Whole Foods in deep financial trouble; sales plummet following deceptive anti-labeling position with Monsanto

Whole Foods
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
October 21, 2016

The financial outlook for Whole Foods Market continues to look grim, as consumers seeking natural and organic products continue to take their business elsewhere.

As far back as 2014, then-CEO John Mackey admitted that the company was hurting due to an explosion in the number of stores selling organic groceries.

“The growing demand for fresh, healthy foods, the offering of natural and organic products is expanding everywhere [in] new stores, existing stores and online,” Mackey said.

The company has also been hit by several recent scandals, including allegations of price-gouging, and more recently, of colluding with Monsanto to ensure the passage of a bill that bans the labeling of foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Company profits tanking

Whole Foods was in a vulnerable financial position even before the recent scandals erupted. Organic and natural food sales have exploded in the United States in the past decade, largely due to the entry of new players into the organic grocery market. This broke what had been an all but de facto monopoly for Whole Foods.

Organic food sales were $11 billion in 2004. By 2014, they had more than tripled. The combined organic and “natural” foods market had grown to $48 billion by 2012 – from just $6 billion in 1998.

A watershed moment for organic foods availability – and perhaps the beginning of the end for Whole Foods – came when Walmart entered the market in 2014, introducing a store-brand organics line priced 25 percent lower than its other organic products.

Then, last year, New York regulators accused Whole Foods of price gouging and cheating customers with false weights and measures. The company settled the charges, but the scandal only increased its image as an overpriced store that eats up your “Whole Paycheck.”

The company’s same-store sales have fallen every quarter for the past year, with another 2.1 percent drop expected for this quarter. Overall company earnings are predicted to fall both this year and next year. And the company’s stock has tanked, falling in 2014 and 2015 to a current level of 50 percent below the 2013 high. This year, the stock has fallen more than 10 percent more.

These factors left the company in a vulnerable position when food prices as a whole fell, causing an across-the-board drop in profits for all grocery stores.

Are consumers rejecting ‘organic traitors?’

A factor overlooked by many financial analysts, but potentially significant for the Whole Foods customer base, is the company’s collusion in the recent passage of the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act 2.0. Posing as a GMO labeling bill, the DARK Act 2.0 actually banned all GMO labeling initiatives passed by state or local governments. Within two years, the government is now supposed to roll out a completely voluntary labeling initiative that requires consumers to call a 1-800 number or use a smartphone to scan a QR code for GMO ingredient information.

To top it off, the bill defines “GMO” so narrowly, that 95 percent of GMO products currently on the market are allowed to be labeled as non-GMO – including products made with corn or soy with the Bt or Roundup Ready traits.

Where does Whole Foods come in? According to the Center for Food Safety and small organic farmers groups, the DARK Act 2.0 would never have passed if major organic foods companies – including Whole Foods – had not lent their support to the bill, joining forces with Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Other major “organic traitors” include UNFI (the country’s largest organic and natural foods wholesaler) and the Organic Trade Association, which represents companies such as Organic Valley, White Wave and Smuckers.

Ninety percent of U.S. residents support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

Money.CNN.com

BusinessInsider.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

EcoWatch.com

If Genetically Modified Foods Are Safe, Why Aren’t They Labeled

QuestionEverything2
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 2, 2016

“The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.”
– Thomas Berger

“The greatest gift is not to be afraid to question.”
– Ruby Dee

Imagine yourself being the CEO of a big Biotech Corporation.

Imagine yourself being CEO of the most powerful Biotech Corporation on Earth.

The Board of Directors and yourself are having a meeting, and everyone’s discussing data on how genetically modified organisms [GMOs] are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Every single one of you in this room is in agreement that Genetically Modified Foods, that your company has helped create, is a safe, great product.

Please keep in mind, as CEO, your ultimate job is that of increased profits for the company.  If you don’t perform, no profits are had, and you lose your jobs. 

Now, knowing this, as CEO of the most powerful Biotech corporation on the planet, wouldn’t it behoove you to label your product so people realize what type of product they are getting – that of a ‘safe’ variety?  Wouldn’t you and your company want people to realize which products you helped create as head of this corporation, since, not only they are ‘safe’, but ‘nutritious’?  Wouldn’t you, and your company, and ALL other Big Biotech companies want people to know who’s creating a more superior product as compared with everyone else, so that profits can begin and a pipeline of profits can be streamlined directly into your company?

The profit motive alone would lead one to believe that that if you wish people to use more of your product, as CEO, and if you wish to increase profits, then therefore you would want people to know when they are using to your product so they can stick with it, thus increasing profits year over year.  After all, as CEO, that’s your job.

Furthermore, even if other companies didn’t want to label their products [for whatever reason that would be], wouldn’t you, as CEO, want to distance yourself and your Biotech Company from other companies that will cut into your profits [since no genetically modified food products are labeled], in order to show that not only does your product works, but you are proud of it, and you want people knowing which product you help create so they can further support you and your righteous endeavours?

Ruminate upon that a bit.

_________________________________________________________

Decoupling from the above foray into the realm of imagination, let’s use another analogy.

Imagine yourself a prospective buyer of a new vehicle.  You just got a huge signing bonus to a job, and you have enough money to spend to purchase a brand spanking new $50,000 vehicle.

You and your other half go to the car dealership looking for this new vehicle.

Excitedly, both of you set off into the parking lot and begin browsing vehicles.  But then, you realize something rather odd.  None of the cars have logos on them.  You can’t tell which company made which car.  Well shucks, that would be quite suspect, right?

How could you verify from which company which car came?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the claims of the car’s performance match that of the official company specs?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the car’s safety data matches that of the official tests?  You couldn’t. 

Knowing all this, would you as prospective buyer, purchase a car from – Heaven knows whom? – this dealership?  Or would you go elsewhere where they tell you exactly what you’re getting?

Ruminate on that for a bit.

__________________________________________________________

Both examples are quite salient, because we have products, whose claims are being made are safe and effective, but which have no labels.

Except this has a direct correlation to the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms/Foods.

If you wouldn’t purchase a car if you didn’t know who made it and couldn’t verify its safety et al., why would you purchase foods that have genetically modified organisms from company _______ [we don’t know from which company, they aren’t labeled after all]?

After thinking long and incisively, you probably wouldn’t, would you?

This is one of the greatest issues that we as a society are faced with.

While other countries like Russia and others are banning [not labeling, banning] genetically modified foods/organisms, here in the United States, sell-out politicians and corrupt corporations just finished creating a law that obfuscates the issue even more that’s Orwellianly called Dark Act [who are they keeping in the dark?].

Thankfully, there is a solution at hand.  There are healthier alternatives, and for that please read this.

In our information age, individuals need to be cognizant when they are eating real food and when they are not.  If we don’t, we set ourselves up for failure at the outset and stand to lose greatly.

If we don’t look out for our health and that of our kith and kin, nobody will.

Vote with your dollars.  Make it count.

Support yourself, rather than those to seek to profit from you at your expensive.

If we don’t, humanity’s next chapter will be a Dark Act indeed.

Genetically Modified Food [GMO] ban expands in Russia as Putin halts all production and imports

GMO ban

Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
August 17, 2016

Russia has adopted a new law that prohibits all GMO crop cultivation and GMO animal breeding in the Russian Federation, to prevent the release of GMOs into the environment. Furthermore, the new law allows the Russian government to restrict the import of GMO products that may pose a threat to human health or the environment.

In 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Russian Parliament that the country should become the world’s largest supplier of organic foods. Later that year, Russia enforced a law that required strict labeling of products that contain GMOs, while the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich announced that Russia would not use genetically modified organisms to increase productivity in agriculture.

“Russia has chosen a different path. We will not use these [GMO] technologies,” he said.

As a result, a bill for a full ban on the cultivation of GMO crops was sent to the State Duma, which has now been fully approved.

Cleanest agricultural products in the world

The new law is a big win for anti-GMO advocates, including the Minister of Agriculture, Alexander Tkachev, and President Putin himself. Putin and Tkachev believe that the new law will aid Russia in becoming the world’s largest supplier of healthy, environmentally friendly and high-quality clean food – especially since the global demand for organic products is rising quickly.

Opponents of the new law are blaming the current Russian agricultural lobbyists of being afraid of competition and the development of new technologies.

As reported by We Are Anonymous, the first draft of the GMO legislation was a topic of heated debate. In an attempt to stop the law, pro-GMO lobbyists published a report claiming GMOs to be healthy and safe.

The study was written by ill-qualified scientists who used articles influenced by Monsanto and other GMO companies for their analysis. The researchers included Alexander Y. Panchin, of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems (IITP) of the Russian Academy of Science, and Alexander Tuzhikov, a research associate at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami specializing in Computer Science, Bioinformatics.

“We performed a statistical re-analysis and review of experimental data presented in some of these studies and found that quite often in contradiction with the authors’ conclusions the data actually provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance,” Panchin and Tuzhikov wrote in their abstract.

Scientists from the All-National Association for Genetic Safety (OAGB) noted that the methods used for their report did not allow scientists to identify the toxic effects of GMOs; on the contrary, it disguised the toxic effects. Given the flawed nature of their results, Panchin and Tuzhikov’s report didn’t have the effect they were hoping for, which was to halt the non-GMO law.

In a last attempt to block the ban, GMO opponent and president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladimir Fortov, requested a meeting with President Putin to try and convince him of all the benefits GMOs might have. It would seem, however, that the report and the meeting didn’t have much of an effect on Putin’s choice for organic, non-GMO food.

The ultimate GMO-ban

After almost half of the European Union countries opted-out of the decision to start cultivating GMO crops last year, Putin’s ban takes it a step further.

According to some experts, Russia’s ban on the cultivation, breeding and import of GMO crops may have long-term consequences for the global GMO industry. According to Capital Press, the new law could give Russian farmers a leg up with exports to the U.S. and Europe.

As the demand for clean, organic products continues to rise, Russia will be in a prime position to export its products to the world, while the GMO-orientated U.S. market will struggle to get rid of its ‘Frankenfoods.’

To avoid any of these altered foods ending up on your plate, make sure your produce comes from a reliable organic source, or start growing your own. Even if you don’t have a garden, your windowsill or balcony will do just fine.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

AnonHQ.com

SustainablePulse.com

NewScientist.com

CapitalPress.com

99 Percent Of GMOs Could Be EXCLUDED From Labelling Under Newly Proposed Law

GMO labeling law
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jonathan Benson
July 5, 2016

There’s a new GMO labeling bill moving through Congress that, contrary to what its backers claim it to be, is nothing more than a covert anti-labeling bill that threatens to undo many years’ worth of hard work by true GMO labeling advocates pushing for meaningful reform in this important area of food policy and public health.

Known as the Roberts-Stabenow Bill, S.764 is the outcome of an exhausting negotiation process between Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman; Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.); and a powerful food industry lobby that’s proven it will stop at nothing to keep Americans in the dark about what they’re eating. On its surface, the bill seems to be about developing a comprehensive labeling scheme for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food – but dig a little deeper and it’s something much more sinister.

In an open letter to the two senators, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Food and Water Watch and a consortium of other food safety, farm, environmental and consumer advocacy groups is urging a rejection of S.764, citing the fact that rather than implementing a workable GMO labeling system, the legislation would instead exempt as much as 99 percent of the GMOs currently in use from ever having to be labeled.

The letter also points to failures in the legislation, including its lack of enforceable consequences if food manufacturers fail to comply, as well as its ridiculous proposal to “label” foods with so-called “smart” barcodes that can only be scanned with smartphones – something that as much as 50 percent of rural and low-income Americans don’t even own due to their high cost.

“… we oppose the bill because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill,” the authors of the letter write in their petition.

“It exempts major portions of current and future GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of numerous states around the nation; and it provides no enforcement against those who violate the law.”

S.764 was crafted in secret without any input from constituents

Another major issue with the Roberts-Stabenow legislation is the fact that it was crafted in secret without any meaningful input from the people who will be affected by it: the constituents. The details of what it would entail were never shared prior to its unveiling; hearings were never held; and testimony either for or against was never given.

“The bill addresses a critical issue for the American public, yet it was neither subject to a single hearing nor any testimony whatsoever,” the letter adds.

“Rather, the bill’s preemption of the democratically decided-upon labeling laws of several states, and seed laws of numerous states and municipalities, is the result of non-transparent ‘bargaining’ between two senators and industry interest groups.”

One of the obvious reasons for this is that meaningful GMO labeling legislation that was already passed by constituents in states like Vermont and Connecticut would be wholly deconstructed under S.764, and replaced with draconian exemptions that favor the food industry rather than the people. S.764 would effectively steamroll both state and municipal sovereignty on the issue of GMO labeling, preempting the will of the people in order to pacify GMO purveyors and producers.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Mystery Food: Sell Out US Senators Fight Vermont GMO Labelling Law That Allows You To Know Which Food Is Real & Which Isn’t

Source: RT America
Anya Parampil
July 1, 2016

Senators from both side of the aisle are trying to defeat Vermont’s new genetically modified organism labeling law, which recently went into effect. RT America’s Anya Parampil reports that large corporations, like Monsanto and Smucker’s, have spent tens of millions of dollars fighting federal and state GMO labeling laws. Then Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch, tells RT America’s Manila Chan that over 60 countries already have GMO labeling requirements and the US is very late addressing the issue.

9 Financial Risks Of Doing Business With Monsanto

Monsanto-Headquarters-risk-735-265
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
June 9, 2016

An agricultural, biotech giant, Monsanto has become ‘more vulnerable than ever,’ largely due to having an unnaturally-intense poor public image. In recent times, the company has seen successive stock drops and weaker sales of its biotech-created corn and the best-selling herbicide, Roundup. The company had to report falling profits again and again, slashing jobs.

One Huffington Post writer says that Monsanto is “notorious for being litigious, secretive and combative with critics who question its products or seemingly unscrupulous practices.” The company has been shown to be a bad investment for those who were counting on huge profits from one of the biggest players in the industry.

Now, without ignoring the fact that Monsanto is one of the biggest companies around, raking in literally billions of dollars from sales every year, I’ve outlined 9 reasons to stay away from Monsanto if you don’t want to ‘lose your shirt.’

1. A Potential Cancer-Connection

pesticides_risk-assessment_735_250

The World Health Organization’s cancer research agency has published a full report on glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, and called it “a probable human carcinogen.” Since that announcement in March 2015, several countries, cities, and retail chains worldwide have banned or severely limited the use of glyphosate products. As of October 2015, at least 700 personal injury non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma lawsuits were pending against Monsanto. More are publicized every day.

However, it isn’t conclusive even in the scientific community that glyphosate is cancer-causing. In fact, other organizations claim that it is unlikely to cause cancer

A joint committee of experts from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization said:

“In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

The real problem for Monsanto, though, is that their product is still perceived by the public (at the very least) to be toxic and harmful.

2. Liability will be Ongoing…for Decades

monsanto-court-gavel-judge-lawsuit-735-250

Monsanto’s liability for making glyphosate may persist long into the future. The herbicide can be detected for decades in many types of soil, and GMO contamination self-propagates in the gene pool and cannot be fully eradicated. Glyphosate has also been found in human blood, urine, and breast milk.

3. Monsanto Legally Fighting PCB Contamination

toxic world spray earth planet monsantos 735-250

Monsanto is not only being sued for glyphosate’s toxicity, but also for the creation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) since 1976. PCB pollution has caused almost every waterway in the US to be compromised, harming marine life and surrounding ecosystems. A rash of lawsuits against Monsanto has arisen and there will likely be more.

Most recently, St. Louis Circuit Court awarded $17.5 million in damages to the three plaintiffs and assessed an additional $29 million in punitive damages against Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer, the St. Louis Dispatch reported.

4. Roundup Sales are Dropping

pesticides-roundup-money-profit-735-250

Reports indicate that sales of Roundup are dropping, and so are sales of Roundup-ready crops. GE corn, soy, and cotton developed by Monsanto to withstand copious spraying of the herbicide constitute 90 percent of their revenue.

As more people catch wind of the scientific evidence proving that these crops have significant health impacts on humans, then Monsanto will likely continue to lose profits. Farmers are also realizing that Monsanto’s promises about these crops may have been empty. They’ve had to deal with super weeds and super bugs like never before.

5. Organic Crops Surpassing GMO Crops

organic-label-735-350

Farmers are seeing evidence of GM crop failure not just by growing the patented seeds, but also in their livestock, that is, according to Non-GMO report. Numerous farmers who switch to non-GMO feed report improved livestock health and increased profits. If these claims are continually validated, Monsanto may lose its largest GMO market and perhaps become liable for cumulative losses from an entire industry.

6. GMOs are Creating Superbugs and Superweeds

article-vice-farmer-weeds-1

Super bugs and super weeds linked to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready and Bt crops are taking over agricultural lands across the world. More than 300 million acres worldwide are suffering from these secondary causes of planting Monsanto’s GM seed. As insects are developing resistance to Roundup, Monsanto and other companies are developing and marketing even more chemicals to people who are growing weary of this agricultural paradigm.

7. People Don’t Want GMOs, or at LEAST Support GMO Labeling

article-gm-label-735-350

Both European and American food makers are ditching GMOs due to consumer demand. One poll found that 80% of respondents considered non-GM food healthier and would pay more for organic, non-GM food. Sales of non-GM food have already grown to more than $10 billion and are expected to keep climbing. Can Monsanto continue to stay financially viable in a world that doesn’t want their products?

8. Politics will Change. Whistleblowing will Happen.

whistleblower-735-350

For example, the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael Taylor was a former Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto, and current USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack was chair of the Governors Biotechnology Partnership and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Politics change. People tell the truth eventually.

9. Monsanto is Heavily Disliked by the General Public

article-vice-monsanto

Monsanto has actually been called one of the ‘most hated companies in the world.’ Millions have marched against them, and many say they have been bullied by them in court. When a company obtains a reputation to falsely influence science, there will be negative presence. Any company with this kind of public reputation will undoubtedly face some hurdles.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, “it takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.”

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

Hear Why GMOs Are ‘One of the Worst Mistakes We Ever Make’

Source: iHealthTube
April 28, 2016

There are still plenty of unknowns when it comes to the long term affects of genetically modified foods. Robert Scott Bell weighs in on the topic here. Find out why he calls them possibly one of the worst mistakes we ever make. Find out how GMOs and disease, money and big pharmaceutical companies are all related. Also find out what just one person can do to start eating real, healthier food.

General Mills Surrenders To Genetically Modified Food Labeling, Reluctantly Decides To Label Foods But Still Believes In Fundamentally Deceiving Its Own Customers

General Mills
Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
March 21, 2016

General Mills, a highly unethical food corporation that bitterly fought against labeling GMOs in California and Oregon, has now surrendered to Vermont’s labeling laws and announced it will start labeling GMOs across the country.

“General Mills has announced it will start labeling products with genetically modified (GMO) ingredients, becoming the second major food company to make the transition following Campbell Soup’s decision last month,” reports Ecowatch.com. The pro-Monsanto biotech shills in the mainstream media — like Forbes.com — have also covered the story, but they’re ridiculously claiming that printing an extra line on food labels is going to raise food prices across the country and make groceries unaffordable.

This surrender by General Mills stands as yet another huge victory for consumers and a staggering defeat for the food monopolists and Monsanto deceivers who have desperately tried to block all GMO labeling by any means necessary (including engaging in illegal campaign money laundering carried out by the Grocery Manufacturers of America).

General Mills desperately hoped the DARK Act would pass

All along, General Mills financially supported that money laundering and helped fund highly deceptive efforts in California to block GMO labeling there. Even now, General Mills’ totally clueless executive vice president and chief operating officer Jeff Harmening laments the fact that the DARK Act did not pass as General Mills wanted. In a deceptively worded post on the General Mills website, he even states that he was “disappointed that a national solution has still not been reached.”

By “national solution,” he means the nationwide outlawing of mandatory GMO labeling laws. That was what General Mills pushed for, along with Monsanto, PepsiCo and all the other usual food giant suspects whose entire business models depend on tricking people into buying and consuming things they would probably avoid if they really knew the truth about what’s in them.

General Mills, like every other food giant that depends heavily on GMO ingredients, doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating. In fact, they’ve only surrendered to labeling after being dragged kicking and screaming to that inescapable conclusion. General Mills could have chosen to label their GMOs at any time over the last several years, but they refused to do so. Even as Campbell’s took the lead and announced its intention to label all GMOs, General Mills refused to engage in food transparency until it was forced to do so.

Even its own page explaining its reluctant GMO labeling cave-in begins with a huge lie. It states “We believe you should know about your food and how we make ours.” But that’s not true! In reality, General Mills believes in hiding GMO ingredients in all its food products and making sure consumers are left in the dark about what they’re buying and eating.

Unethical corporations like General Mills will only label GMOs when forced to do so

“One thing is very clear,” General Mills’ Jeff Harmening writes on the company’s website. “Vermont state law requires us to start labeling certain grocery store food packages that contain GMO ingredients or face significant fines.”

And that’s precisely the point. Deceptive corporations like General Mills — who essentially function as manufacturing and propaganda partners of Monsanto — will never engage in honest food transparency unless they are forced to do so. They have no self-derived ethics or honesty, and they have only announced this GMO labeling initiative after being forced to do so by the voters and lawmakers of Vermont, whom they strenuously opposed at every turn.

Even in announcing its intention to label GMOs solely to avoid being fined by Vermont, General Mills can’t resist spreading yet more pro-Monsanto GMO propaganda and lies.

As Harmening writes, “All sides of this debate, 20 years of research, and every major health and safety agency in the world agree that GMOs are not a health or safety concern.”

Harmening just can’t stop lying, in other words. To state that “all sides of this debate… agree that GMOs are not a health or safety concern” is a desperate deception that’s almost Obama-esque in its invocation of neurolinguistic twistery. It’s also a page ripped right out of the Monsanto playbook, claiming that there is essentially no side to the debate that isn’t pro-GMO. (The “science is settled” even when it isn’t.) Isn’t it obvious that some sides of this debate have legitimate and scientifically backed concerns about health and safety? One look at GMOseralini.org tells the side of this debate that Monsanto and General Mills hope you never discover!

When rats fed GMOs and glyphosate develop horrific cancer tumors — and when government agencies like the USDA and FDA function as nothing more than industry lapdogs — there are legitimate safety concerns surrounding GMOs.

Entire books have documented the enormous health risks associated with GMOs and glyphosate herbicide, including Altered Genes, Twisted Truth and GMO Myths and Truths: A Citizen’s Guide to the Evidence on the Safety and Efficacy of Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (both really informative books that I highly recommend).

General Mills, in other words, is still spreading GMO propaganda and lies even as it is surrendering to labeling requirements that it strongly opposed (and tried to block). The company still doesn’t get it, and its executives just can’t stop LYING.

General Mills has a long history of deceptive labeling and dishonest products

That’s no surprise, as General Mills is the same company that once released a TOTAL breakfast cereal named “TOTAL Blueberry Pomegranate” that contained absolutely no blueberries or pomegranates.

A few years back, I actually put together a hilarious Monty Python style satire skit making fun of General Mills for this insanely deceptive cereal product, which exemplifies the kind of systemic deception still being practiced across the entire company:

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

These are the un-American, anti-consumer US Senators who voted for the DARK Act, trying to deny you the right to know what’s in your food

DARK Act

Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
March 18, 2016

The agrichemical industry and Big Food took a major hit yesterday after the Senate blocked a bill aimed at preempting states’ rights from enacting GMO-labeling laws; it also would have reversed any labeling laws currently in place, such as the one Vermont passed in 2014, which is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2016.

S. 2609, coined the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act by its opponents, was narrowly defeated yesterday after it failed to receive the necessary votes. At least 60 “yes” votes were required for it to pass; however, it fell short, receiving only 49 yes’s and 48 no’s.

The right to know whether or not our food contains ingredients that are genetically altered is so pertinent to public health that we felt it absolutely crucial to let all of you know which of your senators voted for and against the bill, which is widely considered an outright attack on consumer rights.

ContinueReadingAt: NaturalNews.com

Big Food Is Still Fighting Vermont’s Genetically Modified Food Labeling Bill

The Biggest Food Fight Ever – 2 DARK ACTS Coming Up

image-apples-GMO-DARK-Act-735-350
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
March 17, 2016

Vermont is a little state, but it could force some enormous decisions. Will the Big Food corporations have to label GMO packages for Vermont, whose population is smaller than Brooklyn’s? They will if the Senate votes against the ‘DARK’ (‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’) Act (H.R. 1599) introduced in 2015 by Rep. Mike Pompeo.

The DARK bill was moved to the Senate and referred to its Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry last year. It has not yet been brought up for a full Senate vote.

Meanwhile, companies like PepsiCo, and General Mills are making quite a stink about it. Vermont’s mandatory labeling law is set to go live on July 1, 2016, and Big Food doesn’t want that to happen.

Greed and dishonesty are rising in Big Food like never before. So much so in fact, that the industry will likely turn to tactics like money laundering and fraud, as they have before, to try to stop states like Vermont from deciding their own GMO fate.

Powerful organizations have heavily lobbied and spent eye-popping sums to fight state-by-state labeling mandates.

Big Food Industry Sued Vermont

The International Dairy Foods Association, the Snack and Food Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) all sued Vermont in federal court last year. (The GMA represents over 300 food and beverage titans such as ConAgra, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Kellogg and Hershey.)

They want to stop the new law, claiming that the legislation “imposes burdensome new speech requirements” and violates the Constitution by “regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce.”

In 2015, a federal court dismissed an injunction that would have blocked Vermont’s GMO labeling law from taking effect. The GMA filed an appeal that’s still pending.

An internal document obtained from the GMA by researcher Michele Simon makes it clear that they planned to steamroll states’ GMO labeling rights at every turn. California’s Prop. 37 and Washington’s I-522 were already in their crosshairs before Vermont passed its mandatory labeling law.

HR 1599 is just one of the industry’s pieces of legislation trying to undo the democratic rights of states to mandate GMO labeling for their food.

New DARK Act Is a Major Threat to GMO Labeling

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who made a big push for H.R. 1599, is a major recipient of agribusiness campaign funds. Roberts is also pushing a bill of his own. His S. 2609 forbids states from mandating GMO labeling. It’s now in the hands of the Senate, largely Democrats. who can pass it or fail it. Voting may be done as early as March 16.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com