March Against Monsanto - Updates

[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 shit 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.”

Food & Water Watch published their findings this week after combing through the roughly 260,000 State Department cables that the whistleblower website first began publishing in 2010, but notes that their statistics specifically come from memos not classified as 'secret' or higher.

For the most part, wrote the nonprofit, “The State Department strategy sought to foist pro-biotech policies on foreign governments” using a four-prong approach: promote biotech business interests; lobby foreign governments to weaken biotech rules; protect US biotech exports and press developing world to adopt biotech crops.

As the cables are analyzed, though, the efforts the State Department undertook to advocate for Monsanto demonstrate a willingness to put a US-based company’s profits about the interests and health of those residing in foreign nations.

In a cable sent from the Slovakian consulate in 2005, the State Department is told that the local post “will continue its efforts to dispel myths about GMOs and advocate on behalf of Monsanto.” In 2009, a cable out of Madrid, Spain announced that Monsanto had made “urgent requests” to fight off an anti-GMO opposition campaign that posed problems to the biotech industry. Other revelations show pro-GMO efforts waged by the US on behalf of the biotech industry in Hong Kong, the European Union, Egypt and elsewhere.

However, activists in the areas in question and elsewhere are taking note of Monsanto's dangerous and growing influence, withanti-Monsanto demonstrations planned in 36 cities on six continents for spring and summer 2013.

“The State Department’s efforts impose the policy objectives of the largest biotech seed companies on often skeptical or resistant governments and public, and exemplifies thinly veiled corporate diplomacy,” alleged Food & Water Watch.

When Food & Water Watch scoured those cables, they concluded that the State Department was conducting off-the-radar negotiations that didn’t seem to advance democracy or American ideals — instead, rather, it found evidence of lobbying used to advance the agenda of thriving US companies that have already purchased the approval of much of Washington.

“It’s not surprising that Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow want to maintain and expand their control of the $15 billion global biotech seed market, but it’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association, said in the press release accompanying the report. “American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

Of the 926 State Department cables analyzed by Food & Water Watch, the group found Monsanto appeared in more than 6 percent of the memos, shining light on how a federal agency “worked especially hard to promote the interests” of an outside company.

When reached for comment by Reuters, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said, "We remain committed to sharing information so that individuals can better understand our business and our commitments to support farmers throughout the world as they work to meet the agriculture demands of our world's growing population.” The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


As RT reported previously, that so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” signed into law last month was co-authored by a senator that has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the company — a revelation that didn’t surprise many given that another important figure in Washington, Justice Clarence Thomas, served as an attorney for the corporation before he was nominated to the high court only to eventually preside over a case involving his former employer. But according to Food & Water Watch, the relationship between Monsanto and the government extends beyond Congress and the Supreme Court. In a statement published on Tuesday to accompany their report, Food & Water Watch wrote that the cables detail “how the US State Department lobbies foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operates a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenges commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.”

This week’s report comes just one day after Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court sided with Monsanto in reaching a decision in a landmark patent suit. In the case, the high court said that an Indiana farmer infringed on Monsanto’s patent rights by using specially-made seeds he obtained second-hand without signing a contract with the company. That ruling, however, came just days after the company was hit with comparably bad news: on Friday, the US Department of Agriculture ordered an extra round of tests for new GMO breeds being developed by Monsanto and Dow, putting on hold plans to release to the public laboratory-made crops that can withstand heavy dousing of dangerous pesticides. Both companies want to make available crops that are resistant to the chemicals 2,4-D and dicamba, a move that environmentalists fear will prompt farmers to use more of these toxins.

"The danger that 2,4-D and dicamba pose is a real threat to crops…nearly every food crop," Steve Smith, director of agriculture at Red Gold, told Reuters last year.

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 shit.

 

[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 shit.

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 shit.

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 shit, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those fuckers 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 shit, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those fuckers 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 shit 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 shit 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 shit, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those fuckers 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 shit 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.