You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, October 31, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Front Groups Exposed: 50 Industry Groups Form a New Alliance to Manipulate Public Opinion About Junk Food, GMOs and Harmful Additives

Dr. Mercola
Mercola.com / News Analysis
Published: Monday 3 June 2013
The groups comprising this new alliance represent multi-national food companies, biotech industry and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of revenue from food related sales every year.
Article image

If you think it’s tough sorting truth from industry propaganda and lies, get ready for even tougher times ahead. More than 50 front groups, working on behalf of food and biotechnology trade groups―Monsanto being the most prominent―have formed a new coalition called Alliance to Feed the Future.

The alliance, which is being coordinated by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), was created to "balance the public dialogue” on modern agriculture and large-scale food production and technology, i.e. this group will aim to become the go-to source for “real” information about the junk being sold as “food.”

The groups comprising this new alliance represent multi-national food companies, biotech industry, and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of revenue from food related sales every year.

On the upside, this alliance and many other industry-sponsored front groups masquerading as non-profits and consumer protection organizations are becoming increasingly exposed for what they really are, and I will point out several of them in this article.

Michele Simon, JD, MPH, policy consultant with Center for Food Safety recently published a report titled: Best Public Relations Money Can Buy: A Guide to Food Industry Front Groups1 also reveals how the food and agricultural industryhide behind friendly-sounding organizations aimed at fooling the public, policymakers and media alike.

Many Industry Front Groups Are Created to Dominate Codex Discussions

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, conceived by the United Nations in 1962, was birthed through a series of relationships between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the American FDA and USDA.

The Codex Alimentarius itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods, whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw.

Its purported purpose is to “protect consumers’ health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality.”

There are a number of different working groups that meet regularly to establish food standards of every imaginable kind. For example, the Physical Working Group on Food Additives recently held meetings in Beijing, China. The 45th session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) ended on March 22.

On the agenda were discussions about aluminum-containing food additives. Are they safe or should they be eliminated from the worldwide Codex standards? The National Health Federation (NHF), the only health-freedom group allowed to speak at the meeting, dished out harsh criticism on the additives, calling for their removal. In a Facebook update, the NHF wrote:2

“The usual Codex suspects (the delegations of Australia, the United States and Canada) plus the trade organizations of the International Food Additives Council (IFAC) and the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations (ICGMA) were the industry apologists for keeping aluminum in food additives.

In dishing out scorching criticism of aluminum's proponents, NHF came under return fire from Australia, IFAC, and the Chairman.

IFAC - which does not seem to disclose any of its members... along with its sidekick ICGMA, cried out constantly that the 'Industry' just could not make it without aluminum food additives. Their members spraying equipment 'might overheat and catch fire,' IFAC lamented.

When NHF suggested that this was a not a genuine issue; that the industry could easily innovate its way out of this 'problem' and create non-overheating equipment, NHF was criticized by the Chairman for suggesting that IFAC might not be telling the truth.

By the end of the day, the success of the EU and NHF could be tallied by numerous uses of aluminum food additives that the Working Group will suggest be discontinued to the full Committee meeting... although there were also many food-additive uses that stayed in place (albeit usually at reduced levels), no thanks to the interventions of Australia, the U.S., Canada, IFAC, and ICGMA.”

Who’s Behind the International Food Additives Council (IFAC)?

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is “an international association representing companies that produce high quality substances used worldwide as food ingredients in traditional and organic products.” The group is very active in Codex. But how do you know who they are, and who they represent, when it’s almost impossible to find out who their members are?

As the NHF noted above, it’s virtually impossible to locate a list of its members (which naturally would indicate sources of funding, and potentially reveal behind-the-scenes agendas).

But here, I’m making public IFAC’s list of officers and board members as of 2011. It wasn’t easy to find this list, primarily because IFAC isn’t a regular 501(c)(3). In fact, it isn’t a 501(c)(3) at all. Actually, it’s a 501(c)(6)―an IRS classification for nonprofit “commercially oriented” organizations such as football leagues, chambers of commerce and, apparently, groups like IFAC. Once you know its non-profit classification, you can find its 990 forms―which all non-profits must file, complete with lists of officers and directors. I obtained IFAC’s 990s for the years 2004-2011. And there I learned the truth.

Except for two, who I couldn’t find any information at all on, all of IFAC’s officers and directors are linked to processed foods and additives in some way, with at least six of them having direct or business links to Monsanto and/or DuPont. That’s right. Six of IFAC’s governing board members are linked to the largest GMO producers in the world.

If you look up these board members’ contact information, you’ll find that all contacts for IFAC3 go to a corporation called The Kellen Company. Kellen “provides the essential services to advance associations to the next level of their evolution.” Such services include management, administration, accounting, meeting planning, membership marketing and strategic advice. According to the company’s website:

“Kellen takes the mission and message of each association client and brings it to audiences large and small, internal and external, domestic and international. Utilizing communications tools that are customized for each association, Kellen identifies the audiences, develops the strategies, defines the tactics and executes a planned and carefully reasoned communications plan.”

“Our consulting expertise enables us to reorganize association governance and assets, optimize association resources, extend reach for U.S. associations into Europe and Asia... Kellen’s team is expert in all strategic and tactical elements of associations and can provide insightful analysis and guidance on industry alignment... establishing new legal entities and building consensus. “ [Emphasis mine]

Additionally, if you look up IFAC’s origins in Internet business profiles, you’ll find that it was formed in 1980 by Patrick M. Farrey, who just so happens to be The Kellen Company’s group vice president. In short, The Kellen Company not only is linked to the formation of IFAC, but also serves as the managing entity behind IFAC. And its members, although a proper members list has not been obtained, are bound to be like their governing body― manufacturers of food additives, including but certainly not limited to manufacturers of artificial sweeteners and glutamate (i.e. MSG).

