Reponse to False Accusations about OCA’s Funding

Organic Consumers Association response to the recent article Food Freedom Betrayal.

Dear Friends of the Organic Consumers Association,

It’s too bad some of our would-be allies apparently can’t tell the difference between friends and enemies.

These types of articles – filled with lies – are not only are destructive, but serve to discredit genuine researchers and Movements who work hard to expose real conspiracies like the 9/11 coverup or electronic voter machine theft.

OCA did get several grants in the past from the John Merck Foundation to fight GMOs, but this Foundation is entirely separate from the Merck corporation, whom we’ve always attacked. The same goes for the Tides Foundation and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, who are entirely separate from Rockefeller corporate interests and the Rockefeller Foundation. We have never taken money from a large publicly traded corporation or a corporate affiliated Foundation, and we never will. I know several of the younger generation Rockefeller progressives/radicals – the ones who have personally funded us or directed their money through Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and they share the same political and ethical views as the OCA. Just because someone’s grandfather, or even father or mother, was a robber baron or baroness, does not mean that their children cannot become progressives or even revolutionaries. Most of us in the USA are direct descendants of Europeans who massacred Native Americans and enslaved Black people.

Regarding OCA’s supposed silence about the artificial sweetener neotame in products labeled as organic: this is an internet myth. Neotame is absolutely not allowed in certified organic products as a synthetic ingredient, because it is not – nor will it ever become an item on the National List of approved synthetics in organics. If neotame were ever proposed for the National List of Approved Synthetics in organics, OCA and the organic community would stop this. Regarding products regulated by the National Organic Program,  there is no category under USDA NOP standards for a front panel label claim called “contains organic ingredients.” Either a product is 95-100% certified organic (with no GMO, irradiated, or sludge-derived minor ingredients whatsoever), and then it can be labeled “Organic Grape” juice; or else if it is 70-94% certified organic (with no GMO, irradiated, or sludge-derived ingredients) it can be labeled as “Grape Juice made with organic grapes.” Any food or agricultural product not meeting these criteria cannot use the word “organic” on the front label, period. If indeed a food product contained neotame and also a minor ingredient which was certified organic, both ingredients could legally be listed in small print on the ingredients panel on the back label. NOP standards do not regulate back panel claims, except a back panel ingredient that claims to be certified organic. Our position on NutraSweet, Aspartame, Neotame and all carcinogenic and toxic synthetic sweeteners has always been the same – take them off the market.

So-called activists and researchers attacking the OCA, or indeed attacking anyone, need to carefully do their homework before they open their mouth or post sensationalistic fiction on the internet.

In Solidarity,

Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association