HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Let's Be Clear. Hillary D...

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:59 AM

Let's Be Clear. Hillary Does Support Monsanto & GMO's

Nice article by Manny letting us know that Hillary is not on Monsanto's Board of Directors:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/no-hillary-clinton-does-not-work-for-monsanto/

But, don't let this suggest she is not in support of Monsanto and GMO's. She very much is.

People like to say "GMO's are healthy for us - there is no evidence they are not" However, the World Health Organization in March (2015) declared Roundup a probable human carcinogen.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has this to say:
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm

What they really want to avoid discussing is their effect on the planet.

Here's a good article that Art_from_Ark found:
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/08/27/opinion/contributors/when-it-comes-to-gmos-which-side-is-hillary-clinton-on/

Clip:
There are three glaring problems with Clinton’s promotion of GE drought-resistant crops. First, drought-resistant seeds and crops are still in the experimental stage and make up a miniscule portion of GMO crops on the market. More than 95 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used in animal feed and in processed food products, such as high-fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds.

Second, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts largely have failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto’s DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved by the USDA so far, produces “only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.”

Third, according to experts at global organizations, such as the Food & Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty, a transition to sustainable, regenerative agriculture — not genetic engineering — is not only the most practical way to feed the world but is absolutely essential if we want to slow and eventually reverse global warming.

---

It's time we take a stand and work towards a better solution that is sustainable.

Creating Tastier and Healthier Fruits and Veggies with a Modern Alternative to GMOs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/creating-tastier-and-healthier-fruits-and-veggies-with-a-modern-alternative-to-gmos/

Say what you want but, the whole world seems to be coming to the same conclusion.

GM acceptance in decline as global crop cultivation falls
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science/GM-acceptance-in-decline-as-global-crop-cultivation-falls

The biggest reason why so many argue for GMO's... profit.

Planet Earth will take care of itself. We spray poisons on food so it will bring in more profitable harvests. Problem - Resolution. Earth rebounds.

Let's think about the future and care about what we are leaving our children.

Hillary, and our current corporate overlords, have other priorities.

We, as a people, need to take this opportunity to change the status quo and begin working towards a better world. 2016 is the opportunity to begin taking a different path.

For the sake of our children and the world, I hope we do.


133 replies, 9241 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 133 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's Be Clear. Hillary Does Support Monsanto & GMO's (Original post)
tecelote Oct 2015 OP
wyldwolf Oct 2015 #1
reformist2 Oct 2015 #4
DianeK Oct 2015 #70
HuckleB Nov 2015 #94
reformist2 Nov 2015 #99
HuckleB Nov 2015 #101
progressoid Nov 2015 #116
tecelote Oct 2015 #5
nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #83
HuckleB Nov 2015 #90
Recursion Nov 2015 #107
HuckleB Nov 2015 #112
reformist2 Nov 2015 #127
Recursion Nov 2015 #129
HuckleB Nov 2015 #132
tecelote Oct 2015 #7
Adrahil Oct 2015 #20
RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #24
Adrahil Oct 2015 #25
RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #28
Adrahil Oct 2015 #58
RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #68
HuckleB Nov 2015 #87
RoccoR5955 Nov 2015 #89
HuckleB Nov 2015 #91
Art_from_Ark Nov 2015 #115
HuckleB Nov 2015 #120
progressoid Nov 2015 #118
RoccoR5955 Nov 2015 #124
HuckleB Nov 2015 #133
A Little Weird Oct 2015 #30
ToxMarz Oct 2015 #40
Adrahil Oct 2015 #60
The Traveler Oct 2015 #35
Nailzberg Nov 2015 #88
RoccoR5955 Nov 2015 #92
AlbertCat Nov 2015 #102
HuckleB Nov 2015 #93
progressoid Nov 2015 #117
RoccoR5955 Nov 2015 #125
progressoid Nov 2015 #130
progressoid Nov 2015 #119
RoccoR5955 Nov 2015 #126
progressoid Nov 2015 #131
The Traveler Oct 2015 #34
Adrahil Oct 2015 #61
stonecutter357 Oct 2015 #11
AlbertCat Nov 2015 #100
peacebird Oct 2015 #2
72DejaVu Oct 2015 #3
tecelote Oct 2015 #6
72DejaVu Oct 2015 #8
Maedhros Oct 2015 #77
Adrahil Oct 2015 #21
A Little Weird Oct 2015 #27
HuckleB Nov 2015 #98
A Little Weird Nov 2015 #104
HuckleB Nov 2015 #105
A Little Weird Nov 2015 #108
HuckleB Nov 2015 #111
A Little Weird Nov 2015 #113
HuckleB Nov 2015 #114
progressoid Nov 2015 #122
A Little Weird Nov 2015 #123
leftofcool Oct 2015 #9
tecelote Oct 2015 #10
wyldwolf Oct 2015 #13
Fairgo Oct 2015 #15
wyldwolf Oct 2015 #18
Fairgo Oct 2015 #19
RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #29
99Forever Oct 2015 #17
pinebox Oct 2015 #52
artislife Oct 2015 #82
stonecutter357 Oct 2015 #12
Fairgo Oct 2015 #14
Adrahil Oct 2015 #16
Deadshot Oct 2015 #22
tecelote Oct 2015 #23
Deadshot Oct 2015 #80
progressoid Nov 2015 #121
Lean Oct 2015 #32
Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #50
Lean Oct 2015 #71
Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #74
Deadshot Oct 2015 #81
Deadshot Oct 2015 #79
joshcryer Oct 2015 #26
tecelote Oct 2015 #33
rpannier Oct 2015 #31
HuckleB Nov 2015 #103
Gamecock Lefty Oct 2015 #36
tecelote Oct 2015 #38
tecelote Oct 2015 #39
pinebox Oct 2015 #53
RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #69
HuckleB Nov 2015 #96
restorefreedom Oct 2015 #37
randr Oct 2015 #41
DFW Oct 2015 #44
randr Oct 2015 #55
Maedhros Oct 2015 #78
Agschmid Nov 2015 #95
NCTraveler Oct 2015 #42
tecelote Oct 2015 #45
NCTraveler Oct 2015 #49
Gore1FL Oct 2015 #43
HuckleB Nov 2015 #86
appalachiablue Oct 2015 #46
Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #47
Victor_c3 Oct 2015 #48
Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #51
tecelote Oct 2015 #57
Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #62
tecelote Oct 2015 #64
Skinner Oct 2015 #54
tecelote Oct 2015 #59
Lean Oct 2015 #72
pinebox Oct 2015 #56
RiverLover Oct 2015 #63
pinebox Oct 2015 #65
RiverLover Oct 2015 #66
Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #67
tecelote Oct 2015 #75
Zorra Oct 2015 #73
azmom Oct 2015 #85
glinda Oct 2015 #76
WillyT Oct 2015 #84
Armstead Nov 2015 #97
kristopher Nov 2015 #109
HuckleB Nov 2015 #106
olddots Nov 2015 #110
VanillaRhapsody Nov 2015 #128

Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:01 AM

1. I support GMOs

So do most scientists.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:23 AM

4. Can we at least have GMO labeling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:37 AM

70. In Vermont

 

We have a GMO labeling law ...where, you ask? Vermont..you know..that little insignificant state where Bernie Sanders comes from

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 06:01 PM

94. There's no science-based reason to label a seed development technology.

Other than on the seed bags, of course. And those are labeled.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #94)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:43 PM

99. There's a people-based reason - we want to know! In Europe they do it, why not here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:06 PM

101. "We want to know" is not a justification for mandatory labels.

Nor is the fact that it's done somewhere else. Lots of countries ban gay marriage, and I don't think you want to go back there, do you?

Muslims want Halal food, but they don't demand that non Halal food be labeled as such. And, yes, that's a valid comparison. It's about a preference that has nothing to do with nutrition, food safety, or food quality.

The reality is that the consumer gets zero actual information from a label indicating the type of seed development technology used to create the seed that led to the plant.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #99)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:33 AM

116. I want to know if my food has been touched by angels.

That would give you as much information and a GMO label. i.e None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:29 AM

5. Labeling is one issue - but why not label?

My main concern is the increased use of pesticides.

Most scientists agree.

That's why I posted articles from the U.N and WHO. That's why most of Europe is banning GMO's.

We're poisoning our planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:32 PM

83. Obama supported labeling before he didn't

or at least he said he did. But that was back when he didn't approve of mandatory insurance. Before he "changed his mind". ROFL what a joke.



These people must laugh pretty hard at the masses. Because they keep believing the absolute filth that pours out of their mouths.