This association is clearly spelled out in the Council’s name. But what’s troublesome about it is that IFAC represents companies that create food ingredients in organic products as well, although there’s not a shred of evidence that any person, company or organization dedicated to organics is actually represented by IFAC. If that is the case, this means IFAC probably does NOT have any incentive at all to ensure such ingredients are appropriate for organic products, and most likely, they will just do what needs to be done to ensure its members’ ingredients are allowed to be used in organics no matter what.

You need look no further than its board members―and their links to Monsanto and DuPont, and their managing entity, Kellen―to see what I’m talking about, because Kellen tells you plainly on its website where the organization it represents stand when it comes to organics. Boasting that Kellen and its members joined the “Say No to Proposition 37” movement in California, Kellen explains right on its website how they defeated the bill that would have mandated that all GMO products be labeled as such:

“Almost all of Kellen Company’s food clients would have been negatively affected by Prop. 37, but no single association was in a position to lead opposition efforts to GMO labeling. A coalition was a perfect solution; our team decided to join the 'No on 37 Coalition,' a multi-stakeholder group that led opposition efforts and helped to educate Californian voters about the shortcoming of Prop. 37. And that story has a happy ending – the proposition was not passed and food companies in California are not required to include potentially misleading labeling.”

The site goes further, detailing the steps to “success” of this campaign, advising site visitors: “With proposed ballot initiatives beginning to be certified and many states opening their 2013 legislative sessions this month, now is the time to think about your association’s plans should state legislation or a ballot initiative affecting your industry be introduced in 2013.”

Finally, if you have any doubt about what IFAC’s goals are, you need look no further than a PowerPoint presentation4 that the group is currently giving at symposia and conventions around the world. One of the slides on this presentation states that IFAC promotes “independently determined” studies of safety in its members’ products. By “independent,” they explain that this means: “experts chosen and employed by the manufacturer.” This is the same procedure that gets Monsanto’s products to market: Monsanto gets to do its own safety studies and submit them to the FDA as “proof” that their products won’t harm you.

Front Groups Working to Keep Harmful Food Additives Hidden and on the Market

The Kellen Company has ties with other major industry players. According to a 2011 press release,5 one of the Kellen Company executives was honored as president of the Calorie Control Council, a non-profit association that represents manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, sugar-free and reduced sugar foods and beverages. It’s also closely tied to the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations (ICGMA), which, along with IFAC, urged the Codex working group to keep aluminum in food additives, despite the many known health risks associated with aluminum.

According to Truthinlabeling.org,6 there are a number of front groups for the glutamate and artificial sweetener industry in the US. In an article titled: "Meet the people who get the job done so effectively," they write:

“In the United States, the glutamate industry has two arms. Both work to keep MSG hidden in food. One is the International Hydrolyzed Protein Council... The second and more active arm is spearheaded by Ajinomoto’s International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC) and its American subsidiary, The Glutamate Association (TGA), with representative organizations throughout the world.”

Now here’s where it gets interesting, as it again shows the intricate ties of the glutamate industry with the Kellen Company:

“In 1977, the IGTC spun off The Glutamate Association, with both organizations accommodated under the umbrella of The Robert H. Kellen Company... a trade organization and association management firm, specializing in the food, pharmaceutical, and health care industries. [Editor’s note: although not covered in this article, this is a clue that there are many front groups operating in the drug and health care industry as well, under the careful management of the Kellen Company. Such front groups ensure you will NOT get the truth about drugs and health care issues where corporate profits are at stake.]

The Encyclopedia of Associations (The Glutamate Association, 1990) listed Robert H. Kellen as president of The Glutamate Association. Richard Cristol, executive director of The Glutamate Association, was also Vice President of The Kellen Company. Cristol assumed management of the Washington, DC operations of The Kellen Company and its subsidiary, HQ Services, in 1993...

In 1992, and still in 1998, Andrew G. Ebert, Ph.D., Chairman of the International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC), was also Senior Vice President of The Kellen Company. Membership in The Glutamate Association is secret. However, a source from within the glutamate industry, who asked to remain anonymous, told us that besides Ajinomoto, Archer Daniels Midland, Campbell, Corn Products Corporation, McCormick & Company, Pet Foods, Pfizer Laboratories, and Takeda were among its members; and Nestle was a former member.”

The fact that membership is a secret is telling in and of itself, and it’s quite ironic, considering the Glutamate Association is ardently working to keep the presence of glutamate in foods and other products, such as fertilizers and growth promoters,hidden from the consumer... But there’s more. I’ve often discussed the revolving door between the US Food and Drug Administration, and here we see the door swinging yet again. According to another article by TruthInLabeling.org:7

“Influence of the International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC) can be felt at every level. [Andrew G.] Ebert has served the Grocery Manufacturers of America; the National Food Processors Association; the Institute of Food Technology; the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences Assembly of Life Sciences; theAmerican Medical Association; the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Food Standards Program as an Industry Observer; and the International Food Additives Council (IFAC) as Executive Director. In 1992, FDA appointed both Andrew G. Ebert, Ph.D., IGTC chairman, and Kristin McNutt, Ph.D., paid spokesperson for the IGTC, to the FDA Food Advisory Committee.” [Emphasis mine]

At this point, it would appear The Kellen Company is instrumental in creating and managing front groups for the processed food and chemical industries. These front groups are specifically created to mislead you about the product in question, protect industry profits, and influence regulatory agencies. This amount of collusion simply is not necessary for a food or product that is truly safe and has great intrinsic value, but it must be done for inferior and/or dangerous products that cannot stand up to closer scrutiny by truly independent sources.

What’s more, it appears all these front groups (there are many others not specifically mentioned in this article) have been created in order to have more seats at the Codex meetings, essentially giving chemical companies and major food manufacturers a much louder voice, in order to control the decisions made.

Front Man Steven Milloy, and Other Non-Profit Front Organizations with Ties to Industry

Steven Milloy, author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, and owner and operator of Junkscience.com8 — a site dedicated to denying environmental and health concerns related to pollutants and chemicals, including those used in agriculture and food production — appears to have been registered as a lobbyist with The EOP Group, a lobbying firm based in Washington, DC. Clients of the firm have included the American Crop Protection Association, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, and Edison Electric Institute.9

Milloy’s clients10 included both Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council (IFAC). Milloy has denied ever being a lobbyist, claiming that he was “a technical consultant" for the lobbying firm.

“However, Milloy shows up in federal lobbyist registration data for 1997 as having lobbying expenditures on his behalf, indicating his firm, the EOP Group, believed him to be an active lobbyist, 'technical' or otherwise,” TRWNews11 states in its expose of the industry front man.

Milloy also headed up the now defunct corporate front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). According to TRWNews,12 TASSC and the Junkscience.com site were one and the same. Integrity in Science,13 which lists non-profit organizations with close ties to industry, reports that TASSC received financial support from hundreds of corporations, including the likes of Procter & Gamble, Exxon, Dow Chemical, and Philip Morris. I’ll leave it up to you to guess what kind of ‘sound science’ was advanced by those sources...

“Its objective is to act as a speakers bureau to deliver the corporate message that environmental public policy is not currently based on 'sound science,' and to counter excessive regulations that are based on what it considers 'junk' science,” Integrity in Science states. [Emphasis mine]

Other non-profit organizations that are in actuality doing the bidding of various industry giants include:

·       Air Quality Standards Coalition, “created specifically to battle the clean air proposals, the coalition operates out of the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based trade group. Its leadership includes top managers of petroleum, automotive and utility companies”

·       Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, while sounding like it would work for your benefit, actually gets “unrestricted grants” from a long list of pharmaceutical companies

·       Alliance to Save Energy, which “supports energy efficiency as a cost-effective energy resource under existing market conditions and advocates energy-efficiency policies that minimize costs to society and individual consumers,” was founded by, among others: BP...

·       American Academy of Pediatrics receives $1 million annually from infant formula manufacturers. Other donors include (but is not limited to) the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, both Wyeth’s and Merck’s vaccine divisions, the Food Marketing Institute, the Sugar Association, and the International Food Information Council (IFIC) — which you will see below, is not only a front group for the glutamate industry; it’s also the coordinating agent for a new alliance of over 50 industry groups aimed at directing the dialogue and altering public opinion about large-scale, genetically engineered and chemical-based food production

·       American Council for Fitness and Nutrition. This one takes the cake with a member list that includes the American Bakers Association, the American Meat Institute, the Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association, Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, National Confectioners Association and many others that are FAR from suited to devise appropriate “comprehensive, long-term strategies and constructive public policies for improving the health and wellness of all Americans”

IFIC Created 'Crisis Management' Protocol in Case Truth Would Be Exposed

Although their names may differ, many of the functions of these groups overlap, as they’re really serving the same industry. TruthInLabeling explains how front groups such as these serve the distinct interests of the industry, not your or your children’s health, even when their well-chosen name may mislead you to think otherwise.14 Take the International Food Information Council (IFIC) for example:

“In 1990, faced with the threat of a '60 Minutes' segment... that might expose the toxic potential of monosodium glutamate, IFIC became actively involved in representing the interests of the glutamate industry. The IFIC represents itself as an 'independent' organization. It sends attractive brochures to dietitians, nutritionists, hospitals, schools, the media, and politicians, proclaiming the safety of monosodium glutamate. In 1990, an anonymous person sent us a copy of a 'Communication Plan' dated July-December 1991, that detailed methods for scuttling the '60 Minutes' segment on MSG, or, failing that, provided for crisis management.

...Depending on the roles they play, researchers might be considered agents of the glutamate industry. In addition, there are those who promote the products of those they work for, just as public relations firms do, but these organizations highlight the fact that they are nonprofit corporations, while minimizing the fact that they promote the products of those who financially support them. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) are examples of such glutamate-industry agents.”

50+ Industry Front Groups Form New Alliance to 'Balance Public Dialogue' on Food Production

As reported by Sustainable Food News15 on March 17, more than 50 of these front groups, working on behalf of food and biotechnology trade groups, have formed a brand new alliance called Alliance to Feed the Future. Again, the alliance is being coordinated by the glutamate-protecting International Food Information Council (IFIC). The stated aim of the alliance is to "balance the public dialogue on modern agriculture and large-scale food production."

“The Alliance to Feed the Future said 'in an effort to meet the world’s increasing food needs responsibly, efficiently and affordably,' its members want to 'tell the real story of' and dispel "misperceptions about modern food production and technology,'” the article states.16

The groups comprising the alliance represent multi-national food, biotech, and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of revenue each year. Some of the most notable of these 50 industry groups include the very players already mentioned in this article. For the full list of all 50+ groups that are part of the alliance, please see the original article:17

 

American Soybean Association Biotechnology Industry Organization (which represents biotech crop giants Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta) Calorie Control Council (which represents the artificial sweetener industry)
Council for Biotechnology Information Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) International Food Additives Council (IFAC)

According to the featured article:18

“When asked by Sustainable Food News what misperceptions the group seeks to dispel, Dave Schmidt, CEO at the International Food Information Council, who coordinates the alliance, said the most common misperceptions - perpetuated by what he calls 'a large popular culture' that can be found in recent 'books and movies' - are that 'technology is bad and we need to go back to a time when there was less technology. Or, food processing or large-scale food production is bad.'

...The alliance's aim is to educate who he called 'opinion leaders,' including those in the university sector, professional societies, journalists and government officials. However, another target demographic is the 'informed consumer,' who he expects will find the group's information online.

The Alliance's effort appears to be an attempt to squelch the growing consumer perception that modern food production can have a negative impact on the health of humans and the environment as espoused by the organic and sustainable food movement.” [Emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, close to a dozen of the members of this new industry alliance have resigned from the Leonardo Academy's National Sustainable Agriculture Standards Committee,19 which is currently developing a national standard for sustainable agriculture under the rules of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). According to Russell Williams of the American Farm Bureau Federation, this exodus occurred because:

“...the committee is dominated by environmental groups, certification consultants, agro-ecology and organic farming proponents. Based on their recent actions, it is apparent that these groups have neither the vision nor desire to speak for mainstream agriculture or the 95 percent of farmers who will be materially affected by any resulting standard.”

Is the Information You’re Given Created by a Front Group Pretending to Be 'Independent'?

As TruthInLabeling points out, the industry has manipulated public knowledge using innocent-sounding front groups for a very long time. As I’ve already shown, the International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is a perfect example of how industry giants can masquerade as a so-called non-profit, independent organization. While their membership still remains secret, the directors and officers on the IFAC board show quite plainly who’s running the show when it comes to food additives―and IFAC is obviously NOT a group of consumer advocates.

Another example can be shown through the distribution of information about MSG, which has been completely directed by the industry itself, through The Glutamate Association:

"Present FDA practice includes distributing unsolicited copies of an FDA Medical Bulletin that assures physicians that MSG is safe; and distributing similar material to food service people. In the January-February, 2003 FDA Consumer magazine, the FDA's Michelle Meadows, in an article titled: MSG: A Common Flavor Enhancer, spewed out paragraphs that look like they came right off The Glutamate Association or the International Glutamate Information Service Web pages. Trying to convince us that MSG is 'safe' while saying nothing."

The same goes for genetically engineered crops, prescription drugs, artificial sweeteners and a whole host of other harmful substances used in food production and medicine. You can bet if there’s a harmful substance out there that makes money, there are at least one or more front groups, posing as independent non-profit organizations, disseminating anything butindependent safety reviews and information pertaining to it...

As for the Codex meetings, and the Group on Food Additives in particular; they’re being shrewdly manipulated by multiple front groups, which ensures that their side comes across as the strongest and most vocal. It also creates the illusion of consensus, when in fact it’s nothing but collusion... It’s high time to pull back the curtain and see who’s really pulling the strings and levers. And whenever you hear the talking points from Alliance to Feed the Future or the International Food Additives Council (IFAC), you now know exactly who is talking, and why. It’s an alliance of multi-national food-, biotech-, and chemical companies that are hell-bent on protecting hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of annual revenue in the face of a burgeoning organic and sustainable food movement. Believe what they tell you at your own risk...

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

"Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers."

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

·       No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.

·       If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.

·       For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

·       Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

 

 



ABOUT Dr. Mercola

Dr. Mercola has made significant milestones in his mission to bring people practical solutions to their health problems. A New York Times Best Selling Author, Dr. Mercola was also voted the 2009 Ultimate Wellness Game Changer by the Huffington Post, and has been featured in TIME magazine, LA Times, CNN, Fox News, ABC News, Today Show, CBS’s Washington Unplugged with Sharyl  Attkisson, and other major media resources.

Mais non, je ne me suis pas

Mais non, je ne me suis pas endormi dans la salle.Estce le jour de SISSI DU MORIN 4 Sans aucun doute, la rponse est oui, et mme xboter 2014

Mais non, je ne me suis pas

Mais non, je ne me suis pas endormi dans la salle.Estce le jour de SISSI DU MORIN 4 Sans aucun doute, la rponse est oui, et mme xboter 2014

Mais non, je ne me suis pas

Mais non, je ne me suis pas endormi dans la salle.Estce le jour de SISSI DU MORIN 4 Sans aucun doute, la rponse est oui, et mme xboter 2014

Mais non, je ne me suis pas

Mais non, je ne me suis pas endormi dans la salle.Estce le jour de SISSI DU MORIN 4 Sans aucun doute, la rponse est oui, et mme xboter 2014

Mais non, je ne me suis pas

Mais non, je ne me suis pas endormi dans la salle.Estce le jour de SISSI DU MORIN 4 Sans aucun doute, la rponse est oui, et mme xboter 2014

All I want to know is what is

All I want to know is what is in my food. So I want it properly and thoroughly labelled. Then I can make up my own mind whether I deem it safe to ingest or not. If an additive is deemed 'safe' by science, I still want the option of choosing whether to ingest it or not. Over the years science has sufficiently backpedalled on its findings for me to doubt its 'we know what's good for you' stance. As an example, smoking was long considered 'safe' (even though scientists in Nazi Germany in the 1930s apparently considered it was not); among others, doctors were great smokers. Why can not an additive that is scientifically deemed safe, be labelled?

The only way to escape

The only way to escape Frankenfood if you cook from scratch and buy organic food.

Look all around you, huge shapeless people. It's not from overeating. It's from the garbage sold as food by the food industry.

The rich are getting richer,

The rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer.

People are advised to keep being VIGILANT, the greed of the 1% greedy power hungry wolves knows no bounds. These creatures will stop at just about nothing !!

These criminals are using food as a weapon! They have paid shills, trolls, dis-informants etc. all over the internet in order to confuse & mislead the sheeple. They own & control most of the media, so don't expect reliable information from these entities.

┏━┳┳┳┓ ┏━┳━━┳┳┳┓
┃━┫┃┃┃ ┃┗┣┓┏┫┃┃┃
┃┏╋┓┃┃ ┃┏┃┃┃┃┃┃┃
┗┛┗━┻┛ ┗━┛┗┛┗━━┛

"There's good evidence of a concerted effort to sicken and then treat humanity, while earning obscene profits.
┼┼┼┼┼
Authors William Engdahl and Shiv Chopra appear in Emmanuelle Schick Garcia’s powerful film, The Idiot Cycle: What you aren’t being told about cancer. Both writers provide detailed evidence of a corporate-government conspiracy to adulterate the food and water supply with dangerous substances linked to a host of illnesses. The Case Against Fluoride, a book using hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, provides more evidence. In David Gumpert’s Raw Milk Revolution, we get a peek at the US government’s war on the natural dairy industry."
☞ http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/10/a-perfect-stor...
╋╋╋╋╋ ╋╋╋╋╋

╔╗┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼╔╗┼┼┼┼╔╗┼
║╠══╦═╦═╦╦╣╚╦═╦═╣╚╗
║║║║║╬║╬║╔╣╔╣╬║║║╔╣
╚╩╩╩╣╔╩═╩╝╚═╩╩╩╩╩═╝
┼┼┼┼╚╝┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼
Ⅰ)
➱ PERVERTED SCIENCE -- THE MANIPULATION OF GM RESEARCH ⇙
⇉ http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm

Entoman, you are full of GMO

Entoman, you are full of GMO HS... Genetically Modified Obtuse Horse Shit. No one touched food sources for thousands of years. People lived fine off the land. Now we got big corporations & biotech [chemical] companies messing with our foods, our land, our soil, our animals (foods they eat), our water, & our entire environment on a global scale. They've got the money, so they'll lie & sneak in every damn thing to control the masses all for their bottom line profits, just as the snake oil men & carpetbaggers of old. No different than what the too big to fail/jail banksters did.

You want to consume the poisons & also feed them to your friends & family, help yourself. The rest of us demand that we are allowed the RIGHT to know WTH we are purchasing, consuming, & feeding to our families & friends. It is a known fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup is very, very bad to the body, as are artificial sweeteners. Need you be reminded about Saccharin, a carcinogenic, that finally the truth was outed & exposed. Or the extreme damaging effects of trans fats, that cause obesity, heart attacks, & stroke.

Some of us could write books on what we know about getting back to nature & away from the poisons. All you have to do is look back over the last couple decades to see what's going on right in front of your eyes with all of the diseases rising to epidemic proportions. No scientific studies need done for that if you're not completely blind to life, & corporate profits.

You can take all that fake food & jam it, as we want NO parts of it. So go on out there & continue to make those oligarchs wallets heavy & fat. I feel exactly like Dibbles who said, "Signed: Founding Member: American People's Party. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!", & MAMABASHUMS who said, "The farmers can change, you could change, but we won't change; so there you haves it masser, I aint gonna say yessum and noum no mor.", only I added punctuation!

My dear Katrina. Interesting

My dear Katrina.
Interesting take you have. It is truly full of UHS "Unadulterated Horse Shit". You are one of the uneducated parrots of the vitreol that has been spewed by the anti-technology, anti-drug, anti-anti crowd. You state that diseases are rising to epidemic proportions. That blanket statement screams that you really do not know what you are ranting about. Some diseases are increasing, Type II diabetes for one. Some are in decline, for example numerous types of cancer, most noteable would be lung cancer. others are virtually unchanged.
One of the most damning statements that I hear people make is that "everybody knows that!" I cringe when I hear that, because in my tenure as a researcher I have found again and again that the "common wisdom" is often wrong.
Interesting too is that when I make a compelling argument to the contrary of your position, I am then attacked for mistakes in punctuation, spelling and the such. While these things are indeed important, this is the internet and oft times punctuation falls by the wayside as does spelling and the such. My opinions...Yes I said opinions are not to sway your opinion, but rather to say stand back and review critically the evidence. I have and at this moment, I find little deception by the companies trying to market most of the GMO products. The microscope that they are under is at an all time high and that is a good thing. I agree with everybody here in principle that our food is important and that it should be healthy and nutritious.
That said, 100% safety is an illusion. Everything carries inherent risks and one has to weight those risks before proceeding. A statement was made that
"No one touched food sources for thousands of years. People lived fine off the land. Now we got big corporations & biotech [chemical] companies messing with our foods, our land, our soil, our animals (foods they eat), our water, & our entire environment on a global scale. "
This statement is fraught with half truths and assumptions that are simply not true. Man has manipulated food sources for about as long as man has existed. We have brought together germplasm from far off regions to hybridize it in order to make better plants. We restrict pollination to only those plants we want in order to control the gene flow from one generation to the next. We have used radiation to force plants to spontaneously mutate into a myriad of new forms (not a recent process either, this has been done for up to a century now). Let's examine the "and we did fine" portion. Did we? History is rife with famines, crop failures, poisonings, and the like that came from our previously "unmodified food" You think that we should return to that?!!?
That makes as much sense as saying that because antibiotic is "not natural" we shouldn't give it to a patient with an easily cureable infection, because the patent might be allergic to it.

Lets also examine the productivity of farming now and "then". a farmer can easily grow three hundred bushels of corn on a single acre of land today. that is around 17,000 pounds of grain. A typical 1920's farmer, using the latest technology of the time could only expect 30 to 40 bushels from that same acre. How about weed control? have you ever weeded your garden by hand? Typically, the ground is tilled to the point that very little organic matter remains for initial weed management. This works for a couple of weeks, but then the weeds will overtake and crowd out the crops you need for food. So you weed. It is difficult work and very time consuming an acre will take one person several full days to weed and once done will need to be done again. This leaves little time for most other things we take for granted today. Least we crow about the likely rise in skin cancer rates since we will be in the sun every day during the growing season. Also, we have approximately 300 million people in the USA alone, will this be able to feed us? Doubtful at the very least.
I personally think that labeling should be done. It will tell you that most of the food at the grocery store has at a little GMO somewhere in its makeup. The most likely label will state "This product has one or more constituents that are genetically modified". For the short run, it may have a negative effect on some foods, but it will provide little new information. Some will buy only from orgainic stores. That is your choice and I will not challenge it. However most will note that it tastes the same, and buy the products in the end as they always have.

Well put Entoman. Humans

Well put Entoman. Humans survived for the last hundred-thousand years rooting around in soil for twigs, roots and grubs. We had no improved fruits or vegetables, especially in North America. All of the plants we have for food come from one place-- human intervention in breeding and selection. Every bit of it is genetically manipulated by humans.

GM and biotech are absolutely part of the solution going forward. I'm with ya. However, the use of science, logic and evidence is not welcome here as it applies to transgenic technology. Get ready for the flames.

Entoman -- I would waste my

Entoman -- I would waste my time trying to argue with you. Why don't you eat your GMO garbage and I eat what I deem proper food, and leave it at that?

"The answer here is

"The answer here is simple....one should doubt everything and everybody especially those that purport to be telling the truth."
Entoman purports to be telling the truth.

"People should be wary of anybody that claims to know what is best for them...history is fraught with snake oil men and con men that prey on the ignorance and fear of people."
Entoman claims to know what's best for everyone.

"These groups cry foul when they are backed into a corner with their own words."
Entoman cries foul.

So according to Entoman, we should be wary of GM foods and people.

TRUTH in Labelling laws are a

TRUTH in Labelling laws are a threat to Monsanto and other frankenfood creators -- their garbage is toxic and nutritionally-dead.

High fructose corn syrup is the crack cocaine of sweeteners. Archer Daniels Midland has given America an epidemic of type II diabetes.

The US has been and is being dumbed down through education, diet, and culture, all so corporate Amerika can increase profits.

lookie here hoogie wolf

lookie here hoogie wolf entoman we just dont want the gmo is that okay with you I and many others want all communities of aquaponics throughout the country. Benifits include no transportation costs, no need for science
studies on the safety of our food which can and will be compromised,less impact on the enviroment ie man made fertilizers and chemicals into the enviroment, lastly the most scary thing is big AG owning our food and seeds
is the last straw about how much shit we will take on. The well to do taking everthing that moves and grows and capitalizing on it go f yourself is our last call for alcohol and freedom you must understand we want our freedom and gmo stands for slavery plain and simple. The farmers had their shot at it and they were either forced out or complied and are still being forced out anyway ie seeds and cross pollination. The farmers can change you could change but we wont change so there you haves it masser I aint gonna say yessum and noum no mor.

You and the rest of the

You and the rest of the posters here can call me names and ridicule me...call me a shill, I really don't care...and no I am not paid to come on here and post pro-gmo rhetoric. FWIW I have a Ph.D. and am well respected in the research arena. From my handle, it should be a nobrainer that I am an entomologist and have been for more than 20 years... No I will not identify myself here due to death threats leveled at me because I dare to say wait a minute...GMO safety true or false, great question, but be careful in who you believe or follow. some of the anti-GMO crowd are feeding you stuff that simply isn't true. What is their goal here? The post about Dr. Huber being a respected Purdue researcher neglects to mention that the university issued a public apology about his views and antics...
the crack about me demanding peer reviewed research...yes, that is the most trustworthy research out there...is it always right...no, but the system is set to ultimately resolve any thesis that is mistaken.
wrt peer reviewed research about GMO safety... go here http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ and read the actual research...not somebodies view of what it means... there are some 600 research studies listed and it is growing every day.
the link to the scientific american page...this is a reprint of an opinion piece that was published by the Environmental Health News a nonprofit org that has been in existance since 2002...Not exactly an organization that has been around...non the less, their view is interesting, however, I will have to read the original research paper before I can give it much consideration.

My stance was and still is, that nobody should blindly follow anybody in this or any other regard. rather you should read the data, the studies, and put some common sense tests on some of the claims made...they often don't stand up to that simple red faced test...

oops...apparently you forgot

oops...apparently you forgot to take English courses while you were getting your education... a Ph.D you say?

