Why The U.S. Government Refuses To Turn Against Monsanto
By
Posted on
“I own everything!” Mama Monsanto exclaims, and
that’s pretty close to the truth. Monsanto has gobbled up seed
companies, chemical competitors and even research institutions
investigating the impact of pesticides on bee die-offs.
Not to mention the influence the company wields over the U.S. government. It sure seems to “own” that too.
Why the US Government Refuses to Turn on Monsanto
Many have pondered how Monsanto managed to rise to
such a powerful position with respect to its influence over the U.S.
government, and I think journalist Abby Martin may have pin-pointed the
source of this obnoxious loyalty in her recent video report, “America’s
Monster” (below).
In it, she details Monsanto’s history as an American
“war horse,” which began with its involvement in the Manhattan Project
and the creation of the atomic bomb. Monsanto’s contributions to the
U.S. war machine continued during the Vietnam War, when the company
became a leading producer of Agent Orange.
These war contributions appear to have cemented a
long-lasting and loyal relationship between the U.S. government and
Monsanto that continues to this day, to the detriment of the American
people.
Sixty-four other nations have been labeling genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) for years. Here in the U.S., Monsanto’s influence runs so deep,
we just became the first country in the world to UNLABEL GMOs, as
President Obama will soon sign a bill that nullifies Vermont’s GMO
labeling law, which just went into effect July 1.
Throughout its entire history, which began with the
foundation of Monsanto Chemical Works in 1901, Monsanto has specialized
in the production of toxic chemicals. Despite attempts to shed its
destructive image, Monsanto has utterly failed to do so, for the simple
fact that it never actually changed its basic modus operandi.
Nor did it actually change its direction from
purveyor of toxins to a life-giving agricultural company. Its focus
remains producing and selling toxins. It simply discovered it could sell
more chemicals, and ensure ever-increasing profits, by producing GE
seeds with herbicide-resistant properties.
Voluntary ‘Smart Label’ Preempts State and Consumer Rights
Earlier this month, Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat
Roberts and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow announced they’d reached a
deal to create a national labeling standard for GMOs using voluntary
“Smart Labels” (so-called QR codes) rather than clear labeling.
This despite the fact that polls show 88 percent of
Americans have said they do NOT want to be forced into using a
smartphone app to find this important information.
The bill, S. 2609, which amends the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 with a national bioengineered food disclosure
standard, is now more or less a done deal. On July 14, the U.S. House
passed the bill, 306 to 117, and President Obama has already indicated
he will sign it.
The legislation will supersede and nullify Vermont’s GMO labeling requirement, which took effect mere weeks ago.
It will also bar any other state from enacting GMO
labeling requirements that differ from the national standard, and delays
the disclosure requirement another two years; three years for smaller
food companies.
What’s worse, the new legislation changes and
significantly narrows the definition of bioengineering, as applied under
this law only, such that the newest biotech methods are exempt from the
disclosure standards.
As a result, most GE food products currently on the market will end up being excluded anyway.
With the passing of this bill, the U.S. “war horse”
Monsanto won again. Your elected representatives sold you out to the
highest bidder. Senator Jeff Merkley has even stated that the bill was
“written by and for Monsanto.” As reported by Sputnik International:
“Markley explained that because of loopholes in the
legislation, Monsanto-made products ‘would not be covered by it, because
the definition excludes them.’”
Monsanto Benefits From Farm and Biofuel Subsidies
I recently discussed how government-subsidized commodities
such as corn, soy and wheat contribute to the obesity and disease
epidemics in the U.S. The Western processed food diet is chockfull of
refined added sugars and unhealthy vegetable oils, which are cheap as a
result of farm subsidies.
However, as much as 65 percent of the 94.1 million
acres of corn grown in the U.S. actually doesn’t enter the food system
at all. It’s used to produce ethanol fuel.
In a 2009 speech, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus
said that “energy reform is a strategic imperative,” calling for the
deployment of “the Great Green Fleet, composed of nuclear ships, surface
combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems
running biofuel and aircraft flying only [on] biofuels.”
Mabus had put down 2016 as the deadline for this naval energy reform, but it didn’t come to pass. As noted by Vice News:
“[C]ongressional Republicans … have blocked the Navy
from spending more on a gallon of biofuel than it does on a gallon of
regular diesel.
Since it costs more to turn seeds, weeds or beef
trimmings into usable fuel than it does to extract fossil fuels from the
ground and refine them, it’s all but impossible for the fleet to use
substantial amounts of biofuels with crude oil prices are as low as they
currently are.”
Part of the problem is the low production of biofuel,
which drives up the price. According to a 2015 report by the World
Resources Institute (WRI), in order to meet just 20 percent of the
global energy demand by 2050, using plant-based biofuels, we would have
to DOUBLE the global annual harvest of plant material “in all its
forms.”
This makes the “quest for bioenergy at a meaningful
scale … both unrealistic and unsustainable,” according to the report.
Despite such bleak prognoses, the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and
Extension Act of 2016 would provide a $1.00 subsidy for each gallon of
biodiesel produced during the taxable year.
In short, not only are your tax dollars continuing
the expansion of corn for the production of biofuel, which is
“unrealistic and unsustainable” to begin with, government subsidies are
also used to grow crops that are primary contributors to obesity and ill
health — and both of these schemes end up benefiting Monsanto, since
the vast majority of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified.
‘The Dumbest Guys in the Room’
In an article titled, “GMO Industry: The Dumbest Guys
in the Room,” columnist Kurt Cobb makes a number of strikingly accurate
observations.
“I am now convinced the GMO industry has managed to
hire the worst public relations strategists in human history. By
supporting a deeply flawed GMO labeling bill in the U.S. Congress, the
industry is about to open a Pandora’s Box of PR nightmares for years to
come,” he writes.
“The anti-GMO groups will likely put out lists of the
worst labeling violators and lists of their products containing GMOs.
And, of course, there will be lists based on those enigmatic QR codes.
Perhaps those codes will become the equivalent of the skull and
crossbones feared by one GMO executive.“
Cobb likely predicts the future here, as I believe
the QR code will become exactly that — the mark of products and brands
that are trying to make a mint from deception by making it as difficult
as possible for you to find out the truth about their ingredients. The
QR code will become known as the Mark of Monsanto, and shoppers will be
able to simply assume admission of guilt when they see it, without ever
taking the time to rummage through entire websites filled with
extraneous information and advertising.
Forbes contributor Nancy Fink Huehnergarth has made
similar observations, noting that “Big Food may be shooting itself in
the foot again,” as the QR code will make it appear they have something
to hide.
“Food/drink packaging already has an ingredient label
and nutrition facts panel. How simple would it be to mandate that all
food packaging add a few words or a universal symbol to communicate the
inclusion of GMO ingredients?” she says.
Why Eat GMOs When They Have No Health Advantages?
Cobb makes another great point when he says:
“[T]he industry’s business and public relations
strategists are the same ones who made a colossal marketing error —
while believing they had achieved a regulatory coup — when they
steamrolled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into ruling that
GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GMO counterparts and
therefore require no testing…
The reason this strategy has turned out to be a
colossal marketing error is that as the attacks on GMOs have mounted …
the industry finds itself unable to pivot and point to any advantages
that GMO foods have for consumers over non-GMO foods…
After all, GMO foods are said to be ‘substantially
equivalent.’ That means that the industry cannot give consumers any
reasons to prefer GMO foods over their non-GMO counterparts… So far
genetic engineering has focused on creating plants [that] produce
insecticides internally — not a pleasant thought for those eating them —
and which are immune to herbicides made by, you guessed it, the
companies producing the GMO seeds.”
Chemical Residues — A Major Reason to Avoid GMOs
Indeed, if GMOs are substantially equivalent to
conventional crops in terms of nutritional value yet contain higher
amounts of pesticides, why eat them? After all, the idea that pesticides
are a boon to health is a tough sell.
As you may have noticed, with the exception of DDT,
which was marketed as “good for you,” pesticides do not have health
claims. And arguments defending the presence of pesticides on food
always focus on the notion that the amount present is low enough that it
will not produce adverse effects.
However, health statistics tell a different story,
and the reason why the “trace defense” doesn’t hold water is because
it’s not just about minor traces of chemicals on certain foods items.
Unless you eat organic foods
and use “organic everything,” you’re exposed to pesticides from most
foods, plus the chemicals used in the processing, plus chemicals to add
flavor, texture and preservation power, plus chemicals found in the
packaging and in the cashier’s receipt, plus the chemicals found in just
about every product you put on your body every day, including the
clothes you wear, and the furniture you sit on. There are even chemicals
in the air you breathe and the water you drink.
We are barraged with toxins at every turn, and they
all ADD UP. That is the problem. And, unfortunately, food appears to be a
major source, so avoiding chemicals in your diet can go a long way
toward preserving your health. With that in mind, herbicide-resistant
and pesticide-producing food crops are an incredibly foolish idea that
contributes absolutely nothing to the health and wellbeing of the global
community.
US Right to Know Blows Lid Off Another Monsanto Scheme to Tarnish Organics
Since transparent GMO labeling is not going to happen
in the U.S. anytime soon, your options become quite straight forward:
Buy organic and/or locally-grown food you can verify being non-GMO. This
has always been the best option; just not the least expensive or most
convenient. Not surprisingly, in addition to defending the quality and
safety of its GE products, Monsanto has also tried to cast doubt on
organic ethics and value, in order to curb consumer preference for
organics.
Emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) reveal Monsanto colluded with an
organization of “independent” academics to mislead the public into
thinking they were being duped by the organic industry. The Huffington
Post recently ran an article revealing this story. It’s well worth
reading in its entirety.
USRTK is a nonprofit organization that pursues truth
and transparency in the U.S. food system. In 2014, Academics Review, a
nonprofit organization composed of “independent academic experts in
agriculture and food sciences” issued a 30-page report claiming organic
shoppers were over-paying for organics due to deceptive industry
marketing practices.
The report, which was “endorsed by an international
panel of independent agricultural science, food science, economic and
legal experts from respected international institutions” gained traction
in the trade press with headlines such as “Organics Exposed!” and
“Organic Industry Booming by Deceiving Customers.”
The press release announcing the report even hammers
home the point of independence by stating that “Academics Review has no
conflicts-of-interest associated with this publication, and all
associated costs … were paid for using our general funds without any
specific donor influence or direction.” Alas, emails obtained by USRTK
tell a different story.
Academics Review — Just Another False Front Group for Monsanto
Monsanto not only helped raise funds for Academics
Review, Monsanto executives also “collaborated on strategy and even
discussed plans to hide industry funding,” The Huffington Post writes,
adding:
“Monsanto’s motives in attacking the organic industry
are obvious: Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals are banned from use in
organic farming, and a large part of Monsanto’s messaging is that its
products are superior to organics as tools to boost global food
production.”
One of the co-founders of Academics Review was Bruce Chassy,
Ph.D., professor emeritus at the University of Illinois. In March of
this year, an investigation by Chicago WBEZ news discovered Monsanto
paid the now retired Chassy more than $57,000 over two years for travel,
writing and speaking expenses, yet Chassy never disclosed his financial
ties to the company on state and university conflict-of-interest
disclosure forms.
Between 2005 and 2015, Monsanto gave at least $5.1
million to University of Illinois employees and programs — all of it
undisclosed, as it was funneled via the University of Illinois
Foundation, which is exempt from public scrutiny and disclosure.
Chassy also lobbied federal officials on Monsanto’s
behalf to prevent further regulations on GMOs. Chassy claims he did this
of his own volition, but emails show Monsanto’s Eric Sachs urged Chassy
to get involved. The correspondence also reveals this was in fact part
of an industry lobbying effort, “with academics out in front,” basically
pretending to be acting independently — just like the Academics Review.
FOIA-recovered emails show Chassy was very eager to
attack the organic industry but needed money. Jay Byrne, former head of
communications at Monsanto, agreed to help, indicating he would discuss
“options for taking the Academic Review project … forward” by meeting
with Val Giddings, former vice president of the biotech industry trade
association BIO.
Eric Sachs, who handles Monsanto’s public relations,
also emailed Chassy discussing funding possibilities for Academics
Review while “keeping Monsanto in the background.” Unfortunately,
mainstream media outlets are often tightly reined in by corporate bias,
which prevents the truth to become as widely known as it should. As
noted in The Huffington Post:
“Despite the revelations in emails and the disclosure
of Chassy’s financial ties to Monsanto, the Academics Review website
and its report attacking the organic industry are still posted online
with all the descriptions claiming independence. And Chassy still enjoys
press coverage as an ‘independent’ expert on GMOs. In May 2016, two
separate Associated Press stories quoted Chassy on that topic. Neither
story mentioned Chassy’s now-public financial ties to Monsanto.”
SAD NEWS: House Passes DARK Act Compromise
The House passed a compromise to the DARK Act that
will force food distributors to disclose the presence of genetically
“engineered” (GE) ingredients with a smartphone scan code. President
Obama has signed the bill that removes states’ rights for labeling GMOs.
The bill is full of loopholes, which may allow genetically modified
ingredients to slip through unannounced.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or genetically
“engineered” (GE) foods, are live organisms whose genetic components
have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through
creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and even viral
genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding
methods.
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is
“safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry.
They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and
sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not.
For years, I’ve stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest
threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and
beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
The FDA cleared the way for GE (Genetically
Engineered) Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks
to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require
special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to
identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it’s imperative ALL GE foods
be labeled clearly without a smartphone scan code because not everyone
owns a smartphone.
The FDA is threatening the existence of our food
supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this
article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a
difference and put an end to the absurdity.
Boycott Smart Labels Today
When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a
food product, pass it by. Products bearing the Grocery Manufacturer’s
Association’s (GMA) Smart Label mark are in all likelihood filled with
pesticides and/or GMO ingredients.
The GMA’s 300-plus members include chemical
technology companies, GE seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto,
Dow and Coca-Cola are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful
industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes
to protect the interest of its members.
Don’t waste your time searching through their
website, which may or may not contain the information you’re looking
for. If they insist on wasting your time and making your shopping
difficult, why reward them with a purchase?
A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the
“Smart Label” trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called
“compromise” to on-package GMO labeling, and that’s another reason why I
believe the Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to
hide such as Monsanto.
Will you financially support a corrupt, toxic and
unsustainable food system, or a healthy, regenerative one? There are
many options available besides big-brand processed foods that are part
of the “GMA’s verified ring of deception.” You can:
- Shop at local farms and farmers markets
- Only buy products marked either “USDA 100 percent Organic” (which by law cannot contain GMOs), “100 percent Grass-Fed,” or “Non-GMO Verified”
- If you have a smartphone and you don’t mind using it, download the OCA’s Buycott app to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage
Last but not least, encourage good companies to
reject QR codes and to be transparent and clear with their labeling.
This will eventually ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA’s “verified ring of deception” mark that is the Smart Label.
Campbell’s, Mars, Kellogg’s, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling law
by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S. Will their plans
change if the current “compromise” gets passed by the Senate? That
remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage
you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their
promise.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below and share this news.
This article (Why The US Government Refuses To Turn Against Monsanto) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and The Waking Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment