Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
BARBARA EHRENREICH…

BarbaraE

Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle.  We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day9

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

AAAS Sells Out

Premiere Scientific Organization Captured

by RUSSELL MOKHIBER

Has one of the nation’s premiere scientific organizations been captured by big corporations?

Michelle Simon of Grist Magazine says yes.

Stacy Malkan of the Yes on 37 Campaign says yes.

Charlie Cray of Greenpeace says yes.

But the scientific organization in question – the American Association for the Advancement of Science – says no.

The issue was put front and center when the board of directors AAAS dropped a bomb this week – just a week before Californians go to the polls to vote on a law – Prop 37 – that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods (GM foods).

The AAAS board issued a statement claiming that foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops “pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques” and that legally mandating labels on GM foods could therefore “mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”

In response, Consumers Union senior staff scientist Michael Hansen told Grist Magazine that the AAAS statement was “filled with distortion and misleading statements.”

“If mandatory labeling of GM foods would ‘mislead and alarm consumers,’ does the AAAS really believe that 60 other countries are misleading and alarming their consumers?” Hansen asked.

The AAAS statement claims that “respected scientific and medical organizations have concluded that biotech foods are safe, including: National Academy of Sciences, American Council on Science and Health, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, World Health Organization.”

Malkan says that “none of these groups – except presumably ACSH – a notorious front group – has taken that position.”

A spokesperson for the National Academy of Sciences told the Sacramento Bee that it “has not evaluated whether it’s safe to eat genetically engineered food.”

Simon points out that the chair of the AAAS Board is Nina Fedoroff.

Fedoroff is closely aligned with the corporate funded No on 37 campaign.

She has signed onto a No on 37 campaign statement and is quoted as being “passionately opposed to labeling.”

She served for five years on the scientific advisory board of Evogene, an Israeli-based biotech firm.

She served on the board of Sigma-Aldrich, a multinational biotech firm.

Fedoroff has been called “the U.S. ambassador for GE.”

AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster told Corporate Crime Reporter that Hansen, Cray, Malkan and Simon represent“advocacy groups with particular agendas” and that their criticisms are “unfair and without merit.”

“I was in the room when the statement was passed by the AAAS board,” Pinholster said. “We are not an advocacy group. We make our statements based on scientific evidence.”

“I can tell you that our statement is not the work of nor was it influenced by any outside organization,” Pinholster said.

AAAS might not be an advocacy group.

But the chair of the AAAS board surely is an advocate.

Who needs an outside organization to influence you when the chair of the board is the U.S. ambassador for GE?

Captured from the top down.

Russell Mokhiber edits Single-Payer Action.