Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Seedy Business: What Big Food Is Hiding with Its PR Campaign on GMOs
Last edited Wed Feb 11, 2015, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Seedy Business: What Big Food Is Hiding with Its PR Campaign on GMOs
2/11/2015
Want to know how Big Ag has manipulated the media, public opinion and politics about GMOS?
U.S. Right to Know, a new nonprofit organization, lists their shady PR tactics and exposes what they don’t want us to know about our food.
The report outlines fifteen things that Big Food is hiding with its artful PR campaign on GMOs:
1: THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES HAVE A HISTORY OF CONCEALING HEALTH RISKS FROM THE PUBLIC. TIME AND AGAIN, THE COMPANIES THAT PRODUCE GMOS HAVE HIDDEN FROM CONSUMERS AND WORKERS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DANGERS OF THEIR PRODUCTS AND OPERATIONS. SO HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM TO TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR GMOS?
2: THE FDA DOES NOT TEST WHETHER GMOS ARE SAFE. IT MERELY REVIEWS INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES.
3: OUR NATION’S LAX POLICY ON GMOS IS THE WORK OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DAN QUAYLE’S ANTI-REGULATORY CRUSADE. IT WAS DESIGNED AND DELIVERED AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO MONSANTO.
4: WHAT THE AGRICHEMICAL AND TOBACCO INDUSTRIES HAVE IN COMMON: PR FIRMS, OPERATIVES, TACTICS. THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S RECENT PR CAMPAIGN IS SIMILAR IN SOME WAYS TO THE MOST INFAMOUS INDUSTRY PR CAMPAIGN EVER – THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S EFFORT TO EVADE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EACH YEAR.
5: RUSSIA’S PR FIRM RUNS THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S BIG PR SALVO ON GMOS. WE DON’T TRUST THE PR FIRM KETCHUM WHEN IT SPINS FOR RUSSIA AND PRESIDENT PUTIN. WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ITS SPIN ON GMOS?
6: THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S KEY FRONT GROUPS AND SHILLS AREN’T TRUSTWORTHY. MANY OF THE INDUSTRY’S LEADING ADVOCATES HAVE RECORDS OF DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE, OR OTHER SCANDALS AND CONDUCT THAT INSPIRES NO CONFIDENCE.
7: THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES HAVE EMPLOYED REPUGNANT PR TACTICS. THESE TACTICS INCLUDE ATTACKS ON SCIENTISTS AND JOURNALISTS, AND BRAINWASHING CHILDREN.
8: THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES HAVE A POTENT, SLEAZY POLITICAL MACHINE. THEY HAVE ALLIES IN HIGH PLACES, AND EMPLOY THEIR POWER VIGOROUSLY – AND SOMETIMES CORRUPTLY — TO PROTECT AND EXPAND THEIR MARKETS AND THEIR PROFITS FROM GMOS.
9: HALF OF THE BIG SIX AGRICHEMICAL FIRMS CAN’T EVEN GROW THEIR GMOS IN THEIR OWN HOME COUNTRIES. BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF GMOS, CITIZENS OF GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND WON’T ALLOW FARMING OF BASF, BAYER AND SYNGENTA’S GMO SEEDS.
10: MONSANTO SUPPORTED GMO LABELING IN THE U.K. BUT OPPOSES IT IN THE USA. ALTHOUGH MONSANTO IS BASED IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MONSANTO BELIEVES THAT BRITISH CITIZENS DESERVE STRONGER CONSUMER RIGHTS THAN AMERICANS DO.
11: THE PESTICIDE TREADMILL BREEDS PROFITS, SO IT WILL LIKELY INTENSIFY. IT IS IN THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES TO PROMOTE THE EVOLUTION AND SPREAD OF THE MOST PESTILENTIAL SUPERWEEDS AND SUPERPESTS, BECAUSE THESE WILL SPUR THE SALE OF THE GREATEST QUANTITIES OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PESTICIDES.
12: GMO SCIENCE IS FOR SALE. SCIENCE CAN BE SWAYED, BOUGHT OR BIASED BY THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN MANY WAYS, SUCH AS SUPPRESSING ADVERSE FINDINGS, HARMING THE CAREERS OF SCIENTISTS WHO PRODUCE SUCH FINDINGS, CONTROLLING THE FUNDING THAT SHAPES WHAT RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED, THE LACK OF INDEPENDENT U.S.-BASED TESTING OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF GMOS, AND TAINTING SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS OF GMOS BY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
13: THERE ARE NEARLY NO CONSUMER BENEFITS OF GMOS. THE GMOS THAT AMERICANS EAT ARE NOT HEALTHIER, SAFER OR MORE NUTRITIOUS THAN CONVENTIONAL FOODS. THEY DO NOT LOOK BETTER, NOR DO THEY TASTE BETTER. BY ANY MEASURE THAT CONSUMERS ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT, THEY ARE NOT IN ANY WAY AN IMPROVEMENT. PROFITS FROM GMOS ACCRUE TO THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES, WHILE HEALTH RISKS ARE BORNE BY CONSUMERS.
