News & Articles

In 1972, I was part of a nationwide campaign that came close to getting the US Senate to reject Earl Butz, Richard Nixon’s choice for secretary of agriculture. A coalition of grassroots farmers, consumers, and public interest organizations teamed up with progressive senators to undertake the almost impossible challenge of defeating the cabinet nominee.
The 51 to 44 Senate vote was so close, because we were able to expose Butz as... well, as butt-ugly. We brought the abusive power of corporate agribusiness into the public consciousness for the first time. We had won a moral victory, but it turned out to be a curse and a blessing.
First, the curse. Butz had risen to prominence in the world of agriculture by devoting himself to the corporate takeover of the global food economy. He openly promoted the preeminence of middleman food manufacturers over family farmers.
“Agriculture is no longer a way of life,” he barked, “it’s a business.” He instructed farmers to “Get big or get out” – and proceeded to shove tens of thousands of them out by promoting an export-based, corporate-run food economy. “Adapt,” he warned, “or die.” The ruination of farms and rural communities, Butz added, “releases people to do something useful in our society.”
The curse of Butz, however, spun off a blessing. Small farmers and food artisans practically threw up at the resulting Twinkieization of America’s food. They were sickened that nature’s own contribution to human culture was being turned into another plasticized product of corporate profiteers. They threw themselves into creating and sustaining a viable alternative. Linking locally with consumers, environmentalists, community activists, marketers, and others, the Good Food rebellion has since sprouted, spread, and blossomed from coast to coast. To find farmers markets and other expressions of this movement right where you live, go to www.LocalHarvest.org.

Coca-Cola’s fat-headed front groups

Irony is dead. It has been garroted by reality.
For proof, check out the Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness. Sounds like a spa in Arizona where you might enjoy a cleansing regimen of aloe vera smoothies, doesn’t it? But, no, it’s a hokey “science” front owned and run by Coca-Cola. The world’s largest beverage purveyor wants you to be assured that none of its sugary, empty-calorie, or artificially-sweetened concoctions are a cause of obesity. Hey, shouts Coke’s instituters, three or more colas a day are simply part of an integrated, healthy diet – for children and adults alike! “There is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity,” snapped a top Coke executive, adding that, “we don’t believe in empty calories.”
Oh, well, then – okay. But, in the off chance that you might want a more independent scientific source, try the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, billed as the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. But wait – while the AND is not owned by Coke, it does lease out its integrity to the cola giant. Coca-Cola is listed on the academy’s website as a generous sponsor and “partner” in its scientific work. In fact, the academy certifies Coke’s Beverage Institute as an official provider of “continuing education” for registered dieticians. How neat – a corporation that profiteers by peddling nutritionally-worthless and health-endangering products finances the academic outfit that’s most responsible for educating Americans about healthy foods, and that academy, in turn, embraces the corporate fiction that sugary drinks pose no health problems.
That’s not irony, it’s shameful corruption. The greatest obesity crisis in America is not the cola itself, but the fatheaded ethics of single-minded corporate profit-seekers and their apologists.

“Coca-Cola’s Assault on Tap Water,” www.huffingtonpost.com, November 15, 2013
“And Now a Word from Our Sponsors: New Report from Eat Drink Politics,” www.eatdrinkpolitics.com, January 23, 2013.
“Coke executive answers questions about sugary drinks,” www.usatoday.com, June 7, 2012
“Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness by the Coca-Cola Company,” www.beverageinstitute.org, 2013.
“Coke Solutions,” www.huffingtonpost.com, Undated.
“Eat Right Current Corporate Sponsors,” www.eatright.org, November 2013.

Lawmakers who force the poor to take drug tests should be drug-tested

Tenacity can be an admirable trait in a leader – except when it’s stupid.
Stupid tenacity has afflicted several right-wing governors and legislators who grabbed hold of a bad idea that, in practice, has proven to be even worse than expected – yet they’ve clung to it like Captain Ahab on Moby Dick. The bad idea was to whup-up on the poor and jobless by making them submit to drug tests in order to get the benefit payments that can help hard-hit folks recover. Never mind that there was no evidence that such people are more likely than, say, a state legislator to be on drugs, punishing those who’re down on their luck is considered smart politics in right-wing circles. So, six states have imposed drug tests on people who seek unemployment benefits, and nine now require testing of welfare applicants.
What could go wrong, asked GOP officials as they rammed these vindictive insults into law? Three things, actually: First, as predicted, very few drug users are being found; second, administering this government intrusion is (hello) very expensive for taxpayers; and, third, courts have been ruling these sweeping government searches unconstitutional.
Yet, pandering at all costs to the tea party fringe that dominates Republican elections, state lawmakers won’t let go of this demonstrably-bad idea of trying to humiliate people in need of a helping hand. Now, the fad is to pass “suspicion-based” laws that require applicants to fill out state questionnaires, then force those who seem to be a little “suspicious” to submit urine samples to the state. Texas and Mississippi, for example, are targeting those whose occupation might warrant drug testing.
Based on their dogged adherence to this stupid idea, I suggest that the occupation of “lawmaker” ought to top the list of those required by the state to pee in a cup.

“Drug testing of welfare recipients falters,” Austin American Statesman,” October 27, 2013.