The organic food controversy

In the last week we have seen articles such as this one from the New Zealand Herald touting research purporting to 'prove' that organic food is no more nutritious than food grown in dead soil with pesticides and fertilisers, or – GMO's.

The biggest thing about this is that industrial farming is totally unsustainable being completely reliant on imports that are oil derivatives.

This article looks at how “objective' this 'science' is.

Simple answer: about as reliable as tests run by Monsanto that 'show' that Frankenfood is harmless

Cargill and Others Behind anti-Organic "Stanford Study"

Anti-organic "study" is not news, rather, coordinated propaganda campaign.

by Tony Cartalucci

Land Destroyer,

26 April, 2012

September 5, 2012 - Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial with the following sentence: 

"Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots."

Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph's readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford University "study" regarding organic food.

Image: Conflict of interest? Strange that Stanford University is partnered with agricultural giant Cargill and just so happens to come out with a study that suggests organic food is no better than its big-agri competition. According to Stanford University, Cargill has donated at least 5 million dollars  for the creation of a Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). Cargill's website has a page describing its partnership with Stanford which can be found here. Cargill and many others also are listed as donors by Standford University in their 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf). 

....

Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri's bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.

The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England's latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study. 

A Flawed "Study" 

When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.

Two news cycles have already been dedicated to trashing organic food. Organic food is free of pesticides and genetic manipulation, both of which are proven to cause learning disabilities, decreased IQ, sterility, and a myriad of other health problems including a wide variety of cancers.

This most recent anti-organic food campaign began with a Stanford study (and here) out of its Center for Health Policy (a subsidiary of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), examining the nutritional value of organic food versus non-organic. Food with pesticides on it had nearly the same nutritional value, the study claims, as organic food - completely skipping over the whole point of eating organic.

Indeed, the nutritional value would be similar - but the entire point of eating organic is not because of vastly superior nutritional value, but to avoid the "extras" included with products from big-agri corporations.

The Stanford study intentionally dismisses concerns regarding the presence of pesticides by simply claiming levels were within legal tolerances. No discussion was made on whether legal tolerances equated to safe tolerances, nor was there any mention made of the harmful effects of genetically modified organisms (GMO) or other controversial food additives found in non-organic food products.

So why the strawman argument?

A Corporate-funded "Study"

The Stanford Center for Health Policy states the following  on its own website: 

"The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute's research, teaching and outreach activities."

The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these "friends," national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy?

Image: From Stanford Center for Health Policy's own website it is admitted that " national and international foundations and corporations" fund its research and "outreach activities." This confirms the suspicions of an increasingly aware public who saw the "study" as biased, contradictory of both logic and ethics, and the result of insidious corporate-funding.  

....

According to FSI's 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf) Agricultural giant Cargill, British Petroleum (BP), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), the Ford Foundation, Google, Goldman Sachs, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and many other corporate-financier, Fortune 500 special interests.

Image: From Stanford's 2011 FSI Annual Report (page 38, .pdf), of which the Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary, is funded by Cargill, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), and a myriad of other Fortune 500 corporate-financier special interests. The report at face value is throwaway propaganda, but its funding reveals a more insidious, coordinated effort to manipulate public perception, stretching across academia, mass media, government, and big business. (click image to enlarge) 

....

That none of this is mentioned, and the lack of independence and transparency involved in the study and its presentation to the public, overturns the credibility of both Stanford, and the Western media machine that so eagerly shoveled the results out to the public. Combined with the fact that the study itself is flawed, and the concerted, disingenuous nature with which it is being promoted to the public, a premeditated public relations campaign, bought and paid for by Stanford's FSI sponsors, most notably Cargill and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is self-evident.

What to Do?

Quite obviously, one should continue eating organic. Additionally, the duplicitous nature exhibited by academia, the mass media, and the vast corporate interests overtly driving them both, demands from us to redouble our efforts at implementing full-spectrum boycotts aimed at big-agri as well as other Fortune 500 corporate-financier monopolies. This includes other processed food makers such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, Kraft, and the myriad of subsidiaries they maintain. 

We should also redouble our efforts at supporting local farmers, attending and contributing to local farmers markets, and investigating the possibility of growing, if only a small percentage, our own herbs, fruits, and vegetables.

Freedom and self-determination come from economic independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. The most fundamental form of economic independence is having a safe, secure, and local food supply operated for, by, and of the people. Cementing this emerging paradigm, in spite of the crass, juvenile, even criminally irresponsible editorials like that of the Telegraph's Harry Wallop, and multimillion dollar "studies" subsidized by Cargill and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is the first step on extending this paradigm shift to other areas required for maintaining and advancing modern civilization.

See also Whoa, Is Organic Food No Healthier Than Non-Organic? Controversy Erupts Over Study

"We are all being sprayed with toxins'

Chemtrails 

or contrails?

From Seemorerocks;

This is an issue which I have always dismissed because the information was so often coming from sources I did not trust - people who believe in some overarching conspiracy by the Illuminati to control the world and to reduce the world's population. These are people who  will jump from some sort of credible argument into wild assertions about the British royal family being freemasons or Peak Oil/climate change being falsehoods spread by the NWO.

Having looked at the evidence it does seem that there IS something going on called geo-engineering and that the rationale for this is to spray the atmosphere with something that will purportedly reflect sunlight and reduce the greenhouse effect.

Somewhere in the film this was referred to as a "catastrophe response option"  - say to prevent runway climate change - in the event of the polar ice caps dropping off for example.

These are certainly not the solutions of environmentalists, ecologists or, God forbid, atmospheric scientists but the solution of the same people that are seeking to endlessly maintain the current paradigm of infinite growth.

These people are ANTI-environmentalists - the same people who will respond to Peak Oil with tar sands and fracking; who will save the planet with BIO-engineering ( genetic engineering).

There was enough empirical evidence in the film that I am recommending to come to a firm conclusion that populations in the northern hemisphere (notably countries from NATO) are being sprayed with something that is creating what are called chemtrails that are creating trails that do not disappear like jet con-trails and crisscross the sky.

There is evidence of high levels of toxic aluminium that is affecting the health of the soil and its micro-organisms and the health of people exposed to these toxins.

There is empirical evidence that this is linked to a range of human health problems such as respiratory problems, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

But most alarmingly, it is the health of the soil and the wider environment that is being severely compromised, especially in pristine areas such as Hawaii.

The worry is that in the future natural, organic seeds will not grow in the new medium - so the solution will be touted - use GMO aluminium-resistant seeds that are reportedly already being developed.

The following film "What on Earth are they spraying?" certainly has made me more aware of this issue and made me want to know more about it.

Interestingly the film starts off with scenes of the New Zealand parliament and zombie Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment scoffing at the idea of chemtrails ("stuff that comes from jets - ha ha ha!")

Just from my own, subjective point-of-view I remember the skies of my childhood and the wonder of all the stars, the Milky Way and shooting stars.  That is is gone and the sky doesn't seem to be what it was. Can't put all that down to lights and pollution.

I can recommend that you take the time to watch this 1h30m film.

Just when I thought that chemtrails were restricted to places like North America and Europe I quickly found a New Zealand site that put me right!

http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/northland-new-zealand-chemtrails-watch-film%C2%A0page/


Another international site is:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

I am someone whose health has been severely compromised by early exposure to agricultural chemicals like Paraquat - so I take these things very seriously.

This is one of the article mentioned in the film - that confirms at least that geoengineering is at least being discussed

Willing to give up blue skies for climate fix?

Geoengineering gets closer look as a 'Plan B' in case emissions don't fall

MSNBC,

30 October, 2009

We can probably engineer Earth's climate to cool the planet, scientists say, but are we willing to live with the downsides? Those could include creating more droughts, more ozone holes and, oh yeah, a thin cloud layer that obscures blue skies and gives astronomers fits.

With potential negatives like that it's no wonder that "geoengineering," as the technique is called, has few hardcore advocates.

Instead, a growing cadre of scientists is asking whether it should be a "Plan B" in case emissions of greenhouse gases aren't reduced in time to head off major consequences.

Experts gathered Friday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were discussing just that at a seminar called "Engineering a Cooler Earth: Can We Do It? Should We Try?"

Two key geoengineering approaches have surfaced: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and reflecting the Sun's rays away from Earth.

The former focuses on using the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide, which takes a long time and acidifies the seas, harming corals and shellfish.

The latter is seen as more realistic, especially the leading strategy of lobbing sulfur into the atmosphere the way volcanoes do. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the planet by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit.

While it doesn't remove CO2 — and as a result, ocean acidification would continue — adding sulfur could reduce temperatures quickly.

Weighing pros, cons

At issue, though, is whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.

In a study published this week on the sulfur approach, a Rutgers University team stacked benefits against costs. The key pros: a cooler planet; reduced or reversed melting of ice sheets and Arctic sea ice; and increased plant productivity.

The key cons: more droughts in Africa and Asia; oceans would still be acidifying; creation of ozone holes in the Arctic; reduced solar energy production; and those less blue skies and frustrated astronomers.

"We have not calculated how hazy yet, but it would be global," lead study author Alan Robock told msnbc.com. "Injection into the tropical stratosphere would produce a global cloud. It would have to be regular with the frequency depending on the injection method and the thickness of the desired cloud."

Writing in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, the team concluded that, given existing technology, the best method of lobbing aerosols would be via high-altitude military jets at a cost of several billion dollars a year.

But it also warned that more needs to be learned before society is sufficiently informed to make a decision.

"Several billion dollars per year is a lot of money, but compared to the international gross national product, this amount would not be a limiting factor in the decision of whether to proceed with geoengineering," the authors wrote. "Rather, other concerns, including reduction of Asian monsoon rainfall, ozone depletion, reduction of solar power, psychological effects of no more blue skies, and political and ethical issues, will need to be compared to the potential advantages before society can make this decision."

'Last resort' strategy 

Leading scientific groups have also taken stands on the technique.

The American Meteorological Society, for one, has endorsed the idea of researching geoengineering as a Plan B.

"Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation," it said in a adopting a policy statement this year, "but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts."

But the society is also among those emphasizing that geoengineering should not become an excuse for policymakers to back off action that reduces emissions.

"The possibility of quick and seemingly inexpensive geoengineering fixes could distract the public and policymakers from critically needed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," it warned.

The Institute of Physics, a nonprofit with 36,000 members, echoed that view. "Climate geoengineering at scale must be considered only as a last resort," it says in its own statement. "There should be no lessening of attempts to otherwise correct the harmful impacts of human economies on the Earth’s ecology and climate."

Geoengineering, it adds, "should be seen as a prudent precautionary measure in case all other attempts to control dangerous climate change fail or are inadequate — for whatever reason."

Robock, for one, wants increased spending. "Absolutely," said the environmental sciences professor at Rutgers. "We need a research program now to evaluate different potential engineering designs and to look in much more detail at the climate and other effects."

In the United States, policymakers are starting to listen to the scientific discussion. The House Science Committee next Thursday will hold its first hearing on the implications of geoengineering. Robock is among those set to testify.

"The hearing is by no means an endorsement of deploying geoengineering, but an effort to begin a thoughtful, in-depth conversation," committee spokesman Alexandria Dery Snider told msnbc.com. "We don’t want to shy away from the issue because it is complex and potentially controversial."

"It’s important to note that we are not looking at geoengineering as an easy way out of changing how we consume energy," Dery Snider added. "Geoengineering may, however, be a stopgap to buy us some time, if we find ourselves in a dire situation.

Videos from #Occupy

Rural farmers unite to feed Wall Street protestors

How rural farmers, an unemployed chef and a protestor named Heather are getting 1,000 dinners served at Occupy Wall Street every night

Video: Occupy Our Homes Reclaims Foreclosures in LA

CollapseNet member Tim Schwartz comes through with another powerful video from Occupy actions.  Tim produced great coverage of OWS NYC and now he is back in LA covering Occupy Our Homes as they reclaim foreclosures.  For the latest from Tim, check out My House On Fire Productions.

Organic v. Monsanto

More than 270,000 organic farmers are taking on corporate agriculture giant Monsanto in a lawsuit filed March 30. Led by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the family farmers are fighting for the right to keep a portion of the world food supply organic—and preemptively protecting themselves from accusations of stealing genetically modified seeds that drift on to their pristine crop fields.

For the article GO HERE