Honest Labeling

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society. … We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. ”

–President John F. Kennedy

The FDA press release on genetically-modified salmon is heavy on marketing and light on facts. It states, “After an exhaustive and rigorous scientific review, FDA has arrived at the decision that AquAdvantage salmon is as safe to eat as any non-genetically engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon, and also as nutritious.” This is quite a loaded sales pitch for a scientific establishment to engage in. In another thesaurus-inspired statement, “The FDA scientists rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer”, but the extensive raw data was not shared with the public. So how can the public know the data was not cherry-picked, or that any bad results weren’t just left out? So they tell the public it was sound rather than demonstrate: “Based on sound science and a comprehensive review…” Compare this to FDA conduct on any cost-effective treatment such as EDTA for heart patients and they slow to a snail’s pace. Their tone becomes riddled with doubt and obfuscation in equally non-specific language to keep it in trials indefinitely while Big Pharma attempts their own profitable versions in the marketplace (for example, there have been zero reported deaths due to Calcium Disodium EDTA in 45 years vs. Digoxin: widely used and FDA approved with NO clinical trials, yet risks a 21% increased chance of death).

The press release went on, attempting to quickly implement new labeling standards which protect special interests at the expense of consumers: ”the FDA can only require additional labeling of foods derived from GE sources if there is a material difference – such as a different nutritional profile – between the GE product and its non-GE counterpart. …the FDA did not find any such differences.” The genetic makeup is one glaring difference. Our bodies often attack tampered-with cells, treating them as foreign invaders. People need to know exactly what their family is eating, but it is hard to convince an FDA spokesperson who just built a lovely addition to their home paid for by their favorite customer.

On Wall Street, the currency of favor is stock options. In pharmaceuticals, the currency of favor is patent rights. Big Pharma says to the drug approver, “Approve this drug and we’ll give you partial patent rights to it. We will then license it from you for 25% of the profit.” So getting the drug approved is a matter of when you want your new income stream to start. CDC Advisor Dr. Paul Offit, who received $29 million (minimum) for a vaccine he helped create a market for, exclaimed “It’s like winning the lottery!” Of course, the gamble taken is with our children’s lives. This is part of the revolving door: industry executives may work at the USDA today, but they could work at Monsanto or the FDA tomorrow. On a special project, they may complete the proposal and oversee development at the private company or university, then “quit”, moving their office to the FDA in the next phase to walk it through the approval process, then move to the USDA for implementation and legal protection to ensure its profitability. There is no objectivity and no independent studies, just horrendous conflicts of interest, lots of creative fraud, and no regulations requiring otherwise.

Nothing shouts “The FDA is corrupt” louder than the drug commercials we see on TV these days. The first half of the ad is of beautiful people sailing, or laughing over drinks with friends, or a couple holding hands at sunset. The second half of the ad is “If you are bleeding out of your eyes, if your heart eats a hole through your chest or if you start randomly killing people, Euthanoxin might not be right for you.” Common sense adds “If this drug requires a thousand disclaimers, the FDA should never have released it, but our partners want profits sooner than later, and we want our kickbacks.” At $100 million for a clinical drug trial, it is easy for a big company to get an unproven experimental drug released for sale. It is almost impossible to get FDA approval for a proven treatment that helps the people but offers little profit, and may pose a threat to products of a large company. Return on investment is their primary focus; the good of the patient isn’t even on their radar. This should tell you that these large organizations are not trustworthy and that your health relies on your independence from them.

Monsanto’s website states, “The American Medical Association (AMA) supports FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.” So the AMA, the most morally discredited organization in medicine, agrees that honesty and full disclosure are not scientific requirements? Who is surprised?

Monsanto’s website continues, “We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks.” Well, as a free-thinking American, I oppose NOT labeling ingredients made from GM seeds in the absence of convincing proof that they are safe: short-term, long-term, for all ages and physical conditions that may encounter the product. They go on to say, “It could be interpreted as a warning or imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.” That is the universal grafter’s wish: to avoid disclosing that their shiny, “high quality” products are actually Chinese junk. Besides, Monsanto and the Franken-fish enterprise shot themselves in the foot already: telling the public you have done research that shows your products are safe without sharing the research carries the same stigma as outright lying, and passing off responsibility for your product’s safety to a government office or the market itself is even less excusable.

If we continue to permit this axis of evil to rotate, eventually food labels will carry the kind of extensive disclaimers pharmaceuticals do.  But such companies are pursuing a way around that as well. Preparing for disaster, Monsanto has simply written self-serving legislation and lobbied for it in every corrupt nook and cranny of Washington. The Monsanto Protection Act grants them legal immunity from the lawsuits that will come when GMO’s are ultimately found to be carcinogenic. Even if they sicken or kill everyone, they want to keep the money and foist damage and recovery costs onto the American taxpayers, just as the vaccine manufacturers did with their Act.


Ultimately, as long as labels are honest, it is your choice to buy clean, pure, natural foods, or cheap, synthetic garbage that looks like food, but leaves you hollow and kills you slowly. If I see “Distributed By…” instead of “Made In…” I drop it immediately, aware that they are trying to hide the controversy surrounding its origin. I buy “Free Range…” and “Organic” when I see it. The only reason to fight clear and complete labeling is that corrupt companies are left with the risk of lying about ingredients and processes, and the fraud suits and public relations disasters that follow. If political subversion wins and we are simply not allowed to know, we can do nothing about it except NOT BUY (and a boycott would bring them to their knees). Think of the food allergies kids have today, the careful diets their parents prepare, and that they would be forced to play Russian roulette with their children’s health instead. This is unconscionable. Who comes first? America’s kids, or monopolies imposing products that nobody wants anyway? Only buy from companies who are 100% transparent with clear, complete, and honest labeling: what the ingredients are, what the packaging is made of and coated with, how products are grown, the living conditions of livestock, etc. If they don’t share this information willingly, assume the worst. Make sure the companies you do business with offer public inspection tours of their facilities as well to prove their claims, and open their lab books to scrutiny. If they say “It’s the government’s job to make sure our product is safe, not ours”, dump them immediately.

Lovely, free, inquiring, scrutinizing Americans deserve to know exactly what they are buying at all times. We have to know if a product is artificial and what kind of motives developed it. Domination of the food supply is a perfect biochemical weapon delivery system. With companies who have disregarded public safety so blatantly in the past, there is always the possibility they have baked in some latent gene designed to kill us all (or will at some point), so I for one, would rather eat organic. Spirit Murdering psychosis aside, a large segment of the population believes that genetic modification is the wrong direction for science to be headed in, and the last people they are going to trust are military/industrial chemical companies with extensive histories of developing toxic substances, polluting the world with them, and lying about it. The same goes for any of their like-minded competitors, subsidiaries, associates, suppliers, and past, present, or future owners. Just stay on your side of the planet.

No GMO products should be released for public consumption until long-term independent studies have been done to verify they are non-toxic and to identify any long-term consequences. I for one do not want to eat anything genetically modified, especially when modified by frauds, and I certainly don’t want to be tricked into eating it. No unchecked company self-certifications should be permitted regarding issues of public safety. No patents for living organisms. The cost and structure of clinical trials should be reformed to accommodate our sacred American pioneers: individual doctors and scientists from whom truly revolutionary ideas originate. Any group with a large market share, especially those brazen enough to assume police powers, must have public oversight and be held accountable for their actions; not handed passes for misconduct or potential risks to the populace. The People are more important than any depraved revolving door scheme. It is up to us to reform a more perfect union.