It turns out that Village Green Network wasnt just forging new income opportunities for food bloggers.
It was also forging a new advertising path with federal regulators.
VGNs role connecting large numbers of bloggers to producers of health-oriented food and green products, in some cases with blogger endorsements, prompted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to launch an investigation of VGN last fall. The FTC, which monitors deceptive advertising nationally and can institute fines and other penalties against companies it decides are violating its rules, said in a February letter to VGN, that it was concerned that VGN did not require that its network bloggers adequately disclose that they had received compensation from marketers, and, as a result, a number of bloggers in VGN’s network endorsed products in their blogs without adequately disclosing such compensation.
As farmers and other food producers know from unhappy experiences with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency poking around in your business affairs is highly disruptive .and expensive. It requires hiring specialized lawyers and devoting owner and staff time to answering involved questions. (Though it appears the FTC is much less dogmatic, and not necessarily biased against smaller companies liked the FDA.)
And so it was for VGN. In a letter to bloggers this weekend, Ann Marie Michaels stated: VGN is currently experiencing extreme financial hardship. We spent a considerable amount of money last fall on legal fees and staff responding to an investigation by the FTC. I wiped out all my personal savings loaning the company money so that we could fund this fight.
According to Michaels, It was the right thing to do, and I’m glad we did it.
Earlier this year, after completing its investigation, the FTC decided to back off, in part because of the newness of the VGN aggregator advertising model. In the February letter to VGN, the FTC said it wasnt pursuing any kind of enforcement actions against the blog aggregator, in part because we have not previously publicly addressed the obligations of an intermediary, i.e., a party facilitating payments from a marketer to an endorser, for the failure of endorsers to disclose material connections with marketers.
The FTC also said it ultimately concluded that most VGN bloggers werent doing anything questionable. Only a relatively small number of bloggers failed to adequately disclose their material connections, and most of those blogs contained some indication that may have alerted some consumers to the connections.
I was struck just in viewing the post Michaels did three years back (linked to by Sylvia Gibson in comments following my previous post) on California dairy producers, including Organic Pastures, there was this disclosure: PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for me to support my blogging activities, I may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for my endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The FTC also commended VGN for having revised its contractual agreements with its bloggers and committed to take reasonable steps to monitor its bloggers’ compliance with the obligation to disclose compensation.
As Michaels described it in her letter to bloggers this weekend, We ultimately won and we were able to protect hundreds of bloggers from being prosecuted for violating FTC regulations.
The Internet has obviously created a whole new world for producers of nearly all products. The FTC is being hit with complaints about deceptive advertising and business practices by a host of well known online sources, including Yelp and CarMax, not to mention identity thefts by the boatload. It would be nice to think that farmers producing nutrient-dense food primarily for their local communities are above the fray of contractual obligations and government oversight. But, alas, it isnt to be. Food clubs, farms with CSAs (community-supported-agriculture) and various other models for distributing food are being drawn into the new world of online advertising and distribution. As one example, a growing number of farmers are using online ordering and distribution software developed by Max Kanes Farm Match. All kinds of new distribution food models are shaping up, including home-delivered grass-fed beef and kosher meat, among many others.
In her letter to contractors, Michaels noted that the contractual battles with bloggers (described in my previous post) developed at the tail end of this FTC battle The contractual battles led to a 90% drop in company revenues, along with layoffs of VGN personnel, and no pay for Michaels or her husband, Seth Shapiro, since last fall, she said.
Michaels in her letter left open the possibility that VGN may initiate lawsuits against those bloggers VGN decides violated their contracts by withdrawing early this year. Bottom line: We are committed to doing whatever it takes — including lawsuits — to honor our commitments and pay back our debts.
Unraveling this seemingly innovative business model may take as much time as putting it together did. Per comments following my previous post, this has been a painful and unfortunate outcome to well-intentioned people collaborating for positive change. The path to new food learning and earning models wont necessarily be smooth, but it definitely wont end with VGN.
When I see things like this, I automatically think they are bought and paid for and whatever they are “endorsing” I take with a grain of salt. They loose credibility.
Sounds like the bloggers were not informed about what was going on and shifty business practices were used to keep it quiet. Reminds me of Enron. Screw the surfs. Did vgn uphold their agreements to pay these bloggers? I can see many counter suits forthcoming.
I would recommend that all the bloggers start writing down everything they can remember and keep a list, so they can add to it as they recall more and more from over the years. Also collect any and all paperwork/contracts/emails they have and keep in a folder.
So how did chemical company BASF (with work performed at Oregon State University), who holds the patent on Clearfield and sells the seed, create this genetic variant? By a process called chemical mutagenesis. They exposed wheat seeds to the chemical, sodium azide, NaN3. Sodium azide is highly toxic to animals, bacteria, and humans, with human ingestion of small quantities yielding effects similar to cyanide. With accidental ingestion, for instance, the CDC recommends not performing CPR on the victim (and just letting the victim die), since it may cause the CPR-provider to be exposed, nor to dispose of any vomitus into a sink, since it can cause an explosion. (This has actually happened.)
In addition to chemical mutagenesis, gamma and x-ray radiation are also used on seeds and plant embryos to induce mutations. This all falls under the umbrella of traditional breeding methods and hybridization.
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2011/07/herbicide-resistant-wheat/
Returning to the post at hand, which is essentially about the FTC seeking truth in advertising, this story about the genetically modified wheat is just another reason there should be required labeling of GMO ingredients. Why should we have to guess if our bread contains the tainted wheat?
I can just see it now, first responders and paramedics will now be warned to add consumption of clear field wheat in patient histories for fear of their own deaths!!!
Screw with nature and you screw with life itself, GMO or not.
The regulatory system is so cohesively perverted and corrupt that I doubt we can even trust such a system to initiate a labeling process that can be trusted.
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
As far as VGN is concerned, it is imperative that we let bygones be bygones and forge ahead with humility rather then play into the hands of freedom disrupting regulators.
Ken
Lynn M, you are likely correct about the labeling. But according to Stephanie Seneff of MIT (as reported in my post a few weeks back) most non-organic wheat is sprayed with Roundup (and its key ingredient, glyphosate) just prior to harvest. That may be unrelated to any genetic modification, and may not require labeling, but appears to heighten the health risks associated with non-organic bread.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2681/is-there-poison-in-auto-air-bags
Nevertheless, you may see wheat fields being sprayed between flowering and harvest. This is more likely for the control of fusarium fungus infection, which is a potential threat in this region. Fusarium produces a number of toxins and wheat for human consumption is screened for this contamination; and if positive, is downgraded substantially in price to a livestock feed grade. I’d be much more concerned about consuming fusarium toxins than glyphosate (which largely just will pass through me unchanged). Natural poisons can be as good (or better) than those synthesized by humans, nest pas?
John
“A preharvest treatment after the hard-dough stage may be needed to control weeds and improve harvesting efficiency of wheat, especially where wheat stands are poor and weed infestations are heavy.”
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/GrainCrops/ID125Section6.html
For those following the story of Village Green Network and Ann Marie Michaels, there is another account of what was going on at VGN. This one is more from the perspective of the bloggers, and provides additional detail beyond what I reported about some of the contractual and other disputes at the unfortunate blogger network. There is just one correction I would make (and which I submitted as a comment)–the accusation that I failed to interview any of the bloggers. As I noted in my original posting, I was one of the bloggers under contract, and was in contact with a number of other bloggers as the problem unfolded….so I did “interview” a number.
A number of bloggers were irritated with my posts, feeling I gave too much space to Ann Marie Michaels, the founder of VGN.
The candy bars from the 1950’s and 1960’s had coconut or palm oil in them which was actually a really good thing, but when all this business about saturated fats being bad came up they took it out and put in the bad, processed oils. My Dad loved Walnut Crush candy bars (do they still make those?) and when the oils were changed, he quit having his favorite once-per-week treat because he could taste the difference.
One thing I don’t understand about this VGN thing, however, is that if Anne Marie was promoting WAPF, why would she bad-mouth Sally Fallon? That doesn’t make sense but then I don’t know what transpired, either. It would be interesting to know the story behind the story. ;>
Wow, $7 a doz? I had not heard of the Walnut Crush candy bars, so I looked it up. Too bad, they don’t make it anymore.
“The L.S. Heath Company in Robinson, Illinois bought out the Fenn Brothers company in the early 1970’s. This company produced the Heath Toffee Bar. They had built a new factory by the time of this purchase, so Heath moved the Fenn equipment from South Dakota to their old factory building in Robinson and produced the Fenn Walnut Crush and Cool Nougat, etc. there. The Fenn operation did not last long and ceased production ca. early 1980’s. “
Hard to say if the foodie blogger thing coming to an end. I agree with you about the repetitious and boring nature of many of the recipe-based blogs. However, there seems to be no end to the “appetite” for new television shows, books, and articles about food preparation….reality tv shows about chef contests and demos of cooking and baking.
I prefer the actual books, as I write notes in them. Plus there is some comfort in holding a book. (Reading was always important growing up, something I passed on to my kids, they were reading Steven King at 8-9 yrs old and now have huge vocabularies). I haven’t had cable in years, so I have no clue what any of the cooking channels are like now.