Big Ag Directly Funded Anti-Organics Stanford Study

Thursday, September 13, 2012 by Common Dreams

A study released last week by Stanford scientists, which claims organic foods are no more healthy than non-organic foods, was funded by corporate agriculture and biotechnology giants, according to a new report by the Cornucopia Institute.

 "We were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural business enterprise, and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have deep ties to agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations like Monsanto the devil, have donated millions to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Food and Farm Policy Director at the Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit organic farm policy organization.

On September 3, Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, released the research, garnishing widespread press coverage from corporate news outlets such as the New York Times, Associated Press, and CBS News. As the New York Times reported, the study "concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive."

However, as Cornucopia points out, a deeper examination of the actual research reveals "glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods."

Environmental health advocates such as the Environmental Working Group and Mark Kastel of Cornucopia have been quick to point out the wealth of research ignored in the Stanford report, which reveals the obvious risks involved in producing and consuming non-organics; however, Stanford's spin was quickly and widely accepted by journalists without fact-checking and was rushed to the pages of major news outlets.

Now Cornucopia has revealed that the Stanford researchers have direct ties to big ag players, which stand to profit from an organics smear campaign.

"Make no mistake, the Stanford organics study is a fraud," says Mike Adams of Naturalnews.com and Anthony Gucciardi of Naturalsociety.org, who discovered the link between the organic study author and Big Tobacco. "To say that conventional foods are safe is like saying that cigarettes are safe. Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities, and we’re seeing the same scientist who helped Big Tobacco now helping Big Biotech in their attempt to defraud the public."

"There was just no way that truly independent scientists with the expertise required to adequately answer such an important question would ignore the vast and growing body of scientific literature pointing to serious health risks from eating foods produced with synthetic chemicals," says Vallaeys.

Additionally, the study did, in fact, concede a few positive attributes to organic foods, including the fact that organic produce has fewer pesticide residues; however, such facts were buried in the presentation of the research by the Stanford researchers and public relations staff and were not widely reported by major news sources.

Global Day of Action: Occupy Our Food Supply

Friday, February 24, 2012 by Common Dreams
Food justice advocates rise up to confront corporate control of our food system


An alliance of Occupy groups, environmental and food justice organizations have called for a global day of action on February 27 to resist corporate control of our food system and to work towards a healthy food supply for all.

Occupy Our Food Supply is a call facilitated by Rainforest Action Network and is supported by over 60 Occupy groups and over 30 organizations including Family Farm Defenders, National Family Farms Coalition and Pesticide Action Network.

Ashley Schaeffer, Rainforest Agribusiness campaigner with Rainforest Action Network says of the day of action:

"Occupy our Food Supply is a day to reclaim our most basic life support system – our food – from corporate control. It is an unprecedented day of solidarity to create local, just solutions that steer our society away from the stranglehold of industrial food giants like Cargill and Monsanto the devil.”

Occupy Our Food Supply supporter Vandana Shiva says:

"Our food system has been hijacked by corporate giants from the Seed to the table. Seeds controlled by Monsanto the devil, agribusiness trade controlled by Cargill, processing controlled by Pepsi and Philip Morris, retail controlled by Walmart - is a recipe for Food Dictatorship. We must Occupy the Food system to create Food Democracy."

Occupy Wall Street’s Sustainability and Food Justice Committees also issued a letter in support of the day of action:

“On Monday, February 27th, 2012, OWS Food Justice, OWS Sustainability, Oakland Food Justice & the worldwide Occupy Movement invite you to join the Global Day of Action to Occupy the Food Supply. We challenge the corporate food regime that has prioritized profit over health and sustainability. We seek to create healthy local food systems. We stand in Solidarity with Indigenous communities, and communities around the world, that are struggling with hunger, exploitation, and unfair labor practices.”

“On this day, in New York City, community gardeners, activists, labor unions, farmers, food workers, and citizens of the NYC metro area, will gather at Zuccotti Park at noon, for a Seed Exchange, to raise awareness about the corporate control of our food system and celebrate the local food communities in the metro area.”

Vandana Shiva: "We must Occupy the Food system to create Food Democracy."

"When our food is at risk, we are all at risk."

In an op-ed on the Huffington Post today, Farm Aid president Willie Nelson and sustainable food advocate Anna Lappé, supporters of the day of action, emphasize that the consolidation of our food supply is harming the environment, food safety and farmers:

Our food is under threat. It is felt by every family farmer who has lost their land and livelihood, every parent who can't find affordable or healthy ingredients in their neighborhood, every person worried about foodborne illnesses thanks to lobbyist-weakened food safety laws, every farmworker who faces toxic pesticides in the fields as part of a day's work.

When our food is at risk we are all at risk.

Over the last thirty years, we have witnessed a massive consolidation of our food system. Never have so few corporations been responsible for more of our food chain. Of the 40,000 food items in a typical U.S. grocery store, more than half are now brought to us by just 10 corporations. Today, three companies process more than 70 percent of all U.S. beef, Tyson, Cargill and JBS. More than 90 percent of soybean seeds and 80 percent of corn seeds used in the United States are sold by just one company: Monsanto the devil. Four companies are responsible for up to 90 percent of the global trade in grain. And one in four food dollars is spent at Walmart.

What does this matter for those of us who eat? Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, the destruction of soil fertility, the pollution of our water, and health epidemics including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and even certain forms of cancer. More and more, the choices that determine the food on our shelves are made by corporations concerned less with protecting our health, our environment, or our jobs than with profit margins and executive bonuses.

This consolidation also fuels the influence of concentrated economic power in politics: Last year alone, the biggest food companies spent tens of millions lobbying on Capitol Hill with more than $37 million used in the fight against junk food marketing guidelines for kids.

The Occupy Our Food Supply website indicates that the action is Inspired by the theme of CREATE/RESIST, and that in addition to confronting the corporation control of our food supply, we must work towards solutions to make healthy food accessible to everyone. It invites people to share their fair food solutions on their Facebook page and on Twitter using the #F27 hashtag.

* * *

Eric Holt-Giménez, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First Executive Director,writes that while the demand to fix the food system seems reasonable, it does not address the "inequitable foundations of the global food system."

The goal of food justice activists is a sustainable and equitable food system. Their strategy is to actively construct this alternative. Tactics include community gardens, CSAs, organic farming, etc. The problem is that this combination of strategy and tactics only addresses individual and institutional inequities in the food system, leaving the structure of the corporate food regime intact. The food justice movement has no strategy to address the inter-institutional (i.e. structural) ways that inequity is produced in the food system. By openly protesting the excesses of capitalism, Occupy does address this structure. This is why the convergence of Occupy and the food justice movement is so potentially powerful -- and why it is feared. The political alignment of these movements, however, is no small challenge.

Sugar Versus 'High Fructose Corn Syrup' in False Advertising Lawsuit

Friday, April 29, 2011 by Reuters

Sweet Suit

SAN FRANCISCO - Sugar producers think recent marketing efforts by manufacturers of high-fructose corn syrup aren't so sweet.

In a lawsuit filed last week, three sugar distributors say that equating HFCS with real sugar -- with slogans like "your body can't tell the difference" -- misleads consumers.

They accuse defendants, including Archer Daniels Midland Co and Cargill, of using the publicity campaign to offset growing customer concerns about obesity.

"This suit is about false advertising, pure and simple," said Inder Mathur, CEO of Western Sugar Cooperative, one of the plaintiffs.

Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said the lawsuit is without merit, as HFCS and sugar are nutritionally and metabolically equivalent.

"Sugar is sugar," Erickson said.

The United States is the biggest consumer and manufacturer of high-fructose corn syrup, with soft-drink makers the largest users.

The sweetener was added to beverages such as Coca-Cola in the early 1980s, but U.S. food makers have been edging away from it in recent years, trying out a return to sugar in some products after studies linked corn syrup to obesity.

However, HFCS has been able to regain market share recently amid surging sugar prices.

The Corn Refiners Association has asked federal regulators to allow HFCS to be called "corn sugar." But the lawsuit says the defendants "jumped the gun" and started using the term before receiving approval.

Erickson said the Corn Refiners Association will "vigorously" defend its right to petition for the name change with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"We stand by the message in our ads and the science behind it," Erickson said.

The case in U.S. District Court, Central District of California is Western Sugar Cooperative et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co et al, 11-3473.

Company recalls ground beef after E. coli reports

By the CNN Wire Staff | August 28, 2010

(CNN) -- Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. has recalled about 8,500 pounds of ground beef that may be contaminated with E. coli, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Saturday.

The move came after three people, two in Maine and one in New York, were identified as becoming ill from a strain of E. coli, the government said.

None of the three required hospitalization, said Cargill Inc. spokesman Mike Martin.
"It was a relief it wasn't more serious," he told CNN.

The USDA says it believes certain BJ's Wholesale Club stores in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Virginia received the products.

The recalled ground beef was shipped June 11 to distribution centers, where it was repackaged into consumer-size packages and sold under different retail brand names. The USDA did not identify the brands.

The recalled beef bears the USDA establishment number "EST. 9400," a product code of "W69032" and a "use/freeze by" date of July 1.

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Services, which said it became aware of the problem on August 5, "determined that there is an association between the ground beef products subject to recall and the cluster of illnesses in the states of Maine and New York."

Saturday's statement identified the strain as E. coli 026, which can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and, in severe cases, kidney failure.

The government "strongly encourages consumers to check their freezers and immediately discard any product subject to this recall."

The government lists the recall as Class 1, meaning "there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death."

Consumers with questions regarding the recall should contact the Cargill consumer line at (877) 788-4953.

Martin said Cargill is working with the USDA to learn what happened.

"We decided to take swift action to do the right thing," he said of the recall.

Taking a stand against genetically modified organisms

Food for Thought
By: Evan Folds - August 10th, 2010

Ever heard of genetically modified organisms (GMO)? I dare say that the majority of the population eats them in abundance on a daily basis. Why? Well, for one the USDA does not require the labeling of “food” products that contain GMOs. Some history of how we got here may help.

In 1978 a company called “Genentech” inserted a human insulin gene into an E. Coli bacterium in order to create functional insulin, marking the first use of the technology called “recombinant DNA,” where genes from different organisms combine to form a hybrid molecule.

In 1981 Amanda Mohan Chakrabarty successfully inserted foreign genes into a Pseudomonas bacterium and created an organism capable of eating oil spills (hmmm, BP, take note!). This marked the first time a living organism had been altered genetically. The ethics of this procedure were actually upheld by the Supreme Court in what has become the wartershed moment in GMO history. From 1981 onward companies would be incentivized to change life in order to patent and make money of off living organisms.

And we’ve never looked back.

This is the legacy we deal with today. We are so entrenched in this world view that we cannot bring ourselves to recignize what we’re eating.

Think about that.

There is no transparency in the US food system. Plants and animals that have had their genetics fundamentally altered are not being disclosed to consumers, and this is not a hard thing to accomplish. The reasons vary.

One: If GMO foodstuff were labeled, people would not eat it, and other countries would not buy our “food” exports. This has been proven in Europe where most countries disclose GMO products by law.
Two: Companies such as Monsanto and Cargill lobby heavily to prevent disclosure of what is in our food in order to reap huge monetary rewards. They do this by direct sale of the GMO seed and plants, and also by creating products that complement their GMO offerings. For instance, RoundUp is an herbicide containing glycophosphates invented by Monsanto in 1973. Glycophosphates have been marketed as “biodegradable” and “non-toxic,” but they subsist in the environment for up to three years, according to a Swedish study. Better yet, they are linked to Alzeihmers, reproductive issues, and many other horrific health problems.

Monsanto is also responsible for inventing RoundUp-ready soybeans. “RoundUp-ready” means that the soybeans, with the special genes inserted, are capable of withstanding treatment with RoundUp. So, they invent living organisms that can survive the stress of being doused with the toxic soups they create. That’s a brilliant business model, but it’s killing people and it’s simply evil. The only thing that RoundUp-ready crops ensure is more RoundUp!

The perspective that allows this blatant abuse of humanity and Earth’s ecosystems is hard to understand for the average individual, but it is alive and well. COO of Hugh Grant explains Monsanto’s development from a chemical company (RoundUp) to a biotech company (GMO) over the years:

“The answer that we developed was that we believe that the world needs about 35 to 40 percent more food produced on every acre. Chemicals weren’t the answer to that next increment of production. It was in genetics. It was in better seed. So, really, that’s been driving us for more than 10 years now.”

An entire article could be written on the faults of this logic, but the idea that we need more space to grow food is folly. For example, the largest irrigated crop in the U.S. is grass, with 40 million acres. That’s more than three times corn, which has 13 million acres under irrigation. If everyone simply turned their lawns into a garden, we’d be fine. (Suggested reading: “Food, Not Lawns.”)

Besides this, there is no doubt that GMO foods disrupt living systems. For example, Indian activist Dr. Vandana Shiva’s organization Navdanya conducted a study that verified a 14.2 percent decrease in bacteria and a 17 percent decrease in actinomycete populations in soil, from the use of GMO Bt Cotton over a three-year period. The repercussions of this have resulted in over 25,000 suicides by Indian farmers since 1995. Even more terrifying, there has yet to be one study that tests the effects of these frankenfoods on the human organism—yikes!

How can Monsanto and company possibly justify the idea that we do not need to label GMO “foods”? Let’s quote COO Hugh Grant of Monsanto again:

“Let me tell you the Monsanto view on labeling today. We believe very strongly—very strongly—that these products are safe. And in their safety, there is no need to label, and that’s the position that has been held by the FDA. The FDA labeling requirements are really triggered by if a product is essentially the same, then there is no labeling requirement.” (seriously!?--jef)

Should we trust the FDA? Should it really be up to a tool like Hugh Grant to determine whether or not what we eat is safe? Can you say, “Conflict of interest”? Is he really suggesting that fundamentally altering the genetics of a plant is “essentially the same” as a natural plant? All due respect to Monsanto’s “beliefs,” the real question is: Should we believe them?

No.

So, how can we avoid GMO crops? The “big four” consist of corn, soy, canola, and cotton. All processed foods also contain GMOs, in addition to corn flours, oils, sweeteners and meals created by the “big four” commodity crops. Think salad dressings, cookies and anything with high-fructose corn syrup (isn’t that everything?). To be clear, unless buying from local farms or “organic” whole foods—and this includes restaurants too—it most likely contains GMO products.

www.NonGMOProject.org.