Originally published September 25 2012
California universities pose as bogus front groups for bogus corporate science on GMOs, organics
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Many of America's institutions of higher learning routinely pimp themselves out to corporate interests that are more concerned with pushing their own private agendas than they are with sound scientific inquiry. What is often perceived by the masses as unbiased science, in other words, is actually a bogus form of corporate pseudoscience that deceitfully promotes things like genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) at the expense of organics, with the recent Stanford University organics "study" representing one of the latest examples of this disturbing phenomenon.
It is still widely assumed that when a research university puts out a study, it must be credible, independent, and trustworthy because of its academic nature. But this is often not the case, particularly amongst research universities that deal with agricultural technologies and systems. As we wrote about previously, most land-grant research universities, for example, have been taken over by corporate interests that steer research in favor of patented, proprietary, agricultural systems like GMOs, and carefully perpetuate the illusion that these systems are superior to traditional and organic systems. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
The latest attack on organics out of Stanford is a perfect illustration of just how deeply corporate interests have embedded themselves into the very fabric of academia. Institutions like Stanford that were once considered to be pillars of honest inquiry have largely become nothing more than fraudulent front groups for corporations like Monsanto that routinely try to peddle quackery as if it were truth. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
University 'quack' science on the riseThe Stanford paper is just one of many to be released in recent years for a specific corporate purpose -- in this case, to thwart current efforts in California to mandate the labeling of GMOs in food. This eleventh-hour attempt to sway public opinion against organic food was meant to instill the idea that all food, whether organic or not, is basically the same both compositionally and nutritionally. And this idea, in turn, is meant to perpetuate the myth that transparent food labeling is thus unnecessary.
But the plan seems to be backfiring in this particular case, as details continue to emerge about how the Stanford study's authors have ties to the same public relations firms that once tried to claim that cigarettes were safe in order to benefit the tobacco industry. Only rather than push tobacco, these industry whores are now pushing biotechnology for their corporate masters in Big Ag, which are under increasing pressure as Americans wake up to the truth about industrial agriculture.
It just so happens that the organic food sector has been growing by leaps and bounds, year after year, as Americans increasingly choose clean, wholesome foods for their families rather than the processed garbage that lines most grocery store shelves (http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html). And this rapidly growing sector is a serious threat to Monsanto, the ringleader in the GMO scam that has already spent tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat GMO labeling efforts throughout the U.S.
Though not always successful, these assaults on science are increasing as corporations continue to amass more power and influence, particularly over academia. The body of science that modern civilization has come to rely on for information about how the world works is becoming increasingly diluted with corporate Trojan horse studies designed to deceive rather than educate.
California university professors push 'No on 37' campaign against GMO labelingAnother example of such corruption in academia is a recent report put out by two university professors from the University of California, Davis (UCD) that attempts to wrap science around the biotechnology industry's covert agenda to stop GMO labeling in California. Professors Julian M. Alston and Daniel A. Summer, both from UCD's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, make the claim in their report that California's Proposition 37, which will mandate GMO labeling in the state, is "a costly regulation with no benefits."
The 48-page report states on the very first page; however, that it was produced using funding from the No on 37 campaign, which we recently pointed out is also a front group bought and paid for by Monsanto. Again, the same forces that launched crafty propaganda campaigns in the 1980s and 90s in defense of cigarettes are now trying to convince the public that GMO labeling is too costly and useless. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
Except decades later, these corporate interests have taken things a step further by quietly funneling money into academia for the purpose of buying and manipulating science for their own devious ends. There are, after all, many greedy researchers out there that are all too willing to sell their souls in exchange for a coveted research grant. For the right price, in other words, many so-called "academics" are more than happy to produce a study that says whatever their financiers want it to say, even if that means pushing GMOs as the future of food.
In the case of GMO labeling, this specifically means making up lies about how transparency in food labeling will drive up food costs and "confuse" the public. If large food corporations can somehow convince the public that GMO labeling will drive up food costs in an already crumbling economy -- this is really the only tactic they have at their disposal -- then they might have a chance at defeating Prop. 37.
You can access Alston and Summer's No on 37-funded propaganda report here:
The best way for them to do this, of course, is to employ academics to do their dirty work under the banner of independent science, as this makes it seem as though "objective" economic experts are honestly opposed to labeling because of financial fears. Even though the vast majority of Americans actually support honest and transparent food labeling no matter what the cost (http://www.naturalnews.com/031569_GMO_GMOs_food.html), Big Ag is pulling out all the stops to change their minds.
Corporate sellouts present throughout academia, governmentIf you follow the money trail, you will typically find that many of the same highly-suspect academics and researchers that routinely accept corporate payments are also the ones that always oppose things like labeling GMOs, legalizing raw milk, ending unfair farm subsidies, and ceasing the war on freedom of health speech. This is why we started the NaturalNews "Hall of Shame" to highlight all the scientific sellouts like Alston and Summer that appear to have sold their souls to corporations. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
The same scenario is true of the government, which has been largely infiltrated with corporate lobbyists that promote private interests at public expense. Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for instance, used to be Vice President of Public Policy at Monsanto (http://www.naturalnews.com/027527_Monsanto_FDA.html). And Tom Vilsack, current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has long prostituted himself in support of GMOs and factory farming, particularly while he was governor of Iowa. (http://www.organicconsumers.org/usda_watch.cfm)
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml