Organic Under Attack: Report Exposes Big Food's Tobacco-Style PR Blitz

[Caretaker]

Food and chemical companies are spending hundreds of millions to spread false information about the safety of pesticides, GMOs, and antibiotics in food

Full article: http://commondreams.org/news/2015/0...port-exposes-big-foods-tobacco-style-pr-blitz

Snippet:
*********************
Remember that recent blog post you read about the popularity of genetically modified foods? Or the economics expert on the news who questioned if paying the price of organic food was 'worth it'?

According to a new report, these views were very likely the product of a public relations blitz by Big Food and Big Ag firms, that are actively working to spread misinformation about the safety of industrial agriculture practices and discredit the value of organic food in the face of growing popular demand.

At the same time the sale of organic products has skyrocketed—jumping to more than $35 billion in 2013—the country's largest food and chemical companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to combat this trend. In 2013, Monsanto alone spent $95 million on marketing.

"Rather than respond to changing market demands by shifting the way they do business, many large food and agrochemical companies are using tobacco-style PR tactics to mislead the public and attack the organic food industry to try to win back skeptical consumers," states environmental watchdog Friends of the Earth in a new study published on Tuesday.

The report, Spinning Food: How Food Industry Front Groups and Covert Communications are Shaping the Story of Food (pdf), reveals the methods employed to spread industry propaganda. Tactics include: infiltrating social media sites with seemingly independent platforms, attacking the credibility of scientists and other advocates, partnering with media venues on disguised 'native advertising,' targeting female audiences by co-opting female bloggers and promoting messages that disparage "organic moms" as elitist bullies, and crafting relationships with third party allies who echo carefully crafted talking points.
********************

 

[grasping the after wind]

I cannot seem to find the part of the report that shows the data that led to the conclusions. I see the
conclusions and recommendations but not the part of the report that gives the data that the conclusions and recommendations are based upon. Is there a link to that?

 

[Caretaker]

I cannot seem to find the part of the report that shows the data that led to the conclusions. I see the
conclusions and recommendations but not the part of the report that gives the data that the conclusions and recommendations are based upon. Is there a link to that?

You can download the full report or the executive summary from this link: http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/good-food-healthy-planet/spinning-food

 

[The Cadet]

It's a bit of a long report. I read the executive summary and I spent some time looking through the annexes, and I'm kind of wondering - what, exactly, is the issue here? So we have lobbying groups for one of the largest and most vital industries in the country, and they spend a fair amount of money lobbying to have the laws go their way and advertising over effective means. Welcome to every major business ever. Why is this a problem? Like, in the "methods" section, they seem to make hay over "GMOAnswers.com":

In 2013, the Council on Biotechnology — funded by Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont and Syngenta — launched GMOAnswers.com to “help clear up confusion and dispel mistrust” about genetic engineering. The platform was designed to promote the appearance of transparency and honesty by offering an opportunity for anyone to post questions about GMOs and get answers from experts. 140 But the experts on the site are not disinterested parties; they’re defenders of genetic engineering and some are even paid employees of biotech companies like Monsanto 141.​

It is perhaps worth noting at this point that GMOAnswers.com makes it perfectly clear who holds what position and who has what conflicts of interest. (Indeed, cite 141 is just that same link.) The "about" page clearly and concisely states that the site is funded by that Council, and who some of its members are. This is not some hidden nugget of information people investigating the site have to dig deep to find! What's more, GMOAnswers has a stellar track record of accurately representing the science involved in genetic engineering. The fact that it doesn't have a whole lot of geneticists who are anti-GMO is no surprise - there aren't many geneticists who are anti-GMO!

So where's the meat here? What's actually worth, yanno, getting worried about?

 

[Caretaker]

And while the food industry's use of such campaigns is not new, according to the study, the level of spending in recent years, the increase in the use of front groups, and the deployment of covert social media tactics is "unprecedented."

In short, they are flailing like a drowning man. But the clock is ticking and the day is not far off when they will be publicly shamed and subject to criminal prosecution right along with those they bribed to "grease the skids" for their deadly greed.

 

[Caretaker]

GMA [Grocers Manufacturing Association] Files Lawsuit to Overturn Vermont’s Mandatory GMO Labeling Law
http://www.gmaonline.org/news-event...ermonts-unconstitutional-mandatory-gmo-label/

64 Countries require GMO labeling!!
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/

95% of Americans want GMO food labeled!!
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling#

So, if GMO food is so great, why are fat cat corporations fighting so desperately to keep people from having the choice at the supermarket they clearly want???

Do we have a democracy or a plutocracy?

Who decides what we eat - We the People or huge corporations and fat cats?

 

[grasping the after wind]

GMA [Grocers Manufacturing Association] Files Lawsuit to Overturn Vermont’s Mandatory GMO Labeling Law
http://www.gmaonline.org/news-event...ermonts-unconstitutional-mandatory-gmo-label/

64 Countries require GMO labeling!!
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/

95% of Americans want GMO food labeled!!
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling#

So, if GMO food is so great, why are fat cat corporations fighting so desperately to keep people from having the choice at the supermarket they clearly want???

Do we have a democracy or a plutocracy?

Who decides what we eat - We the People or huge corporations and fat cats?

They are businesses and they know the value of public relations. Even if GMO foods were completely harmless as long as there is a perception among a significant group that GMO is bad then they would not want that identified in their products. Since we have already become a nanny state anyway and label numerous things for sometimes no particular rational reason and with the strange and irrational argument that labels will somehow change behavior. We even ban certain substances (trans fats for instances) perhaps just because there are people that have fetishes about those substances that work in the EPA. All this seems to make GMO labeling a small concession. So Under the current circumstances, I see no reason to refrain from requiring the labeling of GMO foods. Let the industry spend all of its PR money on making the case GMO is not a bogeyman instead of splitting its resources to by using some to keep it from being labelled. This way anyone that is concerned will know what foods to avoid and the part of the industry that profits from those concerns will prosper. One business's loss is another's gain.

 

[Caretaker]

How about the grocery stores take all the money they are spending on propaganda and lawsuits and instead reduce prices. Why must I pay grocery stores for propaganda and lawsuits that block the GMO labeling that 95% of us want and 64 other countries have?

Here's what I'm doing. I'm not buying from any grocery store that belongs to the Grocery Manufacturer's Association. In my area of the country there are lots of farm stands, farmers markets, and small independent grocery stores.

That's where I shop.

 

[loveofourlord]

Anyone point out that many of the companies that sell organic foods, also Sell GMO's because it's pofitable selling organic to people that are convincved it's some how better.

This whole GMO anti GMO stuff is digusting, it's hurting people.

 

[Caretaker]

Anyone point out that many of the companies that sell organic foods, also Sell GMO's because it's pofitable selling organic to people that are convincved it's some how better.

This whole GMO anti GMO stuff is digusting, it's hurting people.

You are absolutely right - GMO's are definitely hurting people.

And organic has been scientifically proven to be healthier.

*********************
The largest study of its kind – led by North East experts – has found significant benefits to organic food.

An international team led by Newcastle University has shown that organic crops are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops.

Numerous studies have linked antioxidants to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers.

The study found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between one to two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

The study, to be published next week in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops.

Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than those conventionally-grown.

The study, funded jointly by the European Framework 6 programme and the Sheepdrove Trust, also found that nitrogen concentrations were significantly lower in organic crops.

Concentrations of total nitrogen were 10%, nitrate 30% and nitrite 87% lower in organic compared to conventional crops. The study also showed that pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in conventional crops than organic ones.

Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University who led the study, said: “The organic versus non-organic debate has rumbled on for decades now but the evidence from this study is overwhelming – that organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.

“This demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals.

“This constitutes an important addition to the information currently available to consumers which until now has been confusing and in many cases is conflicting.”
************************
The above is from here: http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/07/newcastle-university-study-proves-organic-food-better/

 

[loveofourlord]

You are absolutely right - GMO's are definitely hurting people.

And organic has been scientifically proven to be healthier.

*********************
The largest study of its kind – led by North East experts – has found significant benefits to organic food.

An international team led by Newcastle University has shown that organic crops are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops.

Numerous studies have linked antioxidants to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers.

The study found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between one to two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

The study, to be published next week in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops.

Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than those conventionally-grown.

The study, funded jointly by the European Framework 6 programme and the Sheepdrove Trust, also found that nitrogen concentrations were significantly lower in organic crops.

Concentrations of total nitrogen were 10%, nitrate 30% and nitrite 87% lower in organic compared to conventional crops. The study also showed that pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in conventional crops than organic ones.

Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University who led the study, said: “The organic versus non-organic debate has rumbled on for decades now but the evidence from this study is overwhelming – that organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.

“This demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals.

“This constitutes an important addition to the information currently available to consumers which until now has been confusing and in many cases is conflicting.”
************************
The above is from here: http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/07/newcastle-university-study-proves-organic-food-better/

hmmmm...pretty bad when alot of what you put there is wrong.

First off, antioxidents are actually not as useful as people think, and can be bad for you in higher amounts, this has been known for years, particularly if you have a disease like cancer and such since they weaken then immune system in PARTICULR CANCER, due to it destroying the benefits of chemotherapy and other things, as the immune system uses the very things antioxidents destroy.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20140129/could-antioxidants-speed-up-cancer-progression
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828132

There are so much myths and lies about GMO's and organics by the natural beleivers.

 

[Caretaker]

The study, to be published next week in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops.

Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than those conventionally-grown.

The study, funded jointly by the European Framework 6 programme and the Sheepdrove Trust, also found that nitrogen concentrations were significantly lower in organic crops.

Concentrations of total nitrogen were 10%, nitrate 30% and nitrite 87% lower in organic compared to conventional crops. The study also showed that pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in conventional crops than organic ones.

 

[The Cadet]

Before I even address the paper, @Caretaker if I cited a review funded by DuPont that found that GMO foods are overall healthier, what would your response be? What if that article ran contrary to most of the previous metareviews on the subject?

 

[Caretaker]

The study was jointly funded by the Sheepdove trust that promotes sustainability and organic farming and the EU Sixth Framework Programme that funds "Research and Technological Development".

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/fp6-in-brief_en.pdf

 

[loveofourlord]

One issue that I can see with long term meta studies is that GMO's arn't static, new breeds and improvements come out all the time, comparing GMO's from today from those 10-30 years ago will hide improvements now, by looking at them when they might have been weaker or equal to organic in the past. It be like taking a brand new mac, and comparing it to a meta analysis of how good IBM computers have been in the last 30 years, of course the MAC will look massivly better when you have in the data there computers that were running on 64KB of memory.

 

[Caretaker]

I doubt the GMO industry will "change its spots". Consider the following from the transcript of "Seeds of deception".
**************
Research in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that studies of cancer
drugs funded by non-profit groups were eight times more likely to reach unfavorable conclusions
as the studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Or consider the case of the
genetically modified artificial sweetener aspartame: About 165 peer-reviewed studies were
conducted on it by 1995. They were divided almost evenly between those that found no problem
and those that raised questions about the sweetener's safety. Of those studies that found no
problem, 100 percent were paid for by the manufacturer of the sweetener. All of the studies paid
for by non-industry and nongovernment sources raised questions. 39 The manufacturer of the
sweetener, by the way, is GD Searle, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto during
that period.

Many people agree that the biotech industry has reaped especially great advantage from the
academic sector. Sociologist Walter Powell, "believes that the close links between universities and
industry are a principal reason why U.S. firms now dominate the biotech market." 38 But, according
to University of Minnesota professor Anne Kapuscinski who studies GMOs, that same close link
may be making it difficult for scientists to raise questions about GMO safety. This was evidenced
when David Kronfeld wrote articles and letters to veterinary journals that challenged the
animal-safety studies conducted on the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH).
According to the dairy newspaper The Milkweed, "For his 'heresy,' a Monsanto employee . . . wrote
three letters to [Virginia Polytechnic Institute, the university where Kronfeld worked] during 1989
implicitly threatening that Monsanto might cease all research grants to that university if Kronfeld
didn't silence his criticisms of bGH research." 40

"Scientific experts cannot be expected to be independent and reliable advisors in safety issues
considering the increasing dependence of science on financial support from die industry," writes
Jaan Suurkula, M.D., in an editorial for PSRAST (Physicians and Scientists for Responsible
Application of Science and Technology). 41 And a columnist in New Scientist-warns, "Industry-based
scientists have influence in high places — they move in the corridors of government." 14

A Lesson from Overseas

Industry-based scientists also appear to be well entrenched in the Rowett Institute, which,
according to PSRAST, relies heavily on the profit of its commercial subsidiary, Rowett Research
Services. This entity contracts with biotech, pharmaceutical, and other companies for research
contracts, die proceeds of which help fund die Institute. Thus, the Rowett is "dependent on the
industry for its existence," 42 and scientists like Arpad Pusztai depend on the Rowett for theirs.

In fact, scientists working for an institute usually cannot publish research without the institute's
written permission prior to submittal. In order to get his work published in the Lancet, for example,
Pusztai had to team up with a colleague at Aberdeen University who did further research on
Pusztai's rat analysis. Only then could Pusztai "co-author" his study.

How many other scientists, like Arpad Pusztai, discovered unexpected problems with GM
foods, but due to funding or employment considerations, chose not to pursue it? Why was Pusztai
thrust into the spotlight?

Pusztai seems to have been propelled into the controversy due to his innocence and integrity.
He was dedicated to thorough scientific inquiry and he thought everyone else was. He was a
staunch believer in genetic engineering. When he discovered the damaging effects on his rats,
Pusztai figured these problems could be worked out. He remained hopeful about the technology
even after being suspended. As events unfolded, however, he began to realize how unscientific
the business of science had become, when money, politics, and reputation are at stake.

Pusztai says: "In the last four or five years when I started to take these
things seriously and I looked into similar cases, I became very
concerned. The problems with GM foods may be irreversible
and the true effects may only be seen well in the future. "The situation is like the tobacco
industry. They knew about it but they suppressed that information. They created misleading
evidence that showed that the problem wasn't so serious. And all the time they knew how bad it was.
Tobacco is bad enough. But genetic modification, if it isgoing to be problematic, if it is going to cause
us real health problems, then tobacco will benothing in comparison with this. The size of genetic
modification and problems it may cause us are tremendous.

"If we injure the health prospects of humanity in this and the next and the next generation,
then I think those people should be made accountable for the crimes they committed.
"Informing the public is the most important business in this very sorry affair, so one can do
something." Due to Pusztai's unexpected "popularity," he was approached by numerous scientists
who quietly described their own surprise discoveries, further condemning the safety of GM foods.
Some of these stories are described in this book. Others have to remain secret — for now.
******
Full "Seeds of Deception" transcript here: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-JME_cHRxUJWJdqmi/Seeds of Deception (GMO FOOD)_djvu.txt

"Seeds of Deception" video here:

 

[The Cadet]

The study was jointly funded by the Sheepdove trust that promotes sustainability and organic farming and the EU Sixth Framework Programme that funds "Research and Technological Development".

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/fp6-in-brief_en.pdf

If I wanted to, I could point out the obvious conflict of interest between the Sheepdove trust and a paper endorsing organic farming practices - particularly given that this paper is a clear outlier in the field. There's also some issue with Benbrook having helped to design the study, given that he's pretty well-known for his anti-GMO activism. But I won't. It's a stupid argument. A peer reviewed paper is a peer reviewed paper. Regardless of where the funding comes from, so long as it is disclosed, it stands and falls on its own merits.

...That said, this one has some problems. The methodology has come under fire for not adequately controlling which papers were involved, including a letter to the editor in the very same journal. It includes some rather poor-quality data. It seems to rather selectively report on only certain compounds, while ignoring many of the compounds you would expect as pesticide residue from organic farming. It seems to ignore potential confounding factors. And of course, there's quite a lot more. Given that this paper also directly contradicts two other metareviews from the same time period with regards to nutrition and safety, I'd take a step back and ask why that is.

 

[Caretaker]

Meta-Study On Genetically Modified Food: Virtually All Independent Scientists Are Concerned

Half of the Studies Find Cause For Concern … The Other Half Are Studies By the GMO Food Industry Itself

Full article: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...rtually-independent-scientists-concerned.html

Excerpt:
*******************************

Tufts University’s Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute (Timothy Wise) points out:

There is no … consensus on the safety of GM food. A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn’t, and as the researchers noted, “most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”

***

The only consensus that GM food is safe is among industry-funded researchers.

By way of background, genetically engineered foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure,infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief, must-watch videos here and here).

And genetically-engineered meat isn’t even tested for human safety.

And a leading risk expert says that genetically modified foods could wipe out the global ecosystem.

But government agencies like the FDA go to great lengths to cover up the potential health damage from genetically modified foods, and to keep the consumer in the dark about what they’re really eating. (Indeed, the largest German newspaper – Süddeutsche Zeitung – alleges that the U.S. government helped Monsanto ATTACK THE COMPUTERS of activists opposed to genetically modified food.)

Indeed – as Tufts’ Timothy Wise notes – huge sums of money are being poured into shutting down all honest scientific debate about the risks from GMOs:

Biotechnology companies and their powerful advocates, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are succeeding in a well-planned campaign to get GM safety declared “settled science.”

***

An indicator was a quiet announcement in the press last summer that the Gates Foundation had awarded a US$5.6 million grant to Cornell University to “depolarize” the debate over GM foods. That’s their word. The grant founded a new institute, the Cornell Alliance for Science.

“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” said project leader Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS).

Got it? The Gates Foundation is paying biotech scientists and advocates at Cornell to help them convince the ignorant and brainwashed public, who “may not be well informed,” that they are ignorant and brainwashed.

“Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields,” added Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS.

It’s kind of like depolarizing an armed conflict by giving one side more weapons.

 

[The Cadet]

...Caretaker, did you read the study in question, or just the press releases from numerous anti-GMO sources? And have you looked into any of the other metareviews on the subject?

 

[Caretaker]

"GMO Poison - Ticking Time Bomb"