Very good Trish. If you

Very good Trish. If you can't address the message, attack the person and the little errors in writing.

Entoman makes completely valid points and I'd love to see them discussed intellegently here. You won't see an evidence-based discussion. It will be his/her articulate statements and everyone else making fun of a misspelling or calling him/her a shill for big ag. Believe me, I know the drill.

It is good to hear an alternate voice of reason in this sea of emotionally stoked, anti-scientific fear mongering.

This past weekend saw an

This past weekend saw an influx of GMO supporters across a variety of internet media platforms.

Guess they decided to increase their PR budget.

What you are seeing is an

What you are seeing is an awakening of independent, publc, academic scientists to the attack on science and reason. It is just like how scientists, primarily climate scientists, took to the social media to defend Michael Mann and those tainted by "Climate Gate". The Tea Party whined at the new interest in climate evidence, exaclaiming, "Guess they (Al Gore and George Soros and the Liberal Media) decided to increase their PR budget".

You guys are cut from the same cloth.

Scientists everywhere see the value of biotech as a tool in helping farmers, the environment and consumer. It is backwards policy, fear and emotion that are fighting technology that could help many.

We're not Monsanto, DOW etc. Most of us could work there but choose not to (for half the salary). We chose to be independent, make our own research decisions.

That's why we're getting angry. We're here to teach science and evidence, and we're seeing good people and good science getting trampled by false claims and bad science. It is our duty as public servants to try to correct that, and just like the Tea Party does to climate scientist, you'll fight us every step of the way no matter how much research says you are wrong.

The ultimate downfall of the anti-GMO argument is that they don't know who real experts are, and when real experts offer to assist, the movement does not have the courage to consider their information. Welcome to the world of extremist kookiness.

These "industry lobby/curve

These "industry lobby/curve ball groups" are the new era traveling elixir salesman, promising to repair your lumbago ache, take away the headaches, cure the common cold, improve your sex life, and NOW, make you healthy by making sure you eat everything your told to eat without having any disinterested, third party, verification, that what you eat can't ultimately kill you... is a sign of the boon the Citizen's United decision has given to the liars among us who can't find a job.

Get a list of the members. Find out what products they want you to get sick eatiing, and boycott them, nag your local groceries to keep those products off the floor, buy local every chance you get, buy organic every chance you get, and inform others of the corruption of our food supplies by big industrial and chemical companies that have an agenda that's unhealthy for us individually, and unhealthy to the future of our rights and free citizens in a so called democracy.

Signed: Founding Member: American People's Party. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

The rhetoric by the anti-GMO

The rhetoric by the anti-GMO crowd is unbelievable. Their minions have put up shell websites and hollow institutes to spread their gospel about their perceived dangers of GMO foods. They scream that there is no research proving the alleged safety of GMOs. Now when the pro-GMO faction tries answer that charge with peer reviewed studies that now number over 600 and they are labeled as liars and shills..... The answer here is simple....one should doubt everything and everybody especially those that purport to be telling the truth, but steadfastly refuse to provide independent review and whose origins are dubious at best. For example, a solid research paper published in a respected peer reviewed journal such as the journal of the American medical association JAMA, or science, or similar should carry much more weight than an opinion expressed by the likes of Dr. Huber and similar often self proclaimed scientists. These groups cry foul when they are backed into a corner with their own words especially when they cannot back up their position with science. People should be wary of anybody that claims to know what is best for them...history is fraught with snake oil men and con men that prey on the ignorance and fear of people. The only way to steer your way clear of this is through open and independent science...

"open and independent

"open and independent science"

Too bad your corporate financed and influenced "studies" can't supply it...

But the hundreds of

But the hundreds of independent studies certainly can supply it. Check the GENERA database.

Furthermore, there are no independent, reproducible studies showing evidence of harm. Not one person has been harmed by this technology. Zero. People are looking for it, but somehow they never find it.

I think I can guess who is

I think I can guess who is paying you. Show me the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LONG-TERM STUDIES ON HUMANS. There are none, so I won't hold my breath. Also, look around. Are you really so blind to the screaming health epidemics that have exploded since these pesticide laden foreign proteins were secretly introduced. Safe? BAH! Not. My family, and especially my children, are healthier since getting off GMOs. Doctors and parents by the thousands are realizing this. Just a matter of time before EVERYONE knows it. You, sir, may keep eating this junk. We will not. Dr. Huber is a PhD Professor Emeritus from Purdue, and he worked for the military for 40 years. He is not a self-proclaimed anything. What is your degree and experience? Additionally, GMOs are not more drought tolerant, cheaper, or better for the environment. Anyone who is the least bit educated gets that. Do a tiny bit of research. Start here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p

Industrial PR person at work

Industrial PR person at work here protecting the revenue chain....

Signed: Good sniffer.

The rhetoric by the anti-GMO

The rhetoric by the anti-GMO crowd is unbelievable. Their minions have put up shell websites and hollow institutes to spread their gospel about their perceived dangers of GMO foods. They scream that there is no research proving the alleged safety of GMOs. Now when the pro-GMO faction tries answer that charge with peer reviewed studies that now number over 600 and they are labeled as liars and shills..... The answer here is simple....one should doubt everything and everybody especially those that purport to be telling the truth, but steadfastly refuse to provide independent review and whose origins are dubious at best. For example, a solid research paper published in a respected peer reviewed journal such as the journal of the American medical association JAMA, or science, or similar should carry much more weight than an opinion expressed by the likes of Dr. Huber and similar often self proclaimed scientists. These groups cry foul when they are backed into a corner with their own words especially when they cannot back up their position with science. People should be wary of anybody that claims to know what is best for them...history is fraught with snake oil men and con men that prey on the ignorance and fear of people. The only way to steer your way clear of this is through open and independent science...

Dear Mr Pro GMO Man .. You

Dear Mr Pro GMO Man .. You see sir your whole BS story and the words that came after might I say might have had some credibility but let's take a closer look at facts shall we . Fact # 1 Monsanto and the FDA have a rather nice little revolving door going on that cycle's then re-cycles the very same SOB who once upon a time said DDT was safe and that PCBs were harmless that the herbicides used in Vietnam were harmless to our troops. They rigged the law's to make it impossible for ANY other doctor or scientist to legally use Monsanto seed's to do a REAL meaningful food safety study then bark's out they don't have to because the FDA said it was safe but has the audacity to neglect telling these silly peasants {little people} that an "ex-Monsanto Man" gave it the green light and when the EU said it wanted to do it's own study's Monsanto people applied serious pressure on the Ambassador's office to stop it . GMOs are so wonderful for Mankind that they block every attempt to pass any law that requires the labeling then slip Law's into bill's that protect them from any legal litigation . You know something there Mr Entoman if you were to step back and honestly look at what they do even the most naive person on earth would come away with the feeling that the overall Monsanto business practices are notoriously vicious , how was it they put it . they are in the business of selling as much as they can NOT making sure it's safe they claim that's the Governments job but wait a minute the people tasked with that very job are all ex-Monsanto people or so they claim . look friend if you really don't know then find out but you would have to be both blind & dumb not to be able to at least see the inherent conflict's of interest in this debacle The Rigged safety study's the effort's made to make sure the 90 day study was used and NOT the long term study's that even their own scientist's agreed should have been used. And we won't even talk about the so-called increases in yields that for whatever the reason's never seem to be forthcoming Or the alleged decreases in operating cost's when the exact opposite is fact . In fact the Monsanto slop is so slippery they installed Michael Taylor as FDA head for what good reason ? Who's interest's do you really think Ole Mike is their to serve ? Do you honestly want people to believe Michael Taylor was installed at the FDA to protect us useless eater's ? Are you kidding Me , we might have been born at night but I can assure you it wasn't last night . Any honest American who step's back and take's the time to look at this can only come away with one fact GMO's are NO GOOD for any living being. No Mr entoman your claim's are Bogus the fact's are slowly making their way out to the public. If anything at all Monsanto should have the ability to do business in this country removed as they have clearly violated every food safety law their is and adopted the most corrupt business practices ever seen , they are so entrenched in Government to make any attempts at bringing them justice all but impossible.. YOUR FIRED...

Dear Mr Pro GMO Man .. You

Dear Mr Pro GMO Man .. You see sir your whole BS story and the words that came after might I say might have had some credibility but let's take a closer look at facts shall we . Fact # 1 Monsanto and the FDA have a rather nice little revolving door going on that cycle's then re-cycles the very same SOB who once upon a time said DDT was safe and that PCBs were harmless that the herbicides used in Vietnam were harmless to our troops then rigged the law's to make it impossible for ANY other doctor or scientist to legally use Monsanto seed's to do a REAL meaningful food safety study then bark's out they don't have to because the FDA said it was safe but has the audacity to neglect telling these silly peasants {little people} that a "ex-Monsanto Man" gave it the green light and when the EU said it wanted to do it's own study's Monsanto people applied serious pressure on the Ambassador's office to stop it . GMOs are so wonderful for Mankind that they block every attempt to pass any law that requires the labeling then slip Law's into bill's that protect them from any legal litigation . You know something there Mr Entoman if you were to step back and honestly look at what they do even the most naive person on earth would come away with the feeling that the overall Monsanto business practices are notoriously vicious , how was it they put it . they are in the business of selling as much as they can NOT making sure it's safe they claim that's the Governments job but wait a minute the people tasked with that very job are all ex-Monsanto people or so they claim . look friend if you really don't know then find out but you would have to be both blind & dumb not to be able to at least see the inherent conflict's of interest in this debacle The Rigged safety study's the effort's made to make sure the 90 day study was used and NOT the long term study's that even their own scientist's agreed should have been used. And we won't even talk about the so-called increases in yields that for whatever the reason's never seem to be forthcoming Or the alleged decreases in operating cost's when the exact opposite is fact . In fact the Monsanto slop is so slippery they installed Michael Taylor as FDA head for what good reason ? Who's interest's do you really think Ole Mike is their to serve ? Do you honestly want people to believe Michael Taylor was installed at the FDA to protect us useless eater's ? Are you kidding Me , we might have been born at night but I can assure you it wasn't last night . Any honest American who step's back and take's the time to look at this can only come away with one fact GMO's are NO GOOD for any living being.

Why is it that other

Why is it that other countries don't want our GMO food?

Many do. We have substantial

Many do. We have substantial grain imports to many countries. Those that don't turn away GM products for various reasons. Some are protectionist, as it keeps farmers using standard conventional practices in business where they can't grow GMO--GMO's low production costs would crush them. Other decisions are purely political. In these cases emotional and fearful populations, driven scared by websites and lies of a propaganda machine, force politicians to enact policy that opposes science. Scientists in Europe and worldwide don't have problem with transgenic technology.

You'll see it changing. There are trails throughout Europe, more and more acreage where the technology was once banned and new import-export policy changes all the time.

Alt-Esc, Reset.

Alt-Esc, Reset.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...