Hillary Clinton says she supports GMOs

[Ferd Berfel]

Apparently knowing what's in your food is NOT a right.

Oh yea. She's on MY side, I'll vote for THIS.

AYFKM?

I wonder if she'll start calling Nuclear Fallout - Sunshine Dust?

-----------------------------------------
http://www.naturalnews.com/045924_Hillary_Clinton_GMOs_biotech_industry.html

The darling of the Democratic Party, Hillary Rodham Clinton, says she supports genetically modified food, making her no different from most other American politicians from both major political parties.

In a recent speech before the world's largest biotechnology meeting in San Diego, Clinton -- who commands speaking fees of about $225,000 per speech -- was enthusiastic in her support for the use of GMOs in farming and agriculture in general. She also spoke positively of using taxpayer-funded federal financial subsidies as payoffs to American companies, to keep them from relocating outside the United States.

According to the Guardian Liberty Voice:

She also declared her desire to get industry representatives around a table to have an "intensive discussion" about "how the federal government could help biotechs with insurance against [financial] risk."

[PyaarRevolution]

1. GMO industry doesn't deserve insurance against risk.

If someone has a very real reaction to a problem with GMO food, can prove it and decides to sue Monsanto, Syngenta, or others they're welcome to sue them into oblivion.
It's ridiculous that vaccines and now GMO's should have their risks subsidized by taxpayers. Absolutely absurd.

[avaistheone1]

2. +1000

[bkkyosemite]

3. And that is a no no.......Only county in the U.S. that has banned

GMO's is here. No thank you ma'am. "against risk" that says it all..........because it is a very big risk.

[Nanjeanne]

4. Yes She Does. New Slogan - Hillary for Frankenfood!

[Autumn]

5. " insurance against risk" As in tax payers taking care of another corporation and assuming their

liabilities. That's the ticket

[firebrand80]

6. I'm proud to stand with Hillary

and her support of science over pseudoscientific GMO hysteria.

[PyaarRevolution]

11. Please actually read the whole story.

About GMO's. I'm not a Luddite and I resent your implication.

If you look across the board at studies, pretty much all of the ones with positive implications have been funded by the Biotech industry. The negative one's tend to be independent or at likely moreso.

Seriously firebrand80, this is something I would not stand behind in regards to Hillary. We can debate on another issue regarding Hillary but imo GMO's may actually risk our viability as a species down the line. Please actually read the research on them beyond the pro-GMO trade publications.
Past this, I'm not against GMO's in the market if proper safe measures are taken, especially taking Draconian measures to prevent the cross-contamination of GMO seeds with conventional ones. Also, I believe they must be labeled so consumers can decide if they want them or not. If they're so great in nutrition, drought and all that other stuff that the Biotech industry has said then convince people. Why are they so against labeling them?

[firebrand80]

12. Because labeling = more fear mongering

Again, GMO fear is not grounded in science

[PyaarRevolution]

14. Wait, wait.

There's no fear about it, read the studies that haven't been pushed by Monsanto and others. There's reason for caution.

[wyldwolf]

24. So give us those studies.

[JudyM]

7. Crony capitalism. She has strong direct economic and relationship ties with Monsanto, Duh!

E.g. Her top Iowa campaign advisor. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillarys-pick-her-political-fixer-iowa-classic-illustration-americas-political

Plus her former law firm represented Monsanto, plus Monsanto and Dow are huge donors to the Clinton Foundation. She has given speeches supporting GMOs. True feminists care for the planet and care about a clean, healthy food supply. At best, GMOs are a major public health unknown.

Repeat slowly... C o n f l I c t. O f. I n t e r e s t

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Meh. On this one, I'm with her.

The hyperbole around "GMOs" is standard-issue knee jerk neo-luddism. Take this from the "naturalnews" article;

Critics point to a number of issues against the use of GMOs in agriculture, starting with the warning that genetic engineering interrupts a food plant's genetic code, thus possibly creating toxins, allergenic agents or altering the nutritional value of the food produced.

That's just flat-out gibberish. The simple fact of the matter is, genetic modification is a powerful tool with great potential, that is neither inherently good OR evil. I do believe a legitimate conversation can be had as to whether the best use of this powerful tool is to allow Monsanto to sell more roundup, but the procedure itself is neither abhorrent, evil, or "unnatural" nor is there anything spooky about it. And humans have already been "interrupting food plant genetic codes" for Millennia through selective and cross breeding, that's why corn, a grain, has kernel pods the size of bananas.

Also, "naturalnews" is a straight up woo site. The anti-GMO hysteria is brought to you by the same anti-science crowd that brought you the anti-vax movement. No thanks.

[PyaarRevolution]

13. While I don't use Natural News.

I do follow the Organic Consumers Association which is quite informative in regards to GMO's.

The problem with the logic at the end of your paragraph is that it's not the same thing. That crossbreeding had the buffer of nature. If you look at the science behind GMO's being created in "Future Of Food" there's nothing natural about it. One way to create a GMO is to induce a tumor on a crop, notably corn in this respect. Another is taking a supercharged gold particle and shooting it at the seed to damage the gene and insert the desired one. It mentions one more after that.
Inserting a bacteria or something that is resistant to Round-Up or manufactures Round-Up into a plant, that type of breeding would never happen through crossbreeding.
Calling me a Luddite I take great offense towards. I support the idea of many other Scientific ideas, just not GMO's without a great deal of caution, including taking Draconian steps to prevent cross-contamination.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I think steps on cross-contamination are wise. But I don't generally think "draconian" is a good

approach to most things. If you look at the contexts it is generally used in, it's not generally considered a positive adjective.

Like I said, Genetic Modification is a powerful tool with great potential- think vitamin enhanced rice in countries with malnutrition problems- and I do not personaly believe that selling more roundup is the best use of the tool.

Caution is warranted, hyperbole is not. And a lot of the noise about GMOs is just that, hyperbole.

But I'm pro-science, and I don't apologize for that. Also, "natural" is a completely meaningless distinction. We are part of nature, and so, by extension, is everything we do. Everything that exists or happens is "natural".

[PyaarRevolution]

23. I hate the natural term too.

It's very ambiguous.

When I say Draconian I mean very severe, drastic steps and they are necessary because apparently the seeds can travel something like 2.9 miles with drift. If they're growing GMO crops they should have to leave 2.9 miles around their field fallow to prevent it from contaminating the fields of their neighbors or others, by ending up attaching to a car or something if the field comes up right to the road.
The vitamin enriched rice thing is nonsense and unnecessary for two reasons. The not so obvious patent costs of paying Biotech companies to grow it. Second, there is a big supplemental crop in many climates that will cover the nutrition deficiencies nicely in those large swathes of the world that are malnourished. In fact many of those places already have that plant growing. I speak specifically of Moringa. This plant is highly nutritious, from the leaves to the stems and there are varieties that grow in the desert and other difficult climates.

[SidDithers]

9. naturalnews. LOL...

Sid

[Odin2005]

10. LOL, Naturalnews...

[PeaceNikki]

15. Your source is dubious at best.

[Ferd Berfel]

19. OK KIds. How about

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/hillary-clinton-states-stand-on-biotech-and-climate-change/81250038/

Clinton went on to point out that as U.S. Secretary of State she was a major proponent of genetically engineered seeds
----------------

San Diego Times
Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-cheers-biotechers-backs-gmos-and-federal-help/

It was red meat for the biotech base. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a 65-minute appearance at the BIO International Convention on Wednesday, voiced support for genetically modified organisms

(WOnder how much she was paid on this one?)

------

and: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/03/hillary-clinton-goes-bat-gmos-biotech-conference

Hillary Clinton Goes to Bat for GMOs at Biotech Conference

The potential presidential candidate's old industry ties resurface

[hifiguy]

16. There is no excuse, none, for not labeling GMO food as such.

Leave it up to the people.

[Cheese Sandwich]

17. No surprise. Whenever corporate profits are at stake it's easy to predict Hillary's position

[KittyWampus]

18. I am not against all GMO's. You have a problem w/a spinach gene inside an orange tree?

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Just one of a GAZILLION reasons I'll never support her.

And supporting GMOs and refusing the labeling of them will never, ever, ever get her the millennial/younger people's support. She's on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[OkSustainAg]

21. Always remember.

It is about controlling seeds.