From the New York Times to Reuters and the Washington Post, all of the major publications agree: the general public is in full support of GMO labeling initiatives. Quite simply, they want to know what they’re giving to both themselves and their family. Time and time again, we see poll results demonstrating that more than 90% of the US population is in favor of GMO labeling. Yet time and time again, we see GMO labeling initiatives shot down across the country.
Are all of the major polling organizations in the country simply using incorrect statistical algorithms? Obviously, the answer instead lies in the dirty tricks (and even the mainstream media is now calling them out as such) used by mega biotech companies like Monsanto. In tandem with corporate food producers, these tricks are used to shove disinformation into the minds of voters who otherwise would fully support the concept of GMO labeling.
Specifically, we’re talking about pro-GMO lobby groups faking quotes from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that ‘support GMOs’ in the face of labeling initiatives, and even groups falsely claiming that Stanford is on the side of Monsanto amid the labeling debate (when they aren’t and haven’t even commented on the issue).
But before we get into these dirty geurilla tactics and their use in the informational war over GMOs, let’s really look at the truly overwhelming support for GMO labeling in this country based upon the estimates of major polling groups.
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
So with these stats being reported virtually unanimously, what could Monsanto possibly be doing to sway voters outside of blatantly manipulating the actual polling results? As it turns out, and as we wrote about back in 2012, Monsanto has actually been caught not only misusing an FDA logo — but blatantly fabricating an FDA quote in order to suppress California’s notorious Prop 37 GMO labeling bill. From the report back in November of 2012:
“Misuse of a United States government seal can lead to a $250,000 fine, twenty years in prison, and three years of supervised release — unless you’re a campaign organization funded by major corporations like Monsanto. In a move completely ignored by the mainstream media (many of which have financial ties to such corporations), the anti-GMO labeling No on 37 Committee paid for and disseminated a physical piece of direct mail that not only entirely misused the FDA logo but even sported a fabricated quote.
A quote that even the FDA has stated on record that was never stated. That is because it would actually be illegal to do so. You see federal agencies cannot take a stance on Proposition 37, which means that the Monsanto-funded No on 37 campaign literally created the quote and FDA support out of thin air. In other words, the organization leaders blatantly violated 8 U.S.C. §§ 506 and 1017 by misusing the FDA seal and writing a quote out of thin air to support their political campaign to keep Monsanto rolling in the billions.”
And that’s only a portion of what was needed to crush California’s highly anticipated GMO labeling bill. As Huffington Post points out, much more was also discovered:
“They used the Stanford logo in TV ads and mailers, when the University also did not take a stand on the issue. And they said that Henry I. Miller, their hired gun, is a professor at Stanford when in reality, he works for the Hoover Institution — which rents office space on the campus.
They paid a PR firm with expertise in fighting recycling legislation (on behalf of the soda pop industry) to generate a misleading “study” that was designed to show the proposition raising food prices by hundreds of dollars per state resident per year.
They said there have never been any documented ill-effects from GMO consumption. But many allege that 37 direct human deaths and 1,500 disabilities linked to a toxic batch of the supplement Tryptophan were caused by a genetically engineered strain of bacteria used in production. And there are numerous reports oflivestock that have died as a result of grazing on GMO cotton.”
Outside of deeply manipulating vote counts, pro-GMO groups backed by Monsanto are already playing dirty and spreading what amounts to complete misinformation into the public spotlight. And they’re doing it with millions in funding. Checkout the details of who exactly is pumping cash into efforts to defeat your ability to know what you’re eating:
Monsanto – $7,100,500
DuPont – $4,900,000
Pepsi – $2,145,400
Bayer – $2,000,000
Dow – $2,000,000
BASF – $2,000,000
Syngenta – $2,000,000
Kraft Foods – $1,950,000
Coca-Cola – $1,455,500
Nestle – $1,315,600
General Mills – $1,135,000
ConAgra – $1,077,000
Kellogg’s – $790,000
Smithfield – $684,000
And here’s a list of companies that have supported Prop 37:
Mercola.com – $1,115,000
Nature’s Path – $610,000
Dr. Bronner’s – $369,000
Lundberg – $251,000
Udis/EarthBalance/Glutino – $102,000
Clif Bar- $100,000
Organic Valley – $100,000
Amy’s – $100,000
Annie’s – $50,000
Nutiva – $50,000
Frey Vineyards – $35,000
By Anthony Gucciardi
Source:
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-gmo-labeling-96-approval/
Are all of the major polling organizations in the country simply using incorrect statistical algorithms? Obviously, the answer instead lies in the dirty tricks (and even the mainstream media is now calling them out as such) used by mega biotech companies like Monsanto. In tandem with corporate food producers, these tricks are used to shove disinformation into the minds of voters who otherwise would fully support the concept of GMO labeling.
