Grahak Sathi exposes shocking truth behind organic rice

Ref.: E&R/PR/AR/Organic rice/2017

Press Release

Grahak Sathi exposes shocking truth
behind organic rice

 Our tests find pesticide residues in 6 out of 7 brands and toxic heavy metals in all

Grahak Sathi (February-March 2017), the National Consumer Magazine in Hindi published by Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC), Ahmedabad released findings of its in-house comparative product testing laboratory on seven brands of organic rice. Shockingly, the findings revealed that 6 out of 7 brands had pesticide residues and all 7 brands contained toxic heavy metals! Ironic, isn’t it? The very rationale for buying an organic product is to buy a pesticide-free product.

No standards
Since there are no specific standards for organic rice at present, why is the product being allowed to be sold in the country?

Why a variety of logos?
The brands carried a variety of logos and certifications from different national and international agencies. This is confusing for consumers. Why should a product meant for the domestic market carry so many international logos?

Alarming findings
The 3 heavy metals tested were – lead, copper and arsenic. We tested the products for 16 pesticides. The four detected belonged to the Organophosphate group.

Pesticide residues: Six of the 7 brands of organic rice contained pesticide residues. Fabindia Organics did not have pesticide residues. Two brands had Chlorpyrifos levels above the prescribed limit – Organic on Call and Sanjeevani Organics. Two of the four non-organic rice brands had pesticide residues.

Over a long duration even microscopic quantities of pesticides can harm. The pesticides detected by our tests are not in the US list of pesticides permitted in organic products.

Heavy metals: All the organic rice brands showed presence of all three heavy metals though they were within the limits. None of the non-organic rice brands had arsenic. Copper levels were higher than in organic rice brands, though within limits. Lead levels were within limits and slightly lower than that in the organic rice brands. (See Annexure for detailed results)

Highly priced
Organic rice brands were much costlier. Comparing the extremes, you would be paying  more than five times the price for the costliest organic rice brand –Fabindia Organics – than you would pay for the cheapest non-organic rice brand – Hypercity. Why should the organic version of a staple product like rice be so expensive? It is unaffordable for the common man.

False label claims
Most organic rice brands claimed to be free of pesticides. Illustratively, Morarka Organic Down to Earth, which contained both pesticide residues and toxic heavy metals, claimed to be: “…free from chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, toxic substances, synthetic hormones…”Two organic rice brands –Vikalp Organic Product and Organic on Call – did not have any organic certification.

Manufacturers’ response
As a policy, we convey the test results to all the manufacturers and await their response. We received the following responses:

Sanjeevani Organics said that organic certification was done for the practices and processes and not for the products. Our response: “Consumers are concerned not with processes and practices but with the end product. Certification for processes must reflect in quality of final product.”

24 Mantra Organic said that the pesticide detected by our tests – Chlorfenvinphos – was not used even in conventional paddy cultivation and not available in their project area. Our response: “The presence of Chlorfenvinphos could be due to cross contamination during harvesting. Also, some pesticides can persist in the environment even after use is discontinued.”

Organic Tattva said that as per APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) guidelines there is no requirement for testing of heavy metals for organic products. Our response: “True. However, we have tested for them as consumers should be concerned about their presence in foods. Heavy metals accumulate in the human body over a period of time and cause harm.”

Urgent action needed 
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) should set specific mandatory standards for organic foods. In response to our appeal over a year ago, we received a letter from Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) saying that BIS has constituted a committee to formulate standards for organic foods. However, no concrete action has been taken as yet.

Too many logos confuse consumers. NPOP (National Programme for Organic Production) certification should be made mandatory. NPOP, which currently certifies organic process standards, should also certify the final product. Also, India needs to follow labelling norms as per global best practices.

Regular monitoring of organic food quality, including that sold online, is necessary.

Advertising claims made by organic product manufacturers should be closely monitored.

Grahak Sathi’s conclusion
Our tests proved that organic brands of rice are not safer than non-organic ones. There is no concrete evidence that organic food has higher nutritional value than regular food. Also, organic rice brands are much more expensive. Our advice is not to buy organic rice.

People want to make healthier choices and the Government must support them in this matter. It should ensure that consumers do not get exploited in the name of organic foods. It is vital that the regulatory authorities set standards and closely monitor the quality of organic food products.

To read the complete story CLICK HERE 

For further information please contact
Ms Pritee Shah (O) 079-27489945/46   (M) +91 99048 63838

Advertisements

Processed Foods in Changing Lifestyle

cfbp-unnamedcfbp-2-unnamed

cfbp-3-unnamed


Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI)

bpni-logoBreastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI) was founded on 3rd December,1991 at Wardha, Maharashtra. BPNI is a registered, independent,nonprofit,national organization;working towards protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding of infants & young children.BPNI acts on the targets of Innocenti Declarations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes,and the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding (WHO 2002).

BPNI’s core areas of work include policy advocacy to educate policy makers and managers,training of health workers, capacity building of State governments for implementing the policy,social mobilization duringWorld BreastfeedingWeek (WBW) each year and monitoring compliance with the“Infant Milk Substitutes,Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution)Act 1992 and Amendment Act 2003 (IMSAct).

BPNI is notified in the Gazette of India as a child welfare NGO to initiate action under section 21(1) of the IMSAct for officially monitoring and implementing IMSAct since 1995

Over the years BPNI has played the role of a watchdog organization and exposed several big baby food brands on how they undermined the IMS Act.

BPNI coordinates and facilitates the education and training of grassroots personnel in health and nutrition sector and private hospitals through skilled counseling as a sustainable support to mother-baby dyads.Our training alliances include National Health Mission (NHM) and Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS).BPNI training courses are self sustained.

BPNI works in close liaison with the Government of India and is recognized for its technical expertise and credible standing on the issues & concerns of child health and nutrition.BPNI’s contribution in earlier fiveyears plan documents and restructuring of ICDS mission document for Government of India are golden feathers in it’s cap.BPNI holds major contribution in development of the National Guidelines on Infant andYoung Child Feeding (2004 and 2006) and Operational Guidelines for Enhancing Optimal Infant andYoung Child Feeding Practices (2013).Latest among these are guidelines for ‘MAA’ programme where in BPNI provided crucial inputs.BPNI is the technical partner to country’s very first nationwide programme“MAA-Mother’s AbsoluteAffection” for breastfeeding promotion launched by Honorable Health & Family Welfare Minister Sh.Jagat Prakash Nadda on 5th August,2016.

Other than the government,BPNI has been working in partnership with development partners like WHO,UNICEF, World Bank,Norwegian and Swedish Governments.


What Do Those Codes On Stickers Of Fruits And Some Veggies Mean?

code-on-stickers

Although they seem like a nuisance, the stickers or labels attached to fruit and some vegetables have more of a function than helping scan the price at the checkout stand. The PLU code, or price lookup number printed on the sticker, also tells you how the fruit was grown. By reading the PLU code, you can tell if the fruit was genetically modified, organically grown or produced with chemical fertilizers, fungicides, or herbicides.

Here are the basics of what you should know:

  1. If there are only four numbers in the PLU, this means that the produce was grown conventionally or “traditionally” with the use of pesticides. The last four letters of the PLU code are simply what kind of vegetable or fruit. An example is that all bananas are labeled with the code of 4011.
  2. If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “8”, this tells you that the item is a genetically modified fruit or vegetable. Genetically modified fruits and vegetables trump being organic. So, it is impossible to eat organic produce that are grown from genetically modified seeds. A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) banana would be: 84011
  3. If there are five numbers in the PLU code, and the number starts with “9”, this tells you that the produce was grown organically and is not genetically modified. An organic banana would be: 94011

Incidentally, the adhesive used to attach the stickers is considered food-grade, but the stickers themselves aren’t edible.

And here is the full list from the Environmental Working Groups of fruits and vegetables with the least to most pesticides. When shopping, the most important produce to buy organic are those at the bottom of this list http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php .

Dr. Frank Lipman

http://www.drfranklipman.com/what-do-those-codes-on-stickers-of-fruits-and-some-veggies-mean/

 


How Safe is Our Milk?

 

You are cordially invited for a seminar on –

“ HOW SAFE IS OUR MILK ”

An educational programme

Addressed by the eminent faculty members

Dr. Sitaram Dixit – Chairman CGSI

Mr. S. K. Tinaikar – Worli Dairy

Mr. Ankur Shah

Day     : Friday

                     Date    : 14th October 2016

                             Time   : 5:45 p.m. – Registration

Venue: Babubhai Chinai Hall, 2nd Flr., Opp. Churchgate station, Indian Merchants Chamber, Mumbai

 

Please do attend with your family and friends and educate yourself on the safety of using Milk.

Together with our collective vision & mission we shall follow the moral of four way test in the service of consumers

CFBP

COUNCIL FOR FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
Our Mission

“We shall promote the highest ethical practices, by business & professionals,
in order to Provide complete satisfaction to consumers & other stakeholders.”

KALPANA MUNSHI
PRESIDENT
Click Here for the invitation


Is This The End Of Diet Soda?

 Huge Study Links Aspartame To Major Health Problems; Sales Drop…

Is-This-The-End-For-Diet-Soda

As concerns about health epidemics plague the nation, demand and sales of diet soda have plunged as consumers try to make better choices. As WeSupportOrganic.com reported recently, Aspartame (the main sweetener for diet soda – check the labels) is regarded by scientists as one of the most dangerous ingredients used in our food supply, who have linked it to seizures and a host of other major health issues including fatal cardiovascular events.

In a newly published study [1] (presented in 2014 at the American College of Cardiology, Washington D.C.), 60,000 women were sampled over ten years. It was shown that women who drink two or more diet drinks a day have much higher cardiovascular disease rates and are more likely to die from the disease.

“30% more likely to have a heart attack or stroke, 50% more likely to die from related disease…”

In the largest study done of its kind, The University of Iowa concluded:

“…Compared to women who never or only rarely consume diet drinks, those who consume two or more a day are 30 percent more likely to have a cardiovascular event [heart attack or stroke] and 50 percent more likely to die from related disease.

This is one of the largest studies on this topic, and our findings are consistent with some previous data, especially those linking diet drinks to the metabolic syndrome,’ says Dr. Ankur Vyas… the lead investigator of the study.

…The association persisted even after researchers adjusted the data to account for demographic characteristics and other cardiovascular risk factors, including body mass index, smoking, hormone therapy use, physical activity, energy intake, salt intake, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and sugar-sweetened beverage intake. On average, women who consumed two or more diet drinks a day were younger, more likely to be smokers, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and higher body mass index.”

Soda sales slipping… Thankfully this study comes on the heels of reports of already slipping sales of diet soda, one of the largest aspartame markets.

According to Time Magazine’s 2014 report “Soda Sales Drop to Lowest Point Since 1995”:

“One reason for the decline could be a growing awareness of the obesity epidemic in the US and growing health concerns surrounding sugar-sweetened beverages. According to Reuters, industry experts say the beverage industry is shrinking under the scrutiny. Even diet-branded drinks have suffered a loss of sales with concerns over artificial sweeteners.”

Whatever the reason for the decline, this new study should only add fuel to the movement away from artificial sweeteners. There are plenty of natural sweeteners that people can choose that are regarded as much healthier than aspartame.

Another important note is that the overall sales of soda going down also means that less people are being exposed to (mostly GMO) high fructose corn syrup which carries a whole host of other health risks as well.

Super Tip: We also have an awesome guide to making your own refreshing drinks using all natural, healthy ingredients: Check it out here – 10 Healthiest Drink Recipes In The World.

Article from WeSupportOrganic.com, lic. under Creative Commons.

References:

[1] http://now.uiowa.edu/2014/03/ui-study-finds-diet-drinks-associated-heart-trouble-older-women

http://www.herbs-info.com/blog/is-this-the-end-of-diet-soda-huge-study-links-aspartame-to-major-health-problems/


Analysis Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

corn_basketIs GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity.

With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous GM crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.

Non-GMO Corn 20x Richer in Nutrition than GMO Corn

The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising. First, the report found that non-GMO corn has considerably more calcium, magnesium,manganese, potassium, iron, and zinc.

  • Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 – non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

As far as energy content goes, non-GMO corn was found to ‘emit 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn’, as reported by NaturalNews[1]. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

corn_comparison_1

GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic

Click Here to read more