Cargill and Others Behind anti-Organic Stanford StudyAnti-organic study is not news, rather, coordinated propaganda campaign. Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial with the following sentence: Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots. Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraphs readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford study regarding organic food. Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agris bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen. The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support Englands latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study. A Flawed Study Two news cycles have already been dedicated to trashing organic food. Organic food is free of pesticides and genetic manipulation, both of which are proven to cause learning disabilities, decreased IQ, sterility, and a myriad of other health problems including a wide variety of cancers. Indeed, the nutritional value would be similar but the entire point of eating organic is not because of vastly superior nutritional value, but to avoid the extras included with products from big-agri corporations. The Stanford study intentionally dismisses concerns regarding the presence of pesticides by simply claiming levels were within legal tolerances. No discussion was made on whether legal tolerances equated to safe tolerances, nor was there any mention made of the harmful effects of genetically modified organisms (GMO) or other controversial food additives found in non-organic food products. So why the strawman argument? A Corporate-funded Study The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institutes research, teaching and outreach activities. The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these friends, national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy? Image: From Stanford Center for Health Policys own website it is admitted that national and international foundations and corporations fund its research and outreach activities. This confirms the suspicions of an increasingly aware public who saw the study as biased, contradictory of both logic and ethics, and the result of insidious corporate-funding. According to FSIs 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf) Agricultural giant Cargill, British Petroleum (BP), the Bill Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), the Ford Foundation, Google, Goldman Sachs, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and many other corporate-financier, Fortune 500 special interests. Image: From Stanfords 2011 FSI Annual Report (page 38, .pdf), of which the Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary, is funded by Cargill, the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), and a myriad of other Fortune 500 corporate-financier special interests. The report at face value is throwaway propaganda, but its funding reveals a more insidious, coordinated effort to manipulate public perception, stretching across academia, mass media, government, and big business. (click image to enlarge) That none of this is mentioned, and the lack of independence and transparency involved in the study and its presentation to the public, overturns the credibility of both Stanford, and the Western media machine that so eagerly shoveled the results out to the public. Combined with the fact that the study itself is flawed, and the concerted, disingenuous nature with which it is being promoted to the public, a premeditated public relations campaign, bought and paid for by Stanfords FSI sponsors, most notably Cargill and the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation is self-evident. What to Do? We should also redouble our efforts at supporting local farmers, attending and contributing to local farmers markets, and investigating the possibility of growing, if only a small percentage, our own herbs, fruits, and vegetables. Freedom and self-determination come from economic independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. The most fundamental form of economic independence is having a safe, secure, and local food supply operated for, by, and of the people. Cementing this emerging paradigm, in spite of the crass, juvenile, even criminally irresponsible editorials like that of the Telegraphs Harry Wallop, and multimillion dollar studies subsidized by Cargill and the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation, is the first step on extending this paradigm shift to other areas required for maintaining and advancing modern civilization. Stanfords most recent study is essentially the university giving back to Cargill and others. Tony Cartaluccis articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report. Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 