Foods, Health and Disease, Uncategorized

China refuses GMO grain imports from the United States

Health and Wellness Associates

EHS – Telehealth

 

China refuses GMO grain imports from the United States

 GMOcorn

 China has decided to suspend the issuance of permits for the importation of animal feed produced in America that is made with corn. China is not known for having exceptionally high standards, which is what makes this so disturbing.

 

Three trading executives discussed the turn of events with Bloomberg Business Week not too long ago. Dried distillers’ grains, also known as DDGS by industry professionals, can no longer be exported from America to China. The reason for this puzzling decision is because the Chinese government fears that MIR 162 corn, a GM strain that the Chinese have not approved, carries a high risk of contamination.

 

China was once the largest buyer of this American corn byproduct, which is produced in the process of making ethanol. More than 40 percent of the corn grown in the United Sates is used to make ethanol, and China bought 34 percent of the United States’ DDGS exports.

 

Of course, this turn of events is not really all that surprising. China rejected several shipments of corn that proved to be contaminated by MIR 162. In one instance, the government rejected 1.1 million metric tons of Syngenta corn that was tainted. The  Chinese government also turned away 758 tons of corn. It is therefore understandable that the Chinese government simply decided to suspend importation of corn-based animal feeds.

 

So China probably thinks we’re purposefully trying to contaminate their food supply with GMOs. Could you blame them? Our government has contaminated our own food supply with them!

 

On the bright side, AG Web reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Syngenta, MIR 162’s creator and manufacturer, on behalf of American farmers. The corn was genetically engineered to be more resistant to insects, and was approved by the U.S. in 2010. The corn, also known as Agrisure Viptera, was marketed and promoted before it had received import approval from China. The ensuing turmoil over China’s rejection of the product  has left farmers shortchanged.

 

James Pizzirusso, a partner with the Hausfeld law firm in Washington, D.C., has said, “Syngenta must be held accountable for its blatant misrepresentations to U.S. corn farmers. By promoting and marketing a genetically-modified corn seed before the seed had received import approval from China, Syngenta placed its own profit margins over corn farmers’ livelihoods.” Pizzirusso also notes that China’s rejection of the MIR 162 corn has been a nightmare for affected farmers, causing losses equating to more than 1 billion dollars.

 

Syngenta has also been sued by both Cargill and Trans Coastal Supply Co. for their losses due to China’s rejection of products contaminated with MIR 162. Cargill has sued for a cool $90 million, while Trans Coastal Supply Co. blames Syngenta for $41 million in losses. Naturally, Syngenta believes that it is not at fault at all. In fact, they all but pat themselves on the back for providing farmers access to their “new technologies.”

“Dr P. Carrothers of Health and Wellness Associates says, ” The bottom line is, if corn is not good enough for animals in Europe and China, it definately is not good enough for humans in the United States.  But they are still able to sell it!”

 

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

healthwellnessassociates@gmail.com

WordPress:  https://healthandwellnessassociates.co/

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/

Twitter: 

Health and Wellness Associates       @Healtha98410402

 

 

Advertisements
Health and Disease, Uncategorized

Morgellons Disease and GMO in Skincare Products

morgellons

 

Morgellons Disease and GMO in skin care products

 

Morgellons is a disease in which unusual thread-like fibers appear under the skin. The person feels like something is crawling, biting or stinging all over.

Dr. Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, states the link between morgellons disease and GMO foods is connected. Professor Cummins noted that Morgellons sufferers tested for Agrobacterium tumefaciens (AT) infestation. According to biochemist Vitaly Citosky, who carried out research on agrobacterium, “Agrobacterium is capable of genetically transforming not only plants, but also other eukaryotic species, including human cells, and is used in the production of some genetically modified organisms.”

There is more and more evidence that this disease may not be “delusional” and could be related to genetically modified foods.

 

GMO in skincare products: how to avoid them?

Unless skincare products are certified non-GMO or come from a company that is working on the certification process, there is a good chance that they contain GMOs. For example, canola has been modified to produce high levels of lauric acid, a key ingredient in soaps and detergents (this allows for reduced cost). Plant-derived ingredients were among the very first cosmetics, and large percentages of many agricultural commodities have been genetically modified. Indeed, genetically modified organisms have been developed to assist in the production of cosmetic ingredients. Other examples include soybean oil, corn oil, corn flour, proteins from yeast and lecithin.

 

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived: P Carrothers

312-972-WELL

Foods, Health and Disease, Uncategorized

100 Percent Natural Cereal, Stuffed with Nasty Carcinogens.

cereal

 

100 Percent Natural’ Cereal, Stuffed With Nasty Carcinogens?

 

Voluntary ‘Smart Label’ Preempts State and Consumer Rights

 

According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), 80 percent of the foods on your grocery store’s shelves contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).1  These foods are also most likely to be contaminated with toxic pesticide residues.

 

Just last month, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) sued Post Holdings, Inc., for falsely marketing Shredded Wheat cereal as “100 percent natural” and “made with nothing but goodness,” after independent testing found it contained glyphosate2 — hardly what health-conscious consumers would expect.

 

Alas, while Americans are getting savvier when it comes to making healthier food choices, and recent polling shows that 9 out of 10 Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered (GE),3 big business has successfully usurped power, and politicians have by and large abandoned their constituents.

 

State and Consumer Rights under Attack Yet Again

 

Senate negotiators have now made a deal4 to create a national labeling standard for GMOs using voluntary “Smart Labels” (so-called QR codes5) rather than clear labeling — a deal that goes against the 88 percent of Americans who have said NO to being forced to use a smartphone app to find this important information.

 

The new bill, S. 2609, would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 with a national bioengineered food disclosure standard.6,7 As noted in a June 23 newsletter by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA):

 

“It’s hard to know which is worse. The corporations that profit from poisoning your food and water. Or the politicians who will happily sell you down the river for a few campaign contributions.

 

Today, our ‘leaders’ in the U.S. Senate proudly announced that they’ve ‘reached a deal’ on a federal GMO labeling bill.

 

No matter how they spin it — and they will spin it — this ‘compromise’ is nothing more than a handout to Monsanto, an industry-brokered deal intended to legally sanction the right of corporations to deceive you, the consumer.”

 

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has called the bill a “blow to  the food movement and America’s right to know,” adding it is “in many ways worse than prior iterations of the DARK Act that were defeated — it is a blank check for biotech.”8

 

Roberts-Stabenow Deal Tramples Your Rights to Save Biotech Industry

 

Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow have spent months secretly negotiating this deal which will nullify Vermont’s GMO labeling requirement (which officially went into effect July 1) after the fact.

 

The legislation would also bar any other state from enacting GMO labeling requirements that differ from the national standard, and delays the disclosure requirement another two years — three years for smaller food companies. As reported by AgriPulse:9

 

“Under the legislation, most food companies would have the option of disclosing GMO ingredients through either a digital smartphone code, the industry’s preference, or through an on-package symbol or language that the Agriculture Department would approve.

 

The code would be accompanied by: ‘Scan here for more food information.’ Small companies would have the option of putting a phone number or website URL on labels instead of the digital code…

 

Roberts said the disclosure system would protect biotech products from being denigrated by opponents. ‘We saved agricultural biotechnology,’ said Roberts.”

 

Legislation Redefines Bioengineering to Exempt Most GMOs

 

What’s worse, the new legislation changes the very definition of bioengineering. The newest biotech methods, such as gene editing technology, would be exempt from the disclosure standards.

 

Indeed, the definition of “bioengineered” is so narrow it actually ends up excluding many, if not most, GE products currently on the market. Folks, this is about as crazy as it gets, and it’s a double insult to every American who has fought so hard for GMO transparency and honesty.

 

In an email, Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist for Consumers Union, notes: 10

 

“Since the mutant EPSPS gene (conferring glyphosate resistance) is found in nature in Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, and most of the Cry proteins … are found in Bacillus thuringiensis, a narrow reading of this definition would not include the Roundup Ready crops nor the vast bulk of Bt crops.

 

It would only include those crops that have hybrid Cry proteins (which don’t occur in nature).

 

The bill realizes that this definition of ‘bioengineering’ is significantly different than the definition that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses … since there is a section that says the definition only applies to this bill…

 

Another loophole is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will get to suggest the level of GE content that will trigger labeling, e.g. set a tolerance or threshold…

 

Indeed, the bill seems to realize that the various exemptions are extensive, since another part of the bill says that just because a food is not required to be labeled as ‘bioengineered’ it cannot be labeled as ‘non-GMO’ … So, this means that the non-GMO project labels will still exist.'”

 

Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has criticized the bill. In its technical comments, the FDA notes that the way GMOs are redefined, it may be difficult for any GMO to qualify for labeling!

 

Moreover, the bill gives the USDA sole authority over GMO claims on food, which would normally fall under the FDA’s jurisdiction. Unfortunately, it appears this bill is more or less a done deal already, in large part due to the Organic Trade Association11 (OTA) selling out.

 

OTA, a Mere Pawn of the GMA?

 

Sadly, it appears the OTA is little more than a pawn of the GMA, as big junk food have gobbled up smaller organic companies. The OTA is using the same inaccurate talking points as Big Food when talking about how good this bill is, when in reality the OTA has sold out and abandoned the organic food movement.

 

According to the OTA, 12 the Roberts-Stabenow bill “covers thousands more products than Vermont’s GMO labeling law and other state initiatives.” This simply isn’t true. The reality is that this bill would label FEWER products, as it doesn’t cover all the GMOs covered by Vermont’s law and other labeling initiatives.

 

As just discussed, most GMOs on the market — as much as 99 percent — could potentially be exempt from labeling under this bill! Moreover, since there’s no enforcement, the labeling requirements are hardly more than a voluntary suggestion.

 

How did the OTA become so misguided? In short, large multinational food companies have bought up many popular organic brands and have effectively infiltrated and in large part taken over the OTA.13

 

The companies that convinced the OTA to support the DARK Act and its current iteration are non-organic junk food brands that happen to own organic brands. Their main concern is NOT protecting organics however. They’re exploiting the organic market niche, but the real money is still in selling their inexpensive GMO wares.

 

Who really owns the organic brands you trust and love? Check out the Cornucopia Institute’s “Who Owns Organic” graphic.14 you may be surprised.

 

Take J.M. Smuckers Company, for example. With annual revenue of about $8 billion, Smuckers is best known for their sugary condiments and unhealthy “food-like substances” sold under the Dunkin’ Donuts, Pillsbury, Jif and Crisco brands.

 

Alas, Smuckers also owns RW Knudsen and Santa Cruz juices, and Smuckers’ employee Kim Dietz is on the OTA Board of Directors.15

 

If you think this makes Smuckers a pro-organic company, you’d be wrong. Smuckers spent $640,000 to oppose GMO laws in Oregon and Colorado, and $550,000 to oppose labeling in California.

 

In total, Smuckers has spent $1.19 million to defeat GMO labeling. They may have employees on the OTA board — and when it lobbies Congress, Smuckers can represent itself as an OTA member16 — but their corporate behavior is anything but pro-organic.

 

It lobbied to pass the DARK Act, using a firm that also represents the GMA, 17 and evidence suggests Smuckers has manipulated the OTA for years. Not only does Smuckers use GE ingredients in their foods, according to the OCA,18 “the President of the Board of Directors of the OTA, Julia Sabin, VP/GM of Smucker Natural individually profits from Smucker selling GE foods.”

 

What OTA and ‘Big Food’ Members Gain by Undermining Transparency

 

The sad fact is, the OTA does NOT speak for a majority of the truly organic food producers in the U.S. and does not represent the organic community’s interests. What’s worse, it appears the OTA purposely undermined transparency in order to protect the organic niche.

 

Mandatory disclosure of GMOs would actually eliminate a key advantage that organic conveys. As I’ve repeatedly mentioned, one of the key reasons for eating USDA 100 percent organic is to avoid unlabeled GMOs. If GMOs must be disclosed, Big Organic loses that selling point. So, crazy as it may seem, anti-transparency actually benefits organics. Moreover, the bill would also allow organic companies to make non-GMO claims on their products.

 

Loopholes Abound in Roberts-Stabenow ‘Smart Label’ Deal

 

Other details of the agreement include the following, which offer the food industry plenty of leeway when it comes too accurately and honestly disclosing GMOs: 19

 

“Very small” food manufacturers and all restaurants would be exempt from GMO disclosure rules

Meat and dairy products from animals fed with GMO grains would be exempt from any disclosure requirement

Food products where meat, poultry or egg is the main ingredient, such as pizza for example, would be exempt even if it contains GMOs like high-fructose corn syrup from GE corn or, say, GE soybean or canola oil

The USDA would have no authority to require recalls of products that don’t comply with the labeling requirements

There would be no federal penalties for violations, although states would be allowed to impose fines for violations under state consumer protection rules

People Don’t Use QR Codes, Which Is Exactly Why Industry Wants Them

 

QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smartphones and other QR readers.20 the code brings you to a product website that provides various details about the product. But these so-called “Smart Labels” hardly improve access to information.

 

A mere 16 percent of poll respondents say they’ve ever scanned a QR code to get information about a product,21,22 and to expect shoppers to scan and read an entire website for each and every product in their cart in order to determine whether or not they contain GMOs is beyond ludicrous.

 

Besides the fact that it’s simply not a workable method, it’s just plain wrong since everyone has a right to know what’s in the food. You shouldn’t have to own a smartphone to obtain this information. As previously noted by Lisa Archer, food and technology program director at Friends of the Earth:

 

“GMO labeling via QR code technology is unworkable, threatens privacy and is discriminatory since more than a third of Americans, many of which are low-income or live in rural areas with poor internet access, don’t own smartphones.”

 

Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, issued a similar statement in response to the Roberts-Stabenow bill: 23

 

“This deal is unacceptable to the 9 out of 10 Americans who support mandatory GMO labeling. Consumers deserve to know what’s in their food and to be able to make informed decisions. They have been clear that they want straightforward GMO labels that they can read and understand at a quick glance when shopping.

 

This law would instead allow GMO disclosure to be done through scan able codes, phone numbers or websites — making it difficult, if not impossible for the average consumer to find out what they want to know as they try to decide which kind of cereal or snack to buy.

 

While we appreciate efforts by Senator Stabenow and others to seek a better bill than the one passed by the House last summer, this deal does not meet consumer needs. QR codes, 1-800 numbers or websites aren’t a solution. The new Senate bill is just another way to allow companies to keep consumers in the dark — especially the one-third of Americans who don’t own a smartphone and those in rural areas without reliable broadband service.”

 

Vow to Boycott Foods Bearing QR Codes

 

It should be crystal clear to everyone that by being time-consuming and cumbersome (and in some cases impossible) to use, food makers know the QR codes will help them hide the presence of GMOs in their products, and this is precisely why I propose a new strategic campaign: boycott all products bearing QR codes. The proposed legislation would allow companies to divulge the presence of GMOs in their product using one of three ways:24

 

Text on the package (although the exact and now-familiar terms “GMO,” “genetically modified” or “biotechnology” are not necessarily going to be required. The USDA would determine the language)

A symbol (to be determined by the USDA)

A QR code (or for smaller food companies, a website address or 1-800 number)

If a company refuses to clearly label their product as containing GMOs via text or symbol, and opts for a Smart Label instead, I believe it’s safe to assume it’s because it has something to hide. They’re just trying to prevent as many people as possible from finding out the truth right away by not putting clear text or a GMO symbol on their product.

 

Why play along? If they want to be coy and opaque, strike back where it hurts — their bottom line. Don’t waste valuable time searching for the information they want to hide. Instead, just don’t buy the product!

 

 

Food Industry Group Has ILLEGALLY Lobbied to Remove Consumer and State Rights

 

The GMA is an industry group made up of a conglomeration of the biggest junk food producers on the planet, and this organization, which I dubbed the “Most Evil Organization on the Planet” in 2014, is a key player in this GMO labeling drama. The companies represented by the GMA are largely responsible for the massive obesity epidemic that spreads sickness and disease, yet they refuse to take responsibility and amend their ways.

 

Instead, they’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars to deny your right to know important facts about the food you eat and remove state rights, while further corrupting Congress through massive lobbying “donations.”25

 

A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the “Smart Label” trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called “compromise” to on-package GMO labeling, and that’s another reason why I believe the Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to hide.26

 

The GMA’s 300-plus members include chemical technology companies, GE seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto, Dow, Coca-Cola and General Mills are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes to protect the interest of its members.

 

This includes deceptive and outright illegal tactics to take away consumer and state rights. For example, in March, the GMA was found GUILTY of perpetrating an $11 million money laundering scheme during Washington’s 2013 GMO labeling initiative. The aim was to hide the identities of the members contributing to the campaign, in order to shield them from consumer backlash.27

 

How can the GMA and its members possibly be trusted to do the right thing? Let’s not forget that doing the right thing is absolutely critical here, because we’re talking about companies that (are supposed to) provide nourishing sustenance to you and your family. If honesty is important in any business, it would surely be the food business!

 

Yet in just three years, from 2013 through 2015, the food industry spent nearly $200 million on anti-labeling campaigns. If you bought any processed food at all in the last few years, you have undoubtedly supported their efforts to pull the wool over your eyes because the list of traitor companies is long indeed, and contains many of the most widely bought brands in the U.S. Isn’t it time to stop paying these companies to lie to you and deceive you?

 

 

Encourage Your Favorite Brands to Shun ‘GMA’s Verified Ring of Deception’

 

My suggestion? When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a food product, pass it by. Products bearing the GMA’s Smart Label mark are in all likelihood filled with pesticides and/or GMO ingredients. Don’t waste your time searching through their website, which may or may not contain the information you’re looking for. If they insist on wasting your time and making your shopping difficult, why reward them with a purchase?

 

If you think this sounds like a challenge, I beg you to reconsider and to take the wide view. What’s your health, and the health of your family, worth to you? Remember, each and every time you shop, you actively support one type of food system or another. Will you financially support a corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system, or a healthy, regenerative one? There are many options available besides big-brand processed foods that are part of the “GMA’s verified ring of deception.” You can:

 

Shop at local farms and farmers markets

Only buy products marked either “USDA 100 percent Organic” (which by law cannot contain GMOs), “100 percent Grass-Fed,” or “Non-GMO Verified”

If you have a smartphone and you don’t mind using it, download the OCA’s Buycott app to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage

Last but not least, encourage good companies to reject QR codes and to be transparent and clear with their labeling. This will eventually ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA’s “verified ring of deception” mark that is the Smart Label.

 

Campbell’s, Mars, Kellogg’s, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling law by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S. Will their plans change if the current “compromise” gets passed by the Senate? That remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their promise.

What You Need to Know About GMOs

 

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or genetically “engineered” (GE) foods, are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

 

GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I’ve stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.

 

The FDA cleared the way for GE (Genetically Engineered) Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it’s imperative ALL GE foods be labeled, which is currently still being denied.

 

The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.

 

Boycott Smart Labels Today

 

When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a food product, pass it by. Products bearing the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association’s (GMA) Smart Label mark are in all likelihood filled with pesticides and/or GMO ingredients.

 

The GMA’s 300-plus members include chemical technology companies, GE seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto, Dow and Coca-Cola are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes to protect the interest of its members.

 

Don’t waste your time searching through their website, which may or may not contain the information you’re looking for. If they insist on wasting your time and making your shopping difficult, why reward them with a purchase? A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the “Smart Label” trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called “compromise” to on-package GMO labeling, and that’s another reason why I believe the Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to hide such as Monsanto.

Will you financially support a corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system, or a healthy, regenerative one? There are many options available besides big-brand processed foods that are part of the “GMA’s verified ring of deception.” You can:

 

Shop at local farms and farmers markets

Only buy products marked either “USDA 100 percent Organic” (which by law cannot contain GMOs), “100 percent Grass-Fed,” or “Non-GMO Verified”

If you have a smartphone and you don’t mind using it, download the OCA’s Buycott app to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage

Last but not least, encourage good companies to reject QR codes and to be transparent and clear with their labeling. This will eventually ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA’s “verified ring of deception” mark that is the Smart Label.

 

Campbell’s, Mars, Kellogg’s, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling law by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S. Will their plans change if the current “compromise” gets passed by the Senate? That remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their promise.

 

Non-GMO Food Resources by Country

 

If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted sites you can visit.

