The secret GMO war: double
agents, betrayal, greed?
The secret GMO
war: double agents, betrayal, greed?
by Jon
Rappoport
December 26,
2014
I’ll start at
an odd place, a seemingly innocuous place. Bear with me:
We need to
understand the distinction between two kinds of labeling.
Voluntary
labeling=“I own this health-food store, and I’m doing my best to sell you
non-GMO products. All such products will carry a seal that says ‘Non-GMO’.”
Mandatory labeling=“Vermont
has decided that all food products sold in the state which contain GMOs must be
labeled as such—‘this product contains GMOs’.”
Two very
different types of labels. They contain different information.
Also, one type
is voluntary, and the other becomes mandatory after passage of a vote, in a
legislature or through a ballot measure.
So what?
Well, let me
put it to you this way. What would happen to Whole Foods’ program of voluntary
GMO labeling if there were mandatory labeling across America, or in any state
where Whole Foods does business?
Can you guess?
I’ll break it
down. Whole Foods has pledged to put
“non-GMO” labels on their products by 2018. They’ll do
everything they can to sell as many non-GMO products as possible. The products
that don’t carry the non-GMO seal will obviously be GMO, and customers can
avoid them if they want to.
On the other
hand, if suddenly, out of the blue, mandatory labeling became law, the whole
voluntary non-GMO label enterprise would be obsolete. Why voluntarily put that
label on products when mandatory labeling handles the whole issue?
“We put non-GMO
labels on our food. Aren’t we wonderful?”
“Not really.
The mandatory labels tell me everything that’s GMO. All the other products are
non-GMO. Thanks, but no thanks.”
Does that show
you something? Does it suggest that Whole Foods doesn’t really want mandatory
labeling?
In fact, if
mandatory labeling never passes anywhere in the US, this is a boon for Whole
Foods, because they become the only big food chain that allows customers to
know they’re choosing lots and lots of non-GMO food products.
There’s more.
Think about an
outfit called the
Non-GMO Project. They do certifications of food products,
and allow their now-famous butterfly seal to be applied:
“Yes, sir, your
energy bar has passed our rigid standards of testing, and it is non-GMO.
Congratulations.”
Whole Foods is
spending millions of dollars at the Non-GMO Project to get their products
lab-tested and certified as “non-GMO.”
If there were
mandatory labeling, that would all go away, too. Poof. The Non-GMO Project
would shrink to the size of a button, and the testing labs the Project uses
would take huge hits.
For example, a
lab called Genetic ID in
Iowa would suffer enormous consequences.
We’re not done
yet.
There is a bill
in the US Congress presently wending its through Committee. It was introduced
by Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo. It’s called “The Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432).
If it passes,
mandatory labeling of GMO foods will be outlawed at both state and federal
levels. No more ballot initiatives. No more state bills.
So…in this
topsy-turvy scene where things aren’t what they seem to be, who would want to
see the Pompeo bill enacted into law? Who would look forward to a permanent ban
on mandatory GMO labeling? Who would make a great deal of money if that bill
passes—despite any public statements they might make to the contrary?
Two weeks ago,
a Congressional Committee hearing was held on the pending Pompeo bill. A man named Scott Faber testified.
Who is Scott
Faber?
He’s the
executive director of Just
Label It, the pre-eminent organization dedicated to
mandatory labeling of GMO foods. He’s also the VP
of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group.
In his
testimony, Faber said all the right things about wanting mandatory labeling of
GMO foods. Therefore, he opposes passage of the Pompeo bill, right?
However, Faber
also offered this stunning statement to the Committee. Buckle up:
“We do not
oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many
promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am
optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology
will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more
nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)
And oh yes. In
his former job, Scott Faber was, get this, the vice-president for government
affairs, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the GMA. Ring a bell? This
is the organization that donated millions to DEFEAT mandatory
GMO labeling in several Western states.
And now he is
Executive Director of Just Label It, the core group pushing FOR
mandatory GMO labeling.
How far down
the rabbit hole does all this go? Does Just Label It really want
mandatory labeling? Was it created as some kind of distraction? A distraction from the far more
serious business of trying to BAN GMOs? Was it a way to
guide millions of well-meaning people down a false trail to a dead-end, where
there is no mandatory labeling and no banning, and the expansion of GMOs and toxic herbicides
continues unabated? Where the only stop-gap against Monsanto is a voluntary
system of labeling, controlled by a relatively small number of retailers who
profit enormously from inventing a tier of elite food products bearing the
“non-GMO” seal?
Gary Hirshberg
was a founding partner of Just Label It. He is the CEO of Stonyfield
Farms, the famous yogurt company.
Of all the
leaders in the labeling movement, Hirshberg is the most overtly political.
Let’s look at his strange track record:
During the 2008
presidential campaign season, his home in New Hampshire was a mandatory stop
for candidates. Hirshberg’s first choice for the Democratic nomination was the execrable Tom Vilsack
until he dropped out of the race.
Hirshberg
hosted gatherings for John Edwards and Barack Obama, and eventually decided to
support Obama.
Obama, despite
his nods and winks, was, from the beginning, Monsanto’s man in
Washington, allowing an unprecedented parade of new GMO
crops to enter growing fields and the marketplace, and appointing staunch
biotech allies to key posts in his administration.
Vilsack, Gary
Hirshberg’s first choice for President, became the Secretary of Agriculture
under Obama. Vilsack is an avid supporter of GMO food. During his term as
governor of Iowa, Vilsack was given a Governor of the Year award by the
Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Hirshberg
serves as a co-chairman of an organization called AGree
(twitter). Its
objective is to “build consensus around solutions” to “critical issues facing
the food and agriculture system.” As researcher Nick Brannigan (twitter) has pointed out, AGree
includes, among its foundation partners: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
It would be
hard to find foundations more friendly to, and supportive of, big corporate
agriculture and GMOs.
Hirshberg is
the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money
and Save the World. He advocates
revolution-by-the-consumer as an exceedingly powerful force.
It may be
pretty to think so, but giving American consumers a clear choice about whether
to buy GMO or non-GMO food, through labeling, isn’t going to push Monsanto up
against the wall.
It isn’t going
to stop Monsanto gene drift into non-GMO crops. It isn’t going to stop the
aerial attack of toxic Roundup all over the planet.
But if
mandatory labeling of GMOs fails, and all that’s left is voluntary labeling,
Hirshberg could help launch Stonyfield Farms and other commercial ventures into
new realms of profitability, by applying that “non-GMO” seal.
Let’s widen our
inquiry. There is an organization called the Natural
Products Association. It’s the largest trade and lobbying
group in North America for natural nutritional-supplement companies. You’d
think this group would be squarely in the camp of the anti-GMO movement, if the
word “natural” means anything at all.
Well, the
executive director of the Natural Products Association is Daniel Fabricant.
Pop quiz: what
federal agency gave the original blanket approval, based on no science, for GMO
crops, allowing them to enter the US food supply in the 1990s? Which agency
has, for decades, consistently fought to whittle down the power and scope of
the natural nutritional-supplement industry?
The FDA.
What was Daniel
Fabricant’s job before he became executive director of the Natural Products
Association?
In December of
this year, the Natural Products Association held a webinar. As reported in the
Food Navigator (12/19), “5 GMO myths dispelled,”
one of its speakers was Greg Jaffe.
A lawyer, Jaffe
(bio here) has logged stints with the
EPA, FDA, DOJ, and World Bank—all groups that, in one way or another, have
vigorously supported GMOs.
Jaffe proceeded
to make a case for GMOs, “dispelling the myths” prevalent in the anti-GMO community.
So you have the
leading trade group for the natural products industry giving a heavy wink and
nod to GMO foods.
According to
the Food Navigator article, Jaffe explained that the process of using bacteria
to carry foreign genes into a food plant is really quite natural. Which is like
saying that a glass eye is natural.
Then Jaffe
presents the tired generality: “Evidence is overwhelming that there is no harm
from foods made from current GE [genetic engineered] foods.” As “evidence,” he
cites the FDA approval of biotech crops. The FDA—which has basically stated that
Monsanto, Dow, and the other mega-giants are basically responsible for assuring
the safety of GMOs.
All this cover
for GMOs is being presented in a trade magazine vis-a-vis a trade group for the
natural food products industry.
Is the war
against Monsanto and GMOs and toxic herbicides rigged to fail?
Citing betrayal
within the anti-GMO anti-Monsanto movement, an astute observer with large
knowledge of the scene recently gave me his appraisal of what amounts to a
covert op against the millions of people who want a healthier non-GMO future.
Here’s how he succinctly described the men taking us down the wrong road:
“Gary Hirshberg
is the pied piper, John Mackey [CEO of Whole Foods] is the money man, and
Daniel Fabricant is the enforcer.”
Jon Rappoport
0 comments:
Post a Comment