes applies, it is the use of the sometimes applicable definition that is confusing and problematic and that requires additional qualifiers. We are not talking about a homonym here, which requires two entirely different and unrelated uses of the same word (and often different pronunciation). Here we are talking about a word that always applies to food and also sometimes applies to food. Now if you want to use the word “organic” with its standard pronunciation for food composition (each syllable with equal emphasis) and a different pronunciation or syllable emphasis (say, OR-gan-ic), no problem. Tonal languages like Chinese don’t have this issue. It is the failure to clearly identify the use of the sometimes applicable definition that is the problem, not my use of the word.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Not really semantics. The term organic predates the use of the word organic as a growing method. I tend to support older and more accurate definitions. I never use cash. Cash refers to metal coins. I.e. “Cold hard cash” By definition cash can not be printed on paper. That is currency. Honest currency was used to represent something such as gold, silver, or in at least one case coral. Hence silver certificates. Dishonest currency, currently is more prone to manipulation and with excess printing can cause inflation. Get out an POLD dictionary for the definition of inflation. As you will find the krugman types have changed that as well. I believe Tossaway is trying to stick to basics rather than play semantic games. Am I correct Tossaway?

          • Ken

            Yes, it is semantics. Semantics are the meanings of words…that is not debatable. The current acceptable and used meanings of the word organic represents either definition. To say that is not semantics shows you do not understand the concept.

            Cash also is accepted and used in today’s world to mean not-credit or checks, only physical tangible currency. So again, there is no right or wrong…its semantics regardless of your interpretation.

            Words change…they change to meet the needs of the current people and groups using them. Semantics is born from that concept. Semantics is not a game, if it were, the only one playing it would be you guys…I have said its not a question of right or wrong…that is what semantics are.

          • frank

            Pay attention! The discussion is about process, not content. Organic food is about the process of growing food. Of course ‘plant matter’ is organic in its compositional content. Stop muddying the water with this nonsense. There are too many serious issues facing humanity to waste time on stupid teasing. Grow up!

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Ken, you just got snagged. “harsh” look up the msds on rotenone, or the chance of an organic using manure too close to harvest and see if harsh doesn’t fit what could be the result.

          • Ken

            How does your post have anything to do with this conversation? We are speaking on the usage of the word organic…not the effects of manure too close to harvest.

          • Ken

            I have to agree with that statement. While tossaway has points, they are not exactly in the same realm of study.

          • disqus_c197zi57ib

            No, you sound like a guy who works for one of these companies that produce or market some of the garbage that they try and pass off for food. You go ahead and eat this stuff like most Americans do. I don’t eat it.

          • Tossaway

            Which does not in any way change the fact that all food, without exception, by at least one definition of the word, is organic.

          • Brianchip

            Just for the record Monsanto and Searle are the people who brought you Nutrasweet, which has been linked in many scientific studies to everything from seizures, memory loss, blindness and many heart issues. And if you want scientific facts it’s 10% methanol which is broken down by your body and one of the by products is formaldehyde which there is years of scientific studies showing it should not be in your body. Oh and one other note, the FDA never tested Nutrasweet, they allowed the manufacturer to submit their own studies and results. Shocker, they said it was fine since they stood to make millions from it. So while the government may not be out to get you, they are out to get your money and they are by no means putting our health and well being first.

          • Brian Brandt

            Aspartame is made from methanol but not metabolized to methanol. Do your homework. Do not spread lies.
            it contains NO METHANOL. Aspartame is not metabolized to formaldehyde. Good old ethanol is. I think I’ll have a drink now.

          • frank

            This is an old discussion so time won’t save you. Hope you enjoyed your drink: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553132 discusses the harm caused by aspartame metabolites on specific brain cells. ” The artificial sweetener is broken down into phenylalanine (50%),
            aspartic acid (40%) and methanol (10%) during metabolism in the body.
            The excess of phenylalanine blocks the transport of important amino
            acids to the brain contributing to reduced levels of dopamine and
            serotonin”. Take note of the drastically increased diagnoses of parkinson-like syndromes and mental disorders including depression and bipolar disorders.
            Lots more studies where this came from. Your “homework” is yet unfinished.

          • frank

            Same arguement can be said about gmos in that the fda never tested them for safety either. Obviously we have strayed too afar from our rural background when we allow the fox to guard the henhouse. Sad.

