Home | About | Donate

Big Industry’s All Out Assault on Democracy and Your Right to Know


Big Industry’s All Out Assault on Democracy and Your Right to Know

George Kimbrell

In an op-ed published by Forbes last week, a pro-biotechnology mouthpiece who used to work for the tobacco industry wrote a provocative piece arguing that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision imperiled the constitutionality of mandatory genetically engineered food labeling.


"... the U.S. public is discovering that industry’s hype is false. Namely, despite billions of dollars in research and nearly two decades of commercialization, there are no crops that are engineered to increase crop yields, reduce world hunger, or mitigate global warming; instead, the agrochemical companies that engineer crops have largely succeeded in making these crops resistant to their own products—pesticides. Nor is there any “consensus” that such foods are safe."

Note just how closely this modus operandi parallels that of the War on Terror. In the case of this war, it largely took a non-existent threat and turned it into a worldwide phenomena crying out for defense!

This apparatus--which Naomi Klein defines as The Shock Doctrine works to create the problem it then profits from supposedly addressing or purportedly fixing.

It's insidious, and it's no coincidence that Monsanto, a company that made its first significant profits on blood-money from the Vietnam War's jungle-directed exfoliation campaigns would be first to launch a war on nature where, in claiming a cure, it spreads THE disease! Killing for profit, what a concept! In a sane society, it would be criminalized or pre-empted before this dark agenda had a chance to spawn.

This is an excellent article.

On this idea of "Commercial speech," really a fancy title given to the protection of all-out fallacious information trafficked as if true, who wouldn't like to see a reciprocal Truth Clause held up as antidote? After all, so-called "commercial speech" allows a deep pocket corporation to tell all sorts of lies about the safety and utility of its product. Such entities know how to expertly hide behind the "Presumption of Innocence" clause. In this manner, they are FREE to do harm, granted immunity from lying to the public about their products until such time as the injured entities can find the time, legal muscle, and scientifically prove trail of evidence to condemn the knowing offenders.

As I have mentioned often, amid this era of Disaster Capitalism, a climate has been fostered that protects the guilty who knowingly abuse the presumption of innocence. In other words, they continue to do harm and profit from products that do great damage knowing that the time lag between proof of guilt and pocketing profits guarantees them strategic advantages.

The constant marketing of insufficiently tested pharmaceutical drugs pulled from the market once hundreds, if not thousands of people lodge complaints is a case in point. Typically, these products amass fortunes prior to their dangers becoming too apparent to continue the scam and attack on public health.

Bio tech products are more harmful by a significant magnitude... however, as tends to be true with genetically based disorders, the HARM does not show up for years. Some of it skips a generation: think Thalidomide.


Until labeling become law, which it will eventually, I'm buying organic only. Protect that label.


George Kimbrell, and his brother Andy Kimbrell, do tremendous public service with their work at the Center for Food Safety, one of the finest nonprofits operating today in the USA.

Their ongoing forthright attacks on the GMO corporations provide excellent information for activists to understand what it is we are up against, and how to confront it.

If you're not familiar with CFS, check out their web site and consider joining.


Re "There is not a single case in which a court has found a commercial disclosure, like a product label, to be “content based” and thus subject to strict scrutiny.." although they HAVE found the opposite, maybe.

In "Nix v Hedden" the Court decided that, even though a tomato is a FRUIT, botanically speaking, it had to be classed as a VEGETABLE, because that was considered a 'common usage' of language, with regard to tomatoes. (I'm just trying t find ways that the Court could possibly screw this up, given the predilections of certain members...)