FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Sunday, August 25, 2013

13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents Are Pushing to Keep People in the Dark

        

  Food  

13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents Are Pushing to Keep People in the Dark


Like bad robots, they’re spitting out the same old, tired lies, designed to scare voters into voting against their own best interests. Here's the truth behind their lies.

 
 
 

Photo Credit: Bogdan Wankowicz/ Shutterstock.com


 
 
 
 
It’s déjà vu. Last year a coalition of out-of-state, multinational biotech, pesticide and junk food corporations spent nearly $46 million to narrowly defeat Proposition 37, California’s GMO labeling initiative.

Now, the same who’s who of the world’s most notorious global corporate bad actors has descended on Washington State. Why? To try to stop Washington State voters from passing I-522, a citizens’ initiative that, if passed, will require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all food products sold in Washington.

Like bad robots, they’re spitting out the same old, tired lies, designed to scare voters into voting against their own best interests.

Here are the lies. And the facts. Please read, print, email, roll up and stuff into a bottle you launch into the sea . . . whatever it takes to spread the word that while $46 million may buy a lot of lies, it doesn’t change the facts.

1. Lie: Labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs) will cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Truth:Empirical studies have concluded labeling would lead to no increases in prices. Since the European Union labeled GMOs in the 1990’s, there has been "no resulting increase in grocery costs."

Trader Joe’s, Clif Bar & Co. and Washington’s own PCC Natural Markets all label their non-GMO product lines at no additional cost to consumers.

2. Lie: I-522 is full of arbitrary special interest exemptions that will just confuse consumers.

Truth:I-522 requires labeling for the GE foods that are most prevalent in the American diet – food on supermarket shelves. I-522’s exemptions are easy to explain and guided by common sense and the law:
  • Restaurants – Restaurants and bake sales are not required to list the ingredients in their products. Requiring labeling for GMOs would have required tracking all the ingredients in restaurant meals, and since no other laws require that, it didn't make sense for this one to.
  • Meat, cheese, dairy and eggs from animals - These will be labeled if they come from genetically engineered animals. However, they are exempt if the animals ate genetically engineered feed but are not themselves genetically engineered. This exemption is common all around the world. It didn't make sense for Washington’s law to be stricter than international standards.
  • Alcohol – Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, alcohol couldn’t be included.
3. Lie: Consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. All they need to do is buy certified organic products.

Truth:Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract health-conscious consumers. Because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label. According to a recent poll by the Hartman group, 61 percent of respondents erroneously believed that the use of the word “natural” implies or suggests the absence of GMOs, versus 63 percent who correctly believed that the label "organic" means that a product is GMO-free. Food companies should be required, as they are in some 60 other countries, to clearly state that a product contains GMOs. If companies truly believe their GMO ingredients are perfectly safe, why spend millions to keep from having to label them?

4. Lie: Washington will be the only state in the nation to label GMOs, unfairly hurting farmers and the state’s multi-billion agricultural industry.  

Truth: Washington won’t be the only state labeling GE foods.  Connecticut, Maine and Alaska have passed labeling laws and dozens of other states are considering identical proposals. Besides, 64 countries already require labeling, so many farmers are already used to labeling for exports. In fact, many Washington farmers support labeling because they believe that growing GMO crops destroys healthy soil, and because they sell crops to overseas markets that either require labels on GMO crops, or have banned them completely. These countries are increasingly concerned about U.S. non-GMO crops, such as wheat, that could potentially be contaminated by cross-pollination with GMO crops.

5. Lie: I-522 encourages shakedown lawsuits by giving trial lawyers an unprecedented new right to sue farmers, food producers and store owners over the wording on food labels.

Truth: I-522 offers no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. Consumers can't file a class action suit against food producers without first giving the food producer a warning and the opportunity to comply with the law. As long as the defendant fixes the labels, then no class action is permitted. Once the class action option is off the table, a consumer could sue only to get a court order to require labeling, and only for the few dollars that consumer paid to buy the product. Where’s the incentive?

If the state brings a court action to enforce the new law, any penalties recovered by the state go only to the state - not the plaintiff or the lawyer. Food companies are required by law to label for ingredients, calories, etc., and there have been few violations. Why wouldn’t companies accurately label genetically engineered foods, too?

For the real story about abusive lawsuits by rapacious trial lawyers, check out what Monsanto is up to: suing farmers across the country for growing their own seeds.

6. Lie: Labeling GMOs creates a bureaucratic nightmare for grocers and retailers and requires the state government to monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores, costing taxpayers millions.

Truth:Under I-522, the person responsible for labeling processed foods is the person who puts the label on: the manufacturer. Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are genetically engineered. They can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically engineered.

I-522 requires no costly testing for GE ingredients. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers while providing consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.

7. Lie: GE foods pose no health safety risks.

Truth: GMOs have never been proven safe. The FDA requires no pre-market health safety studies, and the only long term peer-reviewed animal study conducted involving GMO corn sprayed with Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. In addition, a growing body of peer-reviewed animal studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders, birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility. Clearly, more independent, long term studies are warranted. Until GMOs are proven unequivocally safe, they should be labeled so consumers can avoid them if they choose.

8. Lie: GE foods are as, or more, nutritious than organic foods.

Truth:Organic foods, especially raw or non-processed, contain higher levels of beta carotene, vitamins C, D and E, health-promoting polyphenols, cancer-fighting antioxidants, flavonoids that help ward off heart disease, essential fatty acids, and essential minerals. On average, organic is 25 percent more nutritious in terms of vitamins and minerals than products derived from industrial agriculture. Levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle are between 50 percent and 80 percent higher than normal milk. Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce have between 20 percent and 40 percent more nutrients than non-organic foods

A report released from the non-GMO corn company De Dell, in Canada found GMO corn has 14 parts-per-million (ppm) of calcium while non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm, or 437 times more. According to the report, non-GMO corn also has 56 times more magnesium and seven times more manganese than GMO corn.

9. Lie: The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that GE foods are safe.

Truth: The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods, a standard the U.S. fails to meet. A National Academy of Sciences report states that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” Numerous public health and medical groups  support the labeling of GE foods, including the American Public Health Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Breast Cancer Action, Allergy Kids Foundation, Autism One, and many others.

10. Lie: We need GMOs to feed the world.

Truth: Studies have proven that GE crops do not lead to greater crop yields. In fact, just the opposite is true. A 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found GMO crops fail to produce higher yields. And a recently released, peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops.

11. Lie: The creation of GE seeds is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops.

Truth: Cross breeding is the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are created in a laboratory using high-tech and sophisticated techniques. One of these techniques involves gene-splicing which is used to cross a virus or a bacteria with a plant. These untested, unnatural creations are the antithesis to what our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do: cross-pollinate different varieties of the same plant to help naturally bring forth desirable characteristics.

12. Lie: GE crops reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides.

Truth: GE crops have dramatically increased the use of herbicides and pesticides. According to a new studyby Food and Water Watch, the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” with the overall pesticide use rising by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

The report follows another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook last year that found that overall pesticide use increased by 404 million pounds, or about 7%, from 1996 and 2011. The use of GE crops are now driving up the volume of toxic herbicides needed each year by about 25 percent.

13. Lie: GE crops aren’t harmful to the environment.

Truth: Besides polluting the environment with herbicides and pesticides, GE crops are leading to biodiversity loss and the emergence of “super bugs” and  “super weeds" that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, requiring the need for even more dangerous and toxic herbicides.

GE crops, and the toxic pesticides they are designed to withstand, are endangering numerous critical species, including the honey beefrogs, birds, fish and the Monarch Butterfly.

And don’t forget our air and water. The island of Molokai in Hawaii has had its air and water quality destroyed by Monsanto’s almost-2000-acre test facility. The same is true worldwide, with many areas around GMO farms reporting horrific bloody skin rashes, an uptick in asthma and toxic pesticides that leach into the groundwater.

Zack Kaldveer is assistant media manager at the Organic Consumers Association.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

GM is Counterproductive: Genetically Modified Crops Pass Benefits to Weeds

 SCIENTIFIC

 AMERICAN

Genetically Modified Crops Pass Benefits to Weeds

 

Herbicide resistance and other genetic modifications could confer an advantage on plants in the wild




Wild rice

Weedy rice can pick up transgenes from genetically modified crop rice through cross-pollination.Image: Flickr/John B.

 

A genetic-modification technique used widely to make crops herbicide resistant has been shown to confer advantages on a weedy form of rice, even in the absence of the herbicide. The finding suggests that the effects of such modification have the potential to extend beyond farms and into the wild.

Several types of crops have been genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide first marketed under the trade name Roundup. This glyphosate resistance enables farmers to wipe out most weeds from the fields without damaging their crops.

Glyphosate inhibits plant growth by blocking an enzyme known as EPSP synthase, which is involved in the production of certain amino acids and other molecules that account for as much as 35% of a plant’s mass. The genetic-modification technique — used, for instance, in the Roundup Ready crops made by the biotechnology giant Monsanto, based in St Louis, Missouri — typically involves inserting genes into a crop’s genome to boost EPSP-synthase production. The genes are usually derived from bacteria that infect plants.

The extra EPSP synthase lets the plant withstand the effects of glyphosate. Biotechnology labs have also attempted to use genes from plants rather than bacteria to boost EPSP-synthase production, in part to exploit a loophole in US law that facilitates regulatory approval of organisms carrying transgenes not derived from bacterial pests.

Few studies have tested whether transgenes such as those that confer glyphosate resistance can — once they get into weedy or wild relatives through cross-pollination — make those plants more competitive in survival and reproduction. “The traditional expectation is that any sort of transgene will confer disadvantage in the wild in the absence of selection pressure, because the extra machinery would reduce the fitness,” says Norman Ellstrand, a plant geneticist at the University of California in Riverside.

But now a study led by Lu Baorong, an ecologist at Fudan University in Shanghai, challenges that view: it shows that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance, even when glyphosate is not applied.

In their study, published this month in New Phytologist, Lu and his colleagues genetically modified the cultivated rice species to overexpress its own EPSP synthase and cross-bred the modified rice with a weedy relative.
The team then allowed the cross-bred offspring to breed with one another, creating second-generation hybrids that were genetically identical to one another except in the number of copies of the gene encoding EPSP synthase. As expected, those with more copies expressed higher levels of the enzyme and produced more of the amino acid tryptophan than their unmodified counterparts.

The researchers also found that the transgenic hybrids had higher rates of photosynthesis, grew more shoots and flowers and produced 48–125% more seeds per plant than non-transgenic hybrids — in the absence of glyphosate.
Making weedy rice more competitive could exacerbate the problems it causes for farmers around the world whose plots are invaded by the pest, Lu says.

“If the EPSP-synthase gene gets into the wild rice species, their genetic diversity, which is really important to conserve, could be threatened because the genotype with the transgene would outcompete the normal species,” says Brian Ford-Lloyd, a plant geneticist at the University of Birmingham, UK. “This is one of the most clear examples of extremely plausible damaging effects [of GM crops] on the environment.”

The study also challenges the public perception that genetically modified crops carrying extra copies of their own genes are safer than those containing genes from microorganisms. “Our study shows that this is not necessarily the case,” says Lu.

The finding calls for a rethinking of future regulation of genetically modified crops, some researchers say. “Some people are now saying that biosafety regulation can be relaxed because we have a high level of comfort with two decades of genetic engineering,” says Ellstrand. “But the study shows that novel products still need careful evaluation.”


This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on August 16, 2013.

 

Friday, August 9, 2013

Is Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Feed Dangerous for Animals?




Food  


New research is showing some troubling information about animals on the receiving end of industrial agriculture’s big GMO experiment.

 

 
Photo Credit: Michael Zysman


 
 
A culture that views pigs as inanimate piles of protoplasmic structure to be manipulated however cleverly the human mind can conceive will view its citizens the same way -- and other cultures.” –Joe Salatin, Restoring Health, Wealth and Respect to Food and Farming

We associate food with at most, pleasure, at the very least, survival. It’s not too different for animals. Lambs turned out on new grass move “quickly over certain grasses to get to others – to nosh on clover and mustard grass, avoiding horse nettle and fescue along the way,” writes Dan Barber in A Chef Speaks Out.  Wild pigs, capable of seeking out the nutrients they need, “enjoy eating nuts, roots, fruits, mushrooms, bugs, rabbits, and, occasionally, dead animals.”
But what happens when animals are confined in cramped, filthy environments and force-fed monoculture diets of genetically modified corn and soy?

A lot can happen. Calves are born too weak to walk, with enlarged joints and limb deformities. Piglets experience rapidly deteriorating health, a “failure to thrive” so severe that they start breaking down their own tissues and organs – self-cannibalizing – to survive. Many animals suffer from weak, brittle bones that easily fracture. Dairy cows develop mastitis, a painful udder infection. Beef cattle develop liver abscesses and an excruciating condition referred to as “twisted gut.”

It all adds up to a lot of misery for animals unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of industrial agriculture’s Big GMO Experiment.

The spotlight on animal rights in CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) is typically focused on cramped spaces and blatantly inhumane treatment. But some scientists, farmers and veterinarians are talking about another form of animal abuse: stuffing animals with feed grown from genetically engineered crops drenched in glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp.

What they’ve uncovered should give us all pause. Because the symptoms veterinarians and researchers have observed in animals are not unlike many of the chronic, and increasingly prevalent, health problems plaguing humans today. Digestive disorders. Damaged organs. Infertility. Weak immune systems. Chronic depression.

“We’ve got a real mess,” says Dr. Art Dunham, an Iowa veterinarian who has treated farm animals for several decades. Dunham is a staunch believer that GMO crops are wreaking havoc with the health of animals and humans. His daughter, Leah Dunham, who tagged along with her father on many a farm visit over the years, recently wrote America’s Two-Headed Pig. Drawing on her father’s clinical notes, and the work of scientists like Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus in plant pathology at Purdue University, Leah Dunham outlines some of the ways in which humans are adding to the suffering of farm animals by feeding them a glyphosate-tainted, GMO diet.

Leah Dunham would like to see the CAFO model drastically overhauled or abandoned. Her father believes it’s more realistic to tackle the issue of GMO feed without attacking CAFOs. But father and daughter agree that the problems associated with today’s industrial agriculture model extend beyond the health and well-being of animals. Leah Dunham wrote:

My father has pored over thousands of research papers in attempts to remedy the underlying causes of the illnesses described in this book. His work has embodied a commitment to healthy lands, creatures, and farms, as well as the hard work necessary to sustain them. After years of listening to him talk about his attempts to solve reoccurring health problems, I realized that most people don’t have a clue as to how modern disease complexities affect farm animals. We both hope that this book will help all medical professionals, farmers, and consumers better address the true roots of various medical conditions, including nutrient deficiencies, clostridial infections, diabetes, and Parkinsons disease.

Leah Dunham says consumers are alarmed by news reports that focus on outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. But most are unaware that industrial GMO crops are “damaging our health in other, far more insidious ways – among them, by damaging the health of animals raised for food.”

Here are a few examples, from America’s Two-Headed Pigof how Art and Leah Dunham believe genetically modified feeds, and particularly glyphosate, inflict suffering on farm animals.

Skeletal deformities

In his many years of practice, Art Dunham hadn’t seen a single case of manganese deficiency in the herds he treated. But that changed in about 2000, when he started seeing more and more calves being born with skeletal deformities – a symptom of a manganese-deficient diet. Initially skeptical, Dunham experimented by adding manganese to the calves’ diets. Their health improved. His hunch was confirmed when lab results on some of the dead calves’ livers revealed little or no manganese.

Dunham was confused. A diet of corn, soybean meal and hay should contain enough manganese for hogs, dairy and beef cattle. But it started to make more sense when he came across a study conducted in 2007 by Dr. Huber. Huber found that by spraying manganese on soybeans 10-14 days after the soybeans were sprayed with glyphosate, farmers could increase crop yields. Why? Huber postulated that the glyphosate caused some crops to become manganese-deficient because it was binding to nutrients in the soil and plants. Crops sprayed with glyphosate were less able to metabolize the nutrients needed for proper plant function, which made the plants susceptible to disease.

Could this be why calves fed manganese-deficient crops sprayed in glyphosate showed their own symptoms of manganese deficiency, including enlarged joints, deformed limbs and crippling weakness? The evidence was convincing and the theory plausible, if unproven.

Failure to thrive

It’s both disturbing and increasingly common in North America in recent decades, according to Leah Dunham. About five to 10 days after normal, healthy piglets are weaned off their mother’s milk, they become gaunt, pale, anorexic. Their health goes south, rapidly. It’s called “post-weaning failure to thrive syndrome” or PFTS. It causes piglets to catabolize, or break down, their own tissues and organs, essentially self-cannibalizing. Next comes emaciation. Then euthanasia.

Does a virus cause PFTS? Studies suggest not, says Dunham. More likely, the cause is diet-related, as the disease manifests when the piglets begin eating food. The diet theory is supported by post-mortems showing that the affected piglets have lesions in their stomachs and intestines.

Could PFTS represent another case of something essential missing from the piglets’ diets? Possibly. Liver analyses of hogs reveal “rock-bottom” low levels of cobalt. In fact, out of 522 livers tested, none hit the normal range for cobalt, established before GMO feed came on the market. Perhaps not coincidentally, according to Dunham, researchers at Texas A & M University have found that glyphosate ties up cobalt at 102-103 times more than it ties up manganese.

Twisted gut, ulcers and other digestive disorders

Nature intended for cows to eat grass. But today, most cattle spend at least the last six months of their lives in feedlots, where they’re fattened up with a combination of grains, mostly corn, and industrial byproducts including corn distiller, a product of the ethanol manufacturing process. This mixture is supplemented with preemptive antibiotics and growth hormones, to keep the stressed animals from getting sick while making them grow larger, faster. It’s an unnatural diet that often leads to digestive disorders. Factor in the glyphosate used to grow the GMO corn, and you’ve got a recipe for a host of painful conditions, from twisted gut to bloody diarrhea, ulcers, and bloat. All of which contribute to a weak immune system, Dunham says.

A cow’s stomach has four parts: the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. A twisted gut, or medically speaking, a displaced abomasum, occurs when a cow’s abomasum fills with gas, causing it to balloon up to the top of the cow’s abdomen, where it can become twisted. Remedies can include surgery or repositioning the abomasum by rolling the cow on its back.

That’s bad enough. But sometimes trapped gas causes a cow’s stomach to bloat. To relieve the animal’s pain and keep it “productive,” a veterinarian will insert a hollow needle into the cow’s rumen to try to release the gas. If the cow doesn’t recover enough to then start relieving the gas on its own, it will be fitted with a permanent port, similar to what a chemo patient has in order to receive regular doses of chemotherapy.

According to Dunham, twisted gut and bloat are usually related to inadequate nutrition, which leads to bacterial imbalances in the gut, which cause gas. Not unlike humans, cattle host large quantities of bacteria which they need in order to digest plants and grains and absorb available nutrients from their food. Alter the bacterial content of the cow’s gut, and the gut can become extra acidic, irritated and inflamed, says Dunham.

Consumers know that CAFO cows are routinely fed preemptive antibiotics, which alter the animals’ gut bacteria. But what many people don’t realize, says Dunham, is that the animals are consuming far more antibiotics than just those intentionally administered at the feeding lots. In fact, many of the pesticides, including glyphosate patented under the number #7771736, act not only as broad-spectrum pesticides, but as broad-spectrum biocides. And these antibiotic chemicals are applied to millions of acres of plants that end up in animal feed, Dunham says. The result? Some of the animals’ gut bacteria and parasitic organisms are no longer able to carry out important metabolic processes, says Dunham.

Is it a stretch to say that force-feeding animals GMO feed amounts to a form of torture? Damaged livers. Too weak to walk. Needles jammed into stomachs. Failure to thrive. All unnecessary suffering, all diet-related.

Leah Dunham stops short of using the word “torture,” but in her book, she argues that we can do better. She writes:

As other food advocates have pointed out, we have learned how to dissociate what we spend from the farmers and citizens our food dollars affect. In doing so, we can avoid thinking about how our actions affect actual creatures.

I suspect that one day future generations will remember the last three decades as a ridiculous age in American agriculture. This has been an age during which too many human beings treated animals and children like guinea pigs, feeding them genetically modified, chemically coated, antibiotic resistant experiments, despite the overwhelming evidence that these foods are serious risk factors for illness and disease. In today’s world of widely accessible research and technological advances, the ability to produce abundant amounts of food without threatening biodiversity and our basic biological rights should be an expectation, not a goal.

And let’s not forget the basic biological rights of the four-legged creatures unfortunate enough to be part of industrial agriculture’s CAFO systems.

Katherine Paul is director of development and communications at the Organic Consumers Association.

Monday, August 5, 2013

93% of the Public Wants GMO Labeling—Monsanto and the Big Agribusiness Giants Plan to Spend Millions in Propaganda to Change Our Minds




  Food  


 

Polls show it will take a lot more than new public relations tricks to convince consumers.

 
 
 
Photo Credit: Adisa/ Shutterstock.com
 
 
Monsanto and Big Food are taking the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds to the next level. And it’s no coincidence that they’re pulling out the big guns just as the Washington State I-522 campaign to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products is gaining steam.

Can industry front groups and slick public relations firms convince us that the products they’re peddling are not only safe, but good for us? Will the millions they spend on websites and advertorials pay off?

We’re guessing not, given the latest New York Times poll stating that 93 percent of Americans want labels on foods containing GMOs.

Still, it can’t hurt to know who’s behind the latest salvo of lies and misinformation.

