Good for Some, Bad for All - Part II - Our Food

Campaign finance reform can be a real yawner of a subject, I admit – but I am going to try and make it more real over the course of this campaign before I am elected.  My last “Good for Some, Bad for All” post was about how the financial services industry has an unfair tax loophole because they have successfully bought the silence of many politicians. Just today even, the New York Times exposed how blatant the House Financial Services Committee is corrupted by Wall Street.

 

The food industry does the same. It is corrupt to have our politicians respond to the needs of big business over the needs and safety of the American people.

 

On the eve of a global protest against GMO crops, I thought this post would be appropriate.

 

A recent study in Entropy by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff (independent scientists) argue that Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide used in GMO crops, interferes with cellular systems in the body (after the plant absorbs them and then we eat such plants) and the consequences are conditions associated with the Western diet, namely, gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s.  

 

Recently in California, Proposition 37, a bill to require GMO labeling of our foods, was voted down because big food and big agro companies spent $45 million to influence the elections.

 

And it is happening in our Congress now (at least Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is calling it out).

 

Many countries in the world have outright banned GMO crops altogether, I think what most Americans want now is simple labeling as it seems to be a fundamental right to know what is in the food we eat. But too many of our politicians are bought. And our leaders in Congress do not seem to care – their silence has been bought. It is corrupt.  Are we going to take it or are we going to fight?

 

Think about it another way: would your member of Congress speak about the harmful effects of sugar (excess sugar linked to cancer) if one of his or her largest backers is a sugar manufacturer?

 

And if you do not want to take my word for it, see, for example, what some these companies have spent to influence our lawmakers:

 

Company

2012  Contributions to support Political Campaigns

2012 and 2011 Spent on Lobbyists

Monsanto

$1,034,064

$5,970,000 (2012)

$6,370,000

DuPont

$363,681

$4,877,684 (2012)

$4,829,632 (2011)

Nestle

$173,414

$3,891,645 (2012)

$3,880,400 (2011)

McDonald’s

$1,315,151

$2,120,000 (2012)

$1,550,000 (2011)

American Crystal Sugar

$2,142,100

$1,315,602 (2012)

$1,050,357 (2011)

Coca-Cola

$2,067,281

$5,180,020 (2012)

$5,890,000 (2011)

 

*Source: Center for Responsive Politics

 

If you want to help me stand up against big corporate interests controlling the agenda at our expense, then please help me by contributing $1 or more here to our campaign. The collective interests of many can be much more powerful than the corrupting influence of a few.  

 

I know that most people do not have money to spare in New York’s District 7, we have one of the lowest median household incomes in the country, but if we band together in New York’s District 7 to elect me, I will be able to find other responsible lawmakers in Washington and help label GMO foods. If you live in Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn or Queens (see NY District 7 map here), I am talking to you and would appreciate your feedback as well.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

Jeff Kurzon

 

Candidate for US Congress

New York’s 7th Congressional District

(Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens)

Do you like this post?