14: THE FDA AND FOOD COMPANIES HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE: THEY HAVE ASSURED US OF THE SAFETY OF PRODUCTS THAT WERE NOT SAFE. MANY DRUGS AND FOOD ADDITIVES THAT THE FDA ALLOWED ON THE MARKET HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN BANNED BECAUSE THEY WERE TOXIC OR DANGEROUS.
15: A FEW OTHER THINGS THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THEM: CRIMES, SCANDALS AND OTHER WRONGDOING. THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S SIX MAJOR FIRMS — MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, DOW, DUPONT, BAYER AND BASF — HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SO MANY REPREHENSIBLE ACTIVITIES THAT DOCUMENTING THEM WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST AN ENTIRE BOOK.
U.S. Right to Know is a new nonprofit food organization. We expose what food companies don’t want us to know about our food. We stand up for the right to know what’s in our food. We bring accountability to Big Food and its compliant politicians. For more information, please see our website.
Originally published by U.S. Right to Know.
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/11/seedy-business-big-food-hiding-pr-campaign-gmos/
2/11/2015
Want to know how Big Ag has manipulated the media, public opinion and politics about GMOS?
U.S. Right to Know, a new nonprofit organization, lists their shady PR tactics and exposes what they don’t want us to know about our food.
The report outlines fifteen things that Big Food is hiding with its artful PR campaign on GMOs:
1: THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES HAVE A HISTORY OF CONCEALING HEALTH RISKS FROM THE PUBLIC. TIME AND AGAIN, THE COMPANIES THAT PRODUCE GMOS HAVE HIDDEN FROM CONSUMERS AND WORKERS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DANGERS OF THEIR PRODUCTS AND OPERATIONS. SO HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM TO TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR GMOS?
2: THE FDA DOES NOT TEST WHETHER GMOS ARE SAFE. IT MERELY REVIEWS INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES.
3: OUR NATION’S LAX POLICY ON GMOS IS THE WORK OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DAN QUAYLE’S ANTI-REGULATORY CRUSADE. IT WAS DESIGNED AND DELIVERED AS A POLITICAL FAVOR TO MONSANTO.
4: WHAT THE AGRICHEMICAL AND TOBACCO INDUSTRIES HAVE IN COMMON: PR FIRMS, OPERATIVES, TACTICS. THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S RECENT PR CAMPAIGN IS SIMILAR IN SOME WAYS TO THE MOST INFAMOUS INDUSTRY PR CAMPAIGN EVER – THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S EFFORT TO EVADE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EACH YEAR.
5: RUSSIA’S PR FIRM RUNS THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S BIG PR SALVO ON GMOS. WE DON’T TRUST THE PR FIRM KETCHUM WHEN IT SPINS FOR RUSSIA AND PRESIDENT PUTIN. WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ITS SPIN ON GMOS?
6: THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S KEY FRONT GROUPS AND SHILLS AREN’T TRUSTWORTHY. MANY OF THE INDUSTRY’S LEADING ADVOCATES HAVE RECORDS OF DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE, OR OTHER SCANDALS AND CONDUCT THAT INSPIRES NO CONFIDENCE.
7: THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES HAVE EMPLOYED REPUGNANT PR TACTICS. THESE TACTICS INCLUDE ATTACKS ON SCIENTISTS AND JOURNALISTS, AND BRAINWASHING CHILDREN.
8: THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES HAVE A POTENT, SLEAZY POLITICAL MACHINE. THEY HAVE ALLIES IN HIGH PLACES, AND EMPLOY THEIR POWER VIGOROUSLY – AND SOMETIMES CORRUPTLY — TO PROTECT AND EXPAND THEIR MARKETS AND THEIR PROFITS FROM GMOS.
9: HALF OF THE BIG SIX AGRICHEMICAL FIRMS CAN’T EVEN GROW THEIR GMOS IN THEIR OWN HOME COUNTRIES. BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF GMOS, CITIZENS OF GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND WON’T ALLOW FARMING OF BASF, BAYER AND SYNGENTA’S GMO SEEDS.
10: MONSANTO SUPPORTED GMO LABELING IN THE U.K. BUT OPPOSES IT IN THE USA. ALTHOUGH MONSANTO IS BASED IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MONSANTO BELIEVES THAT BRITISH CITIZENS DESERVE STRONGER CONSUMER RIGHTS THAN AMERICANS DO.
11: THE PESTICIDE TREADMILL BREEDS PROFITS, SO IT WILL LIKELY INTENSIFY. IT IS IN THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES TO PROMOTE THE EVOLUTION AND SPREAD OF THE MOST PESTILENTIAL SUPERWEEDS AND SUPERPESTS, BECAUSE THESE WILL SPUR THE SALE OF THE GREATEST QUANTITIES OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PESTICIDES.
12: GMO SCIENCE IS FOR SALE. SCIENCE CAN BE SWAYED, BOUGHT OR BIASED BY THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN MANY WAYS, SUCH AS SUPPRESSING ADVERSE FINDINGS, HARMING THE CAREERS OF SCIENTISTS WHO PRODUCE SUCH FINDINGS, CONTROLLING THE FUNDING THAT SHAPES WHAT RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED, THE LACK OF INDEPENDENT U.S.-BASED TESTING OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF GMOS, AND TAINTING SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS OF GMOS BY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
13: THERE ARE NEARLY NO CONSUMER BENEFITS OF GMOS. THE GMOS THAT AMERICANS EAT ARE NOT HEALTHIER, SAFER OR MORE NUTRITIOUS THAN CONVENTIONAL FOODS. THEY DO NOT LOOK BETTER, NOR DO THEY TASTE BETTER. BY ANY MEASURE THAT CONSUMERS ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT, THEY ARE NOT IN ANY WAY AN IMPROVEMENT. PROFITS FROM GMOS ACCRUE TO THE AGRICHEMICAL COMPANIES, WHILE HEALTH RISKS ARE BORNE BY CONSUMERS.
14: THE FDA AND FOOD COMPANIES HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE: THEY HAVE ASSURED US OF THE SAFETY OF PRODUCTS THAT WERE NOT SAFE. MANY DRUGS AND FOOD ADDITIVES THAT THE FDA ALLOWED ON THE MARKET HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN BANNED BECAUSE THEY WERE TOXIC OR DANGEROUS.
15: A FEW OTHER THINGS THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THEM: CRIMES, SCANDALS AND OTHER WRONGDOING. THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S SIX MAJOR FIRMS — MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, DOW, DUPONT, BAYER AND BASF — HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SO MANY REPREHENSIBLE ACTIVITIES THAT DOCUMENTING THEM WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST AN ENTIRE BOOK.
U.S. Right to Know is a new nonprofit food organization. We expose what food companies don’t want us to know about our food. We stand up for the right to know what’s in our food. We bring accountability to Big Food and its compliant politicians. For more information, please see our website.
Originally published by U.S. Right to Know.
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/11/seedy-business-big-food-hiding-pr-campaign-gmos/
This is a great example of Big Ag's spin against anti-GMO people~
http://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see-this-video/
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
--imm
Analogy: Nobody would call the Tea Party omnipotent. But then, who would deny that they can surely fuck things up? Omnipotence? No. Leverage? You bet. Do you think Monsanto -- would -- lie -- to us?! 
For mere profit??
Look at what the GMO consortium, through their puppets in the Royal Society, did to Dr. Pusztai and his Lancet study. It was a very solidly designed, long term study. They sent in "skeptics," to question the margin for error, and the amount of protein in the potatoes, ignoring the control groups. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html
What's next? How about "attack the messenger?"
--imm
Look at what the GMO consortium, through their puppets in the Royal Society, did to Dr. Pusztai and his Lancet study. It was a very solidly designed, long term study. They sent in "skeptics," to question
That's called science.
General relativity was reviled. Torn apart. Huge disagreements. It couldn't possibly be that. Until enough people showed it worked.
Science works by trying to destroy other people's work. That which survives the effort is true. Monsanto can fund all the doubters they would like to, but "Nuh uh!!!!!" is just storm and fury. Others analyzing and replicating the work still wins in the end.
In other words, all the scientists we revere today were called idiots.
So what happened to poor Dr. Pusztai?
In the years since this controversy, Dr. Pusztai has given more than 200 lectures around the world on GMOs. He has been commissioned by the German government, academic publications, and others to do comprehensive analyses of GMO safety studies. In 2005, he received the Whistleblower Award from the Federation of German Scientists (VDW). And in 2009, he and his wife, Dr. Susan Bardocz—also an expert on GMO safety and formerly of the Rowett Institute—were presented with the Stuttgart Peace Prize for their tireless advocacy for independent risk research, as well as their courage, scientific integrity, and their undaunted insistence on the public's right to know the truth.
Boy, big GMO really destroyed him!
But hey, they've got a nice link to the author's book at the end of the hyperbolic article.
What would be science, is to anticipate the possible deleterious effects of gratuitously splicing genes across species, and doing long term, independent, double blind test trials before those organisms are released on the public. 
That's science.
--imm