In this case, it’s a new website and forum, introduced by biotech trade groups no doubt with the help of a new PR firm. And a new front group. The freshly launched GMOAnswers.com is funded by the biotech industry, which claims it just “wants to talk.” And the recently formed Alliance to Feed the Future, representing more than 50 multinational food, agribusiness and biotech companies, wants to give us the “real” scoop on our food system.

Monsanto Has All the Answers

Last month the Holmes Report revealed that Monsanto was interviewing public relations firms to spruce up its image. A tall order given Monsanto’s status as “most evil corporation in the world.” (A google search of “Monsanto most hated corporation” returns over 823,000 results).

This week, the New York Times reported on the launch of GMOAnswers.com, a new website intended to “answer virtually any question posed by consumers about genetically engineered crops.” Except, of course, where they’re hidden in our food.

You’ve got to hand it to the PR firm – new, old, Monsanto’s or otherwise - that landed that article. Who gets a mention in the Times these days just for launching a website? Organizations that are funded by Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta and BASF, apparently.

The Timesquoted, extensively, Cathleen Enright, executive director of the Council for Biotechnology Information and also vice president for food and agriculture at another trade group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Enright told the Times that: “We have been accused of purposely hiding information. We haven’t done that but now we will open the doors and provide information.” Say what?

Enright couldn’t emphasize enough how this was all a result of the biotech industry being misunderstood by the public, and how Monsanto and the rest of the industry just wants to be open.

Whoever registered the website domain name for GMOAnswers.com doesn’t share Enright’s new touchy-feely enthusiasm for openness and transparency. The domain’s ownership is hidden behind Network Solutions LLC. Maybe the new PR firm isn’t all that proud of its new clients?

 Big Food Is Dishing up the Lies, Too

It isn’t just the biotech industry spinning the facts. Big Food is dishing up its share of lies, too.

To counter the steady drumbeat of public relations defeats, damning scientific research and grassroots political pressure, Monsanto and over 50 other multi-national food, agribusiness, and biotech companies created the “Alliance to Feed the Future” (AFF).

The AFF’s stated mission?  To "balance the public dialogue on modern agriculture and large-scale food production and technology” and to serve as a source for accurate and “real” information about our food system.

In fact, the AFF is nothing more than a few high paid consultants doing the bidding of the American Meat Institute, CropLife America, Grocery Manufacturers Association, United Egg Producers, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the International Food Additives Council, among others.
Dave Schmidt coordinates the alliance. Schmidt, who is also CEO at the International Food Information Council, recently told Sustainable Food News that “the alliance's aim is to educate who he called 'opinion leaders,' including those in the university sector, professional societies, journalists and government officials.” Of course, he said, the group also aims to “inform” consumers, too.

But a close look at the AFF reveals all the hallmarks of a typical “astroturf” group. A deceptive-sounding name designed to create a positive public impression. A sophisticated public relations plan designed to control and shape the public discourse. Obfuscation around its main sources of funding. And a tendency to attack industry critics, create the perception of doubt regarding previously accepted science, and exploit consumers legitimate economic fears.
And, like most front groups, the AFF’s seemingly unlimited resources guarantee it can churn out one lie after another, faster than the independent fact-checkers can debunk them.

Big Food recognizes its stranglehold on our food supply is threatened. A critical mass of educated consumers, food and natural health activists, environmentalists, social justice advocates, and animal cruelty groups are organizing a powerful movement capable of overthrowing North America’s trillion-dollar junk food empire.

Consumers are increasingly wary of foods that have been genetically engineered by the same companies that brought us toxic pesticides, DDT, Agent Orange, dangerous pharmaceuticals and PCBs.

Sales of organic foods are projected grow this year at twice the rate of conventional food sales, and exceed $35 billion in 2013. Proof that consumers by the millions are rejecting an industrial food and farming system that relies on toxic pesticides, animal drugs, antibiotics, growth hormones, climate disrupting nitrate fertilizer, and inhumane, polluting, and disease-ridden factory farms.

More and more critics and journalists are exposing the hazards and cruelty of our food supply system. Even the New York Times recently revealed that for decades, processed foods have been diabolically engineered and laced with synthetic chemicals and additives designed to turn consumers and children into obese, cancer- and heart disease-prone junk food addicts.

The writing is on the wall. No amount of industry smoke and mirrors can change the fact that more and more people are looking at food with their eyes wide open.

Will corporations win our hearts and minds with their website propaganda and front groups? We think not.

Katherine Paul is communications director for the Organic Consumers Association.
Zack Kaldveer is assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association.