Month: October 2015
~DAVID C. PACK
Why should there be such doubt—such confusion—about the existence of God? For thousands of years, people have debated whether God exists. Most conclude that it cannot be proven—one way or the other. It is surmised that the correct answer lies in the area of abstract philosophy and the metaphysical.
Others become agnostics, asserting that they “don’t know” if God exists. Those who do accept God’s existence often do so passively, merely because they were taught it from childhood. Some do not even care. Such people probably cannot be moved from their apathy.
Atheists have concluded that God does not exist. These people represent a special category that God describes as, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1). This scripture is repeated inPsalm 53:1. What follows will explain why God calls atheists “fools.”
Over 45 years ago, I learned of absolute proof that God exists. My studies lasted two-and-a-half years. I came to realize that I did not have to accept His existence “on faith.” Since that time, science has learned much more and the “case” for God’s existence has become far stronger than at any time in history.
This Personal presents numerous absolute, immutable proofs that God does exist. After reading it, you will never again doubt the answer to this greatest of questions! Some proofs will amaze you. Others will inspire you. Still others will surprise or even excite you. All of them will fascinate you with their simplicity. We will first examine some traditional proofs and then consider material that rests on the cutting edge of scientific understanding, before returning to established proofs. You will learn from biology, astronomy, chemistry and mathematics.
Creation or Evolution?
There is an all-important question that is inseparable from the question of God’s existence. The question of whether life on Earth exists, because of blind, dumb luck and chance, through evolution, or because of special creation by a Supreme Being, cannot be avoided in studying the existence of God.
Did all life on Earth evolve over millions of years, as evolutionists assert—or did an all-powerful God author it at Creation? Most people assume evolution is true, just as those who believe in God assume His existence. I also studied this question—evolution vs. Creation—in depth, during the same period that I sought to prove God’s existence.
I learned that it takes far more “faith” to believe in the intellectually chic and fashionable evolutionarymyth than it does to believe in the existence of God. In fact, I learned that evolution is based entirely on faith because no facts or proof have ever been found to support it! (We have prepared a thorough and most inspiring magazine-sized brochure Evolution – Facts, Fallacies and Implications. Those who read this powerful publication will never again doubt the scientific case for Creation!)
Faith and Proof
Faith does play a role in the life of a Christian. For the person who truly wants to seek God and learn to please Him, notice: “Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him…” (Heb. 11:6).
Faith is vital to a Christian. In fact, without it, no one can please God. Notice that this verse says that those seeking God “must believe that He is.” A deep belief in God, who “rewards” all who “diligently seek Him,” requires proof of His existence. After proof has been established, then—and only then—can one have faith—absolute confidence—that what he does is being recorded in God’s mind, to be remembered when he receives his reward. If you are uncertain that God exists because proof of that existence has not been firmly established, then, under fire, your faith will wane or disappear.
But Which God?
The apostle Paul wrote, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things…howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge…” (I Cor. 8:5-7).
The religions of this world have created many gods of wood, stone and other material. Others exist only in the minds of men. The ancient Greeks alone served 30,000 gods and modern Hindus worship 5 million gods! Truly, there are, and have always been, “gods many, and lords many.” Yet, the God of the Bible created all the materials that men use to design their own gods. But, as Paul said, “there is not in every man that knowledge.”
Such unnecessary ignorance and confusion!
The God of the Bible has shown the way to peace, happiness and abundant life for all people willing tostudy His Instruction Book. Doing this would rid mankind of the confusion and evils that encompass this world. But it is not our purpose here to prove that the God of the Bible is the one true God of Creation. (To learn more, read my booklet Bible Authority…Can It Be Proven?)
What Science Tells Us
Be willing to examine science. As we reason, do not suppose or hope. Stand on indisputable facts. We will see facts from a broad array of different kinds of science. They will demonstrate that an all-powerful Supreme Being, of infinite intelligence, carefully provided more than sufficient proof to remove all doubt that He exists.
The Bible is God’s instruction to mankind. He expects all who are willing to read it to, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21). Surely this God would not then expect us to assume His existence while instructing us to prove everything else from His Word!
Before beginning this study, remember, assumptions do not count! Neither do superstitious myths or traditions based on ignorance! What can be known from science? Only accept facts. Think rationally and clearly. Then accept what can be proven!
The Most Perfect Clock
You probably have a watch. Without it, you would be lost in a world that demands that people “be on time.”
Some watches are more accurate than others. How accurate is yours? How long before it loses a second? When this happens, you adjust it by reckoning from a more accurate source. That source, whatever it is, is also imperfect and has to be regularly updated, though not as often, to be in accord with the Master Clock of the United States at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.
For many years, until 1967, Naval Observatory astronomers “observed” the motion of the earth, in relation to the heavens, to accurately measure time. All clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise measurements. It was God who made this Master Clock of the Universe! He set the heavens in motion and mankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. As marvelous as this Master Clock is, the story does not end here.
In 1967, scientists built an “Atomic Clock.” It uses Cesium 133 atoms because they oscillate (vibrate) at the rate of 9,192,631,770 times per second. This produces accuracy within one second every 30 million years! Wouldn’t you love a watch that accurate? Cesium 133 atoms never vary a single vibration. They are steady—constant—reliable—and cannot be an accident of nature that just “happens” to always turn out exactly the same. God had to design the complexity and reliability of these atoms. No honest mind can believe otherwise. Men merely learned how to capture what God designed, for use in time measurement. Again, the story continues.
Doubters, consider this!
Scientists in Boulder, Colorado, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, built an opticalclock that is even more accurate. How? By measuring time with light. Time is now measured in what are called femtoseconds—or a million-billionth of a second. These clocks use mercury ions at their “heart” to count the number of times they vibrate in a second.
Optical frequencies regularly oscillate at one million-billion (1,000,000,000,000,000—one quadrillion) times per second. By using lasers and “cooled down” mercury ions, scientists have harnessed God’s precision to better measure time. Optical clocks only slip by one second every 30 BILLION years! This is 1,000 times more accurate than atomic clocks!
All human watchmakers use extraordinary precision in their work. Quartz watches measure time by counting the exact number of oscillations of a quartz crystal through use of a digital counter. Digitalclocks use the oscillations of quartz crystals or power lines (60 cycles per second in the United States), but may also count through use of digital counters. Grandfather clocks use the swing of a pendulum, once every second and recorded by metal gears inside the clock, to keep time.
As with the movement of the heavens, men have learned to capture the reliability of Cesium 133 atoms and the movement of cooled mercury ions to count time. Their number of oscillations per second nevervaries. Could this perfect order be the product of an accident?
In summary, only with great time and effort, the finest watchmakers in the world can, at best, devise several kinds of relatively imprecise clocks. Can any honest, fair-minded person then believe that the three highly precise clocks—the heavens, atomic and optical clocks—came about by accident? In other words, are we to believe that while very sophisticated, humanly devised watches required the effort and ingenuity of skilled, intelligent men to create them, clocks of far greater sophistication, precision and design developed on their own? How utterly ridiculous!
You have seen absolute proof that only the “Greatest Watchmaker” could have devised these “greatest watches.”
First Law of Thermodynamics
What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?
The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.
With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.
What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!
This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!
Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You would not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing!
Can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves towarddisorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.
Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.
If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.
When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!
Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics [universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down] or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity…It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (The Twilight of Evolution).
Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!
We have established that Creation demands a Creator. Where does this leave evolution?
The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens, and the Earth.
Over and over, these “theorists” try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.
Yet, as one geologist wrote, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as [a] student…have been debunked” (The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Association).
Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (The Twilight of Evolution).
Complexity of Life
Everyone has witnessed explosions. Have you ever seen one that was orderly? Or one that created a watch or a clock? Or one that produced a single thing of exquisite design—instead of the certain result of chaos and destruction? If you threw a million hand grenades, you would see them produce chaos and destruction a million times! There would never be an exception.
Consider the following quotes, involving the likelihood of an explosion creating the entire natural realm of life all around us on Earth—let alone the beautiful magnificence and order seen no matter how far one looks out into space.
Dr. B.G. Ranganathan said, “…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings—let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.
In this Personal, we have explained just a tiny fraction of all there is to know about this subject.
I just watched The Words and had to Google to see if Clay really was Rory and came upon this post, which I agree with your theory by the way…
Mainstream media journalists are also Monsanto prostitutes.
(NaturalNews-http://www.naturalnews.com/051393_Monsanto_operatives_Keith_Kloor_Jon_Entine.html) One of the truly fascinating revelations in the recent Freedom of Information Act emails acquired from university professors who whore themselves out to Monsanto is the fact that mainstream media journalists are also Monsanto prostitutes.
These Monsanto operatives pretending to be journalists write for The Washington Post, New York Times, Discover, Slate, Nature and various “science” websites. Many of them openly admit to being paid by Monsanto and gladly accepting the money. Then they turn around and write stories attacking clean food activists or hawking whatever GMO propaganda Monsanto is pushing that day.
It’s all coordinated by sleazebag Monsanto front men like Jon Entine, a man seething with so much evil that he tried to strangle his wife in front of their own daughter, and installed surveillance equipment to spy on her activities in their own home, according to court documents published here on Natural News.
One of Jon Entine’s “friends” in the industry is Monsanto prostitute Keith Kloor, another industry sleazebag who blogs for Discover and Nature where he systematically lies, distorts evidence, and fabricates false claims against clean food activists. He also writes for Slate, which was just named one of America’s top 12 evil news publishers by EVIL.news.
Entine also rubs elbows with discredited Univ. of Florida academic prostitute Kevin Folta, recently exposed as a Monsanto shill by secretly taking $25,000 from Monsanto and promising them a “return on the investment” to push GMO propaganda. Folta even scammed The Atlantic into printing his propaganda as fact, and The Atlantic seems fine with it, refusing to issue a retraction after it all came to light that Kevin Folta was a paid Monsanto operative.
Folta appears to be guilty of committing a second class felony crime under Florida’s anti-corruption laws, by the way. The University of Florida so far refuses to fire him. Apparently, academic shillery and fraud are totally acceptable to the U of F.
See how Monsanto’s dark operatives tell The New York Times what to write…
Now, the U.S. Right to Know campaign has published an overview of a few of the sleazebag journalists named in the now-public emails acquired via FOIA. These journalists include Tamar Haspel, a Monsanto prostitute writing for The Washington Post, and Amy Harmon, another biotech prostitute writing for The New York Times. These are all journalists who allow themselves to be influenced by people like Jon Entine, a biotech industry dirtbag who attacks women and deliberately fabricates the most outrageous lies imaginable about his intended targets. (He once claimed I ordered Natural News readers to murder him, and to back it up he dredged up a police report of somebody else named Mike Adams who wasn’t even born in the same decade as me. He then insinuated that that person was me. These are the type of sleaze tactics used by these Monsanto front men who interface directly with The New York Times and Washington Post. They wake up each morning, look in the mirror, and asks themselves, “What LIES can we spread today to discredit clean food activists?”)
“FYI, I think I’ve talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii story…” — Jon Entine emailing Renee Kester about how Amy Harmon of The New York Times is on board with his agenda to smear anti-GMO activists in Hawaii. Kester is tied to the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, an agrichemical industry front group.
Read more about Jon Entine in these Natural News stories, and remember that this is the person The New York Times allows to propose story ideas and influence editorial coverage of GMOs:
Forbes.com writer and biotech shill Jon Entine exposed as violent instigator who physically attacked wife and traumatized daughter – court documents
Jon Entine, biotech shill and character assassination operative, committed domestic violence and child abuse, states wife in court documents
Biotech front man Jon Entine exposed as wikipedia vandal and violent wife abuser in public court documents
Biotech front man Jon Entine part of an shameless gang of propagandists and character assassins targeting GMO skeptics
Why Jon Entine is a poster boy for the biotech industry: violence against women, corporate-funded hate speech and gross journalism misconduct
A Short Report on Journalists Mentioned in our FOIA Requests
To help summarize the dirty tactics and misdeeds of journalists that are corrupted by Monsanto money, the U.S. Right to Know campaign director Gary Ruskin posted an overview of the journalists named in the documents.
Here’s his full text, without all the hyperlinks. To see the fully hyperlinked version of this article, visit the original source:
On September 23rd, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel admitted to receiving “plenty” of money from pro-agrichemical industry sources.
Following her admission, I thought it might be useful to report on journalists – including Haspel — mentioned in the documents we have received from state public records requests.
U.S. Right to Know is conducting an investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, their PR firms and front groups, and the professors who speak for them.
So far, three reporters come up in interesting ways: Amy Harmon, Keith Kloor and Tamar Haspel.
These reporters appear in the context of Jon Entine, who is perhaps the leading PR operative working to promote the views of the agrichemical industry, and its pesticides and GMOs. Entine is founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which, along with the PR firm Ketchum’s GMO Answers, are the agrichemical industry’s two most visible front groups. Entine is also founder and president of the PR firm ESG MediaMetrics, whose clients have included the agrichemical giant Monsanto.
Amy Harmon is a reporter for the New York Times. She was part of a Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001, and in 2008 she won a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting.
On September 23, 2013 at 7:44pm, Jon Entine emailed Renee Kester: “FYI, I think I’ve talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii Hawaii [sic] story. . . and I gave her your and Kirby’s email information, so she may call at some point if she indeed pursues this.” Kirby Kester is president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, an agrichemical industry front group.
On January 4, 2014, the New York Times published a front-page article by Amy Harmon, titled “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The story is datelined from Kona, Hawaii.
In 2014, Harmon won second place for the Society of Environmental Journalists “Kevin Carmody Award for Outstanding In-depth Reporting, Large Market” for “The Facts About GMOs,” a series that included the article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.”
On September 30th, Harmon is scheduled to speak to the Cornell Alliance for Science, a group funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote GMOs. The group is running a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has written for Nature, Science Insider, Discover, Slate and other outlets. Kloor has written many pro-GMO articles that have been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.
Kloor is mentioned in two places in the FOIA documents.
In one email, Jon Entine refers to Keith Kloor as a “very good friend of mine”.
In another email, on October 18, 2014, Dr. Channapatna Prakash, a GMO advocate and dean at Tuskegee University, emails Adrianne Massey of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), along with several others, to forward an alert from Lorraine Thelian, vice chairman of the PR firm Ketchum that “the hacker community Anonymous is planning a series of attacks on biotechnology and food industry websites…Trade association and corporate websites of CBI [Council for Biotechnology Information] members are being targeted in this planned attack.” Dr. Prakash writes, “Adrianne I have copied Kevin Folta, Karl von Mogel, David Tribe and Keith Kloor here as well.”
Dr. Prakash cc’d the email to Jay Byrne (former director of corporate communications for Monsanto), Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy (agrichemical industry advocate) Val Giddings (former VP of BIO), Henry Miller (agrichemical industry advocate), Drew Kershen (agrichemical industry advocate), Klaus Ammann, Piet van der Meer, Martina Newell-McGloughlin (agrichemical industry advocate), Karl Haro von Mogel (member of the board of directors of Biology Fortified, a pro-GMO website), Kevin Folta (agrichemical industry advocate), Keith Kloor and David Tribe (agrichemical industry advocate).
Keith Kloor was the only journalist who received this email.
The email implies that Kloor works closely with the agrichemical industry’s prominent advocates.
Kloor has written three articles that were critical of U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests, in Science Insider, Discover and Nature.
On March 23rd, 2015, Kloor gave a talk for the Cornell Alliance for Science, which is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.
Tamar Haspel is a columnist at The Washington Post. She has written many columns for the Post defending or praising GMOs that have later been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.
In 2015, Haspel won the James Beard Foundation Award for her Post columns.
In June 2014, Haspel spoke to a pro-industry conference about “How can scientists best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public?” The conference was coordinated by Jon Entine and Cami Ryan, who is currently social sciences lead for Monsanto. The conference was led by two agrichemical industry front groups, the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, along with the University of Florida, which receives major funding from agrichemical companies, as noted in a September 6 article in the New York Times.
Haspel also moderated a panel organized by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, which “provides long-term economic and societal benefits to North Carolina through support of biotechnology research, business, education and strategic policy statewide.”
In a September 23 chat hosted by The Washington Post, answering a question about whether she receives money from industry sources, Ms. Haspel wrote that, “I speak and moderate panels and debates often, and it’s work I’m paid for.” Later that day, I asked Ms. Haspel on Twitter how much money she had received from the agrichemical industry and its front groups. She replied, “Since any group believing biotech has something to offer is a ‘front group,’ plenty!”
Is it appropriate for a Washington Post columnist to write glowing columns about GMOs while appearing at such pro-industry conferences? Is it a conflict of interest for Haspel to accept money from agrichemical company interests that she covers as part of her beat as a Post food columnist? How much money has Haspel received from agrichemical industry interests?
Some journalists have criticized journalists for “buckraking” on speakers’ circuits. For example, former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee said, “I wish it would go away. I don’t like it. I think it’s corrupting. If the Insurance Institute of America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a speech, don’t tell me you haven’t been corrupted. You can say you haven’t and you can say you will attack insurance issues in the same way, but you won’t. You can’t.”
Haspel wrote in the Washington Post that she will only speak at events where “if for-profit companies are involved in the event (which they often are), they can’t be the only voice. So, I will speak at a conference co-sponsored by, say, Monsanto and the USDA and NC State University, but not an event sponsored by Monsanto alone.” However, at the June 2014, conference at which Haspel spoke, no consumer advocates were slated to speak, only pro-industry advocates.
On October 16, Haspel is scheduled to speak to the Cornell Alliance for Science, a pro-GMO group that is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.
Haspel has been critical of the U.S. Right to Know FOIA requests. On August 17, on Twitter, she wrote: “The money/time/brainpower wasted on @garyruskin’s mean-spirited, self-interested attack on @kevinfolta! Can we move on to something useful?” Others did not agree with her news judgment. On September 6th, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote an article largely based on our FOIA requests – especially of University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta – which ran on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. The article revealed how Folta, who repeatedly denied ties to Monsanto, in fact had received an undisclosed $25,000 grant, as well as writing assignments from the company, and worked closely with it and its PR firm Ketchum, which ghostwrote text for him and organized media and lobbying meetings for him.
U.S. Right to Know is a consumer advocacy group. We try to expose what the food industry doesn’t want us to know. We believe it is useful for the public to see how the food and agrichemical companies do their public relations work. That is one way we can help consumers to assess the claims and information they receive from the companies involved in our food production, their PR firms and operatives, and the journalists who work with them.