August 6, 2020

Most Animals Know to Avoid GMO Corn

Yesterday I received an email that was shared by friends. The email originated from a rancher supposedly with a large herd of cattle. He was explaining some of the things he had discovered about GMO (genetically modified organism) and “conventional” corn, as well as some stories told to him by friends and business associates. Here’s a few highlights of that email.

1. the Amish farmer was in disbelief when he switched to GMO corn after the second day the goats would not go into the milk parlor if the GMO corn was present.

2. recorded a 5 Lbs loss per cow a couple different times. Twice he used the same hybrid corn only one was Roundup. When he switched silage bags to the roundup corn, he lost milk.

3. said their herd was healthier with conventional corn.

4. Squirrels have been known to eat all the kernels off the conventional ears before they touch any of GMO corn. The squirrels have not read anyone’s research and have no reason to lie to us.

5. planted GMO corn on the borders of his fields to avoid neighbors drifting roundup on him. He found that the beavers went through the roundup headlands to harvest the conventional corn.

6. switch to conventional corn in their operation. After making the switch their sows went from a 23 to 28 piglets per year.

Share

General Mills Shareholders Urged to Reject GMO Food Proposal

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center for Public Policy Research Warns Food-Giant Investors of Proposal’s High Costs, Scare Tactics and Pseudoscience

Food Companies Urged to Stand Up for the Promise of GMOs

Washington, DC/Minneapolis MN – The National Center for Public Policy Research is urging General Mills investors to vote down a shareholder proposal that would direct the company to remove completely safe and nutritious genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from its products

The proposal will be voted on at tomorrow’s annual meeting of General Mills shareholders in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“General Mills’ shareholders can send a strong message to self-appointed food police by rejecting this junk-science proposal. The scientific debate regarding GMOs is over and the radical activists have lost,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “The science is settled – GMOs are safe.”

If approved, the proposal would require the company to remove GM ingredients from all the products it manufactures or sells. The proponent deceivingly claims this removal is necessary because they “believe genetic engineering involves risk to the environment, food security, and public health.”

Harriett Crosby of Cabin John, Maryland, submitted the proposal. It appears on page 58 of the General Mills proxy statement.

“The body of scientific evidence that directly refutes this proposal is overwhelming and unanimous. Junk science and fear should not overrule facts and scientific consensus,” added Danhof.

Numerous independent and well-regarded scientific organizations and studies have categorically proven that GMOs are safe. These include:

• The National Academy of Sciences

• The American Association for the Advancement of Science – which has stated that the “science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

• The American Medical Association – which has unequivocally stated that “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for… 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

• The Royal Society of Medicine

• The World Health Organization

In fact, after the European Union spent ten years and hundreds of millions of Euros to exhaustively examine GMOs, EU researchers determined that: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

Furthermore, the Genetic Literacy Project recently reported on a new paper that catalogued over 1,700 GMO studies, and, combined with previous research, concluded that: “In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.”

“Beyond spreading fear, bad science and bad business ideas, the anti-GMO crowd is also directly responsible for human suffering,” said Danhof. “Western activists, who have likely never had to miss a meal in their lives, perpetuate panic that reverberates through the developing world and conflagrates dire hunger situations worldwide.”

India is a prime example of the devastation wrought by anti-GMO crusaders. To combat malnutrition and Vitamin-A deficiencies prevalent in India, Syngenta created a product called Golden Rice that inserts genes from carrots into rice. The product was tested, found safe and ready to go in 2002 – but the protests of fear-mongering activists have prevented it from coming to market. Two agricultural economists published a study showing the effect of this unnecessary delay.

As noted in Scientific American, “the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children.”

Tomorrow’s meeting marks the third occasion in 2014 that the National Center has urged corporate shareholders to reject an anti-GMO proposal. In both prior meetings, the respective shareholders sided with the National Center and against anti-GMO proponents.

“It is not a stretch to say that anti-GMO activists such as Harriett Crosby, Friends of the Earth, the Green Century Equity Fund, Vandana Shiva and others have blood on their hands. And its the blood of children no less,” noted Danhof. “General Mills shareholders should not join this anti-science morally bankrupt bunch.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many other important public policy issues. Tomorrow’s meeting will mark the 52nd shareholder meeting of 2014 for the National Center.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Anti-GMO Proposal Denounced at Safeway Shareholder Meeting

Shareholder Activists Visit Four Corporations to Urge Enhanced Fight Against Efforts by Organic Food Industry to Stigmatize GMO Foods

Pleasanton, CA/Washington DC – At the annual meeting of Safeway shareholders this past Friday in Pleasanton, California, the overwhelming majority of shareholders followed the advice of the National Center for Public Policy Research and rejected an anti-scientific shareholder proposal that would have forced the grocery store chain to brand products containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) with labels.

The purpose of the mandatory-labeling campaign is to deter the sale of products containing GMOs by frightening consumers unnecessarily.

“Safeway’s shareholders sent a loud message to the GMO activists and lobbyists that represent them – science trumps baseless fear-mongering campaigns,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq.

Danhof spoke out against a proposal submitted by the Green Century Equity Fund that sought to require the company to identify and label all of its products that “may contain genetically engineered ingredients.”

“In the face of all of the uncontroverted scientific evidence that GMOs are safe, the proponent of the GMO-labeling proposal had the temerity to tell Safeway’s shareholders that no long-term scientific evidence exists to show that GMO foods are safe,” noted Danhof. “This is beyond willful ignorance. Some anti-GMO activists are shameless in their attempt to advance their agenda.”

Danhof countered the proposal by noting, in part:

This proposal is unscientific, unnecessary for Safeway’s business purposes and would increase food prices, disproportionately harming lower-income customers.

Numerous scientific bodies have determined that GMO foods are safe, including:

1. The National Academy of Sciences

2. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (which has stated that the “science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe”)

3. The American Medical Association (which has stated that “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for… 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”)

4. The Royal Society of Medicine

5. The World Health Organization

The European Union spent ten years and hundreds of millions of Euros to exhaustively examine GMOs, determining: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

The proposal can be found on pages 241 and 242 of Safeway’s proxy statement.

Danhof’s full statement against the proposal, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

The proposal failed, with only 10.25 percent of company shareholders voting for it.

“If GMOs are so bad and causing the human devastation that activists claim, why are groups such as the Green Century Equity Fund only calling for labeling?” asked Danhof. “If the science backed up its scary claims, it would be calling for an outright ban. And, if the science backed them up, I expect I might join with them. But the wild claims of the anti-GMO crowd have no scientific backing and simply rely on fear.”

Friday’s meeting marks the fourth time during the 2014 shareholder season that the National Center urged corporate America to do more to combat the assault from anti-GMO activists, which is in part funded by the organic food industry.

In late January, Danhof urged Monsanto shareholders to reject another anti-scientific proposal that sought to have the company work with the Food and Drug Administration to advance GMO labeling. As National Center Chairman Amy Ridenour said at the time , “[i]t’s easy for relatively well-fed Americans to overlook the tremendous promise of GMOs as a tool to combat malnutrition and hunger worldwide. Yet the demonization of genetically-modified foods could have a tragic result if it stops or slows the use of seeds that improve agricultural yields and nutrition in the Third World. GMOs are even more environment-friendly than traditional farming. As GMOs are safe, why surrender the benefits?”

Like Safeway shareholders, Monsanto shareholders overwhelmingly agreed with the National Center and soundly rejected the proposal.

Danhof also urged Monsanto executives to make the company’s scientists and health experts more available to the press to combat the high-level of misinformation and pseudoscience from anti-GMO zealots that pervades the GMO debate. As noted by the Wall Street Journal following the meeting, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant agreed with Danhof, saying that “it’s a really good idea” and that the company “need[s] to do more to more” to win the GMO debate.

In May, Danhof attended the Kraft Foods and Pepsi shareholder meetings to urge them to do more to combat the fear-mongering and deceptive narratives of anti-GMO special interests.

At Kraft’s meeting in Glenview, Illinois, Danhof noted that, by using fear, anti-GMO activist groups seek to confuse and successfully scare much of the public. He stated: “The anti-GMO attacks come from Americans who have likely never missed a meal in their lives. Their campaigns against GMOs are unscientific, fear-based and inhumane, but they are winning. In fact, one ABC News poll showed that 93 percent of Americans think the federal government should mandate GMO labeling – a tactic they hope will elevate GMOs with taboo products such as tobacco and alcohol.”

Danhof then asked Kraft’s CEO to “[e]xplain how much GMO labeling laws would increase food prices, explain the environmental benefits of GMOs and explain the potential life-saving benefits they hold for third-world consumers. I don’t need to tell you or your food experts all the benefits of GMOs, but we firmly believe it would be strongly in the company’s best interest – and the public’s best interest – if Kraft stepped up its efforts to educate the American public about them.”

Following the meeting, Danhof said that he “was encouraged by Kraft CEO Tony Vernon’s response to my question about GMOs. Vernon said that the company and the National Center are on common ground when it comes to the issue of GMOs. He thanked me for my question, and said that I stated the case for the promise of GMOs eloquently. Vernon is very passionate about the GMOs issue and the benefits GMOS hold for the environment and public health. He agreed that the company must do more to engage and win this public policy debate. He noted that GMOs are in so much of what everyone in the meeting has been eating for the past 25 years, and are perfectly safe. He pledged that in the coming months, the industry and Kraft would be much more vocal and aggressive in speaking about the many benefits of GMOs.”

When Danhof arrived at the Pepsi meeting the following day in New Bern, North Carolina, multiple executives from the company’s government relations department approached him to discuss the GMO issue. They explained to him how they were engaging with stakeholders – including key players in Washington, D.C. – to better explain the health and environmental benefits of GMOs. They informed Danhof that Kraft executives reached out to Pepsi’s staff the previous afternoon to get some more information on the factsheets and beneficial information that Pepsi had already produced so that they may be able to make good on their CEO’s commitment to the National Center’s Danhof.

“This experience bolsters what we already know – that the Free Enterprise Project gets results. While some of those results, such as General Electric amending its corporate policy on green initiatives, received wide publicity, others, such as the Kraft/Pepsi communication mostly go unseen, but are nonetheless vital toward advancing a pro-liberty agenda,” said Danhof.

At the Pepsi meeting, Danhof pointed out that anti-GMO sentiment – fueled by well-to-do Westerners – caused genuine human suffering and death elsewhere. He noted that: “Scientific American recently reported that the delayed application of Vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice thanks to controversies stirred by anti-GMO activists had cost over 1.4 million life years in India alone since 2002. This is real human suffering and death. And it is children who too often suffer the most.”

Following the meeting, Danhof reported Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi saying the company planned “to use its resources to work with the Food and Drug Administration to get the word out about high-yield crops. She believes the FDA has a responsibility and a duty to educate the American people about food ingredients and safety. She also recognized the powerful role the National Center can play in public education through our broad outreach efforts and engagement with other food and beverage corporations.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. This year, the National Center has participated in 49 shareholder meetings, scoring many major victories for liberty and the free market.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Food Companies Secretly Funnel Money to Block GMO Labeling

Natural News reports that a secret list of food companies giving money to fund opposition to require GMO labeling has been found. Below is the list of companies.

The companies that funneled money into the GMA’s money laundering slush fund are:

Abbott Nutrition
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bruce Foods Corp.
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Bunge North America, Inc.
Bush Brothers & Co.
Campbell Soup Co.
Cargill Inc.
Clement Pappas & Co. Inc.
The Clorox Co. (owner of Burt’s Bees brand)
The Coca-Cola Co. (owner of Odwalla)
ConAgra Foods
Dean Foods Co. (owner of Horizon milk)
Del Monte Foods Co.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
General Mills, Inc. (owned of Larabar)
The Hershey Co.
The Hillshire Brands Co.
Hormel Foods Corp.
The J.M. Smucker Co.
Kellogg Co. (owner of Pop-Tarts)
Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc.
Land O’Lakes, Inc.
McCormick & Co., Inc
Mondelez Global, LLC.
Moody Dunbar, Inc.
Nestle USA, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
PepsiCo, Inc. (owner of Naked Juice)
Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC.
Rich Products Corp.
Shearer’s Foods, Inc.
Sunny Delight Beverages Co.
Welch Foods, Inc.

Share