 

Organic Food Directory (Australia)

Eat Wild (Canada)

Organic Explorer (New Zealand)

Eat Well Guide (United States & Canada)

Farm Match (United States)

Local Harvest (United States)

Weston A. Price Foundation (United States)

 

 

If you have any questions please call us:

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived :JM

312-972-WELL

 

Lifestyle, Uncategorized

Campbells Approve GMO Labeling

campbells

 

Campbell’s calls for nationwide mandatory GMO labeling, revokes support for anti-labeling front groups run by biotech mafia

 

 

Campbell’s just made food history. It announced support for nationwide GMO labeling while revoking its support for biotech front groups that oppose GMO labeling ballot initiatives at the state level.

 

In an announcement on its website, Campbell’s CEO Denise Morrison threw down the gauntlet, declaring a new era of food transparency for the company, affirming the inescapable conclusion that consumers want to know what they’re eating. Clean food activism has also rallied millions of people to boycott deceptive food brands that oppose GMO labeling, causing a loss of consumer trust in the “traitor brands” like Kashi, Larabar, Silk, General Mills, Kellogg’s, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.

 

“Today, consistent with our Purpose, we announced our support for mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) and proposed that the federal government provide a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging,” says Campbell’s. “We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food. GMO has evolved to be a top consumer food issue reaching a critical mass of 92% of consumers in favor of putting it on the label.”

 

In saying this, Campbell’s is rejecting the “obfuscate and deceive” strategy of the rest of the industry: LIE, hide, threaten, deceive, distract and corrupt at every opportunity, keeping consumers in the dark and pushing poison (GMOs and glyphosate) while claiming food buyers are too stupid to understand simple food labels.

 

Campbell’s stakes out the high ground on food transparency

For this decision, Campbell’s deserves real credit. This is a groundbreaking decision that puts Campbell’s in a leadership position on the issue of food transparency.

 

If I were a Campbell’s shareholder, I’d be praising this decision. It puts Campbell’s far ahead of the coming wave of citizen science where privately run labs like my own (Labs.NaturalNews.com) are testing and publishing food test results acquired from state-of-the-art equipment capable of detecting herbicides and heavy metals at parts per billion concentrations. (My new lab expansion announcement is coming very soon. We’ve just finished a second build out and have added organic chemistry analysis with LC-MS instrumentation.)

 

Furthermore, this announcement engenders consumer trust in Campbell’s as a brand. While other companies are trying to deceive and lie to consumers, Campbell’s is pursuing a recipe of food transparency, disclosing exactly what it’s putting into its soups and other food products.

 

While I don’t endorse the entire Campbell’s product line — not yet anyway — I have to applaud the company’s actions on rejecting GMO deceptions and announcing a vision for long-term food transparency that covers GMOs and artificial additives as well.

 

Campbell’s distancing itself from the mafia-style criminals running the GMA and deceptive food companies

Campbell’s is even distancing itself from the GMA (Grocery Manufacturers of America), which engaged in mafia-style money laundering to defeat a GMO labeling ballot measure in Washington state.

 

“Campbell is withdrawing from all efforts led by groups opposing mandatory GMO labeling legislation, including those led by GMA,” says Campbell’s. That same statement continues with, “What I do know is that our decision was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer-first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency – to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is the right thing to do for consumers and for our business.”

 

By making this strategic move, Campbell’s now differentiates itself from all the other big processed food companies and sets a new leadership standard that other companies will be scrambling to follow. After all, if you’re shopping at the grocery store and you see three different brands of soups on the shelf, which brand are you going to choose… Campbell’s soup that has committed itself to food transparency and honest labeling, or some other brand that supports labeling deceptions and the hiding of GMOs from consumers?

 

Although this assertion was predictably ridiculed by the GMO-pushing mainstream media, there’s no question that corporate sabotage is one of the many nefarious tactics used by the criminally run, mafia-style GMO front groups. (These are the same people who call in bomb threats at buildings where clean food activists are about to speak.)

 

Knowing firsthand the kind of threats and intimidation routinely used by the GMO industry shills, I think we need to be on the lookout for corporate sabotage against Campbell’s in a desperate effort to destroy public trust in their products.

 

This is a serious assertion, and Campbell’s needs to really shore up their own defenses against corporate sabotage at this point. As a food research scientist, I’d be happy to talk with Campbell’s and alert them to the most likely corporate sabotage vectors that would be targeted by biotech food terrorists. Truth be told, not every food safety outbreak is an accident…

 

By the way, people in the mainstream media who think corporate sabotage never takes place are cognitively retarded or living in a delusional fairy tale. Corporate sabotage has always been — and will continue to be — one of the tactics used by nefarious, unethical industries to destroy opposition. If you don’t believe corporate sabotage happens in America today, you have no idea how Wall Street, Silicon Valley or the petroleum industry works. And because we’ve already seen the dark tactics used by the GMO industry in particular, we have substantial and legitimate reasons to expect they will continue such tactics against their industry enemies like Chipotle and now Campbell’s.

 

These are the same tactics that were historically used by Big Tobacco, by the way: The threatening and intimidation of scientists, the corruption and influence of mainstream media, the infiltration of regulatory bodies in the government and the wholesale corruption of academia. Nearly every tactic once used by Big Tobacco to silence scientists and health advocates is now being used against clean food activists.

 

In fact, some of the very same people operating today as GMO mercenaries actually worked on Big Tobacco disinformation and P.R. campaigns. Check out the Truthwiki entries on Jon Entine, Kevin Folta, Henry Miller and the Washington Post GMO prostitute Tamar Haspel — who has openly admitted to taking money from biotech industry front groups — for a small taste of the kind of deceptions and defamation campaigns being run by these people. In mainstream media, “Monsanto whores” include journalists like Amy Harmon, Keith Kloor and Tamar Haspel, all of whom operate as biotech industry sellouts who push poison and disinfo.

 

In making its decision to reject the hiding of GMOs on food labels, Campbell’s has just rejected the lies and deceptions of biotech shills (pretending to be journalists) like Harmon, Kloor, Haspel and others. Campbell’s has effectively announced that they’re siding with the consumers, not the slanderers. As a result, Campbell’s actually has a bright future ahead of them in the food business, whereas many companies that are hiding GMOs in their foods are on the verge of being outed and shamed for selling poison food products while actively trying to keep consumers ignorant of what they’re eating.

 

We are winning the clean food wars

This is a great day for food transparency. The fact that Campbell’s decided, on its own, to reject the lies and deceptions of the GMO industry and side with consumers’ right to know what they’re eating is yet another sign of three powerful trends that are simply unstoppable:

 

Trend #1) The global cry for food transparency by informed consumers.

 

Trend #2) The rise of citizen science and analytical food labs that can’t be controlled by government regulators or corrupt corporations. (I’m spearheading this part of the movement with my Forensic Food Lab.)

 

Trend #3) The rise of social media sharing of food composition analysis results, allowing news about food ingredients to spread like wildfire across the ‘net, utterly bypassing mainstream media and government regulators to bring lifesaving information about food composition directly to consumers.

 

These three trends mean that food companies will no longer be able to hide what’s in their products. Effectively, we’re rapidly entering an age of NO MORE FOOD SECRETS.

Health and Wellness Associates

  1. Adams

312-972-Well

Health and Disease

Unprocessed Saturated Fats are Good For You

eggsandonions

 Unprocessed Saturated Fat Is Good for You

Focusing your diet on REAL FOOD (raw whole, ideally organic, and from pasture raised cows) rather than processed fare is one of the easiest ways to sidestep dietary pitfalls like harmful fats — not to mention other harmful ingredients like refined sugars, genetically modified organisims (GMOs) and additives that have never been properly tested for safety. Beyond that, it’s really just a matter of tweaking the ratios of fat, carbs and protein to suit your individual situation.

One key though is to trade refined sugar and processed fructose for healthy fat, as this will help optimize your insulin and leptin levels. We’ve spent decades trading healthy saturated fats for carbs and trans fats, and there can be no doubt that this has had an enormous influence on disease statistics, raising incidence of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s — all the top killers.

Healthy fat is particularly important for optimal brain function and memory. This is true throughout life, but especially during childhood. So, if processed food still make up the bulk of your meals, you’d be wise to reconsider your eating habits. Not only are processed foods the primary culprit in obesity and insulin resistance, processed foods can also affect the IQ of young children. One British study revealed that kids who ate a predominantly processed food diet at age three had lower IQ scores at age 8.5. For each measured increase in processed foods, participants had a 1.67-point decrease in IQ.

Another study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics  also warns that frequent fast food consumption may stunt your child’s academic performance.