Specifically, we’re talking about pro-GMO lobby groups faking quotes from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that ‘support GMOs’ in the face of labeling initiatives, and even groups falsely claiming that Stanford is on the side of Monsanto amid the labeling debate (when they aren’t and haven’t even commented on the issue).
But before we get into these dirty geurilla tactics and their use in the informational war over GMOs, let’s really look at the truly overwhelming support for GMO labeling in this country based upon the estimates of major polling groups.
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
So with these stats being reported virtually unanimously, what could Monsanto possibly be doing to sway voters outside of blatantly manipulating the actual polling results? As it turns out, and as we wrote about back in 2012, Monsanto has actually been caught not only misusing an FDA logo — but blatantly fabricating an FDA quote in order to suppress California’s notorious Prop 37 GMO labeling bill. From the report back in November of 2012:
“Misuse of a United States government seal can lead to a $250,000 fine, twenty years in prison, and three years of supervised release — unless you’re a campaign organization funded by major corporations like Monsanto. In a move completely ignored by the mainstream media (many of which have financial ties to such corporations), the anti-GMO labeling No on 37 Committee paid for and disseminated a physical piece of direct mail that not only entirely misused the FDA logo but even sported a fabricated quote.
A quote that even the FDA has stated on record that was never stated. That is because it would actually be illegal to do so. You see federal agencies cannot take a stance on Proposition 37, which means that the Monsanto-funded No on 37 campaign literally created the quote and FDA support out of thin air. In other words, the organization leaders blatantly violated 8 U.S.C. §§ 506 and 1017 by misusing the FDA seal and writing a quote out of thin air to support their political campaign to keep Monsanto rolling in the billions.”
And that’s only a portion of what was needed to crush California’s highly anticipated GMO labeling bill. As Huffington Post points out, much more was also discovered:
“They used the Stanford logo in TV ads and mailers, when the University also did not take a stand on the issue. And they said that Henry I. Miller, their hired gun, is a professor at Stanford when in reality, he works for the Hoover Institution — which rents office space on the campus.
They paid a PR firm with expertise in fighting recycling legislation (on behalf of the soda pop industry) to generate a misleading “study” that was designed to show the proposition raising food prices by hundreds of dollars per state resident per year.
They said there have never been any documented ill-effects from GMO consumption. But many allege that 37 direct human deaths and 1,500 disabilities linked to a toxic batch of the supplement Tryptophan were caused by a genetically engineered strain of bacteria used in production. And there are numerous reports oflivestock that have died as a result of grazing on GMO cotton.”
Outside of deeply manipulating vote counts, pro-GMO groups backed by Monsanto are already playing dirty and spreading what amounts to complete misinformation into the public spotlight. And they’re doing it with millions in funding. Checkout the details of who exactly is pumping cash into efforts to defeat your ability to know what you’re eating:
Monsanto – $7,100,500
DuPont – $4,900,000
Pepsi – $2,145,400
Bayer – $2,000,000
Dow – $2,000,000
BASF – $2,000,000
Syngenta – $2,000,000
Kraft Foods – $1,950,000
Coca-Cola – $1,455,500
Nestle – $1,315,600
General Mills – $1,135,000
ConAgra – $1,077,000
Kellogg’s – $790,000
Smithfield – $684,000
And here’s a list of companies that have supported Prop 37:
Mercola.com – $1,115,000
Nature’s Path – $610,000
Dr. Bronner’s – $369,000
Lundberg – $251,000
Udis/EarthBalance/Glutino – $102,000
Clif Bar- $100,000
Organic Valley – $100,000
Amy’s – $100,000
Annie’s – $50,000
Nutiva – $50,000
Frey Vineyards – $35,000
By Anthony Gucciardi
Source:
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-gmo-labeling-96-approval/
Post a Comment