Friday, February 20, 2009

Our food producers today article

This is not to long and some of it is science jargon. The 3 important things I want to make you aware of and to read more about is this-
1. Monsanto produced Agent Orange.
2. Monsanto produces things like Splenda.
3. They are also the ones behind genetically modified foods.

How can we be so naive to let a chemical company control our food supply?

If it is not a natural sweetener THROW it out!

Can You Really Trust Monsanto? -- How They Corrupted Science
Sir Richard Doll was a world-renowned British cancer specialist who passed away last year. It was Sir Richard who is noted for making the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It turns out that he was being paid for 20 years as a consultant by Monsanto, while not revealing this fact in his ''independent'' reports.
Monsanto was a producer of the horrific Agent Orange, the lethal herbicide and defoliant used by American forces in the Vietnam War for ten years up to 1971. It contained dioxins that have caused great damage to health among the civilians and troops exposed to it.
As a result, lawsuits were filed against producers like Monsanto and Dow Chemical with American veterans winning $180 million in compensation in 1984. Australian, New Zealand and Korean victims also won compensation, though not the Vietnamese.
Studies indicate the increased risks of cancer and genetic defects from exposure to dioxin, but Sir Richard Doll wrote to a Royal Australian commission investigating the Monsanto Agent Orange to say there was no evidence that this was the case. He did not mention that every day he was pocketing $1,500 from Monsanto.
Documents revealed this month also show that Sir Richard Doll was paid $15,000 by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Dow Chemical, another Agent Orange producer, and the British chemical giant ICI.
For this money, he produced an ''independent'' review that largely dismissed claims that the vinyl chloride used in plastics could be linked to cancers, apart of those of the liver. The World Health Organization challenges that assertion, but it suited his paymasters and they used his report to defend the chemical's safety for a decade.
What we have here is one small glimpse at the corruption and conflicts of interest that consume much of what is bravely called ''science.'' Of course, as in all these professions, even politics, there are some genuine people trying to do what they believe to be right with ethics and honesty. But wherever dollar signs appear ethics have a fight on their hands.
The more ''renowned'' the scientist, the bigger the check -- and the more effective the contribution to misleading public perception.
The idea, most of the time, is not even to ''win'' the argument over the effect of a chemical or GM food or whatever because they know that on facts and common sense the odds are stacked against them. The arguments are also often complex and full of science-speak and neither position is able to land the deciding punch until the effects have become clear in the consequences for public health.
Their primary goal is to throw confusion and conflict into the ''debate,'' to muddy the waters and prevent any clear presentation of the facts. This is done by finding ''scientists'' who are willing to put the argument that suits the corporations and, although it may have no validity, it dilutes the clarity there would otherwise be.
In this way, warnings about the potential dangers of a food additive, sugar substitute and all these other chemical concoctions are ignored for years, even decades, before unmistakable heath effects become obvious. By then, it's too late for those who have suffered or died. The corporations use their on-the-take ''scientists'' to counter the warnings and persuade government agencies that there is no ''proof'' that a substance will be harmful.
In any sane society, a company would have to provide unquestionable proof that the chemical was not harmful before entering public use and this would clip the power of the chemical giants overnight. But it is not just the ''scientists'' who are for sale, so are many within the very government agencies that are supposed to police the corporations.
Monsanto is the producer of the sugar substitute, aspartame, which was manipulated through the Food and Drug Administration ''safety checks'' by Donald Rumsfeld, then CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He used his connections in the Reagan-Bush administration after 1979 to ensure that aspartame, a brain cell-scrambler, entered public use despite the independent research challenging its safety.
Monsanto is also the corporation behind genetically-modified food and they have been using the same techniques to impose this upon the world. Its propaganda machine counters the evidence about the dangers with a host of handsomely-paid white coats turning simple debate into incomprehensible complexity that the public and politicians cannot understand. They also use the media and their song-sheet singers in government to target those genuine scientists acting in the public interest.
Dr. Arpad Pusztai was considered the world expert on GM foods with more than 270 published studies relating to the subject. He was working at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, when he was interviewed for a World in Action television documentary on August 10, 1998. What he said was to destroy his career because of the reaction of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, puppets of Monsanto and the biotech industry.
Dr. Pusztai told the program that rats fed on certain GM potatoes had suffered stunted growth, damage to the immune system, and their liver, heart and other organs got smaller. He later said this was also the case with the brain, but he had not mentioned that in the TV interview to avoid being ''alarmist.'' However, he did say this of GM food: "If I had the choice, I would certainly not eat it.''
On the evening the interview was broadcast, Dr. Pusztai was congratulated for his contribution by Professor Philip James, director of the Rowett Institute. The next morning, the institute issued a press release highlighting that a ''range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr. Pusztai's concerns.''
Forty eight hours later, he was suspended and ordered to hand over all his data. His research team was disbanded and he was threatened with legal action if he spoke to anyone on the subject. Even his personal assistant was banned from talking to him and he was alerted to an institute press release that his contract was not being renewed. He wife was also sacked.
Dr. Pusztai was to have two heart attacks and his wife was put on permanent medication for high blood pressure. The Rowett Institute lied and lied about the reasons for their disgraceful treatment of Dr. Pusztai, as was later proved.
The truth was that his comments on GM food, coming from such a world-class source, had threatened to blow apart the Monsanto claims about the safety of GM. He had to be destroyed with the usual vindictiveness.
Dr. Pusztai is certain that his demise was caused by Tony Blair. He said that the day after the World in Action program, two phone calls were made by Blair's office to his boss, Philip James, and the next day he was fired. Dr. Pusztai said he was told by a senior manager at Rowett that Blair's intervention was prompted by a phone call from the United States President Bill Clinton.
The story was confirmed by Professor Robert Orskov, one of Britain's top nutrition researchers who worked for Rowett for 33 years. He said he was told that phone calls went from Monsanto to Clinton and then to Blair.
''Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James,'' he said. ''There is no doubt he was pushed by Blair to do something. It was damaging the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom because it was going to be a huge blow for Monsanto.''
Another eminent researcher, Stanley Ewen, said that he was told the same story by another senior figure at Rowett:
''That conversation is sealed in my mind. My jaw dropped to the floor. I suddenly saw it all -- it was the missing link. Until then, I couldn't understand how on Monday, Arpad had made the most wonderful breakthrough and on Tuesday it was the most dreadful piece of work and rejected out of hand.''
The vicious campaign against Dr. Pusztai was as coordinated as it was callous. Reports attacking him were published by the Illuminati Royal Society -- the scientific establishment exposed in my books -- and by the Science and Technology Select Committee of the House of Commons with its pro-Blair majority.
Cabinet Minister Jack Cunningham, another Blair lap-dog, condemned Dr. Pusztai's ''wholly-misleading results'' and said that all GM food in Britain would be safe to eat.
How could someone like Cunningham know that, compared with the world's leading authority? It has nothing to do with truth or protecting the public. It is about doing the will of the paymasters.
The Bush government and its related agencies have been awash with Monsanto-connected place-people who have been appointed to positions that benefit its operations worldwide. It's real simple. The corporations control the government and the regulatory agencies and thus dictate the policy in line with their agenda.
This is why governments constantly make decisions that favor the corporations whatever the evidence put before them. The evidence doesn't matter because the deal was done from the start and the ''public debate'' was just to kid the people they actually live in an open society.
The system is set up to reward the corrupt and destroy those who are not. This is how the manipulators work to stifle dissent and mislead the public. You want to advance your career? Okay, do what we want and you'll be fine. Speak your mind and we'll finish you.
Look at Professor James, the head of Rowett, who felt the wrath of dictator Blair after Dr. Pusztai's television interview. At the time, he enjoyed good relations with Blair and had been chosen to head the planned Food Standards Agency. But that changed after Dr. Pusztai made his comments. ''You destroyed me,'' James told Pusztai.
What has actually been destroyed by the corporate-political nexus is the integrity of what we call ''science.'' We know that ''scientists'' officially employed by the corporations will say whatever suits their masters, but clearly many ''independent'' scientists are also on the payroll and this is far more significant because ''independent'' research carries far more weight in the public mind.
The exposure of Sir Richard Doll is a warning to everyone who believes in the credibility of ''scientists'' when they make their pronouncements about what is good for us.
Corruption is a state of mind, a fundamental absence of integrity, and this plague is an epidemic throughout the system -- ''science'' included.

No comments: