Food Evolution film created by Monsanto shills and propaganda front groups like the ACSH, run by a convicted felon

Image: Food Evolution film created by Monsanto shills and propaganda front groups like the ACSH, run by a convicted felon

(Natural News)
A  film called Food Evolution that premieres in theaters across America on June 23 purports to be an objective and even-handed investigation into the genetically engineered or modified food controversy.

As they say, however, follow the money.

Having already made the rounds of various film festivals, the documentary — narrated by astrophysicist, TV presenter, and climate change champion Neil deGrasse Tyson — actually seems to be a corporate propaganda venture for elements of Big GMO, Big Food, and Big Pharma.

The film, which Natural News founder Mike Adams renamed FoodEVILution is partially funded by a biotech industry trade group called the Institute for Food Technologists (IFT), which, in turn, receives some of its funding from large food corporations. (RELATED: Read more about sneaky corporate GMO advocacy at

In other words, Food Evolution is most likely a junk science junket.

Stacy Malkan, writing for the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) website, suggests that the bias in the movie is not exactly subtle:

The film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the science and scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.

Perhaps the strongest indictment of the film is that it claims that the toxic weedkiller glyphosate, manufactured by Monsanto and tolerated by GMO crops, is safe.

As Mike Adams has separately insisted, glyphosate and GMOs are a package deal promoted by the fake stream media, bribe-taking science shills, and Monsanto-funded trolls seeking to discredit clean food activists, collectively known as the Monsanto mafia. Over the next five years, the projection for glyphosate’s global market is said to total $10 billion.

Malkan continues:

Instead of an objective look at the evidence, Food Evolution gives viewers the full Monsanto science treatment: any science that raises concerns about the possible health risks of agrichemical products should be ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is the only science worth discussing.

To make the whole presentation more dubious, the film seems to contain the seal of approval of an organization with the lofty moniker American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), but there is more here than meets the eye, as Malkan explains.

In a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, Food Evolution flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and Health at the very moment Neil deGrasse Tyson says there is a global consensus on the safety of GMOs. It’s a fitting slip. ASCH is a corporate front group closely aligned with Monsanto.

ASCH’s donors have included Monsanto and Dow Chemical.

ASCH’s executive director and acting president has an interesting resume which reportedly includes four years behind bars for Medicaid fraud and a nine-year revocation of his medical license for personal misconduct. A former official of the organization dubbed its founder the “Junk Food Queen” for her advocacy on behalf “of companies who make products with low (or no) nutritional value,” TruthWiki claimed.

According to the Food First website, 45 scholars and researchers who screened the film at the University of California, Berkeley, have signed a letter calling out Food Evolution as “a piece of propaganda.”




Source Article from

"Monsanto Mafia" just produced a corporate propaganda film called "Food Evolution" produced by violent psychopath shills who promote GMOs and pesticides

Image: “Monsanto Mafia” just produced a corporate propaganda film called “Food Evolution” produced by violent psychopath shills who promote GMOs and pesticides

(Natural News)
A new documentary film that claims to set the record straight on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has been exposed as a propaganda piece that aims for nothing more than to advance the agenda of chemical and biotechnology companies. Narrated by fake science icon Neil deGrasse Tyson, Food Evolution is backed and funded by a who’s who list of some of the most outspoken industry shills and violent psychopaths who will stop at nothing to spread more of their poison throughout the world.

One of these is Jon Entine, a known propagandist and corporate puppet who has moved in and out of positions at major corporations that profit from the sale of chemical poisons. As revealed at, Entine has all sorts of ties to big names like Monsanto, Syngenta, and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), which functions as a mouthpiece for Big Junk Food.

Representing household names like Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association (ABA), ACSH is hardly interested in telling the truth about the GMOs that its member corporations add to their products. In fact, the ACSH has invested lots of money and time to censor this information, and yet the organization has direct ties to the new Food Evolution film via Entine.

Entine, in case you didn’t know, has a very sordid past that involves violently lashing out against his now-ex-wife and threatening to sue his daughter’s therapist for providing her with therapy sessions. Entine doesn’t like anyone who opposes his chemical-pushing narrative, and is on the record as having engaged in “revenge journalism” against his opponents.

“Entine takes a ‘hit man’ approach to single out individuals – especially critics of GMOs – for accusations and abuse, often calling them names or implying they are sociopaths or a danger to society,” explains (RELATED: More on the horrors of Jon Entine is available at

Lunatics behind ‘Food Evolution’ say glyphosate is no more harmful than coffee or salt

Also backing Food Evolution are groups like the Institute for Food Technologists (IFT), a front group for the biotechnology industry that, at the time of the film’s conceptual launch, was headed by former DuPont and Monsanto executive Janet Collins. When Collins left IFT, only to be replaced by another industry shill by the name of Cindy Stewart, who also works for DuPont, Collins went on to work for CropLife America, a trade association for the pesticide industry.

Correspondences obtained by USRTK reveal that the original minds behind the Food Evolution project were executives at Monsanto, including Eric Sachs who wrote in December 2013 to a group of PR advisors that there was “clearly a lot of interest” in producing a documentary film. Though that film wasn’t named, it is obvious from reading his memo that Food Evolution is the result of that.

From planning to production, a cohort of fake science lunatics were brought on board to be featured in the film, including another Monsanto employee by the name of Robb Fraley who declares to a woman asking a questions about glyphosate, Monsanto’s most prized chemical herbicide (Roundup), that any science linking it to birth defects or cancer is automatically “pseudoscience.”

Even worse,  there is a “farmer” featured in the film who declares that glyphosate has “very, very low toxicity.” He even goes so far as to declare that glyphosate’s toxicity is “lower than coffee, (and) lower than salt.” Anyone who’s studied the issue knows these statements can only be described as the insane ramblings of a madman, and yet this type of derangement is presented as being completely valid in Food Evolution.




Source Article from

After merger with pro-Monsanto, will Whole Foods still keep its promise to label everything it sells by 2018?

Image: After merger with pro-Monsanto, will Whole Foods still keep its promise to label everything it sells by 2018?

(Natural News)
Back in March 2013, Whole Foods Market made a big decision that, even though it was still a long way off at the time, was an answer to overwhelming consumer demand. The company announced that, beginning in 2018, every item sold in its stores would be accurately labeled to indicate the presence of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), a major change that is now just a few months away from becoming a reality. But now that Whole Foods is soon to be acquired by, will this still happen as planned?

Many people are now asking this pertinent question as they consider the potential role that Jeff Bezos, owner of, could play in changing the course of Whole Foods. Despite its own set of problems without Bezos, Whole Foods had been moving forward on certain issues at the behest of its customer base, which at the end of the day still calls the shots when it comes to the store’s offerings and agenda. But with Bezos, many fear that Whole Foods will take a serious turn for the worst.

As reported by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, neither Whole Foods nor Amazon seems to care all that much about the integrity of its products. They both play lip service by saying that providing their customers with clean, safe food and personal care products, but independent testing has revealed that products sold at both retailers contain concerning levels of toxins such as heavy metals and pesticides.

Jeff Bezos is a pro-Monsanto opportunist who cares nothing about clean food

Scientific testing conducted by Natural News has found that products sold by both Whole Foods and Amazon aren’t as clean as they appear to be. Protein powders, bulk spices, and various other products have all tested positive for things like lead, cadmium, and mercury, three increasingly ubiquitous neurotoxins that are known to cause damage to the brain and central nervous system. When confronted about this back in 2014, executives at the Whole Foods headquarters in Austin, Texas, reportedly refused to take action.

This was before Whole Foods was purchased by Amazon, by the way. The company has been deceiving its customers in other ways as well, including by adding industrial chemical oils like canola and soy to the food products offered on its hot food and salad bars. Customers think they’re buying clean food made with natural ingredients of the highest quality when in reality they’re buying some of the same things one would normally find at a conventional grocery store.

While it would be premature to make an absolute declaration as to the direction Whole Foods will go under Bezos, the writing already seems to be on the wall. Bezos is an unabashed globalist who is driven by greed and his own special interest agenda. He doesn’t appear to care nearly as much about the integrity of the products his company moves, whether it be consumer electronics or groceries, which doesn’t bode well for the future of Whole Foods.

“The lack of ethics at Whole Foods … makes the company a perfect match for the lack of ethics at Amazon, another greed-driven retailer that also sells contaminated, toxic health products to unwary consumers,” writes Adams about this latest development.

As far as the direction Whole Foods will take under Bezos on the GMO labeling issue Adams believes it a strong possibility that the company will renege on this promise. After all, Bezos maintains powerful alliances with chemical companies and industrial food manufacturers that will likely trump any loyalty some people might hope he has with his customer base. (RELATED: Keep up with the latest news developments on Whole Foods Market by visiting




Source Article from

Monsanto shill proclaims "there is no ‘right to know’ if a food is GMO considering that GMOs are practically impossible to define"

Image: Monsanto shill proclaims “there is no ‘right to know’ if a food is GMO considering that GMOs are practically impossible to define”

(Natural News)
Life is full of frustrations, from rush hour traffic to overly complex tax codes. However, if you’re Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy, even the mere act of going to the grocery store is torture. It’s not the bad music they play or a shortage of cashiers that makes this mundane task so annoying for her – it’s Non-GMO Project Verified Labels.

Yes, you read that correctly: This woman claims these Non-GMO labels are “ruining” her shopping experience. They are just a few words slapped onto food packaging with an image of an unassuming-looking butterfly, yet somehow they are turning her trips to the supermarket into an unbearable undertaking.

What’s even more outrageous, this easily frustrated individual says that people do not have a “right to know” if food is GMO because she feels that GMOs are essentially “impossible to define.” She also says these labels don’t tell us anything meaningful. That’s funny; GMOs are a huge topic of debate throughout the world and everyone on both sides seems to know exactly what people are referring to when they use the term.

She might not want to know if her food contains GMOs, but plenty of other people certainly do. Why else would 3,000 brands go to the trouble of having 43,000 products verified by them? Granted, the label is not quite the same as an organic certification, but it does give peace of mind that a company has avoided GMOs in all aspects of food production. It doesn’t consider whether or not a product was exposed to chemical fertilizers or other synthetic substances like the USDA organic label does, but it’s still a good mark to look out for when deciding between two products that otherwise appear to be similar.

We don’t have a right to know?

Consumers do indeed have a right to know what the products they are buying contain. If you don’t care whether you consume GMOs or not, that’s your right. In that case, don’t look for the label, buy whatever you want, go home and eat it and roll the dice with your health. There is no reason to get worked up over a label on packaging – unless, of course, you are being paid to make a point about it.

She’s taking this really hard for someone who ostensibly has no vested interest in the matter. A quick scroll through some of the author’s past articles for Forbes, however, brings up an interesting and wholly unsurprising trend: She’s quite fond of defending Monsanto.

One of her articles, “Monsanto Found Guilty in Fake Trial that Distracted from Real Problems”, calls the firm a “symbolic scapegoat.” Another piece, “The Anti-Vaccine and Anti-GMO Movements Are Inextricably Linked and Cause Preventable Suffering” tries to cast people who are against dangerous practices like eating food doused in carcinogenic herbicides in a negative light. She also wrote an article telling America to “break up with Dr. Oz,” a vocal GMO critic with a huge television audience.

More Monsanto propaganda

What do all of these pieces have in common? Senapathy’s articles all read like pro-GMO propaganda. In fact, it’s not out of the question that Monsanto itself penned the pieces, as we found out is common practice at the world’s most-hated firm. Internal emails released in a court case showed that staffers hire ghost writers to craft stories inaccurately portraying its products as safe and then pay scientists to sign off on them.

They also have a team of trolls who are paid to find any negative mentions of their products online and post some fake science in their defense. Therefore, it would not be surprising at all if they were enlisting writers like Senapathy to promote their business by discouraging people from seeking such labels.

Of course, none of this should come as any surprise from Forbes, a publication that published attack pieces by unethical individuals like PR operative Jon Entine against researchers who have the audacity to try to warn the public about GMO dangers. We see you, Forbes, and we know what you’re trying to do.




Source Article from

Liberal professors urge Obama to target climate change skeptics with RICO act while ignoring mafia tactics of Monsanto, Big Pharma

(NaturalNews) You can always tell a liberal from a constitutionalist: the latter believes in the nation’s founding principles and the rule of law as is; the former wants to use laws, statutes, courts or presidential authority to force others to accept their point of view.

That is the only way to explain why left-leaning university professors are pressing President Obama to use his executive authority to punish anyone who does not accept at face value so-called “climate change science” that has been manipulated, changed, and intentionally skewed in the past, all to support a specific de-growth, anti-capitalist agenda.

Climate Change Dispatch, a website dedicated to spreading the word about climate hoaxes and faulty climate data, reports that although there has been no real rise in global temperatures for nearly two decades, about two dozen scientists from major universities are pressing Obama to punish climate skeptics using RICO laws – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statutes passed in 1970 to combat organized crime (such as the old Mafia).

In a letter addressed to the president, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, the group of scientists wrote that they “appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.”

Tobacco-like cover-up?

However, “one additional tool” – which has been proposed by liberal Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island – is to conduct a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations they charge have knowingly deceived the American public about the so-called risks of climate change “as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change,” they wrote.

The scientists charged that critics’ actions have already been documented in other publications.

“The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking,” the scientists said.

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” they wrote.

No smoke

In a Washington Post commentary piece last year, Whitehouse charged that the fossil fuel industry was out to deceive the American public, and as such, he argued that such activity amounted to “a racketeering enterprise.”

He alleged the “parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking,” adding that the tobacco industry – which indeed hid the ill health effects of smoking – “joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy.”

“The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute,” the senator wrote.

“A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise ‘questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.'”

Whitehouse was finally forced to admit that he was doing nothing but slinging allegations because he had no real evidence to offer.

“To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. … But there’s an awful lot of smoke,” he wrote.

Using the law to punish political opponents

Meanwhile, despite the dearth of scientific evidence that global warming/climate change/climate disruption even exists as the Left claims it does, there is real evidence to suggest that climate scientists have indeed manipulated their climate data in order to “prove” that global warming was real and that human activities were causing it.

NASA scientists have also been caught manipulating data by climate skeptic Paul Homewood.

Then, there is the fact that no one on the Left – or in Congress in general – is recommending using RICO to punish bio-ag giant Monsanto and Big Pharma for using Mafioso tactics to strong-arm critics and whistleblowers, as Natural News has reported.

There are definitely cases where U.S. racketeering laws are appropriate, but not in cases where those who call for them are only trying to silence and/or punish political opponents.

Sources include:

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus

Source Article from

Monsanto’s Cancer Causing Herbicide Doesn’t Even Work, Actually Makes Weeds Stronger


As we have covered extensively in recent months, Monsanto’s herbicide Glysophate, the primary ingredient in their top-selling product “RoundUp” has been proven to cause cancer. Now, according to new reports, the chemical doesn’t even work and is creating a new resistance in weeds that make them more resiliant and more difficult to get rid of.

Nebraska farmer Mike Pietzyk recently discussed how the weeds are becoming resistant to RoundUp in a recent interview with Chemicals And Engineers News.

“The days of going out and spraying RoundUp twice a year—those are long gone,” he said, adding that he was forced to use a cocktail of different chemicals, some of which are even more dangerous than RoundUp. Pietzyk and other farmers are now seeking new solutions to avoid the harsh pesticides used in conventional farming.

“People in urban areas and towns need to understand—we live here, we drink the water under the ground out here,” he says. “We want to be good stewards of what we’ve been entrusted with,” he said.

According to U.S. weed scientist Dallas Peterson, one type of weed, in particular, called Palmer amaranth, has become especially resistant to pesticides and is overgrowing farms across the country.

Complaints of herbicide-resistant weeds have become so common that the House Agriculture Committee has scheduled a meeting on December 4th to specifically address the situation.

Roundup, formulated to be used on GMO or “Roundup Ready” crops engineered to be resistant to it, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It was originally introduced in the 1970s to control weeds and then took off when the planting of GMO crops skyrocketed in the past 15 years.

According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), glyphosate use in the U.S. increased from about 20 million pounds in 1992 to 110 million pounds in 2002 to more than 280 million pounds in 2012.

In a statement released earlier this year, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, is “probably carcinogenic.”

John Vibes writes for True Activist and is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war.

This article ( Monsanto’s Cancer Causing Herbicide Doesn’t Even Work, Actually Makes Weeds Stronger ) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and


Source Article from

Naturally occurring ‘GM’ butterflies have wasp genes

Mother Nature, not Monsanto, appears to be behind this striking twist.

Things are getting freaky in the critter world. Researchers from Spain and France have discovered genes from parasitic wasps present in the genomes of many butterflies. The results of their study reveal that even the iconic monarch contains naturally produced GMOs.

Say what?!

It all seems to have started with the particular habits of parasitic braconid wasps. These guys (well, females actually) lay their eggs inside caterpillars and inject a “giant virus” named bracovirus to trip up the caterpillars’ immune response. Proving once and for all that truth really is stranger than fiction, this nifty trick allows the virus to integrate into the DNA of the caterpillars and control caterpillar development, allowing the wasp larvae overlords to colonize their host.

The bracovirus genes were found in the genomes of several species of butterfly and moth in addition to monarchs, including silkworms and pests such as the Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) and the Beet Armyworm (Spodoptera exigua).

And the genes found within are not just remnants, it appears that in fact, they play a protective role against other viruses known as baculoviruses. In addition, remarkably, the genes weren’t exclusive to the wasp virus, some of them originated from the actual wasp. In the armyworm species of moths, the researchers found genes that are closely related to genes from hymenoptera, including the honey bee.

Proponents of producing GM insects might latch on to this as an argument in favor of their work – that GM insects already exist in nature, so it’s a natural thing to do. But in showing fluidity of genes between species, the study really provides more ammunition for those opposed. For example, if insecticide resistance genes were to be artificially introduced into wasp species for biological control of other pests, it could lead to accidental transmission of this resistance to the target pests. And then what? I know, let’s not try it and see what happens.

On MNN: 8 of the cutest toxic caterpillars

Source Article from

Flashback: Monsanto Profits Fell 15% on Weak Sales of GM Seed

Monsanto’s stock did even more poorly than analysts expected last quarter, with its stock taking another 15 percent nose-dive due to ‘a stronger dollar, and weak seed sales.’ The company is warning its investors that profits will not maintain previously suggested levels. Is it time to ditch Monsanto stock?

The company is adjusting its forecasts based on the impact of falling GM corn seed sales, and chemicals that are becoming increasingly expensive for farmers to use. The company is likely to continue to lose money considering that 96 percent of consumers want their food labeled so they know if they are eating health-damaging GM seed.

Here are some poll figures on the desire for GMOs to be labeled:

  • ABC News: 93% want federal GM labeling mandate

Furthermore, the Internet has allowed a democratic disbursement of information that may suggest that GM seed like Bt toxic corn are bad for human health. Adding to that the fact that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, is now being called ‘carcinogenic’ by everyone from the EPA in the state of California to the World Health Organization. Surely this will impact sales for the biotech behemoth as well.

The cost of multiple pending lawsuits are also likely to affect Monsanto’s bottom line. They were just found guilty of chemical poisoning in France, and a PCB lawsuit is pending in St Louis County. Add to these lawsuits, two more, including a false advertising lawsuit in California and one from way back in 1996, also for false advertising.

It seems that the end of Monsanto just might finally be in sight.

Storable Food

About Christina Sarich:

Author Image

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

Source Article from

New science paper exposes how corporations censor GMO research they don’t like

(NaturalNews) Setting the record straight on a controversial toxicity study that links Monsanto’s transgenic corn and glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) to liver and kidney toxicity in mice, a new paper published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe exposes the criminal science cartel that actively censors research into genetically-modified organisms and biotechnology that goes against the status quo.

Doctors John Fagan, Terje Traavik, and Thomas Bohn want the world to know that Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s famous study on GM maize NK603 and Roundup is a toxicity study that just so happened to uncover carcinogenic effects from NK603 and Roundup, both in combination and individually. The findings of this important study are indeed valid, they reiterate, and serve as a legitimate baseline for further research into this controversial segment of industrial agriculture.

Their peer-reviewed paper entitled “The Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science?” warns that retracting studies simply because they don’t fit the official narrative for a particular subject is the antithesis of what true science is supposed to entail. They emphasize that the normal scientific process involves investigating new ideas and publishing the results, which then encourages others to do the same in either support or rejection of the earlier findings.

Prof. Seralini’s study, in case you missed it, was retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology after a swarm of “skeptics” and other anti-science fanatics demanded that it be pulled for primarily political reasons. It basically boils down to the fact that these control freaks didn’t like what Prof. Seralini discovered concerning the carcinogenic nature of Monsanto GMO corn and Roundup, so they pressured and bullied the editors of the journal who published his paper to retract it.

Their reasoning and criticisms were quickly exposed as invalid, as revealed in this comprehensive rebuttal, but little was done to vindicate Prof. Seralini and his study and make things right. That’s where this latest paper comes into play, challenging the corruption within scientific circles that stifles honest inquiry into controversial subjects, including GMO safety.

Dr. Fagan and his colleagues say the growing trend towards pulling papers from journals simply because some people don’t like their findings — Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his famous Lancet paper represent another textbook example of this — overshadows the normal scientific process “in which peer-reviewed publication stimulates new research, generating new empirical evidence that drives the evolution of scientific understanding.”

After thoroughly examining Prof. Seralini’s original findings and research methods, Dr. Fagan, Dr. Traavick, and Dr. Bohn determined that NK603 and Roundup are not only toxic to the kidneys and liver below current regulatory thresholds, but they might also cause cancer in mammals. They say that these preliminary discoveries warrant further inquiry by regulatory authorities and the scientific community at large rather than animosity towards those who made these discoveries.

“Follow-up long-term carcinogenicity studies, using test animal strains and numbers of animals that assure robust conclusions, are required to confirm/refute this preliminary evidence,” they write. “The inherent tension between the scientific process and commercial interests of product developers necessitates implementation of safeguards that protect the scientific process and prevent degeneration of Science to Re-Science (typified by retraction and republication disputes).”

For more on Prof. Seralini’s study, what it revealed, and where critics went wrong in condemning it as “invalid,” visit

Sources for this article include:

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus

Source Article from

The Atlantic exposed for colluding with Monsanto-funded scientists after failing to retract fraudulent story defaming Food Babe

(NaturalNews) An unflattering media storm continues to engulf University of Florida professor Kevin Folta after he was exposed for colluding with the biotech industry, namely Monsanto, despite his repeated denials of any financial ties to the GM seed conglomerate.

The revelations, blown open by The New York Times (NYT) and made possible via FOIA requests filed by U.S. Right to Know, exposed Folta and dozens of other university scientists for posing as “independent researchers” while traveling the world on Monsanto’s dime to promote GMOs and their associated pesticides.

However, the university scientists aren’t the only ones suffering from embarrassment – the news publications that either blindly or deliberately pushed pro-GMO statements from industry-corrupted professionals disguised as “independent scientists” now have to deal with the aftermath of promoting Monsanto-funded disinfo campaigns.

The American magazine The Atlantic bought Folta’s charade as an “independent scientist” hook, line and sinker when they ran a report rejecting Vani Hari’s (the Food Babe) accusations that Folta had financial ties to Monsanto, particularly due to his involvement with a project called GMO Answers, to which Folta published nearly verbatim pro-GMO propaganda provided to him by Monsanto.

Despite Folta being outed as a lying Monsanto puppet, The Atlantic is refusing to retract or correct their story by failing to respond to Natural News‘ phone calls and emails requesting for such.

As illustrated below, The Atlantic has refused to respond to attempts to contact the publication.


The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals,” authored by The Atlantic‘s Senior Editor James Hamblin, essentially gave Folta the floor to attack the Food Babe when he said:

Vani is very good at marketing herself and telling people what they want to hear. She is very good at playing into the current popularity of vilifying farmers and large-scale agriculture. But really, she’s her own company, and she’s the spokesperson.

In response to Hari’s accusation about Folta having financial ties to Monsanto, he stated:

I didn’t work for 30 years in this business as a public scientist, at half the salary of what I could earn working for industry, so that I could sell out for some company. She has called me a professor who works for Monsanto, which is the most insane thing I’ve ever heard. I work for the state of Florida. But she had to play that card to discredit me, because I’m hitting a little too close to home with her whole scam. [emphases added]

Folta also complained about the regulatory system being “too stringent,” preventing him and his biotech buddies from rolling out products they think will “help the planet,” a.k.a. will generate money, big money. After all, dominating the global GM seed market is no small investment.

To have someone like Hari go out and make up nonsense that only digs into public opinion against these technologies is really frustrating for us.

Now that the Monsanto-funded scientists have been exposed, it’s The Atlantic’s (and other publications who pushed similar disinfo) journalistic duty to retract, or at the very least make it clear that Food Babe was right and Folta was in fact bribed by the biotech industry. Click here to view Monsanto’s letter offering Folta $25K in unrestricted grant money, which he happily accepted, later telling corporate representatives that he was “glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”

Learn more about how biotech corporations are tampering with your food at, powered by

The media’s willingness to protect Big Food and other poison-pushing corrupt corporations is completely detrimental to the clean food movement and directly places Americans in danger of risky foods, including GMOs and their associated pesticides such as glyphosate, which has been linked to a slew of serious health problems.

The more widespread GMO agriculture becomes, the more unsustainable our food system grows. Zero long-term safety studies have been conducted on GMOs; however, on the other hand, countless horror stories[PDF] have emerged regarding the devastating effects of GMO agriculture.

It’s incredibly important that the general public, as well as clean food advocates, call on The Atlantic to retract and/or correct their story which has now been exposed as being fraudulent following the NYT’s groundbreaking report: “Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O Lobbying War, Emails Show.”

Demand a retraction by tweeting @TheAtlantic with a link to this story and do the same on their Facebook page. The magazine will surely cave into retracting if enough people voice their disdain.

The public deserves clean, non-toxic food and they deserve transparency. In order to achieve transparency, the media absolutely needs to be held accountable for publishing disinfo, especially if they wish to be viewed as “independent” media – free of corporate sponsorship.

Contact The Atlantic today!

Anna C. Bross
Senior Director of Communications, The Atlantic

James Hamblin
Senior Editor, The Atlantic

To search for breaking news and important information, try, the world’s first search engine to filter out corporate disinformation and government propaganda while protecting your privacy!

Additional sources:[PDF]

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus

Source Article from