The modern food system is heavily influenced by the pursuit of profit, leading to issues such as land loss, food insecurity, illness, and environmental degradation. Large investment firms and agribusinesses profit from this system, while lobbying ensures their dominance in policy-making.

The Expose News - com

Rhoda Wilson

<p>The claim that the modern food system is heavily influenced by the pursuit of profit, leading to issues such as land loss, food insecurity, illness, and environmental degradation, is a complex one that requires a thorough examination.</p>
<p>The modern food system is indeed shaped by capitalist imperatives, as highlighted in the book 'Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth' by Colin Todhunter. Large investment firms and agribusinesses do profit from this system, and their influence on policy-making through lobbying is well-documented.</p>
<p>For instance, a study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793246/">Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry</a> discusses the impact of agrochemicals on human health and the environment. The study notes that the extensive use of pesticides and herbicides can lead to various health issues, including cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive problems.</p>
<p>Moreover, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919218300013">Journal of Environmental Management</a> has published research indicating that the current food system contributes to environmental degradation through practices such as monocropping and the use of synthetic fertilizers. These practices can lead to soil depletion, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.</p>
<p>The claim also mentions the impact on food security and land loss. A report by the <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/I9553EN.pdf">Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)</a> of the United Nations highlights that smallholder farmers, who are crucial for global food security, often face challenges such as land grabbing and lack of access to resources. This can indeed lead to food insecurity and displacement.</p>
<p>However, it is important to note that the food system is not monolithic, and there are efforts to promote sustainable and equitable practices. For example, the <a href="https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/">United Nations Sustainable Development Goals</a> include targets to end hunger, achieve food security, and promote sustainable agriculture.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while the claim that the modern food system is driven by profit and leads to various negative consequences is largely accurate, it is essential to recognize the nuances and the ongoing efforts to address these issues. The claim is supported by scientific studies and reports from reputable organizations, but it also requires a balanced perspective that acknowledges the complexity of the global food system.</p>

Claim Review: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that the Rockefeller Foundation is responsible for the destruction of global agriculture and is now pushing for a radical change in the food system under the guise of sustainability has been circulating in various media outlets. This claim review will examine the evidence and provide a thorough analysis of the situation.</p>
<h2>The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation in Agriculture</h2>
<p>The Rockefeller Foundation has indeed played a significant role in shaping modern agriculture. In the 1950s, the foundation funded the development of vertical integration, leading to the creation of agribusiness. This model prioritized corporate interests over those of farmers, contributing to the decline of family farms.</p>
<p>The foundation also supported the Green Revolution in Mexico and India in the 1960s, which introduced high-yielding varieties of seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides. While this increased agricultural productivity, it also led to environmental degradation and the displacement of traditional farming practices.</p>
<h2>The Push for Sustainability</h2>
<p>The Rockefeller Foundation's recent report, 'True Cost of Food: Measuring What Matters to Transform the US Food System', advocates for a radical change in the food system to make it more sustainable. The report argues that the current system has hidden costs, such as environmental degradation and health impacts, that need to be addressed.</p>
<p>However, the report has been criticized for its vague language and the lack of farmer representation in its creation. Some have interpreted this as an attempt to blame farmers for the problems in the food system, rather than the corporate interests that have driven its development.</p>
<h2>The Role of Other Actors</h2>
<p>It is important to note that the Rockefeller Foundation is not the only actor involved in the push for sustainability in agriculture. The World Economic Forum, the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and the United Nations have all been involved in initiatives aimed at transforming the food system.</p>
<p>For example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a project funded by the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, has been criticized for promoting GMO seeds and pesticides at the expense of traditional farming practices. However, the failure of AGRA cannot be attributed solely to the Rockefeller Foundation.</p>
<h2>The Complexity of the Food System</h2>
<p>The food system is complex and influenced by a multitude of factors, including economic policies, trade agreements, and consumer demand. Blaming a single actor, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, for its problems is an oversimplification.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the push for sustainability is not inherently malicious. While there are valid concerns about the implementation of certain policies, the goal of creating a more sustainable and equitable food system is a worthy one.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the Rockefeller Foundation is responsible for the destruction of global agriculture and is now pushing for a radical change in the food system under the guise of sustainability is exaggerated and misleading. While the foundation has played a significant role in shaping modern agriculture, the blame for its negative impacts is shared among multiple actors. The push for sustainability, while potentially problematic in its implementation, is not inherently malicious.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5795250/">The Green Revolution and its impact on agriculture, food production and security</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921830154X">The role of the Rockefeller Foundation in the Green Revolution</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/the-great-reset-food-systems-summit/">The Great Reset and the Food Systems Summit</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/30/bill-gates-agra-africa-green-revolution">Bill Gates and the push for a new Green Revolution in Africa</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: The Rockefeller Foundation and the Destruction of Global Agriculture

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article published by The Exposé titled 'Shocking Government Reports: Are the C-19 Vaccinated at Risk of Developing AIDS?' claims that COVID-19 vaccines are causing a progressive decline in the immune system of vaccinated individuals, potentially leading to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). This claim is based on data from the UK Public Health England (PHE) Vaccine Surveillance Report. However, a thorough examination of the data and consultation with reliable scientific sources reveal that the claim is misleading and unfounded.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The article claims that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people, with a progressive decline of 5% per week. The author suggests that this trend will lead to full immune system degradation within 6 months, effectively causing vaccinated individuals to develop AIDS.</p>
<h2>The Evidence</h2>
<p>The article presents data from the UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report, showing an increase in COVID-19 cases among vaccinated individuals over time. However, the author misinterprets this data as evidence of immune system degradation. Several factors must be considered when analyzing this data:</p>
<ul>
  <li>Vaccine effectiveness: COVID-19 vaccines are designed to prevent severe illness and death, not necessarily infection. Breakthrough infections are expected, especially with the emergence of new variants.</li>
  <li>Waning immunity: Immunity derived from vaccines may wane over time, but this does not indicate immune system degradation. Booster shots are recommended to maintain a high level of protection.</li>
  <li>Population differences: The vaccinated and unvaccinated populations may have inherent differences that affect their susceptibility to infection, such as age, underlying health conditions, and health-seeking behaviors.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Scientific Consensus</h2>
<p>The claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause immune system degradation is not supported by the scientific community. Numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. For instance, a study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine found that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death (<a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00246-8/fulltext">source</a> ).</p>
<p>Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that COVID-19 vaccines do not cause immune system degradation or increase the risk of developing AIDS (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/myths-facts.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html">source</a> ).</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are at risk of developing AIDS due to immune system degradation is not supported by scientific evidence. The data presented in the article is misinterpreted and lacks context. It is essential to rely on credible scientific sources and consult healthcare professionals for accurate information regarding COVID-19 vaccines.</p>

Claim Review: Are C-19 Vaccinated Individuals at Risk of Developing AIDS?

<p>The claim that Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand are being changed to replace real food with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation has been circulating recently. This claim suggests that gene-edited foods will be deregulated, allowing the food industry to self-regulate and avoid labelling requirements. Let's break down this claim and examine its validity.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim revolves around proposed changes to the Food Standards Code by FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand). These changes aim to deregulate gene-edited foods, which are created using techniques like CRISPR. The concern is that this deregulation would allow the food industry to avoid labelling and regulation, potentially misleading consumers.</p>
<h2>What is Gene Editing?</h2>
<p>Gene editing involves altering the DNA of an organism using techniques like CRISPR. This technology has the potential to create foods with desirable traits, such as improved nutritional content or resistance to diseases. However, the long-term effects of consuming gene-edited foods are not yet fully understood.</p>
<h2>Regulatory Changes and Concerns</h2>
<p>The proposed changes by FSANZ would exempt gene-edited foods from certain regulations, potentially allowing them to enter the market without thorough safety assessments or labelling. This has raised concerns among consumers and advocacy groups, who argue that consumers have the right to know what they are eating.</p>
<h2>Scientific Perspectives</h2>
<p>While gene editing holds promise for improving food production, there are valid concerns about its safety and long-term effects. A study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0450-7">Nature</a> highlights the potential risks associated with CRISPR-edited organisms, including unintended genetic changes. Another study in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019308477">Environment International</a> discusses the need for comprehensive risk assessment and regulation of gene-edited foods.</p>
<h2>Consumer Rights and Transparency</h2>
<p>The claim emphasizes the importance of consumer rights and transparency in food labelling. Consumers have the right to make informed choices about the food they consume. Deregulation without proper labelling could undermine this right and erode consumer trust in the food industry.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that food standards are being changed to replace real food with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation is partially true. While there are proposed changes to deregulate gene-edited foods, the extent to which this will impact consumer safety and transparency is a matter of ongoing debate. It is crucial for regulatory bodies to balance innovation with consumer protection and ensure that any changes are based on sound scientific evidence and public consultation.</p>

Claim Review: Changes to Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: