Mainstream media food propaganda claims CHIPS are better for you than an avocado

 If there’s one nutrient that we need to consume on a daily basis, it’s protein. Not only does protein help us maintain and build up muscle mass, it curbs hunger and makes us less likely to snack in-between meals. Obtaining protein is commonly associated with meat consumption, but eating too much meat can have ill-effects on our bodies. So how then do we go about ensuring we get our daily dose of protein? Definitely not by reaching for a big of chips, that’s for sure.

Potato chips and french fries are not foods that immediately spring to mind when you think of possible protein sources, yet that’s what one article from the DailyMail.co.uk is claiming. Written by one Angela Dowden, the article states outright that McCain brand potato chips can help you meet your recommended daily intake of protein.

“Potatoes are only two percent protein, but this serving size provides a good proportion of our daily needs. The flour coating also contains protein,” wrote Dowden. She then notes that a 220 g bag of 22 McCain chips can deliver 6.6 g of protein in total. Dowden further states that a bag of McCain chips is better than a large avocado in terms of protein content since an avocado is packed with a mere 3.7 g of protein.

If we’re going to judge foods solely by their protein content, then you can definitely do so much better than potato chips. The sheer variety of fruits and vegetables available on the market means that there has to be at least a few reliable sources of plant-based protein. And, blessedly, there are:

• Edamame – One cup of cooked edamame, or boiled green soybeans, can deliver 18 g of protein.
• Tempeh – For every three ounces of tempeh, you get 16 of protein. What’s even better is that tempeh is a fermented food and is therefore easier to digest for some people.
• Lentils – A half-cup serving will provide nine g of protein. Lentils have the added benefit of being low in calories too.
• Black beans – With 7.6 g of protein for every half cup of cooked black beans, a full cup can provide a fair amount of this important nutrient.

Unlike McCain chips, these foods won’t make you pack on fat. According to FatSecret.co.uk, a 100 g serving of McCain Home Chips is composed of 25 percent fat and 69 percent carbohydrates. Never mind that the flour coating is also supposed to be a decent source of protein, in her own words. The cons far outweigh the pros, simple as that.

Dowden doesn’t seem to think so, however, because she wrote: “Although deemed an indulgence, chips can be more effective for diets.”

A lot of other foods are “effective for diets”, and none of them are as heavily processed or fat- and carbohydrate-laden as a big of chips.

Her other suggestions for plant-based protein sources were better than chips (such as quinoa, humus, and cashews), yet she seemed fixated on these unhealthy potato products. (Related: Plant-Based Protein Is Becoming Increasingly Popular.)

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying something indulgent every once in a while, but trying to pass it off as something that’s truly and totally good for you just won’t do.

If the comments section is anything to go by, Dowden’s propaganda-tinged love letter to potato chips was at least met with the reactions it deserved. As the top comment by user Graelwyn goes: “Avocado isn’t about the protein for goodness sake, it is about the healthy fats and vitamins. Do some research before writing such a ridiculously misleading article. Throw half an avocado with some chicken, rice and vegetables and you have a very healthy, balanced meal. It might not be as enticing as fast food, but if packs much more of a nutritional punch and is a lot more filling.”

Visit FoodScience.news for similar stories.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk
Prevention.com
FatSecret.co.uk

Neil deGrasse Tyson joins efforts of violent wife beater Jon Entine and convicted felon ringleader of ACSH to produce Monsanto propaganda film called “Food Evolution”

The Monsanto Mafia is at it again, pushing corporate poison propaganda under the guise of “science,” and this time they’ve recruited junk science loudmouth Neil deGrasse Tyson to lend his condescending voice to a propaganda project that was spearheaded behind the scenes by violent wife beater (and biotech propaganda shill) Jon Entine and features messaging from the ACSH, run by a convicted criminal felon. (Jon Entine is a former Forbes.com writer who Natural News exposed as a violent wife abuser and sociopath.)

The new film, coming out later this week, is called “Food Evolution,” and it claims that GMOs and glyphosate weedkiller are Monsanto’s gift to humanity… so eat more! (Perhaps it should be called FoodEVILution.) Natural News will be covering the film and publishing profiles of the unethical participants in the film at a new website launching this week called FoodEvolution.news. You can also follow news on Neil deGrasse Tyson at the new website NeilTyson.news.

As uncovered by leaked emails (see below), the movie was clearly shaped behind the scenes by all the usual biotech industry shills and propagandists: Jon Entine, the ACSH, UC Davis professor Alison van Eenennaam (who used to work for Monsanto), Pamela Ronald and others. It’s the same “Monsanto mafia” that recently got caught spending millions of dollars on “negative P.R.” campaigns to smear clean food activists like the Food Babe (or even scientists such as Seralini). This is also the same group that tried to assassinate the character of Doctor Oz because of his support of GMO labeling.

Stacy Malkan, writing for U.S. Right to Know, a pro-labeling group, describes the film as nothing more than “chemical industry propaganda.” Here’s her column from USRTK.org. Share everywhere:

Food Evolution GMO Film Serves Up Chemical Industry Agenda

Some industry messaging efforts are so heavy-handed they end up highlighting their own PR tactics more than the message they are trying to convey. That’s the problem with Food Evolution, a new documentary by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The film, opening in theaters June 23, claims to offer an objective look at the debate over genetically engineered foods, but with its skewed presentation of science and data, it comes off looking more like a textbook case of corporate propaganda for the agrichemical industry and its GMO crops.

That the film’s intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret. Food Evolution was planned in 2014 and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists, a trade group, to culminate a multi-year messaging effort.

IFT is partly funded by big food corporations, and the group’s president at the time was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who now works for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT’s President-Elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.

IFT chose Kennedy to direct the film, but he and producer Trace Sheehan say they had complete control over the film they describe as a fully independent investigation into the topic of GMOs including all points of view.

The film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the science and scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.

The Monsanto Science Treatment

The clearest example of the scientific dishonesty in Food Evolution is the way the film deals with glyphosate. The weed killer chemical is at the heart of the GMO story, since 80-90% of GMO crops are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate.

Food Evolution reports that the increase in glyphosate use due to GMOs is not a problem, because glyphosate is safe. Two sources establish this claim in the film: a farmer says glyphosate has “very, very low toxicity; lower than coffee, lower than salt,” and Monsanto’s Robb Fraley – in response to a woman in an audience who asks him about science linking glyphosate to birth defects and cancer – tells her that’s all bad science, “it’s pseudoscience.”

There is no mention of the carcinogenicity concerns that are engulfing Monsanto in an internationalscience scandal, or the many farmers who are suing Monsanto alleging they got cancer from the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.

There is no mention of the 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency that classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, or California’s decision to add glyphosate to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, or the peer-reviewed studies that have linked various adverse health outcomes to glyphosate and Roundup.

Instead of an objective look at the evidence, Food Evolution gives viewers the full Monsanto science treatment: any science that raises concerns about the possible health risks of agrichemical products should be ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is the only science worth discussing.

Double Standards in Science and Transparency

Equal treatment of interview subjects with different points of view would have helped the credibility of Food Evolution. Instead, the film paints the GMO critics it features as dishonest or out to make a buck off the organic industry, while leaving out key details about its pro-industry sources.

In one scene, the film’s main character, UC Davis professor Alison van Eenennaam, frets that appearing onstage with a Monsanto executive at a debate could sully her independent reputation. Viewers never learn that she used to work for Monsanto, or that she holds several GE patents which suggest a financial interest in the topic at hand.

Pro-industry scientist Pamela Ronald, another key science source, gets the hero treatment with no mention that two of her studies have been retracted. Yet viewers are hammered with news that a study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini – which found kidney problems and tumors in rats fed GMO corn – was “retracted, retracted, retracted!”

The film leaves out the fact that the study was subsequently republished, and was retracted in the first place after a former Monsanto employee took an editorial position with the journal where it was originally published.

The “Africa Needs GMOs” Narrative

In another neatly spun narrative, Food Evolution takes viewers on an emotional journey to the developing world, and along another favorite industry messaging track: rather than focus on how genetic engineering is used in our food system now – primarily to convey herbicide tolerance – we should focus on how it might possibly be used in the future.

With plenty of airtime and dramatic tension, the film examines the problem of banana wilt, a disease killing staple crops in Africa, and leads viewers to believe that genetic engineering will save the crop, the farmers and the community.

Maybe. But the film neglects to mention that the savior GE technology is not yet available and might not even work. According to a paper in Plant Biotechnology Journal, the resistance shown in the lab is robust but may not be durable in open fields.

Meanwhile, a low-tech solution is working well and looks like it could use some investment. According to a 2012 paper in the Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, farmer field schools, which help growers acquire hands-on knowledge of techniques to prevent banana wilt, led to lower infection rates and high crop recovery in Uganda. Results from farmer field schools “have been remarkable,” according to the UN.

The solution doesn’t warrant a mention in Food Evolution.

“It’s fundamentally dishonest of the film to tout a GE solution that may not even work, as the scientists themselves acknowledge,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, “while failing to point out another way to control the problem that works very well, but doesn’t involve selling a product to make money.

Did Monsanto have anything to do with Food Evolution?

Monsanto and allies were discussing plans for a documentary in late 2013, according to emails obtained by US Right to Know. The emails do not contain evidence linking those discussions to Food Evolution, but they do establish Monsanto’s desire for a film that sounds surpassingly similar to the one Kennedy created.

Monsanto’s Eric Sachs wrote in Dec. 2013 to a group of PR advisors, “there is clearly a lot of interest to pursue a documentary film. Importantly, the consensus was the Monsanto’s participation was welcome, particularly in the planning phase.”

He recommended a January 2014 planning call. Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project stepped up to take the lead, and mentioned he had “gotten a personal pledge of $100,000 from a private business person if we can get” (the rest of the line is cut off). Entine also has a connection to the Institute for Food Technologists; he spoke about “anti-food activism” at IFT’s 2012 annual meeting.

Another person mentioned in the Monsanto emails, Karl Haro von Mogel – who had discussed with Sachs “the downsides of a film funded by the ‘Big 6’” and suggested “what would matter more than their money is their participation” – was interviewed in Food Evolution, and was also involved in filming one scene, which suggests some behind the scenes coordination with the filmmakers.

In reaction to the emails, Kennedy wrote on Twitter: “@foodevomovie has had ZERO $ or INPUT from #Monsanto. We are fully transparent & happy 2 have fact-based dialogue.”

He said in an interview, “that email exchange had absolutely nothing to do with our project whatsoever … we hadn’t even committed to making the film with IFT at that date in 2013.”

The people in the email exchange were not involved in filming or advising, he said, and Karl Haro von Mogel “was a subject in the film and had no involvement or influence on any creative/editorial decisions on the film at any point in the production. Also it may be useful to point out that the email conversation you reference occurred long before we ever even knew Karl or any of these people.”

Sneak Peek Behind the Scenes

Another email exchange obtained by US Right to Know offers a peek behind the scenes at the narrative development in Food Evolution. The exchange depicts Kennedy’s search for examples to feature for “us/developing world need GMO.”

“Any other ‘us/developing world need GMO’ you can give me names of aside from oranges? Shintikus lettuce?” Kennedy asked. Producer Trace Sheehan responded with a list of GMO products including drought-tolerant rice, allergy-free peanuts, carcinogen-free potatoes … “and then button with Golden Rice.”

When Kennedy pushed for “the top GMO crops currently in use, and what countries,” Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science wrote, “Really Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is the only one that is truly GMO in and is in widespread operation.”

The film’s frame-driven reporting ignores that detail about the lack of operational GMO solutions, and doesn’t mention that the closer example, vitamin-A enhanced Golden Rice, still isn’t available despite huge investments and years of trials, because it doesn’t work as well in the field as existing rice strains.

What is propaganda?

In a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, Food Evolution flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and Health at the very moment Neil deGrasse Tyson says there is a global consensus on the safety of GMOs. It’s a fitting slip. ASCH is a corporate front group closely aligned with Monsanto.

The ACSH logo scene also appears in the background in this 2-minute clip from a recent Climate One debate, as Kennedy pushed back against the suggestion that his film is propaganda.

“How do we determine what is propaganda?” Kennedy asked. “I say one of the ways we do it is (to ask), are results asked for, or results promised? I was not asked for results and I did not promise results. If you have a problem with the film, the problem lies with me.”

Climate change propagandists admit that “facts” don’t add up with the public, so they’re working on more influential language strategies to convince people who are “confused” by the lack of evidence

When lies define the landscape, there are several techniques that can be used to promote said lies, even amid the pushback from those unwilling to swallow every hook, line and sinker willingly. Whether these techniques are labeled as sales campaigns, marketing strategies or simple public relations, the bottom line is the same for those paid to maintain the cycle; they will do whatever it takes to control society’s thought processes. The meaning of words will be changed. New words and phrases will be created. Thus, the indoctrination process continues.

As reported by Psy.org, famed wordsmith Edward Bernays was a master of these techniques. He is well-known and remembered as the “father of public relations,” although Bernays would probably define the term “public relations” as synonymous with propaganda, which also happens to be the title of his infamous book, which was published in 1928. Propaganda contains the following quote:

There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.

Words are critical for these invisible rulers in any field, especially those whose teaching and scientific careers depend on defending the climate change myth that unceasingly declares that people who refuse to limit their carbon footprint are personally responsible for the destruction of Earth. And that includes President Trump, whose righteous decision to defend national sovereignty and say no to fake science, has caused the propagandists to go back to the drawing board.

As reported by Science Daily, it seems environmental educators are not interested in discovering the facts about the benefits of carbon. They’re simply searching for better words that can be used as “effective methods moving forward with climate change communication.” The plan is to begin conversations with the “learners of climate change,” or the educators responsible for teaching our children. New research will be done to better understand how these teachers “are being spoken to about climate change,” because whatever these environmental instructors are taught, they will obediently repeat ad infinitum to their students. This constant repetition of a lie is another time-tested method to ensure the lie will be twisted, and eventually accepted, as a “truth.”

As Americans wake up and begin to speak out against the dire and deadly consequences of fake climate science, a rational and scientifically minded society would be open to a fair, fact-finding debate. But a rational mindset is not allowed in a burgeoning scientific dictatorship. So, instead of a spirited truth-seeking debate, the end result of the climate science conclusions in our divided society is described as a “perpetual gap between empirical scientific information” and how it’s discussed “in education and the public sphere.” To close this gap, the suggestion is made for educators to talk less about the “catastrophic consequences of climate change,” and more about solutions. Hmmm.

If the group doing this study equates “empirical scientific information” with the myths that carbon dioxide will cause widespread destruction of the planet via global warming, climate change, or whatever they decide to call it, they have already been brainwashed. But if they are really serious about solutions, and are absolutely convinced that less carbon dioxide is the answer to saving the earth, why don’t they just hold their breath?

Sources:

Phys.org

GoodReads.com

Sciencedaily.com

YouTube.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Ten alarming, REAL threats to the environment that are widely ignored by “climate change” advocates

The art of climate fear mongering is rooted in the ability to terrorize the population over threats that hardly matter at all while completely ignoring the REAL threats to our global ecosystem.

Isn’t it interesting how people who shudder in fear over President Trump pulling out of the Paris climate treaty say nothing about Fukushima radiation and the mass pollution of the Pacific Ocean with radionuclides?

Here, I’ve created a short list of ten REAL threats to the environment that are largely ignored by climate change advocates, even when they pose an immediate and serious risk to life on our planet. The next time a climate change cultist berates you and claims you must stop driving you car because the oceans might rise a few inches by the year 2100, remind them that the things listed below are killing life across our planet right NOW.

Where is the media alarm over all these threats to life? It’s practically non-existent.

#1) Fukushima radiation

Mass die-offs in the Pacific Ocean are now commonplace. Toxic fuel rods have melted through the floor of the Fukushima-Daiichi containment building, and radioactive isotopes continue to spill into the Pacific. Six years after the Fukushima accident, the Japanese government still can’t even locate the fuel rods. A containment pool sits ready to be ruptured by the next earthquake or tidal wave, and we’re told the Fukushima cleanup could take 100 years or more. Yet the willfully ignorant mainstream media pretends that nothing happened at Fukushima, even absurdly claiming there was “never a meltdown.”

#2) China’s industrial pollution

Environmentalists are thrilled to attack America’s coal industry, but they give a free pass to China’s incredibly toxic industrial pollution that contaminates the entire Northern hemisphere with heavy metals and particulate pollution. Somehow, China is never called to task for its insane levels of pollution, while the United States has been forced to shut down coal-fired power plants that are orders of magnitude cleaner than China’s toxic coal plants.

#3) Biosludge

If you concentrate all the toxins from human and industrial waste, you get a nasty sludge product called “biosludge.” This product, produced by EVERY city in the United States, is dishonestly re-labeled “fertilizer” and spread on farm fields and dairy forage fields all across America. Nobody seems to be aware of this, which is why I’ve announced an upcoming film called BIOSLUDGED, which will document this insane assault on our environment. Every single environmentalist I’ve talked to about this issue was totally unaware of this practice.

#4) Geoengineering / chemtrails

No, ever contrail in the sky is not an attack on humanity, but there are proven examples of geoengineering taking place. Climate change scientists at Harvard are even openly talking about spraying particulate matter into the atmosphere to block out the sun, and weather modification programs have been run by the U.S. government since 1953. Yet we’re still told it’s all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. If it’s all harmless, why the cover-up?

#5) Mass deforestation

The clear cutting of trees is without question one of the worst drivers of droughts, reduced snowfall on mountains and climate instability, yet environmentalists rarely point to the cutting of trees as a source of climate problems. Instead, they blame carbon dioxide, the very molecule that’s needed to regrow forests and re-green the planet. The answer to climate problems, it turns out, is largely found in supporting reforestation.

#6) Heavy metals contamination of food and soils

Almost nobody from the “environmental” movement ever talks about heavy metals contamination of our soils and foods. Instead, we’re told that carbon dioxide is the problem… but somehow lead and arsenic in rice crops doesn’t matter at all. This is yet another example of how “climate change” cultists are irrationally preoccupied with delusions while ignoring reality. In the real world, there is lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury in the food supply right now! You are EATING toxic poisons, and many organic superfoods are contaminated beyond belief. It was just three years ago that my lab identified high levels of lead and mercury in the Garden of Life “RAW” rice protein products, which is why Garden of Life abandoned rice protein and switched to pea protein, by the way.

#7) Open air cultivation of genetically engineered crops

Isn’t it interesting how “climate” activists usually ignore the threat posed by GMOs which can spread genetic pollution? Somehow, all this concern about the environment almost never deals with the far more serious threat of genetic pollution from self-replicating organisms that might contaminate the world’s food crops. As much as I appreciate the anti-GMO activists, I keep asking: Where are the “environmentalists” when it comes to GMOs?

#8) Widespread pharmaceutical contamination from manufacturing runoff and consumer flushing

The mainstream media is heavily funded by the pharmaceutiucal companies, which explains why they never run investigative stories exposing the widespread environmental damage caused by Big Pharma’s toxic drugs. It’s not just the drugs you take that end up in the water supply, either: It’s also drug manufacturing operations that flush enormous quantities of toxic pharma chemicals down waterways, polluting rivers and oceans.

#9) Mercury pollution from dental fillings and vaccines

Isn’t it interesting how environmentalists are terrified of mercury in tuna fish but often say nothing at all about mercury being INJECTED into children in the form of Thimerosal, a common vaccine preservative? Similarly, you almost never hear environmentalists talking about the widespread pollution from mercury in dental fillings. Where are the marches against the American Dental Association for refusing to acknowledge the toxicity of mercury in “silver” fillings (which are 50% mercury, by the way, but dentists call them “amalgam” to hide the truth about their composition).

#10) Pesticides and herbicides in the food supply

On this point, you actually do hear environmentalists speaking out, but the media remains almost universally silent about this mass poisoning of the food supply. Somehow, we’re all supposed to be terrified of “climate change” while obediently eating pesticide poisons in our food, oblivious to the reality that we’re killing ourselves right now… never mind a hundred years down the road.

Conclusion: Mainstream “environmentalism” is driven entirely by politics, not scientific evidence of harm

When you realize how mainstream “environmentalism” is all about certain, selected issues largely rooted in delusional thinking while ignoring the REAL threats to our lives, our soils and our planetary ecosystems, it becomes abundantly obvious that mainstream “environmentalism” is a fraud.

Its advocates are bureaucrats, politicians, academic propagandists and “fake news” media mouthpieces. The label of “environmentalism” is used to oppress and control humans rather than solve genuine problems we face across our planet. Instead of acknowledging the threats of pesticides in our food, mercury in modern dentistry and toxic biosludge used as fertilizers on farms, we’re told that only “climate change” deserves our attention, even when its claims are utterly bogus and lacking all credible science in the first place.

If you want to be a real environmentalist, it turns out, you have to reject all mainstream propaganda and work to halt the real sources of pollution and environmental degradation, from mercury dental fillings to GMOs. Only then do you qualify as a true “conservationist” who cares about the planet. Everything else is just virtual signalling and hot air blabbery from ignorant conformists who want their friends to think they’re all about “green” when they’re really just obedient sheeple who repeat propaganda from “official sources.”