September 13, 2012

Corporate Organic vs. Food Freedom

Filed under: Corporatism, Food and Farms, Reformism Can't Work — Tags: , , — Russ @ 10:23 am


The corporate purveyors of many of the biggest credential-organic brands are among the biggest contributors to the attempt to use money to destroy democracy in California, the Right to Know ballot initiative.
Once again we see how corporations in themselves are humanity’s existential crisis, while reformism like the organic credential within corporatism is no solution at all.
The only solution is the complete eradication of corporatism and corporations as such.



  1. i agree but before we do this we need to discuss collateral damage and mitigate the risks

    Dave Outlaw

    Comment by W David Outlaw — September 13, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

    • There’s no downside.

      Comment by Russ — September 13, 2012 @ 2:10 pm

      • Like the punchy post and concise comment. All around good stuff in a compact package.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — September 13, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

      • Thanks Tao. I’ll probably do more of that.

        Comment by Russ — September 14, 2012 @ 6:28 am

  2. Although I already knew corporate organic is not to be trusted, this really burns me up. I know several people on extremely limited incomes who are spending that money on organic food because they believe it’s better.
    How can we reveal to them what’s really going on and provide them with a realistic alternative? Obviously, the best choice is to go right to the source, but in some places that’s literally impossible.

    Comment by DualPersonality — September 13, 2012 @ 10:42 pm

    • That’s part of why the organic credential is insufficient in itself, and indeed has little meaning in itself. What’s truly organic is of an organic size, distribution, etc. By definition the organic was never part of food commodification, never part of corporatism, never part of globalization. It needs little relocalization because it remained local/regional.

      So the first and second criteria (given that one is a buyer) are procuring locally and seasonally, since those are necessary for something to be organic. Only then is it very meaningful to look for the organic credential.

      Although the debate over “local” vs. “organic” is a totally bogus one (trumped up mostly by corporate liberals to sow confusion) for the reason I just gave (natural geography is an integral part of what’s organic), if it ever is necessary for advocacy to emphasize one term over another, then “buy local” comes first, since nothing else in the organic philosophy and food freedom can work without that.

      Edit: I forgot to add that this procedure automatically rules out most of the corporate “organic” brands in question here.

      Comment by Russ — September 14, 2012 @ 6:26 am

  3. Maybe you feel like giving a lecture to my 24 year old son, future digestive surgeon ?
    My husband and I both agree that it is rather… paradoxical for Junior to be going into medecine AND buying THE CHEAPEST corporate/industrial supermarket food available, but, heh, when were even intelligent human beings.. rational ?
    In France, many ? most ? of the younger generation consider that the PRICE is the UNIQUE criteria for buying… anything.
    In other words… they will fork out only for the cheapest that they can find, without even bothering to think that by doing so, they are impoverishing future clients, and thus ensuring their own commercial demise.
    What to do to convince people that they need to spend MORE on food, for not just health reasons, but for social ones too ?

    Comment by Debra — September 14, 2012 @ 9:14 am

    • Rather than spending more, we need to self-provide more, on a family and community basis, and do so as part of breaking free of the chains of money. (Contrary to system lies, money doesn’t free us through its alleged versatility, but on the contrary binds us by shackling all things to its own procrustean imperative. Traditional, cooperative community exchange is by far the most versatile and fruitful mode of exchange.)

      But yes, given that to some extent we will need to use money for the foreseeable future, people will need to learn that the alleged cheapness of industrial food is really the result of fraudulent accounting. The consumer pays the real price in taxes (for corporate welfare), health costs, fuel, lost jobs, etc. while we all pay in environmental and socioeconomic destruction.

      Meanwhile, organic farmers not only don’t get the benefit of subsidies, but aren’t paid for all the environmental and social benefits of their mode of production. So even at the “higher” price, organic food is still a bargain, while corporate food costs far more than we can afford, no matter how low the sticker price.

      But the cheap food welfare train is just about done. Food stagflation is here to stay, and industrial food prices will, more or less quickly, rise toward their true level.

      If you mean the link in the post, it just worked for me.

      Comment by Russ — September 14, 2012 @ 9:34 am

      • I have recently had a thought about our attitudes about money.
        Up until about ten years ago, it was not politically correct in France to talk publicly about how much money one made, etc.
        Talking about money was frowned upon as immoral, courtesy of persisting Catholic attitudes about money (the source of all evil = guilt…).
        Now, I can walk down the street and hear euros and cents come out of everybody’s mouth.
        Is this progress ??
        I think that the more we TALK/write ? about money, maybe… the more we are implicitly acknowledging the power it has over our minds/lives.
        Talking/writing about it incessantly continues to give it enormous publicity.
        Maybe… the Catholic Church, and the guilt that it instilled in people about filthy lucre had some beneficial effects that we did not realize ?
        Woody (Allen…) might agree with me.
        I can tell from his latest movie (To Rome with love) that he would kill to get a continental passport, just to get out of the (American empire) marasma of all that… transparency and mercantilism.
        My newest publicity phrase ?
        “It’s only money”…

        Comment by Debra — September 14, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

  4. Couldn’t access the link.
    But… democracy’s greatest strength ? weakness ? lies in sticking a price tag on everything, so that anybody can access it…

    Comment by Debra — September 14, 2012 @ 9:16 am

  5. Hopefully this film by Jeffery Smith gets some exposure. I worry though that they see the GMO battle as the end of the struggle. Just like the banksters, these people need to be treated as criminals.


    -“Exposing the Dark Side
    This 85 minute documentary reveals, what author John Robbins calls, “the bullying and deceit of the biotech industry,”— including manipulation of research, attacks on independent scientists and their findings, and infiltration and control of government regulators.
    The film also reveals for the first time to horrific impact among workers on a South Africa farm, who were consuming a higher amount of GMO corn than probably any other group in the world.

    Upbeat, Empowering and World Changing
    Although this film’s eye-opening evidence in the film is sometimes shocking, it is by no means a downer. According to Robbins, it “shines a bright light of hope that we can reclaim our health and our food systems.” Smith explains that as little as 5% of the US population switching to non-GMO foods should deliver a tipping point, inspiring food companies to kick out GM ingredients. It was such a consumer rejection that already kicked GMOs out of Europe.”

    Comment by Pete — September 15, 2012 @ 7:54 am

    • The battle is not over in Europe. Not in France, at least… Consumers in large numbers have rejected GMO’s in Europe. It does not stop Montsanto ? the U.S. government ? from constantly seizing the international trade organisations in order to try to force the European market open…
      The GMO battle is part of U.S. colonization, and thus has political (and not just economic) motivations.
      And the GMO phenomenon is the tip of the iceberg, because it is itself based on Enlightenment attitudes about dominating and exploiting nature.
      These attitudes are present in all areas of modern society, not just in our attitudes towards food.
      It may be tempting to think that corporations are supranational, but the men and women who run them are definitely not supranational.
      They have their political loyalties….
      Are scientists independant ? I don’t believe in neutrality. I wonder how Oppenheim dealt with HIS conscience after WW2…

      Comment by Debra — September 15, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

    • Thanks Pete, I bookmarked that and will review it after I watch it.

      As for the loyalty and ideology of system technicians/scienticians, here’s a piece on that.


      Comment by Russ — September 15, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

      • What is “corporist ideology” ?
        That expression sounds… a little vague from my viewpoint. Somewhat unified too, while we’re at it.
        Funnily enough, two years ago, I attended a seminar of scientists trying to promote (and vulgarize) their vision of science for laymen citizens (good intentions, good intentions…).
        When I tried to tell them that one of the principle foundations of the scientific method was analytic thought, and that analytic thought was not reserved for the hard sciences, but could also find an application in analysis of literature, for example… I was patted on the head, and dismissed as an idiot.
        But these people believe in what they’re doing, and they definitely believe… they’re RIGHT…and their intentions are very very good…

        Comment by Debra — September 16, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

      • The basic definition of corporatism is a planned economy which maintains nominally private rent-extracting rackets. In modern times, the preferred form of these rackets is the corporate form. It’s the only way to organize capitalism alongside representative pseudo-democracy. Without the corporate form, capitalism would be unable to organize, monopolize, and digest the energy potentialities of fossil fuels. Things would be too turbulent, risk and competition too great. The corporate form separates gamblers from any downside of their gambling (all risk is foisted onto the 99%). Capitalism’s political task would also be far more difficult if it couldn’t disguise its gangland nature behind the corporate form, and if it couldn’t use this form to help legitimize the double standards of the “rule of law”. (That is, the fact that “law” applies only to the 99%. It would be harder to openly place individual gangsters above the law than it is to use the legality of corporatism to legally separate criminals from their crimes.)

        1. Governments should create corporations. (Corporations are in fact extensions of government. They’re meant to reorganize central government power, removing it from even the theoretical jurisdiction of “representative government”. It’s a kind of organizational shell game, transferring an asset from one entity to another. Meanwhile any liabilities remain with the original entity.)

        2. Corporations should be enshrined as entities that have infinite rights and zero responsibilities. They should have their profits guaranteed by the government, while all their risks are assumed by the government (i.e. the taxpayers, society) and the environment.

        3. The main purpose of government is to provide corporate welfare and thug services for corporations.

        4. Government should seek to liquidate all aspects of itself which are not directly toward #2 and 3.

        5. Government (including in the form of globalization cadres like the WTO and IMF) should always get bigger and more aggressive, but only in ways that are directly toward #2 and 3.

        6. The purpose of humanity and the earth are to serve as resource mines and waste dumps for corporations. Society, civilization, etc., are to be maintained only insofar as they help organize and pacify these slaves and victims. Otherwise these are to be liquidated.


        Comment by Russ — September 16, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: