H/t reader squodgy:
“Dead and Buried….ALL of us….this is our last chance.
All three articles …
– Defying Voters’ Wishes, House Passes the DARK Act
– Here’s The Politicians Who Were Paid to Make GMO Labeling Illegal
– National Geographic is the propaganda arm of Monsanto, the world’s most evil corporation
… in full down below.
– Defying Voters’ Wishes, House Passes the DARK Act (ANH USA on
This dangerous, biotech-industry-friendly GMO labeling legislation is on its way to the Senate, but the fight is far from over. Action Alert!
As we reported last week, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced a bill that has been championed by the Monsantos of the world, not to mention the Big Food industry. The deceptively titled “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” would preempt state efforts to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws with a completely voluntary standard. It would also block communities and states from banning the cultivation of GMO crops.
A voluntary standard? What company that uses GMO ingredients would voluntarily disclose that fact? You may remember the devastating quote from an employee of a Monsanto subsidiary back in ’94: “If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” In other words, if it’s voluntary, consumers will never see a label containing the information they have overwhelmingly said they want. That’s why pro-labeling advocates have called the bill the “DARK” (“Deny Americans the Right to Know”) Act.
Late last week, by a vote of 275 to 150, the DARK Act passed the House, and is now on it’s way to the Senate. While it still is unclear if the Senate will consider the DARK Act or take up a similar bill that is reportedly being written by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), any step forward for this bill is dangerous for the 93% of Americans who want to know what’s in their food.
We will continue to track the DARK Act through the Senate, but if the bill continues to move, it will likely go to the House floor again. We need to dissuade those who supported this measure from doing so again.
Action Alert! “Thank—or spank” your representative, depending on how he or she voted! Say thanks if your representative voted against the DARK Act—or “spank” your representative, voicing your disappointment, if your congressperson voted in favor of it, and urge him or her to reconsider that support when the bill comes back to the House floor. Simply click the “Take Action” button, then fill in your zip code to find out which way your representative voted. Please send your message immediately.
* * *
– Here’s The Politicians Who Were Paid to Make GMO Labeling Illegal (Natural Society, July 27, 2015):
Want to know where the dirty money is which is helping to make GMO labeling illegal?
Shockingly, or perhaps not to the individuals who have been observing the biotech charade, house members who voted to keep the public from knowing what is in their food in the latest land-slide win for Big Food supporters of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (known to its critics as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act)) were paid three times as much as representatives who voted to give us the right to label or ban GMO foods.
It seems odd that the bill would float through Congress so easily with a 275 to 150 vote when so many Americans have expressed a wish to have their food labeled. The Center for Food safety says that 93% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains GM ingredients. And that is just one of many surveys showing similar results:
Surveys repeatedly show that 80 percent to 95 percent of people want foods that contain genetically modified organisms to be labeled (in the least). Here is a simple breakdown of some reported polls on consumer demand for GMO labeling:
- The New York Times: 93% found to be in support of labeling GMOs
- MSNBC: 96% in support
- Reuters/NPR: 93% in support of full labeling
- Washington Post: 95% in support of full labeling
- Consumer Reports: 95% agree GM animals should be labeled
- ABC News: 93% want federal GM labeling mandate
Really – we label everything from pillows with warning labels – ‘this tag not to be removed’ to our pants. Why not GM foods? What is it that Big Ag is trying to hide from us?
Usually, if everyone wants to purchase something, the free market dictates that companies jump on the bandwagon and try to sell that something – but not with genetically modified food. Our rights have been trampled on, and you have the right to know who has bought in this recent landslide vote in favor of the biotech industry and business as usual that protects profits instead of people.
According to opensecrets.org, this is where the money trail leads:
…the campaigns of Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), all cosponsors of the legislation (most of whom also sit on the House Agriculture Committee), received six-figure dollar amounts from providers of agricultural services and products — one segment of the agribusiness sector — during the 2014 election cycle. That put them high among the top 20 recipients of funds from the industry.
- Cosponsors such as Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) aren’t on the Agriculture Committee, but nevertheless pulled in six-figure dollar amounts from the crop production and basic processing industry (another part of agribusiness; think Cargill Inc. and the National Corn Growers Association) during the midterm cycle — landing them among the 20 members who received the most from that industry.
Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), two original sponsors of the legislation, were the top two current House members receiving the most money from the Grocery Manufacturers Association in 2014. The grocery manufacturers — who have spent $4.1 million lobbying on all issues so far this year, almost as much as they spent in all of 2014 — have lobbied on the bill more than any other organization, mentioning the measure on 14 lobbying reports this year.
Do you see your representative in this list? If you do, they certainly weren’t representing you.
* * *
– National Geographic is the propaganda arm of Monsanto, the world’s most evil corporation (Natural News, April 24, 2015):
Never in a million years would people think Bill Nye “the Science Guy” — who once questioned genetically modified foods and urged against them — would declare his love for altering genes. Yet after a meeting with the agricultural biotech giant, he announced that he was going to update the chapter about GMOs in his book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation.
“I went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there and I have revised my outlook and I’m very excited about telling the world,” says Nye.
Then there was the discovery of a Monsanto ad in O, Oprah’s magazine. Shockingly, nestled among the pages about how to live your best life and surround yourself with happiness, sat an ad for Monsanto depicting a smiling family serving a salad in the kitchen.
Is National Geographic jumping on the Monsanto propaganda bandwagon?
Given this disturbing trend in which those who once stood against unhealthy foods and practices now demonstrate that they’re on board with such evils, is it any surprise that the folks at National Geographic could be following suit?
Consider a recent interview in which National Geographic writer Simon Worrall interviewed Steven Druker, author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. While Druker brings GM food deception to light in his book, every one of Worrall’s questions seem to attempt to steer him towards talking about how gene altering really isn’t so bad. This begs the question: is there more to it? Could it be that National Geographic magazine, which is often filled with glorious images that showcase Earth’s splendor, has ties to Monsanto?
“James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, has called the dangers imputed to GMOs an ‘imaginary monster.’ He’s right, isn’t he?” asks Worrall of Druker.
Linking someone with such an impressive title — in this case, the co-discoverer of DNA — to a GMO-supporting statement is a transparent move designed to make people think, “gee, if such an important individual said that, well, then it must carry substantial weight.” Worrall’s question that “He’s right, isn’t he?” is perhaps the worrisome part of his inquiry. Why would an interviewer ask such a loaded question? Journalistic and author objectivity went by the wayside in that question; at the very least, it reflects poorly on the magazine.
Interview questions are loaded; attempt to position GMOs in favorable light
Linking well-known people with the notion that GM foods are just fine happens again when Worrall asks, “The father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, altered the genetic makeup of peas by crossbreeding. In what way is genetic engineering different from that?” It’s as if to say that the man we all read about in school, the father of modern genetics, was dabbling in GMOs and that what’s being done today is merely an extension of such greatness.
Not so, Druker explains. “What Mendel was doing was traditional crossbreeding, not altering genes. Nature is set up to encourage genetic diversity and change combinations of genes,” he tells Worrall. “But what the genetic engineers are doing is radically restructuring the makeup of genes and
DNA. This is something unprecedented.”
Every single question from Worrall ends with another one that that attempts to rhetorically answer it. It’s as if Worrall is trying to nudge the conversation towards a pro-GMO standpoint. However, Druker consistently defends his stance by saying how “…these foreign genes are now contained in most of the plants on the market” and that in the United States, “…the media has not reported the controversy fairly. They’ve almost always presented the pro-GMO side. As a result, the American public has been systematically deceived.”
Still, Worrall persists. “You repeatedly say how dangerous GMOs are. The only known outbreak of a mass infection occurred in Japan in the late 80s in connection with the health supplement, L-tryptophan,” he begins in yet another question. Later in the interview, he alludes to much of what’s happening as extreme cases or ones that are beneficial because they have boosted farm income in South Africa.
Thankfully, Druker stood his ground and continually responded in ways that supported the views presented in his book. Nevertheless, Worrall’s questions were concerning. Given his relentless attempts to diminish GM foods’ detrimental impact, would it really be surprising to eventually learn that there are ties between National Geographic and Monsanto?
You can learn more about National Geographic and how it came to be a propaganda mouthpiece for Monsanto by reading the TruthWiki.org entry here.
Sources for this article include: