Barbara H. Peterson
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