Wild Caught? Maybe Not – Salmon Sold to You May Have Been Farm-Raised
The wild caught salmon sold to you in restaurants and grocery stores may have been farm-raised. Unfortunately, the results of a new study suggest that unless you catch it yourself, you can’t be sure it wasn’t farm raised.
Using DNA testing techniques, the non-profit ocean conservation group Oceana examined numerous samples of fish being sold as wild caught salmon both from restaurant menus and grocery stores. Of the restaurant samples, 2/3 of the “wild-caught” salmon was farm raised. Retail salmon fared better, with one out of five incorrectly labeled. The study also revealed instances of chum salmon being sold as king salmon and rainbow trout sold as wild salmon.
A startling 43% of the salmon tested, collected in New York, Washington, Chicago and Virginia from upscale and takeout restaurants and from various neighborhood and chain groceries, was mislabeled. The most common deception was Atlantic salmon being sold as wild salmon.
These Scientists Say We Need to do Something About It
The researchers authoring the study recommend that new policies be implemented to protect both the public and fishermen from mislabeling.
“Our results are consistent and wide enough to know that this is a problem that can occur anyplace, anytime, with any type of seafood,” said Kimberly Warner, a senior scientist at Oceana.
Oceana definitely knows what they are talking about. From 2010 to 2012 they conducted an extensive seafood fraud investigation, collecting more than 1,200 seafood samples from 674 retail outlets in 21 states. The objective was to determine if the seafood was honestly labeled. DNA testing found that a full one 1/3 of the 1,215 samples analyzed were mislabeled.
In that earlier investigation, seafood sold as snapper and tuna had the highest chance of being mislabeled. The majority of the samples identified by DNA analysis were not consistent with the labeling. In fact, only seven of the 120 samples of red snapper purchased nationwide were actually red snapper. The other 113 samples were another fish.
Accuracy in Labeling Also Depends on the Time of Year
The current study revealed that the time of year was a big factor in whether or not a restaurant would sell mislabeled salmon. During the winter months, fresh wild salmon is less available, creating a motive to substitute readily available, farmed salmon. The researchers found that large chain groceries were less likely than small grocers to offer mislabeled salmon to the public.
The authors of the study have a few suggestions for consumers looking to protect themselves from purchasing the wrong types of salmon. They suggest consumers ask their sellers about their seafood’s exact point of origin, its species, and whether or not the merchandise was fresh or previously frozen.
Salmon can travel halfway across the world and back before we get a chance to eat it. For instance in 2013, U.S. fisheries exported roughly 85,000 metric tons of salmon to China while importing 37,000 metric tons of salmon from China. Much of this import was the same fish that was shipped to China for processing.
To cut down on salmon mislabeling, the report’s authors are calling for comprehensive tracking of all seafood sold in this country from catch to point of sale.
What’s Wrong With Farm Raised Fish?
The first and obvious difference between farm raised and wild caught salmon is the cost. You are being overcharged if you are paying the price for wild caught salmon and not getting what you paid for. But there are other issues at stake. First there is taste, and secondly there are health concerns associated with farm raised fish and shrimp. Pathogens, contamination, and GMO feed are serious quality issues with fish and shrimp being raised in an unnatural and crowded environment. The virulent diseases spread through the salmon farms are suspected to have spread to the wild, severely impacting the wild salmon population. Factory farming raises unhealthy animals, and fish farms are nothing more than factory farms for fish. Stick to wild caught fish – if you can find a trusted source.
Everyone has heard the phrase, “You are what you eat,” but did you know that you can combat and prevent cancer through healthy food choices? The number one thing to focus on when trying to create a cancer-fighting diet is to follow a diet that includes at least 80% raw, fresh, organic fruits and vegetables. Many pesticides are known carcinogens. The best way to lower your exposure to pesticides in your food is to buy organic. Raw produce is key in any cancer-fighting diet. Eating a variety of raw organic produce is the optimal way to access all the key nutrients your body needs to stay healthy, heal, and if need be to fight cancer. Here’s a short list of some of the top foods that are known to help fight cancer in the body.
Dark Green, Leafy Vegetables
Leafy greens are the basis for every great salad. They also contain high levels of important vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. While iceberg lettuce may be the most widely used salad vegetable, it is almost completely empty of nutrition and it tastes very bland. Better choices that not only taste better but also are nutrient dense include spinach, collard greens, turnip greens, mustard greens, arugula, Swiss chard, and kale. These powerhouse vegetables are high in carotenoids, fiber, folate, vitamin K, and vitamin C. Carotenoids have been shown to slow the growth of certain types of cancer including breast, lung, stomach, and skin cancer. There are many other nutrients in leafy greens, and many of them act as antioxidants and help to remove free radicals from the body before they can do much harm. Leafy greens are vital to a healthy diet.
Berries
Berries are a versatile powerhouse source of nutrition. While popular varieties include blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, cranberries, cherries, and blackberries, less well-known varieties such as acai, bilberry, and elderberry are also great sources of cancer-fighting nutrients. These deeply colored fruits have high levels of antioxidants including anthocyanins and other flavonoids. These antioxidants work to remove free radicals from the body, making them important in fighting cancer. Berries also have anti-inflammatory properties, which can help the body heal itself.
Tomatoes
Tomatoes are probably one of the better-known types of food that fight cancer, but many people do not understand why. Tomatoes are high in lycopene, which helps protect the body’s DNA from cancer-causing damage. Cooking tomatoes makes the lycopene more readily available to the body. Tomatoes are also high in alpha-tomatine, a phytonutrient that has been shown to hinder growth of cancer cells as well as kill fully formed cancer cells. Everyone should eat tomatoes, raw and cooked.
Cruciferous Vegetables
Some popular cruciferous vegetables include broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, and cabbage. These vegetables are high in sulfur-containing compounds called glucosinolates. These phytonutrients help the body remove carcinogenic compounds before they damage the body’s DNA and they help repair damaged cells. The benefits of these compounds are accessed when the vegetables are chopped up and the glucosinolates are broken down by enzymes called myrosinase. These vegetables are also high in fiber.
Watermelon
Watermelons are a powerhouse source of important cancer-fighting nutrients. Higher than tomatoes in lycopene by 40%, they also have high levels of beta-carotene, fiber, vitamin C, and citrulline. The lycopene in watermelon is readily bio-available. Watermelon’s antioxidants remove free radicals from the body and protect DNA from damage. It helps hydrate the body and is very alkaline, which can help detoxify the body and prevent cancer. Many nutritionists believe watermelon to be both a fruit and a vegetable.
Conclusion
We all have cancer cells in our bodies, every day, all the time. The state of our health determines whether we “get cancer.” Beating cancer is something we can do every time we eat, depending on what we eat. Most of us have had friends or family who have died of cancer, and all of us can think of better ways of passing away than being slowly consumed by abnormal cells.
Almost all produce kills cancer in some way. Raw, fresh, organic (ideally home grown) produce creates the healthiest gut flora, provides enzymes to reduce aging and repair injuries, and heals the body from the inside out. The most important aspect of any natural health protocol is diet. The first step to reversing diseases like cancer is to repair the gut.
Formaldehyde in GMOs, Yet Another Unlisted Ingredient
By policy, the FDA considers GMO foods to be substantially equivalent to their non-genetically modified counterparts, and to be generally recognized as safe. GMOs do after all, look very similar to their conventional counterparts and they are grown under somewhat similar conditions. Under FDA guidelines, this leaves foods that are newly invented to be poorly tested, and the FDA assumes them to be safe without sufficient evidence to reach such conclusions. Under the limitations of our current biotechnology, whenever genes are artificially manipulated, unintended consequences inevitably result.
Independent Scientists Are Finding That GMOs are Not Substantially Equivalent to Their Conventional Counterparts
A new study from Cambridge University demonstrates that GMO soy is less nutritious and more toxic than conventional soy. Each GMO crop is unique, and this study focused solely on one type of genetically modified soy. Undoubtedly, more research is needed on other GMOs. So far the FDA’s notions of substantial equivalence, are not holding up in independent research. As is often the case, independent science is yielding objective results, giving us the good news with the bad.
The Revolving Door Told Us GMOs Were Safe
FDA assumptions of substantial equivalence were at best based upon wishful thinking, but much more likely to have been decisions made with the intention of prioritizing profit over health. The FDA is after all, staffed by a revolving door of management level biotech and pharmaceutical employees. FDA hierarchy move back and forth between the private and public sectors, reaping huge benefits along the way. Consumer advocates don’t work at the FDA; it is the industry insiders who do. The independent scientists are doing the testing for safety that the FDA should have done.
System Biology is Yielding New Insight Into GMOs
Using a systems biology approach, two researchers from Cambridge University have demonstrated how the genetic modifications made to CP4 EPSPS, better known as Roundup Ready soy, has resulted in significant systemic changes to the plant’s nutritional value, rendering the GMO soy bean less nutritious and more toxic.
Dr. Ayyadurai and Dr. Deonikar’s results show how instead of the plant producing normal levels of enzymes and antioxidants such as glutathione and super oxide dismutase, Round Up Ready soy is almost completely devoid of glutathione. This GMO soy produces significant amounts of formaldehyde, a substance that is widely known to be toxic and a carcinogen.
Formaldehyde Is Not The Kind of Chemical That You Would Want in Your Food
Formaldehyde has a lot of uses in manufacturing. It is often used as an additive in glue, in wrinkle free shirts, as an additive in hair straighteners, and it has been used as an embalming agent for thousands of years. (It is believed that the Egyptians were the first to use formaldehyde). The chemical is falling out favor with many funeral directors. When used in embalming, great effort is made to avoid accidentally breathing in the fumes. Despite improved ventilation and modern protective gear, many funeral homes refuse to work with formaldehyde simply because it is too dangerous. Its ubiquitous use in manufacturing has come under scrutiny as well.
We can add formaldehyde as yet another one of the ingredients that is being hidden in our food. The struggle to label genetically modified soy can be thought of as the struggle to label formaldehyde laden, antioxidant deficient soy as well. There is no scientific justification to assume that GMOs are substantially equivalent to other foods. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that GMOs kill beneficail microbes in our gut and damage our digestive system (see Leaky Gut Syndrome and Autoimmune Diseases). Afterall, that’s what they’re designed to do.
“The doctor of the future will give no medication, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, diet and in the cause and prevention of disease. ~ ”
― Thomas A. Edison
Becoming a doctor of chiropractic is no small undertaking. In most states it requires eight years of schooling – four years of undergraduate study, mostly focusing on the sciences and four years of chiropractic school. On average, chiropractic school requires 372 more hours of classroom time than medical school. More time is spent studying anatomy, physiology, diagnostics, and orthopedics in chiropractic school than in medical school. In addition, twenty hours of continual training is required each year, but most chiropractors get more.
Chiropractors are well-educated healers who have varied opinions on vaccines and pharmaceuticals. But, trained in medicine, with a more holistic perspective, chiropractors tend to be, on average, a great deal more skeptical of vaccines than physicians.
The following chiropractors are speaking up to inform the public about the dangers of vaccines.
Dr. David Jockers, D.C.
Vaccines are one of medicine’s prized attempts to improve human performance. They use artificial laboratory derived medical technology to produce an immune response within the body in hopes it will lead to a long-term positive antibody response.
The vaccine ideology is based on the belief that people are created with inferior immune systems that are unable to keep up with the demands of the environment and need modern technology in the form of man-made vaccine formulations in order to bolster immunity.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, “The following substances are found in flu vaccines: aluminum, antibiotics, formaldehyde, human aborted fetal apparatus (dead human tissue), monosodium glutamate (MSG), and thimerosal (mercury).” Many of these same ingredients are in childhood vaccines. They are all very toxic for human physiology and have a track record for insulting the body’s immune system.
I would prefer to trust the innate ability of the body to overcome infectious microorganisms and I will fully support my body through healthy diet and lifestyle along with natural supplements and proper spinal alignment. I absolutely reject the idea that injecting a group of toxic, immune insulting chemicals into my bloodstream will improve someone’s long-term immune response.
When you inject chemicals into your body that are toxic, there will be an effect. It may not be obvious at first. A child might have a fever that the doctor says is “normal”, but it isn’t. A fever or screaming could be that the brain is swelling and causing damage. The real problem is that children cannot convey to us how they feel. It’s not like an adult who can tell us that they felt great prior to a vaccination but then started having health problems.
I am a doctor of Chiropractic and I primarily work with autistic children.
… Every single parent in my practice that has an autistic child has the same story. Child was born normal; child was developing normal. Child went in for their 12-month, 18-month, normal usually 24 or 36-month shots and regressed. This may be anecdotal, but when you hear it over and over and over again, there’s something to be said. These are children that have severe neurological issues. They’re not verbal; 8-10-year-old children that are still wearing diapers.
I have a quadriplegic niece in my family who received 4 shots, a total of 10 vaccines in 1 day. She was born normal. She developed normal until about a year and a half. At a year and a half she received 4 shots, 1, 2, 3, 4, and she … This was 1990 when they started doing multiple vaccines and they also quadrupled the number of shots that you’re normally receiving. She basically regressed. She’s a vegetable. I mean, she became a quadriplegic. Nowhere in nature would your child go to get exposed to let’s say 6 or 7 or 8 or 9, or in the case of my niece, 10 viruses and bacteria at the same time.
In nature that just doesn’t happen. They don’t co-exist like that. It’s not natural to put a combination of vaccines, combinations of viruses and bacteria that just don’t belong together or don’t co-exist in nature in a vial and inject it into a child and expect them to be healthy. The CDC schedule has never been tested for safety. There have never been double-blind studies. It’s never been tested for synergistic effect. They’ve refused to study un-vaccinated versus vaccinated.
This is one of the biggest problems that I have with vaccines. I have a 5-year-old beautiful daughter and I have a 3-year-old son, handsome, that are very healthy. They have been sick. They’ve had the common cold here and there. They’ve never had the flu, no ear infections.
Majority of children that are vaccinated, they have chronic ear infections. One of the ways that I know that they’re different from the majority of other children is my son is 3 years old and in daycare out of all the other 3-year-olds, he’s pretty much the only one that has a full vocabulary. It just tells you the difference between vaccinated children, which is the majority of the population, in California 97%, compared to un-vaccinated children.
We detoxify them and get these toxins out of their body that were put in there by vaccines and other environmental factors. Genetically modified foods and glyphosate have a lot to do with it as well. When we change their diet, first and foremost, we detoxify them, we see the children improve. I have several children under my care that went from non-verbal to verbal.
…They completely change. They become more focused. They develop cognitive skills again. They want to be social. It’s really rewarding to see a child and a parent; a parent that has lost all hope and usually us Chiropractors are the last resort for most parents that have autistic children. It’s really rewarding to see them … They’re like the sparkle in their eye when the children are improving, when their children are starting to talk. When their children are able to go to the bathroom on their own, and their 12-year-old son or daughter doesn’t have to wear diapers any more. For the average neuro-typical child, this may not be tremendous successes, but for a child that’s a teenager and isn’t talking, these are huge steps, leaps and bounds forward compared to what they’ve experienced. Most pediatricians meanwhile, they become doctors to help patients, to help children be healthy, but they’re also misinformed. They just don’t know.
…I’ve asked our pediatrician, “What’s in a vaccine?” They don’t know. They just don’t know the risk that carries with them. If I were a parent and I was on the fence, I would definitely read books. “Vaccination Is Not Immunization,” “Educate Before You Vaccinate.” Also, read the vaccine insert. Just compare what your protecting against and what the possible side-effects might be. Honestly, if something in those is really good for you, Uncle Sam would not mandate it. That’s just the way I feel. If something was going to make us healthier, I don’t think they would make it mandatory.
…As a clinician, on a day-to-day basis, I educate my patients on health and maintaining health and preventative health and to be clear with families and be clear with the parents in making informed choices about vaccinating their children. It’s very important to me.
I’ve seen some tragedies, I’ve seen before and afters. About 6 years ago, I had a patient come in with her daughter who was just vibrant, bouncing off the walls, perhaps 2 at the time, and just very sweet and loving and accepting my adjustments, the whole family. She received her boosters. I hadn’t seen them in about 6 months, and she had developed autism, full blown autism to where she had to go to a speech therapist. She was afraid of me; whereas, before, she was very smiling and calm and bright and talkative, and she was afraid of me. It was disheartening, to say the least. It was almost as if the light switch had flipped off on her.
… Just recently, I had a little boy come in, working on his neck area, he’s clicking and popping in his neck and jaw. Again, maybe 6 years old, 6 or 7, came in, I started working on him. He was very responsive, loved the chiropractic. He came in one day with his folks because his folks were getting adjusted as well, and he seemed off. He seemed like he was staring off into space, comatose. They had to explain that he just came from the pediatrician and gotten a booster shot. It was clear that something had taken place.
It was just hard to describe other than just comatose.
…It was just very, very hard to believe the difference in these children, and it’s disheartening. If you’re a parent, I strongly urge you to please do your research. Look at both sides. I urge you to look at vaccination injury and the stats on that and look into the ingredients and look into the reasons why they think they need to do a vaccination schedule as they propose.
Apparently people just want to bully you into believing vaccines are all sunshine and rainbows.
…I’m not a vaccination expert.
I don’t care about the vaccine debate. I care about the truth. I care about the safety, I care about the effectiveness. I’m solely here to empower and educate people on how they can promote health and happiness in their life.
…Doctors are great people and they truly care but when was the last time your doctor actually showed you the insert of the chickenpox vaccine? I highly doubt they even know what it looks like.
I know what it looks like because I’ve taken the time to educate myself.
…I stand firmly against injecting aborted fetal tissue and anti-freeze into my body or my children’s body.
Grocery Manufacturers Association – Leading opponents of GMO labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of the largest organizations representing the food industry. As of 2013, they had over 300 member businesses in food and beverage production as well as biotech and seed companies.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of the leading opponents of GMO labeling. They have poured millions of dollars into defeating bills to label GMOs introduced in various states and are big supporters of the DARK Act, a bill made to make labeling GMOs illegal at the federal level. In the 2012 ballot initiative in California (Proposition 37) and 2013 ballot initiative in Washington (Proposition 522), the Grocery Manufacturers Association and its members donated over 54 million dollars, just to fight labeling.
This organization spends millions of dollars a year lobbying at the federal and state level, primarily to fight GMO labeling. In 2014, they poured money into fighting the GMO labeling initiatives in Colorado (Proposition 92) and Oregon (Proposition 105). The GMA spent big dollars convincing the public that labeling GMOs will increase overall food prices. Unfortunately, their efforts have been successful, though by a narrow margin. Of the 68 companies and organizations listed that funded opposition to these four propositions, only seven were not members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association as of 2013. These 7 organizations are identified.
Full List of Right To Know Opponents
No.
Donor
No On 37
No on 522
No on 92
No on 105
1
Monsanto Co.
$8,112,867
$5,374,411
$5,958,750
$4,755,878
2
Dupont
$5,400,000
$3,880,159
$4,928,150
$3,000,000
3
PepsiCo
$2,485,400
$2,352,966
$2,350,000
$1,650,000
4
Grocery Manufacturers Association
$2,002,000
$11,000,000**
$169,190
$106,600
5
Kraft Foods
$2,000,500
–
$870,000
$1,030,000
6
BASF Plant Science
(Non-Member)
$2,000,000
$500,000
–
–
7
Bayer CropScience
$2,000,000
$591,654
–
–
8
DOW Agrosciences
$2,000,000
$591,654
$1,157,150
$306,500
9
Syngenta Corporation
$2,000,000
–
–
–
10
Coca-Cola North America
$1,690,500
$1,520,351
$1,170,000
$1,108,000
11
Nestle USA
$1,461,600
$1,528,206
–
–
12
General Mills
$1,230,300
$869,271
$695,000
$820,000
13
ConAgra Foods
$1,176,700
$828,251
$350,000
$250,000
14
Kellogg’s Company
$790,700
$322,050
$500,000
250,000
15
Smithfield Foods
$683,900
–
–
$250,000
16
Delmonte Foods
$674,100
$125,677
–
–
17
Campbell Soup Company
$598,000
$384,888
–
–
18
Smucker Company
$555,000
$349,978
$295,000
$345,000
19
Hershey Company
$518,900
$360,450
$320,000
$380,000
20
Biotechnology Industry Organization
(Non-Member)
$502,000
–
11,200
$108,000
21
Heinz Company
$500,000
–
–
–
22
Mars Inc.
$498,350
–
–
–
23
Hormel Foods
$467,900
$76,803
$85,000
85,000
24
Unilever
$467,100
–
–
–
25
Bimbo Bakeries
$422,900
$137,460
$230,000
270,000
26
Bumble Bee Foods
$420,600
$52,365
$45,000
$50,000
27
Ocean Spray Cranberries
$409,100
$80,295
$35,000
80,000
28
Council for Biotechnology Information
(Non-Member)
$375,000
–
$12,827
–
29
Sara Lee Corporation
(Non-Member)
$343,600
–
–
–
30
Abbott Nutrition
$334,500
$185,025
$160,000
$190,000
31
Pinnacle Foods Group
$266,100
$175,425
–
–
32
Dean Foods
$253,950
$174,553
–
–
33
Cargill
$250,000
$143,133
$111,000
$135,000
34
Bunge North America
$248,600
$137,896
–
–
35
Rich Products Corporation
$248,300
$34,911
$30,000
–
36
McCormick & Company
$248,200
$148,369
$130,000
–
37
Flowers Foods
$182,100
$205,099
–
$250,000
38
Mondelez International
$181,000
$210,336
$720,000
–
39
Dole Packaged Foods
$175,000
–
–
–
40
Knouse Foods
$167,600
$20,946
$20,000
$25,000
41
Welch Foods
$167,000
$41,893
$30,000
$35,000
42
Land O’Lakes
$153,300
$144,878
$760,000
$900,000
43
Sunny Delight Beverages
$139,700
$30,547
$25,000
$25,000
44
Wrigley Jr. Company
$123,350
–
–
–
45
Tree Top Inc.
$110,600
–
–
–
46
Clement Pappas & Co.
$100,000
$30,547
–
–
47
Hilshire Brands Company
$85,900
$282,775
–
–
48
Hero North America
(Non-Member)
$80,800
–
–
–
49
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
$80,000
–
$50,000
$50,000
50
Faribault Foods
$76,000
–
–
–
51
Solae Inc.
$62,500
–
–
–
52
Goya Foods
$56,700
–
–
–
53
McCain Foods USA
$53,400
–
–
–
54
Godiva Chocolatier
$42,700
–
–
–
55
B&G Foods
$40,000
–
–
–
56
Clorox Company
$39,700
$17,455
–
–
57
Bruce Foods
$38,500
$4,364
–
–
58
C.H. Guenther & Son
$24,700
–
–
–
59
Morton Salt
$21,400
–
–
–
60
Reily Foods Company
$18,400
–
–
–
61
Inventure Foods
$15,600
–
–
–
62
Hirzel Canning Company
$15,000
–
–
–
63
Idahoan Foods
$10,000
–
–
–
64
Sargento Foods
(Non-Member)
$10,000
–
–
–
65
Snack Foods Association
(Non-Member)
$10,000
–
–
–
66
Shearer’s Foods
–
$36,656
$30,000
$35,000
67
Niagara Bottling
–
–
–
$10,000
68
Michael Foods
–
–
$30,000
–
**GMA member donations included in list
In 2013, the Grocery Manufacturers Association took down the publicly available list of members from their website. The 2013 membership directory is archived online and available here.
The Food and Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group, listed the 2012 Board of Directors of the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the amount of money each group contributed. These companies are some of the biggest opponents of GMO labeling. Additionally, these companies are supporting the GMA’s lawsuit against the State of Vermont. In a democratic process the people of Vermont have spoken, and they want GMOs labeled, the GMA is suing to subvert the results of this democratic process. These companies spend big dollars blocking your right to know, not just through the GMA but by direct campaign donations as well.
In these matters, money talks. However, there was a good reason that the Grocery Manufacturers Association no longer publicizes their list of members; it is becoming increasingly expensive to ignore the will of the people. The companies are obviously worried about damage to their image from blocking your right to know what is in your food. If we don’t vote with our dollars, organizations like Monsanto, the GMA, Pepsi, and other companies will vote with our dollars for us, and not with any regard to our wishes.
Monsanto has spent a lot of money trying to fight state labeling laws. Despite millions of dollars and deceitful ad campaigns, they haven’t been entirely successful. Laws mandating GMO labeling came close to passing in Oregon, California, and Washington. Vermont successfully passed a GMO labeling law, and initiatives to label genetically modified foods are being introduced all over the country.
Monsanto needed a federal solution to their problem, a federal law that could overturn the people’s will in Vermont and in other states. Unfortunately, Congress agreed. The bill is titled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. It is better known by its critics as the DARK Act (which stands for Denying Americans the Right to Know). Despite vocal opposition from the public, independent scientists, and celebrities, the bill has passed the House and it is currently in the Senate’s agriculture committee. This bill, and California’s failed attempt to pass a GMO labeling law, motivated public responses from world-class celebrities. Refusing to passively accept corporate rule, many stars have become outspoken and have begun to use their fame in order to make it clear that they want to know what is in their food. Neil Young tells us in song.
Neil Young
If you don’t like to rock Starbucks A coffee shop
Well you better change your station ’cause that ain’t all that we got
Yeah, I want a cup of coffee but I don’t want a GMO
I like to start my day off without helping Monsanto
… From the fields of Nebraska to the banks of the Ohio
The farmers won’t be free to grow what they want to grow
When corporate control takes over the American farm
With fascist politicians and chemical giants walking arm in arm
… When the people of Vermont wanted to label food with GMOs
So that they could find out what was in what the farmer grows
Monsanto and Starbucks through the Grocery Manufacturers Alliance
They sued the state of Vermont to overturn the people’s will
Chuck Norris
In 2007 alone, the agricultural sector applied between 180 million and 185 million pounds of glyphosate to crops in this country. The home and garden sector applied 5 million to 8 million pounds, and industry, commerce, and government applied 13 million to 15 million pounds of glyphosate. It was the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture and second-most widely used herbicide in the home and garden sector.
The reason it should be on our radar now is that glyphosate is under a standard registration review by the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency is determining whether glyphosate use should continue as is or be limited or even halted.
For years, various interest groups, as well as researchers and scientists from several countries, have complained that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants and animals, including humans. Studies have been conducted, and findings have been made.
…What do I believe when I read that even the EPA’s technical fact sheet on glyphosate states, for example, that chronic long-term exposure can cause kidney damage and reproductive effects?
And when an MIT study argues that glyphosate’s “negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body”?
Do I read this as it sounds – that maybe what is being called insignificant or low-risk in the short term could escalate into having a significant impact on health over the years? Is it something that could shorten a person’s life?
Jennifer Garner
My friend Gisele [Bundchen] and I are fed up with being kept in the dark about GMO and non-GMO labeling, I got involved because she said, “Do you know what’s happening?” She’s a firecracker. She said, “You have to educate yourself.”
It’s easy for me to shop at places where foods are labeled. Only 3% of the food we produce is non-GMO. But if that 3% is available to you, you kind of take that for granted, but the rest of the country is being fed food—certainly all of the animals that are being turned into our meat, they’re all being fed food that’s been genetically modified.
I cook for my kids, and we have a garden. We try to grow whatever we can, although I can’t say we have the hugest crop in the world, but I do try to pay close attention, and I do my best.
Gwyneth Paltrow
Next week I am going to DC to speak with members of the Senate about voting against a law that would let genetically modified organisms into our food supply without any labels! Monsanto and other big food do not want any GMO labeling. 89% of Americans do. And this law, which passed in the house last week, would overturn the states who have passed labeling laws. The evidence suggests that GMO’s are an environmental disaster, both in the long term and in the short. But I am not asking you to weigh in on whether they are good or bad. We just want a label! We have a right to know what is in our food like the 64 other countries who label or don’t allow GMO’s at all.
… Much the way I want to know if my food is farm-raised or wild or if my orange juice is fresh or from concentrate, I also believe I have the right, and we as Americans all have the right, to know what’s in our food. I’m not here as an expert. I’m here as a mother, an American mother, that honestly believes I have the right to know what’s in the food I feed my family.”
Roseanne Barr
The big island of Hawaii made GMOs illegal. We banned them. We worked so hard…Monsatan I call them. We banned their ass from the big island… It was signed into law.
Dave Matthews
Why would you want to know what’s in your food?
…. Here in America you don’t get the right to know if you’re eating genetically modified organisms.
… If there’s nothing wrong with GMOs, why not put it on the label?…MADE WITH GMOS!!
Tom Colicchio
It’s not surprising that as a chef, I want to know what I am feeding my customers. It’s also not surprising that as a father, I want to know what I am feeding my family. What is surprising is that some in Congress are working so hard to keep consumers like me in the dark as to what’s in the food we eat.
More and more consumers are taking an interest in the ingredients in the products they buy from the grocery store, including whether or not the food contains genetically modified organisms. However, in most cases, there is no way to determine whether or not what you buy at the grocery store contains GMOs. Even when packaging reads “All Natural,” it’s no guarantee that the product has not been genetically modified.
Who’s afraid of transparency? Who’s afraid of disclosure? People who have something to hide.
In a recent national survey, more than 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling. We should all be cheered by the fact that consumers want to be more knowledgeable about the foods they eat. That’s why it’s so disturbing that instead of making it easier for consumers to understand what’s in the food they are buying, there are some in Congress who are actively trying to deny us the basic right to know what we are putting in our bodies.
… I just want to know, I want to know what’s in my food. I really want to know what I’m feeding my family.
Eric Ripert
You don’t have to be a chef to know what is in your food.
Sara Gilbert
All we’re asking is to know what we’re eating and what our kids are eating.
Bill Maher
China labels GMOs – they put lead in baby food. We can’t have that in America, you know why? In America, corporations run the show. Even though nine out of ten Americans would at least like foods to be labeled. At least we know they are Frankenfoods. But it would hurt sales, so shut up and eat your mutant chili.
…Throughout the course of food labeling history, giant processed food companies have claimed that giving consumers basic information about their food would raise the cost of food and guess what? It never has. But that hasn’t stopped the chemical and junk food companies from using this faulty argument to mislead Californians into believing that a label to tell them if their food has been genetically engineered will raise the cost to their food.Enough with the scare tactics already don’t buy their BS.
Michael J Fox
I have a right to know what’s in my food, and you do, too.
… Until we know more about these newly invented foods, just label it.
Jack Johnson
I definitely think people have the right to know what’s in their food. I just shot a public service announcement for the Just Label It campaign, and I’m definitely behind Prop 37 [California’s attempt to pass a labeling law] and the idea that we are what we eat, so we should know what we’re eating. We all have the right to know what’s in our food. When you look at the fact that the European Union has completely banned GMOs, I think we have the right to at least know if we’re eating GMOs.
Julie Bowen
Every modern family has the right to know… What is in their food!!!! And I have the right to know what’s in my food! Don’t you want to know?!
James Franco
Large processed food companies have always claimed that giving consumers basic information about their food, using labels, would increase their grocery costs. And every time it’s been a lie.
Now those same companies are at it again, making more outlandish claims that your grocery bill will skyrocket under Proposition 37, which requires labels for GMOs, well it’s not true, and we’re fighting back with the truth.
… Isn’t labeling genetically modified foods just a fair idea?
Jim Carrey
I’m here to plant a seed today, a seed that will inspire you to go forward in your life with enthusiastic hearts and a clear sense of wholeness. The question is, will that seed have a chance to take root or will I be sued by Monsanto?
Ann Heche
We deserve to know what is on our food. The fact is, we are not being told the truth and there are no laws that demand it.
Rob Schneider
CALL YOUR SENATOR! TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THE DARK ACT 1599!! DEMAND THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S IN YOUR CHILD’S FOOD!
More Celebrities Who Have Spoken Out Against GMOs and Monsanto
Alexandra Paul
Ali Larter
Alicia Silverstone
Amy Smart
Barbara Streisand
Bianca Jagger
Bill Maher
Blue Sky Drive (Band)
Chevy Chase
Caley Chase
Carter Oosterhouse
Danny DeVito
Darryl Hannah
Dave Matthews
Elijah Wood
Emily Deschanel
Emily VanCamp
Exene Cervenka
Frances Fisher
Frank Delgado
Gabriel Mann
Glenn Howerton
Ian Somerhalder
James Taylor
Jayni Chase
Jillian Michaels
John Cho
Jordana Brewster
Josh Bowmen
Julie Bowen
KaDee Strickland
Kaitlin Olson
Kimberly Elise
Kimberly Van Der Beek
Kristin Bauer van Straten
Leah Segedie
Mariel Hemingway
Maroon 5 (Band)
Mehcad Brooks
Nell Newman, founder, Newman’s Own Organics
Nick Wechsler
Rashida Jones
Roseanne Barr
Russell Simmons
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Suzanne Somers
Wilder Valderrama
Ziggy Marley
None of these celebrities are presenting themselves as scientists. So far, scientific objections to genetic engineering (which are many, and well founded) have been completely ignored. Instead of raising scientific objections to genetic engineering, these celebrities are objecting to being denied the right to know what is in our food. At the heart of the matter is freedom, the freedom to choose what goes into our bodies. They want to know what is in their food. Don’t you want to know as well?
Vaccines and GMOs have more in common than many people realize. Both the biotech and the pharmaceutical industry use the same arguments to get you to accept their products. If you are against GMOs or vaccines, then you must be anti-science!
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the people who research vaccines and GMOs who turn against them. In today’s busy world, most people don’t feel that they have the time to research every product. A desire for convenience and a touch of apathy motivates people to trust the government to guarantee the safety of our products. The same people who claim that they don’t trust their government paradoxically trust the FDA, the USDA, and the CDC. What most people don’t know is that the same studies that the regulators use to verify product safety are funded by industry. Those who stand to benefit the most from product approval are the same ones doing studies that verify safety for vaccines and GMOs.
An Informed Opinion Leads to a Predictable Point of View
That old adage, “When we know better we do better,” holds true for both vaccines and GMOs, and some of us know better than others. More often than not, it is the highly educated who refuse vaccines and buy organic. The political elite is no exception.
While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both espouse the benefits of GMOs, neither Hillary nor President Obama actually eat them. The White House doesn’t serve GMOs, and this elitism is not limited to Democrats. Both George Bush and Mitt Romney have strong ties to Monsanto, and both also only eat organic foods. If GMOs are not good enough for them, then why would they be good enough for you and your family?
It is the Highly Educated Who Refuse Vaccines
When it comes to vaccines, the situation is markedly similar. In Germany, a safer vaccine was offered to the politicians, soldiers, and civil servants than the rest of the population. Amid fears of a swine flu epidemic, the German government ordered the Pandemrix vaccine for the German public and the Celvapan vaccine for government officials and the military. Both vaccines vaccinated for the same disease; one was simply safer than the other.
Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) revealed that most of his children are not vaccinated.
I believe it’s the parents’ decision whether to immunize or not. And so I’m looking at my wife — most of our children, we didn’t immunize. They’re healthy. Of course, home schooling, we didn’t have to get the mandatory immunization.
The higher someone’s formal education and the more informed someone is about vaccines, the more likely they are to refuse them. Many former pharmaceutical employees refuse to vaccinate their children.
An education, whether formal or informal, changes you forever. When it comes to vaccines or GMOs, a little knowledge can go a long way. It is the same people who have read the vaccine warning labels and the people who learn about vaccine ingredients who invariably refuse them for their children. The more you know about GMOs, the less likely you are to eat them as well.
If knowledge is power, ignorance is powerlessness. It is ignorant to believe that we don’t need to know what is in our food because we are too scared of science. It is just as ignorant to believe that vaccines simultaneously work so incredibly well, and yet so phenomenally badly that everyone must have them. As GMO activists struggle to educate the world about what is in their unlabeled food, anti-vaxxers struggle to educate others about what is in vaccines.
The Same Struggle by Different Names
The struggles against GMOs and vaccines are intrinsically linked, and yet what happens more often than not, is that these activists fight against billion dollar companies alone, when the fight is essentially the same and the industries that oppose them are essentially the same people as well.
GMO activists want GMOs labeled for the same reason that anti-vaxxers oppose mandatory vaccines. They all want control over what is to be put in their bodies, or the bodies of their children. Admittedly, in vaccines, the struggle over labels is slightly different. Instead of having vaccines labeled (though some of the labeling is intentionally ambiguous) there is a push to get others to read the ingredients, and to read the warning labels. Most people refuse to even discuss what’s in a vaccine or the known risks involved in vaccination. One of the many known risks to vaccination is death. Dying from a vaccine or being permanently disabled is far more likely than dying or being disabled from the disease that the vaccine is supposed to prevent. This may sound hard to believe, but this is easily verifiable. Mortality statistics for all diseases are easily found by searching the Internet. For instance, measles hasn’t killed anyone in the U.S. in decades, but the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System admits to 329 deaths from the vaccine, and almost 7,000 serious adverse reactions. (Numbers for adverse reactions are most likely low due to underreporting.) The question becomes what’s worse, the disease or the vaccine? To those who know how to do the research, the answer is obvious.
Both of These Industries Want You To Trust Their Products and Not To Do Your Own Research
The majority of those opposed to vaccines and GMOs are highly educated. These people are not anti-science, they embrace the pro-precautionary principle. A good definition and description of the precautionary principle quoted from Mindfully.org follows:
When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
Key elements of the principle include taking precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty; exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions; placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity; and using democratic processes to carry out and enforce the principle – including the public right to informed consent.
…Sometimes if we wait for proof it is too late. Scientific standards for demonstrating cause and effect are very high. For example, smoking was strongly suspected of causing lung cancer long before the link was demonstrated conclusively that is, to the satisfaction of scientific standards of cause and effect. By then, many smokers had died of lung cancer. But many other people had already quit smoking because of the growing evidence that smoking was linked to lung cancer. These people were wisely exercising precaution despite some scientific uncertainty.
Often a problem – such as a cluster of cancer cases or global warming – is too large, its causes too diverse, or the effects too long-term to be sorted out with scientific experiments that would prove cause and effect. It’s hard to take these problems into the laboratory. Instead, we have to rely on observations, case studies or predictions based on current knowledge.
According to the precautionary principle, when reasonable scientific evidence of any kind gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology or substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm. If we always wait for scientific certainty, people may suffer and die, and damage to the natural world may be irreversible.
Rather than conduct (or publish) long-term independent studies, both the biotech and the pharmaceutical industries opt to do their own short-term studies. They also both successfully lobby governments for special protection from liability.
In 1986 a law was enacted making it illegal to sue vaccine manufacturers: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This law established a vaccine court, a system that will only compensate families for known vaccine reactions, and then far less than what actual standard liability would pay out. The vaccine court is funded by taxes on vaccines, and so far they have paid out over 3 billion. This court is far from fair or impartial. They pay a maximum of 250,000 dollars for wrongful death from vaccines, and they dismiss 80% of all cases presented to them. Buying the claimant’s silence is a common stipulation to receive any compensation.
A provision was added to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill that serves no purpose other than protecting the biotech industry at the expense of the public’s health. Specifically, HR 933, section 735 is the provision that makes genetically engineered foods immune from liability. This law has been dubbed the Monsanto Protection Act. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law.
If the pharmaceutical and biotech industries thought these products were safe, then why did they lobby the U.S. government for immunity from liability? It stands to reason that they wouldn’t spend millions of dollars lobbying for special protection from lawsuits if the products were safe to begin with.
Industry Funded Pseudoscience
It is difficult to find truly independent research on vaccines. Most vaccine safety studies use all of the toxic ingredients that are found in vaccines for both the control group and the group receiving vaccines – the same adjuvants such as heavy metals, aborted fetal cells, formaldehyde, etc. The only difference between the “placebo” and the vaccine is that the “placebo” doesn’t have the attenuated pathogen, or the “placebo” is an experimental vaccine. Real long-term safety studies that study vaccinated versus unvaccinated or long-term studies that look at the safety of the entire vaccine schedule are never funded by the industry or the U.S. Government. The CDC has blatantly refused to study vaccinated versus unvaccinated because they know what they would find.
There is a similar situation with GMOs. All of the safety studies published by the industry are short-term studies, 90 days or less. The reason for this is that the harmful effects of GMOs typically begin to show up after 90 days. Neither the biotech industry nor the U.S. Government ever published long-term studies. There have been numerous studies conducted in Europe and Russia that reveal kidney damage, liver damage, cancer, and other health problems linked to GMO consumption.
Biotech and the Pharmaceutical Industries Are Separate in Name Only
Monsanto and Pfizer used to be one company, a pharmaceutical company and a biotech company. Pfizer and Monsanto still maintain close ties with both companies staffed by a revolving door of scientists and businessmen that switch back and forth between both companies and regulatory agencies. When you consider how pharmaceutical companies make money (the more sick people are, the more money they make) strong ties to a biotech company should be a major concern to the public.
Many people who are opposed to GMOs are pro-vaccine and vice-versa. These views are far from consistent, and any activist that is against one and for the other is an activist who fails to grasp the issues at hand. If an activist can’t tell what vaccines and GMOs have in common, they could be more of a hindrance than a help to their cause. In an effort to avoid dividing their followers, most anti-GMO and anti-vaccine movements avoid discussing anything they see as unrelated to their cause. This demarcation hurts both movements, as there is strength in numbers. When fighting against the influence and propaganda of companies that are worth billions, a united front would be far more effective. A well known, but often looked over fact, is that many vaccines contain genetically modified ingredients. If you wouldn’t want to ingest GMOs, then why would you want to have them injected into your body or your children’s bodies?