The entire US food supply is infested with this genetically modified crap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:43 PM

90. Labeling a food by the seed development technology makes no sense.

BTW, GMOs appear to be leading to less pesticide use, and to the use of safer herbicides.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

As an example, look at what Chipotle's anti-GMO stance means (it's not good for the environment):
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

The European nations who are not allowing their farmers to grow GMOs are not making their decisions based in science. And you might want to look into what the UN and the WHO say about GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:11 PM

107. I'm largely pro-GMO but I don't think there's a legitimate reason to block labelling

In general I'd like more labeling for everything: amount and type of pesticides used, distance transported, amount of petroleum fertilizer used, etc. You could roll up the distance and fertilizer into an overall carbon footprint, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #107)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:39 PM

112. When you can convince organic food companies to label mutation bred plants as MBOs...

... then you might have a justification for labeling GMOs. Well, there's still no science-based reason to label the seed development technology, but at least it would be more consistent. And, yes, labeling the type and amount of pesticide/herbicide used would be great. I don't think you'll find the companies that financially support the anti-GMO movement to be supportive of that either, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #107)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:37 PM

127. I'm amazed that we actually have people here against labeling - speechless, really.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #127)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:44 PM

129. I do get the argument: it's like requiring hydric acid to be labeled in food.

I mean, a majority of Americans polled said food should be labeled for "containing DNA" and that they wouldn't buy it if it did.

Still, we can't let the stupid 60% ruin things for the rest of us...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #127)

Fri Nov 6, 2015, 12:01 PM

132. Perhaps it's because the pro-label movement is really just a marketing campaign for other companies.

Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2015, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:36 AM

7. This doesn't bother you?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered

Clip about the frog:

There is, however, one unusual thing about Darnell.

He's female.

Genetically, Darnell is male. But after being raised in water contaminated with the herbicide atrazine at a level of 2.5 parts per billion—slightly less than what's allowed in our drinking water—he developed a female body, inside and out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:33 AM

20. Herbicides are not GMOs.

 

Please be aware of the basic science involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:44 AM

24. Herbicides are paired with HMOs

 

For example, Roundup resistant corn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:45 AM

25. Then oppose glyphosate!

 

This is like opposing cars because some drunks kill people in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:47 AM

28. No it is not.

 

These specific GMOs are made to resist a specific herbicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:15 AM

58. You didn't limit your opposition to just those GMO's.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #58)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:23 AM

68. Okay, then tell me some GMOs that are

 

actually good.
Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #68)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:40 PM

87. Cheese, Papaya, Squash, Potatoes with less acrylamide...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:43 PM

89. Okay, if cheese is a GMO,

 

please tell me how farmers grow cheese. I always thought it was a processed food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #89)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:44 PM

91. You Can Thank Genetic Engineering For Your Delicious Cheese

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #91)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 09:48 AM

115. What utter nonsense

Delicious cheese existed long before GMOs came on the scene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #115)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:54 AM

120. How is reality nonsense?

Wow! Just wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #68)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:43 AM

118. Insulin is genetically modified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #118)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:30 PM

124. I make my own, thank you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #124)

Fri Nov 6, 2015, 12:07 PM

133. So what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:55 AM

30. Interesting analogy

Perhaps it would be more fair to say that roundup ready crops are to pesticide like cars with built in kegs are to drunk driving.

Building kegs into the design of cars would be stupid and lead to more drunken accidents. Likewise it was stupid to build pesticide resistance into crops and has lead to indiscriminate use of pesticides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:35 AM

40. Maybe it's more like the Ford Pinto

We should still build cars with gas tanks, just not put the gas tank in that position

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:16 AM

60. Then criticize those specific GMOs.

 

Criticizing ALL GMOs is not supportable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:14 AM

35. Then there are no advantages to the class of "Roundup Ready" GMO Crops.

 

And that entirely category of GMO technology should just go away.

Trav

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Traveler (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:28 PM

88. Roundup is less toxic and more effective than many of the herbicides it displaced.

Meaning farmers are using less pesticides and getting better yields. And despite being a boogieman to stoke GMO fears, Roundup is used on non-GMO crops, too.


More food. Less herbicide use. Thats an advantage for both farmers and families struggling to put food on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nailzberg (Reply #88)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:45 PM

92. Roundup is killing bees

 

And we need bees to pollinate our crops. Besides we need honey so that we can make mead.
Less toxic nothing, as long as it is killing beneficial insects, I am against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:10 PM

102. Roundup is killing bees

 

Actually, it's not.

But it does make bee's less sensitive to finding food sources, and affects their memory and ability to return to the hive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nailzberg (Reply #88)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:54 PM

93. Don't bring reality to the discussion.

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

That's not fair!

Besides, folks might find out that organic farmers are working to harm the bees themselves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12314061

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:42 AM

117. Herbicides are used on organic and non-GMO foods too.

Sometimes in excess of GMO crops

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #117)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:30 PM

125. Not around here! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #125)

Fri Nov 6, 2015, 12:06 AM

130. Maybe not in Brooklyn, but...

In the meantime, Miller has found that 2.5 quarts of Bicep, 2 quarts of glyphosate, 1 quart of Princep and 1 pint of 2,4-D per acre controls weeds well in his non-GMO corn.

On non-GMO soybeans last year he applied 1.5 pints of Dual, 5 ounces of Sencor, 2 quarts of glyphosate and 1 pint of Super HC per acre.

His fertilizer dealer recommended he use DuPont’s Envive in replacement of Sencor for control on broadleaves this year, so he held the rate down to the lowest recommendation to avoid getting into a carryover issue with his cover crops.

Miller recommends no-tillers considering non-GMO crops seek out experts who can recommend herbicides used before glyphosate came along.
- See more at: http://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/493-fighting-weeds-boosting-profits-with-non-gmos#sthash.dAR5IC33.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:46 AM

119. Roundup is also used on non-gmo crops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #119)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:32 PM

126. You don't seem to understand...

 

Roundup is killing beneficial insects. There are some insects that are needed for a healthy soil. We cannot just keep fertilizing the hell out of it, and planting the same crop year after year after year. There comes a point of diminishing returns with monoculture farming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #126)

Fri Nov 6, 2015, 12:09 AM

131. I do understand.

And I agree about mono culture farming. However that is a different issue from the safety of GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:10 AM

34. Uh ... yer kinda right and wrong

 

Many plants produce toxins to ward off pests. Modification strategies seek to elevate the concentration of those toxins. GMO Bt corn is actually considered a pesticide, for example. The presumption is that these toxins are broken down by the digestive system ... a prediction which has not been universally supported by studies and experiment.

I don't think we can regard the long term safety of most GMO foods as settled science by any means.

Trav

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Traveler (Reply #34)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:18 AM

61. My point is this....

 

Each GMO should be subject to independent approval.... just like any other thing.

Making blanket statements about GMOs is just not scientifically supportable.

I DO support the regulation of GMOs. I don't support hysterical blanket reactions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:11 AM

11. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 08:59 PM

100. I support GMOs

 

Me too.

But Monsanto is a dreadful company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:01 AM

2. Agree totally. Great OP, thank you for posting this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:16 AM

3. There's a lot more to GMOs than just the Round Up issue

but don't let that get in the way of your demagoguery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:30 AM

6. Yes. There are a lot of poisons being used.

Before you say it - yes with organic too.

However, we need to stop poisoning our planet.

I'm anti-pesticide and GMO's increase pesticide use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:38 AM

8. "GMO's increase pesticide use"

Some do, yes. We need to deal with that issue, I agree.

But that's an aspect of GMOs, not the totality.

This seems a baby/bathwater situation to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:47 PM

77. Regardless of whether there are some positive aspects to GMO foods or not,

 

I think everyone can agree that Monsanto is fucking horrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:35 AM

21. How about you deal with pesticides then? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:46 AM

27. In my opinion the Round Up issue is the biggest problem with GMOs

Based on what I've read and conversations with entomologists in my area, I'm convinced that the rise in Round Up ready ag crops is the leading cause (but probably not the only cause) in the decline of native pollinators. I know a lot of people, even on the left, don't really care about this or about biodiversity in general but it is important to me and to many others.

Another concern is terminator seeds that can't be saved from year to year. This puts poor farmers in perpetual debt to the big ag companies.

Products should be labelled. Regardless of the reason one has concerns about GMOs, they should have the right to "vote with their wallet" and not support GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 07:04 PM

98. There are no terminator seeds on the market.

Seed saving hasn't really been a part of farming for decades and more. It's not about GMOs.

Labeling a seed development technology tells you nothing about the food.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

Your post seems to contain many of the usual anti-GMO claims, but those claims aren't supported by the consensus of science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:23 PM

104. Then they were removed from the market

It was talked about in many media outlets but I will grant you it's been awhile since I have seen anything written about it so perhaps they have been pulled. Here is one article just from a quick search:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

In the U.S., seed saving is not a big thing, at least among large-scale farmers, but it is still practiced here to some extent and it is still embraced in other parts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:31 PM

105. They were never on the market.

Seed saving doesn't happen, as a general rule, around the world, as it is simply inefficient.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249608/-The-Need-to-Save-Seeds-is-a-Bad-Sign#

The article you posted has nothing to do with "Terminator" seeds, but there has never been any such thing on the market. See myth 1 here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

The topic of the article you did link has also been debunked:
http://issues.org/30-2/keith/

and...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india

and...

http://io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067

and...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #105)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:24 PM

108. Seed saving does happen

I realize it is not the most efficient way to acquire seed as do most people who save seed. They still do it.

The India suicide story is very interesting. It was very prominent in the news at the time but I never saw anything about the story being debunked. I suppose like most things "if it bleeds it leads" and the follow-up didn't make the cut.

In any case, you are clearly very invested in this issue. It's not at the top of the list of things I care about. For me, as long as roundup-ready crops are on the market, I'm going to do my best to avoid GMO products. I think consumers should have the right to "vote with their wallets" as it is one of the only ways to make themselves heard to these big corporations. That's all I have to say about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #108)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:36 PM

111. You can do what you want to do.

However, you aren't going to be any safer or healthier by avoiding GMO food. Glyphosate is safer than the products it replaced, and those are the products used on non-GMO plants, typically. Also, organic farmers use plenty of pesticides and herbicides, some of the more toxic than other products, and some of them used in amounts that are far greater than other products. Further, organic farming uses more land and resources to produce less food. That's not good for the planet. But, again, you can do what you want.

Please stop spreading misinformation, in the meantime, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #111)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 12:04 AM

113. Well gee, thanks for giving me permission

And accusing me of being a liar all in the same post. I never understood why anyone would want to use the Ignore function but it makes sense to me now. Have a nice life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #113)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 12:30 AM

114. I previously showed that you had posted misinformation.

I'm not sure how asking you to refrain from posting such items becomes a personal attack. It really is meant to ask you to think before you post such items. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Little Weird (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:20 PM

122. There has been no spate of suicides

Ian Plewis, of the University of Manchester, in Britian, has looked at suicide rates in the cotton-growing areas of India, which are usually regarded as among the worst-hit. He finds that the suicide rate among male farmers in the nine main cotton-growing states was just under 30 per 100,000 in 2011. That is about the same as suicide rates among farmers in France and Scotland, so Indian farmers do not seem unusual. The rates are slightly lower than among men in those states who do not work on farms, so Indian cotton farmers are slightly less likely to commit suicide than their non-farming neighbours. Nor is there any sign that suicides rates changed significantly after 2002, when GM cotton began to be introduced. Overall, Indian suicide rates are not especially high. Officially, they are just over 10 per 100,000, slightly more than Germany and less than half China’s, though of course, the official figures might be underestimates.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-crops-indian-farmers-and-suicide

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #122)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 06:13 PM

123. Yes I saw the post where the suicide story was debunked n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:56 AM

9. Hillary believes in science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:08 AM

10. And profits too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:19 AM

13. I believe in profits

It's how I keep my daughter fed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:24 AM

15. Try feeding her money

I'm guessing you actually use food, not profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:30 AM

18. Econ 101

Profits buy goods and services - including food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:32 AM

19. World History 708

Until you run out of food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:48 AM

29. When the soil is too polluted

 

to grow food, when the air is too polluted to breathe, when the water is too polluted to drink, I hope you enjoy eating, drinking and breathing your money!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:29 AM

17. Until that "science" cuts into the bottom line of her benefactors, Multinational Corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:02 AM

52. I'd venture a guess

 

that every Dem candidate believes in science, not just your "anointed one".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:31 PM

82. I dare you

 

to open this link and look what Monsanto has done in Argentina and then be so flippant about why farm workers now wear hazard gear and not bibbed overalls like before.

http://overgrowthesystem.com/argentina-the-country-that-monsanto-poisoned-photo-essay/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:12 AM

12. science and stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:23 AM

14. Thank you for the cogent argument

These are wicked system issues that require deep policy solutions. It's past time to get deadly serious about global solutions...or wait for the cascade of collapsing systems. The problem will resolve without us, eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:29 AM

16. Good. Tired of the anti-science nonsense.

 

we have enough make believe science from the right. We don't need it on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:39 AM

22. Roundup has nothing to do with GMOs.

It sounds like your problem is with pesticides.

BTW, I'm a Bernie supporter and I'm also a GMO supporter. I follow the science, not woo websites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deadshot (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:43 AM

23. GMO's use increased amounts of pesticides and they are killing more than pests...

Monsanto makes RoundUp.

The issues are clearly linked.

They Profit, We Die: Toxic Agriculture and the Poisoning of Soils, Human Health and the Environment
http://www.globalresearch.ca/they-profit-we-die-toxic-agriculture-and-the-poisoning-of-soils-human-health-and-the-environment/5483932

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:12 PM

80. Your source is from a conspiracy theory website.

Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 11:57 AM

121. Biotech Crops Use Less Pesticide: Study Rebuts Perennial Anti-GMO Lies

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deadshot (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:01 AM

32. Roundup has EVERYTHING to do with GMOs. Real Science. Not pseudo-science by Monsanto Propaganists.

 

64 countries now label GE foods. 38 countries ban GE crops. A green wave is sweeping Europe.

The Truth About GMOs:

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

GMO FACT: The majority of GMO crops grown today are genetically engineered to withstand the repeated spraying of Roundup glyphosate-based weedkiller, a Class 2A Probable Human Carcinogen according to the World Health Organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lean (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:58 AM

50. I see a LOT of bullshit claims

 

With NO citations. That's what we call pseudo science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #50)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:40 AM

71. And I See a Mouthpiece for Monsanto

 

YOU have no proof that Monsanto poison is safe. Because there is NO PROOF. And NO LONG-TERM STUDIES. THIS IS FACT. The onus in on Monsanto, not the American public. That's what I call BS. Monsanto is buying off American university scientists, while a the rest of the world is banning GE crops, America is Monsanto's petri dish. 38 countries ban GE crops for good reason. And 64 countries label it. Why do you think that is???

Monsanto’s Tobacco Files: University Scientists Caught Conspiring With Biotech Industry to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lean (Reply #71)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:27 PM

74. Yup. If you don't have reason, facts, or science on your side...

 

Then accuse the other of being a shill. Do you have any links to research papers or peer-reviewed studies? Eco Watch isn't what I'd call an unbiased science publication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #50)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:13 PM

81. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lean (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:10 PM

79. No links to support your claims.

Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:45 AM

26. I support unencumbered by patent GMOs.

I am only against GMOs that are patented and harm the farming industry. I am in otherwise 100% support for GMOs. I'm anti-patent, not anti-GMO. I think the government should fully take over GMO research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:02 AM

33. Agree 100%

Genetically Modified Foods are not inherently bad. It's just science.

It's what and how it's used.

From increased pesticide use to long term patents, GMO's have a lot of issues that could be reversed for a better world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:56 AM

31. So does Neil Degrasse Tyson

He supports them as well

I think they should be labeled
I think Monsanto should lose their protections that are over reaching; like if their seeds blow into someone else's field the crop is still theirs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:17 PM

103. Umm.

Monsanto does not get to claim crops in fields because seeds were blown there. That is a myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:24 AM

36. Science over Fear!

I support GMOs, too.

Try feeding the world on organics only - ain't happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamecock Lefty (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:27 AM

38. The biggest fallacy about GMOs is that we need them to feed the world: WFP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamecock Lefty (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:32 AM

39. Science over fear

Here's some science to scare you - we should be eating bugs.

Edible insects
Future prospects for food and feed security
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamecock Lefty (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:06 AM

53. It's happening

 

when in a society like America, where we throw away so much food. It's rather sad really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamecock Lefty (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:26 AM

69. Why not?

 

The science behind monocrops is bad for the environment. We should be planting with much fewer insecticides and such if we use the proven methods of crop rotation, and companion planting, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:25 AM

37. i figured out an easy way to keep track of hillarys positions

she likes everything BIG and POWERFUL, so if its big its good. Big Pharma, big ag, big trade, and we know she's gonna change her mind on that again, big banks, big corporate media, HUGE military MIC, big insurance companies, and most of all big campaign $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


as scotty would say, its all about power.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:36 AM

41. I had read that Hillary sits on the Monsanto BOD.

Shouldn't be too hard to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #41)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:51 AM

44. Not hard to find at all, I should think

Probably the same source that has Bernie Sanders on the board of the Remington Arms Company.

On Breitbart or Fox Noise maybe.

Not true, though:

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hey-liberals-stop-falsely-claiming-that-hillary-clinton-was-on-the-monsanto-board-of-directors/22194/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #44)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:10 AM

55. Thanks for clearing that up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #55)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:52 PM

78. Yes, Hillary did NOT sit on Monsanto's Board of Directors

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 06:04 PM

95. Factually incorrect claim.

File it under #dontbelieveeverythingontheinternet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:38 AM

42. I'm no fan of Monsanto.

 

But to make such a simpleton comment as "I'm against GMO's" is akin to saying I'm anti vaccine, global warming is a farce, and the earth is flat.

Monsanto is like the gun industry to some politicians. They think they should get special privileges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #42)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:54 AM

45. I never said I was against GMO's - I stated that Hillary supports them

Genetically Modified Foods are not inherently bad. It is just science.

It's what and how it's used.

From increased pesticide use to long term patents, GMO's have a lot of issues that could be reversed for a better world.

Ignoring the poisoning of our planet is like saying global warming is a farce, and the earth is flat.

You're ok with this?

Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Or, would you rather not think about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:56 AM

49. I never said you were against them.

 

I'm glad your not. It's an ignorant position that a very small group of conspiracy theorist and anti science people hold. So your issue with Clinton is one of industry. Fair for debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:41 AM

43. So does the scientific community.

I agrree with them on this issue, just like I agree with them about the climate, the age of the earth, and everything else in their domain.

It's nice to see Hillary doing the same. I still prefer Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 03:17 PM

86. Ding! DING! DING! EXACTLY! You win the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:54 AM

46. K & R. Very well done, appreciate the resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:55 AM

47. So do I.

 

And so do most people who understand science. GMO is not a left/right issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:56 AM

48. I believe Hillary deserves a pass on this. Her position has obviously "evolved" on this

It has evolved just like everything else - gay rights, big business and banks, war, torture,...

Hillary is our progressive champion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:01 AM

51. I am sensing a pattern on DU. Science being denied in food production and in polling...coincidence?

What next, vaccine deniers?

There are recent interlopers in the Democratic Party who have WAY too many things in common with the Republocans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #51)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:13 AM

57. What science is being denied here?

GMO's increase of pesticide use? It's human and environmental dangers?

Weighing the GMO arguments:
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Show me scientists that support increased pesticide use - real scientists who are not sponsored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #57)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:19 AM

62. I am not an expert.....but some are...see post # 54. There is a place for GMO's, under regulation,

or the world starves.....not Americans much, but the rest of the world can not be fed sustainably with organics.

Trust in science, not fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #62)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:25 AM

64. The biggest fallacy about GMOs is that we need them to feed the world: WFP

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Suppliers2/The-biggest-fallacy-about-GMOs-is-that-we-need-them-to-feed-the-world-WFP

Here's some science to scare you - we should be eating bugs.

Edible insects
Future prospects for food and feed security
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm

Or this science:

Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Science is not inherently good or evil. It is not biased.

My fear that we're poisoning the earth is real though. You may disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:10 AM

54. So does Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:16 AM

59. There's nothing wrong with the science. I agree.

Genetically Modified Foods are not inherently bad. It is just science.

It's what and how it's used.

From increased pesticide use to long term patents, GMO's have a lot of issues that could be reversed for a better world.

Ignoring the poisoning of our planet is like saying global warming is a farce, and the earth is flat.

You're ok with this?

Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Ask Neil about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:18 PM

72. Mr. Tyson

 

Should stick to what he knows best. Astrophysics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:12 AM

56. Lobbyists for Monsanto, ExxonMobil Raise Money for Hillary Clinton

 

I think a lot of people are forgetting this though.


Lobbyists for Monsanto, ExxonMobil Raise Money for Hillary Clinton---Registered lobbyists brought in more than $2 million in fundraising for the Clinton campaign, recent filings show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/lobbyists-for-monsanto-exxon-mobile-raise-money-for-hillary-clinton

The former secretary of state raised more than $2 million from 40 "bundlers"—fundraisers who get their contacts to give to campaigns—who were also lobbyists, according to financial forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. In all, the Clinton campaign raised $46.7 million between the beginning of April and the end of June.
Bundlers, who are often wealthy or well-connected individuals, do more than donate to campaigns. They put their social networks to work for favorite candidates, persuading (often equally wealthy and well-connected) family members, friends, colleagues, and other contacts to donate as well, effectively bringing in far more money than they could under the current legal donation limits. Individuals can contribute $2,700 to candidate committees (as opposed to super PACS) for the primary election and the same amount for the general election, for a total of $5,400 in a campaign cycle. Campaigns don't have to disclose their bundlers—unless those bundlers are also lobbyists.
Clinton's bundlers include some familiar names: Jerry Crawford, an outside lobbyist to Monsanto and Iowa kingmaker, put together another $35,000 or so. Tony Podesta, a mega-lobbyist who co-founded the Podesta Group and is the brother of Clinton's campaign chair John, bundled almost $75,000.

Exxon didn't immediately request for comment. The NCTA and Microsoft declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Monsanto said Crawford's law firm has multiple clients. "I don't think it's fair to isolate his experience to working with us," she said. Monsanto, however, is Crawford's only lobbying client, according to filings, a relationship that dates to at least 2009.
Crawford, who has supported the Clintons since 1992, said he has not and does not intend to lobby Clinton on behalf of Monsanto. "I support Hillary now because I have no doubt she would be the best President of the United States our country could have," he wrote in an email.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #56)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:23 AM

63. Dow & Monsanto have also given million$ to the Clinton Foundation, acc to their records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #63)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:25 AM

65. True

 

We need to get special interests out of politics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #65)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:29 AM

66. Its more important than anything else.

Its the only way we're going to get positive change & our reps working for the interests of the people of this country again. Its also the only way we're going to be able to save sustainable life. We're in the 6th mass extinction. You would think that would be the top story everyday in the media & a topic in every debate.

How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #63)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:31 AM

67. DU attacks on Clinton and the Clinton Foundation are likely to be repeated by the GOP come May.

Salute! From the GOP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #67)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:17 PM

75. Ha! No need to worry about this. Republicans agree with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:27 PM

73. Her allegiances are transparent and obvious to critical thinkers. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #73)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 08:04 PM

85. +1000000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:45 PM

76. I am heartbroken that she supports these things. Last election

I supported her over Barrack. But now I cannot. It is a sad missed opportunity for a woman to do the right things for this planet that is suffering but these Companies are being banned all over the place outside the USA and they keep dumping it here. She supports that. I have no forgiveness nor love for her on this. We/all life, are all dying and she doesn't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:32 PM

84. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 06:21 PM

97. Interesting twists here on the GOP anti-science message to support the Corporate Oligarchs

 

"Believe Big Corporate Science on GMOs or you are climate-change denying wingnut."

No there is a major difference.

The climate change debate is over whether we should stop bad behavior, and adopt alternative energy sources that are cleaner than the poisons we have been spewing since the Industrial Revolution. Regardless of the merits of climate change science is much better for the environment overall. The environment and pollution was an issue long before climate change.

The GMO debate is whether we should engage in something new with unknown effects on the food system and the overall ecology in the long term. Are we setting in motion we will regard down the line, introducing a new form of bio-engineered pollution?

Personally, I'm kind of a science dummy with an open mind to all possibilities. Maybe GMO's are safe. Maybe not. Maybe a mix.,....We don't really know what the hell we're doing to the ecology or our bodies.

But I sure as hell prefer that we continue to conduct INDEPENDENT research. And deal with the unanswered questions fully, rather than just assume that the science, which is largely at the mercy of Monsanto and the otehr Ag Giants, is sound just because they say so.

And by the way Monsanto is trying to monopolize several markets and totally dominate the food system. That's bad. No matter how benign or harmful GMOs turn out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #97)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:05 PM

109. There is an ethical conclusion involved - The Precautionary Principle'

By and large, Europe embraces it, and we don't.

...The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making. In this paper we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection. In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution....

From "The precautionary principle in environmental science" available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/

Worth repeating what it is:
taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty;
shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity;
exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and
increasing public participation in decision making.


For more information see this WHO white paper:
"The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children"
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 09:57 PM

106. The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:30 PM

110. there is some guilt by association here

 

If a mega corporation is involved with many destructive products it is hard for me to believe that anything they touch is safe .Many of us can be anti Monsanto but very pro science .Hillary's association with big corporations can be construed as questionable for someone in a position of the power of law .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Original post)

Thu Nov 5, 2015, 07:42 PM

128. Let me just say...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread