Hillary Clinton GOES TO BAT For GMOs At Biotech Conference

[Segami]

And as Mother Jones reported in 2012, Scheib said that while Clinton’s rooftop garden at the White House wasn’t “certified organic,” everything in it “was absolutely grown without pesticides and fertilizers. I guess it’s what these days we call ‘natural.’” “If Hillary Clinton intends to run for office in 2016, she should think carefully about supporting a food and farming system that is proven to be detrimental to public health,” said Paul, “unless she and her family are willing to give up eating organic and eat the same toxic food that she promotes to the general population.”

Speaking at a conference in San Diego last week for the world’s largest trade organization of biotechnology firms, potential presidintial candidate Hillary Clinton backed GMOs and Big Ag, further displaying her allegiance to the industry in the eyes of sustainable food and organic advocates. While trumpeting her endorsement of GMO seeds when she served as Secretary of State, Clinton told the crowd that the term “‘genetically modified’ sounds Frankensteinish,” and thus turns people off to GMOs. “Drought resistant sounds really like something you’d want,” she said, encouraging the industry to improve their semantics. “There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.” “If Hillary Clinton intends to run for office in 2016, she should think carefully about supporting a food and farming system that is proven to be detrimental to public health.” —Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association


Clinton’s certainty concerning the safety of GMO foods stands in stark contrast to public opinion. A Consumer Reports poll in June found that 92 percent of Americans favor labeling the foods. U.S. campaigners rejecting the industry’s push for genetically-modified crops have been pushing hard to get states to pass labeling laws. “Hillary Clinton’s views on GMOs are disappointing, but not surprising,” said Katherine Paul, associate director of the Organic Consumers Union, in an email to Common Dreams. Unfortunately, Paul continued, Clinton’s positions are “no different than those of previous administrations, including the Bush, Clinton and Reagan administrations, and they are taken straight from the biotech industry’s talking points.”


“Credible scientists, backed by independent (not industry-funded) studies are clear about the fact that foods containing GMOs are linked to a host of chronic illnesses,” Paul continued. “The American Medical Association has called for pre-market safety testing and a recent pilot study found unsafe levels of glysophate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, in the blood, urine and breast milk of American women.” During the hour that Clinton addressed the conference she also addressed fears that current subsidies and tax breaks aren’t enough, or won’t continue to be there in the future. “I don’t want to see biotech companies or pharma companies moving out of our country simply because of some perceived tax disadvantage and potential tax advantage somewhere else,” she assured the crowd, receiving vigorous applause in response. “We should have an intensive discussion,” Clinton said. “Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” so that the federal government can help biotechs with “insurance against risk.”


Clinton’s ties to biotech have surfaced before, particularly her history with industry heavyweight Monsanto. The Rose Law Firm where Clinton worked in the 1980s represents both Monsanto and Tyson Foods. Mark Penn, who served as CEO for one the world’s largest public relations firms, Burson-Marsteller, which has also represented Monsanto, was a White House advisor under Bill Clinton and served as chief strategist and pollster to Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign. During Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State, the State Department heavily pressured other countries to use GMOs through a variety of methods, including bringing foreign journalists to the U.S. to “participate in a one-week biotech tour” so that they could help shift public opinion in their home country.







cont'


http://www.popularresistance.org/hillary-clinton-goes-to-bat-for-gmos-at-biotech-conference/

[NYC_SKP]

1. A lot of my DU friends strongly support HRC, but I cannot accept her past choices.

I think she's sincere, but I also think she's part of the problem.

I doubt she has any legitimate appreciation for the environment or much clue as to what regular working and nonworking people are going through.

Whenever she speaks out in favor of the working class or women, I feel it's mostly self-serving grandstanding.

When one looks behind the curtain of what she (and Bill) have done (Glass Steagall, Tata, Walmart, NAFTA, etc.), it's NOT been supportive of anyone other than the rich.

I think they both secretly believe in trickle down, or at least put short term economics, and global economics at that, ahead of sustainable dignified humanitarian policy.

[HooptieWagon]

2. She probably did as much research as she did with her IWR vote.

When rather than take to trouble to read the NIE, she called the Bush WH and asked them how she should vote. IOW, no thought into it at all. Pure political triangulation and "whats in it for me?". So likewise, her support for GMO is based not on her own research, but purely on large donations from Monsanto, et al, and she asked them how to vote.

[FarPoint]

6. She can learn, evolve ....

Once she is our President. She's not " fixed" on accepting GMO' s...not like every republican.

[elzenmahn]

8. Uh, huh...

...that's been said about Obama, too.

And her husband, who "learned and evolved" on his economic positions after his post-election meeting with Greenspan, et. al.

It's stories like this that deflate any enthusiasm I and other fellow progressives have about the likes of the Clintons.

Should HRC run, my vote for her will only be a vote against anything the Republicans trot out.

[Ed Suspicious]

23. Just wait until his next term. Then you're going to see liberalism!

[morningfog]

60. He's only been President 6 and a half years!!!!

He's not a magician.

[arikara]

9. She already has learned and evolved

into a corporate politician. She's picked her side on the GMO issue and she won't change, they pay her too much.

[ReRe]

11. Ahem...

?

[840high]

24. I don't think so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Well, she has evolved from being dead broke to millionaire by entertaining the corporations.

[George II]

40. If she's the nominee in 2016, what will you do?

[NYC_SKP]

48. Ask me when she's the nominee, for now I'll fight her tooth and nail. nt

[George II]

52. It was an "IF" question, not a "WHEN" question.

[NYC_SKP]

58. IF she is the nominee....

If she is the nominee, she'd better have changed her tune.

Unless she changes, I will not vote for her, I'll be living in another country instead.

If that's the best Democrats can do, I'm outta here to Belize or Costa Rica.

[George II]

64. .

[Cali_Democrat]

123. LOL. nt

[Katashi_itto]

91. Go and have waffles on voting day. Then go home.

[rhett o rick]

3. H. Clinton has made it clear that she is the corporate choice for the Democratic nomination.

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

But with the new Populist Movement underway, it seems she is thinking she needs to connect with the lower classes. As Bill Maher pointed out, her "book tour for the little people" is not working. I only hope that either Sen Sanders or Sen Warren get to debate her.

The Nation can not survive 8 more years of Wall Street dominance

[FarPoint]

49. I can live a much better life with Hilary

Than what we would suffer under any republican.

[rhett o rick]

62. You are lucky. But that kind of thinking will continue to see the lower classes decline.

You are fortunate that you are ok with the status quo, but millions of Americans need help now.

[customerserviceguy]

4. I have to say, I'm a bit confused by Ms. Paul's statement

That comment about glysophate was really about the overuse of pesticides, and not necessarily about the genetic modification of plants to be able to resist Roundup, wasn't it? Yes, I guess nobody would use Roundup on crops if it would kill both weeds and food plants, thus making it more likely to use the stuff, but wouldn't more careful application of Roundup, especially near the time of harvest deal with this?

I personally don't have any problem with GMO, and you can count me in as someone who favors labelling of them. It will make GMO products cheaper for me, just like that word 'organic' on produce I don't buy makes the stuff I do buy more affordable.

[wyldwolf]

15. anti-GMO'ers are the left's climate change deniers.

But I like your point on labeling.

[Crowquette]

27. That's the claim the GMO corporate pimps like to denigrate us with

But no one with intelligence, free will or integrity sucks up that kind of corporate BS.

?276

[wyldwolf]

28. It's a fact, though

There's a scientific consensus much like on climate change - accept for a small percentage who's work appear on 'organic today' sites and such.

[Crowquette]

38. Put your faith in Monsanto, Sygenta and their ilk - they control the "science" you swallow

They own the patents, they control the research, they fund the propaganda.

Intelligent, free thinking human beings demand that their free will be respected, and that their food not be secretly (no labels) corrupted.

I'm one of the independent souls, with advanced degrees. You call me stupid for wanting to know what I am eating, and what I am feeding my children. Your argument wins you nil, only my disdain.

You are welcome to eat mystery GMO stuff and feed it to your family. But you -- and the GMO corporate bullies who like to denigrate us as "stupid" -- have no right whatsoever to foist your mechanistic profit-driven, mutant crap on me or my children.

It is Food Fascism. Plain and simple. You can meekly assume the position. That's your choice. Not me. Not my family.

[wyldwolf]

41. Show me proof they control WHO..

... The Royal Society of Medicine and other respected scientific bodies.

[cali]

118. why would anyone give your opinion on this any weight when you don't even know the

difference between fact and opinion?

[wyldwolf]

119. "Who gives a shit... that doesn't matter... you don't need people's opinion on a fact"

... you might as well have a poll asking which number is bigger, '15 or 5' or 'do owls exist.'" - John Oliver, on science deniers.

See, I'm not expressing an opinion, I'm stating a fact, as demonstrated throughout the thread.

[proverbialwisdom]

54. EXCITING NEW PRESS RELEASE - "Republication of the Séralini study: Science speaks for itself"

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15504-republication-of-the-seralini-study-science-speaks-for-itself

Re-Publication of the Séralini study: Science speaks for itself
24 June 2014

[img][/img]

GMOSeralini.org welcomes the republication of the chronic toxicity study on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and a commercialized GM maize, Monsanto’s NK603, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini.

The new publication and a commentary by the authors are available here:

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15504-republication-of-the-seralini-study-science-speaks-for-itself

Republication of the Séralini study: Science speaks for itself
Press release
GMOSeralini.org, 24 June 2014
Link: http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-science-speaks/

GMOSeralini.org welcomes the news of the republication of the chronic toxicity study on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists.

The study found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU. Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.

The study was first published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012 (1) but was retracted by the editor-in-chief in November 2013 after a sustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.(2)

Now the study has been republished by Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication. The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.

The republished study is accompanied by a separate commentary by Prof Séralini’s team describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the editor of FCT to retract the original publication.

GMOSeralini.org editor Claire Robinson commented: “This study has now successfully passed no less than three rounds of rigorous peer review.

“The first was for the initial publication of the study in Food and Chemical Toxicology. It passed with only minor revisions, according to the authors. (3)

“The second review took months. It involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini’s raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists.(4,5)

“In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing ‘incorrect’ about the results presented. However, Hayes pointed to what he said was the ‘inconclusive’ nature of some aspects of the paper, namely the tumour and mortality observations, to justify his decision to retract the study.(6)

“The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry.(7,8) Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto’s own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted.(9) The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT.(10)

“Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.

Comments from scientists

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented, “Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers.

“If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself.

“If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years.”

Dr Jack A Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, called the republication “an important demonstration of the resilience of the scientific community”. Dr Heinemann continued, “The first publication of these results revealed some of the viciousness that can be unleashed on researchers presenting uncomfortable findings. I applaud Environmental Sciences Europe for submitting the work to yet another round of rigorous blind peer review and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its reviewers, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication.

“This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected.

“The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that evaluates and reports upon the risks of genetically modified organisms, indeed upon all sources of pesticide in our food and feed chains. In time these findings must be verified by repetition or challenged by superior experimentation. In my view, nothing constructive for risk assessment or promotion of GM biotechnology has been achieved by attempting to expunge these data from the public record.”

Notes:
(1) Seralini GE et al, 2012. RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol 50:4221–4231.
(2) http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat
(3) http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/16/journal-editor-defends-retraction-of-gmo-rats-study-while-authors-reveal-some-of-papers-history/
(4) www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/statement#.U6XBuagoyBA; Hayes AW (2013). Letter to Professor GE Séralini. 19 Nov. Available at: http://www.gmwatch.org/files/Letter_AWHayes_GES.pdf
(5) http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat
(6) Hayes AW (2013). Letter to Professor GE Séralini. 19 Nov. Available at: http://www.gmwatch.org/files/Letter_AWHayes_GES.pdf
(7) http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/08/science-food-health/; Also see article beginning: http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement#.U6YDUKgoyBA
(8) http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/
(9) http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/retraction-intro#.U6gKv6gowsk; http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/retraction-double-standards#.U6gLPKgowsk
(10) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514000039

[wyldwolf]

57. It was retracted last year because it was fatally flawed

... but not much has changed. It was republished in a publication near the bottom of the scientific food chain.


The biggest criticism of the study is the combination of two features – the small sample size and lack of statistical analysis. The entire study is premised on comparing various dose groups with control groups that were not exposed to GMO or glyphosate. And yet, the authors provide no statistical analysis of this comparison. Given the small number of rats in each group, it is likely that this lack of statistical analysis is due to the fact that statistical significance could not be reached.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-gmo-study-retraction-and-response-to-critics/

The authors admitted the flaws.

The new rat corn study by Gilles-Éric Séralini looks a lot like the old retracted one, according to a detailed analysis by the Genetic Literacy Project. Independent scientists who have reviewed it—unlike the prior study, this was released to scientists for review ahead of time—say it has all of the flaws of the first study that led to sharp criticism from the global mainstream science community.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/06/24/zombie-retracted-seralini-gmo-maize-rat-study-republished-to-hostile-scientist-reactions/

Retraction Watch learned yesterday, however, that Environmental Sciences Europe — a journal where Seralini has published before — was the journal publishing the new version. The journal, part of SpringerOpen, is too young to have an official Impact Factor (IF). Using the same calculation, however, the journal would have an IF of .55. That would place it about 190th out of the 210 journals in the “environmental sciences” category at Thomson Scientific. (For comparison, Food and Chemical Toxicology has an IF of just above 3, and a ranking of 27th.)

This is hardly the first time that the authors of a retracted paper have republished it. In a recent case, they did so in the same journal. But in a more typical case, they republished the work in another journal, with a lower IF.

The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/

[proverbialwisdom]

67. Dr Arpad Pusztai endorses GMWATCH.org so I follow & trust their vetting by virtue of his life story.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

The following is an email - of 10 August 2008 from Dr Pusztai to Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews of GMWatch, in which Dr Pusztai comments on the 10th anniversary of the television interview.

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armory of people's resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.

We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.

Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Pusztai to receive 2009 Stuttgart Peace Prize

We've just heard that Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Susan Bardocz will be presented with this year's Stuttgart Peace Prize. The award is for their tireless advocacy for independent risk research. Both have made an essential contribution to a broader understanding of the dangers of genetic manipulation. The award also honours their courage and scientific integrity as well as their undaunted insistence on the public's right to know.

The award will take place on 18 December with a Film and Book launch at 4 pm and a Peace Gala at 7:30 pm, at the Theaterhaus Stuttgart.

More details (in German) here:

http://www.gentechnikfreies-europa.eu/

Below is a profile of Dr Pusztai and how he changed the GM debate:

http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

Everyone should be familiar with this information.

[wyldwolf]

69. Climate change deniers cling to a very small amount ...

... Of folks to make their point, too. I see them often on FAUX news. Me, I'll stick with the international scientific bodies as detailed in my other posts.

[proverbialwisdom]

74. No parallel, no MSM support anywhere. Imagine witnessing this whirlwind as a scientist or living it.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

[wyldwolf]

77. There's no MSM parallel because it isn't hot button issue

The anti-science crowd rely on a small number of scientists and cling to faulty research. Very equivalent to the discredited study linking vaccinations to autism.

We see people 'living' GMO based on the real numbers of people who consume it daily with no I'll affects and it's potential to solve world hunger.

[wisechoice]

93. monsanto science is anti science

Monsanto has a record of lying and being wrong so many times. Without labeling there is no way to study large groups.

Climate deniers are working for oil corporations.
Gmo supports are working for Monsanto.

[wyldwolf]

95. WHO, AMA, The Royal Academy of Medicine, European Commission, etc. are not working Monsanto

That is a very conspiratorial and extremely evidence-challenged claim you're making. Some would call it a lie.

[proverbialwisdom]

97. Platitudes don't cut it though they sell stuff. Nuanced, but demonstrably and irrefutably wrong x5.

Hey, isn't this thread about another topic? Disengaging...

[wyldwolf]

98. but apparently conspiracy theories based on non-science do cut it here.

[BrotherIvan]

105. Bookmarking for that letter

It says what all of us so-called "science deniers" want: testing. The fact that the corps have squashed transparent, independent testing is reason enough to be suspicious. The fact that they are against labeling is even more.

I'm done fighting with GMO shills on these threads. Once it is PROVEN scientifically that GMOs are safe, it will be a different matter. Until then, they are expecting us to prove they're not and we are the guinea pigs. That is not scientific in any way.

[alp227]

108. It's ALREADY been proven that gmo's are safe.

[wyldwolf]

114. and here is another

[Cha]

80. No, Gung Ho GMOers are the left's Climate Change Deniers.. if you want to bring in Climate Change.

[wyldwolf]

82. so let me get this straight - make sure I'm understanding you

Climate change - Most of the scientific community says it's real and man-made. A few don't and use faulty research to "prove" it. We consider those who don't to be crackpots.

GMOs - Most of the scientific community says GMOs are safe. A few don't and use faulty research to "prove" it. You consider those who say it's safe to be crackpots.

Science is GOOD when it proves climate change is real.
Science BAD when it proves GMOs are safe.

[Cha]

83. So? Science says GMO makes frankenfood and is full of Scientific Poison not Good for the Environment

We're trying to kick GMO Poisons off our Island(they're suing because they don't want to list the Toxins they use to Spray).. Big Island of Hawaii already has. Mexico and Europe has kick them out. Just because it's science doesn't mean it good for you. Anti-GMO Activists can see it's depleted the land.

Climate Change deniers can't see that what it's doing to our Planet or they don't give a shit because there's big fucking money involved.

I trust organic farmers more than I do those "scientists" pushing GMO to scorch the Earth.

Just because something is "science" doesn't mean it's good. Ya have to be a little discerning.

[wyldwolf]

84. yes, the few "scientists" who use faulty research DO say that

[redruddyred]

26. that's because

some of the genetic modification is done so that they *can* use roundup more liberally.

on a more personal note, I suffer from a mysterious chronic illness with links to gmo consumption. I avoid the crap out of corn, but I'd rather just know ahead of time. #tryingnottokillmyself

[customerserviceguy]

116. And I favor full labeling

However, those who fear labeling in the industry are probably paranoid. I don't expect a "Contains GMO" label to dissuade purchasers any more than I observe that surgeon general warnings on tobacco products does.

I have not seen any evidence that listing calorie counts on fast food menus have affected obesity and disease rates in the places that mandate it. Most people just don't care about labelling beyond the big words in the center of the package that tell them the product's type and maybe the brand name.

[redruddyred]

117. the activists that claim all the resistance to such is because monsanto has something to hide.

blocking the bills is just fueling the fire I think.

I hope they're wrong btw.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

50. 'more careful application'.... heh.

The whole point of round-up, and GM-tweaked crops that are resistant is that you don't have to 'apply carefully'. You spray everything, and only the GM-resistant crop survives. If your crops aren't resistant, you can't simply spray everything, and you completely kill off profitability, because now you have to hire a bunch of folks to walk up and down the rows spritzing weeds. Suddenly you've introduced migrant workers to crops that don't currently use them.

[nilesobek]

61. My neighbor is too lazy to pull weeds and he sprays that crap.

It kills everything it touches.

[roguevalley]

5. If money matters, anyone can be a corporate shill and still tell you otherwise. Always watch

what they do, not what they say. She's showing who she is by what she does.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. HRC: Blue Dog, Corporate ConservaDem, War Hawk, Triangulation/Bi-partisanship, DLC/Third Way, finger

in the air, and pals around with THE FAMILY/THE FELLOWSHIP (that may have co-authored Uganda's notorious genocide KILL THE GAYS Bill in 2009),

What's NOT to like?!?!

[heaven05]

56. ouch!!!!!

watch that truth stuff. It can cause heart palpitations among the fainthearted.

[truedelphi]

10. I see a huge fight in the making - the Corporatist Dems - whose lives have

Apparently not been upended by thirty years of the Democrats and Republicans colluding with each other in order to ensure the one percent gets their way, and the those of us who remain true to principles of the old party.

A lot of people I have been close to have been appalled by my being so outspoken against the Obama/Clinton Corporatist viewpoint. But once their household is facing down foreclosure, or their jobs are lost, or both, they suddenly have too much time on their hands. Then they start in hammering away at the internet and they find out what so many of us have - that both parties are controlled by people who are mere tentacles of the Money Party.
.

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. Spot on.

The allure of the cult of personality, tribalism, and winning at any cost. As if the check mark in the win column is all that matters. "See, we won!" Hillary Clinton could govern 100% like a Republican and there will be many who would think she was the best Democrat to ever hold office, wait, they do that now with our current POTUS!

[heaven05]

59. stop the truth stuff!!!

you'll cause the faint hearted to just faint away in their indignation at the truth of your post....

[wyldwolf]

12. Democrats - the pro-science party?

Interesting how these foods have the same scientific consensus in it's field as climate change but here you are piling on a Democrat for backing scientific consensus.



20 points of broad scientific consensus on GE crops

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/20-points-of-broad-scientific-consensus-on-ge-crops/

Review of 10 years of GMO research–no significant dangers

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/review-10-years-gmo-research-no-significant-dangers/

If Hillary came out against homeopathy, some would condemn her to hell.

Telling (misleading) passage from the piece: Clinton’s certainty concerning the safety of GMO foods stands in stark contrast to public opinion. A Consumer Reports poll in June found that 92 percent of Americans favor labeling the foods.

Two different issues there but the author treats them as the same issue.

[Crowquette]

30. I see your corporate meme, and raise you one from human beings, not corporate citizens

You are welcome to swallow your GMO corporate propaganda and mutant foodlike stuff, inc.. I will swallow the human information and clean food. Thank you very much.

[wyldwolf]

33. Similar to how the Fox News crowd shuts down climate change arguments

If an overwhelming majority of experts say something is true then any sensible non-expert should assume they're probably right. The scientific consensus around the safety of GMO food is as strong as the scientific consensus around climate change.

[proverbialwisdom]

43. That's not true globally.

And while you're defending processed food containing ingredients sourced from GMOs, consider this aspect.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mmaffini/_chemical_name_cas.html

Maricel V. Maffini, PhD’s Blog

Thyroid and kids' brains: Using modern tools to screen food chemicals
Posted June 17, 2014

Still inspired? It makes me nauseated and infuriated.

[wyldwolf]

46. It's absolutely true globally

Every respected scientific body confirms it. The Royal Society of Medicine, WHO, the European Commission, etc.

[proverbialwisdom]

75. NEW: Study suggests potential association between "soy formula" and seizures in children with autism

DEVELOPING... This research is preliminary, of course. Watch for the follow-up.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/22637

Study suggests potential association between soy formula and seizures in children with autism

March 13, 2014 by David Tenenbaum

A University of Wisconsin-Madison researcher has detected a higher rate of seizures among children with autism who were fed infant formula containing soy protein rather than milk protein.

The study found excess seizures among girls and in the total sample of 1,949 children. The soy-seizure link reached borderline significance among boys, who comprised 87 percent of the children described in the database under study.

Seizures — caused by uncontrolled electrical currents in the brain — occur in many neurological disorders including epilepsy, Alzheimer's disease, Down syndrome and autism.

About 25 percent of infant formula sold in the United States is based on soy protein.

Study author Cara Westmark, a senior scientist in the UW-Madison Department of Neurology, says her investigation was sparked by mouse studies of a drug that, it was hoped, would inhibit seizures by blocking signals that excite nerve cells. "It was pure serendipity that we happened to look at soy," she says.

<>

LINK: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080488

Drug study, serendipity - SOY, ah, likely GMO soy unless specified as 'organic.' Of course, that was NOT the subject of the study, it wasn't even acknowledged as a variable. Isn't that a third rail topic? Irrespective, asserting "substantial equivalence" of GMO soy and conventional soy was pathetic science. Or rather, not science at all, it was politics, no, business.

[wyldwolf]

79. You just made a big leap

From a study that suggests soy protein MAY cause seizures to the soy in question maybe possibly could be if I wish hard enough GMO soy.

[proverbialwisdom]

92. Embedded link I included states 90% of US soy is GMO but, of course, actual verification needed.

Otherwise, as you note, it's an assumption (or untested hypothesis) and I never claimed otherwise. Meanwhile, GMO labeling of baby formulas would provide that information, as CT is planning (below).

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/04/superweeds-arent-only-trouble-gmo-soy

Tom Philpott| Wed Apr. 23, 2014

...According to the US Department of Agriculture, more than 90 percent of the soybeans churned out on US farms each year are genetically engineered to withstand herbicides, nearly all of them involving one called Roundup. Organic production, by contrast, is marginal—it accounts for less than 1 percent of total American acreage devoted to soy. (The remaining 9 percent or so of soybeans are conventionally grown, but not genetically modified.)

Americans don't eat much of these lime-green legumes directly, but that doesn't mean we're not exposed to them. After harvest, the great bulk of soybeans are crushed and divided into two parts: meal, which mainly goes into feed for animals that become our meat, and fat, most of which ends up being used as cooking oil or in food products. According to the US Soy Board, soy accounts for 61 percent of American's vegetable oil consumption.

Given soy's centrality to our food and agriculture systems, the findings of a new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Chemistry are worth pondering. The authors found that Monsanto's ubiquitous Roundup Ready soybeans, engineered to withstand its own blockbuster herbicide, contain more herbicide residues than their non-GMO counterparts. The team also found that the GM beans are nutritionally inferior.

<>

http://goo.gl/XGTSgZ

PDF: MARKET NEWS - GMO Foods and Labelling - SGS

...Additionally, on 4 June 2013, the State of Connecticut passed Bill HB 65279 that requires infant formula, or baby food, that is produced from GMOs to be labelled as “produced with genetic engineering”. This labelling is to start 1 July 2015 and the compliance enforcement date is 1 July 2019. This law becomes effective 1 October 2013, providing four additional states pass similar legislation, one of which must border Connecticut and the total population of those states exceeds 20 million people.(10)

GMOs in baby formula discussed here:

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/11914998-95/bill-requiring-labeling-of-genetically-modified-foods-advances-in-massachusetts-house

Bill requiring labeling of genetically modified foods advances in Massachusetts House
May 13, 2014

http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/gmos-in-baby-food-what-you-need-to-know

GMOS IN BABY FOOD: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
By Eleanor Healy on March 25, 2014

[wyldwolf]

96. "actual verification needed" if those who believed in such woo-hoo would actually live by that.

[arcane1]

31. The problem isn't the GMOs, it's the gradual monopolizing of the food supply.

Monsanto is evil not because of the quality of their products, but because of their shady business practices.

The family farm was once the backbone of the nation, but that's been cheated and scammed and litigated away, leaving behind thousands of bitter people for whom the militias start to look appealing.

Supporting companies like Monsanto is as anti-progressive as supporting Walmart.

[wyldwolf]

36. That's a much more sensible approach

To conflate that, though, with the lie that GMO food is dangerous taints that argument. The science just doesn't support it.

[proverbialwisdom]

45. Oh, it's both. Where are the long term animal feeding studies demonstrating safety?

CLUE: They do not exist.

[nolabels]

70. They probably were done some or even many but when the test data dosn't come out like they wanted

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

they cull the studies. If it won't support the capitalist position they go out of there way to squelch it, ridicule, sue etc.

[NuclearDem]

72. That's exactly what it should be about.

But the same inability to distinguish between science and economics that drives the anti-vaccination crowd fuels the anti-GMO movement as well.

Monsanto's corporate practices are evil. GMOs aren't.

[Inkfreak]

89. That'd be my assessment, also. (nt)

[truedelphi]

99. Reading your post wants to have me

Barf... What scientific consensus?

The first thing that happened "science-wise" was that Mike Taylor stepped forward and in his position as advisor to Pres. Bill Clinton, Taylor declared that GM seeds, foods, crops were safe.

