GMO Answers CBI

<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">819 ~ hayes some guy popped up, HANSON conf spkr)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><div style="font-size: small;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Jon Entine and Genetic Literacy Project are Monsanto Trolls</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), Jon Entine bills himself as an objective authority on science even though his contribution to the field centers on attacking scientists, journalists, and others at the behest of the corporations that pay him.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Demonstrative of this cozy relationship is a 2015 Monsanto PR plan that identified Genetic Literacy Project as one of its “industry partners.” Monsanto planned to engage GLP and numerous other similarly affiliated “independent” third parties to “protect the reputation” of Roundup and “orchestrate outcry” about the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) conclusions about glyphosate. In 2015, IARC performed an exhaustive scientific review on glyphosate and concluded the chemical is a “probable human carcinogen.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As of today, GLP has posted over 280 articles about IARC. Some of these articles include personal attacks concerning the scientists who served on the IARC Working Group tasked with evaluating glyphosate, calling them “frauds,”“liars,” and “greed-driven.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Tax records show that the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI),</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> a chemical industry trade group, paid Ketchum public relations firm more than $11 million from 2013-2016 to run GMO Answers, a website where consumers purportedly get straight answers from “independent experts” about genetically engineered foods.</span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A CBI / Ketchum document unearthed in the Roundup litigation lists Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy, Kevin Folta and others as“target authors.</b>” Entine was to rebut the review, ‘GMO Myths and Truths’ by Dr. Michael Antoniou, which asserted, “Roundup has never been tested or assessed for long-term safety for regulatory purposes but independent studies show it is highly toxic to animals and humans.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto (now Bayer) was and is a member of CBI and provides funding to GMO Answers. According to the website, the independent experts on GMO Answers “are not paid by GMO Answers to answer questions.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The notion that “experts” like Entine were not paid for their contributions to GMO Answers runs counter to an internal email from Monsanto’s Eric Sachs</b>. Sachs worked on a plan for Monsanto and other companies to support an “Academic Review” (a similar website where pro-industry academic Bruce Chassy and others could respond to and attack the work of those critical of GMOs). In the email, Sachs wrote: “From my perspective, the problem is one of expert engagement and that could be solved by paying some experts to provide responses…The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014 and 2015, Entine partnered with Chassy and Folta to organize industry-funded conferences at the University of Florida and <b>UC Davis “to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate,” as Paul Thacker reported in The Progressive.</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Paul D. Thacker</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">@thackerpd</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">1/6 Emails on behind the scenes maneuvering by #Monsanto consultants and third party groups. First, @KarlHvM of @biofortified emails Agbiochatter complaining about @tomphilpott of @MotherJones and #FOIA https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6382789-Karl-Von-Mogel-Complaining.html</span> …</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">View image on Twitter</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3:38 AM <b>- Sep 10, 2019</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">See Paul D. Thacker's other Tweets</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Litigation documents show that Chassy and other pro-industry experts like him aren’t known for pulling any punches in the framing of the GMO / glyphosate debate. To the contrary, his inflammatory language discussing the pro-industry side of the debate is downright abusive.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In one document, Chassy likens reporting from a journalist discussing health risks associated with GMOs to “playing Whack-a-mole at the carnival.” He tells Daniel Goldstein, a Monsanto executive, “[w]e’ll be working on this too. Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful?”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In another email, Chassy discusses the Open Letter to Monsanto from Moms Across America, a non-profit organization critical of Monsanto and Roundup. “That’s your enemy,” Chassy says to another academic and Goldstein. “Beat the shit out of them and put them on the defensive and you won’t have this problem.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>By Baum Hedlund|</b>September 10th, 2019|Blog, Monsanto Roundup News</font></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
2016 conf

Speakers will include:

Julia Belluz
Health reporter, Vox.com

David Brancaccio
Host and senior editor of the <b>Marketplace Morning Report on American Public Media</b>

<b>Dr. Anthony S. Fauci</b>
Director and Chief, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health

Dr. Nina V. <b>Fedoroff</b>
Emeritus Professor of Biology, Penn State University

Kate Hall
Managing Director for the Council for Biotechnology Information

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Dr. James E. Hansen</b>
Climate Science Awareness and Solutions Program, Earth Institute, Columbia University</span>

<b>Tamar Haspel</b>
Award-winning food & health reporter

<b>Keith Kloor</b>
Science reporter
Instructor, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University

Seema Kumar
VP, Innovation, Global Public Health and <b>Science Policy Communication at Johnson & Johnson</b>

Dr. Donna Nelson
2016 President, American Chemical Society
Science Advisor to AMC’s Emmy Award-winning Breaking Bad
Professor of Chemistry, University of Oklahoma

<b>Dr. Paul Offit</b>
Chief of Infectious Diseases & Director of Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia & Maurice R. Hillman
Professor at the University of Pennsylvania
Moderator:

John Rennie
Former editor in chief, <b>SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN</b>
Adjunct professor, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, New York University
Hosted by:

Jeremy Abbate
Vice President & Publisher, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

 

Supported by the kind sponsorship of GMO Answers and <b>Johnson & Johnson Innovation</b>

=
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www<b>.truthwiki</b>.org/council-for-biotechnology-information-cbi/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI)</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></div><div>Last update on November 6, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>under Uncategorized</div><div>
</div><div>Headquartered in Washington, DC, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) is a coalition of the world’s largest chemical-industrial giants that push synthetic, toxic pesticides off as safe and beneficial.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Prime time players (of the “Big 6) include BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca Ag and Aventis CropScience. Don’t leave out Cargill, that directs their corporate communications and Syngenta, another listed “member</span>.” <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Lump in two trade associations – the American Crop Protection Association and “BIO” which stands for Biotechnology Industry Organization – and you’ve got the world’s largest chemical agriculture “monopoly”</span> or “meeting of the minds.” One of the main functions of CBI is to develop strategies for spreading propaganda about the false benefits or false safety of GM crops. Biotechnology is a highly experimental science and at a very young age, having only begun in the mid-1980s, still, “CBI” and “BIO” would have you believe it’s nothing different from selective breeding or natural selection, except they use pesticide genes as “transgenics” inserted in laboratories in staple food and crop seedlings in order to kill bugs and weeds–but it causes cancer and Alzheimer’s in humans.</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.theguXXXdian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>The Council’s mission is to share industry-written “science” and “lab results” as the ultimate factor for dialogue with any skeptics, whether food industry professionals, nutritionists, health professionals, academia, other scientists who want to cross-study these GMO, and consumers around the world. CBI is closely connected with <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GMOAnswers.com, where the notorious Jon Entine and Kevin Folta contribute contrived answers to contrived questions</span>. These are both hacks of the biotech industry that serve to reiterate the script written by the biotech CEOs and CFOs and Presidents and Vice Presidents alike. Lobbyists and PR Firms, like Ketchum, contribute to the whole facade of pushing GMOs on the world and making a fortune doing it. These firms along with Monsanto “enlist” public scientists like Folta and shill journalists like Entine to post answers to made up questions so they can fool all the skeptics of GMO into consuming them on a regular basis and never looking for labels for GMO on anything.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>BIO is the fulcrum of CBI – developing and promoting toxic medicine to treat diseases and disorders caused by GMO</div><div>
</div><div>BIO not only represents biotechnology companies, but state biotechnology centers in about three dozen nations around the world. BIO members actually develop healthcare based on toxic pesticide consumption by the masses. They develop products that contain deadly chemicals and then plan the healthcare tailored to quell the symptoms of slow pesticide poisoning and the academics (hucksters and charlatans) who sellout and represent for BIO and CBI push the products that the sick masses buy to quell the pain, confusion and inflammation that drives every preventable disease epidemic in America. These same “gurus” plan the world’s largest gathering of the biotech industry, called BIO International Convention, where investors collaborate and spread the best propaganda for advertising, public relations, and swaying the votes of confused consumers and confused public officials and paid-for government regulators. You can subscribe to their newsletter. This conglomeration is like a huge example of GMA, Grocery Manufacturers Association, that spread propaganda about junk food and junk-science as being beneficial to society, the economy, etc.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>March of 2012:<b> Biotechnology Industry Organization</b> announces that Richard Lobb has been hired by CBI as Managing Director for CBI. (1) Lobb has a record with crisis communication and government relations. He also ran communications for the National Chicken Council. Lobb spent 13 years as the “Merchant of Drumsticks” at his chicken parts empire the National Chicken Council. (2) Lobb is then used to bolster up the “science-based” information propaganda for agricultural biotechnology division and brag about sustainability (which is the complete opposite of what chemical pesticides do destroy soil nutrients, crop nutritional value, animal and plant health and human health. Lobb is told to write about how biotech will feed a growing population (sound familiar?) and “resist diseases and insect pests” and of course “reduce environmental impact.” These are all buzz phrases and catch phrases borrowed from actual organic farming practices and websites and the shills of the biotech industry try to claim them for their own, when it’s a bold-faced lie every time. They will go so far as to call spreading pesticides “outreach.” (3)</div><div>
</div><div>All of this propaganda is available for viewing at BIO’s website: Biotechnology Industry Organization: (https://www.bio.org/node/517https://www.bio.org/node/517)</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>They tell consumers, farmers and food investigators that humans have “used the biological processes of microorganisms for more than 6,000 years to make useful food products …” this is a con to make consumers and skeptics stop questioning the dangers of the NEW SCIENCE of inserting genes of toxic pesticides into food, which does not happen in nature, and has only been taking place in laboratories for thirty years.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>They tell consumers and investigators that modern biotech provides “breakthrough products and technologies to combat debilitating and rare diseases …” but they leave out the part that these same chemical-agriculture products CAUSE DEBILITATING DISEASES for the humans that consume them daily.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>CBI, BIO and GMOAnswers.com (5) tell consumers and investigators they can feed the hungry, but what happens to the hungry who get food laced with toxic herbicides like RoundUp, that the World Health Organization (IARC study) classified as “probably carcinogenic?” That’s certainly not “clean food” or “sustainable” agriculture practice or telling the truth to consumers who want to know if something is GMO (ninety percent or more of Americans want GMO labels).</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>CBI and BIO also push more than 250 health care products and toxic vaccines to diseases they now claim are treatable. Is that because they created them and know what the symptoms and side effects are? Nearly 20 million farmers around the world use chemical agriculture practices but see no difference in yield, see MORE insects that have grown immune to the synthetic insecticides (called Superbugs) and these farmers see MORE weeds that are herbicide-resistant (8) and ruining crop yield–which is just the opposite of what biotechnology claims to accomplish. Refineries are built and managed across the US and North America to produce bio-fuels and chemicals, adding to greenhouse gas emission problems.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>The shills will also claim they can “Heal the World” with their chemical pesticides. By “harnessing nature’s own toolbox” and manipulating and mutating the genetic makeup of plants and crops, they claim they can reduce disease, drought, and famine.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>CBI uses propaganda language to sound legitimate and concerned, speaking of harnessing “biocatalysts” and reducing use of petrochemicals, except that’s one of the industry’s that funds biotech and junk-science in general. They claim farmers can decrease water usage with GMO, but there are MORE weeds growing now and suffocating the crops than ever before, and farmers who are exposed to these agri-chemicals get diseases and some commit suicide, like in India. How is that “feeding the world” again? All of this language documented and blogged by the biotech shills is available at their main propaganda Sites: http://www.whybiotech.com/ and Jon Entine’s main propaganda site Genetic Literacy Project, which is fully exposed in this truthwiki.</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>Inner-network of biotechnology companies pushing GMO propaganda</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Ketchum PR group (7) and “Frankenfoods” Monsanto (6) organize (recruit) dozens of “public scientists” from universities</span> around the country and journalistic hacks (shills) who reiterate prolific-sounding industry slogans and rhetoric (4) that have no scientific basis in order to brainwash the public and government officials alike into accepting this new, dangerous form of agriculture–genetically modified organisms functioning as pesticides and combined with synthetic, chemical insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, and then inserted into the genetic makeup of our food. CBI is a huge force to reckon with in the scheme of pushing biotechnology propaganda on American consumers. They work in tandem with other media outlets to spread the same lies.</div><div>
</div><div>A massive hidden inner-network of biotechnology companies had scientists, journalists and academic hacks and shills promote their propaganda as if the science had real research behind it, and real professional analysis and opinions. They basically lied through their teeth about GMO sustainability, pesticide safety and “drought-resistant” crops. When you search “Council for Biotechnology Information” one of the top three website choices is a reroute to the top GMO propaganda site “GMOAnswers.com” – where they claim to be “creating an open dialogue on the topics of biotechnology and GMOs in food and modern agriculture,” but what they’re selling the public is their own industry-hack-written propaganda, questions and answers already loaded and ready to fire.</div><div>
</div><div>At the bottom of the website it also states copyright by CBI, (©2013-2015 Council for Biotechnology Information), so we know who’s writing all of the propaganda for any “public scientists” or hack journalists who need a script to follow for articles, press releases or testimony for public officials or regulatory agency officials (9). Lastly, they have to inform the consumer (to preempt any conflict of interest concerns) that “The responses on all GMOAnswers.com websites do not necessarily reflect the views of all Council for Biotechnology member companies.” [no cites here, odd no save]</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Shining a Light on Monsanto and the Corruption of Public University Scientists</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Lipton’s story details how a University of Illinois professor and longtime GMO promoter <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bruce Chassy</span> used his Monsanto connections to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon its efforts to tighten regulations on insecticidal GMO seeds. If you take a dive into the emails, you can see how Chassy enlisted the help of former advisor to George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, Nina Federoff in his efforts to influence the EPA’s policies.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In the emails, Chassy’s efforts to lobby the EPA for looser regulations were encouraged by a Monsanto lobbyist even as Chassy was negotiating the release of his grant from the company.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For background on how this current story originally broke, you have to go back to Aug. 6, when the international <b>science journal Nature reported that more than 4,600 pages of emails from University of Florida plant scientist Kevin <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta</span> “reveal his close ties to the agriculture giant Monsanto … and other biotechnology-industry interests”.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Nature article set off a minor firestorm on social media, when University of Florida professor and Monsanto promoter Kevin Folta’s emails were <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">leaked to Nature’s Keith Kloor for damage control.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">While Folta has not yet been charged with scientific misconduct or wrongdoing, these emails reveal a close relationship and financial ties to Monsanto for the first time publicly. The new reports of financial ties and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta’s regular communication with Monsanto executives and lobbyists contradict Folta’s previous repeated denials of any relationship or conflict of interest</span> with the St. Louis, Missouri based biotech seed and chemical giant responsible for mass producing such toxic cancer-causing chemicals as PCBs, Agent Orange, dioxin and now 80 percent of the genetically engineered crops that appear in our food supply.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“The documents show that Monsanto paid for Folta’s travel to speak to U.S. students, farmers, politicians, and the media,” according to Nature’s Keith Kloor. As reported<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, Folta received a $25,000 “unrestricted” grant from Monsanto in 2014,</span> which a Monsanto representative stated could be used by Folta at his “discretion in support of your research and outreach projects”.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The information regarding Monsanto’s $25,000 donation only became public as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the public advocacy group </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">U.S. Right to Know</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, who made the request after noticing Folta’s frequent responses on a pro-GMO industry run website, which is funded by the members of The </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Council for Biotechnology Information</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">According to the emails released by the New York Times,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <b>Kevin Folta </b>appears eager to please Monsanto’s executives, telling them, <b>“I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like”</b> and, in order to get his $25,000 check cleared Folta claims, “I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment.” What kind of investment was Monsanto really making?</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Two days later, Monsanto confirmed payment to Kevin Folta in an official letter.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In addition, the emails reveal a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> near constant communication between Kevin Folta, Monsanto’s top lobbyists, the crisis public relations firm Ketchum </span>and a handful of U.S. scientists working behind the scenes to manipulate public perception on the safety of GMOs and Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup dating back to at least 2013.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The emails between <b>Folta, Monsanto, and Ketchum PR </b>are especially damning as they indicate that agents from the New York<b> crisis management PR firm</b> wrote answers specifically for Folta that he then cut and paste and posted on the GMO Answers website under his own name</span>. A quick search of Folta’s public responses on the industry run website show that he began responding to questions about GMO technology on the website in July of 2013.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b><font color="#ff0000">GMO Answers </font></b><font color="#333333">lists Folta as an “Independent Expert” and a professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. One wonders what Professor Folta or the University of Florida would do if they caught Monsanto and Ketchum PR agents writing papers or scientific studies for their students which they submitted under their own names. In most cases this would result in plagiarism charges for the students and a potential dismissal from the university, but for Kevin <b>Folta posting canned PR responses resulted in Monsanto writing a $25,000 check for what Folta claims is for his personal “science communication” fund.</b></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">For the past several years, Kevin<b> Folta has made repeated claims that he was not linked, in any way, to Monsanto and he has made vicious attacks on anyone who insinuated otherwise on social media.</b> But the content of these emails reveals otherwise.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Folta’s Deceptive Claims of No Relationship with Monsanto Do Not Add Up</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In a recent June 4 interview with<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> actor/comedian Joe Rogan</span>, Folta was so bold as to claim “I have nothing to do with Monsanto” and “I am not a shill” which produced a hearty chuckle from Rogan and a knowing grin from Folta himself.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">By this time, Folta had been in close communication with Monsanto’s top lobbyists and executives for more than 3 years and had already started spending the $25,000 “unrestricted grant” from Monsanto. So why the cover-up?</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Why Monsanto’s Hidden Conflict of Interest with Public University Scientists Harms Science and Open Discourse</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">While Folta proclaims independence, his public comments exactly mirror Monsanto talking points. This past spring, when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, to be “probably carcinogenic to humans”, Monsanto immediately called this new report “junk science”.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Rather than look at the new report objectively<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>, Kevin Folta sneeringly dismissed it and then offered to drink a pint of glyphosate in front of a class of students at Iowa State University that he was supposedly educating with his “science communication” skills. </b></span>As an Iowan, I’m pretty sure that the ISU students were too smart to fall for this stupid stunt.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> British watchdog group GMWatch, which has documented Folta’s repeated attacks on GMO critics</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and false statements his claims about the safety of glyphosate are simply dead wrong.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This wouldn’t be such a big deal if Folta was just another self-promoting blowhard on the Internet, but with Monsanto’s backing and close ties to a PR firm like Ketchum, these compromised public university scientists now have big media access and are being used as pawns to promote the safety of Monsanto and the biotechnology industry’s products.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For the first time now, with these public records requests, Americans concerned about how their food is produced are getting a firsthand look at the secret tactics of how corporations like Monsanto use PR firms and public university scientists to put a deceptive spin on potential safety issues of GMOs and pesticides.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; font-size: small; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In reality, this recently revealed collusion between Monsanto and public university scientists poisons the public dialogue and puts the health and safety of the American public at risk by using tobacco industry tactics....</font></p><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://gmoanswers.com/about</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Supporting partners are organizations, companies and others who are committed to the five core principles of </span><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">GMO Answers</strong><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and have added their support to this initiative. To date those partners include</span><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.acsh.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The American Council on Science and Health</a></strong><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.fb.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">The American Farm Bureau Federation</a>, </strong><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.amseed.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">American Seed Trade Association</a>, <a href="http://soygrowers.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">American Soybean Association</a>, <a href="http://www.americansugarbeet.org/" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The American Sugarbeet Growers Association</a></strong><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, <a href="http://www.mcpr-cca.org/" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Minnesota Crop Production Retailers</a>,</strong><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.wheatworld.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">National Association of Wheat Growers</a>, </strong><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.ncga.com/home" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">National Corn Growers Association</a>, </strong><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.cotton.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">National Cotton Council</a>, <a href="http://www.oaba.net/" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Ohio AgriBusiness Association</a>, <a href="http://www.sdaba.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.538em;">South Dakota Agri-Business Association</a>, <span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><a href="http://www.beetsugar.org/" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The U.S. Beet Sugar Associatio</a></span></strong><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.beetsugar.org/" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">n</a>, <a href="http://www.westernsugar.com/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Western Sugar</a></strong></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p class="block-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 10px 16px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">GMO Answers</strong> is funded by the members of <strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The Council for <a href="https://gmoanswers.com/glossary#Biotechnology" title="A set of tools that uses living organisms (or parts of organisms) to make or modify a product, improve plants, trees or animals, or develop microorganisms for specific uses. Examples of biotechnology include traditional applications, such as the making of bread, cheese, wine and beer, and more modern applications to grow or culture cells for research or to make genetically modified crops for food, feed, fuel and fiber. " class="lexicon-term" style="text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 136, 0); cursor: help; white-space: nowrap;">Biotechnology</a> Information</strong>, which includes <strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">BASF</strong>, <strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Bayer CropScience</strong>, <strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Dow AgroSciences</strong>, <strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">DuPont</strong>,<strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Monsanto Company</strong> and<strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Syngenta</strong>.</font></p><p class="block-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 10px 16px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The independent experts who answer consumer questions are not paid by GMO Answers to answer questions. Experts donate their time to answer questions in their area of expertise for the website.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> They do so because they are passionate about helping the public better understand GMOs and how our food is grown.</span></font></p><p class="block-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 10px 16px; border: 0px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On occasion, independent experts participate in speaking or media opportunities on behalf of GMO Answers. In these instances, GMO Answers will reimburse for the travel expenses incurred by the expert.</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GLP bs</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">12/21/2015 <b>Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar | Genetic Literacy Project</b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>1/5</div><div>www.geneticliteracyproject.org</div><div>
</div><div>Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar</div><div>Rebecca Larson | December 14, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project</div><div>
</div><div>Roughly 55 percent of the United States</div><div>sugar supply is derived from sugar beets,</div><div>the remainder from sugarcane. Until</div><div>recently, no one really cared about the</div><div>source of their sugar, because the end</div><div>product, pure sucrose, is identical. What</div><div>changed the dialogue was the introduction</div><div>of and acceptance of genetically</div><div>engineered (GE) sugar beets. Right from</div><div>the start and continuing today, antiGMO</div><div>organizations have tried their hardest to</div><div>scare people about where their sugar is</div><div>sourced from:</div><div>12/21/2015 Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar | Genetic Literacy Project</div><div>2/5</div><div>Those are bizarre claims because sucrose — sugar — whether derived from sugar cane or</div><div>sugar beets, contains to DNA. No lab could determine its source. Warnings to consumers to</div><div>boycott socalled GMO sugar makes no scientific sense.</div><div><b>Kevin Folta, Chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida,</b></div><div>nicely illustrates how all sugar is the same, regardless of source.</div><div>This has been proven in the lab. The sugar is free from DNA and protein since it is all chewed</div><div>up during the refining process. This has also been proven at the commercial scale. Every sugar</div><div>beet processing plant in the U.S. and Canada has been screened by an independent testing</div><div>organization and all the sugar was found to be GMOfree.</div><div>Other countries freely accept and understand this unique quality of sugar and some, like</div><div>Australia, allow sugar derived from GE sugar beets to be labeled as GMOfree since the final</div><div>product contains no GE trait.</div><div>12/21/2015 Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar | Genetic Literacy Project</div><div>3/5</div><div><b>GE sugar grown in cooperative farms</b></div><div><b>
</b></div><div>In a time when many people are interested</div><div>in supporting small farms and buying food</div><div>locally, it is also sadly ironic that sugar</div><div>beets are being so vilified. Most sugar</div><div>beets in the U.S. are sourced from grower-owned</div><div>cooperatives. Small family farmers</div><div>run the whole business from the planting of</div><div>the seed to sale of the sugar. Their job has</div><div>become increasingly difficult because of</div><div>the fear and misinformation related to</div><div>contamination and elimination of choice</div><div>rooted in activist opposition to GE sugar</div><div>beets.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">According to Jeffrey Smith, the former yogic flying instructor who runs the oneman NGO</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">pompously named The Institute for Responsible Technology</span>, GE sugar beets contain</div><div>pharmaceutical properties. That’s plain false. There is only one type of GE sugar beet seed:</div><div>herbicide tolerant. This sugar beet was genetically engineered by introducing a slightly</div><div>modified version of a gene (based on a bacterial sequence) that naturally occurs in all plants.</div><div>That precise, minor genetic change has manifested into large environmental benefit for sugar</div><div>beet farmers.</div><div>Prior to commercial approval of the GE sugar beet, a comprehensive, peer reviewed study</div><div>conducted at the University of Reading in Britain concluded that cultivating GE herbicide</div><div>tolerant sugar beets is less harmful to the environment and human health than farming</div><div>conventional sugar beets.</div><div>
</div><div>… global warming, ozone depletion, ecotoxicity of water and acidification and</div><div>nutrification of soil and water, were much lower for the herbicidetolerant crop than for</div><div>the conventional crop. Emissions contributing to summer smog, toxic particulate matter</div><div>and carcinogenicity, which have negative human health impacts, were also substantially</div><div>lower for the herbicidetolerant crop.</div><div>
</div><div><b>Since 2009, glyphosate tolerant sugar beets have made up more than 95 percent of the</b></div><div><b>commercial sugar beet production in the U.S.</b> Over that time, inputs and productivity data</div><div>gathered from farmerowned cooperatives show 25 environmental benefits to using GE sugar</div><div>beets, ranging from 20 percent higher yields and reduced chemical input, to implementation of</div><div>conservation tillage and reduced fossil fuel consumption. The findings highlight the</div><div>importance of genetic engineering in the long term sustainability of the farmerowned</div><div>industry.</div><div>12/21/2015 Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar | Genetic Literacy Project</div><div>4/5</div><div>
</div><div>In 2015, the cooperatives submitted a formal report to the National Academy of Sciences as</div><div>part of their mission to improve public policy, decision making and public understanding of</div><div>science. So when antiGMO ideologues such as Washingtonbased Green America asks</div><div>whether sugar beets can be nonGE in the future, the real question should be should sugar</div><div>beets be nonGE in the future? With so many benefits to the growers and the planet, my</div><div>answer to that question would be a resounding “no”. Nevertheless, all commercial sugar beet</div><div>seed companies still actively produce conventional seeds so the U.S. farmers and food</div><div>marketers will always have a choice as to whether or not they want to embrace GE technology.</div><div>
</div><div>What about cross contamination?</div><div>
</div><div>Sugar beets are biennial and do not produce flowers when grown for sugar; the only time</div><div>pollen is shed from a sugar beet plant is during seed production. All commercial seed</div><div>production for the entire U.S. occurs in Oregon. Sugar beets are close relatives of Swiss chard</div><div>and table beets, so they can fertilize each other and they are all present in Oregon.</div><div>Upon introduction of GE sugar beets, the sugar beet seed companies recognized the need to</div><div>voluntarily implement practices to reduce the risk of unintended pollen flow. They identified</div><div>publically where they were located so organic farmers could mind isolation distances, they</div><div>increased their minimum isolation distance to greater than twice the Oregon Seed Certification</div><div>program mandate, and they moved the GE trait to the female side of the hybrid (the side that</div><div>does not produce pollen) so only conventional pollen would be present.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Despite these measures, in 2008, the activist Center for Food Safety backed an Oregon organic</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">seed producer, Frank Morton, in suing the Federal government over the perceived threat of</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">contamination</span>. Despite all the uproar, claims of lost business and imminent threat, Morton still</div><div>rund a thriving business today. Morton is not alone in overexaggerating risk. As the Genetic</div><div>Literacy Project wrote in an article posted in November, “There is no record that any farmer in</div><div>the U.S. has ever lost certification as a result of socalled “contamination” — although one</div><div>would never know it based on the propaganda on the web.”</div><div>
</div><div>12/21/2015 Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar | Genetic Literacy Project</div><div>5/5</div><div>
</div><div>When examining the facts behind the fear, the risks associated with biotech beets is minimal.</div><div>Although there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on GE crop safety, some are still leery</div><div>of consuming foods made with crops grown from GE seeds, but with sugar, the product in the</div><div>bag is still GMOfree. Moreover, production farm data has shown that using GE sugar beets to</div><div>produce that sugar is friendly for the farmer and our environment.</div><div>With solid coexistence strategies among farmers in place, there is little threat that one farmer’s</div><div>choice to cultivate GE sugar beets would negatively impact his neighbor’s ability to raise</div><div>organic crops. Advocacy groups that encourage consumers to avoid sugar derived from GE</div><div>sugar beets really only target small, farmerowned businesses.</div><div>
</div><div>Rebecca Larson holds a doctorate in plant pathology and is the proud mother of a</div><div>bouncing baby boy. Follow Rebecca at @sugaryfacts.</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">blog jeff cox</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><h1 style="font-variant: small-caps; line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">What You Won’t Read about California’s Prop 37–Except Here</font></h1><p class="details_small" style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://organicfoodguy.com/?cat=10" title="View all posts in Organic Lifestyle" rel="category">Organic Lifestyle</a> <a href="http://organicfoodguy.com/?p=8884#respond" title="Comment on What You Won’t Read about California’s Prop 37–Except Here">Comments (0)</a></font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;" /><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">There’s a scene in “The Maltese Falcon” where Humphrey Bogart slaps Peter Lorre’s face as Lorre cringes and whines. Bogie looks at him with disgust, slaps him again, and says, “You’ll take it and you’ll like it.” Kind of like Monsanto and friends are doing to the American public by feeding us its genetically modified frankenfood while claiming that it’s safe and good for you and that labeling it will cause the sky to fall.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
