I love this article on Kraft Foods because I also have been calling them since February 2006 on an illegal and toxic ingredient in their Macaroni and Cheese.
Here is what happened. In February 2006 I attended a food activist conference at DePaul University in Chicago. At the conference I received a flier on a food ingredient I had never heard of before called Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC). The flier was titled "Is there "Krap" in your Kraft Singles?" The flier stated that instead of milk, Kraft puts MPC in their Kraft Singles which is a by-product of milk processing. MPC contains dried bacteria, radioactive isotopes, heavy metals, pesticides, dioxins and other dangerous residues and is not purchased locally but imported from places such as the Ukraine, India and New Zealand. Worse, MPC has never been approved by the FDA. (The flier can be found at www.familyfarmdefenders.org).
After the conference I called Kraft's consumer information line and was told that Milk Protein Concentrate is concentrated protein from milk. When I asked them to explain further they suggested I call corporate headquarters in Glenview, Illinois. Since they are north of Chicago I paid them a visit in person. I asked to speak to a nutritionist and the receptionist said she would call someone. While I waited I flipped through their annual report which showed healthy, good-looking people smoking cigarettes (Kraft and Phillip Morris are owned by the same company-Altria). A woman named Sabrina contacted me on the lobby phone and took my information. While we were talking a security guard was called out to watch me and then escorted me out of the building (FYI-I made absolutely no fuss, am clean cut, in my forties and the father of 2 young boys).
Sabrina and I have hence talked back and forth over the past months. I told her that the FDA says MPC is an illegal ingredient and she said Kraft abides by all FDA guidelines and in no way would they break FDA regulations. I called her back and told her I downloaded a Warning Letter from the FDA's website addressed to Kraft that I will summarize- the FDA has inspected 3 of Kraft's plants and have found that Kraft is using MPC in their food-this is an illegal substance that needs to be removed. Sabrina was not aware of this letter and I told her where to find it (just type in MPC on the FDA's website and you will get it). She said she would get back to me and I haven't received a call in a number of weeks. I have tried unsuccessfully to talk to other people in the organization especially a nutritionist and even the CEO but to no avail. The road always leads back to Sabrina who would rather not talk to me and called me back once but prefers I call her.
According to the flier I received-instead of removing MPC-Kraft instead changed the name of Kraft Singles from "Cheese Food" to "Cheese Product". At least the new name is closer to what it is-an "industrial product" instead of food.
For those (like me) who didn't know what REACH is all about, see:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-24-03.asp
An excerpt:
"Under REACH, certain classes of industrial chemicals regarded as of Very High Concern would have to be registered, evaluated and authorized before they could be marketed. They are:
* carcinogens, mutagens, and reprotoxins which are either known or very likely to be toxic to humans
* chemicals that can become widely disseminated in the environment, and which are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, particularly persistent organic pollutants
* chemicals that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative in humans and wildlife for which toxicity data are still unavailable
"
Err ... mandatory registration and authorisation of chemicals that are carcinogenic, toxic, and bioaccumulative? What exactly is the problem?
Of course that part of our society which is known as "chemical industry" would be better off without any regulation of any kind.
The question is of course: how about other segments of society, notably consumers? After all ... our doctor's bills don't show up on their balance sheet, and neither does removal of e.g. pesticides from our groundwater. Both show up for consumers though: in our medical insurance or in our taxes. The US are a funny place ... on the one hand we have one of the strictest regimes in the world for medicines (the FDA regulations are famous) ... and one of the most permissive for all other chemicals. Does that make sense? I don't think so.
And funnily enough ... pleas for careful consideration of cost-benefit tradeoffs (such as from Boyden Gray) only seem to be heard from this administration when it's about to block, water down, delay, or derail legislation aimed at protection of consumers or the environment.
Why not just reverse the rhethoric and call it "a challenge", or even "an opportunity to innovate"? That would fit the issues just as well.
And I'm deeply sceptical of all those doomsayers who tell us we can't possibly afford strict environmental legislation because: it will undermine our industry's competitive position compared to China's / it's not cost-effective / it stifles innovation / it's a senseless treehuggers delusion / the market should sort it all out (cross out whichever isn't applicable).
For my part I hope that the EU goes straight ahead with what they're doing ... and we'll see that the US, Japan, China, and whoever will follow. Grumbling perhaps, but follow they will. That way they get the best of both worlds: they get good protective legislation, and and they get to bitch at "anti-business" measures at the same time.
From the [[http://www.cleanclothes.org Clean Clothes Camapaign]], The Netherlands:
Publicis Thailand Drops Suit Against TLC Coordinator!
The CCC is pleased to report that Publicis Thailand, the Thai subsidiary of French-based global public relations giant Publicis Groupe has withdrawn its libel lawsuit against Junya Lek Yimprasert, coordinator of the Thai Labour Campaign (TLC).
Yimprasert had been charged with "defamation by propagation" after the TLC website republished a CSR Asia Weekly article about an unfair dismissal case filed by Publicis Thailand employees. Following an international campaign calling upon Publicis to unconditionally drop their suit against Yimprasert, on June 20th Publicis lawyers withdrew the suit from Bangkok’s Southern Criminal Court.
Reflecting upon her experience with this case, Yimprasert noted “It is frustrating that we, who are directly in contact with workers that produce for the world and witness many rights violations, cannot bring the situation to the attention of the world without the risk of being sued. Furthermore, workers who report to us, of course, must face all kinds of pressures and risk being dismissed.”
“I think that solidarity action has worked again in this case,” said Yimprasert. “To every supporter that helped us this time: I would encourage you to continue your solidarity in any of the future campaigns led by LabourStart, Clean Clothes Campaign and Reseau-Solidarite. Your 'click' is really making a difference in the producing world. I think that my case has been further proof of that.”
Sanofi-Aventis announced on June 8, 2006, after the flurry of negative reports, that it was voluntarily ceasing the trial of this antibiotic on children.
See my blog https://www.prwatch.org/node/4916
Citizen journalists on [[SourceWatch]] have been investigating and exposing the many Republican connections and the partisan pro-war political agenda behind [[Vets for Freedom]], a new organization with mysterious funding and a flashy website designed by Campaign Solutions, part of the [[Donatelli Group]]. [[Vets for Freedom]]'s hollow claim of "non-partisanship" took another blow Sunday, June 25, when the Buffalo News published a front page story by Jerry Zremski, their Washington correspondent, [http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060625/1066005.asp linking Vets for Freedom to the Bush White House].
I love this article on Kraft Foods because I also have been calling them since February 2006 on an illegal and toxic ingredient in their Macaroni and Cheese.
Here is what happened. In February 2006 I attended a food activist conference at DePaul University in Chicago. At the conference I received a flier on a food ingredient I had never heard of before called Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC). The flier was titled "Is there "Krap" in your Kraft Singles?" The flier stated that instead of milk, Kraft puts MPC in their Kraft Singles which is a by-product of milk processing. MPC contains dried bacteria, radioactive isotopes, heavy metals, pesticides, dioxins and other dangerous residues and is not purchased locally but imported from places such as the Ukraine, India and New Zealand. Worse, MPC has never been approved by the FDA. (The flier can be found at www.familyfarmdefenders.org).
After the conference I called Kraft's consumer information line and was told that Milk Protein Concentrate is concentrated protein from milk. When I asked them to explain further they suggested I call corporate headquarters in Glenview, Illinois. Since they are north of Chicago I paid them a visit in person. I asked to speak to a nutritionist and the receptionist said she would call someone. While I waited I flipped through their annual report which showed healthy, good-looking people smoking cigarettes (Kraft and Phillip Morris are owned by the same company-Altria). A woman named Sabrina contacted me on the lobby phone and took my information. While we were talking a security guard was called out to watch me and then escorted me out of the building (FYI-I made absolutely no fuss, am clean cut, in my forties and the father of 2 young boys).
Sabrina and I have hence talked back and forth over the past months. I told her that the FDA says MPC is an illegal ingredient and she said Kraft abides by all FDA guidelines and in no way would they break FDA regulations. I called her back and told her I downloaded a Warning Letter from the FDA's website addressed to Kraft that I will summarize- the FDA has inspected 3 of Kraft's plants and have found that Kraft is using MPC in their food-this is an illegal substance that needs to be removed. Sabrina was not aware of this letter and I told her where to find it (just type in MPC on the FDA's website and you will get it). She said she would get back to me and I haven't received a call in a number of weeks. I have tried unsuccessfully to talk to other people in the organization especially a nutritionist and even the CEO but to no avail. The road always leads back to Sabrina who would rather not talk to me and called me back once but prefers I call her.
According to the flier I received-instead of removing MPC-Kraft instead changed the name of Kraft Singles from "Cheese Food" to "Cheese Product". At least the new name is closer to what it is-an "industrial product" instead of food.
Mark Reed
For those (like me) who didn't know what REACH is all about, see:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-24-03.asp
An excerpt:
"Under REACH, certain classes of industrial chemicals regarded as of Very High Concern would have to be registered, evaluated and authorized before they could be marketed. They are:
* carcinogens, mutagens, and reprotoxins which are either known or very likely to be toxic to humans
* chemicals that can become widely disseminated in the environment, and which are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, particularly persistent organic pollutants
* chemicals that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative in humans and wildlife for which toxicity data are still unavailable
"
Err ... mandatory registration and authorisation of chemicals that are carcinogenic, toxic, and bioaccumulative? What exactly is the problem?
Of course that part of our society which is known as "chemical industry" would be better off without any regulation of any kind.
The question is of course: how about other segments of society, notably consumers? After all ... our doctor's bills don't show up on their balance sheet, and neither does removal of e.g. pesticides from our groundwater. Both show up for consumers though: in our medical insurance or in our taxes. The US are a funny place ... on the one hand we have one of the strictest regimes in the world for medicines (the FDA regulations are famous) ... and one of the most permissive for all other chemicals. Does that make sense? I don't think so.
And funnily enough ... pleas for careful consideration of cost-benefit tradeoffs (such as from Boyden Gray) only seem to be heard from this administration when it's about to block, water down, delay, or derail legislation aimed at protection of consumers or the environment.
Why not just reverse the rhethoric and call it "a challenge", or even "an opportunity to innovate"? That would fit the issues just as well.
And I'm deeply sceptical of all those doomsayers who tell us we can't possibly afford strict environmental legislation because: it will undermine our industry's competitive position compared to China's / it's not cost-effective / it stifles innovation / it's a senseless treehuggers delusion / the market should sort it all out (cross out whichever isn't applicable).
For my part I hope that the EU goes straight ahead with what they're doing ... and we'll see that the US, Japan, China, and whoever will follow. Grumbling perhaps, but follow they will. That way they get the best of both worlds: they get good protective legislation, and and they get to bitch at "anti-business" measures at the same time.
From the [[http://www.cleanclothes.org Clean Clothes Camapaign]], The Netherlands:
Publicis Thailand Drops Suit Against TLC Coordinator!
The CCC is pleased to report that Publicis Thailand, the Thai subsidiary of French-based global public relations giant Publicis Groupe has withdrawn its libel lawsuit against Junya Lek Yimprasert, coordinator of the Thai Labour Campaign (TLC).
Yimprasert had been charged with "defamation by propagation" after the TLC website republished a CSR Asia Weekly article about an unfair dismissal case filed by Publicis Thailand employees. Following an international campaign calling upon Publicis to unconditionally drop their suit against Yimprasert, on June 20th Publicis lawyers withdrew the suit from Bangkok’s Southern Criminal Court.
Reflecting upon her experience with this case, Yimprasert noted “It is frustrating that we, who are directly in contact with workers that produce for the world and witness many rights violations, cannot bring the situation to the attention of the world without the risk of being sued. Furthermore, workers who report to us, of course, must face all kinds of pressures and risk being dismissed.”
“I think that solidarity action has worked again in this case,” said Yimprasert. “To every supporter that helped us this time: I would encourage you to continue your solidarity in any of the future campaigns led by LabourStart, Clean Clothes Campaign and Reseau-Solidarite. Your 'click' is really making a difference in the producing world. I think that my case has been further proof of that.”
Sanofi-Aventis announced on June 8, 2006, after the flurry of negative reports, that it was voluntarily ceasing the trial of this antibiotic on children.
Pages