pepsico

Let Them Eat Bugs: Challenging the WEF’s Corporate-Driven Food Reset

alayham — Tue, 01 Aug 2023 05:43:11 +0000

Let Them Eat Bugs: Challenging the WEF’s Corporate-Driven Food Reset alayham Tue, 08/01/2023 - 07:43

The prevailing globalised agrifood model is built on unjust trade policies, the leveraging of sovereign debt, population displacement and land dispossession. It fuels commodity monocropping and food insecurity as well as soil and environmental degradation. It is responsible for increasing rates of illness, nutrient-deficient diets, a narrowing of the range of food crops, water shortages, […]

Link

Let Them Eat Bugs: Challenging the WEF’s Corporate-Driven Food Reset

Source

Dissident Voice

Toxic Contagion: Funds, Food and Pharma

alayham — Fri, 19 May 2023 22:59:31 +0000

Toxic Contagion: Funds, Food and Pharma alayham Sat, 05/20/2023 - 00:59

In 2014, the organisation GRAIN revealed that small farms produce most of the world’s food in its report “Hungry for land: small farmers feed the world with less than a quarter of all farmland.” The report “Small-scale Farmers and Peasants Still Feed the World” (ETC Group, 2022) confirmed this. Small farmers produce up to 80% […]

Link

Toxic Contagion: Funds, Food and Pharma

Tags

Source

Dissident Voice

A Hard-Edged Rock: Waging Economic Warfare on Humanity

alayham — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 14:47:57 +0000

A Hard-Edged Rock: Waging Economic Warfare on Humanity alayham Sat, 01/21/2023 - 15:47

Why is much modern food of inferior quality? Why is health suffering and smallholder farmers who feed most of the world being forced out of agriculture? Mainly because of the mindset of the likes of Larry Fink of BlackRock – the world’s biggest asset management firm – and the economic system they profit from and promote. In […]
The post A Hard-Edged Rock: Waging Economic Warfare on Humanity first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Link

A Hard-Edged Rock: Waging Economic Warfare on Humanity

Tags

Source

Dissident Voice

EAT-Lancet Report is One-sided, Not Backed by Rigorous Science

alayham — Sun, 10 Feb 2019 20:01:36 +0000

EAT-Lancet Report is One-sided, Not Backed by Rigorous Science alayham Sun, 02/10/2019 - 21:01

Nutrition Coalition | January 29, 2019 […] Report Based on Fundamentally Weak Science This report is disturbing on a number of fronts. Most importantly, its diet lacks the backing of any rigorous science. Indeed, it does not cite a single clinical trial to support the idea that a vegan/vegetarian diet promotes good health or fights […]

Link

https://alethonews.com/2019/02/10/eat-lancet-report-is-one-sided-not-backed-by-…

Tags

Source

Aletho News

Water is Life

alayham — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 02:12:30 +0000

Water is Life alayham Sat, 03/24/2018 - 03:12

Yesterday, 22 March 2018, marked World Water Day. It is also the week, when the 8th World Water Forum (WWF-8) convenes, 18 to 23 March 2018, in Brasilia. It is no coincidence, for sure, that Brazil was chosen for this noble WWF – about the water equivalent to the political and corporate elites, represented at the WEF – World Economic Forum, in Davos. The two are intimately related, and interlinked, as we will see.
The WWF is organized by the World Water Council, just another layer to confuse who is who in the circus of water elitists attempting to control a vital source of life – freshwater. The WWF prides itself with an honorable mission statement:

To promote awareness, build political commitment and trigger action on critical water issues at all levels, to facilitate the efficient conservation, protection, development, planning, management and use of water in all its dimensions on an environmentally sustainable basis for the benefit of all life.

