On a beautiful morning in St. Louis, MO, thousands of race participants gathered at the starting line of the Susan G. Koman Foundation’s Race for the Cure® 5k Run.
Buried among the many tents and booths offering health literature and pink merchandise, we found an interesting sponsor: Monsanto Company Inc. Yes, the world’s biggest bio-tech terrorist and their “Fun Squad” is a sponsor of the breast cancer fundraising run.
For 30 years now, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has held a prestigious place in the forefront of the “cancer research community”, as well as essentially owning the pink ribbon concept. Their stated mission is a world without breast cancer, and in particular, the “Susan G. Komen St. Louis Race for the Cure® raises funds for the local fight against breast cancer, celebrates breast cancer survivorship, and honors those who have lost their battle with the disease.”
On a national level, the Susan G. Komen Foundation raked in $342,373,526 in fiscal year 2012, and according to Charity Navigator.com, paid the current CEO, Nancy Brinker, a whopping $684,717 in salary – which doesn’t even count her bonuses. When it comes to their financial performance, Komen’s fundraising efficiency was listed at a paltry $0.12, meaning that for every dollar they raised, only twelve cents was applied to cancer research.
Komen enlists businesses to display the pink ribbon or color a product pink and label it “(item) for the cure” or “(item) of hope.” This has come to be known as “pink washing”. It involves businesses donating small portions of their sales revenue to Komen. Often, the businesses sell products that suppress the immune system or contain carcinogenic ingredients. – Natural News
Not long ago, Kentucky Fried Chicken offered a gigantic bucket of greasy, fried chicken “for the cure.” The bucket o’chicken arrived clad in pink ribbons and draped in the Susan G. Komen logo, offering a fifty cent donation for every bucket sold. Some restaurant locations went so far as to paint their building pink, as well as change the parking lot lines from yellow to pink!
Aside from KFC’s Bucket for the Cure®, many other businesses offer toxic products under the auspices of the all-mighty Pink Ribbon: everything from cosmetics and clothing, to shoes, sports gear, chocolate candy, toilet paper, alcohol, and microwaved meals; there are even pink “Guns of Hope” marketed towards women.
But the toxicity doesn’t stop there. A number of national sponsors of Susan G. Komen are top offenders, as well. One of Komen’s largest sponsors, Yoplait, has been in hot water over their use of rBGH in their yogurts.
rBGH, or Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (also referred to as rBST), is a synthetic hormone used to increase milk production in cows. It has been banned in 27 countries around the world and has quite a few health implications according to Breast Cancer Action:
* Increased cancer risk: rBGH increases milk production through the stimulation of another hormone, called insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a naturally occurring potent growth hormone and cell-death inhibitor that has been implicated in breast, colon, prostate, lung, and other cancers, as well as abnormal cell growth. IGF-1 is chemically identical in humans and cows. This means that when we drink milk from rBGH cows, we are adding the IGF-1 from that milk to our own IGF-1 levels.
Breast Cancer Action went on to declare that the use of rBGH is beyond belief;
“…to use a product that contains an ingredient linked to cancer to raise money for the cure to cancer is unacceptable, callous corporate profiteering at its worst.”
Peer-reviewed research has identified rBGH as a risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancer.
Only under intense consumer outrage has Yoplait recently discontinued their use of rBGH. Breast Cancer Action, operating under their “Think Before You Pink” campaign, helped turn the tide against rBGH and Yoplait’s parent company, General Mills.
Two weeks after General Mills announced they were going rBGH-free, Dannon responded to public pressure and made the same promise to consumers. These two companies represent two-thirds of America’s dairy products. – Think Before You Pink, “Put a Lid On It”
Monsanto Company Inc.
Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, and is the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE, or genetically modified, GM) seed, as well as the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Round-Up brand. Other notable achievements by Monsanto have been the development of DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), as well as their very first product, the artificial sweetener saccharin, which was sold to the Coca-Cola Company.
Monsanto was the first to create the recombinant version of the cow hormone from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, releasing the result to dairy farmers under the brand name of “Posilac.” In late 2008, just as the rBGH debate was heating up among consumers, Monsanto sold the Posilac rights to a division of Eli Lilly and Company for $300 million dollars, and is still used in 1/3 of all dairy cows in America.
The Revolving Door Between Monsanto and the FDA
One would imagine that the FDA would step in and declare such products as unsafe for human consumption, but we find the FDA’s stance to be quite the contrary.
In fact, a former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, Margaret Miller, was in charge of preparing the initial report on rBGH following its approval at Monsanto in 1993. She was then appointed as the Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine, for the Food and Drug Administration, and was placed in charge of reviewing her own report.
And then there is Michael Taylor, a former legal advisor to the FDA. He later became a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm, King and Spaulding, who represented Monsanto as they sought approval for rBGH from the FDA.
According to Jeffrey M. Smith, in his book Seeds of Deception, “In 1991, the FDA created a new position for him [Michael Taylor]: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation, overseeing the development of government policy. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA’s internal files, ‘During Mr. Taylor’s tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists (1)), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that [GM] foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary.”
After his stint at the FDA, Taylor went back to work as Monsanto’s Vice President for Public Policy.
In disappointing news, however, Taylor was again appointed to the FDA as President Obama’s new Food Safety Czar (Deputy Commissioner for Foods). His duties include, “Assess current food program challenges and opportunities”, “Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities” and “Plan implementation of new food safety legislation”. – Source Watch
The Rise of Genetically Engineered Food and Reproductive Problems
A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic, hence they are also known as transgenic organisms. This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.
The adulteration and modification of some of the planet’s most widely used crops has changed our food landscape. Chemicals, preservatives, genetic modification, and low-cost substitutions and fillers have wrecked meals that were once healthy for us. Stepping inside of a grocery store nowadays, we find ourselves in a dangerous and toxic new world. The introduction of genetically engineered organisms into the food supply in the 1990′s, coupled with rampant use of carcinogens such as aspartame, saccharin, and substitutions like high fructose corn syrup, set the perfect stage to form a deadly concoction known as processed food. Sadly, this is what encompasses the average American diet.
Genetically modified foods are now found in approximately 80% of all food in a typical grocery store.
In Germany and throughout the European Union, food products that contain GMOs must be properly labeled as such. As a result, there are few GM products on store shelves because, when made aware of their presence, consumers almost unanimously reject them.
What many people fail to realize, both in Europe and in the US, is that conventional livestock is often fed GM soy and corn, which ultimately ends up on store shelves in the form of conventional meat, milk, and eggs.
New studies are being published monthly regarding the toxicity of GM corn and soy; most notably, Monsanto’s genetically modified corn causing cancer and organ damage in lab rats, as well as that very same Monsanto corn wreaking havoc in pigs, who have very similar organs and stomachs to humans.
Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal, reports a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage. – Natural News
Furthermore, the development of genetically modified foods often comes from seed and chemical companies, such as Monsanto, the developer of Roundup Weed Killer. Monsanto inserts most GMOs with a bacterial gene which allows the plant to survive a normally deadly dose of Roundup herbicide. Although the spray doesn’t kill the plant, its active ingredient, called glyphosate, accumulates in the plant, and is then consumed by rats, livestock, and humans.
There is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, that when they were introduced in Europe, countries had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200 fold.
In the Journal of Toxicology in Vitro, researchers found that Monsanto’s popular “weed killer” known as Roundup, is capable of interfering with and/or harming the male reproductive system.
Researchers tested Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, on mature rat testicular cells at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 ppm, which they described as “the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels.” They found that within 1 to 48 hours of Roundup exposure testicular (Leydig) cells were damaged or killed. (Dec., 2011)
Glyphosate is considered to be within safe, acceptable levels up to 10,000 ppm. What is more disturbing is that even at a lower, presumably “non toxic” and almost non existent concentration of 1 ppm of Roundup herbicide, testosterone concentrations were observed to decrease by 35%. – - Organic Consumers.org
Monsanto’s Artificial Sweetener Saccharin
As previously mentioned, one of Susan G. Komen’s largest sponsors is Yoplait yogurt, and while they dodged a public relations bullet when they decided to abandon rBGH, they are still receiving plenty of backlash about their use of artificial sweeteners.
Studies show that saccharin can cause bladder cancer, not to mention vascular and lung cancer. It also increased the risk of uterine cancer in female mice. Additionally, rats exposed to saccharin while in the womb were even more likely to develop cancer than those exposed immediately after birth.
Researchers in that study concluded, “Saccharin is carcinogenic for the urinary bladder in rats and mice, and most likely is carcinogenic in human beings.” And the cancer risk isn’t the only issue with artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, aspartame, and Sucralose. A 2008 study from Appetite found “a significant increase of plasma insulin concentration was apparent after stimulation with saccharin.”
Test participants merely rinsed their mouth with the sweetener! As many of us know, increased insulin levels are a major risk factor in diabetes and obesity; two epidemics that are sweeping our nation.
Susan G. Komen and Monsanto, Hand in Hand
The Susan G. Komen’s Race for the Cure® is supposed to be about empowering cancer fighters and survivors, and ridding the world of cancer. It serves as an image of good health, exercise, and total body healing, and yet what has it done to educate its followers on the dangers of diet sodas, laden with artificial sweeteners and genetically modified high fructose corn syrup? Why is it slapping its name on a bucket of fried chicken, made with inhumanely raised birds fried in genetically engineered oil? If the point is to reverse the cancer trend, why take steps to increase it?
Why would a supposed health-oriented, cancer research foundation allow corporations such as Monsanto to publicly sponsor events like Race for the Cure®?
Perhaps the Susan G. Komen Foundation isn’t truly concerned with a Cure, but instead, in fighting cancer symptoms. If cancer were to be eradicated, there are more than a handful of people who stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars. But if it were to continue, the treating of cancer symptoms and related diseases is likely more profitable than the oil and natural gas industries combined.
The cancer industry’s “slash and burn” policy of invasive surgeries and chemotherapy leave patients incredibly ill and even disabled, for months, or even years. The recent news of Angelina Jolie volunteering to undergo a prophylactic bilateral mastectomy was hailed by the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which serves as an example of profits having an eerily similar connection to suggested cancer treatments. Mastectomies can range from $40,000 to $300,000, and chemotherapy can range from $5,000 to $50,000 and above.
Our Big Pharma culture deems it acceptable to bombard the human body with powerful radiation and drugs, killing many cells indiscriminately, in wild hopes that the patient can survive this onslaught. The medical community at large considers a patient a “survivor” if they can live just five (5) additional years after this expensive “treatment.”
Monsanto Fun Squad
Here we find some of Monsanto’s happy “Fun Squad” members distributing pocket-sized Band-Aid containers, and strangely enough, in the shape of a pharmaceutical pill, while also hearkening an eerie resemblance to its dangerous GMO corn.
When most people think of Band-Aids, we conjure up the image of fixing wounds, of healing, and first-aid. Many of us also adhere to a similar notion regarding the pills that our doctors give us; we want to believe that they are our saving grace and will help fight our diseases.
A corn-colored, pill-shaped Band-Aid holder, emblazoned with Monsanto’s name is a devious attempt by their public relations team to reach out and plant softer images in people’s head, gently steering their thoughts to begin equating Monsanto with healing while simultaneously protecting their future reputation among a very diverse crowd of race participants.
Many corporations employ these soft public relations tactics. If Monsanto were to be splashed across the evening news for a damning report on the toxicity of their genetically modified foods, these publicity functions help cushion the backlash and generally garners support from those who are reminded of all of the wonderful pink ribbons floating around, of the cancer research funding that they participated in, and adamantly reject the notion that a proud Susan G. Komen sponsor could do any harm.
I mean, they’re curing cancer, right?
…I’ll take one bucket o’chicken and a mega-Diet Coke, please.
About the author:
Kevin Hayden is a former New Orleans police officer-turned-truth seeker. He endured Hurricane Katrina’s chaos and societal collapse in the days following and after 5 years in New Orleans, moved to Oklahoma. Kevin currently runs www.TruthisTreason.net and promotes education regarding our monetary, food, and foreign policies while building an off-grid shipping container homestead. He is a former investigator for Big Oil, has appeared on numerous radio shows, and enjoys helping people become better prepared for disasters.
He can be contacted directly at Contact@TruthisTreason.net
Sources for this article include:
Saccharin still poses cancer risk, scientists tell federal agency. CSPI press release. 1997 Oct. 28
Reuber, MD. Carcinogenicity of saccharin. Environ Health Perspect. 1978 Aug. 25, 173-200.
Permission is given to duplicate or copy this article as long as all source credit stays intact and link back to www.TruthisTreason.net
Tiny URL for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kax73ea