Well, just hope the good citizens of California vote Yes on <b>Prop 37 this November,</b> because it’s high time we—the people—fight back.
California’s Proposition 37 requires that foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be so labeled. In one sense, they already are. If you check the price look-up code—a five-digit number on the package—you’ll find that numbers beginning with four are conventionally grown, those starting with nine are organic, and those starting with eight are genetically modified. But hardly anyone knows that, so it’s not really much of a help to the consumer.
But why not put a label on GMO foods? If it’s so good for us and so safe, why are Monsanto and friends so afraid of saying so on the label? Currently, the U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world that insists its citizens be kept in the dark about whether their foods contain GMOs. Poll after poll shows that more than 90 percent of Americans want to know which foods contain GMOs. So what’s the hang-up?</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Council for Biotechnology Information and the Grocery Manufacturers Associatio</span>n are two big hang-ups. The Council has six major members: BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The Grocery Manufacturers has 300 members, among them BASF Nutrition & Health, Bayer CropSciences, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, and Syngenta, plus agribusiness giants Cargill Inc., ConAgra Foods, General Mills, and just for good measure, Georgia Correctional Industries and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. And you know about criminal justice in Texas.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
The Council on Biotechnology Information is in the business of disinformation, creating propaganda to assuage the fears of adults about GMO food, and also aiming at propagandizing children. The<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Biotechnology Basic Activity Book, produced by the Council, is for elementary school kids and teenagers.</span> It can be examined on the Council’s website. Judge for yourself which of these claims they make for genetic modification are true:</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
It helps us grow more food.
It helps the environment.
It grows more nutritious food that improves our health.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
In the book, kids are given puzzles to “learn more about biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live better lives in a healthier world.”
These corporations and lobbying groups are throwing millions of dollars into the fight to defeat Prop 37, as you would expect them to, because when the GMO label appears on processed foods, it might as well be a skull and crossbones, and there goes Monsanto and friends’ plan for world food domination down the drain.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The coalition backing No on 37 is a long list of biotech, big ag, and drug and chemical manufacturers, including the American Council on Science and Health, whose president is Elizabeth <b>Whelan,</b> who describes herself as a lifelong conservative “more libertarian than Republican.” The ACSH supporters include Dow, DuPont, Exxon, General Mills, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and of course Monsanto. And Coke and Pepsi if you need an artificially sweetened beverage.</span></font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
In fact, the first volley of propaganda has been fired in California. A mailing has been sent out by a group called, “No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labelling Scheme,” whose major funding comes from—you guessed it—the Council on Biotechnology Information and Grocery Manufacturers Association. The mailing is a flier that proclaims, in all-caps, 60 point type: “DEMOCRATS OPPOSE PROP 37.”</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
The three Democrats include two Central Valley members of the California Assembly, Henry Perea and Manuel Perez, and the vice chairperson of the California Democratic Party, Alexandra Rooker.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
I sent emails to all three, asking them to explain their opposition to Prop 37 and additionally, whether they had received any campaign contributions from the Council on Biotechnology Information, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, or from BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, or Syngenta. Perea’s office said he was away on family business and that was all I heard from him. Rooker never responded, nor did the Northern California Carpenters Union, which opposes the measure and whom I contacted. Perez’s office passed my request for elaboration to Kathy Fairbanks of Bicker, Castillo, and Fairbanks, a Sacramento lobbying firm. Here’s what Perez had to say in the flier:</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
“This initiative was rushed to the ballot and contains flaws that will lead to unintended consequences. Prop 37 is an unfunded mandate filled with confusing loopholes, contradictory exemptions, and extreme restrictions that will cost the state millions of dollars to administer.” Some of his wording is identical to wording in an accompanying “fact sheet.”</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
And Ms. Fairbanks responded to all his complaints, but summed up the thrust of the opposition at the end of her email by saying that Prop 37 will have a “detrimental impact on California’s economy. It will increase state costs at a time when the state has a severe budget deficit. It will raise grocery bills when families are still struggling.”
Regarding the campaign donations, Josh Pulliam of Assembly member Perez’s office called in response. He said that he remembered the Bayer corporation giving a couple of thousand dollars, but that was before the Prop 37 issue came up, and that none of the other companies or institutes had given any donations, “to my knowledge,” which is really a claim to having no knowledge of the actual facts.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
So there you have it. Opponents of the measure have so far raised about $23,600,000 (see accompanying box on opposition donations) to proponents’ $2,300,000. They will use this money to flood the state with alarm about how Yes on 37 means you will pay more for food. It just may work, since nearly everyone in the state will hear about rising costs due to Prop 37, but relatively few will see the ads saying you have a right to know what Big Ag is feeding you.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Who Are the Big Donors to No on 37</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Company Subsidiaries Amount Donated So Far</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Monsanto $4,208,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Pepsico Izze, Naked Juice 1,716,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Coca Cola Honest Tea, Odwalla 1,164,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Conagra French Meadow, Alexia,
Lightlife 1,076,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kellogg Kashi, Morning Star Farms,
Gardenburger, Bear Naked 632,500</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">General Mills Cascadian Farms, Muir Glen 520,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smuckers R.W. Knudsen,
Santa Cruz Organic 380,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Dean Foods Horizon Organics, Silk 253,000</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Source: Cornucopia Institute</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Along with the three prominent Democrats opposing Prop 37 comes a page of “Facts.”
Here’s one: “Prop 37 will result in increased production costs and higher food costs.” It will surely cost the state something to insure compliance with the law so Big Ag and Biotech don’t cheat. But it’s hard to see how adding a statement to a label will raise production costs to manufacturers and food costs to consumers.
Here’s another: “The higher costs that farmers, food companies, and grocers would face because of this proposition would be passed on to California consumers through higher food prices.” Labeling GMO foods would cost farmers money? Would cost grocers money? No it won’t. But it may cost Monsanto and friends money because people will in all likelihood avoid their frankenfoods like the plague.
Here’s another: “Prop 37 is bad for factory and warehouse workers, truckers, port workers, longshoremen, farmworkers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, plant engineers, checkers and grocery clerks, and many other employees.” This is simply ludicrous. Why not add bank tellers, cookbook authors, gunnery sergeants, and football coaches while you’re at it? But notice that carpenters are included. Maybe that’s why Bob Alvarado, executive secretary-treasurer of the Northern California Carpenters union is included on the mailing’s Fact Sheet. Here’s his quote:
“Prop 37 will put California union jobs at risk by driving food production to other states.”
First of all, there is no other state with California’s ability to produce year-around food on the scale it does. Second, why would it drive food production out of California, even if there were somewhere else to drive it to? So what Alvarado is saying is that by labeling GMO foods, farmers will have to move to Kansas to grow crops? Why would that be? Because Californians, seeing the GMO label on their foods, will stop eating and therefore California farmers will have to move to Kansas because their local customers will all be dead of starvation? It makes no sense.
Also on the Fact Sheet is this quote from the “America Medical Association” (sic): “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineering foods.” Despite the questionable grammar, the quote is accompanied by the AMA’s logo.
AMA board member Dr. Patrice Harris clarified: “The science-based labeling policies of the FDA do not support special product labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The AMA adopted a policy supporting this science-based approach, recognizing that there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods.”
Award-winning food and nutrition writer Marion Nestle has a blog called foodpolitics.com where she parsed this claim by the AMA. She writes, “Science-based. Translation: if the food is safe, it is acceptable. GM foods are presumed safe; therefore, they are acceptable and any criticism of them is irrational.”
But the AMA’s statement, and Dr. Harris’s, too, are moot. We now have mounting scientific evidence, much of it published in peer reviewed journals, that GMO foods are indeed different than regular food. And how could it not be? Insect genes in corn, fish genes in tomatoes, human genes in rice? This isn’t exaggeration. This is happening. And one scientist quit Monsanto in disgust, saying that the whole GMO rationale is a fraud—that the genes inserted into a plant’s DNA don’t just express the gene’s single function, they cause the cell to do all kinds of wacky and dangerous things. That may be what’s behind the new peer-reviewed study. Scientists in Norway have released results from experimental feeding studies carried out over a 10-year period, and the verdict is in: if you want to avoid obesity, then avoid eating genetically engineered corn, corn-based products, and animals that are fed a diet of GMO grain. The studies also looked at the effects on organ changes, and researchers found significant changes that affected weight gain, eating behaviors, and immune function.
The results show a positive link between GMO corn and obesity. Animals fed a GMO corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GMO grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon, achieving the same results.
Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs. This confirms other studies done by US researchers. Significant changes occurred in the digestive systems of the test animals’ major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.
So now we do have proof of pathology with many more studies underway. And yet the Council for Biotechnology Information, with the help of the AMA, continues to spew disinformation in its mailings.
Finally, the mailing shows the logo of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and this: “U.S. Food & Drug Administration says such labeling policy would be inherently misleading.” That is, it would be misleading to allow consumers to know what’s in their food. As Scooby-Do would say, “Huh?!” Now why in the world would the governmental body tasked with making sure our food supply is safe and wholesome come out with such an Alice-in-Wonderland, world on its head, Orwellian statement like that?
Perhaps because the senior advisor to the FDA commissioner is an apparatchik called Michael Taylor, formerly a Monsanto executive and the company’s chief lobbyist. He’s one of the people responsible for getting Monsanto’s genetically modified milk-stimulating hormone (rBST or rBGH) into our milk supply, where it causes cows to gush out super amounts of milk contaminated with the hormone and often (ick) with pus formed in the cows’ overworked and diseased udders.
One of Taylor’s tasks is to plan implementation of new food safety legislation. He’s been in the revolving door between Big Food and the government for decades—obviously doing a good job for Monsanto and friends but maybe not so good a job for you and me.
I encourage you to send a link to this article to everyone you can in California. Monsanto and friends think they have this thing nailed down and there will be many more lies, half-truths, and disinformation to come as we approach November. The virulence of their response and the huge amount of money they are spending to defeat it only proves their fear of Prop 37.
Let’s make them take it and like it.</font></p><p style="line-height: 19px; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">###</font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div></div></div>