# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  March Against Monsanto - Updates

## FrankRep

*Update: October 12th, 2013*




> The second official world wide March Against Monsanto will take place today, October 12th, 2013. Expect mass demonstrations against the Monsanto corporation in over 400 cities across 50 countries.
> 
> Join an event near you 
> 
> http://bit.ly/Oct12MAM
> 
> More info: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/
>  World Live MAM : https://www.rebelmouse.com/MarchAgainstMonsanto/



Oct. 12, 2013:

*Protesters in 50 countries march against MONSANTO...*
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-march-berlin-protest-115/





*Background on Monsanto:*

*2013 - Monsanto and Walmart Influence Secret TPP Negotiations*

*2013 - Two Million March Against Monsanto in Worldwide Protest of GM Foods*

*2013 - GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21*

*2012 - Russia Bans GMO Corn Over Cancer Fears as Pressure Builds on Monsanto* 

*2012 - WikiLeaks: More Evidence of Monsanto's Bullying and Influence-Buying*

*2012 - France May Issue Call for Europe-Wide Ban on GM Corn*
=======


*News Updates --*


*Protesters March Against Monsanto in 250 Cities*
ABC News

*On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill*
RT.com - May 24, 2013

*Global march challenges Monsanto's dominance*
RT.com

*Connecticut residents to march against Monsanto*
Ventura County Star

*March Against Monsanto takes place Saturday in Boise and in over 45 countries*
Idaho Statesman

*March Against Monsanto: Austinites set to protest GMOs*
Austin Chronicle

*Global ‘March Against Monsanto’ Comes to Anchorage, Alaska*
KTVA 11 - Alaska

*350 Expected To Attend Saturday March Against Monsanto*
The Chattanoogan

*San Diegans to March and Rally Against Monsanto in Balboa Park*
Ob Rag

*March Against Monsanto in Fort Worth, Texas*
Fort Worth Weekly

*Charlotte to participate in worldwide March Against Monsanto*
clclt.com

*Saturday march protests genetically modified foods, Monsanto*
St. Cloud Times

*March Against Monsanto: Boston Residents Will Protest GMOs*
Boston Magazine

*Bulgarians Join Global March Against Monsanto*
Novinite JSC

*March Against Monsanto In 12 Michigan Cities Saturday*
wsjm.com

*Protest Planned Against Monsanto | St. Louis Public Radio*
St. Louis Public Radio

*March on Monsanto to be held Saturday in Mt. Pleasant*
The Morning Sun

*Monsanto Opponents Rally at Main Beach*
Laguna Beach Independent

*Protest against Monsanto comes to Vallejo*
Vallejo Times-Herald

*March Against Monsanto planned for Saturday in Louisville*
Courier Journal

----------


## FrankRep

*Videos*

*March Against Monsanto in Tokyo, Japan*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT5BCJhfLbM


*March Against Monsanto in Sydney, Australia*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-mBSmrJ4c


*March Against Monsanto in Melbourne, Australia*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlFiERZQgxc


*March Against Monsanto in Brisbane, Australia*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vRlZp9UKVs


*March Against Monsanto in Vienna, Austria*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR6z-G81BlY

*March Against Monsanto in Whangarei, Northland, New Zealand*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRjJ_3tNhA

----------


## Brett85

My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

There is one in West Palm too. Saw a picture. Looked like a lot of people.

----------


## JK/SEA

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.


Don't think they should be VILLIFYING Monsanto?.....

Yes...Monsanto has our best interests at heart....

----------


## FrankRep

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.


I'm just happy the left is actually attacking a Corporation that is actually corrupt. The funny part is that Monsanto is a leftist corporation that promotes the United Nations and Agenda 21.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I'm just happy the left is actually attacking a Corporation that is actually corrupt. The funny part is that Monsanto is a leftist corporation that promotes the United Nations and Agenda 21.




What exactly does *leftist* mean?


There's common ground between "left" and "right" now more than ever.  If you reframe it as ruling class and citizens...  it seems a lot more accurate, and there is a lot more agreement.

Maybe you guys haven't noticed, but the media often portrays occupy protestors as "anarchists."  Where'd that oxymoron thread go?

Increasing amounts of people are recognizing problems.  We're still in the identification phase... moreso than the solution phase.

----------


## FrankRep

> What exactly does *leftist* mean?


The Big Government, Progressive, Socialist type of people.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.


Nothing wrong with business. 

What is wrong with Monsanto and many other corporations that fall under 'crony capitalism' is the limited liability as well as the collusion with the media that keeps criticism of their backs, which is certainly convenient.. But that's what media does for their advertisers. It's a bunch of backscratching. You pay me money for ads, I'll get your back if you ever need it. In that regard advertisements are more than direct advertising, but a sort of unwritten insurance policy, buying the editors.

If corporations are people, how come they are not liable ?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> The Big Government, Progressive, Socialist type of people.



A lot of those people would identify the problem as rich people controlling government.  In these parts, people identify it as businesses controlling government.  

I'll submit this for your consideration.  If businesses are large enough to control government, aren't we also talking about rich people controlling government?

----------


## FrankRep

> A lot of those people would identify the problem as rich people controlling government.  In these parts, people identify it as businesses controlling government.


Government, itself, is the problem. It's too powerful and corrupt.

----------


## Warlord

> Don't think they should be VILLIFYING Monsanto?.....
> 
> Yes...Monsanto has our best interests at heart....


Monsanto is a corporation doing nothing illegal.

The real target should be the bureaucracy in DC.

Kind of like Occupy targeting the big banks when they should be targeting the Federal Reserve.

Warlord is embarrassed by this spectacle.

----------


## liberty2897

This is a great post from GunnyFreedom on the subject from last year.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4510425

----------


## Warlord

Warlord thinks Gunny is wrong to call for Federal labelling and frame it as a stop gap measure.

Since when has ANY increase in the bureaucracies power and budget been "stop-gap". 

Please no... Warlord would rather not have the Feds labeling food. It's a clear violation of the constitution and  Monsanto will just find some way of evading it anyway because they own most of the administrators and have bought off the politicians.

----------


## FrankRep

> Please no... Warlord would rather not have the Feds labeling food. It's a clear violation of the constitution and  Monsanto will just find some way of evading it anyway because they own most of the administrators and have bought off the politicians.


GMO food labeling would fit under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, I believe.

----------


## Brett85

> Nothing wrong with business. 
> 
> What is wrong with Monsanto and many other corporations that fall under 'crony capitalism' is the limited liability as well as the collusion with the media that keeps criticism of their backs, which is certainly convenient.


Then shouldn't the criticism be of the government for giving unfair advantages to certain businesses and interfering in the market place?

----------


## Brett85

> This is a great post from GunnyFreedom on the subject from last year.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4510425


So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?

----------


## Carlybee

How is the Houston one going.  I didn't go even though I live near where it's happening.  Just had too much going on today.

----------


## Warlord

> GMO food labeling would fit under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, I believe.


Under an expansive (and wrong) interpretation it would but then if you recognize the Feds can label food you have to accept they can mandate you to buy healthcare and everything else which as you know was never the intention of the Founding fathers vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Government, itself, is the problem. It's too powerful and corrupt.



We personally agree.  That's solution phase.

I'm trying to say that we will get more people to agree with our solution if we get more people to understand they are identifying the same problems as us.  As it is, there are a bunch of people who can barely identify the problem.  There are groups of passionate people who understand the problem exists, even if we don't all agree on the solution.  We have a lot in common with those "leftists" just like "neocons" are different from "conservatives."

----------


## Barrex

In 6 cities in Croatia. 




Couldnt attend protests....was fighting Monsanto by planting local watermelons, beans, corn etc...

----------


## liberty2897

> So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?


I see what you are saying, but I think what GunnyFreedom did was limited to the state of NC.  If you want to get rid of all government federal and state, then I'm all for it.  I think states deciding what is good for them might be a practical solution for the time being.  Monsanto, in my opinion, is playing with nature in a strong-armed way that could *potentially* be devastating to everyone on the planet.  Can you say for sure that GMO could not cause loss of crop diversity and lead to a catastrophic failure of the food supply?  I think people should have some say in how these companies operate within the current system that we have.  At the very least, companies should be able to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO without fear of being sued.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Couldnt attend protests....was fighting Monsanto by planting local watermelons, beans, corn etc...


reported. sorry, its for your own good.

----------


## FrankRep

> Please no... Warlord would rather not have the Feds labeling food. It's a clear violation of the constitution and  Monsanto will just find some way of evading it anyway because they own most of the administrators and have bought off the politicians.


GMO Labeling can be done at the State Level too.





*California GMO-Labeling Ballot Measure Fails*
07 November 2012

----------


## Barrex

> reported. sorry, its for your own good.


You are not in Kansas anymore 

This is Croatia...(or Apsurdistan as we "natives" call it). People here love too much their gardens and ... ahem... moonshine and stuff like that...

----------


## Working Poor

> So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?


Oh please Monsanto is big into corporate welfare and pits small farms out of business everyday while selling foods on the market that are toxic because theiR honchos control the fad and the user and the crank out regulations that knocks the little guy in the dirt if you call that free market I give up.

----------


## donnay

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.


And only ignorant people who have no knowledge of the poisons in GMO's would make such a flippant comment.     This isn't a left/right issue this is a right/wrong issue, plain and simple.

Monsanto is a giant swallowing all the little people whole.  They destroy anyone who gets in their way of making profits.


ETA:
Monsanto should be closed down and the top echelons (past and present) should be arrested and stand trial for crimes against humanity.

----------


## opal

someone please fix the first post.. Vienna is in Austria, not Germany

ETA.. pardon me.. second post

----------


## Debbie Downer

I actually applied for a job at Monsanto today :/

----------


## FrankRep

> someone please fix the first post.. Vienna is in Austria, not Germany
> 
> ETA.. pardon me.. second post


fixed.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> someone please fix the first post.. Vienna is in Austria, not Germany
> 
> ETA.. pardon me.. second post


These Austrians seemed pretty happy to become part of Germany:



Must have been the promise of universal dental care that had them smiling...

----------


## Carlybee

For those with questions about what Monsanto does, watch this and know the government is in bed with them and protecting them.  Free market doesnt help with this because they have their fingers in everything.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> And only ignorant people who have no knowledge of the poisons in GMO's would make such a flippant comment.     This isn't a left/right issue this is a right/wrong issue, plain and simple.
> 
> Monsanto is a giant swallowing all the little people whole.  They destroy anyone who gets in their way of making profits.
> 
> 
> ETA:
> Monsanto should be closed down and the top echelons (past and present) should be arrested and stand trial for crimes against humanity.


Spot on, Donnay. Growth versus survival. 

This issue extends to foreign policy as many may already understand.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> For those with questions about what Monsanto does, watch this and know the government is in bed with them and protecting them.  Free market doesnt help with this because they have their fingers in everything.
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/


What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> ... companies should be able to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO without fear of being sued.


How is it dangerous to label food as non-GMO?

----------


## FrankRep

> What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.


Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.


The problem is simple. The base is illiterate to the science of it. People fail to demand the position of their prospective representatives regarding the science of it before just electing them to office where they'll surely represent those who lobby and do understand it. It's the only true answer. The base remains illiterate regarding the science used against their very being. Those who use it against them get a free pass based upon a purely naive assumption of capitalism whereas in reality we have just another government controlled market. One that actually does understand the sciences that they use against the natural citizen....literally. Traditionally the radical right is anti-science in general and impedes bipartisanship on any discussion regarding the matter. The old "oh, their a bunch of lefties" spew is basically all they've been indoctrinated to recite. This essentially endorses and breeds the illiteracy. Again, it's simple illiteracy as to the scientific practices that this and other multi-national corporations like them receive support for via what was historically a nation of, by and for us natural people before these same corprations became comfortable with their own gift of constitution/representation via artificial personhood. Is a battle for citizenship among other things. At this rate of support from our representatives they'll surely have our genes patented and we'll be paying them royalties for every generation to follow. We the people repatriated, so to speak.

This issue should be present in any discussion from our representatives where foreign policy is present. World wide protests have been, are and will continue to take place.

----------


## Carlybee

> What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.


You need to research it..start with watching the documentary.  The govt is protecting them.  A former Monsanto exec was head of the USDA.  Monsanto bullies small farmers and tries to force them to use their seed stock.  Too many issues to paraphrase it.  As for GMOs in general, almost all the major food brands use it...everything from Kraft to Hellman's to you name it.  Even Whole Foods announced they cannot guarantee that their food won't contain it.  Even if you could get them to say they won't use it, how would you know without labeling?  At least that puts some liability on them.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.


Why aren't private labs selling that information to interested consumers?

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.


So the threat of government violence should be used to force companies to label their products in a certain way?

----------


## donnay

> I actually applied for a job at Monsanto today :/


As a tastes tester?

----------


## Debbie Downer

> As a tastes tester?


Legal department, actually. But I have no problem with their products to be honest.

----------


## Roxi

Kansas City


This is my friend Tracy and her son and some of our homeschool group and RP groups. 



There wasn't a march in my area and I wasn't able to organize one myself, so I spent the day putting heirloom veggies in the ground.

----------


## Carlybee

> I have no problem with their products to be honest.



Cool...you should try some Round Up in your smoothie

----------


## donnay

I already posted a good video about GMO's. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...O-s-Full-Movie







*The world's leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs".*


*Take the time to watch it, please.*

To thumb-nail it; we are being slowly poisoned.  Unless you become aware of these poisons the more these poisons will be crammed down our throats!

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Cool...you should try some Round Up in your smoothie


Why would I put a herbicide in my smoothie?




> Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.
> 
> The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity. The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.

----------


## donnay

> Legal department, actually. But I have no problem with their products to be honest.


You can be honest all you want, it doesn't mean that you aren't being poisoned slowly.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why would I put a herbicide in my smoothie?


  Might as well...they want to put it in our crops  (I was being facetious)

----------


## donnay

> Why would I put a herbicide in my smoothie?



Because many companies that are using Monsanto's GMO's are inadvertently putting herbicides in your food.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Might as well...they want to put it in our crops


Want to? Glyphosate (Round Up) has been around since the early 70s and is the most used herbicide in the world. It's safe to use.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Because many companies that are using Monsanto's GMO's are inadvertently putting herbicides in your food.


Monsanto has developed plants which are resistant to glyphosate...

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I actually applied for a job at Monsanto today :/



LMAO.  You might be really funny.

----------


## donnay

> Want to? Glyphosate (Round Up) has been around since the early 70s and is the most used herbicide in the world. It's safe to use.


That's what they said about Agent Orange too.

----------


## Natural Citizen



----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You need to research it..start with watching the documentary.  The govt is protecting them.  A former Monsanto exec was head of the USDA.  Monsanto bullies small farmers and tries to force them to use their seed stock.  Too many issues to paraphrase it.  As for GMOs in general, almost all the major food brands use it...everything from Kraft to Hellman's to you name it.  Even Whole Foods announced they cannot guarantee that their food won't contain it.  Even if you could get them to say they won't use it, how would you know without labeling?  At least that puts some liability on them.


Major food brands like Kraft and Hellman can be boycotted. It's hard to take any protester seriously who doesn't practice what they preach. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping private labs from reporting which foods have GMO's, and private labs competing to provide this service would certainly be less expensive and more reliable than the FDA. Why is anyone asking for the FDA to be involved?

----------


## Debbie Downer

> That's what they said about Agent Orange too.


Agent Orange was developed as a chemical weapon, not as an agricultural product. Glyphosate has been used safely for over 40 years. Please show me peer reviewed studies that show it has led to deaths or serious illness when used correctly (ie: not deliberately ingested).

----------


## Anti Federalist

Josh_LA is back...LOL

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Josh_LA is back...LOL


Nope, he's not.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Monsanto is a corporation doing nothing illegal.
> 
> The real target should be the bureaucracy in DC.
> 
> Kind of like Occupy targeting the big banks when they should be targeting the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Warlord is embarrassed by this spectacle.


When you chop down a tree, usually you start at the bottom.

----------


## Carlybee

> Want to? Glyphosate (Round Up) has been around since the early 70s and is the most used herbicide in the world. It's safe to use.



um hum

----------


## donnay

> Monsanto has developed plants which are resistant to glyphosate...



Glyphosate was patented in 1964--not as an herbicide but as a broad spectrum chelator.  What it does is it hugs a lot of the minerals and does not allow the plant to get the minerals--hence when you or I eat these plants, we get no minerals.  It also kills beneficial microorganisms in the soil that provide nutrients in the plant.  It also promotes pathogenic organisms in the soil that overrun the plants--which promotes a weaker plant and invites more disease.

Then in turn this is given to livestock.  Non-nutrient based food.  Then we eat the livestock--it becomes a vicious circle.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

All this Monsanto drama is from people assuming that only the federal government knows how to print food-labels?

----------


## donnay

> Agent Orange was developed as a chemical weapon, not as an agricultural product. Glyphosate has been used safely for over 40 years. Please show me peer reviewed studies that show it has led to deaths or serious illness when used correctly (ie: not deliberately ingested).


Agent Orange (Dioxin) was indeed used as an herbicide.



A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended for human consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange.  



       When dioxin contaminated material spread on a Missouri farm in 1971, hundreds of birds, 11 cats, 4 dogs and 43 horses died.   



       In 1978 the EPA suspended spraying Agent Orange in national forests, due to increases in miscarriages in women living near forests that had been sprayed.  



       A 1979 study published in the JAMA by Bogen et al looked at 78 Vietnam veterans who reported Agent Orange exposures. Eighty percent reported extreme fatigue. Over 60% had peripheral neuropathies, 73% had depression, and 8% had attempted suicide. Forty-five per cent reported violent rages. Sudden lapses of memory were seen in 21%.  

Source:
http://www.wjpbr.com/agentor.html

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Agent Orange (Dioxin) was indeed used as an herbicide.


I never said it wasn't used as a herbicide, that's obviously what it was developed for! I said it was never developed for use as an agricultural product, but instead as a chemical weapon. 

Glyphosate, on the other hand, has 40+ year track record of safe use.

----------


## donnay

> All this Monsanto drama is from people assuming that only the federal government knows how to print food-labels?


The federal government is in bed with these rat bastards!!   Check out Michael Taylor.

----------


## mad cow

Thank God for  massive Government power and regulations!
Without it people would be walking down the street in NYC drinking huge sodas,eating trans fats and smoking cigarettes,free as a bird.

It is hard to live a free life when all around you people are demanding shorter chains and smaller cages.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The federal government is in bed with these rat bastards!!   Check out Michael Taylor.


I can believe that, but I'd look for solutions besides expanding FDA power.

----------


## donnay

> I never said it wasn't used as a herbicide, that's obviously what it was developed for! *I said it was never developed for use as an agricultural product*, but instead as a chemical weapon. 
> 
> Glyphosate, on the other hand, has 40+ year track record of safe use.



You don't read all too well, eh?

"A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and *crops intended for human consumption*. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange."

----------


## Brett85

> Oh please Monsanto is big into corporate welfare and pits small farms out of business everyday while selling foods on the market that are toxic because theiR honchos control the fad and the user and the crank out regulations that knocks the little guy in the dirt if you call that free market I give up.


Right, and your solution is to make the market even less free.  Correct?

----------


## Roxi

Vegas: 




a link to many more from LV: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1922664&type=1

----------


## liberty2897

> I can believe that, but I'd look for solutions besides expanding FDA power.


Who here is asking to expand FDA power?  Monsanto and the FDA are pretty much the same thing at this point.

----------


## donnay

> I can believe that, but I'd look for solutions besides expanding FDA power.


The march against Monsanto is to bring awareness to people who do not know or realize how poison these GMO's are.  It's more like people putting a spot light on the government collusion and Big Agra.  

We need more people to be aware of these toxins, therefore, they can make better choices in the food they choose and refuse to buy foods from companies who use GMO's.  Many in the organic community already have taken it upon themselves to label their products.

Did you know that the workers who work for Monsanto refuse to eat the GMO's in their cafeteria?

Source:
http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/02/mon...ans-gmo-foods/

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Who here is asking to expand FDA power?  Monsanto and the FDA are pretty much the same thing at this point.


I thought the March Against Monsanto was calling for the FDA to label GMO foods somehow? I also though the March was opposing the Farmer Assurance Provision, because Marchers want the government to ban the sale of harmful GMO products (cf. banning the sale of large sodas, cigarettes, alcohol, cars, etc.)

----------


## Debbie Downer

> You don't read all too well, eh?
> 
> "A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and *crops intended for human consumption*. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange."


Agent Orange was never developed as an agricultural product. It was designed by the Army to be used as a chemical weapon to destroy enemy crops, not as a agricultural herbicide safe for use with food consumed by humans. 

But you keep changing the subject. We're not talking about agent orange, we're discussing glyphosate, which has a 40+ year record of being safely used. It's the most used herbicide in the US and there is no record of it being attributed to any deaths or serious illness when used properly.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> we're discussing glyphosate


Wait a second. Let me just get this right. The fuggin world is marching against monsanto and we're talking about _glyphosate_?

There's a saying for this skullduggery. It goes like this. Listen now...it goes  "*Shut up! Listen!"* Move along, nothing to see here...we're talking about ..._glyphosate._

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Wait a second. Let me just get this right. The fuggin world is marching against monsanto and we're talking about _glyphosate_?
> 
> There's a saying for this skullduggery. It goes like this. Listen now...it goes  "*Shut up! Listen!"* Move along, nothing to see here...


Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.


I know what it is. It inhibits natural detoxification in human cells....for one. 

I'd rather read updates regarding these protests though. Everyone here knows what these herbicides are and do. The hell do we want to waste our time with redundant back and forth spin for? That's really all you're doing.

----------


## pcosmar

> Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.


Also widely blamed for Bee die off.

In fact,, recently a bee keeper had all his bees stolen,, he was developing bees that were Round Up resistant.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/illinoi...queens/5336210

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick...dified-plants/

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.


it's actually failing as weeds are getting used to it and Monsanto is working on more robust crops that can survive being sprayed with agent orange.

-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

This appears to be a media blackout.  On Google news, this is the only story that comes up unless you specifically search for Monsanto:

On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill
RT.com - May 24, 2013

is anyone catching it on cable news?

-t

----------


## Natural Citizen

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainst...

GLOBAL EVENT LIST
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/l...

----------


## Carlybee

> Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.



Glyphosate is under investigation for possibly being linked to cancer and parkinson's among other things.  Monsanto genetically alters seed stock so that it can withstand being sprayed with Roundup but sure we all need to injest a little weed killer from time to time. (rolls eyes).  Not to mention the fact that Monsanto wants to take over the world's seed stock by whatever means possible.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

Ban GMO foods, and many will be unable to afford the remaining food. Socialism inflates the human population.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This is a great post from GunnyFreedom on the subject from last year.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4510425


To be fair, I have figured out a _much_ better way since then.  Simply add to the definition of 'fraud' the practice of pretending that GMO tomatos are natural tomatos.  It is very minimalist, and when labeling laws go away it self-obsoletes.

I only _ever_ supported STATE (definitely not Federal as that would be blatantly unconstitutional) labeling as an emergency measure in a fascistic (not free) market as a means of self-defense against Federal aggression in this area.  I have evolved from that somewhat drastic position into the most minor of tweaks -- specifically defining the act of promoting man-manipulated GMO [product] as if it were a natural [product] as being fraud.  In other words, bombarding a tomato seed with frog DNA until it was something different is no longer a "tomato" and those who pretend it is are guilty of fraud.

It ends up being a very minor tweak but solves the labeling problem, and when we finally manage to end the FDA labeling requirement id obsoletes itself like it never existed.

I've never - ever - supported federal mandated labeling of any kind.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?


No, the solution was to establish a State level barricade (self defense) against Federal level aggression (regulatory bans against disclosure).  

I have since refined the idea into a much...much...better solution.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> In other words, bombarding a tomato seed with frog DNA until it was something different is no longer a "tomato" and those who pretend it is are guilty of fraud.



See? Gunny is brilliant. If I lived in your state I'd vote for you. Gunny just gave his position on the science of it. Is all that is required.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Under an expansive (and wrong) interpretation it would but then if you recognize the Feds can label food you have to accept they can mandate you to buy healthcare and everything else which as you know was never the intention of the Founding fathers vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.


No, technically it would be Constitutional to require disclosure of GMO for any products that actually crossed State lines under the original intent of the Commerce Clause.  However there is a _much_ better way to accomplish the same goal simply by defining the practice of pretending that a frogmato was a genuine tomato as fraud.

----------


## Carlybee

> Ban GMO foods, and many will be unable to afford the remaining food. Socialism inflates the human population.


So we should all just eat poison then?   I have cut out 50% of GMO foods and am actually saving money.  I buy organic non GMO produce from local farmers through a co-op on a weekly basis and yes it's more work because I actually have to prepare my own food instead of opening a can or box but I actually spend less. Roughly $85 for enough greens and fruit that lasts me a week or longer and roughly another $50-$60 a week for other products. We don't use much potatos, rice or bread and little dairy but we do buy free range non hormone added chicken which is about $20 for 10 boneless breasts.  We make our own juice and I make my own salad dressing.  I'm not saying we don't go out once a week or so to eat but since I don't want to waste the food we buy we do prepare food at home more often so we save money that way as well.

The best solution is putting pressure on the Ag industry and food conglomerates to label on a voluntary basis.  Problem is they would probably lie about it.  Problem with the government mandating is is that it just gives them more nanny like power.  It IS a conundrum but people should try to do their own due diligence.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I see what you are saying, but I think what GunnyFreedom did was limited to the state of NC.  If you want to get rid of all government federal and state, then I'm all for it.  I think states deciding what is good for them might be a practical solution for the time being.  Monsanto, in my opinion, is playing with nature in a strong-armed way that could *potentially* be devastating to everyone on the planet.  Can you say for sure that GMO could not cause loss of crop diversity and lead to a catastrophic failure of the food supply?  I think people should have some say in how these companies operate within the current system that we have.  At the very least, companies should be able to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO without fear of being sued.


Correct.  I could have never advocated for something like that at the Federal level at all.  ever.  Mandating federal GMO labeling would be completely unconstitutional.  There is simply no authority in the US Constitution granting Washington that kind of power.  It was only at the State level, and that was because I did not at the time have the far better (and less interventionist) solution that I do now.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How is it dangerous to label food as non-GMO?



It's not.  Companies should be free to label or not to label as they see fit.  It becomes a real problem when the FDA steps in and says you are not _allowed_ to label [product] as "GMO Free" that it becomes fascistic and thus subject to the enactment of State level defenses.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.


I admit, I really expected you to be on the other side of this issue.  I am heartened. I am not being sarcastic.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Remember that Congress banned organic food from being labeled organic.  But somehow it became OK to lable GMO food as organic... 

-t

----------


## mad cow

> I think states deciding what is good for them might be a practical solution for the time being.


What is your opinion of Mayors and Cities deciding what is good for them,oh say Mayor Bloomberg and NYC for instance?You know,keeping it local.Even better,yes?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> So we should all just eat poison then?   I have cut out 50% of GMO foods and am actually saving money.  I buy organic non GMO produce from local farmers through a co-op on a weekly basis and yes it's more work because I actually have to prepare my own food instead of opening a can or box but I actually spend less. Roughly $85 for enough greens and fruit that lasts me a week or longer and roughly another $50-$60 a week for other products. We don't use much potatos, rice or bread and little dairy but we do buy free range non hormone added chicken which is about $20 for 10 boneless breasts.  We make our own juice and I make my own salad dressing.  I'm not saying we don't go out once a week or so to eat but since I don't want to waste the food we buy we do prepare food at home more often so we save money that way as well.
> 
> The best solution is putting pressure on the Ag industry and food conglomerates to label on a voluntary basis.  Problem is they would probably lie about it.  Problem with the government mandating is is that it just gives them more nanny like power.  It IS a conundrum but people should try to do their own due diligence.


Private labs could do the testing. No nannies, less prone to corruption than FDA, and cheaper.

----------


## Carlybee

My biggest problem with a lot of these protests is some of these people still don't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

----------


## sailingaway



----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Remember that Congress banned organic food from being labeled organic.  But somehow it became OK to lable GMO food as organic... 
> 
> -t


When did Congress do that? I'd like to see that legislation.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So the threat of government violence should be used to force companies to label their products in a certain way?


No.  The threat of violence should _NOT_ be used to shutter and bankrupt companies who choose to voluntarily label their products as "GMO Free."  Because such violence _IS_ being used to prevent said voluntary labeling, a State's right to self-defense against federal aggression exists under the NAP.  I have a _much_ better strategy for said self-defense than I did a year ago, one that automatically obsoletes itself when the labeling laws that currently exist go away.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> My biggest problem with a lot of these protests is some of these people still don't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.


I made that distinction pretty clear during my speech at the Greensboro March Against Monsanto today.  ;p

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It's not.  Companies should be free to label or not to label as they see fit.  It becomes a real problem when the FDA steps in and says you are not _allowed_ to label [product] as "GMO Free" that it becomes fascistic and thus subject to the enactment of State level defenses.


Where did FDA do that?

----------


## sailingaway



----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Private labs could do the testing. No nannies, less prone to corruption than FDA, and cheaper.


FDA needs to die, and then this whole discussion would be moot.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> My biggest problem with a lot of these protests is some of these people still don't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.


Yep. But these are dragons that we can overcome.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Where did FDA do that?


Several times, the most famous example is salmon.  FDA says labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" misleads the consumer as if GMO were somehow different.  Also that the consumer would be confused by too many labels.  Therefore labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" is a regulatory violation subject to penalty.  FDA also did so with milk/dairy and rBGH.  

Just because FDA allows SOME products to be labeled GMO Free (only those where GMO is already fully ubiquitous) doesn't mean they allow ALL natural products to be labeled GMO Free.

Salmon is just the most famous example.

----------


## donnay

> Agent Orange was never developed as an agricultural product. It was designed by the Army to be used as a chemical weapon to destroy enemy crops, not as a agricultural herbicide safe for use with food consumed by humans. 
> 
> But you keep changing the subject. We're not talking about agent orange, we're discussing glyphosate, which has a 40+ year record of being safely used. It's the most used herbicide in the US and there is no record of it being attributed to any deaths or serious illness when used properly.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This appears to be a media blackout.  On Google news, this is the only story that comes up unless you specifically search for Monsanto:
> 
> On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill
> RT.com - May 24, 2013
> 
> is anyone catching it on cable news?
> 
> -t


Well. RT is part of my cable lineup now. Is a refreshing change of pace to actually see and hear genuine issues presented for scrutiny to the public. Discussion here includes the relationships between our representatives and these companies that they protect.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yep. But these are dragons that we can overcome.



You can start with the Anonymous organization and Occupy Monsanto

----------


## Carlybee

Facebook censoring pics of children carrying protest signs at Monsanto marches

http://www.naturalnews.com/040484_Fa...nto_rally.html

----------


## sailingaway

From one of the marches, via twitter:

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You can start with the Anonymous organization and Occupy Monsanto


Maybe. We probably disagree on that. I'd rather engage the biggest, baddest supporter/enabler/group of enablers of the travesy and deal with it that way. Force them to defend the fodder. Anonymous and occupy are a glorified domino effect.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Several times, the most famous example is salmon.  FDA says labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" misleads the consumer as if GMO were somehow different.  Also that the consumer would be confused by too many labels.  Therefore labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" is a regulatory violation subject to penalty.  FDA also did so with milk/dairy and rBGH.  
> 
> Just because FDA allows SOME products to be labeled GMO Free (only those where GMO is already fully ubiquitous) doesn't mean they allow ALL natural products to be labeled GMO Free.
> 
> Salmon is just the most famous example.


Could the FDA stop a private lab from testing foods for GMO and reporting the results to consumers?

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak



----------


## Natural Citizen

March Against Monsanto World Coverage

Synergy.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

Let me get this straight. The point of the march was to put a Monsanto employee in charge of labelling GMO foods.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Let me get this straight. The point of the march was to put a Monsanto employee in charge of labelling GMO foods.


Seems like people are just asking who speaks for them? So who does? Who speaks for them? We know who speaks for Monsanto. But who speaks for the people? The real ones.

----------


## Roxi

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...#axzz2UNK50ECQ

Las Vegas Sun article about the march today.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Seems like people are just asking who speaks for them? So who does? Who speaks for them? We know who speaks for Monsanto. But who speaks for the people? The real ones.


Real people speak for themselves, by identifying non-GMO foods without relying on the government, buying whichever food they choose, and leaving their neighbors free to eat GMO food if that's what their neighbors choose.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Real people speak for themselves, by identifying non-GMO foods without relying on the government, buying whichever food they choose, and leaving their neighbors free to eat GMO food if that's what their neighbors choose.


You're still begging the question.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You're still begging the question.


Is English your primary language?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Is English your primary language?


Of course, it is. I'd suggest that you research the issue more thoroughly though. Goodbye.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'd suggest that you research the issue more thoroughly though.


I hear that a lot from people who don't know what they're talking about.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

People should know specifically what they're buying.

The FDA isn't even up to the task.

Private labs _are_ able to test.. though I don't see your point? If they tell me it is wild Alaskan salmon it damn sure ought to be. Not a genetically created 'fish.'

Whether or not the 'fish' has any negative health effects is secondary. I have the right to make the decision.

My opinion that we shouldn't be cross 'engineering' things that seem 'effective' with supposedly 'trivial' consequences, aside.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Real people speak for themselves, by identifying non-GMO foods without relying on the government, buying whichever food they choose, and leaving their neighbors free to eat GMO food if that's what their neighbors choose.


Real people should have a choice. They should know if they are being sold monsanto garbage. If gmo is so great, then label it so! List the product.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We personally agree.  That's solution phase.
> 
> I'm trying to say that we will get more people to agree with our solution if we get more people to understand they are identifying the same problems as us.  As it is, there are a bunch of people who can barely identify the problem.  There are groups of passionate people who understand the problem exists, even if we don't all agree on the solution.  *We have a lot in common with those "leftists" just like "neocons" are different from "conservatives."*


Yep.  "Liberty" movements worldwide have always had their roots in radical leftism.  Right-ism is oppressive by nature.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> If gmo is so great, then label it so! List the product.[/B]


I don't think it's so great.




> Real people should have a choice. They should know if they are being sold monsanto garbage.


Some people don't care, and they should be left out of this. That's what the people marching to expand the FDA don't acknowledge. People who do want to avoid Monsanto products are free to hire a private lab to tell them what's in a food-product. No sympathy for the marchers too lazy and uninitiated to hire a private lab, who'd sooner expand the role of federal government instinctively like pavlovian dogs.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> People should know specifically what they're buying.
> 
> The FDA isn't even up to the task.
> 
> Private labs _are_ able to test.. though I don't see your point? If they tell me it is wild Alaskan salmon it damn sure ought to be. Not a genetically created 'fish.'
> 
> Whether or not the 'fish' has any negative health effects is secondary. I have the right to make the decision.
> 
> My opinion that we shouldn't be cross 'engineering' things that seem 'effective' with supposedly 'trivial' consequences, aside.


It seems to me that not labeling GMO foods is a type of fraud by omission.  FWIW.

----------


## bolil

> People should know specifically what they're buying.
> 
> The FDA isn't even up to the task.
> 
> Private labs _are_ able to test.. though I don't see your point? If they tell me it is wild Alaskan salmon it damn sure ought to be. Not a genetically created 'fish.'
> 
> Whether or not the 'fish' has any negative health effects is secondary. I have the right to make the decision.
> 
> My opinion that we shouldn't be cross 'engineering' things that seem 'effective' with supposedly 'trivial' consequences, aside.


If you buy a product labeled 'Alaskan salmon' and it turns out not to be Alaskan salmon, it seems obvious your property rights were violated (you paid for one thing, and got another).  If I paid to see a movie A and, instead, was shown movie B, it should be clear that my rights have been violated.  So, basically, if I am a fishmonger I should be able to sell any fish I please as any fish I please... unless someone tests it.  And should they test it, and my product proven false, I've got a lawsuit coming my way.

If some jerkoff labels GMO food as 'organic' they should have a lawsuit slap coming.  If they can hide behind the FDA, said lawsuit slap is DOA.

The FDA couldn't give a $#@! less, private and competing veracity firms might.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

127 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab

Kneejerk fascism on display.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I hear that a lot from people who don't know what they're talking about.



I tried to find a really basic paper to save me some typing. Hope it helps...




> After US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the State Department was lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other similar corporations, a new report based on the cables shows Washington's shilling for the biotech industry in distinct detail.
> 
> The August 2011 WikiLeaks revelations showed that American diplomats had requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to hold talks with politicians and agricultural officials in "_target countries_" in areas like Africa and Latin America, where genetically-modified crops were not yet a mainstay, as well as some European countries that have resisted the controversial agricultural practice.
> 
> After a concerted effort to "_closely examine five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide_," nonprofit consumer protection group Food& Water Watch published on Tuesday a report showing in plain detail the depth of the partnership between the federal government and a number of controversial biotech companies that have slowly but surely pushed their GMO products on a number of new countries in recent years.
> 
> At center stage in the report is Monsanto, the St. Louis, Missouri-based makers of genetically-modified crops and genetically-engineered seeds that has continuously generatedcriticism as of late over its practices both on the growing field and in a court of law. Monsanto is among the most valuable corporations in the US, yet has relentlessly sued small-time farmers across the world over alleged patent violations, often forcing independent agriculturists to go out of business. Legislation signed into law last month provided litigation immunity to GMO companies including Monsanto, and on Monday the Supreme Court sided with the corporation when ruling on a landmark patent infringement case.
> 
> “_The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy_,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter told reporters. “_This report provides a chilling snapshot of how a handful of giant biotechnology companies are unduly influencing US foreign policy and undermining our diplomatic efforts to promote security, international development and transparency worldwide. This report is a call to action for Americans because public policy should not be for sale to the highest bidder_.”
> ...


New cables 'expose' US govt lobbies worldwide for Monsanto, other GMO corps

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> 127 post in this thread so far
> 
> 0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab
> 
> Kneejerk fascism on display.


But you haven't addressed my point.

A chinook-eel-salmon isn't the same as a damn farm raised salmon.

I am not arguing whether or not it is cancerous or bad for the body. I am arguing against the fraudulent marketeering that takes place to actually sell the $#@!.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> But you haven't addressed my point.
> 
> A chinook-eel-salmon isn't the same as a damn farm raised salmon.
> 
> I am not arguing whether or not it is cancerous or bad for the body. I am arguing against the fraudulent marketeering that takes place to actually sell the $#@!.


I wasn't calling everyone a fascist, not calling you one. I've been responding to the argument that the FDA is somehow the only body capable of reporting a food's content. Wizards with super-powers by virtue of their government-employment -- I don't think so.

I am all for people being able to know what they're eating. If I'm still missing your point, I'm sorry for being obtuse, but I don't understand.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> But you haven't addressed my point.
> 
> A chinook-eel-salmon isn't the same as a damn farm raised salmon.
> 
> I am not arguing whether or not it is cancerous or bad for the body. I am arguing against the fraudulent marketeering that takes place to actually sell the $#@!.


Yep. Now we're talking.

----------


## bolil

> Yep. Now we're talking.


Yeah, but it is up to the consumer to be his/her own advocate.  Since the FDA literally gives less than a $#@!, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those $#@!ers to court with evidence that they defrauded you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, but it is up to the consumer to be his/her own advocate.  Since the FDA literally gives less than a $#@!, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those $#@!ers to court with evidence that they defrauded you.


Intellectual Property rights? Or more specifically, trade secrets like they pulled off with the fracking to suppress various aspects of the technology? Good luck with that. Is why I piss and moan about demanding these suits' position on the science itself. It's important.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Why people aren't bothering to hire a lab? A lab for what? To determine whether the salmon matures in 16 months rather than years? I am of the belief they shouldn't be *experimenting* with the $#@! either way. Let's wait until we cause a calamity. But that's neither here nor there... I honestly am content.

All I ask is that the $#@! I am buying is labeled. Not too much to ask, really.

If the price is right, I'd probably buy it either way. (so long as taste isn't affected)

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I tried to find a really basic paper to save me some typing. Hope it helps...
> 
> New cables 'expose' US govt lobbies worldwide for Monsanto, other GMO corps


135 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab

----------


## bolil

> Intellectual Property rights? Or more specifically, trade secrets like they pulled off with the fracking to cover up the damage? Good luck with that. Is why I piss and moan about demandong these suits' position on the science itself. It's important.


IP can kiss my ass, first of all (of course I don't produce any) and secondly IP is not a sufficient to disallow an investigation into potential fraud.

The gov will only label things when it helps their cronies.  Other than that, the only hope for such labels is a privately funded endeavor.  That is all I am saying.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yeah, but it is up to the consumer to be his/her own advocate.  Since the FDA literally gives less than a $#@!, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those $#@!ers to court with evidence that they defrauded you.


Good luck.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> 135 post in this thread so far
> 
> 0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab


Don't you read good?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If you buy a product labeled 'Alaskan salmon' and it turns out not to be Alaskan salmon, it seems obvious your property rights were violated (you paid for one thing, and got another).  If I paid to see a movie A and, instead, was shown movie B, it should be clear that my rights have been violated.  So, basically, if I am a fishmonger I should be able to sell any fish I please as any fish I please... unless someone tests it.  And should they test it, and my product proven false, I've got a lawsuit coming my way.
> 
> If some jerkoff labels GMO food as 'organic' they should have a lawsuit slap coming.  If they can hide behind the FDA, said lawsuit slap is DOA.
> 
> The FDA couldn't give a $#@! less, private and competing veracity firms might.


I wouldn't say any of your rights were violated, but it certainly is breach of contract, which should be handled through adjudication, and awareness campaigns. I'm not opposed to GMO foods and I don't think they're any more carcinogenic or dangerous than non-GMO foods, but the producer certainly has contractual obligations when selling their products not to defraud and be found in breach of contract.

Also, these GMO companies certainly need to be held liable for their property 'drifting' onto another's and causing harm to their property. It's a form of pollution and it too, should be a matter of the courts. Of course, the Government has a monopoly on the courts and of course force so, that's a battle to fight with the courts/Government's interests.

----------


## bolil

> Good luck.


It is just the reality we operate in, I mean no offense.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> 135 post in this thread so far
> 
> 0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab


Because they are colluding with the government to skew any and every negative result or mentioned ruling given?

Please don't point out who the rulings and anonymous amendments added benefit.

----------


## bolil

> I wouldn't say any of your rights were violated, but it certainly is breach of contract, which should be handled through adjudication, and awareness campaigns. I'm not opposed to GMO foods and I don't think their any more carcinogenic or dangerous than non-GMO foods, but the producer certainly has contractual obligations when selling their products not to defraud and be found in breach of contract.


I would say a clear violation of rights occurred: I paid for A and got B.  I've a right to what I exchange for, don't I, exactly what I exchange for?  If a product is labeled as A, that IS a contract, if it is actually B said contract has been breached.  To be more particular, my right to my own property was violated through deception.

This is what Ron Paul is talking about when he says that a free market provides for the strictest regulations.  It is when the FDA establishes, shall I say for lack of better words, wiggle room that equivocation occurs and people are legitimately defrauded.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> All I ask is that the $#@! I am buying is labeled.


If it had a bar-code simply identifying the manufacturer and product, and you scanned the bar-code with an app on your phone, and the app instantly queried a database published by a private lab of your choosing, and the app instantly told you GMO, no-GMO, or whatever else you wanted to know, would that satisfy you?




> Not too much to ask, really.


Asking that the government forcibly take my money to fund the FDA to crappily do something that would be done better by private labs, is too much to ask.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Don't you read good?


No, but even the good readers have seen no explanation given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab.

----------


## bolil

> No, but even the good readers have seen no explanation given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab.


Maybe because it is prohibitively expensive, and any reasonable contracting of this type would have to be done en masse.  Ironically, for a service we already pay for en masse (FDA).  The FDA should be abolished, now, and then private means would be the only means.

Hmmm, seems like a good cause.  This would be a good money bomb.  An organization that tests such things beholden to no one.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Maybe because it is prohibitively expensive, and any reasonable contracting of this type would have to be done en masse.  Ironically, for a service we already pay for (FDA).  The FDA should be abolished, now, and then private means would be the only means.


I don't see why it would be expensive if the millions of people willing to march were as willing to put an app on their phone and start scanning bar-codes. I kind of think some of them just like marching, without much care about what they're marching for. Certainly, it would cost no more to hire private labs than it would to fund the FDA for this.

----------


## bolil

> I don't see why it would be expensive if the millions of people willing to march were as willing to put an app on their phone and start scanning bar-codes. I kind of think some of them just like marching, without much care about what they're marching for.


That is a good point, walking is easy... taking affective action maybe not so much.  From now on, whenever I walk anywhere, I shall consider a one man march for liberty... and then I will do nothing else.

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't see why it would be expensive if the millions of people willing to march were as willing to put an app on their phone and start scanning bar-codes. I kind of think some of them just like marching, without much care about what they're marching for. Certainly, it would cost no more to hire private labs than it would to fund the FDA for this.


Those people at the rally, however, think it's the FDA's job to regulate GMO products. That's why.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If it had a bar-code simply identifying the manufacturer and product, and you scanned the bar-code with an app on your phone, and the app instantly queried a database published by a private lab of your choosing, and the app instantly told you GMO, no-GMO, or whatever else you wanted to know, would that satisfy you?


I think the products should be labeled. Simple enough.

Many people don't have smart phones. Might be surprised at those who don't give a $#@! about _what_ they eat. The packages ought to be labeled though. Prices would go down minimally if at all. (if the prices reflected as much) 




> Asking that the government forcibly take my money to fund the FDA to crappily do something that would be done better by private labs, is too much to ask.


I do not know the solution. I would like to hear yours.

Truth be told, there are things that would need to be worked out... In any system.

*Products ought to be labeled as to what they are.* How that is insured is something I do not know.

----------


## amy31416

I'm not an expert, but I don't have to be to know that Monsanto's manipulation of the plant gene pool is not good. Their practices are abysmal.

----------


## FrankRep

> Many people don't have smart phones. Might be surprised at those who don't give a $#@! about _what_ they eat. The packages ought to be labeled though. Prices would go down minimally if at all. (if the prices reflected as much)


1.) People have access to the Internets.

2.) I don't care if certain people don't care what they eat, plenty more people do care.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> start scanning bar-codes.


Nnnnnnnno. 

In fact, this is another extremely delicate issue that our representatives have enjoyed the luxury of not discussing. Although bar codes are a minimal aspect in scope.

----------


## bolil

> I'm not an expert, but I don't have to be to know that Monsanto's manipulation of the plant gene pool is not good. Their practices are abysmal.


They should be strangled, financially, as a company.

How to do that?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> 1.) People are access to the Internets.
> 
> 2.) I don't care if certain people don't care what they eat, plenty more people do care.


1.) I don't see the point of having access to the internet. The studies being funded and performed by the company in question clearly is a conflict of interest. And many people don't have access to the internet, aside from the library. They don't have smart phones, either.

2.) I think you may be referring to people here? I don't wish to make their creations illegal, though I am mainly opposed. I could care less what people choose to eat. It ought be labeled though. Most people would not care either way.

----------


## amy31416

> They should be strangled, financially, as a company.
> 
> How to do that?


Good question. Especially hard since they are gov't subsidized. I don't buy any of their products, but I know many others do.

----------


## bolil

> Good question. Especially hard since they are gov't subsidized. I don't buy any of their products, but I know many others do.


Maybe nature will strangle them for us... Roundup is losing its efficacy.  Naturals selection is selecting.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I don't care if certain people don't care what they eat, plenty more people do care.


And you feel you have the right to forcibly take money from the people who don't care, in order to fund the FDA?

----------


## FrankRep

> And you feel you have the right to forcibly take money from the people who don't care, in order to fund the FDA?


I want to abolish the FDA.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> *Products ought to be labeled as to what they are.*


A complete, explicit printout of each product's DNA-content on every label? Or just whether it's GMO or not, because that's what you personally care about and you want to force your values on others (correct me if I'm wrong); or what? Someone else might not care about GMO verus non-GMO, but he might have a different set of questions about the food he's buying. Are you ready to cough up some additional tax payments so the FDA can print labels with the information the other guy cares about?




> I think the products should be labeled. Simple enough.


And I want an FDA label to show a complete printout of each product's DNA, its magnetic resonance, and the astrological sign under which the seeds were planted; and if that much detail doesn't interest you, too bad because I still want you to pay for it, and if you don't cough up the money, I want the IRS to kick down your door, shoot your dog, and put you in the slammer. Simple enough.




> Many people don't have smart phones.


Many people will die from starvation if GMO food is banned. The Marchers Against Monsanto don't care about many people.

If a person doesn't have a smartphone he could buy a report, printed on paper and produced by a private lab, which report would contain information about various food products.




> I do not know the solution. I would like to hear yours.


-->




> a bar-code simply identifying the manufacturer and product, and you scanned the bar-code with an app on your phone, and the app instantly queried a database published by a private lab of your choosing, and the app instantly told you GMO, no-GMO, or whatever else you wanted to know


+



> If a person doesn't have a smartphone he could buy a report, printed on paper and produced by a private lab, which report would contain information about various food products.

----------


## mad cow

There are laws against fraud,they are hundreds of years old,I like them,it is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist.

Anybody should be able to put out as much or as little or no information about any product they are selling,if they lie,they are guilty of fraud and they should be punished.

Someone who labels their product *fresh caught wild salmon filets from Alaska,non-GMO,$X.XX/lb.*,should be punished if any word in that label is not true.
Someone who puts a sign next to his pickup truck by the side of the road saying *fish,one dollar each*,same thing.If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!

Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive  testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, but even the good readers have seen no explanation given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab.


Fraud doesn't suddenly become OK just because someone, somewhere might know about it.

And nobody on RPF's much less in this thread believes that the FDA is capable of, well, pretty much anything.  What needs to happen is abolish the FDA and then all of this becomes a moot discussion.  The FDA, however, is not getting abolished any time soon, so we have to deal with the reality we are faced with.

Calling a frogmato a tomato is fraud.  All I, (or most anybody around RPF's on this subject) want, is to stop the fraud.

Any Federal level labeling requirements are unconstitutional.  It would be Constitutional under the original intent of the commerce clause to require labeling for GMO foodstuffs that cross State borders, but it would not be effective, and would lead to unintended consequences.  Therefore any labeling scheme at the federal level should be opposed.

Labeling requirements at the State level are both Constitutional and far more effective, but still not the best solution.

Instead, the best solution would be to add to the definition of fraud the claim that a GMO [product] is just a [product].  Therefore, for as long as a company is required to label ingredients, then any GMO ingredients must be identified as GMO or the labeling is fraudulent.  Then, when we finally manage to abolish the FDA and labeling laws, the requirement goes obsolete and we are left only with the basic requirement "don't perpetrate fraud."

I admit that I am astonished at the passion of those in the liberty movement who are OK with -- and even vehemently defend -- the practice of companies passing off frogmatos as though they were tomatos, with the full regulatory backing of the FDA to keep such things secret from the public. How is fraud OK just because some random guy doesn't mind it?  Should it be OK to sell pork products to a Jew or a Muslim calling it 'beef' just because a Christian doesn't care?  Of course not.

And "hire a lab" is asinine.  It's Ok to perpetrate fraud on people simply because we have the capability of spending $5000 for every meal to test it before we eat it?  I don't think so.

Fraud is fraud.  A frogmato is not a tomato, and when you sell me a frogmato while insisting that it is a tomato you are perpetrating a fraud.

People should have the right to consume GMO if they want, just like people should have the right to consume Drāno or heroin if they want.  Putting heroin into my food in secret and telling me that it's OK because I can always have it tested before I eat it _is not OK_.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Those people at the rally, however, think it's the FDA's job to regulate GMO products. That's why.


Um.  I was a speaker at the rally and I don't think that.  Indeed, I think the FDA is the _problem_.  And I said so.  And it got wildly applauded.  So I'm not sure where you are getting that from.  Is that something the media is saying or something the people involved were saying?

----------


## Debbie Downer

> There are laws against fraud,they are hundreds of years old,I like them,it is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist.
> 
> Anybody should be able to put out as much or as little or no information about any product they are selling,if they lie,they are guilty of fraud and they should be punished.
> 
> Someone who labels their product *fresh caught wild salmon filets from Alaska,non-GMO,$X.XX/lb.*,should be punished if any word in that label is not true.
> Someone who puts a sign next to his pickup truck by the side of the road saying *fish,one dollar each*,same thing.If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!


Well said. As long as GMO growers aren't labeling their products as GMO-free then the government has no right to ban their products or to force them to label in a certain way. The government only has the right to intervene when there is an accusation of fraud, in which case they should investigate and if they have sufficient evidence take the company to court. 

If people want to buy GMO or are too lazy to check if their food is GMO or not then that is their problem. Let the free market decide. If there truly is a market for non-GMO foods then companies will produce them and label them accordingly. We don't need government mandates to keep up "safe."




> Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive  testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?


+rep

What comes to mind is the "USDA certified organic" approval process. It literally costs thousands of dollars per year to remain in compliance. Guess who is able to afford it? Not your local farmer...and it's illegal to call your produce organic without the USDA certification. (There is a sort of exemption for growers who sell less than $5000 per year but they can't say it is "certified organic" or use the USDA organic logo and lots of other restrictions, including I believe selling to commercial vendors)

----------


## donnay

> There are laws against fraud,they are hundreds of years old,I like them,it is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist.
> 
> Anybody should be able to put out as much or as little or no information about any product they are selling,if they lie,they are guilty of fraud and they should be punished.
> 
> Someone who labels their product *fresh caught wild salmon filets from Alaska,non-GMO,$X.XX/lb.*,should be punished if any word in that label is not true.
> Someone who puts a sign next to his pickup truck by the side of the road saying *fish,one dollar each*,same thing.If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!
> 
> Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive  testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?



The dude in the pick-up truck is already being driven out thanks to government regulations and defending their crony corporate friends.  But getting back to being able to sue for fraud.  How do we prove it?

Some of us know that Aspartame is linked to brain cancer and other known ailments and diseases, but according to government and their cronies it is completely safe.  It was introduced as a "sugar substitute"--then people started to wake up.  Some independent studies were done and it was said that Aspartame was linked to all sorts of chronic illness and cancer--but government and cronies keeps on saying it is safe.  Now they put it in things that do not even say, "Sugar-Free."  Example:  Read labels of chewing gum that DO NOT say "sugar-free" in a grocery store.  

The same thing with Monosodium Glutamate except, they just hide it under different names to try to fool the public when reading labels.  Of course they are doing the same with Aspartame too--the new names are; Neotame. and AminoSweet. 

So what do you do?  If you have no idea this is happening and should you or a loved one be stricken with a chronic illness, or worse, brain cancer how does one prove it?

The solution is educating people to these things.  The March Against Monsanto is shining a light on the cockroaches, some people have no idea what these monsters have done and are intending to do to our food supply. 

The agenda is control. 


*"If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population."*
~ Henry Kissinger

----------


## Debbie Downer

> The same thing with Monosodium Glutamate except, they just hide it under different names to try to fool the public when reading labels.  Of course they are doing the same with Aspartame too--the new names are; Neotame. and AminoSweet.


Neotame is chemically a different substance to aspartame and AminoSweet is just a brand of aspartame, similar to Tylenol being a brand of acetaminophen/paracetamol.

----------


## Warlord

+1 to Gunny mentioning the FDA.

States  can do what they like but most of these do gooders want Federal government action. Once you accept that premise you accept the arguments for an expansive state where the Feds can regulate every market or issue any mandate and this was never the intention.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well said. As long as GMO growers aren't labeling their products as GMO-free then the government has no right to ban their products or to force them to label in a certain way. The government only has the right to intervene when there is an accusation of fraud, in which case they should investigate and if they have sufficient evidence take the company to court.


The problem is 1) the FDA only allows sellers to label products "GMO Free" once the GMO components of that product become ubiquitous, meaning you can't get the GMO Free version from America, and 2) calling a GMO product as though it were a regular product _is_ fraud.  A frogmato is not a tomato, and selling a frogmato while calling it a tomato is fraudulent.  




> If people want to buy GMO or are too lazy to check if their food is GMO or not then that is their problem. Let the free market decide. If there truly is a market for non-GMO foods then companies will produce them and label them accordingly. We don't need government mandates to keep up "safe."


In case you haven't noticed, we haven't had a free market in the United States in over 100 years.  If we actually had a free market then all of this would be irrelevant, and people could eat or not eat GMO as they want.  It has nothing to do with laziness.  The government, along with companies like Monsanto, are actively suppressing the disclosure of GMO in food.  No matter how passionate we are to avoid GMO, none of us really have the resources to combat that suppression of information.




> What comes to mind is the "USDA certified organic" approval process. It literally costs thousands of dollars per year to remain in compliance. Guess who is able to afford it? Not your local farmer...and it's illegal to call your produce organic without the USDA certification. (There is a sort of exemption for growers who sell less than $5000 per year but they can't say it is "certified organic" or use the USDA organic logo and lots of other restrictions, including I believe selling to commercial vendors)


Government is not the solution, government is the problem.  I admit that I am astonished at libertarians who are OK with government intervening to suppress GMO disclosure, and think we are nuts for opposing that.  If you don't care about GMO that's perfectly fine, I'm not trying to make it unavailable to you or anybody.  All I'm asking is that you stop excusing the fascist government/food industrial complex from cramming the stuff down my throat without my knowledge.

--

I admit that I do not comprehend the frankly bizarre knee-jerk reactions of some people in the liberty movement to defend the force-feeding of GMO to people who do not want it.  Suddenly big-government armed intervention is OK just because you personally don't care about the subject of government intervention?  I don't give a damn if you don't care, _I_ care, and government enabled fraud by force and deception is evil no matter how you slice it.  

I don't want to prevent your free access to GMO if you want it, all I'm asking is stop supporting the governments efforts to cram the $#@! down my throat without my knowledge.  Is that _really_ too much to ask?

And yes, better-dead, it is the people defending this crap who are the fascists, not the people fighting it.  The whole reason this is an issue at all is the corporatist arrangement between companies like Monsanto and the captured regulators of the FDA and the USDA.  A fascistic system by definition.  We are the ones fighting against the fascism, and you are the ones defending it.  So calling us fascists is at best a kind of pot/kettle thing to be sure.

----------


## Warlord

People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> +1 to Gunny mentioning the FDA.
> 
> States  can do what they like but most of these do gooders want Federal government action. Once you accept that premise you accept the arguments for an expansive state where the Feds can regulate every market or issue any mandate and this was never the intention.


Which is why WE need to be involved to educate and direct them as to who the real enemies are.  That's what I did, and it worked very, very well.  The entire Greensboro event applauded loudly when I identified the FDA as the problem rather than the solution.  We could have replicated that around the nation and ben a lot further along towards a genuine solution today.

You are right that most of these people do not know any better.  The solution to ignorance is education.  Educating them as to why the FDA is the problem and not the solution is our job.  We should be doing it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!


Well, the alternatives I have heard from the "liberty" movement are either grow your own or starve.

Sounds like force to me.

----------


## Warlord

> Which is why WE need to be involved to educate and direct them as to who the real enemies are.  That's what I did, and it worked very, very well.  The entire Greensboro event applauded loudly when I identified the FDA as the problem rather than the solution.  We could have replicated that around the nation and ben a lot further along towards a genuine solution today.
> 
> You are right that most of these people do not know any better.  The solution to ignorance is education.  Educating them as to why the FDA is the problem and not the solution is our job.  We should be doing it.


That's why Warlord applauds your efforts to engage them and redirect their misdirected anger and outrage even if he doesn't agree with every point you make.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> The problem is 1) the FDA only allows sellers to label products "GMO Free" once the GMO components of that product become ubiquitous, meaning you can't get the GMO Free version from America, and 2) calling a GMO product as though it were a regular product _is_ fraud.  A frogmato is not a tomato, and selling a frogmato while calling it a tomato is fraudulent.


A genetically modified tomato is still a tomato, especially since there is no legal definition of tomato. It is not fraud to label a GM tomato as a tomato, however it is fraud to label that tomato as GMO-free just as it is fraudulent to label a non-organic tomato as organic (of which there is a legal defintion).

----------


## donnay

> Neotame is chemically a different substance to aspartame and AminoSweet is just a brand of aspartame, similar to Tylenol being a brand of acetaminophen/paracetamol.



Neotame is a modified version derived from the same chemicals as Aspartame--Neotame was fine tuned a little so it could be eligible for another patent and another name--same chemical structure. 




> Drinks, candy, and chewing gum are potential sources of hidden MSG and/or aspartame, neotame. and AminoSweet (the new name for aspartame). Aspartic acid, found in neotame, aspartame (NutraSweet), and AminoSweet, ordinarily causes MSG type reactions in MSG sensitive people. (It would appear that calling aspartame "AminoSweet" is industry's method of choice for hiding aspartame.) We have not seen Neotame used widely in the United States.  
> 
> Aspartame will be found in some medications, including children's medications. For questions about the ingredients in pharmaceuticals, check with your pharmacist and/or read the product inserts for the names of “other” or “inert” ingredients.


Source:
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html





> Neotame contains all the same chemicals found in aspartame and more: the amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine, plus two organic groups, one known as a methyl ester group and the other as a neohexyl group


Source:
http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/...what_is_it.php


Preapproval "Research" & History of Aspartame
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/history.faq

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> A genetically modified tomato is still a tomato,


No, it's not.




> especially since there is no legal definition of tomato. It is not fraud to label a GM tomato as a tomato,


Yes, it is.




> however it is fraud to label that tomato as GMO-free just as it is fraudulent to label a non-organic tomato as organic (of which there is a legal defintion).


Except the FDA prohibits the labeling of GMO Free for any products not already ubiquitously GMO.

----------


## donnay

> People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!



That is completely naïve.  98% of the corn and soybeans grown in our country are GMO.

----------


## Working Poor

I saw aspartame mentioned above. The fda considers it safe. I wonder how many people know that airline pilots are not allowed to consume aspartame because of the risk of heart attack or seizure?

----------


## speciallyblend

> I don't think it's so great.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people don't care, and they should be left out of this. That's what the people marching to expand the FDA don't acknowledge. People who do want to avoid Monsanto products are free to hire a private lab to tell them what's in a food-product. No sympathy for the marchers too lazy and uninitiated to hire a private lab, who'd sooner expand the role of federal government instinctively like pavlovian dogs.


in your utopia. so you say i need to have 90% of the food in  store tested myself to make sure it is not gmo? unrealistic. There is no reason why all products should have a label with what is in it.  hopefully you will let me borrow 1000's of dollars so i can test products as i see them. If you want to sell products . You should have to label the ingredients. They put wood pulp into banana nut and it is on the box, If it is gmo it should be labeled so. Then we actually have a choice. right now you suggest spending money to test our own food so we know if we can buy it. insane. I suggest companies actually tell you what is in the food before you buy it. so radical to know the ingredients.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> No, it's not.


Prove it. Show me scientific evidence that a GMO tomato is not a tomato. 




> Yes, it is.


Where's the legal definition of a tomato making it fraud to label a GMO tomato as a tomato?




> Except the FDA prohibits the labeling of GMO Free for any products not already ubiquitously GMO.


That's not true. All certified organic produce can be labeled GMO-free, as it must by law not contain GMOs. The US and Canadian governments do not allow manufacturers to label something 100% organic if that food has been genetically modified or been fed genetically modified feed.

Also there is the private, voluntary "Non-GMO Project" label. To carry the label, foods must comply with standards set by the organizers which is not FDA regulated. Look for this label:

----------


## Debbie Downer

> If you want to sell products . You should have to label the ingredients.


So you propose using the threat of government violence to force people to label their products in a government-approved fashion?

Why not also force farmers to get a license to make sure they're growing food in a government-approved fashion, make butchers get a license and government-approved training, make food certification agencies government-approved, force supermarkets to be searched without a warrant to ensure compliance....





> I suggest companies actually tell you what is in the food before you buy it.


Suggest it, but don't use the threat of government violence to force your "suggestion" on them. If a company doesn't label their food, don't buy it.

----------


## speciallyblend

> So you propose using the threat of government violence to force people to label their products in a government-approved fashion?
> 
> Why not also force farmers to get a license to make sure they're growing food in a government-approved fashion, make butchers get a license and government-approved training, make food certification agencies government-approved, force supermarkets to be searched without a warrant to ensure compliance....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suggest it, but don't use the threat of government violence to force your "suggestion" on them. If a company doesn't label their food, don't buy it.


i propose that if you want to sell food you label the contents and if it is gmo label it so. If you want to hide the garbage then label it garbage. There is no reason to hide the garbage. Let the consumer decide. Right now the consumer doesn't even have the choice since they can hide gmo. ps personally i should have the right to use drones on a company that doesn't label gmo's to protect myself from their lies and misleading products.  Personal drones so customers can use it on the company once they realize they have been lied to and deceived by a company. I should have a right to make a choice at the store ,right now monsanto gives no one a choice in the store. they hide their gmos. yes i agree i should be able to use force on a company thatlies and deceives me. I bet monsanto would label products if the consumer could drone them for lying to us.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> i propose that if you want to sell food you label the contents and if it is gmo label it so. If you want to hide the garbage then label it garbage. There is no reason to hide the garbage. Let the consumer decide. Right now the consumer doesn't even have the choice since they can hide gmo. ps personally i should have the right to use drones on a company that doesn't label gmo's to protect myself from their lies and misleading products.  Personal drones so customers can use it on the company once they realize they have been lied to and deceived by a company. I should have a right to make a choice at the store ,right now monsanto gives no one a choice in the store. they hide their gmos. yes i agree i should be able to use force on a company thatlies and deceives me. I bet monsanto would label products if the consumer could drone them for lying to us.


The consumer already does have a choice. If the product isn't labelled 100% organic or doesn't have a Non-GMO Project label, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy GMO products. 

Also, Monsanto doesn't sell any food and they do label their seeds as GMO. They're a biotech agribusiness, not a food company. 

And finally, it is completely against libertarian and free market principles to force a company to label their product a certain way. Using the threat of government violence to force food companies that use GMOs to label them is immoral. You only have a right to take action against fraud, so if a food contains GMOs and the company labels them as organic and GMO-free you have a case. Not labeling a product as GMO is not fraud or lying unless they claim it is non-GMO.

----------


## Thor

> I bet monsanto would label products if the consumer could drone them for lying to us.


Let's give it a go....  Pick one....




> http://g.co/maps/nds4y 	Monsanto Agronomy Center 	25920 Monsanto Road 	Loxley 	AL 	36551 		
> 
> 
> http://g.co/maps/3w2pd 	Seminis, Inc 	5 W 6th Street 	Yuma 	AZ 	85364 		
> 
> 
> http://g.co/maps/635h9 	WestBred Research Center 	3016 E 33rd Place, Ste B 	Yuma 	AZ 	85365 		
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## donnay

*New study reveals how glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup inhibits natural detoxification in human cells* 

by: *Lance Devon*

The modern age of industrial agriculture and manufacturing has dumped heavy metals, carninogens, plastics, and pesticides into the environment at alarming rates. These toxins are showing up in most human tissue cells today. One distinct chemical may be trapping these toxins in human cells, limiting the human body's ability to detoxify its own cells. In a new peer reviewed study, this sinister chemical, glyphosate, has been proven to inhibit the human cell's ability to detoxify altogether. Glyphosate, found in Monsanto's Roundup, is being deemed by publishers of the new study "one of the most dangerous chemicals" being unleashed into the environment today.

Download the PDF of the study here: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416


*How glyphosate destroys human cells*

Glyphosate, most commonly found in conventional sugar, corn, soy and wheat products, throws off the cytochrome P450 gene pathway, inhibiting enzyme production in the body. CYP enzymes play a crucial role in detoxifying xenobiotics, which include drugs, carcinogens, and pesticides. By inhibiting this natural detoxification process, glyphosate systematically enhances the damaging effects of other environmental toxins that get in the body. This, in turn, disrupts homeostasis, increases inflammation, and leads to a slow deconstruction of the cellular system. Toxins build up in the gut over time and break down through the intestinal walls, infiltrating blood, and ultimately passing through the brain/blood barrier, damaging neurological function.

Important CYP enzymes that are affected include aromatase, the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen, 21-Hydroxylase, which creates stress hormone cortisol, and aldosterone, which regulates blood pressure.


*Getting to the gut*

Even as evidence mounts, Monsanto asserts that glyphosate is not harmful to humans, citing that its mechanism of action in plants (the disruption of the shikimate pathway), is not present in humans. This is not true.

The shikimate pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan, is present in human gut bacteria, which has a direct relationship with the human body, aiding in digestion, synthesizing vitamins, detoxifying carcinogens, and participating in immune system function.

By inhibiting the body's gut flora from performing its essential function in the human body, glyphosate heightens many health issues facing the Western world today.

These conditions include inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn's disease, obesity, and even dementia and depression. Also, by restricting gut bacteria from absorbing nutrients, glyphosate voids the body of essential life-giving vitamins.


*Depletion of serum tryptophan and its link to obesity*

Glysophate's damaging effects on gut bacteria lead to depleted sulfate supplies in the gut, resulting in inflammatory bowel disease. As more chemicals are absorbed from the environment, alterations in body chemistry actively promote weight gain by blocking nutrient absorption. By effecting CYP enzymes in the liver, obesity incidence is compounded, impairing the body's ability to detoxify synthetics chemicals. Since serotonin is derived from tryptophan and acts an appetite suppressant, the depletion of tryptophan encourages overeating in the brain, leading to obesity.


*In need of urgent, massive awakening*

Authors of the new review point out that "glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply and may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment." Monsanto is already lashing back at these claims, calling this peer reviewed study, "bad science" and "another bogus study." What Monsanto fails to is mention that most of the studies on glyphosate's "safety" are conducted by Monsanto themselves, which is bias to the core.

The authors of this new study instead call out for more independent research to be done to validate their findings. They are concerned with glyphosate's inhibition of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the body, which are hindering the body's natural detoxification ability.

There is certainly a need for more empowering education on chemicals like glyphosate. There needs to be a kind of public mass awakening that correlates Monsanto's Roundup with skull and crossbones. If anything, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced, engineered, and poisoned, and everyone should pitch in and stop using toxic glyphosate-laced Roundup at all costs.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

http://www.enewspf.com

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Which is why WE need to be involved to educate and direct them as to who the real enemies are.  That's what I did, and it worked very, very well.  The entire Greensboro event applauded loudly when I identified the FDA as the problem rather than the solution.  We could have replicated that around the nation and ben a lot further along towards a genuine solution today.
> 
> You are right that most of these people do not know any better.  *The solution to ignorance is education.  Educating them as to why the FDA is the problem and not the solution is our job.  We should be doing it.*



And THIS is why you're walking the walk.  Some people around here act as if opinions are static.

----------


## osan

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that *villifies* a business or corporation.


This actually brings up an interesting and valid point.

Today we live in a world bombarded by all manner of information on any given issue.  We also live in an era that is not so unlike others at its core.  Go back several centuries and there was mania about witches and witchcraft and as "quaint" as it may all seem to us today, it was deadly serious business in those days and people were tortured, maimed, and murdered in generous abundance in its course.

What do we see today?  Tons of "junk" science, which is to say baloney masquerading as science, cf. "global warming", the "need" to dope our children with dangerous psychotropic drugs, the ridiculous stretches of diagnosis that have been put into the latest revision of the DSM, and so forth.  This so-called "incrementalism" coupled with a very clear flight from faith to what I will dare to label as proper moral principle constitute two elements in a formula for disaster.  This is nothing new, but there is a difference: technology.  More than any priest's or king's personal rantings, the levers that contemporary technologies provide result in arguments so powerful and so seemingly unassailable that people in general take them as the word of God hisownself.  Those of a more reticently skeptical habit are really no better off because the end products of today's technological wonders leave very little indication as to their truth value in most cases. 

Our only real fortune in all of this has been the occurrence of a handful of glaring failures of these technologies that have made us aware that they do indeed fail, and can and are used toward deceptive ends.  All the more basis for worry, because the frauds are so good that those we discover we do so only because someone screwed the pooch.  How many are upon us as we type, accepted as truth and not questioned?

Enter Monsanto and GMO.  I hold a very low opinion of that entity and have repeatedly stated my desire to see them nuked.  Then all of a sudden comes this "global push-back" and it jarred me to the thought and question, "is this truthful or is it all a contrived attack for reasons other than the obvious?"  Are there ulterior motives?

Monsanto stands accused of all manner of evil.  Is it true?  Is it confabulation of truth to render deceitful pictures?  Speaking only for myself, I cannot tell.  There is a part of me that _wants_ to believe they are the devil in the flesh.  I want something to rail against and see destroyed in payment for all the evils I witness about me for which the average fool cannot be held strongly responsible, though not entirely innocent either.  It is the realization of that almost reflexive desire which at this moment jarred my skeptic back into consciousness and who is now asking whether this is what it appears to be.

The evidence seems strong.  The expertise working against Monsanto seems credible and overwhelming in many respects.  The same was so in the middle ages when people were tried as witches and look at how we regard that now?  Things were every bit as convincing then as now, yet we dismiss what was done then at best as having been ignorance and reason failure on a scale approaching the grotesque.  But what of _this_?  Is Monsanto really guilty?  It pains me almost literally to write these words because I actually almost _hate_ Monsanto and would revel in their destruction as a corporate entity for all the evil I perceive them as having foisted upon this world.  Some of their deeds seem unacceptable, such as their claim to the right to destroy the crops of farmers whose non-Monsanto produce has been contaminated with their product.  But is it _criminal_?  Or is it a business entity looking after its own best interests and perhaps having run off the rails but not yet into the realm of actual criminality?  I am not smart enough on this to know and I now sit wondering whether my ire against this entity is justified or whether I have been taken in along with many millions of others.

Consider some curious thoughts.  What if everything Monsanto produces in GMO terms was actually not only safe, but in fact better for you than non-GMO fare?  I do not claim this to be the case, but work with me a moment for argument's sake.  Hell, even if the health value were precisely the same as that of non-GMO foods, the advantage there might be the ability of such crops to produce far higher yields, thereby making available to the world far more abundant food.  By some points of view, this is a net gain, all else equal.

Now, consider the officially stated goals of organizations such as the UN.  Consider the quasi-official statements of world leaders including our own (Bill Clinton?) who have openly stated that the goals of world governance include the drastic reduction of human populations.  Rarely do they mention time frame or extents, but even if we cut that population by "only" 25%, that is billions of souls.  Time frame in combination with percentage becomes key and this is not advertised.  But we get clues in other statements that say "by 2030 the world will be doomed <this way> if we don't do X" and so forth (please do not take that statement too literally as I am only trying to make a more general point).

If it is indeed the goal of "world leaders" to significantly reduce world populations in a time frame that is shorter than what can be very reliably expected from a statistical standpoint based on a sample space of literally billions of people, the question immediately follows: by what inorganic means are populations expected to be miraculously reduced of their own accord? "Inorganic means", of course, so very directly implies culling.  Forget for this argument the questions of who decides to live, how and when they are to be "harvested" and so forth and assume it is the case.  Given it, would there not be a strong conflict of interest between those shadowy "leaders" and Monsanto, the technologies of which stand to feed the very people the Illumined Ones seek to eradicate from the roles of the living?

I am not saying this is in fact what is happening, but consider the sudden rise to prominence of this issue to the forefront of awareness in our esteemed and most solidly and honestly independent media.  Monsanto has been up to its "tricks" for years - quite successfully.  Why has there been no groundswell until now, despite millions of people having been aware, frightened, and seemingly fed up?  We see example after example of selective media attention on all manner of issues.  Why should this be any different?  Why should this be all innocently organic and honest?  What would have triggered this sudden attention such that millions of people worldwide now march against the evil capitalist giant Monsanto?  Does nothing here leave an odor in your nostrils prompting you to at least wonder just a little what might be going on in fuller truth?

If this conflict of interest indeed exists, would we not expect to see precisely that which we are now seeing?  In how many cases has "government" been caught, pants at their ankles, backing actions that are patently not in "our" better interests?  Now all of a sudden they are the champions of the little people?  I am sorry, but as I consider this, the odor takes on an augmented amplitude.  Something _seems_ possibly amiss here, given the broader context.  But nothing can be strongly demonstrated and that is what worries me.  What if there is in fact an agenda to neutralize Monsanto, not to destroy them, but to eliminate their ability to continue to provide bountiful food to the world?

Let us beware that there are two separate issues at work here where Monsanto is concerned.  The first is the question of whether GMO is "safe" for some sufficient definition of that term.  The other regards their business practices.  It is possible that Monsanto operates on a less-than-clearly-ethical business level but nevertheless produces a perfectly safe product. I am not saying this is the case, but it _is_ possibly so.  How do we find out?  I do not have an answer there, but am raising these questions so that people might stop, take a breath and at least consider the possibility that Monsanto is the target of a deliberate campaign to scuttle some aspect of their operations.  If this were to be the case, how would we know it?  If the truth is in fact being told, how can we verify it?  We have no idea who these talking heads are, what their innermost motives might be, to whom else they might be in service incognito, or whether we are being given truth or just another pack of lies and deceit.

Look at the emotional level.  Is it not high and heading toward feverish?  Now look back into history, just that of the past 100 years or even less, and see where these conditions have arisen before.  Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, '68 Democratic Convention... get the picture?  I now feel compelled to put on the brakes and reconsider my current assessment, and I can tell you that this is about as pleasant as stopping ones urination in mid-stream.  The body chafes, and at this moment my mind is chafing aplenty.  I don't _want_ to reevaluate because it feels good to want to see Monsanto crushed in the belief that they have foisted great evils upon us.  But my other side, the one with the tilted and bent halo about its head has that look on its face and tone in its voice of profound disappointment, expectation, and the attendant demand that I do the right thing, which is to withdraw from the union with my desire to see "justice" done and get back on the fence where the pickets irritate parts they were never intended to pay visit.

Perhaps Monsanto is in fact the devil as claimed.  But what if they are not _quite_ that?  What if they are only guilty of having acted with unacceptable levels of avarice in pursuit of their business interests?  What if their products in fact stand as a boon to humanity?  What if that conflict between what Monsanto does in this case and those working toward the non-trivial reduction of human populations within unnatural time frames is real?  Would any rational and honest adult having lived long enough to have witnessed what "government" _does_ be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that this is all an effort to better ensure the agenda of depopulation is not compromised?

Stop.  Take a moment to breathe.  Take a moment to _think_.  Just consider the questions I raise here and see if you can come up with your own.  Do these questions put you at ease or do they raise red flags?  This world is so crazy anymore I can no longer come to universally pat conclusions on such issues.  The subterfuge is so thick and adept that it becomes passing difficult to tell  who lies or does not.  

I for one could use some help in some of this, so if anyone has anything earth shaking to offer, I'm all eyes.

----------


## jmdrake

> Under an expansive (and wrong) interpretation it would but then if you recognize the Feds can label food you have to accept they can mandate you to buy healthcare and everything else which as you know was never the intention of the Founding fathers vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.



Ummmm.....no.  Monsanto is actually engaged in interstate commerce.  If you are not buying healthcare you are not engaged in interstate commerce.  Years ago, when the interstate commerce clause was actually respected, there were all sorts of federal laws that included the words "going across state lines" simply so that they could fall under the interstate commerce clause.  After Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government expanded its power to include not just interstate commerce itself, but anything that *affects* interstate commerce.

I think what's confusing is that there are libertarian principles that transcend constitutional ones.  For instance, if you really believe that government mandated labeling of genetically modified food is a violation of the free market, it's still a violation whether California does it or the federal government does it.

The real question, from a libertarian point of view, is "What is the free market alternative to reining in Monsanto?"  Answer?  Pass federal legislation banning gene patents, or at the very least patents for agricultural genes.  While the federal government has the constitutional right to grant patents, it is not constitutionally mandated to grant them and it certainly isn't constitutionally mandated to grant patents for every think that might be conceivably patentable.  I think Monsanto would rather go with GMO food labeling than losing their  patents.

----------


## osan

> Fraud doesn't suddenly become OK just because someone, somewhere might know about it.
> 
> And nobody on RPF's much less in this thread believes that the FDA is capable of, well, pretty much anything.  What needs to happen is abolish the FDA and then all of this becomes a moot discussion.  The FDA, however, is not getting abolished any time soon, so we have to deal with the reality we are faced with.


But FDA CAN be reeled WAY in.  There are functions FDA could discharge that could be validly called "proper".  Their role as it stands, however, is out of the  ballpark and in fact off-planet.  




> Any Federal level labeling requirements are unconstitutional.  It would be Constitutional under the original intent of the commerce clause to require labeling for GMO foodstuffs that cross State borders, but it would not be effective, and would lead to unintended consequences.  Therefore any labeling scheme at the federal level should be opposed.


Agreed, and this would open opportunities for free markets.  If food purity is in fact so important, companies specializing in testing the products of corporations and small independents would have abundant opportunities to thrive.




> Labeling requirements at the State level are both Constitutional and far more effective, but still not the best solution.


This I do not buy.  The "states' rights" argument has a terrible stink on it and nobody as yet has been able to convince me of its legitimacy.  If violation of a human right is not within the proper authority of the feds, why would it be in the case of the states?  Fed !> states.  States !> people.





> Instead, the best solution would be to add to the definition of fraud the claim that a GMO [product] is just a [product].  Therefore, for as long as a company is required to label ingredients, then any GMO ingredients must be identified as GMO or the labeling is fraudulent.  Then, when we finally manage to abolish the FDA and labeling laws, the requirement goes obsolete and we are left only with the basic requirement "don't perpetrate fraud."


Agreed.  It would be my expectation that as the demise of FDA loomed, investment in new companies - food watchdogs - would be furious with activity.  But such companies would have to be held to the same accountability.  Make no unfounded accusations.  Publish your findings, let others corroborate, then let prosecutors do their thing, if warranted.  This could work VERY well.




> I admit that I am astonished at the passion of those in the liberty movement who are OK with -- and even vehemently defend -- the practice of companies passing off frogmatos as though they were tomatos, with the full regulatory backing of the FDA to keep such things secret from the public. How is fraud OK just because some random guy doesn't mind it?  Should it be OK to sell pork products to a Jew or a Muslim calling it 'beef' just because a Christian doesn't care?  Of course not.


Logical consistency is not everyone's strong suit.




> And "hire a lab" is asinine.  It's Ok to perpetrate fraud on people simply because we have the capability of spending $5000 for every meal to test it before we eat it?  I don't think so.


I do not envision that.  But companies that operate like Consumer Reports could do the detective work in place of FDA.





> People should have the right to consume GMO if they want, just like people should have the right to consume Drāno or heroin if they want.  Putting heroin into my food in secret and telling me that it's OK because I can always have it tested before I eat it _is not OK_.


Your point is well taken, but does not account for accidental contamination of non-GMO by GMO and vise-versa.  Plants flower and bees pollinate.  They do not distinguish between GMO and non-.  How will GMO salmon be segregated from non-?  The argument that they will be "contained" fails monumentally.  One SINGLE grain of pollen escapes a "safe" facility and makes it, however unlikely, to non-GMO flower of same species and you have potential contagion.

Because of the nature of the reproductive processes of most living things, we are faced as a very practical issue "To GMO, or not to GMO... THAT is the question..."  I am in no way even remotely confident that GMO on anything but the most trivial scales conducted under military-like, shoot on sight security could possibly hope to maintain segregation.  This, of course, raises the question of whose rights trump whose?  Are the non-GMO consumers more entitled or are GMOs?  This is a central question because as of this writing, it is IMPOSSIBLE in practical terms to keep the two camps from mixing.  GMOers may view their foods as contaminated and the non-GMOers will most certainly regard theirs as having been contaminated.  This is a Pandora's Box issue Glen.  No question about it.  Once opened, can the little bat-like things be caught and stuffed back in?  Can we put grapes back on the vine?

----------


## Thor

> This actually brings up an interesting and valid point.
> 
> Today we live in a world bombarded by all manner of information on any given issue.  We also live in an era that is not so unlike others at its core.  Go back several centuries and there was mania about witches and witchcraft and as "quaint" as it may all seem to us today, it was deadly serious business in those days and people were tortured, maimed, and murdered in generous abundance in its course.
> 
> What do we see today?  Tons of "junk" science, which is to say baloney masquerading as science, cf. "global warming", the "need" to dope our children with dangerous psychotropic drugs, the ridiculous stretches of diagnosis that have been put into the latest revision of the DSM, and so forth.  This so-called "incrementalism" coupled with a very clear flight from faith to what I will dare to label as proper moral principle constitute two elements in a formula for disaster.  This is nothing new, but there is a difference: technology.  More than any priest's or king's personal rantings, the levers that contemporary technologies provide result in arguments so powerful and so seemingly unassailable that people in general take them as the word of God hisownself.  Those of a more reticently skeptical habit are really no better off because the end products of today's technological wonders leave very little indication as to their truth value in most cases. 
> 
> Our only real fortune in all of this has been the occurrence of a handful of glaring failures of these technologies that have made us aware that they do indeed fail, and can and are used toward deceptive ends.  All the more basis for worry, because the frauds are so good that those we discover we do so only because someone screwed the pooch.  How many are upon us as we type, accepted as truth and not questioned?
> 
> Enter Monsanto and GMO.  I hold a very low opinion of that entity and have repeatedly stated my desire to see them nuked.  Then all of a sudden comes this "global push-back" and it jarred me to the thought and question, "is this truthful or is it all a contrived attack for reasons other than the obvious?"  Are there ulterior motives?
> ...


Interesting thoughts.  I see where you are coming from and I see where you want to be aware of false witch hunts.  However, there have been lots of independent studies on GMO foods and their effects on living animals and I don't feel like those results have a motive of disinformation to undermine and neutralize a beneficial force.  

I think you are correct in pointing out their business objectives; but if their goal is populace sustainability, I think that the food they craft would not have the long term effects the studies have uncovered.  And they might be more about seeds being able to reproduce to create bounty if their goal is sustainability, rather then the built in destruction of the regenerative nature of the plant so new seeds must be bought each season.  

Therefore I think it is more about greed and controlling what is currently natural - to collect a toll (from patent protection and engineered destruction for lack of sustainability), no matter the cost to the human species.  It just means more drug sales for big pharma, to sell pills and treatments to correct the wrongs their creations have created.  So "they" (big corporations) get you coming and going.  You are just an organism for them to live off of, financially speaking.  

Social media is waking people up by sharing information like this.  Until social media starts controlling the information being shared - Facebook censors pictures of children rallying against GMOs during global March Against Monsanto - and yes, it is Natural News.

I think, if GMO's are allowed to expand unabated, the long term outlook for the human species is one of sickness and further enslavement to the system.  Not allowed to eat unless you pay into the system for their version of "food", sickness from what you eat meaning you need big pharma cures that you must pay into.  While being taxed at the same time....  Feed the machine.  Depend on the machine.  A cog in the machine.  A cow or sheep if you will.

Edit:  While you might think global warming or climate change is "junk science," I think it is short sighted for the human species (that you point out there are others who think we cannot keep growing at such a rate and live on this planet for much longer) does not impact this planet at all.  Looking at micro-ecosystems and the effects that can play out in those environments with over population, or other variables introduced such as toxic substances, etc. is no different when the numbers of humans expands to the point that earth becomes a micro-ecosystem in and of itself.  I will agree that there are those using this to further their own socialist objectives, which is wrong, but I think dismissing the entire premise of people pissing and crapping everywhere (literally and figuratively) having no impact is equally wrong.

----------


## Roxi

Some of you completely miss the point of everything. 

Of all of the people I know who attended marches, and this would include myself if I had been able to attend one, NONE of them are for government encroachment on private business. 

The march was about raising awareness, not demanding government intervention. Sure there were plenty of bleeding hearts there that probably wanted that, but I would not say that was the majority. 

As an aside, some of us are waiting for the app to get back into the Google Play store.

I guess it's all kind of pointless though when thousands of people from cities all over the world to gather for a cause and national media doesn't touch it. Oh well, might was well just stay home and sit on the couch and bitch about it right? 

Find a cause, stand up and be vocal about it, or quit f*$#&ing ragging on people who *ARE* doing that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.


You people who think Monsanto is a legitimate business are so full of $#@!.  Why can't you see what's really going on here?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A lot of those people would identify the problem as rich people controlling government.  In these parts, people identify it as businesses controlling government.  
> 
> I'll submit this for your consideration.  If businesses are large enough to control government, aren't we also talking about rich people controlling government?


I would say it's government controlling business.

----------


## Working Poor

Zz

----------


## Debbie Downer



----------


## Warlord

> That is completely naïve.  98% of the corn and soybeans grown in our country are GMO.


So avoid corn and soybeans then or find the 2% that aren't :/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I guess it's all kind of pointless though when thousands of people from cities all over the world to gather for a cause and national media doesn't touch it.


Consider this a blessing.

----------


## Warlord

> Ummmm.....no.  Monsanto is actually engaged in interstate commerce.  If you are not buying healthcare you are not engaged in interstate commerce.  Years ago, when the interstate commerce clause was actually respected, there were all sorts of federal laws that included the words "going across state lines" simply so that they could fall under the interstate commerce clause.  After Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government expanded its power to include not just interstate commerce itself, but anything that *affects* interstate commerce.
> 
> I think what's confusing is that there are libertarian principles that transcend constitutional ones.  For instance, if you really believe that government mandated labeling of genetically modified food is a violation of the free market, it's still a violation whether California does it or the federal government does it.
> 
> The real question, from a libertarian point of view, is "What is the free market alternative to reining in Monsanto?"  Answer?  Pass federal legislation banning gene patents, or at the very least patents for agricultural genes.  While the federal government has the constitutional right to grant patents, it is not constitutionally mandated to grant them and it certainly isn't constitutionally mandated to grant patents for every think that might be conceivably patentable.  I think Monsanto would rather go with GMO food labeling than losing their  patents.


If Monsanto or an affiliate is based in TN, sells some GMO seeds to a TN farmer and the TN farmer supplies his wares to a TN wholesaler who then supplies to a TN store how is this interstate commerce?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Well part of the problem is that the rallies are distributed and smaller so easier to ignore.  Still, reports of 2 Million ppl and 450+ cities (from the organizers) comes in around ~4,000ppl per rally.  It didn't look like that number of rallies or people.

For some perspective, there are a bit over 7 billion people living on this planet.  2 Million of them showed up.  The world has a birth/death ratio of just over 2/1.  That's basically an exponential curve of new mouths.  The earth has a pretty good immune system.  Black Plague, Hemorrhagic Fevers, AIDS, Cholera, Famine... 

Just something to think about as far as the big picture goes...

The uprising is good, but what I think is doing more good is countries banning their seeds and research interest into how hazardous they are to health.

-t

----------


## Thor

> 


That is so wrong and such a lame analogy it is hardly worth commenting, but I will...

"Banning GMO's because.... they infringe upon Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Monstanto, Bayer, whomever the company trying to control the food supply.

Having a corporation control, gate keep, manipulate and adulterate your food is encroachment and infringement on Life.
Sickness resulting from GMO's is destructive and infringement to your Life and Happiness.

----------


## Warlord

> That is so wrong and such a lame analogy it is hardly worth commenting, but I will...
> 
> "Banning GMO's because.... they infringe upon Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Monstanto, Bayer, whomever the company trying to control the food supply.
> 
> Having a corporation control, gate keep, manipulate and adulterate your food is encroachment and infringement on Life.
> Sickness resulting from GMO's is destructive and infringement to your Life and Happiness.


That's a gross infringement of Monsanto's constitutional rights.

Lets ban cigarettes and beer. After all they can cause cancer and liver damage.  

But no, that too would be an infringement of a corporations rights.

----------


## Thor

> That's a gross infringement of Monsanto's constitutional rights.


No, not at all.  They do not have a constitutional right to harm others, or prevent others from Life, Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness.  And they are.  Constitutional rights should not be extended to harming others.

----------


## Warlord

> No, not at all.  They do not have a constitutional right to harm others, or prevent others from Life Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness.  And they are.


So you want to ban cigarettes and prohibit alcohol too?

Party like it's 1920!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> But no, that too would be an infringement of a corporations rights.



Heh.

----------


## FrankRep

> Um.  I was a speaker at the rally and I don't think that.  Indeed, I think the FDA is the _problem_.  And I said so.  And it got wildly applauded.  So I'm not sure where you are getting that from.  Is that something the media is saying or something the people involved were saying?


Thankfully you're a small government speaker, but this March was primarily organized by left-wing liberals and left-wing liberals will probably dominate the speaking positions and would want the FDA to regulate GMO products and expand their powers.

----------


## Thor

> So you want to ban cigarettes and prohibit alcohol too?
> 
> Party like it's 1920!


People have choices for those items.  I can choose to smoke or drink.   When the food supply is controlled and adulterated, and hidden from the individual as far as consumption, that is quite a different realm.

----------


## Warlord

Romney got something right.

----------


## Warlord

> People have choices for those items.  I can choose to smoke or drink.   When the food supply is controlled and adulterated, and hidden from the individual as far as consumption, that is quite a different realm.


You have a choice with food supply too..

Alex Jones tells me efood direct's range is not only delicious but necessary to prevent a crisis in the event of hoards of starving mobs roaming the streets.

----------


## Thor

> You have a choice with food supply too..


You have choices when it is labeled so you are aware.  But when it is hidden, you don't.

----------


## Warlord

> *You have choices*.


So not you're not being chained down and force fed by the evil corporation? Glad to hear it.

----------


## Thor

> So not you're not being chained down and force fed by the evil corporation? Glad to hear it.


Force fed?  No, I can choose to starve.  But maliciously fed, indeed.  When it is hidden and not divulged.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> You have a choice with food supply too..
> 
> Alex Jones tells me efood direct's range is not only delicious but necessary to prevent a crisis in the event of hoards of starving mobs roaming the streets.


More effective (cheaper) to go through Emergency Essentials or the Internet Grocer.  Think Mormon, not MRE's.

-t

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You have choices when it is labeled so you are aware.  But when it is hidden, you don't.


By "hidden" you mean that you're not initiated enough to consult a private lab to find out what's in the food, so you want a nanny to do it for you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ban GMO foods, and many will be unable to afford the remaining food. Socialism inflates the human population.


If GMO foods didn't dominate the market, the prices of other foods would go down.

----------


## Warlord

> More effective (cheaper) to go through Emergency Essentials or the Internet Grocer.  Think Mormon, not MRE's.
> 
> -t


But then Alex won't get his cut and won't be able to put all his money back into the operation (less his own 15-20% of course).

He deserves it.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> So you want to ban cigarettes and prohibit alcohol too?
> 
> Party like it's 1920!


I don't think we have to outright BAN GMO's. 
In my opinion the problem lies in the patents, without patents there would not be a monopoly and no reason to produce GMO's for agriculture since independent reviews have shown that yields don't increase by using GMO's, at least not on average. In fact, an argument that's often made is that it's impossible to feed the world without the use of these technologies and I think that's the biggest pile of crap that has been served to the people. There have been numerous independent studies showing that some crops yield less when grown organic and other crops yield more than regular(GMO) varieties. Overall there isn't much of a difference. Well the difference lies here; at a conventional farm most of the cost of production lies in acquiring seeds and pesticides, herbicides. On an organic farm most of the cost of production is labor, no money for the giant multinationals. I would even argue that organic agriculture is superior in the long term because it takes care of the soil and does not degrade it by erosion. Soil life will over time reduce the amount of pests and careful treatment of the soil cuts down massively on the number of weeds. What you need though is a long-term perspective, something that most people looking to make a quick buck aren't interested in, certainly farmers...

----------


## Warlord

Patents are constitutional boohoo... go and lobby congress.. you won't get far though. They're all bought off.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Patents are constitutional boohoo... go and lobby congress.. you won't get far though. They're all bought off.


Off course, but it's the 'root' of the problem.

----------


## Thor

> By "hidden" you mean that you're not initiated enough to consult a private lab to find out what's in the food, so you want a nanny to do it for you?


The essential role of a limited government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual.  Don't infringe on the rights of another. If this destroys or infringes upon those rights, then the role of government in it's limited form is to keep that in check.  So if doing that is calling on a "nanny", then yes.  When the choice is hidden and virtually unavoidable.

The role of government should not be to protect the interest of that corporation and prevent states from disclosing information that can hinder Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

----------


## Warlord

> Off course, but it's the 'root' of the problem.


It's been like that for 220 years :/

And even if you by some miracle get a majority in congress to amend the patent laws the bought off judges will override that in a heartbeat.

----------


## FrankRep

> More effective (cheaper) to go through Emergency Essentials or the Internet Grocer.  Think Mormon, not MRE's.
> 
> -t


What are the price comparisons? 

I think efoodsdirect gives you a discount if you mention "Alex" or "Infowars" to them.

----------


## Warlord

> The essential role of a limited government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual.  Don't infringe on the rights of another. If this destroys or infringes upon those rights, then the role of government in it's limited form is to keep that in check.  So if doing that is calling on a "nanny", then yes.  When the choice is hidden and virtually unavoidable.
> 
> The role of government should not be to protect the interest of that corporation and prevent states from disclosing information that can hinder Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


As a proud US corporation Monsanto also has rights, right there in the constitution.  Even their patents are constitutional.

----------


## Warlord

You dont like Monsanto... we get it Thor.

I don't like the tobacco industry but i'm not going to march against them and make a fool of myself.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> The essential role of a limited government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual.  Don't infringe on the rights of another. If this destroys or infringes upon those rights, then the role of government in it's limited form is to keep that in check.  So if doing that is calling on a "nanny", then yes.  When the choice is hidden and virtually unavoidable.


Nanny state = Proactive government
Liberty = Reactive government

The difference being that a proactive government will ban certain activities outright, with no regard to intention or outcome. A reactive government will charge people with infringing on the rights of others, hold a trial and convict if necessary. 

A proactive government says it has the right to keep you safe from yourself. A reactive government wishes you the best, but leaves you free to live your life as you see fit, as long as you don't infringe on other peoples rights. It's individualism v collectivism.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You dont like Monsanto... we get it Thor.
> 
> I don't like the tobacco industry but i'm not going to march against them and make a fool of myself.


Do you support Monsanto?

And by no means did these people make fools of themselves. This is a continuing world wide legitimate boycott. Will continue.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> You have choices when it is labeled so you are aware.  But when it is hidden, you don't.


Don't buy anything that isn't labelled 100% organic and/or has the Non-GMO Project verified logo or grow your own organic produce, or buy from a local farmer who doesn't use GM seeds...

There are tons of choices.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> It's been like that for 220 years :/
> 
> And even if you by some miracle get a majority in congress to amend the patent laws the bought off judges will override that in a heartbeat.


Then why debate the matter if it won't ever change ? You do agree I hope that patents are the root of this problem ?

----------


## Thor

> As a proud US corporation Monsanto also has rights, right there in the constitution.  Even their patents are constitutional.


As long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, yes.  But they are...




> You dont like Monsanto... we get it Thor.
> 
> I don't like the tobacco industry but i'm not going to march against them and make a fool of myself.


With tobacco, you have the choice to use or not.  When the food supply is controlled and contaminated, you don't.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> If GMO foods didn't dominate the market, the prices of other foods would go down.


That's not true. Banning GMOs would probably lead to a massive increase in food prices. GMO crops are much easier to grow, are more pest/disease resistant, have higher yields, use less water, and many times are designed to have more nutrients per volume.

----------


## Warlord

> Do you support Monsanto?
> 
> And by no means did these people make fools of themselves. This is a continuing world wide legitimate boycott. Will continue.


I support Monsanto's constitutional rights to act within accordance of the law.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Do you support Monsanto?
> 
> And by no means did these people make fools of themselves. This is a continuing world wide legitimate boycott. Will continue.


Voluntary boycotts are ALWAYS legit.

----------


## Warlord

> As long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, yes.  But they are...
> 
> 
> 
> With tobacco, you have the choice to use or not.  When the food supply is controlled and contaminated, you don't.


I'm afraid Warlord has NO choice. He's addicted to nicotine and his trusty shisha pipe

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Of all of the people I know who attended marches, and this would include myself if I had been able to attend one, NONE of them are for government encroachment on private business.


These people, calling themselves the "organizers", are calling for government encroachment on private business via FDA labeling: http://occupy-monsanto.com/




> Find a cause, stand up and be vocal about it, or quit f*$#&ing ragging on people who *ARE* doing that.


People marching to expand the FDA should not be immune from criticism. Next time the FDA wants to expand their power, they know who they can turn to for grassroots support.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> It's been like that for 220 years :/
> 
> And even if you by some miracle get a majority in congress to amend the patent laws the bought off judges will override that in a heartbeat.


Patent laws actually got a huge overhaul in 2011 when the entire system was moved  from a "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system. This was the first significant change to the patent system since 1952.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As a proud US corporation Monsanto also has rights, right there in the constitution.


People like you are why we have corporations producing legislation of, by and for themselves against the interests of _natural_ citizens. This is fascism in itsface.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I'm afraid Warlord has NO choice. He's addicted to nicotine and his trusty shisha pipe


I'd expect Warlord to at least be mixing in a little hashish in his shisha.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You people who think Monsanto is a legitimate business are so full of $#@!.  Why can't you see what's really going on here?


Has "what's really going on here" been posted in this thread, or am I expected to watch a hundred YouTube videos to find out?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not an expert, but I don't have to be to know that Monsanto's manipulation of the plant gene pool is not good. Their practices are abysmal.


I thought you were scientist?  What science do you practice?

----------


## FrankRep

> People like you are why we have corporations producing legislation of, by and for themselves against the interests of _natural_ citizens. This is fascism in itsface.


I still blame Big Government, not the Corporations, for abuse of power. People write legislation, not corporations.

PS:

The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation.

----------


## Thor

> Nanny state = Proactive government
> Liberty = Reactive government
> 
> The difference being that a proactive government will ban certain activities outright, with no regard to intention or outcome. A reactive government will charge people with infringing on the rights of others, hold a trial and convict if necessary. 
> 
> A proactive government says it has the right to keep you safe from yourself. A reactive government wishes you the best, but leaves you free to live your life as you see fit, as long as you don't infringe on other peoples rights. It's individualism v collectivism.



There have been enough independent studies on GMO's that it is hardly proactive at this point.  It is an ongoing experiment with US as the lab rats.  Labeling GMO's at the very least is not proactive.  It is reactive.  Banning GMO's could be labeled reactive in light of the studies.

----------


## Thor

> I still blame Big Government, not the Corporations, for abuse of power. People write legislation, not corporations.


And those people writing legislation are influenced by lobbyist.  Which are paid for by corporations.

----------


## FrankRep

> And those people writing legislation are influenced by lobbyist.  Which are paid for by corporations.


And corporations are made of people. Blame Big Government, not Corporations.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I support Monsanto's constitutional rights to act within accordance of the law.


I support a government of the_ people_, by the_ people_ and for the _people_.








> Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. The choice of the word "person" arises from the way the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was worded and from earlier legal usage of the word person. A corporation is an artificial entity, created by the granting of a charter by a government that grants such charters. Corporation in this essay will be confined to businesses run for profit that have been granted corporate charters by the States of the United States.


Corporate Personhood versus Democracy

----------


## Warlord

> I support a government of the_ people_, by the_ people_ and for the _people_.


Kucinich also believes in socialized medicine and uses the same justification.  He's wrong.

Corporations are nothing more than a band of individuals investing and being granted limited liability as prescribed by the laws passed by Congress who the People elect.

----------


## FrankRep

> I support a government of the_ people_, by the_ people_ and for the _people_.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4



The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So avoid corn and soybeans then or find the 2% that aren't :/


Haha.  Very funny.

----------


## Roxi

> These people, calling themselves the "organizers", are calling for government encroachment on private business via FDA labeling: http://occupy-monsanto.com/


Just because they are part of the group, doesn't mean they represent the entire group. I get your point, but to lump all of us who support these marches in as promoting government intervention isn't fair (I realize you may not have done that personally, just making a point.)






> People marching to expand the FDA should not be immune from criticism. Next time the FDA wants to expand their power, they know who they can turn to for grassroots support.


I agree, and anyone with half a brain going to these marches/protests should feel an obligation to educate the people attending that expanding the FDA is NOT an option. I know many of my friends did exactly that. Some handed out flyers on why the FDA is a fat failure.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation.


I don't believe our founders needed a pac to speak for them. So why do we? This is yet another example of repatriation of representation. An extension of the war on natural citizenship.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Kucinich also believes in socialized medicine and uses the same justification.  He's wrong.
> 
> Corporations are nothing more than a band of individuals investing and being granted limited liability as prescribed by the laws passed by Congress who the People elect.





> Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. The choice of the word "person" arises from the way the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was worded and from earlier legal usage of the word person. A corporation is an artificial entity, created by the granting of a charter by a government that grants such charters. Corporation in this essay will be confined to businesses run for profit that have been granted corporate charters by the States of the United States.


Corporate Personhood versus Democracy

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Has "what's really going on here" been posted in this thread, or am I expected to watch a hundred YouTube videos to find out?


Something wrong with watching youtube videos?  That's what documentaries are for.  There have been several on the subject.  Take your pick.  Why shouldn't you expect to do work in order to uncover the truth?  Some things can't be explained in a single post.  If it's too long, you just probably just decide it's tl;dr.

----------


## FrankRep

> Just because they are part of the group, doesn't mean they represent the entire group. I get your point, but to lump all of us who support these marches in as promoting government intervention isn't fair (I realize you may not have done that personally, just making a point.)


If a poll was conducted at the "March Against Monsanto" a large majority would say that the FDA needs to do its job and "protect us" from GMO products. That "large majority" will label the entire group, including the minorities like yourself.

----------


## Warlord

> Corporate Personhood versus Democracy


It is not a "fiction" it is an absolute necessity and bedrock of a free market society. 

Corporations are people: investors, people manage them. etc. This has been recognized for hundreds of years in the US, Europe, England.

You want to overturn about 500 years of advancement and development based on a political slogan and statement? LOL

The US is also not a Democracy and never has been so they can shove that up their ass too.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> in your utopia. so you say i need to have 90% of the food in  store tested myself to make sure it is not gmo? unrealistic. There is no reason why all products should have a label with what is in it.  hopefully you will let me borrow 1000's of dollars so i can test products as i see them. If you want to sell products . You should have to label the ingredients. They put wood pulp into banana nut and it is on the box, If it is gmo it should be labeled so. Then we actually have a choice. right now you suggest spending money to test our own food so we know if we can buy it. insane. I suggest companies actually tell you what is in the food before you buy it. so radical to know the ingredients.


Where'd you get the idea that the FDA would charge less money then a private lab? Like Debbie Downer has articulated well, you have every right to avoid products lacking the labels you want, but you have no right to force the world to fund FDA labels suiting your own personal values.

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't believe our founders needed a pac to speak for them. So why do we? This is yet another example of repatriation of representation. An extension of the war on natural citizenship.


Corporations exist and will continue to exist (since the days of ancient Rome and Great Britain) . You can either bang your head against the wall or learn how to benefit from them.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> the FDA prohibits the labeling of GMO Free for any products not already ubiquitously GMO.


Has the FDA put this in writing, and if so, where can I read their writing on the subject?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Corporations exist and will continue to exist (since the days of ancient Rome and Great Britain) . You can either bang your head against the wall or learn how to benefit from them.


I don't have a problem with corprations, Frank. You're spinning what I said. What I have a problem with is corporations, many of which are multinational, _legislating_. Which is exactly what Monsanto and many others like them are doing.

Would you like some specific examples of how they are doing this? Is just a couple of clicks, really.

----------


## Warlord

> I don't have a problem with corprations, Frank. You're spinning what I said. What I have a problem with is corporations, many of which are multinational, _legislating_. Which is exactly what Monsanto and many others like them are doing.
> 
> Would you like some specific examples of how they are doing this?


1st amendment. They have a right to petition the government.

What their doing is not illegal, unconstitutional or ANYTHING.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Well, the alternatives I have heard from the "liberty" movement are either grow your own or starve.


What's stopping you from buying food from someone else who grew his own?

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't have a problem with corprations, Frank. You're spinning what I said. What I have a problem with is corporations, many of which are multinational, legislating. Which is exactly what Monsanto and many others like them are doing.


I blame the abuse of Big Government power. Reduce government and that will reduce the incentive to manipulate that power.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> 1st amendment. They have a right to petition the government.
> 
> What their doing is not illegal, unconstitutional or ANYTHING.


What makes you think they have the gift of constitution, warlord? Show me the specific court decision that says so.I gave you the one that says they don't.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Corporate Personhood versus Democracy


Good thing the US isn't a democracy.

----------


## Carlybee

> Where'd you get the idea that the FDA would charge less money then a private lab? Like Debbie Downer has articulated well, you have every right to avoid products lacking the labels you want, but you have no right to force the world to fund FDA labels suiting your own personal values.


Why have any labels at all then?  Just stick it on the shelf, pays your money and takes your chances...pot luck!  "Maybe it's peas...maybe it's carrots...maybe it's corn!"

----------


## Warlord

> What makes you think they have the gift of the 1st amendment, warlord? Show me the specific court decision that says so.


The amendment says they do :/ and yes, courts have recognized corporations have free speech and 1st amendment rights to PETITION the government most recently in striking down McCain's pathetic attempts to regulate campaign finance.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!


It would be easier if the march-organizers had focused more on boycotting Monsanto and facilitating alternatives. The marchers could have spent their Saturday organizing cooperative food production and distribution.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Oh, well. Junior has his first semi-pro baseball game today so I'll check back with you good folks later. Good afternoon.

----------


## Warlord

> It would be easier if the march-organizers had focused more on boycotting Monsanto and facilitating alternatives. The marchers could have spent their Saturday organizing cooperative food production and distribution.


Agreed! Warlord approves of co-ops and bulk buying.  You should see the deals we get from the markets in Pakistan!

----------


## FrankRep

> What makes you think they have the gift of constitution, warlord? Show me the specific court decision that says so.I gave you the one that says they don't.


*Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission*, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.


*The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC*

The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig.

----------


## Warlord

Oh dear... Small business now a voice. Can't have that can we senators?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> All I'm asking is that you stop excusing the fascist government/food industrial complex from cramming the stuff down my throat without my knowledge.
> 
> I don't want to prevent your free access to GMO if you want it, all I'm asking is stop supporting the governments efforts to cram the $#@! down my throat without my knowledge.  Is that _really_ too much to ask?


But nothing's being crammed down my throat, actually.

----------


## Carlybee

> It would be easier if the march-organizers had focused more on boycotting Monsanto and facilitating alternatives. The marchers could have spent their Saturday organizing cooperative food production and distribution.


The problem with boycotting Monsanto is there is no way to boycott them.  How would you know which products contain Monsanto seedstock?  Yes we know they make Roundup and probably other visible products.  Not everyone uses Roundup or has a yard so it would be pointless for them to try and boycott something they don't use anyway. 


We can wiki and get a list of foods that we know of but I'm guessing it's far from complete.

----------


## Dr.3D

I'm always leery of people who refer to themselves in the third person.

----------


## Warlord

> The problem with boycotting Monsanto is there is no way to boycott them.  How would you know which products contain Monsanto seedstock?  Yes we know they make Roundup and probably other visible products.  Not everyone uses Roundup or has a yard so it would be pointless for them to try and boycott something they don't use anyway. 
> 
> 
> We can wiki and get a list of foods that we know of but I'm guessing it's far from complete.


Warlord has spotted troops in his country with books and guides on how to avoid Monsanto. In fact, Mike Adams and NaturalNews produces one with thousands of delicious products listed?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The problem with boycotting Monsanto is there is no way to boycott them.  How would you know which products contain Monsanto seedstock? ... *We can wiki and get a list of foods that we know of* but I'm guessing it's far from complete.


So Wiki products not containing Monsanto, and stick with those products?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Why have any labels at all then?  Just stick it on the shelf, pays your money and takes your chances...pot luck!  "Maybe it's peas...maybe it's carrots...maybe it's corn!"


Why prohibit that? If it sells, who are you to stop anyone else from selling or buying it? If it doesn't suit your own personal values, no one's cramming it down your throat. If you're willing to pay more for something that does have a label, then someone who wants your money will be willing to sell food labeled to suit you. The only problem is, you want the government to use violence to ensure that every label in every store suits your own particular set of personal values.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV
> ...


It would take lifetimes to watch every YouTube video returned by a search for "Monsanto".




> Why shouldn't you expect to do work in order to uncover the truth?


I have no time for wading through hippie videos, seriously, so now you know why I don't know "what's really going on here", and I'm never going to know, unless you care enough to post it in concisely this thread. If you don't want to wake up the masses like me, okay then.

----------


## Barrex

> 127 post in this thread so far
> 
> 0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab
> 
> Kneejerk fascism on display.


Because Monsanto is holding a lot of world governments in its pockets. Because Monsanto people (exCEOs, managers etc.) are now ministers in governments and heads of government agencies around the world. If people "bother" to privately test Monsanto poisons. That is how we know that it is poison and not food. Monsanto agents in government and lobbyists are stopping free market to function by passing regulations, decrees and laws that are silencing banning and stopping truth to come out. There is fascism but it is Monsanto that is doing it and not we. And let me assure you that there is nothing "kneejerk" in their fascism. It is all well planned, lobbied and executed.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Because Monsanto is holding a lot of world governments in its pockets. Because Monsanto people (exCEOs, managers etc.) are now ministers in governments and heads of government agencies around the world. If people "bother" to privately test Monsanto poisons. That is how we know that it is poison and not food. Monsanto agents in government and lobbyists are stopping free market to function by passing regulations, decrees and laws that are silencing banning and stopping truth to come out. There is fascism but it is Monsanto that is doing it and not we. And let me assure you that there is nothing "kneejerk" in their fascism. It is all well planned, lobbied and executed.


^^ THIS^^

For anyone that is hard to wake up about this: It's more than just a single "point" to show you how this has come about.  There's plenty of info, legislation, execs statements, etc...  Just take a look, for your damn self, instead of posting ignorance and anti-hippie statements.  If you are a member here, you not a "kid" at research.

AGAIN: Read what Barrex said ^^^, truth, and it's out there.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why prohibit that? If it sells, who are you to stop anyone else from selling or buying it? If it doesn't suit your own personal values, no one's cramming it down your throat. If you're willing to pay more for something that does have a label, then someone who wants your money will be willing to sell food labeled to suit you. The only problem is, you want the government to use violence to ensure that every label in every store suits your own particular set of personal values.


Hey fuqtard where did I say I wanted the government to use violence to ensure labeling?  Check yourself.

----------


## Thor

> Because Monsanto is holding a lot of world governments in its pockets. Because Monsanto people (exCEOs, managers etc.) are now ministers in governments and heads of government agencies around the world. If people "bother" to privately test Monsanto poisons. That is how we know that it is poison and not food. Monsanto agents in government and lobbyists are stopping free market to function by passing regulations, decrees and laws that are silencing banning and stopping truth to come out. There is fascism but it is Monsanto that is doing it and not we. And let me assure you that there is nothing "kneejerk" in their fascism. It is all well planned, lobbied and executed.





> ^^ THIS^^
> 
> For anyone that is hard to wake up about this: It's more than just a single "point" to show you how this has come about.  There's plenty of info, legislation, execs statements, etc...  Just take a look, for your damn self, instead of posting ignorance and anti-hippie statements.  If you are a member here, you not a "kid" at research.
> 
> AGAIN: Read what Barrex said ^^^, truth, and it's out there.


I second that!

----------


## Working Poor

All you people who think Monsanto is using free market technique need to have your heads examined. It pisses me off so that that they control the fda and the usda and delude the people into thinking that if the ass hats say it is approved that means it is okay.

 Ya'll need to look at the stats on childhood diabetes since they have been putting gmo hfcs in foods that are marketed to children and get back to me. They are killing children by the 1000s with this crap because parents believe the fda would never allow something harmful to be put in foods.

This should in no way be legal. I think they nerd to label to foods to balance out how Monsanto is able to control government agencies and even receive our tax dollars to do it. It is criminal and they should be stopped by whatever means available.

----------


## AlexAmore

> It is not a "fiction" it is an absolute necessity and bedrock of a free market society. 
> 
> Corporations are people: investors, people manage them. etc. This has been recognized for hundreds of years in the US, Europe, England.
> 
> You want to overturn about 500 years of advancement and development based on a political slogan and statement? LOL
> 
> The US is also not a Democracy and never has been so they can shove that up their ass too.


How can a government created corporation be the bedrock of a free society? Without government there would be no corporation. It's a government monopoly, they are certainly NOT a free-market phenomena.

Groups of people do not have rights. So with your logic there can be gay rights, and black rights. What if the corporation is made up of people from other countries? We'll need MOAR regulations!

(4:27)

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> 127 post in this thread so far
> 
> 0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab
> 
> Kneejerk fascism on display.



The fascism is between monsanto and usg.  I can't afford a private lab for a single sample.  (There's no way I'm the first person to mention such testing as cost prohibitive.)

I had a girl the other day talking about traditional foods and organic foods.  wtf?  Traditional foods *are* organic.  Everything else is rather new.  It's another example of the language purposely being flipped around.

----------


## osan

> Interesting thoughts.  I see where you are coming from and I see where you want to be aware of false witch hunts.  However, there have been lots of independent studies on GMO foods and their effects on living animals and I don't feel like those results have a motive of disinformation to undermine and neutralize a beneficial force.


You are probably right, but how do we know with sufficiency?  I put nothing past these governmental devils.  They have effectively endless finances and they indeed seem to be hell bent for leather to see the globalist Utopia realized.  If that be the case, how does one vet the various sources of these studies?  Issuing from a university guarantees nothing, nor from corporations.  We, the people of this world alive and inhabiting this planet this very day are in quite a pickle if you stop to consider it carefully.  It gets to the point the mere thinking about these issues makes my head hurt anymore.




> I think you are correct in pointing out their business objectives; but if their goal is populace sustainability, I think that the food they craft would not have the long term effects the studies have uncovered.


I quite agree, in the case that these studies are in fact righteous.  But are there any dissenting studies?  If so, who conducted them and how have they been met?




> And they might be more about seeds being able to reproduce to create bounty if their goal is sustainability, rather then the built in destruction of the regenerative nature of the plant so new seeds must be bought each season.


Well, yes and no.  On this specific point you come to a nexus between the two issues I raised: that of business strategy and the question of safety in GMO foods.  It could be that this is not a strategy to prevent bounty, but only to ensure their cut of a good thing.  Looking at it from their perspectives this makes perfect sense and I might even support the philosophical position.  They invented something that is capable of reproducing itself.  Joe Farmer, buying once and reaping a lifetime of benefit for that which Monsanto invested perhaps billions in research, might not set so well from the Monsanto POV and I cannot blame them on this specific point.  If you want reproducible crops from seed, don't buy Monsanto.  OTOH, the cross-contamination issue still looms.  Monsanto may be guilty there of nothing more than not caring about whether the use of their products screws others.  That in itself is worthy of some scorn.  It is not unlike Ford's attitude with the exploding Pinto.

So-called suicide genes may not hold in their presence any expression of intentional malevolence - just negligence born of not giving a $#@! so long as they can sell sell sell.  That would seem to me to be stepping well over a line.




> Therefore I think it is more about greed and controlling what is currently natural - to collect a toll (from patent protection and engineered destruction for lack of sustainability), no matter the cost to the human species.  It just means more drug sales for big pharma, to sell pills and treatments to correct the wrongs their creations have created.  So "they" (big corporations) get you coming and going.  You are just an organism for them to live off of, financially speaking.


Could well be.




> Social media is waking people up by sharing information like this.  Until social media starts controlling the information being shared - Facebook censors pictures of children rallying against GMOs during global March Against Monsanto - and yes, it is Natural News.


But is it waking them to truth or just to a different raft of lies?  As with anything else, it is a two-edged sword.




> I think, if GMO's are allowed to expand unabated, the long term outlook for the human species is one of sickness and further enslavement to the system.


I am inclined to agree, but my sense of justice prohibits me from resting on that conclusion until I know enough.




> Not allowed to eat unless you pay into the system for their version of "food", sickness from what you eat meaning you need big pharma cures that you must pay into.  While being taxed at the same time....  Feed the machine.  Depend on the machine.  A cog in the machine.  A cow or sheep if you will.


What you describe is, of course, wholesale criminal enterprise.  While perhaps not "proven" to be the case, were it so that it is part of the broader equation I would in no way be surprised.  I would, in fact, be shocked to find it or something similar were not the case.




> Edit:  While you might think global warming or climate change is "junk science," I think it is short sighted for the human species (that you point out there are others who think we cannot keep growing at such a rate and live on this planet for much longer) does not impact this planet at all.


A couple of years ago and in another thread I posted to the effect that the basic theory of AGW may in fact be correct, but that those IDIOTS in East Anglia potentially screwed us all by cooking the data and destroying the raw information.  I am a trained scientist and while my PhD was not completed, I know a thing or two about how proper research is done.  One NEVER disposes of primary data.  NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER.  This is an absolute.  Two of my closest friends are both PhD chemists who spent their careers in research and they concur with me on this 100%+.  There is no possible excuse for having done what those people in East Anglia did - not even the one where God Hisownself popped out from behind a cloud and thundered, "AAAAAAAARTHUUR..."







> Looking at micro-ecosystems and the effects that can play out in those environments with over population, or other variables introduced such as toxic substances, etc. is no different when the numbers of humans expands to the point that earth becomes a micro-ecosystem in and of itself.  I will agree that there are those using this to further their own socialist objectives, which is wrong, but I think dismissing the entire premise of people pissing and crapping everywhere (literally and figuratively) having no impact is equally wrong.


Your points are well taken and I agree.

----------


## Barrex

> Those people at the rally, however, think it's  the FDA's job to regulate GMO products. That's why.


This march was global and FDA is only in US. 




> They should be strangled, financially, as a company.
> 
> How to do that?


-boycott their products and boycott any company that produces their product with Monsantos products (vote with your money);
-Poland did it with style: Ban Monsanto product(It started when over 1,500 beekeepers and their allies marched thru the streets of  Warsaw, depositing thousands of dead bees on the steps of the Ministry  of Agriculture);
-spread the word
.....there are many ways....



> If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!
> Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by  mandating expensive  testing and labeling everything under the sun,the  huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?


Agree....but.... Monsanto is actively and very aggressively fighting to stop people from discovering where GMO is. In what fields and what products. Like I said in my previous post: They own governments. This is crucial point. You cant say free market will fix this when we dont have free market. It is like saying Jedi masters will fix this.




> A genetically modified tomato is still a  tomato, especially since there is no legal definition of tomato. It is  not fraud to label a GM tomato as a tomato, however it is fraud to label  that tomato as GMO-free just as it is fraudulent to label a non-organic  tomato as organic (of which there is a legal defintion).


I would argue that it is changed enough and that it is not tomato anymore. In nature there is no was that tomato can have frogs genes. 
There is definition of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals that are used to protect plants. GMO food is "food"+pesticide in one. There is definition of GMO.
Not so rhetorical question: If person is allergic to frog and that person buys GMO unlabeled product that is sold as tomato and that person has allergic reaction to chicken proteins in apple whos fault it is? Was it Monsantos because they labeled Frogmato as apple or?
If I sold you tomato with cyanide in it as regular tomato for eating and you die I shouldnt be responsible?




> 


No it is more like banning Hitler because of despising Nazis.

----------


## Barrex

ALL GMO SEEDS HAVE GENE THAT MAKES THEM PRODUCE NO FOOD IN FEW GENERATIONS. (it means that if you plant seed from Monsanto you cant use fruits/seed that grew from Monsanto seed to plant next year because it is genetically modified not to bear fruit next year/generation) This way they ensure that farmers (well everyone) must buy new seeds from them each year.
My biggest fear at the moment (and since they own government and do whatever they want behind closed doors): They will start producing seeds where that gene is dominant(if they allready didnt. *dominant gene). This means that when GMO seeds mixes with natural plants it will always produce plants that will be fruitful only for  1 generation. TOTAL CONTROL OF FOOD PRODUCTION.
**Testicle* cells of mice and rats that eat GM soy *change* significantly.* $#@! YOU!!!* 
You sell me apple that makes my nuts "change" and you sell it as "regular apple"?You did it on purpose, you kenw what will happen and you still sold me that as "normal apple". Person that did that to me would be killed my my own hands. No if buts or maybes.

I guess in story "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" you would argue that since witch/queen gave Snow White poisonous apple for free and since witch/queen said it was apple it is Snow Whites fault. That stupid bombo should get that apple tested for GMO&poisons.
Snow White= stupid retarded bitch
witch/queen= honest seller of product


somneone mentioned if they control/produce 98% of food(soya/corn) find that 2%.
WTF????????????

So: If private company controls 98% of oxygen I should find 2% where is free? Hm...

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> ALL GMO SEEDS HAVE GENE THAT MAKES THEM PRODUCE NO FOOD IN FEW GENERATIONS. (it means that if you plant seed from Monsanto you cant use fruits/seed that grew from Monsanto seed to plant next year because it is genetically modified not to bear fruit next year/generation) This way they ensure that farmers (well everyone) must buy new seeds from them each year.




There's a bit of a silver lining there.  Part of the resistance to genetic manipulation is the concern that there will be unintended consequences.  Making that franken-$#@! sterile mitigates that to some extent.  Well, unless it breeds and makes everything sterile.

Meh, nevermind.

----------


## pacelli

Watch these videos and then ask yourself, "Aren't these methods a more productive way to think about and practice agriculture?"





This next one is a video from a playlist for Greening the desert (multi-part).

----------


## Barrex

> There's a bit of a silver lining there.  Part of the resistance to genetic manipulation is the concern that there will be unintended consequences.  Making that franken-$#@! sterile mitigates that to some extent.  Well, unless it breeds and makes everything sterile.
> 
> Meh, nevermind.


That gene doesnt make it sterile. It only makes it not bear fruits. You would end up with wheat that seeds are the same size as seeds of grass. It would still reproduce but it wouldnt bear fruits. We couldnt eat it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Will someone +rep Barrex for me, I can't again yet...for this post http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5045099

----------


## Carlybee

Monsanto would love to see this happen here

http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_se...istration.html

----------


## amy31416

GMO's can be done well and be beneficial, just not by Monsanto, apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

The real debate is whether or not food subsidies are genuinely beneficial long-term, in my opinion.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> GMO's can be done well and be beneficial, just not by Monsanto, apparently.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
> 
> The real debate is whether or not food subsidies are genuinely beneficial long-term, in my opinion.


I thought that was the original intent, was to help, not conquer.

----------


## Anti Federalist

/thread AFAIC.

+rep





> Fraud doesn't suddenly become OK just because someone, somewhere might know about it.
> 
> And nobody on RPF's much less in this thread believes that the FDA is capable of, well, pretty much anything.  What needs to happen is abolish the FDA and then all of this becomes a moot discussion.  The FDA, however, is not getting abolished any time soon, so we have to deal with the reality we are faced with.
> 
> Calling a frogmato a tomato is fraud.  All I, (or most anybody around RPF's on this subject) want, is to stop the fraud.
> 
> Any Federal level labeling requirements are unconstitutional.  It would be Constitutional under the original intent of the commerce clause to require labeling for GMO foodstuffs that cross State borders, but it would not be effective, and would lead to unintended consequences.  Therefore any labeling scheme at the federal level should be opposed.
> 
> Labeling requirements at the State level are both Constitutional and far more effective, but still not the best solution.
> ...

----------


## Warlord

If it's fraud Gunny go and convince a judge and claim damages.

You won't get far though because it's really not.

----------


## amy31416

> I thought that was the original intent, was to help, not conquer.


Apparently the original intent became adulterated by greed. Humans are generally such typical, boring animals.

----------


## FrankRep

FYI everyone:

*Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz Voted NO on the "Monsanto Protection Act"*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ction-Act-quot

----------


## Warlord

> FYI everyone:
> 
> *Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz Voted NO on the "Monsanto Protection Act"*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ction-Act-quot


Not for the reason you'd like us to think i.e 'Monsanto is bad! vote against them!'

----------


## otherone

> Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive  testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?


lol. Occam's razor......if this would be the outcome Monsanto would be demanding labeling...

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> lol. Occam's razor......if this would be the outcome Monsanto would be demanding labeling...


There was a March yesterday demanding that a Monsanto employee be put in charge of labeling food with respect to GMO; and you don't think Monsanto might have been behind the march?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> FYI everyone:
> 
> *Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz Voted NO on the "Monsanto Protection Act"*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ction-Act-quot





> Not for the reason you'd like us to think i.e 'Monsanto is bad! vote against them!'


What does Frank want us to think?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I can't afford a private lab for a single sample.  (There's no way I'm the first person to mention such testing as cost prohibitive.)


*So how can you afford to fund the FDA to test food then?*

Have you ever bought a copy of Consumer Reports? Did that purchase bankrupt you? Why would it be any more expensive to get food-info from a private lab?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Hey fuqtard where did I say I wanted the government to use violence to ensure labeling?  Check yourself.


Do you want FDA-labels, and if so, how do you propose the FDA collect the funds for that?

----------


## otherone

> There was a March yesterday demanding that a Monsanto employee be put in charge of labeling food with respect to GMO; and you don't think Monsanto might have been behind the march?


huh?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Because Monsanto is holding a lot of world governments in its pockets. Because Monsanto people (exCEOs, managers etc.) are now ministers in governments and heads of government agencies around the world. If people "bother" to privately test Monsanto poisons. That is how we know that it is poison and not food. Monsanto agents in government and lobbyists are stopping free market to function by passing regulations, decrees and laws that are silencing banning and stopping truth to come out. There is fascism but it is Monsanto that is doing it and not we. And let me assure you that there is nothing "kneejerk" in their fascism. It is all well planned, lobbied and executed.


You just totally failed to explain why people aren't going to private labs for food-information. If a private-lab came to your door and offered you all the food information you want for fifty cents -- Never mind, you just don't want to know what's in your food.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> huh?


Monsanto employee is head of the FDA, no? And the Marchers were calling for expansion of FDA power, no? Maybe useful idiots carrying out Monsanto's bidding?

----------


## otherone

> Monsanto employee is head of the FDA, no? And the Marchers were calling for expansion of FDA power, no? Maybe useful idiots carrying out Monsanto's bidding?


Wouldn't it just be easier in this case for Monsanto to get their shill in DC to simply require GMOs to be on labels rather than orchestrate useful idiots worldwide?

----------


## FrankRep

> Monsanto employee is head of the FDA, no? And the Marchers were calling for expansion of FDA power, no? Maybe useful idiots carrying out Monsanto's bidding?


*Dr. Margaret Ann Hamburg* is the current Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

I can't find anything connecting her to Monsanto. Where are you getting your information?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Wouldn't it just be easier in this case for Monsanto to get their shill in DC to simply require GMOs to be on labels rather than orchestrate useful idiots worldwide?


If he was that obvious about it, more people would catch on.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> *So how can you afford to fund the FDA to test food then?*
> 
> Have you ever bought a copy of Consumer Reports? Did that purchase bankrupt you? Why would it be any more expensive to get food-info from a private lab?



Huh?  Where did you see me advocating that?  Just putting bull$#@! words into my mouth?  

Find it.  I'll wait.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> *Dr. Margaret Ann Hamburg* is the current Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
> 
> I can't find anything connecting her to Monsanto. Where are you getting your information?


I may have been totally wrong about that. I was recalling information I'd read on an unreliable source (published by anti-Monsanto people), and I didn't check facts. Sorry about that.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Huh?  Where did you see me advocating that?  Just putting bull$#@! words into my mouth?  
> 
> Find it.  I'll wait.



You'll be looking a long $#@!ing time.  If you want to put words in my mouth, quote me ahead of time.  I said what I said.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Huh?  Where did you see me advocating that?  Just putting bull$#@! words into my mouth?  
> 
> Find it.  I'll wait.


So your position is that FDA-labeling would be cost prohibitive? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to get it straight.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You'll be looking a long $#@!ing time.  If you want to put words in my mouth, quote me ahead of time.


Ok.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> *Dr. Margaret Ann Hamburg* is the current Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
> 
> I can't find anything connecting her to Monsanto. Where are you getting your information?


Deputy Director.

I believe someone recently introduced a bill mandating GMO labeling from the federal level.
The bill before that was one that forbid states to mandate GMO labeling.  If I'm not mistaken.  It may still be in play.

-t

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Huh?  Where did you see me advocating that?  Just putting bull$#@! words into my mouth?  
> 
> Find it.  I'll wait.


Okay I looked, and I never did put words in your mouth. So, whatever.

----------


## Barrex

> You just totally failed to explain why people aren't going to private labs for food-information. If a private-lab came to your door and offered you all the food information you want for fifty cents -- Never mind, you just don't want to know what's in your food.


I dont like your way of arguing/lying. I very much want to know what is in my food. That is why my family kept my grandfathers farm and we are growing our own food. 98% of people can not afford that.
Ill repeat my answer that answers your question and that you conveniently pretended that it is not there:




> *Because Monsanto is holding a lot of world governments in its pockets.  Because Monsanto people (exCEOs, managers etc.) are now ministers in  governments and heads of government agencies around the world*. If people  "bother" to privately test Monsanto poisons? *That is how we know that  it is poison and not food. Monsanto agents in government and lobbyists  are stopping free market to function by passing regulations, decrees and  laws that are silencing banning and stopping truth to come out.* There  is fascism but it is Monsanto that is doing it and not we. And let me  assure you that there is nothing "kneejerk" in their fascism. It is all  well planned, lobbied and executed.


That is not enough for you. Ok. Let me show you on 1 example:
-In some countries Monsanto&friends made it illegal to mark food as GMO-free.

What use it is from private labs that test it if they are going to jail if they label normal food as "GMO-free".

Ill repeat suggestion that other people told you and you ignored them ("I dont know what are you talking about"): "Educate your self".... before you start arguing about something you obviously got no or very little knowledge.

To paraphrase you:--Never mind, you just don't want to know what are you talking about.



It takes 5 min. to find out evils of big food companies, GMO...

----------


## FrankRep

> Deputy Director.
> 
> I believe someone recently introduced a bill mandating GMO labeling from the federal level.
> The bill before that was one that forbid states to mandate GMO labeling.  If I'm not mistaken.  It may still be in play.


hmm.... okay.



*Michael R. Taylor, J.D. - Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Office of Foods (FDA)*

...
Other positions held by Mr. Taylor include senior fellow, Resources for the Future; professor, School of Medicine, University of Maryland; partner, King & Spalding law firm; and vice president for public policy, Monsanto Company.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> So your position is that FDA-labeling would be cost prohibitive? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to get it straight.



You asked about independent testing.  I said I can't afford it.  Not only can I not afford it for many foods, but I can't afford it for a single food.  





> Okay I looked, and I never did put words in your mouth. So, whatever.









> So how can you afford to fund the FDA to test food then?




Your implication was that because I said "I can't afford it," that means I expect the FDA to do it.  Either produce it, or pick on another argument.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It takes 5 min. to find out evils of big food companies, GMO...


And I don't have 5 minutes to research every issue that crosses my screen on RPF, Twitter, etc; and if you can't concisely state your position without sending me off to YouTube-land, then I doubt you know what you're talking about. If you don't want to change my mind about Monsanto, that is okay.




> -In some countries Monsanto&friends made it illegal to mark food as GMO-free.
> 
> What use it is from private labs that test it if they are going to jail if they label normal food as "GMO-free".


What specific legislation, in any country, prohibits a private lab from testing food and reporting the results? I asked along these lines before, and it appears that no such legislation exists.

----------


## Carlybee

> Do you want FDA-labels, and if so, how do you propose the FDA collect the funds for that?


I want the existing product labels to reveal whether or not the product contains GMO food. Products already have labels. Products already fall under USDA guidelines. It's a matter of adding 3 letters. How do you get violent force out of that? Do you think the FDA sends people with shotguns to the labeling facility?  At least get your agencies correct. The biggest issue unfortunately is that the USDA is in bed with Monsanto so ultimately there are larger fish to fry first. Do you think it's okay for tax dollars to be spent to keep people from knowing what their food contains?   You really should spend some time learning about the issue before you try to slam people for their positions.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> hmm.... okay.
> 
> 
> 
> *Michael R. Taylor, J.D. - Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Office of Foods (FDA)*
> 
> ...
> Other positions held by Mr. Taylor include senior fellow, Resources for the Future; professor, School of Medicine, University of Maryland; partner, King & Spalding law firm; and vice president for public policy, Monsanto Company.


Ah ha.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> ... Your implication was that because I said "I can't afford it," that means I expect the FDA to do it.  Either produce it, or pick on another argument.


That was your inference, not my implication.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> Do you want FDA-labels, and if so, how do you propose the FDA collect the funds for that?
> 
> 
> *I want the existing product labels to reveal whether or not the product contains GMO food.* Products already have labels. Products already fall under USDA guidelines. *It's a matter of adding 3 letters.* How do you get violent force out of that? Do you think the FDA sends people with shotguns to the labeling facility?


But, how do you propose the FDA collect the funds for that? Do you seriously not understand how the FDA's funding is collected?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> That was your inference, not my implication.






> So how can you afford to fund the FDA to test food then?



Then why would you quote me and ask me that?  I assumed the question was directed at me.  If not, then my apologies, but I'm pretty sure you were assuming a philosophical position I do not hold.  (putting words in my mouth...)

----------


## Carlybee

> But, how do you propose the FDA collect the funds for that? Do you seriously not understand how the FDA's funding is collected?


 I was not aware that the FDA collected funds. I was under the impression their funding was part of the general budget. Please explain it to me Einstein since you don't want to research the GMO issue yet seem to feel you are an expert on how the FDA functions.  And keep tilting at those windmills while you're at it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Then why would you quote me and ask me that?  I assumed the question was directed at me.  If not, then my apologies, but I'm pretty sure you were assuming a philosophical position I do not hold.  (putting words in my mouth...)


I was referring to a position held by many. Leveraging off of your words to argue against a position you don't hold.

For those who do want FDA labeling, I'd like to hear how the taxpayers are supposed to afford such a program.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I want the existing product labels to reveal whether or not the product contains GMO food. ... It's a matter of adding 3 letters.





> I was under the impression their funding was part of the general budget.





> Hey fuqtard where did I say I wanted the government to use violence to ensure labeling?  Check yourself.


Do you seriously not understand how the "general budget" is collected?

----------


## jmdrake

> If Monsanto or an affiliate is based in TN, sells some GMO seeds to a TN farmer and the TN farmer supplies his wares to a TN wholesaler who then supplies to a TN store how is this interstate commerce?


As the interstate commerce clause was traditionally understood?  No.  Here's another one for you.  Did you know that if someone had a restaurant and wanted to exclude people on the basis of race all they would have to do is to 1) make sure the business was not located near an interstate highway and 2) buy all of their food from in-state producers?  I went back and read the statute and case law just to be sure.  Rand was write when he said part of the Civil Rights Act was poorly written.  He's just had some trouble articulating exactly why it's poorly written.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I was referring to a position held by many. Leveraging off of your words to argue against a position you don't hold.
> 
> For those who do want FDA labeling, I'd like to hear how the taxpayers are supposed to afford such a program.



Fair enough.  It would be wise for you to make that clear so we don't need to have this conversation in the middle of your point.  It must surely detract from it.

----------


## mad cow

> Originally Posted by MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2  
> I can't afford a private lab for a single sample. (There's no way I'm the first person to mention such testing as cost prohibitive.)


Ever heard of Kosher food?In a previous long-assed thread on this subject,Gunny mentioned that he bought Kosher sardines.

What is Kosher?It is a *private,voluntary* service that inspects food for you to make sure that it meets your demands.This costs money,money that producers and consumers of this service *voluntarily* pay.People that didn't want to enjoy the benefits of this service,paid nothing.This is also known as 'the free market'.

And yet millions of Jewish immigrants over hundreds of years somehow scraped up the money to employ this service and some of them even prospered and didn't die of starvation.

----------


## Carlybee

> Do you seriously not understand how the "general budget" is collected?


Of course I do...you insinuated the FDA collects funds with violent force.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Fair enough.  It would be wise for you to make that clear so we don't need to have this conversation in the middle of your point.  It must surely detract from it.


Suit yourself.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> you insinuated the FDA collects funds with violent force.


My words were:




> The only problem is, you want the government to use violence to ensure that every label in every store suits your own particular set of personal values.


Despite your misconstruction of my words, my point stands.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Ever heard of Kosher food?In a previous long-assed thread on this subject,Gunny mentioned that he bought Kosher sardines.



Yep, and I seem to be one of few in this thread supportive of his efforts.  Have you read this thread, or did you just read that single post?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Suit yourself.



Yes, I will.  If you jump off of my post and act as if I said something I didn't, then I guess I need to correct you in public.  Makes sense, since you admittedly misrepresented my position in public.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yes, I will.  If you jump off of my post and act as if I said something I didn't, then I guess I need to correct you in public.  Makes sense, since you admittedly misrepresented my position in public.


Not really, but suit yourself.

----------


## Carlybee

> My words were:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your misconstruction of my words, my point stands.



If it were up to me the USDA and the FDA would be history but that would also mean income tax would be non existent so that people could afford to pay out of pocket for independent studies and food safety compliance.  Since we know that is not going to happen in this lifetime, I would like them to do their existing job and ensure that products are labeled as to whether or not they contain potential poison.  Yes it would be lovely if companies would do it themselves but they probably won't. If they do the price will just be jacked up and you are going to pay one way or the other.  The problem right now with any of it is that the FDA and USDA are indeed in bed with Monsanto and the administration supports that.  Your tax dollars are paying for them to NOT tell you what is in your food.

----------


## mad cow

> Of course I do...you insinuated the FDA collects funds with violent force.


I'm telling you straight up that the FDA collects funds with violent force.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> If it were up to me the USDA and the FDA would be history but that would also mean income tax would be non existent so that people could afford to pay out of pocket for independent studies and food safety compliance.  Since we know that is not going to happen in this lifetime, I would like them to do their existing job and ensure that products are labeled as to whether or not they contain potential poison.


Your personal interest is in knowing about a food's GMO content, right? But another person might care about something different; he might want to see a spectral analysis and magnetic-resonance image of food before he eats it. A third person might not care about any of that, but might want to know the astrological sign under which the seeds were planted. A fourth person wants to know the exact DNA of his food; and a fifth person wants to know whether it's kosher. Do you want the FDA labels to show all that information, or just the information that happens to interest you in particular?

----------


## Carlybee

> Your personal interest is in knowing about a food's GMO content, right? But another person might care about something different; he might want to see a spectral analysis and magnetic-resonance image of food before he eats it. A third person might not care about any of that, but might want to know the astrological sign under which the seeds were planted. A fourth person wants to know the exact DNA of his food; and a fifth person wants to know whether it's kosher. Do you want the FDA labels to show all that information, or just the information that happens to interest you in particular?



Whatever...you are just trying to cloud the issue. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

----------


## mad cow

> Yep, and I seem to be one of few in this thread supportive of his efforts.  Have you read this thread, or did you just read that single post?


I have read every word of this thread and every word of several previous threads on this subject that I also contributed to.I disagree with Gunny's position on this issue and I have let him know it.However I have contributed to his political endeavors many times,I am not one of those people that hate a politicians guts if he only agrees with me 95% of the time,in fact I think that they are wonderful.

----------


## otherone

> Your personal interest is in knowing about a food's GMO content, right?


I'm pretty sure companies already label their products.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *And I don't have 5 minutes to research* every issue that crosses my screen on RPF, Twitter, etc; and if you can't concisely state your position without sending me off to YouTube-land, then I doubt you know what you're talking about. If you don't want to change my mind about Monsanto, that is okay.
> 
> 
> 
> What specific legislation, in any country, prohibits a private lab from testing food and reporting the results? I asked along these lines before, and it appears that no such legislation exists.


But you have hours to argue about something that you can't afford to spend 5 minutes on researching?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Whatever...you are just trying to cloud the issue. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.


You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to the government using violence to ensure that every label in every store suits your own particular set of personal values.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> But you have hours to argue about something that you can't afford to spend 5 minutes on researching?


I'm dealing with people claiming that phantom legislation prohibits private labs from reporting food content, so you are correct, I don't have even 5 minutes to hunt for non-existent legislation.

----------


## Carlybee

> You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to the government using violence to ensure that every label in every store suits your own particular set of personal values.


Once again I never said that so stop assuming I did. You really must be mentally deficient. PISS OFF. Can I be any more clear? Done conversing with you until you learn to read and comprehend.

----------


## Carlybee

Oh and I rarely neg rep but you just earned one and an ignore for being willfully retarded.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Oh and I rarely neg rep but you just earned one and an ignore for being willfully retarded.


Okay.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Once again I never said that....


You said:




> I want the existing product labels to reveal whether or not the product contains GMO food. ... It's a matter of adding 3 letters.





> I was under the impression their funding was part of the general budget.

----------


## Carlybee

> You said:



Last time...how is that saying I want the FDA to use violence to force labeling?   Just because I would like to see the labeling does not infer that I have suggested what the best way would be to go about it.  I specifically stated that there is a big problem due to the fact that the ABC agencies are in bed with Monsanto or did you gloss over that part the way you have apparently glossed over any available information about GMO issues to begin with.  I agree with what someone else said earlier, you have time to argue but you have no time to research so you just make broad assumptions.  Be gone.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> you have no time to research


I hear that all the time from people who can't back up their claims, because they don't know what they're talking about.




> how is that saying I want the FDA to use violence to force labeling?


Again, your position:




> ... in this lifetime, I would like them [FDA] to do their existing job and ensure that products are labeled as to whether or not they contain potential poison.


You appear unwilling or unable to understand the role of violence in the collection of the FDA's funding; but if anyone else wants an explanation, I'll try.

Edited: Because I forgot to mention the violence you're advocating against companies that decline to comply with labeling regulations.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Bottom line is this. Representatives should be held accountable for stating their position on the* science of it*. The only way to find out is to ask them. Can't have representatives who have absolutely no clue running interference for these very dangerous companies. There are many reasons for this. One of which is the fact that the companies themselves actually do fully understand the science of what they are doing. The people need to know to. Labeling isn't the issue, per se. Getting way ahead of ourselves to think that it is. If our representatives aren't literate enough to comprehend the science that these companies are forcing onto natural citizens and infrastructure as well as even dictating some elements of foreign policy then how then can we assume that they have our best interests at heart? Right now the lobbies are winning. They are wheeling and dealing your supposed representatives who have no clue whatsoever the depth of the science behind the model.

To layeth the standard narrative of "oh, these people don't know why they're marching" is amateur at best. The people aren't literate as a majority to the changing infrastructure of the sciences themselves. The only means they have are their representatives to ask. If they don't then they are simply removing themselves from the democratic process and don't even know that they are doing it to themselves.If our representatives are scientifically illiterate then they too are disenfranchising the people whom they were elected to represent from the democratic process and again... you don’t even know it.

This is one of the main reasons I keep complaining that there is no interest in a science sub forum here to address these things and have a place to keep track of it all. Once the enthusiasm from current events are over then the discussion, like many, many others that are equally relevant, will remain buried and we'll see the standard narrative like I've read throughout some of these postings revert to maneuver into control of the usual terms of controversy. You know the ones. The old "Hey, we support government controlled corporations because we don't know what a genuine free market is and if you don't like it then you don't like liberty...for the entity...this isn't for you", gag.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I hear that all the time from people who can't back up their claims, because they don't know what they're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your position:
> 
> 
> 
> You appear unwilling or unable to understand the role of violence in the collection of the FDA's funding; but if anyone else wants an explanation, I'll try.


How about, as long as they are using violence to get their funding, that they do their damn job and stop being an arm of Monsanto?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> To layeth the standard narrative of "oh, these people don't know why they're marching" is amateur at best.


Evidently some were marching because they'd been brainwashed into believing that legislation prohibits private labs from reporting food content.

----------


## mad cow

> How about, as long as they are using violence to get their funding, that they do their damn job and stop being an arm of Monsanto?


How about as long as they are using violence to get their funding that they use their violence against my enemies.
Pure Democracy in a nutshell.

----------


## Barrex

ROFL better-dead-than-fed turned this into "I dont know nothing about this but you are all wrong" topic....
Part of me thinks he is joking....nevertheless I am not debating someone who openly admit that he doesnt know what he is talking about and then refuses to learn anything about it and still want to  argue.

For the rest (ROFL):




> The Farmer Assurance Provision (known as Monsanto Protection Act by critics) was part of a bill to provide continued funding  to the federal government in the ongoing US budget stalemate, and was  signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013.[278] It expires at the end of the federal fiscal year, on September 20, 2013.[279]  NPR stated that "the provision authorizes the USDA to *grant "temporary"  permission for GMO crops to be planted, even if a judge has ruled that  such crops were not properly approved,* only while the necessary  environmental reviews are completed. That's an authority that the USDA  has, in fact, already exercised in the past.
> 
> 
> The documents show that in 2009, when the Spanish government's policy allowing MON810  corn to be grown, as allowed under European law, was under pressure  from EU interests, Monsanto's Director for Biotechnology for Spain and  Portugal requested that the US government support Spain on the matter.[262][291][292]  The reports also indicated that Spain and the US had worked closely  together to "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws."[262][290]  Spain was viewed as an EU member that was a key supporter of GM and  there was a widespread belief in biotechnology industry that "if Spain  falls, the rest of Europe will follow."[293][294] *The documents also revealed that in response to an attempt by France to  ban a Monsanto's MON810 in late 2007, the then US ambassador to France,  Craig Roberts Stapleton,  in a bid to "help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," asked  Washington to "calibrate a targeted retaliation list that [would cause]  some pain across the EU," in particular those countries that did not  support the use of GM crops*


This is not exception. Monsanto uses US diplomacy and power to "persuade" other countries to allow GMO food and Monsanto to enter.Company that is responsible/connected to mass suicide of farmers (2 suicides per hour). Just in India 2009. oduzeo 17,683 lives ended because of Monsanto... often farmers committed suicide using Monsanto insecticide.

Here Monsanto is suing activists who are spreading truth about GMO. They cant win but their goal is not to win in court it is to financially drain any and ever opponent.

'2, 4, 5, 6'.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Evidently some were marching because they'd been brainwashed into believing that legislation prohibits private labs from reporting food content.



Well then we'll just have to fix that then, won't we?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> ROFL better-dead-than-fed turned this into "I dont know nothing about this but you are all wrong" topic....
> Part of me thinks he is joking....nevertheless I am not debating someone who openly admit that he doesnt know what he is talking about and then refuses to learn anything about it and still want to  argue.


Yesterday I didn't know anything about this; but since then I've learned that at least several people are suffering under a delusion that some phantom legislation prohibits private labs from reporting food-content.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> How about as long as they are using violence to get their funding that they use their violence against my enemies.
> Pure Democracy in a nutshell.


Nah, let's keep it as "do their damn job", nothing about "my enemies" needed.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yesterday I didn't know anything about this; but since then I've learned that at least several people are suffering under a delusion that some phantom legislation prohibits private labs from reporting food-content.


No, you're just failing terribly at being a good troll at this particular subject.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I am not debating someone who openly admit that he doesnt know what he is talking about and then refuses to learn anything about it and still want to  argue.


I'm not refusing to learn, I'm just refusing to entertain foolish demands that I go off to YouTube in search of support for other people's positions.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> No, you're just failing terribly at being a good troll at this particular subject.


I've searched your last post high and low for a link to legislation prohibiting private labs from reporting food-content; and nothing.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I've searched your last post high and low for a link to legislation prohibiting private labs from reporting food-content; and nothing.


I didn't say anything one way or the other on the subject, that's why you won't find a post from me about it. 
What's that got to do with the price of beans?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I didn't say anything one way or the other on the subject, that's why you won't find a post from me about it. 
> What's that got to do with the price of beans?


'k

----------


## mad cow

> Nah, let's keep it as "do their damn job", nothing about "my enemies" needed.


What do you think their job should be?I think they should disband their Unconstitutional asses tomorrow.

If they decide that it is illegal to sell a Big Gulp as Bloomberg did or outlawing pot for health reasons are you going to say 'well,I don't agree with this position,but they are doing their damn job' and I support that?Or are you only going to support their  doing their damn job when they support your position against your enemies?

----------


## Natural Citizen

A wave of rallies is rolling *across the globe* in protest at biotech giant Monsanto. Thousands of campaigners and environmentalists in more than 40 countries accuse the multi-national corporation of aggressively expanding into the food market and spreading hazardous products.



Geopolitical analyst and author of "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO" F. William Engdahl explains why Monsanto menaces farmers and food producers around the globe.

Huge crowds in the background while the discussion is taking place, btw. _Huge_.

----------


## osan



----------


## Natural Citizen

> 


Trustees in modern government controlled markets whose growth model demands the continuation of science experiments on the human species would do well to spend the time it takes to listen to what this young man has to say while they have a choice in the matter to do so. As the genuine science community becomes more involved with political aspects that they have humbly and historically bowed away from, the luxury of political malfeasance  that too often dissuades relevance from correct context that should accompany the issue will diminish. Make no mistake about it.

A TED conference (at the very least) is definitely in this young man's future. And many more like him. And who knows what else? Too often we think of youth as college students and twenty somethings who are simply floating around in the middle of change and looking for someone to tell them what they are supposed to think.

Thanks for sharing, osan.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yesterday I didn't know anything about this; but since then I've learned that at least several people are suffering under a delusion that some phantom legislation prohibits private labs from reporting food-content.


I've already told you about the FDA's salmon prohibition on GMO Free labeling being "too confusing for the customer" and the FDA/USDA prohibition on labeling milk and dairy as "Growth Hormone Free."

Your refusal to believe me, or the Washington Post, does not change reality.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm not refusing to learn, I'm just refusing to entertain foolish demands that I go off to YouTube in search of support for other people's positions.



Sure you are.  You ignore or completely overlook any facts that do not fit your pre-determined conclusions.  One of the primary reasons I decided that continuing to engage this thread was a waste of time.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> One of the primary reasons I decided that continuing to engage this thread was a waste of time.


Is a shame, really. Am beginning to come to the realization that this movement (in it's current state) is just cherry picking bodies and the issues be damned. This is an extremely important issue. Should be front page but is actively being spun six ways from Tuesday in blind support of government controlled markets. Strong neoconservative positions I've seen gather momentum as of late. What compounds it is that the less informed seem to be the useful idiots being unleashed to lead the charge in redirecting the relevance. Such tremendous opportunity is consistently trashed and thrown out the door in my opinion.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-etc-(Report)/

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Sure you are.  You ignore or completely overlook any facts that do not fit your pre-determined conclusions.  One of the primary reasons I decided that continuing to engage this thread was a waste of time.


What "facts"? All they were were unsupported claims from someone on the internet who is totally unknown to me.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-etc-(Report)/


Gosh. See? I forgot all about that thread. And it's the nuts and bolts. As well, it extends to a broad range of issues where science is relevant. Not helpful when trying to share important discussion and infrastrucural/technological change/legislation when the model is to keep it under wraps and scattered and buried all over the place. There really needs to be a place for this. Gosh, that annoys me.

----------


## donnay

> So avoid corn and soybeans then or find the 2% that aren't :/



I guess you don't do much grocery shopping then--because corn and soy is in almost EVERYTHING.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I've already told you about the FDA's salmon prohibition on GMO Free labeling being "too confusing for the customer" and the FDA/USDA prohibition on labeling milk and dairy as "Growth Hormone Free."
> 
> Your refusal to believe me, or the Washington Post, does not change reality.


Here was our exchange:




> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> ...


You never addressed my question about private labs. You only addressed limitations on food-producers, and you didn't link to your source until just now, so you afforded me to way of verifying your claims.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-etc-(Report)/


That leads me to this:




> I've copied this right from the FDA's website:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Even though FDA may not require it, can a producer or manufacturer put additional information on the label about whether the food is or is not made from a GE organism?
> 
> ...


So it appears producers _are_ allowed to label their food as non-GMO; and furthermore:




> at least several people are suffering under a delusion that some phantom legislation prohibits *private labs* from reporting food-content.

----------


## donnay

> *Dr. Margaret Ann Hamburg* is the current Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
> 
> I can't find anything connecting her to Monsanto. Where are you getting your information?


Meet Michael R. Taylor, J.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine



Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2010. He is the first individual to hold the position, which was created along with a new Office of Foods in August 2009.

Mr. Taylor is leading FDA efforts to

develop and carry out a prevention-based strategy for food safety
plan for new food safety legislation
ensure that food labels contain clear and accurate information on nutrition
"I am fully committed to working with my FDA colleagues to make the changes necessary to ensure the safety of Americas food supply from farm to table," said Mr. Taylor.


"We look forward to working in new ways within FDA and with partners in other government agencies, the consumer community, and the food industry to tackle the important challenges  and the unprecedented opportunities  we currently face."

Mr. Taylor received his law degree from the University of Virginia and his B.A. degree in political science from Davidson College.

A nationally recognized food safety expert, Mr. Taylor has served in numerous high-level positions at FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as a research professor in the academic community, and on several National Academy of Sciences expert committees studying food-related issues.

Before returning to FDA in July 2009 as senior advisor to the commissioner, Mr. Taylor served as research professor, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University. His research agenda focused on policy, resource, and institutional issues that affect the success of public health agencies in carrying out their prevention-related missions.

Mr. Taylor served as administrator of USDAs Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and acting under secretary for food safety at USDA. He spearheaded public health-oriented reform of FSIS, guided the development of new safety requirements for meat and poultry products, and addressed the hazard associated with E. coli O157:H7 in beef products.

Mr. Taylor began his career as a staff attorney at FDA, holding various positions including deputy commissioner for policy. He was involved in issuing regulations to address seafood safety and in carrying out nutrition labeling requirements.

Other positions held by Mr. Taylor include senior fellow, Resources for the Future; professor, School of Medicine, University of Maryland; partner, King & Spalding law firm; and vice president for public policy, *Monsanto Company*.

Source:
http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centerso.../ucm196721.htm

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> 


And they march to expand his power over labeling.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Is a shame, really. Am beginning to come to the realization that this movement (in it's current state) is just cherry picking bodies and the issues be damned. This is an extremely important issue. Should be front page but is actively being spun six ways from Tuesday in blind support of government controlled markets. Strong neoconservative positions I've seen gather momentum as of late. What compounds it is that the less informed seem to be the useful idiots being unleashed to lead the charge in redirecting the relevance. Such tremendous opportunity is consistently trashed and thrown out the door in my opinion.


Ehh, it's not that bad.  Mandatory labeling is a very un-libertarian position.  People hear GMO controversy and they knee-jerk into thinking we want government to use force and do something.  But that's bull of course.  Problem is they get wrapped into a paradigm of their own creation and stop listening to what we are actually saying, and go off of what they think 'someone like us' would say.  So that's a problem, but it's not like they are actually cherry picking issues so much as they think they are operating on a cohesive principle.  They are just blinded by prejudgement into thinking we are following a different principle (government force) than we actually are (fraud is bad).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That leads me to this:
> 
> 
> 
> So it appears producers _are_ allowed to label their food as non-GMO; and furthermore:


Yeah, because "you are not allowed to label" = "you are allowed to label" in some universe somewhere.  I guess.  Maybe.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And they march to expand his power over labeling.


Right, again as if we are arguing for FDA power to label...

forget it.  You aren't listening.  You are just making crap up and pretending that's what we are advocating.  Why the hell am I even talking to you?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yeah, because "you are not allowed to label" = "you are allowed to label" in some universe somewhere.  I guess.  Maybe.


The only thing the FDA said is that you are allowed to label. The "you are not allowed to label" quote comes from where exactly?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Ehh, it's not that bad.  Mandatory labeling is a very un-libertarian position.  People hear GMO controversy and they knee-jerk into thinking we want government to use force and do something.  But that's bull of course.  Problem is they get wrapped into a paradigm of their own creation and stop listening to what we are actually saying, and go off of what they think 'someone like us' would say.  So that's a problem, but it's not like they are actually cherry picking issues so much as they think they are operating on a cohesive principle.  They are just blinded by prejudgement into thinking we are following a different principle (government force) than we actually are (fraud is bad).


Yeah, it's not the labeling that plucks me. It's really not. I know that it shouldn't even come to that. But it does remain the premise for the debate which I find to be conforming to the old Hegelian dialectic that keeps it the center of attention. This is how it's able to be spun into free market squabble when in reality we need to be asking our representatives what their position is on the science of it. That's the way to go about it. And the same phenomenon extends across a very broad range of changing infrastructure/legislation.

Is just one of those opportunities where everything has a place and everything must be in place. If people aren't able to gain the scientific literacy regarding what the company (and others like them) are doing via the representatives who are elected to speak for us without understanding their business model (which is purely that of science and one that directly affects the natural citizens very being) then the people that have elected them to be representative of them disenfranchise themselves from the democratic process itself without ever even knowing that they are doing it to themselves if they never get an answer from their prospective representative regarding what their position is on it and how they would lead. Which means Monsanto (and others like them) continue to legislate via the of, by and for model except relative to growth instead of survival (in this case a natural species). The people need to know their prospective representatives position on the sciences. They are what change is all about. The sciences, that is.

The screwy part is (for me, at least) that I'm not even very political. I'm really not.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Warlord has spotted troops in his country with books and guides on how to avoid Monsanto. In fact, Mike Adams and NaturalNews produces one with thousands of delicious products listed?


The problem, I think, is that we shouldn't need a book in order to avoid Monsanto products.  Is that too much to ask?  Can we at least agree that Monsanto should stop being subsidized and protected by the federal government?  Can we agree on that one thing?

----------


## donnay

> And they march to expand his power over labeling.



No many marched to bring awareness of government collusion and crony capitalism.  And when Michael Taylor is finished in government, paving the road for his cronies, he'll be a consultant for some other crony corporation to help push their agenda through.  It's a vicious circle--and we are the ones getting jerked around.

Let us not forget the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto too.


*Here are some more people:*

_Michael A. Friedman, the Acting Commissioner of the FDA was the VP of Clinical Affairs at the G.D. Searle pharmaceutical company, which merged with Monsanto;

Arthur Hull Hayes, A former FDA Commissioner and consultant to Searle's public relation's firm;

Margaret Miller, appointed as Deputy Director of the FDA in 19991, was a top Monsanto scientist who
oversaw the approval of rBGH, Monsanto's bovine growth hormone;

Suzanne Sechen, an FDA reviewer on scientific data, worked on the rBGH hormone in connection with
Cornell University;

Michael Taylor, appointed by Obama as the FDA "Food Czar", was an attorney for Monsanto for 7 years and head of the Monsanto Washington, D.C. office;

Clarence Thomas, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991, was a former Monsanto attorney;

Anne Veneman, appointed head of the USDA in 20021, served on the Board of Directors at Calgene,
a Monsanto Biotech Subsidiary;

Dr. Virginia Weldon, who was a member of the FDA's Metabolism and Endocrine Advisory Committee, is a retired VP for public policy at Monsanto;

Linda Fisher, the Deputy Administrator of the EPA, was Monsanto's VP of Public and Government Affairs;

Roger Beachy, the USDA, and NIFA Director, was the Director of Monsanto's Danforth Center;

Elena Kagen, nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court, and now a member, represented Monsanto
In a seed case. You know, a case where seeds from a Monsanto field blow over to an independent
farmer's field and Monsanto sues them for theft;

Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State who washed her hands of the Benghazi killing of the US Ambassador, worked for the Rose Law Firm, who did work for Monsanto._
Source:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040455_Ma...#ixzz2USxfwz8c

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Right, again as if we are arguing for FDA power to label...
> 
> forget it.  You aren't listening.  You are just making crap up and pretending that's what we are advocating.  Why the hell am I even talking to you?


I know, it's funnier than $#@!.  And that's pretty stinky.  You can't make a single comment without being part of "those people over there" or something

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It would take lifetimes to watch every YouTube video returned by a search for "Monsanto".
> 
> 
> 
> I have no time for wading through hippie videos, seriously, so now you know why I don't know "what's really going on here", and I'm never going to know, unless you care enough to post it in concisely this thread. If you don't want to wake up the masses like me, okay then.


Just the documentaries.  Start with those.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What do you think their job should be?I think they should disband their Unconstitutional asses tomorrow.
> 
> If they decide that it is illegal to sell a Big Gulp as Bloomberg did or outlawing pot for health reasons are you going to say 'well,I don't agree with this position,but they are doing their damn job' and I support that?Or are you only going to support their  doing their damn job when they support your position against your enemies?


@madcow, I'll just give you a hint, you can click the little thingy next to the name in the quote and follow the conversation backwards.  If you can make sense of what you are posting from the conversation, stop back by and let me know.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Can we at least agree that Monsanto should stop being subsidized and protected by the federal government?  Can we agree on that one thing?


I'm with you on that, of course; and I've seen no one dispute that.




> The problem, I think, is that we shouldn't need a book in order to avoid Monsanto products.  Is that too much to ask?


Sorry but it is too much, in my opinion. For one thing, GMO is cheaper, and if you outlaw it, people who can't afford luxury food are going to die, and producers meeting black-market demand are going to get their dogs shot by stormtroopers and worse.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

The FDA FORBIDS Labelling Non-GM Salmon etc (Report) 




> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-etc-(Report)/


^^^ THIS ^^^

----------


## donnay

> I'm with you on that, of course; and I've seen no one dispute that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it is too much, in my opinion. For one thing, GMO is cheaper, and if you outlaw it, people who can't afford luxury food are going to die, and producers meeting black-market demand are going to get their dogs shot by stormtroopers and worse.



You can pay less now, but you'll pay dearly later (health wise).  If these GMO's are causing organ damage and tumors in lab rats, you can imagine what it will be doing to yours as time goes on and you eat more and more GMO's.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Right, again as if *we* are arguing for FDA power to label...
> 
> forget it.  You aren't listening.  You are just making crap up and pretending that's what we are advocating.  Why the hell am I even talking to you?


Who is the "we" you're referring to? I see this:

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:




> we advocate ... Labeling of GMOs


http://occupy-monsanto.com/




> we advocate ... Labeling of GMOs


Are you not part of that "we"?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> You can pay less now, but you'll pay dearly later (health wise).  If these GMO's are causing organ damage and tumors in lab rats, you can imagine what it will be doing to yours as time goes on and you eat more and more GMO's.


Yep.  Also, if you take the subsidies (we are paying through taxation, etc) away, what would the price be?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You can pay less now, but you'll pay dearly later (health wise).  If these GMO's are causing organ damage and tumors in lab rats, you can imagine what it will be doing to yours as time goes on and you eat more and more GMO's.


I imagine GMO's might kill me in the long run. Much better than starving to death tonight.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The FDA FORBIDS Labelling Non-GM Salmon etc (Report) 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ THIS ^^^


But that's not binding, because that's just written by some random people on the internet. The statement on the FDA website is what's binding.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The only thing the FDA said is that you are allowed to label. The "you are not allowed to label" quote comes from where exactly?



the f d a

food and drug administration

a federal agency in Washington DC that regulated food.  and drugs.  and labeling.

EFF DEE AAAY

I don't know how to make this any more clear.

Obviously you have not been following their rulings.

labeling something free of rBGH or GMO is "misleading" because there is "no material difference" between GMO and natural, in their opinion.

In your opinion too, apparently.  since you seem to think a frog is a tomato, and that frogmatos being sold as tomatos is not fraud.

First of all, frogs are kingdom animalea, and tomatos are kingdom plantae.  Tit's not like they are merely different species like lions and tigers, or even genuses like canines and felines.  These are different KINGDOMS.  Plant and animal.  But you think there is no difference, apparently.  Or at least not enough of a difference to make a tomato no longer a tomato.  I think calling a frog a tomato is insane.

see?  the disconnect is so obvious that I don't know what else to tell you.  It's like we live in different universes.  You seem to be acting blatantly fascist to me, and I seem to be acting blatantly fascist to you.

All I want is freedom to avoid GMO -- to not have that $#@! shoved down my throat against my will and without my knowledge.

You seem the think that's easy.  You are delusional.  Monsanto owns the FDA and the USDA, and they collude to make free will impossible.

In my world, libertarians oppose government force being used to prevent free-will choices.

In my world, libertarians oppose fraud.

In my world, calling a frog a tomato is fraud.

You clearly do not live in my world. so I don't think we have anything to discuss on this matter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Who is the "we" you're referring to? I see this:
> 
> http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:
> 
> 
> 
> http://occupy-monsanto.com/
> 
> 
> ...


Aren't you the guy who keeps telling people you aren't putting words into their mouths?  And yet here you are.  Doing it.  Again.  Just like the Republicans did to Ron Paul.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  But I know you are not.  You think you are somehow 'revealing the truth' by lying about what we believe.

Like I said different universes.  To me, what you are doing by shoving your words into my mouth is disgusting.  and _VERY_ un-libertarian.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:




> we advocate ... Labeling of GMOs


http://occupy-monsanto.com/




> we advocate ... Labeling of GMOs





> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> ...


When you realize that I was referring to http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/ and http://occupy-monsanto.com/ what's so funny about it?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Aren't you the guy who keeps telling people you aren't putting words into their mouths?


That was someone else, actually.




> And yet here you are.  Doing it.  Again.  Just like the Republicans did to Ron Paul.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  But I know you are not.  You think you are somehow 'revealing the truth' by lying about what we believe.
> 
> Like I said different universes.  To me, what you are doing by shoving your words into my mouth is disgusting.  and _VERY_ un-libertarian.


First you complain that government is "cramming" food in our mouths, which it's not; and now you claim I'm shoving words in your mouth, when what I really typed was:




> Who is the "we" you're referring to? I see this:
> 
> http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:
> 
> http://occupy-monsanto.com/
> 
> Are you not part of that "we"?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> the f d a
> 
> food and drug administration
> 
> a federal agency in Washington DC that regulated food.  and drugs.  and labeling.
> 
> EFF DEE AAAY
> 
> I don't know how to make this any more clear.
> ...


Correct, and obviously you haven't posted links to whatever rulings you have in mind. You can keep throwing tantrums, bringing no one to your cause, or you can cite the rulings specifically.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@better-dead-than-fed,

You are confusing a lot of issues.  One, you are concluding that everyone that "doesn't want to eat GMO's" or that "doesn't want the FDA approving $#@! for food" is asking for the FDA to "prevent business from competing".  But that is simply not so.

And, just because one or a few people hold signs that says "Government should help me" doesn't mean that everyone at the "don't force me to eat $#@!" rally agrees with those few asking government to help, because they don't, and I don't.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> @better-dead-than-fed,
> 
> You are confusing a lot of issues.  One, you are concluding that everyone that "doesn't want to eat GMO's" or that "doesn't want the FDA approving $#@! for food" is asking for the FDA to "prevent business from competing".  But that is simply not so.


If you'd stop fabricating quotes, it might help you see my actual position.




> And, just because one or a few people hold signs that says "Government should help me" doesn't mean that everyone at the "don't force me to eat $#@!" rally agrees with those few asking government to help, because they don't, and I don't.


So the march was for nothing specific, every man marching for himself?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I may have been totally wrong about that. I was recalling information I'd read on an unreliable source (published by anti-Monsanto people), and I didn't check facts. Sorry about that.


BDTF, you keep asking people why they support the FDA labelling foods.  My question is, where did you get this faulty knee-jerk reaction?  What makes you think any of the people you are arguing with here actually support FDA labelling.  Is it possible to be against Monsanto and not want to require labels?  Think about that.  I think it would be great if we could just get rid of the government protectionism.  I think the reason that some people are trying to get that is because they perceive it as an easier way to avoid Monsanto's effects on their lives than bringing down the government and Monsanto all at the same time.  But don't assume people are fighting for government labelling.  If nothing else, we are arguing to end government protectionism of Monsanto.  That is what needs to stop.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> BDTF, you keep asking people why they support the FDA labelling foods.  My question is, where did you get this faulty knee-jerk reaction?  What makes you think any of the people you are arguing with here actually support FDA labelling.  Is it possible to be against Monsanto and not want to require labels?  Think about that.  I think it would be great if we could just get rid of the government protectionism.  I think the reason that some people are trying to get that is because they perceive it as an easier way to avoid Monsanto's effects on their lives than bringing down the government and Monsanto all at the same time.  But don't assume people are fighting for government labelling.  If nothing else, we are arguing to end government protectionism of Monsanto.  That is what needs to stop.


hear frikkin hear.

----------


## liberty2897

> If nothing else, we are arguing to end government protectionism of Monsanto.  That is what needs to stop.


I would like to see an end to Monsanto (and others) *being* our effective government.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If you'd stop fabricating quotes, it might help you see my actual position.
> 
> 
> 
> So the march was for nothing specific, every man marching for himself?


I'm not fabricating quotes, it's called summarizing.

And, the march is "awareness" and "FDA Stop approving GMO's as materially the same" because they are not.

Now, if you read the other thread (that Gunny posted a link to) you will see that it is "threats" more than actual rules.  Read what is happening.  Since GMO's have been classified as materially the same, labeling stuff as non-gmo is "misleading" according to the "threats" sent to companies that want to label their stuff non-gmo.

Another problem that is beginning to happen is...A cow eats corn that has gmo in it.  Is the meat from the cow non-gmo?

Understand this...there are those of us that DO NOT WANT to eat GMO's.  But, the government gives Monsanto cover, subsidies, protection.

You say, have it tested.  How much will that cost, eh?  You know of lab that does such testing, post a link, let's see what this is going to cost.  And any single item in a recipe that changes could affect that at any time (ie, another manufacturer for some ingredient selling cheaper or whatever).

If I buy a tomato, it should be a tomato.  A real tomato, or else label it frogmato or whatever it really is.

----------


## Carlybee

> I would like to see an end to Monsanto (and others) *being* our effective government.


That and for them to stop arresting raw milk farmers in favor of big dairy and it's additive based products.  Just one other issue of many in their war against real and natural food.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Correct, and obviously you haven't posted links to whatever rulings you have in mind. You can keep throwing tantrums, bringing no one to your cause, or you can cite the rulings specifically.


I can't help you if I provide links and you turn a blind eye to them.  There has been several metric pluck-tons of data provided in this thread, and you keep pretending like nobody had provided evidence.  It's not us who are in delusion-land, it's you.  You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

I have never in my life seen libertarians get more completely irrational than over this GMO issue.

Fascism is somehow OK if the object of corporatist-government tyranny doesn't affect you, personally?

you know what - I fight against fascism even when it _doesn't_ affect me personally.  Even when I personally couldn't care less about government tyranny in a certain area, I still fight for others to be free of that oppression.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

And if you do not think that the unholy government/Monsanto alliance is fascism, then you are dreaming.

----------


## Carlybee

> I can't help you if I provide links and you turn a blind eye to them.  There has been several metric pluck-tons of data provided in this thread, and you keep pretending like nobody had provided evidence.  It's not us who are in delusion-land, it's you.  You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.
> 
> I have never in my life seen libertarians get more completely irrational than over this GMO issue.
> 
> Fascism is somehow OK if the object of corporatist-government tyranny doesn't affect you, personally?
> 
> you know what - I fight against fascism even when it _doesn't_ affect me personally.  Even when I personally couldn't care less about government tyranny in a certain area, I still fight for others to be free of that oppression.
> 
> I guess that's the difference between you and me.
> ...


He's not getting that the government is trying to mandate what we eat by supporting the Monsanto agenda...being against that is the true libertarian position...worrying about a tax dollar being spent on a label is picking nits at this point.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> What makes you think any of the people you are arguing with here actually support FDA labelling.


Some of them admitted that they support FDA labeling. Who have I accused falsely? In which post?




> But don't assume people are fighting for government labelling.


I haven't, except where individuals have admitted that they are.




> I think the reason that some people are trying to get that is because they perceive it as an easier way to avoid Monsanto's effects on their lives than bringing down the government and Monsanto all at the same time.


Fascism always makes things easier for a few people; if it didn't, no one would advocate for it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> He's not getting that the government is trying to mandate what we eat by supporting the Monsanto agenda...


Why do you accuse me of that?




> worrying about a tax dollar being spent on a label is picking nits at this point.


That's a senseless apology for the violence you advocate.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'm not fabricating quotes, it's called summarizing.


But your summary was incompetent, because it misrepresented my actual position.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> But your summary was incompetent, because it misrepresented my actual position.


Try reading your posts.  You have put everyone in the march or that supported the march into the category of wanting the federal government to force labeling.  

You said: "So the march was for nothing specific, every man marching for himself?" 

as a reply to 

"And, just because one or a few people hold signs that says "Government should help me" doesn't mean that everyone at the "don't force me to eat $#@!" rally agrees with those few asking government to help, because they don't, and I don't. "

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I can't help you if I provide links and you turn a blind eye to them.


I really don't care about you Gunny, so I don't care what your position is or what you do or why you do it. If you'd like to link to the FDA rulings you have in mind, you might bring any number of people to your side. I'm not the only one reading. So far, the only word actually quoted from the FDA in this thread is that it's permitted to label foods as non-GMO.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Try reading your posts.  You have put everyone in the march or that supported the march into the category of wanting the federal government to force labeling.  
> 
> You said: "So the march was for nothing specific, every man marching for himself?" 
> 
> as a reply to 
> 
> "And, just because one or a few people hold signs that says "Government should help me" doesn't mean that everyone at the "don't force me to eat $#@!" rally agrees with those few asking government to help, because they don't, and I don't. "


'k

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I can't help you if I provide links and you turn a blind eye to them.  There has been several metric pluck-tons of data provided in this thread, and you keep pretending like nobody had provided evidence.  It's not us who are in delusion-land, it's you.  You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.
> 
> I have never in my life seen libertarians get more completely irrational than over this GMO issue.
> 
> Fascism is somehow OK if the object of corporatist-government tyranny doesn't affect you, personally?
> 
> you know what - I fight against fascism even when it _doesn't_ affect me personally.  Even when I personally couldn't care less about government tyranny in a certain area, I still fight for others to be free of that oppression.
> 
> I guess that's the difference between you and me.
> ...


Jiiiiiminy crickets. GunnyFreedom has the_ power_.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> 'k


"'k" means you understand or don't?

Do you understand that Monsanto would not be able to do what they do without the federal government propping them up?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> "'k" means you understand or don't?


It means I moved on without finishing reading your entire post.




> Do you understand that Monsanto would not be able to do what they do without the federal government propping them up?


I don't doubt it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm with you on that, of course; and I've seen no one dispute that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it is too much, in my opinion. For one thing, GMO is cheaper, and if you outlaw it, people who can't afford luxury food are going to die, and producers meeting black-market demand are going to get their dogs shot by stormtroopers and worse.


You keep jumping to conclusions.  Why do you assume that everyone in this thread wants forced labeling, and why do you assume that those who don't want to have to read a book in order to avoid Monsanto products are advocating outlawing GMO?  All I want is a choice.  A clear-cut choice.  This choicee would be a lot easier to make if the government wasn't invovled in Monsanto's business.  Why do you think it's so hard to identify GMO products?

----------


## Carlybee

> Why do you accuse me of that?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a senseless apology for the violence you advocate.



Once again, I have never advocated violence but since it's become glaringly apparent that you have a comprehension/translation problem I will chalk it up to some sort of retardation on your part.  I am very against any government agency using violence to force any kind of legislation. I just think they should be FOR us knowing that our food is potentially contaminated rather than AGAINST it.  If you can't discern the difference between that and advocating violence then you only hear what you want to hear.  You have snipped things I have posted out of context without quoting other things that had very much to do with my positions. Keep trolling though.  You don't have much credibility given that you refuse to research the issues.  What Monsanto is doing is criminal and they should be treated like criminals, not be given the keys to the kingdom.  If you want to defend them then that just makes you as corporatist as the government is.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You keep jumping to conclusions.  Why do you assume that everyone in this thread wants forced labeling


We've already been through this. By way of review:




> I haven't, except where individuals have admitted that they are.


----------------------




> Why do you think it's so hard to identify GMO products?


Because so few of the millions marching are asking private labs to supply information. Because some people are spreading false rumors about that option's viability.

----------


## mad cow

> Originally Posted by mad cow  
> What do you think their job should be?I think they should disband their Unconstitutional asses tomorrow.
> 
> If they decide that it is illegal to sell a Big Gulp as Bloomberg did or outlawing pot for health reasons are you going to say 'well,I don't agree with this position,but they are doing their damn job' and I support that?Or are you only going to support their doing their damn job when they support your position against your enemies?
> 
> 
> @madcow, I'll just give you a hint, you can click the little thingy next to the name in the quote and follow the conversation backwards. If you can make sense of what you are posting from the conversation, stop back by and let me know.


As you saw fit to neg rep me for this post,please tell me where you *disagreed* with *this* post.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Once again, I have never advocated violence


We've already been through this, repeatedly. By way of review:




> Again, your position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Carlybee
> 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I really don't care about you Gunny, so I don't care what your position is or what you do or why you do it. If you'd like to link to the FDA rulings you have in mind, you might bring any number of people to your side. I'm not the only one reading. So far, the only word actually quoted from the FDA in this thread is that it's permitted to label foods as non-GMO.


Reality is not dependant on opinion.  The FDA uses threats and coercion  often via cease and desist letters to specific companies demanding they stop labeling their products GMO Free or face penalties and fines, quite regardless of what they tell the public their policies are.  Because we know the FDA would never lie to people about what they do.  You don't care about this topic because you don;t care about GMO.  That's OK, I'll fight for your right to consume GMO if that's what you want.  But what you don't seem to understand is that you are fighting for their ability to secretly feed us GMO against our will.

See, I fight for people's freedom even if it's not something that affects me personally.  This doesn't affect you so you don't care.  i find that deplorable.

I don't care if I am the last person on Earth fighting for right and truth, I will still fight for right and truth.  Reality is not dependent on public opinion.  Your appeal to public opinion here is an abandonment of objective truth.

The companies themselves are talking about being threatened by the FDA to stop labeling or face injunction.  cease and Desist letters are in the public domain.

You can claim there is no data in the face of a mountain of data.  You can claim that everybody on RPF's will hate me for advocating for integrity and truth, and you know what?  I don't give a damn.  If I am the only one out of 7 billion humans on the planet arguing for liberty and integrity, I'm not going to stop.

So go ahead.  threaten me with unpopularity.  Do you really think I care about that?

You are given evidence and you ignore it, and then you claim nobody gave you evidence.  It's not only irrational, it's immoral.  But you don't see me trying to tell you that people will reject you for disagreeing with me.

You are blinded to your own misbehavior, and I suppose that is a condition of being human.  But it doesn't seem to matter how much evidence we all have provided you still claim nobody has provided it.  When you get backed into a corner you say "OK' and then pretend like that was never said.

There is no point in even discussing anything with someone that irrational.  

So go ahead and threaten me again with unpopularity.  I reject your authority to determine what is popular, and even if I didn't I don't give a damn what is popular or not, only what is right.  You are being disingenuous and dishonest.  Dozens of people have provided everything you asked and demanded and you continue to pretend like it never happened.  It's like you are intentionally stirring the $#@! to spark outrage and the pointing to that outrage as evidence of your own victory.

and that's evil.

We are done.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Some of them admitted that they support FDA labeling. Who have I accused falsely? In which post?


You've been doing it incessantly.  You did it to me.  You did it to the turtle guy.  You're making assumptions about what we believe.  You should know the quotes you made because your first reaction to any post against Monsanto throughout this thread and the other thread is that, "Why do you think the FDA should label GMO products?"  Still, you admit you know nothing about this subject and yet you think you are competent to understand what it's all about and have a cogent position.  You end up making a fool of yourself.




> I haven't, except where individuals have admitted that they are.


That's not my experience.  Seriously, you've done it at least 3 times.  Think about what you're saying first so you don't have to make a fool of yourself.  The first post I ever posted on this particular subject you responded to by asking me why I think the FDA should label GMO products.  




> Fascism always makes things easier for a few people; if it didn't, no one would advocate for it.


Nobody's a fascist here.  Just stop that.  I think we can all agree that more government is bad, and that's why we are against Monsanto being an arm of the government.  The few people you're thinking of aren't average Joes who would like to know what they're eating.  Fascism is easier for the elite who have much bigger things in mind and much broader agendas to promote.

----------


## Carlybee

> We've already been through this, repeatedly. By way of review:



You're right we've been through it and you are still quoting out of context without reading the various other things I have posted.  Pointless to have reasonable discourse with you.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You've been doing it incessantly.  You did it to me.  You did it to the turtle guy.  You're making assumptions about what we believe.  You should know the quotes you made because your first reaction to any post against Monsanto throughout this thread and the other thread is that, "Why do you think the FDA should label GMO products?"  Still, you admit you know nothing about this subject and yet you think you are competent to understand what it's all about and have a cogent position.  You end up making a fool of yourself.
> 
> That's not my experience.  Seriously, you've done it at least 3 times.  Think about what you're saying first so you don't have to make a fool of yourself.  The first post I ever posted on this particular subject you responded to by asking me why I think the FDA should label GMO products.  
> 
> Nobody's a fascist here.  Just stop that.  I think we can all agree that more government is bad, and that's why we are against Monsanto being an arm of the government.  The few people you're thinking of aren't average Joes who would like to know what they're eating.  Fascism is easier for the elite who have much bigger things in mind and much broader agendas to promote.


'k; and fascism is okay as long as it's perpetrated by average Joes who would like to know what they're eating.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Pointless to have reasonable discourse with you.


You keep saying that.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

from: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu.../ucm059098.htm




> There is potential for the term "free" in a claim for absence of bioengineering to be inaccurate. Consumers assume that "free" of bioengineered material means that "zero" bioengineered material is present. Because of the potential for adventitious presence of bioengineered material, it may be necessary to conclude that the accuracy of the term "free" can only be ensured when there is a definition or threshold above which the term could not be used. FDA does not have information with which to establish a threshold level of bioengineered constituents or ingredients in foods for the statement "free of bioengineered material." *FDA recognizes that there are analytical methods capable of detecting low levels of some bioengineered materials in some foods, but a threshold would require methods to test for a wide range of genetic changes at very low levels in a wide variety of foods. Such test methods are not available at this time.* The agency suggests that the term "free" either not be used in bioengineering label statements or that it be in a context that makes clear that a zero level of bioengineered material is not implied. However, statements that the food or its ingredients, as appropriate, was not developed using bioengineering would avoid or minimize such implications.





> FDA reminds manufacturers that the optional terms that describe an ingredient of a multi-ingredient food as bioengineered should not be used in the ingredient list of the multi-ingredient food. Section 403(i)(2) of the act requires each ingredient to be declared in the ingredient statement by its common or usual name. Thus, any terms not part of the name of the ingredient are not permitted in the ingredient statement. In addition, 21 CFR 101.2(e) requires that the ingredient list and certain other mandatory information appear in one place without other intervening material. FDA has long interpreted any optional description of ingredients in the ingredient statement to be intervening material that violates this regulation.





> A statement that a food was not bioengineered or does not contain bioengineered ingredients may be misleading if it implies that the labeled food is superior to foods that are not so labeled. FDA has concluded that the use or absence of use of bioengineering in the production of a food or ingredient does not, in and of itself, mean that there is a material difference in the food. Therefore, a label statement that expresses or implies that a food is superior (e.g., safer or of higher quality) because it is not bioengineered would be misleading. The agency will evaluate the entire label and labeling in determining whether a label statement is in a context that implies that the food is superior.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Reality is not dependant on opinion.  The FDA uses threats and coercion  often via cease and desist letters to specific companies demanding they stop labeling their products GMO Free or face penalties and fines, quite regardless of what they tell the public their policies are.  Because we know the FDA would never lie to people about what they do.  You don't care about this topic because you don;t care about GMO.  That's OK, I'll fight for your right to consume GMO if that's what you want.  But what you don't seem to understand is that you are fighting for their ability to secretly feed us GMO against our will.
> 
> See, I fight for people's freedom even if it's not something that affects me personally.  This doesn't affect you so you don't care.  i find that deplorable.
> 
> I don't care if I am the last person on Earth fighting for right and truth, I will still fight for right and truth.  Reality is not dependent on public opinion.  Your appeal to public opinion here is an abandonment of objective truth.
> 
> The companies themselves are talking about being threatened by the FDA to stop labeling or face injunction.  cease and Desist letters are in the public domain.
> 
> You can claim there is no data in the face of a mountain of data.  You can claim that everybody on RPF's will hate me for advocating for integrity and truth, and you know what?  I don't give a damn.  If I am the only one out of 7 billion humans on the planet arguing for liberty and integrity, I'm not going to stop.
> ...


'k; and still no links to the FDA rulings you claim exist.




> We are done.


You keep saying that.

----------


## Carlybee

The World According to Monsanto

There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it – it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=N6_DbVdVo-k

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> [FDA] labeling


.....

----------


## Barrex

Bunch of people arguing a guy who looks for laws&regulations on youtube... That was my "pull out" moment.

I was really tempted to give him those documents but decided to let things get funnier and weirder.

----------


## osan

> Fascism is somehow OK if the object of corporatist-government tyranny doesn't affect you, personally?
> 
> you know what - I fight against fascism even when it _doesn't_ affect me personally.  Even when I personally couldn't care less about government tyranny in a certain area, I still fight for others to be free of that oppression.


This is what I have told people for decades.  As a PRACTICAL issue alone it behooves me to watch YOUR back in terms of your freedoms because anyone can become a tyrant's target regardless of who they think they are.  The moment you stand idle in the face of the tyrant's work you expose yourself and all your fellows to the hazards of tyranny.  If every time a pair of cops went simple on a citizen 10 or 50 preferably armed others came to assist with the full will to put those agents a full fathom downward if necessary, to how much of that brand of abuse would we actually be subject?

There are solutions, yet few are seeking them.  Movement must start from the bottom up.  We worry about whether to put Rand Paul in office when we should be worrying more about what is happening in our own houses.  But I digress once more.

[/QUOTE]
And if you do not think that the unholy government/Monsanto alliance is fascism, then you are dreaming.[/QUOTE]

It amazes me how commonly misunderstood "fascism" is.  It is a pretty simple concept, yet I hear the word used incorrectly far and away more often than otherwise.  I find this perplexing.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I was really tempted to give him those documents but decided to let things get funnier and weirder.


Well you've pwned everyone once again Barrex, but the result is that the only legislation cited in this thread shows that it's permitted to label foods as non-GMO.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> As you saw fit to neg rep me for this post,please tell me where you *disagreed* with *this* post.


I PM'ed you, to keep this thread a bit cleaner (if that's even possible at this point).

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Well you've pwned everyone once again Barrex, but the result is that the only legislation cited in this thread shows that it's permitted to label foods as non-GMO.


Did you read this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5046134

or did you just 'k it?

----------


## donnay

*800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End*

by Elizabeth Renter

Did you hear about the 800 esteemed scientists who came together and demanded the production of genetically modified crops and products be stopped? Scientists who called on world powers to re-evaluate the future of agriculture and seek sustainability rather than corporate profits? Don’t be surprised if you haven’t, as the mainstream media won’t touch this one.

Eight-hundred scientists did make such a demand. They made it first over a decade ago and they have updated it over the years, adding signatures and release dates. Still global powers have all but ignored their calls.

The Institute of Science in Society is a non-profit group of scientists from around the world, dedicated to bringing an end to what they refer to as the “dangerous GMO “experiment. In their open letter to the world, they have highlighted why governments need to stop genetically modified crops now – before there are irreversible effects on the health of the people and the health of the earth at large.

The Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments calls for “*the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products*, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years.”

They also want* patents on organisms, cell lines, and living things revoked and banned*. Such patents (a sort of corporate version of “playing God,”) “threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.”

And as Anthony Gucciardi recently detailed on NaturalSociety, this would be bad news for Monsanto following the recent Supreme Court decision that they have the ‘right’ to patent life.

*Scientists Speaking Out*

In the beginning, after its first draft in 1999, the letter had just over 300 signatures. Since then, it’s grown significantly. At the writing of this article, the document has *828 signatures representing 84 different countries.*

While we are told by Monsanto and the FDA that GMOs are nothing to worry about and instead safe tools for the future of agriculture, a growing number of esteemed scientists seem to disagree. So, who’s listening?

The letter has been presented to numerous governments and organizations, including the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Trade Organization, and yes, even the U.S. Congress. The letter has been shared at these venues, but it doesn’t seem like anyone was listening.



The populous has to dig for information like this. We have to seek out the news sources willing to cover it, because we won’t hear about this letter on the nightly news or through a governmental agency. No, the U.S. government wants you to fear what they want you to fear (“terror” and crime, for instance), but they certainly don’t want you to fear the information and the food they are putting on your table. Or the GMOs they are funding with your taxpayer dime.

----------


## donnay

*Scientists Warn EPA Over Monsanto’s GMO Crop Failures, Dangers*

by *Anthony Gucciardi* 

A group of scientists is calling for major federal action in order to deal with the threat posed by Monsanto’s GMO crops, now petitioning the EPA to address the issue head on. The group of 22 academic corn experts are drawing attention to the immense failure of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, which is developing mutated and resistant insects as a result of its widespread usage. Corn is critical not only as a food staple, but is heavily used in ethanol production, animal feed, and much more. As GM corn becomes the norm, currently taking over 94 percent of the supply, these scientists are seriously concerned about the future of corn production.

Joseph Spencer is one outspoken member of the group, a corn entomologist with the Illinois Natural History Survey, part of the University of Illinois. Spencer states that what is happening is no surprise, instead it is something that needs to be addressed. Warning the EPA over the dangers, the experts sent a letter on March 5th to the agency explaining their worries regarding long-term corn production prospects in light of GMO crops failures. Specifically, the experts are worried about the lack of protection presented by GMO crops against rootworms.

The EPA has already acknowledged that Monsanto’s GMO crops are creating resistant rootworms, which are now ravaging the GMO crops as they mutate to the biopesticide used known as Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). The EPA found that the resistant rootworms, which are evolving to resist the insecticide,  are currently found Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. After the EPA evaluated documented cases of severe crop damage as well as reports from entomologists, the EPA stated “Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is ‘inadequate’”.

Essentially, the GMO crops are doing the opposite of their supposed purpose — leading to more damage from rootworms as they become mutated to resist the defense of the crops. And Monsanto has answered by simply further genetically modifying the Bt, which research shows is extremely ineffective.


_“When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-protected corn quickly disappear,” the scientists wrote._
.
It’s time for the EPA and other agencies to address the serious threats to nature and human health presented by Monsanto’s genetically modified creations.

----------


## FrankRep

*Monsanto & Cancer Milk: Fox News Kills Story & Fires Reporters*
Steve Wilson & Jane Akre



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=JL1pKlnhvg0

----------


## Roxi

the Today show just gave really good coverage to the marches, talked about how millions gathered all over the world, and showed some great footage of one of the marches. 

Highly recommend showing them some love: 

http://www.today.com/id/10285339/

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> the Today show just gave really good coverage to the marches, talked about how millions gathered all over the world, and showed some great footage of one of the marches. 
> 
> Highly recommend showing them some love: 
> 
> http://www.today.com/id/10285339/


'

Roxi, the link takes me to: Contact NBC News (edit: maybe that's what you meant, contact them, I thought it was going to be a video or article on the marches)

----------


## FrankRep

> '
> 
> Roxi, the link takes me to: Contact NBC News (edit: maybe that's what you meant, contact them, I thought it was a video or article on the marches)


I think she wants you to thank them.

----------


## Roxi

Oh yes sorry! Posted the link to show them some love. The segment was only a minute, but I'll try to see if I can find it online to post here. It was just aired a few min ago so it will probably take a bit.

----------


## Carlybee



----------


## libertyjam

Petition:
The biotech industry are systematically owning our food supply through patent protection. President Obama just signed H.R. 933 protecting the biotech industry from the law... Who is protecting us, the people? Either label GMO food worldwide or roll back the laws protecting the biotech industry. 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Com...ood_worldwide/

----------


## libertyjam

Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in Landmark Case
    A French farmer who can no longer perform his routine farming duties because of permanent pesticide injuries has had his day in court, literally, and the perpetrator of his injuries found guilty of chemical poisoning. The French court in Lyon ruled that Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller formula, which contains the active ingredient alachlor, caused Paul Francois to develop lifelong neurological damage that manifests as persistent memory loss, headaches, and stuttering during speech.

    Reports indicate that the 47-year-old farmer sued Monsanto back in 2004 after inhaling the Lasso product while cleaning his sprayer tank equipment. Not long after, Francois began experiencing lasting symptoms that prevented him from working, which he says were directly linked to exposure to the chemical. Since Lasso’s packaging did not bear adequate warnings about the dangers of exposure, Francois alleged at the time that Monsanto was essentially negligent in providing adequate protection for its customers.

    To the surprise of many, the French court agreed with the claims and evidence presented before it, declaring earlier this year that “Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois’ suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product … and must entirely compensate him.” The court is said to be seeking expert opinion on how to gauge Francois’ losses in order to determine precisely how much Monsanto will be required to compensate him in the case.

    “It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,” said Francois Lafforgue, Paul Francois’ lawyer, to Reuters earlier in the year…
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Monsa...38/38/Y/M.html

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Still waiting for video.

----------


## Carlybee

List of former Monsanto executives now working in federal positions

http://gmoawareness.files.wordpress....nsanto-fda.png

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> ...images ...
> 
> Still waiting for video.


Looking forward to it

----------


## Barrex

> Looking forward to it


Thats what I said.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It's missing 8 paragraphs near the beginning...

and it would have been way less awkward with a podium.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> It's missing 8 paragraphs near the beginning...
> 
> and it would have been way less awkward with a podium.


Very good, thank you!

Building coalitions

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu.../ucm059098.htm




> Terms that are frequently mentioned in discussions about labeling foods with respect to bioengineering include "GMO free" and "GM free." "GMO" is an acronym for "genetically modified organism" and "GM" means "genetically modified." ...
> 
> ... "Genetic modification" means the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new *or traditional*. "Modification" has a broad context that means the alteration in the composition of food that results from adding, deleting, or changing hereditary traits, irrespective of the method. Modifications may be minor, such as a single mutation that affects one gene, or major alterations of genetic material that affect many genes. *Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified.* Data indicate that *consumers do not have a good understanding that essentially all food crops have been genetically modified* and that *bioengineering technology is only one of a number of technologies used to genetically modify crops*. Thus, while it is accurate to say that a bioengineered food was "genetically modified," it likely would be inaccurate to state that a food that had not been produced using biotechnology was "not genetically modified" without clearly providing a context so that the consumer can understand that the statement applies to bioengineering.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection




> Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits. ... Bred animals are known as breeds, while bred plants are known as varieties, cultigens, or cultivars. The cross of animals results in what is called a crossbreed, and crossbred plants are called hybrids.
> 
> Selective breeding was practiced by the Romans. Treatises as much as 2,000 years old give advice on selecting animals for different purposes, and these ancient works cite still older authorities, such as Mago the Carthaginian. The notion of selective breeding was later expressed by the Persian Muslim polymath Abu Rayhan Biruni in the 11th century. He noted the idea in his book titled India, and gave various examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The agriculturist selects his corn, letting grow as much as he requires, and tearing out the remainder. The forester leaves those branches which he perceives to be excellent, whilst he cuts away all others. The bees kill those of their kind who only eat, but do not work in their beehive.


Genetically modified organism (GMO):

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The full video has appeared!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Selective breeding is not GMO.  


The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
> 
> 
> 
> Genetically modified organism (GMO):


Yeah, and I don't want to eat one of those either!

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Selective breeding is not GMO.  
> 
> 
> The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence.


^^ This ^^

better_dead, maybe you want to eat plants that have been spliced with fish or frog genes, but I don't.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Selective breeding is not GMO.  
> 
> The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under *natural* conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence.


The meaning of the term "natural" isn't clear. One could argue that "selective breeding" (also called "*artificial* selection") is not natural. I'm not going to argue either way about the meaning of the term "natural", since it's just a question of semantics.

From what I've seen now on the FDA website, their only problem is with use of the term "GMO" on labels; because the FDA construes "GMO" as a relatively extensive term. (See the FDA's position: "*Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified.*") If a producer added a label saying:




> This food is not from recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure,


the FDA's objection would not apply, as far as I've seen.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yeah, and I don't want to eat one of those either!


Don't knock it until you try it.

----------


## liberty2897

http://www.gmo-journal.com/2011/06/1...odified-crops/




> It is a statistic that is hard to deny:  industrial forms of agriculture, with emphasis on large-scale monoculture crop production, have a negative impact on biodiversity.  The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, referring to the scale of the loss as extensive, found that some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost since 1900 as farmers turn to genetically uniform, mass-produced crop varieties.
> 
> The term biodiversity was derived from biological and diversity, and refers to the total diversity of all life in a given locale  one as small as a backyard (or smaller) or as large as the entire planet Earth.
> 
> Since genetically modified crops (a.k.a. GMOs) reinforce genetic homogeneity and promote large scale monocultures, they contribute to the decline in biodiversity and increase vulnerability of crops to climate change, pests and diseases.
> 
> Genetically modified crops grow in a dynamic environment and interact with other species of the agro-ecosystem and surrounding environment.  As biological novelties to the ecosystems, GM crops may potentially affect the fitness of other species, population dynamics, ecological roles, and interactions, promoting local extinctions, population explosions, and changes in community structure and function inside and outside agroecosystems.

----------


## Barrex

ROFL

----------


## Weston White

> Agent Orange was developed as a chemical weapon, not as an agricultural product. Glyphosate has been used safely for over 40 years. Please show me peer reviewed studies that show it has led to deaths or serious illness when used correctly (ie: not deliberately ingested).



http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohse...armworkers.pdf
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/...cides-red-tape
http://www.osha.gov/dsg/topics/agric..._controls.html
http://www.economist.com/node/17722932

Might you also be reminded of the "governments" position on sodium fluoride/hexafluorosilicic acid, synthentic vaccinations, corn syrup, and aspartame, et al, or should you not be so bothered?

----------


## libertyjam

Detection of cytogenetic and DNA damage in peripheral erythrocytes of goldfish (Carassius auratus) exposed to a glyphosate formulation using the micronucleus test …
T Çavaş, S Könen - Mutagenesis, 2007 - Oxford Univ Press
... of SCE and a significant increase of chromosomal aberrations in cultured human lymphocytes
following ... relevant, particularly when fish are acutely exposed immediately after glyphosate
application (5). Accumulation of DNA damage may occur either through an increase in the ...
Cited by 87 Related articles All 9 versions Cite
[PDF] from catie.ac.cr
[PDF] Glyphosate, part 1: toxicology
C Cox - Journal of Pesticide Reform, 1995 - intranet.catie.ac.cr
... A laboratory study of human lymphocytes (one type of white blood cell) showed an increase in
the frequency of ... In onion root cells, Roundup caused an increase in chromosome
aberrations.40 Glyphosate alone has rarely caused genetic damage in laboratory tests. ...
Cited by 87 Related articles All 11 versions Cite
More
Comparison of the effect of Roundup Ultra 360 SL pesticide and its active compound glyphosate on human erythrocytes
D Pieniążek, B Bukowska, W Duda - Pesticide biochemistry and physiology, 2004 - Elsevier
... In the present work, doses in the range of μg Roundup or glyphosate/ml of erythrocytes were
applied to estimate the threshold dose capable to provoke damage to membrane ... The following
biological material was used: human erythrocytes and hemoglobin were obtained from ...
Cited by 23 Related articles All 3 versions Cite
[CITATION] Glyphosate toxic & Roundup worse
MW Ho, J Cummins - Science in Society, 2005
Cited by 7 Related articles All 2 versions Cite
[PDF] from ask-force.org
Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans
GM Williams, R Kroes, IC Munro - Regulatory Toxicology and …, 2000 - Elsevier
... There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it ... were identified
for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA,
and ... by comparison of oral LD 50 values to estimated maximum acute human exposure ...
Cited by 292 Related articles All 13 versions Cite
Oral bioavailability of glyphosate: Studies using two intestinal cell lines
L Vasiluk, LJ Pinto, MM Moore - Environmental toxicology and …, 2005 - Wiley Online Library
... A significant amount of radiolabeled glyphosate (˜34%) was associated with small intestine tissue
2 h after administration [6]. Thus, the possibility that glyphosate contributes to the gastrointestinal
damage seen in cases of human poisoning by Roundup merits investigation. ...
Cited by 4 Related articles All 5 versions Cite
[PDF] from hindawi.com
Clastogenic effects of glyphosate in bone marrow cells of swiss albino mice
S Prasad, S Srivastava, M Singh, Y Shukla - Journal of toxicology, 2009 - hindawi.com
... Arguably, the most reliable genotoxicity evaluation for human health risk is conducted in mammals ...
activity, while the MN assay detects both clastogenic effects and damage to the ... Glyphosate
[chemical name: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine - isopropylamine (IPA) salt; C 3 H 8 NO ...
Cited by 13 Related articles All 14 versions Cite
More
[HTML] from oxfordjournals.org
European eel (Anguilla anguilla) genotoxic and pro-oxidant responses following short-term exposure to Roundup®—a glyphosate-based herbicide
S Guilherme, I Gaivao, MA Santos, M Pacheco - Mutagenesis, 2010 - Oxford Univ Press
... was considered to be low (6,7), glyphosate-based commercial formulations are generally more
toxic than pure glyphosate (8,9) mainly ... Human and mammal studies with pesticides, especially
organophosphates, demonstrated that DNA damage and oxidative ...
Cited by 12 Related articles All 7 versions Cite
[HTML] from scielo.br
[HTML] Evaluation of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian population exposed to glyphosate
C Paz-y-Miño, ME Sánchez, M Arévalo… - … and Molecular Biology, 2007 - SciELO Brasil
... Lioi et al., (1998) reported de induction of oxidative stress and mutagenic effects for some
pesticides, including glyphosate, in bovines and Paz-y-Miño et al., (2002a) reported that some
pesticides were associated with genetic damage in human populations subjected ...
Cited by 16 Related articles All 6 versions Cite
More
Laryngeal survey in glyphosate intoxication: a pathophysiological investigation
DZ Hung, JF Deng, TC Wu - Human & experimental toxicology, 1997 - het.sagepub.com
... It may lead to acute lung injury due to acidic gastric materials, airway obstruction due to particulate
materials or inflam- matory reaction ... Glyphosate-surfactant herbicides ('Roundup') are an alternative
to paraquat and claim to have a lower toxicity in mammals, with acute ...
Cited by 20 Related articles All 5 versions Cite

Glyphosate -- a history of environmental harm

Forty Years with Glyphosate (Chapter 14 from a new book)

by András Székács and Béla Darvas Department of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Analysis, Plant Protection Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Hungary

EXTRACT:

6. Adverse environmental effects of glyphosate

6.1 Glyphosate and Fusarium species

Sanogo and co-workers (2000) observed that crop loss in soy due to infestation by Fusarium solani f. sp. glycines increased after glyphosate applications. Kremer and co-workers (2005) described a stimulating effect of the root exsudate of GR soy sampled after glyphosate application on the growth of Fusarium sp. strains. Treatments caused concentration dependent increase on the mycelium mass of the fungus. Nonetheless, Powel and Swanton (2008) could not confirm these observations in their field study. Kremer and Means (2009) claim that certain fungi utilise glyphosate released from plant roots into the soil as a nutritive, which facilitates their growth. Soil manganese content also affects the above consequence of glyphosate through chelating with the compound and thus, modifying its effects. Considering the fact that numerous plant pathogenic Fusarium species produce mycotoxins, an increasing proportion of these species is far not favourable as a side-effect. Johal and Huber (2009) lists numbersome plant pathogens (e.g., Corynespora cassicola or Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on soy) they claim to grow increasingly after glyphosate treatments, and the list contains several Fusarium species (F. graminearum, F. oxysporum, F. solani). They hypothesize that glyphosate causes disturbances in microelement metabolism in plants, and in parallel, deteriorate the defense system of the plants, thereby increasing the virulence of certain plant pathogens. Zobiole and co-workers (2011) confirmed the above effects by their observation that glyphosate treatments facilitate colonisation of Fusarium species on the soy roots, but reduces the fluorescent Pseudomonas fraction of the rhizosphere, the level of manganese reducing bacteria and of the indoleacetic acid producing rhizobacteria. As a combined result of these effects, root and overall plant biomasses were found to be reduced.

6.2 Toxicity of glyphosate to aquatic ecosystems and amphibians

Substances occurring in surface waters deserve special attention by ecotoxicologists, as they enter a matrix that is the habitat of numerous aqueous organisms and the basis of our drinking water reserves. Drinking water is an irreplaceable essential part of our diet, and is a possible vehicle for chronic exposure (the basis of chronic diseases) in daily contact/consumption.

Glyphosate has been known to cause toxicity to microalgae and other aquatic microorganisms (Goldsborough and Brown 1988; Austin et al., 1991; Anton et al., 1993; Sáenz et al., 1997; DeLorenzo et al., 2001; Ma 2002; Ma et al., 2002; Ma et al., 2003), in fact a green algal toxicity test has been proposed for screening herbicide activity (Ma & Wang, 2002). In contrast, cyanobacteria have been found to show resistance against glyphosate (López-Rodas et al., 2007; Forlani et al., 2008). Tsui and Chu (2003) tested the effect of glyphosate, its most common polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) type formulating materials, polyethoxylated tallowamines, and the formulated glyphosate preparation (Roundup) on model species from aquatic ecosystems, bacteria (Vibrio fischeri), microalgae (Selenastrum capricornutum, Skeletonema costatum), protozoas (Tetrahymena pyriformis, Euplotes vannus) and crustaceans (Ceriodaphnia dubia, Acartia tonsa). The most surprising result of the study was that the assumedly inert detergent formulating agent, POEA was found to be the most toxic component. In light of this it is far not surprising that Cox and Surgan (2006) and Reuben (2010) propounded the question, why tests only on the active ingredients are necessary to be specified in the documentation required by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Unites States (US EPA), when several of the used formulating components are known to exert biological activity.

Although acute toxicity and genotoxicity of glyphosate have been evidenced to certain fish (Langiano & Martinez, 2008; Cavalcante et al., 2008), glyphosate shows favourable acute toxicity parameters on most vertebrates, and therefore, has been classified as III toxicity category by US EPA. The European discretion is stricter, listing the compound among substances causing irritation (Xi) and severe ocular damage (R41). It has to be noted, however, that that model species of neither amphibians, not reptilians are represented in the toxicological documentations required nowadays. It may not be surprising, therefore, that after atrazine (Hayes et al., 2002; 2010), glyphosate is the second herbicide active ingredient that is questioned due to its detrimental effects on the animal class, considered the most endangered on Earth, amphibians.

Mann and Bidwell (1999) studied the toxicity of glyphosate on tadpoles of four Australian frogs (Crinia insignifera, Heleioporus eyrei, Limnodynastes dorsalis and Litoria moorei). The toxicity of Roundup and its 48-hour LC50 values were found to be 3-12 mg glyphosate equivalent/l. Tolerance of the adult frogs was substantially greater. A glyphosate-based formulated herbicide preparation (VisionMAX) caused no significant effects on the juvenile adults of the green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) when applied at field application doses, only marginal differences in statistics of infection rates and liver somatic indices in relation to exposure estimates (Edge et al., 2011). Chen et al. (2004) observed that the toxicity of glyphosate on the frog species Rana pipiens was greatly affected by lacking food resources and the pH of the medium as stress factors. Relyea (2005a) reported tadpole (Bufo americanus, Hyla versicolor, Rana sylvatica, R. pipiens, R. clamitans and R. catesbeiana) mortality related to glyphosate applications. The effect, occurred at 2-16 mg glyphosate equivalent/l concentrations, was linked with the stress caused by the predator of the tadpoles, salamander Notophthalmus viridescens. Later Relyea and Jones (2009) included further frog species (Bufo boreas, Pseudacris crucifer, Rana cascadea, R. sylvatica) into the study, and found LC50 values to be 0.8-2 mg glyphosate equivalent/l. Testing four salamander species (Amblystoma gracile, A. laterale, A. maculatum and N. viridescens), the corresponding values ranged between 2.7 and 3.2 mg glyphosate equivalent/l. In this case, glyphosate was formulated with detergent POEA. Further studies also shed light on the fact that another stress factor, population density, playing an important part in the competition of the tadpoles increased the toxic effect of glyphosate (Jones et al., 2010). Lajmanovich and coworkers (2010) detected lowered enzymatic activities (e.g., acetylcholine esterase and glutathion-S-transferase) in a frog species, Rhinella arenarum upon glyphosate treatments. Sparling and co-workers (2006) detected lowered fecundity of the eggs of the semiaquatic turtle, red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) if treated with glyphosate at high doses.

6.3 Teratogenic activity of glyphosate

The teratogenicity of the pesticide preparations containing glyphosate deserves special attention. The very first examples of observed teratogenicity of glyphosate preparations have also been linked to amphibians. Using the so-called FETAX assay, Perkins and coworkers (2000) observed a formulation dependent teratogenic effect of glyphosate on embryos of the frog species Xenopus laevis. The concentrations that triggered the effect were relatively high (the highest dose applied in the study was 2.88 mg glyphosate equivalent/l), but not irrealisticly high with respect to field doses of glyphosate, indicating, that high allowed agricultural doses cause glyphosate levels close to the safety margin. Lajmanovich and co-workers (2005) studied the effects of a glyphosate preparation (Glyfos) on the tadpoles of Scinax nasicus, and found that a 2-4-day exposure to 3 mg/l glyphosate caused malformation in more than half of the test animals. The treatment was carried out nearly at the LC50 level of glyphosate. Dallegrave and co-workers (2003) found fetotoxic effects on rats treated with glyphosate at very high, 1000 mg/l concentration on the 6th-15th day after fertilisation. Nearly half of the newborn rat progeny in the experiments were born with skeletal development disorders.

Testing the effects of glyphosate preparations on the embryos of the sea urchin, Sphaerechinus granularis, Marc and co-workers (2004a) observed a collapse of cell cycle control. Inhibition affects DNA synthesis in the G2/M phase of the first cell cycle (Marc et al., 2004b). The authors estimate that glyphosate production workers inhale 500-5000-fold level of the effective concentration in these experiments. A marked toxicity of the formulating agent POEA has also been observed on sea urchins (Marc et al., 2005). The very early DNA damage was claimed to be related to tumour formation by Bellé and co-workers (2007), and the authors consider the sea urchin biotest they developed as a possible experimental model for testing this effect. Jayawardena and co-workers (2010) described nearly 60% developmental disorders on the tadpoles of a Sri Lanka frog (Polpedates cruciger) upon treatment with 1 ppm glyphosate.

The teratogenicity of herbicides of glyphosate as active ingredient have been tested lately on amphibian (X. laevis) and bird (Gallus domesticus) embryos. Applied with direct injection at sublethal doses caused modification of the position and pattern of rhobomeres, the area of the neural crest decreased, the anterior-posterior axis shortened and the occurrence of cephalic markers was inhibited at the embryonic development stage of the nervous system. As a result, frog embryos became of characteristic phenotype: the trunk is shortened, head size is reduced, eyes were improperly or not developed (microphthalmia), and additional cranial deformities occurred in later development. Similar teratogenic effects were seen on embryos of Amniotes e.g., chicken. These developmental disorders may be related to damages of the retinoic acid signal pathway, resulting in the inhibition of the expression of certain essential genes (shh, slug, otx2). These genes play crucial roles in the neurulation process of embryogenesis (Paganelli et al., 2010). These findings were later debated by several comments. On behalf of the producers, Saltmiras and co-workers (2011) questioned certain conclusions in the work of Paganelli and co-workers (2010), claiming that the standardised pilot teratogenicity tests, carried out under good laboratory practice (GLP) by the manufacturers, have been evaluated by independent experts of several international organisations. They also considered the dosages used by Paganelli and co-workers exceedingly high, and the mode of application (microinjection) irrealistic in nature. Similar criticism has been voiced by Mulet (2011) and Palma (2011). In his answer, Carrasco (2011) emphasised their opinion that the company representatives ignore scientific facts supporting teratogenicity of atrazine, glyphosate and triadimefon through retinoic acid biosynthesis. He also emphasized that of 180 research reports of Monsanto, 150 are not public, or have never been presented to the scientific community. He also included that they obtained similar phenotypes in their studies with microinjection, than by incubation of the preparations. As a follow-up, Antoniou and co-workers (2011) compiled an extensive review of 359 studies and publications on the teratogenicity and birth defects caused by glyphosate, and heavily criticize the European Union for not banning glyphosate, but rather postponing its re-evaluation until 2015 (European Commission, 2010).

6.4 Genotoxicity of glyphosate

Occupational exposure to pesticides, including glyphosate as active ingredient, may lead to pregnancy problems even through exposure of men (Savitz et al., 1997). Such phenomenon has been first described in epidemiology with Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange with phenoxyacetic acid type active ingredients contaminated with dibenzodioxins. Although glyphosate has been claimed not to be genotoxic and its formulation Roundup “causing only a week effect” (Rank et al., 1993; Bolognesi et al., 1997), Kale and co-workers (1995) observed mutagenic effects of Roundup in Drosophila melanogaster recessive lethal mutation tests. Lioi and co-workers (1998) described increasing sister chromatide exchange in human lymphocytes with increasing glyphosate doses. Walsh and co-workers (2000) detected in murine tumour cells the inhibitory activity of Roundup on the biosynthesis of a protein (StAR) participating in the synthesis of sex steroids. This reduced the operation of the cholesterol – pregnenolon – progesteron transformation pathway to a minimal level. As it often happens in exploring mutagenic effects of chemical substances, additional studies have not found glyphosate mutagenic, and therefore, it is not so listed in the GAP2000 program compiled from US EPA/IARC databases. However, Cox (2004) describes chronic toxicity profile of several substances applied in the formulation of glyphosate.

Studying the activity of dehydrogenase enzymes in the liver, heart and brain of pregnant rats, Daruich and co-workers (2001) concluded that glyphosate causes various disorders both in the parent female and in the progeny. According to results of the study by Benedettia and co-workers (2004), aminotransferase enzyme activity decreased in the liver of rats, impairing lymphocytes, and leading to liver tissue damages. In in vitro tests McComb and co-workers (2008) found that glyphosate acts in the mitochondria of the rat liver cells as an oxidative phosphorylation decoupling agent. Mariana and co-workers (2009) observed oxidative stress status decay in the blood, liver and testicles upon injection administration of glyphosate, possibly linked to reproductional toxicity. Prasad and co-workers (2009) detected cytotoxic effects, as well as chromosomal disorders and micronucleus formation in murine bone-marrow. Poletta and co-workers (2009) described genotoxic effects of Roundup on the erythrocytes in the blood of caimans, correlated with DNA damages.

According to the survey of De Roos and co-workers (2003), the risk of the incidence of non- Hodgkin lymphoma is increased among pesticide users. As the authors found it, this applies to herbicide preparations with glyphosate as active ingredient. Focusing the study solely on glyphosate preparations a year later in the corn belt of the United States, of the majority of malignant diseases, only the incidence of abnormal plasma cell proliferation (myeloma multiplex, plasmocytoma) showed a slight rise (De Roos et al., 2004). Myeloma represents approximately 10% of the malignant haematological disorders. Although the cause of the disease is not yet known, its risk factors include autoimmune diseases, certain viruses (HIV and Herpes), and the frequent use of certain solvents as occupational hazard. On the basis of murine skin carcinogenesis, George and co-workers (2010) reported that glyphosate may act as a skin tumour promoter due to the induction of several special proteins.

6.5 Hormone modulant effects of glyphosate and POEA

Studying chronic exposure of tadpoles of Rana pipiens, Howe and co-workers (2004) found that in addition to developmental disorders, gonads in 15-20% of the treated animals developed erroneously, and these animals showed intersexual characteristics. Arbuckle and co-workers (2001) registered increased risk of abortion in agricultural farms after glyphosate applications. In addition, excretion of glyphosate has been determined in the urine of agricultural workers and their family members (Acquavella et al., 2004). Richard and co-workers (2005) evidenced toxicity of glyphosate on the JEG3 cells in the placenta. Formulated Roundup exerted stronger effect than glyphosate itself. Glyphosate inhibited aromatase enzymes of key importance in estrogen biosynthesis. This effect has also been evidenced in in vitro tests by binding to the active site of the purified enzyme. The formulating agent in the preparation enhanced the inhibitory effect in the microsomal fraction. Benachour and co-workers (2007) tested the effect of glyphosate and Roundup Bioforce on various cell lines, and also determined the aromatase inhibiting effect of glyphosate and the synergistic effect of the formulating agent. They suppose that the hormone modulant effect of Roundup may affect human reproduction and fetal development. Testing these human cell lines, Benachour and Séralini (2009) found that glyphosate alone induces apoptosis, and POEA and AMPA applied in combination exert synergistic effects, similarly to the synergy seen for Roundup. The synergy was reported to be further acerbated with activated Cry1Ab toxin related to that produced by insect resistant GM plants, raising concern regarding stacked genetic event GM crops exerting both glyphosate tolerance and Cry1Ab based insect resistance (Mesnage et al., 2011). Moreover, the combined effect caused cell necrosis as well. Effect enhancement is likely to be explained by the detergent activity of POEA facilitating the penetration of glyphosate through cell membranes and subsequent accumulation in the cells. The aromatase inhibitory effect of the formulated preparation was four-fold, as compared to the neat active ingredient. The authors consider it proven, that POEA, previously believed to be inert, is far not inactive biologically. As the authorised MRL of glyphosate in forage is as high as 400 mg/kg, Gasnier and co-workers (2009) studied in various in vitro tests, what effects this may cause in a human hepatic cell line. All treatments indicated a concentration-dependent effect in the toxicity tests were found genotoxic in the comet assay for DNA damages, moreover, displayed antiestrogenic and antiandrogenic effects.

6.6 Glyphosate resistance of weeds

Frequent applications of glyphosate and the spread of GT crops outside of Europe escalate the occurrence of glyphosate in the environment, exerting severe selection pressure on the weed species. It has been well known that certain weeds have native resistance against glyphosate e.g., the common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), the velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and the common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium).

The first population of GT Lolium rigidum was described in 1996 by Pratley and co-workers in Australia. This was followed in 1997 by GT goosegrass (Eleusine indica) in Malaysia (Lee & Ngim, 2000), GT horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in the United States (VanGessel, 2001), GT Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in Chile (Perez & Kogan, 2003). Further known GT weed species include Echinochloa colona (2007), Urochloa panicoides (2008) and Chloris truncata (2010) in Australia; Conyza bonariensis (2003) and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata, 2003) in South Africa; ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia, 2004), Ambrosia trifida (2004), Amaranthus palmeri (2005), Amaranthus tuberculatus (2005), summer cypress (Bassia scoparia, 2007) and annual meadow grass (Poa annua, 2010) in the United States; Conyza sumatrensis (2009) in Spain; Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) (2005), Italian ryegrass (Lolium perene, 2008) in Argentina; Euphorbia heterophyla (2006) in Brazil; Parthenium hysterophorus (2004) in Colombia and Digitaria insularis (2006) in Paraguay (Heap, Epubl). GT Johnsongrass was reported in a continuous soybean field in Arkansas, United States (Riar et al., 2011). Price (2011) claims that agricultural conservation tillage is threatened in the United States by the rapid spread of GT Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri [S.] Wats.) due to wide range cultivation of transgenic, GT cultivars and corresponding broad use of glyphosate. GT amaranths were first identified in Georgia, and later reported in nine states, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and a closely related GT amaranth, common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) in four states, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. Moreover, GT Italian ryegrass populations collected in Oregon, United States appeared to show cross-resistance to another phosphonic acid type herbicide active ingredient, glufosinate (Avila-Garcia & Mallory-Smith, 2011).

Powles and co-workers (1998) described a L. rigidum population resisting 7-11-fold dosage of glyphosate in Australia. Shrestha and Hemree (2007) found GT subpopulations of 5-8 leaf stage Conyza canadensis surviving only 2-4-fold glyphosate doses. According to Powles (2008), it is not coincidental that in countries, where GT crops are on the rise (Argentina and Brazil), the occurrence of GT weeds is more frequent. Moreover, he considers this one of the main obstacles of the spread of GT crops in the agricultural practice. Glyphosate tolerance is an inherited property, therefore, accumulation of weeds in the treated areas is to be expected. Genomics studies of the GT populations revealed that mutation of the gene (epsps) encoding the target enzyme responsible for tolerance is not infrequent in nature. (The mutant alleles (mepsps, 2mepsps) responsible for tolerance has been found in maize as well, see Table 2.). Reduced or modified uptake or translocation of glyphosate has also been observed, and the metabolic fate of the compound may also become altered in the cell (Shaner, 2009), possibly resulting in GT populations. It is not difficult to predict, that prolonged cultivation of GT crops will necessitate supplemental herbicide administrations with active ingredients other than glyphosate.

----------


## libertyjam

Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells.
Koller VJ, Fürhacker M, Nersesyan A, Mišík M, Eisenbauer M, Knasmueller S.
Source

Department of Internal Medicine 1, Institute of Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Borschkegasse 8A, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Abstract

Glyphosate (G) is the largest selling herbicide worldwide; the most common formulations (Roundup, R) contain polyoxyethyleneamine as main surfactant. Recent findings indicate that G exposure may cause DNA damage and cancer in humans. Aim of this investigation was to study the cytotoxic and genotoxic properties of G and R (UltraMax) in a buccal epithelial cell line (TR146), as workers are exposed via inhalation to the herbicide. R induced acute cytotoxic effects at concentrations > 40 mg/l after 20 min, which were due to membrane damage and impairment of mitochondrial functions. With G, increased release of extracellular lactate dehydrogenase indicative for membrane damage was observed at doses > 80 mg/l. Both G and R induced DNA migration in single-cell gel electrophoresis assays at doses > 20 mg/l. Furthermore, an increase of nuclear aberrations that reflect DNA damage was observed. The frequencies of micronuclei and nuclear buds were elevated after 20-min exposure to 10-20 mg/l, while nucleoplasmatic bridges were only enhanced by R at the highest dose (20 mg/l). R was under all conditions more active than its active principle (G). Comparisons with results of earlier studies with lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation. Since we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.

----------


## libertyjam

Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere.
Chang FC, Simcik MF, Capel PD.
Source

School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract

This is the first report on the ambient levels of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the United States, and its major degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), in air and rain. Concurrent, weekly integrated air particle and rain samples were collected during two growing seasons in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa. Rain was also collected in Indiana in a preliminary phase of the study. The frequency of glyphosate detection ranged from 60 to 100% in both air and rain. The concentrations of glyphosate ranged from <0.01 to 9.1 ng/m(3) and from <0.1 to 2.5 µg/L in air and rain samples, respectively. The frequency of detection and median and maximum concentrations of glyphosate in air were similar or greater to those of the other high-use herbicides observed in the Mississippi River basin, whereas its concentration in rain was greater than the other herbicides. It is not known what percentage of the applied glyphosate is introduced into the air, but it was estimated that up to 0.7% of application is removed from the air in rainfall. Glyphosate is efficiently removed from the air; it is estimated that an average of 97% of the glyphosate in the air is removed by a weekly rainfall ≥ 30 mm.

----------


## libertyjam

U.S. researchers find Roundup chemical in water, air

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri | Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:01pm EDT

(Reuters) - Significant levels of the world's most-used herbicide have been detected in air and water samples from two U.S. farm states, government scientists said on Wednesday, in groundbreaking research on the active ingredient in Monsanto Co's Roundup.

"It is out there in significant levels. It is out there consistently," said Paul Capel, environmental chemist and head of the agricultural chemicals team at the U.S. Geological Survey Office, part of the U.S. Department of Interior.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The meaning of the term "natural" isn't clear. One could argue that "selective breeding" (also called "*artificial* selection") is not natural. I'm not going to argue either way about the meaning of the term "natural", since it's just a question of semantics.


Somehow I don't know that you comprehend the depth of what you just typed. Is profound. And it's profound where it really counts. is the very heart of the matter moving forward to the old of, by and for model.

----------


## FrankRep

On May 25 an estimated two million people turned out in 436 cities in 52 countries to protest genetically-modified foods and their main developer, Monsanto.

*Two Million March Against Monsanto in Worldwide Protest of GM Foods*


The New American
27 May 2013

----------


## Natural Citizen

> On May 25 an estimated two million people turned out in 436 cities in 52 countries to protest genetically-modified foods and their main developer, Monsanto.
> 
> *Two Million March Against Monsanto in Worldwide Protest of GM Foods*
> 
> 
> The New American
> 27 May 2013



From the paper...




> first challenge to Monsantos claim that GM foods were natural and healthy came from the publishing of a peer-reviewed study by an obscure Hungarian-born scientist, Árpád Pusztai, in 1998. Under the auspices of the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, Pusztais study found that feeding GM potatoes to rats led to negative effects on their stomach linings and immune systems. In a _World in Action_ interview, he set off the world community with the statement that, if it were up to him, he wouldn't eat GM foods. He added that it was very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. His remarks and his study were opposed with such vigor and vitriol that Pusztai, a 36-year veteran at Rowett with 270 papers and three books on plant lectins on his curriculum vitae, was terminated by Rowett. The controversy became known as the Pusztai Affair.
> Investigative journalist Andrew Rowell looked into the incident and concluded that the *pressure to sack Pusztai had come from not only scientists who took issue with parts of his study but also Monsanto officials, who had pressured President Clinton to call British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair had then called Rowett Institute Director Philip James and told him to terminate Pusztai.
> *
> In 2005 Pusztai, who has continued his work on plant lectins as well as speaking out on GM foods, received the Whistleblower Award from the Federation of German Scientists. In 2009 he received the Stuttgart Peace Prize.
> 
> Other studies since the Pusztai Affair have served to heighten concerns about GM foods while exposing Monsantos role as a bully trying to salvage its reputation by savaging its opponents. In 2007, 2009, and 2011 Gilles-Eric Seralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, published the results of other studies that involved feeding Roundup-resistant maize to rats. Those studies found: GM foods caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in rats. Seralini suffered similar indignities from Monsanto and its allies, resulting in the Seralini Affair. This time, however, Seralini didn't have to defend his position by himself; a letter signed by more than 130 of his peers was published in support of his work.
> 
> Whats at stake here isn't Monsantos reputation. Monsanto has already been sufficiently tarnished and sullied by its own misbehavior, political manipulations, and thuggery. What is at stake is its position in the market. If the perception that GM foods may be unhealthy is ever accepted by the general population (Vermont and Connecticut just passed their own Prop 37 measures requiring GM labeling on food products), then Monsantos near-monopoly sustained through its influence over politicians is in jeopardy.
> 
> An estimated two million people took time off from their busy weekends to add their voices to those clamoring to end that monopoly and give people back their freedom to choose what kind of food they eat.

----------


## paulbot24

Fusion paranoia is what they call this. Google it sometimes. The New Yorker did a good peice on it a while back, but I can't find it. TPTB have problems when the left and the right start to agree on who the real enemies are.....

----------


## pathtofreedom

Also people who demonize GMO's are demonizing it for the wrong reasons. There is nothing inherently wrong with the technology it is just that it is designed in a way to hurt people. The technology could actually do good if allowed to. Monsanto is the problem not the technology itself.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> ... we shouldn't need a book in order to avoid Monsanto products.


How do you want to avoid Monsanto products without a book?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The technology could actually do good if allowed to.


How so?

Not challenging you, trying to make you look silly or put you on the spot or anything like that at all but am just wondering which aspect(s) of the "technology" (broad applicabilityfrom a scientific perpective, obviously) that you/we could accept as practical. Seems like you're leaning toward the science of it since you specifically mention the technology relevant to infrastructural(?) possibility.

Even if it's just something that maybe you vaguely understand and maybe want to look more into, there's really nothing wrong with that. Not saying that you don't, just saying "If" and for the benefit of others with similar views on it.

----------


## pathtofreedom

> How so?
> 
> Not challenging you, trying to make you look silly or put you on the spot or anything like that at all but am just wondering which aspect(s) of the "technology" (broad applicabilityfrom a scientific perpective, obviously) that you/we could accept as practical. Seems like you're leaning toward the science of it since you specifically mention the technology relevant to infrastructural(?) possibility.
> 
> Even if it's just something that maybe you vaguely understand and maybe want to look more into, there's really nothing wrong with that. Not saying that you don't, just saying "If" and for the benefit of others with similar views on it.


The technology could be used to design foods or create things which are healthy for us. Just from my basic understanding of it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

March against ethanol produced from Monsanto corn.

March against people who buy fuel containing such ethanol.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The technology could be used to design foods or create things which are healthy for us. Just from my basic understanding of it.


It sure could. Speaking from the top of my head malnutrition is a huge problem for many third world countries which rely upon relatively sparce food sources. Rice is an excellent example of this. Rice Naturally doesn't produce the nutrients to solve the problem. This is a great example of a food source that could theoretically be genetically modified to produce those missing nutrients and maybe combat relevant health issues that traditionally come with malnutrition. I don't personally endorse every vaccine but these could also be engineered into the food source as well.

Of course, we're still left with the growth versus survival problem when dealing with the corporation itself versus the natural citizen/human being. Is obviously a very broad range of different issues that come with that when you throw in politicians who seem to forget who the old of, by and for gag was written for and they start seeing all of that lobby money from folks in the agribusiness who may not be so sensitive to applying the science for purpose of healthy survival so much as consistent and legislatively guaranteed growth. One aspect is that by solving malnutrition in these third world countries via the engineering of these food sources, the language in the4 context of science, if history is any kind of indicator, gets changed to "product" among the suits and then there is also the reality that this really is a prominent aspect of foreign policy as well. One that no politician seems to want to recognize...for whatever reason. Ultimately they will though and it will hit them like a brick. Science community are only gradually becoming involved with aspects of general politics/discussion on these issues. May (guaranteed _will_) see some red faces but can be avoided if a few consider the importance of establishing/discussing their positions on the science itself. Much like you bring up.

But yes. You make a great point in my opinion. There are benefits from a purely scientific model.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> March against ethanol produced from Monsanto corn.
> 
> March against people who buy fuel containing such ethanol.


The march is over. Better catch up, junior.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

Boycott people who buy fuel containing ethanol produced from Monsanto corn.

Boycott you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Boycott people who buy fuel containing ethanol produced from Monsanto corn.
> 
> Boycott you.


Yeah, I'm just going to use this handy dandy ignore feature with you. Which kind of annoys me, really. I do so loath censorship.

Goodbye. 

And thank you, btw.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> ... One could argue that "selective breeding" (also called "*artificial* selection") is not natural.
> 
> 
> Somehow I don't know that you comprehend the depth of what you just typed. Is profound. And it's profound where it really counts. is the very heart of the matter moving forward to the old of, by and for model.


March Against Agriculture

----------


## Natural Citizen

Very good discussion on with Jeffrey M. Smith  now over at Coast to Coast AM regarding the March Against Monsanto, mainstream media and a wealth of current topics regarding the matter. GMO companies are scrambling.

Jeffrey M. Smith has been involved with genetically modified (GM) foods for nearly a decade. He worked for non-profit and political groups on the issue and in 1998, ran for U.S. Congress to raise public awareness of the health and environmental impacts. To protect children-who are most at risk from the potential health effects of GM foods-Smith proposed legislation to remove the foods from school meals. He also proposed legislation to help protect farmers from cross-pollination by GM crops. Later, he was vice president of marketing for a GMO detection laboratory.

Smith has lectured widely, spoken at conferences, and has been quoted in articles around the world. Prior to working in this field, he was a writer, educator, and public speaker for non-profit groups, advancing the causes of health, environment, and personal development. His book "Seeds of Deception," researched and written after he left the industry, combines Smith's passion for these causes with his extensive knowledge of the risks and cover-ups behind genetically modified foods. 

Smith is the founding director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and a member of the Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee. He has a master's degree in business administration and lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. 

Stream... http://www.newsradioklbj.com/Other/Stream.html

Institute for Responsible Technology web site... http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

Discussing foreign policy aspects of the issue now. Discussion just about over.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Here's a minimal Recap of the previous post if anyone is interested...

In the first hour, analyst Craig B. Hulet commented on issues related to Monsanto and GMOs. He lamented that Obama signed off on the HR 933 bill, which says that federal courts cannot stop biotech companies from planting or selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing shows they are hazardous. He was followed by food expert Jeffrey Smith who talked about the success of the recent worldwide March Against Monsanto, in which more than two-million participated, in some 52 countries. The topic is also starting to receive more mainstream coverage, he noted, with CNN covering the protest (video report).

discussion was actually rather broad. Probably on youtube  some place. In fact, I'm sure of it.

Craig adds an interesting bit of relevance. The issue does actually extend to foreign policy.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> HR 933 bill, which says that federal courts cannot stop biotech companies from planting or selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing shows they are hazardous.


Like companies being allowed to sell large sodas, cigarettes, x-rays, and cars to the public, even if testing shows they're hazardous?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Like companies being allowed to sell large sodas, cigarettes, x-rays, and cars to the public, even if testing shows they're hazardous?


Hm. Apparently the cookie doesn't remember the ignore feature if we're signed off. 

Are you one of those people that mods allow/envite to disrupt important discussion with nonsensical bull$#@!? I'm beginning to think that. I know that it happens in other corners of the web. Hopefully this isn't the case ghere. Seems like this has been your only mission. Failed as it may be.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Global Blowback 

 TIMELINE: The March Against Monsanto has seen millions in 436 cities in 52 countries challenging biotech corporations and protesting against genetically modified foods, which despite bans in some states due to potential health hazards remain legal in many others.Read RT’s breakdown of the March Against Monsanto here:

*23:01 GMT:* Marches against the biotechnology giant Monsanto have taken place in* 436 cities across 52 countries* with an estimated total number of participants standing at over two million, the organizers of the global event said.

*22:41 GMT:* Over 2,500 people have marched against Monsanto in Las Vegas.

*22:37 GMT:* In order to take full control of the global food chain the world’s largest owner of patents on seeds Monsanto is lobbying, bribing, suing small farmers out of business and altering scientific research, geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahl told RT.

*22:17 GMT:* Thousands swarmed near the Monsanto lobbying headquarters in Washington DC. 

*22:02 GMT:* Hundreds flooded the streets of Florida calling on the US government to stop lobbying for biotechnology giants. 

*21:49 GMT:* Dozens have marched through Columbus, Ohio.

*21:37 GMT:* Over 500 people marched through downtown Anchorage, Alaska

*21:12 GMT:* Chile has joined the protest against the agricultural giant with marches and other events taking place in in Santiago and several other cities.

Monsanto first began its operations in Chile in 2005 by purchasing Seminis Vegetable Seeds, a company that sold some 3,500 seed varieties to more than 150 countries. Currently Monsanto owns seed production and packaging plants in Melipilla, Viluco and Paine and experimental plants in Arica, Santa Julia, Rancagua and Temuco.

*20:53 GMT:* Hundreds of people gathered in Savannah in the US state of Georgia to join the global protest against Monsanto.

*20:39 GMT:* Thousands protested near the Sacramento State Capitol in California. 

*20:27 GMT:* Dozens have gathered in front of Monsanto office in Buenos Aires, Argentina, dancing and protesting GMO crops. Monsanto’s largest factory in Latin America is located in Argentina, and the company invests millions into new “experimental facilities.”

*20:19 GMT:* Over 6,000 people have marched in Portland expressing their frustration with the biotech giant Monsanto.

*20:11 GMT:* Over 500 activists gathered in Dallas 

*20:05 GMT:* The Vancouver March Against Monsanto is part of an international movement that aims to raise awareness about the impacts of genetically modified organisms in food.

Marchers gathered at the Vancouver Art Gallery beginning at 11 a.m. local time before making their way through the city.

*19:58 GMT:* The March Against Monsanto making its way through downtown Cincinnati Ohio. 

*19:50 GMT:* From the East Bay to California's largest city San Diego, anti-Monsanto protests have swept through the Golden State.

*19:40 GMT:* Hundreds gather in San Francisco's Union Square to take part in the nationwide as well as global march against Monsanto. 

*19:30 GMT:* Activists in Olympia, Washington organized a march to the state capitol and onward to help take back control of their food supply. Alliance for Global Justice, an organizer behind the march, said 888 people had initially signed up to attend the poor weather conditions might have dissuaded many from turning out.

*18:55 GMT:* Environmental groups across America have blamed companies like Monsanto for the drastic decline in the honey bee population over recent years, saying the pesticides they produce have killed off millions of the vital insect in recent years.  Monsanto plans to host a "Bee Summit" in June to discuss solutions to the bee’s North American demise. _"Everybody is concerned by it,"_ Monsanto Chief Technology Officer Robert Fraley told Reuters.

*18:45 GMT:* Several thousand protesters marched through the streets of Vienna, Austria to rally against the US seed giant and GMO products. 

*18:18 GMT:* Several hundred protesters have amassed outside the White House  to demand the Obama administration change its policy towards Monsanto. In March, President Obama signed the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, which "effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

*17:58 GMT:* Protesters in Los Angeles have evoked the sweeping horrors of the French Revolution to show their disapproval for Monsanto’s practices. 

*17:40 GMT:* #MarchAgainstMonsanto is surging on Twitter despite the virtual mainstream media blackout on the global day of action.

*17:37 GMT:* Several dozens protesters have come out in Wichita, Kansas to take part in the worldwide call to _"take back our food."
_
*17:28GMT:* Protesters are starting to fill up Chicago’s Federal Plaza, which is home to a regular farmers market, to take part in one of many anti-Monsanto protests being held throughout the United States.

*17:10 GMT:* Dozens of demonstrators have gathered in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second largest city, to take part in the global action against Monsanto.

*17:00 GMT:* A small group of protesters have gathered outside of the Central Academic Theatre of the Russian Army on Suvorov Square to demand a “Russia without GMO!”

*16:00 GMT:* Several hundred people gathered in Paris for a peaceful protest against the US agrochemical giant Monsanto. A sit in demonstration was held on the Place du Trocadéro square, across the Seine from the Eifel Tower. 

*15:40 GMT:* Japanese protesters earlier gathered outside Monsanto’s headquarters in Tokyo to chant down the company’s influence on the world’s food supply. 

*14:40 GMT:* Demonstrators gathered at Eastern Market in Detroit, Michigan to "Demand GMO Labeling" and join the worldwide protest against Monsanto. The "March Against Monstanto" is being held in a dozen  cities  across Michigan, including Detroit, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Traverse City and Sault St. Marie. 

*14:10 GMT:* “'At Monsanto, we are committed to sustainable agriculture and to continuously improve ways in which we contribute. We are pleased that this honor recognizes that commitment,' said Jerry Steiner, executive vice president, sustainability and corporate affairs at Monsanto. 'This recognition reflects the thousands of Monsanto employees who are working together with farmers and partners around the world to improve agriculture and improve lives.'" 

"First published in 1999, the '100 Best Corporate Citizens' list ranks large-cap Russell 1000 companies based on publicly available information in seven key categories: climate change, employee relations, environmental, financial, governance, human rights and philanthropy.

*13:50 GMT:* Around 300 people have come out for the London March Against Monsanto

*13:45 GMT:* The March Against Monsanto attracted a sizeable crowd on Amsterdam’s central Dam Square. 

*13:40 GMT*: People take to the streets of Amsterdam by bike and by foot to protest against Monsanto.

*13:10 GMT:* Protesters marching through the streets of Cape Town, South Africa demanding that Monsanto get out of Africa.
*
13:00 GMT:* Members of Occupy Food Australia are currently blocking roads in Melbourne, Australia to make their presence against Monsanto felt. 

*12:50 GMT:* Activists in Hawaii have “made a #MAM light brigade”, adorning a wall with a popular March Against Monsanto hashtag fashioned from a string of lights. 

*11:17 GMT:* The Japanese are participating in the anti-Monsanto rallies across the country, locals report on Twitter.

*11:10 GMT:* Across South Africa, hundreds have taken to the streets to protest against Monsanto's policies.

*10:36 GMT*: Hundreds of New Zealanders gathered around the country today to protest against genetically modified food.

*9:00 GMT:* Anti-Monsanto activists are claiming a mainstream media blackout on coverage of the protest marches.

*8:20 GMT:* Anti-Monsanto campaigners across the UK will march as part of a global day of protest against the GMO giant. Rallies are set to take place in London, Bristol, Glasgow, Manchester, Douglas, Torquay and Nottingham.

*6:50 GMT:* Sarah Saunders, an organizer of the event, said she was leading the march to “help protect the future health and food supply for my children. The long term health effects of GMOs are up for debate and I *would rather my children not be science experiments*."

*6:20 GMT:* Hundreds gathered in Brisbane, Australia, to join the global protest against Monsanto. 

*5:40 GMT*: Pictures from Melbourne, Australia, show crowds continuing their protest against Monsanto's practices.

*4:21 GMT:* Over 1,000 protesters gathered in Melbourne.

*3:37 GMT:* Activists gearing up for a protest in Albany, Australia.

*3:00 GMT:* Watch RT's Anastasia Churkina report on the upcoming global protest.
Video: /files/news/1f/32/00/00/original_monsanto-guest-churkina.asf

*2:44 GMT:* Activists begin gathering for Sydney protest hours before the scheduled time.

*2:14 GMT:* Nick Bernabe, a social media director for March Against Monsanto, told RT that in some parts of the world, Monsanto's tactics are leading farmers to suicide.

“If you look at what happened in India... I mean there was an epidemic of suicides of the farmers,” Bernabe said. “Monsanto sold them a kind of seed that they promised would do a certain thing and then those seeds didn’t perform how they were supposed to. And it drove a lot of those Indian farmers into sheer poverty - and they ended up committing suicide by the hundreds and thousands even.”

Meanwhile in the United States, Monsanto is known for litigating small farmers out of business, Bernabe added.

“There are a lot of small farmers they are putting out business because they have a genetic migration into crops that were not supposed to be GMO, but they are getting cross-pollinated,” he explained. “And then Monsanto comes in, they use their government cronies to go in and shut down small farmers because the genetics from the seeds they’ve patented have slowly crept into the genetics of non-GMO seeds.”

Bernabe says that activists “want to spread awareness and we want to start from the ground up.”

_“The easiest thing you can do to know what’s in your food is to grow your own food,” he said. “We start there. At the very top we want labeling and a ban, but I think we should work from the ground up to have the best results.”
_
*2:20 GMT:* Hundreds of people gathered for an event in Bellingen, New South Wales, Australia.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Hm. Apparently the cookie doesn't remember the ignore feature if we're signed off.


Will it work if you click it again?




> nonsensical bull$#@! ... Seems like this has been your only mission. Failed as it may be.


You seriously couldn't make sense of my previous post, and you assume no one else could either? Should the government stop companies from selling large sodas, cigarettes, x-rays, and cars to the public, since they're hazardous?

----------


## mad cow

> "First published in 1999, the '100 Best Corporate Citizens' list ranks large-cap Russell 1000 companies based on publicly available information in seven key categories: climate change, employee relations, environmental, financial, governance, human rights and philanthropy.


How about somebody who doesn't give a rat's ass about GMO but considers the answer to these 7 questions of the uppermost importance in making his informed shopping decisions.

Shouldn't he have just as much right to demand that force be used so that these answers appear on every label on every item in every market in America?

Is that too much to ask?What separates demanding that these positive rights should be enforced at gunpoint and are any less worthy of enforcement than any of the multitude of other Positive Rights that have been discovered since the onset of the Progressive Era?

----------


## Thor

> You seriously couldn't make sense of my previous post, and you assume no one else could either? Should the government stop companies from selling large sodas, cigarettes, x-rays, and cars to the public, since they're hazardous?


Do consumers choose to smoke, drink large sodas, get x-rays, or drive cars?  Yes, they do....  They get to weigh the benefit versus the dangers and decide if getting the x-ray or driving is worth the risk.  

Do consumers get to choose to eat GMO food when the label and contents do not disclose the unnatural nature of the contents?  No they do not.

Stop making ass backwards analogies.  Your post is idiotic.  STFU.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Do consumers choose to smoke, drink large sodas, get x-rays, or drive cars?  Yes, they do....  They get to weigh the benefit versus the dangers and decide if getting the x-ray or driving is worth the risk.  
> 
> Do consumers get to choose to eat GMO food when the label and contents do not disclose the unnatural nature of the contents?  No they do not.
> 
> Stop making ass backwards analogies.  Your post is idiotic.


You've lost sight of the point I was addressing. My analogy was a response to:




> HR 933 bill, which says that federal courts cannot stop biotech companies from planting or selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing shows they are hazardous.


As for labeling, consumers do have access to information; and they have a choice what to eat, and whether to eat GMO's. Where did you get the silly idea that they don't? Did you believe rumors you saw on websites, without ever checking facts? Despite your ranting, neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping consumers from making informed choices.




> From what I've seen now on the FDA website, their only problem is with use of the term "GMO" on labels; because the FDA construes "GMO" as a relatively extensive term. (See the FDA's position: "*Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified.*") If a producer added a label saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				This food is not from recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure,
> 			
> ...


You can also get whatever information you want from private labs, but not if you're lazy or uninitiated.




> STFU.


Cry it out.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

So, do 32oz Cokes cause all Pepsi's to become Cokes, and then all profits go to coke for Pepsi's or other cola's, maybe even the plants for the other cola's become Cokes?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> So, do 32oz Cokes cause all Pepsi's to become Cokes, and then all profits go to coke for Pepsi's or other cola's, maybe even the plants for the other cola's become Cokes?


What's the evidence that Monsanto products cause everything else to become Monsanto products?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What's the evidence that Monsanto products cause everything else to become Monsanto products?


dust in the wind.  all they are is dust in the wind.

Seriously, I have to wonder if you are arguing about something you've never bothered to look at, or if you are just being deliberately obtuse.  A primary Monsanto business model is planting GMO upwind, infecting an heirloom farmer, and then suing them into oblivion for capturing their pollenated genes, and taking their land either putting them out on the street or making the farmer an indentured servant on the land he used to own.  That's what Monsanto does.  They blow GM pollen onto someone's crop, and then file claim in court that the crop is theirs because it contains their gene.  They are the patent trolls of life itself.

----------


## Dr.3D

> dust in the wind.  all they are is dust in the wind.
> 
> Seriously, I have to wonder if you are arguing about something you've never bothered to look at, or if you are just being deliberately obtuse.  A primary Monsanto business model is planting GMO upwind, infecting an heirloom farmer, and then suing them into oblivion for capturing their pollenated genes, and taking their land either putting them out on the street or making the farmer an indentured servant on the land he used to own.  That's what Monsanto does.  They blow GM pollen onto someone's crop, and then file claim in court that the crop is theirs because it contains their gene.  They are the patent trolls of life itself.


Do farmers need to take genetic tests of the seed they are planting and get a certified copy of those before contamination so they can sue Monsanto for polluting their crops when it happens?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> We are done.
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.


Why aren't you keeping your word?




> Seriously, I have to wonder if you are arguing about something you've never bothered to look at, or if you are just being deliberately obtuse.


I hear that a lot from charlatans who can't support their positions, because they don't know what they're talking about. If you think it's my job to search around for support for your position, you need to get over yourself.




> dust in the wind.  all they are is dust in the wind.
> 
> ... A primary Monsanto business model is planting GMO upwind, infecting an heirloom farmer, and then suing them into oblivion for capturing their pollenated genes, and taking their land either putting them out on the street or making the farmer an indentured servant on the land he used to own.  *That's what Monsanto does.*  They blow GM pollen onto someone's crop, and then file claim in court that the crop is theirs because it contains their gene.  They are the patent trolls of life itself.


Where is the evidence that that is Monsanto's business model? Evidence, or it never happened.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> They are the patent trolls of life itself.


You know...I'm gradually beginning to support the notion of population reduction. I know it sounds sadistic. Is it wrong of me to accept that as a logical progression to this theoretical "Change We Can Believe In"? Maybe breed out the dumb? I don't know. Doesn't seem ethical to think that way but, gosh. People are lobbying for their own natural reconfiguration/demise by not questioning the scientific skullduggery behind some of these gene patents that Monsanto has aquired through the pharmaceutical monopoly they've become a part of as well. I wonder what the Christians think about that? Man was created in God's image and all of that? One nation under God. Is Monsanto the new God? They sure seem to be worshipped as such. They're certainly assuming the role.

----------


## liberty2897

> You know...I'm gradually beginning to support the notion of population reduction. I know it sounds sadistic. Is it wrong of me to accept that as a logical progression to this theoretical "Change We Can Believe In"? *Maybe breed out the dumb?* I don't know. Doesn't seem ethical to think that way but, gosh. People are lobbying for their own natural reconfiguration/demise by not questioning the scientific skullduggery behind some of these gene patents that Monsanto has aquired through the pharmaceutical monopoly they've become a part of as well. I wonder what the Christians think about that? *Man was created in God's image and all of that?*


Made me think of this.

Frank Zappa
Dumb All Over (lyrics)
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+z..._20057039.html

----------


## Carlybee

> Why aren't you keeping your word?
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that a lot from charlatans who can't support their positions, because they don't know what they're talking about. If you think it's my job to search around for support for your position, you need to get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that that is Monsanto's business model? Evidence, or it never happened.



No one needs to provide anything to you. It is well documented.  I have posted the full documentary The World According to Monsanto in this thread TWICE.  Have you bothered to look at it?  Gunny is exactly right about what Monsanto is doing.  Do you think all these people around the world are protesting because they have nothing better to do?  Do you work for Monsanto?  Or are you a Round Up salesman?  Get a grip.  You are just making a jackass out of yourself at this point.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why aren't you keeping your word?
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that a lot from charlatans who can't support their positions, because they don't know what they're talking about. If you think it's my job to search around for support for your position, you need to get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that that is Monsanto's business model? Evidence, or it never happened.


Why are you arguing on a subject you haven't bothered to spend 5 minutes to research?  It's not like this is a secret.  And why should I waste my time doing your work for you when you have shown time and time (and time) again that when people post evidence you just ignore it anyway?  If anybody is the charlatan here buddy, it's you.  Go do five damn minutes of research on a topic before you go screaming bloody murder like you know something.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by Carlybee
> 
> 
> Pointless to have reasonable discourse with you.
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.


Why aren't you keeping your word?




> No one needs to provide anything to you.


Suit yourself.




> It is well documented.  I have posted the full documentary The World According to Monsanto in this thread TWICE.  Have you bothered to look at it?  Gunny is exactly right about what Monsanto is doing.


That "full documentary" does not show evidence that Monsanto's business model is as Gunny described it.




> Do you think all these people around the world are protesting because they have nothing better to do?


From the looks of them, yes I think many of them are marching because they have nothing better to do.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do farmers need to take genetic tests of the seed they are planting and get a certified copy of those before contamination so they can sue Monsanto for polluting their crops when it happens?


It doesn't work that way.  The infected is always the guilty party in fascist America.  GMO is 'substantially equivalent' so they can't sue for pollution, but the specific genes are patented so they can be sued for catching them.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Why are you arguing on a subject you haven't bothered to spend 5 minutes to research?  It's not like this is a secret.  And why should I waste my time doing your work for you when you have shown time and time (and time) again that when people post evidence you just ignore it anyway? ... Go do five damn minutes of research on a topic before you go screaming bloody murder like you know something.


I hear that a lot from charlatans who can't support their positions, because they don't know what they're talking about. What evidence have I ignored? Which post was it in?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The infected is always the guilty party in fascist America.  GMO is 'substantially equivalent' so they can't sue for pollution, but the specific genes are patented so they can be sued for catching them.


What evidence supports your claims? The "full documentary" about Monsanto doesn't show that.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> If anybody is the charlatan here buddy, it's you.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan:




> CHARLATAN ... one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability


What knowledge am I pretending to have? In which post did I pretend to have it?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

You are pretending to be an authority on the subject when you clearly know nothing about it.  Do five minutes of research on a subject before pretending you know enough to argue about it.  Demanding a datapoint is sophistry.  You make no claim to specific knowledge and yet argue as though an authority.  That's disgusting, and displays a complete lack of intellectual integrity.  It's like trying to argue with someone about what the Constitution says, only they've never bothered to read it.  And then instead of saying "I don't know" they claim everyone else is wrong.  and 'prove it.'  and then every time someone proves it you ignore them and keep screaming.  This is classic troll behavior, like the only reason you are arguing is to deliberately piss people off for laughs.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan:
> 
> 
> 
> What knowledge am I pretending to have? In which post did I pretend to have it?


Did you just openly admit to having zero knowledge to claim on the matter?  

Kinda funny for someone acting the way you are eh?

----------


## mad cow

> *You know...I'm gradually beginning to support the notion of population reduction.* I know it sounds sadistic. Is it wrong of me to accept that as a logical progression to this theoretical "Change We Can Believe In"? *Maybe breed out the dumb?* I don't know. Doesn't seem ethical to think that way but, gosh. People are lobbying for their own natural reconfiguration/demise by not questioning the scientific skullduggery behind some of these gene patents that Monsanto has aquired through the pharmaceutical monopoly they've become a part of as well. I wonder what the Christians think about that? Man was created in God's image and all of that? One nation under God. Is Monsanto the new God? They sure seem to be worshipped as such. They're certainly assuming the role.


The bolded have always been popular positions with Fascists and Progressives everywhere,Margaret Sanger for instance.

They hate individual rights,choice and freedom.They think they know more about what people want and need than people themselves do,so they think that they would be a much better choice for making these decisions for those dumb animals.

Or kill them if they don't comply.

I mean seriously,someone who would take a bucket of fried chicken,fried in trans fat and a 32 ounce Coke over a slab of GMO-free tofu and some boiled dandelions?Do they even deserve to live?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Did you just openly admit to having zero knowledge to claim on the matter?  
> 
> Kinda funny for someone acting the way you are eh?


You mean the way I'm asking you to educate me by posting evidence? How is that funny?




> You are pretending to be an authority on the subject


In which post did I pretend to be an authority?




> Do five minutes of research on a subject


I hear that a lot from charlatans who can't support their claims, because they don't know what they're talking about.




> pretending you know enough to argue about it.


In which post did I do that?




> You ... argue as though an authority.


In which post did I do that?




> It's like trying to argue with someone about what the Constitution says, only they've never bothered to read it.


And you would just rant and rant instead of posting a link to the Constitution?




> every time someone proves it


In which post has anyone proved that Monsanto's business model is as you claim?




> This is classic troll behavior


Not really, but your repeatedly announcing you're done with me and then continuing to rant about me personally is classic obsessive-stalker behavior coupled with a lack of integrity.

----------


## Carlybee

The GM Genocide http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ied-crops.html


Five million farmers sue Monsanto for 7.7 billion  http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...monsanto73.htm

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You mean the way I'm asking you to educate me by posting evidence? How is that funny?
> 
> 
> 
> In which post did I pretend to be an authority?
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that a lot from charlatans who can't support their claims, because they don't know what they're talking about.
> ...


What you are is being an ass, demanding evidence the whole thread and ignoring it when you get it.  I'm not going to do you homework for you when you act like that.  Whatever esteem I may have held for you is gone.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The GM Genocide http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ied-crops.html
> 
> 
> Five million farmers sue Monsanto for 7.7 billion  http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...monsanto73.htm


Another citation of evidence that will just be ignored.  As all the others.  That's my point.  The man demands evidence and ignores it, then demands evidence again and then ignores it again.  Pretty soon you wonder why the hell he's actually here if not to troll.

Someone with intellectual integrity would either say, "hey, that's evidence, thanks" or stop demanding it, or stop pretending like he knows what he's talking about.  His demands for evidence are disingenuous, as should be clear.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why aren't you keeping your word?
> 
> 
> 
> Suit yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> That "full documentary" does not show evidence that Monsanto's business model is as Gunny described it.
> ...


You don't have time to research but you have time to go find and quote comments?  Gunny is nicer than me so I'll just ask...are you retarded?  SMDH

----------


## Natural Citizen

Scientists from Canada have found that transgenic Atlantic salmon can cross-breed with a closely related species - the brown trout.
The fish, which have been engineered with extra genes to make them grow more quickly, pass on this trait to the hybrid offspring. 
The research is published the Proceedings of the Royal Society B..

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> evidence that will just be ignored.  As all the others. ... The man ... evidence and ignores it, then ... evidence again and then ignores it again.


In which specific post was there evidence that I've ignored?




> Pretty soon you wonder why the hell he's actually here if not to troll.


That's what obsessive-stalkers always say, instead of keeping their word that they're going to ignore those they claim are trolls.




> pretending like he knows what he's talking about.


In which post have I pretended to know anything?




> His demands for evidence are disingenuous, as should be clear.


If you believe that, why are you tripping head over heels to lavish attention on me?

----------


## Carlybee

> Scientists from Canada have found that transgenic Atlantic salmon can cross-breed with a closely related species - the brown trout.
> The fish, which have been engineered with extra genes to make them grow more quickly, pass on this trait to the hybrid offspring. 
> The research is published the Proceedings of the Royal Society B..



Sort of the same with seeds...wind blows.  I have a seed vault of non GMO heirloom seeds. It may just a matter of time, regardless of what happens with Monsanto, before all open field seed stock is contaminated.  Same with fish/wildlife once that can of worms is open.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You don't have time to research but you have time to go find and quote comments?  Gunny is nicer than me so I'll just ask...are you retarded?


So what if I am? Is that a reason to obsessively lavish attention on my person instead of posting evidence to support your position? Why should I spend a second searching for evidence to support your position?

----------


## Carlybee

> So what if I am? Is that a reason to obsess over me personally instead of posting evidence to support your position?


Buster I'm hardly obsessing over you.  Links and evidence have been posted yet you refuse to read them apparently. Lawsuits have been ongoing.  Read them or not but stop behaving like a 12 year old begging for attention.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So what if I am? Is that a reason to obsessively lavish attention on my person* instead of posting evidence to support your position?* Why should I spend a second searching for evidence to support your position?


and a liar, too.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Another citation of evidence that will just be ignored.


But that citation doesn't support your claim about Monsanto's business model...




> and a liar, too.


... so what have I lied about?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Sort of the same with seeds...wind blows.  I have a seed vault of non GMO heirloom seeds. It may just a matter of time, regardless of what happens with Monsanto, before all open field seed stock is contaminated.  Same with fish/wildlife once that can of worms is open.


Yep. KCchiefs had also shared the relevance in the spraying over in the Monsanto/foreign policy thread.  That's another aspect of destruction of natural agriculture. A lot of native trees/shrubs are beginning to die off.

Beside the wind blowing these glorified science experiments all over the place we actually have crap being sprayed anyhow that may very well re-establish an alternative growing atmoshpere for these frankencrops.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> stop behaving like a 12 year old begging for attention.


You keep announcing that you're done with me, and then when you break your word, you blame me for your obsessiveness.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Links and evidence have been posted yet you refuse to read them apparently. Lawsuits have been ongoing.


Gunny's claim was about Monsanto suing people. How is that supposed to be supported by your link about Monsanto getting sued?




> Someone with intellectual integrity would either say, "hey, that's evidence, thanks" or stop demanding it


How about, "thanks for posting a link that failed to support Gunny's claim about Monsanto suing people"?

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Peru Bans GMOs*

Accomplishing what practically no other country in  North, Central, or South America has yet had the willingness or boldness to even  attempt, Peru has essentially told the biotechnology industry to take its  untested “Frankencrops” and shove them where the sun does not shine. Not only  are GMOs dangerous for the environment and humans, agree many local experts and  farmers, but they also threaten to decimate the rich biodiversity that has  sustained the many civilizations of Peru for millennia.
“They’re a big monoculture, which is why people usually end up using GMOs,” says Chef Pedro Miguel Schiaffino about the detriments of factory farming, as  quoted by _CSMonitor.com_. Schiaffino owns two restaurants in Lima that  serve clean, native foods, including many unique varieties found only in the  Amazon rainforest. “[W]hen you have monocultures, the crops end up getting  diseases, and you have to look for these extreme ways to fix them.”

So to prevent the complete loss of a farming tradition that has long  incorporated the diverse cultivation of a plethora of native and indigenous  crops, Peruvians have decided to simply disallow the raping and pillaging of  their rich soils with toxic GMOs. And in the process, this  embargo will help perpetuate the native biodiversity practices that have  sustained Peruvians since the days when the Incan Empire reigned supreme.

Recognizing what the vast majority of our own domestic politicians and  grossly-overpaid corporate talking heads refuse to acknowledge, GMOs, by their  very nature, contradict actual nature. The ways in which GMOs are planted,  cultivated, and harvested are all highly unsustainable and lead to major  problems both for the environment and for humans. Americans are now seeing the  consequences of GMO adoption  in the form of chronic illness epidemics; widespread soil depletion; the  emergence of resistant “superbugs” and “superweeds;” and chemical pollution.

“In the end, it’s not a law that’s ‘against’ anything,” says Antonietta  Gutierrez, a biologist at _National Agrarian University_, about Peru’s GMO ban. “This is a law in  favor of biosecurity. The idea is that there should be a responsible way of  using technology so that it helps us develop resources – and at the same time,  doesn’t destroy what we already have.”

At the present time, foods containing GMOs that were cultivated in other  countries are still allowed to be sold in Peru.  A law passed back in 2011 was intended to require the labeling of GMO-containing  food products, however the terms and conditions for such requirements have yet  to be set. A recent study conducted by the _Peruvian Association of Consumers  and Users_ found that among 13 standard food products tested, roughly 77  percent tested positive for GMOs.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Ameri...says-no-to-GMO
http://www.peruviantimes.com
http://www.globalpost.com

----------


## Natural Citizen

Breaking: Vermont House Passes GMO Labeling Bill

Actually, thats probably not as good news as it may seem at first glance, for one can imagine what corporate screws might be turned if state agriculture departments started doing health studies on GMOs, or if they were to start banning targeted GMO products.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Breaking: Vermont House Passes GMO Labeling Bill
> 
> Actually, that’s probably not as good news as it may seem at first glance, for one can imagine what corporate screws might be turned if state agriculture departments started doing health studies on GMOs, or if they were to start banning targeted GMO products.


"You reap what you sow."

----------


## Natural Citizen

> "You reap what you sow."


Yep. Will get worse before it gets better. It must. Baby steps....

----------


## compromise

GMOs taste better in my opinion. I don't like labeling, I prefer a lucky dip. There doesn't appear to be much substantial, verified evidence that they're unsafe.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> GMOs taste better in my opinion. I don't like labeling, I prefer a lucky dip. There doesn't appear to be much substantial, verified evidence that they're unsafe.


It doesn't matter if they are safe.  Why should I be forced to eat them?  You don't sell a Jew pork and call it kosher beef.  You are missing a pretty big liberty issue here.  Just because you don't care doesn't mean I should be defrauded of my food freedom.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> GMOs taste better in my opinion. I don't like labeling, I prefer a lucky dip. There doesn't appear to be much substantial, verified evidence that they're unsafe.


Is ironic that you mention that. I was at a cookout on Memorial Day and that's something that I specifically recall hearing the people eating the corn on the cob say. Everybody said "Man, that corn sure is good". 

All I could think to myself wiithout chuckling was "What do you mean?...you mean it _tastes_ good?" 

Anyhoo... HUNGARY DESTROYS ALL MONSANTO GMO CORN FIELDS

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It doesn't matter if they are safe.  Why should I be forced to eat them? You don't sell a Jew pork and call it kosher beef.  You are missing a pretty big liberty issue here.  Just because you don't care doesn't mean I should be defrauded of my food freedom.


No one's forcing you to eat anything, no one's calling your food the wrong name, and no one's defrauding you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No one's forcing you to eat anything, no one's calling your food the wrong name, and no one's defrauding you.


A frog is an animal.  A tomato is a plant.  When you mix the two, it is no longer a tomato.  Selling me the thing and calling it a tomato is fraud.  Putting the stuff in 98% of the food supply and using the government to force me to not know what it is in, is forcing me to eat it.

Just because you don't care doesn't mean I like being a slave to fascism.

It's amazing how suddenly 'libertarians' don't give a damn about fascism if they don't care about the specific issue.  I guess if you liked riding trains then you'd have LOVED Mussolini. 

Seriously, how the hell is _fascism_ suddenly 'ok' amongst Ron Paul people?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Putting the stuff in 98% of the food supply and using the government to force me to not know what it is in, is forcing me to eat it.


No one is forcing you to eat it, because no one is forcing you to not know what's in it:




> consumers do have access to information; and they have a choice what to eat, and whether to eat GMO's. Where did you get the silly idea that they don't? Did you believe rumors you saw on websites, without ever checking facts? Despite your ranting, neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping consumers from making informed choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No one is forcing you to eat it, because no one is forcing you to not know what's in it.


Fascism.  You are defending it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Fascism.  You are defending it.


'k

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 'k


As long as you recognize it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> As long as you recognize it.


'k

----------


## compromise

> A frog is an animal.  A tomato is a plant.  When you mix the two, it is no longer a tomato.  Selling me the thing and calling it a tomato is fraud.  Putting the stuff in 98% of the food supply and using the government to force me to not know what it is in, is forcing me to eat it.
> 
> Just because you don't care doesn't mean I like being a slave to fascism.
> 
> It's amazing how suddenly 'libertarians' don't give a damn about fascism if they don't care about the specific issue.  I guess if you liked riding trains then you'd have LOVED Mussolini. 
> 
> Seriously, how the hell is _fascism_ suddenly 'ok' amongst Ron Paul people?


But aren't you arguing for the state to label these products? Do you trust the state and distrust the private sector that much? Sure, the private sector could be lying, but how do you know the state aren't? This sort of thing is always prone to regulatory capture as the lobbyists will move in the moment this law goes into effect.

If you are worried about having to eat GMOs, what's stopping you going to a store that labels or doesn't sell them at all (if this is legal of course in you area, but you're arguing for state-mandated labeling at the moment, not for overturning a ban on it and leaving it to the private sector)?

Whole Foods will label all GMO products by 2018: http://www.ibtimes.com/not-entirely-...s-2018-1175421

What if I own a store, and I don't want labeling on my frog tomatoes? Would you consider that to be a fascist act? You could just boycott my store and encourage those that agree with you to do the same. If there's enough pressure, I go out of business. Do you think it would be just for the government to use force on me and my business if I refused to label my products?

----------


## Weston White

> No one's forcing you to eat anything, no one's calling your food the wrong name, and no one's defrauding you.


Not so being that, although a GMO tomato might visually appear as its organic counterpart, it is no longer so. Hence, it is no longer a Roma or heirloom/heritage or slicer; for it has been structurally altered into something similar, yet vastly distinct--so much so that it is worthy of a protected patent. This same rule applies across the board, be it for: alfalfa, bananas, corn, mangos, et al. All GMO seeds and crops, need to be label with both its own scientific/botanic name and formal/common name. Anything less is, as fact, blatant fraud.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> GMOs taste better in my opinion. I don't like labeling, I prefer a lucky dip. There doesn't appear to be much substantial, verified evidence that they're unsafe.


Are you up for a blind test ?
I don't think you can taste the difference, really there may be some biochemical differences which may or may not be harmful or helpful to human health, but taste-wise I don't think there's a noticeable difference. 

There isn't much verified evidence that it's safe either. We don't know the long term effects and researching this on a human population is nearly impossible since these products are in so many things and are not labelled accordingly.

----------


## Thor

> Not so being that, although a GMO tomato might visually appear as its organic counterpart, it is no longer so. Hence, it is no longer a Roma or heirloom/heritage or slicer; for it has been structurally altered into something similar, yet vastly distinct--so much so that it is worthy of a protected patent. This same rule applies across the board, be it for: alfalfa, bananas, corn, mangos, et al. All GMO seeds and crops, need to be label with both its own scientific/botanic name and formal/common name. Anything less is, as fact, blatant fraud.


If they fight so hard to protect their patent, why do they want to fight so hard to also hide the produce/product of the same patent?  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

----------


## donnay

> A frog is an animal.  A tomato is a plant.  When you mix the two, it is no longer a tomato.  Selling me the thing and calling it a tomato is fraud.  Putting the stuff in 98% of the food supply and using the government to force me to not know what it is in, is forcing me to eat it.
> 
> Just because you don't care doesn't mean I like being a slave to fascism.
> 
> It's amazing how suddenly 'libertarians' don't give a damn about fascism if they don't care about the specific issue.  I guess if you liked riding trains then you'd have LOVED Mussolini. 
> 
> Seriously, how the hell is _fascism_ suddenly 'ok' amongst Ron Paul people?



That's okay they will make a movie about it in the future:  "Fried Gene Tomatoes"  <s>

I am sure they would love a serving of HIV Corn--Yum!

*Edible HIV vaccine breakthrough*
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...akthrough.html


Flashback:

*US foodmakers urge ban on food crops for medicine* 

Reuters Securities News (Eng) 
Friday, *November 15, 2002*  07:05 
By Randy Fabi 

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - U.S. food companies urged the government on Thursday to temporarily ban the use of corn, soybeans and other food crops to produce pharmaceuticals after a Texas company accidentally mixed its gene-altered corn with other crops. 

ProdiGene Inc., a small biotech company experimenting with corn engineered to make medications for diabetes and diarrhea, faces two federal investigations for contaminating other crops in Nebraska and Iowa. 

The National Food Processors Association said the federal government should halt plantings of gene-altered crops for pharmaceuticals until it imposes tougher regulations to prevent future incidents. 

"There should be no testing of this kind unless you can get 100 percent confinement and containment. The risk is too high," said Rhona Applebaum, the group's senior vice president of regulatory affairs. 

The Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose members include major foodmakers such as General Mills Inc., Kellogg Co. and Del Monte, said it was "deeply concerned by ProdiGene's reported conduct." 

"We strongly urge the biotech industry to direct its substantial research capabilities into investigating the use of nonfood crops for the development of pharmaceuticals," said Karil Kochenderfer, the group's environment director. 

Both industry groups are supporters of biotech foods such as corn engineered to repel pests or to produce a better quality crop. But they part company with the biotech industry when it comes to growing so-called "pharm-foods" next to crops destined for human or animal food. 

Environmental groups and many European nations take a different view. They oppose all biotech plants, contending that not enough is yet known about their long-term safety for humans. 

Although unwanted corn often sprouts in soybean fields, ProdiGene failed to pull out its bio-corn in Nebraska and removed it too late in Iowa, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. 

    As a result, ProdiGene was ordered to destroy 155 acres of corn in Iowa and may have to buy 500,000 bushels of soybeans quarantined in Nebraska because of possible contamination. 

    "These incidents reaffirm the Grocery Manufacturers of America concerns about the use of food crops for the development of plant-made pharmaceuticals," Kochenderfer said. 

    Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co. are among other companies field testing new crops with the aim of *commercializing them in three years*. 

    Bo Miller, biotechnology policy director for Dow Chemical, said the company planted its first pharmaceutical crop in the U.S. Southwest only this year. Next year, Dow will closely monitor the field for unwanted stray plants, he said. 

*Miller did not disclose how many acres were planted with the company's experimental pharma-corn variety. The company has said it plans to take "extraordinary measures" to control corn pollen, including mile-wide buffer zones, covering plants with special screens and timing the planting of a field so it is not fertile at the same time as neighboring crops.* 

    "Planting in the U.S. Southwest has been part of our business model from the beginning," Miller said. 

    Only about 300 acres throughout the United States was planted with pharm-crops this year, according to the industry. 

    Last month, the Biotechnology Industry Organization announced its members would follow new voluntary guidelines to grow plant-produced pharmaceuticals outside the Midwest and Plains states.


Source:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listin...lood-thickener

----------


## Carlybee

> GMOs taste better in my opinion. I don't like labeling, I prefer a lucky dip. There doesn't appear to be much substantial, verified evidence that they're unsafe.


Some think cigarettes taste good but they don't want to be forced to smoke them.
As someone who eats locally grown organic non GMO produce I would also beg to differ on the taste. There is no comparison to whats in the regular aisle at the store.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Some think cigarettes taste good but they don't want to be forced to smoke them.
> As someone who eats locally grown organic non GMO produce I would also beg to differ on the taste. *There is no comparison to whats in the regular aisle at the store*.


That's exactly right.  I don't think most people even know what real tomatoes even taste like (if they have only tasted store bought or restaurant salad tomatoes).  It's like completely different things altogether.

----------


## Carlybee

> That's exactly right.  I don't think most people even know what real tomatoes even taste like (if they have only tasted store bought or restaurant salad tomatoes).  It's like completely different things altogether.


Once we stopped buying them at the store we were shocked at the difference in taste.

----------


## compromise

> Some think cigarettes taste good but they don't want to be forced to smoke them.
> As someone who eats locally grown organic non GMO produce I would also beg to differ on the taste. There is no comparison to whats in the regular aisle at the store.


You're not forced to eat GMOs. Hence why you're not eating GMOs. So, what's your point?

----------


## Carlybee

> You're not forced to eat GMOs. Hence why you're not eating GMOs. So, what's your point?


Actually I am. Yes I buy gmo free produce but there is no way of knowing what is in other staples.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> You're not forced to eat GMOs. Hence why you're not eating GMOs. So, what's your point?


Quick, go to your refrigerator or food pantry, grab something...is it GMO?  How do you know?  Now, research it, how long did it take to find out for sure?

----------


## Thor

> That's exactly right.  I don't think most people even know what real tomatoes even taste like (if they have only tasted store bought or restaurant salad tomatoes).  It's like completely different things altogether.

----------


## angelatc

> Quick, go to your refrigerator or food pantry, grab something...is it GMO?  How do you know?  Now, research it, how long did it take to find out for sure?


Since when is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure that information you decide is important to you is at your fingertips at all times?

Good lord - you have an internet connection.  Educate yourself on the the things that matter to you, but stop insisting that the federal government and the food producers have some obligation to educate me on things that are important to you.

----------


## Carlybee

Since when is it the taxpayers responsibility to protect Monsanto effectively allowing them to control and modify the food supply? Goes two ways.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3272136.html

----------


## Carlybee

//

----------


## Barrex

Since when is it the responsibility of the government to ensure that Monsanto is protected and subsidized at all times? Since when is it the responsibility of the government to arrest farmers who produce non-GMO food and kill their animals?

----------


## donnay

http://worldtruth.tv/monsanto-teams-...iousness+TV%29

----------


## asurfaholic

> Since when is it the responsibility of the government to ensure that Monsanto is protected and subsidized at all times? Since when is it the responsibility of the government to arrest farmers who produce non-GMO food and kill their animals?


This is my biggest concern, by far. I don't give a rats tail about labeling of veggies, i grow most of what I eat. When I buy stuff, I pay the extra money to buy the stuff that claims to be non gmo.

What really irks me is how my tax dollars are being used to help this giant company, while they are suing taxpayers for being down wind.

----------


## compromise

> Quick, go to your refrigerator or food pantry, grab something...is it GMO?  How do you know?  Now, research it, how long did it take to find out for sure?


Get some labeled GMOs. It says "non-GMO" on the front. How do you know its really non-GMO? Do you blindly trust what the regulatory agency has said? What if I take the GMO product and put that label on it?

If you go to the right stores, grow food yourself or order GMO-free food online, you do not need to somehow find out whether your food is GMO or not. If you've got such a problem with accidentally eating GMOs, then don't go to stores that sell them.

----------


## compromise

> Actually I am. Yes I buy gmo free produce but there is no way of knowing what is in other staples.


There is always a GMO-free source if you look hard enough. Sure, you don't know whether the company are lying, but how do you know the regulator in a society with GMO labeling isn't lying?

----------


## Carlybee

> This is my biggest concern, by far. I don't give a rats tail about labeling of veggies, i grow most of what I eat. When I buy stuff, I pay the extra money to buy the stuff that claims to be non gmo.
> 
> What really irks me is how my tax dollars are being used to help this giant company, while they are suing taxpayers for being down wind.



Yet people in this thread support that and then complain about labeling.

----------


## Thor

> Since when is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure that information you decide is important to you is at your fingertips at all times?
> 
> Good lord - you have an internet connection.  Educate yourself on the the things that matter to you, but stop insisting that the federal government and the food producers have some obligation to educate me on things that are important to you.


Since the role of a limited government is to protect Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and GMO food infringes upon that.  

Since I really like you: Maybe you would like some special potato chips I have made, sprinkled with just a wee bit of lead dust, just for you.  You don't want me to disclose that on the label or anywhere on the bag, do you?  It is just a little change.  Barely detectable.  Can't even taste it.  Makes it taste better actually.  Actually makes it more addictive.  Oh wait, that could be construed as attempted murder, or if successful, murder; if I know that I am putting lead dust on these chips on purpose.  Hmmm...  what if it takes 15 or 20 years, or even 30 or more to kill you, then am I ok?  It is just a little bit of lead dust.

OK, so you learn and decide to avoid the lead dusted chips, it is your choice to do that...  But then, how about all the food you consume has a little lead dust sprinkled on it.  Should anyone disclose that?  Should the government pay me extra money and give me special protections to sprinkle the lead dust on all your food?  Oh, you want to grow all your own food, ok great.  You have to buy my lead impregnated super seeds.  That is all that is left in the seed supply.

BTW, it is your job to search online to see if I am putting lead dust on or in any food or drinks you consume.  Go have a private lab test it all, and you better make sure they test every batch, because sometime I forget to add a little lead dust. 

Have fun!

----------


## Carlybee

> There is always a GMO-free source if you look hard enough. Sure, you don't know whether the company are lying, but how do you know the regulator in a society with GMO labeling isn't lying?


If I prefer Hellmans mayo I shouldnt have to order some no name brand off the internet and pay shipping. My tax dollars shouldnt pay to help keep me from knowing.

----------


## compromise

> If I prefer Hellmans mayo I shouldnt have to order some no name brand off the internet and pay shipping. My tax dollars shouldnt pay to help keep me from knowing.


That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your tax dollars paying to force other people to do what you want.

Can you explain the libertarian case for using the government to force Hellman's to do your bidding, just because you don't want to eat another brand?

----------


## Carlybee

> That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your tax dollars paying to force other people to do what you want.
> 
> Can you explain the libertarian case for using the government to force Hellman's to do your bidding, just because you don't want to eat another brand?


My tax dollars are paying to promote Monsanto to continue to bully farmers and give them the all clear to poison the global seed stock? How is the libertarian case about forcing the populace to support that with tax dollars?

----------


## compromise

> My tax dollars are paying to promote Monsanto to continue to bully farmers and give them the all clear to poison the global seed stock? How is the libertarian case about forcing the populace to support that with tax dollars?


You're changing the debate. I am talking about state-mandated GMO labeling, which I understand you support.

----------


## Carlybee

> You're changing the debate. I am talking about state-mandated GMO labeling, which I understand you support.


I would prefer not to support any mandatory anything but the blatent corporatism with regard to Monsanto is a game changer. The government is forcing GMOs down our throats literally. Without protesting it, it would be a matter of time before all seed stock is contaminated ergo all food products contaminated. The fed vs state mandate would be a moot point. Asking for labeling is really asking to reverse pro Monsanto pro GMO policy which would be the federal level.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You're changing the debate. I am talking about state-mandated GMO labeling, which I understand you support.


Uh, no, actually, nobody is changing the debate.  That's the whole point.  The people who support state-level labeling do so only because they can't (yet) figure out a better idea to hamstring the fascist food dystopia being inflicted upon us from Washington.  It's never been about the labeling, it's always been about the fascism.

Me, I've found a better way than labeling, but I'm still being called 'liberal progressive' by people who should know better, simply because I oppose a kind of fascism they personally don't give a damn about.

Now see, THAT I don't understand at all.  I'm confused enough by members of this forum who are OK with food fascism.  I'm completely bewildered how those of us who openly and actively oppose food fascism are the enemy and get hit with all the BS labels that the neocons use against us.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You're changing the debate. I am talking about state-mandated GMO labeling,


This is absolutely _not_ the correct debate and frankly is why the whole board has the issue spun six ways from Tuesday.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It's never been about the labeling





> This is absolutely _not_ the correct debate and frankly is why the whole board has the issue spun six ways from Tuesday.


If the March Against Monsanto had any point at all, its point seems to have included advocacy for state-mandated GMO labeling:

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:




> we advocate ... Labeling of GMOs


http://occupy-monsanto.com/:




> we advocate ... Labeling of GMOs


Not to mention the numerous participants on RPF explicitly advocating for state-mandated GMO labeling.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If the March Against Monsanto had any point at all, its point seems to have included advocacy of state-mandated GMO labeling:
> 
> http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:
> 
> 
> 
> http://occupy-monsanto.com/


Yeah, I'm a firm proponent of correction rather than political manipulation though. Like I said. Baby steps....

The course of history trumps.

----------


## angelatc

> Since the role of a limited government is to protect Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and GMO food infringes upon that.


I like you too!

No, it doesn't. Like I pointed out in an earlier post, there is no evidence that GMO foods cause any adverse health effects.  If they do, then you should sue them in a government court.  THAT is the proper role of government in this instance.

The constitution outlines which functions the Federal Government is responsible for, and food labeling isn't among them.  Your quote is from the Declatation of Independence, a noble document to be sure, but not the law of the land that was eventually hashed out.

In the ideal world, private firms would certify food safety and standards to the benefit of their customers and their insurance companies.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If the March Against Monsanto had any point at all, its point seems to have included advocacy of state-mandated GMO labeling:
> 
> http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/:
> 
> 
> 
> http://occupy-monsanto.com/
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, because _clearly_ RPF's is chock-full of occupy socialists.  

Collectivism much?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The government is forcing GMOs down our throats literally.


How dramatic.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yes, because _clearly_ RPF's is chock-full of occupy socialists.


Or at least people Marching for Occupy-Socialists' agenda. To its credit, RPF doesn't ban socialists or their dupes from posting here, from what I've seen.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> .
> 
> In the ideal world, private firms would certify food safety and standards to the benefit of their customers and their insurance companies.


Comparable to military contractors defining casualties of the drone program?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I like you too!
> 
> No, it doesn't. Like I pointed out in an earlier post, there is no evidence that GMO foods cause any adverse health effects.  If they do, then you should sue them in a government court.  THAT is the proper role of government in this instance.


Yes it does.  It is a clear violation of liberty, and an act of aggression, to feed someone something they do not want by means of fraud.  Whether it is selling pig anuses as calamari, or putting pork blood into beef and selling it to Muslims and Jews, the issue of 'safety' is wholly irrelevant to the fascistic circumvention of free choice.  Food freedom is an issue of self-ownership, and if I do not have the freedom to decide what to put into my own body then I am a slave.




> The constitution outlines which functions the Federal Government is responsible for, and food labeling isn't among them.  Your quote is from the Declatation of Independence, a noble document to be sure, but not the law of the land that was eventually hashed out.


I'm still not seeing but one or two people on RPFs even speaking kindly about federal labeling schemes much less directly advocating for them, but it is an easy straw man to knock over, so there is that.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Asking for labeling is really asking to reverse pro Monsanto pro GMO policy which would be the federal level.


Correct government-overreach by expanding the reach of government.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Or at least people Marching for Occupy-Socialists' agenda. To its credit, RPF doesn't ban socialists or their dupes from posting here, from what I've seen.


Yes, because _clearly_ there is a large contingent of RPF posters advancing the socialist agenda.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'm still not seeing but one or two people on RPFs even speaking kindly about federal labeling schemes much less directly advocating for them, but it is an easy straw man to knock over, so there is that.


How much would you be willing to wager that it's only two people?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> they are suing taxpayers for being down wind.


Where's the evidence they're doing that? How can I find the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Since when is it the responsibility of the government to arrest farmers who produce non-GMO food and kill their animals?


Where's the evidence that governments are doing that? Is that just another rumor?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How much would you be willing to wager that it's only two people?


So maybe it's three, or there's another one who doesn't say much.  RPF's has thousands of members.  Almost none of whom advocate for federal mandates of any sort, labeling or otherwise.  We oppose fascism.  Dictionary-definition fascism that _you_ are supporting.  But it's all good you see, because he makes the trains run on time.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Where's the evidence they're doing that? How can I find the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?


Disingenuous.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5051994

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Correct government-overreach by expanding the reach of government.


Stopping fascism by prohibiting it's operating principle.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> there is no way of knowing what is in other staples.


You may be personally incapable, but in reality:




> consumers do have access to information; and they have a choice what to eat, and whether to eat GMO's. Where did you get the silly idea that they don't? Did you believe rumors you saw on websites, without ever checking facts? Despite your ranting, neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping consumers from making informed choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> In the ideal world, private firms would certify food safety and standards to the benefit of their customers and their insurance companies.


An Underwriter's Laboratory for foodstuffs.

Yes, I could see how this would work.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Stopping fascism by prohibiting it's operating principle.


Prohibiting fascism's operating-principle by expanding the reach of government.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Disingenuous.


Only a total imbecile would assume I had already seen that other post.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Prohibiting fascism's operating-principle by expanding the reach of government.


What does of the people...by the people...for the people mean to you?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Only a total imbecile would assume I had already seen that other post.


Yes, I am a total imbecile because I oppose your impassioned defense of fascism.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yes, I am a total imbecile because I oppose your impassioned defense of fascism.


Only an imbecile would construe my statement about imbeciles to mean that.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> What does of the people...by the people...for the people mean to you?


It means we should keep expanding the government, and that's not tyranny because we are a democracy.

----------


## Carlybee

> How dramatic.


Not really

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> So maybe it's three, or there's another one who doesn't say much.


What happened to your claim about "one or two"? Anyway, how much would you be willing to wager that it's only four people? How much are your claims worth?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yes, because _clearly_ there is a large contingent of RPF posters advancing the socialist agenda.


There's endless advocacy for government-expansion.

----------


## Carlybee

> You may be personally incapable, but in reality:


You are so incredibly misinformed and have shown no interest in becoming informed, therefore frankly I could care less what you think so I don't know why you keep bothering to respond to me.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Not so being that, although a GMO tomato might visually appear as its organic counterpart, it is no longer so. Hence, it is no longer a Roma or heirloom/heritage or slicer; for it has been structurally altered into something similar, yet vastly distinct--so much so that it is worthy of a protected patent. This same rule applies across the board, be it for: alfalfa, bananas, corn, mangos, et al. All GMO seeds and crops, need to be label with both its own scientific/botanic name and formal/common name. Anything less is, as fact, blatant fraud.


If that's fraud, then isn't it also fraud for companies to sell unlabeled non-GMO foods which visually appear like their GMO counterparts?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Several pages of good discussion have been buried as a result of playing useful idiot with bdtf. I wish that people would stop. It's the poster's only goal here. The fact that it's allowed to continue is very telling in and of itself.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I don't know why you keep bothering to respond to me.


Okay.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There's endless advocacy for government-expansion.


Yes, because people attracted to Ron Paul _clearly_ want endless government.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Several pages of good discussion have been buried as a result of playing useful idiot with bdtf. I wish that people would stop. It's the poster's only goal here. The fact that it's allowed to continue is very telling in and of itself.


There are other forums where support for government-expansion is mandatory, and dissent is censored.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yes, because people attracted to Ron Paul _clearly_ want endless government.


To its credit, RPF allows advocacy inconsistent with Ron Paul's personal platform. Only an imbecile would deny that there's endless advocacy for government-expansion here.

----------


## Carlybee

> Several pages of good discussion have been buried as a result of playing useful idiot with bdtf. I wish that people would stop. It's the poster's only goal here. The fact that it's allowed to continue is very telling in and of itself.



You're right.  He is now on ignore.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You're right.  He is now on ignore.


You keep saying that:




> Oh and I rarely neg rep but you just earned one and an ignore for being willfully retarded.





> Pointless to have reasonable discourse with you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If that's fraud, then isn't it also fraud for companies to sell unlabeled non-GMO foods which visually appear like their GMO counterparts?


A tomato has been a tomato for tens of thousands of years.  They have only been cross-bred with fish and frogs for something like a decade.

When a horse and a donkey breed, the result is a new species - a mule - neither horse nor a donkey, and they are in the same genus, Equus.

A tomato and a fish are not even in the same kingdom.  One is an animal and the other is a plant.  When you cross them, the result is neither a fish nor a tomato.  

If horses and donkeys breeding make a new creature, and if lions and tigers breeding make a new creature, then surely crossing a frog and a tomato makes a new thing altogether.

What I don't understand is how is this not obvious?

----------


## Thor

> A tomato has been a tomato for tens of thousands of years.  They have only been cross-bred with fish and frogs for something like a decade.
> 
> When a horse and a donkey breed, the result is a new species - a mule - neither horse nor a donkey, and they are in the same genus, Equus.
> 
> A tomato and a fish are not even in the same kingdom.  One is an animal and the other is a plant.  When you cross them, the result is neither a fish nor a tomato.  
> 
> If horses and donkeys breeding make a new creature, and if lions and tigers breeding make a new creature, then surely crossing a frog and a tomato makes a new thing altogether.
> 
> What I don't understand is how is this not obvious?


I, for one, have not seen a frog $#@! a tomato and have offspring.  Seems impossible.  Although the soft squishy center might feel good to the frog, no offspring would result. 

You have already explained that to better-dead-than-fed-GMO's....  a couple times.  He is just some stupid kid that is playing your fiddle (or acting like some stupid kid).  I have him on ignore, as do a number of others.  You should too....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I, for one, have not seen a frog $#@! a tomato and have offspring.  Seems impossible.  Although the soft squishy center might feel good to the frog, no offspring would result. 
> 
> You have already explained that to better-dead-than-fed-GMO's....  a couple times.  He is just some stupid kid that is playing your fiddle (or acting like some stupid kid).  I have him on ignore, as do a number of others.  You should too....


Yeah, dude's exhibiting classic troll behavior.  Demanding answers and then completely ignoring them when people give them.  Waiting a little while and then demanding the same answers again, and again completely ignoring them when people give them.  I don't mean to let myself get trolled, but it should be made plainly obvious that this guy is not about intellectual discourse _AT ALL,_ that his aim is either to troll and create division, or to shill for frankenseed.  One way or the other, his behavior reveals that he has some kind of hidden agenda that is not consistent with his claims.  His presence, and his advocacy, has bastardized what should be a fruitful debate into a congress of baboons flinging poo.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yeah, dude's exhibiting classic troll behavior.  Demanding answers and then completely ignoring them when people give them.


In which post have I done that? In which post is there evidence that I've ignored?




> I don't mean to let myself get trolled, but it should be made plainly obvious that this guy is not about intellectual discourse _AT ALL,_ that his aim is either to troll and create division, or to shill for frankenseed.  One way or the other, his behavior reveals that he has some kind of hidden agenda that is not consistent with his claims.  His presence, and his advocacy, has bastardized what should be a fruitful debate into a congress of baboons flinging poo.


By "creating division", you mean my opposition to government-expansion? Do you mean to devote yourself entirely to attending my person, or is your behavior involuntary?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I have him on ignore, as do a number of others.  You should too....


It might be too late for that. He's already tried but failed repeatedly:




> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> We are done.
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.


And he can't explain why he's not keeping his word. He can't hear you anymore. He now exists to attend one man, and one man only.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It might be too late for that. He's already tried but failed repeatedly:
> 
> 
> 
> And he can't explain why he's not keeping his word. He can't hear you anymore. He now exists to attend one man, and one man only.


So what you are saying is your attempts to troll have been successful?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> A tomato has been a tomato for tens of thousands of years.  They have only been cross-bred with fish and frogs for something like a decade.
> 
> When a horse and a donkey breed, the result is a new species - a mule - neither horse nor a donkey, and they are in the same genus, Equus.
> 
> A tomato and a fish are not even in the same kingdom.  One is an animal and the other is a plant.  When you cross them, the result is neither a fish nor a tomato.  
> 
> If horses and donkeys breeding make a new creature, and if lions and tigers breeding make a new creature, then surely crossing a frog and a tomato makes a new thing altogether.
> 
> What I don't understand is how is this not obvious?


You assume that a hybrid between an animal and a plant is neither a plant nor an animal, but your assumption only shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the science of taxonomy.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> So what you are saying is your attempts to troll have been successful?


That's what all obsessive-stalkers say.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's what all obsessive-stalkers say.


That would be another attempt to get my goat.  Classic troll move.

I admit though that I am curious, since you like fascism so much, why are you on "Ron Paul Forums" when pretty much the fundamental point of what we are about is anti-fascism?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Eight national governments in the European Union have banned Monsanto's MON810 maize and other forms of GMO cultivation in their countries

*Austria

Bulgaria

France

 Germany

 Greece

Hungary

Luxembourg

Poland
*

Moving forward...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You assume that a hybrid between an animal and a plant is neither a plant nor an animal,


Yeah, pretty sure I've never said any such thing in my life, but that's OK.  Liars gonna lie.  




> but your assumption only shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the science of taxonomy.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> That would be another attempt to get my goat.  Classic troll move.


That's what all obsessive-stalkers say.




> I admit though that I am curious,


That's an understatement. More like, you're head-over-heels devoted.




> since you like fascism so much, why are you on "Ron Paul Forums" when pretty much the fundamental point of what we are about is anti-fascism?


'k

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> A tomato has been a tomato for tens of thousands of years.  They have only been cross-bred with fish and frogs for something like a decade.
> 
> When a horse and a donkey breed, the result is a new species - a mule - neither horse nor a donkey, and they are in the same genus, Equus.
> 
> A tomato and a fish are not even in the same kingdom.  One is an animal and the other is a plant.  When you cross them, the result is neither a fish nor a tomato.  
> 
> If horses and donkeys breeding make a new creature, and if lions and tigers breeding make a new creature, then surely crossing a frog and a tomato makes a new thing altogether.
> 
> What I don't understand is how is this not obvious?


You assume that a hybrid between a fish and a tomato is neither a fish nor a tomato, but your assumption only shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the science of taxonomy.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*March Against Monsanto - Photos From Around the World - May 25, 2013*

----------


## Barrex

I am with GunnyFreedom on this one... but you should just ignore him. He openly said he refuses to learn and he still debates about very same topic he refuses to educate him self... I find it soo funny.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> He openly said he refuses to learn ...


That would leave a paper-trail. Which post was it?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

The monsanto-march types tend to be hateful, deceitful, and violent.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I am with GunnyFreedom on this one... but you should just ignore him. He openly said he refuses to learn and he still debates about very same topic he refuses to educate him self... I find it soo funny.



Do you live in Croatia, Borrex?

I was reading a paper/report from a Monsanto March over there. _Trying_ to anyway. 

March Against Monsanto - Zagreb, Croatia

----------


## Barrex

> Do you live in Croatia, Borrex?
> 
> I was reading a paper/report from a Monsanto March over there. _Trying_ to anyway. 
> 
> March Against Monsanto - Zagreb, Croatia


Borrex is my good brother. He is boring little saint.

Yes I am in Croatia and Zagreb some of the time. I posted some pictures about it long before this thread went "twilight zone-dimension-weirdo-stuff"...


Also:

I was informed that someone is outhere (or is it in here?) to get my goat. I have family farm and wasnt aware that we got goats but now that I do I am ready to fight to the death to keep what is mine, namely goat. I am ready to go bat$#@!-crazy to keep it!



P.s.

MONSANTO IS EVIL! GOVERNMENT PROTECTIONISM OF MONSANTO IS EVIL TOO!

----------


## Thor

*WRAPUP 1-US genetically modified wheat stokes fears, Japan cancels tender*

By Naveen Thukral and Risa Maeda

SINGAPORE/TOKYO, May 30 (Reuters) - A strain of genetically modified wheat found in the United States fuelled concerns over food supplies across Asia on Thursday, with major importer Japan cancelling a tender offer to buy U.S. grain.

Other top Asian wheat importers South Korea, China and the Philippines said they were closely monitoring the situation after the U.S. government found genetically engineered wheat sprouting on a farm in the state of Oregon.

The strain was never approved for sale or consumption.

Asian consumers are keenly sensitive to gene-altered food, with few countries allowing imports of such cereals for human consumption. However, most of the corn and soybean shipped from the U.S. and South America for animal feed is genetically modified.

"We will refrain from buying western white and feed wheat effective today," Toru Hisadome, a Japanese farm ministry official in charge of wheat trading, told Reuters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday said the wheat variety was developed years ago by biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. It was never put into use because of worldwide opposition to genetically engineered wheat.

Wheat, long known as the staff of life, is the world's largest traded food commodity and it is used in making breads, pastries, cookies, breakfast cereal and noodles.

Asia imports more than 40 million tonnes of wheat annually, almost a third of the global trade of 140-150 million tonnes. The bulk of the region's supplies come from the United States, the world's biggest exporter, and Australia, the No. 2 supplier.

The USDA said there was no sign that genetically engineered wheat had entered the commercial market, but grain traders warned the discovery could hurt export prospects for U.S. wheat.

"Asian consumers are jittery about genetically modified food," said Abah Ofon, an analyst at Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore. "This is adding to concerns that already exist on quality and availability of food wheat globally."

In 2006, a large part of the U.S. long-grain rice crop was contaminated by an experimental strain from Bayer CropScience , prompting import bans in Europe and Japan and sharply lowering market prices. The company agreed in court in 2011 to pay $750 million to growers as compensation.

More at link....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0EB1JC20130530

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Monsanto set to halt GM push in Europe

*The announcement comes amidst a series of recent public relations  battles that have brought the US firm considerable worldwide  attention. 




> _We are no longer lobbying for more cultivation in  Europe,"_ Brandon Mitchner a representative for Monsanto’s  European branch, Tageszeitung, said in an interview set to be  published on Saturday.


Power reverts to the people....

http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/

----------


## Natural Citizen

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted 71  to 27 against an amendment to the farm bill that would have simply allowed  states to decide for themselves if they wanted to require the labeling of foods  that contain _harmful_ _genetically modified  ingredients_.

Full article


*List of Senators Who Betrayed Constituents in Favor of Biotech Dollars:*

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr  (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker  (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cowan (D-MA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Franken  (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan  (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson  (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill  (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson  (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen  (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Wicker  (R-MS)

----------


## Natural Citizen

Regulators  Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops





> In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the  European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most  common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant  fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious  ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even  greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear  indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human  consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including  their natural pest resistance.
> 
> Recall would be a  massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment  to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market  and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.

----------


## pathtofreedom

Adding 3 letters to a box will totally change things.

----------


## idiom

> The problem is simple. The base is illiterate to the science of it.


Or of anything.

This is largely the biggest flaw in most libertarian thinking. It requires a populace, that a) cares, and b) is mentally competent.

America has suffered generations of de-education.

We have 100% voluntary gmo labelling on food here in New Zealand with several non government organisations operating in competition.

Its not that bloody hard to not buy food that doesn't have a non-gmo sticker, or to avoid restaurants that don't have certification in the window.

The is zero need for government labeling.

Monsanto is 100% consumer and voter failure to care.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Or of anything.
> 
> This is largely the biggest flaw in most libertarian thinking. It requires a populace, that a) cares, and b) is mentally competent.
> 
> America has suffered generations of de-education.
> 
> We have 100% voluntary gmo labelling on food here in New Zealand with several non government organisations operating in competition.
> 
> Its not that bloody hard to not buy food that doesn't have a non-gmo sticker, or to avoid restaurants that don't have certification in the window.
> ...


Don't forget the corporatist suppression in the market of ideas.  There is a lot more care to avoid GMO than is apparent because people deliberately don't know much about GMO.  The full collusion with the legislative and regulatory branches to actively express corporate will within the legislative climate helping to hype their own claims, suppress their own errors, and shut down any opposition is the dictionary definition of what Benito Mussolini called "fascism."

Label mandates are not the answer, but the voluntary proliferation of labeling in New Zealand shows that there is a hungry market for it.  If we lived in a feee market, then goods would ordinarily arise to meet that hungry market.  People like to make fun of the sorts of people in America who desperately want to avoid GMO, yet their presence in the market is evident to all -- why has the market not yet arisen to meet that demand?

Because it is being suppressed by things like the Monsanto Protection Act, and their spiritual brethren bills passing into law all over Congress and the 50 Legislatures.  It's corporatism.  The very thing most of us are supposed to be against.

----------


## idiom

Keep in mind that you are talking about a nation that has corn syrup in everything instead of sugar and just thinks its normal.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Keep in mind that you are talking about a nation that has corn syrup in everything instead of sugar and just thinks its normal.


A condition entirely created by sugar tariffs and corn subsidies.

----------


## FrankRep

> On Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted 71  to 27 against an amendment to the farm bill that would have simply allowed  states to decide for themselves if they wanted to require the labeling of foods  that contain _harmful_ _genetically modified  ingredients_.
> 
> Full article



*Rand Paul Was Right to Vote Against Mandatory GMO Labeling*


*Rand Paul:*


"I am an opponent of the FDA's war on natural foods and farmers. I've stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. *I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues.* So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That's what we fight against. That's what the statists do. Take a loot at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed."

Sanders S.Amdt. 2310 to S. 3240 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012) 
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00161

----------


## FrankRep

> Keep in mind that you are talking about a nation that has corn syrup in everything instead of sugar and just thinks its normal.


You can thank the government for that.


*Senate Votes to Continue Sugar Subsidies*

Free-market arguments aren't enough to overcome the political clout of the favored class receiving sugar subsidies from the federal government.

The New American
23 May 2013

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *Rand Paul Was Right to Vote Against Mandatory GMO Labeling*
> 
> 
> *Rand Paul:*
> 
> "I am an opponent of the FDA's war on natural foods and farmers. I've stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. *I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues.* So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That's what we fight against. That's what the statists do. Take a loot at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed."
> 
> Sanders S.Amdt. 2310 to S. 3240 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012) 
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00161


Given what is being said about the bill, then he appears to have voted to take power away from the States.  Powers that are not reserved to Washington DC under the US Constitution.  A Federal Government cannot vote to seize power over issues not delegated to them in the US Constitution.  If that is the case, then it was a very wrong vote.  There may have been other measures in the bill that led to it's rejection that I do not know about now.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by idiom
> 
> 
> *Its not that bloody hard to not buy food that doesn't have a non-gmo sticker, or to avoid restaurants that don't have certification in the window.*
> 
> 
> ... corporatist suppression in the market of ideas... people in America who desperately want to avoid GMO ... why has the market not yet arisen to meet that demand?
> 
> Because it is being suppressed by things like the Monsanto Protection Act....


How has H.R. 933, Section 735 ("Monsanto Protection Act") "suppressed the market of ideas"?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Where, in the US Constitution, does it delegate to Washington DC the power to prohibit individual State labeling laws?

If a specific power is not delegated explicitly to the Federal government nor prohibited to the States, then it is reserved to the States, or the people within them.  

Washington DC has no right to interfere with State's internal powers on GMO disclosure within our Constitutional republican form of government.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How has H.R. 933, Section 735 ("Monsanto Protection Act") "suppressed the market of ideas"?


"Why bother going to Court?  Congress just wrote a law that says they've already won, or no matter who really wins they are immune.  Rock on!"

----------


## FrankRep

> Given what is being said about the bill, then he appears to have voted to take power away from the States.  Powers that are not reserved to Washington DC under the US Constitution.  A Federal Government cannot vote to seize power over issues not delegated to them in the US Constitution.  If that is the case, then it was a very wrong vote.  There may have been other measures in the bill that led to it's rejection that I do not know about now.





> Where, in the US Constitution, does it delegate to Washington DC the power to prohibit individual State labeling laws?


States already have the power to label foods. Why get the federal government involved?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Given *what is being said about the bill*, then he appears to have voted to take power away from the States.


Said by whom, on what basis?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> "Why bother going to Court?  Congress just wrote a law that says they've already won, or no matter who really wins they are immune.  Rock on!"


Whom are you quoting? As if your point in any way supports your claim that H.R. 933, Section 735 ("Monsanto Protection Act") is somehow "suppressing the market of ideas".

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> States already have the power to label foods. Why get the federal government involved?


That's kind of my point.  See, FDA is already exerting pressure to prohibit labeling and some states don't like it, thus the tension.  The point of this bill was to block or prohibit FDA pressuring to suppress free market labeling.  I can already think of better ways to do it, but letting the FDA distort the market on behalf or regulatory capture is madness.

"The States already have a right" is like saying "you are in America, you are already free.  Stop whining about all that stuff you can't do."

Are we really already free?  The States are in fear of exercising any rights as the FDA builds a guillotine in their State capitol.  Nobody says anything, but everyone understands.

If, as it reads, the point of this bill was to BLOCK FedGov from pressuring the States in ways like the FDA and the USDA are demonstrably already doing, then indeed, that is a federal power that is both unconstitutional and needs to be curtailed immediately.  

If Senator Pauls objection was the methodology of the bill (an objection I understand) then let's come out with one that is correct on principle which America can unite around.  

I would like to see a bill premised on strictly "The federal government nor it's regulatory agents have the power nor the authority to interfere with: a, b, c.  This is not an exhaustive list, but surrendering to the human need for specificity, is designed for a State to build a body of exception.  

1) Washington DC does not have the authority to regulate trade, markets, or ideas that occur entirely within a State.  The influence that arises from those actions is how the American experiment is supposed to work.  "May the best man win" and then everybody tries doing what the winner did, and we all live happily ever after.  Washington DC does not have the power to tell the States what to do in the regulation of any food or drug that remains entirely within the State.  That power belongs to the State (and the people of those States) alone under the American Constitutional form of government.

2) Washington DC does not have the authority to use executive power or regulatory battery to suppress the speech of any people or company wholly within any State in the union.  FDA and USDA and other bodys' interference in the free markets by letters and regulations tailored to preference the companies sponsoring captured regulators is anathema to the free market, and neither the federal government nor their regulatory agencies will have the power to prohibit or suppress the actions of any State.  

3) Washington DC does not have the standing in Court to sue for power that it does not have.

----------


## idiom

> You can thank the government for that.
> 
> 
> *Senate Votes to Continue Sugar Subsidies*
> 
> Free-market arguments aren't enough to overcome the political clout of the favored class receiving sugar subsidies from the federal government.
> 
> The New American
> 23 May 2013


I know the reasons, my point is that if Americans can't understand that having HFCS instead of sugar is a bad idea and the stupidity that causes them to be uniquely popular in America, then how are they ever going to deal with more esoteric issues like GMO?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> That's kind of my point.  See, FDA is already exerting pressure to prohibit labeling and some states don't like it, thus the tension.  The point of this bill was to block or prohibit FDA pressuring to suppress free market labeling.  I can already think of better ways to do it, but letting the FDA distort the market on behalf or regulatory capture is madness.
> 
> "The States already have a right" is like saying "you are in America, you are already free.  Stop whining about all that stuff you can't do."
> 
> Are we really already free?  The States are in fear of exercising any rights as the FDA builds a guillotine in their State capitol.  Nobody says anything, but everyone understands.
> 
> If, as it reads, the point of this bill was to BLOCK FedGov from pressuring the States in ways like the FDA and the USDA are demonstrably already doing, then indeed, that is a federal power that is both unconstitutional and needs to be curtailed immediately.  
> 
> If Senator Pauls objection was the methodology of the bill (an objection I understand) then let's come out with one that is correct on principle which America can unite around.  
> ...


Evidence, or it never happened. Most of that paranoid diatribe was debunked long ago.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I know the reasons, my point is that if Americans can't understand that having HFCS instead of sugar is a bad idea and the stupidity that causes them to be uniquely popular in America, then how are they ever going to deal with more esoteric issues like GMO?


Who cares?  The subsidized and regulated market is not allowed to suppress that information anymore than they can mandate.  Let the markets do what they want to.  First we have to unlock the handcuffs and the leg-irons that the market is in right now due to captured regulation.  Suppression is as bad as mandating disclosures, or worse, because it also has a way of racketeering.

Right now, a market of captured regulations and regulators is suppressing free will disclosures on the part of free market companies across America, based on unconstitutional powers given to Congress and the Presidents regulatory agents such as the FDA and the USDA.

Suppression of free-will disclosures is a power that is not delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution.  Therefore, the US Government must be forbad from doing it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Right now, a market of captured regulations and regulators is suppressing free will disclosures on the part of free market companies across America


There's no evidence supporting your claims, and you've demonstrated that you're willing to make claims that you know are false.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There's no evidence supporting your claims, and you've demonstrated that you're willing to make claims that you know are false.


I underestimated the support for _mandatory federal labeling_ on _Ron Paul Forums._  So sue me.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I underestimated the support for _mandatory federal labeling_ on _Ron Paul Forums._  So sue me.


Really though, you understated said support, and then you showed that you knew your claim was false. And you've done the same thing here:




> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> For months now...
> 
> 
> Now you're just lying, or totally delusional.


I'm not suggesting a lawsuit, but your own conduct does cast doubt on all the other unsubstantiated claims you're making.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Really though, you understated said support, and then you showed that you knew your claim was false. Your own conduct casts doubt on all the other unsubstantiated claims you're making.


Or, on the other hand, just go ahead and start poisoning the well.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Or, on the other hand, just go ahead and start poisoning the well.


That's your description of the catalog of your evident lies on this forum?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well


The link says:




> Poisoning the well is a rhetorical technique and logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from *actual evidence* in an argument.


Really though, I'm not distracting from *actual evidence*, because you've posted no *actual evidence*; e.g. here.

When you make such claims but fail to support them with evidence, it calls into question your credibility, to which your catalog of lies is entirely relevant.

Thanks for posting a link underscoring the value of evidence.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Or of anything.
> 
> This is largely the biggest flaw in most libertarian thinking. It requires a populace, that a) cares, and b) is mentally competent.
> 
> America has suffered generations of de-education.


Yep. What compounds the matter is that we have a generation full of people who are actually themselves _products of_ many, many other government controlled markets and have grown used to defending the model without understanding it. Reagan era was a prime enabler for this as these corporations were finally allowed to specifically target _a generation_ through lobby. The process itself has become infused into perception as some theoretically acceptable process.

But we're seeing a world wide trend in the fact that people aren't particularly as participatory in purely _political_ narratives and want to understand the nuts and bolts of exactly _how_ they are at the receiving end. This is how the course of history itself will continue to change. Some may disagree with it in effect but change is not a one sided phenomenon. The hurry up and get elected crowd surely wants to control the terms of controversy in a manner that would unfortunately and subsequently allow the Monsantos of the world to continue these glorified science experiments on a natural species via some "they have the right" scenario but the larger issue in the eyes of the people from around the world isn't about defending corporate right to legislate. It's about defending their natural personhood from corporate hijacking and applied sciences that come with it that would literally place patents on their very being. I'm rather glad that people are asking the correct questions. Better late than never, I suppose.

As well, the hijacking of scientific review at the hand of some of these companies like Monsanto is beginning to become transparent as the science community alerts to the malfeasance. We'll see the same folks who lobby for the Monsantos of the world begin to attempt to disrupt those terms of controversy with the historic political global warming narrative in a manner that is assumed to sway concern from what it is that Monsanto is actually doing with these totalitarian science experiments against a species and back toward the nonsensical sheeple speak. Although this is expected and certainly predictable human nature, it too will fail.

Doesn't really have to be that way though. The fact that purely political people don't want to associate themselves with a model for scientific position is one of the most baffling things to me. There is such a tremendous opportunity in doing so. Also tremendously damaging outliers in _not_. After all. Monsanto is merely one aspect of where technology/sciences are relevant to a stronghold over the people and one that the people are pushing back from and they'll certainly find the worm in other apples. Just haven't taken a bite yet.

----------


## Thor

*GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush!
Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn* 

 If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)

The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.

The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.

Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.

"Adverse effects... toxic effects... clear evidence"
The study was jointly announced by GM Watch and Sustainable Pulse.

Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, "We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture."

The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:



More:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GM..._stomachs.html

----------


## Natural Citizen

> a recent survey by Which? found that 71 per cent of Britons believe GM food, and meat from animals fed on GM food, should be banned from supermarkets. A further 15 per cent are ‘undecided’. In other words, just over one in ten thinks it’s a good idea.
> But in modern government, where big policy decisions are taken behind closed doors, the opinions of ordinary folk play second fiddle to the self-interested demands of big business.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Ministers.html


Aside... Chemical, used by Monsanto, found in urine of Europeans - study

----------


## Ender

> The link says:
> 
> 
> 
> Really though, I'm not distracting from *actual evidence*, because you've posted no *actual evidence*; e.g. here.
> 
> When you make such claims but fail to support them with evidence, it calls into question your credibility, to which your catalog of lies is entirely relevant.
> 
> Thanks for posting a link underscoring the value of evidence.


Too bad you don't know the meaning of Grok.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Too bad you don't know the meaning of Grok.


'k

----------


## Natural Citizen

CFIA Blocks Only Independent ISA Salmon Virus Testing Lab

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/...s-testing-lab/

----------


## Natural Citizen

Investor-market karma....




> Mr. Umiastowski adds that the trend will be toward more ingredient labeling, not less. And, this poses a big danger to Monsanto.  Equally important, he continues, personally, Id rather own a business that is not only growing at a solid clip, but feels good to hold in my portfolio.  _For me, Monsanto doesnt cut it._


Monsanto Stock in Danger


Aside...  Another win for Monsanto: US raises allowable levels of companys pesticide in crops

Obviously we won't hear about this from any mainstream outlets here. Go figger...

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Another win for Monsanto: US raises allowable levels of company’s pesticide in crops


More freedom for consumers and producers. Another win for freedom.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> More freedom for consumers and producers. Another win for freedom.


True.  But the up-side is very slight.  We need to just get the state out of food entirely.

----------


## donnay

> More freedom for consumers and producers. Another win for freedom.


That statement is ridiculous on so many levels.  Ignorance is not freedom.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Ignorance is not freedom.


 The latitude to act in ways you choose, even if others find it ignorant?  Actually yes, that is freedom.

To be protected from ignorance, even from someone so well-informed and 100% correct on everything as donnay?  No, that is not freedom.

I choose freedom.

----------


## Ender

> 'k


grok: /grok/, /grohk/, vt.

[common; from the novel Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian word meaning literally to drink and metaphorically to be one with] The emphatic form is grok in fullness. 

    1. To understand. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge. When you claim to grok some knowledge or technique, you are asserting that you have not merely learned it in a detached instrumental way but that it has become part of you, part of your identity. For example, to say that you know is simply to assert that you can code in it if necessary  but to say you grok is to claim that you have deeply entered the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implication that it has transformed your view of programming. Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced as a single brief flash. See also glark. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Grok (disambiguation).

Grok /ˈɡrɒk/ is a word coined by Robert A. Heinlein for his 1961 science-fiction novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, where it is defined as follows:

    Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observedto merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and scienceand it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.

From the physical point of view, the mutual grokking of two ensembles of matter waves is their mutual constructive interference, also known as quantum entanglement:

    Those who are grokking are momentarily vibrating on the same frequency and wavelength.

        Koss, Ron; Koss, Arnie ♦ The Earth's Best Story Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010, p. 8

The Oxford English Dictionary defines grok as "to understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with" and "to empathise or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment". Other forms of the word include groks (present third person singular), grokked (past participle) and grokking (present participle).

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> We need to just get the state out of food entirely.


I agree completely. Imagine if the granola people worked to eliminate farm subsidies, instead of working to add government regulations. Elimination of farm subsidies would hit Monsanto where it counts, but the granola people seem to have other agendas.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> More freedom for consumers and producers. Another win for freedom.


But what about the people? The human species? Consumers, producers....tweeters, workers, average voters....this is all the kind of language we get from the Frank Luntz type mindset. 

Is what is wrong with the world. Nobody remembers who they are. And so then rarely do they speak of these freedoms in the correct term. Freedom for whom? The very entities that seek to physically change the very being of a natural species. 

As always...is a battle for citizenship/representation. And again the question is... who speaks for the people? The real ones, mind you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Farmers To Face Fines Or Prison Sentences For Selling Food Directly To Customers




> Why are hard-working normally law-abiding farmers aligning with urban and suburban consumers to flaunt well-established food safety regulations and statutes? Why are parents, who want only the best for their children, seeking out food that regulators say could be dangerous? And, why are regulators and prosecutors feeling so threatened by this trend?
> 
> Members of these private food groups often buy from local farmers because they want food from animals that are treated humanely, allowed to roam on pasture, and not treated with antibiotics. “I really want food that is full of nutrients and the animals to be happy and content,” says Jenny DeLoney, a Madison, WI, mother of three young children who buys from Hershberger.
> 
> To these individuals, many of whom are parents, safety means not only food free of pathogens, but food free of pesticides, antibiotic residues, and excessive processing. It means food created the old-fashioned way—from animals allowed to eat grass instead of feed made from genetically modified (GMO) grains—and sold the old-fashioned way, privately by the farmer to the consumer, who is free to visit the farm and see the animals.
> 
> Many of these consumers have viewed the secretly-made videos of downer cows being prodded into slaughterhouses and chickens so crammed into coops they can barely breathe.
> 
> These consumers are clearly interpreting “safety” differently than the regulators. Some of these consumers are going further than claiming contract rights—they are pushing their towns and cities to legitimize private farmer-consumer arrangements.
> ...

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> More freedom for consumers and producers. Another win for freedom.
> 
> 
> this is all the kind of language we get from the Frank Luntz type mindset.


I have never heard of him.




> But what about the people? The human species? Consumers, producers....tweeters, workers, average voters....


Those are the people I was referring to, and they get more freedom from the deregulation which you describe as "another win for Monsanto".

You seem all for deregulation in this post, but when it comes to freedom for people who want to sell and buy Monsanto products, you suggest that these are not "real" human beings deserving of the same freedoms you want for yourself. There are plenty of politicians who will pander to your special interests, but right here is probably the last place you will find them.

----------


## Natural Citizen

The movement against GMOs and, more importantly, the special privileges granted to agribusiness giants like Monsanto, spreads to Chile

Chile fights GMO in national protest against ‘Monsanto law’

According to the article Chileans are under no illusions about the effect and the goal of the law..




> _“’This law puts seeds into the hands of a few transnational companies,’_ said Ivan Santandreu, a member of Chile Sin Transgenicos (Chile without GMOs) on Radio Universidad de Chile. ‘_This measure does not contribute to the innovation and wellbeing of independent farmers at all. What it does is put food sovereignty at risk by making it dependent on big corporations.’”_





> “Monsanto has been the target of mass protests recently over the safety of their genetically modified products. In spite of the fact the transnational maintains its products are all perfectly safe, _serious doubts have been raised. The transnational has been trying to expand into Europe, but has been thwarted by bans on GMO products in France and Germany.”_

----------


## Natural Citizen

US farmers challenging Monsanto patent claims appeal to Supreme Court....




> Seventy-three US farmers, seed companies, and public advocacy  groups appealed their case against Monsanto Co. to the Supreme  Court on Thursday.  
> 
>   The case seeks to challenge Monsantos aggressive claims on  patents of genetically-engineered  seeds and aims to bar the  chemical and biotech company from suing anyone whose field is  contaminated by such seeds.  
> 
>   Monsanto has in the past sued over 100 farmers for patent  infringement and won cases against farmers who were found to have  used seeds without paying the company royalties.  
> 
> The  plaintiffs filing cites evidence proving that the  genetically-engineered seeds have negative economic and health  effects, while the supposed benefits for food production and  avoiding toxic pesticides are weak.  
> 
> _As the leading arbiters of justice in the US, it behooves the  Supreme Court to hear this important case to protect Americas  farmers from abusive patent infringement lawsuits and invalidate  Monsantos flawed patents as their products have been shown to be  damaging to human health and the environment and failed to live  up to the marketing hype,_ Dave Murphy, a plaintiff in the  case and founder of the advocacy group Food Democracy Now, said  in a statement.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed



----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> the use of potentially harmful chemicals in food production, something Monsanto says is the only way to feed the globe's growing population.


Do the Monsanto Marchers doubt that Monsanto is correct about this?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do the Monsanto-Marchers doubt that Monsanto is correct about this?


Surely not. What's it have to do with anything that these people oppose?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Do the Monsanto-Marchers doubt that Monsanto is correct about this?


Yep, there's overpopulation on the way.  So, let's figure out how to feed more people, even it poisons them and other plant/insect life, so that we can get to, what, 14 billion?  24 billion? 100 billion?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Surely not. What's it have to do with anything that these people oppose?


My impression is that the large majority of Monsanto-Marchers are also in favor of government programs that tax some people to provide 'support' (food, health care, and housing) for other people. These programs push the population upwards. So the marchers march one day for programs that push the population upwards, and then march the next day against agriculture-technology which is necessary if you want to feed an overpopulated world. I have this impression of Monsanto-Marchers in part because of the organizational role played by the Occupy communists.

I am not assuming that you or anyone else posting on RPF is a communist set on increasing the population, so please don't take what I have said personally; it's just my impression of the typical non-RPF Monsanto Marcher.

Actually there is one poster here who declared communist leanings, but that was not you, so please don't take it personally.




> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> I am advocating _not_ robbing gas from people; and I am advocating _not_ attempting to drive the population up without limit. Are you advocating that we should do those things?
> 
> 
> You're advocating the killing of millions of people

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yep, there's overpopulation on the way.  So, let's figure out how to feed more people, even it poisons them and other plant/insect life, so that we can get to, what, 14 billion?  24 billion? 100 billion?


Thank you. That is what I'm trying to say.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yep, there's overpopulation on the way.  So, let's figure out how to feed more people, even it poison them and other plant/insect life, so that we can get to, what, 14 billion?  24 billion? 100 billion?



The idea is to diminish that population. Of course, this demands an understanding of the science itself.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thank you. That is what I'm trying to say.


But you didn't say anything. You posted some graph you found on the internet. Why do you think Monsanto concerns themselves with population numbers considering that growth and survival are two completely different phenomenon.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> growth and survival are two completely different phenomenon.


How are they different? What is Occupy's goal, if not the complete elimination of death itself? What form of death is acceptable to them? Not even dying of old age is allowed, as you can always tax people another $100,000 to extend an old person's life another minute, and anything less would be murder in Occupy's deranged mind.




> Why do you think Monsanto concerns themselves with population numbers


The people want the government to provide artificially inexpensive food, so the people support welfare (subsidies) for the agricultural industry, and Monsanto is the result.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> How are they different? What is Occupy's goal, if not the complete elimination of death itself? What form of death is acceptable to them? Not even dying of old age is allowed, as there's always another $100,000 you can spend to extend an old person's life another minute, and anything less would be murder in Occupy's deranged mind.
> 
> 
> The people want the government to provide artificially inexpensive food.


Which people say this? Corporations like Monsanto are only "people" I see spending millions each year to lobby these notions.

----------


## FrankRep

Oct. 12, 2013:

*Protesters in 50 countries march against MONSANTO...*
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-march-berlin-protest-115/

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The idea is to diminish that population.


Whose idea?




> Of course, this demands an understanding of the science itself.


(Can anyone explain what she is talking about?)




> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> What is Occupy's goal, if not the complete elimination of death itself? What form of death is acceptable to them? Not even dying of old age is allowed, as you can always tax people another $100,000 to extend an old person's life another minute, and anything less would be murder in Occupy's deranged mind.
> 
> 
> Which people say this? Corporations like Monsanto are only "people" I see spending millions each year to lobby these notions.


You didn't really say anything. You just posted some words you saw on an Occupy website. I'll leave you to your preaching.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You didn't really say anything. You just posted some words you saw on an Occupy website. I'll leave you to your preaching.



Excuse me? Let me tell you something. _Nothing_ I type on any of these pages comes from anyone but me. Find someone else to play with. You're an amateur and know nothing of the infrastructure of the minions you support. It's obvious. Communism doesn't sell anymore. Pick another meme. Useful idiot...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> (Can anyone explain what she is talking about?)


And there you have it. Can't believe they let you out. As much as I loathe censorship it's back on ignore with you.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Excuse me? Let me tell you something. _Nothing_ I type on any of these pages comes from anyone but me.


Not a single word you typed was original. You just evaded my question and parroted Occupy propaganda.




> Your an amateur and know nothing of the infrastructure of the minions you support.


You're like an awesome economist and scientist all rolled into one.




> It's obvious. Comunism doesn't sell anymore.


Oh I see.




> Pick another meme. Useful idiot...


It's like you're trying to say something but your mouth is filled with marbles and you're just mumbling and grunting.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Not a single word you typed was original.
> 
> 
> You're like an awesome economist and scientist all rolled into one.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I see.
> 
> ...


You know. The fact that this issue isn't taken very seriously by the moderators here (because you never see it on the front page) and that you're allowed to just run amok and troll discussion makes me think it's your specific job to do that. 

You will lose. As will those who let you run amok. 

Bye now.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> makes me think


I can see the results. Impressive as always.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I can see the results. Impressive as always.


What is your $#@!ing problem?  Did you take a deal?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> What is your $#@!ing problem?


Just responding to her insults and personal attacks. What's your problem with that? Why are you using bad words?




> Did you take a deal?


I have no idea what you're asking or referring to?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_schwartz




> [Lasn] founded [Adbusters magazine]....  In a lilting voice, he speaks of... "killing capitalism".... He registered OccupyWallStreet.org....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement




> Adbusters had been trying to "rally it around a single, clear demand" for a Robin Hood tax


https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbu...robinhood.html




> let's the people of the world rise up and demand that our G20 leaders immediately impose a... #ROBINHOOD tax on all financial transactions and currency trades.


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-10272011.html




> They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards.

----------


## Natural Citizen

'No Monsanto!': World marches against GMO food




> Thousands took to streets across the world’s cities on Saturday to protest the use of GMO products, with Giant Monsanto being the main target. Over 50 countries have been taking part in the march for world food day, and across 47 different US states.
> 
>   Berlin, Strasbourg, Chicago, London, Sydney and Mumbai are just a  few of the 500 cities worldwide involved in the rallies, with each one drawing  hundreds.  
> 
>   The demonstrators have been calling for the permanent boycott of  Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and _“other harmful  agro-chemicals,”_ according to March Against Monsanto’s  official webpage. 
> 
> Protesters in Washington told RT’s Anissa Naouai that Monsanto  lobbyists were hard at work even though the government was shut  down. March organizers also said that Saturday’s event was just  the beginning, and that the momentum for the protests would  build.  
> 
>   The rallies  come four days ahead of World Food Day on Oct.  16 and are a direct attack on what the organizers term Monsanto’s  “predatory business,” genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and  other harmful pesticides, which threaten _“health, fertility  and longevity.”_ 
> ...






RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark and while corporate media in the U.S has ignored blowback regarding the lobby, the issue continues to gain momentum as a result of platforms such as these.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I don't know the political affiliation breakdown of people marching against Monsanto.  I would think it might somewhat mirror the population as a whole, meaning that a vast majority come from the so-called "left."  The representations of so-called "libertarians" might be a little higher than the population as a whole, but we know these minority numbers often get drowned out.

I think the issue is every bit politics as it is science because the reasons for poverty and food issues are often very political.  Either way, it's a very uneasy alliance, especially for libertarians.  This means that liberty minded people marching with so-called leftists need to be wary and diligent. 

I have been in a few anti-war marches like this.  My impression is that the left views their liberty partners with a somewhat patronizing, if not condescending attitude.  Sure, they love it when veterans and a Republican join their ranks, but it probably has more to do with opportunism than anything else.

The world views of liberty minded people and those from the left are fundamentally different. This makes me question any type of coalition.  It's very true that many in the left aspire for population density, as evidenced in Agenda 21.  Their aspirations to feed the world ironically hinge upon the government intervention that build Frankenstein monsters like Monsanto.  Sure, eliminate Monsanto, but they'll only be replaced by another monster because the fundamental issue of government intervention (e.g., subsidies) remains.

I never got involved in these marches are probably won't.  I got tired of the self-righteous, myopic, and hypocritical people that want to limit business, but then also empower government. 

I can't profess to know an answer.  It's sort of this tension between _The enemy of my enemy is my friend_ and just going your own way.  I recognize that there is power in numbers, but am somewhat able to go my own way with food.  I recognize it's matter of degree because you can't escape global contamination, but haven't figured that out so far.

I recognize my view is probably very limited because I don't fully understand all the issues.  Just my observations and nothing scientific.  I've also been out of the loop for awhile, so those marchers can feel free to critique anything I've said about marching. 

Anyway, Detroit and Boston are playing, so it's time for something really important.

----------


## Natural Citizen

On now and for the next two hours... Leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified foods, Jeffrey Smith, is discussing the latest findings on the epidemic of gluten related disorders, and their relationship to GMO foods.

As always these discussions reach far beyond the main points of the particular headline. Expect updates on the recent March against Monsanto that took place in 60 countries across the globe as well but will remain minimal to avoid getting off topic of the scientific aspects of the issue. I'll try to get a transcript on it and add here when it's over because it should yield a wealth of information for those who just aren't informed regarding the science. 

Live stream... http://www.newsradioklbj.com/Other/Stream.html


Smith's web sites:

seedsofdeception.comnongmoshoppingguide.com


Action: http://gmosummit.org/

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monsanto's Permanent Revolving Door in Washington... major conflicts of interest between top government officials who have personal stakes in the company.





Aside... Washington state sues lobbying group opposed to GMO food labeling effort





> A lobbying group for major US manufacturers has violated Washington state campaign finance law while opposing a ballot initiative that would require labeling genetically-modified foods, according to a lawsuit filed by the state attorney general Wednesday.
> 
>   The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) ran afoul of state law  in collecting and spending $7.2 million against ballot initiative  522 - which voters will consider in November - while not  disclosing the individual donors funneling contributions to the  organization, alleged State Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
> 
> _"Truly fair elections demand all sides follow the rules by  disclosing who their donors are and how much they are spending to  advocate their views,"_ Ferguson said in a statement.
> 
>   The measure would require the proper labeling of goods which  contain ingredients with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs),  as well as the labeling of seeds and seed products containing  GMOs sold in the state.
> 
>   With over $7 million spent, GMA is the largest donor to the  _“No on I-522”_ campaign. GMA and other opponents have  raised over $17 million, spending $13 million thus far, in the  effort to block labeling.
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Los Angeles may become largest GMO-free area in the US



> OFarrell said suspicions that powerful new pesticides -  incorporated into plant DNA via genetic engineering - have  devastated worldwide honeybee populations by 40 to  50 percent in 2012 is the _canary in the coal mine_ for  GMOs. Californias almond crop, which supplies 80 percent of US  almonds, has fallen on tough times given almonds rely so much on  bees.  
> 
> _A growing number of problems are being traced to GMOs,"_  Koretz said in a statement. He cited examples like _"the  evolution of 'superbug' insects which are growing immune to the  pesticides engineered within GMO crops"_ and _"'seed drift'  (for example the recent finding of GMO-pollinated wheat growing  in an Oregon farmers field)."_
> 
>   Some smaller US localities have banned the cultivation of GMOs,  but LA would be by far the biggest US city to do so.  
> 
>   Genetic engineering on plants, for example, occurs when a gene  from another plant species, bacterium or virus is inserted into  the organism's DNA.  
> 
>   An international group of over 90 scientists, academics and  physicians released a statement early this week saying there is  no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for humans, as  proponents like Monsanto attest, and that any GMO cultivation should  take internationally-approved precautions.  
> ...

----------


## Athan

> My far left uncle is attending this march.  The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.


For once, send him a thank you for attending this march.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monsanto’s pesticides poisoning Argentina – report




> Pesticides sold by Monsanto are behind health problems ranging from birth defects to elevated rates of cancer in Argentina, a report has revealed.


Aside.. Monsanto denies its pesticides behind Argentine health problems




> In spite of Monsanto’s claims that the chemical glyphosate is  proven to be completely safe, the study found evidence it can be  harmful.  
> Molecular biologist Dr. Andres Carrasco, of the University of  Buenos Aires, injected small samples of the chemical into  embryos, which caused a change in retinoic acid level – a  substance fundamental for keeping cancer in check.
> 
>   Researchers observed the same changes in frogs and cattle with  spinal defects inhabiting the areas where chemicals were used.
> 
> _“If it's possible to reproduce this in a laboratory, surely  what is happening in the field is much worse,"_ Carrasco said.  _"And if it's much worse, and we suspect that it is, what we  have to do is put this under a magnifying glass.”_

----------


## Natural Citizen

No scientific consensus on GMO safety




> Consider this article, and its signatories:
> 
> No scientific consensus on GMO safety (See also Global Scientists Issue Stunning GMO Safety Warning)
> 1 First signatories to the statement “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”
> 
> The article confirms what most of us has known all along: the calm reassurances from corporate scientists and bought-and-paid-for government agencies on the safety of GMOs was another example of how big money corrupts science and perverts it, and in the process, damages the reputation of science itself, and those are the hidden implications spelled out in rather more lengthy and academic fashion in these statements:_
> The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists, journalists, and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops were generally found safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls these claims “misleading”, adding, “This claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”
> 
> 
> ...


And if you don’t think that’s coming, think again:
Mexico Bans GMO Corn, Effective Immediately

----------


## Natural Citizen

Mexico Bans GMO Corn, Effective Immediately

The decision comes just days after thousands of people in over 50 countries participated in the global March Against Monsanto.





> After years of deliberation, a Mexico judge has placed an indefinite ban on genetically-engineered corn. Effective immediately, companies like Monsanto and DuPont/Pioneer will no longer be allowed to plant or sell their corn within the country’s borders.
> 
> The ruling means that Monsanto and other biotech companies will be required to halt all activities in the country, giving collective action lawsuits initiated by citizens, farmers, scientists and other concerned parties a chance to work their way through the judicial system.
> 
> This is a huge victory for the Mexican people, and provides at least temporary protection for the 20,000 varieties of corn grown in Mexico and Central America.


Mexico is the birthplace of corn in the world. Maize known in some English-speaking countries as corn, was domesticated by indigenous people in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times.

Aside... Mexico and Hawaii Ban GMO as People Worldwide March against Monsanto




> Rene Sanchez Galindo, the legal council for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, stated that the ruling of Judge Jaime Verdugo constitutes a milestone in the long struggle of citizen demands for a GMO free country. Galindo added, that the ruling has serious enforcement provisions and includes the possibility of criminal charges for the authorities responsible for allowing the introduction of transgenic corn in Mexico.
> 
> Especially* Monsanto is internationally infamous for its use of lobbyists within the governments of nations where it is doing business, leading elected officials to effectively represent Monsanto rather than their electorate.* Corruption with regards to Monsanto is rampant and well documented, so is the transnational giant´s abuse of the country’s judicial system and the strategy to draw opponents into protracted legal battles which often lead to the bankruptcy of the plaintiff.
> 
> The ruling by Judge Jaime Eduardo Verdugo is setting a clear signal to the members of Mexico´s regulatory authorities by making them liable to criminal charges if they violate the rules.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Monsanto is a corporation doing nothing illegal.
> 
> The real target should be the bureaucracy in DC.
> 
> Kind of like Occupy targeting the big banks when they should be targeting the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Warlord is embarrassed by this spectacle.


OH it's ok if you poison my food, as long as it isn't against the law.

----------


## osan

> Mexico Bans GMO Corn, Effective Immediately
> 
> The decision comes just days after thousands of people in over 50 countries participated in the global March Against Monsanto.
> Aside... Mexico and Hawaii Ban GMO as People Worldwide March against Monsanto


Unlike most folks with an opinion on this subject, I tend to take the skeptic's position on GMO.  That aside, one must also consider the nature of the modification because fundamentally different alterations can be categorized differently.  It is clear that certain categories of genetic alteration is bad.  For example, a modification to an organism that causes it to produce tetrodotoxin (poison from the blowfish, AKA "TTX") would probably be "bad".  One that would produce wildly carcinogenic substances would likely also be viewed the same way.  Therefore, such mods might fit into a particular category.  One that simply alters color, on the other hand, might be completely harmless.  Of course, it also might not be, but perhaps the point I am trying to make is clear?

For the record, I don't much care for the idea of these sorts of genetic muck raking.  Living organisms are so vastly complex in biochemical terms that I see no way to be able to safely predict all the possible unintended results and their consequences.  Organic chemistry is inherently complex due to the nature of carbon, which tends to form compounds in ways that are combinatorially broad.  This is why organic chemistry has such strong statistical roots.  These compounds and radicals can form virtually unlimited numbers of different arrangements between the individual components.  This is why pharmaceutical companies discover and devise more and more "medicines".  The possibilities are practically endless.  The biochemical subset of organic chemistry is not much different in this respect.  What may appear as a relatively innocuous and predictable alteration may produce some hair raising results.  I am not saying it will happen, but only that one ought not be so confident as to say it cannot.

The idea of mucking around in this vastly mysterious realm leaves me feeling uneasy, and for good reason.  There is normative "science" - what it ought to be, and there is positive science, which includes a $#@!-ton of arrogant lunatics who think they know what they are doing when in fact they have proven themselves very much the opposite.  Geneticists are prime examples of this.  For years that community referred to "junk" DNA and many proclaimed it had no purpose, that it was nothing more than perhaps the vestiges of evolutionary dead-ends and so forth.  I remember the first time I'd read about this the only thing that came to mind was that these people are dangerously arrogant imbeciles.  I do not believe God, for some definition of that term, $#@!s up.  The apparent economy of design in the universe and especially in living systems suggests to me little to no possibility that the Great Engineer, having gone so anal about efficiency in the macrocosm would be so sloppy at the genetic level.  To believe this suggests raving, hollering idiocy.  To assert that 90% of one's DNA is nothing but God's grand $#@! up or laziness to clean up after himself connotes stupidity that the intelligent man can only pray will be answered with a Darwin Award.  Such stupidity and arrogance actually pisses me off, and not too many things succeed at that.  As a young man I bid myself wait and see whether the day would arrive when one of these rocket surgeons would finally come out with the great discovery that the so-called "junk" DNA actually has an active role in the game of life.  Sure enough, just a couple of years ago these pillars of hubris did just that.  Pardon me, but what blithering idiots, and yet these are the very sorts of people who are screwing about with our foods.  I am not sure this will end well if we do not stop it, even though certain categories of modification are yet to be proven harmful.

Bear in mind that science is but a tool, and that one should always bear in mind the old saw from my cubicle wall at Bell Labs: A fool with a tool is still a fool.

----------


## Natural Citizen

GMO Ban Moving Ahead in Josephine County, Oregon...





> Despite the state of Oregon’s passage of SB 863, an attempt to preempt local regulation of agriculture and reserve that right to the state, Josephine County is going ahead with an initiative to ban the planting of GMO crops.


*The Josephine County, Oregon, 2014 Initiative*


*Section 1. Title 
*
This Ordinance shall be known as the Josephine County Genetically Engineered Plant Ordinance

*Section 2. Purpose and Findings 
*
1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to:

1. Maintain and protect seed sovereignty and local control, free from outside corporate interests and unnecessary and overreaching preemption by the state and federal governments, of this County’s agriculture, environment, public health, economy and private property rights as they pertain to genetic contamination from genetically engineered plants; 

2. Prohibit any person, corporation or entity from propagating, raising, or growing genetically engineered plants in Josephine County; and

3. Enable Josephine County to enforce the genetically engineered plant ban and recover the costs of such enforcement.

2. This Ordinance supports the health, welfare and economic viability of the citizens of Josephine County, who desire to:

1. Maintain and protect their inherent sovereign right to grow crops from natural seeds, in order to sustain their families and communities as they have already successfully done for generations;

2. Protect the County’s agriculture, environment, public health, economy and private property from the physical, environmental and monetary damages linked to genetically modified organisms; and

3. Support the right to farm and garden in this County, as the citizens of Josephine County assert that the propagation, cultivation, growing and dispersal of genetically modified organisms are not reasonable or prudent farming practices and instead threaten the health, welfare and economic viability of that inherent right to farm and garden.

*Section 3. Definitions. 
*
1. “DNA” means “deoxyribonucleic acid,” which is the genetic material that is present in every cell of an organism and is the “blueprint” for the organism’s development.

2. “Genetic contamination” means the dispersal or spread of altered genetic information from genetically engineered organisms into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are not present in nature, such as by cross-pollination.

3. “Genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” means modification of living plants and other organisms by genetic engineering, and “genetically modified organisms” or “GMOs” means any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material produced through the use of modern biotechnology techniques. Examples of genetic engineering and modification include, but are not limited to: altering or amending DNA using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, or changing the position of genes, and includes cell fusion (including protoplast fusion), microencapsulation, macroencapsulation, gene splicing,) or hybridization techniques that overcome natural physiological, reproductive or recombination barriers, where the donor cells/protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic species and in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or natural recombination. “In vitro nucleic acid techniques” include but are not limited to recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organism such as microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation and liposome fusion, and any other technology or technique that results in an organism that contains genes from more than one species, or genes that are not naturally occurring. For purposes of this Ordinance, genetically engineered or modified organisms do not include organisms created by traditional selective breeding, fermenting, conjugation, normal in vitro fertilization or hybridization, or to microorganisms created by moving genes or gene segments between unrelated bacteria.

4. “Natural seeds” or “natural organisms” means seeds or organisms that do not possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology and have not been genetically modified or engineered. Natural seeds or organisms include those seeds or organisms created by traditional selective breeding or hybridization methods.

5. “Organism” means any living thing.

*Section 4. Reservation of Authority to Regulate Genetically Modified Organisms. 
*
Josephine County hereby reserves the authority to regulate genetically modified organisms. This authority is construed to allow regulations and amendments, or delayed provisions, implementation, or enforcement of this law without limitation in time. Future laws that may preempt local regulations of genetically modified organisms, or any future regulation or amendments occurring under the authority provided by this Ordinance, shall not be construed to retroactively apply to affect the authority in this ordinance.

*Section 5. Prohibition. 
*
It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or other entity to:

1. Propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically modified organisms in Josephine County, or to knowingly or negligently allow such activities to occur on one’s land, except as provided in Section 6 below.

2. Intentionally or negligently cause or allow any genetically modified organisms or materials from within or outside of the jurisdiction of Josephine County to substantially enter, drift or be dispersed into and within Josephine County, in such a way as to risk genetic contamination of natural organisms within the jurisdiction of Josephine County. Josephine County may enforce such violations to the extent possible pursuant to applicable laws.

*Section 6. Exceptions to Prohibition. 
*
1. State or federally licensed medical research institutions, medical laboratories, or medical manufacturing facilities engaged in licensed medical production, or medical research involving genetically modified organisms are exempt from this Ordinance provided that such activities are conducted under secure, enclosed indoor laboratory conditions with the utmost precautions to prevent release of any part of genetically engineered organisms, especially but not limited to pollen, to the outside environment.

2. Educational or scientific institutes, including but not limited to Oregon State University Extension, working with genetically engineered organisms are exempt from this Ordinance provided that such activities are conducted under secure, enclosed indoor laboratory conditions with the utmost precautions to prevent release of any part of genetically engineered organisms, especially but not limited to pollen, to the outside environment.

3. Any institution listed in (A) or (B) above that intentionally or negligently allows release of any part of genetically engineered organisms into the outside environment is in violation of this Ordinance and subject to enforcement as set forth herein.

*Section 7. Code Enforcement Officer, Disclosure, Phase-In and Transition. 
*
1. Code Enforcement Officer. The Josephine County Board of Commissioners may designate one or more persons to administer and enforce the provisions of this Ordinance, herein referred to as the Code Enforcement Officer.

2. Upon enactment, the Code Enforcement Officer shall make reasonable efforts to provide initial notification of this ordinance to farming operations within Josephine County.

3. Every person, corporation or entity cultivating, raising and growing genetically modified organisms, including those institutions set forth in Section 6 above, must disclose to the Code Enforcement Officer within thirty (30) days of enactment of this Ordinance the location and description of existing or planned genetically engineered crop(s) or materials involved, in order to develop a transition plan to phase out such organisms.

4. The Code Enforcement Officer shall make reasonable efforts to notify farming operations of technical assistance and resources that may be available to assist with the transition from genetically engineered to natural organisms

5. Farming operations with genetically engineered crops shall have up to twelve (12) months from the date of enactment to phase out planting and harvesting of genetically modified organisms.

6. Actions required of the Code Enforcement Officer in this section are intended to assist farming operations with compliance and assistance. Failure to receive notification does not waive or otherwise affect requirements for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.

*Section 8. Enforcement and Remedies. 
*
1. Notification. The Code Enforcement Officer shall notify any person, corporation or entity that may be in violation of this Ordinance that any organisms in violation of this Ordinance are subject to confiscation and destruction, in accordance with due process.

2. Response. Any person, corporation or entity that receives notification under subsection (B) shall have fifteen (15) days to respond to such notification with evidence that such organisms are not in violation of this Ordinance. Time for response may be shortened upon a showing of current, ongoing and/or imminent harm or risk of genetic contamination.

3. If the notified party does not provide such evidence, or if there is probable cause to believe genetically engineered plants are present, the Code Enforcement Officer may take necessary actions required by law (such as obtaining a search warrant) to obtain access to the property and obtain samples of materials, in accordance with due process.

4. Determination. Upon receipt of any evidence under subsection (D), the Code Enforcement Officer shall consider such evidence and any other evidence that is presented or which is relevant to a determination of such violation. The Code Enforcement Officer shall act in good faith to make such determination as soon as possible, and before any genetic contamination may occur. If genetic contamination has already occurred or cannot be prevented before the determination is completed, Code Enforcement Officer shall make efforts to abate and prevent further contamination.

5. Remedies. In addition to any remedies and penalties provided that may be available by law, the following remedies and penalties may be imposed:

1. Any organisms that are the subject of violation of this Ordinance may be confiscated, quarantined, and destroyed before any genetic contamination may occur. If genetic contamination has already occurred, the contaminated organisms may be confiscated, quarantined, and destroyed, in accordance with due process.

2. Administrative and abatement costs associated with the confiscation and destruction of organisms may be imposed on responsible parties (namely the person(s), corporation(s) or other entities responsible for the violation). If contamination has already occurred, costs for remediation of contamination may be imposed on responsible parties

3. In imposing administrative and abatement costs on the responsible parties, the Code Enforcement Officer shall take into account the amount of actual and reasonably foreseeable damage, and the degree of willfulness, reckless disregard or negligence of the person, corporation or entity involved.

4. Any individual citizen of Josephine County shall have standing to assert any rights secured by this ordinance that have been violated or are threatened with violation, and may seek injunctive and/or compensatory relief from a court of competent jurisdiction.

*Section 9. Severability. 
*
To the extent any provision of this Ordinance is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision will be removed from the Ordinance, and the balance of the Ordinance shall remain valid.


More...
http://www.gmofreejosephinecounty.or...measure-/c1apl

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monsanto and Pepsi trying to stop GMO labeling law in Washington state




> Supporters of ballot measure I-522 argue that this is an issue of  transparency, and letting consumers know when their food contains  genetically modified organisms (GMO) would enable them to make  more educated decisions. They also say that GMO are not safe for  human or animal consumption, and cause environmental problems by  promoting the use of certain farming chemicals.
> 
>   Opponents, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association  (GMA), claim that not only is genetically modified food safe to  eat, but also that the initiative would mistakenly cause people  to think theres something wrong with products featuring GMO  labels. The end result would be that the cost of food at grocery  stores would rise and place an unnecessary burden on shoppers.


Unnecessary burden on shoppers.... 

They must mean these folks... Battle of the bulge: US food corporations fueling obesity epidemic with addictive ingredients






> The food industry, however, is doing its best to keep the public hooked  no matter what the price.
> 
>   With one out of three adults clinically obese and 40 percent of  children officially overweight, the US is the fattest country in  the developed world. The burgeoning public health crisis will see  instances of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer skyrocket  over the next two decades, taking an already strained healthcare  system to breaking point.  
> 
>   But with food manufacturers keen on keeping customers loyal while  maximizing their profits, public health concerns are likely to be  dwarfed by the bottom line.  
> _
> What these food scientists have done is that theyve gone to a  lab and theyve created these chemical concoctions that are very  sweet, very fatty and very salty. And they call that the bliss  point. Meaning theyve created addictive foods that are going to  get consumers hooked and theyre going to keep wanting to come  back for more and more foods
> _



Big Science: Evolution of Public Consumption




> Opponents, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association  (GMA), claim that not only is genetically modified food safe to  eat, but also that the initiative would mistakenly cause people  to think theres something wrong with products featuring GMO  labels.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Los Angeles may become largest GMO-free area in the US


You hate Monsanto too much.  It's not healthy.  Your hate is even less healthy for you than you think Monsanto's food is.

You are trying to fight a monopoly with an even worse monopoly.  That doesn't make sense.  Your hate appears to have blinded you.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Monsanto and Pepsi trying to stop GMO labeling law in Washington state


 While you are hoping that it passes.

Force is not the answer, friend.  Holding guns to the heads of peaceful people is not the answer, my friend.  Fighting monopoly with monopoly is not the answer, my friend.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> GMO Ban Moving Ahead in Josephine County, Oregon...


 And you cheer this?





> 2. *Prohibit any person*, corporation or entity *from* propagating,* raising*, or growing genetically engineered *plants* in Josephine County; and


 So you want to prohibit persons from raising plants.




> 3. Any institution listed in (A) or (B) above that intentionally or negligently allows release of any part of genetically engineered organisms into the outside environment is in violation of this Ordinance and subject to enforcement as set forth herein.


  What enforecement what happens to them?  Let's read on:



> *Section 7. Code Enforcement Officer, Disclosure, Phase-In and Transition. 
> *
> 1. Code Enforcement Officer. The Josephine County Board of Commissioners may designate one or more persons to administer and enforce the provisions of this Ordinance, herein referred to as the Code Enforcement Officer.


 Wonderful.  We get to hire a new power-crazed bureaucrat with a gun.




> *Section 8. Enforcement and Remedies. 
> *
> 1. Notification. The Code Enforcement Officer shall notify any person, corporation or entity that may be in violation of this Ordinance that any organisms in violation of this Ordinance are subject to confiscation and destruction, in accordance with due process.
> 
> 2. Response. Any person, corporation or entity that receives notification under subsection (B) shall have fifteen (15) days to respond to such notification with evidence that such organisms are not in violation of this Ordinance. Time for response may be shortened upon a showing of current, ongoing and/or imminent harm or risk of genetic contamination.
> 
> 3. If the notified party does not provide such evidence, or if there is probable cause to believe genetically engineered plants are present, the Code Enforcement Officer may take necessary actions required by law (such as obtaining a search warrant) to obtain access to the property and obtain samples of materials, in accordance with due process.


 All farmers shall be guilty until they prove they're innocent.




> 4. Determination. Upon receipt of any evidence under subsection (D), the Code Enforcement Officer shall consider such evidence and any other evidence that is presented or which is relevant to a determination of such violation. The Code Enforcement Officer shall act in good faith to make such determination as soon as possible, and before any genetic contamination may occur. If genetic contamination has already occurred or cannot be prevented before the determination is completed, Code Enforcement Officer shall make efforts to abate and prevent further contamination.
> 
> 5. Remedies. In addition to any remedies and penalties provided that may be available by law, the following remedies and penalties may be imposed:
> 
> 1. Any organisms that are the subject of violation of this Ordinance may be *confiscated, quarantined, and destroyed* before any genetic contamination may occur. If genetic contamination has already occurred, the contaminated organisms may be *confiscated, quarantined, and destroyed*, in accordance with due process.
> 
> 2. Administrative and abatement costs associated with the *confiscation and destruction of organisms* may be imposed on responsible parties (namely the person(s), corporation(s) or other entities responsible for the violation). If contamination has already occurred, costs for remediation of contamination may be imposed on responsible parties
> 
> 3. In imposing administrative and abatement costs on the responsible parties, *the Code Enforcement Officer shall take into account* the amount of actual and reasonably foreseeable damage, and the degree of willfulness, reckless disregard or negligence of the person, corporation or entity involved.


 And the God-like Code Enforcement Officer shall have total discretion to do absolutely whatever he wants, impose absolutely any fine and penalty he deems personally satisfying to himself, is not only allowed but instructed to take into account how much the person annoyed him, how much he failed to grovel at his Divine, Non-GMO feet, and to wantonly destroy cropland at will.  If any farmer objects to the burning and pillaging and raping of his land, he will be thrown into prison or killed.

This is a great, stinkin' system you're proposing here, Natural Citizen.  A real gem.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You hate Monsanto too much.


Uh-uh. Is a matter of citizenship. Always has been.

----------


## Natural Citizen

GMO-Free Josephine County is on facebook




> WE BELIEVE All residents of Josephine County possess the fundamental and inalienable right to produce, harvest, consume, and distribute foods generated from sustainable food systems which are non-toxic to people and ecosystems, while honoring the age-old heritage of seed saving, and remaining free from corporate dominion.We, as a group, embrace and promote only peaceful action, always taking a non-violent stand for the greater good.
> 
> A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal.​​
> 
> This is totally different than conventional plant breeding or hybridization.​
> ​
> The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges physicians to advise all patients to avoid GMO food.Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with consuming genetically modified foods including: infertility, immune problems, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and gastrointestinal systems. 
> 
> Children, with their developing systems, are especially susceptible to the negative effects of a diet containing GMOs.​​
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *Prohibit any person*, corporation or entity *from* propagating,* raising*, or growing genetically engineered *plants* in Josephine County
> 			
> 		
> 
>  So you want to prohibit persons from raising plants.


Seems to me that it states, very clearly, to Prohibit any person, corporation or entity from propagating,raising, or growing *genetically engineered plants* in Josephine County.

----------


## Thor

> While you are hoping that it passes.
> 
> Force is not the answer, friend.  Holding guns to the heads of peaceful people is not the answer, my friend.  Fighting monopoly with monopoly is not the answer, my friend.


Thou shall not INFRINGE upon the rights on another...

I think GMO crap infringes upon my health.  So, there.....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thou shall not INFRINGE upon the rights on another...
> 
> I think GMO crap infringes upon my health.  So, there.....


The bigger issue here...and what many simply don't grasp...is that in it's current form and path it will lead to infringing upon your very being. Your natural person. Cripes, our grandchildren are going to be paying royalties to these companies just to justify their existence because some multi-national corporation has a patent on their genome. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Belch...

Everything is coming to fruition right under our noses with the agribusiness, biotech industry, big Pharma and the healthcare terms of service (law ) that are placing the infrastructure for this to happen into place via _consumption_ based science. And we're sitting around cheering because our representatives are standing around chugging big gulps during speeches instead of asking them what their position is on the _actual_ science that these companies are experimenting with and how they would lead us given it's influence on law. It's unbelievable that this can happen.

It's almost predatory for these representatives to use the strategically influenced ignorance of the _consumer_ and their want for all that they can have that is itself  a product of the consumption based model of science as a means to completely avoid having to establish any position on the _genuine_ science that affects the _person_ and any issues that they may have with the lack of transparency from these companies who are seemingly getting a free pass to keep it under wraps. Is a genuine disservice to the people.

----------


## Thor

> The bigger issue here...and what many simply don't grasp...is that in it's current form and path it will lead to infringing upon your very being. Your natural person. Cripes, our grandchildren are going to be paying royalties to these companies just to justify their existence because some multi-national corporation has a patent on their genome. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Belch...


Another class of sheeple with their head in the sand...  Hello wheat.  Hello chaff.  I cannot tell you apart, but you all sure look tasty.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Calling me a sheeple is a sure way to win me to your cause!

Down with Monsanto!  Burn down their factory!  Let's just kill them!  Kill anyone we don't like!!!

That's how we'll get to be free.  No risk of blowback there.  Violence is always the answer.  Kill all the farmers who do things in a way we and our Code Enforcement Officer don't approve of!  Kill, kill,kill!

----------


## donnay

> Calling me a sheeple is a sure way to win me to your cause!
> 
> Down with Monsanto!  Burn down their factory!  Let's just kill them!  Kill anyone we don't like!!!
> 
> That's how we'll get to be free.  No risk of blowback there.  Violence is always the answer.  Kill all the farmers who do things in a way we and our Code Enforcement Officer don't approve of!  Kill, kill,kill!



Whose doing the killing, Monsanto?

----------


## Thor

> The bigger issue here...*and what many simply don't grasp*...is that in it's current form and path it will lead to infringing upon your very being. Your natural person. Cripes, our grandchildren are going to be paying royalties to these companies just to justify their existence because some multi-national corporation has a patent on their genome.* And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.* Belch...





> Another class of sheeple with their head in the sand...  Hello wheat.  Hello chaff.  I cannot tell you apart, but you all sure look tasty.





> Calling me a sheeple is a sure way to win me to your cause!


I was not calling you a sheeple, originally.  But if you feel like you fall into the category Natural Citizen *described*....  then if the shoe fits...  However, I thought you were aware of these points and issues and were arguing for Monsanto in-spite of that knowledge.  I thought you "did grasp" and "did notice" and therefore you were not a sheeple. The sheeple I was referring to were those who had no clue about the real situation and thought Monsanto was just Mon-Santa trying to save the world.  Forgive me for assuming you had knowledge of the situation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Forgive me for assuming you had knowledge of the situation.


 

Natural Citizen's definition of "seeming to notice" and "seeming to care" is "advocating the caging and killing of farmers who disagree with him."  Since I do not do that, since, in fact, I oppose that, I in no way can be said to be one who "notices" nor "cares".  I am not one of the "awake" elite.  I am an enemy.  He believes in shoving his agenda down the throats of independent family farmers.  At gunpoint.  Because he knows better than them how to run their farm.  Never mind that he's never set foot on their farm.  Never mind that he knows nothing of their land, their animals, their business, their plans, and their circumstances.  *He knows best.*  You have aligned yourself with him, so I assume you know best as well.  There are bigger things at stake here than the ridiculous uneducated farmer who thought he had some, what are they called again... oh yeah: "rights."  Ha, ha, ha, what a laughable, quaint, and outdated concept.  Why, we are fighting an existential war for the very existence of mankind!!  A few cracked skulls, a few dead bodies, a few non-criminals imprisoned, a few lives destroyed, whats that in the bigger scheme of things?  *We have a Glorious Cause(TM)!*  Any and all means are justified by our supreme and matchlessly glorious end.  

Onward, comrades!  Let us kill to make men free!  His truth is march-ing on!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Whose doing the killing, Monsanto?


Your beloved Code Enforcement Goon and his squad of armed thugs.

Laws are not suggestions.  You want to make X happen.  You are willing to rob, jail, and ultimately kill anyone and everyone who steadfastly ignores your goal and continues going their own way.

I find that despicable.  But what should be more important for you, is that it won't work.  Government doesn't work.  You think you can use the gov't in this case as an effective and wonderful tool to get what you want.  But you are wrong.  Your plan will not work, because government doesn't work.  So even if ending Monsanto is Goal #1 for you, even if it's so important that it justifies throwing everyone's freedom in the garbage, even if that's true, you still shouldn't turn to the government for solutions.  They will not provide the solutions you are looking for.  They will only provide more problems.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Your beloved Code Enforcement Goon and his squad of armed thugs.
> 
> Laws are not suggestions.  You want to make X happen.  You are willing to rob, jail, and ultimately kill anyone and everyone who steadfastly ignores your goal and continues going their own way.
> 
> I find that despicable.  But what should be more important for you, is that it won't work.  Government doesn't work.  You think you can use the gov't in this case as an effective and wonderful tool to get what you want.  But you are wrong.  Your plan will not work, because government doesn't work.  So even if ending Monsanto is Goal #1 for you, even if it's so important that it justifies throwing everyone's freedom in the garbage, even if that's true, you still shouldn't turn to the government for solutions.  They will not provide the solutions you are looking for.  They will only provide more problems.


You're not defining government properly here, helmuth. What you have here is a biotech industry actually taking on the role of government itself. They have judges and employees going through revolving doors from Monsanto, the court room and the FDA back and forth. That's exactly what we have going on. So then when you say less government you're not understanding that what you're _really_ saying less of we the actual people acting representative of ourselves but you're soliciting more of this corporate merge that is assuming the role of we the people. And now...not only through political process are they hijacking your _c_i_tizenship _ but I wasn't kidding about your grandchildren eventually being stuck as some biotech company's intellectual property.They're going to literally own you via the patent system. Is why we need to know our prospective representatives position on the _actual_ science that is dictating this instead of having to see them entertain us with super big gulp cups in official settings that really only serve to keep the terms of controversy in the corner of _consumer_ based science instead of the real stuff where they can safely avoid the issue or questions pertaining to it.

----------


## Thor

> Natural Citizen's definition of "seeming to notice" and "seeming to care" is "advocating the caging and killing of farmers who disagree with him."  Since I do not do that, since, in fact, I oppose that, I in no way can be said to be one who "notices" nor "cares".  I am not one of the "awake" elite.  I am an enemy.  He believes in shoving his agenda down the throats of independent family farmers.  At gunpoint.  Because he knows better than them how to run their farm.  Never mind that he's never set foot on their farm.  Never mind that he knows nothing of their land, their animals, their business, their plans, and their circumstances.  *He knows best.*  You have aligned yourself with him, so I assume you know best as well.  There are bigger things at stake here than the ridiculous uneducated farmer who thought he had some, what are they called again... oh yeah: "rights."  Ha, ha, ha, what a laughable, quaint, and outdated concept.  Why, we are fighting an existential war for the very existence of mankind!!  A few cracked skulls, a few dead bodies, a few non-criminals imprisoned, a few lives destroyed, whats that in the bigger scheme of things?  *We have a Glorious Cause(TM)!*  Any and all means are justified by our supreme and matchlessly glorious end.  
> 
> Onward, comrades!  Let us kill to make men free!  His truth is march-ing on!


So you know best what the independent farmers (what few remain) want?  You know what is best for them and their land, their animals, their business?  You are an independent farmer perhaps?  You have done a deal with Monsanto?  You see value in paying a royalty every year for their seeds, to spray their chemicals, that produce foods that could very well destroy the health of the human species?  You feel it is OK for a corporation to control the food supply of the world?  You must pay the royalty, or no food will be grown?  A technology that spreads and destroys native species, and creates "patent cases" when it cross breeds from wind blown pollination?  So, what is your background that makes you understand how their actions are benevolent and a good thing for prosperity of the human species?

At what point is the line in the sand crossed when action must be taken to protect LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?  How far does another need to infringe upon you, before you feel the need to protect yourself or your offspring?  When you are bed ridden?

----------


## Thor

> You're not defining government properly here, helmuth. What you have here is a biotech industry actually taking on the role of government itself. They have judges and employees going through revolving doors from Monsanto, the court room and the FDA back and forth. That's exactly what we have going on. So then when you say less government you're not understanding that what you're _really_ saying less of we the actual people acting representative of ourselves but you're soliciting more of this corporate merge that is assuming the role of we the people. And now...not only through political process are they hijacking your _c_i_tizenship _ but I wasn't kidding about your grandchildren eventually being stuck as some biotech company's intellectual property.They're going to literally own you via the patent system. Is why we need to know our prospective representatives position on the _actual_ science that is dictating this instead of having to see them entertain us with super big gulp cups in official settings that really only serve to keep the terms of controversy in the corner of _consumer_ based science instead of the real stuff where they can safely avoid the issue or questions pertaining to it.


+rep -- You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again.

----------


## donnay

> Your beloved Code Enforcement Goon and his squad of armed thugs.
> 
> Laws are not suggestions.  You want to make X happen.  You are willing to rob, jail, and ultimately kill anyone and everyone who steadfastly ignores your goal and continues going their own way.
> 
> I find that despicable.  But what should be more important for you, is that it won't work.  Government doesn't work.  You think you can use the gov't in this case as an effective and wonderful tool to get what you want.  But you are wrong.  Your plan will not work, because government doesn't work.  So even if ending Monsanto is Goal #1 for you, even if it's so important that it justifies throwing everyone's freedom in the garbage, even if that's true, you still shouldn't turn to the government for solutions.  They will not provide the solutions you are looking for.  They will only provide more problems.


Hey HH...what you said above is some serious accusations.  I want nothing of the sort.  Monsanto is the one that is slowly killing people, not me.  And they have the protective arm of government going around beating people up who do not comply with their rules and regulations.  

My focus is to make people aware of this deception and scourge they are placing upon all of us!

----------


## Natural Citizen

I think helmuth is just confusing fascism with capitalism. He wants to defend capitalism so strongly that he fails to stop and see that it's something else that he's propping up. The second he spun a discussion on the science of the matter into throwing around the term comrade like it's a socialist meme is almost tell tale. It's a normal reaction to revert to terms of controversy that one is used to or think they understand to avoid things that they don't. It's a real roadblock for a lot of people. Really. I feel bad about just saying that but it's a fact with a lot of people today.

I had added some information in another thread regarding this similarly so that perhaps people would nmaybe think about listening to some of these scientists who really are trying to educate people on not only the science itself but the schematics of what we are seeing happen in our political and social system that let it run amok. I forgot what thread it was though.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You're not defining government properly here, helmuth. What you have here is a biotech industry actually taking on the role of government. Thay have judges and employes going through revolving doors from Monsanto, the court room and the FDA. That's exactly what we have going on.


 I understand that.  I mean, you are exaggerating; there are many special interests in this world, Monsanto is not the only one.  Food production is a relatively small part of the US economy.  But still, no doubt you are correct that Monsanto has a lot of influence on food policy.

It is unrealistic to expect it could be otherwise.  What does it mean to be rich and powerful?  It means that you have wealth and you have power!  Obviously if a society sets up a monopoly on rule-making, who is going to capture it?  The rich and powerful!  Duh!

The solution isn't to switch to an organic hippy food policy.  The solution is to eliminate food policy altogether.  There should be no food policy.  Everyone has their own, personal food policy called "what do I want to buy?"




> So then when you say less government you're not understanding that you're saying less of we the actual people acting representative of ourselves but you're soliciting more of this corporate merge that is assuming the role of we the people.


 This "We The People" government you're waxing poetic about does not work.

I mean, it sounds great.  There's just one problem:  it doesn't work.

That's a serious problem.




> And now...not only through political process are they hijacking your citizenship  but I wasn't kidding about your grandchildren eventually being stuck as some biotech company's intellectual property.They're going to literally own you. Is why we need to know our prospecticvve representatives position on the actual science that is dictating this instead of having to see them entertain us with super big gulp cups in official settings that really only serve to keep the terms of controversy in the cornmer of consumer based science instead of the real stuff.


  Intellectual property is a mess and does not work.  Who runs intellectual property?  Oh yeah: the government!  So is it a big surprise that intellectual property doesn't work?  That there's outrageous and ridiculous concepts like patenting genes that not only see the light of day but actually become the law of the land?  No, it is no surprise to anyone paying attention.  Because government never works.  Everything it tries to do fails.  Miserably.

The government has made this problem.  The government is not the one you should be turning to for a solution.  If you're house is infested with ants, do you solve the problem by buying some ant colonies mail order and getting them set up in the living room wall?  But the new ants will eat the old ants, you say!

Yeah, right.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Food production is a relatively small part of the US economy.


But we have to look at in on a larger scale than that. It has become a major factor in foreign policy. Something we haven't even really touched upon. Some other very important outliers as well.

There's a lot more to the issue than a bunch of people upset because they think some "commie" is going to come and try take away their pop. Way more.

I don't know, helmuth. I have stuff to do. I'll chat later.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So you know best what the independent farmers (what few remain) want?


 Actually, I do know what quite a few of them want, or at least I am betting a lot of my time and money at the moment that I know.  But I could be right, or I could be wrong.  If I am wrong, I won't make money.

The difference between me and Natural Citizen is that *I am not celebrating attempts to shove what I think they should want down their throats.
*




> You are an independent farmer perhaps?  You have done a deal with Monsanto?  You see value in paying a royalty every year for their seeds, to spray their chemicals, that produce foods that could very well destroy the health of the human species?


 And what if I do?  You want to come burn my fields, fine my life savings away, cart me to prison, and if I resist, shoot me dead?

That seems uncivilized.  I object to you doing that to me.  I don't see how any person could help but see my position as the reasonable one, and your position as a jerk.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Hey HH...what you said above is some serious accusations.  I want nothing of the sort.


 And neither did I accuse you, donnay, of wanting anything of the sort.

I simply pointed out the Natural Citizen, by advocating that farmers be fined, jailed, and killed for growing plants he disapproves of, is advocating that farmers be fined, jailed or killed.  This seems indisputable.

It also seems like a jerky thing to advocate.  It seems like a junk way to try to get people to change their behavior.  "Oh, I'll just hit them over the head with this club!"  It's simple, but it's wrong.  And in the end, it doesn't work.




> Monsanto is the one that is slowly killing people, not me.  And they have the protective arm of government going around beating people up who do not comply with their rules and regulations.


  Yes, the government is beating all kinds of people over the head at this very moment.  I abhor this as well.  I just want all the head-beating to stop.  My position is pretty easy to understand that way: just stop the head beating.  And don't start any new head beating.




> My focus is to make people aware of this deception and scourge they are placing upon all of us!


 Which is great.  Just don't get sucked into advocating for these new laws killing farmers for planting GMO crops.  If your position is the right one, you don't need to kill people.  You don't need the club.  Just use reason and logic and persuasion.  And we will all appreciate and respect you for that.

----------


## Thor

> Actually, I do know what quite a few of them want, or at least I am betting a lot of my time and money at the moment that I know.  But I could be right, or I could be wrong.  If I am wrong, I won't make money.


Seed salesman?

----------


## Natural Citizen

On November 5, residents of Washington State voted on a law to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) foods, nabbing the distinction of being the first US state to successfully do so.

The momentum gained is a remarkable victory in itself, achieved in the face of enormous resistance from multi-billion dollar food and biotech corporations—which, by the way, tried to hide their identities from voters by laundering their campaign donations through a “brand defense” account created by the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA).

It didn’t work, however. The GMA was sued by the state Attorney General for violating the state’s campaign disclosure laws, and within days, the identities of the companies paying to defeat I-522 were released.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Aren't you willing to reply to anything I'm saying?  Or you're just going to keep clubbing innocent people over the head, and just don't care?

Here, let's slow down and keep it simple.  You told me:



> You're not defining government properly here, helmuth.


So, very well.  First, how am I defining "government," do you think?  And, in contrast, what do you think is the correct definition of government?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Aren't you willing to reply to anything I'm saying?


I'm not even taking your position seriously at this point, helmuth. Especially after some of those extreme accusations about killing people. There's nothing to be had from it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

With all of Washington state’s counties reporting in late Tuesday night, voters appear to be turning down ballot initiative I-522, which would require labeling food made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Supporters of the bill were severely outgunned in the campaign  faced by corporate opposition from the likes of Monsanto, Pepsi  and Nestle.  
  The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing  the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory  labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm not even taking your position seriously at this point, helmuth. Especially after some of those extreme accusations about killing people. There's nothing to be had from it.


Every law has at its core, the death penalty.  This is indeed very serious stuff.  If you are not willing to kill someone for disobeying X, you don't make a law about it.

If you are, then you do.

You do, so you are.  Plain and simple.

Let's say I live in Idiot County and they've just passed a law that cucumbers are illegal to grow, and I say "Forget that.  You want my cucumbers?  Molon Labe!"  What will happen?  Letters.  Fines.  Enforcement agents at my door.  My refusal to cooperate in any way.  Ultimately, a shoot out.

*The law brooks no disobedience.  It WILL continue hitting you over the head with a club until you comply.  Comply or die.  That's all there is to it. * 

I don't think it is moral to rob nor beat nor kill farmers for growing cucumbers, no matter how much you hate cucumbers.  
I don't think it is moral to rob nor beat nor kill farmers for growing corn, no matter how much you hate corn.  
I don't think it is moral to rob nor beat nor kill farmers for growing GMO mutant scary food, no matter how much you hate GMO mutant scary food.

Do you agree or disagree, Natural Citizen?  Thor?  Yes or no?

----------


## Thor

> Every law has at its core, the death penalty.  This is indeed very serious stuff.  If you are not willing to kill someone for disobeying X, you don't make a law about it.
> 
> If you are, then you do.
> 
> You do, so you are.  Plain and simple.
> 
> Let's say I live in Idiot County and they've just passed a law that cucumbers are illegal to grow, and I say "Forget that.  You want my cucumbers?  Molon Labe!"  What will happen?  Letters.  Fines.  Enforcement agents at my door.  My refusal to cooperate in any way.  Ultimately, a shoot out.
> 
> *The law brooks no disobedience.  It WILL continue hitting you over the head with a club until you comply.  Comply or die.  That's all there is to it. * 
> ...


I agree that the ultimate recourse to violating a "law" is the gun; and taken to the extreme, death.

Let's say over in Moron County, a man has a Mercury supply.  Massive.  Several tons.  And he is drilling down to the water table that is a huge cistern that supplies water for several states.  He is injecting the Mercury he has stockpiled into the water table.  It will raise the ppm of Mercury to 20-100 ppm, or more.  ("Safe" is 0.01 (ppm) for Mercury.)  And he also has a "Mercury cure" potion that he is peddling.  Should he be free to continue to pump Mercury into the water table and sell his anti-mercury cure?  He is refusing to stop this practice.

Do you think it is moral to rob or beat or kill the Mercury injector and salesman for injecting Mercury into the ground while selling an anti-Mercury potion, no matter how much you hate or love Mercury "therapy"?

And don't try to argue GMO's are not poisonous or dangerous and are completely safe - as many countries have decided they are not safe.  And don't try to argue that it is not Monsanto's strategy to wipe out the natural food supply so you only have GMO (patented) foods as your only choice, as their aggressive tactics have proven otherwise.  (And the farmers are a pawn in your example, and in actuality, not the culprit.  Let's get it straight, Monsanto is the culprit - not the farmers.  So don't play the "poor farmer" and HIS rights card.)

Back to focusing on the "Mercury being injected into the water table" example.  What do you do?  Let him roll, as it is his right to inject the Mercury and sell his potion to a captive audience, or do something about it as it is infringing upon the rights (and health) of others? 

Oh, and he has plans to expand to cisterns in other states, all across the country.  It is his right, right?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I agree that the ultimate recourse to violating a "law" is the gun; and taken to the extreme, death.


 Oh, good.  Very reasonable of you.




> Let's say over in Moron County, a man has a Mercury supply.  Massive.  Several tons.  And he is drilling down to the water table that is a huge cistern that supplies water for several states.  He is injecting the Mercury he has stockpiled into the water table.  It will raise the ppm of Mercury to 20-100 ppm, or more.  ("Safe" is 0.01 (ppm) for Mercury.)  And he also has a "Mercury cure" potion that he is peddling.  Should he be free to continue to pump Mercury into the water table and sell his anti-mercury cure?


 First, question 2: yes, of course, he should be able to sell whatever he wants, to whomever wishes to buy.

Second, question 1: It depends whose water table it is.  Does he own the entire water table?  And has he walled off his water table so that none of his mercury, and for that matter that none of his water, or magnesium, or whatever element(s) others find undesirable, seeps into _their_ property?  If the answer to both of those is "yes," then indeed he should be free to continue to pump _his_ mercury into _his_ water table, just as he is free to continue to fill _his_ living room with styrofoam balls.  Or with whatever he wishes.

More likely, it is not his water table at all, in which case the owner or owners of the water table decide what happens with the table, just as they make the decisions regarding what happens to their kitchen table.

You posed an excellent question, by the way.  I hope my answer has been enlightening to you.




> He is refusing to stop this practice.
> 
> Do you think it is moral to rob or beat or kill the Mercury injector and salesman for injecting Mercury into the ground while selling an anti-Mercury potion, no matter how much you hate or love Mercury "therapy"?


 If someone is scratching graffiti into my kitchen table, and refuses to stop, is it moral to bring force to bear against him?  Yes, I believe it is.  And yes, ultimately, if he's dug in with a machine gun and refusing to leave my kitchen for days on end and saying he'll shoot anyone who gets near him, then in the end, yes, killing him could be a morally reasonable thing to do.

In other words, I am saying that laws against trespass and vandalism are justified, because it is justified to impose the death penalty on incorrigible perpetrators of such.

Obviously any product or therapy of any kind is perfectly fine on a free market.  That's what makes it _free_.




> And don't try to argue GMO's are not poisonous or dangerous and are completely safe - as many countries have decided they are not safe.


  Now you are completely switching arguments.  Why not stick with your current line of reasoning?  Don't just get bored and flit about to some other random point.  Attention span!  I am just going to ignore this, since I have at no point in this discussion argued that genetically-modified foods (whatever that means) are safe.  Neither have you at any point made any argument (worthy of being called an argument) that genetically modified foods are dangerous.




> And don't try to argue that it is not Monsanto's strategy to wipe out the natural food supply so you only have GMO (patented) foods as your only choice, as their aggressive tactics have proven otherwise.


 Again, ignoring, because I have at no point professed any knowledge of the business strategy of Monsanto nor any agri-business company, much less made any argument regarding it, and neither have you.




> (And the farmers are a pawn in your example, and in actuality, not the culprit.  Let's get it straight, Monsanto is the culprit - not the farmers.  So don't play the "poor farmer" and HIS rights card.)


  I read the law.  The law is plain.  The law says: "Dear farmer, If you grow X, we will kill you.  Hugs and Kisses, Your Government."  I oppose this kind of law.  Do you support it?




> Back to focusing on the "Mercury being injected into the water table" example.  What do you do?  Let him roll, as it is his right to inject the Mercury and sell his potion to a captive audience, or do something about it as it is infringing upon the rights (and health) of others?


 Yes, indeed, let's try to stay focused and follow a line of reasoning to its conclusion(s).  Attention span!

I have already answered this question, prescient as I am.  He may roll in whatever manner of his choosing _with his own property_.  Everyone else may likewise roll about in a way pleasing to _them_.  He cannot go take _other_ people's property for a roll.  Everyone's rolling is strictly limited to his own rollamajigs.




> Oh, and he has plans to expand to cisterns in other states, all across the country.  It is his right, right?


 So if he wants to go about buying water tables across the country, it is, how you say, "a free market, baby," and that is just fine and dory.  Outside that crazy scenario, his plan can never get off the ground.  Because you can't go dumping stuff onto or into other people's properties.

Are we on the same page here?  Have I answered your questions?

----------


## Thor

> Are we on the same page here? Have I answered your questions?


No.  As I pointed out, the water table was multi state.  So it is not his own personal water table.

If the farmer wants to grow whatever for his own consumption, then sure, he should be able to.  If he wants to grow for for others to consume, he takes on liability and risk to not infringe upon those consumers rights.  If what he grows destroys other crops of neighboring farms, he is infringing on other farmers.

Monsanto is not staying within their own walled of garden, and Monsanto is not the only one consuming what they grow.  Duh...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No.  As I pointed out, the water table was multi state.  So it is not his own personal water table.


 It is if he owns a very large multi-state water table!  If he doesn't, I think we both agree on the correct situation.  It is not his.  A man cannot do _anything_ with property that is not his.  He cannot dump mercury into it; he cannot draw a bucket of water from it; he cannot do anything regarding it.  Whatsoever!

Are we on the same page here?




> If the farmer wants to grow whatever for his own consumption, then sure, he should be able to.


 Thank goodness for small favors.  You think people should be free to grow whatever they want,..... but I feel a "but" or an "except" coming on here....




> If he wants to grow for for others to consume, he takes on liability and risk to not infringe upon those consumers rights.


  Oh no! Sure enough!

Let me explain to you my view of "consumers' rights" and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong:

*Every consumer, everywhere, has the right to buy whatever he wants, from whomever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, at whatever price he wants.*  He only need find a seller who agrees.  Every other human on planet Earth may disagree until the GMO cows come flying home.

_That_ is the right consumer has.

Do you agree or disagree?  Why?




> If what he grows destroys other crops of neighboring farms, he is infringing on other farmers.


 Well, absolutely!  Finally you start to express a thought which makes some sense and which we can agree on.




> Monsanto is not staying within their own walled of garden, and Monsanto is not the only one consuming what they grow.


Anyone aggressing on his neighbors should be prevented.  The mere existence of crops which you do not approve of does not aggress on the grower's neighbors.  It doesn't even aggress on you.  It doesn't aggress on anyone.

If there are seeds flying over the fence, causing me problems, I, as the king and owner of my land, have the right to make my neighbor put a stop to that.

Likewise, if I want to plant strawberry-orange-kiwi fruit, or other plants Mother Nature never intended -- but should have! -- then I, as the king and owner of my land, have the right to plant them, harvest them, and sell them to one and all.

It's all connected.  It's all about property rights.  We believe in property rights.  Decent humans respect each other's property rights.  Decent humans do not shoot each other in the head for growing unpopular plants.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*Monsanto’s Friends in High Places* 

Many companies hope to send an employee into a government agency to influence regulation. How much better if the employee can actually shape government regulation to promote and sell a specific product! Monsanto seems to have accomplished this — and much more.

Michael Taylor is among a number of people with Monsanto ties who have worked in government in recent years. He worked for the Nixon and Reagan Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s, then became a lawyer representing Monsanto. In 1991, he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy under George H. W. Bush, and helped secure approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine (cow) growth hormone, despite it being banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

This was only a start for Taylor. He also did not like some producers advertising their milk as bovine-growth-hormone-free. That seemed to put Monsanto’s product in an unfavorable light. So in 1994 he wrote a guidance document from within the FDA requiring that any food label describing the product as bovine-growth-hormone-free must also include these words: “The FDA has determined ... no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from [BGH] and non-[BGH] supplemented cows.”

It apparently did not concern Taylor that this new pronouncement by the FDA was unsupported by either Monsanto or FDA studies. A private company making any such unsupported claim could have been charged with fraud. But since it came out of the FDA, milk producers would place themselves at legal risk by not printing it on their label. 


-- http://mises.org/daily/6580/Monsanto...in-High-Places

----------


## Natural Citizen

Hawaiis Big Island bans biotech companies, GMO crops







> The governing council for Hawaii (or Big) Island Tuesday banned biotech companies from operating on the island while barring growth of genetically modified organisms.
>   The Hawaii County Council approved Bill 113 by a vote of 6-3,  which would mandate a possible 30 days in jail and up to a $1,000  fine for any violator of the ban on growing genetically modified  organisms (GMOs) on Big Island, officially known as Hawaii  Island, the largest and southernmost of the Hawaiian state.  
> 
>   The bill also keeps out biotech giants like Monsanto, Dow and BASF, which have operations on  other Hawaiian islands. One of them, Kauai, recently advanced its  own legislation that increases regulation of biotech companies  there.
> 
> Civil Beat reported extensive public testimony on the bill in  September, marked by passionate statements by several residents.
> 
> _Forcing genes of one species into another and changing the  DNA of plants is not natural and could turn out to be a huge  danger, similar to nuclear disasters, for our planet that we  cant put out,_ one woman testified.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So no reply, Natural Citizen and Thor?  Not able to defend your ideas?  Or just not interested?  Perhaps you think I'm too much of an idiot and my arguments too obviously wrong.

----------


## Thor

> Or just not interested?  Perhaps you think I'm too much of an idiot and my arguments too obviously wrong.


No need to post a reply when you know the answer.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No need to post a reply when you know the answer.


While _you_ know your answer, I do not.  I am not a mind-reader!  That is why we reply to each other.

----------


## Natural Citizen

EU-US historic trade deal: Putting the corporation above the nation




> Moody also warns the trade agreement could behoove giant  corporations like Monsanto, who could use the new de-regulation  to sue the EU for billions of dollars if they refuse to import  GMO products

----------


## Thor

> No need to post a reply when you know the answer.





> While _you_ know your answer, I do not.  I am not a mind-reader!  That is why we reply to each other.





> *Or just not interested?  Perhaps you think I'm too much of an idiot and my arguments too obviously wrong.*


You answered yourself correctly.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You answered yourself correctly.


 Ahh! Thanks!  At what point, exactly, was it that you decided that I was an idiot?  Which ideas or arguments seem particularly idiotic to you?  Seriously, I would find it very valuable to know.  I expect I will talk with others with your worldview (whatever that may be) in the future.  It would be wonderful to succeed with them where I have failed with you.

If there is anyone else reading the thread, did my posts make me seem like an idiot to you, too?  I'm thinking perhaps my rhetoric, rather than clarifying things, just seemed a bit over the top?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You answered yourself correctly.


Shouldn't you be banging Natalie Portman?

----------


## Natural Citizen

GMO linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans - report

The report was released by the Institute for  Responsible Technology (IRT), and cites authoritative data from  the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection  Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as   international research.

Report: http://responsibletechnology.org/med...uten_11_25.pdf




> _Gluten sensitivity can range in severity from mild  discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a  serious autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in  a 4-fold increase in death,_ said  Jeffrey M. Smith,  executive director of IRT in a statement released on their  website.  
>   Smith cited how a _possible environmental trigger may be the  introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the  American food supply, which occurred in the mid-1990s,_describing the nine GM crops currently on the market.  
> 
>   In soy, corn, cotton (oil), canola (oil), sugar from sugar beets,  zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa,   _Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are  linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate  gluten-related disorders,_ according to Smith.  
> 
>   Its the BT-toxin in genetically modified foods which kills  insects by _puncturing holes in their cells._ The toxin is  present in every kernel of Bt-corn and survives human  digestion, with a 2012 study confirming that it punctures holes  in human cells as well.  
> 
>   The GMO-related damage was linked to five different areas:  Intestinal permeability, imbalanced gut bacteria, immune  activation and allergic response, impaired digestion, and damage  to the intestinal wall.  
> 
> ...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

And so what is the solution, Natural Citizen?  You are proposing the following solution: have Big Brother Government solve the problem.  Unfortunately, that is a stupid idea that will not work.  It never works.  It never has before.

*You will not succeed in "taking over" the government and using it for organic-hippy-good instead of rich-and-powerful-Monsanto-evil.  Monsanto and other rich, powerful people and orgs will always control the government.  It is unrealistic to expect it could be otherwise.  What does it mean to be rich and powerful?  It means that you have wealth and you have power!  Obviously if a society sets up a monopoly on rule-making, who is going to capture it?  The rich and powerful!  Duh!*

*The solution isn't to switch to an organic hippy food policy.  The solution is to eliminate food policy altogether.  There should be no food policy.  Everyone has their own, personal food policy called "what do I want to buy?"*

----------


## Thor

> GMO linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans - report
> 
> The report was released by the Institute for  Responsible Technology (IRT), and cites authoritative data from  the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection  Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as   international research.
> 
> Report: http://responsibletechnology.org/med...uten_11_25.pdf


Thanks for posting.  Very interesting if the science is behind it.  I have family with gluten issues and I always personally thought their issues were related to GMO's, but the scientific argument hereto-now was saying it was genetic in the human species and some people were just more prone to it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thanks for posting.  Very interesting if the science is behind it.  I have family with gluten issues and I always personally thought their issues were related to GMO's, but the scientific argument hereto-now was saying it was genetic in the human species and some people were just more prone to it.


It's amazing how folks get better when they know what they are eating and what it's doing to them. Knowing is the battle though. Those invested in it certainly don't want it out there.

----------


## Natural Citizen

At least 20 people have been injured in clashes in Argentina between union members and environmental activists, who were protesting the construction of a plant by the biotech giant Monsanto.

Some 60 workers from the Argentine Construction Union attacked  the protester camp, beating the activists and stealing from them...


Looks ke swat team to me. Blackwater?

----------


## Thor

> It's amazing how folks get better when they know what they are eating and what it's doing to them. Knowing is the battle though. Those invested in it certainly don't want it out there.


So are you saying that people with gluten issues heal if they get GMO's out of their diet?  I thought the damage was permanent.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So are you saying that people with gluten issues heal if they get GMO's out of their diet?  I thought the damage was permanent.


Doctors are reporting that once humans (notice I didn't say consumers...) remove these gmo's from their diet that they see near full recovery. This is the single largest reason that these industries and their supporters/investors don't want to label food. It's because if we have people and doctors that can specifically place gmo's into relevance with health issues then they have a means to follow the illnesses and place relevance in the health issues with these specific "products". Without labeling then doctors can't do that and so the bottom line isn't threatened. 

What happens is that the good bacteria is destroyed by these gmo's. So then once removed from your diet then your body can rebuild and replace...if you know it's the gmo's and can place it into relevance and study specific effects...which they don't want you to know or do.


To answer your question though, NO. Damage is not permanent as far as we know (specific to this particular problem with gluten disorder). We can only go by reports of people and doctors who have specifically removed GMO's from their diets generally. Until humans have a means to specifically identifty their food though there is no real way to "legally" prove it.  This is the BS argument you hear from a lot of proponents and investors in this GMO market and it's their only life line in keeping their cash flowing. A temporary one, rest assured.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So are you saying that people with gluten issues heal if they get GMO's out of their diet?  I thought the damage was permanent.


I'll gather a few papers specific to this for you and pass them along. Legit ones. Not tin foil hat fodder.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Trying to solve your problems by using the State as a big club to beat people over the head with _will not work!_  People will not get beat up in exactly the way that you intend.    The rich and the powerful will not simply sit by and allow themselves to be beaten.  You will get a labeling program, sure, but it will be _twisted, changed, and corrupted_ from what you originally intended.  The program will be "captured" by Monsanto.  By trying to destroy Monsanto using the State, you will end up making them more powerful.

Why not instead direct your labors productively?  Instead of lobbying for Big Bubba Government to solve all your problems (a delusional dream that never works) via violence and force, why not create the value you wish to see?  Why not set up a website to be a resource to food buyers, like The-Truth-About-Your-Food.com or something?  Do the research and the legwork to figure out which brands and products are good, while which are contaminated.  Help people to find farms and producers to buy healthy food from.

Such a website would be a million times more useful than a gun-to-the-head, run by Big Bubba, sure to be captured, labeling program.  You would be able to maintain your integrity and provide real information that people could trust.  Big Bubba Government can never do that.  Big Bubba Government is the object of universal scorn and disgust; it has no integrity, no credibility, no respectability.  But you, or someone like you, could.  Why, I myself might be willing to pay for a subscription to such a site.

Why not, Natural Citizen?  Why not?  Why not do something that will work, instead of obsessing about something that won't?

----------


## Thor

> Trying to solve your problems by using the State as a big club to beat people over the head with _will not work!_  People will not get beat up in exactly the way that you intend.    The rich and the powerful will not simply sit by and allow themselves to be beaten.  You will get a labeling program, sure, but it will be _twisted, changed, and corrupted_ from what you originally intended.  The program will be "captured" by Monsanto.  By trying to destroy Monsanto using the State, you will end up making them more powerful.
> 
> Why not instead direct your labors productively?  Instead of lobbying for Big Bubba Government to solve all your problems (a delusional dream that never works) via violence and force, why not create the value you wish to see?  Why not set up a website to be a resource to food buyers, like The-Truth-About-Your-Food.com or something?  Do the research and the legwork to figure out which brands and products are good, while which are contaminated.  Help people to find farms and producers to buy healthy food from.
> 
> Such a website would be a million times more useful than a gun-to-the-head, run by Big Bubba, sure to be captured, labeling program.  You would be able to maintain your integrity and provide real information that people could trust.  Big Bubba Government can never do that.  Big Bubba Government is the object of universal scorn and disgust; it has no integrity, no credibility, no respectability.  But you, or someone like you, could.  Why, I myself might be willing to pay for a subscription to such a site.
> 
> Why not, Natural Citizen?  Why not?  Why not do something that will work, instead of obsessing about something that won't?


The limited role of government in a libertarian society is to protect life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  So when an organization is attempting to bastardize, control, and poison the ENTIRE food supply, therefore infringing upon the basic principles of life, the role of limited government is called into action.

Is the current mechanism of the government a "Big Bubba" twisted and corrupt entity?  yes...  But aside from the fact that the current institution of government is horribly broken, the jurisdiction to protect the individual from a single entity or any entities from absolutely controlling the food supply, not to mention the health destruction of the individual due to the "science" deployed, would still be relevant in a libertarian society to protect the basic tenants of life.

When ALL the food is bastardized (the pollination has crossed over to other fields of non GMO crops, causing GMO mutations), you are not talking about available "choice" of the individual by being able to "look it up on a website."  You have essentially corralled and "RoundUp" the individuals, making them subservient to your demands.

Is our current government bad?  Yes.  But does that mean there is no role for any government in any capacity in a libertarian society?  Absolutely not.  People who infringe upon the rights of another (murder, rape, theft, etc) still need to be dealt with.  Limited government would be in place to protect the individual.  And the encouragement of GMO's on the entire food supply violates that individual protection necessitated by limited government for the people..

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Monsanto, the TPP, and Global Food Dominance*





Posted on November 26, 2013 by Ellen Brown   
*“*Control oil and you control nations,” said US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the 1970s.  ”Control food and you control the people.”

Global food control has nearly been achieved, by reducing seed diversity with GMO (genetically modified) seeds that are distributed by only a few transnational corporations. But this agenda has been implemented at grave cost to our health; and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) passes, control over not just our food but our health, our environment and our financial system will be in the hands of transnational corporations.


*Profits Before Populations

*According to an Acres USA interview of plant pathologist Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue University, two modified traits account for practically all of the genetically modified crops grown in the world today. One involves insect resistance. The other, more disturbing modification involves insensitivity to glyphosate-based herbicides (plant-killing chemicals). Often known as Roundup after the best-selling Monsanto product of that name, glyphosate poisons everything in its path except plants genetically modified to resist it.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are now the most commonly used herbicides in the world. Glyphosate is an essential partner to the GMOs that are the principal business of the burgeoning biotech industry. Glyphosate is a “broad-spectrum” herbicide that destroys indiscriminately, not by killing unwanted plants directly but by tying up access to critical nutrients.

Because of the insidious way in which it works, it has been sold as a relatively benign replacement for the devastating earlier dioxin-based herbicides. But a barrage of experimental data has now shown glyphosate and the GMO foods incorporating it to pose serious dangers to health. Compounding the risk is the toxicity of “inert” ingredients used to make glyphosate more potent. Researchers have found, for example, that the surfactant POEA can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. But these risks have been conveniently ignored.

The widespread use of GMO foods and glyphosate herbicides helps explain the anomaly that the US spends over twice as much per capita on healthcare as the average developed country, yet it is rated far down the scale of the world’s healthiest populations. The World Health Organization has ranked the US LAST out of 17 developed nations for overall health.

Sixty to seventy percent of the foods in US supermarkets are now genetically modified. By contrast, in at least 26 other countries—including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia—GMOs are totally or partially banned; and significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries.

A ban on GMO and glyphosate use might go far toward improving the health of Americans. But the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a global trade agreement for which the Obama Administration has sought Fast Track status, would block that sort of cause-focused approach to the healthcare crisis.


*Roundup’s Insidious Effects

*Roundup-resistant crops escape being killed by glyphosate, but they do not avoid absorbing it into their tissues. Herbicide-tolerant crops have substantially higher levels of herbicide residues than other crops. In fact, many countries have had to increase their legally allowable levels—by up to 50 times—in order to accommodate the introduction of GM crops. In the European Union, residues in foods are set to rise 100-150 times if a new proposal by Monsanto is approved. Meanwhile, herbicide-tolerant “super-weeds” have adapted to the chemical, requiring even more toxic doses and new toxic chemicals to kill the plant.

Human enzymes are affected by glyphosate just as plant enzymes are: the chemical blocks the uptake of manganese and other essential minerals. Without those minerals, we cannot properly metabolize our food. That helps explain the rampant epidemic of obesity in the United States. People eat and eat in an attempt to acquire the nutrients that are simply not available in their food.

According to researchers Samsell and Seneff in _Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality_ (April 2013):Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology . . . . Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

More than 40 diseases have been linked to glyphosate use, and more keep appearing. In September 2013, the National University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina, published research finding that glyphosate enhances the growth of fungi that produce aflatoxin B1, one of the most carcinogenic of substances. A doctor from Chaco, Argentina, told Associated Press, “We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before.” Fungi growths have increased significantly in US corn crops.
Glyphosate has also done serious damage to the environment.


According to an October 2012 report by the Institute of Science in Society:



> Agribusiness claims that glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant crops will improve crop yields, increase farmers’ profits and benefit the environment by reducing pesticide use. Exactly the opposite is the case. . . . [T]he evidence indicates that glyphosate herbicides and glyphosate-tolerant crops have had wide-ranging detrimental effects, including glyphosate resistant super weeds, virulent plant (and new livestock) pathogens, reduced crop health and yield, harm to off-target species from insects to amphibians and livestock, as well as reduced soil fertility.


*Politics Trumps Science

*In light of these adverse findings, why have Washington and the European Commission continued to endorse glyphosate as safe? Critics point to lax regulations, heavy influence from corporate lobbyists, and a political agenda that has more to do with power and control than protecting the health of the people.

In the ground-breaking 2007 book _Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation_, William Engdahl states that global food control and depopulation became US strategic policy under Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger. Along with oil geopolitics, they were to be the new “solution” to the threats to US global power and continued US access to cheap raw materials from the developing world. In line with that agenda, the government has shown extreme partisanship in favor of the biotech agribusiness industry, opting for a system in which the industry “voluntarily” polices itself. Bio-engineered foods are treated as “natural food additives,” not needing any special testing.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, confirms that US Food and Drug Administration policy allows biotech companies to determine if their own foods are safe. Submission of data is completely voluntary. 

He concludes:




> In the critical arena of food safety research, the biotech industry is without accountability, standards, or peer-review. They’ve got bad science down to a science.Whether or not depopulation is an intentional part of the agenda, widespread use of GMO and glyphosate is having that result. The endocrine-disrupting properties of glyphosate have been linked to infertility, miscarriage, birth defects and arrested sexual development. In Russian experiments, animals fed GM soy were sterile by the third generation. Vast amounts of farmland soil are also being systematically ruined by the killing of beneficial microorganisms that allow plant roots to uptake soil nutrients.


In Gary Null’s eye-opening documentary _Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs,_ Dr. Bruce Lipton warns, “We are leading the world into the sixth mass extinction of life on this planet. . . . Human behavior is undermining the web of life.”


*The TPP and International Corporate Control

*As the devastating conclusions of these and other researchers awaken people globally to the dangers of Roundup and GMO foods, transnational corporations are working feverishly with the Obama administration to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would strip governments of the power to regulate transnational corporate activities.


 Negotiations have been kept secret from Congress but not from corporate advisors, 600 of whom have been consulted and know the details. According to Barbara Chicherio in _Nation of Change_:



> The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history. . . .The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique.  If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.. . . They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.




Food safety is only one of many rights and protections liable to fall to this super-weapon of international corporate control. In an April 2013 interview on The Real News Network, Kevin Zeese called the TPP “NAFTA on steroids” and “a global corporate coup.”

 He warned:


> No matter what issue you care about—whether its wages, jobs, protecting the environment . . . this issue is going to adversely affect it . . . .If a country takes a step to try to regulate the financial industry or set up a public bank to represent the public interest, it can be sued . . . .


*Return to Nature: Not Too Late*

There is a safer, saner, more earth-friendly way to feed nations. While Monsanto and US regulators are forcing GM crops on American families, Russian families are showing what can be done with permaculture methods on simple garden plots. In 2011, 40% of Russia’s food was grown on _dachas_ (cottage gardens or allotments). Dacha gardens produced over 80% of the country’s fruit and berries, over 66% of the vegetables, almost 80% of the potatoes and nearly 50% of the nation’s milk, much of it consumed raw. 


According to Vladimir Megre, author of the best-selling Ringing Cedars Series:
Essentially, what Russian gardeners do is demonstrate that gardeners can feed the world – and you do not need any GMOs, industrial farms, or any other technological gimmicks to guarantee everybody’s got enough food to eat. Bear in mind that Russia only has 110 days of growing season per year – so in the US, for example, gardeners’ output could be substantially greater. Today, however, the area taken up by lawns in the US is two times greater than that of Russia’s gardens – and it produces nothing but a multi-billion-dollar lawn care industry.

In the US, only about 0.6 percent of the total agricultural area is devoted to organic farming. This area needs to be vastly expanded if we are to avoid “the sixth mass extinction.” But first, we need to urge our representatives to stop Fast Track, vote no on the TPP, and pursue a global phase-out of glyphosate-based herbicides and GMO foods. Our health, our finances and our environment are at stake.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.




Aside... GMO Food Laced with Weed Killer and Bail-ins-Ellen Brown




> Author/journalist Ellen Brown is constantly warning the public about the harm banks and corporations are causing.  Her latest warning involves GMO foods (Genetically Modified Organisms) laced with a weed killer.  Brown says, *“We’re not allowed to know our food is GMO . . . Glyphosate inhibits your enzymes to digest food  . . . it’s been linked to 40 different diseases.” * Brown says GMO food and many other things are part of the latest trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP.  Brown says, *“It is supposedly a free trade agreement, but it is not really free trade.  It is more like a restrictive trade agreement.  In other words, it is imposing corporate monopolies on other countries and on us.”* 
> 
> Brown, who has written a dozen books, is a proponent of public banking where banks are treated more like utilities that evenly spread capital around the economy.  Brown contends, *“You don’t have to force a separation of deposits and investments.  Just give people a place to put their deposits, and they’ll all rush to the public bank because it is the only safe place to be.”*  Brown thinks so-called ‘bail-ins’ are coming.  Depositors’ money will be legally taken.  Brown says, *“That’s the big disaster that’s coming.  Probably one of these big derivative banks will go bankrupt . . . the derivative players will get first dibs.  They’ll grab all the deposits, and there won’t be anything left.” * Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Ellen Brown founder of Web of Debt Blog.at EllenBrown.com

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The limited role of government in a libertarian society is to protect life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  So when an organization is attempting to bastardize, control, and poison the ENTIRE food supply, therefore infringing upon the basic principles of life, the role of limited government is called into action.


 Hi, Thor.  Thanks for your reply!  I thought I was too idiotic to bear.  Apparently you've changed your mind.  Let the peasants rejoice!

Your idea of the role of government is interesting.  Do you consider yourself a libertarian, then?  Or are your just trying to relate to me on my level?




> Is the current mechanism of the government a "Big Bubba" twisted and corrupt entity?  yes...  But aside from the fact that the current institution of government is horribly broken, the jurisdiction to protect the individual from a single entity or any entities from absolutely controlling the food supply, not to mention the health destruction of the individual due to the "science" deployed, would still be relevant in a libertarian society to protect the basic tenants of life.


 You see Problem X.  The way you put it, it sounds like a Grave Problem indeed.  There are many, many Problem Xs in this world of ours.  Some of them are very grave.  This may be one of those problems, and it may even be a grave one.

What I find interesting is that the solution to Problem Xs in people's minds, invariably, is that Big Bubba step in and fix it.  The solution is always the following: *more government intervention*.  This means that the problem must have been caused by too little government intervention.  Increase the government intervention to the correct level, and the problem can be solved!  It does not matter what the Problem is, the solution is always the same: *more government intervention*.  The diagnosis changes, but the prescription is always the same: "You need more government.  Take more government and call me in the morning."

Doesn't this seem like a rather odd way to think?

It makes me skeptical.






> When ALL the food is bastardized (the pollination has crossed over to other fields of non GMO crops, causing GMO mutations), you are not talking about available "choice" of the individual by being able to "look it up on a website."  You have essentially corralled and "RoundUp" the individuals, making them subservient to your demands.


 Well again, you are just re-emphasising and trying to convince me and the rest of us why Problem X is very, very grave.  And maybe it is.  But again, casting that point aside, it remains very much unsettled in my mind that the solution must be more government intervention into the actions and interactions of individuals.  Besides the fact that I shy away from such things because I believe that individuals should be left alone to live their lives freely, I also have very, very good reason to believe that this proposed solution simply won't work.  What is that reason?  That it has never worked before.  No government program, law, or regulation has ever resulted in its intended consequences.  Government doesn't work.  Why do you think that it will work _this one time?_





> Is our current government bad?  Yes.  But does that mean there is no role for any government in any capacity in a libertarian society?  Absolutely not.  People who infringe upon the rights of another (murder, rape, theft, etc) still need to be dealt with.  Limited government would be in place to protect the individual.  And the encouragement of GMO's on the entire food supply violates that individual protection necessitated by limited government for the people..


 Incursion is the word you mean.  And yes, as we discussed, no one has the right to make incursions onto or into someone else's property: not onto their cropland, not into their aquifer, not into their bedroom or living room or home office.

I am arguing, very consistently I think, that the Monsanto-crop-growing farmer next door not be allowed to encroach upon his neighbor, and neither should the county enforcement personnel.  No one should encroach upon him.  His neighbor should have to keep his seed to himself.  His county commissioners should keep their paws to themselves.  And Thor should keep his hammer to himself, no matter how justified and righteous his Holy War against bio-tech may be.  The end does not justify the means.  Everyone: keep your mitts to yourself.  That's the rule.  It's a good rule.  It's a highly successful rule.  It, unlike government aggression, _works_.  Let's live by it.

----------


## Thor

> Everyone: keep your mitts to yourself. That's the rule. It's a good rule. It's a highly successful rule. It, unlike government aggression, works. Let's live by it.


I agree it is a good rule, but when they are not keeping their mitts to themselves, what is the recourse?  "Oh well.  I  give up.  Keep doing what you are doing..."  Or do you do something?

Nice arguments, trying to be all libertarian like to prove the case for Monsanto, but your logic fails here.  Why should we "cast that point aside"...  that IS the point... we are not talking about most of the silly little issues the government gets involve with.  Monsanto does not keep their mitts to themselves, and they are causing harm and in doing so are also trying to take over the food supply by contaminating natural crops, their neighbors crops, which you say is bad.  So if they are encroaching upon their neighbors (crops) and NOT keeping their mitts to themselves, what is the solution in your mind? 

I believe in limited government.  I think there is a case to use limited government to protect people from species self destruction and/or enslavement.  This is not a "cast that point aside" argument.  This is a big deal.  I feel Monsanto and their goals are for enslavement by paying them a royalty to eat and they don't give a damn about the human self destruction in the mean time if their products are responsible deserves more than a "cast that point aside" mentality.  It is easy to argue a libertarian perspective when you cast aside vital points.  

What role do you think a limited government plays in a libertarian society?  Protecting the individual against those that would infringe upon them or hamper their ability to be free and live life?   I think this is where Monsanto fails.  It is a point NOT to cast aside.

Let's pretend for a minute you do think Monsanto is causing harm to human health, and contaminating/encroaching upon neighbors crops (not keeping their mitts to themselves), etc... and is taking over food supply so that when they do everyone has to pay them a royalty to be alive.  Basically infringing / encroaching upon others property, rights, life and liberty....  How would you deal with the situation?  Let it ride?  Let them destroy all the food supply by having their pollination contaminate other crops and then sue for patent infringement and destroy everyone else, and then when their btToxin crops or other mutations sicken and kill enough people and everyone has to pay a gatekeeper to even be alive... or buy big pharma drugs to help camouflage the effects... then maybe think they did not keep their mitts to themselves and maybe we should do something...  Let's cast aside the fact we have destroyed millions of people and irrevocably damaged our food supply and quite possibly killed off the human species...  that is just an unfortunate side effect.  

So while you can argue it is not libertarian like to try to curtail this - as government interaction never works.  I feel it very much falls under the scope of the role of a libertarian limited government due to the nature of the threat.  

We can agree to disagree.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I agree it is a good rule, but when they are not keeping their mitts to themselves, what is the recourse?  "Oh well.  I  give up.  Keep doing what you are doing..."


 Nope.  You act to defend yourself.  Even force would be justified.  In defense, you force them to keep their mitts to themselves.  Defensive force is fine.




> Why should we "cast that point aside"...  that IS the point... we are not talking about most of the silly little issues the government gets involve with.


  We set it aside because regardless of how minor or major the problem, the government's solutions to it never work.  This is a part of the historical record.  They simply never have worked.  Adn so I am skeptical of claims that "this time, it will work."  Really?  Why?  Are you sure?  What makes this time so different and special?

And in fact, the bigger and more serious the problem, the _more_ important it is to keep government and it's "solutions" far, far away from it.  Government intervenes to save us all from bad hair days by requiring barbers to be state-licensed.  OK, what's the worst that happens?  Less hair-related innovation and higher priced haircuts.  Not really a big deal.  But put government in charge of the food supply?  Or the water supply?  These things are totally vital!  The imagination boggles at just how thoroughly and catastrophically the government could mess this up.  The more major and weighty the issue, the more disastrous the consequences will be if the government gets involved and fails.  And it _will_ fail.  We simply have too much data and too much experience to even question this, at this point.





> Monsanto does not keep their mitts to themselves, and they are causing harm and in doing so are also trying to take over the food supply by contaminating natural crops, their neighbors crops, which you say is bad.  So if they are encroaching upon their neighbors (crops) and NOT keeping their mitts to themselves, what is the solution in your mind?


 To call them to justice.  To employ defensive measures, including defensive force, if necessary.  They do not have the right to aggress.  No one does.





> species self destruction... enslavement...  This is a big deal... enslavement... a royalty to eat... human self destruction


 Yes, you think this is a Very Grave Problem.  I understand.  In turn, please understand this: there is no situation so bad that more government intervention cannot make it worse.




> Let's pretend for a minute you do think Monsanto is causing harm...


 I already pretended all these things in the last post.  That's what I meant by casting the point aside.  It was an ineffective phrase; a failed communication on my part.  I should have put it thus: "for the sake of argument, let's completely accept as fact your view  that all bio-tech is evil of the blackest hue and has a death wish for the human species, and go from there." 


> How would you deal with the situation?  Let it ride?


 Nope.  You act to defend yourself.  Even force would be justified.  In defense, you force them to keep their mitts to themselves.  Defensive force is fine.

----------


## Thor

> Nope. You act to defend yourself. Even force would be justified. In defense, you force them to keep their mitts to themselves. Defensive force is fine.


At which point does it become justified, and by whom shall the force be enacted?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> At which point does it become justified, and by whom shall the force be enacted?


Am I to understand from this post that you find my post essentially unobjectionable and are in agreement with it?  And that now we are going to discuss minutia and details of implementation?

----------


## Thor

> Am I to understand from this post that you find my post essentially unobjectionable and are in agreement with it?  And that now we are going to discuss minutia and details of implementation?


Not at all.  I honed in on a particular point you espoused that stuck out.  I would like clarification on THAT point.




> Nope. You act to defend yourself. Even force would be justified. In defense, you force them to keep their mitts to themselves. Defensive force is fine.


At which point does it become justified, and by whom shall the force be enacted?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Not at all.  I honed in on a particular point you espoused that stuck out.  I would like clarification on THAT point.


 Clarification.  OK.  Then once it's clarified you can explain to me why I am wrong so I can improve my opinions?

----------


## Thor

> Clarification.  OK.  Then once it's clarified you can explain to me why I am wrong so I can improve my opinions?


Of course not...  Agree to disagree, remember?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Of course not...  Agree to disagree, remember?


Oh.  So I have no idea what in my post you disagree about, and you are not going to tell me, and that's that, I guess.  Great plan.

Yet you seek "clarification" for some reason.

Both of your questions I find rather boring, and unrelated to any major claim I have made.  You ask:

"At which point does it become justified, and by whom shall the force be enacted?"

The answer to both questions is: it depends on the situation.  Not very satifsying, I know, but it is clearly the truth.  The important thing is that aggression is not allowed.  Spraying your unwanted seeds onto my land is not allowed.  The details of the enforcement mechanism and punishments are something that can be worked out.    Maybe you shoot the guy who is polluting your crops with his GMO crops.  I can't say that I would necessarily oppose that on the face of it, in theory.  It may seem somewhat disproportionate, but then maybe the survival of the human species is at stake.  Likewise, a very minor punishment might seem too lenient, but maybe it's actually just right.

The important thing is that one way or another, the right of the farmer to not have his land polluted by GMO crops is protected.  Likewise, and this seems to be where you disagree, the right of the farmer to grow GMO crops if he so chooses is protected.

----------


## Thor

But you forget the negative health aspects of the GMO crops on the unwitting consumers of the crap coupled with the pollination styled spread of the stuff (on to neighboring crops.)  Like a virus or plague.  Perhaps you think these aspects don't exist and you are stopping short at the ability for the farmer to grow what he wants to.  But we have already crossed that bridge of being allowed to grow what you want to, so I am not so sure why you keep going back there.  You think the road ends there and there is not a larger picture at play?

Circles...  waste of time.

Hope your seeds sales fail. ;-)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You are stopping short at the ability for the farmer to grow what he wants to.  But we have already crossed that bridge of being allowed to grow what you want to, so I am not so sure why you keep going back there.


 What do you mean "crossed that bridge"?  Do you or do you not think that all farmers should be at liberty to grow whatever they wish?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But you forget the negative health aspects of the GMO crops on the unwitting consumers of the crap coupled with the pollination styled spread of the stuff (on to neighboring crops.)


 And in what sense did I "forget" anything?  You asked me two questions.  I answered them both.

Do you or do not not think that consumers should have the liberty of buying whatever they wish?

----------


## Thor

> What do you mean "crossed that bridge"?  Do you or do you not think that all farmers should be at liberty to grow whatever they wish?





> And in what sense did I "forget" anything?  You asked me two questions.  I answered them both.
> 
> Do you or do not not think that consumers should have the liberty of buying whatever they wish?


We have already had these conversation in this thread.  I am done.  I have better things to do that repeat myself over and over.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We have already had these conversation in this thread.  I am done.  I have better things to do that repeat myself over and over.


When you cannot answer simple yes or no questions in a simple and cogent way, it suggests that at least some part of your intellect knows that you are wrong, or at least inconsistent, and is uncomfortable with that.

----------


## Thor

> When you cannot answer simple yes or no questions in a simple and cogent way, it suggests that at least some part of your intellect knows that you are wrong, or at least inconsistent, and is uncomfortable with that.


If that makes you sleep better.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

For myself, my answer is very simple:

I believe that farmers should have the liberty to grow whatever they wish.
I believe that consumers should have the liberty to buy whatever they wish.

If you believed the same, obviously we would simply agree.  And, being a libertarian (you never answered, but it sounds like you consider yourself a libertarian), these statements sound good to you and you very much want to agree with them.  But you hate Monsanto so much, you can't see your way clear to do so.  Even though on all other issues, you would say "Yes, of course!  People should have liberty to make their own choices!"  your Holy War has yanked you off the path and made you believe crazy things in regard to food policy.  So you are trying to maintain a complex and contradictory mindset -- a very fragile and precarious state of affairs, like juggling on a unicycle on a tightrope.

Thus, you must studiously ignore simple truths, or attempt to redirect them into fancy loop-de-loops such that by the end you've convinced yourself that somehow the truth doesn't apply in this one instance.

I'm here to tell you that it does.

Government solutions don't work.  You know it.  I know it.  Accept it.  Embrace reality.  And then proceed accordingly.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We have already had these conversation in this thread.  I am done.  I have better things to do that repeat myself over and over.


I was wondering when you'd come around. Helmuth wants to distract. Nothing more.

----------


## Thor

> For myself, my answer is very simple:
> 
> I believe that farmers should have the liberty to grow whatever they wish.
> I believe that consumers should have the liberty to buy whatever they wish.
> 
> If you believed the same, obviously we would simply agree.  And, being a libertarian (you never answered, but it sounds like you consider yourself a libertarian), these statements sound good to you and you very much want to agree with them.  But you hate Monsanto so much, you can't see your way clear to do so.  Even though on all other issues, you would say "Yes, of course!  People should have liberty to make their own choices!"  your Holy War has yanked you off the path and made you believe crazy things in regard to food policy.  So you are trying to maintain a complex and contradictory mindset -- a very fragile and precarious state of affairs, like juggling on a unicycle on a tightrope.
> 
> Thus, you must studiously ignore simple truths, or attempt to redirect them into fancy loop-de-loops such that by the end you've convinced yourself that somehow the truth doesn't apply in this one instance.
> 
> ...


If that makes you sleep better.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I was wondering when you'd come around. Helmuth wants to distract. Nothing more.


 That's not how I see it.  That's certainly not what I want to do.  On this particular issue, I just think there are more productive things to do than rooting for the gov't team.

Tell me, Natural Citizen, what kind of things are you interested in?  How do you spend your days?  In what way may I be of service to you?

----------


## Thor

> I was wondering when you'd come around. Helmuth wants to distract. Nothing more.


I know, now.  

I thought he was genuinely interested, but as he stated earlier in the thread, he has a vested interested in Monsanto or GMO's (or something to that effect.)  So rather than understand where others think limited government should be applied in order to protect and maintain individual freedoms and health, he would rather try to (unsuccessfully) tear apart every statement to win people to his way of thinking, while ignoring the damaging effects of GMO's on both health and the freedom to grow new crops from seeds from your plants without coughing up royalties, not to mention the predatory nature of the pollination against neighboring crops and lawsuits that follow, while Monsanto leaders and government officials swap roles and play all cozy with each other.  

He is against the government interfering and doing anything to intervene, but when Monsanto can abuse positions within the government, it is A-OK and still a free market.  When Monsanto and the government play together and swap out roles, then the Just-Us system is OK.  Ironic.

How dare someone be a free market or libertarian type person and still be concerned about Monsanto running amok!  The 2 can't jive....  LOL!

A fun attempt at futility.

EDIT: And now he is going around to all my other recent posts on other topics to try and prove his point here.  Common Core is bad and people should be free to choose education (just like they should be free to choose to eat or grow GMO's)  Private security firms instead of police should be an allowed choice (just like people should be free to choose to eat or grow GMO's)  He thinks they are all of the same magnitude and does not understand the "grave danger" at play here with Monsanto and GMO's.  "Just-Us" proves we can't trust the government.  Ignoring the fact that Monsanto and the government are cozy.  Oh well.

----------


## helmuth_hubener



----------


## Natural Citizen

> I know, now.  
> 
> I thought he was genuinely interested, but as he stated earlier in the thread, he has a vested interested in Monsanto or GMO's (or something to that effect.)


Yeah, I've found that most of the spin/reframes comes from folks who are invested in it or have some stake in it (grocers union and whatnot). This, I've found, is actually very useful. Often the narrative is to attack government with the histric political spew but with this specific issue the reality is that some of these companies are actually hijacking government processes. This is something that many who are invested in it neglect to mention. If you look at Monsanto (for one), the courts, lobby, ...actually all three branches is a revolving door between employment with these companies and government agencies like FDA. Even judges are back and forth. It's a wreck alright.

I've been looking through some of those sources I gave you regarding the gluten intolerance too in between doing other things I have to get done at home/work. It's a big old headache wading through all of tht. Did you ever make contact with the source?

----------


## Thor

> Yeah, I've found that most of the spin/reframes comes from folks who are invested in it or have some stake in it (grocers union and whatnot). This, I've found, is actually very useful. Often the narrative is to attack government with the histric political spew but with this specific issue the reality is that some of these companies are actually hijacking government processes. This is something that many who are invested in it neglect to mention. If you look at Monsanto (for one), the courts, lobby, ...actually all three branches is a revolving door between employment with these companies and government agencies like FDA. Even judges are back and forth. It's a wreck alright.
> 
> I've been looking through some of those sources I gave you regarding the gluten intolerance too in between doing other things I have to get done at home/work. It's a big old headache wading through all of tht. Did you ever make contact with the source?


I passed it along, but I am not sure if contact was made yet.  We as well have many things going on.  Thanks for looking more and I will PM you any updates.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I passed it along, but I am not sure if contact was made yet.  We as well have many things going on.  Thanks for looking more and I will PM you any updates.


You have to be careful with organic too. Unfortunately, some of it is being called "natural" but still contains gmo's. That list was a good one for shopping because it didn';t contain any of these products. It sucks that we have to go through all of this.

----------


## erowe1

> You have to be careful with organic too. Unfortunately, some of it is being called "natural" but still contains gmo's. That list was a good one for shopping because it didn';t contain any of these products. It sucks that we have to go through all of this.


GMOs are natural.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> GMOs are natural.


Yeah? Prove it. Who told you this, e?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Polling suggests that an absolute majority of Americans favor laws forcing foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. Despite the support, however, states continue to reject these initiatives.

  Late last month, advocates in Colorado filed the preliminary  paperwork necessary to land a GMO labeling bill on the ballot in  2014. If voters there agree to mandate appropriate labels on  lab-made food products, Colorado will join Connecticut and Maine  as being the only locales within the United States to approve  such efforts. But while polls conducted during the last several  years suggest an overwhelming majority of Americans  close to  100 percent, in some cases  are pro GMO labeling, initiatives  across the country have already failed, and supporters of these  measures believe its because their opponents are investing big  bucks to buy the outcome.  



  A poll conducted by the New York Times this year found that 93  percent of respondents want GMO ingredients to be properly  labeled, and a similar survey done by the Washington Post in 2010 clocked in with 94  percent support.

  "_Surveys have always found 80 to 95 percent of people wanting  labeling_," Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen  told Rodale News back in April." _People are  paying attention to food, and because of that they're more  interested in GMO issues and buying food that's more local and  food without pesticides and other added ingredients_." 

  Even with polling results backing up Hansens assumption, time  and time again GMO labeling initiatives up for vote in the US  have failed in recent months, even in instances when those  measures were previously all but expected to pass.

  Last year, for example, a GMO-labeling initiative up for vote in  California was favored by 66.9 of likely voters according to a  late September poll. As election day neared, however, a  high-priced Vote No campaign sponsored by the likes of biotech  giants Monsanto and Dupont  as well as Pepsico, Bayer, Dow and  Syngenta  pulled in a total of $45 million worth of  contributions used to power an ad blitz that ultimately allowed  the labeling bill to be shot down by a single-digit margin of percentage  points.  



  Then in Washington last month, voters decided by barely a 10  percentage point margin to reject an initiative requiring GMO labeling there  that USA Today called _the most expensive_ in state  history. One month prior to election day, a poll determined that  66 percent of Washingtonians supported that bill, but that number  dwindled by 20 percentage points within weeks as Monsanto and  company again raised millions towards fighting off the measure.

  Meanwhile, the recently-passed labeling laws in Connecticut and  Maine might not officially end up on the books anytime soon  if  at all  according to Maxx Chatsko at The Motley Fool. As he noted  in a report last week, that legislation requires that four other  northeastern states with a combined population of at least 20  million enact similar laws first in order for the already-passed  measures to be enforced.

_Even if all nine Northeastern states pass GMO labeling laws,  the total population of states involved will only represent 18  percent of all United States residents_, Chatsko wrote.  _Now, that could very well open the door to a national  conversation on GMO labeling, but food manufacturers would likely  take issue with such legislation. We could very well see this  debate end up in a courtroom_.  



Until then, though, that debate is already occurring in countless  locales not just in the US, but around the world. An  international day of action in May was scheduled in 36 different  nations to show opposition to GMOs and the tactics employed by  those involved in the industry, particularly Monsanto. A second  global March Against Monsanto has since occurred in October,  helping propel what was once a grassroots movement on the fringe  to a very real fight being fought by millions of activists around  the world.  

  That isnt to say that Monsanto hasnt already had their fair  share of legal battles in courtrooms across America, either, and  even recently was awarded a major victory in the US Supreme Court. In a case  before the high court this past May, the countrys top justices  said a 75-year-old soybean farmer had violated the terms of a  patent-protected GMO soybean crop manufactured by Monsanto by  replanting seeds after an initial harvest. Elsewhere Monsanto has  found themselves in-and-out of legal trouble, but has largely escaped unscathed  with the assistance of a powerful fleet of attorneys, often no  match for any underpaid lawyers retained by opponents of the  billion-dollar biotech giant. Others have even accused the  company of using their high-powered legal counsel to fight  small-time farmers into submission, and a law passed by Congress  earlier this year further generated criticism after it reportedly  relieved Monsanto from future litigation  brought on by untested GMO products.

  Even still, additional opposition aimed at Monsanto has  accumulated not due to the companys legal tactics, but their  potentially damning impact on the Earth and environment. Last  year researchers from the University of Caen said that rats fed a  seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto's Roundup  weedkiller developed tumors and died earlier than those on a  standard diet, and officials in Germany, France and Italy have  all proposed national bans on GMOs.

  Despite opposition around the globe, a report released by  Monsanto in late October claimed the companys net sales  increased by 10 percent between fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

http://rt.com/usa/gmo-labeled-majority-americans-601/

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah? Prove it. Who told you this, e?


It's logically impossible for that to be false. GMO's exist. Everything that exists is natural. Therefore, GMO's are natural. The alternative is that GMO's came about through some violation of the laws of nature. But if that happened, then it would only mean that those laws weren't really laws of nature to begin with.

I suppose there's another alternative out there that there is no such thing as "natural." But then, in that case, not only would GMO's not be natural, but neither would anything else.

----------


## mad cow

How can you even pretend that *mandatory* labeling laws are in any way shape or form pro liberty?
If you don't like the way something is labeled and there is no fraud involved,*don't buy it* !

----------


## Natural Citizen

Genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) aren't the only unregulated way to modify the genetics of crops. As GMOs get more bad press and lobbying movements against them, chemical companies are increasingly turning to mutagenesis, a process that changes the genetic information of an organism in a stable way, resulting in a genetic mutation. RT's Ameera David talks to James Shapiro, a professor of microbiology at the University of Chicago, to find out if consumers should be worried about the effects of mutagenesis in the food supply.





Aside.... Several hundred people gathered in front of the Parliament in Belgrade, Wednesday, to protest against Monsanto. The protest was organised as a part of an international action, organised in over 40 countries. Protesters were planning to form a human chain around the Parliament but the chain was broken by the police.

Protesters held banners and posters saying "For Serbia without GMO", "For Serbia without GMO", "GMO no" and "I am not scientific experiment".

According to the 2009 law on GMO, Serbia doesn't allow production, growth or trade of GMO food. However, earlier this year, the Serbian Parliament decided to allow free traffic and trade of GMO products.

Over 80 percent of Serbian citizens are against the production and trade of GMO food. Municipalities in Serbia, inhabited by over four million people, signed the declaration against the GMO. These municipalities declared themselves GMO free zones.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Today, a group of international scientists are calling for the boycott of Elsevier publications for the groundless retraction of the 
GMOrat study by Séralini et al.

Twenty-eight scientists from six countries have signed the letter on this first day. 
Update, day two:

115 scientists and 234 non-scientists have now signed the letter. 
Sign here.

*Open Letter on Retraction and Pledge to Boycott Elsevier 

*The background to this open letter is described in 
Retracting Seralini Study Violates Science & Ethics (Institute for Science in Society ISIS report)


re: "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," by GE Séralini et al, published in _Food and Chemical Toxicology_ 2012, 50(11), 4221-31

Your decision [1] to retract the paper is in clear violation of the international ethical norms as laid down by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member. According to COPE, the only grounds for retraction are (1) clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error, (2) plagiarism or redundant publication, or (3) unethical research. You have already acknowledged that the paper of Séralini et al (2012) contains none of those faults.

This arbitrary, groundless retraction of a published, thoroughly peer-reviewed paper is without precedent in the history of scientific publishing, and raises grave concerns over the integrity and impartiality of science. 

These concerns are heightened by a sequence of events surrounding the retraction:

The appointment of ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT
the retraction of another study finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs (which almost immediately appeared in another journal)
the failure to retract a paper published by Monsanto scientists in the same journal in 2004, for which a gross error has been identified.

The retraction is erasing from the public record results that are potentially of very great importance for public health. 

It is censorship of scientific research, knowledge, and understanding, an abuse of science striking at the very heart of science and democracy, and science for the public good.

We urge you to reverse this appalling decision, and further, to issue a fulsome public apology to Séralini and his colleagues. Until you accede to our request, we will boycott Elsevier, i.e., decline to purchase Elsevier products, to publish, review, or do editorial work for Elsevier.
Elsevier announces article retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology", PRNewswire, 28 November 2013,

*Signed (28 scientists from 6 countries)

*Henry A Becker, BE, MSc, ScD,FCIC, Killam Laureate 1992, Engineering Medal 1990, Prof Emeritus, Queen’s university, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

 E. Ann Clark, PhD, Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph (retired), Ontario, Canada

Joe Cummins, Ph D Genetics, Prof Emeritus of Genetics, Distinguished Fellow of ISIS, London, Ontario, Canada

Robert M Davidson, MD PhD, FAIS, Internal Medicine, Fellow of the American Institute of Stress, Texas, USA

Lucille Elna P. de Guzman, PhD, Seed Technology/ University of the Philippines Los Banos

Emilio DelGiudice, PhD, High Energy and Quantum Field Theorist, Prigogine Medalist 2009, Milan, Italy

James DeMeo PhD, Geographical Earth Science and Climatology, Orgone Biophyscial Research Lab, Ashland, Oregon, USA

Robert S. Dotson MD, Clinical Instructor, University of Washington Medical Center, Ophthalmology Department, Seattle, Washington, USA,

Christopher Exley PhD, Professor Bioinorganic Chemistry, Aluminium and Silicon Research Group, Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratory, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

Julian Haffegee, M Sc Biophysics, Webmaster & Productions Editor, Science in Society, Milton Keynes

Mae-Wan Ho, Ph D. Biosafety Expert, Quantum Biologist, Prigogine Medalist 2014, Director, Institute of Science in Society, London, UK

Don M Huber PhD, Plant Biologist, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University, Melba Idaho, USA

Brian John, MA D Phil, Ex Durham University, Dept of Geography, Wales, UK

Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA, Award winning ex-editor of medical journal, Scotland, UK

Ted Mendoza, PhD, Agronomist, University of the Philippines Los Banos, Philippines

Eva Novotny, PhD Astrophysicist, Pollen flow, Cambridge, UK

John W. Oller, Jr., PhD, Professor of Communicative Disorders, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA

John Palmer, PhD Prof of Mathematics (retired), University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Gerald Pollack, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, _Water_, Prof Bioengineering University of Washington, Prigogine Medalist 2011, Seattle, Washington, USA

Arpad Pusztai, FRSE, chemist/biochemist, expert on nutritional and toxicological studies, Budapest, Hungary

Anthony Samsell, PhD, Scientist/Consultant, Deerfield, New Hampshire, USA

Peter T Saunders, PhD, Theoretical Cosmology, Prof Emeritus Applied Mathematics, Biomathematician, Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London, UK

Vandana Shiva, Ph D. Quantum physics, winner of Right Livelihood award & numerous other prizes, honorary degrees from numerous universities worldwide, Director of Navdanya, New Delhi, India

Eva Sirinathsinghji, Ph D. Neuroscience & Molecular Biology, Staff Writer for Science in Society, Institute of Science in Society, London, UK

Nancy Swanson Ph D. Quantum optics, 5 US patents & author of books, Seattle, Washingon, USA

Stephanie Seneff Ph D. Senior Research Scientist, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass, USA

Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, Senior Research Scientist, University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Canada

Oscar Zamora PhD Professor and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines Los Banos, The Philippines

Scientific journal withdraws Séralini paper on Roundup toxicity



Aside...

*Monsanto now deeply infiltrated into US government

*


> Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. 
> 
> With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.
> 
> Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere.
> Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.
> 
> *Military style trade wars, government corruption*
> 
> ...


http://t.co/vXuEqkPenh

----------


## Natural Citizen

Dr. Edward Group talks with Anthony Gucciardi on how to detox GMOs from your body naturally.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Colorado could be the next battleground state in the debate over labeling rules for genetically-modified foods. Activists are trying to get the issue in front of voters in 2014.
> 
>  A group called Colorado Right To Know has filed preliminary paperwork [.pdf] for a GMO labeling ballot question. State officials will review the questions language Wednesday and determine the questions title, a necessary step before a petition drive can begin.
> 
>  If approved, Right To Know proponents would need to pull together more than 86,000 signatures in six months to secure their spot on the 2014 ballot.
>  Genetically modified crops are grown widely across the country. Estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show about 90 percent of the nations corn crop is genetically engineered in some way.
> 
>  While the Colorado rule as its currently written in the proposed ballot question includes some exceptions for pet food, chewing gum and alcohol, its fairly wide-sweeping. If voters give it a nod, by Jan. 1, 2016, any prepackaged, processed food or raw agricultural commodity that has been produced using genetic modification would need to bear the label: Produced with genetic engineering.
> 
> ...


http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initi...14%20%2348.pdf

----------


## Natural Citizen

Can an increase in celiac disease be attributed to an increase in the gluten content of wheat as a consequence of wheat breeding?

Abstract - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/



Aside...

Are you are among 18 million Americans that suffer from a  number of gluten-related diseases such as gluten sensitivity or intestinal  disorders? If that’s the case, you should know that according to a new report  by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), the researchers found links  between genetically modified foods and gluten-related diseases. 

  Gluten is found in seed proteins of wheat, barley and rye  and in the last few years, gluten-related diseases have been increasing  drastically. Researchers believe that human gene might not be a factor for  drastic increase in gluten sensitivity as much as other environmental factors.  Although some researchers have concluded that eating  high gluten modern wheat is the reason behind gluten sensitivity, a 2013 review of data by USDA  could not find any prove. 

  According to Jeffrey M. Smith, executive director of IRT _“_Gluten sensitivity can range in severity  from mild discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a serious  autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in a 4-fold increase in  death”. 

Smith also pointed out how since the introduction of  genetically modified organisms (which happened in 1990s), the rates of many  chronic diseases including gluten-related diseases have gone up drastically. 

  According to Smith, Bt-toxin,  glyphosate, and other components of GMOs in many GM foods including  corn, soy, canola (oil), zucchini, cotton (oil), yellow squash, Hawaiian  papaya, pineapple, and alfalfa are  linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related  disorders. 

  By mid 90s, Bt corn was first introduced into the market by  giant biotech company Monsanto. The bacillus thuringiensis (BT) exists in form  of bacteria that’s sprayed on vegetables to kill pests. Thanks to biotech engineers who  successfully inserted the genes of BT bacteria into the seeds of corn or soy,  every cell in GMO soy or corn is producing toxic protein that breaks  the stomach of pests with one bite. 

  Although EPA claims that BT toxin doesn’t harm human beings  and animals, in the last few years, we have been facing an epidemic of  gastrointestinal problems here in US. According to a Canadian  study, Bt toxin has been found in the blood of 93% of pregnant women and  80% of their unborn fetuses. BT-toxin in genetically modified foods kills  insects by _“_puncturing holes in  their cells_”_ and a 2012 study confirms that BT toxin actually  kills and punctures holes in human cells as well. 

  On the other hand, gluten-related diseases have been known  to be triggered by intestinal permeability and leaky gut syndrome. The  independent studies show that GMOs cause intestinal damage and permeability, imbalanced gut  bacteria, allergic response, impaired digestion, and damage to the intestinal  wall. If the intestinal is permeable, foods could get into the blood stream  before they are fully digested. 

Studies show that people with gluten-disorder diseases like celiac disease have  imbalances in their gut flora. 
Also, the research shows that glyphosate  can reduce the beneficial bacteria and promote growth of pathogens and harmful  bacteria that can trigger inflammation, low immune system and leaky gut all linked  to gluten-related diseases. “Even with  minimal exposure, glyphosate can significantly reduce the population of  beneficial gut bacteria and promote the overgrowth of harmful strains,” says  the report by Institute for Responsible Technology. 
  According to Dr. Tom O’Bryan, the  internationally recognized expert on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease “the introduction of GMOs is highly suspect  as a candidate to explain the rapid rise in gluten-related disorders over the  last 17 years.” 

Studies show that under inflammatory conditions, a  metabolite of vitamin A (retinoic acid) activates a specific immune response to  gluten in the gut. Other studies also show that glyphosate increases the  activity of retinoic acid. Therefore, if glyphosate can activate retinoic acid and retinoic acid can increase  the risk of gluten sensitivity, eating GM crops sprayed with Monsanto’s best  selling herbicide Roundup can trigger gluten-related diseases.  (Source: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new...emic-free-pdf1)

  All soybeans have enzyme inhibitors known as trypsin that can block important  enzymes needed for protein digestion. GM foods can result in serious digestive  problems since GMO soy has seven times more enzyme inhibitors than non-GMO soy. http://responsibletechnology.org/doc...e-not-safe.pdf

----------


## Thor

> Can an increase in celiac disease be attributed to an increase in the gluten content of wheat as a consequence of wheat breeding?
> 
> Abstract - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/
> 
> 
> 
> Aside...
> 
> Are you are among 18 million Americans that suffer from a  number of gluten-related diseases such as gluten sensitivity or intestinal  disorders? If that’s the case, you should know that according to a new report  by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), the researchers found links  between genetically modified foods and gluten-related diseases. 
> ...



Thanks!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thanks!


Yep. I've got some more stuff. It's just physical material though. I'll have to figure it out.

Seems like 20 years ago that gluten disorder was unheard of. Which is interesting.

----------


## parocks

> How can you even pretend that *mandatory* labeling laws are in any way shape or form pro liberty?
> If you don't like the way something is labeled and there is no fraud involved,*don't buy it* !


Potatoes don't contain genes from bacteria.

But vegetables are sold, as potatoes, that contain genes from bacteria.

Fraud.

----------


## mad cow

> Potatoes don't contain genes from bacteria.
> 
> But vegetables are sold, as potatoes, that contain genes from bacteria.
> 
> Fraud.


Then (voluntarily) label your potato as not containing genes from bacteria if that is important to you or if you think it will get your product a large enough market share to pay for the labeling and produce additional profit.

Those of us that don't care if our potatoes contain genes from bacteria shouldn't have to pay the price of labeling your choice in potatoes.

----------


## familydog

> *Those of us that don't care* if our potatoes contain genes from bacteria shouldn't have to pay the price of labeling your choice in potatoes.


Wouldn't you have to know what is in your food to make that kind of judgement? Your statement presupposes that you know and understand what you are ingesting.

----------


## parocks

> Then (voluntarily) label your potato as not containing genes from bacteria if that is important to you or if you think it will get your product a large enough market share to pay for the labeling and produce additional profit.
> 
> Those of us that don't care if our potatoes contain genes from bacteria shouldn't have to pay the price of labeling your choice in potatoes.


It's FRAUD for people to sell Frankenpotatoes as potatoes.

----------


## mad cow

> Wouldn't you have to know what is in your food to make that kind of judgement? Your statement presupposes that you know and understand what you are ingesting.


How much vitamin A,B,C,D,etc. are in those spuds?How many calories?What percentage of the Federal recommended daily allowance of whatever?What is the best way to store and cook them to avoid potential dangers?
Anything else  you want on your* MANDATED* Government label?

Personally,all I wanna know is the price per pound and they _don't_ have to call them potatoes if that makes parocks happy.I know what a potato looks like.

----------


## familydog

> How much vitamin A,B,C,D,etc. are in those spuds?How many calories?What percentage of the Federal recommended daily allowance of whatever?What is the best way to store and cook them to avoid potential dangers?
> Anything else  you want on your* MANDATED* Government label?
> 
> Personally,all I wanna know is the price per pound and they _don't_ have to call them potatoes if that makes parocks happy.I know what a potato looks like.


I am confused by the aggressive tone of your post. I never advocated the state mandate anything. I simply asked a question to gauge whether it's worth my time to have this discussion.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Wouldn't you have to know what is in your food to make that kind of judgement? Your statement presupposes that you know and understand what you are ingesting.


I had posted this in another thread in the science and tech forum because it isn't particularly relevant to Monsanto but it is relevant to the fact that we just don't know what we're eating. Here, this fish hs it's vitamins altered/removed and different ones added. Among other things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...way-plate.html

The majestic specimens are frankenfish  genetically modified salmon created in a secretive research base in the Panama rainforest.


'Frankenfish' are genetically modified salmon created by company AquaBounty which grow at twice the rate of wild Atlantic Salmon, and are constantly hungry (file picture)


The salmon have been given genes from two other species of fish to make them grow twice as fast as normal. And while most people would baulk at the prospect, GM fish could soon be coming to a dinner table near you. 

Last week, Canadian authorities gave approval for the commercial production of GM salmon eggs for the first time, while U.S. food regulators are in the final stages of approving the fish for sale in supermarkets and restaurants. 

And where GM salmon lead, other animals will follow. Plans are in place to genetically modify up to 50 other species, including trout and the tropical white fish tilapia, for human consumption. 

GM chickens, cattle, sheep and pigs wont be far behind.


The prospect of the first commercially produced GM livestock has, not surprisingly, raised concerns. Even those who support GM crop production believe the risks involved in GM animals are simply too great.
So what is so dangerous about these innocuous-looking fish? And could they be served in the UK soon?

GM salmon are the creation of AquaBounty, a biotechnology company based in Massachusetts and listed on the London Stock Market. 

The firm has owned the rights to produce GM salmon since 1996. It also produces feeds to speed up the growth and boost the immunity of farmed shrimp. 

The fish have been given two genes from other species  a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon, the largest of the Pacific salmon species, and a gene from the eel-like ocean pout which switches on the growth hormone.

The combination of these two genes allows the GM salmon to keep producing a growth factor hormone  the substance that triggers their metabolism to eat more and put on weight  all the year round. 



The farmed fish have been given the growth hormone from the Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout which switches the growth gene on


Normal young salmon, in contrast, go through growth spurts only in the spring and summer. The rest of the year  when food is less scarce  their growth slows dramatically.

With growth hormone coursing through their bodies, the GM salmon can reach market size of around 13lb in 16 to 18 months, making them cheaper to produce.

AquaBounty is spreading the production and marketing of the GM fish over three countries.

Around 100,000 salmon eggs will be created every year in its factory at Prince Edward Island, Canada, before being shipped to Panama. 

There they will be grown into adults in landlocked sealed tanks for 18 months, killed and sold in the U.S. 

Pro-GM scientists insist there is no reason why GM food should be any more dangerous to humans than ordinary food. 

After all, mankind has been tampering with the genetic make-up of animals and plants since the dawn of farming through selective natural breeding. 

Genetic modification, they say, is simply a more precise addition or subtraction of genes.

But there are two major differences with GM. Changes in animals and plants that once took centuries can now take place within just one generation.

And genes from one species can be added to another. Tomatoes can be given anti-freeze genes from Arctic fish to make them withstand frosts. Rice can be given genes from daffodils to make it a rich source of Vitamin A. 

Critics say the combination of genes from different species could have unforeseen consequences.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found no worrying differences between the meat of GM and ordinary fish, no one has yet been able to show whether the fish are safe over many years of consumption.



While the salmon are meant to be farmed if they do escape they could breed and wipe out wild fish


And according to U.S. charity Ocean Conservancy, there are significant differences between GM and conventional farmed salmon.

GM salmon appears to have less omega 3  the fatty acid that can protect against heart disease. It also appears to have higher levels of a growth hormone called IGF-1. 

Studies of a small number of salmon suggest that six nutrients are present at values that differ by more than 10 per cent. 

The GM variety had less folic acid, less zinc, less magnesium and less phosphorus  but more niacin and vitamin B6. 

The findings suggest potential food quality differences, according to the charity Ocean Conservancy.

There are also concerns that GM salmon could have more allergy-triggering chemicals. The FDA concluded that was not the case  but its findings were based on a study of only six fish.

This is not enough evidence to conclude that GM salmon is harmful. But it raises questions which have not been fully answered.

There are more concerns about the threat to the environment they pose. Wild Atlantic salmon are already threatened by over-fishing and the accidental release of farmed salmon.

Introducing a population of bigger, tougher and faster-growing salmon could finish them off.

Dr Robert Devlin, who has grown his own variant of GM salmon at the Centre of Aquaculture and Environmental Research in Vancouver, says they are more aggressive than conventional fish.

Theyre hungry all the time, he told CBC News.

A study at McGill University in Quebec this summer found that GM salmon can breed with wild brown trout, creating a hybrid that grows even faster than the GM salmon.

In a simulation, the hybrid ate far more food than wild fish sharing the same waters, and led to wild fish being far smaller than they should have been.


 
US food regulators are about to approve the fish for sale, while Canada has given the go-ahead for the production of GM eggs for the first time (file picture)


AquaBounty insists that wont happen because it processes the eggs in its factory to make the fish sterile and so unable to breed.

However, data from the company suggests the process is not 100 per cent effective. And, according to regulators, it needs to make only 95 per cent of eggs sterile.

AquaBounty also says the risks of escape are minuscule because the fish will be stored in secure tanks miles from the sea.

But the experience in Scotland where at least two million farmed salmon have escaped into the wild in the past decade  shows that keeping salmon secure is difficult.

Just last month, thousands escaped from a secure Norwegian farm and could now mate with wild salmon.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says no company has yet applied to the European Commission to farm commercially or import GM fish into Europe. 

Approval from the commission would need a rigorous environmental risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority.

But European firms are watching closely. And the technology has supporters at the heart of Government.

The previous chief scientist Sir John Beddington warned three years ago that the world faced a perfect storm of a growing human population, food shortages and climate change. He argued it was hard to justify not using GM to feed the world.



It is possible that canned imported GM salmon could arrive in the UK within the next few years (file picture)


GM fish farms are unlikely in the UK for the foreseeable future. But, as pressure from scientists and biotech companies grows, it is possible imported canned GM salmon could arrive within the next few years.

Fish experts are deeply concerned. Sir Michael Wigan, author of The Salmon, believes GM salmon almost certainly will get into the wild.

Salmon are incredible survivors, he says. They survived the industrial revolution in England where water wheels went up every five miles of river. They survived in the Tyne when it was an industrial sewer. 

With the aid of its GM boost, who knows what this fish will be capable of doing.

And once in the wild these super-charged, aggressive salmon  with their year-round appetite  could be devastating for the endangered natural wild salmon beloved by anglers and conservationists.

Nature finds a way. And that way could be into the Atlantic, into British waters and ultimately onto our dinner plates.

----------


## mad cow

> I am confused by the aggressive tone of your post. I never advocated the state mandate anything. I simply asked a question to gauge whether it's worth my time to have this discussion.


If you don't advocate that the State mandates anything vis a vis potato labeling then yer my buddy.

----------


## parocks

> How much vitamin A,B,C,D,etc. are in those spuds?How many calories?What percentage of the Federal recommended daily allowance of whatever?What is the best way to store and cook them to avoid potential dangers?
> Anything else  you want on your* MANDATED* Government label?
> 
> Personally,all I wanna know is the price per pound and they _don't_ have to call them potatoes if that makes parocks happy.I know what a potato looks like.


Potatoes typically come in 5 or 10 lb paper sacks with the word "Potatoes" on them.  If they can come up with a new word for them and put that new word on the bag, that's great.  The "winking Frankenstein" logo sounds good to me.

----------


## Thor

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/11/ge...s-are-worried/

*Genetically Engineered Crops  Why Scientists are Worried*

November 29th, 2013

*Novel DNA Spreads into the Environment, Livestock and Humans*

By Pamela Coleman, PhD
Farm and Food Policy Analyst
The Cornucopia Institute

The food in grocery stores today is unlike the food eaten by our ancestors, even a few hundred years ago.  Part of the difference is easy access to highly processed foods that contain refined sugar and chemical preservatives.  A more significant difference is the high percentage of genetically engineered (GE) crops that are the source for our food.  The corporations who developed this technology tell us that its safe, so why are independent scientists worried?

There are many reasons for concern.  The GE crops are created by using a new genetic process to insert an unknown amount of DNA that has the potential to spread in the environment in unpredictable ways.  Independent research on the effects of eating these new foods has been suppressed when it shows evidence that the GMOs are harmful to health.

*Novel genetics*

Traditionally, humans have bred new varieties of plants by transferring pollen between two plants of the same type, for example from one corn plant to another.  This mimics the exchange of DNA (genetic material, or genes) that occurs naturally without human intervention, and the resulting plants contain only plant DNA.

Genetic engineering (GE) is fundamentally different, because it uses a microorganism (typically a bacterium) to transfer DNA and insert it into the DNA of the plant.  The new DNA contains the desired gene (such as herbicide resistance), plus a gene for antibiotic resistance, plus an unknown amount of bacterial DNA with unknown functions.  The process is not at all precise, partly because the process causes mutations in the plants DNA, and partly because even a single change in the plant DNA can give rise to multiple changes other than the one intended.

*Spread of engineered DNA*

In 2012, GE crops were planted worldwide, on 25 million acres of land.  After GE DNA is released into the environment through the planting of a GE crop, the DNA can spread through the environment to plants, fungi, bacteria, and animals, in ways that are difficult to predict and impossible to control.

It is well known that GE DNA can spread from plant to plant, through the transfer of pollen from a GE crop to non-GE plant, a process called cross-pollination.  For example, GE corn can contaminate non-GE corn, and GE sugar beets can contaminate organic spinach, because they are closely related.  This is a huge concern among seed producers and organic farmers, because the seeds of the cross-pollinated crops, and all their offspring, are contaminated by the GE DNA.  When GE canola transferred its glyphosate-tolerance genes wild mustard this new DNA was able to persist in the weed populations for six years.[1] (Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsantos Roundup herbicide.)

Less well known is the transfer of GE DNA from plants to bacteria.  In the soil environment, the GE DNA can persist in the soil for at least a year,[2] where it can be taken up by natural soil bacteria and be incorporated into their genomes.[3]  This spread would not be detected in the initial field tests of GE crops, because it is rare, and scientists were not specifically looking at this type of environmental contamination.  As GE crops become widespread and are planted repeatedly for many years, the likelihood increases that GE DNA will spread to soil bacteria.

GE DNA can also be transferred to the bacteria that inhabit the human digestive system.  After volunteers ate just one meal of GE soy, bacteria in their digestive systems contained the DNA from the GE soy foods.[4]

The GE DNA has not only been found in the bacteria, it can also be transferred directly into animals.  When livestock were fed GE crops, the GE DNA was taken up by the animals organs and detected in the meat, milk, and fish that people eat.  [5][6][7][8][9]

*Questionable research*

The uncontrollable spread of GE DNA is a huge issue, in part because of the limited information on the long-term health effects of these novel crops.

Biotech companies claim that genetically engineered crops have been well-researched, and have been proven safe for humans and animals, but independent scientists dispute that claim.  In October of 2013, more than 230 scientists signed the following statement: We strongly reject claims  that there is a scientific consensus on GMO safety.[10]  (Read the full story here.)

Industry studies have been conducted by the corporations themselves, without review by independent scientists, and the data may not be available for public access.[11]  This process is very different from the accepted scientific standard, where all results are first reviewed by peers (knowledgeable scientists who did not conduct the study) before it is published.

The studies that are available are often inadequate.  Feeding studies are conducted on laboratory animals for only a short period of time  often 30 to 90 days.  Food that does no detectable harm in 90 days may be quite harmful when eaten over the decades of a human lifespan!  Long-term studies are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.[12]

Independent scientists who have conducted longer-term feeding studies over the lifespan of the lab rats, typically two years, have raised serious concerns about the health effects of GE crops.  Even over this shorter time period, scientists reported harm to the liver, kidneys, digestive and immune systems, as well as other health problems.[13][14]

Industry response has been to discredit these independent scientists, rather than to support peer-reviewed research.  Monsanto discourages farmers from research, by requiring them to sign a Stewardship Agreement, which states:  Grower may not conduct research on Growers crop produced from Seed other than to make agronomic comparisons and conduct yield testing for Growers own use. 

In 2009, 26 scientists were so concerned about the suppression of research on GE crops that they made a formal complaint to the US Environmental Protection Agency. They wrote, No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops.  Said one scientist: If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research. [15]

Millions of acres of genetically engineered crops have been planted and incorporated into our foods, with little understanding of their health effects.  This opened a Pandoras box, as the unique bacterial genes spread to other plants, bacteria, and animals.  Independent scientists are being prevented from testing the raw ingredients in our nations food supply, even as more and more acres are being planted to these untested crops.  Meanwhile, the corporations who tell us that biotech crops are safe can reap huge profits from the sale of GE seeds.

Many consumers are employing the Precautionary Principle  avoiding GE foods as much as possible until research proves that they are safe.  The best options are certified organic food or purchasing directly from farmers who raise non-GE crops.

This story originally appeared in The Cultivator, The Cornucopia Institutes quarterly print publication available to members and online.



[1] Warwick SI,et al.  2008.  Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Mol Ecol. 17(5): 1387-1395.

[2] Lerat S, et al. 2007.  Quantification and persistence of recombinant DNA of Roundup Ready corn and soybean in rotation. J Agric Food Chem. 55(25): 10226-10231.

[3] Pontiroli A,et al. 2007.  Fate of transgenic plant DNA in the environment. Environ Biosafety Res. 6(1-2): 15-35.

[4] Netherwood T, et al. 2004.  Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 22(2): 204209.

[5] Tudisco R, et al. 2010.  Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal. 4: 16621671.

[6] Ran T, et al. 2009.  Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready). Aquaculture Research. 40: 13501357.

[7] Chainark P, et al. 2008.  Availability of genetically modified feed ingredient: investigations of ingested foreign DNA in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fisheries Science. 74: 380390.

[8] Sharma R, et al. 2006.  Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in digesta and tissues of GMO sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal. J Agric Food Chem. 54(5): 16991709.

[9]Mazza R, et al. 2005. Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Transgenic Res. 14(5): 775784.

[10] On 10/21/2013, ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) issued the following statement:

As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a scientific consensus on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and that the debate on this topic is over.[5]  We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.

[11] Antoniou, M, et al.  2012.  GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops.  Earth Open Source, page 40.

[12] Antoniou, M, et al.  2012.  GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops.  Earth Open Source, page 42.

[13] Dona A, and Arvanitoyannis IS. 2009.  Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 49(2): 164175.

[14] Antoniou, M, et al.  2012.  GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops.  Earth Open Source, page 42.

[15] Pollack A. 2009.  Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times. 20 February 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html

----------


## Brett85

It always seems strange to me when libertarians argue in favor of such big government policies.  This is why I say that sometimes conservatives are more libertarian than libertarians.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It always seems strange to me when libertarians argue in favor of such big government policies.  This is why I say that sometimes conservatives are more libertarian than libertarians.


Yeah? Well it baffles the heck out of me that humans would cheerlead for their own genetic reassignment based upon some illusion of free market.

This is a very serious issue. The entire planet is rejecting it but yet we have a small minority of people who have this impression that oh...multinational corporations are people too and so they have the right to call the shots. Bull$#@!. They don't. And they will lose.

Jiminy crickets. Neocons are going to have our grandchildren patented and their genes the intellectual property of  these multi-nationals. They'll be paying them royalties to justify their very existence. Because that's where they want to take it.

----------


## Thor

> It always seems strange to me when libertarians argue in favor of such big government policies.  This is why I say that sometimes conservatives are more libertarian than libertarians.


It always seems strange to me when anarchists call themselves libertarians because they don't understand the role of, or want anything to do with, any form of limited government at all.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that with all the swapping of Monsanto leadership and government officials in this GMO roulette, it should make anyone who is afraid of government be very concerned about what is going on here with the protections and rubber stamping.

----------


## Brett85

> It always seems strange to me when anarchists call themselves libertarians because they don't understand the role of, or want anything to do with, any form of limited government at all.


Hmmm, usually I'm called a statist on this forum.  This is the first time I've ever been called an anarchist.  And there was something like 71 U.S Senators who voted against mandatory labeling of GMO's.  Are they all "anarchists?"

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/...e-gmo-labeling

----------


## Brett85

I guess Rand Paul is an "anarchist" as well.

"I am an opponent of the FDA’s war on natural foods and farmers. I’ve stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That’s what we fight against. That’s what the statists do. Take a look at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed."

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/06/27/...to-gmo-debate/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I guess Rand Paul is an "anarchist" as well.


Rand Paul hasn't touched upon the true depth of this issue with a ten foot pole. And he won't.

Cripes, he's up there acting like a glorified pop-up ad for some of these gmo based products as it is. He approaches the issue in the same consumer minded manner as conservatives who ignore the science.

Don't even get me started on Rand Paul and his position on it. I've managed to keep biting my tongue with him on this but if you want to go there we can.

gosh. I'm so sick of people throwing around Rand or Ron Paul like the mere mention of their name means that the terms of controversy change. They don't. And they won't.

----------


## Thor

> Hmmm, usually I'm called a statist on this forum.  This is the first time I've ever been called an anarchist.  And there was something like 71 U.S Senators who voted against mandatory labeling of GMO's.  Are they all "anarchists?"


I am talking about the people who argue against any form of government, at all....  Not just this specific issue.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I am talking about the people who argue against any form of government, at all....  Not just this specific issue.


This is a very important point. There was a time, long ago, when government was defined as the people. The real ones. Living, breathing, walking and talking natural citizens who acted representative of their best interest relevant to survival. Now, what we have, specifically with this issue, is a pinpointed and physical attack on those people. An attack not only on their means to govern themselves  but an attack on their natural survival as a species.  These multi-national corporations have already hijacked their ability to function as a government of, by and for themselves and now they want to seal the deal by reinventing the physical traits of the people through these science experiments. Eventually they'll have the platform established to where the human species will be paying these corporate raiders royalties to justify their very existence. Relegated to intellectual property.

Specific to this issue is the fact that less government literally and figuratively means less of _you_...the natural citizen/person. Anyone who supports these multinationals who have infiltrated our political processes to literally attack us, the people, supports war against humanity itself. It's literally a war on the human's physical relevance in contolling his own destiny.

Less government in the context of this issue means less of _you_ both physically and politically.

Nobody ever wants to define government. It's like some meme word for political leverage for these multi-national corporations. As you said....the narrative is established as no to any form of government, at all. Which equates to less of you, the natural person. _Period_. And physically, now. Not just figuratively.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*

Genetically modified politicians*

Lesley Docksey
24th Noveber 2

_Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer and contributes articles to The Ecologist and other news media with international reach on issues of war, peace, politics and the environment.

_

The UK Government policy on genetically modified (GM) crops is "precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concerns". Lesley Docksey asks: who are they kidding?

Has the rest of the world really signed up to GM foods - or are the politicians and biotech companies telling GM porkies?


My heart always sinks when, listening to the BBC's _Today programme_, someone from the Department for International Development starts talking about the "international food crisis", and the starving people in all those poor undeveloped countries (the ones we helped to pauper with our empire building).

I know for sure that in the next day or two, in the top political slot on _Today_, I'll be listening to Environment Minister Owen Paterson telling us that we must embrace GM technology if we want to feed the world.

It normally coincides with his giving a speech or two about the wonders of GM crops and food, full of outrageous and unscientific statements. Prime Minister David Cameron chips in with a comment to the media about how Britain is losing the scientific race to feed the world.

It happens with depressing regularity, and it never goes as smoothly as they hope. Although Monsanto has, for now, withdrawn from Europe, the lobbying of politicians is relentless.

Last year the GM companies, having met with ministers at a little-publicised 'Growing for Growth' conference, started another push to promote GM. They were immediately backed up by Owen Paterson insisting that GM food will sort our problems - no worries.

He was followed in July by David Cameron saying Europe was "being left behind" even though the previous month it had been disclosed that GM food is banned from all the restaurants and cafes in the Palace of Westminster, and he himself was refusing to say whether he'd feed GM food to his family.

Chivvied by the biotech people, Paterson made a further push later last year but the campaign was spoilt in January by a report stating that almost 50% of the world's food is wasted. The hunger is a result of how we manage the world, not the earth's inability to feed us.

Perhaps the biotech companies were encouraged by a survey published in March last year, showing that more people were now "unconcerned" about GM crops and food. The trouble with surveys like this is that you can point to the bit that supports your opinion and, if you are the Environment Secretary, Prime Minister or perhaps a biotech CEO, happily ignore the rest.

So while both ministers and media trumpeted the news that more people (25%) were now unconcerned about GM food (up from 17% in 2003), they ignored the other 75%, especially the 46% that remain concerned about the technology and its risks.

However, according to Farmers Weekly, those who took part were also asked which crops they would be happy to see grown - _in the UK_. Having obviously listened to Paterson's intemperate and inaccurate statements about Golden Rice, 64% said they would "theoretically" support rice with added vitamin A.

_It would seem the respondents have little knowledge of our climate (rice grows in hot climates and though some high-altitude strains exist, they need levels of sunshine we can't provide); agriculture (some people have succeeded in growing rice in UK greenhouses, which hardly compares with fields of wheat, maize and canola / rape); biology (carrots, spinach, kale, cabbage, pumpkins, winter squash etc, are all high in beta-carotene / vitamin A, so no need to add it to rice, just eat a balanced diet); and geography (the last time I looked, the UK was not part of the Philippines which is where Golden Rice is being developed, and where 1.7 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency).
_
But then Guy Adams wrote in June this year, "a recent survey by _Which_? found that 71 per cent of Britons believe GM food, and meat from animals fed on GM food, should be banned from supermarkets. A further 15 per cent are "undecided". In other words, just over one in ten thinks it's a good idea."

And a YouGov poll this year found that only 21% of the public supported GM food. Further, despite the hard sell by Paterson and Cameron, 43% of people said they "were completely against" the government promoting GM technology.

A surveyof farmers published at the same time (funded by Barclays in collaboration with _Farmers Weekly_), found that even farmers are reluctant to grow GM crops and only 15% of them would eat GM food. They're at one with Westminster there then, with its reluctance to eat the stuff.

Having failed with the public and with those who grow our food, one could understand that GM companies feel the need to lobby UK politicians in order to further their desire to control our food supply.
*
But in the United States, where much of the food is now so GM based that it is difficult to avoid eating it, you would think they had won the battle for American hearts and intestines. Yet Monsanto still generously supports Republicans and anyone else that can push their agenda forward, which argues that even there the battle over public opinion is not won.
*
*Last April US citizens were outraged by the passing of what became known as the 'Monsanto Protection Act', a rider (H.R.933) quietly added to the Agriculture Appropriations bill, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public.
*
*Senator Barbara Mikulski issued a statement apologising for letting this be signed into law. She said that "she didn't put the language in the bill and doesn't support it either."
*
*According to Russia Today , "Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) has been credited with crafting the language of H.R. 933 by working directly alongside Monsanto. Blunt has received $64,250 from Monsanto towards his campaign committee between 2008 and 2012." Well, there's a surprise.
*
*Last May, despite the fact that several states wanted it, the Senate refused to allow them to enact laws forcing manufacturers to label products with GM content. Senators of states that grow a lot of GM crops strongly opposed this move. Among their reasons were that "labels would raise costs for consumers". A bit of honesty and extra ink on a label is going to cost more?
*
*But the public fights on. In October the Senate killed off the Monsanto Protection Act. As in Britain, US citizens are suspicious of GM foods. According to the Cornucopia Institute, "polling conducted last year by the Mellman Group indicated that nearly 90% of Americans would like GMO foods labelled so they can make a choice about what kinds of foods they purchase in the marketplace." 
*
*Choice? GM foods? Where pro-GM politicians are concerned, the two don't belong in the same room, let alone in the same sentence.*

*And now we hear of the cosy government/biotech relationship in South Africa. This month the African Centre for Biosafety, having already shown that the entire maize meal market is saturated with GM, released a report showing how a select group of companies (with government backing) now controls the entire maize chain, to the detriment of the poorest people.
*
*In Africa, only South Africa, Egypt, Sudan and Burkino Fasso currently grow commercial GM crops, and despite public opposition, the lobbying of governments by Monsanto and others will most likely mean many more African farmers being pressured into growing them.*

*You would think, if you listened to the constant bleating of our politicians, that Britain is "being left behind" by the rest of the world, because of our reluctance to join the GM revolution.
*
*Primed by the lobbyists, they give the impression that everywhere but here, people's fields and fridges are full of GM crops and foods; that if anywhere suffers from food insecurity it will be us; that poor people in the developing countries will suffer from food insecurity unless we grow GM crops here (I'm still trying to understand the logic of that one).
*
*Has the rest of the world really signed up to GM foods - or are the politicians and biotech companies telling GM porkies? [*]*
*The reverse of course is the truth. Politicians who are less joined at the hip to big business are listening to the people, the farmers and consumers. More places are opting to be GM-free.
*
*Countries like Uruguay that have grown GM crops are banning the introduction of any new crops. The Mexican government recently banned the planting of all GM maize - but then Mexican farmers surely know more about real maize than Monsanto!
*
*Several South American countries, having grown GM crops for some time, are gradually changing the rules. In November 2011 Peru introduced a 10-year ban on all GM crops. Brazil has, for the time being at least, introduced a ban on planting GM seeds. Paraguay is planning a similar ban. Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela have all declared national bans on GM foods
*
*In Europe, despite heavy lobbying and pro-GM politicians trying to open up the market and our fields, people are still making their voices heard. Italy has a complete ban on all GM crops. France, Luxemburg, Germany, Austria, Greece, Romania and Poland have banned Monsanto's maize.*

*Switzerland has a moratorium on all genetically engineered crops and animals, due for renewal in December 2017. They did several studies on the risks and benefits of GM crops and although they felt that there may be little danger in growing them, also decided that, for Switzerland, there was little financial benefit to be had either.
*
*This year Hungary, which had banned GM crops, found that the forbidden crops were being grown illegally anyway. The government didn't hang about - all the crops were destroyed. A new Hungarian law enacted back in March stipulates that before any new seeds are introduced into the market, they must first undergo checks to make sure they are free of GMOs. They are now considering making the planting of GM seeds a felony. And Russia is considering a total ban.
*
*However, other EU countries have not managed a comprehensive ban, although various areas within countries have taken action. In the United Kingdom both Scotland and Wales are officially 'GM-free', though Owen Paterson will probably ignore such democracy.
*
*Various local authorities, including 17 County Councils, have voted to remain GM-free, mostly in order to help protect organic growers. In Ireland there are 9 GM-free counties. The Republic of Ireland wanted to make the whole island GM-free, but sadly Northern Ireland wouldn't cooperate.*

*In North America, some US states like California are GM-free. Canada's civil society is constantly campaigning against GM. New Zealand has a ban as does South Australia and Tasmania.
*
*Japan banned the growing of GM crops but "Japanese food manufacturers are actively importing 'Roundup Ready' GMO canola grown in Canada primarily to manufacture canola oil. As a result, scientists have found that the GMO canola variety is now growing wild along roadsides and ports that have been the supply line for canola importation."
*
*What is noticeable about these bans is that in many places both people and their governments are not against research into genetic modification. No. They are against the wholesale marketing of the biotech corporations that have no regard for the earth.*

*But why Poland, Hungary, Paraguay and the rest? One reason may be that in so many places, despite the globalisation of Western culture, people have managed to maintain their links to a rural peasant culture; a culture that lives according to the pace of nature; that lives closer to the land; whose farmers embody generations of earth-based wisdom and whose people have an interest in growing clean healthy food because it is what they themselves eat.*

*This is not to say that the bans we have achieved will not be reversed by GM-lobbied politicians. We must keep up the pressure. People who love their patch of earth and love the food they eat are turning out to be remarkably GM-resistant - unlike their genetically modified politicians who are now logic- and science-resistant and extremely lobbyist-tolerant.

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_an...liticians.html*

----------


## Natural Citizen

Not relative to Monsanto, per se, but a reminder that this is, in fact, an important element of foreign policy regardless of what company is doing it.




> China's top food-quality watchdog rejected the two shipments because they contained MIR162, a special insect-resistant variety of maize developed by Syngenta, a Swiss maker of seeds and pesticides. 
> 
> The first shipment, 545,000 tons, was rejected last week in Shanghai, state media said. The second shipment, 758 tons, was rejected Monday.
> MIR162 is not on the Chinese government's short list of approved grains considered genetically modified organisms, or GMO.
> 
> The U.S. is the world’s largest corn exporter and China is its No. 3 customer. The Asian nation is expected to buy a record 7 million tons of corn in the 2013-14 marketing year.
> 
> Chinese authorities said the shipments have been returned and are urging American officials to improve their "inspection procedures to ensure they comply with Chinese quality standards."


http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...#axzz2oifDuocf

----------


## angelatc

There is no evidence that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.

It boggles my mind to see the so-called libertarians petitioning the government to ban foods that are not harmful while simultaneously insisting that all drugs should be legal.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> There is no evidence that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.


Yeah, the convenience with that skullduggery is that doctors cannot trace these health problems back to diet because these corporations refuse to say what kind of concoctions they are feeding people. And so there is no way to say that the food is causing it if they don't know what is in the food or how it's genetically modified which is the only way people get away with saying that they cause no harm. It's the very reason they are refusing to label. Once they know what is in it or how it is modified then there is a legitimate means to trace the health issues back to the source. This is the only reason they fight to not let the human species know what they are eating. There is no other reason. Once this happens, they're toast. Make no mistake.

But as other countries are labeling their foods we'll certainly begin to see some of these effects traced back by doctors and researchers to the source, which, in many cases, is diet.

----------


## lynnf

> There is no evidence that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.
> 
> It boggles my mind to see the so-called libertarians petitioning the government to ban foods that are not harmful while simultaneously insisting that all drugs should be legal.



au contraire -> see below website

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

Genetically modified foods
Are they safe? 
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesnt think so. The Academy reported that Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yeah, the convenience with that skullduggery is that doctors cannot trace these health problems back to diet because these corporations refuse to say what kind of concoctions they are feeding people. And so there is no way to say that the food is causing it if they don't know what is in the food or how it's genetically modified which is the only way people get away with saying that they cause no harm. It's the very reason they are refusing to label. Once they know what is in it or how it is modified then there is a legitimate means to trace the health issues back to the source. This is the only reason they fight to not let the human species know what they are eating. There is no other reason. Once this happens, they're toast. Make no mistake.
> 
> But as other countries are labeling their foods we'll certainly begin to see some of these effects traced back by doctors and researchers to the source, which, in many cases, is diet.


Oh yes, and I'm sure with the Great God Government at the helm of the Great Labeling Program, the labeling will be truthful and trustworthy in every way.  Right?

Right?

Of course, every skeptical person can answer that question easily.  Any government labeling program will be corrupt, outrageous, and an insult to all human intelligence, just as all government programs *are*.

Not to say that the conveyance of true and accurate information -- in physical labels, digital tracking, helpful web sites, or more sophisticated solutions -- is not a valuable and laudable goal.  But it should be undertaken by free men in a free manner.  This is a very important distinction, and one that makes all the difference in terms of actual results (as well as, in my humble opinion, the morality of the project).

----------


## donnay

> Oh yes, and I'm sure with the Great God Government at the helm of the Great Labeling Program, the labeling will be truthful and trustworthy in every way.  Right?
> 
> Right?
> 
> Of course, every skeptical person can answer that question easily.  Any government labeling program will be corrupt, outrageous, and an insult to all human intelligence, just as all government programs *are*.
> 
> Not to say that the conveyance of true and accurate information -- in physical labels, digital tracking, helpful web sites, or more sophisticated solutions -- is not a valuable and laudable goal.  But it should be undertaken by free men in a free manner.  This is a very important distinction, and one that makes all the difference in terms of actual results (as well as, in my humble opinion, the morality of the project).


Without transparency we have no legal recourse if we get sick from a certain product.  So how does that shine with the rule of law?  They do not have a right to pollute my property.



@ 3:26 the question ask to Dr. Paul is regarding regulations and polluting water

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Hi donnay,

I don't know exactly what your post is trying to say, and whether you are agreeing with my post or disagreeing with it.  But let me just reply with a video stating my position on the subject at hand:




In short: let freedom ring.  Let people be free to do what they choose!  Let people be free to do what they choose in regards to their health and their diet and their crops and their buying and their selling and their labeling and in short all the speech and actions and communication.  Let there be free speech on the grocery store shelf.  That is my position.

It also happens to be the position of the man in the video.  His name is Ron Paul.  I agree with him on a great many things.  This is one of them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Hi donnay,
> 
> I don't know exactly what your post is trying to say, and whether you are agreeing with my post or disagreeing with it.  But let me just reply with a video stating my position on the subject at hand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short: let freedom ring.  Let people be free to do what they choose!  Let people be free to do what they choose in regards to their health and their diet and their crops and their buying and their selling and their labeling and in short all the speech and actions and communication.  Let there be free speech on the grocery store shelf.  That is my position.
> 
> It also happens to be the position of the man in the video.  His name is Ron Paul.  I agree with him on a great many things.  This is one of them.


Including the freedom to choose what we do and do not put into our bodies.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Including the freedom to choose what we do and do not put into our bodies.


 Most emphatically including that!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> A labor appeals court in north-central Argentina ruled that the construction of a Monsanto plant is unconstitutional, halting work on the site.
> 
>   The three judge court ruled 2-1 in favor of the activists who  filed a legal appeal against Monsanto’s GMO seed plant on  environmental protection grounds in the municipality of Malvinas  Argentinas, located in central Cordoba Province.
> 
> _“We have filed a criminal complaint to inform the prosecutor  of certain irregularities in violation of environmental law that  have occurred in the heart of the Ministry of the Environment  which is involved with authorizations of projects,”_ attorney  Raúl Montenegro told Revolution News.
> 
> In October a new report revealed that pesticides sold by Monsanto are linked to health  problems ranging from birth defects to elevated rates of cancer  in Argentina. A lack of regulations has led to widespread misuse  of Monsanto’s products in the Latin American nation.
> 
> The multinational company is facing global criticism elsewhere as  well. In October thousands took to streets across the world’s  cities to protest the use of GMO products, with Monsanto a common target. Over 50  countries have been taking part in the march for world food day,  and across 47 different US states.
> ...


The rest of the report here... http://rt.com/news/monsanto-argentina-plant-halted-343/


Aside...Philippine farmers uproot Golden Rice

Hundreds of Philippine farmers uproot Golden Rice being tested in the town of Pili, province of Camarines Sur, in an attempt to stop the commercialization of genetically-modified rice. http://www.pinoyweekly.org

----------


## angelatc

> The rest of the report here... http://rt.com/news/monsanto-argentina-plant-halted-343/
> 
> 
> Aside...Philippine farmers uproot Golden Rice
> 
> Hundreds of Philippine farmers uproot Golden Rice being tested in the town of Pili, province of Camarines Sur, in an attempt to stop the commercialization of genetically-modified rice. http://www.pinoyweekly.org



Is everything the anti-GMO movement posts an absolute  lie?   Again from Russia Today, too. Yeah, someone who isn't a liberal that reads RT/

You have to be blind not to see what they are up to with this. . People who continue to post this trash are not here to support freedom and liberty.

I am pretty sure that it was Amy who orignally called this lie out.   http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...otest_and.html

It was "environmentalists,"  not farmers.  Who is funding these people?




> There is additional evidence beyond the physical appearance of the activists. "Real farmers will not trash a living rice plant," said Boncodin, who is a native of the region where the vandalism took place. "They have this culture that it is unlucky to kill a living rice plant," even if plants are diseased and threaten to infect the rest of the crop.
> 
> This taboo on destroying green rice plants is widespread and even has a name:_Bosung_. Boncodin insists that the real farmers "stayed by the side, and didn't directly participate in the trashing of the trial site." When local people were informed, their reaction, he said, was that "no sane farmer would do that to a living rice plant."
> 
> When the news of the attack was related to local farmer leaders, they were aghast. According to Boncodin, one of them, a 50-year-old man, burst into tears at the thought that so many young rice plants had been destroyed.
> 
> The local office of the Department of Agriculture backs up this version of events. Theirpress statement also names names: "The surprise attack was staged by the group led by Wilfredo Marbella, deputy secretary of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and Bert Auter, secretary general of KMP Bicol. Also identified were members of Anakpawis Partylist and MASIPAG."

----------


## Natural Citizen

> At least 11 protesters were arrested outside of Monsanto’s headquarters on Tuesday as they rallied in favor of shareholder resolutions that would require the company to alter its approach to genetically-modified organisms.
> 
> Adam Eidinger, the shareholder who introduced the labeling  resolution, told St. Louis Public Radio that despite his  proposal’s defeat, he expects the opposition to Monsanto’s  policies only to grow over the coming year.
> 
> _"We’ve thrown the gauntlet down and we’re expecting a year  from now that more than 10,000 people will be here if they don’t  label GMO foods,"_ Eidinger said.


http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-sharehold...g-arrests-371/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Again from Russia Today, too. Yeah, someone who isn't a liberal that reads RT


Heh. You sound like Glenn Beck to the letter. I should go find that video. 

In the mean time...someone has to report. Someone has to practice journalism. It's certainly not corporate media filling that role. 





RT peaked at over a billion views on it's youtube channel alone last year as people begin to question more and migrate away from the romper room and political theater that is the very  foundation of corporate run media. That's with a B. As in $#@!ing _Billion_.

----------


## Travlyr

If in fact, Roundup is killing our honeybees, then they need to be stopped ASAP.

----------


## Thor

http://wearechange.org/monsantos-rou...-scam-exposed/




> ww.activistpost.com
> 
> Roundup is the Monsanto herbicide that is touted as the cornerstone of GMO food crops. Monsanto claims these crops are genetically engineered to withstand heavy spraying of Roundup.
> 
> Therefore, the crops live and the weeds die. Breakthrough.
> 
> There are several key lies associated with these claimsbut a new one has surfaced.
> 
> A study to be published this month indicts Roundup and, in fact, the general class of insecticides and herbicides. On what grounds? When theyre tested for safety, only the so-called active ingredients are examined.
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Powerful farming and biotechnology interest groups announced Thursday they are banding together to push a federal voluntary labeling standard for genetically engineered food in an effort to stem the tide of state legislation seeking to mandate labeling.
> 
> The Coalition is also advocating the FDA define  _natural_ foods to include those consisting of GMOs.
> 
> These companies spent nearly $70 million in California and  Washington State to defeat GE labeling initiatives. They know  that the food movements power is growing and that labeling is  not a matter of if but when, said Andrew Kimbrell, executive  director of the Center for Food Safety. _These companies have  failed to win over consumers who overwhelmingly support the  mandatory labeling of GMOs and now theyre trying to steal away  consumer choice in Congress.
> 
> Voluntary labeling of GE foods is already permitted under  the law, but no company has ever chosen to do so because GE foods  offer consumers no benefits and only potential risk,_ said  the Center for Food Safetys Kimbrell. _Instead of working  together to meet consumer demand, GMA is using its deep pockets  to ensure that congress and consumers are misled about their food  supply.
> 
> Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and  food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been  employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches  to agriculture,_ the Union stated. _Policy decisions  about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech  industry PR campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about  the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and  preserve the health of our farmland.
> ...


http://rt.com/usa/gmo-labeling-standard-federal-936/

----------


## DamianTV

> ... federal voluntary labeling ...


Thats as goofy as saying Voluntary Mandatory Income Tax.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The French government issued a decree Monday forbidding farmers to plant genetically-modified maize in the immediate future while the government drafts a comprehensive law that will attempt to ban the practice nationwide.
> 
> French officials maintain that GM crops constitute a serious  environmental risk, despite a senior court striking down two  national prohibitions on GM maize (corn) in recent time. GM  opponents were also frustrated recently by the European Union,  which failed to agree on whether or not to ban a new strand of  GM-maize. The lack of consensus makes it more likely that the EU  Commission will approve its cultivation.
>   Genetically-modified crops have drawn the attention of much of  the international community because they are scientifically  produced to resist herbicides. Yet little independent research  has studied at what cost that modification does to humans who  ingest those same crops.
>   Among the most commonly cited causes for concern is the  skyrocketing resistance to antibiotics, although increased  toxicity in food and lower nutritional values are also considered  factors.
> 
>   GM maize has been no exception to the controversy, with many  scientists and environmentalists decrying the unconventional food  as an unsafe and unnecessary replacement to standard corn.
> 
>   The French law forbidding GM maize will go into full effect by  March 9, after an estimated three weeks of government  consultations and in time to prevent manipulated maize when the  sowing season begins in the latter half of March.
> ...


Paper continues... French law temporarily bans GM-maize planting while larger ban gains steam


Congruent... 
Farmers Abandoning GMO Seeds: Non-GMO is more profitable
‘World’s first’ farmer trial over GM crop contamination begins in Australia
EU ministers link GM crops approval to future elections
EU to approve new GM crop, ignoring majority members’ opposition

Aside.... *EU-U.S. Transatlantic Trade Partnership Will Force GMO Products into Europe*
*The EU-U.S. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership*

----------


## Thor

Came across this:




> EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS: Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff's new peer reviewed paper, "Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance" is now published in the "Journal of Interdisciplinary Toxicology."
> 
> These New England scientists are waiting for their study to show up on PubMed and other sites. We will announce the link after it is announced.
> 
> In the meantime, you can read it here:
> http://nhrighttoknowgmo.org/Breaking...sel-Seneff.pdf
> 
> 
> Why is this an important study?
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Study - Download PDF Full-Text [3182 KB, Updated Version, uploaded 21 February 2014 09:26 CET]

The original version is still available [880 KB, uploaded 20 February 2014 16:00 CET]




> A heretofore inexplicable fatal, chronic kidney disease that has affected poor farming regions around the globe may be linked to the use of biochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide in areas with hard water, a new study has found.
> 
>  The new study was published in the International Journal of  Environmental Research and Public Health.
> 
>   Researchers suggest that Roundup, or glyphosate, becomes highly  toxic to the kidney once mixed with _“hard”_ water or  metals like arsenic and cadmium that often exist naturally in the  soil or are added via fertilizer. Hard water contains metals like  calcium, magnesium, strontium, and iron, among others. On its  own, glyphosate is toxic, but not detrimental enough to eradicate  kidney tissue.
> 
>   The glyphosate molecule was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto  in the early 1970s. The company soon brought glyphosate to market  under the name _“Roundup,”_ which is now the most commonly  used herbicide in the world.
> 
>   The hypothesis helps explain a global rash of the mysterious,  fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown etiology (CKDu) that has  been found in rice paddy regions of northern Sri Lanka, for  example, or in El Salvador, where CKDu is the second leading  cause of death among males.
> ...


http://rt.com/news/monsanto-roundup-kidney-disease-921/



Previously...

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals




> "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however. 
> 
> 
> In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:_
> "Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."
> 
> _Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."
> 
> The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."



Aside...

10 Reasons why *Monsanto* is polluted and corrupted from its core 




> The biotech industry has been manipulating the genes of   GMO alfalfa and sugar beets that are treated with Monsanto’s Roundup. Many scientific community members have been warning that genetically  modified foods can cause a wide range of diseases including cancer and organ failure.   The USDA (during Bush presidency) illegally approved GMO  alfalfa and sugar beets. Unfortunately, the USDA under Obama’s presidency isn’t any different  from Bush and only mass-public opposition could change the approval of GMO crops.....

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monsanto and co. pouring money into defeating county measure to ban GMOs




> Monsanto and five other top agrochemical companies have donated a combined $455,000 to defeat an Oregon county ballot initiative that would restrict the growth of genetically-modified crops in area farms.
> 
>   The internationally-powerful _Big Six_ chemical  companies are flooding the Measure 15-119 ballot campaign in  Jackson County, Oregon with lucrative donations that have helped  opponents of the measure amass an eight-to-one spending  advantage, according to state figures.
> 
> Monsanto ($183,294), DuPont Pioneer ($129,647),  Syngenta ($75,000), Bayer ($22,353), BASF ($22,353), and Dow  AgroSciences ($22,353) have donated a combined $455,000 to Good  Neighbor Farmers, the political action committee fighting Measure  15-119, which county voters will consider on the May 20 ballot.
> 
> Powerful food industry and biotechnology players are currently  banding together on other fronts to protect their investment in  GMO technology despite national and international pushback. 
> 
> *Their  main effort in the US is seen in potential federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures  despite the right to know movements rising  popularity.
> *


Aside... Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

----------


## angelatc

> Monsanto and co. pouring money into defeating county measure to ban GMOs
> 
> 
> 
> Aside... Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws


Hurrah for the good guys, supporting science over stupid.

----------


## Thor

> Hurrah for the good guys, supporting science over stupid.


Bad science is dumber than stupid.

----------


## donnay

> Bad science is dumber than stupid.


Bad science is criminal.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Bad science is criminal.


 Who gets to decide what's "bad"?

----------


## donnay

> Who gets to decide what's "bad"?



Right now, government's got the market cornered to tell us what is good or bad for us.  I call for more transparency so people can make up their own minds.

----------


## Thor

> Who gets to decide what's "bad"?


Certainly not the company peddling the product.  

Nor the government agency managed by said company's ex-directors.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So, again, in your ideal system: who gets to decide what's "bad"?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So, again, in your ideal system: who gets to decide what's "bad"?


US corn exports to China drop 85 percent after ban on GMO strains – industry report




> According to a new report, US traders have lost $427 million in sales.  
> Overall, China has barred nearly 1.45 million tons of corn  shipments since last year, the National Grain and Feed  Association (NGFA), an American industry association, said  Friday.
> 
>   The tally is based on data from export companies and is  significantly higher than the previous numbers reported by the  media, which said roughly 900,000 tons were affected. US corn  exports to China since January are down 85 percent from the same  period last year, the report says.



Russia will not import GMO products - PM Medvedev




> Russia will not import GMO products, the country’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, adding that the nation has enough space and resources to produce organic food.
>   Moscow has no reason to encourage the production of genetically  modified products or import them into the country, Medvedev told  a congress of deputies from rural settlements on Saturday.
> 
> _“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it  then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and  opportunities to produce organic food,”_ he said.


Of course, it's unfortunate that Americans won't have much choice in the matter if politicians continue to run interference for these industries to dictate legislation that says that humans have no right to know what they are consuming into their bodies. Aside from suppressing states rights, these are basic human rights violations. 

And if you've been paying attention to any of my postings of late regarding those sanctions on Russia then you'd know that this is a huge aspect of blowback from competitive non-gmo healthy nations. BRICSA nations, to be clear. Foreign policy is very broad, helmuth. Very, very broad. And so good and bad depends upon the lens in which you choose to view the matter.

----------


## angelatc

> US corn exports to China drop 85 percent after ban on GMO strains – industry report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia will not import GMO products - PM Medvedev
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Liberal alert:  "human rights violations!" 

Government by a large group of stupid people is a democracy. I am pretty sure the scientifically illiterate don't have actually have a prayer about ever understanding what people are consuming.  If they did, this thread would not exist.

 If you do not want to eat GMO, eat organic.  Why is it so important to you that other people not have the ability to choose differently?


(And I notice that you didn't point out that the corn that China is blockading is not even a Monsanto product.  It's Sygenta's. Everything you people post is lies and propaganda.)

----------


## angelatc

ANd speaking of the lie of omission:  China isn't banning GMO because they're a bunch of panty-waisted Luddites:  it's a trade barrier designed to allow their own GMO corn products to get a foothold:

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...gmo-food-path/[QUOTE]




> Part of the answer came Thursday. China is trying to get in the GMO market, but is keener to develop its own technologies to meet rising agriculture demand, the countrys agriculture minister said at the national parliament.
> 
> The ministers comment possibly explains why it has taken the government so long to approve the commercial distribution of GMO grains domesticallythe government appears to be busy working on made-in-China technologies.  (GMO is genetically modified organismfor example, corn that has had its genetic blueprint artificially re-engineered to become insect-resistant.)
> 
> 
> The government will pursue its own research and development of genetically modified food, though it remains cautious on the distribution of GMO products, Agriculture Minister Han Changfu said at a press conference on Thursday. Given a lack of natural resources, he said, China has to promote scientific development to meet its grain-security needs.


So you're suggesting that the USA should get out of the business of cheap food, so that China can dominate that market too?  

That would explain why Russia Today is pushing these stories so hard:  Communists sticking together.

----------


## Natural Citizen

A storm is coming.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *angelatc*
> 
> ANd speaking of the lie of omission:  China isn't banning GMO because they're a bunch of panty-waisted Luddites:  it's a trade barrier designed to allow their own GMO corn products to get a foothold:
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...gmo-food-path/


Perhaps you should pay better attention. I've spent a great deal of time sharing information relative to this over the last week or two. Critical information. So there _are_ bread crumbs there and about should you consider trying to catch up with the rest of us. I'm not waiting around for you to debate last month's news though. Sorry. As I've said before, this is an intricate aspect of foreign policy and we'll see these developments 10 fold as competitive non-gmo (healthy) BRICSA nations merge with international finance clearing practices of other nations.

Btw. I see that you have joined the boards over at RT and have begun reciting the same industry propaganda we see here regarding the matter. 

There are many, many comments on this single article over there at RT alone from people who are actually informed on the subject and who perform a tremendous service by educating others on the intricates of the matter to include exposing the proponents of, upcoming and current legislation and by which hand or pen in the given industry or political office....some other neat stuff. You stuck out like a sore thumb. It got me chuckling a little bit. I do admire your persistence, angelatc. Futile as it is. It's a little different when you're up against so many who can assess the the corporate narrative for what it is and who are also not only informed but politically active, huh?

Ah well...it can be our little secret. Mums the word.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Bad science is criminal.


Once again, since still no one has answered me: in your ideal system, who would get to decide what's "bad"?

After all, it's "criminal".  It would seem pretty important how it's decided who is criminal.  Who gets to decide who is locked up for being  criminal and who is not?  What are you really proposing?

----------


## dannno

> Once again, since still no one has answered me: in your ideal system, who would get to decide what's "bad"?
> 
> After all, it's "criminal".  It would seem pretty important how it's decided who is criminal.  Who gets to decide who is locked up for being  criminal and who is not?  What are you really proposing?


I think imposing bad science on people is criminal, I'd think donnay may have a similar view.

Then again imposing good science on people isn't the best thing either.

----------


## donnay

> Once again, since still no one has answered me: in your ideal system, who would get to decide what's "bad"?
> 
> After all, it's "criminal".  It would seem pretty important how it's decided who is criminal.  Who gets to decide who is locked up for being  criminal and who is not?  What are you really proposing?


I am not talking about _my_ system...I am talking about the current system we have now.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

You said, I quote: "Bad science is criminal."

I ask: Who gets to decide what is bad science (and thus what is criminal)?

Am I being too technical?  Is this question too complex?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Am I being too technical?  Is this question too complex?


Uh-uh.It's simple, really. And it's not that anyone is ducking your questions. The fact is that there is nothing to be had by repeating the same elements of past discussion on it. Be there or be square, I always say. 

Start here, helmuth... Big Science: Evolution of Public Consumption

Also. I answered your question in a broader, more relevant to current events manner of sorts the first time you asked it here. The lens to view the issue in is much larger than what you seem to have brought along. But that's OK. It's geo-political at this point and even our elected representatives seem to be blind to that fact. Either that or they just arent competent enough in these areas of foreign policy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Uh-uh.


Is that "Uh-huh" as in "yes, or "unh-uh" as in "no"?

That is, is my question too advanced and mind-boggling, or isn't it?

----------


## angelatc

> Perhaps you should pay better attention. I've spent a great deal of time sharing information relative to this over the last week or two. Critical information. So there _are_ bread crumbs there and about should you consider trying to catch up with the rest of us. I'm not waiting around for you to debate last month's news though. Sorry. As I've said before, this is an intricate aspect of foreign policy and we'll see these developments 10 fold as competitive non-gmo (healthy) BRICSA nations merge with international finance clearing practices of other nations.


Nothing you say is true, much less critical. 

YOu can't baffle me with your bull$#@!, no matter how much of it you blather on. I just totally destroyed your anti-science bull$#@! with one simple fact:  China wants to develop their own GMO corn.  The whole anti-GMO movement is nothing but a lie.

This has nothing to do with GMO safety, and here's another fact to support that: China buys plenty of GMO corn from Brazil and Argentina:

http://news.investors.com/business/0...pproves-gm.htm

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I just totally destroyed your anti-science bull$#@! with one simple fact:  China wants to develop their own GMO corn.


No you didn't. 

What you are doing is providing confirmation of what I've brought to the table over the last couple of weeks while these competitive non-GMO  countries maneuver abreast with developing international finance clearing models that we are seeing out of Russia and China along with some others.

BRICSA nations are probably going to do a number on western agribusiness. Brazil's role in it should be interesting to watch moving forward. India too. Some others....

You're not even debating the issue correctly anymore. You're shortselling it.

But you just keep thinking that you're destroying my model. I'll just say to you to watch and see how this pans out. And I won't even tell you that I told you so.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Ok so someone please explain to me why so many people are against genetically modified food. If they spent years and years selectively breeding these plant species in order to achieve the same result, would it THEN be ok? Is the fear that they somehow screwed up (since this is a new science), and the new plants are harmful somehow?

Is it because the food isn't "natural". It's looking like we are going to be able to grow edible meat in a lab soon (replacing the need for breeding, raising, slaughtering livestock). Would this also be an affront worthy of protest?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *DevilsAdvocate* 
> 
> Ok so someone please explain to me why so many people are against genetically modified food.


Sure.

Here's a good start if you're interested. It's just a short bit of independent research. Probably just over a hundred pages in total.

Much has been discussed in several areas of this board including Health Freedom, Foreign Policy, Economics and National Sovereignty threads as well. Probably some others that I've missed so do seek those out if you're interested.

Anyhoo. Here you go...it's only an excerpt but I'll add the paper at the end. If you'd like information from any scientific journals then let me know and I'll see what I can do. There are several.




> Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of far-reaching claims from the industry and its supporters, such as:
> ● Humans have been genetically modifying crops
> for centuries and genetic engineering is no
> different
> ● GM crops are safe for human and animal health
> and the environment
> ● GM crops increase yields and reduce pesticide
> use
> ● GM will produce supercrops that tolerate
> ...


An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops


Aside... Farmers Abandoning GMO Seeds: Non-GMO is more profitable

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ofitable/page2

The Post-GMO Economy - cost of growing one acre of non-GMO corn

----------


## Natural Citizen

French parliament bans genetically modified maize




> France’s lower house of parliament passed a law Tuesday prohibiting genetically modified (GM) maize from being grown, citing environmental concerns. The law can be applied to any GM strain that is adopted at EU level.
> 
> The law follows a decree last month, which halted the planting of Monsanto’s insect-resistant maize MON810, which will be allowed for cultivation in the EU, Reuters reported.
> 
> But if any strain of GM crop is adopted in the future at EU level – including Pioneer 1507, which was developed by DuPont and Dow Chemical – it will be subsequently banned in France.
> 
> _"It is essential today to renew a widely shared desire to maintain the French ban. This bill strengthens the decree passed last March by preventing the immediate cultivation of GMO and extending their reach to all transgenic maize varieties"_Jean Marie Le Guen, the minister in charge of relations with parliament, told the National Assembly.
> 
> Le Guen called for an EU system that would make sure that the decisions of member states not to adopt GM crops could not be challenged legally.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Two more BRICSA nations push back against western agribusiness/GMOs...

Brazil’s Historic Court Ruling Stops Bayer’s GM Maize Cultivation in that Country




> “The Brazilian Court annulled the decision by Brazil’s Biosecurity Commission (CTNBio), who had allowed the release for cultivation of Liberty Link GM Maize. The civil action against CTNBio was started by Land Rights, the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense – IDEC and the National Association of Small Farmers.
> “The decision is reported to have created new legal paradigm and may force Brazilian authorities to reconsider all other commercial releases of GMOs in Brazil. _Never before has a Judge stated that there is a need for studies on the negative impacts of GMOs in all major biomes in the country.”
> _


MONSANTO FORCED TO WITHDRAW UNSUBSTANTIATED ADVERTISING CLAIMS ON BENEFITS OF GM CROPS-ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA




> “We are elated with this decision. Monsanto has already been warned by the ASA as far back as 2007, that it needs to substantiate its claims from an independent and credible expert in the matter of GM Food/M Wells/ 8739 (18 June 2007) regarding its claims of the so called benefits of GM crops. However, it appears Monsanto does not have much regard for South African law as it is hell bent on disseminating false information to the South African public, “ said Mariam Mayet, Executive Director of the ACB.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Yeah ok so you are basically arguing that they screwed it all up. Well that is a legitimate argument I suppose.

----------


## angelatc

> Ok so someone please explain to me why so many people are against genetically modified food. If they spent years and years selectively breeding these plant species in order to achieve the same result, would it THEN be ok? Is the fear that they somehow screwed up (since this is a new science), and the new plants are harmful somehow?
> 
> Is it because the food isn't "natural". It's looking like we are going to be able to grow edible meat in a lab soon (replacing the need for breeding, raising, slaughtering livestock). Would this also be an affront worthy of protest?


It would be interesting to see exactly who is funding this effort.  From the posters and their sources, my current guess is that it is Communist propaganda designed to try to keep America from becoming the providers of cheap and abundant food.  In short, it's part of a trade war.  For the most part, Americans have no idea about what's going on in the rest of the world.  So as long as they can frighten the _boobus_ (as AF affectionately refers to them as), they can gain some traction in the market.  

And organic farmers are in the same position.  As GMOs advance the science of food, it will become cheaper and easier to grow food. As more and more research comes out indicating that there is absolutely no advantage to eating organic, people will abandon it.  If I were an organic farmer, I'd be playing the "it's scary!" card too.

----------


## angelatc

> Two more BRICSA nations push back against western agribusiness/GMOs...
> 
> 
> Brazil’s Historic Court Ruling Stops Bayer’s GM Maize Cultivation in that Country ...


DevilsAdvocate, This is what I mean - it is clearly the anti-capitalism leftists who are behind this. A socialist judge in a socialist country legislating from the bench. 

And anyway, that's just one strain, stopped by one judge who is not a scientist.   It is quite possible that he is on Monsanto's payroll, since he only stopped the Bayer strain.

In reality, they're growing more GMO there now than ever before. Brazil GMO planting to increase by 6.8 percent this season.

----------


## otherone

> It would be interesting to see exactly who is funding this effort.  From the posters and their sources, my current guess is that it is Communist propaganda


color me surprised....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> it is clearly the anti-capitalism leftists who are behind this.


What you're doing is ignoring mercantilism in the name of capitalism. Which is what I meant earlier when I said that you weren't even arguing the issue correctly. 

Certainly, one can define _either_ but understanding the _difference_ between the two and then actually _recognizing_ that diference when _applied_ is quite another story. And that's exactly what we see happening with this treason from Koch network, Monsanto and  Congressman Mike Pompeo with this industry backed legislation that they are introducing to void both citizen and state the right to seek and know information regarding what they are putting into their bodies. If they are successful there then they'll certainly not stop there. I'd expect the industry to continue to retain the services of elected representatives and further manipulate the political system of representation to ensure that only GMO crops are then grown. The results of the recent farm bill were indicative of this phenomenon. Of course, that's another discussion in another thread but certainly we can bump that up if anyone missed it. But again...we're talking mercantilism here. Capitalism argument won't work because it's not applicable here. What the industry and their political insiders are doing is mercantilism in application. 

And, of course, we need to remember the Trans-Pacific Parnership agreement. It hasn't gone any place.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah ok so you are basically arguing that they screwed it all up. Well that is a legitimate argument I suppose.


Yes. The use of such language as "substantially equivalent" is one that really gets me chuckling. If you don't know, "substantially equivalent" is the assumption that "If it looks like a tomato and tastes like a tomato then, by gosh, it's a tomato. No need to concern ourselves with science". And, unfortunately, consumers have fallen into this trap as well when combined with the fallacy that the food is cheaper to grow that we hear from the industry. It is not cheaper. This "substantially equivalent" model has been the model that farmers have been given by these biotech companies and government agencies in order to solicit them to go GMO. Of course, the farmers mentioned in the Modern Farmer paper that I linked to a few posts down seem to have already made the appropriate market based decision and it appears to be non-GMO. I'll share it again here for convenience sake - Farmers Abandoning GMO Seeds: Non-GMO is more profitable

Of course, this isn't really about markets though when we really scrutinize the practices and language of the industry and government agencies who are aligned with them as was shown here - Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

 It's about mercantilism and corporate protection _from_ the Free Market as I was just telling angelatc.

And on top of that, there has been zero regard for licensing fees for the same products regarding patent laws. So...yeah. So much for so called "substantially equivalent".


Here's more on that... the "substantially equivalent" sales pitch, that is.




> A basic principle in the classification of GMO foods is fundamentally flawed and “has failed miserably” at protecting public health, a study argues. The error has allowed companies to market potentially dangerous GMO products.
> 
>   The principle itself is known as *‘substantial equivalence’* and is  the basis for the safety protocol used by most international food  regulators. It works off the idea that if a new food product  (GMOs in this case) are found to be similar to an  already-existing non-GMO product, then it can be treated the same  with regard to safety regulations.  
> 
>   However, the Australia-based Permaculture Research Institute has  revealed that new studies, independent of the biotech industry,  are showing up _“glaring differences”_ between GMOs and  their non-GMO counterparts, suggesting the concept of substantial  equivalence is flawed.  
> 
> _“This makes a mockery of the regulatory principle of  ‘Substantial Equivalence’ which has facilitated approvals of GMOs  with practically no protection for public health and the  environment,”_ writes a study published on Friday.  
> 
>   At present the international regulation bodies that use the  principle include the World Health Organization, the United  Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization.
> ...


GMO assessment has ‘failed’ at protecting public health – report

----------


## Natural Citizen

Much to consider here. More information out regarding not only GMOs and gene contamination, but news of suppression of it. Some other stuff. I had a thread around here some place which focused upon the dependence of agribusiness and medicine/pharmaceuticals (on one another) and went as far as explaining relevance in data storage/healthcare bill and whatnot but I'm not bothering to look for it since there are other, more relevant factors to consider here. Note that we have two different papers discussed here.

Anhoo...

Muzzled by Monsanto: Is Big Ag squelching research showing its new RNAi GMOs may be dangerous? 
 



> "RNAi has applications in both the medical world and in agriculture. But these two worlds are not after the same thing when it comes to RNA. While the medical community is trying to perfect processes that will cause the human body to accept modified RNA strands, agriculture corporations working in the GMO field are busy trying to prove that their RNA strands can’t be assimilated by the human body at all.
> 
> "For example, some microRNAs interfere with cell division and block cancer. These tumor suppressor RNAs are missing in cancer patients. If they can be replaced — an experimental treatment known as microRNA replacement therapy — then doctors could theoretically stop the proliferation of cancer cells. But in agriculture where RNA is being engineered as a pesticide designed to kill insects that feed on crops — such as Monsanto’s RNA efforts aimed at the Western corn rootworm, the most economically destructive pest in corn production — it is paramount that the RNA in and/or on the corn that is later eaten by humans doesn’t subsequently infiltrate our cells causing who knows what kind of unintended consequences.
> 
> "In short, the medical world needs the genetically modified RNA to be assimilated by our bodies and the agricultural world needs the opposite to occur."



Probably the more relevant  concern from Monsanto regarding this research, I think, is that cross kingdom genetic expression* is* actually possible from consuming plants but could be said to be an interesting twist on economic warfare when we consider corporate lobby including big pharma and agribusiness and who can feed the most money to politicians to influence legislation...




> "In September of 2011, three months after Vance gave her presentation on RNAi at the ILSI conference, a team lead by Chen-Yu Zhang of Nanjing University in China published a paper in the journal _Cell Research_ claiming that mammals (mice, in the case of their study) take up small RNAs when they eat plants, and those plant RNAs regulate expression of mammalian genes — something the science world refers to as trans-kingdom gene regulation.
> 
> "The team reported finding small RNA molecules in the bloodstream and tissue of mice and humans. They found that one particular molecule of RNA from rice could inhibit a protein that supports removal of low-density lipoprotein, or "bad" cholesterol from the blood. If such a finding proved to also be true for humans, it would potentially indicate that eating foods contain ing modified RNA could have major implications for heart disease and other health issues tied to cholesterol.
> 
> "’That had never been reported before. Nobody had thought about that," says Vance. "What the hell, I mean, you’re eating a plant and taking in plant RNAs and they are regulating the expression of your genes? I think that has to be considered. … There’s been a lot of resistance to that paper. When something really unexpected like that comes up, there’s always a lot of resistance."
> 
> Resistance was apparent even before the Chinese study was published. The team’s manuscript was rejected by wellknown journals _Science, Cell_ and _Molecular Cell._ Zhang told _The Scientist Magazine_ it was because their discovery was "too extraordinary."
> "Most of the people [who speculate about our work] just don’t believe it because the concept right now, I have to say, is broken by my results," Zhang told _Boulder Weekly_ in a recent interview from Nanjing. "They don’t want to believe until I have new data or the other groups reproduce some of our data. And of course some other people, for whatever reason I don’t want to say … I don’t want to even touch … they are just against our discovery no matter what it is."
> 
> ...




Something to ponder is the last excerpt...




> “A simple step, in Vance’s opinion, would be to engineer corn plants to only express specific RNA in the roots of the plant where the corn rootworm will feed, avoiding consumption by humans.
> 
> “’Why do they have to express their RNAi in corn seeds? They don’t have to. They could just put it in the roots – it wouldn’t be hard to do. Why don’t they just fix their freaking plants so they won’t be dangerous to people? Even if there’s some small chance it’s dangerous,’ Vance pauses as she has many times during conversations about Monsanto, clearly frustrated.
> 
> “’I just don’t understand the mindset,’ she sighs.”

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

Twenty six pages of problem, and perhaps not one post of solution.

It is clear that corporate free speech or individual rights are the source originating a lot of the problem.  Therein substantiates a need for major change.  GMO's are just one of many serious problems that require maximum politic power.

But is anyone discussing that?  No.  Why?  Such is incredibly illogical.  There are only 3 real answers.  
1) none posting are real and its all about overwhelming this environment with problem.  
2) Posters are conditioned to only be able to cognit the sensations of problems.  
3) Posters are ignorant or do not believe solution exists.

1) Seems unlikely, but with cognitive infiltration as widespread as it is, who knows.  2) Seems socially feasible given TV and web media w/cognitive infiltration setting trends of sensation,  3) As an extension of 2) seems likely where people are conditioned to only use information from
Iconic sources.  Absolutely requiring leadership in order to identify solution meaningfully.

Given 3), and a serious distortion of comprehension of the root function of democracy, the idea of simple unity based in mass observance of fact may only be possible AFTER problems have developed to an extent where solution is out moded.

We don't know when that is, but here's the solution anyway.

I know most have seen this before, but with consideration of the above, attempt some comprehensive critical thinking and consider abandoning definition of problem on a trial basis just to see what happens.

We need to exercise our first constitutional right, to "alter or abolish".  First action, clean up states.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

A step by step process in a forum which stands un opposed because it is fully lawful and logical.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

By ending the abridging of free speech an appropriate majority will be appraised of information and perhaps with preliminary use of direct democracy determine what is real and what is not.

Clearly, we are not going to be marching in protest in these economic conditions.

----------


## Natural Citizen

We've discussed this before in various corners of the board, Christopher.

----------


## angelatc

> 


All that noise, and not one fact.

The solution is simply to eat organic if you do not want to eat GMO, but that's not enough.  Natural Citizen and her ilk want control of the entire global food supply.

----------


## angelatc

From a French newspaper that isn't Russia Today:

Farmers Fight New France GM Corn Ban




> The agriculture ministry said it was not surprised by growers and seed makers’ decision to appeal against the decree. 
> 
> The government’s latest attempt to ban GM corn comes shortly before the sowing season is due to begin. 
> 
> *Two previous bans - in 2008 and 2012 - were overturned by the Conseil D’Etat because the case was “not sufficiently substantiated”.*
> 
> - See more at: http://www.connexionfrance.com/franc....svpSAujz.dpuf

----------


## Natural Citizen

> From a French newspaper that isn't Russia Today:
> 
> The agriculture ministry said it was not surprised by growers and seed makers’ decision to appeal against the decree.


Yep, this is where the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement become apparent. We've talked about this before. Is very dangerous when corporations are allowed to sue away the sovereignty of entire nations. By "seed makers", I assume that they are talking about the GM Industry itself.

Of course, I haven't read your paper yet so...will do that.

----------


## PRB

> Liberal alert:  "human rights violations!" 
> 
> Government by a large group of stupid people is a democracy. I am pretty sure the scientifically illiterate don't have actually have a prayer about ever understanding what people are consuming.  If they did, this thread would not exist.
> 
>  If you do not want to eat GMO, eat organic.  Why is it so important to you that other people not have the ability to choose differently?
> 
> 
> (And I notice that you didn't point out that the corn that China is blockading is not even a Monsanto product.  It's Sygenta's. Everything you people post is lies and propaganda.)


by the way, GMO and organic are not mutually exclusive. GMO refers to genes/seeds/breed. Organic refers to soil/fertilizer/pesticides (growth process)

----------


## PRB

> All that noise, and not one fact.
> 
> The solution is simply to eat organic if you do not want to eat GMO, but that's not enough.  Natural Citizen and her ilk want control of the entire global food supply.


because the only way to stop monsanto from forcing us to eat monsanto, is to ban monsanto from letting anybody eat it.

----------


## PRB

> DevilsAdvocate, This is what I mean - it is clearly the anti-capitalism leftists who are behind this. A socialist judge in a socialist country legislating from the bench.


and then there's libertarian anti-capitalists who claim they are only "anti-corporate", you know, like anti-Jews who claim they're just anti-Zionist.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Since no one is going to answer me, let me just explain: I am not arguing against anything you posted, Natural Citizen.  I just noticed one little issue and wanted to clear up or discuss that one narrow point.  The point is this:

A poster claimed that bad science is "*criminal*."  If taken literally, that means people who do "bad science" (whatever that is) are guilty of a crime and ought to be punished by force -- thrown in prison, fined, executed, whatever.  They ought to be forced to recompense the victims.  Whatever your theory is of what should be done to criminals who commit crimes, that thing should be done to them.

I disagree.

I think that all science -- good, bad, indifferent -- should be unrestricted.  We all should be at perfect liberty to do whatever science we choose, at whatever quality level we choose.  There should be no "science police" regulating and restricting and controlling science.  I think that _actually_ there likely is no disagreement among us here on this matter.  Everyone on this thread would probably be perfectly happy to let everyone do whatever science they want -- from the PhD with the million-dollar lab complex to the herbalist down by the river doing experiments in his basement.  

I just wanted to point that all out.  Bad science is _not_ criminal, any more than bad dancing.  Let us all fight for free and open science!  And that means: *Separation of Science and State!*

----------


## Thor

> Since no one is going to answer me, let me just explain: I am not arguing against anything you posted, Natural Citizen.  I just noticed one little issue and wanted to clear up or discuss that one narrow point.  The point is this:
> 
> A poster claimed that bad science is "*criminal*."  If taken literally, that means people who do "bad science" (whatever that is) are guilty of a crime and ought to be punished by force -- thrown in prison, fined, executed, whatever.  They ought to be forced to recompense the victims.  Whatever your theory is of what should be done to criminals who commit crimes, that thing should be done to them.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> I think that all science -- good, bad, indifferent -- should be unrestricted.  We all should be at perfect liberty to do whatever science we choose, at whatever quality level we choose.  There should be no "science police" regulating and restricting and controlling science.  I think that _actually_ there likely is no disagreement among us here on this matter.  Everyone on this thread would probably be perfectly happy to let everyone do whatever science they want -- from the PhD with the million-dollar lab complex to the herbalist down by the river doing experiments in his basement.  
> 
> I just wanted to point that all out.  Bad science is _not_ criminal, any more than bad dancing.  Let us all fight for free and open science!  And that means: *Separation of Science and State!*


Sure, we should allow scientific exploration and discovery, absolutely.... in a closed, self contained environment if it has the potential to destroy the ecosystem at large.  

The criminal part comes in when it is forced upon us all, as a population, with us as a giant lab rat experiment, with no due process for safety other than self validation and a government rubber stamping their buddies work ....  that is criminal.  That is "bad" science.  Self validating, hiding the facts, pushing agendas with favoritism. 

And when you combine that with the desire of the company peddling this crap to secure fees at every annual growth cycle to prevent even the option of providing basic food to survive, as their product takes over the indigenous species through pollination  ....  that is criminal.  That is "bad" science.  

That is not good science that is trying to better mankind, that is "greedy control at whatever cost" science.  Trying to do something with good intent is good science, even if it turns out badly.  Trying to deceive and control and harm people in the mean time is not good, and is not bad, it is criminal.

So, the BLM claims to be saving the desert tortoise, or collect unpaid grazing fees, or whatever their story de jour is...  So is that a good motive?  Should they be allowed to do that?  Or does the land owner still have rights that were in place before the BLM even existed?  If the ulterior motives of Reid or whomever is behind the push come to light and are proven, does it now make it criminal for what the BLM tried to do?  If it is for a solar project, does that make it OK, because more people will benefit from clean energy? Is it OK for Monsanto to do whatever it takes to push their food supply control with quite possibly unsafe food because it will feed more people (a lie BTW, just like the desert tortoise), but not OK for the BLM to try and take over land for solar projects, or mineral rights, or?

"Bad dancing" only bothers the viewers, and only temporarily while they have to view it.  Bad science in the case of modifying the entire food supply can destroy the human species, or tax the species with the fee required to even grow your own food to survive.  Not quite on the same level as a bad rendition of "dirty dancing" is it?

So, do you think it is OK for a company to push their self-validated, "ex director now working in the FDA of the government" approved science on the masses as a big lab experiment, when pushing it out is virtually irreversible to the food supply and makes them the gatekeeper to basic survival of the species, let alone if the products do not cause harm the species in the mean time....  Is that "bad" science?  Is that "criminal", or A-OK?  It appears as though you are OK with that no matter the end goals or costs to the human species...   So having this same argument with you over and over still proves to be futile.  

And I doubt it is just that "one narrow point."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Sure, we should allow scientific exploration and discovery, absolutely.... in a closed, self contained environment if it has the potential to destroy the ecosystem at large.


 Yep.  That was all I was saying.




> The criminal part comes in when it is forced upon us all, as a population, with us as a giant lab rat experiment, with no due process for safety other than self validation and a government rubber stamping their buddies work ....  that is criminal.  That is "bad" science.  Self validating, hiding the facts, pushing agendas with favoritism.


 I do understand that was likely what was meant.  That's why I clarified that my point only applied if taking the statement literally.  That is not how the statement was meant, I know.




> And when you combine that with the desire of the company peddling this crap to secure fees at every annual growth cycle to prevent even the option of providing basic food to survive, as their product takes over the indigenous species through pollination  ....  that is criminal.  That is "bad" science.


 Pollination could be criminal.  Voluntary exchange of good and services (paying a fee to use someone else's property -- his seeds in this case) is not criminal.




> That is not good science that is trying to better mankind, that is "greedy control at whatever cost" science.  Trying to do something with good intent is good science, even if it turns out badly.  Trying to deceive and control and harm people in the mean time is not good, and is not bad, it is criminal.


 Fraud can certainly be criminal.  It is not always criminal, but it can be.  We all try to control each other to an extent.  Those who try to a lesser extent tend to be libertarians, and also tend to be easier to get along with.  As far as harm, some is criminal and some is not.




> So, the BLM claims to be saving the desert tortoise, or collect unpaid grazing fees, or whatever their story de jour is...  So is that a good motive?  Should they be allowed to do that?  Or does the land owner still have rights that were in place before the BLM even existed?  If the ulterior motives of Reid or whomever is behind the push come to light and are proven, does it now make it criminal for what the BLM tried to do?  If it is for a solar project, does that make it OK, because more people will benefit from clean energy? Is it OK for Monsanto to do whatever it takes to push their food supply control with quite possibly unsafe food because it will feed more people (a lie BTW, just like the desert tortoise), but not OK for the BLM to try and take over land for solar projects, or mineral rights, or?


 What is and is not OK for people to do is entirely defined, in my opinion, by private property rights.  Property draws the boundary lines between our interactions with each other.  Private property is the key to liberty.




> "Bad dancing" only bothers the viewers, and only temporarily while they have to view it.  Bad science in the case of modifying the entire food supply can destroy the human species, or tax the species with the fee required to even grow your own food to survive.  Not quite on the same level as a bad rendition of "dirty dancing" is it?


 No, it is not.  You are right.  Science is powerful.  In my view, power should be _decentralized_.  Every individual should have an equal right to do science.  Even though its dangerous.




> So, do you think it is OK for a company to push their self-validated, "ex director now working in the FDA of the government" approved science on the masses as a big lab experiment, when pushing it out is virtually irreversible to the food supply and makes them the gatekeeper to basic survival of the species, let alone if the products do not cause harm the species in the mean time....  Is that "bad" science?  Is that "criminal", or A-OK?


 I am for complete separation of science and state, as I already said.  I would have thought that statement would make my opinion on such matters clear.  But I guess not.  So let me clarify and answer you: I am opposed to the very existence of the FDA.  I am opposed to the cozy marriage between agribusiness and the federal government.  I am opposed to all the powerful forces working to keep the food market from being free and open.




> It appears as though you are OK with that no matter the end goals or costs to the human species...   So having this same argument with you over and over still proves to be futile.


 So glad you know everything about me!




> And I doubt it is just that "one narrow point."


 Obviously it was.  How could I have been any clearer?  I asked one question, over and over (never answered) and then explained exactly why I was asking.  I don't know how I could be more transparent.  Unless you just assume I am a liar.  And perhaps that I'm "One of Them!"  Perhaps these are just more aspects of your all-encompassing knowledge about who I am.

----------


## angelatc

> by the way, GMO and organic are not mutually exclusive. GMO refers to genes/seeds/breed. Organic refers to soil/fertilizer/pesticides (growth process)


In the United States, all food labeled organic must be non-GMO.  

7 CFR § 205.105:


> To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must 
> be produced and handled without the use of: (e) Excluded methods ....





> Excluded Methods: A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). 
> 
> 
> Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture'

----------


## PRB

> In the United States, all food labeled organic must be non-GMO.  
> 
> 7 CFR § 205.105:


Thanks, sorry for my ignorance, I'm glad we have government forcing us to use a word a certain way. We can't possibly trust people to look out for themselves.

----------


## angelatc

> Thanks, sorry for my ignorance, I'm glad we have government forcing us to use a word a certain way. We can't possibly trust people to look out for themselves.




Yes.  Now the same people are clamoring for the government to define "Natural" for them, too.

----------


## Fox McCloud

I'd march against their patent monopoly, but nothing more...but that's really a larger/broader issue that doesn't apply to just Monsanto.

----------


## PRB

> I'd march against their patent monopoly, but nothing more...but that's really a larger/broader issue that doesn't apply to just Monsanto.


there's an inherent patent abuse problem going on, not just with food and pharma, so patent reform would be the best way to address this, since it doesn't isolate Monsanto, and it doesn't leave others who are victims of patent abuse hanging.

----------


## PRB

> Yes.  Now the same people are clamoring for the government to define "Natural" for them, too.


Let's slide the slippery slope! next they'll ask government to define money, and rights! OMFG, these are the same people who want the government to tell us what we can eat and what we can drug ourselves with!!!!!!

----------


## Fox McCloud

> there's an inherent patent abuse problem going on, not just with food and pharma, so patent reform would be the best way to address this, since it doesn't isolate Monsanto, and it doesn't leave others who are victims of patent abuse hanging.


Precisely---very well stated.

----------


## angelatc

> I'd march against their patent monopoly, but nothing more...but that's really a larger/broader issue that doesn't apply to just Monsanto.


What patent monopoly?  Seed patent law was established in the '30's, and it's the same for Monsanto as it is for the people who breed championship roses.  The patents last 12 years....their RR soy is off patent this year.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What patent monopoly?  Seed patent law was established in the '30's, and it's the same for Monsanto as it is for the people who breed championship roses.  The patents last 12 years....their RR soy is off patent this year.


Well.... as was mentioned previously here, substantial equivalence flew right out the window when it came to protecting licensing and usage fees for the same products under patent law. So...next....

----------


## PRB

> What patent monopoly?  Seed patent law was established in the '30's, and it's the same for Monsanto as it is for the people who breed championship roses.  The patents last 12 years....their RR soy is off patent this year.


can't they may a small change and either refile or renew?

so their RR soy is now fair game for everybody?

----------


## angelatc

> can't they may a small change and either refile or renew?
> 
> so their RR soy is now fair game for everybody?


Yes.  Generic Generation 1 RR soy seeds can be produced by any other seed manufacturer, and farmers can now save the seeds from season to season.  2015 will be the first season they can plant seeds they've saved.   

http://seedworld.com/index.php?optio...=71&Itemid=274

However, they make a newer version that is still in protection.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa...xpiration.aspx

Obviously, farmers and the market will have to decide which product best suits their specific needs.  Which is as it should be.

Seriously - every single thing that comes out of the anti-Monsanto / anti-GMO movement is either a lie or a huge exaggeration. (Monsanto got fined for making unapproved claims in a commercial.  Seriously?  Who cares? )

 Start fact checking them.  That's what I did, and that's why I became alarmed at the fact that the noise was being posted with absolutely no challenges as to the veracity.

Rule of thumb:  if Natural News or Russia Today is the source, it's simply not accurate.

----------


## angelatc

> Well.... as was mentioned previously here, substantial equivalence flew right out the window when it came to protecting licensing and usage fees for the same products under patent law. So...next....


You use far too many words to say nothing.  Like I said, seed patent law was established in the '30's.  RR soy - the first RR product brought to market - is off patent this year.  Other manufacturers can now make generic versions, and farmers can now save seeds.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You use far too many words to say nothing.  Like I said, seed patent law was established in the '30's.  RR soy - the first RR product brought to market - is off patent this year.  Other manufacturers can now make generic versions, and farmers can now save seeds.



Yeah, whatever.  Hey, what do you think about what India and Brazil and that lot are up to?

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

Obama Issues Threats To Russia And NATO

This is that storm I was telling you about. Looks like it's finally starting to brew up.

Also, a new official report confirms that one fifth of Chinese farmland is polluted from the overuse of  farm chemicals and whatnot. The study released by the Chinese government was originally  labeled as a state secret. Scwewy timing to release it now.

----------


## angelatc

> Yeah, whatever.  Hey, what do you think about what India and Brazil and that lot are up to?
> 
> Monsanto in US Foreign Policy
> 
> Obama Issues Threats To Russia And NATO
> 
> This is that storm I was telling you about. Looks like it's finally starting to brew up.
> 
> Also, a new official report confirms that one fifth of Chinese farmland is polluted from the overuse of  farm chemicals and whatnot. The study released by the Chinese government was originally  labeled as a state secret. Scwewy timing to release it now.


Yeah, right.  Russia invaded Ukraine because Monsanto.  

The Chinese used to dump straight up arsenic on their crops. More GMO - less  / less harsh chemicals. That's why they're developing it. Seriously - glyphosate is less toxic than aspirin or nicotine.  And it's far less toxic than the stuff that was being used in the 20's and 30's.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, right.  Russia invaded Ukraine because Monsanto.


Did Russia invade Ukraine? I must have missed that one.

----------


## angelatc

> Did Russia invade Ukraine? I must have missed that one.


Yes, I see what you did there, comrade.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Ah, well. I'm going to go read some news on the other threads for a few. Have a good evening, angela.

While I'm thinking of it, though, here is a timeline, still (and will continue to be) continuously updated, that goes as far back as February 18, 2014 15:03 and all the way up to today,  April 18, 2014 18:01. Live ground reports by the minute, essentially, with live video and photography.

Ukraine turmoil LIVE UPDATES

And another, updated similarly with live content, regarding Kiev. 

Kiev military op in eastern Ukraine LIVE UPDATES

If you'd like to debate any of the happenings or legitimacy of events contained in the on ground reporting, I'll be in the neigborhood. Heck, I'm a stickler for a good debate.

And, of course, there around 8,000 or so comments on those pages as well if you aren't up for a debate on the legitimacy of the reporting  here.

----------


## PRB

> Yes.  Generic Generation 1 RR soy seeds can be produced by any other seed manufacturer, and farmers can now save the seeds from season to season.  2015 will be the first season they can plant seeds they've saved.   
> 
> http://seedworld.com/index.php?optio...=71&Itemid=274


Wait, so you mean to tell me we can finally hear about people NOT suing Monsanto for pollution, and/or Monsanto NOT suing alleged theives for having their seeds?




> However, they make a newer version that is still in protection.
> 
> http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa...xpiration.aspx
> 
> Obviously, farmers and the market will have to decide which product best suits their specific needs.  Which is as it should be.
> 
> Seriously - every single thing that comes out of the anti-Monsanto / anti-GMO movement is either a lie or a huge exaggeration. (Monsanto got fined for making unapproved claims in a commercial.  Seriously?  Who cares? )
> 
>  Start fact checking them.  That's what I did, and that's why I became alarmed at the fact that the noise was being posted with absolutely no challenges as to the veracity.


I'm a little confused on why Monsanto is evil, is it because they're forcing us to eat their stuff or because they're suing people who have their stuff? are their products in demand or poison?




> *Rule of thumb:  if Natural News or Russia Today is the source, it's simply not accurate.*


How much are you paid to say that?

----------


## Thor

A little entertainment on the subject:

----------


## angelatc

> Wait, so you mean to tell me we can finally hear about people NOT suing Monsanto for pollution, and/or Monsanto NOT suing alleged theives for having their seeds?


I'm guessing we probably will not stop hearing those things, because the talking points are far more important than the truth to ideologues.  




> I'm a little confused on why Monsanto is evil, is it because they're forcing us to eat their stuff or because they're suing people who have their stuff? are their products in demand or poison?


I think Monsanto is probably a corporate bully, like every other mega-corporation out there. But they have never sued anybody who did not intentionally plant their seeds with the specific intention of not paying their royalties.  (This usually generates a shriek , but nobody has ever produced a case to show me I'm wrong, so I'm sticking with it.)






> How much are you paid to say that?


  Nothing. Consider it a public service.

----------


## Natural Citizen

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

List of dates and places in North America and world wide - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=0

Consider attending a march near you or organizing one of your own.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Vermont poised to enact toughest US GMO-labeling law yet

Vermont lawmakers have passed legislation that requires food made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, to be labeled as such. The law, the first of its kind in the US, must now get approval from Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has supported the bill.

  The state House of Representatives approved the bill on Wednesday  by a vote of 114-30. The state Senate passed the legislation last  week by a vote of 28-2.




> The bill would require any foods containing GMOs sold at retail  outlets to be labeled as having been produced or partially  produced with _“genetic engineering.”_ The law would go  into effect on July 1, 2016.
> 
>   Gov. Shumlin must now sign the bill to cap the process. He again  expressed support for the measure on Wednesday.
> 
> _I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the  nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food.  The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of  this bill,"_ Shumlin said. _"I wholeheartedly agree with  them and look forward to signing this bill into law.”
> 
> _Anticipating lawsuits from industry, legislators established a  fund of up to $1.5 million to help the state pay for defense  against any legal action. People can contribute voluntarily to  the fund, and settlements won in other court cases can be added  to the fund by the state attorney general, the Burlington Free  Press reported.
> 
> Powerful food industry and biotechnology players are currently banding together on many fronts to protect their investment in GMO technology  despite national and international pushback. Their main effort in  the US is seen in federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures  like Vermont’s despite the _“right to know”_ movement’s  rising popularity.
> ...


Continued - Vermont poised to enact toughest US GMO-labeling law yet

----------


## Fox McCloud

> What patent monopoly?  Seed patent law was established in the '30's, and it's the same for Monsanto as it is for the people who breed championship roses.  The patents last 12 years....their RR soy is off patent this year.


The 12 year patent is the monopoly in and of itself; Monsanto isn't the only one utilizing it of course; anyone who holds a seed patent, at all, has their own government-enforced monopoly.

----------


## angelatc

> The 12 year patent is the monopoly in and of itself; Monsanto isn't the only one utilizing it of course; anyone who holds a seed patent, at all, has their own government-enforced monopoly.


The Constitution promises patent rights, although I will admit that seems to be a popular place for the libertarians to get off the train.

----------


## angelatc

> Vermont poised to enact toughest US GMO-labeling law yett



More misuse of the regulatory system.  And here you are, cheering on the actions of the most socialist state in the union.   

It's pretty funny to see them do this, when they lost a court battle to do the same thing with milk back in the '90s when the courts overturned Vermont's law that required labeling of rBST treated milk.  This will end up the same way - they will lose in court after spending millions of dollars fighting a aw that any first year aw student could make a case against.  The law was settled back then, right or wrong.  It only took a year, so this will probably go down in flames even faster.

What is doubly funny about that it was some dairy association that challenged the law and won, and even though they were villians at the time,  they now make a ton of money charging a premium for "organic, rBST free milk"  even though there is absolutely no way to tell if milk is from a treated versus an untreated cow.      So the stupid people pay a higher price for being stupid - as it should be.

I have no problem with fools being parted from their money, but I certainly wish they'd keep their filthy hands off of my food supply.  Prices are high enough, thank you.

*Vermont’s GMO Labeling Bill Similar to rBST of Old*


> n 1995 it mandated the labeling of any dairy products containing milk from cows treated with rBST (recombinant bovine Somatotropin). And now, it’s poised to require labeling of any retail food product that contains genetically engineered materials.
> 
> It only took a year for courts to overturn the mandatory rBST labeling law as the courts held that the right of producers not to divulge information on its production methods should be equal to the consumers’ right to know the production methods.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The Constitution promises patent rights, although I will admit that seems to be a popular place for the libertarians to get off the train.


Well, it purports to grant Congress the authority to grant patents.  The Constitution does not, however, require that Congress exercise that authority.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, it purports to grant Congress the authority to grant patents.  The Constitution does not, however, require that Congress exercise that authority.


Fair enough!  But patents are constitutional.  I have no problem with that.  I think people should have the right to exclusively prosper off of their inventions.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Fair enough!  But patents are constitutional.  I have no problem with that.  I think people should have the right to exclusively prosper off of their inventions.


 Yes, I know.  And your position is reasonable.  It was my position for most of my life, and I consider myself a reasonable person.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I think people should have the right to exclusively prosper off of their inventions.


Your logic will have our grandchildren paying these biotech companies royalties just to justify their very existence. 

You're not qualified to discuss such things in my view. I think you're just invested.

----------


## angelatc

> Your logic will have our grandchildren paying these biotech companies royalties just to justify their very existence. 
> 
> You're not qualified to discuss such things in my view. I think you're just invested.


No matter what the topic is, I am more qualified to talk about it than you are.  

 I hold the same views that the founders did.  That's why they put it in the Constitution.  But you probably think they were not qualified to discuss it either.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No matter what the topic is, I am more qualified to talk about it than you are.  
> 
>  I hold the same views that the founders did.


Edit - No need for childishness...

What's to be had?

----------


## Natural Citizen

And besides...talking about it and_ being_ about it are two entirely different phenomenon.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> The Constitution promises patent rights, although I will admit that seems to be a popular place for the libertarians to get off the train.


It does; it also grants Congress the power to levy tariffs or have taxes of any level...but I think you would agree that the latter two are not "Good" or desirable things.

I'd argue neither are patents.

----------


## angelatc

> It does; it also grants Congress the power to levy tariffs or have taxes of any level...but I think you would agree that the latter two are not "Good" or desirable things.
> 
> I'd argue neither are patents.


I think that some level of taxation is necessary to run a country.  I am not an anarchist.

----------


## angelatc

> And besides...talking about it and_ being_ about it are two entirely different phenomenon.


True.  I do not hold any patents, but I am supportive of the right of the inventors to do so.    I have never taken a poll, but I would guess that most people who do own patents are supportive of patents.  

There is, after all, no legal requirement to patent something.  You guys are all absolutely free to invent stuff and put it out in the pubic domain so you won't have to worry about profiting from it.

Do it for the common good, comrades!

----------


## PRB

> True.  I do not hold any patents, but I am supportive of the right of the inventors to do so.


Is there anybody who is an inventor and CAN profit from patents, against patents? I've not seen one, I'm sure there's a few, however rare. But it seems like the biggest predictor of whether a person wants there to be patent protection, is whether the person benefits from it.

----------


## PRB

> There is, after all, no legal requirement to patent something.  You guys are all absolutely free to invent stuff and put it out in the pubic domain so you won't have to worry about profiting from it.


People who tell us about all the benefits of not having patents, never seem to be people who do exactly that. This makes them even more hypocritical than liberal who want taxes but don't want to pay them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Is there anybody who is an inventor and CAN profit from patents, against patents?


Yes.

----------


## angelatc

> Is there anybody who is an inventor and CAN profit from patents, against patents? I've not seen one, I'm sure there's a few, however rare. But it seems like the biggest predictor of whether a person wants there to be patent protection, is whether the person benefits from it.


Oh, I'm sure there is.  I know of at least one invention that was not patented specifically because the inventor wanted it in the public domain, and that's a beet juice mixture that used to de-ice roadways.  I am not an expert, but it is reportedly better for the roads and the environment in general than salt. But I do not know if he is against patents. I think he just did not need the money.

But it seems absurd to me that he should not profit from it when everybody else in the chain does.  The farmer that grows the beets, the people who make the bottles, the people who combine the ingredients, the people who haul it, the people who buy it, the people who apply it - everybody gets paid.  The taxpayers save money...

Everybody makes a profit except the only person who was intelligent enough to develop the product in the first place?  Without patents, he does not even have the right to recover the investments he made in developing it. And that's the rub - taking away patent protections takes away the incentive to create.

----------


## Ender

> Oh, I'm sure there is.  I know of at least one invention that was not patented specifically because the inventor wanted it in the public domain, and that's a beet juice mixture that used to de-ice roadways.  I am not an expert, but it is reportedly better for the roads and the environment in general than salt. But I do not know if he is against patents. I think he just did not need the money.
> 
> But it seems absurd to me that he should not profit from it when everybody else in the chain does.  The farmer that grows the beets, the people who make the bottles, the people who combine the ingredients, the people who haul it, the people who buy it, the people who apply it - everybody gets paid.  The taxpayers save money...
> 
> *Everybody makes a profit except the only person who was intelligent enough to develop the product in the first place? * Without patents, he does not even have the right to recover the investments he made in developing it. And that's the rub - taking away patent protections takes away the incentive to create.


Welcome to the music industry.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> True.  I do not hold any patents, but I am supportive of the right of the inventors to do so.    I have never taken a poll, but I would guess that most people who do own patents are supportive of patents.


I would also guess that farmers who receive subsidies from the farm bill would be supportive of those subsidies as well.

Or sugar farmers and the sugar quota; the list goes on.

Whether or not patents encourage generation of ideas is on the patent supporters to demonstrate; yes, I realize there's the up-front logic of it (well, if they don't have incentive/someone else can profit off of it right away, then no one would come up with ideas, period), but beyond this, not much is offered in terms of empirical evidence. For example, during post WWII, a number of pharmaceutical companies, as a form of reparations, were not allowed to enforce their patents or even hold them on new medicines they invented. Ultimately, they still invented new drugs and they still made a profit.

There's a number of other cases as well--it's a lengthy read, but Against Intellectual Monopoly is rather fascinating (Against Intellectual Property is, as well) and provides more insight into the overall process (and additionally details abuses that arise because of the patent system).

----------


## PRB

> Oh, I'm sure there is.  I know of at least one invention that was not patented specifically because the inventor wanted it in the public domain, and that's a beet juice mixture that used to de-ice roadways.  I am not an expert, but it is reportedly better for the roads and the environment in general than salt. But I do not know if he is against patents. I think he just did not need the money.
> 
> But it seems absurd to me that he should not profit from it when everybody else in the chain does.  The farmer that grows the beets, the people who make the bottles, the people who combine the ingredients, the people who haul it, the people who buy it, the people who apply it - everybody gets paid.  The taxpayers save money...
> 
> Everybody makes a profit except the only person who was intelligent enough to develop the product in the first place?  Without patents, he does not even have the right to recover the investments he made in developing it. And that's the rub - taking away patent protections takes away the incentive to create.


what many have done if they had the same opportunity, is buy up beets or distribution channels before people know it will be profitable, and then either patent or publicize the invention, by then, it wouldn't matter if it's patented as long as the inventor knows how best to profit from it. So if he did none of the above, he really didn't care about money, can't make him.

----------


## PRB

> Whether or not patents encourage generation of ideas is on the patent supporters to demonstrate; yes, I realize there's the up-front logic of it (well, if they don't have incentive/someone else can profit off of it right away, then no one would come up with ideas, period), but beyond this, not much is offered in terms of empirical evidence.


Oh, let's compare countries with patents vs countries without it or without enforcement mechanisms, let's see which countries have the most inventions, inventors make the most profits, and residents have an overall higher standard of living.

I'm sure countries which don't enforce patents are better because cost of living is lower, inventors never lose out, people invent things for fun, consumers just magically thank the hard working scientists and engineers...what did I miss?

I've heard a million times how patents, copyright protection, trademark can be abused, but that hardly takes away the fact that without them, the alternative is MUCH MUCH worse.

----------


## silverhandorder

> True.  I do not hold any patents, but I am supportive of the right of the inventors to do so.    I have never taken a poll, but I would guess that most people who do own patents are supportive of patents.  
> 
> There is, after all, no legal requirement to patent something.  You guys are all absolutely free to invent stuff and put it out in the pubic domain so you won't have to worry about profiting from it.
> 
> Do it for the common good, comrades!


I don't take welfare, but I support other people's right to welfare. I have never taken a poll, but I would guess that most people would support welfare. 

There is, after all, no legal requirement for you to partake in welfare. You are absolutely free to never take any welfare through out your entire life. 

Do it for your rights and it's supported by other people. True republicanism! 

/sarcasm

----------


## silverhandorder

> Oh, let's compare countries with patents vs countries without it or without enforcement mechanisms, let's see which countries have the most inventions, inventors make the most profits, and residents have an overall higher standard of living.
> 
> I'm sure countries which don't enforce patents are better because cost of living is lower, inventors never lose out, people invent things for fun, consumers just magically thank the hard working scientists and engineers...what did I miss?
> 
> I've heard a million times how patents, copyright protection, trademark can be abused, but that hardly takes away the fact that without them, the alternative is MUCH MUCH worse.


It's pointless to make this comparison. All countries enforce patents selectively to benefit their own connected people. American patents are not enforced in China or Russia. And since they are developing countries they prioritize different approach to patents then US.

----------


## angelatc

> I would also guess that farmers who receive subsidies from the farm bill would be supportive of those subsidies as well.


That's a straw man.  

Subsidies are wealth redistribution.  Patents are property rights.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't take welfare, but I support other people's right to welfare. I have never taken a poll, but I would guess that most people would support welfare. 
> 
> There is, after all, no legal requirement for you to partake in welfare. You are absolutely free to never take any welfare through out your entire life. 
> 
> Do it for your rights and it's supported by other people. True republicanism! 
> 
> /sarcasm


Aside fro the fact that you missed the context of that statement,  that's a straw man.  Welfare is wealth redistribution.  Patent rights are property protection.   

Why would someone spend hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars developing an idea if there was no real opportunity for them to profit from it if the idea ended up being a good one?

Ending patent protections result in the government funding even MORE R&D, not less.  Our founders came from a nation where patents were granted to those favored by the crown.  Here it is first come, first serve.

----------


## angelatc

> It's pointless to make this comparison. All countries enforce patents selectively to benefit their own connected people. American patents are not enforced in China or Russia. And since they are developing countries they prioritize different approach to patents then US.


I do not think it is pointless - I think it makes his point.  Despite the fact that US patents are largely ignored in those nations, which nation is still driving innovation?

----------


## angelatc

> Whether or not patents encourage generation of ideas is on the patent supporters to demonstrate; yes, I realize there's the up-front logic of it (well, if they don't have incentive/someone else can profit off of it right away, then no one would come up with ideas, period), but beyond this, not much is offered in terms of empirical evidence. For example, during post WWII, a number of pharmaceutical companies, as a form of reparations, were not allowed to enforce their patents or even hold them on new medicines they invented. Ultimately, they still invented new drugs and they still made a profit..


If you're talking about Bayer, their assets were confiscated and sold off, shuffled around and eventually Bayer reemerged in name only after a German company that bought a piece of it was also disbanded, albeit a little later on.

At no time did their products become public domain - they were always treated as any other property, as assets.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> That's a straw man.  
> 
> Subsidies are wealth redistribution.  Patents are property rights.


     It's not a strawman because patents (and copyright) are not property rights. Property rights exist and are evidence to exist without government; government merely protects and enforces them. Patents and copyrights? Not so much; a system had to be devised (with arbitrarily decided time durations) for said patents and copyrights (which might as well be Infinite+1 by now) and enforced by the government. 

     This is apparent when you analyze what property is and how property right rights are derived, as does what constitutes theft. In order to own something, you have to mix your labor with it and make it a part of you--you can't really do this with ideas (though you can certainly generate them), but the concept of "owning" an idea doesn't make much sense in the framework of property being mixing your labor with something; Locke, himself was highly skeptical of intellectual "property" precisely because of this idea. If we believe property rights exist by default due to being a natural manifestation of mankind and his actions (a reasonable assumption as John Locke lays forth), then there's really no room for Intellectual "property" (as that's based on the collectivist notion of rights being derived/granted from the state).

     This goes on to what constitutes theft. How can you even steal an idea? You can't. If I take your orange, you don't have access to it, and I do. If I use your idea, you still have your idea and can do whatever you want with it, and so can I; if you're arguing that I'm making a profit with it while you're not, be very careful as you're advocating for guarantee of results, which leads into a plethora of nebulous ideas that are just bad (such as suing for 'property damage' because you build something on your property that decreased 'their' property value). An example of how silly "stealing" an idea is; you make your house a perfect octagon that has precisely 8 windows in the center of each edge and is painted yellow. Your neighbor loves this design and does the same exact thing to an absolute T. He "stole" your idea. Here's the thing though; you still have your octagon shaped house and so does he--by the neighbor implementing your idea, you don't suddenly lack access to it.

     I'm sure you'll say "but these are new ideas that no one has thought of before". I don't see how that changes things any; if we're being logically consistent, then it doesn't matter if the idea is new or old (I think this also demonstrates how the duration and type of idea is arbitrary, at best and an artificial construction granted rather than one that already exists and is enforced/protected).

     This is _just_ a philosophical objection to why it's not property rights, and, in my opinion, should be enough to oppose them. That said, from my research on the topic, via books like Against Intellectual Monopoly, and the likes, I feel it's also from a utilitarian standpoint that patents benefit, at best, is neutral. Even if it had a net positive benefit, I would still oppose it; just because an action has a positive outcome does not mean it should be immediately sought after as beneficial or something to be desired. Extreme example of this would be: killing off 100 people randomly, each week, has the net benefit of, for whatever reason, making everyone 10% wealthier....from a utilitarian standpoint, yes, that would be a good policy, but I think anyone would agree that that shouldn't actually be done from a philosophical or moral standpoint. Afterall, even if patents/copyrights _did_ have a net benefit, who's to say by having patents we're artificially distorting investment in "new ideas" over other resources.

----------


## PRB

> That's a straw man.  
> 
> Subsidies are wealth redistribution.  Patents are property rights.


property rights are theft to a person who has none and doesn't want to recognize property.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's not a strawman because patents (and copyright) are not property rights.


 In angelatc's view, they _are_ property rights.  And in the view of many others.

In essentially no one's view are welfare payments somehow a protection of property rights.

And so while it is a clever analogy, you can see why those who see IP as legitimate property would see the two cases as not exactly identical, and see themselves as justified for taking one position in the one case, and the other in the other.  Just as you might be fine with sending a murderer to jail, but not sending a cocaine user to jail.

You are right that it is not a strawman, simply because you are not accusing the opposing side of any particular view.  You are just drawing a parallel.  Strawman is a term that's thrown around a bit too readily when it doesn't really apply, in my opinion.

----------


## PRB

> This goes on to what constitutes theft. How can you even steal an idea? You can't. If I take your orange, you don't have access to it, and I do. If I use your idea, you still have your idea and can do whatever you want with it, and so can I;


So you're ok with the Fed printing more dollars, since you can still use the ones you have, right?

----------


## Fox McCloud

> In angelatc's view, they _are_ property rights.  And in the view of many others.
> 
> In essentially no one's view are welfare payments somehow a protection of property rights.


In retrospect, I can see that; I meant it more of "individual X benefits from something that is derived from the state; typically those people won't oppose that benefit".




> So you're ok with the Fed printing more dollars, since you can still use the ones you have, right?


I'm not ok with the Fed because it's dictated what is and is not money and is setting the supply of money based on its own decision. I want a money that is picked by the market and the supply is determined by the market. There's cases, too, where the Fed may not be printing _enough_ money and is constricting the market (I'm not saying it is currently, I'm saying hypothetically).

----------


## angelatc

> It's not a strawman because patents (and copyright) are not property rights. Property rights exist and are evidence to exist without government; government merely protects and enforces them. Patents and copyrights? Not so much; a system had to be devised (with arbitrarily decided time durations) for said patents and copyrights (which might as well be Infinite+1 by now) and enforced by the government.


Same thing holds true for all property. You can't just wait until your neighbor goes to the store, move into his house and call it yours.   The government has devised a system that protects the rights of the owner, even after death.    There are certainly ways you can assume property without paying for it, but that's because the government has devised a system around that, too.

----------


## PRB

> In retrospect, I can see that; I meant it more of "individual X benefits from something that is derived from the state; typically those people won't oppose that benefit".
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ok with the Fed because it's dictated what is and is not money and is setting the supply of money based on its own decision. I want a money that is picked by the market and the supply is determined by the market. There's cases, too, where the Fed may not be printing _enough_ money and is constricting the market (I'm not saying it is currently, I'm saying hypothetically).


but you can still use the dollars in your hand, why do you care if other people have it?!!!!!

----------


## angelatc

> In angelatc's view, they _are_ property rights.  And in the view of many others.
> 
> In essentially no one's view are welfare payments somehow a protection of property rights.
> 
> And so while it is a clever analogy, you can see why those who see IP as legitimate property would see the two cases as not exactly identical, and see themselves as justified for taking one position in the one case, and the other in the other.  Just as you might be fine with sending a murderer to jail, but not sending a cocaine user to jail.
> 
> You are right that it is not a strawman, simply because you are not accusing the opposing side of any particular view.  You are just drawing a parallel.  Strawman is a term that's thrown around a bit too readily when it doesn't really apply, in my opinion.


I used strawman because he's misrepresenting my position, then arguing against it.   I suppose it might be a false analogy?  It's been a long long time since I took logic.

----------


## angelatc

> This goes on to what constitutes theft. How can you even steal an idea? .


You can't patent an idea but I know what you mean, and here's the answer.

It's easy.  A guy comes into your office with a thing he invented.  He shows it you, explaining how it will add a value to the product you are already producing.  He has put thousands of dollars into making this device work, and he wants you to buy a large quantity from him.  You ask him to leave a sample, telling him that if it works you will do some business.   Then send it down to your engineering team and have them replicate it.  You install them on every product you sell, your customers love them and even pay you extra money for it.  You in turn give nothing to the dumb sucker who handed it to you.

That's what the Detroit auto industry did to the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Same thing holds true for all property. You can't just wait until your neighbor goes to the store, move into his house and call it yours.   The government has devised a system that protects the rights of the owner, even after death.    There are certainly ways you can assume property without paying for it, but that's because the government has devised a system around that, too.


I'm talking about property rights in their purist original sense; the modern property rights are more consistent with intellectual property rights because the government _has_ inserted themselves into the equation; when I talk property rights, I'm talking more of how they were originally conceived or formulated, as natural rights--ie: what I've mentioned several times; the Lockean concept of property and/or ownership.




> You can't patent an idea but I know what you mean, and here's the answer.
> 
> It's easy.  A guy comes into your office with a thing he invented.  He shows it you, explaining how it will add a value to the product you are already producing.  He has put thousands of dollars into making this device work, and he wants you to buy a large quantity from him.  You ask him to leave a sample, telling him that if it works you will do some business.   Then send it down to your engineering team and have them replicate it.  You install them on every product you sell, your customers love them and even pay you extra money for it.  You in turn give nothing to the dumb sucker who handed it to you.
> 
> That's what the Detroit auto industry did to the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper.


And that is precisely not theft. They utilized the idea yes, but he, in no way did not have access to his idea because they used it--again, as I explained earlier, that's why you can never steal intellectual "property" because it doesn't fit the Lockean definition of property to begin with. Did they profit from it more than he did? I'm betting yes; is that necessarily wrong? I don't think so, especially if you don't believe in guarantee of value/results and do view property as a natural right (as opposed to a state grant).

----------


## PRB

> It's pointless to make this comparison. All countries enforce patents selectively to benefit their own connected people. American patents are not enforced in China or Russia. And since they are developing countries they prioritize different approach to patents then US.


That sure as hell doesn't change the fact that countries with no enforcement whatsoever are also the countries with the least property protection, lease stable economy, and least inventions, does it? 

China indeed prioritizes patents differently than US, but they do not completely abandon it, it's true that they selectively enforce it depending on how it benefits their people and their country, why don't they completely let go of enforcement? wouldn't that encourage innovation as anti-patenters claim? patents stifle incentive to invent, right?

----------


## PRB

> I'm talking about property rights in their purist original sense; the modern property rights are more consistent with intellectual property rights because the government _has_ inserted themselves into the equation;


I'm listening, how is property enforced without either force or government or at the very least, a person arbitrarily claiming he owns something while another guy disagrees?

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Vermont governor signs first in US GMO-labeling law to go into effect*





> Vermont will become the first state to enact a law requiring labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients after the governor signed the bill into law on Thursday afternoon. The bill will go into effect in July 2016.
> 
> _"I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the  nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food.  The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of  this bill,"_ Gov. Peter Shumlin (D-Vt.) said in a statement  after the bill passed. _"I wholeheartedly agree with them and  look forward to signing this bill into law.”
> 
> _However, the law may not withstand legal challenges from major  food companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co - the leading  producers of GMO crops. They are widely expected to sue the state  over the law. To defend the legislation, Vermont allocated a $1.5  million legal defense fund in the measure, to be paid for with  settlements won by the state. However, even this amount might not  be enough to cover the state’s legal bills.
> 
> _  As RT reported, Monsanto, DuPont, Kraft Foods Co. and others  previously led the charge against the similar labeling  legislation_ _in  California__ and Washington state, grossly outspending  supporters of the measure that was eventually defeated in both  states, with anti-labeling groups spending $22 million of the $28  million total spent on that campaign_ _in  Washington__.
> _
> _“There is no doubt that there are those who will work to  derail this common-sense legislation,” Shumlin said.  “But I believe this bill is the right thing to do and will  gain momentum elsewhere after our action here in Vermont.”
> ...


Continued - *Vermont governor signs first in US GMO-labeling law to go into effect*

Glad to see Jonathan Emord sourced here. Jonathan has been practicing constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies since 1985. Having begun his career as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Emord has maintained an abiding conviction to achieve full First Amendment protection for the freedoms of speech and press. In 1991, he authored the critically acclaimed Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment in which he chronicled the intellectual foundations of the First Amendment and advocated replacing government control over the airwaves with a title registry, private property rights approach.



*
Relevant reading - Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws*




> Rep. Mike Pompeo will introduce legislation backed by powerful trade groups to prevent states from passing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods, according to reports. The bill is linked to biotech giant Monsanto and Koch Industries.
>   Pompeo will offer the bill in the US House before Congress leaves  for Easter recess later this month, The Hill newspaper reported,  citing industry sources. Politico also reported on the impending  proposal. Pompeo’s office would not comment on the congressman’s  intentions for a labeling restriction.
> 
>   The bill includes a “prohibition against mandatory labeling,”  according to The Hill, echoing powerful  interest groups that have already declared war against such  _“right to know”_ labeling laws around the nation.
> 
>   It was revealed in recent months that powerful farming and  biotechnology interest groups like Monsanto were joining forces –  under the name _'Coalition for Safe Affordable Food_' – to  push a federal voluntary labeling standard for food made with  genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in an effort to stem the  tide of state legislation seeking to mandate labeling.
> 
>   In recent years, voters in states such as California and  Washington have narrowly defeated ballot initiatives proposing  mandatory GMO labeling, though not without dragging members of  the new Coalition into expensive campaigns to defeat the  measures. Many other states are now considering their own  proposals to label GMO food.
> 
> ...


Continued -  Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

----------


## mad cow

Well this should cost Heinz.Kraft,General Mills.Campbell's,ConAgra,KFC,Burger King,McDonald's and on and on and on about 0.0002% of their profit every year to keep up with all the rules,regulations,inspections and frequent testing with massively expensive chemical labs to make sure they aren't cheating,lawyers fees for the many,many lawsuits certain to be brought,even if they're eventually found innocent and the millions of dollar fines if they are found guilty. 

Of course it would take a very successful Mom&Pop restaurant maybe 70% of their potential profit to deal with the same fascism,say 164% of an organic farmers profit,912% of a roadside vegetable stand's,16,931%from a Highschool band's bake sale and 25,803% of some 3rd grader's lemonade stand unless she can prove in court that the sugar didn't come from GMO beets and/or agrees to spend some serious time in a Federal prison.

Vermont you say.I hope that teenage boy collecting maple syrup before and after school is spending just as much money as Log Cabin,Aunt Jemima and Hungry Jack getting his wares tested and vetted by the Government.
Prison can be cruel,especially for the young.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Vermont you say.I hope that teenage boy collecting maple syrup before and after school is spending just as much money as Log Cabin,Aunt Jemima and Hungry Jack getting his wares tested and vetted by the Government.
> Prison can be cruel,especially for the young.


Well, the difference is that the boy probably doesn't have the luxury of going to work for the FDA long enough to approve his own warez before going back to work for himself like Monsanto and some others. Right? The boy also doesn't have the luxury of sitting in as judge on his own behalf like we see with Clarence Thomas and Monsanto. Right? I could probably go on but what is to be had? Everyone knows the drill.

----------


## mad cow

Nope,the boy doesn't have those fascist luxuries or the wealth to fight those fascist laws in court or afford the periodic chemical lab testing to require that his warez pass muster or even the labels and labeling itself.

So he will just get fined or go to prison or go bankrupt or just quit in disgust or all four while Chef Boyardee _et al_ laugh up their sleeves and meet all the new requirements with ease and with what,to them,amounts to pocket change.


I just read the ingredients off of a can of Chef Boyardee spaghetti&meatballs,I stopped counting after 50 ingredients,yet somehow I bought this can last week for $0.88 not including my 5% old peoples discount.
Yet they pass all current fascist laws,rules and regulations in place already,maybe I would have had to pay $0.90 if you get your way and the Government piles on a few more.They ain't worried about more laws,in fact they welcome them.
It will just drive the small fry like roadside vegetable stands,widows selling eggs to make ends meet,a small farmer with two cows who only wants to sell raw milk to his neighbors and Vermont Boy out of business if not into bankruptcy or prison.


Future enterprising Vermont lads will choose something safer and easier like dealing drugs or purse-snatching.

----------


## Thor

*Syngenta methods of silencing GMO opposition are unbelievable*




> A German farmer has revealed shocking GMO company tactics to silence him in an exclusive interview with RT Op-Edge.
> 
> German dairy farmer, Gottfried Glöckner, has told William Engdahl about attempted blackmail, character assassination and, ultimately, wrongful imprisonment he suffered when he refused to back off his charges that the Anglo-Swiss GMO company, Syngenta, had provided him with highly toxic GMO Maize seeds that ruined his prize dairy herd and his land.
> 
> After spending two years in prison, Glöckner is traveling round the world to tell the story and warn the public of the extreme danger of GMO seeds.
> 
> William Engdahl: Mr Glöckner, weve known each other since just before you were wrongfully sentenced to prison, but it is only recently that you have legally been able to tell your real story to the public. Please give us a little background.
> 
> Gottfried Glöckner: Since 1995 when genetically modified RoundupReady (RR) Soy was imported into the EU, approved under the principle substantially equivalent, I had been interested in the subject GMO technology in plants. When in 1997 the EU approved the commercial sale of Syngenta GMO corn (Syngenta Bt176) I decided, as a farmer interested in new better technologies, to grow Syngentas Bt176 on my land.
> ...


More: http://rt.com/op-edge/159184-syngent...ion-silencing/

----------


## angelatc

> Well this should cost Heinz.Kraft,General Mills.Campbell's,ConAgra,KFC,Burger King,McDonald's and on and on and on about 0.0002% of their profit every year to keep up with all the rules,regulations,inspections and frequent testing with massively expensive chemical labs to make sure they aren't cheating,lawyers fees for the many,many lawsuits certain to be brought,even if they're eventually found innocent and the millions of dollar fines if they are found guilty. .


Some university came out with a study in the past week,  which didn't get any press because they estimated the cost of mandatory GMO labeling to add about $500 per family.

These asses making up rights and insisting that everybody has to pay to keep them happy are always the first ones to end up in the mass graves.  That's probably the most likeable thing about them.


(ETA to add the link, which I forgot.)

----------


## angelatc

> And that is precisely not theft. They utilized the idea yes, but he, in no way did not have access to his idea because they used it--again, as I explained earlier, that's why you can never steal intellectual "property" because it doesn't fit the Lockean definition of property to begin with. Did they profit from it more than he did? I'm betting yes; is that necessarily wrong? I don't think so, especially if you don't believe in guarantee of value/results and do view property as a natural right (as opposed to a state grant).


Well, you and I are going to disagree on this.  But they took his invention, reverse engineered it and then deprived him of the profit.  The courts agreed with me, and awarded him quite a bit of money.

I'm not into philosophy.  But the Founders clearly gave us the right to our inventions, and the courts exist to protect that right.  I have no interest in changing that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And that is precisely not theft. They utilized the idea yes, but he, in no way did not have access to his idea because they used it--again, as I explained earlier, that's why you can never steal intellectual "property" because it doesn't fit the Lockean definition of property to begin with. Did they profit from it more than he did? I'm betting yes; is that necessarily wrong? I don't think so, especially if you don't believe in guarantee of value/results and do view property as a natural right (as opposed to a state grant).


It's theft in my book.  Aggression, deception, fraud, and theft.

----------


## angelatc

> More: http://rt.com/op-edge/159184-syngent...ion-silencing/


And by the way Thor, if this is what passes for "facts" in your world, it explains your bizarre belief system entirely.  Millions upon millions of cows eat the corn yet only 12 of his died and/or became infertile.

Using those two facts, please explain why you are so eager to believe that it was the corn that caused the deaths.

Or do the GMO activists think that the farmers who choose to use this feed are just too stupid to notice that it is not good for the cattle?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> A guy comes into your office with a thing he invented. He shows it you, explaining how it will add a value to the product you are already producing. He has put thousands of dollars into making this device work, and he wants you to buy a large quantity from him. You ask him to leave a sample, telling him that if it works you will do some business. Then send it down to your engineering team and have them replicate it. You install them on every product you sell, your customers love them and even pay you extra money for it. You in turn give nothing to the dumb sucker who handed it to you.
> 			
> 		
> 
> And that is precisely not theft. They utilized the idea yes, but he, in no way did not have access to his idea because they used it--again, as I explained earlier, that's why you can never steal intellectual "property" because it doesn't fit the Lockean definition of property to begin with. Did they profit from it more than he did? I'm betting yes; is that necessarily wrong? I don't think so, especially if you don't believe in guarantee of value/results and do view property as a natural right (as opposed to a state grant).


Actually, it could easily be a theft, but only by adding a couple very important details to the story.  

A guy comes into your office and* has you sign a non-disclosure agreement* so that he can show you a thing he invented.  After you sign the NDA, he shows it you, explaining how it will add a value to the product you are already producing. He has put thousands of dollars into making this device work, and he wants you to buy a large quantity from him. *You sign a contract with him to buy them from him.* Then you send it down to your engineering team and have them replicate it. You install them on every product you sell, your customers love them and even pay you extra money for it. You in turn give nothing to the dumb sucker who handed it to you, *violating your signed contracts with him.*

----------


## mad cow

> *‘Syngenta methods of silencing GMO opposition are unbelievable’*
> 
> 
> 
> More: http://rt.com/op-edge/159184-syngent...ion-silencing/


Did his cows' milk sour before they fell barren?It might have been witches.

----------


## Thor

> And by the way Thor, if this is what passes for "facts" in your world, it explains your bizarre belief system entirely.  Millions upon millions of cows eat the corn yet only 12 of his died and/or became infertile.
> 
> Using those two facts, please explain why you are so eager to believe that it was the corn that caused the deaths.
> 
> Or do the GMO activists think that the farmers who choose to use this feed are just too stupid to notice that it is not good for the cattle?


It was an interview.  He says he was all for technology and new advances, until all his cows died. 

There are 2 sides to every story, and the corporations and the government have their PR machines, as well as regular people having their voices (mostly through alternative media.)  It is up to us to discern what is real or not.

What would be his motive for exposing the dangers of GMO feed?  He did not take any bribes if the interview is correct. He is not profiting from it.  Who is to gain from this campaign to share this story?  There is a lot to gain by discrediting him, but tell me who gains from exposing it?  The non-GMO seed suppliers? LOL

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Actually, it could easily be a theft, but only by adding a couple very important details to the story.  
> 
> A guy comes into your office and* has you sign a non-disclosure agreement* so that he can show you a thing he invented.  After you sign the NDA, he shows it you, explaining how it will add a value to the product you are already producing. He has put thousands of dollars into making this device work, and he wants you to buy a large quantity from him. *You sign a contract with him to buy them from him.* Then you send it down to your engineering team and have them replicate it. You install them on every product you sell, your customers love them and even pay you extra money for it. You in turn give nothing to the dumb sucker who handed it to you, *violating your signed contracts with him.*


An NDA is certainly the _proper_ way to do it, and anybody at that point should already know that. but also, a simple failure to say "no" on the one part, is no excuse for the second part to go and rape the guy. The legitimizing of an all-consumer highlander game has absolved the world and business of moral conduct.  Imagine how much richer Edison himself would have been, if he had allowed Tesla to take the lead?  In the end, myopia is never profitable.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Where is the Detroit auto industry today?


You reap what you sow, IMHO.

----------


## PRB

> Some university came out with a study in the past week,  which didn't get any press because they estimated the cost of mandatory GMO labeling to add about $500 per family.
> 
> These asses making up rights and insisting that everybody has to pay to keep them happy are always the first ones to end up in the mass graves.  That's probably the most likeable thing about them.
> 
> 
> (ETA to add the link, which I forgot.)


I'm against labeling, but I find $500 per family a bit high. not enough to reduce spending, but laughably excessive for simply labeling.

stupid question: in terms of cost, how is labeling GMO any different than labeling ingredients, expiration date, certified organic, bar code, nutrition facts...don't all GMO users already know their produce is GMO, therefore they won't need to inspect it?

----------


## angelatc

> Actually, it could easily be a theft, but only by adding a couple very important details to the story.  
> 
> A guy comes into your office and* has you sign a non-disclosure agreement* so that he can show you a thing he invented.  After you sign the NDA, he shows it you, explaining how it will add a value to the product you are already producing. He has put thousands of dollars into making this device work, and he wants you to buy a large quantity from him. *You sign a contract with him to buy them from him.* Then you send it down to your engineering team and have them replicate it. You install them on every product you sell, your customers love them and even pay you extra money for it. You in turn give nothing to the dumb sucker who handed it to you, *violating your signed contracts with him.*


So what happens when the auto industry  breaks into the lab at night, after he's made the appointment to see the buyer but before he has made the presentation, steals his device and his plans, calls him to tell him no thanks - they're working on their own version?

Seems to me that a system using something called  "copyright" would better protect him in that scenario, too.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So what happens when the auto industry  breaks into the lab at night, after he's made the appointment to see the buyer but before he has made the presentation, steals his device and his plans, calls him to tell him no thanks - they're working on their own version?
> 
> Seems to me that a system using something called  "copyright" would better protect him in that scenario, too.


Kind of reminds me of this. US court backs Monsanto against DuPont in Roundup patent war

----------


## Natural Citizen

Argentina environmentalists, farm workers protest Monsanto pesticides...





> Agriculture workers and various environmental advocacy groups in Argentina are protesting the use of pesticides produced by biotech giant Monsanto as they seek to halt work on the companys new chemical plant in Malvinas Argentina.
> 
>   Residents, along with workers who regularly come into contact  with Monsanto's products, are calling for the suspension of the  use of the company's pesticides, claiming they cause adverse  health effects. The protest comes amid mounting scientific  evidence that the liberal and often unregulated use of Monsantos  chemicals are linked to growing instances of various cancers and  birth defects.
> 
>   The collection of groups protesting construction of the new plant  in Argentinas province of Cordoba have halted progress for  months now, while they seek a permanent injunction based on  health and environmental concerns.
> 
> _Here we have the aberration that on one side of the fence is  the fumigation (use of pesticides) and on the other side of the  fence is the town, or the local school, which is subjected to  aerial spraying. Teachers have to come outside and shelter their  students indoors because these toxic chemicals are raining  down,_ said Antonio Riestra, a member of the Unidad Popular  party, which has joined the cause.
> 
>   Beyond halting work on the new plant, activists hope to gain  support from the local and national government to eject Monsanto  out of Argentina.


Continued - Argentina environmentalists, farm workers protest Monsanto pesticides

----------


## angelatc

> I'm against labeling, but I find $500 per family a bit high. not enough to reduce spending, but laughably excessive for simply labeling.
> 
> stupid question: in terms of cost, how is labeling GMO any different than labeling ingredients, expiration date, certified organic, bar code, nutrition facts...don't all GMO users already know their produce is GMO, therefore they won't need to inspect it?



It isn't just the labeling.  The entire food handling system across the globe would have to be changed.  Here is a farmer's blog that explains how it would pertain to the crops that he grows: http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/...-labeling.html

And remember, there is no law requiring that food be labeled "Organic."   It is a vanity label.  The government does not care if I sell an organic tomato without labeling it as such.  Therefore I can assume that any food that is not labeled "Organic" is either not grown to the "organic" standards, or is grown by an organic farmer who doesn't want to deal with the extra costs of getting that label.  Probably the former.

The costs of mandating that everything be labeled GMO / GMO free would be enormous, and* it serves absolutely no purpose.*  Labeling ingredients has a medical purpose. Expiration dates keep people from eating food that will make them sick.  Bar codes are driven by the manufacturers - it's a great example of a free market success story, actually.  

There is no evidence of GMO food products causing anybody any harm what-so-ever.   Look at the court system here in the most litigious country in the world - nobody anywhere is asserting that they have been damaged by eating these products.  None.  Zero. Zip. Nada.   If you set aside the hysterics and look at facts, GMO products are tested extensively before they're submitted for approval.  They're tested again after that.  The population has been monitored for over 10 years, looking for warning signs.  Nothing has developed.

Genetically modification of food has always been done.  The only thing that has changed is the techniques.  Instead of taking 100 or 1000 years to develop a strain of corn that is resistant to a certain pest, it now takes a day.   Plus a decade of safety testing.

For me, this is a litmus test.  The libertarian position would never be to call for the government to label GMO any more than it would call for the government to demand nutrition labels or gun licenses.   But yet we're being subjected to a barrage of propaganda from a loud angry group of left-leaning trolls who want to force the food manufacturers to do this for* absolutely no reason other than, "I want it. So there."*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It was an interview.  He says he was all for technology and new advances, until all his cows died. 
> 
> There are 2 sides to every story, and the corporations and the government have their PR machines, as well as regular people having their voices (mostly through alternative media.)  It is up to us to discern what is real or not.
> 
> What would be his motive for exposing the dangers of GMO feed?  He did not take any bribes if the interview is correct. He is not profiting from it.  Who is to gain from this campaign to share this story?  There is a lot to gain by discrediting him, but tell me who gains from exposing it?  The non-GMO seed suppliers? LOL


Once I get these kids off to the prom, I'm going to share some developments on this front. GMO industry knows they're losing. I'll have to pull out and quote the more relevant aspects. Later.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> For me, this is a litmus test.  The libertarian position would never be to call for the government to label GMO any more than it would call for the government to demand nutrition labels or gun licenses.


Is it the liberarian position that government can force feed it's citizens these products? Because that's what we have going on with Pompeo, Monsanto and the Koch network.

----------


## angelatc

> Is it the liberarian position that government can force feed it's citizens these products? Because that's what we have going on with Pompeo, Monsanto and the Koch network.


See  - you here you are making my point about this nonsense being drummed up by liberal shills. You can't refute anything I said, so you play the hysteria liberal reactionary words, which are all just lies intentionally designed to conceal the fact that your preferred solution to corporatism is more government.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> See  - you here you are making my point about this nonsense being drummed up by liberal shills. You can't refute anything I said, so you play the hysteria liberal reactionary words, which are all just lies.


Phhht. HAAAA! I've destroyed you on this too many times to count already angela. Do I need to go do some thread bumping?

And you can neg me till the cows come home, angela. It doesn't bother me. For every one you give me I usually get ten + reps for the same post. So schmoke that in yer peace pipe, baby. You're funny.

----------


## angelatc

> Phhht. HAAAA! I've destroyed you on this too many times to count already angela. Do I need to go do some thread bumping?


Oh bull$#@!.  You'd rather troll me than stick to the topic at hand? The truth is right there for those of us reading along at home to see. 

You want bigger government.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Oh bull$#@!.  You'd rather troll me than stick to the topic at hand? The truth is right there for those of us reading along at home to see. 
> 
> You want bigger government.


Heh. I don't care about you, angela. In fact I find you to be very useful. 


Anyhoo. I've got things to do. I'll be back later.

----------


## angelatc

> Heh. I don't care about you, angela. In fact I find you to be very useful. 
> 
> 
> Anyhoo. I've got things to do. I'll be back later.


Stay away, and take your big government ideals with you, troll.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@angela,

You can keep all the GMO food and ingredients to yourself and others that want it.  I don't want it.  Now, go ahead tell me it's my responsibility to spend hours upon hours of research and keep up with all the latest changes of sources of ingredients in every food I eat, or only eat food that I grow (whether I can control cross contamination or not).

But, you see...it's not just me, and not everyone has acreage or the means to grow and produce enough food for their family.  

Also, it won't be known whether there are devastating long term effects from GMO's, possibly ever.  Because no one knows who's eating or drinking what.  Perhaps, if some countries are successful in keeping all GMO's at bay, there could be some comparison, maybe.  But, these other countries are having a hell of time keeping them out, because "you'll have it whether you want it not" is the prevailing attitude.

Perhaps labeling isn't the answer, but infiltrating the entire food supply and saying "oh, well, just live with it" isn't either.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So what happens when the auto industry  breaks into the lab at night, after he's made the appointment to see the buyer but before he has made the presentation, steals his device and his plans, calls him to tell him no thanks - they're working on their own version?


That also sounds like theft to me, as well as breaking and entering.

I trust that you agree.

----------


## eduardo89

> @angela,
> 
> You can keep all the GMO food and ingredients to yourself and others that want it.  I don't want it.


Then don't buy GMO foods or ingredients. No one is forcing you to.




> Now, go ahead tell me it's my responsibility to spend hours upon hours of research and keep up with all the latest changes of sources of ingredients in every food I eat, or only eat food that I grow (whether I can control cross contamination or not).


Yes, it is you responsibility. If you don't want to buy products with GMO ingredients, then it is up to you to find out which ones are GMO and which ones are GMO-free. Or would you rather put the government's gun to the head of another and force him to do the research for you?

----------


## PRB

> It isn't just the labeling.  The entire food handling system across the globe would have to be changed.  Here is a farmer's blog that explains how it would pertain to the crops that he grows: http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/...-labeling.html
> 
> And remember, there is no law requiring that food be labeled "Organic."   It is a vanity label.  The government does not care if I sell an organic tomato without labeling it as such.  Therefore I can assume that any food that is not labeled "Organic" is either not grown to the "organic" standards, or is grown by an organic farmer who doesn't want to deal with the extra costs of getting that label.  Probably the former.
> 
> The costs of mandating that everything be labeled GMO / GMO free would be enormous, and* it serves absolutely no purpose.*  Labeling ingredients has a medical purpose. Expiration dates keep people from eating food that will make them sick.  Bar codes are driven by the manufacturers - it's a great example of a free market success story, actually.  
> 
> There is no evidence of GMO food products causing anybody any harm what-so-ever.   Look at the court system here in the most litigious country in the world - nobody anywhere is asserting that they have been damaged by eating these products.  None.  Zero. Zip. Nada.   If you set aside the hysterics and look at facts, GMO products are tested extensively before they're submitted for approval.  They're tested again after that.  The population has been monitored for over 10 years, looking for warning signs.  Nothing has developed.
> 
> Genetically modification of food has always been done.  The only thing that has changed is the techniques.  Instead of taking 100 or 1000 years to develop a strain of corn that is resistant to a certain pest, it now takes a day.   Plus a decade of safety testing.
> ...


"If GMO labeling were to pass, that would require a HUGE addition to both on and off farm storage. Nationally, we're talking billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to segregate grain. What none of these labeling laws is clear about either is how to achieve this segregation? Should it be segregated by trait? by variety? both? The more layers of segregation, the more infrastructure is required and the more the costs escalate. "

That would only be true if you assume you have to segregate them, what's the harm in mixing them and labelling them all as GMO?

----------


## angelatc

> @angela,
> 
> You can keep all the GMO food and ingredients to yourself and others that want it.  I don't want it.  Now, go ahead tell me it's my responsibility to spend hours upon hours of research and keep up with all the latest changes of sources of ingredients in every food I eat, or only eat food that I grow (whether I can control cross contamination or not).


Explain to me why I have to add $500 a year to my food bill just to save you the terrible bother of looking for a label that says "organic."

Keeping in mind, of course, that what you want or do not want is not an issue for me until it becomes a burden on me.  Adding $500 a year to my grocery bill is a burden.

----------


## angelatc

> That also sounds like theft to me, as well as breaking and entering.
> 
> I trust that you agree.


But in that instance, the inventor has yet another burden to overcome.  He has to prove that the manufacturer was the burglar, and also that the device they eventually produce was stolen from him. And even the second half of that is iffy... in your scenario, they can't steal an idea....right? I mean, the engineer isn't the same guy who stole the widget, and so the product of his reverse engineering is certainly not theft....after all, he just found it in his mailbox.  How was he supposed to know it wasn't a gift from a secret admirer?

Using the copyright system, the inventor is protected even if the thieves are never caught.

----------


## angelatc

> That would only be true if you assume you have to segregate them, what's the harm in mixing them and labelling them all as GMO?


Why not just assume that everything is GMO unless specifically labeled otherwise?  That's the cheapest as well as the most libertarian solution.

----------


## PRB

> Why not just assume that everything is GMO unless specifically labeled otherwise?  *That's the cheapest as well as the most libertarian solution.*


It is! And I'm all for that, I'm against mandatory labelling, but I don't think the reason to oppose it is cost as the way you described it.

----------


## angelatc

> It is! And I'm all for that, I'm against mandatory labelling, but I don't think the reason to oppose it is cost as the way you described it.



That's only one reason to oppose it. The real point is that there's no good reason to support it.    I might as well demand knowing if Caterpillar tractors were used in the harvesting, because I want to support Rachel Corrie.

Surely you can't expect me to do my own research about what foods are Caterpillar free, can you?

----------


## PierzStyx

1,000!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But in that instance, the inventor has yet another burden to overcome.


 Angelatc, I was merely addressing (originally) the assertion by Fox McCloud that an executive appropriating a product idea without compensation was "precisely not theft."  Actually, in a world populated with responsible and reasonable innovators who want to be compensated for their ideas, the innovators would take at least basic precautions to make sure they are compensated, and even just the most rudimentary precautions would be more than adequate to assure they are dealt with justly 90-99% of the time.  The taking of these rudimentary precautions would also make their circumvention constitute "theft;" yes, it definitely would be theft.

Then, you asked a question involving a breaking and entering scenario wherein no contract whatsoever had been signed.  I answered that that, too, would be theft.  This seems obvious.  Just because I do not have an explicit contract with the hooligan that he not come in my living room and break my dishes does not mean that he is free to do so.  So again I am agreeing with you.  Two different scenarios, both involving the theft of an idea which _is_ an actual out-an-out theft.

So I have agreed with you twice -- that theft of ideas _can_ be theft -- but you still seem unsatisfied.  Taking rudimentary precautions, it seems, is too burdensome.  It is just too much to overcome for the poor hapless inventor whom all the evil businessmen are forever scheming to defraud.  It is too great of a task.  Too heavy a burden.  He cannot be expected to take this responsibility upon himself -- the great responsibility of NDA-faxing.  Heaven forbid that he should have to press the "send" button.  So we should have some sort of other (very expensive, believe me) system to save him the terrible bother of taking responsibility for the protection and judicious dissemination of his ideas.

Wait, this sounds familiar...



> save you the terrible bother of looking for a label that says "organic."


Hmm....

Anyway, I agreed with you twice.  I take the position that the theft of ideas _can_ be theft -- if it's theft.  I am not going to come with you all the way and say that the theft of ideas is _always_ theft.  I just don't think that that's accurate.  But I am not always going to agree with you 100% on everything.

If you are interested to learn why I have come to think the things I do regarding patents, you could read:

Against Intellectual Monopoly
Against Intellectual Property
At Work With Thomas Edison
How to License Your Million Dollar Idea




> Using the copyright system, the inventor is protected even if the thieves are never caught.


 Under the existing system, it is not nearly so easy and straight-forward as you make it sound.  Nor is it very favorable to the "little guy".

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Angelatc, I was merely addressing (originally) the assertion by Fox McCloud that an executive appropriating a product idea without compensation was "precisely not theft."  Actually, in a world populated with responsible and reasonable innovators who want to be compensated for their ideas, the innovators would take at least basic precautions to make sure they are compensated, and even just the most rudimentary precautions would be more than adequate to assure they are dealt with justly 90-99% of the time.  The taking of these rudimentary precautions would also make their circumvention constitute "theft;" yes, it definitely would be theft.
> 
> Then, you asked a question involving a breaking and entering scenario wherein no contract whatsoever had been signed.  I answered that that, too, would be theft.  This seems obvious.  Just because I do not have an explicit contract with the hooligan that he not come in my living room and break my dishes does not mean that he is free to do so.  So again I am agreeing with you.  Two different scenarios, both involving the theft of an idea which _is_ an actual out-an-out theft.
> 
> So I have agreed with you twice -- that theft of ideas _can_ be theft -- but you still seem unsatisfied.  Taking rudimentary precautions, it seems, is too burdensome.  It is just too much to overcome for the poor hapless inventor whom all the evil businessmen are forever scheming to defraud.  It is too great of a task.  Too heavy a burden.  He cannot be expected to take this responsibility upon himself -- the great responsibility of NDA-faxing.  Heaven forbid that he should have to press the "send" button.  So we should have some sort of other (very expensive, believe me) system to save him the terrible bother of taking responsibility for the protection and judicious dissemination of his ideas.
> 
> Wait, this sounds familiar...
> 
> 
> ...


Ehh, maybe I'm in the middle here, I say it's still theft even without the rudimentary precautions, and that NDAs mostly serve to recognize a pre-existing reality.  However, make the NDA anyway, because without one the bastards will get away with it.

----------


## PRB

> Anyway, I agreed with you twice.  I take the position that the theft of ideas _can_ be theft -- if it's theft.  I am not going to come with you all the way and say that the theft of ideas is _always_ theft.


probably what you're getting at is, theft isn't always for practical intents and purposes, worth pursuing and enforcing, this is true of all kinds of property and theft.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> probably what you're getting at is, theft isn't always for practical intents and purposes, worth pursuing and enforcing, this is true of all kinds of property and theft.


For example, without an NDA it would almost never be worth pursuing because you would be utterly bereft of evidence to support the fact that a theft had been made.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> probably what you're getting at is, theft isn't always for practical intents and purposes, worth pursuing and enforcing, this is true of all kinds of property and theft.


What I'm getting at is actually beyond that.  My position is probably identical to Fox McCloud's on this issue.

Your point about the practical is a good one, though.  The practical is coming to match the philosophical in many areas of this issue what with advancing replication and communication technology.  For example, when you share your ideas in a certain way, namely, with the public at large, it has become impractical to at the same time keep these ideas secret or restricted.  When you release a movie to the public at large, the public will do whatever they wish with it, which with current technology will include uploading it to a bit torrent service, making it available for free to anyone and everyone.  Same thing with a book or music -- assuming anyone likes it enough to bother.  Artists should take _not_ being available on torrents as an insult.

So, even very practical people who are totally uninterested in philosophy, like Angelatc, should sit up and take notice of the practical realities.  You can't repeal the internet.  Also, it is very difficult to make something totally public _and_ keep it restricted at the same time.

----------


## Ender

> Then don't buy GMO foods or ingredients. No one is forcing you to.
> 
> Yes, it is you responsibility. If you don't want to buy products with GMO ingredients, then it is up to you to find out which ones are GMO and which ones are GMO-free. Or would you rather put the government's gun to the head of another and force him to do the research for you?



Well, THAT'S certainly backwards thinking.

I should be forced to make sure NATURAL products are labeled, while GMO products, which are _unnatural_ and funded by your tax dollars, should go unlabeled, so that the government-supported GMO companies can get richer off of UNNATURAL products that destroy health.

Welcome to THE MATRIX.

----------


## eduardo89

Full disclosure: I own a lot of Monsanto stock.

----------


## Ender

> Full disclosure: I own a lot of Monsanto stock.


Ahhhh......

But do you actually _eat_ the stuff?

----------


## eduardo89

> Ahhhh......
> 
> But do you actually _eat_ the stuff?


Of course, and you should too.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Then don't buy GMO foods or ingredients. No one is forcing you to.


What do you mean that no one is forcing you to consume these prosucts. 

So then that legislation that Koch network partnered up with Monsanto to write and that Congressman Mike Pompeo (who received the largest donations from Koch out of all lobbied representatives ) is introducing that says that people _don't_ have a right to know what is in their food is reflective of choice....how, exactly? These goons are protecting themselves _from_ the free market.

Here is some industry lobbied legislation that says...yes...someone wants to force you to.

I'll share this again...




> Rep. Mike Pompeo will introduce legislation backed by powerful trade groups to prevent states from passing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods, according to reports. The bill is linked to biotech giant Monsanto and Koch Industries.
>   Pompeo will offer the bill in the US House before Congress leaves  for Easter recess later this month, The Hill newspaper reported,  citing industry sources. Politico also reported on the impending  proposal. Pompeo’s office would not comment on the congressman’s  intentions for a labeling restriction.
> 
>   The bill includes a “prohibition against mandatory labeling,”  according to The Hill, echoing powerful  interest groups that have already declared war against such  _“right to know”_ labeling laws around the nation.
> 
>   It was revealed in recent months that powerful farming and  biotechnology interest groups like Monsanto were joining forces –  under the name _'Coalition for Safe Affordable Food_' – to  push a federal voluntary labeling standard for food made with  genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in an effort to stem the  tide of state legislation seeking to mandate labeling.
> 
>   In recent years, voters in states such as California and  Washington have narrowly defeated ballot initiatives proposing  mandatory GMO labeling, though not without dragging members of  the new Coalition into expensive campaigns to defeat the  measures. Many other states are now considering their own  proposals to label GMO food.
> 
> ...


Continued -  Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

----------


## Natural Citizen

It appears that the GMO industry wants to throw substantive science out the window in favor of changing the language. We see this in many scenarios of social engineering. This one is comparable to the model we saw when global warming didn’t work out like some folks had hoped and so it had to be changed to climate change. Expect, now, to see industry propaganda move from terms of controversy relative to  Genetically Modified Organisms to “Genetically Improved Food” as some feel good notion that they have diverted a crisis. Of course, they haven't...and they won't.

Anyhoo. It's late. I'm tired. Paper should suffice...

Some key points taken from it...I'll keep it short and to the point here. Nobody likes Monsanto. I think they were even voted most evil corporation or something.  The point is that they know that nobody likes them. It's a global phenomenon as we'll continue to see in the future. Specifically with regard to BRICSA nations.




> “Perhaps, but one thing is certain: Monsanto does seem acutely aware that the battle between supporters and opponents of GM has heated up and is extremely fierce. Moreover, after years of accumulating what Fraley views as an unfairly bad reputation, the Gene Giant has decided to change strategy: It plans to get closer to the consumer so it can work at convincing skeptics and critics of the safety of its products and the positive effects biotechnology presumably has on world agriculture.
> 
> Monsanto admits it has a growing “credibility crisis” among consumers worldwide but it is playing an old discursive trick, asserting that this is not a problem of risk but of risk communication. According to Faus’s report, Monsanto’s lack of credibility is more complicated as illustrated by consumer rankings for ‘Most Evil Corporation of the Year.’”



Projected industry campaign...




> Monsanto likely realizes this is more than a problem of risk communication and is instead more a question of taking control of risk characterization to manipulate and create confusion and hence inaction among the broadest consumer market segments possible. Doublethink style, education is obfuscation



Obfuscation...




> “The artist in the age of digital reproduction becomes an information manager who is best when s/he recognize how to manipulate language and other symbolic discursive games, especially through what we might term systematically-distorted communication. Presumably it then becomes a simple matter of activating mass media discourse agents to define and constrain truth claims and the qualification of those deemed able to make objective truth claims by virtue of a particular (reductionist) way of knowing the world.”



A very clever paper. Of course, s_cience_ is clever too (legitimate science, that is) and the industry would do well to remember this.  And perhaps they do see that they'll not win in the genuine science department. Consumption based science has been the industry's most successful skullduggery but I think they understand that this gig is up already since it really only works on Americans. We seem to confuse the free market and mercantilism for some reason. As the paper notes, the industry obviously understands the need to redirect the terms of controversy away from genuine science and more toward social engineering in the form of changing the language in this particular case if they are going to appear legitimate in any way to the less informed. And we'll see this happen probably sooner than later.

World Food Prize winner outlines shift in strategy FOCUS ON CONSUMERS NOT JUST GROWERS

----------


## PRB

> Of course, and you should too.


who cares? making money is more important than eating healthy.

----------


## PRB

> For example, without an NDA it would almost never be worth pursuing because you would be utterly bereft of evidence to support the fact that a theft had been made.


theft being made and finding the thief are 2 different stories, which is why if you wanted to prevent theft, you don't just cover one base.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops...*




> Despite the flood of corporate money poured into two small Oregon counties, local residents voted on Tuesday to ban genetically engineered crops from being planted within their borders.
> 
>   Although Jackson County itself is home to less than 120,000  registered voters, the measure to ban genetically modified crops  (GMOs) made headlines around the nation when it was revealed that  large biotech companies like Monsanto were pouring hundreds of  thousands of dollars into the area in order to affect the vote’s  outcome.
> 
>   As RT reported previously, Monsanto and five other  corporations spent at least $455,000 in an attempt to defeat the  initiative, and opponents of the GMO ban had gained an  eight-to-one spending advantage as of April. According to the  Associated Press, nearly $1 million of the $1.3 million spent  during the campaign was used by opponents.
> 
>   When the results were tallied, however, 66 percent of Jackson  County residents voted in favor of the ban.
> 
> _"We fought the most powerful and influential chemical  companies in the world and we won,"_ local farmer and  anti-GMO advocate Elise Higley told the Oregonian.
> ...


 Continued - Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops

----------


## eduardo89

> *Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops...*


What a horrible violation of liberty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What a horrible violation of liberty.


Hey, what do you think about that bill that Monsanto, Koch network and Mike Pompeo are introducing, eduardo? The one that would  prohibit all states from implementing their own labeling laws. You think that's a violation of some liberty, eduardo? Huh?

----------


## eduardo89

> Hey, what do you think about that bill that Monsanto, Koch network and Mike Pompeo are introducing, eduardo? The one that would  prohibit all states from implementing their own labeling laws. You think that's a violation of some liberty, eduardo? Huh?


What does that have to do with the article you posted. Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What does that have to do with the article you posted. Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property?


It has everything to to with the report that I posted. Do you think these industries and political networks have the right to pen legislation that says you don't have a right to know what you're eating. Do you think it's right for government to force feed the products of their political doners to the people? Is it right for these corrupt poiticians to pen the say so of these industries in a manner that voids states' rights and their platform to protect it's citizens from this kind of government intrusion? huh? Do you?

It's got everything to do with the paper that I shared here. You're being very shortsighted, eduardo.

----------


## eduardo89

> It has everything to to with the report that I posted. Do you think these industries and political networks have the right to pen legislation that says you don't have a right to know what you're eating.


No, you have no right to know what you are eating unless that was part of the contract when you bought the food. Why do you advocate using government force for you to do the research for you?




> Do you think it's right for government to force feed the products of their political doners to the people?


Who is force fed? And what are they force fed?




> Is it right for these corrupt poiticians to pen the say so of these industries in a manner that voids states' rights and their platform to protect it's citizens from this kind of government intrusion/ huh? Do you?


No. But I don't think any state has the right to mandate labels or any kind. That is completely incompatible with freedom.




> It's got everything to do with the paper that I shared here.


You're dodging the question.

*Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property?*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property?*


I'm not dodging squat. We the people are the government. Not you the corporation with the politician in yer pocket. That's fascvism. This is what we call the merge of corporation and state, you know. We call it that because that is what it is. And if I don't want to grow your warez then I have the right to not grow them. Seems to me that the majority has spoken here. Despite the millions poured in by to violate silence the say so of these farmers by these industries.

Eduardo. Re-evaluate your portfolio, my friend.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm not dodging squat. We the people are the government. Not you the corporation with the politician in yer pocket. That's fascvism. This is what we call the merge of corporation and state, you know. We call it that because that is what it is. And if I don't want to grow your warez then I have the right to not grow them. Seems to me that the majority has spoken here. Despite the millions poured in by to violate silence the say so of these farmers by these industries.
> 
> Eduardo. Re-evaluate your portfolio, my friend.


You haven't answered the question. Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property? Yes or no.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You haven't answered the question. Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property? Yes or no.


I just did. Don't you read good?

----------


## Natural Citizen

//*

Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops...*



> Despite the flood of corporate money poured into two small Oregon counties, local residents voted on Tuesday to ban genetically engineered crops from being planted within their borders.
> 
>   Although Jackson County itself is home to less than 120,000  registered voters, the measure to ban genetically modified crops  (GMOs) made headlines around the nation when it was revealed that  large biotech companies like Monsanto were pouring hundreds of  thousands of dollars into the area in order to affect the votes  outcome.
> 
>   As RT reported previously, Monsanto and five other  corporations spent at least $455,000 in an attempt to defeat the  initiative, and opponents of the GMO ban had gained an  eight-to-one spending advantage as of April. According to the  Associated Press, nearly $1 million of the $1.3 million spent  during the campaign was used by opponents.
> 
>   When the results were tallied, however, 66 percent of Jackson  County residents voted in favor of the ban.
> 
> _"We fought the most powerful and influential chemical  companies in the world and we won,"_ local farmer and  anti-GMO advocate Elise Higley told the Oregonian.
> ...





 Continued - Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops

----------


## eduardo89

> I just did. Don't you read good?


No, you did not answer. The closes part of your comment to answering it was this: 


> And if I don't want to grow your warez then I have the right to not grow them.


I agree with that. But that is not the issue here. No one is forced to grow GMO.

So the question you still haven't answered is: *Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property? Yes or no.* Simple one word answer is sufficient.

----------


## PRB

> No, you did not answer. The closes part of your comment to answering it was this: 
> I agree with that. But that is not the issue here. No one is forced to grow GMO.
> 
> So the question you still haven't answered is: *Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot grow on your private property? Yes or no.* Simple one word answer is sufficient.


You asked me the same question, does the government have a right to tell me what I can do on my property?

Does it depend on whether the act is itself illegal? Or whether private property bars government from enforcing any law at all?

----------


## eduardo89

> You asked me the same question, does the government have a right to tell me what I can do on my property?
> 
> Does it depend on whether the act is itself illegal? Or whether private property bars government from enforcing any law at all?


Depends, is the law compatible with natural rights or not? For example, marijuana is illegal according to the federal government. Does that change the fact that the government has no moral right to prevent you from growing marijuana on your private property? No.

----------


## PRB

> Depends, is the law compatible with natural rights or not? For example, marijuana is illegal according to the federal government. Does that change the fact that the government has no moral right to prevent you from growing marijuana on your private property? No.


Fair enough.

----------


## Thor



----------


## angelatc

> What a horrible violation of liberty.


Indeed.   When I saw it, I knew that the same people who were bemoaning the Michigan Right To Farm law's restructuring would be here cheering the loss of the right to farm in Oregon without so much as blinking an eye about the hypocrisy of the two contrasting positions. They are not here to promote freedom and their presence here does nothing to further the liberty movement. They're a slow poison.

However, I was talking to an internet friend in this art of Oregon who said their state also has a "Right To Farm" law on the books, so we should not be surprised when this law gets thrown out.

And the same people who cried about Michigan's new restrictions being favorable to big business will cry about Oregon removing the restrictions complaining that it was favorable to big business.


Here's an interesting little factoid:

Monsanto's annual revenue: $14.8 billion.
Whole Foods' annual revenue: $12.9 billion.


But we're being "blind" when we say that the "March Against Affordable Food Monsanto" is being financed by special interests and the anti-GMO hysteria is being driven by something other than intellectual honesty.  Got it.

----------


## eduardo89

> Indeed.   When I saw it, I knew that the same people who were bemoaning the Michigan Right To Farm law's restructuring would be here cheering the loss of the right to farm in Oregon without so much as blinking an eye about the hypocrisy of the two contrasting positions. They are not here to promote freedom and their presence here does nothing to further the liberty movement. They're a slow poison.


The sad thing is NC won't even give me a clear answer whether he supports the government telling people what they can and cannot grow on their private property. I'm assuming he supports the government's 'right' to do that, despite it being completely anti-liberty.

----------


## angelatc

> 


This is what we're dealing with.

Liberals who think that farmers are too stupid and backwards to realize that the products they're buying aren't actually improving their bottom lines.   People on the internet making random Youtube videos obviously know a lot more about farming than farmers.   'Cos Monsanto.

----------


## angelatc

> The sad thing is NC won't even give me a clear answer whether he supports the government telling people what they can and cannot grow on their private property. I'm assuming he supports the government's 'right' to do that, despite it being completely anti-liberty.


I think it's a girl but whatever.  It isn't here to promote liberty and freedom.  That was established long ago.





> Originally Posted by Natural Citizen:  
>  We the people are the government. Not you.....


These are the words of a person who wants to control us with government, not free us from it.

----------


## angelatc

> I just did. Don't you read good?


I did.  As usual you wrote lots or words but don't say anything of substance.  All he needs is a simple yes or no.  But you know damned well that answering the question will put you in a corner.

You're not being clever, although we all know you think you are.

----------


## Seraphim

The people are not the government. See; every country that has every existed.

As much as I loathe Monsanto, banning GMO requires big government.

Want to know why Monsanto gets away with lobbying for unfair laws that benefit them? Want to know why Monsanto has the ability to sue farmers who have their own crops littered from neighbouring GMO corn fields?

BIG GOVERNMENT.

Sooooo all the things you hate about Monsanto and GMO iare caused and aided by Big Government....and you think a Big Government solution is the way to go?

There is a term for this;

Cognitive Dissonance.

Most of the problems you seem to want solved will go away simply by disbanding the FDA and the Department of Agriculture.

Mandatory banning and labelling of food products that have WILLING buyers will only compound problems.




> I'm not dodging squat. *We the people are the government.* Not you the corporation with the politician in yer pocket. That's fascvism. This is what we call the merge of corporation and state, you know. We call it that because that is what it is. And if I don't want to grow your warez then I have the right to not grow them. Seems to me that the majority has spoken here. Despite the millions poured in by to violate silence the say so of these farmers by these industries.
> 
> Eduardo. Re-evaluate your portfolio, my friend.

----------


## angelatc

> Want to know why Monsanto has the ability to sue farmers who have their own crops littered from neighbouring GMO corn fields?
> 
> .



What I really want to know is why this lie is so persistent even though it's been repeatedly debunked.  Apparently the people telling it are not interested in the truth if it get in the way of their big government agenda.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm not dodging squat. *We* the people are the government. Not you the corporation with the politician in yer pocket. That's fascvism. This is what *we* call the merge of corporation and state, you know.* We* call it that because that is what it is. And if I don't want to grow your warez then I have the right to not grow them. Seems to me that the majority has spoken here. Despite the millions poured in by to violate silence the say so of these farmers by these industries.
> 
> Eduardo. Re-evaluate your portfolio, my friend.



Who is this "we" you keep referring to?  Because you clearly are not one of us.  Who are you speaking for, exactly, that is here promoting the right of the government to dictate what crops farmers can grow in their own fields....using the force of government to protect the one business from another isn't freedom. Because like it or not, farming is first and foremost a business.


Those of you playing at home, look at this post closely.  Democracy is good, individual freedom is bad.  Government prohibition, dictating what farmers can and can't grow - that's not freedom.

It's tyranny.

(Mod delete)

----------


## Ender

> Who is this "we" you keep referring to?  Because you clearly are not one of us.  Who are you speaking for, exactly, that is here promoting the right of the government to dictate what crops farmers can grow in their own fields....using the force of government to protect the one business from another isn't freedom. Because like it or not, farming is first and foremost a business.
> 
> 
> Those of you playing at home, look at this post closely.  Democracy is good, individual freedom is bad.  Government prohibition, dictating what farmers can and can't grow - that's not freedom.
> 
> It's tyranny.
> 
> (Mod delete).


Before you start calling people who disagree with you, trolls- maybe you should read your own words and get edumacated. Pushing GMO on unwilling individuals is exactly what you propose. THAT's OK but having people not want GMO is Baaaad.

I do not give a friction' crap what others want to grow or put in their bodies, but I do give a friction' crap when MY freedom is impinged upon by Corporatocracy. Big Business and Gov are bedfellows and what you are supporting is exactly that.




> angelatc
> Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim  View Post
> Want to know why Monsanto has the ability to sue farmers who have their own crops littered from neighbouring GMO corn fields?
> 
> *What I really want to know is why this lie is so persistent even though it's been repeatedly debunked. Apparently the people telling it are not interested in the truth if it get in the way of their big government agenda*.


This has NOT been debunked. Because you choose to read only government approved "science" MSM, does not mean that there is another truth that you have personally chosen to ignore. You are accusing others of exactly what you do.

Whodda thunk?

----------


## PRB

> Pushing GMO on unwilling individuals is exactly what you propose.


Nobody is forcing anybody to eat anything.

----------


## angelatc

> Nobody is forcing anybody to eat anything.


Thank you.

----------


## Ender

> Nobody is forcing anybody to eat anything.


BS.

If every single item is required on a label by the FDA, EXCEPT GMO, then we are being forced.

----------


## angelatc

> This has NOT been debunked. Because you choose to read only government approved "science" MSM, does not mean that there is another truth that you have personally chosen to ignore. You are accusing others of exactly what you do.


The fact that Monsanto can't and does not sue over cross contamination has nothing to do with science. 

Show me a single $#@!ing case of Monsanto suing someone who did not intentionally plant $#@!ing seeds with the sole $#@!ing intent of skirting the financial obligation, or STFU.

----------


## angelatc

> BS.
> 
> If every single item is required on a label by the FDA, EXCEPT GMO, then we are being forced.


So much fail in so few words....the mind boggles.

----------


## Ender

> *More Than Just GMO*
> By Bill Sardi
> May 22, 2014
> 
> The view of the food industry is that there will be a billion or two more people on the planet soon and we have to make food that is resistant to insect invasion and more durable under weather conditions.  But the hidden agenda is simply increasing bottom line profits possibly at the expense of health.
> 
> That possibility will forever be wrapped up in debate.  There are those who say “not a single person has ever been harmed by genetically modified foods.” [DailyCaller.com April 29, 2014]  One claim is that GMO foods compete with organically-grown crops (no herbicides, no pesticides) and that GMOs pose an economic threat to the few loud-mouthed organic growers.
> 
> Well, not really.  Maybe the organic growers pose the most vocal opposition, but I think what Americans want is transparent labeling so they can choose organics or GMO for themselves.  That isn’t happening.  Big money interests thwart label transparency laws.
> ...


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/...-gmo%E2%80%A8/

----------


## angelatc

> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/...-gmo%E2%80%A8/


Show me a single $#@!ing case of Monsanto suing someone who did not intentionally plant $#@!ing seeds with the sole $#@!ing intent of skirting the financial obligation, or STFU and buy organic.

Problem solved.

Lew Rockwell, bitching because the government isn't mandating GMO labeling while cheering about farmers being forced to grow only government approved crops.  The mind boggles at the hypocrisy.

----------


## PRB

> BS.
> 
> If every single item is required on a label by the FDA, EXCEPT GMO, then we are being forced.


you are not being forced to eat anything.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> you are not being forced to eat anything.


No? Well then what is this bill that is being thrown at us from Koch network. Monsanto and Mike Pompeo? Thisd is not force feeding? I'd disagree with you.

----------


## PRB

> No? Well then what is this bill that is being thrown at us from Koch network. Monsanto and Mike Pompeo? Thisd is not force feeding? I'd disagree with you.



what bill? point to me where the bill says "We will force people to eat and only eat X" or "Only X is allowed to be eaten, those who don't will be fined or imprisoned"

----------


## Natural Citizen

The global March Against Monsanto will take place this coming Saturday, May 24th! If you haven't RSVP'd to your local event yet, you can find a location near you on this event list.

----------


## angelatc

> what bill? point to me where the bill says "We will force people to eat and only eat X" or "Only X is allowed to be eaten, those who don't will be fined or imprisoned"


She's trolling. That's all she does.  There's no intelligent conversation to be had.  For example, she totally ignored your question in order to post some communist-inspired poster, which might as well read, "Stupid people, unite!"

She ignored Eduardo's simple questions that involved only a Yes or No answer because answering it would expose the fact that she isn't here to promote limited government - she's here only in an effort to recruit the gullible and convince them to grow government.


I desperately wish there was a cliff involved at the end of this march....or that government really did have the ability to control the weather.  I can't imagine anybody more deserving of a few well placed thunderstorms.

Maybe even a tornado or two.


*Monsanto's annual revenue: $14.8 billion.
Whole Foods' annual revenue: $12.9 billion.
*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> She's trolling. That's all she does.  There's no intelligent conversation to be had.  For example, she totally ignored your question in order to post some communist-inspired poster, which might as well read, "Stupid people, unite!"
> 
> She ignored Eduardo's simple questions that involved only a Yes or No answer because answering it would expose the fact that she isn't here to promote limited government - she's here only in an effort to recruit the gullible and convince them to grow government.
> 
> 
> I desperately wish there was a cliff involved at the end of this march....or that government really did have the ability to control the weather.  I can't imagine anybody more deserving of a few well placed thunderstorms.
> 
> Maybe even a tornado or two.


This has specifically been discussed in this thread as well as others where relevance was  present. Take the time to read the forums. The problem is that genuine news and current events relevant to it gets buried by the brand of interference that we see here in yet another meanigless and irrrelevant posting.

----------


## angelatc



----------


## Natural Citizen

> She ignored Eduardo's simple questions that involved only a Yes or No answer because answering it would expose the fact that she isn't here to promote limited government - she's here only in an effort to recruit the gullible and convince them to grow government.


This is not a yes or no answer because the more relevant question(s) are far more complex. It's very shortsighted. The terms of controversy are much broader than the minimization of the issue that we see from vested interests. And again...I've spent a great deal of time and energy on this across a broad portion of the board. Perhaps spend the time to read. It's the only advice that I can give you here. The people are speaking up, angela. Organizing. Winning. Like it or lump it, it's happening. It will not go away.

----------


## angelatc

> This has specifically been discussed in this thread as well as others where relevance was  present. Take the time to read the forums. The problem is that genuine news and current events relevant to it geas buried by the brand of interference that we see here in yet another meanigless and irrrelevant posting.


You still can't even manage a simple yes or no.  

Again, you use lots of words....but say absolutely nothing to answer the simplest of questions.  You are trolling.  There is nothing libertarian or small government about your messaging.  Forgive me for being angry that you are allowed to post you misinformation here and you don't get called out for trying to pass off bull$#@! as a straight answer.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You still can't even manage a simple yes or no.  
> 
> Again, you use lots of words....but say absolutely nothing to answer the simplest of questions.  You are trolling.  There is nothing libertarian or small government about your messaging.  Forgive me for being angry that you are allowed to post you misinformation here and you don't get called out for trying to pass off bull$#@! as a straight answer.


Just remember what I said. It's great advice. Spend some time reading up on these efforts. 

You have a good evening now, angela.

----------


## angelatc

> This is not a yes or no answer because the more relevant question(s) are far more complex..



It is only complex because you don't have the moral fortitude to admit that you're either a troll  and/or a hypocrite.

You were cheering on the fact that one group of business owners were using the government to take away the rights and freedoms of other businesses.  That means you are not a friend of liberty.

----------


## angelatc

> Just remember what I said. It's great advice. Spend some time reading up on these efforts.


Speaking or reading up:






> You have a good evening now, angela.


 No surprise - every time she gets called out, she posts some lofty evasive bull$#@!, then leaves again.  Most places would call that "trolling."

----------


## ZENemy

> ...*or that government really did have the ability to control the weather*.






> To prevent rain over the roofless 91,000-seat Olympic stadium that Beijing natives have nicknamed the Bird’s Nest, the city’s branch of the national Weather Modification Office–itself a department of the larger China Meteorological Administration–has prepared a three-stage program for the 2008 Olympics this August.
> 
> *First, Beijing’s Weather Modification Office* will track the region’s weather via satellites, planes, radar, and an IBM p575 supercomputer, purchased from Big Blue last year, that executes 9.8 trillion floating point operations per second. It models an area of 44,000 square kilometers (17,000 square miles) accurately enough to generate hourly forecasts for each kilometer.
> 
> *Then, using their two aircraft and an array of twenty artillery and rocket-launch sites around Beijing, the city’s weather engineers will shoot and spray silver iodide and dry ice into incoming clouds that are still far enough away that their rain can be flushed out before they reach the stadium.*



http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ring-in-china/


And that's from 2008 and only what they choose to admit at this time. I wonder why they would have a Beijing’s Weather Modification Office for something that wasn't possible........

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Speaking or reading up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  No surprise - every time she gets called out, she posts some lofty evasive bull$#@!, then leaves again.  Most places would call that "trolling."


Perhaps you'd do well to browse the boards a little better. Much is discussed and in great detail regarding the issue/subject from consumption all the way up to, but not limited to, foreign policy. I'm hardly evasive, dear. Memes and other similar cheap activism like we see here are a waste of time. Terms of controversy are broad. We have tags now, you know. Tags are your friend, angela. I suppose I could bump them up if you'd like. Probably should do that anyhow but you're going to have to learn to do this yourself.

----------


## PRB

> This is not a yes or no answer because the more relevant question(s) are far more complex. It's very shortsighted. The terms of controversy are much broader than the minimization of the issue that we see from vested interests. And again...I've spent a great deal of time and energy on this across a broad portion of the board. Perhaps spend the time to read. It's the only advice that I can give you here. The people are speaking up, angela. Organizing. Winning. Like it or lump it, it's happening. It will not go away.


Did I miss your answer? where is the bill and where does it say somebdoy is forced to eat anything?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Did I miss your answer? where is the bill and where does it say somebdoy is forced to eat anything?


Apparently you haven't read the boards very well either. 




> Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) will introduce legislation this month backed by the Grocery Manufactures Association—including biotech giant Monsanto and Koch Industries.


The news is covered in great detail both in this thread and a few others where mercantilism would be relevant. Here in this thread, economics, foreign policy, health and well being. Some others...

My answer was given _long_ before some folks decided to ask. Key words are in the snippet that I've quoted here. Search the boards. I've no intention of helping people bury relevant news and current events by contributing in the back and forth interference that I've seen here. It's counter productive.

Also add BRICSA to your searches. That's a big deal moving forward on the geo-political front. Specifically in the area of a test ban treaty. Also TPP and International Finance Clearing. The move by the industries, political lobbying networks and their in house congressman to void states' rights and it's citizens rights to know what they are consuming into their bodies (force feeding) through this kind of special interest legislation is really only creating a premise to justify what we'll see on the geo-political front. It's much more evolved than the the yes or no question askers would like to paint it to be.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It appears that the GMO industry wants to throw substantive science out the window in favor of changing the language. We see this in many scenarios of social engineering. This one is comparable to the model we saw when global warming didn’t work out like some folks had hoped and so it had to be changed to climate change. Expect, now, to see industry propaganda move from terms of controversy relative to  Genetically Modified Organisms to “Genetically Improved Food” as some feel good notion that they have diverted a crisis. Of course, they haven't...and they won't.
> 
> Anyhoo. It's late. I'm tired. Paper should suffice...
> 
> Some key points taken from it...I'll keep it short and to the point here. Nobody likes Monsanto. I think they were even voted most evil corporation or something.  The point is that they know that nobody likes them. It's a global phenomenon as we'll continue to see in the future. Specifically with regard to BRICSA nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This remains relevant.

----------


## Thor

http://www.rodalenews.com/roundup-fo...DetectedinFood

*"Extreme" Levels of Roundup Detected in Food* 

A new study finds worrisome levels of Roundup inside of people food. 

You probably wouldn't knowingly eat a substance known to induce death in human cells. But that's what millions of people are doing every day, even when they're enjoying foods with "natural" on the label.

Norwegian scientists just published a new study that will appear in the June issue of Food Technology showing high levels of glyphosatethe active weed-killing chemical in Roundupare turning up in genetically engineered (GE) soy. That herbicide-laced soy winds up in thousands of nonorganic packaged foods and in animal feed for livestock like pigs, cows, chickens, and turkeys.  

Why is this happening? Genetically engineered crops are manipulated in a way that could never occur in nature so plants like corn, soy, canola, cotton, and sugar beets can withstand high doses of glyphosate-containing herbicides that would normally kill them. The result? Roundup in food that people and farm animals eat. 

As more and more weeds become resistant to glyphosate and GE technology fails, farmers spray heavier glyphosate applicationsand more often. Glypshoate is systemic, meaning it's take up inside of the plant. As nonorganic farmers crank up glyphosate use, the Environmental Protection Agency has been slowly increasing allowable levels of glyphosate in food.

The Norwegian study detected a whopping 9 milligrams of Roundup per kilogram, on average. That's nearly double what Monsantothe maker of Roundupdeemed "extreme" in 1999, according to an article in The Ecologist. But with the emergence of hard-or-impossible-to-kill superweeds, the EPA has quietly raised allowable residue limits in soy by 200 percent.

For the new Norwegian study, researchers looked at GE soy, conventional (but not GE) soy, and organic soy. All GE soy contained glyphosate residues, and in amounts that were often higher than the content of certain vitamins found in the soy!

Organic soy and conventional, non-GE soy did not contain glypshosate residues. Aside from that obvious perk, organic soy also had a more beneficial nutritional profile featuring more protein and lower saturated fat levels compared to GE soy.

_____________________________

The study:

HTML: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...08814613019201
PDF: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...19201-main.pdf




> Highlights
> 
>  Glyphosate tolerant GM soybeans contain high residues of glyphosate and AMPA.
>  Soybeans from different agricultural practices differ in nutritional quality.
>  Organic soybeans showed a more healthy nutritional profile than other soybeans.
>  Organic soy contained more sugars, protein and zinc, but less fibre and omega-6.
>  This study rejects that GM soy is substantially equivalent to non-GM soybeans.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What I really want to know is why this lie is so persistent even though it's been repeatedly debunked.  Apparently the people telling it are not interested in the truth if it get in the way of their big government agenda.



Good moring, angela. Could you please point me to sources that would support your claims? Thank You. 


Aside... 




> *
> Why are family farmers so concerned about genetically engineered crops?* One gust of wind, and pollen from a genetically engineered crop can spread for miles, making seed from the traditional crops it touches illegal to save for next year's planting and illegal to sell under U.S. patent law.
> 
> Any seed produced from genetically engineered pollen becomes the legally patented property of Monsanto, Syngenta and the other corporate chemical giants that attempted to defeat Measure 15-119. This undermines the ability of family farmers to collect and use their seeds from one year to the next, which is critical to the economic viability of many family farms. Contrary to some media reports, there is nothing that limits these impacts to organic farmers.
> 
> Genetically engineered crops have already cost U.S. farmers billions of dollars in documented losses. The examples range from the wheat export ban in Oregon and Washington last year caused by Monsanto's genetically engineered wheat, to China's ongoing rejection of U.S. corn shipments due to contamination by Syngenta's genetically engineered corn. The impacts from Syngenta's corn contamination alone has cost U.S. conventional corn farmers more than $2.9 billion in losses and could rise to over $6 billion by next year.
> 
> Most of our federal and state leaders from both parties have been content to let family farmers bear the brunt of contamination from genetically engineered crops. Oregon's Gov. Kitzhaber shamefully supported Oregon's Monsanto Protection Act, which took away the rights of other counties to protect their farmers from genetically engineered crops.


Continued - Landslide Victory Protecting Jackson County Family Farmers from Genetically Engineered Crops! 65.9 % YES to 34.1%  -  Josephine County 58% to 41% victory against genetically engineered crops!

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.rodalenews.com/roundup-fo...DetectedinFood
> 
> *"Extreme" Levels of Roundup Detected in Food* 
> 
> A new study finds worrisome levels of Roundup inside of people food. 
> 
> f


It isn't new, and there are apparently lots of flaws with it.  Bear in mind it's an open access journal, meaning that it isn't peer-reviewed.   When those studies start making the rounds, other scientists read them and either set to work trying to duplicate the results, or point out why the study is flawed and/or why the conclusions of the study have less merit than the author believes.  In our world, we call it skepticism. 

Here is one critical review of the study.   Here is just the first paragraph:




> This paper does not meet minimal scientific standards in design, writing, or proper citations. To begin, a customary introduction should be full of credible references in order to set the stage for the study, however, there are no citations until the fifth paragraph. By that time, we have seen at least 12 statements that the authors do not give any citations for; most are statistics on GM-soy and glyphosate. The authors do not state the sources of this information, thus we cannot know if what they are claiming is supported by evidence.


There's more, including the DonnaY-ism of citing studies that don't actually say what the authors claim they say.  I suggest you read it so you know why that study does not concern me.


Come on baby, take a walk on the wild side.  Open your sweet little virgin mind .... answer those questions up above for me, then maybe we can have some honest dialogue.

Start with #7, and you'll understand why this study would not concern me even if it were 100% true.   Come on baby - relax and let this happen.....

----------


## eduardo89

> *Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops...*


Do you support this action?
Do you believe the county governments legitimately have the authority to ban what farmers choose to grow on private property?
Do you believe that government dictating what people can grow on their private property is compatible with a pro-liberty worldview?

Yes or no answers, please.

----------


## angelatc

> Perhaps you'd do well to browse the boards a little better. Much is discussed and in great detail regarding the issue/subject from consumption all the way up to, but not limited to, foreign policy. I'm hardly evasive, dear. Memes and other similar cheap activism like we see here are a waste of time. Terms of controversy are broad.


Activism by (mod delete) liberal people is what we used to be here to prevent, not promote.  You are not a friend of liberty - you are here disrupting the fourms, advocating for government control over business.  That's fascism.

Your're here advocating for democracy and not individual freedom.  That's liberal.






> We have tags now, you know. Tags are your friend, angela. I suppose I could bump them up if you'd like. Probably should do that anyhow but you're going to have to learn to do this yourself.


Always short on answers, long on insults. This is why I openly hate liberals.  I can happily suffer idiots, but this self-serving smug condescension without as much as an iota of credibility deserves absolutely no respect or tolerance.   It's sad that the 20-somethings who are moderators are determined to let this happen on these boards.  

Bumping your own threads is considered pathetic, btw.


   All we want is a Yes or No answer.

----------


## angelatc

> Do you support this action?
> Do you believe the county governments legitimately have the authority to ban what farmers choose to grow on private property?
> Do you believe that government dictating what people can grow on their private property is compatible with a pro-liberty worldview?
> 
> Yes or no answers, please.



Farming is business.  *She is here cheering and advocating that the government quash one business simply to protect another.*  And for some reason that entirely escapes me, Bryan chooses to let this stand, even keeping this thread in Liberty Topics for heaven's sake? 

So she's here, openly mocking us because she knows that the mods won't shut her down even though we are 100% in the right about this.

*This is in no way liberty related. It certainly isn't small government activism.*   It's the progressive agenda, and it has no legitimate place in these forums.

----------


## donnay

*How ''Extreme Levels'' of Monsanto's Herbicide Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm*

By Thomas Bøhn and Marek Cuhra, Independent Science News 

Food and feed quality are crucial to human and animal health. Quality can be defined as sufficiency of appropriate minerals, vitamins and fats, etc. but it also includes the absence of toxins, whether man-made or from other sources. Surprisingly, almost no data exist in the scientific literature on herbicide residues in herbicide tolerant genetically modified (GM) plants, even after nearly 20 years on the market.

In research recently published by our laboratory (Bøhn et al. 2014) we collected soybean samples grown under three typical agricultural conditions: organic, GM, and conventional (but non-GM). The GM soybeans were resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

We tested these samples for nutrients and other compounds as well as relevant pesticides, including glyphosate and its principal breakdown product, Aminomethylphosponic acid (AMPA). All of the individual samples of GM-soy contained residues of both glyphosate and AMPA, on average 9.0 mg/kg. This amount is greater than is typical for many vitamins. In contrast, no sample from the conventional or the organic soybeans showed residues of these chemicals (Fig. 1).

This demonstrates that Roundup Ready GM-soybeans sprayed during the growing season take up and accumulate glyphosate and AMPA. Further, what has been considered a working hypothesis for herbicide tolerant crops, i.e. that, as resistant weeds have spread:

    "there is a theoretical possibility that also the level of residues of the herbicide and its metabolites may have increased" (Kleter et al. 2011)1

is now shown to be actually happening.

Monsanto (manufacturer of glyphosate) has claimed that residues of glyphosate in GM soy are lower than in conventional soybeans, where glyphosate residues have been measured up to 16-17 mg/kg (Monsanto 1999). These residues, found in non-GM plants, likely must have been due to the practice of spraying before harvest (for desiccation). Another claim of Monsanto's has been that residue levels of up to 5.6 mg/kg in GM-soy represent

"...extreme levels, and far higher than those typically found" (Monsanto 1999).2

Residues of glyphosate and AMPA in Soybeans

*Continued...*

----------


## donnay

*Now glyphosate found in people's urine*

According to an article in German in the Ithaca journal, a German university study has found significant concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers. The analysis of the urine samples apparently found that all had concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20-fold the limit for drinking water. As well as being used increasingly widely in food production, glyphosate-based weedkillers often also get sprayed onto railway lines, urban pavements and roadsides.
http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin

Disturbingly, the Ithaca journal reports (in our translation), "The address of the university labs, which did the research, the data and the evaluation of the research method is known to the editors. Because of significant pressure by agrochemical representatives and the fear that the work of the lab could be influenced, the complete analytical data will only be published in the course of this year."
http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin

News of this study comes not long after the publication of a study confirming glyphosate was contaminating groundwater. Last year also saw the publication of two US Geological Survey studies which consistently found glyphosate in streams, rain and even air in agricultural areas of the US. 
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listin...ws-items/13549

Other recent studies – see the abstracts below – indicate that people may not only be absorbing glyphosate from multiple sources but that it can circulate in the blood and can even cross the placental barrier and so reach the developing fetus.
–-
–-
Aris, A. and S. Leblanc (2011). "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in EasternTownships of Quebec, Canada."
ReproductiveToxicology 31(4).

Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYPandits metabolite aminomethylphosphoricacid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionicacid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW)were studied. Serum GLYPand GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1toxin were detected in PW,their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.
–-
–-
Chang, F. C., M. F. Simcik, et al. (2011). "Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere."
Environ Toxicol Chem 30(3): 548 555.

This is the first report on the ambient levels of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the United States, and its major degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), in air and rain. Concurrent, weekly integrated air particle and rain samples were collected during two growing seasons in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa. Rain was also collected in Indiana in a preliminary phase of the study. The frequency of glyphosate detection ranged from 60 to 100% in both air and rain. The concentrations of glyphosate ranged from <0.01 to 9.1 ng/m(3) and from <0.1 to 2.5 microg/L in air and rain samples, respectively. The frequency of detection and median and maximum concentrations of glyphosate in air were similar or greater to those of the other high-use herbicides observed in the Mississippi River basin, whereas its concentration in rain was greater than the other herbicides. It is not known what percentage of the applied glyphosate is introduced into the air, but it was estimated that up to 0.7% of application is removed from the air in rainfall. Glyphosate is efficiently removed from the air; it is estimated that an average of 97% of the glyphosate in the air is removed by a weekly rainfall >/= 30 mm. 
–-
–-
Coupe, R. H., S. J. Kalkhoff, et al. (2011). "Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins."
Pest Manag Sci.

*Continued...*

----------


## donnay

*Elevated Levels of Glyphosate in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk* 

Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--May 8, 2014 – Two citizen groups have taken the initial step toward debunking chemical-industry claims that glyphosate, the world’s most widely-used herbicide, does not bioaccumulate or metabolize in humans. The pilot study, conducted by Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse, looked at ten breast-milk samples and 35 urine samples from across America and 21 drinking water samples. The groups commissioned Microbe Inotech Labs to conduct the analysis, and what they found raises some serious questions about the prevalence and persistence of glyphosate.

In breast milk, three of the ten samples tested reveal high levels of glyphosate, meaning that the amount of glyphosate found is between 76 ug/l to 166 ug/l. The highest glyphosate level detected in a mother is from Florida (166 ug/l) and the other two mothers with “positive” results are from Virginia (76 ug/l) and Oregon (99 ug/l). While these levels fall under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 700 ug/l, across the pond in Europe this range of exposure is 1,000 higher than what is deemed safe.

From the 35 urine samples received from across the U.S., 13 samples are above the minimum detectable level. The three highest levels are all found in women, with the highest in Oregon (18.8 ug/l). Other positive results are found in samples from the states of California, Washington, Maryland, Colorado and Hawaii.

Drinking water results reveal that 13 of the 21 samples contain glyphosate levels of between 0.085ug/l and 0.33u/l. While these levels come in much lower than the breast milk and urine samples and U.S. drinking water standards, they still add to the alarm when compared to maximum allowable European drinking water standards of 0.1ug/l.

*Continued...*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you support this action?
> 
> Do you believe the county governments legitimately have the authority to ban what farmers choose to grow on private property?
> 
> Do you believe that government dictating what people can grow on their private property is compatible with a pro-liberty worldview?
> 
> Yes or no answers, please.
> 
> *Proudly sponsored by:*


My concern, for what it's worth to _you_, and with regard to the news article that I shared here is that of property rights of the indivdual. 

And certainly these farmers have the right to act of, by and for themselves in a manner that aligns with processes for representation that would protect property from trespass. I agree with their individual right to representation here and will continue to assist in anty way that I can.

Your personal questions, though,  won't generally be acknowledged by me as long as you profess to be acting as an agent of and speaking for Monsanto by way of Ron Paul Forums as your sig line indicates. 

If Monsanto has an agreement with the owners of Ron Paul Forums to target or solicit personal opinions from it's members in a way that would undermine and discourage reporting of the news and current events that they report then an exception should be made for Monsanto in the Forum guidelines by Ron Paul Forums admin. I don't know that Ron Paul Forums has such an agreement because I haven't asked yet (I will) but Monsanto doesn't get to define the terms of controversy. Previous report is certainly reflective of this.

----------


## eduardo89

> My concern with regard to the news article that I shared here is that of property rights of the indivdual. And certainly these farmers have the right to act of, by and for themselves in a manner that aligns with processes for representation. I agree with their individual right to representation.


So because they act collectively, they have the 'right' to trample on the property of a third party? What if I don't like you growing tomatoes in your garden, can I band together with the rest of your neighbours and ban you from growing them? We do have the right to representation, after all...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What if I don't like you growing tomatoes in your garden, can I band together with the rest of your neighbours and ban you from growing them? We do have the right to representation, after all...


Could you provide a source for an instance of this scenario?

----------


## angelatc

> So because they act collectively, they have the 'right' to trample on the property of a third party? What if I don't like you growing tomatoes in your garden, can I band together with the rest of your neighbours and ban you from growing them? We do have the right to representation, after all...


This is the way the progressives seize control of everything, by pretending they're "saving" it from something else.

This article in the Daily caller make several excellent points:




> No organic farmer has ever sued a neighbor for GMO contamination.





> The organic industry in North America is now worth more than Major League Baseball.





> During the same time GMOs have been in use, organic sales grew exponentially, putting the lie to activist claims that GMOs threaten organic farms.


There is not any truth at all in the bull$#@! that they're posting here. And when they're called on it, they freely admit they don't care about that..all they want is the majority so they can steamroll the rights of the individuals.

These greedy bastards in Oregon aren't anybody's victims.   They're crony capitalists using the power of the media to spread lies, and the power of the government to quash their competition.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> These greedy bastards in Oregon aren't anybody's victims.   They're crony capitalists using the power of the media to spread lies, and the power of the government to quash their competition.


Would your assessment of the events in Oregon be comparable to what we see happening with regard to the Koch network, Monsanto and Congressman Mike Pompeo? 

Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

Would this be an instance of "government interference"? If so then how so? Do these industries represent government?

Also..."crony capitalism". What does it mean? Does it differ from fascism or socialism? Is it the same? If so then how so? Is it an aspect of the free market? Mercantilism? If not then why not. If so then how so?

----------


## eduardo89

> Could you provide a source for an instance of this scenario?


I'm giving you a hypothetical. Since you clearly have said that since the 'majority has spoken' it is moral and right that they can ban someone from growing something they don't like on private property, I'm asking if you extend that 'right' to other things if the 'majority has spoken' that they want to ban it.

So I'll ask again. If your entire town bands together, would you say they have the right to ban you from growing tomatoes on your private property, as long as they have a majority in favor of such a ban?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm giving you a hypothetical.


I see no relevance in hypotheticals. If you'd like to share a specific instance of the phenomenon then I'd certainly be willing to analyze the specifics of it with you.

----------


## eduardo89

> I see no relevance in hypotheticals. If you'd like to share a specific instance of the phenomenon then I'd certainly be willing to analize it with you.


Do you believe that a government can ban people from growing any crop they want as long as a majority of voters are in favor of banning?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you believe that a government can ban people from growing any crop they want as long as a majority of voters are in favor of banning?


How do you define government in this instance? Would lobbyists be involved with such legislation in your scenario? Industry? How do voters differ from people? You clearly separated them in your scenario.

----------


## eduardo89

> How do you define government in this instance? Would lobbyists be involved with such legislation in your scenario? Industry? How do voters differ from people?


You really don't like to answer questions. Do you supper the decision of Oregon counties to ban GMOs?

----------


## Ender

> You really don't like to answer questions. Do you supper the decision of Oregon counties to ban GMOs?


I support local communities in what they want and how they choose to operate.

I do NOT support FED involvement in my freedoms.

----------


## Ender

angeltec- if you neg rep me again for disagreeing with you then the $#@! is going to hit the fan.

I have never neg repped you even when I think you are being a troll for the FED.

AND- I never said GMO was an ingredient- I said the FED demands that everything must be labeled- ORGANIC is not an ingredient either.

----------


## angelatc

> I see no relevance in hypotheticals. If you'd like to share a specific instance of the phenomenon then I'd certainly be willing to analyze the specifics of it with you.


(mod delete) We all know that there has never been a single farmer who sued over GMO crop contamination, so your entire position on the Oregon ban is based on a hypothetical.

----------


## angelatc

> angeltec- if you neg rep me again for disagreeing with you then the $#@! is going to hit the fan.
> 
> I have never neg repped you even when I think you are being a troll for the FED.
> 
> AND- I never said GMO was an ingredient- I said the FED demands that everything must be labeled- ORGANIC is not an ingredient either.


I'll neg you anytime I $#@!ing feel like it.  The FDA demands that INGREDIENTS be labeled. GMO is not an ingredient.

There's no law requiring organic farmers to label their crops organic.  That's the whole $#@!ing point.

----------


## angelatc

> I support local communities in what they want and how they choose to operate.
> 
> I do NOT support FED involvement in my freedoms.



So it was ok with you when South Africa forbid blacks from even owning property, because that's how they chose to operate.  And it was perfectly fine to run the homeless out of town, because that's how some cities choose to operate.

----------


## Ender

> I'll neg you anytime I $#@!ing feel like it.  The FDA demands that INGREDIENTS be labeled. GMO is not an ingredient.
> 
> There's no law requiring organic farmers to label their crops organic.  That's the whole $#@!ing point.


You live under a rock? 




> Organic
> 
> Organic Certification Federal Standards
> 
> By: Jim Riddle, organic policy specialist, Rodale Institutes www.newfarm.org and Tony Kleese, former executive director, CFSA
> To become a certified organic production operation, the farm and farm practices must comply with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the USDA National Organic Program rules and regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 246, pgs. 80367-80663). In simplified terms, these National Organic Standards require, for crop farms:
> 	3 years (36 months prior to harvest) with no application of prohibited materials (no synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or GMOs) prior to certification;
> 	distinct, defined boundaries for the operation;
> 	implementation of an Organic System Plan, with proactive fertility systems; conservation measures; and environmentally sound manure, weed, disease, and pest management practices;
> ...

----------


## donnay

> Obama's pro-GMO cabinet selections
> 
> Obama immediately inserted attorney Michael Taylor, former Public Policy VP for Monsanto as deputy commissioner of the FDA, or the new food-safety-issues czar. He's the poster boy for corporate-government revolving door expertise who created a legal living hell for small dairy farmers who put "no rBGH" on their milk containers during the 1990s.
> 
> Then came former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center, Roger Beachy. Obama posted him as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Soon after Obama placed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsackas USDA Commissioner.
> 
> Vilsack was voted Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization after he created the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership. Bye-bye organic standards, hello GMOs.
> 
> Obama placed former Monsanto lobbyist Islam Siddiqui as Agriculture Trade Representative so he could push GMO exports overseas. Former biotech Dupont attorney Ramona Romera was placed as USDA's counsel.
> ...


http://www.naturalnews.com/045268_Ob...#ixzz32aAHnHXd

----------


## donnay

> So it was ok with you when South Africa forbid blacks from even owning property, because that's how they chose to operate.  And it was perfectly fine to run the homeless out of town, because that's how some cities choose to operate.


By that ridiculous logic you must be against communities against; Real ID, Global Warming and Obamacare too.

It appears your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

----------


## donnay

*6 ways Monsanto is destroying humanity*

Mick Meaney
RINF
May 23rd, 2014

Just in case you’ve been living under a rock (or absorbing the limited range of carefully selected and controlled news reports from the corporate media), Monsanto is a sinister multinational with headquarters in Creve Coeur, Missouri, and it’s engaged in the production of seriously harmful chemicals and agricultural biotechnology.

It’s the largest manufacturer of products which include genetically engineered seed and herbicide glyphosate.

Apart from the genetically produced seed, they have also been known to produce chemicals such as DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange and bovine growth hormone among others. It has been given the name merchant of death by many groups that inform the sleepwalking masses about the dangers of using Monsanto products.

So let’s take a look at just 6 ways Monsanto are destroying humanity:

*Harmful GMO*

They produce genetically engineered seeds which are used to grow corn which is fed to cows with the intention of increasing their mass. GMO’s are harmful since they have been known to cause cancer therefore Monsanto has become a promoter of cancer.
Poisonous pesticides and other farm chemicals

They produce chemicals which are harmful and are sprayed on plants which eventually find their way on the tables of many families. These chemicals poison our body organs which eventually lead to death.

*Promoters of Deforestation and desertification*

Monsanto clears huge tracts of forest in order to set up their farms. This means they promote deforestation which eventually leads to desertification. As years go by with this kind of practice there will be no land to produce food which will lead to hunger and finally death.

*Continued...*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I support local communities in what they want and how they choose to operate.
> 
> I do NOT support FED involvement in my freedoms.


Yep. Agreed. This would be my position on it as well.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> angeltec- if you neg rep me again for disagreeing with you then the $#@! is going to hit the fan.


Doubtful. I've flagged well over a dozen of this member's combative and personal attacks toward me because of some of the news I've reported here. Those comments yet remain. Good luck though.

Edit - I see that a couple were mod deleted but many remain. 


Ah, well. Moving forward...big day tomorrow. Things to do, places to be.


*March Against Monsanto May 24th 2014
*
*Click Here For Full Spreadsheet View
**Click Here For Full Map View*

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Today: Global anti-GMO action

*


> Over 400 cities worldwide will see millions marching against the US chemical and agricultural company Monsanto in an effort to boycott the use of Genetically Modified Organizms in food production. Marches are planned in  52 countries in addition to some 47 US states that are jointing  in the protest.
> 
> _“Monsanto’s predatory business and corporate agriculture  practices threatens their generation’s health, fertility and  longevity,”_ Canal said.
> 
> Over 400 cities worldwide will see millions marching against the US chemical and agricultural company Monsanto in an effort to boycott the use of Genetically Modified Organizms in food production. 
> 
> Marches are planned in  52 countries in addition to some 47 US states that are joining  in the protest.
> 
>   The main aim of the activism is to organize global awareness for  the need to protect food supply, local farms and environment. It  seeks to promote organic solutions, while “exposing cronyism  between big business and the government.”
> ...


Continued - http://rt.com/news/161176-global-mar...inst-monsanto/

----------


## osan

> *Today: Global anti-GMO action
> 
> *
> 
> Continued - http://rt.com/news/161176-global-mar...inst-monsanto/


Because marching is going to change anything for the better...

Theye're not listening anymore.  _Hello?_

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Worldwide* march against Monsanto - LIVE UPDATES - Video - Photos - Ground Reporting




A global event challenging the agricultural behemoth Monsantos efforts to dominate the world food supply is taking place across the globe as millions of anti-GMO activists join forces against the biotech giant.

----------


## eduardo89

> I support local communities in what they want and how they choose to operate.
> 
> I do NOT support FED involvement in my freedoms.


So you support tyranny, but only on a local level. Gotcha.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yep. Agreed. This would be my position on it as well.


Ok, I get it. You don't believe in property rights. You believe in 'democracy.' You only get to do with your property what the majority allows.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Ok, I get it. You don't believe in property rights. You believe in 'democracy.' You only get to do with your property what the majority allows.


Excuse me? Please don't misrepresent my political position or personal beliefs. You don't know me.

Now get out of the way before you get run over, scooter. This is the problem when we have children sitting in the driver seat of a movement that people like me started 30 years ago. Think they know but they don't. And they're the reason why we have the political representation that we do. The simple fact that a topic like this with all of it's critical information and updates on a global...successful...cause gets shoved in an open discussion section and out of scope of relevance across the board is the signature of a lack of a firm grasp on the depth of the issue. And it's unfortunate.

Watch how it's done...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *Worldwide* march against Monsanto - LIVE UPDATES - Video - Photos - Ground Reporting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A global event challenging the agricultural behemoth Monsantos efforts to dominate the world food supply is taking place across the globe as millions of anti-GMO activists join forces against the biotech giant.


// Back on topic...

----------


## donnay

*Activists Across the Globe March Against Monsanto*



 by CounterCurrents.org | May 24, 2014 


The march against the US chemical and agricultural company Monsanto is an effort to boycott the use of Genetically Modified Organisms in food production.


Marches were planned in 52 countries in addition to some 47 US states that are jointing in the protest.

“MAM supports a sustainable food production system. We must act now to stop GMOs and harmful pesticides,” said Tami Monroe Canal , founder of March Against Monsanto (MAM) in a press release ahead of the global event.

*Continued...*


We had a lot of people protesting in our town today--people are starting to wake up and it is so refreshing!

----------


## angelatc

Ha ha ha!

----------


## PRB

> Ha ha ha!


what's contradictory about being rich, enjoying a vacation, while bashing a GMO corporation?

----------


## angelatc

> You live under a rock?


Dear God,  I would love to gouge my eyes out with a BPA spoon.  Thank you for giving me the strength from refraining.  Amen.



I did not $#@!ing say there were no organic standards.  I said there is no law that requires farmers to label foods grown to those standards as organic.  When we see a product that is not labeled organic, we assume it is not organic.  There no no label that says "Not Organic!" because that would be stupid.  

If you must have GMO labels, then that's the way to do it.  Take the little niche market snobbery to Whole Foods and leave the normal people alone.

----------


## angelatc

> what's contradictory about being rich, enjoying a vacation, while bashing a GMO corporation?


Promoting a day of activism: $1000

Profit from promoting activism: $10,000

Spending it all on a lavish vacation on day of said activism:  Priceless!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ...Priceless!


There are currently 85 bills on GMO labeling pending in 30 states, as well as dueling bills in Congress.

----------


## PRB

> *Activists Across the Globe March Against Monsanto*
> 
> The march against the US chemical and agricultural company Monsanto is an effort to boycott the use of Genetically Modified Organisms in food production.
> 
> Marches were planned in 52 countries in addition to some 47 US states that are jointing in the protest.
> 
> We had a lot of people protesting in our town today--people are starting to wake up and it is so refreshing!


it's refreshing to see first world people jump on communist anti-capitalist bandwagons like Occupy....got it

----------


## PRB

> Promoting a day of activism: $1000
> 
> Profit from promoting activism: $10,000
> 
> Spending it all on a lavish vacation on day of said activism:  Priceless!


How did she profit from the march? was she an organizer or sponsor?

----------


## donnay

> it's refreshing to see first world people jump on communist anti-capitalist bandwagons like Occupy....got it


Making people aware of dangerous genetically modified foods, which are pushed in through bribes and graft by Biotechs across the globe and enforced by governments who are accepting the bribes and graft is okay to you?  

Nothing about the Biotechs is capitalism--they hate competition.  You really need to brush up on what is going on.  You seem totally confused.

----------


## Danke

> (mod delete) We all know that there has never been a single farmer who sued over GMO crop contamination, so your entire position on the Oregon ban is based on a hypothetical.


Wait, wait , wait.


I did not read all the posts.  But many seeders were shut down because of big companies and their high priced lawyers suing the heck out of small businesses.  Are you saying this is not so?

----------


## donnay

> what's contradictory about being rich, enjoying a vacation, while bashing a GMO corporation?


Join us at the March Against Monsanto this Saturday and print your "What The Starbucks?" flyers here: http://cdn4.gmoinside.org/wp-inside/...aign-Flyer.pdf #marchagainstmonsanto #GMOs #GMODairy #stopmonsanto

https://www.facebook.com/thefoodbabe

----------


## PRB

> Join us at the March Against Monsanto this Saturday and print your "What The Starbucks?" flyers here: http://cdn4.gmoinside.org/wp-inside/...aign-Flyer.pdf #marchagainstmonsanto #GMOs #GMODairy #stopmonsanto
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/thefoodbabe


she just reposted it. so if you repost a promotion of an event you're not allowed to be on vacation?

----------


## donnay

> she just reposted it. so if you repost a promotion of an event you're not allowed to be on vacation?


They were protesting all around the world today.  I have no issues with anyone taking a vacation--more power to them!

I think Angelatc is the one with the problem with The Food Babe.   Maybe Angelatc needs a vacation?

----------


## PRB

> They were protesting all around the world today.  I have no issues with anyone taking a vacation--more power to them!
> 
> I think Angelatc is the one with the problem with The Food Babe.   Maybe Angelatc needs a vacation?


I know I sure do.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> They were protesting all around the world today.  I have no issues with anyone taking a vacation--more power to them!
> 
> I think Angelatc is the one with the problem with The Food Babe.   Maybe Angelatc needs a vacation?


Maybe send her over a nice bottle of Moscato? I think it's the Sea Salt one she likes. I forget...


Hey, btw. 3 more counties in Oregon in the news soon with this stuff. Stay tuned. Work in progress...

----------


## donnay

> Maybe send her over a nice bottle of Moscato? I think it's the Sea Salt one she likes. I forget...
> 
> 
> Hey, btw. 3 more counties in Oregon in the news soon with this stuff. Stay tuned. Work in progress...



I recommend some fava beans and a nice Chianti.  


Yeah people are definitely waking up.  It was definitely nice to see and read all the reports from around the globe and here, in the US.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah people are definitely waking up.  It was definitely nice to see and read all the reports from around the globe and here, in the US.


Yep. Busy, busy day. Awareness and genuine understanding for what they are doing has changed dramatically since the first March Against Monsanto a few years ago. The first ones that I was involved in I felt like I was managing an Occupy outing. 

Not anymore. Am seeing the kind of average people you see in the store and at junior's baseball games and whatnot. You know? Grown ups...informed, concerned people who question a little more.

Historically, you get a lot of these young folks who think they know everything but really don't know much of anything and it is very disruptive. Counter-productive. I Didn't see a whole lot of that this time around. Was normal every place I went or viewed remotely.

It reminds me a bit of the phenomenon we see with the very young these days. They don't go any place anymore. They have iphone, xbox, facebook, youtube, facetime and all of that stuff. They just sit at home. Do nothing. The younger generation of political activists are getting comfortable doing this too.  Can you even count how many political memes you see in a day? And what does that really accomplish beyond proving oneself to be incapable of independent thought? It does keep them out of the way out in the real world when you're trying to accomplish something, I suppose is what I mean. Was still very diverse but without the nonsense. Bunch of soccer moms and whatnot.  Was refreshing.

----------


## donnay

*Russian Activists to Conduct Independent Studies Proving GMOs Could be Genetic Weapon*

by Christina Sarich
May 22nd, 2014

A draft bill is on the table in Russia that would criminalize GMO production and distribution. Now, anti-GMO activists there are looking to create a team of ‘long-overdue’ independent and international researchers that can finally prove unequivocally that GMOs are poison tools created by Monsanto and the corporate, biotech machine.

When you are going to equivocate GMO production with terrorism, a label it truly deserves since it kills people through reproductive organ failure and the drastic reorganization of gut flora, immunity, and even DNA – essentially as a bio-weapon – then you might want to have some hard, solid evidence that can counteract the propaganda which has been circulated by Monsanto’s shills.

According to Elena Sharoykina, director of the Genetic Safety Public Association (GSPA), a 10-year-old NGO in Moscow, it isn’t the first time the term ‘terrorism’ was used to describe what GMOs have done to our people and ecosystems, including all the pollinators, which allow us an ample food supply.

*
Continued...*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *Russian Activists to Conduct Independent Studies Proving GMOs Could be Genetic Weapon*
> 
> by Christina Sarich
> May 22nd, 2014
> 
> A draft bill is on the table in Russia that would criminalize GMO production and distribution. Now, anti-GMO activists there are looking to create a team of ‘long-overdue’ independent and international researchers that can finally prove unequivocally that GMOs are poison tools created by Monsanto and the corporate, biotech machine.
> 
> When you are going to equivocate GMO production with terrorism, a label it truly deserves since it kills people through reproductive organ failure and the drastic reorganization of gut flora, immunity, and even DNA – essentially as a bio-weapon – then you might want to have some hard, solid evidence that can counteract the propaganda which has been circulated by Monsanto’s shills.
> 
> ...


Remember what I said elsewhere about that Agricultural Test Ban Treaty, donnay. I don't just go making this stuff, you know. 

Of course, it's an area of foreign policy where these specific industries and GMOs ABSOLUTELY WILL become relevant and since we're now forced to discuss this in a thread where terms of controversy are assumed to be NON-POLITICAL NEWS, NON-POLITICAL RELATED QUESTIONS AND MORE...maybe best to save it for another day. Which means, of course, the mods have stacked the deck in favor of suppression. Talk about re-pressed. Wow. I tell ya. Is what happens when you give shortsighted kids the steering wheel, I suppose. They'll drive you right into a ditch. Themselves right along. Perhaps it will make for a good op-ed in the future. It's an interesting/perplexing phenomenon. In fact, I'm sure of it.

----------


## donnay

*March Against Monsanto rally photos and protest signs from Austin, Texas*








More *here*

----------


## Natural Citizen

With anti-GMO rallies having taken place in around 400 cities  across the globe it’s still hard to estimate how many people  participated in the event. 

Last year over 2 million people in 436  cities in 52 countries worldwide marched against the largest  producer of genetically engineered seeds.

  All the events were listed in an open document online, which made  it easy for people to find the protest action nearest them.


Monsanto issued a response to Saturday's global marches claiming  their commitment to food and agriculture...




> _“The 22,000 people of Monsanto are committed to having an  open dialogue about food and agriculture – we’re proud of the  work we do, and we’re eager for people to know more about  us,”_ said Charla Lord, spokeswoman for Monsanto.
> 
> Monsanto says it is ready engage with farmers to save the  environment and provide for health needs.
> 
> _“We’re also proud of our collaboration with farmers and  partnering organizations that help make a more balanced meal  accessible for everyone. Our goal is to help farmers do this  using fewer resources and having a smaller impact on the  environment. We know people have different points of view on  these topics, and it’s important that they’re able to express and  share them.”
> _
> A statement that people in* India* will find difficult to accept as  *Monsanto* controls about 95 percent of the cotton seed market  trapping the country's small farmers in *unpayable debt*.
> 
> _“284,000 farmers have committed suicide in India because of  debt linked to seed and chemicals,”_ Vandana Shiva, an Indian  environmental activist and anti-globalization author said.
> ...


Continued - *World* protests Monsanto

----------


## Natural Citizen

Complete recap of *Worldwide* march against *Monsanto* - Photos - Video - ground reports - twitter...by the minute

 LIVE UPDATES -  http://rt.com/news/161184-march-agai...santo-updates/

Have to click the "more" tab to expand the video and photography of the various peaceful marches/protests again... *worldwide.*

----------


## donnay

March on Monsanto Las Vegas

----------


## eduardo89

Quick question for those that support mandatory GMO labeling...do you also support mandatory labeling of 'organic' produce? How would you react to a law that proposed that?

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> Quick question for those that support mandatory GMO labeling...do you also support mandatory labeling of 'organic' produce? How would you react to a law that proposed that?



While I don't support Gov mandated GMO labeling, I think it is fraud to sell GMO without indicating the details of it's unnatural origins.

----------


## angelatc

> While I don't support Gov mandated GMO labeling, I think it is fraud to sell GMO without indicating the details of it's unnatural origins.


I don't think "fraud" means what you think it means.  There's nothing synthetic in GMO food.    You might as well be mad that cheeseburgers aren't natural, either.

----------


## angelatc

> Wait, wait , wait.
> 
> 
> I did not read all the posts.  But many seeders were shut down because of big companies and their high priced lawyers suing the heck out of small businesses.  Are you saying this is not so?


I suspect that is entirely a fabrication, just like every other "talking point"  the anti-GMO lobbies put out there. I seriously doubt there is any truth at all to the story you are telling.  

 But in any event, no.  That is not what we were saying and it is not what we were talking about.    

Let us put it in terms that are more familiar to this crowd.  Let's say that Dannno had a Colorado farm and he was growing a strain of pot while his neighbors were growing a weaker strain of pot.  

Natural Liberal Citizen here is defending a decision that just gave the government the right to prevent Dannno from growing the strain of pot he wants to produce and market, simply because his neighbors' crops might get more potent, even though those neighbors have never proved that it's actually happening, sued him (or anybody) because it is happening or even shown that their livelihoods would be negatively effected if that indeed happened.  

That's exactly what just happened in Oregon.  She wouldn't answer Eduardo's question about whether the government should dictate which types of tomatos farmers can grow, loftily asserting it was a hypothetical, while ignoring the fact that the Oregon law she is cheering about is $#@!ing based on a hypothetical - no organic farmer has sued a neighboring farmer for crop contamination.

One sure sign of liberal dishonesty is making simple things complicated.  That is what we have here. * She can't  answer simple yes or no question because she is't here to promote liberty.  She's here cheering for government control over the food under the guise of keeping decisions on what to grow out of the hands of those evil corporate landowners and farmers.* 

She is not one of us. She does not belong here. She is here promoting progressive liberal ideals.  In 2007 she would have been banned already.

----------


## donnay

*Standing Up To Goliath: March Against Monsanto*



Published with permission of Justin Gammill from Earth911.com

So if you are keeping score, at this point it’s Justin: 1, Monsanto: 0.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article where I not only compared the mega-corporation to Nazis, but I also called them evil geniuses who: “took a break from counting their money to poison you.” For anyone who just thought: “Gee, that’s harsh,” you might want to strap in for what is going to be a fun-filled super-slam festival of epic proportions …

Now in my first article I talked specifically about the GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) situation that Monsanto is perpetrating against humanity and the planet. Long story short, back in the 80s Monsanto started developing seeds that were genetically modified to be resistant to things like pesticides and herbicides as a way to, according to their multi-million advertising campaign: “End World Hunger.” So basically, they claimed that unless you get over your aversion to eating something cooked up in a lab and sprayed with some of the most toxic stuff known to man, kids in Third World countries will die.

So if ending hunger is at the heart of their intentions, they must give the seeds away for free right? Nope. In fact, they went a couple of steps further. First they made the plants sterile, so that farmers have to buy them again the next year, instead of planting natural seed from the previously harvested crops. Then they found a way to make the plants basically “grow themselves to death.” According to Emma Must from the World Development Movement, “by peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world’s poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom.” Another fun little side effect of GMOs is a cool trick called “drift”, where the run-off from their herbicide-resistant seeds makes its way to a natural crop and kills it. Like in 2012, herbicide sprayed in the San Joaquin Valley of California drifted and damaged cotton fields as far as 100 miles away.

That’s part of the reason why on May 24th, I will be joining the March Against Monsanto.

MAM is “a global call to action aimed at informing the public, calling into question long-term health risks of genetically modified foods and demanding that GMO products be labeled so that consumers can make informed decisions.”  The movement is aimed at:

-Protecting our food supply, local farms and environment
-Promoting organic solutions
-Exposing cronyism between big business and the government

The fight against GMOs is going global, and if you want to find out what you can do to get involved, please check out the March Against Monsanto website. Now the last time I talked about Monsanto and GMOs, an employee from Monsanto showed up to comment on my claims, and made a 3-4 hour attempt at discrediting what I had to say. So, to be fair, I’ll quote One of March Against Monsanto's International Directors about the whole situation:

    "If we continue to think that the fight against Monsanto is only about GMOs, we have already lost."
    -Kelly L. Derricks, president and co-founder of the Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, and March against Monsanto’s Agent Orange Education Director

Guess what? She’s got a point. When it comes to harming humans, Monsanto has been at it for over 100 years … 

*Continued...*

----------


## angelatc

For those of yu playing at home, I am quoting actual farmers.  DonnaY and Natural Citizen are quoting progressives who want to use the government to control our nation;s food supply. 

Some of us here want to wage war on government.  The bloggers they cite do not share those ideals.   They want to use the government to wage war on capitalism and the people posting this here want only to either poison the liberty movement or hijack it.  




Commentary: March Against Monsanto is misguided




> Monsanto has become the whipping boy for activists angry at so many things beyond their control. These activists often forget that genetically modified corn encompasses many different types of modification. One GM corn is not the same as another. They seem to forget that these seeds are sold not to average consumers but to farmers. They also forget or don’t know that Monsanto also sells non-GMO seed.
> 
> Monsanto is supplying the consumer (the farmer) what they need and what the market appreciates. *If farmers didn’t find a benefit to using these products, they wouldn’t buy them. Activists forget the marketplace’s influence on global companies.*


*

*


She's naive.  These "activists" know full well that the farmers (and consumers) benefit from these products.  They're not interested in the rights of farmers to farm for profit - they want control of the world's food supply.   

They do not belong here.

----------


## donnay



----------


## angelatc

Another farmer - not a liberal activist:

http://www.fancybeans.com/blog/2013/...inst-monsanto/




> *What we value (either in making law or making purchases) drives what farmers grow and thus why Monsanto is so successful.* Throughout human history, the problem has been producing enough food, mostly grains (no one dies if the tomato crop fails, but they do if wheat fails). So our subsidies have been setup to support that. Now we are in an era of plenty. Food is cheap, nutritious, safe and plentiful. Historically, we haven’t worried as much about local or global pollution (whether it’s carbon emissions or pesticide and fertilizer runoff). We don’t, at a societal level, reward farmers who produce high yields with the least impact. Farmers will do their best, I believe, but if we don’t pay for it (and subsidize it through government so the poor are not harmed), then how can we expect farmers and companies to pay for it?* Farms are not non-profits.*


Dig deeper.  At the surface, March against Monsanto is full of morons who want to make food more expensive and less prolific, for their own selfish (not to mention absolutely scientifically retarded) reasons. Underneath, it is a progressive movement. 

 They don't belong here because they don't want freedom - they want control. 

They are our worse nightmare - a trojan horse.

----------


## Danke

> I suspect that is entirely a fabrication, just like every other "talking point"  the anti-GMO lobbies put out there. I seriously doubt there is any truth at all to the story you are telling.


I don't remember the name of the documentary, but they had a lot of farmers and seeders in it.

----------


## donnay

*Organic and Natural Product Companies Associated with Monsanto*


• Brand Name(s): Arrowhead Mills, Bearitos, Breadshop, Celestial Seasonings, Earth's Best Baby Food, Garden of Eatin, Health Valley, Imagine Foods, Terra Chips, Westbrae, Millina's, Mountain Sun, Shari Ann's, Walnut Acres Owned By: Hain Food Group Principle Stockholders: Bank of America, Entergy Nuclear, ExxonMobil, H.J. Heinz, Lockheed Martin, Merck, Monsanto, Pfizer, Philip Morris, Walmart, Waste Mangement Inc. Significantly Owned By: Citigroup

• Brand Name(s): Cascadian Farms, Muir Glen Owned By: Small Planet Foods Principle Stockholders: General Mills Significantly Owned By: Alcoa, Chevron, Disney, Dupont, ExxonMobil, General Electric, McDonalds, Monsanto, Nike, Pepsico, Pfizer, Philip Morris, Starbucks, Target, Texas Instruments

Article From: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html

----------


## angelatc

> 






  That sign is a nothing but one big lie. And you KNOW it's a lie because we have hashed through every $#@!ing one of those topics over and over and over, but you won't get called out for posting it. Nope, you're allowed to just keep posting ABSOLUTE MORONIC $#@! with no accountability what so ever. 

I, however, will likely get called out for not respecting your right post your never-ending stream of lies or some bull$#@!.  $#@! that noise.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't remember the name of the documentary, but they had a lot of farmers and seeders in it.


Documentaries are seldom unbiased.  I am not saying that it didn't happen, but there are literally hundreds if not thousands of small seed sellers still doing business in this country alone.  Unless I can fact check the claims in the movie, I'm inclined to believe it was probably progressive propaganda.

----------


## donnay

> 1901 to WWII
> Monsanto was founded in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1901, by John Francis Queeny, a 30‑year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. He funded the start-up with his own money and capital from a soft drink distributor and gave the company his wife's maiden name. His father-in-law was Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto, a wealthy financier of a sugar company active in Vieques, Puerto Rico, and based in St. Thomas in the Danish West Indies. *The company's first products were commodity food additives, like the artificial sweetener saccharin*, caffeine, and vanillin.[19]:6[20][21][22]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto




> The Monsanto Chemical Works was founded in 1901 by John F. Queeny (1859–1933), a purchasing agent for a wholesale drug company, to *manufacture the synthetic sweetener saccharin*, then produced only in Germany. Queeny invested $1,500 of his own money and borrowed another $3,500 from a local Epsom salts manufacturer to launch his new company, which he named Monsanto, after his wife’s maiden name. The firm was up to full-scale saccharin production in 1902, added caffeine and vanillin to its product line over the next few years, and in 1905 began turning a profit. With the Coca-Cola Company as one of Monsanto’s chief customers, sales reached $1 million in 1915. Monsanto began producing aspirin in 1917.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...nsanto-Company




> In 1985, Monsanto Company bought G.D. Searle, and *the aspartame business became a separate Monsanto subsidiary*, the NutraSweet Company. In March 2000, Monsanto sold it to J.W. Childs Equity Partners II L.P.[68] European use patents on aspartame expired starting in 1987,[69] and the U.S. patent expired in 1992. Since then, the company has competed for market share with other manufacturers, including Ajinomoto, Merisant and the Holland Sweetener Company.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame



> In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto knew of aspartame's past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."
> 
> The FDA banned aspartame based on the findings, only to have Donald Rumsfeld (13th Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977) the Chairman of G.D. Searle (1976) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.
> 
> On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.


http://thegaiareports.weebly.com/mon...to-pfizer.html

*Monsanto Hid PCB Pollution forDecades* 
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/pcbs010702.cfm

*The History of PCBs*
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html

*PCB case against Monsanto can move forward, appeals court says*
http://www.stltoday.com/business/loc...029f4201a.html

*Toxic Secret*
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-secret-07-11-2002/




> The 1940s saw Monsanto become a leading manufacturer of plastics, including polystyrene, and synthetic fibers. Since then, it has remained one of the top 10 US chemical companies. Other major products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, and Agent Orange used primarily during the Vietnam War as a defoliant agent (later proven to be highly carcinogenic to any who come into contact with the solution), the artificial sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone (BST)), and PCBs.[6] Also in this decade, Monsanto operated the Dayton Project, and later Mound Laboratories in Miamisburg, Ohio, for the Manhattan Project, the development of the first nuclear weapons and, after 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission.
> 
> Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944, along with some 15 other companies.[7]


https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t.../Monsanto.html

*Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Awful Products Made By Monsanto*
http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04...#ixzz32kZmS4oS

----------


## angelatc

> ] ...bull$#@! that's been hashed out 20 times or more already.....[/U]



Again, we have hashed and rehashed every single bit of the random mix of carefully selected innunedo and absolute bull$#@! you post, and yet you refuse to respond when it becomes clear that you're either lying or grossly distorting facts.  Because you are lying, you can't ever move the conversation forward.  

You just move it to a new thread, then post your absolute  bull$#@! again, gleefully snickering because you got away with it again, and the refusal of the mods to call you out on it is tacit approval.

Anywhere else would call it trolling. Because it is.

Anybody with a lick of sense can look at the cites you posted and see you clearly contradicting yourself again.  The fact that YOU don't see you contradicting yourself is simply mind boggling.

----------


## donnay

> I don't remember the name of the documentary, but they had a lot of farmers and seeders in it.


I think you might be thinking of this one:

----------


## Tod

> *Standing Up To Goliath: March Against Monsanto*
> 
> 
> 
> Published with permission of Justin Gammill from Earth911.com
> 
> So if you are keeping score, at this point it’s Justin: 1, Monsanto: 0.
> 
> A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article where I not only compared the mega-corporation to Nazis, but I also called them evil geniuses who: “took a break from counting their money to poison you.” For anyone who just thought: “Gee, that’s harsh,” you might want to strap in for what is going to be a fun-filled super-slam festival of epic proportions …
> ...



great find!

----------


## angelatc

> great find!


Only if you like progressive rhetoric, someone who has probably never actually been in a barn.

Here's another piece actually written by a farming family:

The World Does not March Against Monsanto




> If you have spent a minute on the social media, you would have heard that tomorrow is another March Against Monsanto in Waikiki and worldwide.  Many misguided folks will be getting ready today for that planned march against this so called “evil.”  The Babes Against Biotech are planning a flash mob and busy choreographing something during this social event to protest this perceived enemy.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people in this world who still go without food.  That includes many people here in Hawaii.  The homeless, elderly, poor and others await to get their food from the local IHS, Meals on Wheels volunteer, or the Hawaii Foodbank.  The needy folks look forward to a hot meal over an empty stomach any day and don’t turn their noses up in disgust over what it could be.  What hungry person ever turned away a good meal?

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I don't think "fraud" means what you think it means.  There's nothing synthetic in GMO food.    You might as well be mad that cheeseburgers aren't natural, either.


There certainly is something unnatural about inserting genes from the DNA of one species into another. 

If someone sells a car to someone and it has a transplanted engine from another vehicle, one would expect that info be disclosed to the buyer so they can weigh the pros and cons based on their own beliefs.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monsanto’s love Affair with synthetic biology...




> “Synthetic Genomics Inc. specializes in an extreme form of genetic engineering called synthetic biology. Instead of transferring genetic material from one species to another, synthetic bioengineering places new, synthetically created genetic material into microorganisms. SGI plans on using its franken-microbes for all sorts of applications including biofuels, renewable chemicals, vaccines and coal bed methane recovery. 
> 
> This technology is even newer than traditional genetic engineering, so it is still unclear how it would be proven safe and regulated. Today’s transgenic crops are at least permitted and commercialized through a three-agency regulatory process, albeit flawed. But these organisms would be tossed into a quagmire of federal regulatory programs involving at least seven agencies including the USDA, FDA, EPA, DOT, NIH, CDC and even the FBI due to biosecurity risks; making it more likely to fall through the bureaucratic cracks.
> 
> “What could this mean for the future of agricultural biotechnology? R&D from this agreement will likely fall under Monsanto’s agricultural biological platform BioDirect, which means Monsanto could be developing new, microbial pesticides that could be approved and sprayed on crops to fight weeds, insects and viruses. With further investment in and research with SGI, Monsanto will soon have the means to incorporate synthetic biology into its microbial pesticides without a defined regulatory pathway to check its development along the way.
> 
> “The attempt to disguise the use of synthetic biology in agriculture as “sustainable” is an egregious abuse of the word. Releasing microbes with novel traits and functions into the wild and onto our food crops could have devastating effects on the safety of our food and the quality of our environment.”


Continued - Monsanto’s love Affair with synthetic biology



This is where we'll see blowback from competitive Non-GMO BRICSA nations at the international level. Enter agricultural test ban treaty...

Also discussed further here on RPS... Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

----------


## Tod

> Originally Posted by *donnay*  
> 
> *Standing Up To Goliath: March Against Monsanto*
> 
> 
> 
> Published with permission of Justin Gammill from Earth911.com
> 
> So if you are keeping score, at this point it’s Justin: 1, Monsanto: 0.
> ...




^this post earned me a negative rep from AngelaTC, along with the statement, "No it isn't.  It's a progressive opinion piece."  I guess if one does not support fascism, one must be a progressive.

----------


## eduardo89

NC, since you agree with those Oregon counties banning farmers from growing GMOs, because democracy...if your county decided to ban all "organic" farming and the majority of people in your county supported the ban, would you be ok with it? Or would you push back against the "majority will" because they are pushing an anti-liberty position?

----------


## Ender

> NC, since you agree with those Oregon counties banning farmers from growing GMOs, because democracy...if your county decided to ban all "organic" farming and the majority of people in your county supported the ban, would you be ok with it? Or would you push back against the "majority will" because they are pushing an anti-liberty position?


So, Eduardo, 

If your county banned all pregnant women from having to have their fetuses genetically altered before birth, would you be ok with it?

----------


## Ender

> ^this post earned me a negative rep from AngelaTC, along with the statement, "No it isn't.  It's a progressive opinion piece."  I guess if one does not support fascism, one must be a progressive.


Means you're hitting a hot button.

angelatc loves to neg rep those who disagree with her and accuses them of exactly what she does, which in her case means only citing government sanctioned opinion pieces.

----------


## Ender

> I support local communities in what they want and how they choose to operate.
> 
> I do NOT support FED involvement in my freedoms.


So, Eduardo, now YOU'RE neg repping for saying this?

You know NOTHING about freedom if you think that Big Corps that buy off Congress and are above the law, equals freedom.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So, Eduardo, now YOU'RE neg repping for saying this?
> 
> You know NOTHING about freedom if you think that Big Corps that buy off Congress and are above the law, equals freedom.


Seems to me that reframing the debate into interrogation relative to ones personal view is a strategic model to bury the issue. And too often the questions used to do that are extremely shortsighted in scope of the issue. I've decided that personal posts do nothing to stimulate debate on the issues themselves. Reporting many of them...disregarding most of them...bumping relevant news and current events that have been buried within the thread as a result of ad-hominem.

Best to ignore postings that are meant to attack the messenger in a manner that stifles debate and the flow of reporting of news and current events, legislation, etc in my view. They exist merely to disrupt the flow of information and critical updates.

----------


## donnay



----------


## donnay

http://www.infowars.com/world-protes...-supply-chain/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> http://www.infowars.com/world-protes...-supply-chain/


...........

----------


## donnay

I just planted 24 organic apple trees today.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I just planted 24 organic apple trees today.


So...how do you like them apples? Heh. Get it?

Ah well. That's a lot of trees. Were they in pots or rootballs or what?

----------


## donnay

> So...how do you like them apples? Heh. Get it?
> 
> Ah well. That's a lot of trees. Were they in pots or rootballs or what?


They were sprouted shoots (called stocks) from a huge rootball that either, rabbits, moles or voles got to about three years ago.  I was so mad I thought the critters got them good, but instead I wound up getting lots of stocks.  Bonus!

I dug up the original root ball and it had 24 different stocks so I put it in water and then separated them very gingerly.  I let them soak in water for an hour while I dug the holes.  Put the stocks in the hole and combined, potting soil, peat moss and some horse manure mixed together.  Added a good dark mulch and watered real good.  I staked them all so they won't bend.  Some stocks were almost 5 ft. tall.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that they all take.  It will make a beautiful apple orchard in a couple of years.  


ETA:  I have another one that has about 15 stocks on it, but I may leave them until next year.  I am running out of springtime. Plus I want to see how the other stocks take. You want to get them transplanted before the 30th (at least for the NE region).

----------


## Natural Citizen

> They were sprouted shoots from a huge rootball that either, rabbits, moles or voles got to about three years ago.
> 
> I am keeping my fingers crossed that they all take.  It will make a beautiful apple orchard in a couple of years.


I've done that with trees and not once have I ever lost one. You may be OK with them. Maybe try some drip irrigation if you've planted them in rows. That's a lot of apples. Heck, you might have a small fortune there. I get around 4 bushels out of my oldest tree each year and it's still young. Good luck.  I just did the same thing with a bunch of blackberry canes the other day. They spread and make new canes and so you get free plants when you dig them up and replant them.

----------


## PRB

> Making people aware of dangerous genetically modified foods, which are pushed in through bribes and graft by Biotechs across the globe and enforced by governments who are accepting the bribes and graft is okay to you?  
> 
> Nothing about the Biotechs is capitalism--they hate competition.  You really need to brush up on what is going on.  You seem totally confused.


I hate competition too. Only consumers like competition (but even that is only a means to an end of lower prices).

Hating competition is just greed, not anti-capitalism.

----------


## donnay

> I've done that with trees and not once have I ever lost one. You may be OK with them. Maybe try some drip irrigation if you've planted them in rows. That's a lot of apples. Heck, you might have a small fortune there. I get around 4 bushels out of my oldest tree each year and it's still young. Good luck.  I just did the same thing with a bunch of blackberry canes the other day. They spread and make new canes and so you get free plants when you dig them up and replant them.



Thanks, I would like to see them take off.  I love apples and I do a lot of canning.  This particular apples are Cortland so they make a great apple sauce and pie filling.    The other one I have that have stocks are Jonathan.  Then I have a Red Delicious and Golden Delicious.

My Cherry trees had lots of blooms.  They are Montmorency.  My blueberry bushes are taking off too.  I put netting on them today to keep the birds away.  My wine grapes are going great.  I have a whole 1/2 acre Victory garden too.

I was hoping to see some rain tonight but it shot-off to the east of us.   They are calling for rain on Tuesday.

I also mixed in my wood ash, I forgot to mention that above.

Monsanto I rebuke you!!

----------


## donnay

> I hate competition too. Only consumers like competition (but even that is only a means to an end of lower prices).
> 
> Hating competition is just greed, not anti-capitalism.


Monsanto, Synergy, Dow and Bayer hate competition.  They have lots of lobbyist and ex-employees in government that get laws passed that hurt the little guy. 

In a free and open society competition is welcomed and it helps stimulate the economy.

----------


## angelatc

Did you know that eating organic can make you retarded?

----------


## angelatc

> Making people aware of dangerous genetically modified foods, which are pushed in through bribes and graft by Biotechs across the globe and enforced by governments who are accepting the bribes and graft is okay to you?  
> 
> Nothing about the Biotechs is capitalism--they hate competition.  You really need to brush up on what is going on.  You seem totally confused.


There is no evidence to support a (mod delete) thing you are saying.

There is no evidence that GMO food is dangerous.  There is no evidence that is is "pushed through" with bribes and graft.  There is no evidence that all the governments in the whole world are accepting bribes.

(Mod delete)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Making people aware of dangerous genetically modified foods, which are pushed in through bribes and graft by Biotechs across the globe and enforced by governments who are accepting the bribes and graft is okay to you?  
> 
> Nothing about the Biotechs is capitalism--they hate competition.  You really need to brush up on what is going on.  You seem totally confused.


//

Did you hear something? I thought I heard something. Hm. Musta been a thump in the night. Someone sleep walking perhaps.

Ah, well.

----------


## Ender

> There is no evidence to support a (mod delete) thing you are saying.
> 
> There is no evidence that GMO food is dangerous.  There is no evidence that is is "pushed through" with bribes and graft.  There is no evidence that all the governments in the whole world are accepting bribes.
> 
> (Mod delete).


Says the one that only reads the government approved "science".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/b...-gmo%E2%80%A8/




> *More Than Just GMO*
> When The Food-Pharma-Health Care Industrial Complex Covertly Forces Its Franken-Foods And Ineffective & Problematic Vaccines On An Unsuspecting Public (Medical Fascism)
> 
> By Bill Sardi
> May 22, 2014
> 
> The view of the food industry is that there will be a billion or two more people on the planet soon and we have to make food that is resistant to insect invasion and more durable under weather conditions.  But the hidden agenda is simply increasing bottom line profits possibly at the expense of health.
> 
> That possibility will forever be wrapped up in debate.  There are those who say “not a single person has ever been harmed by genetically modified foods.” [DailyCaller.com April 29, 2014]  One claim is that GMO foods compete with organically-grown crops (no herbicides, no pesticides) and that GMOs pose an economic threat to the few loud-mouthed organic growers.
> ...

----------


## eduardo89

> So, Eduardo, 
> 
> If your county banned all pregnant women from having to have their fetuses genetically altered before birth, would you be ok with it?


Talk about a red herring...

----------


## Ender

> Did you know that eating organic can make you retarded?


You forgot Aspartame, so let's start there.




> *The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal*
> January 19, 2013 by Joe Martino. 250 Comments.
> 
> *Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?*
> 
> The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDAs approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.
> 
> It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. *One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.*
> 
> ...


[QUOTE*]Aspartame Timeline*

December 1965 While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.

Spring 1967 Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.

F*all 1967 Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.*

November 1970 Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener  is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.

December 18, 1970 Searle Company executives lay out a Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the habit of saying, Yes.

*Spring 1971 Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searles own researchers confirmed Dr. Olneys findings in a similar study.*

February 1973 After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartames safety.

March 5, 1973 *One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.*

*May 1974 Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olneys 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.*

July 26, 1974 The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.

August 1974 Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartames approval.

*March 24, 1976 Turner and Olneys petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartames manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searles testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and manipulated test data. The investigators report they had never seen anything as bad as Searles testing.*

J*anuary 10, 1977 The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorneys office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDAs history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.*

January 26, 1977 While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.

*March 8, 1977 G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.*

*July 1, 1977 Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorneys office and takes a job with Searles law firm. (see Jan. 26th)*

*August 1, 1977 The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searles studies and werent autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searles reports.*

December 8, 1977 U.S. Attorney Skinners withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.

June 1, 1979 The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.

September 30, 1980 The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.

J*anuary 1981 Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
*
J*anuary 21, 1981 Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagans transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
*
March, 1981 An FDA commissioners panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.

*May 19, 1981 Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.*

*July 15, 1981 In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.*

October 15, 1982 The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.

*July 1, 1983 The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.*

July 8, 1983 The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.
*
August 8, 1983 Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State Universitys Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.*

*September, 1983 FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searles public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweets major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.*

Fall 1983 The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.

November 1984 Center for Disease Control (CDC) Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use. (summary by B. Mullarkey)

November 3, 1987 U.S. hearing, NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Ender

> Talk about a red herring...


Which is EXACTLY what your answer was to me.

So- maybe staying on the actual subject would be good?

----------


## Ender

Here's just one article on Monsanto's "safest herbicide."

QUOTE]*Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells*
Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say
Jun 23, 2009 |By Crystal Gammon and Environmental Health News

Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States.  About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

*Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns*.

One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”

“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, contends that the methods used in the study don’t reflect realistic conditions and that their product, which has been sold since the 1970s, is safe when used as directed. Hundreds of studies over the past 35 years have addressed the safety of glyphosate.

“Roundup has one of the most extensive human health safety and environmental data packages of any pesticide that's out there,” said Monsanto spokesman John Combest. “It's used in public parks, it's used to protect schools. There's been a great deal of study on Roundup, and we're very proud of its performance.”

The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses.

“Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.

In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient. Derived from animal fat, POEA is allowed in products certified organic by the USDA. The EPA has concluded that it is not dangerous to public health or the environment.

The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.

“The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures,” Seralini’s team wrote.

Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the world’s largest exporters of soy.

Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers aren’t required to publicly disclose them. Although Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar herbicides with different inert ingredients.

The term “inert ingredient” is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds.

Kemery said the EPA takes into account the inert ingredients and how the product is used, whenever a pesticide is approved for use. The aim, he said, is to ensure that “if the product is used according to labeled directions, both people’s health and the environment will not be harmed.” One label requirement for Roundup is that it should not be used in or near freshwater to protect amphibians and other wildlife.

But some inert ingredients have been found to potentially affect human health. Many amplify the effects of active ingredients by helping them penetrate clothing, protective equipment and cell membranes, or by increasing their toxicity. For example, a Croatian team recently found that an herbicide formulation containing atrazine caused DNA damage, which can lead to cancer, while atrazine alone did not.

POEA was recognized as a common inert ingredient in herbicides in the 1980s, when researchers linked it to a group of poisonings in Japan. Doctors there examined patients who drank Roundup, either intentionally or accidentally, and determined that their sicknesses and deaths were due to POEA, not glyphosate.

POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to help them penetrate plants' surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.

"POEA helps glyphosate interact with the surfaces of plant cells," explained Negin Martin, a scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, who was not involved in the study. POEA lowers water's surface tension--the property that makes water form droplets on most surfaces--which helps glyphosate disperse and penetrate the waxy surface of a plant.

In the French study, researchers tested four different Roundup formulations, all containing POEA and glyphosate at concentrations below the recommended lawn and agricultural dose. They also tested POEA and glyphosate separately to determine which caused more damage to embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

Glyphosate, POEA and all four Roundup formulations damaged all three cell types. Umbilical cord cells were especially sensitive to POEA. Glyphosate became more harmful when combined with POEA, and POEA alone was more deadly to cells than glyphosate. The research appears in the January issue of the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology.

By using embryonic and placental cell lines, which multiply and respond to chemicals rapidly, and fresh umbilical cord cells, Seralini’s team was able to determine how the chemicals combine to damage cells.

The two ingredients work together to “limit breathing of the cells, stress them and drive them towards a suicide,” Seralini said.

The research was funded in part by France’s Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, a scientific committee that investigates risks associated with genetically modified organisms. One of Roundup’s primary uses is on crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate.

Monsanto scientists argue that cells in Seralini’s study were exposed to unnaturally high levels of the chemicals. “It's very unlike anything you'd see in real-world exposure. People's cells are not bathed in these things,” said Donna Farmer, another toxicologist at Monsanto.

Seralini’s team, however, did study multiple concentrations of Roundup. These ranged from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.

Monsanto scientists also question the French team’s use of laboratory cell lines.
“These are just not very good models of a whole organism, like a human being,” said Dan Goldstein, a toxicologist with Monsanto.

Goldstein said humans have protective mechanisms that resist substances in the environment, such as skin and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, which constantly renew themselves. “Those phenomena just don't happen with isolated cells in a Petri dish.”

But Cox, who studies pesticides and their inert ingredients at the Oakland environmental group, says lab experiments like these are important in determining whether a chemical is safe.

“We would never consider it ethical to test these products on people, so we're obliged to look at their effects on other species and in other systems,” she said. “There's really no way around that.”

Seralini said the cells used in the study are widely accepted in toxicology as good models for studying the toxicity of chemicals.

“The fact is that 90 percent of labs studying mechanisms of toxicity or physiology use cell lines,” he said.

Most research has examined glyphosate alone, rather than combined with Roundup’s inert ingredients. Researchers who have studied Roundup formulations have drawn conclusions similar to the Seralini group’s. For example, in 2005, University of Pittsburg ecologists added Roundup at the manufacturer’s recommended dose to ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles. When they returned two weeks later, they found that 50 to 100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles had been killed.

A group of over 250 environmental, health and labor organizations has petitioned the EPA to change requirements for identifying pesticides’ inert ingredients. The agency’s decision is due this fall.

“It would be a big step for the agency to take,” said Cox. “But it’s one they definitely should.”

The groups claim that the laws allowing manufacturers to keep inert ingredients secret from competitors are essentially unnecessary. Companies can determine a competitor’s inert ingredients through routine lab analyses, said Cox.

“The proprietary protection laws really only keep information from the public,” she said.

[/QUOTE]

----------


## donnay

*The world’s largest human experiment: GMOs, Roundup and the Monsanto monstrosity – part one*

By End the Lie

Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.

Note: be sure to read parts *two* and *three*

In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.

The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has *defined informed consent* in the following bureaucratic jargon:

Except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.

Under all of these definitions, including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.

Some might say, “So what? It doesn’t matter since genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong with doing it without informed consent?”

Well, so many people disagree that after much argumentation, the United States was forced to drop their opposition to the labeling of products that have genetically modified ingredients. Unfortunately, this step forward was a very small one, as this is completely voluntary. Since many consumers do not want to eat these products, it is almost guaranteed that we won’t see them on the ingredient list on our food labels any time soon.

This would be quite hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous: the *new “guidance” approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission* simply “allows countries to label genetically modified foods without [breaching] international free trade laws.”

That is, of course, unless the people of America start realizing the real dangers that these products pose and demand that all companies be legally required to identify if any ingredients were genetically modified anywhere along the line of production.

This means that if corn was grown from a Monsanto GM seed, the producer would be forced to identify that the corn is indeed genetically modified on the label.

Are there real health risks, or is this just a bunch of hype attempting to defame the good name of the multinational giant known as Monsanto?

In this article we will review the scientific findings and compare them to what we are told by the media and government about the total safety of these products.

In a report published in June 2011 in Earth Open Source, written by several professors and researchers from across the world entitled, Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? significant evidence is presented showing that the best-selling herbicide Roundup is indeed linked with birth defects.

*Continued...*

----------


## donnay



----------


## angelatc

> Says the one that only reads the government approved "science".
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/b...-gmo%E2%80%A8/


You are infuriating.  If the science is wrong, prove it.  You can't. 

If fou want to define an alternative set of scientific protocols, then by all means do so.  But until you have any actual evidence, proved by whatever ground rules you decide you want to play under, this is not evidence.  This is an opinion.

Evidence.  Give me evidence.  Oh wait, you can't because there isn't any.  Instead of admitting that, you find it easier just to pretend the entire world is a conspiracy and a con man who sells woo, the same vitamins he advocates for and thinks that blood-letting will cure all the diseases related to old age holds the real truth.

I am not the delusional one here.  You people are deeply disturbed.

----------


## angelatc

> Here's just one article on Monsanto's "safest herbicide."
> 
> QUOTE]*Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells*



Do you realize that oxygen, water,  salt, caffeine, and even handguns are also deadly to Human Cells?  No, you don't care about that - you are only seeking confirmation bias, not actual facts.

You are not a skeptic - you are a troll. You never address the legitimate criticisms of the methodology of this study = instead you shriek that you don't actually believe in science,  you can actually move your goalposts at will, and basically stick your fingers in your ears going ALALALALALA I can't hear you!!!!

Here are some facts that you can verify, but you won't:  Glyphosate is less toxic than salt.  It is less toxic than caffeine.  Millions of gallons have been used for decades now.  Not a single person in the entire world has shown a single side effect related to it.  Nobody has sued over the side effects.  And most importantly nobody has proven any harm at all.

The crap they pour on organic crops can be up to 30x's more toxic than glyphosate.  

In short, there is no evidence at all that anything you say is true.  But you don't want to be smart, you don't want to be right - you want to be outraged, and you will settle for nothing less.



I have thousands and thousands of studies that prove my right and you wrong. Which is why you can't get me banned.  I can afford to be a rude condescending bitch because I am $#@!ing right, and you are not.

----------


## angelatc

> *The world’s largest human experiment: GMOs, Roundup and the Monsanto monstrosity – part one**...*



Just one teeny study, peer-reviewed that proves any harm at all is too much to ask.  You don't have that, so you post opinions and bat$#@! crazy conspiracy bull$#@!.  You get proved wrong over and over and over. And what do you do?  You post the same crap again, in different threads.

Why on Earth you don't get banned for trolling is one of the great mysteries of this board.

----------


## eduardo89

> Just one teeny study, peer-reviewed that proves any harm at all is too much to ask.


Why post anything scientific when you can post blogs and youtube videos?

----------


## Ender

> Do you realize that oxygen, water,  salt, caffeine, and even handguns are also deadly to Human Cells?  No, you don't care about that - you are only seeking confirmation bias, not actual facts.
> 
> You are not a skeptic - you are a troll. You never address the legitimate criticisms of the methodology of this study = instead you shriek that you don't actually believe in science,  you can actually move your goalposts at will, and basically stick your fingers in your ears going ALALALALALA I can't hear you!!!!
> 
> Here are some facts that you can verify, but you won't:  Glyphosate is less toxic than salt.  It is less toxic than caffeine.  Millions of gallons have been used for decades now.  Not a single $#@!ing person in the entire $#@!ing world has shown a single $#@!ing side effect related to it.  Nobody has sued over the side effects.  And most importantly nobody has proven any harm at all.
> 
> The crap they pour on organic crops can be up to 30x's more toxic than glyphosate.  
> 
> In short, there is no evidence at all that anything you say is true.  But you don't want to be smart, you don't want to be right - you want to be outraged, and you will settle for nothing less.
> ...


You always accuse others of what YOU do, yourself.

I have given you in an in-depth account/history just on aspartame- and you ignore it. I gave you evidence that Rumsfield and Hayes are part of the Searle/Monsanto BS. AND you ignore it and scream about no evidence.

You don't read anything that conflicts with your mindset and you call names when people challenge your position. You have proven yourself the TROLL; you do not want dialog, you want to hate and feel superior- all in the supposed name of FREEDOM.

Well. William Wallace, you ain't, dear angelatc. You are a voice for Big Gov/Pharma/Corps. And you wish their power on everyone else.

Just remember: What goes around, comes around.

Karma's a bitch.

----------


## Ender

> Here's just one article on Monsanto's "safest herbicide."
> 
> QUOTE]*Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells*
> Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say
> Jun 23, 2009 |By Crystal Gammon and Environmental Health News
> 
> Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.
> 
> The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
> ...


And, now you neg rep me for this, saying it's bull$#@! and has been disproven, WHEN IT HAS NOT.

How good you must feel about yourself to hand out all those delicious neg reps. How superior you are!

----------


## angelatc

> You always accuse others of what YOU do, yourself.
> 
> I have given you in an in-depth account/history just on aspartame- and you ignore it..


(Mod delete) Show me the overwhelming body of evidence assembled from decades of research from various entities across the entire globe.

Oh wait, you can't.  



Funny, Christians don't usually believe in karma.  And if there was such a thing, you would all be suffering from food poisoning, you'd be thankfully rendered sterile from the measles, and your children would all be in iron lungs.  No, there is no karma, and you should thank your God for that.

----------


## angelatc

> And, now you neg rep me for this, saying it's bull$#@! and has been disproven, WHEN IT HAS NOT.
> 
> How good you must feel about yourself to hand out all those delicious neg reps. How superior you are!


Yes, the significance of the article and the study is zero for a myriad of reasons.  

 Like I said - lots of things are toxic to human cells in petri dishes, including salt, caffeine, oxygen and just about anything you can think of.  The undeniable point, which you have absolutely no interest in because you're determine to be driven by only by outrage,  is that it’s very easy to kill cells in a dish.

Either advance the scientific conversation from there, or STFU . 

As for my superiority.....it's pretty clear that you only see what you want to see, but I would remind the lurkers that *you're the guy who thinks you're somehow much smarter than the entire global scientific community.*  

I have not presented opinion as scientific facts.  I have not ranted about unproven global conspiracies.  I have not insinuated anything without a shred of evidence to back it up.  

I am not superior to you, but my position is founded on a body of evidence that is indeed infinitely superior to yours.

----------


## Ender

> Show me the overwhelming body of evidence assembled from decades of research from various entities across the entire globe.
> 
> Oh wait, you can't.  
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Christians don't usually believe in karma.  And if there was such a thing, you would all be suffering from food poisoning, you'd be thankfully rendered sterile from the measles, and your children would all be in iron lungs.  No, there is no karma, and you should thank your God for that.


The entire globe is condemning GMO- and what I posted is NOT conspiracy- it is well documented. But don't let that deter you. I see that any documentation that doesn't agree with your made-up mind, is not going to be read or worthy of discussion. Your only game plan is to call people names, insult them, and demand to see only government approved evidence.

What are you doing on a liberty forum? I can respect your right to believe what you want; I do not respect what you think is your right to shove your POV down people's throats and call them names and neg rep them for objecting.

And Christians do believe in Karma- it's called the Law of the Harvest:

*What you sow, so shall ye reap.*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ....my position is founded on a body of evidence that is indeed infinitely superior to yours.


Your position on what? Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.

As a general rule, one shouldn't get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's theirs. And for the record, arguments from authority carry little weight, however we do want to encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

----------


## eduardo89

> The entire globe is condemning GMO


I'm not, so what you just said is a lie.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I have thousands and thousands of studies that prove my right and you wrong. Which is why you can't get me banned. I can afford to be a rude condescending bitch because I am $#@!ing right, and you are not.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc...

Aside...the poster could use some soap in it's mouth. Such language and negative energy is not how we promote our hypothesis/data in the scientific community and it certainly does nothing to encourage substantive debate relevant to our evidence. This used to be a 5 star thread before all of the profane language and ad-hominem  degraded it's educational/informational value. In fact, it deters the ease and enthusiasm for people who may be interested in the information, research and legislative updates and all other relevant information contained herein to navigate. I've bumped my question in an effort to stimulate meaningful debate and to perhaps help to promote a healthy, more civil, exchange of ideas with you regarding the subject.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *angelatc*....my position is founded on a body of evidence that is indeed infinitely superior to yours.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Your position on what? Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.
> 
> As a general rule, one shouldn't get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's theirs. And for the record, arguments from authority carry little weight, however we do want to encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.


I'll check back later. Have a good evening, angela.

----------


## donnay

*Biotech industry cooks up PR plans to get us to swallow synthetic biology food*

By:  Dana Perls

Two Mondays ago, I sat in a room of some of the most powerful agribusiness, food and synthetic biology companies in the world. The goal of this industry meeting was to discuss how to get the public to accept *synthetic biology*, a new and unregulated set of genetic engineering methods, as the “foundation for the future of sustainable food.” It was meant to be a closed door and off-the-record industry meeting, in contrast to the open *public forum* on synthetic biology in our food which I helped organize the week before. But after some of the companies caught wind that Friends of the Earth was going to expose the leaked meeting information, we were cordially urged to attend by the meeting organizers.

Although there is no agreed upon definition of synthetic biology, it is a term that encompasses a variety of new, and many would say, “extreme” genetic engineering approaches, including computer generated DNA, directed evolution, and site specific mutagenesis. It’s faster and uses more powerful methods to engineer new genetic sequences than “traditional” genetic engineering. Engineers can even create entirely new DNA and organisms that do not exist in nature.

*What are the concerns?*

The synthetic biology industry is expanding rapidly, with a market value that is expected to reach $10.8 billion by 2016. Like traditional GMOs, the products of synthetic biology are unlabeled, virtually unregulated and the novel risks to human health and the environment posed by synthetic organisms have not been adequately assessed.

The ways in which synthetic organisms will interact with the natural environment are unpredictable and potentially devastating and permanent. While other types of pollution can be cleaned up and do not breed, synthetic biological creations are designed to self-replicate and, once released into the environment, they will be impossible to recall.

Unfortunately, even in absence of regulations to protect our health and the environment, or any labeling, synthetic biology produced ingredients are rapidly entering our food and cosmetics. Ingredients currently on the market or in the pipeline include *synthetic biology vanilla*, coconut oil and cocoa butter derivatives, stevia and saffron. Hundreds of other ingredients may enter the food system and consumer products in the coming years.

These ingredients are being designed to replace naturally produced ingredients for food, cosmetics and other consumer products, and are made in labs using synthetic DNA and reprogrammed, genetically engineered yeast which feed on sugar or other biomass.

The *demand for sugar* needed to feed the yeast engineered for these synthetic biology ingredients could have major impacts on access to land and water. Increased demand for sugar could also result in destruction of intact and biodiverse ecosystems like Brazil’s fragile *Cerrado* and tropical forests across the global south. These problems will be exacerbated as *other synthetic biology applications* scale up and replace the current production of natural commodities. 

Despite marketing claims, these ingredients are not sustainable or “natural,” and could have serious impacts on human health and the environment. These products also threaten the livelihoods of many small, sustainable, producers of truly natural commodities (such as vanilla and coconut) around the world.

To my disappointment, none of these concerns were on the agenda of the “SynBioBeta Cultured Food meeting” that was leaked to Friends of the Earth.

*Inside the SynBioBeta “Cultured Food meeting”*

The meeting was under Chatham House rules – which means I can’t disclose who said what. However, I can say that the meeting was an alarming insight into the synthetic biology industry’s process of creating a sugar-coated media narrative to confuse the public, ignore the risks, and claim the mantle of “sustainability” for potentially profitable new synthetic biology products.

Over the course of the day, primarily CEOs, directors and PR people from powerful chemical and synthetic biology companies, bounced around tales of promise, discussed how to position synthetic biology as a “solution” to world hunger, and made blithe claims of safety that were not backed up by any actual data.

One problem, explained a participant, is that investors are Googling synthetic biology and finding activist blogs instead of media stories about how synthetic biology would help “feed starving people in poor nations” -- how can they change the narrative? That seemed to be the point of the meeting.

Topics not discussed included risks to the environment; potential impacts on hundreds of thousands of small, low-income farmers; the lack of independent, transparent health and environmental assessments; and the lack of federal and international regulations. When I brought up these glaring omissions, my concerns were generally dismissed.

We were asked to brainstorm stories that paint biotech applications to food in a positive light. When I asked how biotech companies will protect small farmers who are producing the truly natural products, I was met with a hard cold stare, silence and a non-answer about needing to meet “consumer demand.”

*Continued...*

----------


## donnay

*After The March Against Monsanto, Momentum Favors The People*



It is clear that we have just witnessed the largest single worldwide protest against a company and their products. What's also clear is the major public disgust for anything bearing the words 'Genetically Modified Organism'. Monsanto's only refuge lies in the massively funded mouthpieces of news clips and public figures, combined with a legal stranglehold on scientific research and medical inquiries. Yet in the age of information, their propaganda is laughable.

Meanwhile the townspeople gather, having replaced their torches and pitchforks with signs and banners. This time we see the battle being fought from a place of higher consciousness. Our weapons of choice are the devastating methods of non-compliance, civil disobedience and free enterprise. While the smoke is still clearing from what may be the final 'March Against Monsanto' it appears that momentum favors the people.

Tipping points are historically difficult to pin-point or predict. They often manifest in the form of some event or conscious action that ignites the minds of the public in a moment of clarity. During that exact second and no sooner, a mass movement locks into a single idea, that once cemented in stone, will never die. We are at this point. The battle lines once obscured in the sand have now been illuminated with neon signs, doused with gasoline, and set ablaze in our collective DNA. We march into the future knowing only one thing for certain - there is no room here for genetically modified foods.

Years of brave activism and mobilized populations of unhappy mothers, disenfranchised farmers, and educated consumers have brought us to this point. Surging forward comes the real work with instant rewards. With the recent trend of alternative media merging with mainstream, such as Mike Adam's Forensic Food Lab and the Food Babe's army, it is clear that companies fear our voice and will instantly comply to the people's wishes. How do we keep the heat on Monsanto when the company's actions have demonstrated a plan to move forward at all costs? It is up to us to take the reigns and destroy their market share by voting with our dollars.
*
Continued...*

----------


## PRB

> I'm not, so what you just said is a lie.


I bet you can find a lot of things "the entire globe advocates", democracy for starters.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Citizens initiative update from Hawaii...

One Hawaii county just banned GMOs and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe.

Jeffrey Smith interviews Joe Mashalla on the Ballot Initiative for a GMO Moratorium in Maui County regarding specific updates....




In Maui County where the SHAKA Movement is helping to mobilize the county's first ever citizen's ballot initiative, 17,000 registered voters have already signed a petition to put on the ballot in November a temporary moratorium on open field GMO and Pesticide experimentation and seed production until a public health impacts study shows Monsanto's and DOW's GMO crops and the pesticide cocktails they are spaying here are safe for the residents who are exposed to pesticide drift, wind borne fugitive dust and field run off in heavy tropical rains.

Hawaii's climate affords three to four growing cycles per year and it's a primary source for GMO Corn Seed that Monsanto distributes worldwide, as well it's a significant open field testing ground for new GMO's and pesticides.

The citizens here are particularly alarmed with recent revelations that Monsanto is spraying pesticides in combinations that have not been tested or approved.

Until recent public actions all across Hawaii highlighted regulatory deficiencies, the EPA had but one single inspector charged with overseeing pesticide abuse in the entire state.

----------


## eduardo89

> One Hawaii county just banned GMOs and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe.


Big government at it's finest...

It's really sad that people on this forum support big government anti-liberty initiatives like this.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Big government at it's finest...
> 
> It's really sad that people on this forum support big government anti-liberty initiatives like this.


The people of Hawaii are acting well within their constitution and bringing forth a citizens initiative. They have written a Temporary Moratorium on all GMO practices and testing that is occuring there until they can be proven safe.

----------


## Thor

> Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
> 
> 
> *Citizens initiative* update from Hawaii...
> 
> One Hawaii county just banned GMOs and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe.
> 
> 
> Big government at it's finest...
> ...


I see you edited your post to remove the first line....

Because of what is in *bold*

Can't argue a "big government" perspective so easily when the "citizen initiative" is part of the quote.

It's really sad that people on this forum support big government anti-liberty initiatives like Monsanto's revolving door with government agencies and other malfeasance to get GMO's in our food supply at all costs.

----------


## eduardo89

> The people of Hawaii are acting well within their constitution and bringing forth a citizens initiative.


Constitutional =/= moral or just

Eminent domain is constitutional, that doesn't make it moral. A state locking people up for life for marijuana is constitutional, but not moral.

----------


## eduardo89

> I see you edited your post to remove the first line....
> 
> Because of what is in *bold*
> 
> Can't argue a "big government" perspective so easily when the "citizen initiative" is part of the quote.


Citizens can't vote for big government? That's news to me...

They are voting for a bigger, more intrusive, anti-liberty government by voting to infringe on others' property rights.




> It's really sad that people on this forum support big government anti-liberty initiatives like Monsanto's revolving door with government agencies and other malfeasance to get GMO's in our food supply at all costs.


Who supports corporatism here?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Constitutional =/= moral or just
> 
> Eminent domain is constitutional, that doesn't make it moral. A state locking people up for life for marijuana is constitutional, but not moral.


The people of Hawaii are acting well within their constitution and bringing forth a citizens initiative. They have written a Temporary Moratorium on all GMO practices and testing that is occuring there until they can be proven safe.

----------


## Thor

> Who supports corporatism here?


Read this thread and a few names will pop out....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Who supports corporatism here?
> 
> *Proudly sponsored by:*


Non sequitur...

----------


## eduardo89

> The people of Hawaii are acting well within their constitution and bringing forth a citizens initiative. They have written a Temporary Moratorium on all GMO practices and testing that is occuring there until they can be proven safe.


That's not the government's job to do. If you don't think GMOs are safe, don't eat them. But you have no right to use government force to ban your neighbour from growing them.

It really is sad that some people here cheer on the big government nanny state.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If you don't think GMOs are safe, don't eat them.


 Observational selection....argument from adverse consequences...excluded middle...

Please take the time to review the discussion that I shared so that you may better understand the citizens initiative in Hawaii.

----------


## eduardo89

> You're practicing ad-hominem again, eduardo.


How am I 'practicing ad-hominem'?




> Please take the time to review the discussion that I shared so that you may better understand the citizens initiative in Hawaii.


"*One Hawaii county just banned GMOs* and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe."

How is that pro-liberty? How is the government dictating to farmers what they can and cannot grow on their private property pro-liberty?

"In Maui County...17,000 registered voters have already signed a petition to put on the ballot in November a temporary moratorium...until a public health impacts study shows Monsanto's and DOW's GMO crops and the pesticide cocktails they are spaying here are safe..."

So they want to prevent farmers from growing crops on their own land until a government-funded study is done to prove that the crops and pesticides are safe...Yeah, sounds like citizens using the ballot box for big government. If they are so concerned, they should pay for the study themselves and if they are able to prove damages sue the farmers. They shouldn't be using government force to target farmers while they have no proof of any harm being done to them.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Citizens initiative update from Hawaii...
> 
> One Hawaii county just banned GMOs and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe.
> 
> Jeffrey Smith interviews Joe Mashalla on the Ballot Initiative for a GMO Moratorium in Maui County regarding specific updates....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Additionally, Anti-GMO crop, pesticide ballot initiative launched in Hawaii...




> A citizens' group on Maui on Monday launched a petition to allow voters to consider temporarily suspending production of genetically modified crops (GMOs) on the Hawaiian island.
> 
> The group said its "temporary moratorium initiative" seeks a suspension until the completion of an environmental and public health impact study examining the effects of widespread testing of GMO crops and associated pesticide use.
> 
> The step is part of a larger battle brewing in the United States and other countries between critics who say GMO crops and associated pesticides contribute to health and environmental dangers and those who argue the technology is essential to boosting global food production.
> 
> In Maui, groundwater is already significantly contaminated with pesticides, the citizens group said in a statement on Monday. The group said they thought rising numbers of birth defects were connected to GMO-related pesticide use.
> 
> To put a GMO moratorium before voters in an election scheduled for November, the citizens must submit 8,500 registered voters' signatures by March 31.
> ...


Continued (Reuters) - Anti-GMO crop, pesticide ballot initiative launched in Hawaii


Update - The citizens largely surpassed the 8,500 registered voters' signatures that were due by March 31.

----------


## eduardo89

> Additionally, Anti-GMO crop, pesticide ballot initiative launched in Hawaii...


Copy/pasting the same thing over again does not change that you are supporting big-government anti-property rights initiatives.

----------


## angelatc

> Read this thread and a few names will pop out....



We don't support corporatism.  The problem is that you guys are not small government minded.   You want only to use the government to quash anybody that you collectively decide is the enemy, even if there is absolutely not a single bit of truth in what you say.

We want to abolish the FDA.  You want mandatory labeling.

We want to end corporate welfare.  You want to end corporations, and have the government control what farmers are and are not allowed to grow on their own land.

You do not belong here.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We don't support corporatism.


No? I thought that you did indeed love eduardo's new signature. Have I misread?

----------


## angelatc

> That's not the government's job to do. If you don't think GMOs are safe, don't eat them. But you have no right to use government force to ban your neighbour from growing them.
> 
> It really is sad that some people here cheer on the big government nanny state.


This is the problem with the masses,  They really are sheep, dumber than rocks.  Science isn't a democracy and whats really frustrating is that it is pretty $#@!ing clear that no amount of testing will ever be adequate to support these people.  And they hold themselves to absolutely no standards.

10 years ago they wanted 10 years of testing.  Now we have surpassed that, and they're only growing more hysterical.

GMO foods are already tested infinitely more than foods modified using traditional methods.meaning those foods don't even NEED government approval before they're introduced to the market.

Thousands upon thousands of studies, without a single one proving any harm from GMO crops.  

And "proving something safe" is absurd.  That's not how science works.  That fact that that's what they're calling for is just one more big indication that everything they say is a lie.  They don't want the truth, they want the power.

They don't belong here.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thousands upon thousands of studies, without a single one proving any harm from GMO crops.


Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.

----------


## donnay

New Study Links GMO Food To Leukemia
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new...-food-leukemia


How Do You Make A Transgenic Plant? 
http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/how.html


Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559744/


Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801324


65 Health Risks of GM Foods
http://www.responsibletechnology.org...h-risks/1notes

----------


## angelatc

> New Study Links GMO Food To Leukemia
> http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new...-food-leukemia <----*this is a lie*.  The very first paragraph claims GMOs have been proven to cause cancer.  That is a lie, because absolutely no such thing has been proved.  You are a liar for continuing to post it.
> 
> How Do You Make A Transgenic Plant? 
> http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/how.html <----*This is science, which apparently scares the hell out of people who dropped out of school in the 8th grade.*
> 
> 
> Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559744/ <------ *This is science which scares the hell out of people who dropped out of school in the 8th grade. This actually shows us why Glyphosate is much safer than all other conventional pesticides, but again - you and your friends might as well be carrying signs that read, "Burn the witches!!!!"* 
> ...


 < ---- *Again, this cites the same study as above that was retracted.  It is a lie, you $#@!ing know it is a lie, and yet you're allowed to keep repeating it over and over. * 


In fact,* every single thing you post is either a lie or an intentional distortion.*  You post 10 things, we prove every single thing you posted is absolutely moronic, and you ignore it all and post more.

This isn't a discussion - you're using these forums as nothing more than a soapbox for progressive fear-mongering, and you should be banned for trolling.  

It is beyond maddening - there is no good reason to allow this to continue.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Every single thing you post is either a lie or a distortion.  You post 10 things, we prove every single thing you posted is absolutely moronic...


Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We want to abolish the FDA.  You want mandatory labeling.
> 
> We want to end corporate welfare.  You want to end corporations, and have the government control what farmers are and are not allowed to grow on their own land.


"_Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job_" - Philip Angell Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

"_Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety_" — FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229

"_People will have Roundup Ready soya whether they like it or not_" - Ann Foster, spokesperson for Monsanto in Britian, as quoted in _The Nation_ magazine from article "The Politics of Food" by Maria Margaronis December 27, 1999 issue.

----------


## angelatc

> Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.



Nothing you say or post is support by any evidence. And you have the nerve to ask me for more evidence?


I stand by my assertion - every thing DonnaY posts is a lie or a distortion.

----------


## angelatc

> "
> "_Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety_" — FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties*" (GMO Policy)*, Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229


Thanks for proving my point. The FDA pays more attention to GMO crops than is does new strains developed by conventional breeding practices.   

They have been testing GMO crops for over 10 years now, not a shred of evidence exists to support a claim you make. Everything I post is supported by scientists from all across the globe in a variety of independent institutions.

And you have the absolute audacity to ask for evidence.  A site member who supports the rights of the government to dictate what crops farmers can and can't grow.  A site member who advocates for using the government to ban technology that has the potential to save millions of lives and billions of dollars.  A site member who can't even answer a simple yes or no question.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Everything I post is supported by scientists from all across the globe in a variety of independent institutions.


Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Again, arguments from authority carry little weight, however we do want to encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Thank You.

----------


## donnay

*When You Learn What They’re Up to Now, You Too Will Want to Boycott Monsanto and GMA* 

By Dr. Mercola

    On April 16, the Vermont Senate passed the first no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill (H.112) by an overwhelming margin.1 On May 8, Governor Peter Shumlin signed the historic bill into law.

    The law will require food manufacturers to label genetically engineered (GE) foods sold in Vermont, and prohibits them from labeling foods with GE ingredients as "natural" or "all natural."

    The Burlington Free Press2 recently ran an excellent article on how the Vermont GMO labeling bill was won. I would highly encourage you to read it, to get a real-world view of just how effective a grassroots campaign can be.

    Ultimately, it boils down to letting your representatives know what you want. Long before the bill passed through the legislative branches, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) had openly threatened to sue, should Vermont pass such a law.

    Still, despite these threats, Vermont legislators realized that their constituents were serious about wanting GE foods labeled, and they voted accordingly. As expected, on May 9 the GMA confirmed it will indeed sue Vermont in federal court, in an effort to overturn H.112. According to a recent update by Ronnie Cummins,3 National Director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA):

        "Vermont is prepared to fight back. The state has already established a 'food fight' legal defense fund. Legal analysts say Vermont will likely win.

        Vermont isn't the only state up against the multi-billion dollar lobbying group. The GMA, whose 300-plus members include Monsanto and Dow, Coca-Cola and General Mills, is pushing a bill in Congress that would preempt all states from passing GMO labeling laws.4 [Editor's note: The "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014,"5 dubbed "DARK" (Denying Americans the right to know) Act.]

        It's time for consumers in every state to band together to defeat the GMA's full-on assault, not only on Vermont, not only on consumers' right to know what's in our food, but on states' rights and on our basic freedoms to protect our health and our communities."

Second Time GMA Sues for Right to Keep Secrets from You

    This is the second time in mere months that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is suing a state for the right to pull the wool over your eyes. During the Washington labeling campaign, the GMA got caught in a money laundering scheme aimed at protecting the identity (and hence the reputation) of members who donated funds to the anti-labeling campaign.6

    The GMA was forced to reveal the donors to the aggressive anti-labeling campaign,7 but shortly thereafter it sued the state of Washington, arguing they should be allowed to hide their donors—which is a direct violation of state campaign disclosure laws—in order to "speak with one voice" for the interests of the food industry.8

    Since then, the GMA has again removed its online membership list. Clearly, there's a concerted effort to hide who is behind this radical front group. You can still find the cached members list on web.archive.org,9 however.

    I recently named the GMA "the most evil corporation on the planet," considering the fact that it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who are going to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights—just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.

    The primary GE crops grown in the US are corn, soy, and sugar beets, and the primary ingredients in processed food are high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), hydrogenated vegetable oils (trans fats), and refined sugar. Add in all the pesticides and hazardous fertilizers used in this chemical agriculture system, and you have the perfect formula for environmental destruction, disease, and premature death.

    This is the business model the GMA is protecting, and labeling GE foods will surely severely cripple it. This is why the GMA is willing to resort to everything, from illegal money laundering schemes to irrational and wholly ludicrous lawsuits arguing for "the right" to violate disclosure laws.

    Your health, your rights to make your own decisions, and your financial wellbeing have absolutely nothing to do with the GMAs objections to GMO labeling. They're not protecting you from confusion, unnecessary complexities, or higher prices. They're protecting their own profits, and those profits depend on widespread consumer ignorance.

History Being Made in Oregon: Two Counties Vote to Ban Genetically Engineered Crops

    In addition to Vermont’s GMO labeling bill, against all odds we also defeated the pesticide producers and those that patent life in a historic vote in Jackson County, Oregon. There, residents have now voted to outright ban the growing of genetically engineered crops. The measure passed with 66 percent of the votes. This despite the fact that proponents for the ban raised only $375,000, while the opposition raised nearly $1 million.10 As reported by ABC News:11

        “With most of the ballots counted in Tuesday's all-mail election, Jackson County voters approved the measure by a 2-to-1 margin. A similar, lower-profile measure in neighboring Josephine County led 58 percent to 42 percent with nearly two-thirds of expected ballots counted...”

        'The voters here have many generations of fruit and vegetable growing, so they're among the most educated voters,' said Chuck Burr, president of the Southern Oregon Seed Growers Association. 'The opposition spent a million dollars and couldn't convince the people.'

        The outcome, however, won't start an immediate trend in Oregon because Gov. John Kitzhaber signed a bill last fall that prohibits local governments from regulating genetically engineered crops. An exception was made for Jackson County because its measure had already qualified for the ballot. Despite the bill, opponents of GMOs in Josephine County went ahead with their own measure, saying they'll let the courts decide if the vote is valid.

*Continued...*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> (mod delete)
> 
> I stand by my assertion - every thing DonnaY posts is a lie or a distortion.


Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.

----------


## angelatc

> Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Again, arguments from authority carry little weight, however we do want to encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Thank You.



There we go with the imperialistic  progressive "WE" again. 

*YOU* are not interested in substantive debate.  You can't even answer a simple Yes or No question, troll.

----------


## angelatc

> Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Thank You.


I stand by my assertion - every thing DonnaY posts is a lie or a distortion.

----------


## angelatc

> *When You Learn What They’re Up to Now, You Too Will Want to Boycott Monsanto and GMA* 
> *Continued...*



Again, with the distortions.  Sygenta was the corporation farming in Oregon, not Monsanto.  

You are posting an article that is supporting the government take over of all food production, and you are here telling us that WE need to wake up?

But by all means, ignore this and post some other left wing piece that calls for less property rights and limiting market freedom.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *YOU* are not interested in substantive debate.  You can't even answer a simple Yes or No question, troll.



There are no yes or no questions. You're excluding the middle. Considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities. Begging the question. Appealling to ignorance relative to the depth of the issue.

----------


## eduardo89

> And "proving something safe" is absurd.  That's not how science works.  That fact that that's what they're calling for is just one more big indication that everything they say is a lie.  They don't want the truth, they want the power.


Exactly, nothing can ever be proven safe. It can only be proven to cause harm at a certain exposure level.

----------


## eduardo89

> There are no yes or no questions. You're excluding the middle. Considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities. Begging the question. Appealling to ignorance relative to the depth of the issue.


Of course there are. Do you support the decision by Oregon counties to violate the private property rights of farmers who wish to grow GMO crops? Yes or no.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> But by all means, ignore this and post some other left wing piece that calls for less property rights and limiting market freedom.


Is the free market different from mercantilism. If so then how so? Please explain. Thank You.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Of course there are. Do you support the decision by Oregon counties to violate the private property rights of farmers who wish to grow GMO crops? Yes or no.


My response was to angela and relative to the science of the matter. You're begging the question. Appealling to ignorance relative to the depth of the issue. I do recall, however, answering your personal question relevant to this particular aspect of the issue previously within the thread.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Exactly, nothing can ever be proven safe. It can only be proven to cause harm at a certain exposure level.


Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Again, arguments from authority carry little weight, however we do want to encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.Thank You.

----------


## eduardo89

> My response was to angela and relative to the science of the matter. You're begging the question. Appealling to ignorance relative to the depth of the issue. I do recall, however, answering your personal question relevant to this particular aspect of the issue previously within the thread.


Are you seriously not capable of answering the question with a straightforward yes or no answer?

----------


## angelatc

> There are no yes or no questions. You're excluding the middle. Considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities. Begging the question. Appealling to ignorance relative to the depth of the issue.



Of course there are questions that can be answered Yes or No.  That's just another example of you making a lot of noise to try to mask the fact that you aren't saying anything significant.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Citizens initiative update from Hawaii...
> 
> One Hawaii county just banned GMOs and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe.
> 
> Jeffrey Smith interviews Joe Mashalla on the Ballot Initiative for a GMO Moratorium in Maui County regarding specific updates....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bumping current events for relevance/significance.

----------


## eduardo89

> Bumping current events for relevance/significance.


Bumping my responses to big government, anti-liberty news.




> Copy/pasting the same thing over again does not change that you are supporting big-government anti-property rights initiatives.





> Big government at it's finest...
> 
> It's really sad that people on this forum support big government anti-liberty initiatives like this.







> "*One Hawaii county just banned GMOs* and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe."
> 
> How is that pro-liberty? How is the government dictating to farmers what they can and cannot grow on their private property pro-liberty?
> 
> "In Maui County...17,000 registered voters have already signed a petition to put on the ballot in November a temporary moratorium...until a public health impacts study shows Monsanto's and DOW's GMO crops and the pesticide cocktails they are spaying here are safe..."
> 
> So they want to prevent farmers from growing crops on their own land until a government-funded study is done to prove that the crops and pesticides are safe...Yeah, sounds like citizens using the ballot box for big government. If they are so concerned, they should pay for the study themselves and if they are able to prove damages sue the farmers. They shouldn't be using government force to target farmers while they have no proof of any harm being done to them.

----------


## angelatc

> Could you please share with us the body evidence to support your claim? Again, arguments from authority carry little weight, however we do want to encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.Thank You.



 The "Argument from Authority" fallacy doesn't apply when discussing science, because the experts are actually experts. 




> There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.


And the fact that you are even challenging that statement betrays your utter lack of interest in even the most basic scientific protocols.  We can't prove any hypothesis - we can only disprove it.

Can science prove that there is no such thing as Bigfoot?  No.  All they can do is say that they have been looking for evidence of his existence for about 100 years and have found very little, thereby indicating that the odds that Bigfoot exists are very very small.

And again with the progressive, elitist "We"   and the subtle steering of the conversation away from the simple questions you don't want to answer. You don't want a debate

----------


## angelatc

> Is the free market different from mercantilism. If so then how so? Please explain. Thank You.


You are here advocating communism, cheering about the government take over of the food supply, and now you're going to assert that we NEED the government to protect us from the big, bad market forces?

Yes or no: Do you think that farmers should have the freedom to grow the crops they feel will provide them with the greatest value? 

Yes or no: Do you deny that no organic farmer has ever sued a neighbor over cross-contamination?

You are a progressive. Eduardo and I are arguing for the free market, you are here arguing for government control of the entire food supply - before the first seeds are even planted, they must be government approved.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You are here advocating communism, cheering about the government take over of the food supply, and now you're going to assert that we NEED the government to protect us from the big, bad market forces?


Nooooo. ...I asked if the free market was different from mercantilism and, if so, for you to provide an assessment of how the free market is different from mercantilism. I'd like to better understand your position on this and relative to the specific issue of GMO since "'_It's important for countries around the world to adopt a uniform standard'_   says Biotechnology Industry Association's Lisa Dry as well as the fact that an agricultural test ban treaty is likely at the international level moving forward.  Now that's quite another aspect of the matter and perhaps better discussed in terms of TTT but conforming to the fact that there are no yes or no answers in scope.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes or no: Do you think that farmers should have the freedom to grow the crops they feel will provide them with the greatest value? 
> 
> Yes or no: Do you deny that no organic farmer has ever sued a neighbor over cross-contamination?
> 
> You are a progressive


My personal position is irrelevant. And, quite frankly, none of your business. These are personal questions that serve to build a model for ad-hominem in a manner that avoids the issues in scope.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes or no: Do you think that farmers should have the freedom to grow the crops they feel will provide them with the greatest value? 
> 
> Yes or no: Do you deny that no organic farmer has ever sued a neighbor over cross-contamination?


It would be nice to get a response to these questions, Natural Citizen.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It would be nice to get a response to these questions, Natural Citizen.


My personal position is irrelevant. And, quite frankly, none of your business. These are personal questions that serve to build a model for ad-hominem in a manner that avoids the issues in scope.

----------


## eduardo89

> My personal position is irrelevant. And, quite frankly, none of your business. These are personal questions that serve to build a model for ad-hominem in a manner that avoids the issues in scope.


Your personal opinions surely do matter, especially when you're pushing for more government control and advocating for the erosion of property rights.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Your personal opinions surely do matter, especially when you're pushing for more government control and advocating for the erosion of property rights.


If Monsanto or similar industries pens legislation that affects me and my property (to include me being my own property), does this make Monsanto "government"? And if so, how so? If not then why not? I'd like to better understand your definition of government in relation to your line of personal questioning regarding the matter.

Aside and until then, I had mentioned elsewhere on the board that we have a very dangerous revolving door between lawmakers in Washington, the FDA, the courts and genetic agribusiness. Conflicts of interest between top government officials who have personal stakes in Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO. Michael Taylor, Clarence Thomas, John "Toby" Moffett, Margaret Miller just to name a few. The repercussion of this extends to foreign policy, economics, dangerous industry sponsored legislation that affects personal property and much more. Certainly we're seeing the very principle of the free market system underminded by industry backed legislation that would remove the means for the people to know what they are consuming into their bodies as well as the states' rights to protect them from this government intrusion. Such legislation is the very model to remove choice in every sense of the word. This is a phenomenon where we see the industries attempt to protect themselves _from_ the free market by way of that revolving door and scenarios where we see them buying off congressmen as we see with Congressman Mike Pompeo, Koch network and Monsanto (for one). Pompeo has received more money from them than any other so called representative of the people. 

There is a difference between the free market and mercantilism. It's not something that we are able to place into relevance until the issue is properly discussed in context with foreign policy and economics. Some other areas of infrastructure. Both geo-politically and domestically. Recent farm bill was some skullduggery, for sure.

----------


## angelatc

> My personal position is irrelevant. And, quite frankly, none of your business. These are personal questions that serve to build a model for ad-hominem in a manner that avoids the issues in scope.


ANd here we go  - more trolling.  Speaking of avoiding the issues...you sure didn't hesitate to offer your opinion that the government should indeed be allowed to dictate which crops farmers are and aren't  allowed to grow.   All we're asking now is why you feel that way, and there you are, cowering in the corner with your ip quivering, pretending like we are somehow bullying you because we want to understand your rationale.

I know you don't care, but this is not a progressive forum.  Government is supposed to be the common enemy, not competition.

----------


## angelatc

> If Monsanto or similar industries pens legislation that affects me and my property (to include me being my own property), does this make Monsanto "government"?



Your are such a blatant hypocrite  It's ok for the organic farmers to pen legislation that affects me and my property, but it's wrong for the GMA to advocate for the property rights.

Got it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Speaking of avoiding the issues....
> Government is supposed to be the common enemy, not competition.


Could you please expand further upon what the issues are in terms of the subject so that we are able to discuss them in scope? Aside, If Monsanto or similar industries pens legislation that affects me and my property (to include me being my own property), does this make Monsanto "government"? And if so, how so? If not then why not? I'd like to better understand your definition of government in relation to your line of personal questioning regarding the matter.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Your are such a blatant hypocrite  It's ok for the organic farmers to pen legislation that affects me and my property but it's wrong for the GMA to advocate for the property rights.


Could you please share with us evidence to support your claim that I have personally advocated that it's ok for the organic farmers to pen legislation that affects you and your property and that it's wrong for the GMA to advocate for property rights? As I said, my personal position is irrelevant and that's as far as I have extended any personal opinion regarding the issue. Thank you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Additionally, Anti-GMO crop, pesticide ballot initiative launched in Hawaii...
> 
> *Citizens initiative update from Hawaii*...
> 
> One Hawaii county just banned GMOs and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe.
> 
> Jeffrey Smith interviews Joe Mashalla on the Ballot Initiative for a GMO Moratorium in Maui County regarding specific updates....
> 
> 
> ...


Back on topic. Current events...*Citizens initiative update from Hawaii*

----------


## eduardo89

> Back on topic. Current events...


Since all we're doing is reposting the same things over again....





> Big government at it's finest...
> 
> It's really sad that people on this forum support big government anti-liberty initiatives like this.





> "*One Hawaii county just banned GMOs* and two others have issues on the ballot which will stop GMO production on the island till the products are proven safe."
> 
> How is that pro-liberty? How is the government dictating to farmers what they can and cannot grow on their private property pro-liberty?
> 
> "In Maui County...17,000 registered voters have already signed a petition to put on the ballot in November a temporary moratorium...until a public health impacts study shows Monsanto's and DOW's GMO crops and the pesticide cocktails they are spaying here are safe..."
> 
> So they want to prevent farmers from growing crops on their own land until a government-funded study is done to prove that the crops and pesticides are safe...Yeah, sounds like citizens using the ballot box for big government. If they are so concerned, they should pay for the study themselves and if they are able to prove damages sue the farmers. They shouldn't be using government force to target farmers while they have no proof of any harm being done to them.

----------


## Ender

> Nooooo. ...I asked if the free market was different from mercantilism and, if so, for you to provide an assessment of how the free market is different from mercantilism. I'd like to better understand your position on this and relative to the specific issue of GMO since "'_It's important for countries around the world to adopt a uniform standard'_   says Biotechnology Industry Association's Lisa Dry as well as the fact that an agricultural test ban treaty is likely at the international level moving forward.  Now that's quite another aspect of the matter and perhaps better discussed in terms of TTT but conforming to the fact that there are no yes or no answers in scope.


Mercantilism is what the Revolution was fought over and is absolutely not a free market.

- A global "uniform standard" is not free market.
- Major corps that do not have to abide by law is not free market.
- Corporatocracy is not free market.

----------


## angelatc

> Mercantilism is what the Revolution was fought over and is absolutely not a free market.
> 
> - A global "uniform standard" is not free market.
> - Major corps that do not have to abide by law is not free market.
> - Corporatocracy is not free market.


Nobody except "Natural Strawman" said that Mercantilism is a free market.  Nobody here said that the government here is not colluding with the corporations.

But Natural Citizen is trying to convince us that the answer to the issues that arise from too much corporate control is more government control. That's far more toxic than anything Monsanto produces.

The liberty position is that less government control would mean less corporate favoritism by extension.  

Her passive aggressive progressive position does not belong here.

----------


## Ender

> Nobody except "Natural Strawman" said that Mercantilism is a free market.  Nobody here said that the government here is not colluding with the corporations.
> 
> But Natural Citizen is trying to convince us that the answer to the issues that arise from too much corporate control is more government control. That's far more toxic than anything Monsanto produces.
> 
> The liberty position is that less government control would mean less corporate favoritism by extension.  
> 
> Her passive aggressive progressive position does not belong here.


Local governments should be allowed to operate by the will of the people- we are not talking FED here.

----------


## angelatc

> So they want to prevent farmers from growing crops on their own land until a government-funded study is done to prove that the crops and pesticides are safe...Yeah, sounds like citizens using the ballot box for big government. If they are so concerned, they should pay for the study themselves and if they are able to prove damages sue the farmers. They shouldn't be using government force to target farmers while they have no proof of any harm being done to them.


And when that government funded study is produced, it will say the exact same thing as every other study.  And then they will say, "Government science can't be trusted!"  "The corporations own our government!"  "We don't need evidence - we need outrage!"

----------


## angelatc

> Could you please share with us evidence to support your claim that I have personally advocated that it's ok for the organic farmers to pen legislation that affects you and your property and that it's wrong for the GMA to advocate for property rights? As I said, my personal position is irrelevant and that's as far as I have extended any personal opinion regarding the issue. Thank you.


STFU.  If you don't know that I'm referring to the Oregon ballot initiative since that the topic at hand, then you're stupid.  If you did know that. you are trolling. Pick your poison.

----------


## eduardo89

> Local governments should be allowed to operate by the will of the people- we are not talking FED here.


Why is tyranny ok as long as it is local? And since when does this site advocate for rights being continent on majority opinion?

No government has the right to infringe on our natural rights. Doesn't matter if it's the federal government, or state government, or county government, or municipal government....

----------


## angelatc

> Local governments should be allowed to operate by the will of the people- we are not talking FED here.


I understand that position, and I agree with it in some instances. For example I don't mind when local governments give tax incentives to bring new businesses in. although that usually generates massive hysteria in these parts.  

 But this is a case of one business (organic) passing legislation to outlaw the competition for no reason other than, "We want to."  It would be the equivalent of the people of Atlanta passing a law banning all hardware stores except, of course, Home Depot.  

This is the tyranny of democracy.

----------


## donnay



----------


## angelatc

> 



ANd again, DonnaY ignores the entire conversation, preferring instead to post an unrelated link to a biased documentary that has been repeatedly criticized for the obvious slant it takes.


We can, of course, watch it again and again point out the subtle fallacies and bald-faced lies it presents, but what would be the point?  She will ignore that conversation and post some other YouTube piece about bees or autism or something.  

All this, while still passively aggressively ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that she has absolutely no evidence that GMO crops are dangerous.

----------


## donnay

*5 Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up*

By Ronnie Cummins and Katherine Paul

To hear the pesticide and junk food marketers of the world tell it, anyone who questions the value, legitimacy or safety of GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops is naïve, anti-science and irrational to the point of hysteria.

But how long can Monsanto ignore the mounting actual scientific evidence that their technology is not only failing to live up to its promises, it’s putting public health at risk?

Jim Goodman, farmer, activist and member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board, recently wrote about Monsanto’s deceptive use of the expression “sound science.”
But, ‘sound science’ has no scientific definition. It does not mean peer reviewed, or well documented research. ‘Sound science’ is only a term, an ideological term, used to support a particular point of view, policy statement or a technology. ‘Sound science’ is little more than the opinions of so-called “experts” representing corporate interests.

Simply put, ‘sound science’ always supports the position of industry over people, corporate profit over food safety, the environment and public health.

Here are five new reports and studies, published in the last two months, that blow huge holes in Monsanto’s “sound science” story. Reports of everything from Monsanto’s Roundup causing fatal, chronic kidney disease to how, contrary to industry claims, Roundup persists for years, contaminating soil, air and water. And oh-by-the-way, no, GMO crops will not feed the world, nor have they reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides.

1. Monsanto’s Roundup linked to fatal, chronic kidney disease. Article in Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, February 2014

What happens when you mix glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, with “hard” water? That is, water that contains metals, such as calcium, magnesium, strontium and iron, either found naturally in the soil, or resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers?

The glyphosate becomes “extremely toxic” to the kidneys. 

That’s the theory put forth by researchers trying to uncover the mystery of thousands of deaths from chronic kidney disease among people in farming areas of Sri Lanka, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

2. Monsanto’s Roundup persists in soil and water. U.S. Geological Survey report in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, February 2014

Monsanto has always insisted (despite evidence to the contrary) that its Roundup herbicide is benign, that its toxicity doesn’t persist. 

But that’s only half the story, according to a study published this month in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Researchers now say that if you study only the key active ingredient, glyphosate, you might, as Monsanto claims, determine that Roundup is benign.

But there are other ingredients in Roundup, including one called Aminomethylphosphonic acid, or AMPA. The study, called “Pesticides in Mississippi air and rain: A comparison between 1995 and 2007,” found that glyphosate and its still-toxic byproduct, AMPA, were found in over 75 percent of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007. 

What does that mean for you? According to one analysis, “if you were breathing in the sampled air you would be inhaling approximately 2.5 nanograms of glyphosate per cubic meter of air. It has been estimated the average adult inhales approximately 388 cubic feet or 11 cubic meters of air per day, which would equal to 27.5 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of glyphosate a day.” Gasp.

*Continued...*

----------


## angelatc

> *5 Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up*
> 
> *..*


And again, DonnaY ignores the questions posed to her, preferring instead to post yet another opinion piece that introduces absolutely no new material to the conversation,  instead repeating the same fallacious special interest talking points that have already been examined and deconstructed multiple times in multiple threads.

Bryan, if you are watching, note that the first item in this piece was posted in these forums immediately upon publication.  You do not need to be a scientist to read it and see that it is NOT a study, even though Russia Today called it that.  It was a hypothesis.  She has been told this repeatedly, and yet she continues to ignore that indisputable fact and post articles that reference it as some sort of scientific conclusion.  It is not.

This is either trolling, or lying.

----------


## libertyjam

*Are substantial equivalence & safety studies for GM soy fraudulent?*

http://www.examiner.com/article/are-...soy-fraudulent



Over 10 years ago the Pacific Ecologist reported that a Japanese research team uncovered serious discrepancies in safety reports submitted by Monsanto to the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry. The Safety Assessment Application Documents were submitted in order to obtain a safety certificate necessary for the import of genetically modified (GM) soy to Japan. Based on these reports, submitted by JAPAN- MONSANTO, their herbicide-tolerant soybean was approved as food by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare and as animal feed by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1996. The research team reported their findings to Japan's Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry but received no response.

The Japanese team, led by molecular biologist Masaharu Kawata, University of Nagoya, began with 40 people taking notes by hand over a period of 10 days. This was necessary because the documents, kept at the Food Safety Association, were only available for five hours per day three days per week. Photographing and photocopying were not allowed. The application submitted by Monsanto for Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans consisted of 10 volumes, which piled up to 1 meter high, with much of it in English.

Findings:

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

Dr. Kawata claims that Monsanto deliberately misinterpreted and disregarded data in their quest to prove their RR soybean is “substantially equivalent” to conventionally grown soybeans.

“We found a highly intended misinterpretation ignoring obvious data difference between A5403 [conventional] and 40-3-2 [GM] hybrid in the documents.” Analysis of raw soybeans showed no differences, but the toasted soybeans showed a marked difference. After processing at 108℃ for 30 minutes, the concentration of protein and potassium were not changed but the concentration of urease and lectin were significantly higher in the GM soybeans. Urease (an enzyme) and lectin (a protein) are considered harmful, physiologically active substances. Urease enzymes aid in the conversion of urea to ammonia and carbonic acid, which can cause kidney stones and liver problems. Lectin binds to carbohydrates and can cause intestinal problems. These physiologically active substances remained active even after heat treatment in the GM soybean, though those of the conventional soybean were easily denatured and inactivated.

Monsanto decided that the GM soybeans were merely insufficiently heated. They returned the sample to Texas A & M and ordered re-toasting at 220℃ for 25 minutes. “However re-toasting further widened the difference in the activity between the two [soybean] strains. ... [A] Scientist would usually conclude in such case that there is substantial difference between the two.” But instead Monsanto toasted the GM soybean sample two more times until they got the result they wanted: all proteins were denatured and inactivated. No protein can withstand repeated heat treatment and remain active. With this result, Monsanto concluded that genetically modified and non-modified soybeans are “substantially equivalent” and they finally had the lab tests to “prove” it.

“Monsanto based their argument on their presumption 'they can't be different' and their need 'there shouldn't be difference.' ... The English data volume did not show analysis data of third and fourth heat treatment, but the Japanese summary volume, as if there were data, has a graph showing after loss of activity and described that 'data from insufficient heat treatment is not adopted' and 'No substantial difference observed.' If you review only Japanese summary volume and not look into English data volume, you would be ushered to the conclusion of 'Safe'.”

FOREIGN PROTEINS EXPRESSED IN GM SOY UNKNOWN

Exchanging genes between bacteria and plants can sometimes result in the expression of unexpected or undesired proteins. The only way to determine if this has happened is to isolate the proteins and determine the amino acid sequence. The extra proteins that are expressed in the glyphosate-tolerant soybean as a result of the addition of bacteria and virus genes is known as the CP4EPSPS amino acid sequence. Kawata states, “Before inspection we presumed that [the] amino acid sequence of [the GM] soybean CP4EPSPS was determined. However, to my surprise, it was not.” Monsanto determined only 15 amino acids from the N-terminal of the protein, which is expressed in E-coli. They then assumed the rest of the sequence was the same as the known nucleotide sequence of the bacterial DNA, but “only 3.3% of expected total of 455 amino acids was decided, and the protein is not of soybean! ELISA test described in the documents is the only method [used] to verify antigenic equivalence of proteins. But antigenic similarity itself does not prove the amino acid sequences are the same. The true face of CP4EPSPS protein in the soybean that we are taking is still unknown.”

SAMPLES USED IN TESTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WE EAT

Having assumed the soy protein was the same as the E-coli, they used the E-coli protein in their acute toxicity test

“[The] CP4EPSPS protein used for acute toxicity test on rat also came from that produced by E-coli harboring CP4EPSPS plasmid.” Monsanto claimed that it is too difficult to extract the protein from the soybean and that using the protein from E-coli is equivalent. Monsanto does a lot of hand waving around the word equivalent. But according to Kawata, “This is unacceptable because there is a possibility that the inserted gene work differently in soybean than was in the original bacterium, and therefore the expression product may be different from that of soybean. Moreover, according to the application document, 0.238mg of CP4ESPS protein is detected in one gram of genetically modified 40-3-2 soybean, which is enough concentration to extract without problem. This again is the typical 'All for the conclusion' approach by Monsanto. This kind of problem could be resolved if all CP4ESPS amino acid sequence in soybean had been analyzed and confirmed equal as the bacterium. The experiment looks like conducted on the presumption that the other soybean proteins are the same as the non-GM soybean as long as the CP4EPSPS is not toxic. If so, this is too easy and one-sided approach. The core of this problem is whether the soybean gene gets affected from insertion of foreign gene or not. The series of experiments described is incoherent on the fundamentals.”

Similar slight-of-hand tactics were employed in toxicity tests for insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, where only the Bt toxin itself was used in the feed and NOT the Bt as expressed in the GM product. This is based on the following faulty logic: a) a potato (or soy) is not toxic; b) if it can be shown that the Bt toxin (or E-coli protein) is non-toxic; then c) the Bt potato (GM soy) is safe. But the genetically engineered Bt potato is neither a regular potato nor is it the Bt toxin, just like salt (sodium chloride) is neither sodium nor chlorine. In fact, Arpad Pusztai published results showing that a GM potato (containing an insecticidal lectin known to be harmless to mammals by itself) does cause harm, for which he lost his funding and thus his job.

Why not just use the Bt potato or the GM soy in the animal experiments? Are they deliberately hiding something? And what's up with the scientists over at the FDA & the EPA who reviewed these data?

Measured glyphosate levels higher than safety standard

Because the soybean is designed to withstand direct application of glyphosate (active ingredient in Roundup), the herbicide residues in the harvested bean will be higher than the conventionally grown soybean. “Monsanto studied in detail how will be the results by changing factors like spraying times, concentration of the active ingredient glyphosate, duration of harvest after spraying, and cultivation places. The data show clearly that the concentration of glyphosate and AMPA (a degraded substance of glyphosate) in forage and hay increase greatly by postemergence application of the herbicide compared to that of conventional preemergence application, although the residual concentration in the plant differed from place to place. The largest value of the combined glyphosate and AMPA was 40.187 ppm in forage which is higher than the US safety standard of 15 ppm in forage and hay in 1994 when FDA and USDA accepted the application documents. The maximum combined concentration of glyphosate and AMPA in soybean seed was 13.178 ppm, which is less than 20 ppm of the US standard at that time. ... cultivating Roundup ready soybean may sometimes violates the US safety standard. We found a surprising description in the document to dissolve the problem.”

“In final conclusion, Monsanto say that 'the maximum combined glyphosate and AMPA residue level of approximately 40 ppm in soybean forage resulting from these new uses exceeds the currently established tolerance of 15 ppm. Therefore, an increase in the combined glyphosate and AMPA tolerance for residues in soybean forage will be requested.' They know very well that adoption of herbicide tolerance crop needs higher safety standards. In effect, the US tolerance standard of combined glyphosate and AMPA in soybean forage was changed to 100 ppm after they approved the genetically engineered soybean.”

Samples used in animal tests had not been sprayed with Roundup

The very reason for Monsanto to genetically modify the soybean is for tolerance to Roundup. “But surprisingly enough, our inspection revealed that both the gene modified soybean 40-3-2 strain and conventional strain A5403 were NOT sprayed with Roundup herbicide in their cultivation.” All of the the soybean used in the safety experiments was not sprayed with Roundup. “The reason is not stated in the documents.”

Spraying glyphosate on the soy would have caused biochemical compositional changes which include changes in fatty acid composition among other things. “The data obtained with such samples may be therefore not valid to guarantee safety of soybean that human and animals take in the real life, not just because of the residue glyphosate is a toxin to kill plants by inhibiting plant enzyme EPSPS. Effects on other metabolic pathway must be taken into account particularly when such artificial genes are inserted. For consumers, the test results using different sample than marketed soybean may be meaningless.”

Nevertheless, there were differences noted in the animals in the studies. Kawata reanalyzed Monsanto's submitted data and found statistically significant differences. For the rat study there were no differences found in the groups fed raw soybean meal. But males in the group fed the toasted GM soybean had 6.7% less body weight than the group fed toasted conventional soybean and 13% less than the group fed a commercial feed mix at the end of 28 days. “Though this difference is described as statistically significant in the data sheet, the conclusion ignores these results and states that 'no statistical significance is observed.'”

“The experiments are far from satisfactory in its sample size and the statistic method used. Our group transcribed all raw data and redid statistical analysis using Turkey multiple method. The result again showed the apparent growth obstacle for the body and kidney weight in male rats group fed with toasted [GM] 40-3-2 soybean. I wondered why there is no such difference in female rats group. The answer to this question seemed to be the amount of the feed intake where male took 25-30g/day, female rats took only 18-20g (approx. 70% of male)/day. It is highly possible that female rats also showed significant growth difference if experiment is conducted in much larger scale and with longer feeding period.”

To summarize:

    Monsanto knew that the toasted GM soybean contained extra, unhealthy enzymes and proteins so they subjected the samples to higher heat multiple times until the problem went away and then submitted those test results to prove substantial equivalence.

    Monsanto did not bother to determine the entire amino acid sequence in the modified soybean but only the first 15 amino acids. They then made the assumption that the remaining amino acids would be the same as the CP4EPSPS sequence in the bacteria. We still don't know what the actual expression is in the transgenic soybean.

    Based on their assumption in (2), they then used the CP4EPSPS protein from E-coli in their acute toxicity tests for GM soy.

    Monsanto knew that the glyphosate residues in forage were higher than allowed so they simply asked the EPA to raise the allowed limit. And the EPA did.

    Monsanto knew that there are substantial glyphosate residues in the GM soy and that the glyphosate could cause compositional changes in the soy, yet they submitted samples for animal testing that were never sprayed with glyphosate.

    Their safety studies still showed statistically significant differences yet they reported that the differences were not significant.

Monsanto has deliberately manipulated the samples in (1) & (5) and falsified their report in (6). In scientific circles, (1) (5) & (6) would be known as fraud. The methods employed in (2) & (3) are, at best, extremely sloppy. Number 4 just shows how the US government accommodates the biotech industry.

----------


## angelatc

> *Are substantial equivalence & safety studies for GM soy fraudulent?*
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/are-...soy-fraudulent
> 
> 
> 
> Over 10 years ago the Pacific Ecologist reported that a Japanese research team uncovered serious discrepancies in safety reports submitted by Monsanto to the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry. The Safety Assessment Application Documents were submitted in order to obtain a safety certificate necessary for the import of genetically modified (GM) soy to Japan. Based on these reports, submitted by JAPAN- MONSANTO, their herbicide-tolerant soybean was approved as food by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare and as animal feed by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1996. The research team reported their findings to Japan's Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry but received no response.


I will find out more about this, because if history is any indicator every single thing that anti-GMO puts out is a lie, but until I fact check this (because I am 100% certain you didn't) I would like to point out that even if this is 100% true,  it doesn't do anything to prove that glyphosate is harmful.

----------


## eduardo89

> ANd again, DonnaY ignores the entire conversation, preferring instead to post an unrelated link to a biased documentary that has been repeatedly criticized for the obvious slant it takes.


This is incredibly frustrating. She randomly posts a half-page long blog post or some unrelated youtube video instead of joining the discussion. It seems it's just to drown out our posts in a sea of pseudo-scientific crap.

----------


## PRB

> And again, DonnaY ignores the questions posed to her, preferring instead to post yet another opinion piece that introduces absolutely no new material to the conversation,  instead repeating the *same fallacious special interest talking points that have already been examined and deconstructed multiple times in multiple threads.*


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_r...thousand_times

----------


## PRB

> This is incredibly frustrating. She randomly posts a half-page long blog post or some unrelated youtube video instead of joining the discussion. It seems it's just to drown out our posts in a sea of pseudo-scientific crap.


pseudo scientific crap is essential for the survival of the liberty movement.

----------


## angelatc

My contribution - an experiment in human behavior  conducted on the March Against Monsanto people! The professor mentioned in this story didn't agree with doing the study because of the intentional deception, but he was disturbed enough by the findings to share it:

Madagascar Pranks March Against Monsanto




> There was no March Against Monsanto (MAM) in Madagascar. I made the signs and gave them to my friends to see what your group would say. *My teacher (who does not agree with this project because of the trickery) told me that your group will accept almost anything regardless of the scientific process, this was my experiment to see if he is correct. In my opinion, he is correct,* and your group should not have the same respect as people who are careful about their science. When we talk about science, we must be very careful how we use peoples emotions, otherwise it is manipulation.





> You encouraged me to ..... focus instead on vandalizing my imaginary gold rice experiments. This was offensive and unpleasant for me to experience.


They claim they want experiments, yet vandalize and destroy the experimental crops.  We know this to be true.





> My experiment was also a failure in another way.* I made my signs in a way that I thought was so extreme and offensive that they would be rejected by your community. Instead, all of the signs received compliments,* and I could not think of anything more extreme until I searched your own website! My signs were untrue, offensive, and even incoherent or contradictory - but after my experiment, when I look at your websites I ask myself "What is the difference?".


He stopped the experiment when his fake sign, specifically designed to be so offensive and incoherent made it on the front page of the MaM site:







> I think Monsanto is probably not a good company. I do not know if biotechnology will be good for Madagascar. One thing that I do know is that March Against Monsanto is not an organization that is able to help the Malagasy people learn about the risks and benefits of biotechnology in any meaningful way. Thank you for keeping your signs and "memes" out of our country, we welcome you back when you learn about what science is.



Stupid starving third-worlders.  Do they not realize that starvation is natural and that increased food production is therefore the devil's work?

----------


## mad cow

> My contribution - an experiment in human behavior  conducted on the March Against Monsanto people! The professor mentioned in this story didn't agree with doing the study because of the intentional deception, but he was disturbed enough by the findings to share it:
> 
> Madagascar Pranks March Against Monsanto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim they want experiments, yet vandalize and destroy the experimental crops.  We know this to be true.
> ...


Great link,Angela.

MONSANTO

Kills & Eats Baby Lemurs

FOR PROFIT!!!

LOL

----------


## angelatc

> Great link,Angela.
> 
> MONSANTO
> 
> Kills & Eats Baby Lemurs
> 
> FOR PROFIT!!!
> 
> LOL



Yes, but the professor just reported a follow up:




> Shocking - a March Against Monsanto organizer is now publicly threatening the author of this post Navid Rakotofalala with threats to track down his University funding and end it!! These folks are really terrorists, I hope Navid will not get their wrath! imagine picking on a youth scientist from Madgascar!! Please let folks know how extreme this got for him.


This is exactly what I'm so outraged about. They are not interested in discussion or facts - they want control.  They will burn experiments rather than be proved wrong. They will use the force of government to shut down competition.  And now we know they will harass and intimidate third world college students who shamed them in public.  

And they are here, in the liberty movement?  Bull$#@!. Their agenda is not our agenda.

----------


## donnay

*Scientists Link Autism To These Toxic Chemicals During Fetal Development*
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...oxin-exposure/


*Roundup and birth defects*
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdf...hDefectsv5.pdf

*Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling*
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

*New Study Finds Roundup Herbicide To Be 125X More Toxic Than Regulators Claim*
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ulators-claim/

*Roundup Herbicide Found In 75 Percent Of Air & Rainfall Test Samples*
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...-test-samples/

*Groundbreaking Study Links Monsanto’s Glyphosate To Cancer*
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ate-to-cancer/

*New Harvard Study Proves Why The Bees Are All Disappearing*
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...-disappearing/

*Monsanto Supersizes Farmers’ Weed Problem—But Science Can Solve It*
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...-can-solve-it/

----------


## donnay

*Activist Moms Confront EPA About Roundup Herbicide*

Lily Dane
The Daily Sheeple
May 27th, 2014



Roundup is Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide product, and it contains a toxic ingredient known as glyphosate.

It is widely known that glyphosate is profoundly damaging to human health. *Two major peer-reviewed studies* showed links to breast cancer cell proliferation and intestinal and gut damage, which can lead to diseases such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Research conducted in 2010 suggests that glyphosate may be linked to *birth defects*.

Regulators – and of course, Monsanto – claim glyphosate is excreted from the body. But *studies disproved that*: the chemical has been detected in urine samples, blood samples, and even breast milk.

Today, regulators from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with a group of mothers, scientists, environmentalists and others who say they are worried about Roundup residues found in breast milk.

That meeting is a result of the persistence of a group called Moms Across America, a national coalition of mothers whose mission is to increase awareness of GMOs. They are demanding a recall of Roundup.

*Continued...*

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@angela,

You can't tie all pro-life people to those who kill abortionists, neither can you tie all those that are against gmo's to those that harm others in an attempt to stifle discussion.  Even not all lefty's are terrible.  It's a pretty diverse world out there.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> @angela,
> 
> You can't tie all pro-life people to those who kill abortionists, neither can you tie all those that are against gmo's to those that harm others in an attempt to stifle discussion.  Even not all lefty's are terrible.  It's a pretty diverse world out there.


You would think that anyone who has accumulated a certain amount of years on this Earth would realize this without being told.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You would think that anyone who has accumulated a certain amount of years on this Earth would realize this without being told.


The very model of industry narrative regarding the issue is to promote a left-right paradigm in order to avoid public debate on the more critical aspects. It's fear. It's expected. And sometimes it's welcomed because it serves as the very rope that determines it's fate.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Mercantilism is what the Revolution was fought over and is absolutely not a free market.
> 
> - A global "uniform standard" is not free market.
> - Major corps that do not have to abide by law is not free market.
> - Corporatocracy is not free market.


Thank you, Ender. Although I had looked forward to angela's response to the question.  Seems to me that she's attempting to minimize the facts to stimulate a free market debate (which is itself merely a single aspect of the issue) without placing into relevance the fact that what we have here is mercantilism. And again, we'd do well to try to better understand the relevance in regard to Monsanto and other similar industries who fiddle in foreign and domestic policy as agents of government.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Supes approve vote on GMOs*

*Humboldt County "Genetic Contamination Prevention Ordinance" GMO Ban Initiative*

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted during its Tuesday meeting to place an ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and growing of genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, in Humboldt County before the voters on November.4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Humboldt County, California.

The Committee for a GMO Free Humboldt has requested and received an official ballot title and summary for an initiative measure that would, if successful, "prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically modified organisms in Humboldt County." 

The ordinance enacted by the approval of this measure would classify the growth of genetically modified organisms as a public nuisance and would dictate that violations be referred to the county agricultural commissioner. In the event of a violation, the genetically modified materials would be confiscated or destroyed, and a fine could be imposed. In cases of a citizen making an allegation of GMO growing activity, the person with the complaint would be required to show convincing evidence of the violation.

The Committee for a GMO Free Humboldt needed only about 4,300 valid signatures to qualify their initiative for a voter decision, but leaders of the committee submitted over 8,500 signatures during the last weeks of April 2014.


The official ballot title is: Prohibition on the propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of genetically modified organisms in Humboldt County.

Any violation of this ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance.


Schaser, a spokesman for GMO Free Humboldt, said, "I’m not opposed to biotech. My big push is the question, ‘Is [a GMO ban] in our best interest for Humboldt County’s economic development?’"

He also pointed to the success of local, organic farmers for whom it is important to be able to guarantee the GMO free status of their products, as their clients are willing to pay more for GMO free and organic foods. Schaser said that the sale of local organic products totaled $44 million in 2011. He also indicated that it was becoming more and more difficult for farmers to find non-GMO seeds every year.

Rick Littlefield, owner of Eureka Natural Foods, said, "This initiative will really give a boost to our local food system and our local economy.

Organic, natural, non-GMO - these are really key selling points for local farmers and producers marketing their products both here in Humboldt and beyond the redwood curtain.

They command a premium and help our local businesses survive and thrive."

Reportedly, GMO corn or other GMO seeds can be easily spread from field to field through pollination and shared farm equipment. The genetic modification in use creates plants that are resistant to glyphosate, commonly sold as "Roundup" and used to kill weeds, allowing fields of crops to be sprayed with the herbicide without damaging the productive plants. Schaser said that tiny amounts of chemicals, although not harming the genetically modified plants, do remain in the cells of the plants and are ingested by animals and humans who eat the crops. Moreover, although glyphosate is thought to be harmful only to plants and not humans, some studies allegedly show long-term toxic effects to beneficial bacteria in the human body helpful for digestion, absorption of nutrients and resistance to infections.




Aside...most recent local GMO Bans (past week)

Jackson County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 15-119 (May 2014) 

Josephine County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 17-58 (May 2014) 

The full text of recent passed legislation

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Lane County Genetically Modified Organism Ban*

http://www.localfoodrights.com/press_release


A *Lane County Genetically Modified Organism Ban*, also known as the *Lane County Local Food System Ordinance*, ballot measure may be on a 2014 election ballot for voters in Lane County, Oregon. 

According to the website of the Eugene-based Support Local Food Rights (SLFR), which is running the initiative effort, this measure, if it reaches the ballot and is approved, would do the following:

Recognize the right of residents "to a local food system that assures residents’ ability to grow and produce food, while at the same time, recognizing natures ability to thrive

Prohibit genetically modified crops in Lane County

Place the rights of the community over corporate agribusiness powers and privileges.


The first section of the ordinance proposed by Support Local Food Rights, entitled "Purpose," is below:

*We the people of Lane County* believe that ecology, economy, and food are inseparable and that the health of one fosters and enhances the health of all.

*We the people of Lane County* know that the local food system of Lane County is essential to the well-being of residents, farmers, local food producers, consumers, and our local economy, and is dependent upon the health of the natural communities of Lane County.

*We the people of Lane County* assert that our local food system can function and thrive only where there are protected rights to local food and seed heritage, and rights for natural communities; all of which are anchored by the right of the community to self-government; and that our local food system can exist and endure only in the absence of seed patents, genetically engineered organisms, and corporate and government interference in the aforementioned rights.

*We the people of Lane County* assert that our right to local self-government is inherent, fundamental, and inalienable, and that our U.S. Declaration of Independence proclaims that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

*We the people of Lane County* affirm that the Oregon Constitution guarantees "that all [people], when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

*We the people of Lane County* understand that corporate constitutional rights, state preemption, and other civil laws and regulations that benefit corporations may be used to usurp the will of the people, thereby rendering the people of Lane County powerless to legislate matters of county concern, including the protection of our local food system and our natural communities.

*Now, therefore,* the people of Lane County hereby adopt this Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the "Local Food System Ordinance of Lane County."

The full text of the ordinance that would be enacted by the approval of this measure is available here

----------


## Natural Citizen

Anti-GMO measure goes to Benton voters

*Benton County Genetically Modified Organism Ban 
*
The Benton County Community Rights Coalition needs 2,171 valid signatures by an early August 2014 deadline to qualify its initiative for the November ballot.

*Text of measure
*The first section of the ordinance, entitled "Findings and intent," reads as follows:

*Section 1. Findings and Intent

We the people of Benton County* have the inalienable right to grow, raise, rear, access, harvest, preserve, process, exchange, and consume – both individually and collectively – whole food and food products from a local food system.

*We the people of Benton County* find that our right to a local food system is essential to the well-being of the County’s residents and natural communities, as well as the health, resilience, and flourishing of the local economy, of which local agriculture plays a vital role.

*We the people of Benton County* have the right to a local food system and seed heritage that does not harm the right of natural communities to exist, persist, and flourish; adapts to local growing conditions; promotes biodiversity, resilience, and productivity; and provides for the social, equitable, nutritional, economic, and cultural enhancement of the quality of life for all residents of Benton County.

*We the people of Benton County* find that the civil right to grow, save, preserve, protect, harvest, adapt, and distribute open pollinated seeds, which is the foundation of all agriculture, is required – both individually and collectively – to secure the peoples’ commonly held seed heritage and right to a local food system.

*We the people of Benton County* find that the patenting and ownership of seeds and other self-replicating life forms used for the growing, rearing, or raising of food is a direct threat to our inalienable right – both individually and collectively – to grow, save, preserve, protect, harvest, adapt, and distribute seed to grow food and produce food products from one generation to another within Benton County.

*We the people of Benton County* find that the patenting and privatization of seeds that have been genetically modified interferes with the diversity of and access to the people’s seed heritage, reduces the people’s ability to save, replant, and adapt open pollinated seeds free of contamination, limits research and development of seeds and other life forms adapted to local growing conditions and soils that meet the economic and nutritional needs of the community, and encourages the use of genetically modified or altered life forms which pose significant risks to natural communities and farmer livelihoods through irreversible contamination of crops and related species.

*We the people of Benton County* understand that any attempt to prohibit the privatization and use of patented seed may run afoul of claimed corporate "rights" to engage in those practices, as well as State or federal laws. We understand that failure to legislatively challenge those "rights" and laws guarantees that a local food system will never exist.

*We the people of Benton County* therefore enact this local law pursuant to the inherent and inalienable right of the residents of Benton County to govern their own county for their own health, safety, and welfare. That authority is also secured by the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people, in the State Constitution of Oregon’s recognition that all power is inherent in the people, and in the Benton County Charter, which delegates the authority to the people and their representatives to enact local legislation on matters of county concern;

*Therefore,* through this Ordinance, which shall be known and cited as the "Local Food System Ordinance of Benton County, Oregon", the people of Benton County ordain as follows: http://bentonccrc.org/the-initiative/

----------


## Natural Citizen

Citizens Initiative Updates...*





Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Ban Initiative 

*Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Ban Initiative ballot question will likely be on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Maui County, Hawaii.

If approved, this measure would prohibit any growth, testing or cultivation of genetically modified or engineered crops and would put a stop to any genetic modification and engineering operations in the county until an environmental and public health study is conducted and finds the proposed cultivation practices to be safe and harmless. This measure is the first ever initiative attempt in Maui County, where the initiative power was granted through its charter in 1983.

The group of initiative proponents, including over 400 volunteer signature gatherers, turned in their initiative petitions, which contained over 9,500 signatures, to the county clerk on April 8, 2014. Moreover, they collected about 3,000 additional signatures to submit if their first batch is found to be insufficient. They need 8,464 of the submitted signatures to be valid to qualify their initiative for the ballot.

Proponents reported overwhelmingly positive responses from the Maui voters, collecting their signatures in less than six weeks, while they were allowed 6 months by law.

The activists are largely targeting Monsanto, the agriculture company that is responsible for the most genetic modification experiments and operations in county. 

Monsanto was most recently defeated in their campaign to oppose a full GMO ban in Jackson County, Oregon, donating over $183,000 to the campaign against the initiative which had a war chest of nearly a million dollars, largely donated by big agriculture companies like Monsanto. 


http://www.shakamovement.org/

----------


## Natural Citizen

Text of the Shaka Movement ordinance...quoted verbatim 

It's rather lengthy

----------


## Natural Citizen

*California lawmakers reject GMO labeling bill*




> The California Senate rejected on Wednesday a bill that would require labels on genetically-engineered foods. This is the second time in two years that labeling legislation has fallen short in the most populous and agriculturally-productive state.
> 
> Senate Bill 1381 fell  short of passage by just _two_ votes in the 40-member chamber. The  bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Noreen Evans, said she would  attempt to convince Senate leaders to bring a reconsideration  vote on Thursday, according to the Sacramento Bee, before the  legislative session ends on Friday.
> 
> _Supporters_ of labeling laws point to unknown dangers to human and  environmental health that lurk in the manipulation of the genetic  makeup of crops like soy and corn, as well as the power over the  world’s food supply that GMO seeds represent for agribusiness  giants.
> 
> But _opponents_ of labeling laws insist GMOs are safe and allow  science to address a growing population amid deteriorating  environmental conditions such as those caused by climate change.
> 
> Powerful food industry and biotechnology players are currently  banding together on many fronts to protect  their investment in GMO technology despite national and  international pushback. Their main effort in the US is seen in  federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures
> ...


Continued - California lawmakers reject GMO labeling bill

----------


## Thor

> *Im a Farm Wife. And I Hate GMOs.*
> 
> Im a farm wife  of a grain farmer. A GMO grain farmer. Theres been a lot of heated debates about GMOs lately, as there should be, and it seems like I hear the same things repeated over and over in our agricultural community. If youre against GMOs, youre against farmers. If youre against GMOs, you must be some yuppie woman from the city who drops her children off at their charter school, hits up her organic market, and goes back to her 7th floor flat to practice her internet activism against GMOs. If you are that mom, no offense, and the movement can certainly use you, provided that you really do your research and dont quote things from NaturalNews without first making sure they are entirely unbiased and true. 
> 
> Youd be hard pressed to find someone who loves agriculture more than I do. I grew up in a farming family; my family raised produce, garden plants, meat animals and horses. Granddaddy also tanned hides to sell, traded ginseng, and had a ham store that really was internationally-renowned. I still remember the smell of the curing days in the fall  spicy peppers and sweet brown sugar. Yum. Its making me hungry. But I digress. I loved agriculture so much that I majored in it in undergrad at Virginia Tech. B.S. in Animal and Poultry Sciences. I even went on to get my M.S. in Agriculture and Extension Education. After college, I was lucky enough to meet a grain farmer who was crazy handsome and sweet and funny and all of those things that scream husband material. And he somehow found me cute and fun enough to marry. My idea of a great morning is a hot cup of locally-roasted coffee accompanying me out into the garden until my boys wake up and coming back in the house sweaty, accomplished, and with really dirty jean knees. Here I stand actually, 5 months pregnant, sweaty, with dirty jean knees, writing this post as I make dinner while the boys are out checking soils at the different farm fields. I wouldnt have it any other way.
> 
> As I mentioned above, I married a grain farmer. When I met him, my only thought was well thats neat, because my family had never been involved in cereal grain production. Were near the East Coast and grains arent as huge here as they are in say, the Midwest. Now that I know what they are, I remember seeing sprayers in fields and thinking Wow, it must cost a lot of money to irrigate fields with all that water! I kind of wish I still thought it was water. My family had never used any chemicals other than lime in our fields, so chemical agriculture was a whole new ballgame to me. I literally had no clue. Fast forward seven years, and here I am writing this post. Why now? Well, a few reasons. The debate heating up obviously makes it a good time. But I also feel like there are some of us who havent had a voice in that debate, or at least been outspoken enough. And by we, I mean farmers who dont actually *like* GMOs. Now my qualifications as a farmer may be iffy  I dont actually help my husband in the field, and Im not employed by his farm. Im a mere spectator to that part. My farming is in my chickens down the hill, my berry patches, and my garden. That said, Im pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I dont agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if hes not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. Its what brings home money for our family. And if we didnt have an income, I wouldnt be able to communicate with you right now. He grows what the consumer demands  which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn. Because were NOT in the grain belt, grain elevators here are hard to find that take non-GMO grains separately. In short, theres no market for non-GMO unless we find a small supplier thats willing to take a chance on it (which is what happened this year and last, thankfully). If we grow non-GMO and nobody buys it, that doesnt help you, or us.
> 
> So to the meat of it  why would I hate GMOs? Well, Im going to outline several reasons. Sure, part of what you hear from me will be what youve heard from other GMO activists. Safety concerns, concerns about evil corporations, etc. I do not disagree with those points that many activists make. And let me say here that many times, when Ive heard folks insult anti-GMO activists and I chime in, I get the Well yeah but youre not one of the crazy activists, so you dont count in [whatever insult I just made] Arent I? I readily admit I am one of the most outspoken people you will find on the topic. I dont hesitate to write legislators, sign petitions, or call Monsanto on their BS on their Facebook page. I AM one of those crazy activists. And thats fine with me. You dont change the world by behaving. But my reasons for hating GMOs go way beyond many of the normal things you usually hear from The Activists. I truly feel that these companies and these seeds are threatening to utterly DESTROY our industry.
> ...


http://sweetsustainability.net/2014/...d-i-hate-gmos/

Awaiting the neg reps that will surely come for posting "opinion" LOL....

----------


## eduardo89

> *California lawmakers reject GMO labeling bill*
> 
> Continued - California lawmakers reject GMO labeling bill


Good.

----------


## angelatc

> @angela,
> 
> You can't tie all pro-life people to those who kill abortionists, neither can you tie all those that are against gmo's to those that harm others in an attempt to stifle discussion.  Even not all lefty's are terrible.  It's a pretty diverse world out there.


I can indeed tie all those who are against GMO with anti-freedom movements.  And there is no such thing as a leftist who is not terrible.   I'm all about diversity, but not when it's based on fear and ignorance.

----------


## Thor

> I can indeed tie all those who are against GMO with anti-freedom movements.


                                          ^^^^ What a moron you are....


Thanks for the neg rep I knew that would come from you.

----------


## eduardo89

> ^^^^ What a moron you are....
> 
> 
> Thanks for the neg rep I knew that would come from you.


*2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.*
*• No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.*
• No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
*• Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.*
• Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
• See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.

*5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.*
*• No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.*
• The use of vulgarity should be avoided and not be gratuitous.
• No posting of graphically offensive material, use links with warnings.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

----------


## Thor

> *2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.*
> *• No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.*
> • No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
> *• Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.*
> • Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
> • See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.
> 
> *5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.*
> *• No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.*
> ...


Thanks, but she violated all those, many times over, a long time ago and still does...  so for everyone *but her* that applies 100%.

----------


## angelatc

> ^^^^ What a moron you are....
> 
> 
> Thanks for the neg rep I knew that would come from you.


Every "point" in the article has been discussed and rebutted.  That is the very definition of low value posting.  





> That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. *Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family*. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. *He grows what the consumer demands* – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn.


You and yours want to government to  outlaw  technology that has done nothing except make food cheaper and more available.  This bitch knows that the multi-billion dollar organic business makes it's money pandering to idiots.  The more idiots she can create, the more profit she will reap.

I have no problem with consumer demand, but when it's driven by people who are clearly and openly lying to us, who are counting on us to be the most uneducated Neanderthals imaginable, then that's where it should stop.  

Demand what you want, but using the force of democracy in some bizarre attempt to try to halt modern technology is not a liberty position, and that's what side you're on.  If you do not think I will come back at you with everything I have, then you clearly do not know me.

----------


## Thor

> Every "point" in the article has been discussed and rebutted.  That is the very definition of low value posting.


It was a blog post...  not an article.  It was relevant insight to this thread from someone who is living it, on their own land....   no matter your "opinion"






> You and yours want to government to  outlaw  technology that has done nothing except make food cheaper and more available.  This bitch knows that the multi-billion dollar organic business makes it's money pandering to idiots.  The more idiots she can create, the more profit she will reap.
> 
> I have no problem with consumer demand, but when it's driven by people who are clearly and openly lying to us, who are counting on us to be the most uneducated Neanderthals imaginable, then that's where it should stop.  
> 
> Demand what you want, but using the force of democracy in some bizarre attempt to try to halt modern technology is not a liberty position, and that's what side you're on.  If you do not think I will come back at you with everything I have, then you clearly do not know me.


I know who you are from your character on this forum...  sounds like itch....  Corporatism is not liberty...




> That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. *He grows what the consumer demands* – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn.


Yes, buyers (manufacturers) demand cheaper ingredients for their products...  consumers want to save money too, but are waking up to this mistake and you hate it...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Every "point" in the article has been discussed and rebutted. That is the very definition of low value posting.


 If you believe that every point in the article has been rebutted then please share with us the source of your claim. Thank you.




> ...If you do not think I will come back at you with everything I have, then you clearly do not know me.


Don't talk about it. Be about it. We love to learn. Bring it...

Oh, hold on...wait...need to put my helmet back on. OK...let's _go_...

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Colorado Supreme Court OKs Ballot Title on GMO Labeling Initiative*




> Despite a challenge by conventional grocery interests, the Colorado Supreme Court on March 13 affirmed Right to Know Colorado’s ballot title to label GMO foods, clearing the way to begin collecting the 86,105 signatures needed for a 2014 statewide ballot measure.
> 
> In overturning a major challenge by mainstream biotech, pesticide and grocery interests to a statewide GMO labeling ballot initiative, the Colorado State Supreme Court on March 13, 2014, affirmed the title for Ballot Initiative #48 to label the presence of genetically modified foods, commonly called GMOs, on food packaging. In doing so the Colorado Supreme Court turned away a challenge to the title of Right to Know Colorado’s GMO ballot initiative.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruling allows the Right to Know Colorado campaign, a grassroots effort established by local residents to achieve mandatory labeling of GMOs in foods, to begin circulating petitions for signatures to place the initiative on the November 2014 ballot. Colorado requires 86,105 valid signatures to be submitted by early August to place an initiative on the ballot, according to Rick Ridder of Denver-based RBI Strategies and Research, political advisor to the Right to Know Colorado campaign. The campaign plans to partner with local farmers, farmers markets, moms, faith-based organizations, natural, organic and non-GMO food retailers, and other health, sustainability and consumer advocacy organizations to gather the signatures needed.
> 
>  “We are pleased that the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the GMO labeling ballot title, and we look forward to bringing a GMO labeling initiative before the voters of Colorado this fall. Coloradans have the right to know what is in their food, and to make purchasing decisions for their families based on knowing whether their foods are genetically engineered, and we believe they will have that opportunity after November,” said Larry Cooper, one of the proponents of the Right to Know Colorado initiative.


For more information visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org, https://www.facebook.com/RightToKnowColorado

----------


## libertyjam

*Sri Lanka Bans Monsanto Herbicide Citing Deadly Link To Kidney Disease*http://www.collective-evolution.com/...idney-disease/

Sri Lanka has decided to completely ban glyphosate from their country, it’s the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. In doing so they join a growing list of countries that have/are doing the same. The ban comes out of concern that the chemical may be linked to a fatal kidney disease that could kill agricultural workers. Glyphosate was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the early 1970s, and it is the most widely used herbicide in the world.

A chronic kidney disease has been affecting poor farming regions all over the world, and a new study that was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health suggests that Roundup, or glyphosate, becomes highly toxic to the kidney once mixed with “hard” water or metals like cadmium and arsenic. These metals often exist naturally in the soil or are added via the fertilizer.(0)(6)

“An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists has revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.” (8)

The new study also noted that even the World Health Organization (WHO) found that Chronic Kidney Disease (CKDU) is caused by exposure to pesticides.

“Researchers point out that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. They believe that 12 to 15 years of exposure to “low concentration kidney-damaging compounds” along with their accumulation in the body led to the appearance of CKDU in the mid-90s.” (7)

When you ingest Roundup, or glyphosate, you are altering the chemistry of your body. It’s unnatural, and the body doesn’t resonate with it. Scientists have demonstrated that glyphosate interrupts the CYP pathway. CYP enzymes have many important functions. They are critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. (1)

Another report linked glyphosate to birth defects. The report provides a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting the serious health hazards posed by glyphosate and roundup herbicide formulations.(2)(3)

----------


## Ender

*Blackmail? U.S. Tells El Salvador to Buy U.S. GMO Seeds or Lose Millions in Aid*

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/bla...n-aid-funding/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> *Blackmail? U.S. Tells El Salvador to Buy U.S. GMO Seeds or Lose Millions in Aid*
> 
> http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/bla...n-aid-funding/


Relevant reading - Monsanto in US Foreign Policy (RPF thread)




> *US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto's GMO seeds...*
> 
> As one of the preconditions to authorizing close to $300 million in aid, the United States is pressuring El Salvador to purchase genetically modified seeds from Monsanto instead of non-GM seeds from local farmers.
> 
>   According to Sustainable Pulse, a website covering developments  related to genetically modified organisms and sustainable  agriculture, the US will reportedly withhold $277 million in aid  through the Millennium Challenge Compact if El Salvador refuses  to purchase GM seeds from the biotech company Monsanto.
> 
>   The website states that the stalled aid package was originally  put on hold in late 2013, when it was revealed that Millennium  Challenge Corporation would not deliver funds to the country  unless “specific” economic and environmental reforms were made.  Apparently, one of those is related to the purchase of GMO seeds.
> 
> _“I would like to tell the U.S. Ambassador to stop pressuring  the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds,”_CESTA president Ricardo Navarro said, adding that the move would  hurt the local economy and only benefit US companies.
> ...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Foreign-Policy

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Vermont’s landmark GMO-labelling law target of lawsuit by food trade groups*...




> A group of four national trade organizations sued the state of Vermont over its new law requiring labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients, scheduled to go into effect in July 2016.
> 
> Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food  Association (SFA), International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)  and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) say that food  made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are safe and  do not need to be specially labeled. The Vermont legislature  passed the bill in April, and Gov. Peter Shumlin (D-Vt.) signed it  into law at the beginning of May.
> 
> _"I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the  nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food.  The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of  this bill,"_ he said in a statement after the bill passed.
> 
>   Legislators knew that major food companies like Monsanto Co. and  DuPont Co - the leading producers of GMO crops - were likely to  challenge the law in courts. Attorney General William Sorrell  said he advised lawmakers while they deliberated the bill that it  would invite a lawsuit from affected companies, _"and it would  be a heck of a fight, but we would zealously defend the  law,"_ he noted Thursday, according to the   Burlington Free Press.
> 
>   To defend the legislation, Vermont allocated a $1.5 million legal  defense fund in the measure, to be paid for with settlements won  by the state.


Continued - Vermont’s landmark GMO-labelling law target of lawsuit by food trade groups

----------


## libertyjam

Watch a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes




Watch  a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes - See more  at:  http://livefreelivenatural.com/watch....83JbrixX.dpuf

----------


## angelatc

> Watch a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch  a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes - See more  at:  http://livefreelivenatural.com/watch....83JbrixX.dpuf


Like this hasn't been posted before.

ANd note that he can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up his assertions which means it's bull$#@!.  Just because you believe it doesn't mean it isn't bull$#@!.  Because it is 100% absolutely and entirely bull$#@!.

----------


## angelatc

God, I hate the liberals in this thread and on this forum.  Funny how they never miss a post in "Russia Today"  but totally ignore Reason Magazine.

*Challenge Highlights Flaws in Hawaii's Anti-GMO Law*


> The law, passed late last year, bans growing and field testing of nearly all GMO crops. The anonymous papaya farmer argues that the law "sharply conflicts with federal and state law."
> 
> While the Hawaii ordinance exempts GMO papaya farmers—because, well, papayas!—it requires them to register annually at a cost of $100 for every farmed location,explains Hawaii land use attorney Robert Thomas.


Big government loving bastards. They claim they only want more and more testing, then pass laws prohibiting private property from being used for testing?




> "Hawaii was the site of one of the first great successes of crop biotechnology," writes Bailey. "In the 1990s, *the Hawaiian papaya industry was saved by the creation of a genetically enhanced variety modified to resist the ringspot virus that was then devastating growers."*





> In an excellent article earlier this year that detailed the path to passage for the anti-GMO law in Hawaii, _New York Times_ reporter Amy Harmon referred to *the GMO debate as "a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence."*


*

*


> Science need not drive law and policy. I prefer fewer laws and policies, and would prefer that individual freedom be the first concern of any lawmaker.* But if we must have laws and policies—particularly those impacting science—then they must be driven by science.*


*

*Not stupid liberal bullies who don't have a shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, to back up a single thing they demand from the rest of us.  The world, and the forums, would be better without all of you.

----------


## Ender

> Like this hasn't been posted before.
> 
> ANd note that he can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up his assertions which means it's bull$#@!.  Just because you believe it doesn't mean it isn't bull$#@!.  Because it is 100% absolutely and entirely bull$#@!.


It is YOU who hasn't a shred of evidence to back up your bull$#@! assertions- *except government approved and backed bull$#@!.* Government approved "science" is suddenly valuable when it supports your favorite Big Corps.

You accuse others of exactly how you operate Miss Neocon, all the while pretending to be for freedom.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> God, I hate the liberals in this thread and on this forum.  Funny how they never miss a post in "Russia Today"  but totally ignore Reason Magazine.


Personally, I wouldn't line my cyber bird cage with Reason Magazine. It's an educated choice.




> Originally Posted by *libertyjam*
> 
> Watch a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANd note that he can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up his assertions which means it's bull$#@!.  Just because you believe it doesn't mean it isn't bull$#@!.  Because it is 100% absolutely and entirely bull$#@!.


Dr. Huber is a Professor of Plant Pathology. Please provide a source that would support your claim that his expertise in this discussion is false relative to the discovery of new organism and crop disease, livestock infertility and threats to U.S. food and agriculture and as a result of these products. Thank you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*GMO-labeling movement poised for ballot initiative in Colorado*...




> Supporters for the labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in Colorado delivered a petition on Monday with about twice the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative to appear before voters in November.
> 
>   Right to Know Colorado, the group backing the labeling effort,  collected more than 170,000 signatures on the petition, according  to the   KDVR. A petition in Colorado is required to have 86,105 valid  signatures from registered state voters for ballot initiative  approval.
> 
>   The ballot initiative would allow voters to decide on the  explicit labeling of any product containing  genetically-engineered ingredients sold in the state.
>   The Colorado Secretary of State’s office now has 30 days to  verify the signatures.
> 
> Vermont recently passed legislation making the state the first to  require GMO labels on its food. That regulation is expected to go  into effect in July 2016, though the law is already the target of  legal challenges from opponents.
> 
> ...


Continued - GMO-labeling movement poised for ballot initiative in Colorado

Aside -  Biotech, pesticide and grocery corporations challenged the measure, however the Colorado Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of "Colorado Right to Know," allowing supporters to move forward in their attempts to land the initiative on the November 2014 ballot.

As of May 14, 2014, there were 84 bills in 29 states regarding the labeling of GMOs. Efforts for required labeling and bands of genetically modified organisms have been a growing issue in American politics at the state and local level. More than a million people signed a petition to the Food and Drug Administration asking it to label GMOs, which was the most signatures of any petition in the agency’s history.

----------


## Natural Citizen

The *Oregon Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Measure 92* is on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. The measure would mandate the labeling of certain foodstuffs that were produced with or contain genetically modified organisms.

An *initiated state statute*, also known as an *initiative statute*,  is a new law that a state adopts via the ballot initiative process.  The most common form of initiated state statute is when groups collect signatures and once those signatures are collected, election officials place the measure on the ballot for a vote.  A less common form is the indirect initiated state statute. While there are important differences between an _initiated state statute_ and an _initiated constitutional amendment_, they are not always clearly distinguished, and often both are referred to as simply "initiatives" or "propositions."

22 states allow citizens to proposed new state statutes via initiative.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Maui GMO ban passes...
*



> The first ballots to be counted show 58 percent of voters oppose the ban.  But, by the third printout, there were 50 percent "yes" votes.  It appears that the initiative has passed.
> 
> Maui is home to farms owned by national companies like Monsanto and a Dow Chemical subsidiary, which produce new varieties of genetically engineered seeds


http://www.kitv.com/politics/maui-vo...turns/29542916






Previously...




> Citizens Initiative Updates...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Ban Initiative 
> 
> *Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Ban Initiative ballot question will likely be on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Maui County, Hawaii.
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monsanto to respond to the citizens of Maui with a lawsuit. This is similar to what we'll see with the TPP whereas multinational corporations have penned legislation that would allow them to sue sovereign nations whose laws they contend would affect their future profits.

Monsanto released a statement Wednesday saying it plans to take steps to ask the court to declare that this initiative is legally flawed and cannot be enforced. Shaka Movement members say this is about future generations and they're ready for the long fight.

Maui County says it is obligated to carry out the voters' will, but first needs to get council budget approval and will check the bill for any legal inconsistencies.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*
2 developers sue Hawaii county to halt GMO law*...




> HONOLULU
> 
> Two leading developers of genetically engineered corn have sued Maui County to stop a new law banning the cultivation of genetically modified organisms.
> 
> The lawsuit filed by Monsanto Co. and a Dow Chemical Co. unit in federal court in Honolulu asks a judge to immediately prevent the law from taking effect. It also seeks to invalidate the new law, which voters narrowly adopted during last week's election after an intense campaign featuring $8 million in spending by the seed companies against the initiative.
> 
> Both companies research and develop new varieties of corn in the county. Hawaii's warm weather enables the seed companies to grow more crop cycles each year, accelerating their research. Conducting the work in a U.S. state also helps the seed companies protect their intellectual property.
> 
> The law, which doesn't apply to crops in mid-growth cycle, goes into effect when officials certify the election results. That's expected to happen late this month.
> ...


Continued - 2 developers sue Hawaii county to halt GMO law

----------


## Natural Citizen

Dr. Thierry Vrain, a biotech scientist, and former GMO supporter appears to completely repudiate the "science"  that led him to support GMO in the first place.

Ready? Let's go...




> Former Pro-GMO Biotech Scientist Admits GMOs Aren’t Safe, Refutes Claims by Monsanto "Vrain thinks the public is being swindled. He believes we should all demand that government agencies replicate tests showing that GMOs are safe rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies. 
> 
> He continues:
> 
> _"The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
> 
> There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.
> 
> These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins."
> ...


What they appear to acknowledge here is that there has not ever been any genuine long term study of the effects of GMO toward human health or other areas to include animals and ecology. This is important to consider given open acknowledgement of nations abroad that they're going to be actually testing this stuff in the long term. And international lawsuits involving every country against these biotech companies isn't out of the question either.

Former Pro-GMO Biotech Scientist Admits GMOs Aren’t Safe, Refutes Claims by Monsanto

　
Relevant reading...

37 Million Bees Found Dead in Canada After Large GMO Crop Planting

End of Organic? Report Says GMO Crop Contamination Cannot Be Stopped

Some thoughts on the rule of law... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702943

I suppose the point that I'd make in the long term here is that we'd do well to pay attention to the international scheme of things and any lawsuits that arise. An international standard with regard to agriculture isn't something that is too awfully far out of the question. Comparable to what we saw in the days of Kennedy with regard to a so called Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Rising suicide rate for Indian farmers blamed on GMO seeds*...







> Monsanto, which has just paid out $2.4 million to US farmers, settling one of many lawsuits it’s been involved in worldwide, is also facing accusations that its seeds are to blame for a spike in suicides by India farmers.
> 
> The accusations have not transformed into legal action so far,  but criticism of Monsanto has been mounting, blaming the giant  company for contributing to over 290,000 suicides by Indian  farmers over the last 20 years.  
> 
> The author of a documentary on Indian farmers’ suicides,  Alakananda Nag, who has interviewed dozens of the relatives of  those who have taken their lives, links the rise in the suicide  rate to the use of GMO seeds. She believes small farms are  particularly vulnerable.  
> 
> The legalization of GMO in 2002 has only added to the stress  experienced by Indian farmers, according to the head of the  Council for Responsible Genetics, Sheldon Krimsky.  
> 
> “_The people would give out the loans if they believed these  seeds would give the greatest yields_,” Krimsky told RT.  “_So they are not going to get a loan if they don’t go with  the GMOs. And many of them felt coerced to take the GM seeds. The  GM crops have not done as well in all regions of India... [That  has led to] much greater indebtedness with the GM crops that did  not perform as well_.”  
> ...



Continued - Rising suicide rate for Indian farmers blamed on GMO seeds

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Activists Prepare for 4th Global March Against Monsanto*...




> For the fourth time since 2013, the March Against Monsanto will take place in cities around the world. On May 23, 2015, concerned activists, urban farmers, and environmental activists will hit the streets of 428 cities spread across 38 countries.
> 
> The MAM movement was started in late 2012 in an effort to raise awareness to the dangers surrounding Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, as well as the carcinogens present in the company’s top pesticide, Round-Up.
> 
> Indeed, in September 2013 Ben Swann reported on Monsanto and Crony Capitalism.
> 
> Also, Truth In Media recently reported on a group of scientists blowing the whistle on corruption at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
> 
> _“On May 5, 25 organizations representing farm workers, environment, and food safety organizations sent a letter to officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency calling for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light._
> ...



Continued - http://truthinmedia.com/activists-pr...inst-monsanto/

----------


## Natural Citizen

RT’s Ben Swann discusses 4th Global March Against Monsanto with activist Adam Eidinger. This Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people will gather across 38 countries and 428 cities.




> Hundreds of thousands are expected to rally across the world on Saturday in protest of agri-giant Monsanto and its practices of manipulating the genes of produce. Now an annual event, the global demonstrations draw awareness to the supposed health risks of GMOs, as well as Monsanto’s near monopoly on food.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

RT's Ben Swann?

RT's Ben Swann?

RT's Ben Swann?

----------


## Danke

Should I short their stock?

----------


## Danke

> RT's Ben Swann?
> 
> RT's Ben Swann?
> 
> RT's Ben Swann?


Ya, I was hoping he'd appear on MSNBC...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> RT's Ben Swann?
> 
> RT's Ben Swann?
> 
> RT's Ben Swann?


Yeah, sorry, Gunny Freedom. I couldn't seem to find anything from the mainstream news entertainment programs about this what with the "We Ask, You Decide" thing they all do.  Someone has to report, though. May as well be RT's Ben Swann. 

If things go well, we'll maybe force some of these so called representatives to provide a position on science. Kind of sucks that we have to force them to do that but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. You know? I mean, if we don't, then, we'll continue to be fed mercantilism disguised as the free market and whatnot. Some other stuff...

I try to spread my sources out when it comes to relevant reporting on the issue as a whole, though. 

Like this thread, for example. Monsanto in US Foreign Policy . There are all kinds of different sources and reporting in a broad and relevant way...

I like Ben, though. We don't often meet journalists who question more. Well...or journalists in the historic sense of the trade at all for that matter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yeah, sorry, Gunny Freedom. I couldn't seem to find anything from the mainstream news entertainment programs about this what with the "We Ask, You Decide" thing they all do.  Someone has to report, though. May as well be RT's Ben Swann. 
> 
> If things go well, we'll maybe force some of these so called representatives to provide a position on science. Kind of sucks that we have to force them to do that but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. You know? I mean, if we don't, then, we'll continue to be fed mercantilism disguised as the free market and whatnot. Some other stuff...


Yeahhhh you totally missed the point of my anger there.  

Ben Swann apparently had to take a job with RT because we suck.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeahhhh you totally missed the point of my anger there.  
> 
> Ben Swann apparently had to take a job with RT because we suck.


It isn't that we suck, Gunny Freedom. We forgot who we were ultimately supposed to be representing. Is unfortunate. Is what it is. There are two kinds of people in the world, Gunny Freedom. The first kind is the kind that prefer to count their names.  And the second kind prefer to leave their mark. We want to change the course of history, Gunny Freedom. And, so, counting our name isn't going to get that done.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It isn't that we suck, Gunny Freedom. We forgot who we were ultimately supposed to be representing. Is unfortunate. Is what it is. There are two kinds of people in the world, Gunny Freedom. The first kind is the kind that prefer to count their names.  And the second kind prefer to leave their mark. We want to change the course of history, Gunny Freedom. And, so, counting our name isn't going to get that done.


I honestly have no idea what any of that has to do with my disappointment that we were unable to fully support Ben Swann in his TruthInMedia project such to the point that he had to take a job with RT where a great deal of the conservative audience will now automatically discount anything he has to say, but...sure!

----------


## Danke

> Yeahhhh you totally missed the point of my anger there.  
> 
> Ben Swann apparently had to take a job with RT because we suck.


We?  It is just like criticism that those get from being on Info War with Alex Jones.  Attack the medium, not the message.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> We?  It is just like criticism that those get from being on Info War with Alex Jones.  Attack the medium, not the message.


It's irrelevant whether RT is good, bad, or indifferent.  Swann's value to a large portion of the American Right is derogated on account of their perception of RT as an organization.  It matters not what you, I, or anyone else here thinks.  It is what it is.  Rational, and logical people like us may recognize it as the ad hominem logical fallacy of "poisoning the well," but that truth will not stop Bubba Twelvepack from automatically disbelieving anything he says on account of the big green RT logo in the lower left.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> We?  It is just like criticism that those get from being on Info War with Alex Jones.  Attack the medium, not the message.


And yes, *WE*.  *WE* did not spend enough money joining TruthInMedia or bringing new viewers or spreading the message or doing whatever else *WE* had to do to make his sole venture a success.  Swann could not put enough food on the table through the organization that he created to serve *US*, so he had to take his skills elsewhere, because *WE* suck, and could not support him enough to make it happen.

----------


## The Northbreather

Why do they constantly say that Round Up is a pesticide. I mean Wtf.

----------


## donnay

> Why do they constantly say that Round Up is a pesticide. I mean Wtf.



Should change it to "genocide."

----------


## navy-vet

> Why do they constantly say that Round Up is a pesticide. I mean Wtf.


Maybe it's because most of these "genius critics" have bachelor degrees in music, art or philosophy?

----------


## Ender

> Maybe it's because most of these "genius critics" have bachelor degrees in music, art or philosophy?


The #1 major accepted to Medical School is the music major. Arts connect the brain- just sayin'.
.

----------

