Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 01:51 PM Feb 2014

New Campaign to Highlight Organic Benefits, Debunk Messages from "The False Advertising Industry."

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)


The Natural Effect (501,000 views)
-Only Organic


Natural's Best Friend (7,638 views)
-Only Organic


GMOs and God's Work (4,905 views)
-Only Organic


A Short Message from the "False Advertising Industry" (7,514 views)
-Only Organic

Published on Jan 28, 2014
http://www.onlyorganic.org

http://www.onlyorganic.org/press-release-new-campaign-to-highlight-organic-benefits/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, February 3, 2014

PRESS RELEASE: New Campaign to Highlight Organic Benefits
By Only Organic | February 3rd, 2014 |


[center]New Campaign to Highlight Organic Benefits,
Debunk Misleading “Natural Claims”[/center]


A public education campaign was launched today to highlight the benefits of organic food and to help consumers understand the difference between products labeled organic and those that are labeled as “natural.”

“Foods made with the use of toxic persistent pesticides and even genetically engineered ingredients are being labeled as natural,” said Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Stonyfield Farm. “Only organic guarantees that food is produced without the use of toxic persistent pesticides, hormones, antibiotics or genetically engineered ingredients. Only organic gives you complete piece of mind.”

The public education campaign will include videos and social media.

The videos, which can be viewed at: http://www.onlyorganic.org/pretenders/ help consumers understand the how the “natural” label can be used to confuse shoppers. The videos were developed by the recently launched agency Humanaut with help from advertising icon Alex Bogusky.

Organic foods are subject to stringent environment and animal welfare standards enforced by United States Department of Agriculture.

While the Food and Drug Administration and USDA discourage companies from including “natural” claims on processed foods containing synthetic or artificial ingredients, there is no official definition of “natural” and little enforcement of misleading claims.

“Only organic is produced in a way that Mother Nature would recognize as natural,” said Sarah Bird, Chief Marketing Officer for Annie’s, Inc. “Many products that claim to be “natural” are made with ingredients you couldn’t find in nature – including artificial flavors or colors, synthetic preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, and genetically engineered ingredients.”

Natural claims have been added to everything from cooking oils made from genetically engineered crops to ice cream made from cows pumped full of growth hormones.

“Many consumers mistakenly believe that foods labeled as ‘natural’ are better than food that has been certified as organic,” said Lewis Goldstein, Vice President of Brand Marketing at Organic Valley. “Organic food starts with organic farming, from the ground up. Only organic is subject to tough, enforceable standards created by the USDA designed to insure that our families can count on their food being produced in ways that protect their health, the environment, and the welfare of farm animals.”

The public education campaign is being launched by Organic Voices, a non-profit organization, and is supported by organic companies and other companies, including AllergyKids, Annie’s, Earthbound, Happy Family, INFRA, Late July, Nature’s Path, NCGA, Organic Valley, Rudi’s, and Stonyfield.

“Many products carry the ‘natural’ claim when there is nothing natural about them,” said Darren Mahaffy, Vice President of Marketing at Nature’s Path Foods. “As a result, many consumers are buying products they think are the same – or even better – for their families and the environment than organic.”

A recent survey found that consumers commonly believe that “natural” foods do not contain artificial ingredients.

“The public needs new tools to understand the benefits of organic and to be able to distinguish between organic foods and all other unverified claims,” said Laura Batcha, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association.

Organic Voices works to educate and empower consumers by promoting the benefits of organic food.
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New Campaign to Highlight Organic Benefits, Debunk Messages from "The False Advertising Industry." (Original Post) proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 OP
Peace of mind voteearlyvoteoften Feb 2014 #1
Organic is a scam... CSStrowbridge Feb 2014 #2
Ah, geez, really? Dr. Aaron Carroll misses the boat again. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #4
This just in... proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #5
That guy REALLY likes himself KurtNYC Feb 2014 #6
The OP purveyor definitely likes himself. HuckleB Feb 2014 #9
Please see post #4 (above): EWG link analyzes the very same Slate article - no woo, all reality. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #10
To date, you've posted massive amounts of nothing. HuckleB Feb 2014 #13
You are wrong although you're entitled to your opinion. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #16
Your posts attempt to divert people to a world that does not exist. HuckleB Feb 2014 #17
What nonsense as anyone who reads can see. On this thread alone are citations to AAP, EWG, ASRM... proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #20
We get it. You think you know more than the world's scientists. HuckleB Feb 2014 #21
That's funny, thanks for the laugh. Another satirical video here from The Center for Food Safety. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #22
Take note, consumers rule. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #11
So marketing is more important than science? HuckleB Feb 2014 #12
Check it out. He's on my team. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #14
And the logical fallacies continue. HuckleB Feb 2014 #15
I've learned 'smart' doesn't preclude stupid, monstrous, or both. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #18
No, you haven't learned any of that. HuckleB Feb 2014 #19
EPA Approves Exemption for Bt Residues in Soy Foods From GMO Crops proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #8
Organic gardener for years; notemason Feb 2014 #3
What about Certified Naturally Grown (CNG)? fasttense Feb 2014 #7
Google it. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #23

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
5. This just in...
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 05:01 PM
Feb 2014
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n2/full/tp20144a.html

Citation: Translational Psychiatry (2014) 4, e360; doi:10.1038/tp.2014.4
Published online 11 February 2014

Environmental toxicants and autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review
OPEN

D A Rossignol1, S J Genuis2 and R E Frye3

1Family Medicine, Rossignol Medical Center, Irvine, CA, USA
2Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
3Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

Received 8 November 2013; Revised 15 December 2013; Accepted 6 January 2014

...additional high-quality epidemiological studies concerning environmental toxicants and ASD are warranted to confirm and clarify many of these findings.

Link from TACA tweet ("Important research connects the dots with over 200 research references on how #toxins affect individuals w/#autism&quot

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
6. That guy REALLY likes himself
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:44 PM
Feb 2014

If someone wants to limit the amount of pesticides that go through their body isn't that THEIR choice? That's all the OP is advancing -- truth in labeling.

This strawman about 'organic food not having more nutrients' misses the point. Organic consumers are paying extra for what is NOT in the food.

And seldom mentioned in this debate -- farm workers. In many conventional farming operations, they have to work in an environment where there are high concentrations of toxins. Almost no one, not even most organic consumers, seem to care about them. If they do, they seldom mention it.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
9. The OP purveyor definitely likes himself.
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 02:46 PM
Feb 2014

He definitely pushes woo every chance he gets. It's unethical, at that's being ridiculously kind.

Reality (and, no, it has zero to do with a choice about pesticides) is not what this nonsense is pushing: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2014/01/organic_vs_conventional_produce_for_kids_you_don_t_need_to_fear_pesticides.html

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
10. Please see post #4 (above): EWG link analyzes the very same Slate article - no woo, all reality.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 05:24 PM
Feb 2014

And check out this thread, too. Sorry, kinda messy, but IMPORTANT.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024502342

Pressed for time? Start by COMMAND F pesticide. Then be sure to critically examine the TOXIC BABY links. Read the American Chemistry Council quote. Choose your side carefully.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
13. To date, you've posted massive amounts of nothing.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 09:25 PM
Feb 2014

No one should pay attention to you. You offer nothing but baseless fear mongering. You are a classic purveyor of false advertising.

It's unethical. It's wrong. It's sick.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
16. You are wrong although you're entitled to your opinion.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 11:44 PM
Feb 2014

I'd imagine ignoring my posts would work best for you (since refuting the sources is too challenging). BTW, insulting me doesn't cut it, not by a long shot.



HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
17. Your posts attempt to divert people to a world that does not exist.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 12:24 AM
Feb 2014

I'm a progressive, so I will fight for what is right. Thus, I will always point out the BS that you push.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
20. What nonsense as anyone who reads can see. On this thread alone are citations to AAP, EWG, ASRM...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 09:39 AM
Feb 2014
American Academy of Pediatrics
Environmental Working Group
American Society for Reproductive Medicine and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Robyn O'Brien
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Pesticide Action Network
Cornucopia Institute

I urge you to read them.

And more on this linked thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024502342

The Lancet Neurology

Friends of the Earth

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Harvard School of Public Health

Toxic Baby Movie
Green Sisterhood

TEDWomen
CNN via KCRA

I'm strongly analytical, always have been, and tenacious especially when the subject is difficult.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
21. We get it. You think you know more than the world's scientists.
Fri Feb 21, 2014, 10:06 PM
Feb 2014

You don't You are propagandist, as this, yet another, meaningless post of yours shows. Period.

PS: Organic agriculture can pollute groundwater, research shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140218114311.htm

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
22. That's funny, thanks for the laugh. Another satirical video here from The Center for Food Safety.
Fri Feb 21, 2014, 11:03 PM
Feb 2014


Dow Chemical's "Mad Men"
By The Center for Food Safety

Published on Feb 12, 2014


While the "Mad Men" in this video aren't real, Dow Chemical's genetically engineered "Agent Orange" crops unfortunately are. Learn more and take action at http://www.dow-watch.org

Have you heard of super weeds? Big industrial farms have been using so much of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide on Roundup Ready genetically engineered crops, the weeds have evolved resistance. They spray the herbicide on the plant in hopes that it will kill everything other than the genetically engineered corn or soybeans. But when the weeds survive, industrial farms turn to older, more toxic chemicals like 2,4-D to kill them.

While "superweeds" are a real problem for America's farmers, they apparently aren't a problem for Dow Chemical. In fact, Dow welcomed it in glowing terms as "a new era" and "a very significant opportunity" for chemical companies like Dow Chemical.

A significant opportunity? Dow Chemical wants to put even more toxic 2,4-D on our food crops and we're just supposed to eat it? What on Earth were they thinking? We started to wonder what that conversation must have been like for Dow Chemical to determine how to market a toxic product, and we think it may have gone something like this.

What is 2,4-D? It is half of the highly toxic chemical mixture called Agent Orange that the military used as a defoliant during the Vietnam War. 2,4-D has been linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, lowered sperm counts, liver disease, and Parkinson's disease. Studies have also demonstrated the chemical's adverse effects on hormonal, reproductive, neurological, and immune systems. To make matters worse, 2,4-D is the 7th largest source of dioxins in the U.S.

Dow Chemical insists that the use of 2,4-D is safe. But they also assured the public that an insecticide called Dursban was safe...until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Dow Chemical $800,000 for illegally withholding over 250 reports of poisonings, including many that occurred even when the product was used correctly. And they expect us to trust their word on the safety of 2,4-D?

Dow Chemical is asking the USDA for permission to sell these "Agent Orange" Crops, unlabeled, to the public. Learn more and tell USDA NO on "Agent Orange" crops at http://www.dow-watch.org



proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
11. Take note, consumers rule.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 05:43 PM
Feb 2014
http://twitpic.com/dufi24

USDA graph shows growth in demand for organic food, food not made with synthetic pesticides, sewage sludge or GMOs.
(Posted 14 days ago)

[img][/img]


Heads-up, food companies: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017174788

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
14. Check it out. He's on my team.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 10:58 PM
Feb 2014
Nassim N. Taleb ?@nntaleb 22h
Statisticians understand the risks of roulette better than carpenters; probabilists understand the risks of GMOs better than biologists.

Nassim N. Taleb ?@nntaleb Feb 14
Adding a section on risk-ignorant psychologists pathologizing people skeptical about GMOs http://fooledbyrandomness.com/nudge.pdf cc:@freakonomics

Nassim N. Taleb ?@nntaleb Feb 11
EU ministers meeting today to discuss GM corn. Here is our warning http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf


https://twitter.com/nntaleb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
15. And the logical fallacies continue.
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 11:18 PM
Feb 2014

Do you ever question your preconceived notions?

Yes, I know you don't.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
18. I've learned 'smart' doesn't preclude stupid, monstrous, or both.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 12:32 AM
Feb 2014
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv

A VALUABLE REPUTATION
After Tyrone Hayes said that a chemical was harmful, its maker pursued him.
BY RACHEL AVIV


<>

The E.P.A. approved the continued use of atrazine in October, the same month that the European Commission chose to remove it from the market.

The European Union generally takes a precautionary approach to environmental risks, choosing restraint in the face of uncertainty. In the U.S., lingering scientific questions justify delays in regulatory decisions.

Since the mid-seventies, the E.P.A. has issued regulations restricting the use of only five industrial chemicals out of more than eighty thousand in the environment.

Industries have a greater role in the American regulatory process—they may sue regulators if there are errors in the scientific record — and cost-benefit analyses are integral to decisions: a monetary value is assigned to disease, impairments, and shortened lives and weighed against the benefits of keeping a chemical in use.

Lisa Heinzerling, the senior climate-policy counsel at the E.P.A. in 2009 and the associate administrator of the office of policy in 2009 and 2010, said that cost-benefit models appear “objective and neutral, a way to free ourselves from the chaos of politics.” But the complex algorithms “quietly condone a tremendous amount of risk.”

She added that the influence of the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees major regulatory decisions, has deepened in recent years. “A rule will go through years of scientific reviews and cost-benefit analyses, and then at the final stage it doesn’t pass,” she said. “It has a terrible, demoralizing effect on the culture at the E.P.A.”

http://www.panna.org/current-campaigns/atrazine

Atrazine: Science under siege

Atrazine. It's in our lakes, streams and drinking water at levels that make a difference to human health. Scientists link exposure to increased risk of birth defects, infertility and possibly cancer.

Who's responsible? The Syngenta corporation — the world's largest pesticide company. They're working overtime to promote and protect their flagship product in the U.S., despite the fact that it's long been banned in their home county of Switzerland. Syngenta has intimidated scientists, pressured regulators and paid an economist to manufacture faulty studies — all to keep an unnecessary product on the market.

<>

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
19. No, you haven't learned any of that.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:20 AM
Feb 2014

If you had, you would challenge yourself. You don't, and you don't care to do so.

That's why what you do is promote negatives. You're working to create a worse world.

Until you figure that out, you haven't learned a thing.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
8. EPA Approves Exemption for Bt Residues in Soy Foods From GMO Crops
Fri Feb 14, 2014, 03:09 PM
Feb 2014
http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/02/epa-approves-exemption-bt-residues-soy-foods-gmo-crops/

Cornucopia News

EPA Approves Exemption for Bt Residues in Soy Foods From GMO Crops

February 13th, 2014


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule on February 12 creating an exemption for residue tolerance levels in soy foods and feed for the biological pesticide Bt used in GMO crops. Similar exemptions have already been approved for corn and cotton food and products.

The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly known as Bt, has been widely used in organic agriculture for decades as a natural pesticide, because it produces a toxin that kills certain insects. In recent years, the DNA from the Bt bacterium has been incorporated into genetically modified corn, cotton and soybean crops to protect the plants from insects like the corn borer and cotton bollworm.

The genetically modified crops have the ability to manufacture this toxin, called the Cry1F protein, in every cell of the plant, including the portions used for human food and livestock feed.

In making the exemption determination, the EPA concluded that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and residential setting.

Federal statutes will now be modified to state: Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein in the food and feed commodities of corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; cotton; and soybean are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant incorporated protectant in corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; cotton, and soybean.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0704, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Any objections to the final rule and/or a request for a hearing must be filed by April 14.

Last year the EPA also approved an increase in food residue levels for the herbicide glyphosate, the use of which is closely aligned with many GMO crops designed to be resistant to the Monsanto chemical.

<>

notemason

(299 posts)
3. Organic gardener for years;
Mon Feb 10, 2014, 08:39 PM
Feb 2014

excellent health, perfect checkups, no glasses, stamina to go all day. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
7. What about Certified Naturally Grown (CNG)?
Wed Feb 12, 2014, 09:33 AM
Feb 2014

CNG products have more stringent rules and are controlled by the farmers themselves. No corporation or federal official waters down the requirements. Here is a link: http://www.naturallygrown.org/

The Organic label has been taken over by the federal government. When they took over certification they immediately doubled the cost. They now even allow child labor picked products and Wal-Mart products to call themselves organic. I understand even some Chinese products are being shipped into the US with the organic label.

That is NOT what the organic movement is all about. If you read some of the older literature of the organic movement, you realize it was about more than just no chemical pesticides or fertilizers.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
23. Google it.
Thu Feb 27, 2014, 12:29 PM
Feb 2014
The amount of pesticide used to create commercial fruit crops is eye-popping – 589,806 pounds on raspberries alone in California in 2009, the latest figures available from the Pesticide Action Network’s database.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»New Campaign to Highlight...