Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Why is the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which puts out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, sponsored by Silk, which is owned by Dean Foods, which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting GMO labeling in California? Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

Not much shocks me nowadays, but this takes the cake. While deep in the fight to get GMOs off the plate, I ran across the following:

Silk sponsors the IRT, which puts out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, AND Silk is also fighting against GMO labeling?

C’mon guys, let’s get it together, shall we? Why are non-GMO people accepting sponsors from the pro-GMO camp? Don’t get me wrong. I love the work that Jeffrey Smith and the IRT are doing. The information they are putting out is invaluable. But I have to ask: Why accept funding from the people you are fighting against? Why advertise for the very same entity that is trying to squelch the GMO labeling effort?

Even the Organic Consumers Association is calling for a boycott of Dean Foods, owner of Silk, and so is Natural News. From an August 16, 2012 article by Mike Adams, calling for the boycott of Kashi, Silk, and Larabar, Mike points out that Silk soymilk  [is] owned by the nation’s largest dairy, Dean Foods, which has contributed $253,000 to the effort to kill Proposition 37, which will require labeling of GMOs in California.

So, I’m confused. Did you think we wouldn’t notice? Or is it just standard operating procedure? I’m sorry, but I just don’t  think it is right to accept sponsorship from the enemy and promote that which you despise. Unless it really doesn’t matter – unless the almighty buck is the bottom line. If that is the case, I hope it’s worth it, because, quite frankly, at this point the only two things left to hope for in this situation is that Silk (Dean Foods) goes bankrupt financing both sides of the GMO issue, and that the IRT finds the cahones to take a real stand against GMOs by getting rid of its pro-GMO sponsorship.

©2012 Barbara H. Peterson

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “GMO Pro-labeling Guys (IRT) Sponsored by Anti-labeling Dairy Giant, Dean Foods”

  1. J. Meigs says:

    An older copy of The World According to Monsanto.

    Youtube message; who wrote it and what for?

    “”The World According to M…”
    This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Jeffrey Smtih – The Institute for Responsible Technology.
    Sorry about that.”


  2. So, Fivewords, are you saying that Jeffrey Smith is promoting a scam? He promotes Prop 37 avidly, and you say that it is a scam, yet you say Jeffrey Smith is worth supporting. Please make up your mind before calling someone ELSE stupid.

  3. fivewords says:

    Prop 37 was a scam from the very start and you CONsumers are too damn stupid to see that you have been had again. Jeffrey is worth supporting, the rest can all go stand in the bread line at their FDA/Monsanto/USDA sponsored soup kitchen. The customer is always right! CONsumers aren’t worth the time it takes to print up more stupid legislation to treat the symptoms.

    Keep Feeding The Damn Parasites!

  4. abinico warez says:

    Fishy, very fishy – and this also stinks. If it don’t make sense , it ain’t good.

  5. middleway says:

    It is commonly referred to as ‘Controlled Opposition’. This can be fabricated whenever major material ideals and/or ideological objectives ‘appear’ to be challenged or conflicted. Controlled opposition has been a reality of western cultures for millennia. It is most often used to influence opinion in order steer a society in a preferred direction. It is highly beneficial to those whose hands hold the wheel ($). You must always have some control of both diametrically opposed positions in order to guide the creation of the inevitable ‘Consensus’. As with all aspects of waking-up to our common reality, after you first become aware of it, you will begin finding it everywhere.

    Nothing is as it seems, the little that you see, it’s home…
    Pearl Jam

  6. Michael says:

    I’ve known Jeffrey since 1986. He’s a gem of a person and brilliant. If it weren’t for him, we’d have no non-GMO movement, or it would have taken years longer to collect info and get it rolling. Jeffrey was on this full time since the same year that GMO’s hit the street. I don’t know why he is taking sponsorship from Silk, but I can certainly vouch for the integrity of this individual.

  7. dph says:

    I was recently in Whole Foods & noticed an increased number of items with “Non-GMO” tags. While I’m glad to see them labeling things, it is just a band-aid. As long as GM crops are still being grown, they will just continue to slowly take over the food supply. I noticed WF had put the Alexia brand potatoes on sale.

    But what really infuriated me was to see that several CA newspapers, including the Sacramento Bee, have come out AGAINST prop. 37. saying it would lead to lawsuits, etc. Geez. Lawsuits or children with cancer and tumors. Money trumps all, I guess.

  8. Barbara Talbert says:

    I have long thought that some of the organizations that are pro-GMO have anti-GMO arms. This is so they can keep tabs on the opposition, track the sentiments of the country on GMO’s, as a place for Anti-GMOer’s to let off steam and to confuse the issue. In a war they are the double agents. It is hard to tell who is what and what is who, but I am sure Farm Wars is authentic and also Dr. Mercola. When you get into the financial interests of food companies–who knows? The best you can do is do your research and support those who you deem to be sincerely agains GMO’s. Buy organic and put your dollars there.

  9. Lawrence A. Oshanek says:

    In answer to your question, it is likely that IRT sold Silk the advertising because it needs the income to publish and Dean Foods bought the ads because it needs the mag’s “respectability” ~ an arrangement, as it was understood years ago, to be a “marriage made in heaven”.

    Speculatively (and of secondary importance) is Dean Foods likely desire to ‘control the opposition’ through economic dependence and be able to destroy it by withdrawing ad support in the future.

  10. Gilda Kneitz says:

    It does make one wonder…IRT gave a mere $1,860, is that just for show? You know they are bringing in much more to ‘fight’ for GMO labeling. Surely they could do better than that.

  11. suss says:

    I am surprised, sure hope J.Smith hasn’t gone to the dark side? Btw i already buy form all the good guys and don’t from any on the bad companys simply from label reading, you read their labels and there are nefarious ing. in all their products also i am a big fan of mike adams get his newsletter and read it. I pretty much knew the big players who bought out the small companys knowing they are now produced like the parent companys (GMO’s anyone?) They are such F’ers they make me so sick, think of how many unknowing people think they’re eating good healthy food when really its GMO and or fake food- pathetic is what it is- Love this website too :)

  12. @JuneStoyer says:

    You cannot serve two masters! What is the point of fighting the companies efforts if you are going to use their money? Excellent post, Barbara!

  13. Sam Fox says:

    Who knows. They must need the ad $. But that $ is a conflict of interest & survival. They need to figure that our.

    Wow! Cali finally got something going in the right direction! Having labels on GM ‘food’ is very important & a serious issue. People have the right to know.