Globalist propaganda rag NEWSWEEK runs Monsanto-style hit piece on organic food, authored by discredited propagandist Henry Miller
01/30/2018 // Robert Jonathan // Views

An anti-organic food, pro-GMO opinion piece in Newsweek allegedly has the Monsanto's fingerprints on it.

In the Op-Ed that accuses the organic food "campaign" of being a "deceitful, expensive scam," the author, Dr. Henry I. Miller, claims that organic farming uses pesticides and that this form of agriculture is wasteful to farmland and water resources. Among other things, he also asserts that the organic/natural food industry spends billions "to disparage modern farming methods" to increase sales of expensive and inferior products.

According to EcoWatch, Miller allegedly has or had a business relationship with Monsanto and other corporations "that need help convincing the public their products aren't dangerous and don't need to be regulated." Eco Watch claims that Miller, who is a fellow at the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University, relied on pesticide industry sources for his assertions that organic farming harms the environment more than conventional farming and that the organic industry spent $2.5 billion in its campaign against GMO foods. His article originally appeared on the Hoover Institution website with the title "The Organic Food Hoax," and as of this writing, has prompted 100-plus, mostly negative, responses.

"[A]ll fingers point back to the agrichemical corporations that will lose the most if consumer demand continues to rise for foods free of GMOs and pesticides," EcoWatch added.

As Natural News has previously explained, a 2015 pro-glyphosate article under Miller's byline published on the Forbes.com website was apparently ghostwritten by Monsanto. The article came after a report from International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), indicated that glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in the Roundup weedkiller, is a probable human carcinogen. The behind-the-scenes origin of the Miller/Monsanto-crafted rebuttal surfaced in the so-called Monsanto Papers made up of documents unsealed during litigation in the summer of 2017.

Brighteon.TV

The New York Times reported in August 2017 that Forbes scrubbed the article from its website and ended its relationship with Miller because its contributor agreement requires writers to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to submit original content only.

Natural News founding editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, wrote last year that Miller, who worked as a medical researcher for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for 15 years, is a longtime propagandist for the GMO industry and a shill for Monsanto. TruthWiki.org notes that Miller previously helped found a tobacco industry front group and also tried to discredit Dr. Oz after the TV host discussed the harmful effects of Roundup and glyphosate on a 2015 broadcast.

Along these lines, Mike Adams has separately insisted that glyphosate and GMOs are a package deal promoted by the fake stream media, compromised science shills, and Monsanto-funded trolls, derisively known as the Monsanto mafia, that seek to discredit clean food activists. Over the next five years, the projection for glyphosate’s global market is said to total $10 billion. (Related: Read more about glyphosate and Roundup at Monsanto.news.)

Parenthetically, outside of dentists' waiting rooms (and even that might be a stretch), many Americans are probably unaware that Newsweek magazine -- either the print or digital version -- still exists. A quick scan of its Twitter feed looks like the news outlet has made a CNN-like business decision to go all-in on anti-Donald Trump clickbait. Last November, for example, Newsweek published an article online suggesting that President Trump and murderer Charles Manson used similar language to attract followers. After Donald Trump Jr. took exception to that form of "journalism" via social media, Newsweek deleted all references to the president, while adding a note that it made the revisions because the story fell short of its "editorial standards." The explanation didn't address how the article made it through the editorial process in the first place, however.

Sources include:

Newsweek.com

EcoWatch.com

NYTimes.com

TruthWiki.org

Inquisitr.com



Take Action:
Support Natural News by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Copy
Embed article link:
Copy
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to NaturalNews.com (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
App Store
Android App
eTrust Pro Certified

This site is part of the Natural News Network © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Privacy | Terms All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing International, LTD. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
Natural News uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Close
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.