Caught Red-Handed, These Food Brands Were Trained to Lie to You
Story at-a-glance
Thanks to the thousands of Americans who mobilized against
Pat Roberts’ “DARK Act” (S.2609), the bill failed to get the
60 votes needed to move forward. However, we can expect it
to resurface sometime after Easter
The court has ruled the Grocery Manufacturers Association
(GMA) violated Washington campaign finance disclosure laws
by hiding the identities of corporate donors funding their
anti-GMO labeling efforts
A clause inserted into the Toxic Substances Control Act
reauthorization bill would grant Monsanto permanent immunity
from liability for injuries caused by PCBs
By Dr. Mercola
Thanks to the thousands of Americans who mobilized against
the so-called "DARK" Act (Denying Americans the Right to Know
Act), which specifically preempts states' rights to create their
own GMO food labeling laws, the U.S. Senate failed to get the 60
votes needed to move the bill forward.
Crafted by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts,
Senate bill S.26091
(which is similar to
HR 1599, passed by the House of Representatives last July)
would require the Agriculture Department to set a voluntary
standard for GMO food labels, pre-empting Vermont's GMO labeling
law,2
set to take effect on July 1.
The bill would also require the USDA to provide consumers
with information describing the benefits of
biotechnology! Needless to say, this was a major victory, and I
thank you for taking a stand against this atrocious bill.3
However, it's not yet over, and we cannot afford to let our
guard down. When Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell
switched his vote from Yes to No, it triggered a procedural
maneuver that allows the bill to be brought back up.
Accept No Compromise
We can expect the issue to resurface sometime after Easter,
and this gives the agrichemical businesses and junk food
manufacturers time to buy off more Senators for some sort of
compromise, such as the use of
QR codes, which completely fail to provide people with clear
and mandatory transparency.
As noted by American Soybean Association President Richard
Wilkins, this vote was only "a temporary detour in a
larger effort," adding:
"We think that we're close to a solution that helps
the industry stay innovative while providing consumers the
information they're looking for. Once Congress returns from
the Easter break, we'll get back to work with leaders in the
Senate and continue on the path to a compromise."
It's become quite clear that any compromise they come up with
is likely to be deeply flawed, and will go against the clear
majority of Americans who want clear labeling on packages that
contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.
So please, keep the pressure on your Senators, and urge them
not to accept any compromise that would jeopardize state and
individual rights.
Mars, Kellogg's, ConAgra and General Mills Join Campbell's in
Voluntary Labeling
In January, Campbell's announced it will label GMOs, and that
it would not result in higher prices.4
Mars Inc.5
Kellogg Company,6
ConAgra,7
and General Mills8
have now followed suit, announcing they too will comply with
Vermont's GMO labeling law by labeling all of their foods sold
across the U.S.
General Mills has also launched
an online search tool9
to help you identify products that contain GMOs.
These companies prove GMO labeling does not increase the cost
of food, and because of manufacturing timelines, they can't wait
for the Senate any longer. This is why it's so important to let
Vermont's law stand.
There is really no reason to worry about a "patchwork" of
state laws, because there are no variations for compliance — all
states are asking for the exact same disclosure!
States are then given flexibility in regard to
enforcement, which is how it should be. A state with the
culture and size of Vermont will differ from a state like
California. That's logical. So let states test and experiment.
If states can make their own decisions on issues like capital
punishment, you'd think they'd have the right to, and be capable
of making their own decisions on labeling!
The best democracy works closest to home, and we need to stop
centralizing the power in Washington D.C., where it's most
easily corrupted.
And it's not just Republicans who talk about state rights and
then sell out to corporate fascist policies. Democrats from
agricultural states also need to be reminded about the Obama
executive order10
on standing up for consumer rights and stopping state
preemption.
Court Rules: GMA Guilty of Violating Public Campaign Finance
Laws
On October 16, 2013, Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit
against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) on behalf of
the State of Washington.
He alleged the association had violated the state's campaign
disclosure laws by failing to register a political committee,
and by concealing the true source of the funds used to finance
its "No on 522" campaign.
Internal GMA memos and documents detail the association's
systematic effort to conceal the sources of $11 million in
contributions to oppose Washington's 2013 GMO labeling
initiative.
The GMA even provided "media guidance" to members about how
to lie when confronted about their contributions to the
anti-labeling campaign.
Attorney General Ferguson recently filed a motion for summary
judgment,11
asking the judge to rule in the state's favor without the need
for a trial. The hearing was set for February 19 in Thurston
County Superior Court.
On March 11, the court ruled12
the GMA "violated Washington campaign finance disclosure laws by
shielding the identities of major corporate donors funding
efforts to defeat a food labeling initiative in Washington." The
case will continue to trial to determine the size of the
penalty.
Trial to Determine Penalty for GMA's Unlawful Tactics
Ferguson has requested maximum penalties to be applied. As
noted in his motion, "While proof of intentional concealment is
not required, state law permits treble penalties if the
fact-finder determines a person intentionally concealed the
source of a political contribution or expenditure."
In this case, Ferguson insists such proof does exist. He also
claims he has proof showing the GMA engaged in five separate
acts of intentional concealment, so the penalty should therefore
be tripled for each count.
The court, however, ruled there "remains a factual dispute
whether GMA's violation of the law was intentional," which is
why the case will now go to trial. In response to the court's
ruling, Ferguson said:13
"This landmark case has been a long fight for
accountability. This ruling sends an unequivocal message:
Big money donors cannot evade Washington law and hide from
public scrutiny. My office will hold you accountable."
The GMA and its 300+ members, which include Monsanto and
several of the largest processed food manufacturers in the
world, were determined to prevent you from knowing whether the
products they sell contain GMOs — so much so, they decided it
was worth breaking the law to do it.
These companies wanted it both ways — they wanted to hide
their ingredients, but they also didn't want you to know that
they wanted to hide GMOs.
That's why the GMA kept the identities of the companies
contributing to the "No on 522" campaign a secret. They were
afraid of the backlash from betrayed consumers.
Sadly, their ploy worked just long enough to win that ballot
initiative. But now the cat's out of the proverbial bag, and if
you're as offended by this unethical and unlawful behavior as I
am, then take the only meaningful action there is — boycott the
offenders.
Boycotting GMA Members Made Easy
For the past three years, there's been an ongoing call to boycott
GMA member brands until they cancel their GMA membership,
and if you haven't done so before, now would be a good time to
get serious about boycotting these traitor brands and visiting
The Boycott List website.
There's no two ways about it; by being members of the GMA,
they are affiliated with a criminal element that destroys their
reputation and severely undermines their integrity.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has created a smart
phone application called Buycott,
which has already been downloaded by almost half a million
people, to step up the boycott against GMA member brands. The
app also helps you determine ethical brands that deserve your
patronage.
If you don't have a smartphone, or if you don't want to use
your smart phone in the grocery store, it's even simpler. Don't
buy any processed food or beverage, or any food whatsoever
unless it has one or more of these labels:
"USDA 100% Organic"
"100% grassfed"
"Non-GMO Verified"
More 'Independent' Academics Outed as Monsanto Spokesmen
You may recall last year's conflict-of-interest scandal
involving Monsanto and University of Florida professor
Kevin Folta, a vocal advocate of
GMOs. Now, two other university professors with links to
Monsanto have been outed for writing pro-GMO material without
disclosing their ties to the company. As reported by the Cornell
Daily Sun last year:14
"On Aug. 8, 2013, Monsanto representative Eric Sachs
emailed Prof. Anthony Shelton, Ph.D. ... about contributing
to 'an important project' he had started — a series of
publically geared articles on agricultural biotechnology ...
Shelton agreed. Although Monsanto requested that he write
the article, Shelton did not disclose his connection to the
company; it was not necessary because Monsanto did not
compensate him for it.
'There would be a conflict of interest if I were paid
to write the article or if someone tried to proof and edit
what I was writing, but that was not the case with this at
all,' Shelton said."
Then, earlier this month, an investigation by Chicago WBEZ
news15
discovered that Monsanto paid (the now retired) University of
Illinois' professor Bruce Chassy, Ph.D. more than $57,000 over
less than 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.
Academics Used to 'Front' Opaque Industry Lobbying Effort
Chassy even lobbied federal officials on Monsanto's behalf to
prevent further regulations on GMOs. While Chassy has claimed he
did this of his own volition before ever being asked to do so by
Monsanto, emails16
show Eric Sachs urged Chassy to get involved.
They also reveal that this was part of an industry lobbying
effort, "with academics out in front," basically pretending to
be acting independently. Moreover, as in Folta's case, the
monies Chassy received from Monsanto were funneled in such a way
as to circumvent rules of public disclosure. In this case:
"Documents ... show that Chassy and the university
directed Monsanto to deposit the payments through the
University of Illinois Foundation, a body whose records are
shielded from public scrutiny. The foundation also has the
ability to take in private money and disburse it to an
individual as a 'university payment' — exempt from
disclosure," WBEZ writes.
In December of last year, Chassy co-wrote a three-part
Huffington Post series discussing the disastrous effects
GMO labeling might have. Nowhere did he mention he'd
received money from Monsanto for pro-GMO outreach activities. As
noted in the featured article:
"To some who study transparency in science, Chassy's
failure to publicly disclose his ties with a company while
he was speaking and writing about GMOs crosses a line.
'That, to me, it's a disgrace,' said Sheldon Krimsky, Ph.D.,
a bioethicist who studies academic conflict of interest at
Tufts University.
At least [Chassy] should have had the courage to say,
'Well, look, I get some funding from Monsanto.' But instead
he's pretending to be a neutral, independent scientist."
As U.S. senators consider two bills on GMO labeling
... they'll weigh the value of expert advice. But recent
cases involving Chassy and other industry-funded scholars,
including one who accepted money from GMO opponents, raise
questions about how neutral that expert advice may be."
University Rules Aid and Abet Conflicts of Interest
WBEZ's investigation also delved into the disclosure policies
of the University of Illinois — a public land grant university —
and found that not only does its policies fail to prevent
conflicts of interest between academia and private companies
like Monsanto, but they actually make such arrangements easier.
Moreover, in this case the records show that Chassy (just
like Folta) specifically instructed his Monsanto contacts to
funnel the payments through the University of Illinois
Foundation.
University Foundations such as these were originally created
to accept private fundraising donations, including anonymous
ones, and the Foundation's financial records are exempt from any
and all public scrutiny, including Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests. According to WBEZ:
"Neither Chassy nor U of I officials would comment on
why the money was sent through the foundation. But Monsanto
spokeswoman Charla Lord said in a statement, 'That's how the
University asked to receive these unrestricted gifts for
biotechnology outreach.'
Government Paid for Monsanto Propaganda
While Monsanto and the academics that work for them want you
to think that this kind of behavior is no big deal, the truth
is, it is a very big deal indeed. Investigations such as this
one reveal they're all well aware that what they're doing falls
within underhanded propaganda parameters, and they all agree on
keeping the relationship low profile for that reason. This is
clearly demonstrated in the following email excavated by WBEZ:
"Sachs also raises the prospect of 'paying experts to
provide responses' to anti-GMO studies without revealing
Monsanto's involvement. 'From my perspective the problem is
one of expert engagement and that could be solved by paying
experts to provide responses … The key will be
keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the
credibility of the information.'" [Emphasis
mine]
Chassy also received money from the U.S. State Department to
make some informational videos on GMOs, and he turned to
Monsanto for help on the content. So, an "independent" professor
at a public university takes money from the government to
produce propaganda for a private company! In one email, Chassy
writes:
"I think it is important that these YouTubes will
come from [the food science department] at U of Illinois and
will credit the State Dept for support. I would like to see
more of them with those credits but State's resources are
limited.
I am talking to State about funding for additional
videos and am also seeking other sources of support for
doing more of them ... It would be very useful to me to have
a list of videos that all of you think would be helpful. I
will put them in my proposals."
'Monsanto Rider' Provides Legal Shield Against PCB Lawsuits
The deeper you dig, the more you come to realize that
Monsanto, probably to a far greater degree than most other
international companies, is masterfully bending the U.S.
government to its own will. Not only is the State Department
paying for Monsanto propaganda, but a long string of proposed
laws have all been written with the express purpose of shielding
Monsanto from regulatory restrictions and/or legal
repercussions.
The DARK Act is just one instance where Monsanto profits
would be shielded, without regard for basic human rights. Then
there's the "Monsanto rider" to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) reauthorization bill. At present, seven U.S. cities have
sued Monsanto over PCB contamination: Seattle, Spokane, Berkley,
San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and, most recently, Portland.17
According to city attorney Tracy Reeve:
"Portland's elected officials are committed to
holding Monsanto accountable for its apparent decision to
favor profits over ecological and human health. Monsanto
profited from selling PCBs for decades and needs to take
responsibility for cleaning up after the mess it created."
Two private citizens have also sued over PCB damage, claiming
they developed cancer as a result of eating PCB-contaminated
food.18
And, wouldn't you know it, a current House bill would grant
Monsanto permanent immunity from liability for injuries caused
by PCBs!19
This heinous "Monsanto immunity clause" has been deftly inserted
into the TSCA reauthorization bill by Congressional Republicans.
Addressing this TSCA "Monsanto Rider," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
an environmental lawyer who has litigated PCB cases for over
three decades, writes:20
"PCBs manufactured by Monsanto ... have contaminated
200 miles of the Hudson ... [and] poisoned 80,000 river
miles elsewhere in our nation from Washington state's
Duwamish River to Connecticut's Housatonic ... Seattle and
six other cities are currently in litigation with Monsanto
to force the company to clean up local rivers and bays.
The GOP's TSCA's shield provision would dismiss all
those lawsuits. Congress would have the public, not the
polluters pay to clean up Monsanto's monumental mess. Of
even greater concern is the burgeoning issue of PCBs in our
public schools.
Monsanto marketed PCB-based caulking to schools and
other municipal buildings throughout the US beginning in
1950 ... About 27 to 54 percent of all these schools —
12,000 to 25,000 nationwide — may contain PCBs ... The costs
of mitigation and remediation ranges from $750,000 to $3.1
million per building.
The total costs to school districts across the nation
could be upwards of $80 billion. As the exclusive
manufacturer of PCBs in the US, Monsanto is responsible for
these damages ...
GOP's new shield provision is designed to
abolish Monsanto's liability as a favor to the company,
which has donated $39 million to politicians over 30 years.
Documents uncovered during our litigation have confirmed
Monsanto's sickeningly corrupt corporate culture. Instead of
being a good corporate citizen, Monsanto's decision-making
matrix puts greed before public health and welfare."
[Emphasis mine]
Demand Mandatory Labeling
So what happens next? Over the next few weeks or months the
Senate and the White House will either respect consumer choice
and state's rights to legislate on food safety and food labels,
and allow the Vermont law go into effect, or they can slap
millions of health- and environmental-minded consumers in the
face by passing a law or a rider that preempts Vermont's law and
keeps consumers in the dark.
Please sign the
petition to Congress, asking them to respect your right to
know whether your food has been laced with GMOs and the toxic
chemicals that go along with them.
Five Useful Tips to Help You in the Fight Against GMOs
No matter what Congress does, organic and natural health
consumers need to get prepared if we are to protect our health,
the health of our families, and the health of the environment,
soil, and climate. Here are five things you can do to take back
control over your health, your food, and our currently
out-of-control political system.
Boycott GMO and factory-farmed food, clothing, and body
care products. Hit the GMO and Junk Food giants where it
hurts: their bottom line.
If Monsanto and the 300 large food and agribusiness
corporations in the GMA and their minions in Congress
continue to deny our right to know what's in our food, we
must boycott all of their thousands of brands and products,
today and every day. OCA's smartphone application,
Buycott , makes it easy. Alternatively, don't buy
anything unless it's labeled "organic," "100% grass-fed," or
"non-GMO."
Stop eating in restaurants or fast food outlets that
serve GMO-tainted foods. Choose fast food outlets like
Chipotle's or Panera, which have transitioned into organic,
and/or non-GMO fare, local foods-based "farm-to-table"
restaurants, or organic and grass-fed establishments
instead. Better yet, buy organic, local, and grass-fed
ingredients and cook at home.
Keep in mind that most GMOs go into factory farmed meat,
dairy and poultry products, in the form of corn, soy,
canola, and cottonseed-based animal feed. So boycott factory
farmed meat, dairy, and poultry products, today and every
day.
Don't vote for any Senator who votes to preempt the
Vermont law in favor of a bogus scheme such as voluntary
labeling or QR codes. Don't vote for a Presidential
candidate who doesn't support your right to know. Currently
only one major candidate for President, Senator Bernie
Sanders of Vermont, has come out publicly in support of
mandatory labeling of
GMO foods.
What You Need to Know About GMOs
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, which is currently still being denied.
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.
QR Codes Are NOT an Adequate Substitute for Package Labels
The biotech industry is trying to push the QR code as an answer
for consumer concerns about GE foods. QR stands for Quick Response,
and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR
readers.
The code brings you to a product website that provides further
details about the product. The video below shows you why this is not
an ideal solution. There’s nothing forcing companies to declare GMOs
on their website. On the contrary, GE foods are allowed to be
promoted as “natural,” which further adds to the confusion.
These so-called "Smart Labels" hardly improve access to
information. Instead, by making finding the truth time-consuming and
cumbersome, food makers can be assured that most Americans will
remain ignorant about the presence of GMOs in their products.
Besides, everyone has a right to know what's in the food.
You shouldn't have to own a smartphone to obtain this information.
Vermont's mandatory labeling law is scheduled to go into effect
July 1. Now, Monsanto is going with the only strategy it has left to
block it — a Senate version of H.R.1599, also referred to as the
DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act. Sen. Pat Roberts
(R-Kan) introduced the bill, which would preempt Vermont's GMO
labeling law, and replace state mandatory labeling laws with a
federal voluntary labeling plan.
Fortunately, on March 16, the Senate rejected the bill, falling
far short of the 60 votes it needed in its favor to pass. This is
great news, but though the DARK Act was defeated, it's not over yet.
Roberts said he would still work to find another way to preempt
the law, and majority leader Mitch McConnell changed his vote from
YES to NO for procedural reasons. This allows him to bring up the
bill again later if a compromise is created, and the creation of
such a compromise is certainly already underway.
Vermont's law is set to take effect on July 1. It's imperative
you take action now by contacting your senators. Ask them to oppose
any compromise that would block or delay Vermont's labeling law.
It's critical that we flood Senators' phone lines — it's now or
never for GMO labeling.
Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted
sites you can visit.