There you have it. Nestlé, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Dow Chemicals and other transnationals with strong water interests, Veolia, Suez (French), Thames (UK), Bechtel (US), Petrobras and a myriad of others, join together with the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), different UN bodies, and many multi- and bilateral donors, so-called development institutions – as well as dozens more ultra-liberal organizations, NGOs and corporations, pretending to work for the good of humanity; for the good of hundreds of millions of people who persistently are deprived of affordable potable water by an onslaught of water privatization (Organizers and supporters of the WWF.
Another layer of this prominent international water forum is the World Bank-created Water Resources Group (WRG). Its chief purpose is to pursue the Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG-6), “Clean Water and Sanitation”. The WRG’s leadership is composed of an interwoven group of individuals and institutions, such as the head of the WEF, leadership of Nestlé, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Dow Chemicals, the UN (UNDP) … and the Global Water Partnership (GWP), yet another layer within the maze of the global water mafia, created by the usual ‘suspects’, World Bank, UN (UNDP), and a number of multi- and bilateral development agencies, whose priority focus is on water; i.e., the Swiss, the Swedes, the Dutch…
And not to forget – also present at the WWF is the International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC), part of UNESCO, based at the IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, whose mission is sharing information on worldwide groundwater resources, in view of protecting them, and focusing mainly on transboundary aquifer assessment and groundwater monitoring.
By and large, the WWF is the sum of this tremendous non-transparent, complex colossus of institutions and technocrats that is gradually taking over control of the global freshwater resources. This is happening under our eyes and under a seemingly anodyne promotion logo – PPP = Public Private Partnership which means in reality, the Public puts at disposal of the Private sector its publicly funded and publicly-owned infrastructure and water resources, to be exploited for profit at the detriment of the very public, who paid for the infrastructure and whose life depends on this vital resource, water.
Privatization of freshwater resources is a crime, but it’s the name of the game. Just look who is prominently represented in the World Bank-created Water Resources Group – it’s IFC, the International Finance Corporation, the private sector development branch of the World Bank Group.
The result of these multiple and often repetitive meetings and gathering is largely zero – safe for a litany of recommendations and resolutions whose implementation hardly ever see the light of the day. Imagine the tremendous annual cost of running this multi-agency sham; mostly business class travel, food and lodging (five-star accommodations), of the high-level technocrats crisscrossing the globe from one conference to another! – Millions and millions of dollars per year. How many people could be served with drinking water and safe sanitation for this amount of money?
The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) estimates (July 2017) that “some 3 in 10 people worldwide, or 2.1 billion, lack access to safe, readily available water at home, and 6 in 10, or 4.5 billion, lack safely managed sanitation.” – This, out of a world population of about 7.4 billion.
Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians and of World Water Watch, and author of Blue Gold (2002), Blue Covenant (2007), and of Blue Future: Protecting Water for People and the Planet Forever (2013), refers in the latter to the WEF 2010 which under the aegis of the WRG was launching a platform of public-private partnership, to help engage mainly developing country governments in ‘reforming’ the water sector, i.e. putting it into the hands of private water corporations. Many of these countries have no choice, if they want to continue receiving “development” funds from the World Bank and Co. Barlow is also the founder of the Blue Planet Project, seeking to protect vital water resources, like the Guarani Aquifer for future generations.
Flashback to the World Economic Forum in Davos (January 2018). Brazilian President Temer attended this year’s WEF. Temer, a corrupt criminal, should be in prison rather than running a most wonderful country, Brazil, into the ground. Literally. His only purpose to be in Davos was to tell this elite forum about his intention to sell out and privatize his country, foremost water resources.
How did such a dishonest person become president of Brazil? – Washington, who else, put him there. Against all odds. The dark Zion-handlers representing the US financial sector removed an honest Dilma Rousseff and replaced her with Michel Temer, at that time an indicted crook. The indictment was lifted as he was supposed to be made President. It is still beyond me how this could happen, as Dilma had the entire military on her side and could have called a state of emergency to halt the parliamentary ‘regime change’ charade, instigated by the US. She didn’t. Somebody must have threatened her.
By now we know how Washington manipulates elections and other political processes around the world – by the shady methods of Cambridge Analytica (CA), a ‘marketing’ consultancy that steals personal data from internet, foremost from Facebook, to target specific segments of a population with specific messages to influence their opinion. By their own account, CA methods have been applied in over 200 cases around the globe within the last 3 to 4 years, to influence elections and other political processes, including in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, the UK (Brexit), Germany, France and many more. This is true meddling in other countries’ sovereign affairs, by the one and only rogue state of this globe, the United States of America. And they are talking about Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential Elections!
Stealing by stealth is one of the neoliberal crimes we haven’t quite understood yet, let alone mastered. Hindsight is always 20/20. This article hopes to contribute to foresight.
Brazil, with about 8,200 km3 annually renewable freshwater, ranks number one with about one eighth (1/8) of the world’s total renewable freshwater resources which are estimated at 45,000 km3. The Amazon Basin holds about 73% of all of Brazil’s freshwater. Renewable freshwater is the composite of annually sustainable surface and groundwater recharge combined (recharge by precipitation and inflow from outside). The second most water-abundant country is Russia with 4,500 km3 / year, followed by Canada, Indonesia, China, Colombia, US, Peru, India – all with renewable water resources of between 2,000 and 3,000 km3/year.
By continent, the Americas have the largest share of the world’s total freshwater resources with 45 percent, followed by Asia with 28 percent, Europe with 15.5 percent and Africa with 9 percent. This scenario immediately points to Africa’s vulnerability. Africa is clearly the most vulnerable Continent from a water resources – survival – point of view. Africa is also home to about 60% of the world’s remaining and known available natural resources; resources the west covets and goes to war for.
Is it, therefore, a coincidence that the 8th WWF is held in Brazil? I don’t think so. Especially not with Temer going to Davos, where the cream of the crop of the world’s corporate, finance and institutional elite meets, to offer Brazil’s water resources for privatization.
We are talking about privatizing the largest single underground renewable freshwater reservoir in the Americas, arguably in the world, the Guarani Aquifer which underlays 1.2 million square kilometers (about the size of Texas and California combined), of which 71% is under Brazil, 19% under Argentina, 6% under Paraguay, and 4% under Uruguay.
The Guaraní aquifer was discovered in the 1990s. It is named after the indigenous people who have inhabited the area for centuries. The Guarani holds an estimated 46,000 km3 of freshwater (not to confound with the annual renewable freshwater, of which Brazil has about 8,300 km3 – see above). The current Guarani’s extraction rate is a little over 1 km3 per year, while the potential recharge rate is between 45 km3 and 55 km3/year, meaning that there is so far no risk of over-abstraction. This could however, change quickly. It is said that the Guaraní could supply the world population for the next 200 years with 100 liters per capita per day.
About 30 million people inhabit the Guarani region. In the Brazilian section of the Guaraní, some 500 to 600 cities are currently supplied with Guaraní water – how many of these municipal supplies are already privatized?
In late February 2018, Blue Planet founder, Maude Barlow, tweeted, “Terrifying! Coke and Nestle want to buy up the Guarani Aquifer! Must be stopped!!!”. As Mint Press reports:

A concerted push is underway in South America that could see one of the world’s largest reserves of fresh water soon fall into the hands of transnational corporations such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé. According to reports, talks to privatize the Guarani Aquifer – a vast subterranean water reserve lying beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay – have already reached an advanced stage. The deal would grant a consortium of U.S. and Europe-based conglomerates exclusive rights to the aquifer that would last over 100 years.

Under such concession arrangements, quantities to be abstracted are usually unlimited, which would leave the entire aquifer in the hands of those private corporations which are part and parcel of the Temer negotiated deal.
The article adds:

In Brazil, intense lobbying has been underway since at least 2016 to tap into the aquifer. These efforts fell under the spotlight late last month [in January 2018] at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where private talks were reported between Brazil’s President Michel Temer and a range of top executives with interests in the aquifer, including Nestle CEO Paul Bulcke, Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Carlos Brito, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris.

The article further mentions:

As leading Brazilian water-rights activist Franklin Frederick noted in Brasil de Fato, these companies belong to the 2030 Water Resources Group (2030WRG), a transnational consortium that includes AB Inbev, Coca-Cola, Dow, Nestle and PepsiCo. 2030WRG bills itself as ‘a unique public-private-civil society collaboration’ and hides its intention to privatize developing nations’ water supplies by claiming to ‘facilitate open, trust-based dialogue processes to drive action on water resources reform in water-stressed countries in developing economies’ and ‘close the gap between water demand and supply by the year 2030’.

Already in September 2016, Reuter reported that Brazil – Temer – “launched a multibillion-dollar plan to auction off oil, power rights and infrastructure concessions.” And the Correio do Brasil retorted that this “privatizing wrath” could extend to the Guarani Aquifer. A senior official at the National Water Agency (ANA) has revealed that the Guarani aquifer will appear on the list of public goods to be privatized.
Barlow, in a Conference in Florianapolis, Brazil, already in November 2011, said, the biggest concern for humanity is the potential for the Guarani to become controlled by private interests. She added, corporations have already preferential access to these waters.

You are sitting atop a vast reserve of water in a very thirsty world, a reserve that is not only vital to the health and future of this region but to all of humanity. It is a treasure that must be protected by governments on behalf of the people and the ecosystems of the region.

Recent studies point to an even larger underground water reservoir system, the “underground ocean” of Amazonia. It is projected to hold 160 trillion m3 (160,000 km3) of freshwater, underlaying mainly Brazil, but also Venezuela, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. Studies are still ongoing and it might be too soon to draw definite conclusions. However, these gigantic water reserves under Latin America plus the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) which is the world’s largest known fossil aquifer of an estimated 150,000 km3 of non-renewable groundwater, must be protected for humanity.
The NSAS is located under the Eastern end of the Sahara Desert. It stretches over 2 million km2 and spans four countries in North and Central Africa, Libya, Sudan, Chad and Egypt.
Back to the WWF in Brasilia, where the “water mafia” is convening as this article goes to print, and while in São Lourenço, Minas Gerais, 600 “Women Without Land” occupy Nestlé’s Brazil headquarters, since 6 AM Tuesday morning, 20 March. Nestlé, the Swiss food and water giant, declared water number one in its field of business expansion. Nestlé controls already more than 10% of the world market of bottled water. The “Women without Land” denounce Temer’s policy of handing out their precious water resources to international corporations. Aware of the ongoing WFF, they warn of further concession contracts being negotiated on the sidelines of this forum.
One of the leaders said:

Imagine you are obliged to buy your water in bottles to quench your thirst. This is what they want these transnational corporations, officially debating improved water management in Brasilia, when in reality they are negotiating concessions of our water at fire-sales prices.

We, the People, the 99% of this globe, have the moral obligation to stand up against this globalized, neofascist clandestine onslaught to privatize and steal our vital water resources – humanity’s survival. Water is Life. If we don’t have the foresight to stand up now, to stop this criminal privatization of OUR, humanity’s water resources – humankind may be doomed.

Link

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/03/water-is-life-they-are-stealing-our-liveliho…

Tags

Source

Dissident Voice

Food Industry Study Slams Recommended Sugar Intake Limits

alayham — Thu, 11 May 2017 13:35:47 +0000

Food Industry Study Slams Recommended Sugar Intake Limits alayham Thu, 05/11/2017 - 15:35

A study made headlines after stating that there is no way of knowing just how much sugar consumption is too much, and the methods used to create dietary sugar intake limits are flawed.
CNN’s headline reads: “How much sugar is OK? Paper adds to debate.” Hmm, not really. The study was funded by the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a nonprofit with ties to Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, Mars, and Kraft Foods. [1]
There’s not much of a debate when the companies funneling money into research make soda, candy, and processed foods.

The Claims

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that people consume no more than 10% of their daily calories from sugar. It’s much easier to consume that amount than you might think. Drinking just 1 can of soda can put you over the recommended limit. So it’s not surprising that Coca-Cola – yet again – has its tentacles in a study hinting that you might be able to consume even more of the sweet stuff.
Study author Bradley Johnston, a clinical epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, says those recommendations “are not trustworthy.”
Johnston reviewed the studies and methodology used to create the guidelines. He doesn’t disagree that people should limit their sugar intake, but he says there is no solid answer to the question: “How much is too much?”
Johnston says:

“Sugar should certainly be limited in the diets of children and adults, no question.”

The epidemiologist argues that there is no convincing evidence to support cutting sugar intake to 10%, or even 5%.
He explains:

“There’s a lot of uncertainty about the thresholds that appear in guidelines. What’s happening is that guideline panelists are making strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence.”

Source: McMaster University Daily News – Bradley Johnston
The paper reviewed 9 sugar-intake guidelines from around the world, including the WHO’s guideline and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which were updated in 2016.
Furthermore, Johnston argues, current guidelines on dietary sugar do not adhere to standards set by the American non-governmental organization Institute of Medicine in 2011.
He says:

“Although our findings question the specific sugar recommendations from guidelines produced by leading authorities, the findings should not be used to justify high or increased consumption of sugary foods and beverages.
… results from our review should be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” [2]

What in the Hell is Going on Here?

Johnston and his colleagues seem to have arrived at some relatively benign conclusions. They don’t recommend that people start eating more sugar. They don’t even really suggest that eating more sugar might be safe.
So what in the hell is going on here?
If there is one thing the 2016 political season taught us, it’s that planting even the smallest doubt in people’s minds can have an overwhelming effect. That is what’s going on here.
The likes of Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, and Kraft are trying to plant doubts in people’s minds. And why wouldn’t they? It’s good for business. Inevitably, at least a few people will have that extra piece of chocolate, that extra glob of mac ‘n’ cheese, or 1 more can of soda because, after all, no one is sure how much sugar is bad for you.
Source: Business Insider
There will be people who get duped, but Johnston’s conclusions haven’t duped many scientists. They see what’s going on here, and they’re calling him out on it.
Read: PepsiCo Sued for Allegedly Misleading Buyers of Sugar-Laden Naked Juice
Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University who was written extensively about the soda industry, says:

“This is a classic example of industry-funded research aimed at one purpose and one purpose only: to cast doubt on the science linking diets high in sugars to poor health. This paper is shameful.” [1]

Dr. Dean Schillinger, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco who wrote an editorial accompanying the study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, says:

“In essence, this study suggests that placing limits on ‘junk food’ is based on ‘junk science.’ Studies are more likely to conclude there is no relationship between sugar consumption and health outcomes when scientists receive financial support from food and beverage companies.” [2]

Gosh, y’think? The sugar industry in the 1960’s paid Harvard scientists to downplay the link between sugar consumption and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the cause instead. It worked magically. Fat became the enemy of health, and the market was soon flooded with all sorts of low-fat and non-fat foods. And those foods generally contain about 20% more sugar than full-fat products.
In the study, the researchers wrote that “the rationale and evidence used to make each recommendation were inconsistent.” [2]
Baloney, says Schillinger. For one thing, he explains, the researchers reviewed guidelines published over a 20-year period. It’s no surprise that they found inconsistencies, as “science evolves over time.”
According to Schillinger, Johnston and his crew failed to even use proper research methods in their work. He says:

“In addition, their claims regarding the low quality of guidelines are based on the application of inappropriate metrics.”
He says that one of the methods the “scientists” used in the paper “is the wrong tool for the job and virtually guaranteed that they would falsely conclude that guidelines are of low quality.”

He also cites the sugar industry-fat debacle of the 60’s, calling it a “major limitation.”
In October, the American Journal of Preventative Medicine revealed how Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have sponsored national health and medical organizations. (In that case, even the American Diabetes Association, a government organization, took money from the companies.)
Schillinger says:

“Added sugars not only provide unnecessary and ’empty’ non-nutritious calories but also appear to affect unique and specific unhealthy metabolic pathways that contribute to obesity and diabetes and heart disease, irrespective of calories.
We are in a public health war against diabetes, and we need to create smart strategies to win this war and prevent needless suffering and death. This is serious business.”

There is no doubt that the added sugars pushed on buyers by Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, and Kraft, are causing disease, limb amputations, and deaths, Schillinger says.

“Nearly all experimental studies that examined whether eating added sugars contributes to obesity and [Type 2] diabetes-related outcomes show a cause-and-effect relationship.” [1]

Johnston swears that he, and ILSI, have good intentions:

“We hope that the results from this review can be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” [3]

If the spoonfuls of added sugar don’t make you sick, the veiled attempts at making more money off of the poor health of the average buyer just might.
Sources:
[1] NPR
[2] CNN
[3] Fortune
McMaster University Daily News
Business Insider

Link

http://naturalsociety.com/food-industry-funds-study-slamming-recommended-sugar-…

Tags

Source

Natural Society

Soda is No Longer America’s Favorite Beverage

alayham — Thu, 04 May 2017 11:13:04 +0000

Soda is No Longer America’s Favorite Beverage alayham Thu, 05/04/2017 - 13:13

Doctors, researchers, and health officials have been telling the public to cut back on soda consumption for years, and it appears that people have been listening. Soda no longer tops the list of Americans’ favorite beverages; it has been replaced by bottled water.

As the health risks of sugar consumption became common knowledge and concerns about public water supplies grew, the market for bottled water exploded.
Last year, bottled-water consumption reached 39.9 gallons per capita, while soft drink sales fell to 38.5 gallons per person. The data are from industry tracker Beverage Marketing. [1]
Still, there’s no reason for major beverage companies PepsiCo and Coca-Cola to worry. Soft-drinks still generated more revenue last year than bottled water. Besides, those two companies sell the top TWO bottled water brands in America – Pepsi “makes” Aquafina, which it admits is glorified tap water; and Coca-Cola “makes” its own expensive tap water, Dasani.
Michael Bellas, chairman and CEO of Beverage Marketing, said:

“Bottled water effectively reshaped the beverage marketplace. When Perrier first entered the country in the 1970s, few would have predicted the heights to which bottled water would eventually climb. Where once it would have been unimaginable to see Americans walking down the street carrying plastic bottles of water, or driving around with them in their cars’ cup holders, now that’s the norm.” [2]

Water definitely beats soda when it comes to health, even if it’s from the tap, so this is a positive trend. Soda is linked to so many health problems I couldn’t even begin to list them here, but type 2 diabetes is certainly at the top of list. Even sodas made with artificial sweeteners have been linked to the disease.
Sources:
[1] Market Watch
[2] USA Today

Link

http://naturalsociety.com/soda-no-longer-americans-favorite-beverage-1938/

Tags

Source

Natural Society

Seriously? Coca-Cola and Pepsi Fund 96 U.S. Health Groups

alayham — Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:36:45 +0000

Seriously? Coca-Cola and Pepsi Fund 96 U.S. Health Groups alayham Wed, 10/19/2016 - 14:36

It sounds like a bad joke, but it’s the sad truth: Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the nation’s 2 top soda makers, recently gave money to several prominent public health groups – including some run by the government. [1]
Source: Medical Daily
The sadder truth: Those groups were more than happy to accept the funds.
As reported by a new study published October 10 in the American Journal of Preventative Measures, researchers at Boston University School of Medicine reveal that a whopping total of 96 public health groups accepted money from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo (or both companies) between 2011 and 2015.
Some of the organizations might look familiar: American Diabetes Association, the National Institutes of Health, the American Red Cross, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, just to name a few.
Study author Daniel Aaron, a medical student at Boston University, said of the groups:

“To see all these organizations [accepting money] is shocking and surprising. I don’t think companies have a legal duty to protect people’s health, but I think these groups do.”

Take a minute to let that sink in. The American Diabetes Association takes money from soda makers. The very products the organization advises people not to consume. The study’s authors called this link “surprising, given the established link between diabetes and soda consumption.” [2]
Let’s take a deeper look at this bizarre report.

Sweet, Sweet Data

Aaron and his coauthor, Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at the university, decided to take a closer look at the love fest between soda companies and public health groups last year, when The New York Times ran a piece about Coca-Cola’s financial support of a group called the Global Energy Balance Network. [1]
This now-defunct “network” was composed of university researchers, and to put it in the simplest terms possible, Coca-Cola paid these so-called scientists to shift the blame away from junk food and sugary drinks for causing the global obesity epidemic, and a host of other health problems.
Aaron says:

“We were bothered by that, and a little bit confused, and we wanted to know if this was common.”

So Aaron and Siegel began investigating the links between Coca-Cola and Pepsi and 96 organizations:

63 public health groups
19 medical organizations
7 health foundations,
5 government groups
2 food supply groups

Pepsi sponsored 14% of these groups, while Coca-Cola sponsored 99%. The men think that’s probably an underestimate, however; Coca-Cola recently disclosed its sponsorships, while PepsiCo is “known for making its sponsorship data extremely difficult to track.”
Additionally, the study also only looked at national organizations, and most sponsored organizations are state or city-wide, the researchers report.
Here’s a shocker (note the sarcasm): When the team looked at lobbying efforts by both companies, they found that the soda companies actively oppose legislation that targets soda and is aimed at preventing obesity.
Between 2011 and 2015, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo publicly opposed 28 bills and supported 1. Of the bills the companies opposed:

12 were soda taxes
4 were Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations
1 involved the controversial limit on soda sizes in New York.

However, both companies supported a bill designed to limit the marketing of soda in schools, though beverages like Diet Coke could still be marketed.
All that lobbying had a definite impact. One group, Save the Children, gave up pushing for soda taxes after Coca-Cola and Pepsi gave them a cool $5 million in 2009.
And The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics issued a statement saying that it would not back New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed limit on soda portions, arguing that the emphasis should be placed on nutrition education.
Marion Nestle, a New York University professor of public health and nutrition, says:

“First, they attack the science. Then, they fund community groups, promote exercise as a solution, and say they’re self-regulated and don’t need to be regulated by an outside source.” [3]

Aaron and Siegel write in the study:

“It is probable that corporate philanthropy is increasing consumption of soda throughout the country.
Rather than supporting public health, organizations may become unwitting partners that contribute to corporate marketing strategy.” [1]

The duo argues that soda companies’ sponsorship of health groups ends up creating positive cultural associations with their brands. It should be noted that sponsorship is considered marketing by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
And never underestimate an industry’s ability to shape the public view.
As I wrote last month, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to frame sugar as a mostly-harmless substance, while painting fat as the cause of obesity, heart disease, and all of the health problems we now know are actually caused by sugar.
The sugar industry was so successful, in fact, that – to quote one professor – it was able “to derail the discussion about sugar for decades.”
Sources:
[1] Time
[2] RT
[3] Business Insider
Medical Daily

Link

http://naturalsociety.com/coca-cola-pepsi-fund-96-public-health-groups-4735/

Tags

Source

Natural Society

PepsiCo Sued for Allegedly Misleading Buyers of Naked Juice

alayham — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:18:46 +0000

PepsiCo Sued for Allegedly Misleading Buyers of Naked Juice alayham Fri, 10/14/2016 - 15:18

PepsiCo is being sued by buyers who claim the company misleads shoppers into believing its Naked juices and smoothies contain “high-value” ingredients that make them healthier than they really are. [1]
Source: Business Insider
According to the complaint, filed on 4 October 2016 in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, Naked labels feature images of healthy fruits and vegetables, and trumpet how the drinks have “no sugar added,” when they actually contain about as much sugar as a can of Pepsi – more, in some cases.
The lawsuit was filed by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) on behalf of three people.
Dina Lipkind of Brooklyn, Lyle Takeshita of Los Angeles, and Chad Fenwick of Chatsworth, California, claim they overpaid for Naked drinks such as Kale Blazer and Green Machine.

The Allegations

For example, the Kale Blazer label lists “cucumber, spinach, celery and a pinch of ginger” as its main ingredients. However, kale puree is only the 2nd ingredient listed, between “cheap, nutrient-poor” orange and apple juice. Neither fruit is pictured on the label.
The Kale Blazer juice also states that “…you might live forever because kale has tons of antioxidants that combat aging.” [2]
Kale aside, a 15.2 ounce bottle contains a whopping 34 grams of the sweet stuff.
Some Naked products contain as much as 61 grams of sugar. A 12 ounce can of Pepsi contains 41 grams.
CSPI uses the example of Naked’s Pomegranate Blueberry juice to illustrate how PepsiCo misleads shoppers. While it’s true that the product contains no added sugar as the label advertises, the lawsuit states that the claim leads people to believe it contains less sugar than other drinks.
The complaint states that PepsiCo “deliberately cultivates” people’s misperceptions through its marketing of Naked beverages. [1]
Read: Pepsi Wins Battle to Keep Adding Carcinogen to Your Soda
The suit also alleges that PepsiCo does not predominantly disclose that Naked drinks are “not a low-calorie food,” as required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [2]
The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of shoppers nationwide, and in New York and California. The suit also seeks unspecified damages.
CSPI litigation direction Maia Kats said in a statement:

“Consumers are paying higher prices for the healthful and expensive ingredients advertised on Naked labels, such as berries, cherries, kale, and other greens, and mango. But consumers are predominantly getting apple juice, or in the case of Kale Blazer, orange and apple juice. They’re not getting what they paid for.”

PepsiCo agreed to pay $9 million back in 2013 when it settled a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in some of its products that were labeled “all natural.”
Read: PepsiCo Tries to Halt Vermont GMO-Labeling Law

They Won’t Go Quietly

PepsiCo thumbed its nose at the lawsuit, calling the allegations “baseless.” [3]
Naked Juice’s general manager Andrea Theodore said:

“I feel confident that consumers have the clear information on our labels and the way that we’ve designed them to understand and make the choices that they need to make. I do not feel at this time that this lawsuit is causing us to rethink we need to do something different here.” [3]

But PepsiCo has made some changes since the lawsuit was filed. As of October 6, the company’s website no longer opens with photos of beverages. Those have been replaced with a statement on a plain green background with the title, “Everything is right there on our bottles.”
If you scroll down the page, you will find images of the labels that CSPI says are misleading.
Source: Business Insider
And as for the allegation that the “no added sugar” claims on the labels leads buyers to believe the beverages are healthier, Theodore said:

“We’re just trying to call out the competitive advantage that we have — that we’re not adding sugar.
“We’ve done a lot of research of what to communicate on our labels and what’s important to consumers. And, when we did our research last, the important thing to them was that they’ve felt duped by some juice brands that do add sugar to their products.”

She noted that the drinks’ calorie counts are displayed prominently on the front of the labels, next to the no-sugar-added label, which she said makes a sugar count unnecessary.
It’s up to individuals, she said, to decide whether they would prefer to purchase something with fewer calories and sugar.
Sources:
[1] Reuters
[2] Fox News
[3] Business Insider
Images Source:
Business Insider

Link

http://naturalsociety.com/pepsico-sued-allegedly-misleads-buyers-naked-juice-18…

Source

Natural Society

Weedkiller Presence Sparks Lawsuit over Quaker Oats “100% Natural” Label

alayham — Mon, 30 May 2016 16:10:52 +0000

Weedkiller Presence Sparks Lawsuit over Quaker Oats “100% Natural” Label alayham Mon, 05/30/2016 - 18:10

PepsiCo, the owner of Quaker Oats, is facing a lawsuit filed on behalf of consumers in New York and California after testing found traces of glyphosate in some oatmeal. The suit is seeking class action status.
The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Courts in New York and California.
The level of glyphosate detected in the oatmeal falls well below the limit set by federal regulators for human consumption, but the lawsuit alleges that Quaker’s “100% natural” label constitutes false advertising due to the presence of the herbicide.
On its website, Quaker claims that the oats used in its products are grown in an environmentally-responsible way. The site states:

“Since oats require less herbicide spray than many other grains, there is less risk of pollutants and groundwater contamination.”

The lawsuit alleges that such statements are false and misleading. The suit states:

“There is nothing unlawful about Quaker Oats’ growing and processing methods. What is unlawful is Quaker’s claim that Quaker Oats is something that it is not in order to capitalize on growing consumer demand for healthful, natural products.” [1]

It goes on to say:

“Quaker knows that consumers seek out and wish to purchase whole, natural foods that do not contain chemicals, and that consumers will pay more for foods that they believe to be natural.”

The consumers also fault Quaker for deceiving customers “about the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of its Quaker Oats.”
Read: Glyphosate Herbicide Found in 14 Popular Beer Brands from Germany
The plaintiffs in the case point out that the World Health Organization (WHO) categorized glyphosate as a possible human carcinogen in 2015, and that oat farmers use the chemical as a weedkiller and a drying agent that is sprayed before harvest.
They are seeking group status and want PepsiCo to issue refunds.
Even though the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed glyphosate probably carcinogenic to humans, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in November that its own assessment of the chemical showed it was unlikely to cause cancer. Last week, the EPA posted on its website that it had reached the same conclusion as EFSA.
The differing conclusions aren’t likely to have much of an impact on the Quaker suit, according to a lawyer for the consumers in New York, because their complaint focuses on advertising claims rather than the levels of glyphosate in Quaker Oats. [1]
Quaker responded to the suit by saying that glyphosate is not applied during the milling process, and that its oats undergo a rigorous cleansing process.
In a statement to The New York Times, the company said:

“Any levels of glyphosate that may remain are trace amounts and significantly below any limits which have been set by the [US Environmental Protection Agency] as safe for human consumption.”

In the United States, the safe level of average individual intake of glyphosate is 1.75 milligrams per kilogram. In the European Union, the level is 0.3 milligrams per kilogram.
The tests found glyphosate on Quaker Oats products at a level of 1.18 parts per million (ppm), which is about 4% of the 30 ppm allowed on cereal grains by the EPA.
Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide in the world. In 2013, the EPA approved Monsanto’s request to increase use higher levels of the chemical in its Roundup products.
The FDA agreed in February to start testing some products – including milk, corn, eggs, and soybeans – for traces of glyphosate after diligent consumers basically shamed the agency into doing so. [2]
Taiwan’s version of the FDA just recently recalled Quaker Oats in that country due to traces of glyphosate found during testing. The nation has a zero-tolerance policy for glyphosate in oats.
Sources:
[1] Bloomberg News
[2] RT
Featured image credit: Fox News / AP

Link

http://naturalsociety.com/lawsuit-quaker-oats-natural-label-false-advertising-7…

Source

Natural Society