Stop Monsanto’s Secret Plan to Kill GMO Labeling Today

[donnay]

And the answer is more government from the same legislatures.

No. But what it does is let the legislatures know we are exposing them.

I know what is in my food. If the food you are eating has: Corn, Soy, Canola, Sugarbeet, Papaya, or Squash in it and it is not labeled Organic or Non-GMO (or other independent labels), then it is GMO. How hard is that?

USDA certifies labels for Organic. They also lowered the bars to allow certain things in so by virtue of being label "Organic" does not necessarily mean it is GMO-free.

And yet I can go to any of the grocery stores in my area and buy a weeks worth of groceries and easily avoid ALL foods with gmo in them.

So you know that the eggs you buy in the grocery store are not fed any GMO corn or soy? You know the beef you buy has not been given any GMO alfalfa, corn or soy? Or the milk you buy? You know this without a doubt?

It is already quite possible for anybody that actually cares. The problem is you don't like that people don't actually care, you want to ram it down their throats and would probably be happy forcing them to put skull and crossbones icons on any foods containing gmo.

LOL---it's interesting you think I am ramming stuff down people's throats, but the International Corporations aren't. Oh and the skull and bones remark not a bad idea.

If you need help finding non-gmo products at the store, if I'm ever up in NH I would be more than happy to go the store with you and point out all the stuff that is free of gmo.

The nice thing about NH, Specs, is we have local farms and ranches; lots of Co-Op's and CSA and a great awareness of GMO's in our community. I very seldom need to go to a grocery store. So if you're ever in NH you are in for a REAL treat.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[donnay]

Yeah I remarked about that earlier in the thread as an example about how the free market non-gmo label is more reliable than the govt one.


I do know that. "without a doubt?" well the only way you could be without any doubt is if you grow all the stuff yourself. Heck, my egg bought in store are labeled non-gmo even. Here is the photo of the eggs current in my fridge, that I eat every day except sunday (organic bacon day). notice the big obvious NON-GMO wording in multiple places on the carton.

And from their website:

That's pretty indepth and trustworthy (without a doubt) for me. no govt force required!

And for milk/cream we like organic valley which also says right on the front of the cartons that they don't use gmo feed. I don't feel like taking another photo, so you'll have to trust me. And they seem pretty trustworthy about it given they have a whole page setup on their site dedicated to it: http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/gmos/

I'm not any big fan of many big corporations, but they don't force me to buy/consume their products. I just avoid them. I think what really upsets you is that the majority of people don't care about this stuff and you want to scare them into caring. I'm more of the mind of, screw them, if they don't care about their health then neither do I.


Funny thing about the "garden state", we have that stuff available a well and with PA next door as well. But for the bulk of my goods, we have excellent stores with ever expanding sections of organic and clearly labeled non-gmo products available to any consumer that gives a shit. Maybe you just don't realize that the information and products ARE available at regular ole grocery stores because you dont' go to them.

I actually like to stand outside the grocery stores and scare the patrons in my spare time. <s>

There is a sea-change happening--thank God for the internet and the good activist who have been planting the seeds of truth.

 

[libertygrl]

Somebody is force feeding you food of unknown origin and content!?! Well who is this person? I think it should be stopped ASAP.

Glad you agree!

When there's a monoploly of GMO's in our food, damn straight I feel like I am being forced to consume their frankenfood. I can't always afford to buy everything organic. I'd like to make an informed decision. I'd like to know that whatever food alternative I'm choosing is safe. But I can't do that because it's not labeled as being a GMO product. We're not just talking about a handful of different brand name foods. It's becoming a monopoly. That's why I feel affordable healthy food choices are becoming more and more limited.

How do I know if I'm consuming a frankenfood if it doesn't say so? It's not right. People wouldn't be demanding mandatory labeling from the government if Monsanto wasn't creating this situation in the first place. I say treat GMO foods like you would a pack of cigarettes. There should be some sort of warning label on them. Yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening since they INSIST that it's safe for us. I have no problem "infringing" on Monsanto or any other corporation's freedoms because they don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of other human beings.

Just keep in mind that this is all part of Agenda 21:


So, what does all of this Agenda 21 evil have to do with GMOs and our growing poisoned food supply?

Well as it stands, Agenda 21 espouses the total nonsense that there are too many people on the Earth today, and while we do our best to cull the numbers, the only way to feed everyone in the meantime is to genetically modify our food supply with toxins. (This is seen by many to ALSO be a culling method) Never mind that science has proven that man is not warming the planet or that if every man/woman/child alive today all had the living space of the average New Yorker they could all fit easily into the state of Texas, for these facts simply can be ignored by a population that is as dumbed down as they currently are.

So as we toxify our food sources to feed the masses, what exactly is it that we are ingesting? While the whole globe suffers from the ill effects of Agenda 21 to some degree or another, the United States of America seems to have it the worst in this regard. According to Babble.com, 80% of prepackaged food that is sold in America is actually banned in other nations.

In that article, you will discover terrible facts regarding things like Olestra that is often put into low fat or fat free foods. Olestra has been linked to MANY gastrointestinal dilemmas and that is why it is banned in both the United Kingdom and Canada. Many popular colas contain brominated vegetable oil that has been made illegal to use in over 100 nations (!) because it has been tied to cancer, autoimmune issues, and just about every other unwanted health scenario that one can think of. However, in America, it is in use, marketed and fed to children and sports fans.

Yellow #5 and #6 that is found in many Kraft products such as Mac and Cheese and is known to lead to cancer, has been linked to a slew of allergies, and is one of the many toxins that we have all been warned about that lurk in our shampoos. Yes, both yellow poisons are used in shampoos and cereal on a regular basis.

Singapore has a 15-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine awaiting those that use azodicarbonamide in food products, while in America these toxins are used to make yoga mats, is present in our bread products and in our frozen foods. Sure, most of Europe has wisely banned it, but that should not affect anything at all, should it?

Look up how BHA causes awful cancers as Kellogg’s, Post, and Quaker serve it up in each serving of cereal. Look it up, and you may begin to wonder why companies are even using it. There are many other things that also can be used. We know this because these vile companies have managed to find substitutes in other nations where they also do business, so why is the United States different? Many argue that Agenda 21 is set on destroying America's sovereignty and also set on seeing the population begin the aforementioned culling in numbers by killing off Americans in this way. To what degree that this is true can be debated, but the use of things like BHA in the American food supply does certainly lend credence to such views.

In closing, let’s take a closer look at pop. After all, most Americans love their pop, so what is it that we are drinking? Again, GMO's are the biggest part of the problem and this is proven in two ways; 1) most organic stores have sodas of many kinds that are much less problematic than their big name regulars and 2) we did not see these kinds of health issues like diabetes and cancers when sugar was used in place of high fructose corn syrup, which is of course made with corn that often times Monsanto has injected bug sprays into. Today, "mainstream" pop is best avoided or at least relegated to a rare treat.

A recent US Heath article indicates clearly just how bad drinking soda can be for someone when they reported on how a 31-year-young woman had her heartbeat irregular after spending 15 years drinking a couple of two liters a day.[2] Her potassium levels were dangerously low and she almost died like others mentioned in the piece had prior to that. Now some will argue that they do not drink 2 two liters of pop a day to which it can be said, ‘Okay, but this lady was only 31 and if one drinks even one two liter every couple of days and live to see 60 or 65, might the damage not be close to equal at some point’?

It is a sad reality that Agenda 21 is not about a warming planet, a large population, or progress but is rather about taking the power from the people and killing off those who are seen as expendable. Our leaders will use lies, false data, and outright tyranny to meet the evil demands of Agenda 21. To defeat it we must learn what the lies are and we must inform all of those who will listen. To do otherwise is to drink the Kool-Aid....or soda.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/what-does-agenda-21-have-to-do-with.html

 

[CaptUSA]

I have no problem "infringing" on Monsanto or any other corporation's freedoms because they don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of other human beings.

And you see that's where we part ways. First off, the utility of it doesn't work - it only makes problems worse. Second of all, this is the same justification that has been used every time someone wants to restrict liberty, libertygrl. "I don't care about taking more of that guy's money; he doesn't care about me." "I don't care about making that guy wear a helmet; I don't ride bikes."

The proper place to handle this is in civil courts. Demonstrate damages, and then sue the pants off 'em. Pull together a class action. But please don't advocate for more government regulation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Because we are in agreement that the law discussed in the OP is bad, and shouldn't be passed and if people in states want to pass restrictive anti-freedom mandatory labeling laws then they should be allowed to do just that and the fed has no business overruling it.

I mean, I guess I could just post: "+thumbsup, stop this law" and then leave the thread. but I thought this was a discussion forum where anything other than personal attacks and porn was fair game.

The entire issue is geo-political now, specs. What we discuss here is basically irrelevant. The fact is that the only nation on the planet where government is designed to allow multi-nationals to run amok is the U.S. And so it is no coincidence that they would use government to defend their increasingly opposed model all around the world.

Here are some good reads on the phenomenon if we really want to debate it in more relevant terms of controversy. These are other threads around the board where we've actually been paying attention to the geo-political relevance.

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy
TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit
72 points of BRICS Summit Declaration
Trans-Pacific Trade Talks Resume With Almost No Media Coverage
Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws
Farmers Abandoning GMO Seeds: Non-GMO is more profitable

Actually, there are several more beyond those. I just don't feel like bumping them until relevance presents itself. Some of them, I will bump maybe next week once some of these nations that we've been monitoring make some moves.

But, yes. I do agree that not much good comes from personal attacks. But I can't stand the other one. She's very mean spirited and provokes bad energy, and, frankly, I'm just tired of being nice to her in spite of that. We get people who don't want to actually debate the issue itself but choose instead to completely ignore and avoid the substance of the threads and then re-steer the discussion into a left-right kind of paradigm which is the very seed for personal attacks to evolve. Cripes, I can go back and link to dozens of threads where she's done just that thing. And for no other reason than to avoid broader discussion of the issues themselves. And so if we want to talk about "unmasking" then we can certainly talk about that.

 

[Mr Tansill]

You really need to stop getting all butt-hurt when someone says; "Corporations." Have you ever done any research into former Monsanto employees in government positions? Right now I am picking on Monsanto (for good reason), but there are 5 other Biotech Corporations that have way too much intimacy with government for my liking as well.

Again, I had an S-Corp when I owned my business--most people are wise to incorporate their business for tax breaks and to separate business from personal property liability. If we had a truly free market, open to REAL competition and transparency these corporations wouldn't have a prayer.

The entire issue is geo-political now, specs. What we discuss here is basically irrelevant. The fact is that the only nation on the planet where government is designed to allow multi-nationals to run amok is the U.S. And so it is no coincidence that they would use government to defend their increasingly opposed model all around the world.

How do I know if I'm consuming a frankenfood if it doesn't say so? It's not right. People wouldn't be demanding mandatory labeling from the government if Monsanto wasn't creating this situation in the first place. I say treat GMO foods like you would a pack of cigarettes. There should be some sort of warning label on them. Yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening since they INSIST that it's safe for us. I have no problem "infringing" on Monsanto or any other corporation's freedoms because they don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of other human beings.

(emphasis added)

Exactly right. This is a critical point to understand and make as often as possible: When a corporation benefits through government legislation, they implicitly accept the rights, privileges, AND RESPONSIBILITIES that are attendant to that power; they are no longer simply a "company" operating in the free market being "unfairly" imposed upon. This simple fact makes them accountable to the people in a way which is distinct from a company or group that has no special privilege or benefit.

 

[Natural Citizen]

(emphasis added)

Exactly right. This is a critical point to understand and make as often as possible: When a corporation benefits through government legislation, they implicitly accept the rights, privileges, AND RESPONSIBILITIES that are attendant to that power; they are no longer simply a "company" operating in the free market being "unfairly" imposed upon. This simple fact makes them accountable to the people in a way which is distinct from a company or group that has no special privilege or benefit.

Reminds me of what Dennis Kucinich was just saying about the skullduggery.

 

[Suzanimal]

Not sure if this belongs here but I thought it might be of interest to y'all.

City Council panel backs away from GMO ban it previously supported

ree days before Los Angeles lawmakers voted on a proposal to ban genetically modified crops, the world's largest biotechnology trade group hired three top City Hall lobbyists to stop it.

The matter had sailed through a meeting weeks before with only one City Council member expressing doubt.

But when a council committee sat down to vote again this month, three of the five members came out strongly against it — though they said lobbyists had nothing to do with it.

The action shocked Councilman Paul Koretz, who co-authored the proposal and expected his colleagues to rubber-stamp it as they had many times before.

"Since nothing else had changed ... it clearly was heavy lobbying," Koretz said later.

Such a ban would be largely symbolic in L.A. because there are currently no known genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, grown within the city.

Nevertheless, before this month, L.A.'s 15 council members had voiced almost no opposition to the ban. In October, the council approved the ban with only one opposing vote.

Opponents of the proposal said the shift on the City Council came after members received more information and had more time to spot possible problems with the ban.

"The city is going to be better off making a decision with a lot of information, rather than just emotion," said lobbyist George Kieffer, who represented critics of the ban. "Their statement, if they choose to make it, will be just as important in three months as it is today."

Kathay Feng, executive director of the nonprofit government watchdog California Common Cause, said it's not unusual to see lobbyists exert influence at any level of government. The smack- down of the GMO ban at City Hall, she said, is "just sort of small anecdotal evidence of something that happens on a fairly regular basis."

Koretz's ordinance sought to prohibit the growth of genetically modified organisms — plants or animals whose genetic material has been altered to make them bigger or resistant to pests and herbicides. GMO supporters say such crops are needed to boost food production, while opponents say not enough research has been done to tell if the products are harmful to humans.

The four councilmen at the committee meeting this month — one was absent — had only to OK the ban's final language so it could be officially adopted.

At the beginning of the session, Councilman Joe Buscaino — the member who voted against the ban in October — said that he didn't think the city was the right entity to enforce such an action and that it didn't have the resources to shoulder extra responsibilities.

Then Councilman Gil Cedillo listed his own problems with the ban, including enforcement and cost. Then Councilman Tom LaBonge agreed.

Kieffer, a prominent Los Angeles attorney and City Hall lobbyist, was at the meeting along with lobbyists John Ek and Howard Sunkin.

Kieffer spoke and identified himself as representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization. In a subsequent interview, he confirmed that Ek and Sunkin were also on the team, although they declined to comment to The Times.

The council committee tabled the ban for more study, leaving Koretz to fear that it had been effectively killed.

In an interview, Kieffer said he dropped off materials at the council offices on the morning of the meeting. He said he wanted to show that the proposed ban was based on "wrong science." His colleagues, he said, reached out to various other council offices.


Cedillo said neither he nor anyone from his staff talked to any of the lobbyists. LaBonge said he didn't speak with them either, although one of his staffers talked to a lobbyist in the hall outside the meeting. Buscaino said he was always against the ban but had spoken to Ek before the meeting about the issue.

Kieffer says he and his colleagues will continue to lobby against the proposed GMO ban.

Joanne Poyourow, a local environmental activist in favor of a GMO ban, called the council's reversal "horrifying." She said her volunteer coalition had met with council members' staffs and thought almost all were supportive of the ban. Though disappointed, Poyourow said she wasn't surprised by the professional lobbyists.

"I've been working with GMOs for long enough that I knew that at some point we would get resistance," she said.


Jaime Regalado, professor emeritus of political science at Cal State L.A., said it's fairly unusual for the philosophically progressive L.A. council to be strongly influenced by lobbyists. He said it's possible that the council members were never that supportive of the ban.

The GMO turnabout also reveals where city ethics regulations fall short in tracking the effect of lobbyists at City Hall. Lobbyists are required to report who they work for and how much they are paid — but sometimes not until months after they've completed their work.

Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who's on the city's Ethics Commission, said that can mean when an issue is being discussed the public won't "have the information necessary to see a full picture."

Even when a lobbyist's presence is known, Common Cause's Feng notes, existing reporting requirements just "don't tell you the whole story." It's still hard to tell what happened, she said, because lobbyists aren't required to disclose which staff members they meet with, or how often, when and for how long.

For example, city records now don't show anyone working as a lobbyist for the biotechnology group.

Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization based in Washington, declined to confirm that her group hired the Los Angeles lobbyists. The trade group represents companies such as seed maker Monsanto as well as universities that conduct related research.

She would not talk about the group's lobbying strategy beyond saying that the ban in L.A. would set "an enormous precedent for areas of the country that may not be familiar with the benefits of the technology."

Its members, she said, want to "make sure that policy makers are made aware of how damaging a policy like this could be."

http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-gmo-ban-20141229-story.html

 

[CaptUSA]

The problem isn't with the lobbyists; it's with the fact that the lawmakers have the power ban something they don't like.

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
― P.J. O'Rourke

 

[Suzanimal]

The problem isn't with the lobbyists; it's with the fact that the lawmakers have the power ban something they don't like.

Ain't that the truth. ^^^

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, lobbyists are just the bees knees. Right? We like corporate repatriation.

 

[donnay]

The problem isn't with the lobbyists; it's with the fact that the lawmakers have the power ban something they don't like.

The lobbyist help grease the wheels--the legislators are easily bought and paid for that way.

 

[CaptUSA]

Yeah, lobbyists are just the bees knees. Right? We like corporate repatriation.

Not what I'm saying at all. The fact the there is a need for lobbyists is the bad thing. The legislators have too much power. The goal should be to take away their power so that there is nothing to buy. Has nothing to do with corporate repatriation.

 

[TheTexan]

Can they make genetically modified food that has the nutrition of asparagus, but tastes like chocolate fudge? Or is that still being worked on

 

[Danke]

Can they make genetically modified food that has the nutrition of asparagus, but tastes like chocolate fudge? Or is that still being worked on

I think they have come up with adding Asparagusic acid to chocolate, not sure the nutritional value, but it makes for a funny gift to your gf.

 

[osan]

Since when do americans have a right to force others to label anything?

If you are going to assume the privileges of the corporation, you may then be required to toe various lines of conduct. This should be obvious to you. That it is apparently not, I find a little disturbing.

Your view is lopsided. Why? Because you have not asked the equally salient question: "Since when do Americans have a right to provide others with virtual immunity from accountability for their actions?"

HELLO. Seriously, d00d - you need to be circumspect if you are going to throw opinions around as you have, above. It is a valid question, but it is only half of the issue and that other half is at least as important as the one you address.

So, to state the logic more explicitly, we may say this:

If we are to tolerate the presence and operation of corporations such as they currently exist, and wherein the owners and officers of such legal entities are afforded special privileges and immunities for their behaviors as such owners and officers, then we may also require of them certain other behaviors that balance the scales of said immunities and privileges against the rights of the individuals those specially sanctioned acts might otherwise violate.​

If I did not know you by anything other than that which you posted here, I would have to conclude that you were a raging statist lunatic seeking the protection of corporate entities above the rights of the Individual. Take care in what you express and how - a lesson in which we are well behooved to take strong heed.

 

[osan]

Labeling is not the way to go in my opinion, property rights is the answer.

This tells me nothing. Please elaborate in painful detail what this actually means in practice.

 

[angelatc]

This tells me nothing. Please elaborate in painful detail what this actually means in practice.

It means let the market decide. Let farmers grow what the market demands. And let the labels be optional, so people that don't care about it do not need to pay for it.


Lobbying = we have a right to petition our government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It means let the market decide. Let farmers grow what the market demands. And let the labels be optional, so people that don't care about it do not need to pay for it.


Lobbying = we have a right to petition our government.

These industries are hitching up with congressmen and using them to introduce industry penned legislation that specifically removes the consumers mechanisms to be able to make an informed choice and to actually participate and guide a free market. What they are doing is using government to protect themselves from a free market.

That's mercantilism. That isn't a free market in any way. And we've been through this before. Right? We even produced specific cases where these industries have teamed up with congressmen to specifically pen and introduce legislation that voids citizens and states rights. It's really happening. And no matter some prefer to sugar coat it in order to avoid discussing the reality of what is going on there it doesn't make it actually go away.

Market can't decide anything if the market isn't functional.


Mercantilism = we merge with government to enforce our legislation that protects us from a genuine free market