Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand are being changed so real food can be replaced with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation.

The Expose News - com

<p>The claim that Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand are being changed to replace real food with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation has been circulating recently. This claim suggests that gene-edited foods will be deregulated, allowing the food industry to self-regulate and avoid labelling requirements. Let's break down this claim and examine its validity.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim revolves around proposed changes to the Food Standards Code by FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand). These changes aim to deregulate gene-edited foods, which are created using techniques like CRISPR. The concern is that this deregulation would allow the food industry to avoid labelling and regulation, potentially misleading consumers.</p>
<h2>What is Gene Editing?</h2>
<p>Gene editing involves altering the DNA of an organism using techniques like CRISPR. This technology has the potential to create foods with desirable traits, such as improved nutritional content or resistance to diseases. However, the long-term effects of consuming gene-edited foods are not yet fully understood.</p>
<h2>Regulatory Changes and Concerns</h2>
<p>The proposed changes by FSANZ would exempt gene-edited foods from certain regulations, potentially allowing them to enter the market without thorough safety assessments or labelling. This has raised concerns among consumers and advocacy groups, who argue that consumers have the right to know what they are eating.</p>
<h2>Scientific Perspectives</h2>
<p>While gene editing holds promise for improving food production, there are valid concerns about its safety and long-term effects. A study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0450-7">Nature</a> highlights the potential risks associated with CRISPR-edited organisms, including unintended genetic changes. Another study in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019308477">Environment International</a> discusses the need for comprehensive risk assessment and regulation of gene-edited foods.</p>
<h2>Consumer Rights and Transparency</h2>
<p>The claim emphasizes the importance of consumer rights and transparency in food labelling. Consumers have the right to make informed choices about the food they consume. Deregulation without proper labelling could undermine this right and erode consumer trust in the food industry.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that food standards are being changed to replace real food with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation is partially true. While there are proposed changes to deregulate gene-edited foods, the extent to which this will impact consumer safety and transparency is a matter of ongoing debate. It is crucial for regulatory bodies to balance innovation with consumer protection and ensure that any changes are based on sound scientific evidence and public consultation.</p>

Claim Review: Changes to Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand

<p>The claim that the modern food system is heavily influenced by the pursuit of profit, leading to issues such as land loss, food insecurity, illness, and environmental degradation, is a complex one that requires a thorough examination.</p>
<p>The modern food system is indeed shaped by capitalist imperatives, as highlighted in the book 'Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth' by Colin Todhunter. Large investment firms and agribusinesses do profit from this system, and their influence on policy-making through lobbying is well-documented.</p>
<p>For instance, a study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793246/">Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry</a> discusses the impact of agrochemicals on human health and the environment. The study notes that the extensive use of pesticides and herbicides can lead to various health issues, including cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive problems.</p>
<p>Moreover, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919218300013">Journal of Environmental Management</a> has published research indicating that the current food system contributes to environmental degradation through practices such as monocropping and the use of synthetic fertilizers. These practices can lead to soil depletion, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.</p>
<p>The claim also mentions the impact on food security and land loss. A report by the <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/I9553EN.pdf">Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)</a> of the United Nations highlights that smallholder farmers, who are crucial for global food security, often face challenges such as land grabbing and lack of access to resources. This can indeed lead to food insecurity and displacement.</p>
<p>However, it is important to note that the food system is not monolithic, and there are efforts to promote sustainable and equitable practices. For example, the <a href="https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/">United Nations Sustainable Development Goals</a> include targets to end hunger, achieve food security, and promote sustainable agriculture.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while the claim that the modern food system is driven by profit and leads to various negative consequences is largely accurate, it is essential to recognize the nuances and the ongoing efforts to address these issues. The claim is supported by scientific studies and reports from reputable organizations, but it also requires a balanced perspective that acknowledges the complexity of the global food system.</p>

Claim Review: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The People's Voice claims that the FDA authorized the use of a new Covid vaccine from Novavax under emergency use authorization without clinical trial data. This claim has raised concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. This article aims to review the claim and provide a thorough analysis based on available evidence.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The Novavax Covid-19 vaccine is a protein subunit vaccine, which is a more traditional approach compared to mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. It has been authorized for use in several countries and has undergone clinical trials to assess its safety and efficacy.</p>
<h2>Clinical Trial Data</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that the FDA authorized the updated Novavax vaccine without clinical trial data. However, this is not entirely accurate. The original Novavax vaccine underwent extensive clinical trials, including Phase 3 trials involving thousands of participants. The results of these trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, such as the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107659">New England Journal of Medicine</a>.</p>
<p>The updated vaccine, designed to target more current Covid variants, was authorized based on the data from the original trials, as well as ongoing safety monitoring and real-world evidence. This approach is not unusual, as regulators often rely on existing data and post-marketing surveillance to make decisions about updated vaccines.</p>
<h2>Emergency Use Authorization</h2>
<p>The article also questions the authenticity of the Covid pandemic 'emergency' authorization, given that President Joe Biden ended the Covid emergency over a year ago. However, the emergency use authorization (EUA) for Covid-19 vaccines is still in effect, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to determine when the emergency is over. The EUA allows the FDA to authorize the use of unapproved medical products during a public health emergency.</p>
<h2>Side Effects</h2>
<p>The article mentions that the Novavax vaccine has similar side effects to mRNA vaccines, including myocarditis and pericarditis. While it is true that these side effects have been reported, they are rare, and the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, according to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</a>.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the FDA authorized the Novavax Covid vaccine without clinical trial data is misleading. While the updated vaccine was authorized without new clinical trials, this decision was based on extensive data from previous trials and ongoing safety monitoring. The benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, and the EUA is still in effect. Therefore, the claim rating is 2 out of 5, indicating that the claim is mostly false.</p>

Claim Review: Novavax Covid Vaccine Authorized Without Clinical Trial Data

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that PCR tests can kill you and could be used to vaccinate people has been circulating, causing concern among the public. This article aims to review the evidence and provide a thorough analysis of these claims.</p>
<h2>Understanding PCR Tests</h2>
<p>PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests are widely used to detect the presence of viral genetic material, including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The test involves taking a sample from the nasal or oral cavity and analyzing it for viral RNA.</p>
<h2>Claim Analysis</h2>
<h3>PCR Tests Can Kill You</h3>
<p>The claim that PCR tests can kill you is based on reports of adverse events such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage and even death. However, these incidents are rare and often result from improper administration of the test. For example, a case reported in the <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2772795">JAMA Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery</a> described a woman who experienced cerebrospinal fluid leakage after a PCR test. Similarly, a case reported in <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/214/1/case-cerebrospinal-fluid-leak-following-nasal-swab-covid-19">The Medical Journal of Australia</a> involved a woman who developed symptoms of meningitis after a PCR test.</p>
<p>While these cases are concerning, they are isolated incidents and do not represent the norm. Properly administered PCR tests are generally safe and effective. The risk of adverse events can be minimized by following established guidelines for test administration.</p>
<h3>PCR Tests Could Be Used to Vaccinate You</h3>
<p>The claim that PCR tests could be used to vaccinate people is based on speculation about the potential use of nasal or anal swabs to deliver vaccines. While nasal vaccinations are not new and have been used for conditions like the flu, there is no evidence to suggest that PCR tests are being used for this purpose. The idea that PCR tests could be used to deliver vaccines without the knowledge or consent of the individual is unfounded and lacks scientific support.</p>
<p>Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a device capable of delivering drugs, but this technology is not currently being used in PCR tests. The suggestion that PCR tests could be used to vaccinate people is purely speculative and not supported by evidence.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that PCR tests can kill you and could be used to vaccinate people is largely unfounded. While there are risks associated with improper administration of PCR tests, the overall safety and efficacy of these tests are well-established. The idea that PCR tests could be used to deliver vaccines is speculative and lacks scientific support. It is important to rely on credible sources of information and to follow established guidelines for the administration of PCR tests.</p>
<h2>Claim Rating</h2>
<p>The claim rating is 2 out of 5, indicating that the claim is largely false but contains some elements of truth regarding the risks of improper administration.</p>

Claim Review: The PCR Test Can Kill You and Could Be Used to Vaccinate You

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand are being changed so real food can be replaced with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: