DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: April 27, 2015, 6:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtzyA_tbuI0&feature=player_embedded
Seasoned Investigative Journalist Exposes Inside Strategies to
Censor News
April 26, 2015 | 184,020 views
By Dr. Mercola
[quote]You can choose to ignore reality, [i]but you can't ignore
the consequences of ignoring reality[/i]. Most of us rely
heavily on the media for information, not realizing that 90
percent of it is controlled by a mere six media giants.
Sharyl Attkisson, a five-time Emmy Award winning investigative
journalist whose television career spans more than three decades
is one of my personal heroes. She was the reporter who, in 2009,
blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria
was completely unfounded and manufactured.[/quote]
[img width=300
height=330]
HTML http://josephnewton.com/images/sized/images/work/Aug6o9_Savage_Mislead_LG-440x501.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img width=300
height=330]
HTML http://fallacyaday.com/images/62.%20Misleading%20Vividness.png[/img]
SNIPPET 1:
One of the examples in Sharyl's book that really hit home for me
was when Hillary Clinton ran against Obama for president, and
while on the campaign trail told reporters she had dodged sniper
fire on a trip as First Lady, 12 years prior, when she visited
Bosnia.
It seems like a silly thing to lie about, but lie she did.
Sharyl and other journalists had been on that trip, and they all
knew no one had dodged sniper fire, least of all the First Lady.
Fortunately, Sharyl had archived videos of the event to prove
it.
"It couldn't be farther from the truth, the idea that we had
been shot up by sniper fire," Sharyl says. "There are a couple
of choices – just being untruthful for her own benefit, or was
she delusional, which is a little frightening. But I think the
public got past that because they accepted her as the Secretary
of State."
SNIPPET 2:
Intimidation and Harassment of Journalists
True investigative journalists, such as Sharyl, have also become
targets of intimidation and harassment. For example, at one
point her computer and phone lines were hacked to find out what
she was working on.
I assume there are a handful of journalists who do that sort of
critical reporting on the government, and on this administration
in particular, that they wanted to watch.
They never dreamed I would luck upon the resources to have the
computer examined by experts that could find the software they
deposited in my computer.
This software was proprietary to a government agency, either the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency
(NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI)...
[i]They had my keystroke data... They could look at all my
files. They used Skype audio – I didn't know this was possible –
but they could turn it on invisibly, without you knowing it, to
listen into conversations. They could also remove files using
Skype... We were able to confirm these highly sophisticated
long-term, remote intrusions."
Another interesting book for anyone interested or concerned
about matters such as these is Future Crimes: Everything Is
Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It
by Marc Goodman. The book discusses in great detail how this
type of hacking can occur, and more importantly, what simple
measures we can do to protect ourselves. It's a reality. And if
they're doing it to top-notch investigative reporters, certainly
everyone is a candidate.
On Astroturfing...
"Astroturf" is the effort on the part of special interests,
whether corporate or political, to surreptitiously sway public
opinion and make it appear as though it's a grassroots effort
for or against a particular agenda, when in reality such a
groundswell of public opinion might not exist. Sharyl explains:
"They turn to things like social media – Facebook and Twitter –
using pseudonyms and multiple accounts to spread things around.
They use their partners who blog for them, write things, and
pick up on one another's work until sometimes it's been picked
up in the mainstream media as if it's a fact.
It's all intended to make you feel as though if you hold a
certain opinion that they don't want you to have, [i]you're the
outlier. Everybody else agrees with 'X' except you ;), and that
may not be the truth. This is a huge business... There are
actually PR firms that specialize in these sorts of tactics.
Astroturfing is now more important, I am told by lobbyists and
PR firms, to many clients than the direct lobbying of Congress
because it's so effective to reach out to the public. They may
have someone write a letter to the editor and you don't know
that person is being paid by a special interest to advance a
certain opinion.
They may start as a nonprofit without saying out front that
they're behind the nonprofit. The nonprofit may then look like a
charity that's advancing a certain opinion, which is actually
acting on behalf of the corporate interest or the special
interest. Again, it's very widespread..."[/i]
Hallmark signs of astroturfing include using key language—words
such as crank, crack, nutty, pseudo, conspiracy, and other
language that's effective with the public to try to make you
dismiss an argument they don't like. Another hallmark of an
Astroturf campaign is attacking those who are questioning
authority, such as reporters who are exposing the truth,
whistleblowers who dare to step forward, and people asking tough
questions.
It's important to be aware of these kinds of concerted efforts
to distort the truth, and to understand how they're done,
because these "faux concern" campaigns can have a profound
influence on your perception of reality.
SNIPPET 3:
Why Conventional Media So Rarely Tells You the Truth About
Health
One industry that wields a great deal of power within the media
today is the pharmaceutical industry. It's rare to sit through
an evening of television without viewing several drug ads. They
also advertise heavily in print and online media. The
advertising dollars they spend not only generates sales, it also
gives them the power to influence what's being reported in the
news. Here's just one example:
"There's a story in my book about former executive producer of
mine who got a phone call from the sales division, which was
very inappropriate. He said the sales person from CBS was kind
of screaming at him because we'd been doing a lot of stories
looking at side effects and problems with the very popular and
billion-dollar-selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins.
The advertisers didn't like that. Therefore, someone from the
CBS corporate apparently didn't like that, and called down and
said something like,[i] 'If you keep doing these stories, it's
going to be really, really bad for CBS...'
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
I think that happens more often than we know explicitly. But
this time, it was followed by what I see as all of the media
backing down on pharmaceutical-related stories. We were doing
very aggressive coverage of problems within the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) – not just me, but all the networks and a
lot of print publications – about vaccines side effects, and
about other medical issues. That all has virtually stopped.
You can almost point to a time period when it seems someone made
a phone call and said, 'That's it fellas. There are
advertisers.'
And you won't see these stories now even when there's a
multi-billion-dollar criminal settlement against drug companies
for mismarketing drugs that are commonly used. That's a huge
story that should be leading the news in my opinion. But most
people probably never heard of it because those are things that
offend the sensibilities of advertisers, who now control to some
degree the editorial content of networks, publications, and
print publications that are advertising.
And, as you know, they have several lobbyists for every member
of Congress on Capitol Hill so they can make sure certain
hearings don't happen. As recently as last year, they were able
to stop a planned vaccine-related hearing. The control is almost
total in my view. That's just one example of a corporate
influence." [/i]
Full interview in video:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB3_JPBBUH4&feature=player_embedded
Seasoned Investigative Journalist Exposes Inside Strategies to
Censor News
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/04/26/media-obstruction-intimidation-harassment.aspx?e_cid=20150426Z1_SNL_NB_art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150426Z1_SNL_NB&et_cid=DM75079&et_rid=930434424
#Post#: 3049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: April 28, 2015, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Federal ruling paves the way for GMO trial
John Herrick Apr. 27 2015, 7:50 pm 9 Comments
A federal judge Monday dismissed an attempt to block the
implementation of Vermont’s law requiring the labeling of food
containing genetically engineered ingredients.
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss dismissed a
preliminary injunction brought by the Grocery Manufacturers
Association [img width=80
height=055]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img],<br
/>which contends that Vermont’s GMO labeling law is
unconstitutional.
The ruling also denies the state’s motion to dismiss the case,
which clears the way for a trial.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Reiss rejected the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s request
for an injunction that would prevent the Vermont law from going
into effect while the case is litigated. She ruled Monday that
Act 120 can be implemented July 1, 2016, despite the ongoing
lawsuit.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
The multibillion dollar trade group representing food, beverage
and pesticide companies sued the state last year after the
nation’s first GMO labeling legislation was signed into law by
Gov. Peter Shumlin. The Vermont Attorney General’s Office
finalized the regulations to implement the law this month.
The order is not a final ruling :(, but Reiss decided on
several key constitutional questions raised by the lawsuit. She
also said the state’s prohibition of the use of the word
“natural” on genetically engineered foods may be
unconstitutional.[/I]
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
Nonetheless, Attorney General Bill Sorrell said Monday there is
a lot to like in Reiss’ order.
“On the fundamental heart and soul issues of the law, and that
is the mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically
engineered ingredients, the plaintiffs are going to have a very
difficult time seeing that that is struck down by this court,”
Sorrell said.
In a statement, GMA said it is reviewing the decision and
considering its legal options.
gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp[/img]
“While we are pleased that the District Court found us likely to
succeed on several of our claims, we are nevertheless
disappointed by the court’s ultimate decision to deny our Motion
for Preliminary Injunction to block the implementation of the
Vermont GMO labeling law – Act 120 – on grounds that the
manufacturers had not yet shown a sufficient degree of harm,”
the statement said.
The trade groups argue that the labeling requirement violates
free speech protections ::). They say the legislation’s
“politically motivated speech regulation” compels manufacturers
to use labels that frighten consumers from purchasing [i]safe,
nutritious, affordable foods that are no different from
counterpart organic, the order says.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Because the law compels speech, the trade groups argue the state
must prove there is a “compelling government interest” to
require the label, such as a public health threat.
The state says the labeling requirement compels only factual,
noncontroversial commercial information and furthers
governmental purposes beyond only satisfying a consumer’s right
to know whether food products contain genetically engineered
ingredients, the order says.
Reiss rejected the trade groups’ request for a higher legal
standard of review. She applied the less stringent Zauderer
precedent, which was derived from a 1985 court case.
“Because the State has established that Act 120’s GE disclosure
requirement is reasonably related to the State’s substantial
interests, under Zauderer, Act 120’s GE disclosure requirement
is constitutional,” the order says.
The state’s law also prohibits manufacturers from claiming their
products are “natural” or using “words of similar import” if the
product contains genetically engineered ingredients. Reiss said
the law does not define this term.
“Not only does Act 120 fail to define ‘any words of similar
import,’ but it refers to its undefined ‘natural’ terminology
for guidance,” Reiss said.
She also dismissed arguments by the trade groups that Act 120
violates the Commerce Clause and federal pre-emptions.
No trial date has been set.
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/04/27/federal-judge-denies-industry-motion-in-gmo-case/
Agelbert NOTE: Well, how about that! A judge with SOME CFS.
However, her "issues" with the term "natural" are RIDICULOUS. If
it is PATENTED, it CANNOT be considered "NATURAL", unless the
Supreme Arseholes decide to do ANOTHER Orwellian trick on the
English Language on behalf of their FASCIST interpretation of
the Constitution.
#Post#: 3106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: May 9, 2015, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://barbwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/torches-and-pitchforks.jpg[/img]
[quote] I remember hearing a phrase during Occupy, "If you
won't let us dream we won't let you sleep". What happens when
real opportunity for everyone below $100k evaporates entirely?
What happens when people can't find decent paying jobs that they
can afford to live on? What happens when people have had enough?
I don't want things to get that bad. I have often tried my
best to get out in front of the problem before it gets worse. I
don't have the resources or clout to be heard, my lack of money
as speech prevents that, but Nick Hanauer does, and he is
spelling it out for his uber-rich compatriots, cut the shit out
before you unleash all hell on yourselves.
[quote]
No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In
fact, there is no example in human history where wealth
accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come
out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a
police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples.
None. It’s not if, it’s when. [/quote] [/quote]
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27/1309994/--The-pitchforks-ARE-coming-A-billionaire-warns-his-fellow-Oligarchs-what-is-coming-down-the-pipe
#Post#: 3175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: May 20, 2015, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Under Attack for Going GMO Free
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
[img width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
Ronnie Cummins | May 20, 2015 2:38 pm
Since when do the mainstream news media, in a country that
worships at the altar of capitalism and the free market, launch
a coordinated attack against a company for selling a product
consumers want? When that company dares to cross the powerful
biotech industry. How else to explain the unprecedented negative
coverage of Chipotle, merely because the successful restaurant
chain will eliminate genetically modified foods (GMOs)?
The[color=brown][size=18pt][b] biotech industry [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/> has a long history of discrediting scientists who challenge t
he
safety of GMOs
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif.[/b][/size][/color]<br
/>
That intimidation campaign worked well until consumers connected
the dots between GMO foods (and the toxic chemicals used to grow
them) and health concerns.
Once consumers demanded labels on GMO foods, the biotech
industry responded with a multimillion dollar public relations
campaign.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
HTML http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwx7wy0tIK1qd9a66o1_500.jpg
Yet despite spending millions to influence the media, and
millions more to prevent laws requiring labels on products the
industry claims are safe, Monsanto has lost the hearts and minds
of consumers [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img].<br
/>The latest polls show that 93 percent of Americans support
mandatory labeling of GMO foods. ;D
Chipotle has made a sound business
decision
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif,<br
/> which has forced the biotech industry to stoop to a new low:
vilifying businesses. Sadly, the mainstream media appear all too
happy (manipulated?) to go along with the attack.
Only in the U.S. does the biotech industry wield such power,
which is arguably having a negative effect on the free market.
Take McDonald’s. In the U.S., the fast-food chain is in trouble.
In Britain (and other countries), where McDonald’s is GMO-free,
it is profitable.
In March, 17 leading cancer researchers concluded that
glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, widely
used on GMO crops, is a “probable” carcinogen. In 1985 :o,
Environmental Protection Agency scientists drew the same
conclusion. According to hundreds of scientists worldwide, there
is no consensus on the safety of GMO foods.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif
A growing number of consumers don’t want GMO foods. Chipotle is
responding to that demand. Biotech’s attack on Chipotle is an
act of desperation. [b]The mainstream media’s complicity is a
failure of the institution of
journalism.[/b]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/20/chipotle-under-attack-gmo/
Agelbert NOTE: The mainstream media’s complicity is EVIDENCE of
the corporate criminal reality recognized by Chris Hedges in the
quote below.
[quote]
"The rich executed a coup d’état that transformed the three
branches of the U.S. government and nearly all institutions,
including the mass media, into wholly owned subsidiaries of the
corporate state." -- Chris Hedges[/quote]
#Post#: 3234--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 1, 2015, 8:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC2DpGaykaI&feature=player_embedded
Video: Neil Young Takes on “Fascist Politicians and Chemical
Giants Walking Arm in Arm”
By BY DANIEL KREPS / Rolling Stone May 31st, 2015
[i]Neil Young Unveils Starbucks-Mocking Music Video ;D[/i]
Rocker takes aim at GMO giant, defends Vermont in first single
off ‘The Monsanto Years’
Neil Young and Promise of the Real have shared the full music
video for “A Rock Star Bucks a Coffee Shop,” the first single
off the rocker’s new anti-GMO concept album The Monsanto Years.
The video for the song, originally titled “Rock Starbucks”
before it was changed to something more playful and less
infringing, stars Young and his backing band, featuring Willie
Nelson’s sons Lukas and Micah, working on their new album and
defiantly tossing Starbucks cups.
HTML http://www.constantinereport.com/video-neil-young-takes-fascist-politicians-chemical-giants-walking-arm-arm/
#Post#: 3235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 1, 2015, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The full movie, "The Idiot Cycle", is available to watch free
online. It's about five years old. Everything in it is even more
applicable today. >:( :( :P
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUaRi7CHASo&feature=player_embedded
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUOPSveJIY&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 3329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 20, 2015, 12:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]
David Zuckerman [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
June 19, 2015 at 5:59 am
The bill before congress is not spelled out here. It would not
create a federal system, it would create a Federal, voluntary
labeling system. That would not give consumers the necessary
information to make their decision.
This $10 million per day letter and the threat of not selling
their food here are more extreme examples to scare Vermonters. I
recently read a letter to the editor in the Free Press that also
included scare language from the industry. It claimed that
Vermonts’ law would cost the average household $400 more per
year for their food.
That is a very miss-leading interpretation of the study that was
done. The study actually said that if a family does not change
its purchasing then the cost would be negligible. IF a family
chose to by all non-GMO or organic then it would cost them
approx. $400 more per year. But those decisions can be made
individually, day to day as consumers prioritize how they want
to spend their money.
The industry deceptively used that same statistic in millions of
dollars of advertizing to kill labeling laws in states with
referenda. They wanted to create fear, and they succeeded and
won. But here, they could not use that miss-information to “fool
the masses” and we passed it.
Now, they are overstating the scale of the “problem” to try to
fool Congress (made up of a majority of Republicans who
supposedly believe in States rights), in order to override our
state law.
Our law is clear and the AG office worked with the food industry
to write the rules in a way that was clear and the court ruled
that it can go forward. This is a responsible law that is being
implemented fairly and, chicken little, the sky is not going to
fall.
sandra bettis [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
June 19, 2015 at 11:26 am
Funny that they can label their food that they sell to the rest
of the world but can’t label the food that they sell here in the
USA….
Pam Ladds [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
June 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm
“Here’s an idea for the industry: Just label your products. All
of them, nationwide. 64 countries already do it. I’m sure the
food industry in America could summon the moral imagination to
be the 65th,” Shumlin said in a statement. “Plain and simple
Vermont’s law is about giving consumers the right to know what
is in their food.”
Right on![/quote]
‘Just label your products’ Shumlin tells food industry
Tom Brown Jun. 18 2015, 3:27 pm
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/18/just-label-your-products-shumlin-tells-food-industry/
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/18/just-label-your-products-shumlin-tells-food-industry/
#Post#: 3334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 20, 2015, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvvPTksIJ4&feature=player_embedded
Flavor Manufacturers’ Trade Group Is the De Facto Regulator of
Flavor Additives in the US
SNIPPET:
By Dr. Mercola
Were it not for added flavors—be they synthetic or derived from
natural substances—there would be no processed food industry, as
most foods would quite simply be unpalatable.
As it stands, flavor companies develop additives that not only
taste good, but that are “craveable” if not outright addictive.
The fact that processed foods contain added ingredients that
aren't necessarily food isn't secret knowledge. But would it
surprise you to find out that flavors added to processed foods
are “regulated” by the industry itself?
This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. As
explained in the featured video, a legal loophole may have
introduced a huge number of flavors and other additives of
questionable safety into the American food supply.
Who’s Responsible for the Safety of Food Flavors in the US?
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/food-additives-safety.aspx
#Post#: 3360--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 25, 2015, 6:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Food cops bust Whole Foods for shady prices[/move]
By Eve Andrews on 24 Jun 2015
I hate to tell you that you can’t go home tonight, because your
boyfriend has just been validated in every single grocery trip
argument you’ve ever had (“Brad! It’s worth it for the
farmers!”): Whole Foods really is too goddamn spendy, and
falsely so!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif
A sting operation conducted by the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs checked out the pricing of pre-packaged
products at eight Whole Foods locations, and found that “every
label was inaccurate, with many overcharging consumers”
according to the New York Daily News. Let us now reflect on the
state of crime in New York: Authorities are now running sting
operations … at Whole Foods.
More from the New York Daily News:
[T]he notoriously pricy chain was the most egregious offender —
leading DCA to open a full-blown investigation of its pricing
practices last year, said Commissioner Julie Menin.
“Our inspectors told me it was the worst case of overcharges
that they’ve ever seen,” :o Menin said.
The overcharges ranged from 80 cents for a package of pecan
panko to $14.84 for a container of coconut shrimp, [agency
spokeswoman Abby] Lootens said.
First of all: If you’re buying coconut shrimp at Whole Foods, or
pecan panko at all, that’s on you! Make coconut shrimp yourself
— it is basically impossible to fuck up, because fried shrimp is
never going to taste bad.
To review, you have walked away with three new pieces of
knowledge: Whole Foods is full of liars (at least in New York);
coconut shrimp is very easy to make; and grocery trips are
never, ever worth fighting over, because one day you will be
proven indisputably wrong.
HTML http://grist.org/news/food-cops-bust-whole-foods-for-shady-prices/
#Post#: 3706--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 2, 2015, 11:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=260]
HTML https://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/coca-cola-kills.jpg[/img]
[move][b]Coca-Cola Funds Front Group to Peddle 'Nonsense' as
Science [/b][/move]
While the tobacco and chemical technology industries are
notorious for these kinds of tactics, the food industry is using
the same playbook.
For example, Coca-Cola Company was recently "outed" by the New
York Times for funding a front group by the name of The Global
Energy Balance Network. [img width=80
height=60]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]
The aim of this group appears to be to confuse consumers about
soda science, and divert attention away from the mounting
evidence showing that sweet beverages are a major contributor to
obesity and diseases associated with insulin resistance, such as
diabetes.
As reported in the featured article:
[quote]"Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugary
beverages, is backing a new 'science-based' solution to the
obesity crisis: to maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise,
and worry less about cutting calories.
The beverage giant has teamed up with influential scientists
[img width=80
height=60]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]<br
/>who are advancing this message in medical journals, at
conferences and through social media...
'Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific
press is, 'Oh they're eating too much, eating too much, eating
too much' — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks, and so
on,' the group's vice president,[color=brown][size=12pt] Steven
N. Blair, an exercise scientist, says in a recent video
announcing the new organization.
'And there's really virtually no compelling evidence that that,
in fact, is the cause.'"[/size][/color][/quote]
[center] [img width=200
height=100]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img][/center]
In response to, and in support of, this exposé, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) wrote a Letter to the
Editor of the New York Times, signed by 36 leading researchers,
scientists, and public health officials, noting that Coca-Cola
is blatantly ignoring the "well-documented evidence that sugary
drinks are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease, and
diabetes."
Protecting Profits Through Misdirection
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
Last year, Coca-Cola made a $1.5 million donation [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png[/img]<br
/>[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>to two universities where the leaders of the new front group a
re
employed. Since 2008, the company has also funded projects led
by two of the group's founding members, to the tune of $4
million.
Coca-Cola is also the registered owner and administrator of the
Global Energy Balance Network's website and, according to an
editorial7 announcing the creation of the Global Energy Balance
Network, the group has received an "unrestricted education gift"
from Coca-Cola.
"Critics say Coke has long cast the obesity epidemic as
primarily an exercise problem... Now, public health advocates
say, Coca-Cola is going a step further, recruiting reputable
scientists to make the case for them," the New York Times
writes.
"Barry M. Popkin, a professor of global nutrition... said Coke's
support of prominent health researchers was reminiscent of
tactics used by the tobacco industry, which enlisted experts to
become 'merchants of doubt' about the health hazards of
smoking...
The group says there is 'strong evidence' that the key to
preventing weight gain is not reducing food intake... 'but
maintaining an active lifestyle and eating more calories.' To
back up this contention, the group provides links to two
research papers, each of which contains this footnote: 'The
publication of this article was supported by The Coca-Cola
Company...'
[T]he Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana
announced the findings of a large new study on exercise in
children that determined that lack of physical activity 'is the
biggest predictor of childhood obesity around the world.' The
news release contained a disclosure: 'This research was funded
by The Coca-Cola Company.'"
I will have more to say on this topic in early October as I am
interviewing Dr. Marion Nestle for her new book Soda Politics
that is released on October 3.
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/02/coca-cola-soda-obesity.aspx
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page