Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Cargill and Others Behind anti-Organic "Stanford Study"

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

Tony Cartalucci, Contributor
Activist Post

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 "study" regarding organic food.

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 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 & Malinda 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.


Update: Agricultural giant Cargill is in fact in direct partnership with Stanford University. Specifically, it has donated at least 5 million dollars for the creation of a Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). 

The center is allegedly "committed to helping feed a growing population while preserving the planet's natural resources." This will presumably be done through the use of patented Cargill biotechnology, have nothing to do with actually "helping feed" anything but Cargill's bottom line and corporate-financier domination of the global food supply, while Stanford simply leverages its reputation and credibility to give cover and badly needed legitimacy to Cargill's methods and agenda.

Stanford's most recent "study" is essentially the university "giving back" to Cargill and others.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report.   Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

15 comments:

Marc Letford said...

I just laughed at it- had the same blather in the blue tops a few years back - showing no extra benefit from organic over conventional intensive farming... apart from the critical lack of a cocktail of pesticides and fungicides etc - none of which have ever been tested together over lifetime in non-laboratory conditions...oops- yes they have...they used us.

Anonymous said...

Always follow the money, huh? Not to mention that Stanford is so closely tied to the Establishment that they are pretty much one and the same.

Great detective work Tony, you are one of the most outstanding propaganda slayers the world has ever known.

Anonymous said...

Another big ding in media's credibility as well as higher education. Three cheers for Tony! Sure hope California voters get this side of the story and understand the corporate manipulation.

BTW, I wouldn't concede the nutritional aspect either without knowing more about the details of the study. There's lawyeresque wiggle room in "nearly the same nutritional value..." How near?

gnomad1618 said...

Indeed, thank you.
It should also be noted that the "study" is over 2 years old. Why the media blitz now? Could the vote in California have something to do with it? It should also be noted that the study, to my knowledge, wasn't published in any peer-reviewed literature. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

i had a good hearty laugh when i read this yesterday morning as a headline story on yahoo. But although i know the reality and as an organic farmer and advocate try to convey the truth, stuff like this hurts not only business, but also bodies of unassuming masses. so sad crap like this gets touted as truth, even if it is a 2 yr old compilation of various special interest studies. all i can say, is if articles like this get you fired up with your morning new and cup of fair trade organic joe, you have to push back, and educate everyone you know and care about ( and even those you don't) but i do have a hard time accpeting willful ignorance.

Anonymous said...

also to say organic food has the same nutrient content is also laughable, as industrial food is grown in depleted soils with many imbalances in nutrient uptake. your food is only as healthy as the soil it's grown in.

QuietBear said...

To break down their test and describe how they did it, is this...
They took a picture of a gmo tomato grown conventionally and placed it next to an organically grown tomato then said, "Look! They're both tomatoes, so they MUST be the same!"

And, if I understand the actual test correctly, it wasn't even an actual study. It was actually the combining of several studies' info that was conglomerated to show the results they were after...
They should use this 'bullshit' to fertilize the earth with...

survivingsurvivalism.com said...

the corporate scum will do what ever they have to to insure that people keep eating their daily poison....

I use to weigh 325lbs, now I weigh 185 and I'm very healthy....

i no longer eat processed foods, and only organic.....

i did not diet, i just eat clean food....


survivingsurvivalism.com

thetinfoilhatsociety.com said...

Thank you for doing the work of finding the donor list. I KNEW there had to be agribusiness funding!

Funny that they are still taking these huge donations since Stanford itself announced in I think 2008 that it would no longer take donations from corporations that had a vested interest in Stanford's research.

Anonymous said...

Pre GMO

Libbys. where are they now? (note to self check)

C&H Pure Cane Sugar (stop re-downloading the youtube videos and demand your fucking soda company get's it's shit together!)

JELLO - I have no idea, what sugar do they use?

There were cake people that's processed food, who were they Duncan Hines, and who else, oh that's right Betty Crocker? I don't know if they are good or bad, do you? We eatin Hiny & GMO Crock'shit or what is the truth? I ain't claiming nothing on either. I just want to fucking KNOW. I don't choose to buy much processed food, it comes in "hidden" with other stuff



Anonymous said...

Saw this on one of our news / chat shows down here in ozz and was amazed at the way the presenters sucked it up and of course the quick chat with an expert on these matters pushing the same agenda, while subtly taking the piss out of anyone who thinks otherwise. No mention of GM, what they get sprayed with and the fact that ozzie soils are known to be depleted of zinc ,magnesium and selenium just for starters , total 24 carat airheads who would not make a real journos a/hole .... to see how the bottom line works highlight and google....... cholesterol my eye .......about the oiling of America, oh yes , a good rule, if it wasn't around 100 years ago you don't need it ....Dave in ozz

Unknown said...

Your arguments might have some validity if it weren't for the fact that similar results have been obtained from numerous other studies, in several parts of the world. It would be so much more useful to thoughtfully consider the results of studies like this, than to reject them outright. The consideration of pesticides was not thorough enough, I agree. But study after study has supported the notion that organic food does not differ significantly in nutrition or taste, from conventional food. In fact, wasn't the Stanford Study a meta-analysis, rather than a direct study? Didn't they analyze results of a large number of other studies? I could be wrong on that. When people on the left reject science (they were bought off, they are just toadying to the special interests that fund them) they insult scientists and sound just as whiny as the climate change deniers who make the same claims about scientists that study climate change. We don't like the science, so lets reject it and call the integrity of the scientists into question.

Adrienne @ Whole New Mom said...

Just shared on my Facebook page. Ugh!!!

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't Big Organic want field testing?

Anonymous said...

Do you organic advocates understand that there is no significant different in nutritional value between organic and conventional grown crops or produce. Actually, some of the time, GMO crops are healthier - yes, healthier - than organically grown food because the plants can be bred to be higher in certain nutrients. Something which organic cannot. The only "drawback" or "concern" I would have about conventionally grown food is the potential for pesticide residue left in/on the crop. The only problem with that theory is that ALL food is tested to meet federal regulations on pesticide concentration/contamination, so we can scratch that one off. One more thing is that there is no possible way that farmers can feed the world growing organic crops. With lower yields, higher costs, and other such production problems, it just isn't feasible. Why, oh why, would someone want to pay 2x as much for a loaf of bread made from organically grown wheat when you could buy 3 loaves of bread grown from conventionally grown wheat for the same price??? When there is absolutely NO evidence that it will harm you or is any worse than organic, and most of the time it's actually better for you?? Oh, and by the way, many of the organic farmers/fields I have seen are grown on some of the most infertile soils raped of nutrients with weeds running rampant and actually taking over the crop. Some people just will never understand....If any of you would take the time to actually learn about GM crops and how farmers in the U.S. do their best to raise the healthiest, safest, and cheapest food supply in the world. Don't just read an article on a blog or in a news paper bashing GM crops and believe every word they say because they are mostly liberal idiots who KNOW that most of their readers will believe everything they say. Everyone needs to think for themselves and make a decision on what they feel is best for them, their family, and their wallet. So don't bash GM crops and conventionally raised food that is grown by American farmers while your mouth is full. Next time you see a farmer, thank them for all that they do. Both conventional AND organic.

Post a Comment