Industrial Food: Poisoning for Profit
Source: Global Research
Fast-Food Graveyard – Sickened for Profit
The modern food system is responsible for making swathes of humanity ill, causing unnecessary suffering and sending many people to an early grave. It is part of a grotesque food-pharma conveyor belt that results in massive profits for the dominant agrifood and pharmaceuticals corporations.
Much of the modern food system has been shaped by big agribusiness concerns like Monsanto (now Bayer) and Cargill, giant food companies like Nestle, Pepsico and Kellog’s and, more recently, institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.
For the likes of BlackRock, which invests in both food and pharma, fuelling a system increasingly based on ultra processed food (UPF) with its cheap and unhealthy ingredients is a sure-fire money spinner.
Toxic Junk
Consider that fast food is consumed by 85 million US citizens each day. Several chains are the primary suppliers of many school lunches. Some 30 million school meals are served to children each day. For millions of underprivileged children in the US, these meals are their only access to nutrition.
In 2022, Moms Across America (MAA) and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) commissioned the testing of school lunches and found that 5.3 per cent contained carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and liver disease-causing glyphosate; 74 per cent contained at least one of 29 harmful pesticides; four veterinary drugs and hormones were found in nine of the 43 meals tested; and all of the lunches contained heavy metals at levels up to 6,293 times higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum levels allowed in drinking water. Moreover, the majority of the meals were abysmally low in nutrients.
As a follow up, MAA, a non-profit organisation, with support from CHD and the Centner Academy, recently decided to have the top ten most popular fast-food brand meals extensively tested for 104 of the most commonly used veterinary drugs and hormones.
The Health Research Institute tested 42 fast-food meals from 21 locations nationwide. The top ten brands tested were McDonald’s, Starbucks, Chick-fil-A, TacoBell, Wendy’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Burger King, Subway, Domino’s and Chipotle.
Collectively, these companies’ annual gross sales are $134,308,000,000.
Three veterinary drugs and hormones were found in ten fast food samples tested. One sample from Chick-fil-A contained a contraceptive and antiparasitic called Nicarbazin, which has been prohibited.
Some 60 per cent of the samples contained the antibiotic Monesin, which is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for human use and has been shown to cause severe harm when consumed by humans.
40 per cent contained the antibiotic Narasin. MAA says that animal studies show this substance causes anorexia, diarrhoea, dyspnea, depression, ataxia, recumbency and death, among other things.
Monensin and Narasin are antibiotic ionophores, toxic to horses and dogs at extremely low levels, leaving their hind legs dysfunctional. Ionophores cause weight gain in beef and dairy cattle and are therefore widely used but also “cause acute cardiac rhabdomyocyte degeneration and necrosis”, according to a 2017 paper published in Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology (Second Edition).
For many years, ionophores have also been used to control coccidiosis in poultry. However, misuse of ionophores can cause toxicity with significant clinical symptoms. Studies show that ionophore toxicity mainly affects myocardial and skeletal muscle cells.
Only Chipotle and Subway had no detectable levels of veterinary drugs and hormones.
Following these findings, MAA has expressed grave concern about the dangers faced by people, especially children, who are unknowingly eating unprescribed antibiotic ionophores. The non-profit asks: are the side effects of these ionophores in dogs and horses, leaving their hind legs dysfunctional, related to millions of US citizens presenting with restless leg syndrome and neuropathy? These conditions were unknown in most humans just a generation or two ago.
A concerning contraceptive (for geese and pigeons), an antiparasitic called Nicarbazin, prohibited after many years of use, was found in Chick fil-A sandwich samples.
The executive director of MAA, Zen Honeycutt, concludes:
“The impact of millions of Americans, especially children and young adults, consuming a known animal contraceptive daily is concerning. With infertility problems on the rise, the reproductive health of this generation is front and center for us, in light of these results.”
MAA says that it is not uncommon for millions of US citizens to consume fast food for breakfast, lunch or dinner, or all three meals, every day. School lunches are often provided by fast-food suppliers and typically are the only meals underprivileged children receive and a major component of the food consumed by most children.
Exposure to hormones from consuming concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) livestock could be linked to the early onset of puberty, miscarriages, increasing incidence of twin births and reproductive problems. These hormones have been linked to cancers, such as breast and uterine, reproductive issues and developmental problems in children.
So, how can it be that food – something that is supposed to nourish and sustain life – has now become so toxic?
Corporate Influence
One answer lies in the influence of a relative handful of food conglomerates, which shape food policy and dominate the market.
For instance, recent studies have linked UPFs such as ice-cream, fizzy drinks and ready meals to poor health, including an increased risk of cancer, weight gain and heart disease. Global consumption of the products is soaring and UPFs now make up more than half the average diet in the UK and US.
In late September, however, a media briefing in London suggested consumers should not be too concerned about UPFs. After the event, The Guardian newspaper reported that three out of five scientists on the expert panel for the briefing who suggested UPFs are being unfairly demonised had ties to the world’s largest manufacturers of the products.
The briefing generated various positive media headlines on UPFs, including “Ultra-processed foods as good as homemade fare, say experts” and “Ultra-processed foods can sometimes be better for you, experts claim”.
It was reported by The Guardian that three of the five scientific experts on the panel had either received financial support for research from UPF manufacturers or hold key positions with organisations that are funded by them. The manufacturers include Nestlé, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever and General Mills.
Professor Janet Cade (University of Leeds) told the briefing that most research suggesting a link between UPFs and poor health cannot show cause and effect, adding that processing can help to preserve nutrients. Cade is the chair of the advisory committee of the British Nutrition Foundation, whose corporate members include McDonald’s, British Sugar and Mars. It is funded by companies including Nestlé, Mondelēz and Coca-Cola.
Professor Pete Wilde (Quadram Institute) also defended UPFs, comparing then favourably with homemade items. Wilde has received support for his research from Unilever, Mondelēz and Nestlé.
Professor Ciarán Forde (Wageningen University in the Netherlands) told the briefing that advice to avoid UPF “risks demonising foods that are nutritionally beneficial”. Forde was previously employed by Nestlé and has received financial support for research from companies including PepsiCo and General Mills.
Despite what industry-backed scientists may say, increased consumption of UPFs was associated with more than 10 per cent of all-cause premature, preventable deaths in Brazil in 2019, according to a 2022 published peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
In high-income countries, such as the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, UPFs account for more than half of total calorific intake. Brazilians consume far less of these products than countries with high incomes. This means the impact would be even higher in richer nations.
In a 2016 report by the research and campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), it was noted that obesity rates were rising fastest among lowest socio-economic groups. That is because energy-dense foods of poor nutritional value are cheaper than more nutritious foods.
At the time, key trade associations, companies and lobby groups related to sugary food and drinks were together spending an estimated €21.3 million annually to lobby the EU.
One of the best-known industry front groups with global influence is the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). In January 2019, two papers by Harvard Professor Susan Greenhalgh in the BMJ and in the Journal of Public Health Policy revealed ILSI’s influence on the Chinese government concerning issues related to obesity.
A 2017 media report noted that ILSI-India was being actively consulted by India’s apex policy-formulating body – Niti Aayog. ILSI-India’s board of trustees was dominated by food and beverage companies. ILSI’s expanding influence coincides with India’s mounting rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
In 2020, a study published in Public Health Nutrition revealed details about which companies fund the group. ILSI North America’s draft 2016 IRS form 990 shows a $317,827 contribution from PepsiCo, contributions greater than $200,000 from Mars, Coca-Cola and Mondelez and contributions greater than $100,000 from General Mills, Nestle, Kellogg, Hershey, Kraft, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Starbucks Coffee, Cargill, Unilever and Campbell Soup.
Professor Janet Cade told the recent media briefing in London that people rely on processed foods for a wide number of reasons; if they were removed, this would require a huge change in the food supply. She added that this would be unachievable for most people and potentially result in further stigmatisation and guilt for those who rely on processed foods, promoting further inequalities in disadvantaged groups.
While part of the solution lies in tackling poverty and reliance on junk food, the focus must be on challenging the power wielded by a small group of food corporations and redirecting the massive subsidies poured into the agrifood system that ensure massive corporate profit while fuelling bad food, poor health and food insecurity.
A healthier food regime centred on human need rather than corporate profit is required. This would entail strengthening local markets, prioritising short supply chains from farm to fork and supporting independent smallholder organic agriculturalists (incentivised to grow a more diverse range of nutrient-dense crops) and small-scale retailers.
Saying that eradicating UPFs would result in denying the poor access to cheap, affordable food is like saying let them eat poison.
Given the scale of the problem, change cannot be achieved overnight. However, a long food movement (leading up to 2045) could transform the food system, a strategy set out in a 2021 report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems and ETC Group.
More people should be getting on board with this and promoting it at media briefings. But that might result in biting the hand that feeds.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Source: Mercola.com
Junk Food Shills: Why FDA-Approved Food Can Be Poison
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The FDA and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) are beholden to industry and put the interests of junk food giants over public health
WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” but WHO’s expert JECFA committee still says it can be safely consumed
At least six out of 13 JECFA panel members have ties to ILSI, a longtime Coca-Cola front group
A symbiotic relationship exists between AND, the AND Foundation and junk food corporations like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills and Kraft
Trade group American Beverage launched a coordinated campaign to downplay WHO’s aspartame-cancer finding by paying registered dietitians and other health professionals to promote aspartame on social media
Foods that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are passed off as the gold-standard or, at the very least, safe. Meanwhile, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), which claims to be “your source for science-based food and nutrition information,”1 is deemed the “authority” on food policy and the development of U.S. dietary guidelines.
But if you rely on FDA and AND seals of approval to guide your food choices, you’re likely to be led astray. Both entities — and other preeminent public health organizations — represent textbook cases of corporate capture. Beholden to industry, they’re unable to represent the best interests of the American, and global, public. Just look at what happened with aspartame.
WHO Sends Mixed Messages About Aspartame
In May 2023, the World Health Organization released a new guideline advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), i.e., artificial sweeteners, for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.2
What’s more, the systematic review suggested “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” Bladder cancer was also among the potential risks.3
Then, July 14, 2023, WHO released its hazard and risk assessments of aspartame,4 in which WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” I warned about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential in an article I wrote for The Huffington Post, now HuffPost, back in 2010.5 It’s since been deleted — but you can see just how long this danger has been known.
U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) has also compiled decades of science showing that aspartame poses serious health risks.6 The Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which was in the process of updating its aspartame risk assessment,7 however, released a recommendation that doesn’t line up.
Despite its possible carcinogenicity, JEFCA reaffirmed that aspartame could be safely consumed at an acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg of body weight.8
Coca-Cola Sways WHO Aspartame Review
“Why the split decision?” asked Gary Ruskin, USRTK executive director. “One possible answer: at least six out of 13 JECFA panel members have ties to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a longtime Coca-Cola front group. Both the chair and vice chair of the JECFA panel have ties to ILSI.”9
ILSI is a nonprofit organization founded by former Coca-Cola senior vice president Alex Malaspina.10 Coca-Cola has also contributed funds to ILSI. According to a case study published in Public Health Nutrition:11
“Previous research shows that ILSI has been an important vehicle for Coca-Cola to exert influence around the world, on policy, researchers, events, policymakers and practitioners, taking a role in promoting messaging that can further commercial interests.
ILSI supported 30 of the events we identified. Sometimes, ILSI offered to act as a conduit to reimburse public health scientists through Coca-Cola by having them deliver presentations with selected topics.”
ILSI has been exposed as a shill for the junk food industry, and internal documents revealed ILSI embedded itself in public health panels across Europe and the United Nations in an effort to promote its own industry-focused agenda to raise profits at the expense of public health worldwide.12
With Coca-Cola behind ILSI, and aspartame being the sweetener used in Diet Coke, anyone with ties to ILSI should not have been involved in the JECFA aspartame ruling. Yet, here we are. Ruskin says:13
“JECFA panelists ruling on a chemical that is important to Coca-Cola should not be affiliated with a longtime Coca-Cola front group. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Because of this conflict of interest, JECFA’s conclusions about aspartame are not credible, and the public should not rely on them.”
US Nutrition Guidelines Are Corrupted by Corporations
In the video above,14 James Li, host of 51/49 with James Li and a contributor to Breaking Points With Krystal and Saagar, also details the blatant conflicts of interest that have sabotaged Americans’ health by corrupting dietary advice and guidelines. This includes corporate capture of nutrition professionals via AND.
USRTK, along with public health scholars, conducted a five-year investigation into AND’s uncomfortably close ties to junk food manufacturers like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills and Kraft, among others.15
Published in Public Health Nutrition in October 2022, the analysis included documents from 2014 to 2020 obtained through freedom of information requests.16 A symbiotic relationship between AND, the AND Foundation (ANDF) and corporations was revealed, with industry giants assisting AND and its foundation with financial contributions.
Not surprisingly, AND acts as a pro-industry voice as a result,17 one that cannot, in this capacity, represent the best interests of Americans’ health. According to the study:18
“The AND, AND Foundation (ANDF) and its key leaders have ongoing interactions with corporations. These include AND’s leaders holding key positions in multinational food, pharmaceutical or agribusiness corporations, and AND accepting corporate financial contributions.
We found the AND has invested funds in corporations such as Nestlé, PepsiCo and pharmaceutical companies, has discussed internal policies to fit industry needs and has had public positions favoring corporations.”
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Supports Aspartame
Given this information, can you guess what the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics had to say about aspartame? While announcing that IARC had classified the artificial sweetener as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” it stood behind it nonetheless, stating in a news release:19
“The Academy will continue to support the recommendations of registered dietitian nutritionists, the food and nutrition experts, who accept the use of non-nutritive sweeteners, including aspartame, by their patients and clients within accepted daily limits until further evidence can be generated … No one ingredient or food increases cancer risk.”
It's not as though aspartame is an essential nutrient the body needs. It’s a food additive that can easily be excluded from the diet — one that may cause cancer. So why would any nutrition authority suggest people take the risk of consuming it?
The fact is that the junk food culture runs deep at AND, beginning in academic institutions and continuing on through regular appearances at corporate conferences and direct monetary contributions.
From 2011 to 2017, AND received more than $4 million in donations from junk food and ultraprocessed food companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Hershey, Kellogg’s, and Conagra.20 AND also invested in junk food industries, supporting the very corporations at the root of failing public health in the U.S. In one example from 2015 and 2016, AND had stock in PepsiCo, Nestlé and J.M. Smucker valued at more than $1 million.21
“You could argue free market but, funny enough, emails once again obtained through FOIA revealed that some of the Academy's leadership were aware that this presented a potential conflict of interest,” Li says.22
In the video, he presents an email from AND spokesperson Donna Martin, who wrote, “Everything looks good to me. The only flag that I saw was that PepsiCo is one of our top 10 stocks. I personally like PepsiCo and do not have any problems with us owning it but I wonder if someone will say something about that.”
“Well Donna, it's not a great look,” Li says.23 Additional egregious findings include the following, reported by USRTK:24
AND received millions of dollars from companies in the food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness industries. In exchange for these gifts, AND “had policies to provide favors and benefits in return.”
AND leaders have acted as employees of or consultants for multinational food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations.
AND discusses policies to “fit the needs of its food, agribusiness and pharmaceutical industry sponsors.”
Registered Dietitians Paid to Promote Aspartame’s ‘Safety’
There are influencers on social media for just about every conceivable product — including food. Among them are registered dietitians promoting artificial sweeteners and other junk foods while on the industry’s payroll.25
Some of these health professionals are spreading the hashtag #safetyofaspartame, while blasting WHO’s aspartame-designation as “clickbait” and “fear mongering headlines.”26 A joint investigation by The Washington Post and The Examination revealed this wasn’t coincidence but a coordinated campaign by trade group American Beverage, which resulted in at least 35 social media posts from health professionals. According to The Washington Post:27
“The trade group paid an undisclosed amount to 10 registered dietitians, as well as a physician and a fitness influencer, to use their social media accounts to help blunt the WHO’s claims that aspartame, a mainstay of Diet Coke and other sodas, is ineffective for weight loss and “possibly carcinogenic.”
The campaign, which the beverage group acknowledged organizing, highlighted a little-known tactic the multibillion-dollar food and beverage industry is using to sway consumers faced with often-contradictory health messages about popular products.”
The investigation found that out of 68 dietitians who had 10,000 or more followers on social media, about half had promoted food, beverages or supplements to about 11 million followers over the last year. Messages included those encouraging the consumption of candy and ice cream while minimizing the health risks of ultraprocessed foods.28
While The Federal Trade Commission tells social media influencers to disclose when they’re being paid for promotions,29 the investigation found that many influencers weren’t making their corporate ties clear.
Marlene Schwartz, the director of the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, told The Washington Post, “They’re getting these dietitians to essentially do their marketing for them.”30 Li showed another example in the video — an article published on the Food Network, written by a registered dietitian, that’s titled, “This Dietitian Wants You to Eat More Processed Food.”31
“This is how the whole processed food industry tunnels in and gets legitimacy for the standard American diet that is causing us so much pain and suffering,” Ruskin says.32
Since you can’t rely on conflicted public health agencies like AND and their registered dietitians or the FDA to provide unbiased nutrition advice, seek it out from sources that put human health ahead of profits. And support those who are working to raise awareness about the widespread corruption tainting public health. Li says:33
“Whether you think the academy is or isn't able to stay independent and objective given their close financial ties to Big Food, Big Pharma and other agribusiness corporations, the fact is Americans are getting sicker year after year. Obesity, skyrocketing. Type 2 diabetes — on the rise. Cardiovascular disease, after a brief decline, it's on the rise again.
All the while, definitely not coincidentally, health care is quickly becoming America's largest industry.
… we must continue to advocate for transparency — support the work of organizations that worked tirelessly to obtain documents previously hidden from the public — to arm ourselves with knowledge and to seek the unvarnished truth, because our health literally depends on it.”
Sources and References
5 Internet Archive, Wayback Machine, The Huffington Post July 8, 2010
6 U.S. Right to Know, Aspartame Health Risks September 11, 2023
8, 9, 13 U.S. Right to Know July 19, 2023
10, 11 Public Health Nutr. 2022 Dec 1;1-18. doi: 10.1017/S1368980022002506
25, 26, 27, 28, 30 The Washington Post September 13, 2023
31 Food Network, This Dietitian Wants You to Eat More Processed Food
Ways to connect
Telegram: @JoelWalbert
Email: thetruthaddict@tutanota.com
The Truth Addict Telegram channel
Hard Truth Soldier chat on Telegram
Mastodon: @thetruthaddict@noagendasocial.com
Session: 05e7fa1d9e7dcae8512eed0702531272de14a7f1e392591432551a336feb48357c
Odysee: TruthAddict
Donations (#Value4Value)
Buy Me a Coffee (One time donations as low as $1)
Bitcoin:
bc1qe8enf89g667dy890j2lnt637xqlt9wvc9f07un (on chain)
nemesis@getalby.com (lightning)
joelw@fountain.fm (lightning)
+wildviolet72C (PayNym)
Monero:
43E8i7Pzv1APDJJPEuNnQAV914RqzbNae15UKKurntVhbeTznmXr1P3GYzK9mMDnVR8C1fd8VRbzEf1iYuL3La3q7pcNmeN