          • Greg Willis

            What YOU don’t understand, Tossaway, is that the word “organic” is a marketing tool used to differentiate the way food is grown from chemical agriculture to non-chemical agriculture, but even that can be disputed. You, my friend, are pickin’ nits.. But all you’re actually accomplishing is making yourself look ignorant. The organic food movement was started in England in the 40’s as a response to a lack of chemical fertilizer during WWII, and the consequent rise of food grown sans chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides, herbicides and fungicides after the war. It’s a crop management system that uses compost, natural fertilizers, animal fertilizers, companion planting, crop rotations and generally a return to the practices in farming before 1880, only on a slightly more scientific basis. And even calling “organic” farming “scientific” is a stretch inasmuch as little real scientific research has been done, compared to chemical agriculture, to support it. The term “organic”, therein used, means these farmers and gardeners eschew fertilizers and pesticides derived from gas or oil sources, instead, using “natural” pesticides. They are just as poisonous but they’re “natural” and “organic”. So stop with the sophomoric stupidity. “Organic”means “organically grown”. And that’s ALL it means.

          • Tossaway

            ” is that the word “organic” is a marketing tool used to differentiate the way food is grown from chemical agriculture to non-chemical agriculture” That’s exactly what it is- a marketing tool. All food is organic, but some special interest lobbyists managed to get the government to create a special definition so that folks who tell the truth about their food but don’t use the special definition can be fined. “Organic” means “composed of carbon compounds”, and it has been known by that definition for at least a couple of hundred years. If it contains cellulose or chlorophyll and is food, it’s organic, regardless of the amount of pesticides dumped on it, and if those pesticides have long-chain carbon molecules in it, then they are organic as well. It’s only ignorance that spreads the claim that some food is organic, when it is all organic by one definition or another.

          • Ken

            I think both sides here are right. Organic is used to represent foods grown in specific manner. That does not negate that all foods are organic.

            Consider computers. A server is not just a server. If I say, “I need to connect to my server” that might mean that I need to connect to the central location for data on my network. It may also mean that I need to connect to an application serving data from my machine like a web server. So if I have a web server, someone else that has a network server cannot say my web server is not a server, though the two are quite different and both are considered servers.

            Organic food is food that has been grown with little to no processed and refined fertilizers. That does not negate that all food is organic. “Organic” is simply a term used to denote the way it was grown. They just as easily could have called ‘Natural Food’ or ‘Natural-simulated’.

            I can see your side of the argument because sure, someone choose the word organic and at the time of them choosing that word, that word only had one meaning and that was carbon based life. But, all words originate from somewhere and at the moment of their acceptance, did not mean what it becomes to mean. Search engine optimization using the term ‘organic’ also to show traffic that came without the need for paid advertisement. So that is showing another use of the word in the same manner. That ultimately shows while your stance is valid, it is vastly outweighed by the opposing stance of using ‘organic’ as a symbolized label meaning ‘using natural methods’ as the word has come to be used in many fields.

            Words can change over time, there was a country song about this: back when a hoe was hoe, etc etc

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Or you may want to talk to the beautiful young lady that just served your pizza and beer.

          • frank

            It sees that you are stuck in your thought process, unable to incorporated new concepts and ideas. Perhaps your diet is heavy in gm ingredients. So sad. We’ll cut you some slack.

          • Tossaway

            And yet, the concept that all food is organic because it consists of organic compounds, a demonstrable fact, is beyond you. Try less probiotics and more real food.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            No organic means carbon based. As in some folks took organic chemistry in college. The misnomer for organic growing was coined by Robert Rodale sr. According the probably biased folks at organic gardening mag. The term is one of the least harmful ways in which George Orwell has proven to be almost a prophet. I believe the gardens in the U.K. roughly coincided with the victory gardens here. The use of such techniques should be encouraged as much as circumstances and cost effectiveness allow. As organic growing is a good method of recycling and soil building. As with any growing method there are both strong and weak points associated. Organic inputs are often expensive and heavy to ship. In my area many organic farmers rely on chicken manure, which can have arsenic. Also because inorganic nitrogen gets into chicken feed and then out the rear ends of the chickens does not make it truly an organic source.

          • frank

            Most of us have grown up and have moved on from elementary science to real life. The discussion of organic food is all based upon the USDA definition of what constitutes organic. It is a technique, not a chemical composition.

            Are you one of those professional Monsanto obfuscators we’ve been reading about in the news?

          • Tossaway

            Interestingly enough, the same chemical processes used in the lab work in real life. Thus, all food is still organic in real life, regardless of the method of production.

          • Tossaway

            A USDA definition created by organic corporate lobbyists wanting a marketing gimmick to fleece suckers. Yeah, nothing like lobbyists obfuscating the facts and paying off regulators to put money in the pockets of the “organic” industry.

        • Greg Willis

          No Pesticides used in certified “organic” foods?
          This is a LIE that’s been pushed by the organic people from the beginning of the “organic”movement back in the 40’s.
          The question you should be asking is how do certified organic producers KILL pests and fungal infestations like Powdery Mildew? They use “Certified Organic” APPROVED pesticides and fungicides. That’s how. And ANY notion to the contrary is a LIE. Organic vegetables can be LOADED with APPROVED PESTICIDES. They are used all the time. When poisons are used, nutrition suffers AND you get the joy of EATING Certified Organic Poisons with your meal. Now THAT’S the TRUTH about “pesticides” in “organic” fruits and vegetables. They’re LOADED with ’em.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Greg, like conventional and g.e. production methods. “organic” can be pesticide free, loaded with approved ones, or perhaps contaminated by volatile pesticides in shipping or stores. It all depends on skill and integrity levels of individual growers, shippers, and maybe most of all on actual pest pressure in a given growing season.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          No, They are supposed to free of synthetic pesticides. They allow “natural” pesticides such as pyrethrin and rotenone.

      • frank

        Major obfuscation going on here! Big difference between gm and hybrid. This is elementary science. Even Monsanto claims that gm technology has only been around for a couple of decades. If you’re talking about mitochondrial drift, say so. And tell me how gm “food” is supposed to feed the masses if said “food” becomes too expensive to grow and buy? To deny people the right to save their crop seed for next yr’s planting is criminal in my book. As for drought resistance, sorry, organic versions have a better track record. It seems that you are also out of the loop in regards to what organic means when discussing food. The USDA website has clear definitions, and they don’t include motor oil, arsenic, asbestos, etc. Nice try.

        • Tossaway

          Hybrid foods *are* GM foods, using a longer process.

    • frank

      Endocrine disruptor caused tumours often take longer than 20 yrs to develops. No secret there. And according to U.S. gov. population data, fertility rates have dropped significantly in the last ten plus yrs. Have these issues developed due to gm crops? Monsanto, etc. wouldn’t tell us even if they did. And EU science divisions are not independant from Monsanto, etc. I for one would never leave my fate in their hands. If you want to, be my guest.

  • Lily’s Mom

    Regarding farm raised salmon: While there may be a lot of things bad about farm raised salmon, feeding them astaxanthin is not one of them. Astaxanthin is a very popular, and very beneficial dietary supplement.

  • Louis E.

    All the “we don’t feed our cows artificial hormones” brags I see in stores and on cartons admit there’s no evidence the hormones cause health problems.So how come it’s stated as a fact here?

    • Tossaway

      The US government currently pays dairy farmers to cut herds and buys excess milk to dump down the drain, in order to keep prices up. The only problem with hormones to increase milk production is that it was a solution to a non-existent problem. How about the US government stop subsidizing farms and stop buying milk to dump to reduce the supply, and let the market handle it?

      • L Cavendish

        $7/gallon milk anyone? I don’t drink much…so does not affect me too much.

        • Tossaway

          If the government stopped pouring milk down the drain in order to reduce the supply, the cost of milk would go down, not up, as the supply increased. The government should not be deciding the size of dairy herds.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Ding Ding Ding fweet fweet …We have a winner. Let’s get rid of lots of subsidies.

  • JB

    you can taste it too. our food tastes genetically modified.

    • E.

      Yes Sir,Indeed! Well said.

  • jimbob2012

    This article is not about foods that are banned in other places. The title should be ‘The SHOCKING Sh*t your government allows producers to add to your food.’ The FDA is a disgrace.

  • madame nose

    Unfortunately we live in a country in which regulatory agencies have essentially lost their power, co-opted by ultra-right-wing lobbying groups … As long as this is the case, Americans will not enjoy the good health derived from safe foods and drugs

    • Tossaway

      ” we live in a country in which regulatory agencies have essentially lost their power” Piffle. The rate of production of new rules and regulations is almost asymptotic. On the other hand, we do have a president that blatantly ignores the law- for example, the employer mandate began January 1, 2014, by the Affordable Care Act law, and neither the president nor anyone else has any authority whatsoever to change that date. Notice how the president, with nonexistent authority, announced all sorts of delays until after the elections. He has ignored all sorts of politically problematic deadlines in the ACA alone.

    • Ken

      …you could grow your own vegetables like many other places in the world.

  • ShareTheRoad10

    You know it has to be pretty bad when China bans it.

  • Paulo Ferreira

    Just shows you how blind and stupid people are these days, especially if they trust the FDA, now tell me how does adding chemicals not sound bad to you? Also whether or not everything in these articles are true is one thing but if you actually think there’s no truth to any of it then you need to wake up because anytime other countries ban something its a good sign that we do not know the entire truth and that it can’t be good that’s for sure. Also I like the comment about how if china banned it that can’t be good because I completely agree.

    • L Cavendish

      So what the heck does anyone eat? Most foods…even organic…have something in them that is bad for us in some way…
      You get information…make your own decisions…just like drinking, smoking, drugs…etc.

    • Robert Backus

      Sorry, some of this may be true, but the fact that a nation bans something only means some politicians made a political decision that probably had little to do with science. For those who don’t know, science is not 1 or 2 or even a few studies. No, science is many studies with REPEATABLE results that any/all other scientist get. Probably none of this is scienceFact.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        You just made an intelligent comment therefore you are either a Monsanto paid shill or related to former M. Wolverine offensive tackle Jeff Backus.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      Just how does an idiotic gov’t action by an often corrupt bunch of power mad loonies caving in to political pressure have any relevance to what is or is not safe? I think I’ll go put some citric acid chemicals into my chemical tea and mix it with that infamous chemical water. Then drink it and fail to die.

  • Datrebor

    Twenty-seven other countries, including Japan, South Korea,Mexico, Taiwan, Canada, and the United States, have determined that meat from animals fed ractopamine is safe for human consumption.The effect of ractopamine on humans is not entirely known, but consumption of products that contain ractopamine residues is not advisable to people with cardiovascular diseases.

  • pissedoffconsumer

    This Country is DISGUSTING!! anything for a profit..There must be a correlation between the Food Industry ( which is controlled by 5 Corporations) making us sick, and the Health Care Industry who keeps us sick. HUH?? Its disturbing how many people have sold their Souls to the Devil to make $$ in this Country.

  • pissedoffconsumer

    This Country has broken up Communications Companies in the past. Its time to do the same with the Giant Food Conglomerates.

    • Ken

      Never thought of that and I am unable to immediately say why we should not do it…there may be economic implications there but ultimately I think this may be a good idea.

      One observation, in a large company vs a small one, I would think overall regulation would be easier in a large company setting instead of many smaller one. But, at the same time, when a large body of people is corrupted in some manner, that is much more dangerous than a smaller body of people.

  • JBTascam

    Alarmist tripe. But those who believe in the evil of large corporations and the complicity of the government in trying to kill all of us (even against all evidence to the contrary) will lap this article up and add it to their “chemtrails” and “911 truthers” files…

    • L Cavendish

      Don’t forget the moon landing “hoax”….45 years tomorrow

    • Ken

      Arguments from ignorance (that is a concept not just some phrase) certainly make their way onto the Internet. But, I find it humorous when someone posts what you did. In the case of something like chemtrails, both sides are arguing from ignorance unless they are an aviation engineer or something comparable. In the case of 911, the actual evidence is undeniable that more happened that day and there was some form of suppression of the information. So the side truly arguing from ignorance on 911 is the side that is complacent with the official explanations. Now that certainly does not mean that the theories on the web about 911 are true, only that accepting the official stance does make the person incorrect. The side with the theories are likely wrong, but they at least have a chance of being right.

      I only follow evidence, I do not have a political side.

    • Nathan Durhing

      I think it’s really great that the Godfather of organic living BS died on that mealy-mouthed, liberal Dick Cavett’s show. Robert Rodale had bragged during his just-completed interview on the show that
      “I’m in such good health that I fell down a long flight of stairs
      yesterday and I laughed all the way”, “I’ve decided to live to be a
      hundred”, and “I never felt better in my life!”[9] He had also previously bragged, “I’m going to live to be 100, unless I’m run down by some sugar-crazed taxi driver.” May the rest of you morons meet the same fate.

  • waffenpen

    Thats what happens when a society has its nose shoved up the tail of big business so much so that corporations are now considered people by 1/2 the country and the political process is owned by Koch industries.

  • Seth

    #5 claims astaxanthin is “not approved for human ingestion because it is toxic.” When I went to google it, the first 5 links I saw were to places selling astaxanthin for human consumption.

  • L Cavendish

    And if we ban any of them…people will go crazy about the government interfering in their private lives…
    What about the US government ban on travel to Cuba? Who does THAT help?

  • Robert Backus

    Amazing how much of this stuff is eaten, with no bad effects at all! Millions choke down this stuff, I have a Dew daily, with no- 0- iodine deficiency at all. How many people with goiters do you see a day? But, then again, it fun to scare people into believing like you do. Shame there are studies after studies showing no benefits of organic vs regular. Sorry, some of this may be true- probably none, but the fact that a nation bans
    something only means some politicians made a political decision that
    probably had little to do with science. For those who don’t know,
    science is not 1 or 2 or even a few studies. No, science is many
    studies with REPEATABLE results that any/all other scientist get.
    Probably none of this is scienceFact.

  • jgdp

    Is it true that barbarian mooslimes eat human cadavers?

  • Thomas Taylor

    some chemicals in foods– namely preservatives can be bad– something wrong when a lunch box cake or cheese cracker can stay fresh for months. but a lot of these articles are fully of hooie. flame retardant– for years baking soda was the best flame retardant– and used so in fire extinguishers. heck –your own pee is a flame retardant. as far as salmon farms– i’ve never seen them raised– but all farmers that i knew— would place their animals in a pin and grain feed– for weeks— before butchering their hand picked personal meat– and they aren’t stupid

  • Another unrepresentative headline. None of this really referred to banned foods but rather ingredients and processes.
    The reason we see more cancer is that we live longer

  • brb39

    What is truly Dangerous is a Govt that does not care if you live or die is in charge of what you eat

    • rosalina9877

      That’s pretty much why we don’t like marxism; the goal is nefarious.

  • phukyu2

    …and yet we live longer and longer as time progresses. More hyperbole from the media trying to scare people about anything and everything under the sun in order to further the control of the govt. over the people. Do you REALLY want the govt. telling you what you can and can’t eat? If you don’t want farm raised salmon, don’t eat it. Stop trying to create a crisis to take away my freedom of choice, good or bad.

    • rosalina9877

      I think farm raised salmon sometimes tastes better than wild salmon. Go figure.

      • phukyu2

        I am allergic to seafood, but I don’t want the government telling me if I can eat it or not. I can handle a couple shrimp or a little crab meat here and there as long as I stay w/in my limits. But w/the b.s fed. govt. and things like obamacare I would probably be BANNED from having any seafood and if I did they would probably have a death panel refusing me my inhaler in the extreme case that I need a puff or two in order to counteract the effects of my own decisions.

        The federal govt. needs to get out of ALL of our lives and stick to the things the Constitution actually empowered them to do.

        • rosalina9877

          Well the only purpose of obamacare is to turn free people into slaves. If you understand that, everything else makes sense.

    • Jared Mason

      I don’t think anyone wants the govt to tell them what to eat. We simply want to know what it is the biotech’s are putting in our food (i.e. labeling). We don’t have a choice and can’t sway the big businesses if we as consumers don’t know whats in the food.

  • Bluetoe2

    To most Americans, saturated with years of indoctrination and propaganda that US corporations do everything in the interests of the health and safety of the public these foods would be considered “good eats” especially at all you can eat establishments.

  • BigR2

    I find it amazing that soybean products are not listed. The only safe soybean product to consume is soy sauce because it is cooked completely. Many countries ban soy based foods of some kind and tofu is probably the worst thing a woman can eat. Soybeans are Estrogen.

  • Honoring_Honore

    A good rule of thumb…. Avoid anything labelled ORGANIC.

    • Jared Mason

      Yeah, ignore Organic labels just l like “big biotech” wants you to. I see that FDA and biotech propaganda is not lost on you.

      • Honoring_Honore

        Evidently the greenie propaganda has worked well on you. You solar energy bird killer!

        • Jared Mason

          If by being green you mean having a desire to know what goes into the food I eat and holding those at the government level accountable for the questionable alliances they form then I confess to being guilty. Who do you think pays big $$ to lobby against simple food labeling bills that states try to get passed? BIG BIOTECH that’s who. Everything I have said I am not making up on my own accord. Do some more research and I promise you that you will discover somethings flawed with the system. Oregons recent labeling bill 522 is one example. Why would a corporation such as Monsanto contribute to one of the most expensive lobbying campaigns against a bill in recent history? Because they know you as a consumer will become more aware of the atrocities they are committing and they stand to lose lots of money. You can get the info on Wikipedia, it’s not hard. BTW what does a solar plant in the Mojave desert that is frying birds got to do with our discussion?

          • Honoring_Honore

            The relevance is that so many things are done, ideologically, where consequences are such that all must bear, and are usually unintended. Monsanto, and other companies like it, make seeds and food crops that are more prolific and resistant to harsh environments where food is most needed. The population of the globe is increasing, not decreasing.

            Environmentalism must be pragmatic, not emotional. There is nothing “wrong” with so-called “organic” produce. But the stigmatization of non-organic produce is nothing but ploy to justify that market. If it is just marketing, that is one thing, and marketing is wholly justified.

            It is interesting how the same genera of a socially overbearing government will promote and emphasize “organic” production, then turn around and confiscate and punish people who willingly sell natural, unpasteurized, whole milk to each other.

            The dichotomy of one place forbidding soy products, for instance, but allowing cheeses made from unpasteurized milk is interesting. Here, we are allowed to consume soy products, but are utterly forbidden to partake of certain French or Swiss cheeses.

            We are a culture of faddism.

          • Jared Mason

            Thanks Honore! I appreciate your input and can relate to your last 2 paragraphs having family in the farming business. Yes we are a culture of faddism but when fads help regulate our regulators then those fad have virtues correct?

            In regards to the fact Monsanto is trying to make seeds and food crops that are more resistant, i agree. Thats what they are trying to do. However, because of this, farmers are experiencing weeds and insects in their crops that have adapted to the pesticides being sprayed. Therefore Monsanto must continually alter their pesticides and roundup seeds to combat the growing and resistant weed problem. I wouldn’t say this fact in itself is nefarious, but Monsanto certainly isn’t complaining. Each year they charge money for new seeds thereby increasing profits for these products.

            But here is where our friends at Monsanto become more sinister. In the first half of the 20th century, farmers used to reuse a previous seasons cleaned seeds in the following growing season. My grandfather had done this well before the beginning of the “GMO seed era”. Those carried over seeds were what farmers call “saved seeds”. It can’t be done with hybrids because the yield is low. If a farmer plants Monsanto Roundup Ready X seed then said farmers are prevented by patent infringement from retaining the previous years “saved seeds” (whether they know it or not). Otherwise they face lawsuit or drawn out litigation. Often times these cases never make it past settlement where small farmer must agree to arbitrary terms to prevent from incurring higher penalties. As part of the settlement process, the farmers are forced to admit to patent infringement and to become “taddle-tails” for Monsanto. The farmers lawyers tell them that not admitting to infringement would end up in a shut door case win by Monsanto and gigantic monetary losses for farmer. Their names are dragged through the mud in the process and some close their farming operations often penniless or in severe debt. The lawsuits have only happened 145 times since 1997 (according to Monsanto), but its enough to keep farmers scared straight. For this reason to name a few, many farmers are switching back to non GMO seeds.

            Now why is our food patented? I understand that its to protect the companies interest on the outside but what happens when there are 0 conventional seeds left? Monsanto’s goal is to replace all conventional seeds with sustainable genetically engineered seeds. This is a frightening reality. Its not too hard now to get non GMO seeds. However, think how this may play out 20-30 years down the road after the big biotech’s have crushed every resistance to their crop. The bottom line is he who controls the seeds, controls the food supply, controls the world.

            I want to trust that these companies and our government have our best interests in mind, but I’m afraid that ship has sailed. We need a little more research on these crops before shoving them down everyones throat. The average person could care less whether he/she is consuming GMO products until they see how its affecting them and their children. Autism rates have increased to 1 and 68 kids vs 1 in 88 from 2 years ago. We all know cancer rates and other severe illnesses are on the rise. Can this be deduced from the mere increase in consumption of GMOs from traces in everyday common food products such as corn? I’m not sure, but have reasonably high doubts that the increase in disease is from eating organic food.

            If you look into how GMO regulation is passed its a rubber stamp policy. All Monsanto has to do is embed paid board members from their industry in the FDA. They tout their GMO products for their environmentally resilient and efficient qualities. “Lets save the world” they say! Doubters and whistleblowers at the government level are slammed for not being a part of the solution and become outcasts, or worse slapped with a pink slip. This “fear” campaign is how Monsanto and co. got GMOS approved. It wasn’t backed by careful, calculated, or time consuming science. Any science that was conducted was purely a “dog-n-pony show” and only authorized by Monsanto. They got away with this by claiming that seeds were patented and could only be evaluated by a few company scientist derps (must have been Frankenstein and his crew). There is independent GMO research out there, but big $$ again are paid to debunk the results or sue the participants for…wait for it… “patent infringement”. Anyway, the new GMO products were championed across the agriculture circuit, praised for ending world hunger, and approval by FDA was a mere formality. They didn’t even bother to enact GMO labeling standards to any existing or future products. Thats been largely up to the states, and big biotech has crushed every bill placed on the ballots. Their recent bribery of Oregon State senators and other officials is criminal at best. In America we call that lobbyism.

            This isn’t a free society like we think. You and i have no where near the funds to have our voices heard. And, until legislation is enacted to label products with GMOs, how would the average person become aware of what they are eating? Either label it or get it off my plate. Unfortunately you can only force the issue by taking away what these companies live and die by. No surprise here that resource is big $. They only feel it when we as consumers say “no”. Whether saying “no” is by buying organic, or growing your own its a matter of semantics. I know what market I’m striving for,

          • Honoring_Honore

            I agreed somewhat with your treatise above, until you got to the autism stats and stuff. Those kind of stats can be associated with any given thing, even if the ‘facts’ are factual. There are more plastic bags and containers, soft drinks, flu shots and vaccines, there are more man-made fibers in clothing, the climate seems to be changing… and so on. But, the seed argument is valid and there should be some sort of fair regulation on how far a person owns something… especially a living thing.

            How much different is a tomato seed different from that of a race horse? I may pay a stud fee, but should the stud be rewarded for my foal’s offspring and genealogy ad infinitum?

            My sister is a plant lady, garden enthusiast. If she plants squash, should she be able to sell it at a yard sale? If she is able to save seed for the next crop, should there be any other like restrictions? I see your point.

            The differentiation in my mind, in the case of my sisters example, should she be able to sell seed?

            I understand copyrights and their intention. I also understand government regulations and actions can have unintended consequences. How far should the creator of a new carburetor, hula-hoop, pop-top, or hit single be able to benefit from their creation?

            If Jackie Bubba Johnson is able to come up with a new, Back Water County Cucumber, and he takes it to market, should he be able to collect downstream commission for his efforts? Well, the new cumber happens to be a daughter of a Monsanto variety, or one that Xisis Shah came up with to impress the sitting Egyptian pharaoh.

            These are fair arguments, but a regulation by health scare may not be one of them, in my opinion. Yours maybe tastier and better than mine, born in virgin, psilocybin-proliferate soil, but not less poisonous than someone else’s variety. “Our cows are happier because they eat feed laced with pig rectums”, may not be a wise selling point, but some things should be disclosed, perhaps, if you’re labelling your product as Kosher.

          • Jared Mason

            Thanks Honore. I believe together we could have written a thesis with the amount of diatribe listed here. Its good to come to some what of a neutral agreement if you will.

            Maybe GMO products are getting a bad wrap (skeptically speaking), but it shouldn’t be up to a few elite corporations to decide that. I don’t like knowing that my food may contain remnants of some product with origins in a secret patented seed technology. I am just asking that some things be disclosed, and possibly a little more research effort from the FDA on this.

            Before i wrote this i discovered two days ago that there was a recall on a certain brand of almond butter that i use. Due to salmonella poisoning the company issued the voluntary recall through the FDA. So they seem to have good intentions. In the case of GMOS i feel like they were rushing to approve something because there was growing concern of a skyrocketing world population that biased opinions at the govt level. It certainly didn’t help that big biotech helped push them. The FDA didn’t even feel the products needed to be labeled. The implications from this instance are troublesome because it will be more difficult in gaining support for labeling bills now or in the future.

            I will keep my fingers crossed that more people and politicians speak up about this concern. Sayonara my friend.

          • Honoring_Honore

            Dzai jyan. The bottom line solution, as I see it, is protective, fair and effective regulation that greases the wheels of commerce, that neither favors the producer nor fleeces the consumer. Regulators should be honest brokers.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Just maybe he was being sarcastic. Avoiding is just as dumb as avoiding conventional, or g.e.grown using organic techniques. Know your local farmers as well as possible. They feed their families with what they grow.

  • Jared Mason

    A little late in reading this article, but looks like some great information. Only by raising awareness can the people change the irresponsible ways of big business and corrupt government officials. If you want to read some interesting articles, Google Monsanto, GMO’s and FDA. Some real scary sh#@!. The fact is, our own FDA has been a real revolving door of corruption. You will notice that officials in the FDA were once members of Monsanto Corp and then simply get absorbed back into Monsanto once they have helped pass or deny regulation that benefit the biotech industry. You think you have a choice in this country on what goes on your dinner table but you don’t. We’ve had the wool pulled over our eyes for some time now and we’re getting sicker why big biotech is getting richer. Tell me why China Mexico and other countries will no longer import our GMO corn. Also, why have countries in the EU band most of these carcinogens listed here. Its because they’ve all done their homework and have found that these substances in our food are causing alarming cancer, autism, and sterilization rates. The only studies conducted here in the states on GMOs were funded and conducted by, you guessed it, Monsanto and Co. They then used their cronies at the FDA to ignore the diseased and dead test animals and approve Monsantos poison. I used to be a blissfully ignorant sheep til i did a little research. How could my government fail me, how could they not have my best interests in mind. Well when they are in bed with the biotech industry i needed not look any further. Read into this a little further if you care about your children and their future.

    • Mavak

      This is all bullshit. Don’t be an idiot. If you trust the information on the internet (or anywhere) from a single source, without getting a second opinion/researching further, you’re probably being taken advantage of in every aspect of your life. GL w that.

      • Jared Mason

        I’ve done quite a bit of research on this my friend. I would be unwise to believe any one source over another. Ive even been to Monsantos website among others in attempts to get both sides of story. There is a growing consensus here in the states that wants at least a food labeling law for GE/GMO foods. What makes you think I’m the one being taken advantage of? My post may seem brash but often times passionate feelings toward a subject offend certain people. Apologies if you were one of them.

  • JRT256

    It is really incorrect to label these Papaya as GMO when in fact they are vaccinated against diseases using Genetic Engineering. Unless you believe in the totally debunked myth that a vaccine can can give you the disease then nobody should have any problem with eating the UH disease resistant Papaya.

  • Boommach

    The costs of foods produced by the natural foods industry are very harmful. Your local supermarket will provide most all that’s needed to keep your family. Avoid vendors who treat health and nutrition as a religion.

  • Mavak

    Not going to dignify this with a time consuming and detailed answer, but I’ll say this. This article is ~80% bullshit and outlandish. Few of these are proven or even suspected to be dangerous even when these “toxins” and “poisons” are eaten in quantities much larger than the avg person would eat them. Application is most important here, and this article makes it seems like these “lab tests” and “studies” have these ingredients administered in the same way as they’re consumed via products. I.e. bread. Those studies are not done by people just eaten bread baked w/ it, now are they? (The answer is no btw). The one about these “GMO” papaya is just plain wrong or an intentional life. And very few fruits and veggies consumed aren’t GMO’d in one form or another… Hell, no one on this planet under the age of probably 40 has ever eaten a non-GMO, or true/absolute strains of most fruits/vegetables, and I doubt anyone alive has done so for a banana…. This article, this author, and this site are generally garbage. Exaggeration, lies, fear-mongering and the extremist Christ-pushing mentality of “healthy” eating… Sounds like the worst kind of liberal mind there is.

  • ART HARRIS

    ” HELLO ” REMEMBER ” ALAMO ”

  • Greg

    no wonder the US has so much cancer compared to other nations….and people just blindly graze along and refuse to make any changes…

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Thank you makeprogress for pointing out the truth that the scienctific experts are being over ridden by propaganda from political groups. For the science read up on the EFSA or the U. of Perugia’s study of other studies on g.e. food safety. Share the road, when criminals who keep an entire huge country’s population in a virtual state of slavery ban something. I figure it might turn out to be good..

  • Brian Brandt

    This is so factually inaccurate that it should be banned. The quote, ” farmed fish are fed a synthetic chemical called astaxanthin, which is made from petrochemicals. This substance is not approved for human ingestion because it is toxic.” is particularly disturbing. It is totally wrong on all counts. See the truth here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-cohen-rph/astaxanthin_b_2750910.html
    Of all the naturally occurring antioxidants, it is one of the best for you.

  • Brian Brandt

    what is “potassioum”?

  • FDA is going to kill us with this crap..!