Dr. Oz viciously attacks organic foods and farmers
markets, pushes feedlot beef, urges clueless consumers to eat more pesticides
and GMO (opinion)
Saturday, December 01, 2012
(NaturalNews) Dr. Oz has finally done it: He has sold out to Big Ag by declaring
organic foods to be "elitist," "snooty" and no better than conventional foods.
The man who once urged Americans to eat organic has sold his soul to the
criminally-run food giants in a mind-blowing editorial piece recently
Look for Dr. Oz to promote GMOs next, as cozying up to Monsanto probably won't
be too far behind. The man is already on the record pushing vaccines, talking
about how good they are for "public health" while failing to mention that
vaccines admittedly contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and MSG.
He's also the same guy who was behind the
scheme that recruited people into a promotional network where they were
barraged by drug-pushing ads from Big Pharma. Dr. Oz also owned a huge number of
option shares in a
vaccine technology company.
In his TIME Magazine editorial piece, Dr. Oz declares organic foods to be
"elitist" and appropriate only for "the 1%." This clever bit of propaganda is
designed to try to align conventional foods (i.e. pesticide ridden GMO foods)
with the "99%" by making them sound more populist. As if, the "People's
food" is pesticides and GMOs,
Does the man have no shame? Is there any corporate poison he won't promote to
Oz declares organic food is "not democratic"
"Organic food is great, it's just not very democratic," Dr. Oz declares, as if
choosing organic is somehow an affront to America. "You don't need to eat like
the 1% to eat healthily," he says. In other words, keep sucking down more GMOs,
pesticides, herbicides and chemicals, and you'll be a good little American food
slave. Buying organic is
anti-American, you're being told.
Dr. Oz's message, of course, has become indistinguishable from that of Monsanto.
It's all the same deception: You don't need clean, non-GMO food to be healthy.
Keep eating all the conventional crap that poisons you with synthetic chemicals,
and you'll be just fine! How about some GMO Corn Flakes for breakfast, even!
Dr. Oz also attacks farmers markets, because he apparently thinks buying local
food is a silly waste of time. "Nutritionally speaking, there is little
difference between the farmer's-market bounty and the humble brick from the
freezer case," he somehow says with a straight face. Oh really? There's no
difference between fresh, locally-grown food versus frozen, corporate-produced
food trucked in from a thousand miles away? The ignorance of this guy is just
flat-out stunning. Does he know nothing about where food comes from and how it
Dr. Oz: Eat more feedlot beef!
In an even more grotesque sellout to factory foods, Dr. Oz pushes feedlot beef,
saying, "Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed
beef and the feedlot variety."
This is just a flat-out lie, of course. There's a huge difference nutritionally
between free-range beef and feedlot beef. Feedlot beef, for starters, is raised
on genetically modified corn containing BT toxin, while free-range beef has been
consistently found to be higher in omega-3 fatty acids. And that doesn't even
cover the ethical and environmental differences. In promoting feedlot beef,
Dr. Oz positions himself
squarely against the environment while also pushing animal cruelty.
Dr Oz has chosen a side, and it's the side of corporate biotech
Above all, with this piece Dr. Oz has now clearly chosen a side in the realm of
food. Betraying his own viewers and readers, he has chosen to jump in bed with
Big Ag, Monsanto, chemical pesticide producers, processed food companies and
feedlot cattle factories.
As is now self-evident, Dr. Oz has aligned himself AGAINST everything the
organic movement stands for: Honest food, local food, free-range meat,
avoidance of GMOs, avoidance of synthetic chemicals and so on. His TIME Magazine
piece is an insult to all the good people in America who simply want honest food
produced without cruelty or chemicals. Dr. Oz calls those people "snooty" and
And what does that make him? Oh, now he's the leader of the "populist poison
foods movement" that tries
to convince the American masses to eat more GMO, more pesticides, more
store-bought foods and more feedlot beef, chicken and pork. The food industry
must love this guy! (Watch for new sponsorship contracts to fill his pockets
with cash right around the corner...)
Dr. Oz makes himself
irrelevant to the discussion on food
By joining forces with Monsanto, Bayer and Big Ag, Dr. Oz has now taken a
position squarely against organic foods, against farmer's markets, against
free-range animals and against non-GMO.
It begs the question: Why pay any attention to Dr. Oz at all anymore? He's just
parroting the same corporate lies and deceptions we can just as easily get from
the New York Times, or the USDA, or Monsanto itself. By attacking organics,
Dr. Oz has just made himself irrelevant to thinking people everywhere.
He's got nothing to say anymore, and more importantly Dr. Oz no longer has
any credibility whatsoever. He's just committed professional suicide. I
can't wait to hear what Ronnie Cummins from the
Organic Consumers Association has
to say about Dr. Oz's comments.
Because Oz has sold out to the GMO-producing, chemical-producing, animal cruelty
feedlot sectors of the corrupt food industry, watch for the mainstream media to
keep propping up Dr. Oz and attempt to make him a puppet of "authority"
on all things related to food and health. Heck, why not make the guy Surgeon
General and enact a law population control law that mandates the consumption of
feedlot Soylent Green?
Dr. Oz's purported audience is a sham, by the way. Natural News has a far larger
audience than Dr. Oz, especially when you count the cumulative IQ points of our
respective followers. While the low-IQ zombified consumers may still think Dr.
Oz has something resembling credibility, all the in-the-know
consumers and activists are fully aware of who is on their side and who isn't.
Dr. Oz clearly isn't. His audience exists only as a fabrication of persistent
Without the corporate backing, Dr. Oz is a nobody. (And by that, I mean he
didn't achieve success on his own, he got there with the ongoing support of big,
globalist corporate sponsors and backers who have their own agendas to push.)
Spread the word, folks: Dr. Oz is a
sellout. Share this
story and warn your friends.
Story photo by David Berkowitz
Update: Dr. Oz given
opportunity to respond to these criticisms
We've just published a list of twenty-one questions for Dr. Oz and have invited
him to respond to those questions as well as any points of criticism or debate
in this story.
Read that announcement here:
Official response from the Cornucopia Institute
Here's the response from Cornucopia on the TIME Magazine "sellout" piece by Dr.
The original TIME cover story was published on 12/3/2012 and is entitled "What
to Eat Now" by Dr. Mehmet Oz. It's available at:
The full story is available to Time subscribers only. Excerpts from the article,
with Cornucopia's responses:
Dr. Oz: "Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the
farmer's-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case."
Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz compares conventional and organic foods throughout
the article by focusing exclusively on the differences between a handful of
nutrients. This is exactly what the agrochemical and conventional farming
industries, and their front group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, would like
the American public to focus on. Just two months ago, Dr. Oz told the viewers of
his syndicated television show to buy organic vegetables to avoid pesticide
residues. Now, in his copywritten Time story, the word "pesticide" or
"agricultural chemical" is never mentioned.
Dr. Oz: "Dispelling these myths -- that boutique foods are good, supermarket
foods are suspect and you have to spend a lot to eat well -- is critical to
improving our nation's health. Organic food is great, it's just not very
Cornucopia response: What can be more democratic than consumers voting with
their food dollars to support organic farmers who protect our environment and
our health by eschewing harmful and polluting agrochemicals?
Even if there were no direct benefit to our families (plenty of published
scientific research indicates there is), when we choose organic food we are
protecting farmers and farmworkers from exposure to toxic chemicals. Many
farmers, farmworkers and their children have elevated levels of certain cancers
and chronic diseases.
Dr. Oz: "The rise of foodie culture over the past decade has venerated all
things small-batch, local-farm and organic -- all with premium price tags. But
let's be clear: you don't need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily."
Cornucopia response: Organic foods are not for the "1%." Organic foods are for
everybody, and are accessible and affordable to most families who prioritize
their expenses. Many organic consumers forgo other "luxuries," whether it be
iPhones, vacations, new cars -- all of which are advertised in the same Time
magazine where Dr. Oz's article appears -- in order to be able to afford organic
foods to protect their family's health. These decisions should be applauded, not
turned into a character flaw.
Dr. Oz: "After several years of research and experience, I have come to an
encouraging conclusion: the American food supply is abundant, nutritionally
sound, affordable and, with a few simple considerations, comparable to the most
elite organic diets. Save the cash; the 99% diet can be good for you."
Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz's research apparently missed the countless studies
showing that organic foods are nutritionally superior, lower in pesticide
residues, lower in antibiotic-resistant pathogen contamination, etc. In addition
to being published in peer-reviewed journals, testing by independent sources
such as Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) and government agencies such as the
USDA corroborate these findings.
Dr. Oz: "I consider it a public-health service to the consumer who has to
feed a family of five or the person who wants to make all the right choices and
instead is alienated and dejected because the marketing of healthy foods too
often blurs into elitism, with all the expense and culinary affectation that
Cornucopia response: The added expense of buying organic foods is an investment
in health. In the interest of public health, Dr. Oz should have mentioned the
pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic preservatives, artificial dyes and
sweeteners, and other harmful inputs used in conventional farming and food
production. Comparing nutrients is just one aspect of a cost-benefit analysis.
Dr. Oz owes his loyal fans, who respect his judgment, a more thoughtful and
Dr. Oz: "There's no question that free-range chickens and grass-fed,
pasture-dwelling cows lead happier -- if not appreciably longer -- lives than
animals raised on factory farms. They are also kept free of hormones and
antibiotics and are less likely to carry communicable bacteria like E. coli,
which are common on crowded feedlots. If these things are important to you and
you have the money to spend, then by all means opt for pricier organic meats."
Cornucopia response: Yes, Dr. Oz, avoiding hormones and antibiotics is important
to us, and it should be to you, too.
However, just because a package says "free range" or "grass-fed" does not mean
it is certified organic, and therefore is not certified to be produced without
some of the most dangerous and objectionable drugs. Concerned consumers should
go out of their way to seek out the organic seal.
Dr. Oz: "But for the most part, it's O.K. to skip the meat boutiques and the
high-end butchers. Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say,
grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety."
Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz's statement is not backed by scientific data, which
consistently shows lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and higher
levels of beneficial omega-3 fats and vitamins in grass-fed beef compared with
Dr. Oz: "Let's also take a moment to celebrate the tuna-salad sandwich, which
is to lunch what the '57 Chevy is to cars--basic and brilliant."
Cornucopia response: It is unconscionable that Dr. Oz touts the nutritional
benefits of canned tuna, without mentioning the FDA and EPA warnings concerning
methylmercury contamination. The FDA and EPA recommend that women who may become
pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children limit their
consumption of canned light tuna to no more than 12 ounces per week, and their
consumption of canned albacore tuna to no more than 6 ounces per week.
Dr. Oz: "Preserves and jams without added sugar can be great sources of
dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C and potassium."
Cornucopia response: Preserves and jams without added sugar often contain added
artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, which has been linked in studies to
cancer and neurological damage. Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are
banned in organic products.
Dr. Oz: "We know more about the connection between food and health than ever
before -- down to the molecular level, actually. This has provided us the
curious luxury of being fussy, even snooty, about what we eat, considering some
foods, well, below our station. That's silly. Food isn't about cachet. It's
about nourishment, pleasure and the profound well-being that comes from the way
meals draw us together."
Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz spends the entire article attempting to convince the
American public that there are few, if any, differences between conventional and
organic foods. Yet in his closing paragraphs he tacitly acknowledges that we
"know more about ... food and health than ever before – down to the molecular
level." This contradicts his earlier statements that there are no differences.
Most people who buy organic foods do so not because they are "snooty," as Dr. Oz
suggests, but because they seek to protect themselves and their families from
the widely recognized harmful effects of pesticides and other agrichemicals.