In this book, Dr. Cate shows how all calories are not created equal; food is information that directs our cellular growth. Our family history does not determine our destiny: what you eat and how you live can alter your DNA in ways that affect your health and the health of your future children.
GMO corn and soy found a healthful basis for optimal diet—this according to agribusiness giants Dow, Monsanto, and others.
And by the looks of it, with yesterday’s rejection of CA Ballot Initiative 37 (requiring GMO labeling), that nutritional message now has even more momentum to be spread far and wide.
What’s all the fuss about CA 37 failing? Corn and Soy are Heart Healthy—practically your body’s best friends—According to Harvard, so what’s a little Genetic Modification between friends?
For those who still believe that Harvard (et al) promotes only the most defensible nutrition information—even when powerful monied interests try to shut that message down—take a close look at this real-world example and you might find yourself revising your views.
You’ve heard the expression follow the money, right? With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to do a little research on who exactly was funding the two sides of the CA 37 GMO Initiative. It did not take me long to find out.
A CA proposition “cheat sheet” listed the key players on both sides.
Here’s the top five folks who wanted you to have more information about what you feed your family: Mercola.com, Organic Consumers Fund, Kent Whealy (Seed Saver’s Exchange), Nature’s Path Foods USA, The Stillonger Trust.
Here’s a few of those who thought you’d be better served kept in the dark: Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico, BASF, Byer, Dow, Syngenta, Kraft, Coca-cola, Nestle.
The top contributor on the pro-information side, Dr Mercola, rings in at 1.115 million. Leading the charge against consumer information is Monsanto, at 7.1005 million.
Guess who won?
Take a good look at that list of agrichemipharm companies. If you want to know where dangerous “health” information is coming from, look no further than the good folks whose multinational conglomerate companies create pesticides in one factory, industrial chemicals in another, pharmaceuticals in yet another, and, p.s., produce the food you feed your family.
Let’s do a quick thought experiment:
Imagine you’re a high level executive at Monsanto. You want American consumers to buy more of your high-starch, low-nutrient GMO products. Your financial and political resources are practically unlimited. Do you think you might be able to come up with a creative way to persuade your friends in influential positions at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic that your view of nutrition is the correct one?
You hear that Harvard is studying the benefits of, say, a low-fat diet. Or doing a study to make the connection between calorie restriction and longevity. You’ve just spent 7 million on a single labeling initiative in CA. Will you now sit on your hands and hope for the best?
Or will you reach out, say, to the Harvard Nutrition Sciences department? Or, if you prefer a less visible contribution, then how about rebuilding a hospital wing, or creating a Monsanto scholarship aimed at encouraging inner-city youth to steer their educational careers toward the hard science of math and chemistry? Keep in mind, Harvard is apparently under no enforceable obligation to report their donor sources.
I say “apparently” because I have contacted the Nutrition Sciences Department several times asking them for this information. So far, no reply.
So if you are one of those people who have researched for yourself and stepped outside the bubble of Monsanto’s sphere of influence, then you are now charged with the challenging task of deprogramming cooks and chefs and self-appointed nutritionists of every stripe from everything those massive companies have spent decades and billions of dollars convincing people to believe.
The opponents of CA prop 37 represent the fountainhead of information that keeps spilling from everyone we come up against.
Chef so-and-so opens his mouth and out comes the voice of Monsanto, BASF, DOW and the rest, a voice parroting the shopworn litany that “starches are for ‘energy!'” In fact, say these human Bots (taken over by the advertisement viruses of agrichemipharm), the less nutrition per calorie the better!—at least to a point. It’s actually good to eat green leafy veggies from time to time, they admit; the programming assumes the reality that folks can eat only so much kale and mustard greens. Not nearly enough to satisfy, which brings them right back to Monsanto’s horizon to horizon-wide trough of empty carbs, where consumers belong.
And so it goes. From Dow Chemical, to Harvard, to government recommendations, to the AMA, to doctors and nutritionists and dietitians, to patients/consumers, to the kitchen table and the high profit-margin food going into their mouths, to the child sitting in my office stricken with unrelenting allergies, mood disorders and early onset diabetes.
The bad guys won a small victory yesterday. Let’s take back some ground and match the bad guys Bot for Bot.
This week, every time you hear someone telling you about the benefits of low-fat, empty calorie diets, tell ten people that everything Dow, Monsanto and BASF have told them (through their mouthpieces at Harvard) is flat-out wrong and a direct threat to their family’s health.
p.p.s. Dr. Mercola: You got the GMO giants wobbling. Let’s take them down!