How could Taylor know? This statement was made in the early 1990's, and there were certainly no decades of science research to rely upon. But his statement was taken as the God's awful truth; we have not seen this level of "Authority Proclaims Science" since back when the Holy Mother Church told the lay person how the sun revolved around planet earth.

Corporate Based-Science now runs the show. Big media is not going to protest - after all, which side of the Gm argument runs the multi-billion dollars worth of ads on CNN and other channels as to the safety of methods used by Monsanto or Daniels Midlands? Do you think any of the TV stations that are accepting ad revenues from Monsanto for their Product "RoundUp" are going to really undertake a total debate about the safety of pesticides, or Gm seeds, crops and foods, if they stand to lose all the ad dollars?

Recent history reminds us of how the truth about cigarettes did not really take hold over the culture until all the ad dollars for cigarettes were banned from major media. That ad dollars = failure to address health risks of a product should offer up a meaningful warning as to what is going on right now in terms of Gm products and also the risks of pesticides.

[wyldwolf]

102. do you have any proof WHO, AAAS, AMA, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Medicine....

... are "Corporate Based-Science?"

No?

Didn't think so. It's a pretty serious charge.

Again, just for shits and grins:

20 points of broad scientific consensus on GE crops

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/20-points-of-broad-scientific-consensus-on-ge-crops/

The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They’re Safe

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/

... and here's a summary. It's your contention they've been paid off?

[truedelphi]

103. Again, the taint of corporate monies can be smelled

inside the stink of the various "academies, associations" etc, including WHO that you list as your citations.

How come the following is happening?

Following nations admit to banning or considering banning (except for research) some aspect of Gm foods, seeds or crops:

Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg,
New Zealand, Thailand, Phillipines
Saudi Arabia, Brazil, China, Paraguay,
and here in the USA: USA: Various bills calling for moratorium on GE food (Vermont), actual bans
of GE wheat (North Dakota, Montana) have been filed within the last
year. Several municipalities declared moratoria on GE food
(Burlington/Vermont), bans of GE crops (City of Boulder/Colorado),
or urged the federal government to ban GE food (City and County of
San Francisco/California). Many attempts to adopt such bills or
resolutions failed in the past.

Also Mexico has now banned Gm maize.

[wyldwolf]

104. Oh, "the taint of corporate monies can be smelled." (snicker)

No proof, just a nose tickle - which is actually just leftwing truthiness trying desperately to justify their dogma.

[truedelphi]

106. If USA Corproate-backed science is all that science-ey, then

Why do so many scientists from other nations roll their eyes when repesented when the "research" of American scientists.

[wyldwolf]

107. You have proof a us corp. is backing world science, right?

[truedelphi]

111. Well, for starters, answer me this:

Why is the US FDA opening an office in India, if not to help Monsanto out over there? (A girlfriend's daughter and son in law are being transferred over there, so this is first hand knowledge.

[wyldwolf]

113. so you avoid the question and instead give more conspiracy speculation and anecdotes.

[hopemountain]

120. at this point, what else is there than common sense when people

and animals are suffering the effects of genetically modified grains?

YOU do not want to see. so why bother trying to convince someone with scientific studies. you will not find them. why? because the chemical corporations and genetic seed modifiers are supporting the agricultural studies programs at the universities with huge grants - and they are running our usda, medicial assoiciations, etc.

you can discount my opinion all you want because there are no links to scientific proof that you would ever accept from any of us who disagrees with you. so why bother? you have your opinion and we have ours. do you think you can respect that?

[wyldwolf]

121. " at this point, what else is there than common sense?" Science

[hopemountain]

122. really? are you so naive?

have you looked at who runs, contributes and sits on the boards of these organizations? sure, you have some folks on these boards who are people like me with careers in health education, medical providers, folks who really care,etc. but they are window dressings and used to appeal to the masses.but the rest? controlling, self interested greedy folks who could give a shit about people and actually - want to control them.

are you not tired of putting up this phony pr poster? it is not working for folks here who are more truly aware and knowledgeable about the issues. go peddle it elsewhere.

done here.

[wyldwolf]

124. Prove it. And then answer - are you a climate change denier, too?

You have proof the most respected bodies of science in the world have been bought by corporations? Can't wait for this!

Yet, corporations have somehow failed to buy scientific bodies in regards to climate change?

Your fundamentalism - your dogma - is an insult to fact and reason.

[littlemissmartypants]

13. Nice graphic Segami.

Thanks for waking me up.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. HRC? A GMO apologist?? Color me shocked!!

Not.

People who don't know that Clinton is a corporate sellout get their information primarily from corporate media.

Gee, who would've thunk it?

[ReRe]

16. Figures

Thanks, Segami. What more could we possibly need to know?

[bvar22]

17. Thanks, Hillary.

At least Candidate Obama pretended he had a problem with GMOs.

[BrotherIvan]

21. Silly rabbit!

Tricks are for kids!

And if a third wayer loses, it's all your fault hippies!

[BrotherIvan]

18. If anyone tells you GMOs are drought resistant or higher yield

Find out who writes their paycheck.

[Crowquette]

100. Thanks for speaking truth. "drought resistance" is a standard lie of GMO propaganda pimps !!!

[Nye Bevan]

19. Good. Nothing wrong with GM foods (nt)

[heaven05]

20. with this post and the responses

to this post, why even vote for anyone democrat or republican. What's is the purpose. She's corporatist. Nafta was, glass-steagall was, walmart ect. Corporations OWN all these politicians. Money is the ruler. No money? No real voice. Boocoo bucks, big voice and vote influence. America get the money out of politics, we can start to repair our 'democracy'. Can't, won't? Don't whine about our choices. By the way, as it stands now, it will be almost impossible to find a candidate at the national level that really wants big money out of politics, that's either democrat or republican. What a joke this 'democracy' is. Sure is an 'exceptional' system. Exceptionally corrupt.

[skepticscott]

25. Yep, let's all hope Nader runs again

Then when the next Republican president loads up the SC with even more arch-conservatives for the next 30 years, with the acquiescence of a spineless Democratic Senate, we can all congratulate ourselves for having voted our conscience and advanced the noble cause of progressivism.

[heaven05]

55. yeah, i hear you

just get goddamn well frustrated. If hillary is out there 2016, she will, holding my nose get my vote. I just hope the miracle happens and sen.warren and sen.sanders end up on ticket. that is all. and I do agree with the spineless stuff. We, as a party, have had leaders these last 6 years that seemed intimidated and cowed by the big bad repubs and their tea drinking 'friends'.....

[MrMickeysMom]

81. THIS ^^^^^^^^^EPIPHANY

I won't win friends here with my extreme plus one on what you said. But, how much longer is it going to take until everyone knows what you just explained.

Too long, I say.

[proverbialwisdom]

22. And yet...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1059&pid=2840
APRIL 2014

http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/10/22/the-toxic-triad-how-big-food-big-farming-and-big-pharma-spread-obesity-diabetes-and-chronic-disease-across-the-globe/#close

The Toxic Triad: How Big Food, Big Farming, and Big Pharma Spread Obesity, Diabetes, and Chronic Disease Across the Globe

by Mark Hyman, MD
Last Updated October 22, 2010

ONE THIRD OF OUR ECONOMY THRIVE ON MAKING PEOPLE SICK AND FAT. Big Farming grows 500 more calories per person per day than 25 years ago because they get paid to grow extra food even when it is not needed. The extra corn (sugar) and soy (fat) are turned into industrial processed food and sugar-sweetened beverages – combinations of fat, sugar and salt that are proven to be addictive.

These subsidized ($288 billion) cheap, low-quality foods are heavily marketed ($30 billion) and consumed by our ever-widening population with an obesity rate approaching three out of four Americans. The more they eat, the fatter they become. The fatter they become the more they develop heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a myriad of other chronic ailments.

Today, one in 10 Americans have diabetes. By 2050 one in three Americans will have diabetes. The sicker our population, the more medications are sold for high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and many other lifestyle driven diseases. The Toxic Triad of Big Farming, Big Food, and Big Pharma profits from creating a nation of sick and fat citizens.

This structure is built into the very fabric of our economy and culture. It could be called the medical, agricultural, food industrial complex. It is what is known as “structural violence”—the social, political, economic and environmental conditions that foster and promote the development of disease.

<>

[redruddyred]

29. big pharma is extremely sketch

this sciene dropout reads their clinical trials and laughs.

I used to take pharmaceuticals, but have been able to treat my health condition much better and more cheaply with herbal supplements. also without throwing up twice a day and severe short term memory loss. that's a damning condemnation of big pharma right there.

a couple of days ago I saw a documentary from the 80s called, Down and Out in America. it focused primarily on farmers who were going bankrupt because of bank shenanigans. one of the farmers interviewed said something along the lines of, "when we go, then the big corporations will be making all your food, and prices will go up and quality will go down". I found that extremely interesting and prescient. an academic chimed in, mentioning that the reason that america has been so successful in the past was because families were not forced to spend large percentages of their income on food.

you can find the documentary on youtube if you're at all interested.

[proverbialwisdom]

35. Food can't do everything, obviously, and many drugs are life saving.

That said, processed 'food' is no substitute for the real food that good health depends on. Anyone who asserts otherwise is wrong.

[redruddyred]

65. unfortunately, what with hmos and such, there have been a number of bad incentives in medicine

which have conspired so that, for several conditions, esp "newer" conditions, are better treated thru general lifestyle recommendations than whatever big pharma has produced.

was watching a lyme disease documentary the other day and was fascinated by how money and power had conspired to keep very ill people from accessing proper treatment.

many neurological illnesses seem to respond better to meditation than to epilepsy drugs, for example.

of course, it's worth asking why so many people are getting them all of a sudden.

[KurtNYC]

32. walked by a drug store this morning and looking in the front door the first thing you see is Pepsi

in 2 liter bottles for 99 cents each. Big bottles of GMO corn syrup in the front, diabetes meds in the back.

GMO crops are weak and the soil is they grow in is poisoned so they have to be nursed along with more and more chemicals. It is a system of managed illness. The same model is being applied to humans.

[Cartoonist]

34. The Bees and I

Until this post, if true, and I'm not really doubting it, I was pro Hillary. The GMO issue is one that is very important to me. I have always voted Democratic, but if Hillary is the nominee, I will sit out 2016.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. There are usually a lot of other races going on at the same time.

There's no need to 'sit out' 2016 just because you don't plan to vote in one particular race.

[Cartoonist]

68. My Blue Heaven

My district is so blue, my vote is really irrelevant. We voted overwhelmingly against GMO in every initiative it came up in. Every Dem wins in a landslide. So will Hillary. She just won't get my vote even if Mr. Monsato is the repub candidate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

71. Ah, nice, I'm in the opposite.

John Boehner's blood red nightmare. My vote tends to be irrelevant in the other direction.

[Cartoonist]

76. I used to live in a red zone

Very white and rich. Not me (rich). I now live in a very integrated area. Actually living with different races and cultures helps dispel prejudices. Though I have met some people whose hatred intensifies under such conditions. Fortunately they are few in number.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. No doubt, Hillary is so impressed with GMO foods, and their benefits, she backs lableling them.

Just like Monsanto is.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. One possible quibble -

During Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State, the State Department heavily pressured other countries to use GMOs through a variety of methods

Was that any different than before and after her tenure? Seems likely to me that they've been doing that for a lot longer than just during HRC's time there, but I could be wrong, I guess.

[proverbialwisdom]

47. Started with Negroponte from what I've read. (nt)

[Crowquette]

53. There is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on GMO safety

The latest GMO corporate propaganda point is that GMO opponents are stupid, and equivalent to climate change deniers. They paid big money to develop that phony wedge argument. But it is complete bullshit, even though it is echoed on DU over and over and over.

Here (below) is just one of many groups of scientists making the point that you ought not to trust corporate claims of GMO safety. You can find many other legitimate, independent science groups if you search online. No doubt corporate shills -- and their overpaid corporate "scientist" lackeys -- will jump right in to try and denigrate these independent scientists. Expect fog. Expect lies. Expect calumny. Expect deceit. The GMO corps have a long, sordid history of it -- and they are not stopping now.

They are making too much money lying about GMOs.

But your health -- and the health of your family -- is too important to just ASSUME THE POSITION and accept the corporate lies because it seems easier that way.


No scientific consensus on safety of genetically modified organisms
Oct 21, 2013

There is no scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, according to a statement released today by an international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians.

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."

"Such claims may place human and environmental health at undue risk and create an atmosphere of complacency," states Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, chairperson of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)...

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-scientific-consensus-safety-genetically.html

[alp227]

109. Do these scientists have any credibility?

This group of scientists, until they can get their stuff published in a legit scientific journal (not some vanity press like where the Seralini "study" was republished) instead of practicing science by press conference, are pretty much a knock off of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, and Flat Earth Society.

[Crowquette]

110. Yes, indeed. Major credibility.

Unlike the Corporatist-paid scientists who the patent-owning corporations manipulate.

So you can rest easy. You've got the truth: there is no scientific consensus on the alleged "safety" of GMOs.

[alp227]

112. No they don't. Have they ever done research in the relevant field?

Huh? Huh? HUH? HUH? HAVE THEY? The phys.org article doesn't say! If the evidence said that GMO's are unsafe, the scientific consensus would've said so. "Corporatist-paid scientists"? Pshhht. Then evolution and global warming are all corporatist scams, too.

[nilesobek]

63. The logic I use to determine if the GMOs are bad for me:

Why do the corporations fanatically resist public attempts to get them to label their crap? Its a total falsehood to pretend that the cost of resetting type on a computer and using a bit of additional ink is going to stop the corporation from making a profit. But this is the argument they are using in the courts and during election cycles.

The truth may lie in that the corporation knows that if they are forced to label their crap, we the people, overwhelmingly, won't buy it. So they are mixing it in unlabeled with our other food at the grocery. Sneaky.

[malokvale77]

73. This the same logic I use

If you think your product is so wonderful, wouldn't you want to proudly enforce your label?

Just because something is produced by science, it doesn't automatically make it a good thing.

We have a long history of scientifically produced horrors.

I appreciate the science behind climate change, but I can not think of one thing that Monsanto has ever produced that actually improved our lives without terrible consequences.

[nilesobek]

101. Overall, science usually wins over hysteria and flat earth belief.

But when science is wrong decades of bad policy can go by with people saying, "well the scientists said this." I think I'll wait for science to mature more before I put that stuff in my body. For instance, in George Washington's day, when people like him fell ill, the science was that you could bleed out disease. There are too numerous incidents of quackery and outright wrongness in science. I'll have to wait this one out, for science to prevail.

[silvershadow]

66. Of course she does. If she is the nominee, we are toast. nt

[winter is coming]

78. When I saw the article a few days back about Warren campaigning for Grimes, I wondered

what Hillary was doing. Now I know.

[Cha]

85. I know.. EW was doing something Productive! However, "GMO.. No One is Perfect Not Even Elizabeth

Warren"..

snip//

"Unless you're new to this blog, you're probably aware of our immense esteem for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. She's certainly my idea of what a great first woman president would be. I'm sure Hillary Clinton will be a better choice than whatever stinking pile of garbage the Republicans puke up in 2016, but-- as happy I will be that we finally have a woman president-- Hillary isn't high on my list of great leaders. At best... she's ok sometimes. Of course, not even Elizabeth Warren is perfect, but, for one reason or another, she's a far better leader than Clinton and a far more dedicated progressive. That said, Friday Senator Warren made a bad mistake. She joined 27 Democrats from across the political spectrum-- from good ones like Tammy Baldwin, Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown to the careful careerists like Kirsten Gillibrand, Bob Casey, Debbie Stabenow, and Jeanne Shaheen all the way to the worst worthless trash in the Democratic caucus like Joe Donnelly, Mark Pryor and Max Baucus-- to vote down an amendment by Bernie Sanders to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." Yep, only 26 Democrats plus Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski supported a bill to deal with GMO foods. -

See more at: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/05/gmo-no-one-is-perfect-not-even.html#sthash.W1hBTv7L.dpuf

[winter is coming]

86. That's not good. n/t

[Armstead]

88. F*****g disgustin'

Let's just get rid of all labeling on food while we're at it.

Just trust Big Bidness to only put what they say is healthy into our food.

[Armstead]

87. Hell, she and Bill have been in bed with Monsanto for years

I'm sure she will be objective about GMO's and will only do what's right if she gets elected.

[Inkfreak]

90. Oh well. GMOs are at the bottom of shit I care about. (nt)

[Faux pas]

94. Of course she did

she doesn't have to eat the crap. Fuck her.

[Cha]

115. GMO OMG Trailer from Omaha Steve.. Good.. Coming September 13th..

Omaha Steve http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017201093