+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity  (Read 5254 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #45 on: June 01, 2015, 09:27:51 pm »
The full movie, "The Idiot Cycle", is available to watch free online. It's about five years old. Everything in it is even more applicable today.  >:(  :(  :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUaRi7CHASo&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUOPSveJIY&feature=player_embedded
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2015, 01:54:27 am »
Quote

David Zuckerman 


June 19, 2015 at 5:59 am


The bill before congress is not spelled out here. It would not create a federal system, it would create a Federal, voluntary labeling system. That would not give consumers the necessary information to make their decision.

This $10 million per day letter and the threat of not selling their food here are more extreme examples to scare Vermonters. I recently read a letter to the editor in the Free Press that also included scare language from the industry. It claimed that Vermonts’ law would cost the average household $400 more per year for their food.

That is a very miss-leading interpretation of the study that was done. The study actually said that if a family does not change its purchasing then the cost would be negligible. IF a family chose to by all non-GMO or organic then it would cost them approx. $400 more per year. But those decisions can be made individually, day to day as consumers prioritize how they want to spend their money.

The industry deceptively used that same statistic in millions of dollars of advertizing to kill labeling laws in states with referenda. They wanted to create fear, and they succeeded and won. But here, they could not use that miss-information to “fool the masses” and we passed it.

Now, they are overstating the scale of the “problem” to try to fool Congress (made up of a majority of Republicans who supposedly believe in States rights), in order to override our state law.

Our law is clear and the AG office worked with the food industry to write the rules in a way that was clear and the court ruled that it can go forward. This is a responsible law that is being implemented fairly and, chicken little, the sky is not going to fall.


sandra bettis 

June 19, 2015 at 11:26 am


Funny that they can label their food that they sell to the rest of the world but can’t label the food that they sell here in the USA….


Pam Ladds 

June 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm


“Here’s an idea for the industry: Just label your products. All of them, nationwide. 64 countries already do it. I’m sure the food industry in America could summon the moral imagination to be the 65th,” Shumlin said in a statement. “Plain and simple Vermont’s law is about giving consumers the right to know what is in their food.”

Right on!

‘Just label your products’ Shumlin tells food industry

Tom Brown Jun. 18 2015, 3:27 pm

http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/18/just-label-your-products-shumlin-tells-food-industry/
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2015, 09:33:40 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvvPTksIJ4&feature=player_embedded

Flavor Manufacturers’ Trade Group Is the De Facto Regulator of Flavor Additives in the US

SNIPPET:

By Dr. Mercola

Were it not for added flavors—be they synthetic or derived from natural substances—there would be no processed food industry, as most foods would quite simply be unpalatable.

As it stands, flavor companies develop additives that not only taste good, but that are “craveable” if not outright addictive.

The fact that processed foods contain added ingredients that aren't necessarily food isn't secret knowledge. But would it surprise you to find out that flavors added to processed foods are “regulated” by the industry itself?

This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. As explained in the featured video, a legal loophole may have introduced a huge number of flavors and other additives of questionable safety into the American food supply.

Who’s Responsible for the Safety of Food Flavors in the US?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/food-additives-safety.aspx
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #48 on: June 25, 2015, 07:51:24 pm »
Food cops bust Whole Foods for shady prices
By Eve Andrews  on 24 Jun 2015 

I hate to tell you that you can’t go home tonight, because your boyfriend has just been validated in every single grocery trip argument you’ve ever had (“Brad! It’s worth it for the farmers!”): Whole Foods really is too goddamn spendy, and falsely so! 

A sting operation conducted by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs checked out the pricing of pre-packaged products at eight Whole Foods locations, and found that “every label was inaccurate, with many overcharging consumers” according to the New York Daily News. Let us now reflect on the state of crime in New York: Authorities are now running sting operations … at Whole Foods.

More from the New York Daily News:


[T]he notoriously pricy chain was the most egregious offender — leading DCA to open a full-blown investigation of its pricing practices last year, said Commissioner Julie Menin.

“Our inspectors told me it was the worst case of overcharges that they’ve ever seen,”  :o Menin said.

The overcharges ranged from 80 cents for a package of pecan panko to $14.84 for a container of coconut shrimp, [agency spokeswoman Abby] Lootens said.

First of all: If you’re buying coconut shrimp at Whole Foods, or pecan panko at all, that’s on you! Make coconut shrimp yourself — it is basically impossible to **** up, because fried shrimp is never going to taste bad.

To review, you have walked away with three new pieces of knowledge: Whole Foods is full of liars (at least in New York); coconut shrimp is very easy to make; and grocery trips are never, ever worth fighting over, because one day you will be proven indisputably wrong.

http://grist.org/news/food-cops-bust-whole-foods-for-shady-prices/
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2015, 12:08:12 am »


Coca-Cola Funds Front Group to Peddle 'Nonsense' as Science

While the tobacco and chemical technology industries are notorious for these kinds of tactics, the food industry is using the same playbook.

For example, Coca-Cola Company was recently "outed" by the New York Times for funding a front group by the name of The Global Energy Balance Network

The aim of this group appears to be to confuse consumers about soda science, and divert attention away from the mounting evidence showing that sweet beverages are a major contributor to obesity and diseases associated with insulin resistance, such as diabetes.

As reported in the featured article:


Quote
"Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new 'science-based' solution to the obesity crisis: to maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise, and worry less about cutting calories.

The beverage giant has teamed up with influential scientists who are advancing this message in medical journals, at conferences and through social media...

'Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, 'Oh they're eating too much, eating too much, eating too much' — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks, and so on,' the group's vice president, Steven N. Blair, an exercise scientist, says in a recent video announcing the new organization.

'And there's really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.'"

In response to, and in support of, this exposé, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, signed by 36 leading researchers, scientists, and public health officials, noting that Coca-Cola is blatantly ignoring the "well-documented evidence that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes."

Protecting Profits Through Misdirection   

Last year, Coca-Cola made a $1.5 million donation  to two universities where the leaders of the new front group are employed. Since 2008, the company has also funded projects led by two of the group's founding members, to the tune of $4 million.

Coca-Cola is also the registered owner and administrator of the Global Energy Balance Network's website and, according to an editorial7 announcing the creation of the Global Energy Balance Network, the group has received an "unrestricted education gift" from Coca-Cola.


"Critics say Coke has long cast the obesity epidemic as primarily an exercise problem... Now, public health advocates say, Coca-Cola is going a step further, recruiting reputable scientists to make the case for them," the New York Times writes.

"Barry M. Popkin, a professor of global nutrition... said Coke's support of prominent health researchers was reminiscent of tactics used by the tobacco industry, which enlisted experts to become 'merchants of doubt' about the health hazards of smoking...

The group says there is 'strong evidence' that the key to preventing weight gain is not reducing food intake... 'but maintaining an active lifestyle and eating more calories.' To back up this contention, the group provides links to two research papers, each of which contains this footnote: 'The publication of this article was supported by The Coca-Cola Company...'

[T]he Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana announced the findings of a large new study on exercise in children that determined that lack of physical activity 'is the biggest predictor of childhood obesity around the world.' The news release contained a disclosure: 'This research was funded by The Coca-Cola Company.'"

I will have more to say on this topic in early October as I am interviewing Dr. Marion Nestle for her new book Soda Politics that is released on October 3.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/02/coca-cola-soda-obesity.aspx
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2015, 06:36:18 pm »
The GMO bastards want to do the same thing to the whole country that the Fracker bastards did to a town in Texas that banned Fracking. These corporate biosphere math challenged bastards, though producing completely different "products", share a disdain for level playing fields, consumer protection laws and competition.


This Law Would Make It Illegal for Any State to Mandate GMO Labeling 

Timothy Wise, Tufts University | September 8, 2015 2:57 pm

If recent history is any indication, Sheldon Krimsky should expect to be slammed as a “science denier.”

The current vehemence is the product of a well-funded campaign to “depolarize” the GMO debate through “improved agricultural biotechnology communication,” in the words of the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science. And it is reaching a crescendo because of the march of the Orwellian “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” (code-named “SAFE” for easy and confusing reference) through the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23 on its way to a Senate showdown in the fall.

In an April New York Times op-ed, Alliance for Science affiliate Mark Lynas follows the party line, accusing environmentalists of “undermining public understanding of science,” even more than climate deniers and vaccine opponents. Slate’s William Saletan goes further in his July feature, calling those who want GMO labeling “an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science.”

Who would have known that depolarization could feel so polarizing—and so stifling of scientific inquiry.

Precaution and the Public’s Right to Know What We Eat

The SAFE law sounds like it promises what polls suggest 99 percent of Americans want, accurate labeling of foods with GMO ingredients. It likely guarantees that no such thing will ever happen.

Backed by biotech and food industry associations, SAFE would make it illegal for states to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws. It would instead establish a “voluntary” GMO labeling program that pretty well eviscerates the demand for the right to know what’s in our food. It would undercut the many state level efforts.

Vermont now has a labeling law that survived industry opposition, threats and a court challenge, which may explain why the industry got busy in Congress. If you can’t beat democracy, change it. The Senate is expected to take up the bill after its August recess.

As written, SAFE is truly the labeling law to end all labeling laws. 

The biotech industry is acting desperate for a reason. It’s seen Europe and most of the world close its regulatory doors to GMO crops, for now, insisting on the same “precautionary principle” enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That principle calls for a relatively high level of precaution before the introduction of a new technology, to avoid the kinds of unintended consequences that have caused such harm in the past: tobacco, thalidomide, DDT, PCBs and other cases of industry-backed claims of safety that, in retrospect, proved deadly.

Not SAFE for Science

In a sane world that respects scientific inquiry, we would be engaged in a debate about the appropriate levels of precaution that we as a society want for a technology as novel as genetic engineering. That would be constructive, not to mention depolarizing.

Instead, we get pundits like Lynas and Saletan tarring anyone who dares call for precaution with the stain of being another science-denying zealot who ignores the scientific evidence that no one has been harmed by all the GMO foods consumed in the U.S.

To reinforce how duped or dumb the American public is, they point to a Pew Institute poll indicating that 88 percent of scientists think GMO foods are safe, while just 37 percent of the public thinks so. The gap is repeatedly cited as a measure of how science-deniers are winning the public relations battle and how ignorant the U.S. people are on the issue. 

Maybe not. Is it really a surprise that nearly nine in ten scientists think a new invention is good for society? Not really. As Joel Achenbach explained in his otherwise good piece on science denial in National Geographic, we all suffer from “confirmation bias,” the tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm our existing beliefs. True enough and guess what group scores high for confirmation bias in favor of new technology? Scientists. Honestly, I’m shocked that 12 percent of scientists    think GMO food isn’t safe.

What about that skeptical public? Are they really just ignorant and brainwashed?  Or is their confirmation bias perhaps informed by their repeated experiences with big corporations telling them something is safe or good for them and finding out it’s deadly. Who in the U.S. has not lost a family member or friend to smoking-related disease? Given the negligence of U.S. regulatory authorities in accepting industry claims of safety, is the public really so foolish to be skeptical, of both industry and government?

Washington University’s Glenn Stone drove the scientific point home nicely about how long the process of scientific discovery of hazards can be. He documents how DDT was suspected as a cause of breast cancer but studies kept failing to find a link. This is, until 2007, when an intrepid researcher thought to ask if girls exposed to DDT during puberty had a higher risk of breast cancer. More than half a century after they were exposed, she found what no one else had: a five times greater risk in such girls and a significant additional risk in their female children.

On GMOs and labeling, Stone asks if all the evidence is really in just 20 years into this experiment. Are there comparable studies of GMO effects on pregnant or lactating women and developing infants and children? No, there are not.

No Consensus on Food Safety

For those still willing to look past the campaign slogans and slurs, science is still happening. My colleague at Tufts University, Sheldon Krimsky, examined peer-reviewed journal articles from 2008-2014. Contrary to the claims of consensus, he found 26 studies that showed significant cause for concern in animal studies, among many studies that showed no harm.

He identified clear evidence that proteins transferred into the genome of another plant species can generate allergic reactions even when the original transgene did not, a scientific finding that undermines industry claims that the transgenic process creates no instability in the genome. (Scientists even have a name for such a gene: an “intrinsically disordered protein).”

Krimsky found eight reviews of the literature and they showed anything but consensus. Three cited cause for concern from existing animal studies. Two found inadequate evidence of harm that could affect humans, justifying the U.S. government’s principle that if GMO crops are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GMO counterparts, this is adequate to guarantee safety. Three reviews suggested that the evidence base is limited, the types of studies that have been done are inadequate to guarantee safety even if they show no harm and further study and improved testing is warranted.

What about the much-cited consensus among medical and scientific associations? Krimsky found no such agreement, just the same kind of wide variation in opinion, which he usefully ascribes to differing standards, methods and goals, not ignorance or brainwashing.

Krimsky goes out of his way, however, to document the industry-backed campaigns to discredit two scientific studies that found cause for concern and he warns of the anti-science impact such campaigns can have. “When there is a controversy about the risk of a consumer product, instead of denying the existence of certain studies, the negative results should be replicated to see if they hold up to rigorous testing.”

That would have been a refreshing and depolarizing, industry response to the recent World Health Organization finding that Roundup Ready herbicides are a “probable human carcinogen.” Instead of calling for further study to determine safe exposure levels, the industry called out its attack dogs to discredit the study.

Who here is really anti-science? 

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/08/safe-gmo-labeling/

Agelbert comment: The "SAFE" law is duplicity in the Orwellian tradition of Empathy Deficit Disordered idiots that continue to corrupt our government and the media with double talk and dissembling.

Don't let them get away with it. Do your part to BANKRUPT the GMO corporations.

And don't forget to do your part to BANKRUPT Coca Cola. They have a very similar modus operandi.
 

"... Coca Cola is blatantly ignoring the well-documented evidence that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes."


Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2015, 09:34:21 pm »
Quote
Huge corporations like Monsanto that have suspect agendas - such as selling poisons worldwide and screwing with the very fabric of Nature - have learned long ago how to implement a number of dirty tricks designed to fool authorities and the public into believing that their methods and products are safe.

One of the ways this is accomplished is through enlisting the services of "independent experts" who publicly back the claims of a company, assuring everyone that the products and practices of such a company have been proven to be safe or harmless through their own impartial scientific research.

The problem is that far too often, these so-called experts are anything but independent. In many cases, they are nothing more than paid shills who are hired to stack the deck in the company's favor.

Independent expert or corporate shill?

A recent case involving Monsanto and one of these allegedly objective scientific researchers is a perfect illustration of just how far from being independent many of these "experts" really are.

An August 6 article published by Nature.com details some of the results of an ongoing investigation by activist group US Right to Know, which aims to reveal "collusion between the agricultural biotechnology industry and academics who study science, economics and communication."

Part of the focus of the investigation is on a website called GMO Answers, which is financed by GMO industry giants including Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta.

One of the frequent contributors to the site is a University of Florida plant scientist named Kevin Folta, who labels himself as an "independent expert" in the field of GMOs.

Through the use of freedom of information laws, US Right to Know has been able to obtain the contents of thousands of emails exchanged between scientists such as Folta and GMO Answers, whose site the activist group considers a "straight-up marketing tool to spin GMOs in a positive light".

Folta's email correspondence revealed that he accepted a $25,000 grant from Monsanto last year and was told that the money "may be used at your discretion in support of your research and outreach projects."

He maintains he has no ties to Monsanto. As recently as two months ago - well after receiving the grant, the existence of which Folta has never personally disclosed - he said: "I have nothing to do with Monsanto." Earlier this year (also after receiving the money), he was quoted as saying that he has received "no research money from Monsanto, never any personal compensation for any talks."

He has avoided direct questions about the grant and has gone to lengths to deny any compensation, ridiculing allegations to the contrary.

It also appears that Folta was being prompted about what to say regarding their agenda by Monsanto's PR firm, Ketchum, which operates the GMO Answers site. In some cases, Ketchum even scripted his "responses" on the website.

From Nature.com:

...Folta's e-mails show him to be frequent contributor to GMO Answers. Ketchum employees repeatedly asked him to respond to common questions posed by biotechnology critics. In some cases, they even drafted answers for him. 'We want your responses to be authentically yours,' one Ketchum representative wrote in a message on 5 July 2013. 'Please feel free to edit or draft all-new responses.'

Part of Folta's response to this allegation was "I don't know if I used them, modified them or what."

It's abundantly clear that in this case, a private-sector scientist has completely compromised his credibility by denying that he was a paid propagandist for Monsanto. If it weren't for the efforts of US Right to Know, we would probably have never learned the truth.

Tip of the iceberg

What's important to understand is that Folta is just one of many sellouts who receive compensation from companies like Monsanto. Of course, the industry and the recipients of such compensation do their best to conceal their ties, but often legislators and regulation agencies depend on the the testimony of these scientific prostitutes when determining which policies to implement.

Pushing for transparency in these matters is an important part of the fight against Frankenfood companies like Monsanto. Organizations such as US Right to Know deserve the public's wholehearted appreciation and support.[/size][/color]


Sources include:


Nature.com     

GMWatch.org   

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #52 on: September 11, 2015, 07:54:44 pm »
NOTE: This is posted here because Corporations are littered with psychopaths.


Which Professions Have The Most Psychopaths?

Are there ‘successful psychopaths’ amongst us?

According to a survey conducted by psychologist Kevin Dutton—called the Great British Psychopath Survey—here are the top 10 professions with the most psychopaths:

1.CEO
2.Lawyer
3.Media (TV/Radio)
4.Salesperson
5.Surgeon
6.Journalist
7.Police Officer
8.Clergyperson
9.Chef    ( Agelbert NOTE: This is the only one that surprised me. Bon appetit!  :P )
10.Civil Servant


And here are the professions with the least psychopaths:

1.Care Aide
2.Nurse
3.Therapist
4.Craftsperson
5.Beautician/Stylist
6.Charity Worker
7.Teacher
8.Creative Artist
9.Doctor
10.Accountant

Although people tend to think of psychopaths as killers—indeed about 15-25% of people in prison are psychopaths—in fact many people with psychopathic tendencies are not criminals.

Here are some of the traits of psychopaths:

◾Self-confident
◾Cold-hearted
◾Manipulative
◾Fearless
◾Charming
◾Cool under pressure
◾Egocentric
◾Carefree


If you look through the list of professions, then you can see how a few of these traits might be useful.

None of this means that every CEO or lawyer is a psychopath, nor should the suggestion be that having psychopathic tendencies is helpful in any of these jobs (although it may be!).

Rather, there is an overlap between psychopathic personality traits and the types of people who go into those professions.

Successful psychopath?  :   

A few people try to talk up the benefits of psychopathic personality traits, saying that there are such things as ‘successful psychopaths’: people who benefit from being that way.

But many psychologists have questioned whether there really is such a thing as a ‘successful psychopath’.

That’s because research has found that psychopaths generally do worse at the things that are often associated with success: their relationships are worse, they earn less money and do not generally attain high status (research described in Stevens et al., 2012).

Maybe the standard for a ‘successful psychopath’ should be lower. We should simply be amazed that someone with little or no fear response, unlimited confidence and without fellow-feeling can live outside of an institution, let alone become a respected professional.   

http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/07/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths.php
« Last Edit: September 12, 2015, 05:17:38 pm by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2015, 11:04:42 pm »
10 Largest Companies ‘Obstructing’ Climate Policy

Cole Mellino | September 17, 2015 12:24 pm

New research reveals that nearly half (45 percent) of the world’s 100 largest companies are “obstructing climate change legislation.” And those that aren’t actively obstructing climate policy are members of trade associations that do. A full 95 percent of these companies are members of trade associations “demonstrating the same obstructionist behavior.”

With help from the Union of Concerned Scientists, UK-based nonprofit InfluenceMap has released a report identifying the best and worst of the world’s major companies when it comes to climate policy.

“More and more, we’re seeing companies rely on their trade groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive climate policies,” said Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst at Union of concerned

Scientists. “Companies get the delay in policy they want, while preventing nations from acting to fight climate change. It is unacceptable that companies can obstruct climate action in this way without any accountability.”
The researchers found that corporate influence over climate policies extended “beyond the activities normally associated with lobbying, including intervention in the public discourse on climate change science and policy via advertising, PR, social media, and access to decision makers, as well as the use of influencers, such as trade associations and advocacy groups.”

The companies were graded on an A to F scale. None of the companies received an A. The top three companies, which all received a B, were Google, Unilever and Cisco Systems. GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Telekom, National Grid, Vodafone Group, Nestle, Apple and Anheuser Busch InBev rounded out the top 10. But even Apple, which has been praised in recent months for its sustainability efforts received a paltry C+. It should also be noted that of those top 13 companies, only three are headquartered in the U.S.: Google, Apple and Cisco Systems. The rest are headquartered in Europe.



“There is a lack of detailed analysis available in this area and sadly great companies sometimes do bad things by lobbying against government action to avoid dangerous climate change,” said Paul Dickinson, executive chairman of CDP.

As mentioned early, nearly all of the companies (95 percent) are members of trade associations that are fighting against climate action. Those associations include BusinessEurope (recently under attack in the UK for their obstructionist stance towards climate legislation) and the secretive U.S. industry group, NEDA/CAP, “who have been suing the U.S. EPA to prevent them using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” according to InfluenceMap.

Other trade associations include the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), European Automobile Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Council of Australia and Japan 2 Business Federation.

InfluenceMap’s research found that “despite their public communications, few corporations have actually supported the progressive climate policies being proposed by governments globally. There also remains a lack of transparency around their relationships with trade associations, with very few companies willing to publicly challenge them despite clear misalignment between their climate positions and the actions of the associations.”

The companies receiving the lowest grades come as no surprise. Among them are major fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, BP, Duke Energy and Phillips 66. And at the bottom of the list is climate denying extraordinaire Koch Industries. Interestingly, two media companies even make the list: 21st Century Fox and Comcast.
Here are the 10 worst companies on InfluenceMap’s list:



http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/

Agelbert Comment:
Also obstructing the massive and drastic  government action required to reduce the present high probability of N.T.H.E. (Near Term Human Extinction). due to the failure of incremental measures to prevent deleterious positive feedback loops (that will produce catastrophic climate change) are the irresponsible and criminally negligent people that continue to defend incremental measures.

The responsibility to care for and preserve the biosphere on behalf of future generations, including returning it to the healthy state it was in over a century ago when we began to severely pollute it, is not optional (unless you are an Empathy Deficit Disordered Evolutionary Dead End).

Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, a world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.
  The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #54 on: September 18, 2015, 10:22:57 pm »
France + Russia Ban GMOs  ;D

Lorraine Chow | September 18, 2015 11:40 am

According to RT, Russia is stamping out any GMOs in its entire food production.

“As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have made decision not to use any GMO in food productions,” Russia’s Deputy PM Arkady Dvorkovich announced at an international conference on biotechnology in the city of Kirov.

Dvorkovich added that there is a clear difference between the use of GMO-products for food versus scientific or medicinal purposes, RT reported.

“This is not a simple issue, we must do very thorough work on division on these spheres and form a legal base on this foundation,” he said.

Russia already has hardline policies against GMOs. In 2012, Russia banned imports of Monsanto’s corn after a French study linked the company’s GMO-product to tumors in lab rats (the study was later retracted). Last year, the country banned imports of GMO products, with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying the nation already has the resources to produce its own non-GMO fare. 

“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that;  we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food,” said Medvedev. (And in case you’re wondering, Russian president Vladimir Putin is also anti-GMO).  ;D

The percentage of GMOs currently present in the Russian food industry is at a mere 0.01 percent, RT observed.

Russia’s latest move comes after similar news pouring in from Western Europe in recent weeks.

On Thursday, France followed in the footsteps of other European Union countries—Scotland, Germany, Latvia and Greece—and has chosen the “opt-out” clause of a EU rule passed in March that allows its 28-member bloc to abstain from growing GMO crops, even if they are already authorized to be grown within the union.

Specifically, the country wants to shut out the cultivation of nine GMO maize strains within its borders, according to yesterday’s joint statement from Ségolène Royal, France’s Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, and Stéphane Le Foll, the Minister of Agriculture and Energy.

“It is part of the very important progress made ​​by the new European framework on the implementation of GMO cultivation in which France played a leading role,” the statement reads (via translation from Sustainable Pulse). “This directive makes it possible for Member States to request the exclusion of their territorial scope of existing authorizations or of those under consideration.”

France’s latest GMO-sweep also singles out Monsanto’s MON 810 maize, the only GMO crop grown in Europe, and is currently under review at the European level, Reuters reported.

France, which is the EU’s largest grain grower and exporter, is further cementing its anti-GMO sentiments with this latest move. The country already prohibits the cultivation of any variety of genetically modified maize due to environmental concerns.

Monsanto, which maintains the safety of their products  ;), has said it will abide by the requests from the growing wave of European countries turning their backs on these controversial crops. The agribusiness giant, however, recently accused Latvia and Greece of ignoring science and refusing GMOs out of “arbitrary political grounds.”   

In a statement, Monsanto said that the move from the two countries “contradicts and undermines the scientific consensus on the safety of MON810.”

Meanwhile, much-maligned company didn’t have a total loss this week. According to Politico EU, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety—a key committee in the European Parliament—”rejected a proposal Tuesday to halt an extension in the use of the world’s most popular weedkiller,” aka Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship herbicide.  >:(

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/18/france-russia-ban-gmos/
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2015, 10:40:21 pm »
County in Oregon Sued for Banning GMO Crops
Michelle Schoffro Cook
September 17, 2015 5:30 pm
89 comments

Just one day before Josephine County, Oregon made history by enforcing a ban on genetically-modified foods, two farmers filed a lawsuit against the county for its GMO-Free regulations. The lawsuit was filed on September 4 by Robert A. White Jr. and Shelley White, two farmers who grew genetically-engineered sugar beets, just one day before the county became completely GMO-free. In addition to getting the regulators to overturn the “Genetically-Engineered Plant Ordinance”, the lawsuit requires that Josephine County suspend their GMO-free regulations until the lawsuit has been decided.

In their lawsuit documents the farmers state: “The Ordinance conflicts with Oregon State law, and, among other things, requires farmers to destroy valuable crops they have planted, cultivated, and plan to sell. The Ordinance also, among other things, prohibits the growing of GE plants in the future and thereby interferes with the livelihood of many farmers.”     However, the ordinance was passed on May 20, 2014, giving the farmers two seasons to grow and harvest their genetically-modified sugar beets and switch to a different crop or a non-genetically-modified beet crop.

The “Oregon State law” cited in the legal documents likely refers to Oregon’s new legislation which bans local bans on genetically-modified crops which came into place after Josephine County passed its law banning genetically-modified crops from its county. However, there are allegations that the state legislation may have been illegally backdated in an effort to stop Josephine County from becoming a GMO-free zone.   

This isn’t the first lawsuit the county has faced after passing the anti-GMO legislation. Syngenta, one of the world’s largest genetically-modified seeds manufacturers and crop chemical producers, spent $800,000 in an effort to force Josephine County, a county of approximately 83,000 citizens, to overturn the legislation. Syngenta moved its genetically-modified sugar beet crops out of Josephine County and moved its warehouse and offices out of the region.

The lawsuit documents state that the Ordinance “prohibits (the Whites) from engaging in a livelihood which, but for the Ordinance, (they) have a right to engage.” Only sentences later, the same documents indicate that they are continuing their work as farmers, having “now planted with a much less lucrative crop.”

Additionally, the lawsuit documents insists that the court force Josephine County to declare their Ordinance “invalid and unenforceable” which if decided in their favor would force the county and its residents to be further subjected to genetically-modified crops and any possible health or environmental damage that may ensue. That requirement would allow the growing of crops like Bt corn (short for Bacillus thuringiensis corn), a form of genetically-modified corn which, according to reports, actually “produces insecticidal toxins from inside every cell of the plant.”

Genetically-modified crops may also subject the residents of the area to pesticides like glyphosate, which goes by the brand names Roundup (manufactured by Monsanto), Accord (manufactured by Dow Agrosciences LLC), Touchdown (manufactured by Syngenta) and Rodeo (manufactured by Dow Agrosciences LLC). Earlier this year glyphosate was declared a probable carcinogen to humans by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/county-in-oregon-sued-for-banning-gmo-crops.html#ixzz3m9CzJaTu



Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2015, 07:15:00 pm »
Posted on Nov 20, 2015


VIDEO: Bernie Sanders Champions Democratic Socialism in Major Speech at Georgetown




Agelbert COMMENT: Ever since Bernays got the cigarette companies to pay women models to march with "libery torches" in the early 1930's, Americans have been continually convinced to act against their health and their democracy for the profits of the elite predators.

In a sane world the average person would OBVIOUSLY favor Socialism. But Bernays Propaganda, through Madison Avenue, and FUNDED by all the elite enemies of democracy (fossil fuel, mining, chemical, tobacco, cancer -see useless nuclear medicine and nerve gas derived chemotherapy - industries, etc. et al) have succeeded in making Americans believe that GREED IS GOOD and GREED IS GOD.

So, of course, Americans continue to shoot themselves in the foot. The ethics free predators have succeeded in colonizing American brains with fecal coliforms. IOW, most Americans, especially those who would benefit most from socialism, have been brainwashed with bullshit. 

The elite predators laugh all the way to the fossil fuel government fascist bank.

The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL Court System is its HANDMAIDEN

Learned ethics free  counselor tell us how Exxon did what they did, as if that's just fine and dandy: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Vol. 18:151 The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation.

The USA has a Selected, not elected,  Representative Government representing the WILL of the elite Oligarchy

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #57 on: December 17, 2015, 09:58:26 pm »
Business-Managed Democracy: The Transnational Class 

Quote
It would be a mistake to assume that today’s global elite is defined by solely by its wealth. Rather it is a transnational corporate class made up of top corporate executives wielding power founded in the giant institutions they command together with individuals and families who have derived great wealth from business enterprises.

This transnational corporate class organises and runs the business coalitions where common goals and strategies are worked out; coordinates the public relations specialists, think tanks and media outlets that manipulate public opinion; sets the agendas for policy groups; guides their policy recommendations onto government agendas; fills executive positions in successive government administrations and as government advisors; and thereby ensures public policy outcomes that are conducive to the business interests they favour. In this way governments are intimately connected with this business power elite. [1]

 Since the 1970s corporate executives have begun to act as a class with a shared ideology rather than a collection of competing companies with some common business interests. In his book The Inner Circle, written in the 1980s, Michael Useem claimed that whilst “a sense of class affinity based on company stewardship can hardly be said to be new, the strength of the bond has increased and a select circle of those in corporate power are now far more willing to work towards goals that serve all large companies.” His study of the US and UK found that even at that time large corporations were becoming more and more interrelated through shared directors and common institutional investors. [2]

The inner circle are powerful within the corporate community because of their top level management positions within large corporations, their board membership of other large corporations, and their leadership positions in business associations. Because of these multiple positions they are able to network with others in similar positions and mobilize resources and express support for political goals shared by others in the circle. Their views tend to “reflect the broader thinking of the business community” rather than the concerns of an individual company. [3]

Susan George has referred to this inner circle as the Davos Class (referring to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos). She describes them as “interchangeable, international, individually wealthy, nomadic, with common attributes, speaking a common language and sharing a common ideology”.

Interlocking Directorates - See more at: http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=7593#sthash.Bcm2mt19.dpuf
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2016, 12:08:08 am »
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find, PROOF that those fine folks who control the University of Texas investment strategy are biosphere math challenged fossil fuelers.   

University of Texas hopes to cash in on falling shale production costs    

Staff Writers April 8, 2016

The University of Texas is hoping to leverage falling upstream costs to boost the value of its oil and gas assets.

In an interview with Bloomberg, University Lands executive vice-chancellor for business affairs said UT is looking to take advantage of falling shale production costs to adjust its lease model, a move the university hopes will boost the value of the 2.1 million acres it currently holds.

“In the new scheme of things, not only do we have 2 million acres of land, but if there are two to four plays based on various depths in the shale formations, we might have the equivalent of 6 to 8 million acres of land,” Kelley said.

University Lands is under the direction of the Office of Business Affairs of the University of Texas System and is responsible for managing the Permanent University Fund lands and the Trust Minerals.

Oil revenues earned by UT are placed into the Permanent University Fund.

There are currently about 9,000 wells operating on university land and consultants for University Lands have identified an additional 21,000 potential sites, Bloomberg said.

According to data compiled by Bloomberg, UT and Texas A&M earned about $800,000 in oil and gas royalty revenue per day in 2015, down from a peak of just over $1.1 million in 2014.    

University Lands CEO Mark Houser told the news agency that he is also focused on renegotiating leases for sites that have not been drilled yet.     

“We’ve got to know our assets better. We need to understand what the potential is,” Houser    said.

http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/04/university-texas-hopes-cash-falling-shale-production-costs/

University Lands CEO Mark Houser has his morning Joe.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2016, 10:15:37 pm »
Puerto Rico: Where Wall Street Perfected the Neoliberal Asset Stripping Mens Rea Modus Operandi 


John Oliver: We Have to Start Treating Puerto Rico Like an Island of American Citizens (Video)

Posted on Apr 25, 2016

The “Last Week Tonight” host outlines the Puerto Rico debt crisis and calls on Lin-Manuel Miranda, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and star of the Broadway hit “Hamilton,” to explain just how dire the situation in the U.S. territory is.


http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_we_have_to_start_treating_puerto_rico_like_an_island_20160425


How Puerto Rico became a Corporate Goldmine - while Simultaneously the Corporate Media peddled the LIE that it is an economic basket case

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm