Inicio > Mis eListas > gap > Mensajes

 Índice de Mensajes 
 Mensajes 12301 al 12340 
Pronunciamiento Ta yosoy _j
Avanza!!! yosoy _j
El Despertar Cuant Susana P
Boletín Semanal Ur El Templ
Planeta X Guillerm
Síntomas del cambi Lilian P
Investigador Octavio
Cerrando un ciclo Guillerm
El Resplandor Inma Lilian P
Piscis: Evasión o Edgar Je
Boletin RENACE 537 Proyecto
Estan asesinando a Proyecto
Esu: 'Esto es inmi Guillerm
En USA...Secuestro Thammy A
Un mundo en expans Susana P
FW: Gaza:¡Por un c Marta Tr
Herejías razonable Guillerm
Sientan la Era Dor Guillerm
Democracia Divina Guillerm
Revista electronic Proyecto
Boletín Semanal Ur El Templ
Maestro Kuthumi - El Templ
Recicladores en Re Proyecto
Vecinos invisibles Guillerm
Responsabilidad de El Templ
Los 8 cambios de l Susana P
Más rápidos que la Guillerm
Tortura Guillerm
2008- La Nueva Ene Susana P
KRYON - Canalizaci Graciela
The 2012 Enigma by Lilian P
Parteaguas / Para Ricardo
Canalización en Sa Susana P
A Chicano activist Proyecto
Bush busca chamba Proyecto
'Frankenfoods' Gia Ricardo
R. Dominicana: VI Ricardo
Más represión en T Guillerm
¿Qué Pasa en el Pl Graciela
 << 40 ant. | 40 sig. >>
Página principal    Mensajes | Enviar Mensaje | Ficheros | Datos | Encuestas | Eventos | Mis Preferencias

Mostrando mensaje 14278     < Anterior | Siguiente >
Responder a este mensaje
Asunto:[GAP] 'Frankenfoods' Giant Monsanto Plays Bully Over Consumer Labeling
Fecha:Martes, 11 de Marzo, 2008  12:33:04 (-0600)
Autor:Ricardo Ocampo <lacasadelared>

*De: *"GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster@...> 
*Fecha: *6 de marzo de 2008 03:55:35 PM GMT-06:00 
*Asunto: **[globalnetnews-summary] 'Frankenfoods' Giant Monsanto Plays Bully 
Over Consumer Labeling* 
'Frankenfoods' Giant Monsanto Plays Bully Over Consumer Labeling 
By Scott Thill, AlterNet 
Posted on March 6, 2008, Printed on March 6, 2008 
"There are some corporations that clearly are operating at a level 
that are disastrous for the general public … And in fact I suppose 
one could argue that in many respects a corporation of that sort is 
the prototypical psychopath, at the corporate level instead of the 
individual level." 
--Dr. Robert Hare, The Corporation 
Since 1901, Monsanto has brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, Terminator 
seeds and recombined milk, among other infamous products. But it's 
currently obsessed with the milk, or, more importantly, the milk 
labels, particularly those that read "rBST-free" or "rBGH-free." It's 
not the "BST" or "BGH" that bothers them so much; after all, bovine 
somatrophin, also known as bovine growth hormone, isn't exactly what 
the company is known for. Which is to say, it's naturally occurring. 
No, the problem is the "r" denoting "recombined." There's nothing 
natural about it. In fact, the science is increasingly pointing to 
the possibility that recombined milk is -- surprise! -- not as good 
for you as the real thing. 
"Consumption of dairy products from cows treated with rbGH raise a 
number of health issues," explained Michael Hansen, a senior 
scientist for Consumers Union. "That includes increased antibiotic 
resistance, due to use of antibiotics to treat mastitis and other 
health problems, as well as increased levels of IGF-1, which has been 
linked to a range of cancers." 
For its part, Monsanto is leaning on the crutch of terminology to 
derail the mounting threat to its bottom line: The consumer-driven 
revolution against recombined food. And so the St. Louis-based agri- 
chem giant has launched a war of words in the form of a full-court 
press to suppress the "rBGH-free" label at the state level. And it's 
sticking to its guns by obfuscating and indulging in cheap semantics. 
"RBST is a supplement that helps the cow produce more milk," Monsanto 
spokesperson Lori Hoag explained to me via email. "It is injected 
into the cow, not into the milk. There is no way to test because the 
milk is absolutely the same. Neither the public nor a scientist can 
tell the difference in the milk because there is not a difference. 
Consumers absolutely have a right to know if there is a difference in 
foods they are buying. In this case, there simply is not a difference." 
"Monsanto has an unfortunate habit of mixing some things together 
that confuse the issue," counters Rick North, director of Campaign 
for Safe Food from Physicians for Social Responsibility's Oregon 
chapter. "It's true that all cows have natural bovine growth hormone. 
But only cows injected with recombinant, genetically engineered 
bovine growth hormone have rBGH. And this isn't a 'supplement.' This 
is a drug that revs up cow metabolism so high that they're typically 
burned out after two lactation cycles and slaughtered. Non-rBGH cows 
typically live four, seven, ten or more years." 
The threat of rBGH to cows and humans alike encouraged Canada, 
Australia and parts of the European Union to ban Monsanto's 
recombined milk outright. As for the corporation's native United 
States, it has predictably signed off on another unproven growth 
opportunity with possibly lethal environmental side effects. They're 
in it for the money. And so the battle lines on the threat have been 
drawn, as North takes pains to point out, between "the FDA and those 
who follow them," and those who don't. "These proposed state bans or 
restrictions on rBGH-free type of labeling have nothing to do with 
protecting consumers," he asserts. "They have everything to do with 
protecting Monsanto's profits." 
But that battle over labels and profits hasn't stopped Monsanto from 
creating its own press at home in the United States, where it 
infamously got two Fox News journos fired in 1997 for refusing to 
bend the truth about rBGH on the air. Yet, over the long term, the 
multinational's attention to press relations hasn't paid off so well. 
Medical authorities like Samuel Epstein and Robert Hare, quoted 
above, have targeted them from both the physical and psychological 
health perspective. Meanwhile, farmers and consumers across the world 
have demanded labels that differentiate the recombined milk from its 
naturally occurring counterparts on the store shelves. And they don't 
think it's too much to ask, given the facts. 
Hoag is "accurate" when she argued "that there is no commercial test 
for this drug," North concedes. "But that's entirely different than 
saying there is no difference. Monsanto and its front groups have 
tried to equate the lack of a verifying lab test with the label being 
false or misleading. This is a non sequitur. There are all kinds of 
legitimate labels that aren't verified by lab tests, such as state or 
country of origin labeling, fair trade labeling, bottled water that 
is labeled as originating from a spring, and so on." 
Monsanto, meanwhile, is bedeviling the details to distort the big 
picture. "Sure, the label can make a claim one way or the other," 
Hoag admitted, "but there is no way to verify that the claim is true. 
This is precisely why the labels are misleading. They make consumers 
believe there is a difference, when in fact there is none." 
That sounds simple enough, but consumers don't seem to need or want 
Monsanto's mothering. In 2007, its efforts at an outright ban on rBGH- 
free labels in Pennsylvania were almost cleared for takeoff, until 
the state invited its citizens to publicly comment, which eventually 
doomed the move. That scenario has replayed itself across the United 
States in accelerated fashion with success. 
"The issue looks pretty dead in Indiana and Ohio, and there are solid 
victories in Pennsylvania and New Jersey," explains Recipe for 
America's Jill Richardson, author of the forthcoming book Vegetables 
of Mass Destruction. "Utah and Kansas are probably going to revise 
their bills after their hearings, because of opposition." 
This opposition comes in spite of Monsanto's funding of so-called 
grass-roots farming coalitions like the American Farmers for 
Advancement and Conservation of Technology -- also known as, cleverly 
enough, AFACT. Monsanto's public relations firm Osborn & Barr built a 
site for AFACT pro bono, knitting the two organizations together in a 
way that may not sit well in states currently pondering their own 
label bans. AFACT's attacks have virally replicated across the 
nation, as farmers on Monsanto's payroll have taken to harassing 
their state legislatures in concert with the multinational's usual 
tactics at the federal level, such as forcing skeptical scientists 
off advisory panels, intimidating critics and so on. 
But the assault has only met equally powerful resistance, as 
environmental awareness has driven the market into a recombinant-free 
zone. In the end, this might be Monsanto's last gasp in the fight. 
"Monsanto has seen the writing on the wall in terms of consumer 
rejection of artificial growth hormones," claims National Family Farm 
Coalition policy analyst Irene Lin. "Consumers are becoming more 
aware and educated about what goes into their bodies and what their 
kids are drinking. And this is Monsanto's last-ditch, desperate 
attempt to maintain its profit. And they are hiding behind dairy 
farmers to do it." 
But for every farmer who toes Monsanto's line, there are as many if 
not more, and not just in the United States, who are amassing in 
opposition to the multinational's attempt to change, and then patent, 
how America grows (and describes) its food. And behind them, in ever 
larger numbers, are consumers and stores themselves, who are 
demanding more, not less, information from those who produce the food. 
"In the last year or so, some really big names have announced that 
they will only buy rBGH-free milk," explains Food and Water Watch's 
assistant director Patty Lovera, "including Chipotle, Starbucks, 
Tillamook and lots of supermarket house brands, like Kroger, Meiers 
and Publix. Even Kraft is going to do an rBGH-free line of cheese." 
In the end, Monsanto's quibbling over labels has added up -- 
ironically enough, given all the text it has generated -- to 
censorship, pure and simple. And, as with past debacles like the 
aforementioned Agent Orange, PCBs and Terminator seed, they've 
established a pattern of stopping at nothing to increase not your 
health but their profits. At your expense. 
"Absolutely nothing good could come from a ban on rBGH-free 
labeling," concludes Hansen. "More information is a good thing, and 
all these state actions are anti-consumer, restrict free speech and 
interfere with the smooth functioning of free markets." 
Learn more about the ban on rBGH-free labeling and take action. 
Scott Thill runs the online mag His writing has 
appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired, The Huffington Post 
and others. 
Todos los recursos: 
Algunos recursos: