RFK Jr: Americans ‘Can’t Trust What’s On the Ingredient Label’. Can Kiwis, Either?
Jordan Kelly • 25 August 2024

If You Knew What He Knows, You'd Be A LOT More Inquisitive About Names Used On Ingredient Labels

Ever so slowly, people across the globe (in Western societies, at least) have been waking up to the fact that "the government" doesn't protect their interests to anything like the degree they have long-assumed it does, and most especially when it comes to issues such as the ingredients in the food products that are permitted to enter the market.


But like so many subjects where transparency is often hard-won, it's part of a much broader issue that's akin to the proverbial peeling back of the many layers of an onion.


One of those layers beyond food labeling per se, is the language and terminology used on the labels . . . the issue being that highly deceptive names are historically, routinely and persistently used by food processors and manufacturers (actually, not just food, either) to bamboozle the consumer and/or to lull them into a false sense of security.


And unfortunately, as high-profile environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy (a current runner in the U.S. Presidential elections race) explains in this prime time Fox News segment (with an extremely daring host), in the case of many highly health-damaging ingredients, a name is given to them that, contrary to their actual and very negative impacts, gives consumers the impression these components are actually healthy.


Why You CANNOT Trust Government Regulatory Agencies to 'Have Your Back', As A Consumer


This is precisely why consumers simply cannot assume government agencies "have their back". The reality is, the more the health-conscious consumer digs into the hornet's nest of vested interests and revolving doors between Big Ag, Big Food, and government regulatory agencies, the more it becomes evident that "the back" those agencies "have" is the back of the commercial interests, not "the people".


Is New Zealand's government agency regulatory scene any different? I've done no deep dive (or any dive, YET) into the matter . . . but suffice to ask this question:  Why would it be?


The below Fox News / RFK Jr segment represents a highly worthwhile investment of 7 minutes and 5 seconds of your time.


One thing I would particularly like to highlight from the segment is the deceptive use of the descriptor, "natural flavour". I've known since the 1990s that this is a real demon in disguise. I was alerted to it by the horse's mouth (I use that term, in this instance, with great respect) of Australian food technology.


I "went out on my own" (in marketing communications consulting) as quite a young sprout, and managed to score, as a client, Australia's largest beverages producer and related foods mega-conglomerate, Berrivale Orchards Ltd (far more commonly known in the marketplace by its umbrella brand name, Berri Fruit Juices).


"Jordan, there's NO SUCH THING as a 'natural' additive!"  (Chief food tech, to me, during my time servicing Australia's largest beverages manufacturer)


One day, in a private conversation centred around my health-consciousness re additives and my stated preference for products containing only "natural flavours", BVO's (as the company was referred to in internal communications) chief scientist / head of food technology confided in me:  "Jordan, there is NO SUCH THING as a 'natural' additive. If it's ADDED to a product, it's a CHEMICAL. There's no difference between just 'flavour' and 'natural flavour' on a label. They're ALL CHEMICALS."


I've never forgotten, and I've never since (knowingly) bought a THING with "natural flavour" or any "flavour" listed on the ingredients. Although I have certainly thrown a fair few products into the garbage, that I HAVE bought, and I'm sure they DID have flavour additives and didn't list them in the ingredients.


And just before I close my commentary and let you get to the below 7-minute and 5-second Fox News / RFK Jr segment, just so you can see the deceptiveness of the food and beverage manufacturing industry, here's an action that got leveled at Berrivale by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission back in September of 1996, relating to alleged misleading labeling:


BVO's premium brand, The Daily Juice Company, was positioned in the market as "fresh-squeezed daily". Its front labels sung it out, as did its multi-million dollar national advertising and promotional campaigns. Yeah, well - as the ACCC discovered - a good proportion of that "fresh-squeezed, daily" juice was actually reconstituted juice (not the same thing by a looong shot). I'd seen the "reconstituting" thereof during my factory visits to the company's South Australian Riverland-located primary manufacturing plant . . . and it wasn't a particularly healthy-looking sight - IMHO.


So you get the point. When it comes to food labeling, it's not only an issue of making sure food is labeled - but making sure it's not labeled deceptively. Which it is in very many cases . . . and the manufacturers, marketers, and not-very-neutral government regulatory "watchdogs", are NOT there to have YOUR back. Believe me. As lauded environmental lawyer (first and foremost, before being a politician), Robert Kennedy Jr, explains in this fast-paced, with examples, segment:

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 15 March 2026
Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.
by Jordan Kelly 10 March 2026
UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?
by Jordan Kelly 8 March 2026
Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin
by Jordan Kelly 4 March 2026
Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory
by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
Show More