In a recent CounterThink video available at Brighteon.com, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, unpacks the allegations being made against Ray, offering up opinions that you might not expect – mainly that there are some serious problems with the lawsuit.
One of the biggest issues has to do with the Nutrish brand's use of the word "natural." While one would expect that "natural" means that a product contains nothing unnatural such as glyphosate, this technically isn't the case. That's because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to definitively establish what the word "natural" means as it pertains to food products, meaning that pretty much any company can freely use the word regardless of what their products actually contain.
"She's a coward, she's an exhibitionist. She sells products that aren't very clean, as probably evidenced by this lawsuit, by the way. So I'm not impressed with Rachael Ray," Adams makes clear before delving into the problems with the lawsuit against her.
"But with all that said, there are major problems, in my view as a scientist, with this lawsuit."
Glyphosate is so prolific in the modern food supply that it's even found in "certified organic" foods
Another problem that Adams points out with the lawsuit against Nutrish is that it doesn't specify the concentration of glyphosate that's allegedly being detected in this dog food product. Tests have shown that a shocking number of food products, including those labeled as "certified organic," now contain trace levels of glyphosate, which suggests that almost any food brand could be sued using similar claims.
This isn't to say that Nutrish should get a free pass for selling supposedly "natural" dog food that more than likely contains some level of a deadly chemical herbicide. It's simply to point out the fact that the modern food supply is already prolifically contaminated with glyphosate, and that Nutrish, is just one purveyor of itamong many.
"Glyphosate is now so ubiquitous in the food supply that you're going to find traces of glyphosate in even organic foods, many of them," says Adams.
"And I don't see anywhere in the news reports on this lawsuit anything about the concentration of glyphosate in these products. Is it one part per billion? Because, if so, I don't know about you, I'm not concerned about one part per billion of an herbicide in a food. I'm concerned about, you know, 100 parts per billion, or depending on the herbicide, maybe 10 parts per billion, but not one part per billion."
According to Adams, pretty much everything on the grocery store shelf probably contains at least one part per billion of glyphosate, not to mention a whole slew of other deadly pesticides and herbicides. If this lawsuit against Nutrish is valid, in other words, then it's also valid against practically all other food producers out there that are selling the exact same glyphosate-contaminated products.
Adams also takes issue with the lawsuit's claims against Nutrish's use of the word "natural," which until it has an official legal definition, is really just a marketing ploy of an empty word. There are reasonable, common sense assumptions about what natural actually means, but they're not categorically defined as they should be.
To hear the rest of Mike Adams' analysis of the Nutrish lawsuit, watch his video at Brighteon.com.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
