March Against Monsanto - Updates

[FrankRep]

Update: October 12th, 2013


The second official world wide March Against Monsanto will take place today, October 12th, 2013. Expect mass demonstrations against the Monsanto corporation in over 400 cities across 50 countries.

Join an event near you

http://bit.ly/Oct12MAM (http://bit.ly/Oct12MAM)

More info: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/
World Live MAM : https://www.rebelmouse.com/MarchAgainstMonsanto/


Oct. 12, 2013:

Protesters in 50 countries march against MONSANTO...
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-march-berlin-protest-115/



http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/968d1d36f1ae48f4ddf3e192763aab75_M.jpg

Background on Monsanto:


2013 - Monsanto and Walmart Influence Secret TPP Negotiations (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/16480-monsanto-and-walmart-influence-secret-tpp-negotiations)

2013 - Two Million March Against Monsanto in Worldwide Protest of GM Foods (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/15529-two-million-march-against-monsanto-in-worldwide-protest-of-gm-foods)

2013 - GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14409-gmo-giant-monsanto-joins-big-business-coalition-for-un-agenda-21)

2012 - Russia Bans GMO Corn Over Cancer Fears as Pressure Builds on Monsanto (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/13050-russia-bans-gmo-corn-over-cancer-fears-as-pressure-builds-on-monsanto)

2012 - WikiLeaks: More Evidence of Monsanto's Bullying and Influence-Buying (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/10049-wikileaks-more-evidence-of-monsantos-bullying-and-influence-buying)

2012 - France May Issue Call for Europe-Wide Ban on GM Corn (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/13111-france-may-issue-call-for-europe-wide-ban-on-gm-corn)

=======


News Updates --


Protesters March Against Monsanto in 250 Cities (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/protesters-march-monsanto-250-cities-19256536#.UaDsVpyuE4c)
ABC News

On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-march-against-senate-766/)
RT.com - May 24, 2013

Global march challenges Monsanto's dominance (http://rt.com/news/march-against-monsanto-gmo-776/)
RT.com

Connecticut residents to march against Monsanto (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/may/25/conn-residents-to-march-against-monsanto/)
Ventura County Star

March Against Monsanto takes place Saturday in Boise and in over 45 countries (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/05/24/2589542/march-against-monsanto-takes-place.html)
Idaho Statesman

March Against Monsanto: Austinites set to protest GMOs (http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/food/2013-05-24/march-against-monsanto/)
Austin Chronicle

Global ‘March Against Monsanto’ Comes to Anchorage, Alaska (http://www.ktva.com/news/local/Global-March-Against-Monsanto-Comes-to-Anchorage-208914261.html)
KTVA 11 - Alaska

350 Expected To Attend Saturday March Against Monsanto (http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/5/24/252021/350-Expected-To-Attend-Saturday-March.aspx)
The Chattanoogan

San Diegans to March and Rally Against Monsanto in Balboa Park (http://obrag.org/?p=74077)
Ob Rag

March Against Monsanto in Fort Worth, Texas (http://www.fwweekly.com/2013/05/24/march-against-monsanto-in-fort-worth/)
Fort Worth Weekly

Charlotte to participate in worldwide March Against Monsanto (http://clclt.com/theclog/archives/2013/05/24/charlotte-to-participate-in-worldwide-march-against-monsanto)
clclt.com

Saturday march protests genetically modified foods, Monsanto (http://www.sctimes.com/article/20130524/NEWS01/305240023/Saturday-march-protests-genetically-modified-foods-Monsanto)
St. Cloud Times

March Against Monsanto: Boston Residents Will Protest GMOs (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/05/24/march-against-monsanto-boston/)
Boston Magazine

Bulgarians Join Global March Against Monsanto (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=150688)
Novinite JSC

March Against Monsanto In 12 Michigan Cities Saturday (http://www.wsjm.com/March-Against-Monsanto-In-12-Michigan-Cities-Satur/16436878)
wsjm.com

Protest Planned Against Monsanto | St. Louis Public Radio (http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/protest-planned-against-monsanto)
St. Louis Public Radio

March on Monsanto to be held Saturday in Mt. Pleasant (http://www.themorningsun.com/article/20130523/NEWS01/130529783/march-on-monsanto-to-be-held-saturday-in-mt-pleasant)
The Morning Sun

Monsanto Opponents Rally at Main Beach (http://www.lagunabeachindependent.com/2013/05/25/monsanto-opponents-rally-at-main-beach/)
Laguna Beach Independent

Protest against Monsanto comes to Vallejo (http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_23305539/protest-against-monsanto-comes-vallejo)
Vallejo Times-Herald

March Against Monsanto planned for Saturday in Louisville (http://blogs.courier-journal.com/watchdogearth/2013/05/21/march-against-monsanto-planned-for-saturday-in-louisville/)
Courier Journal

[FrankRep]

Videos

March Against Monsanto in Tokyo, Japan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT5BCJhfLbM)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT5BCJhfLbM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT5BCJhfLbM


March Against Monsanto in Sydney, Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-mBSmrJ4c)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-mBSmrJ4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-mBSmrJ4c


March Against Monsanto in Melbourne, Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlFiERZQgxc)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlFiERZQgxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlFiERZQgxc


March Against Monsanto in Brisbane, Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vRlZp9UKVs)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vRlZp9UKVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vRlZp9UKVs


March Against Monsanto in Vienna, Austria (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR6z-G81BlY)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR6z-G81BlY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR6z-G81BlY

March Against Monsanto in Whangarei, Northland, New Zealand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRjJ_3tNhA)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRjJ_3tNhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRjJ_3tNhA

[Brett85]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

[ronpaulfollower999]

There is one in West Palm too. Saw a picture. Looked like a lot of people.

[JK/SEA]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

Don't think they should be VILLIFYING Monsanto?.....

Yes...Monsanto has our best interests at heart....

[FrankRep]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

I'm just happy the left is actually attacking a Corporation that is actually corrupt. The funny part is that Monsanto is a leftist corporation that promotes the United Nations and Agenda 21.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I'm just happy the left is actually attacking a Corporation that is actually corrupt. The funny part is that Monsanto is a leftist corporation that promotes the United Nations and Agenda 21.



What exactly does leftist mean?


There's common ground between "left" and "right" now more than ever. If you reframe it as ruling class and citizens... it seems a lot more accurate, and there is a lot more agreement.

Maybe you guys haven't noticed, but the media often portrays occupy protestors as "anarchists." Where'd that oxymoron thread go?

Increasing amounts of people are recognizing problems. We're still in the identification phase... moreso than the solution phase.

[FrankRep]

What exactly does leftist mean?

The Big Government, Progressive, Socialist type of people.

[luctor-et-emergo]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

Nothing wrong with business.

What is wrong with Monsanto and many other corporations that fall under 'crony capitalism' is the limited liability as well as the collusion with the media that keeps criticism of their backs, which is certainly convenient.. But that's what media does for their advertisers. It's a bunch of backscratching. You pay me money for ads, I'll get your back if you ever need it. In that regard advertisements are more than direct advertising, but a sort of unwritten insurance policy, buying the editors.

If corporations are people, how come they are not liable ?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The Big Government, Progressive, Socialist type of people.


A lot of those people would identify the problem as rich people controlling government. In these parts, people identify it as businesses controlling government.

I'll submit this for your consideration. If businesses are large enough to control government, aren't we also talking about rich people controlling government?

[FrankRep]

A lot of those people would identify the problem as rich people controlling government. In these parts, people identify it as businesses controlling government.

Government, itself, is the problem. It's too powerful and corrupt.

[Warlord]

Don't think they should be VILLIFYING Monsanto?.....

Yes...Monsanto has our best interests at heart....

Monsanto is a corporation doing nothing illegal.

The real target should be the bureaucracy in DC.

Kind of like Occupy targeting the big banks when they should be targeting the Federal Reserve.

Warlord is embarrassed by this spectacle.

[liberty2897]

This is a great post from GunnyFreedom on the subject from last year.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr&p=4510425&viewfull=1#post4510425

[Warlord]

Warlord thinks Gunny is wrong to call for Federal labelling and frame it as a stop gap measure.

Since when has ANY increase in the bureaucracies power and budget been "stop-gap".

Please no... Warlord would rather not have the Feds labeling food. It's a clear violation of the constitution and Monsanto will just find some way of evading it anyway because they own most of the administrators and have bought off the politicians.

[FrankRep]

Please no... Warlord would rather not have the Feds labeling food. It's a clear violation of the constitution and Monsanto will just find some way of evading it anyway because they own most of the administrators and have bought off the politicians.

GMO food labeling would fit under the "Commerce Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)" of the Constitution, I believe.

[Brett85]

Nothing wrong with business.

What is wrong with Monsanto and many other corporations that fall under 'crony capitalism' is the limited liability as well as the collusion with the media that keeps criticism of their backs, which is certainly convenient.

Then shouldn't the criticism be of the government for giving unfair advantages to certain businesses and interfering in the market place?

[Brett85]

This is a great post from GunnyFreedom on the subject from last year.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr&p=4510425&viewfull=1#post4510425

So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?

[Carlybee]

How is the Houston one going. I didn't go even though I live near where it's happening. Just had too much going on today.

[Warlord]

GMO food labeling would fit under the "Commerce Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)" of the Constitution, I believe.

Under an expansive (and wrong) interpretation it would but then if you recognize the Feds can label food you have to accept they can mandate you to buy healthcare and everything else which as you know was never the intention of the Founding fathers vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Government, itself, is the problem. It's too powerful and corrupt.


We personally agree. That's solution phase.

I'm trying to say that we will get more people to agree with our solution if we get more people to understand they are identifying the same problems as us. As it is, there are a bunch of people who can barely identify the problem. There are groups of passionate people who understand the problem exists, even if we don't all agree on the solution. We have a lot in common with those "leftists" just like "neocons" are different from "conservatives."

[Barrex]

In 6 cities in Croatia.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/s480x480/969426_552916951418304_879675545_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/575385_347384818718225_608002092_n.jpg

Couldnt attend protests....was fighting Monsanto by planting local watermelons, beans, corn etc...

[liberty2897]

So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?

I see what you are saying, but I think what GunnyFreedom did was limited to the state of NC. If you want to get rid of all government federal and state, then I'm all for it. I think states deciding what is good for them might be a practical solution for the time being. Monsanto, in my opinion, is playing with nature in a strong-armed way that could *potentially* be devastating to everyone on the planet. Can you say for sure that GMO could not cause loss of crop diversity and lead to a catastrophic failure of the food supply? I think people should have some say in how these companies operate within the current system that we have. At the very least, companies should be able to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO without fear of being sued.

[JK/SEA]

Couldnt attend protests....was fighting Monsanto by planting local watermelons, beans, corn etc...

reported. sorry, its for your own good.

[FrankRep]

Please no... Warlord would rather not have the Feds labeling food. It's a clear violation of the constitution and Monsanto will just find some way of evading it anyway because they own most of the administrators and have bought off the politicians.

GMO Labeling can be done at the State Level too.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/022d0735bae9f2f655b30f0833e75ce4_M.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13567-california-gmo-labeling-ballot-measure-fails)


California GMO-Labeling Ballot Measure Fails (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13567-california-gmo-labeling-ballot-measure-fails)
07 November 2012

[Barrex]

reported. sorry, its for your own good.

You are not in Kansas anymore ;)

This is Croatia...(or Apsurdistan as we "natives" call it:D). People here love too much their gardens and ... ahem... moonshine and stuff like that...

[Working Poor]

So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?
Oh please Monsanto is big into corporate welfare and pits small farms out of business everyday while selling foods on the market that are toxic because theiR honchos control the fad and the user and the crank out regulations that knocks the little guy in the dirt if you call that free market I give up.

[donnay]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

And only ignorant people who have no knowledge of the poisons in GMO's would make such a flippant comment. :rolleyes: This isn't a left/right issue this is a right/wrong issue, plain and simple.

Monsanto is a giant swallowing all the little people whole. They destroy anyone who gets in their way of making profits.


ETA:
Monsanto should be closed down and the top echelons (past and present) should be arrested and stand trial for crimes against humanity.

[opal]

someone please fix the first post.. Vienna is in Austria, not Germany

ETA.. pardon me.. second post

[Debbie Downer]

I actually applied for a job at Monsanto today :/

[FrankRep]

someone please fix the first post.. Vienna is in Austria, not Germany

ETA.. pardon me.. second post

fixed.

[Debbie Downer]

someone please fix the first post.. Vienna is in Austria, not Germany

ETA.. pardon me.. second post

These Austrians seemed pretty happy to become part of Germany:

http://cdn1.salzburg24.at/2013/03/krieger_film_103_003779681.jpg

Must have been the promise of universal dental care that had them smiling...

[Carlybee]

For those with questions about what Monsanto does, watch this and know the government is in bed with them and protecting them. Free market doesnt help with this because they have their fingers in everything.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

[Natural Citizen]

And only ignorant people who have no knowledge of the poisons in GMO's would make such a flippant comment. :rolleyes: This isn't a left/right issue this is a right/wrong issue, plain and simple.

Monsanto is a giant swallowing all the little people whole. They destroy anyone who gets in their way of making profits.


ETA:
Monsanto should be closed down and the top echelons (past and present) should be arrested and stand trial for crimes against humanity.

Spot on, Donnay. Growth versus survival.

This issue extends to foreign policy as many may already understand.

[better-dead-than-fed]

For those with questions about what Monsanto does, watch this and know the government is in bed with them and protecting them. Free market doesnt help with this because they have their fingers in everything.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... companies should be able to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO without fear of being sued.

How is it dangerous to label food as non-GMO?

[FrankRep]

What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.

Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.

[Natural Citizen]

What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.

The problem is simple. The base is illiterate to the science of it. People fail to demand the position of their prospective representatives regarding the science of it before just electing them to office where they'll surely represent those who lobby and do understand it. It's the only true answer. The base remains illiterate regarding the science used against their very being. Those who use it against them get a free pass based upon a purely naive assumption of capitalism whereas in reality we have just another government controlled market. One that actually does understand the sciences that they use against the natural citizen....literally. Traditionally the radical right is anti-science in general and impedes bipartisanship on any discussion regarding the matter. The old "oh, their a bunch of lefties" spew is basically all they've been indoctrinated to recite. This essentially endorses and breeds the illiteracy. Again, it's simple illiteracy as to the scientific practices that this and other multi-national corporations like them receive support for via what was historically a nation of, by and for us natural people before these same corprations became comfortable with their own gift of constitution/representation via artificial personhood. Is a battle for citizenship among other things. At this rate of support from our representatives they'll surely have our genes patented and we'll be paying them royalties for every generation to follow. We the people repatriated, so to speak.

This issue should be present in any discussion from our representatives where foreign policy is present. World wide protests have been, are and will continue to take place.

[Carlybee]

What is stopping consumers from demanding non-Monsanto products, and what is stopping producers from producing non-Monsanto products? If anyone would be willing to break it down for me briefly; I haven't had time to research this issue yet.

You need to research it..start with watching the documentary. The govt is protecting them. A former Monsanto exec was head of the USDA. Monsanto bullies small farmers and tries to force them to use their seed stock. Too many issues to paraphrase it. As for GMOs in general, almost all the major food brands use it...everything from Kraft to Hellman's to you name it. Even Whole Foods announced they cannot guarantee that their food won't contain it. Even if you could get them to say they won't use it, how would you know without labeling? At least that puts some liability on them.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.

Why aren't private labs selling that information to interested consumers?

[Debbie Downer]

Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.

So the threat of government violence should be used to force companies to label their products in a certain way?

[donnay]

I actually applied for a job at Monsanto today :/

As a tastes tester?

[Debbie Downer]

As a tastes tester?

Legal department, actually. But I have no problem with their products to be honest.

[Roxi]

Kansas City


This is my friend Tracy and her son and some of our homeschool group and RP groups.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971746_10151916738708852_554791315_n.jpg

There wasn't a march in my area and I wasn't able to organize one myself, so I spent the day putting heirloom veggies in the ground. :)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/942480_381078995344492_1737164790_n.jpg

[Carlybee]

I have no problem with their products to be honest.


Cool...you should try some Round Up in your smoothie

[donnay]

I already posted a good video about GMO's.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415409-Seeds-of-Death-Unveiling-The-Lies-of-GMO-s-Full-Movie




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a6OxbpLwEjQ


The world's leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs".


Take the time to watch it, please.

To thumb-nail it; we are being slowly poisoned. Unless you become aware of these poisons the more these poisons will be crammed down our throats!

[Debbie Downer]

Cool...you should try some Round Up in your smoothie

Why would I put a herbicide in my smoothie?


Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.

The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity. The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.

[donnay]

Legal department, actually. But I have no problem with their products to be honest.

You can be honest all you want, it doesn't mean that you aren't being poisoned slowly.

[Carlybee]

Why would I put a herbicide in my smoothie? Might as well...they want to put it in our crops (I was being facetious)

[donnay]

Why would I put a herbicide in my smoothie?


Because many companies that are using Monsanto's GMO's are inadvertently putting herbicides in your food.

[Debbie Downer]

Might as well...they want to put it in our crops

Want to? Glyphosate (Round Up) has been around since the early 70s and is the most used herbicide in the world. It's safe to use.

[Debbie Downer]

Because many companies that are using Monsanto's GMO's are inadvertently putting herbicides in your food.

Monsanto has developed plants which are resistant to glyphosate...

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I actually applied for a job at Monsanto today :/


LMAO. You might be really funny.

[donnay]

Want to? Glyphosate (Round Up) has been around since the early 70s and is the most used herbicide in the world. It's safe to use.

That's what they said about Agent Orange too. :rolleyes:

[Natural Citizen]

http://lupusuva1phototherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/rats-225x300.jpghttp://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/genetically-pictures-giant-chemical-n.jpg?w=497http://img.maxisciences.com/organisme-g%e9n%e9tiquement-modifi%e9/un-rat-victime-d-une-tumeur-suite-a-l-ingestion-prolongee-de-mais-ogm-nk-603-de-monsanto-credit-jean-paul-jaud_53500_w250.jpg

[better-dead-than-fed]

You need to research it..start with watching the documentary. The govt is protecting them. A former Monsanto exec was head of the USDA. Monsanto bullies small farmers and tries to force them to use their seed stock. Too many issues to paraphrase it. As for GMOs in general, almost all the major food brands use it...everything from Kraft to Hellman's to you name it. Even Whole Foods announced they cannot guarantee that their food won't contain it. Even if you could get them to say they won't use it, how would you know without labeling? At least that puts some liability on them.

Major food brands like Kraft and Hellman can be boycotted. It's hard to take any protester seriously who doesn't practice what they preach. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping private labs from reporting which foods have GMO's, and private labs competing to provide this service would certainly be less expensive and more reliable than the FDA. Why is anyone asking for the FDA to be involved?

[Debbie Downer]

That's what they said about Agent Orange too. :rolleyes:

Agent Orange was developed as a chemical weapon, not as an agricultural product. Glyphosate has been used safely for over 40 years. Please show me peer reviewed studies that show it has led to deaths or serious illness when used correctly (ie: not deliberately ingested).

[Anti Federalist]

Josh_LA is back...LOL

[Debbie Downer]

Josh_LA is back...LOL

Nope, he's not.

[JK/SEA]

Monsanto is a corporation doing nothing illegal.

The real target should be the bureaucracy in DC.

Kind of like Occupy targeting the big banks when they should be targeting the Federal Reserve.

Warlord is embarrassed by this spectacle.

When you chop down a tree, usually you start at the bottom.

[Carlybee]

Want to? Glyphosate (Round Up) has been around since the early 70s and is the most used herbicide in the world. It's safe to use.


um hum

[donnay]

Monsanto has developed plants which are resistant to glyphosate...


Glyphosate was patented in 1964--not as an herbicide but as a broad spectrum chelator. What it does is it hugs a lot of the minerals and does not allow the plant to get the minerals--hence when you or I eat these plants, we get no minerals. It also kills beneficial microorganisms in the soil that provide nutrients in the plant. It also promotes pathogenic organisms in the soil that overrun the plants--which promotes a weaker plant and invites more disease.

Then in turn this is given to livestock. Non-nutrient based food. Then we eat the livestock--it becomes a vicious circle.

[better-dead-than-fed]

All this Monsanto drama is from people assuming that only the federal government knows how to print food-labels?

[donnay]

Agent Orange was developed as a chemical weapon, not as an agricultural product. Glyphosate has been used safely for over 40 years. Please show me peer reviewed studies that show it has led to deaths or serious illness when used correctly (ie: not deliberately ingested).

Agent Orange (Dioxin) was indeed used as an herbicide.



A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended for human consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange.



When dioxin contaminated material spread on a Missouri farm in 1971, hundreds of birds, 11 cats, 4 dogs and 43 horses died.



In 1978 the EPA suspended spraying Agent Orange in national forests, due to increases in miscarriages in women living near forests that had been sprayed.



A 1979 study published in the JAMA by Bogen et al looked at 78 Vietnam veterans who reported Agent Orange exposures. Eighty percent reported extreme fatigue. Over 60% had peripheral neuropathies, 73% had depression, and 8% had attempted suicide. Forty-five per cent reported violent rages. Sudden lapses of memory were seen in 21%.

Source:
http://www.wjpbr.com/agentor.html

[Debbie Downer]

Agent Orange (Dioxin) was indeed used as an herbicide.

I never said it wasn't used as a herbicide, that's obviously what it was developed for! I said it was never developed for use as an agricultural product, but instead as a chemical weapon.

Glyphosate, on the other hand, has 40+ year track record of safe use.

[donnay]

All this Monsanto drama is from people assuming that only the federal government knows how to print food-labels?

The federal government is in bed with these rat bastards!! Check out Michael Taylor.

[mad cow]

Thank God for massive Government power and regulations!
Without it people would be walking down the street in NYC drinking huge sodas,eating trans fats and smoking cigarettes,free as a bird.

It is hard to live a free life when all around you people are demanding shorter chains and smaller cages.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The federal government is in bed with these rat bastards!! Check out Michael Taylor.

I can believe that, but I'd look for solutions besides expanding FDA power.

[donnay]

I never said it wasn't used as a herbicide, that's obviously what it was developed for! I said it was never developed for use as an agricultural product, but instead as a chemical weapon.

Glyphosate, on the other hand, has 40+ year track record of safe use.


You don't read all too well, eh?

"A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended for human consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange."

[Brett85]

Oh please Monsanto is big into corporate welfare and pits small farms out of business everyday while selling foods on the market that are toxic because theiR honchos control the fad and the user and the crank out regulations that knocks the little guy in the dirt if you call that free market I give up.

Right, and your solution is to make the market even less free. Correct?

[Roxi]

Vegas:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/312173_10200519832310366_226573813_n.jpg


a link to many more from LV: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.348653601922664&type=1

[liberty2897]

I can believe that, but I'd look for solutions besides expanding FDA power.

Who here is asking to expand FDA power? Monsanto and the FDA are pretty much the same thing at this point.

[donnay]

I can believe that, but I'd look for solutions besides expanding FDA power.

The march against Monsanto is to bring awareness to people who do not know or realize how poison these GMO's are. It's more like people putting a spot light on the government collusion and Big Agra.

We need more people to be aware of these toxins, therefore, they can make better choices in the food they choose and refuse to buy foods from companies who use GMO's. Many in the organic community already have taken it upon themselves to label their products.

Did you know that the workers who work for Monsanto refuse to eat the GMO's in their cafeteria?

Source:
http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/02/monsanto-cafeteria-bans-gmo-foods/

[better-dead-than-fed]

Who here is asking to expand FDA power? Monsanto and the FDA are pretty much the same thing at this point.

I thought the March Against Monsanto was calling for the FDA to label GMO foods somehow? I also though the March was opposing the Farmer Assurance Provision, because Marchers want the government to ban the sale of harmful GMO products (cf. banning the sale of large sodas, cigarettes, alcohol, cars, etc.)

[Debbie Downer]

You don't read all too well, eh?

"A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In 1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended for human consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange."

Agent Orange was never developed as an agricultural product. It was designed by the Army to be used as a chemical weapon to destroy enemy crops, not as a agricultural herbicide safe for use with food consumed by humans.

But you keep changing the subject. We're not talking about agent orange, we're discussing glyphosate, which has a 40+ year record of being safely used. It's the most used herbicide in the US and there is no record of it being attributed to any deaths or serious illness when used properly.

[Natural Citizen]

we're discussing glyphosate

Wait a second. Let me just get this right. The fuggin world is marching against monsanto and we're talking about glyphosate?

There's a saying for this skullduggery. It goes like this. Listen now...it goes "Shut up! Listen!" Move along, nothing to see here...we're talking about ...glyphosate.

[Debbie Downer]

Wait a second. Let me just get this right. The fuggin world is marching against monsanto and we're talking about glyphosate?

There's a saying for this skullduggery. It goes like this. Listen now...it goes "Shut up! Listen!" Move along, nothing to see here...

Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.

[Natural Citizen]

Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.

I know what it is. It inhibits natural detoxification in human cells....for one.

I'd rather read updates regarding these protests though. Everyone here knows what these herbicides are and do. The hell do we want to waste our time with redundant back and forth spin for? That's really all you're doing.

[pcosmar]

Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.

Also widely blamed for Bee die off.

In fact,, recently a bee keeper had all his bees stolen,, he was developing bees that were Round Up resistant.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/illinois-illegally-seizes-bees-resistant-to-monsantos-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/5336210

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18e-colony-collapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/

[tangent4ronpaul]

Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.

it's actually failing as weeds are getting used to it and Monsanto is working on more robust crops that can survive being sprayed with agent orange.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

This appears to be a media blackout. On Google news, this is the only story that comes up unless you specifically search for Monsanto:

On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill
RT.com - May 24, 2013

is anyone catching it on cable news?

-t

[Natural Citizen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XN_81YLSUE

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainst... (https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto?ref=ts&fref=ts)

GLOBAL EVENT LIST
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/l... (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ah7h2ApbBPnpdGhOMElaSVg1QUQtRlJQWm1FaUZISl E&toomany=true)

[Carlybee]

Glyphosate is one of Monsanto's most famous products, they market it under the name Round Up. It's the most common herbicide used in the US and has a 40+ year track record of safe use. Donnay keeps changing the subject to agent orange, though, instead of facing the fact that glyphosate is safe.


Glyphosate is under investigation for possibly being linked to cancer and parkinson's among other things. Monsanto genetically alters seed stock so that it can withstand being sprayed with Roundup but sure we all need to injest a little weed killer from time to time. (rolls eyes). Not to mention the fact that Monsanto wants to take over the world's seed stock by whatever means possible.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Ban GMO foods, and many will be unable to afford the remaining food. Socialism inflates the human population.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is a great post from GunnyFreedom on the subject from last year.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr&p=4510425&viewfull=1#post4510425

To be fair, I have figured out a much better way since then. Simply add to the definition of 'fraud' the practice of pretending that GMO tomatos are natural tomatos. It is very minimalist, and when labeling laws go away it self-obsoletes.

I only ever supported STATE (definitely not Federal as that would be blatantly unconstitutional) labeling as an emergency measure in a fascistic (not free) market as a means of self-defense against Federal aggression in this area. I have evolved from that somewhat drastic position into the most minor of tweaks -- specifically defining the act of promoting man-manipulated GMO [product] as if it were a natural [product] as being fraud. In other words, bombarding a tomato seed with frog DNA until it was something different is no longer a "tomato" and those who pretend it is are guilty of fraud.

It ends up being a very minor tweak but solves the labeling problem, and when we finally manage to end the FDA labeling requirement id obsoletes itself like it never existed.

I've never - ever - supported federal mandated labeling of any kind.

[GunnyFreedom]

So basically, since we don't currently have a free market, the solution is to make the market even less free?

No, the solution was to establish a State level barricade (self defense) against Federal level aggression (regulatory bans against disclosure).

I have since refined the idea into a much...much...better solution.

[Natural Citizen]

In other words, bombarding a tomato seed with frog DNA until it was something different is no longer a "tomato" and those who pretend it is are guilty of fraud.



See? Gunny is brilliant. If I lived in your state I'd vote for you. Gunny just gave his position on the science of it. Is all that is required.

[GunnyFreedom]

Under an expansive (and wrong) interpretation it would but then if you recognize the Feds can label food you have to accept they can mandate you to buy healthcare and everything else which as you know was never the intention of the Founding fathers vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.

No, technically it would be Constitutional to require disclosure of GMO for any products that actually crossed State lines under the original intent of the Commerce Clause. However there is a much better way to accomplish the same goal simply by defining the practice of pretending that a frogmato was a genuine tomato as fraud.

[Carlybee]

Ban GMO foods, and many will be unable to afford the remaining food. Socialism inflates the human population.

So we should all just eat poison then? I have cut out 50% of GMO foods and am actually saving money. I buy organic non GMO produce from local farmers through a co-op on a weekly basis and yes it's more work because I actually have to prepare my own food instead of opening a can or box but I actually spend less. Roughly $85 for enough greens and fruit that lasts me a week or longer and roughly another $50-$60 a week for other products. We don't use much potatos, rice or bread and little dairy but we do buy free range non hormone added chicken which is about $20 for 10 boneless breasts. We make our own juice and I make my own salad dressing. I'm not saying we don't go out once a week or so to eat but since I don't want to waste the food we buy we do prepare food at home more often so we save money that way as well.

The best solution is putting pressure on the Ag industry and food conglomerates to label on a voluntary basis. Problem is they would probably lie about it. Problem with the government mandating is is that it just gives them more nanny like power. It IS a conundrum but people should try to do their own due diligence.

[GunnyFreedom]

I see what you are saying, but I think what GunnyFreedom did was limited to the state of NC. If you want to get rid of all government federal and state, then I'm all for it. I think states deciding what is good for them might be a practical solution for the time being. Monsanto, in my opinion, is playing with nature in a strong-armed way that could *potentially* be devastating to everyone on the planet. Can you say for sure that GMO could not cause loss of crop diversity and lead to a catastrophic failure of the food supply? I think people should have some say in how these companies operate within the current system that we have. At the very least, companies should be able to voluntarily label their food as non-GMO without fear of being sued.

Correct. I could have never advocated for something like that at the Federal level at all. ever. Mandating federal GMO labeling would be completely unconstitutional. There is simply no authority in the US Constitution granting Washington that kind of power. It was only at the State level, and that was because I did not at the time have the far better (and less interventionist) solution that I do now.

[GunnyFreedom]

How is it dangerous to label food as non-GMO?


It's not. Companies should be free to label or not to label as they see fit. It becomes a real problem when the FDA steps in and says you are not allowed to label [product] as "GMO Free" that it becomes fascistic and thus subject to the enactment of State level defenses.

[GunnyFreedom]

Consumers don't know which foods are GMO or non-GMO. That's one problem.

I admit, I really expected you to be on the other side of this issue. I am heartened. I am not being sarcastic.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Remember that Congress banned organic food from being labeled organic. But somehow it became OK to lable GMO food as organic... :rolleyes:

-t

[mad cow]

I think states deciding what is good for them might be a practical solution for the time being.

What is your opinion of Mayors and Cities deciding what is good for them,oh say Mayor Bloomberg and NYC for instance?You know,keeping it local.Even better,yes?

[better-dead-than-fed]

So we should all just eat poison then? I have cut out 50% of GMO foods and am actually saving money. I buy organic non GMO produce from local farmers through a co-op on a weekly basis and yes it's more work because I actually have to prepare my own food instead of opening a can or box but I actually spend less. Roughly $85 for enough greens and fruit that lasts me a week or longer and roughly another $50-$60 a week for other products. We don't use much potatos, rice or bread and little dairy but we do buy free range non hormone added chicken which is about $20 for 10 boneless breasts. We make our own juice and I make my own salad dressing. I'm not saying we don't go out once a week or so to eat but since I don't want to waste the food we buy we do prepare food at home more often so we save money that way as well.

The best solution is putting pressure on the Ag industry and food conglomerates to label on a voluntary basis. Problem is they would probably lie about it. Problem with the government mandating is is that it just gives them more nanny like power. It IS a conundrum but people should try to do their own due diligence.

Private labs could do the testing. No nannies, less prone to corruption than FDA, and cheaper.

[Carlybee]

My biggest problem with a lot of these protests is some of these people still don't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

[sailingaway]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/306963_422004177906831_1567624829_n.jpg

[better-dead-than-fed]

Remember that Congress banned organic food from being labeled organic. But somehow it became OK to lable GMO food as organic... :rolleyes:

-t

When did Congress do that? I'd like to see that legislation.

[GunnyFreedom]

So the threat of government violence should be used to force companies to label their products in a certain way?

No. The threat of violence should NOT be used to shutter and bankrupt companies who choose to voluntarily label their products as "GMO Free." Because such violence IS being used to prevent said voluntary labeling, a State's right to self-defense against federal aggression exists under the NAP. I have a much better strategy for said self-defense than I did a year ago, one that automatically obsoletes itself when the labeling laws that currently exist go away.

[GunnyFreedom]

My biggest problem with a lot of these protests is some of these people still don't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

I made that distinction pretty clear during my speech at the Greensboro March Against Monsanto today. ;p

[better-dead-than-fed]

It's not. Companies should be free to label or not to label as they see fit. It becomes a real problem when the FDA steps in and says you are not allowed to label [product] as "GMO Free" that it becomes fascistic and thus subject to the enactment of State level defenses.

Where did FDA do that?

[sailingaway]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/601000_422002941240288_539145353_n.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

Private labs could do the testing. No nannies, less prone to corruption than FDA, and cheaper.

FDA needs to die, and then this whole discussion would be moot.

[Natural Citizen]

My biggest problem with a lot of these protests is some of these people still don't know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Yep. But these are dragons that we can overcome.

[GunnyFreedom]

Where did FDA do that?

Several times, the most famous example is salmon. FDA says labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" misleads the consumer as if GMO were somehow different. Also that the consumer would be confused by too many labels. Therefore labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" is a regulatory violation subject to penalty. FDA also did so with milk/dairy and rBGH.

Just because FDA allows SOME products to be labeled GMO Free (only those where GMO is already fully ubiquitous) doesn't mean they allow ALL natural products to be labeled GMO Free.

Salmon is just the most famous example.

[donnay]

Agent Orange was never developed as an agricultural product. It was designed by the Army to be used as a chemical weapon to destroy enemy crops, not as a agricultural herbicide safe for use with food consumed by humans.

But you keep changing the subject. We're not talking about agent orange, we're discussing glyphosate, which has a 40+ year record of being safely used. It's the most used herbicide in the US and there is no record of it being attributed to any deaths or serious illness when used properly.

http://www.whale.to/a/ACF79D3.jpg

[Natural Citizen]

This appears to be a media blackout. On Google news, this is the only story that comes up unless you specifically search for Monsanto:

On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill
RT.com - May 24, 2013

is anyone catching it on cable news?

-t

Well. RT is part of my cable lineup now. Is a refreshing change of pace to actually see and hear genuine issues presented for scrutiny to the public. Discussion here includes the relationships between our representatives and these companies that they protect.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOgfisTICNk

[Carlybee]

Yep. But these are dragons that we can overcome.


You can start with the Anonymous organization and Occupy Monsanto

[Carlybee]

Facebook censoring pics of children carrying protest signs at Monsanto marches

http://www.naturalnews.com/040484_Facebook_censorship_children_Monsanto_rally .html

[sailingaway]

From one of the marches, via twitter:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLIZPrECQAIlP2C.jpg:large

[Natural Citizen]

You can start with the Anonymous organization and Occupy Monsanto

Maybe. We probably disagree on that. I'd rather engage the biggest, baddest supporter/enabler/group of enablers of the travesy and deal with it that way. Force them to defend the fodder. Anonymous and occupy are a glorified domino effect.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Several times, the most famous example is salmon. FDA says labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" misleads the consumer as if GMO were somehow different. Also that the consumer would be confused by too many labels. Therefore labeling natural salmon "GMO Free" is a regulatory violation subject to penalty. FDA also did so with milk/dairy and rBGH.

Just because FDA allows SOME products to be labeled GMO Free (only those where GMO is already fully ubiquitous) doesn't mean they allow ALL natural products to be labeled GMO Free.

Salmon is just the most famous example.

Could the FDA stop a private lab from testing foods for GMO and reporting the results to consumers?

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qA5WqY96LA

[Natural Citizen]

March Against Monsanto World Coverage (https://www.rebelmouse.com/MarchAgainstMonsanto/)

Synergy.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Let me get this straight. The point of the march was to put a Monsanto employee in charge of labelling GMO foods.

[Natural Citizen]

Let me get this straight. The point of the march was to put a Monsanto employee in charge of labelling GMO foods.

Seems like people are just asking who speaks for them? So who does? Who speaks for them? We know who speaks for Monsanto. But who speaks for the people? The real ones.

[Roxi]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/may/25/protesters-call-attention-genetically-modified-foo/?fb_action_ids=10201169114017864&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210201169114017864%22%3A476 494409087137%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210201169114017864%22%3A%22og .recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D#axzz2UNK50ECQ

Las Vegas Sun article about the march today.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Seems like people are just asking who speaks for them? So who does? Who speaks for them? We know who speaks for Monsanto. But who speaks for the people? The real ones.

Real people speak for themselves, by identifying non-GMO foods without relying on the government, buying whichever food they choose, and leaving their neighbors free to eat GMO food if that's what their neighbors choose.

[Natural Citizen]

Real people speak for themselves, by identifying non-GMO foods without relying on the government, buying whichever food they choose, and leaving their neighbors free to eat GMO food if that's what their neighbors choose.

You're still begging the question.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You're still begging the question.

Is English your primary language?

[Natural Citizen]

Is English your primary language?

Of course, it is. I'd suggest that you research the issue more thoroughly though. Goodbye.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I'd suggest that you research the issue more thoroughly though.

I hear that a lot from people who don't know what they're talking about.

[kcchiefs6465]

People should know specifically what they're buying.

The FDA isn't even up to the task.

Private labs are able to test.. though I don't see your point? If they tell me it is wild Alaskan salmon it damn sure ought to be. Not a genetically created 'fish.'

Whether or not the 'fish' has any negative health effects is secondary. I have the right to make the decision.

My opinion that we shouldn't be cross 'engineering' things that seem 'effective' with supposedly 'trivial' consequences, aside.

[speciallyblend]

Real people speak for themselves, by identifying non-GMO foods without relying on the government, buying whichever food they choose, and leaving their neighbors free to eat GMO food if that's what their neighbors choose.

Real people should have a choice. They should know if they are being sold monsanto garbage. If gmo is so great, then label it so! List the product.

[heavenlyboy34]

We personally agree. That's solution phase.

I'm trying to say that we will get more people to agree with our solution if we get more people to understand they are identifying the same problems as us. As it is, there are a bunch of people who can barely identify the problem. There are groups of passionate people who understand the problem exists, even if we don't all agree on the solution. We have a lot in common with those "leftists" just like "neocons" are different from "conservatives."
Yep. "Liberty" movements worldwide have always had their roots in radical leftism. Right-ism is oppressive by nature.

[better-dead-than-fed]

If gmo is so great, then label it so! List the product.[/B]

I don't think it's so great.


Real people should have a choice. They should know if they are being sold monsanto garbage.

Some people don't care, and they should be left out of this. That's what the people marching to expand the FDA don't acknowledge. People who do want to avoid Monsanto products are free to hire a private lab to tell them what's in a food-product. No sympathy for the marchers too lazy and uninitiated to hire a private lab, who'd sooner expand the role of federal government instinctively like pavlovian dogs.

[heavenlyboy34]

People should know specifically what they're buying.

The FDA isn't even up to the task.

Private labs are able to test.. though I don't see your point? If they tell me it is wild Alaskan salmon it damn sure ought to be. Not a genetically created 'fish.'

Whether or not the 'fish' has any negative health effects is secondary. I have the right to make the decision.

My opinion that we shouldn't be cross 'engineering' things that seem 'effective' with supposedly 'trivial' consequences, aside.
It seems to me that not labeling GMO foods is a type of fraud by omission. FWIW.

[bolil]

People should know specifically what they're buying.

The FDA isn't even up to the task.

Private labs are able to test.. though I don't see your point? If they tell me it is wild Alaskan salmon it damn sure ought to be. Not a genetically created 'fish.'

Whether or not the 'fish' has any negative health effects is secondary. I have the right to make the decision.

My opinion that we shouldn't be cross 'engineering' things that seem 'effective' with supposedly 'trivial' consequences, aside.

If you buy a product labeled 'Alaskan salmon' and it turns out not to be Alaskan salmon, it seems obvious your property rights were violated (you paid for one thing, and got another). If I paid to see a movie A and, instead, was shown movie B, it should be clear that my rights have been violated. So, basically, if I am a fishmonger I should be able to sell any fish I please as any fish I please... unless someone tests it. And should they test it, and my product proven false, I've got a lawsuit coming my way.

If some jerkoff labels GMO food as 'organic' they should have a lawsuit slap coming. If they can hide behind the FDA, said lawsuit slap is DOA.

The FDA couldn't give a shit less, private and competing veracity firms might.

[better-dead-than-fed]

127 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab

Kneejerk fascism on display.

[Natural Citizen]

I hear that a lot from people who don't know what they're talking about.


I tried to find a really basic paper to save me some typing. Hope it helps...


After US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the State Department was lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other similar corporations, a new report based on the cables shows Washington's shilling for the biotech industry in distinct detail.

The August 2011 WikiLeaks revelations showed that American diplomats had requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to hold talks with politicians and agricultural officials in "target countries" in areas like Africa and Latin America, where genetically-modified crops were not yet a mainstay, as well as some European countries that have resisted the controversial agricultural practice.

After a concerted effort to "closely examine five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide," nonprofit consumer protection group Food& Water Watch published on Tuesday a report showing in plain detail the depth of the partnership between the federal government and a number of controversial biotech companies that have slowly but surely pushed their GMO products on a number of new countries in recent years.

At center stage in the report is Monsanto, the St. Louis, Missouri-based makers of genetically-modified crops and genetically-engineered seeds that has continuously generatedcriticism (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-march-protests-world-069/) as of late over its practices both on the growing field and in a court of law. Monsanto is among the most valuable corporations in the US, yet has relentlessly sued small-time farmers across the world over alleged patent violations, often forcing independent agriculturists to go out of business. Legislation signed into law last month provided litigation immunity to GMO companies including Monsanto, and on Monday the Supreme Court sided (http://rt.com/usa/patented-monsanto-court-patent-210/) with the corporation when ruling on a landmark patent infringement case.

“The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter told reporters. “This report provides a chilling snapshot of how a handful of giant biotechnology companies are unduly influencing US foreign policy and undermining our diplomatic efforts to promote security, international development and transparency worldwide. This report is a call to action for Americans because public policy should not be for sale to the highest bidder.”

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

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

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

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

However, activists in the areas in question and elsewhere are taking note of Monsanto's dangerous and growing influence, withanti-Monsanto demonstrations planned in 36 cities on six continents (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-march-protests-world-069/) for spring and summer 2013.

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

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

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

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

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


As RT reported previously, that so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” signed into law last month was co-authored by a senator that has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/) from the company — a revelation that didn’t surprise many given that another important figure in Washington, Justice Clarence Thomas, served as an attorney for the corporation before he was nominated to the high court only to eventually preside over a case involving his former employer. But according to Food & Water Watch, the relationship between Monsanto and the government extends beyond Congress and the Supreme Court. In a statement published on Tuesday to accompany their report, Food & Water Watch wrote that the cables detail “how the US State Department lobbies foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operates a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenges commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.”

This week’s report comes just one day after Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court sided with Monsanto in reaching a decision in a landmark patent suit (http://rt.com/usa/patented-monsanto-court-patent-210/). In the case, the high court said that an Indiana farmer infringed on Monsanto’s patent rights by using specially-made seeds he obtained second-hand without signing a contract with the company. That ruling, however, came just days after the company was hit with comparably bad news: on Friday, the US Department of Agriculture ordered an extra round of tests for new GMO breeds being developed by Monsanto and Dow, putting on hold plans to release to the public laboratory-made crops that can withstand heavy dousing of dangerous pesticides. Both companies want to make available crops that are resistant to the chemicals 2,4-D and dicamba, a move that environmentalists fear will prompt farmers to use more of these toxins.

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

New cables 'expose' US govt lobbies worldwide for Monsanto, other GMO corps (http://rt.com/usa/wikileaks-monsanto-cables-report-273/)

[kcchiefs6465]

127 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab

Kneejerk fascism on display.
But you haven't addressed my point.

A chinook-eel-salmon isn't the same as a damn farm raised salmon.

I am not arguing whether or not it is cancerous or bad for the body. I am arguing against the fraudulent marketeering that takes place to actually sell the shit.

[better-dead-than-fed]

But you haven't addressed my point.

A chinook-eel-salmon isn't the same as a damn farm raised salmon.

I am not arguing whether or not it is cancerous or bad for the body. I am arguing against the fraudulent marketeering that takes place to actually sell the shit.

I wasn't calling everyone a fascist, not calling you one. I've been responding to the argument that the FDA is somehow the only body capable of reporting a food's content. Wizards with super-powers by virtue of their government-employment -- I don't think so.

I am all for people being able to know what they're eating. If I'm still missing your point, I'm sorry for being obtuse, but I don't understand.

[Natural Citizen]

But you haven't addressed my point.

A chinook-eel-salmon isn't the same as a damn farm raised salmon.

I am not arguing whether or not it is cancerous or bad for the body. I am arguing against the fraudulent marketeering that takes place to actually sell the shit.

Yep. Now we're talking.

[bolil]

Yep. Now we're talking.

Yeah, but it is up to the consumer to be his/her own advocate. Since the FDA literally gives less than a shit, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those fuckers to court with evidence that they defrauded you.

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, but it is up to the consumer to be his/her own advocate. Since the FDA literally gives less than a shit, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those fuckers to court with evidence that they defrauded you.

Intellectual Property rights? Or more specifically, trade secrets like they pulled off with the fracking to suppress various aspects of the technology? Good luck with that. Is why I piss and moan about demanding these suits' position on the science itself. It's important.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why people aren't bothering to hire a lab? A lab for what? To determine whether the salmon matures in 16 months rather than years? I am of the belief they shouldn't be experimenting with the shit either way. Let's wait until we cause a calamity. But that's neither here nor there... I honestly am content.

All I ask is that the shit I am buying is labeled. Not too much to ask, really.

If the price is right, I'd probably buy it either way. (so long as taste isn't affected)

[better-dead-than-fed]

I tried to find a really basic paper to save me some typing. Hope it helps...

New cables 'expose' US govt lobbies worldwide for Monsanto, other GMO corps (http://rt.com/usa/wikileaks-monsanto-cables-report-273/)

135 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab

[bolil]

Intellectual Property rights? Or more specifically, trade secrets like they pulled off with the fracking to cover up the damage? Good luck with that. Is why I piss and moan about demandong these suits' position on the science itself. It's important.

IP can kiss my ass, first of all (of course I don't produce any) and secondly IP is not a sufficient to disallow an investigation into potential fraud.

The gov will only label things when it helps their cronies. Other than that, the only hope for such labels is a privately funded endeavor. That is all I am saying.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, but it is up to the consumer to be his/her own advocate. Since the FDA literally gives less than a shit, the next choice is to contract with a lab, publish the results, and bring those fuckers to court with evidence that they defrauded you.
Good luck.

[Natural Citizen]

135 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab

Don't you read good?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you buy a product labeled 'Alaskan salmon' and it turns out not to be Alaskan salmon, it seems obvious your property rights were violated (you paid for one thing, and got another). If I paid to see a movie A and, instead, was shown movie B, it should be clear that my rights have been violated. So, basically, if I am a fishmonger I should be able to sell any fish I please as any fish I please... unless someone tests it. And should they test it, and my product proven false, I've got a lawsuit coming my way.

If some jerkoff labels GMO food as 'organic' they should have a lawsuit slap coming. If they can hide behind the FDA, said lawsuit slap is DOA.

The FDA couldn't give a shit less, private and competing veracity firms might.

I wouldn't say any of your rights were violated, but it certainly is breach of contract, which should be handled through adjudication, and awareness campaigns. I'm not opposed to GMO foods and I don't think they're any more carcinogenic or dangerous than non-GMO foods, but the producer certainly has contractual obligations when selling their products not to defraud and be found in breach of contract.

Also, these GMO companies certainly need to be held liable for their property 'drifting' onto another's and causing harm to their property. It's a form of pollution and it too, should be a matter of the courts. Of course, the Government has a monopoly on the courts and of course force so, that's a battle to fight with the courts/Government's interests.

[bolil]

Good luck.

It is just the reality we operate in, I mean no offense.

[kcchiefs6465]

135 post in this thread so far

0 explanations given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab
Because they are colluding with the government to skew any and every negative result or mentioned ruling given?

Please don't point out who the rulings and anonymous amendments added benefit.

[bolil]

I wouldn't say any of your rights were violated, but it certainly is breach of contract, which should be handled through adjudication, and awareness campaigns. I'm not opposed to GMO foods and I don't think their any more carcinogenic or dangerous than non-GMO foods, but the producer certainly has contractual obligations when selling their products not to defraud and be found in breach of contract.

I would say a clear violation of rights occurred: I paid for A and got B. I've a right to what I exchange for, don't I, exactly what I exchange for? If a product is labeled as A, that IS a contract, if it is actually B said contract has been breached. To be more particular, my right to my own property was violated through deception.

This is what Ron Paul is talking about when he says that a free market provides for the strictest regulations. It is when the FDA establishes, shall I say for lack of better words, wiggle room that equivocation occurs and people are legitimately defrauded.

[better-dead-than-fed]

All I ask is that the shit I am buying is labeled.

If it had a bar-code simply identifying the manufacturer and product, and you scanned the bar-code with an app on your phone, and the app instantly queried a database published by a private lab of your choosing, and the app instantly told you GMO, no-GMO, or whatever else you wanted to know, would that satisfy you?


Not too much to ask, really.

Asking that the government forcibly take my money to fund the FDA to crappily do something that would be done better by private labs, is too much to ask.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Don't you read good?

No, but even the good readers have seen no explanation given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab.

[bolil]

No, but even the good readers have seen no explanation given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab.

Maybe because it is prohibitively expensive, and any reasonable contracting of this type would have to be done en masse. Ironically, for a service we already pay for en masse (FDA). The FDA should be abolished, now, and then private means would be the only means.

Hmmm, seems like a good cause. This would be a good money bomb. An organization that tests such things beholden to no one.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Maybe because it is prohibitively expensive, and any reasonable contracting of this type would have to be done en masse. Ironically, for a service we already pay for (FDA). The FDA should be abolished, now, and then private means would be the only means.

I don't see why it would be expensive if the millions of people willing to march were as willing to put an app on their phone and start scanning bar-codes. I kind of think some of them just like marching, without much care about what they're marching for. Certainly, it would cost no more to hire private labs than it would to fund the FDA for this.

[bolil]

I don't see why it would be expensive if the millions of people willing to march were as willing to put an app on their phone and start scanning bar-codes. I kind of think some of them just like marching, without much care about what they're marching for.

That is a good point, walking is easy... taking affective action maybe not so much. From now on, whenever I walk anywhere, I shall consider a one man march for liberty... and then I will do nothing else.

[FrankRep]

I don't see why it would be expensive if the millions of people willing to march were as willing to put an app on their phone and start scanning bar-codes. I kind of think some of them just like marching, without much care about what they're marching for. Certainly, it would cost no more to hire private labs than it would to fund the FDA for this.

Those people at the rally, however, think it's the FDA's job to regulate GMO products. That's why.

[kcchiefs6465]

If it had a bar-code simply identifying the manufacturer and product, and you scanned the bar-code with an app on your phone, and the app instantly queried a database published by a private lab of your choosing, and the app instantly told you GMO, no-GMO, or whatever else you wanted to know, would that satisfy you?
I think the products should be labeled. Simple enough.

Many people don't have smart phones. Might be surprised at those who don't give a fuck about what they eat. The packages ought to be labeled though. Prices would go down minimally if at all. (if the prices reflected as much)



Asking that the government forcibly take my money to fund the FDA to crappily do something that would be done better by private labs, is too much to ask.

I do not know the solution. I would like to hear yours.

Truth be told, there are things that would need to be worked out... In any system.

Products ought to be labeled as to what they are. How that is insured is something I do not know.

[amy31416]

I'm not an expert, but I don't have to be to know that Monsanto's manipulation of the plant gene pool is not good. Their practices are abysmal.

[FrankRep]

Many people don't have smart phones. Might be surprised at those who don't give a fuck about what they eat. The packages ought to be labeled though. Prices would go down minimally if at all. (if the prices reflected as much)

1.) People have access to the Internets.

2.) I don't care if certain people don't care what they eat, plenty more people do care.

[Natural Citizen]

start scanning bar-codes.

Nnnnnnnno. :cool:

In fact, this is another extremely delicate issue that our representatives have enjoyed the luxury of not discussing. Although bar codes are a minimal aspect in scope.

[bolil]

I'm not an expert, but I don't have to be to know that Monsanto's manipulation of the plant gene pool is not good. Their practices are abysmal.
They should be strangled, financially, as a company.

How to do that?

[kcchiefs6465]

1.) People are access to the Internets.

2.) I don't care if certain people don't care what they eat, plenty more people do care.
1.) I don't see the point of having access to the internet. The studies being funded and performed by the company in question clearly is a conflict of interest. And many people don't have access to the internet, aside from the library. They don't have smart phones, either.

2.) I think you may be referring to people here? I don't wish to make their creations illegal, though I am mainly opposed. I could care less what people choose to eat. It ought be labeled though. Most people would not care either way.

[amy31416]

They should be strangled, financially, as a company.

How to do that?

Good question. Especially hard since they are gov't subsidized. I don't buy any of their products, but I know many others do.

[bolil]

Good question. Especially hard since they are gov't subsidized. I don't buy any of their products, but I know many others do.

Maybe nature will strangle them for us... Roundup is losing its efficacy. Naturals selection is selecting.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I don't care if certain people don't care what they eat, plenty more people do care.

And you feel you have the right to forcibly take money from the people who don't care, in order to fund the FDA?

[FrankRep]

And you feel you have the right to forcibly take money from the people who don't care, in order to fund the FDA?
I want to abolish the FDA.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Products ought to be labeled as to what they are.

A complete, explicit printout of each product's DNA-content on every label? Or just whether it's GMO or not, because that's what you personally care about and you want to force your values on others (correct me if I'm wrong); or what? Someone else might not care about GMO verus non-GMO, but he might have a different set of questions about the food he's buying. Are you ready to cough up some additional tax payments so the FDA can print labels with the information the other guy cares about?


I think the products should be labeled. Simple enough.

And I want an FDA label to show a complete printout of each product's DNA, its magnetic resonance, and the astrological sign under which the seeds were planted; and if that much detail doesn't interest you, too bad because I still want you to pay for it, and if you don't cough up the money, I want the IRS to kick down your door, shoot your dog, and put you in the slammer. Simple enough.


Many people don't have smart phones.

Many people will die from starvation if GMO food is banned. The Marchers Against Monsanto don't care about many people.

If a person doesn't have a smartphone he could buy a report, printed on paper and produced by a private lab, which report would contain information about various food products.


I do not know the solution. I would like to hear yours.

-->


a bar-code simply identifying the manufacturer and product, and you scanned the bar-code with an app on your phone, and the app instantly queried a database published by a private lab of your choosing, and the app instantly told you GMO, no-GMO, or whatever else you wanted to know
+

If a person doesn't have a smartphone he could buy a report, printed on paper and produced by a private lab, which report would contain information about various food products.

[mad cow]

There are laws against fraud,they are hundreds of years old,I like them,it is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist.

Anybody should be able to put out as much or as little or no information about any product they are selling,if they lie,they are guilty of fraud and they should be punished.

Someone who labels their product fresh caught wild salmon filets from Alaska,non-GMO,$X.XX/lb.,should be punished if any word in that label is not true.
Someone who puts a sign next to his pickup truck by the side of the road saying fish,one dollar each,same thing.If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!

Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?

[GunnyFreedom]

No, but even the good readers have seen no explanation given for why people aren't bothering to hire a private lab.

Fraud doesn't suddenly become OK just because someone, somewhere might know about it.

And nobody on RPF's much less in this thread believes that the FDA is capable of, well, pretty much anything. What needs to happen is abolish the FDA and then all of this becomes a moot discussion. The FDA, however, is not getting abolished any time soon, so we have to deal with the reality we are faced with.

Calling a frogmato a tomato is fraud. All I, (or most anybody around RPF's on this subject) want, is to stop the fraud.

Any Federal level labeling requirements are unconstitutional. It would be Constitutional under the original intent of the commerce clause to require labeling for GMO foodstuffs that cross State borders, but it would not be effective, and would lead to unintended consequences. Therefore any labeling scheme at the federal level should be opposed.

Labeling requirements at the State level are both Constitutional and far more effective, but still not the best solution.

Instead, the best solution would be to add to the definition of fraud the claim that a GMO [product] is just a [product]. Therefore, for as long as a company is required to label ingredients, then any GMO ingredients must be identified as GMO or the labeling is fraudulent. Then, when we finally manage to abolish the FDA and labeling laws, the requirement goes obsolete and we are left only with the basic requirement "don't perpetrate fraud."

I admit that I am astonished at the passion of those in the liberty movement who are OK with -- and even vehemently defend -- the practice of companies passing off frogmatos as though they were tomatos, with the full regulatory backing of the FDA to keep such things secret from the public. How is fraud OK just because some random guy doesn't mind it? Should it be OK to sell pork products to a Jew or a Muslim calling it 'beef' just because a Christian doesn't care? Of course not.

And "hire a lab" is asinine. It's Ok to perpetrate fraud on people simply because we have the capability of spending $5000 for every meal to test it before we eat it? I don't think so.

Fraud is fraud. A frogmato is not a tomato, and when you sell me a frogmato while insisting that it is a tomato you are perpetrating a fraud.

People should have the right to consume GMO if they want, just like people should have the right to consume Drāno or heroin if they want. Putting heroin into my food in secret and telling me that it's OK because I can always have it tested before I eat it is not OK.

[GunnyFreedom]

Those people at the rally, however, think it's the FDA's job to regulate GMO products. That's why.

Um. I was a speaker at the rally and I don't think that. Indeed, I think the FDA is the problem. And I said so. And it got wildly applauded. So I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Is that something the media is saying or something the people involved were saying?

[Debbie Downer]

There are laws against fraud,they are hundreds of years old,I like them,it is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist.

Anybody should be able to put out as much or as little or no information about any product they are selling,if they lie,they are guilty of fraud and they should be punished.

Someone who labels their product fresh caught wild salmon filets from Alaska,non-GMO,$X.XX/lb.,should be punished if any word in that label is not true.
Someone who puts a sign next to his pickup truck by the side of the road saying fish,one dollar each,same thing.If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!

Well said. As long as GMO growers aren't labeling their products as GMO-free then the government has no right to ban their products or to force them to label in a certain way. The government only has the right to intervene when there is an accusation of fraud, in which case they should investigate and if they have sufficient evidence take the company to court.

If people want to buy GMO or are too lazy to check if their food is GMO or not then that is their problem. Let the free market decide. If there truly is a market for non-GMO foods then companies will produce them and label them accordingly. We don't need government mandates to keep up "safe."


Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?

+rep

What comes to mind is the "USDA certified organic" approval process. It literally costs thousands of dollars per year to remain in compliance. Guess who is able to afford it? Not your local farmer...and it's illegal to call your produce organic without the USDA certification. (There is a sort of exemption for growers who sell less than $5000 per year but they can't say it is "certified organic" or use the USDA organic logo and lots of other restrictions, including I believe selling to commercial vendors)

[donnay]

There are laws against fraud,they are hundreds of years old,I like them,it is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist.

Anybody should be able to put out as much or as little or no information about any product they are selling,if they lie,they are guilty of fraud and they should be punished.

Someone who labels their product fresh caught wild salmon filets from Alaska,non-GMO,$X.XX/lb.,should be punished if any word in that label is not true.
Someone who puts a sign next to his pickup truck by the side of the road saying fish,one dollar each,same thing.If somebody doesn't want to buy either product,don't buy it!

Now who do the marchers think they are going to drive out of business by mandating expensive testing and labeling everything under the sun,the huge corporate grocery stores or the dude with the pickup?


The dude in the pick-up truck is already being driven out thanks to government regulations and defending their crony corporate friends. But getting back to being able to sue for fraud. How do we prove it?

Some of us know that Aspartame is linked to brain cancer and other known ailments and diseases, but according to government and their cronies it is completely safe. It was introduced as a "sugar substitute"--then people started to wake up. Some independent studies were done and it was said that Aspartame was linked to all sorts of chronic illness and cancer--but government and cronies keeps on saying it is safe. Now they put it in things that do not even say, "Sugar-Free." Example: Read labels of chewing gum that DO NOT say "sugar-free" in a grocery store.

The same thing with Monosodium Glutamate except, they just hide it (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html) under different names to try to fool the public when reading labels. Of course they are doing the same with Aspartame too--the new names are; Neotame. and AminoSweet.

So what do you do? If you have no idea this is happening and should you or a loved one be stricken with a chronic illness, or worse, brain cancer how does one prove it?

The solution is educating people to these things. The March Against Monsanto is shining a light on the cockroaches, some people have no idea what these monsters have done and are intending to do to our food supply.

The agenda is control.


"If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population."
~ Henry Kissinger

[Debbie Downer]

The same thing with Monosodium Glutamate except, they just hide it (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html) under different names to try to fool the public when reading labels. Of course they are doing the same with Aspartame too--the new names are; Neotame. and AminoSweet.

Neotame is chemically a different substance to aspartame and AminoSweet is just a brand of aspartame, similar to Tylenol being a brand of acetaminophen/paracetamol.

[Warlord]

+1 to Gunny mentioning the FDA.

States can do what they like but most of these do gooders want Federal government action. Once you accept that premise you accept the arguments for an expansive state where the Feds can regulate every market or issue any mandate and this was never the intention.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well said. As long as GMO growers aren't labeling their products as GMO-free then the government has no right to ban their products or to force them to label in a certain way. The government only has the right to intervene when there is an accusation of fraud, in which case they should investigate and if they have sufficient evidence take the company to court.

The problem is 1) the FDA only allows sellers to label products "GMO Free" once the GMO components of that product become ubiquitous, meaning you can't get the GMO Free version from America, and 2) calling a GMO product as though it were a regular product is fraud. A frogmato is not a tomato, and selling a frogmato while calling it a tomato is fraudulent.


If people want to buy GMO or are too lazy to check if their food is GMO or not then that is their problem. Let the free market decide. If there truly is a market for non-GMO foods then companies will produce them and label them accordingly. We don't need government mandates to keep up "safe."

In case you haven't noticed, we haven't had a free market in the United States in over 100 years. If we actually had a free market then all of this would be irrelevant, and people could eat or not eat GMO as they want. It has nothing to do with laziness. The government, along with companies like Monsanto, are actively suppressing the disclosure of GMO in food. No matter how passionate we are to avoid GMO, none of us really have the resources to combat that suppression of information.


What comes to mind is the "USDA certified organic" approval process. It literally costs thousands of dollars per year to remain in compliance. Guess who is able to afford it? Not your local farmer...and it's illegal to call your produce organic without the USDA certification. (There is a sort of exemption for growers who sell less than $5000 per year but they can't say it is "certified organic" or use the USDA organic logo and lots of other restrictions, including I believe selling to commercial vendors)

Government is not the solution, government is the problem. I admit that I am astonished at libertarians who are OK with government intervening to suppress GMO disclosure, and think we are nuts for opposing that. If you don't care about GMO that's perfectly fine, I'm not trying to make it unavailable to you or anybody. All I'm asking is that you stop excusing the fascist government/food industrial complex from cramming the stuff down my throat without my knowledge.

--

I admit that I do not comprehend the frankly bizarre knee-jerk reactions of some people in the liberty movement to defend the force-feeding of GMO to people who do not want it. Suddenly big-government armed intervention is OK just because you personally don't care about the subject of government intervention? I don't give a damn if you don't care, I care, and government enabled fraud by force and deception is evil no matter how you slice it.

I don't want to prevent your free access to GMO if you want it, all I'm asking is stop supporting the governments efforts to cram the shit down my throat without my knowledge. Is that really too much to ask?

And yes, better-dead, it is the people defending this crap who are the fascists, not the people fighting it. The whole reason this is an issue at all is the corporatist arrangement between companies like Monsanto and the captured regulators of the FDA and the USDA. A fascistic system by definition. We are the ones fighting against the fascism, and you are the ones defending it. So calling us fascists is at best a kind of pot/kettle thing to be sure.

[Warlord]

People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!

[GunnyFreedom]

+1 to Gunny mentioning the FDA.

States can do what they like but most of these do gooders want Federal government action. Once you accept that premise you accept the arguments for an expansive state where the Feds can regulate every market or issue any mandate and this was never the intention.

Which is why WE need to be involved to educate and direct them as to who the real enemies are. That's what I did, and it worked very, very well. The entire Greensboro event applauded loudly when I identified the FDA as the problem rather than the solution. We could have replicated that around the nation and ben a lot further along towards a genuine solution today.

You are right that most of these people do not know any better. The solution to ignorance is education. Educating them as to why the FDA is the problem and not the solution is our job. We should be doing it.

[GunnyFreedom]

People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!

Well, the alternatives I have heard from the "liberty" movement are either grow your own or starve.

Sounds like force to me. :(

[Warlord]

Which is why WE need to be involved to educate and direct them as to who the real enemies are. That's what I did, and it worked very, very well. The entire Greensboro event applauded loudly when I identified the FDA as the problem rather than the solution. We could have replicated that around the nation and ben a lot further along towards a genuine solution today.

You are right that most of these people do not know any better. The solution to ignorance is education. Educating them as to why the FDA is the problem and not the solution is our job. We should be doing it.

That's why Warlord applauds your efforts to engage them and redirect their misdirected anger and outrage even if he doesn't agree with every point you make.

[Debbie Downer]

The problem is 1) the FDA only allows sellers to label products "GMO Free" once the GMO components of that product become ubiquitous, meaning you can't get the GMO Free version from America, and 2) calling a GMO product as though it were a regular product is fraud. A frogmato is not a tomato, and selling a frogmato while calling it a tomato is fraudulent.

A genetically modified tomato is still a tomato, especially since there is no legal definition of tomato. It is not fraud to label a GM tomato as a tomato, however it is fraud to label that tomato as GMO-free just as it is fraudulent to label a non-organic tomato as organic (of which there is a legal defintion).

[donnay]

Neotame is chemically a different substance to aspartame and AminoSweet is just a brand of aspartame, similar to Tylenol being a brand of acetaminophen/paracetamol.


Neotame is a modified version derived from the same chemicals as Aspartame--Neotame was fine tuned a little so it could be eligible for another patent and another name--same chemical structure.


Drinks, candy, and chewing gum are potential sources of hidden MSG and/or aspartame, neotame. and AminoSweet (the new name for aspartame). Aspartic acid, found in neotame, aspartame (NutraSweet), and AminoSweet, ordinarily causes MSG type reactions in MSG sensitive people. (It would appear that calling aspartame "AminoSweet" is industry's method of choice for hiding aspartame.) We have not seen Neotame used widely in the United States.

Aspartame will be found in some medications, including children's medications. For questions about the ingredients in pharmaceuticals, check with your pharmacist and/or read the product inserts for the names of “other” or “inert” ingredients.

Source:
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html



Neotame contains all the same chemicals found in aspartame and more: the amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine, plus two organic groups, one known as a methyl ester group and the other as a neohexyl group

Source:
http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/0410/neotame_what_is_it.php


Preapproval "Research" & History of Aspartame
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/history.faq

[GunnyFreedom]

A genetically modified tomato is still a tomato,

No, it's not.


especially since there is no legal definition of tomato. It is not fraud to label a GM tomato as a tomato,

Yes, it is.


however it is fraud to label that tomato as GMO-free just as it is fraudulent to label a non-organic tomato as organic (of which there is a legal defintion).

Except the FDA prohibits the labeling of GMO Free for any products not already ubiquitously GMO.

[donnay]

People aren't being force fed it Gunny.... with enough effort you can avoid their products. Yes, it's difficult (and increasingly expensive) because they're pervasive but it's not impossible and people are not being force fed!


That is completely naïve. 98% of the corn and soybeans grown in our country are GMO.

[Working Poor]

I saw aspartame mentioned above. The fda considers it safe. I wonder how many people know that airline pilots are not allowed to consume aspartame because of the risk of heart attack or seizure?

[speciallyblend]

I don't think it's so great.



Some people don't care, and they should be left out of this. That's what the people marching to expand the FDA don't acknowledge. People who do want to avoid Monsanto products are free to hire a private lab to tell them what's in a food-product. No sympathy for the marchers too lazy and uninitiated to hire a private lab, who'd sooner expand the role of federal government instinctively like pavlovian dogs.

in your utopia. so you say i need to have 90% of the food in store tested myself to make sure it is not gmo? unrealistic. There is no reason why all products should have a label with what is in it. hopefully you will let me borrow 1000's of dollars so i can test products as i see them. If you want to sell products . You should have to label the ingredients. They put wood pulp into banana nut and it is on the box, If it is gmo it should be labeled so. Then we actually have a choice. right now you suggest spending money to test our own food so we know if we can buy it. insane. I suggest companies actually tell you what is in the food before you buy it. so radical to know the ingredients.

[Debbie Downer]

No, it's not.

Prove it. Show me scientific evidence that a GMO tomato is not a tomato.


Yes, it is.

Where's the legal definition of a tomato making it fraud to label a GMO tomato as a tomato?


Except the FDA prohibits the labeling of GMO Free for any products not already ubiquitously GMO.

That's not true. All certified organic produce can be labeled GMO-free, as it must by law not contain GMOs. The US and Canadian governments do not allow manufacturers to label something 100% organic if that food has been genetically modified or been fed genetically modified feed.

Also there is the private, voluntary "Non-GMO Project" label. To carry the label, foods must comply with standards set by the organizers which is not FDA regulated. Look for this label:

http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NP-Shelf-Display.jpg

[Debbie Downer]

If you want to sell products . You should have to label the ingredients.

So you propose using the threat of government violence to force people to label their products in a government-approved fashion?

Why not also force farmers to get a license to make sure they're growing food in a government-approved fashion, make butchers get a license and government-approved training, make food certification agencies government-approved, force supermarkets to be searched without a warrant to ensure compliance....



I suggest companies actually tell you what is in the food before you buy it.

Suggest it, but don't use the threat of government violence to force your "suggestion" on them. If a company doesn't label their food, don't buy it.

[speciallyblend]

So you propose using the threat of government violence to force people to label their products in a government-approved fashion?

Why not also force farmers to get a license to make sure they're growing food in a government-approved fashion, make butchers get a license and government-approved training, make food certification agencies government-approved, force supermarkets to be searched without a warrant to ensure compliance....




Suggest it, but don't use the threat of government violence to force your "suggestion" on them. If a company doesn't label their food, don't buy it.

i propose that if you want to sell food you label the contents and if it is gmo label it so. If you want to hide the garbage then label it garbage. There is no reason to hide the garbage. Let the consumer decide. Right now the consumer doesn't even have the choice since they can hide gmo. ps personally i should have the right to use drones on a company that doesn't label gmo's to protect myself from their lies and misleading products. Personal drones so customers can use it on the company once they realize they have been lied to and deceived by a company. I should have a right to make a choice at the store ,right now monsanto gives no one a choice in the store. they hide their gmos. yes i agree i should be able to use force on a company thatlies and deceives me. I bet monsanto would label products if the consumer could drone them for lying to us.

[Debbie Downer]

i propose that if you want to sell food you label the contents and if it is gmo label it so. If you want to hide the garbage then label it garbage. There is no reason to hide the garbage. Let the consumer decide. Right now the consumer doesn't even have the choice since they can hide gmo. ps personally i should have the right to use drones on a company that doesn't label gmo's to protect myself from their lies and misleading products. Personal drones so customers can use it on the company once they realize they have been lied to and deceived by a company. I should have a right to make a choice at the store ,right now monsanto gives no one a choice in the store. they hide their gmos. yes i agree i should be able to use force on a company thatlies and deceives me. I bet monsanto would label products if the consumer could drone them for lying to us.

The consumer already does have a choice. If the product isn't labelled 100% organic or doesn't have a Non-GMO Project label, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy GMO products.

Also, Monsanto doesn't sell any food and they do label their seeds as GMO. They're a biotech agribusiness, not a food company.

And finally, it is completely against libertarian and free market principles to force a company to label their product a certain way. Using the threat of government violence to force food companies that use GMOs to label them is immoral. You only have a right to take action against fraud, so if a food contains GMOs and the company labels them as organic and GMO-free you have a case. Not labeling a product as GMO is not fraud or lying unless they claim it is non-GMO.

[Thor]

I bet monsanto would label products if the consumer could drone them for lying to us.

Let's give it a go.... Pick one....



http://g.co/maps/nds4y Monsanto Agronomy Center 25920 Monsanto Road Loxley AL 36551


http://g.co/maps/3w2pd Seminis, Inc 5 W 6th Street Yuma AZ 85364


http://g.co/maps/635h9 WestBred Research Center 3016 E 33rd Place, Ste B Yuma AZ 85365


http://g.co/maps/ga7sn Monsanto Company 15790 S HWY 87 Eloy AZ 85231


Casa Grande Cotton Breeding 749 W Ash Ave Casa Grande AZ 85222


http://g.co/maps/njdph Monsanto Company 2476 Highway 130 East Stuttgart AR 72160


http://g.co/maps/xt34p Seminis, Inc 650 Leanna Drive Arroyo Grande CA 93420


http://g.co/maps/bpjpx Calgene, Inc 1920 Fifth Street Davis CA 95616


http://g.co/maps/ucjxw Seminis, Inc 2700 Camino Del Sol Oxnard CA 93030 805-647-1572


http://g.co/maps/4uk7d Monsanto Company 15165 Dulzura Ct Rancho Murieta CA 95683


http://g.co/maps/a4jzt Monsanto Company 397 Anacapa Drive Roseville CA 95678 916-784-1718 916-784-1878


http://g.co/maps/vyk6r Seminis, Inc 590 Brunken Ave – Suite F Salinas CA 93901


http://g.co/maps/4tm54 Seminis, Inc 500 Lucy Brown Lane San Juan Bautista CA 95045


http://g.co/maps/kwhch Seminis, Inc 1 Seminis Road – PO Box 430 Williams CA 95987


http://g.co/maps/bxjd2 Seminis, Inc 37437 State Highway 16 Woodland CA 95695


http://g.co/maps/2j28a Woodland Research Farm 12849 Gorman Lane Woodland CA 95695


http://g.co/maps/m3tb5 DEKALB® Genetics Corp 62 Maritime Dr Mystic CT 06355-1958


http://g.co/maps/s5vmj Seminis, Inc Felda Florida Research Station, 2221 County Road 832 Felda FL 33930


http://g.co/maps/3u258 Seminis, Inc 810 SW 1st Street Homestead FL 33030


http://g.co/maps/7m36u DEKALB® Genetics Corp 995 US 19 N Leesburg GA 31763


http://g.co/maps/kp4c6 Seminis, Inc 556 Armour Road Tifton GA 31761


http://g.co/maps/cazmg Monsanto Company 381 Williams Gibbs Rd Tifton GA 31793


http://g.co/maps/esr76 Monsanto Hawaii 2111 Piilani Highway Kihei HI 96753


http://g.co/maps/7t4w8 Monsanto Hawaii 1351 Maunaloa Highway, PO Box 40 Kaunakakai HI 96748


http://g.co/maps/kapwk Monsanto Hawaii PO Box 200 Kunia HI 96759


http://g.co/maps/fpn8q Mokulele Farm – Maui 3555 Mokulele Hwy Kihei HI 96753


http://g.co/maps/hdqt7 Seminis, Inc 21120 Highway 30 Filer ID 83328


http://g.co/maps/3zcmp Seminis, Inc 1811 East Florida Avenue Nampa ID 83686


http://g.co/maps/pzy9r Seminis, Inc 10721 Scotch Pine Road, PO Box 192 Payette ID 83661


http://g.co/maps/jg4fp Monsanto Company Soda Springs Plant, Highway 34 North Soda Springs ID 83276 208-547-4300


http://g.co/maps/s3tct Monsanto Company 14018 Carole Dr Bloomington IL 61705


http://g.co/maps/k443e Asgrow Seed 3421 State Route 51 South, PO Box 1837 Centralia IL 62801


http://g.co/maps/qj798 Asgrow Seed N John Street, PO Box 50 Farmer City IL 61842


http://g.co/maps/3kwd5 Monsanto Agronomy Center 1677 80th Street Monmouth IL 61462


http://g.co/maps/epdyj Asgrow Seed State Route 48, PO Box 410 Stonington IL 62567


http://g.co/maps/6rqxm Jerseyville Agronomy Center 26207 Davidson Road Jerseyville IL 62052


http://g.co/maps/43vn7 Stone Seed 5965 W State Route 97 Pleasant Plains IL 62677


http://g.co/maps/p2qvz DEKALB® Genetics Corp 1990 Rt 38 W, PO Box 170 Ashton IL 61006


http://g.co/maps/xrahv DEKALB® Genetics Corp 4370 Mt Pulaski Road N, PO Box 360 Illiopolis IL 62539


http://g.co/maps/gg8wq DEKALB® Genetics Corp 36142 E State Rt 10, PO Box 33 Mason City IL 62664


http://g.co/maps/du5uq Lewis Hybrid Seed 530 W Maple Avenue Ursa IL 62376


http://g.co/maps/nk7vw DEKALB® Genetics Corp 2139 County Road 2500N Thomasboro IL 61878-9654


http://g.co/maps/hhzjz Waterman Seed Technology Center 450 E Adams, PO Box 266 Waterman IL 60556


http://g.co/maps/kmxnw DEKALB® Genetics Corp – Waterman Research 8350 Minnegan Road Waterman IL 60556


http://g.co/maps/hh7c2 Monsanto Company 738 Rusher Lane Evansville IN 47725 812-492-1700 812-492-1799


http://g.co/maps/9ergy Stewart 2230 East County Road 300 North Greensburg IN 47240


http://g.co/maps/n9tmb Channel 612 E Dunlap Street, PO Box 278 Kentland IN 47951


http://g.co/maps/vkksk WestBred Research Center 3221 W County Road 500 N Lafayette IN 47906


http://g.co/maps/sa8yw WestBred 6025 West 300 S Lafayette IN 47909


http://g.co/maps/jwxtd Monsanto Company 228 W CR 700 South Lebanon IN 46052


http://g.co/maps/gm63z Fielder’s Choice Direct 306 N Main Street, PO Box 898 Monticello IN 47960


http://g.co/maps/fg5x7 Asgrow Seed 703 East Benton Oxford IN 47971


http://g.co/maps/dxwam DEKALB® Genetics Corp 15849 S US Highway 231, PO Box 35 Remington IN 47977


http://g.co/maps/kzxcp Specialty Seeds 371 North Diener Road Reynolds IN 47980


http://g.co/maps/8g3ah Specialty Hybrids 1211 Cumberland Avenue West Lafayette IN 47906


http://g.co/maps/xxuzq Monsanto Company 10280 West State Road 28 West Lebanon IN 47991


http://g.co/maps/qfa46 DEKALB® Genetics Corp 908 N Independence, PO Box 367 Windfall IN 46076


http://g.co/maps/qk2be Ames Corn Research 1203A Airport Road Ames IA 50010


http://g.co/maps/786a9 Monsanto Company Old Dubuque Road – Box 427 Anamosa IA 52205


http://g.co/maps/xdxj8 Monsanto Company 3302 SE Convenience Road Ankeny IA 50021


http://g.co/maps/stnkh Monsanto – Parkersburg Foundation 18739 Highway 57 Aplington IA 50604


http://g.co/maps/fbmvb Monsanto Company 53751 650th Street Atlantic IA 50022


http://g.co/maps/qacwx Monsanto Company 410 Center St, PO Box 166 Beaman IA 50609


http://g.co/maps/cgws5 Monsanto Company 1159 S Ave Boone IA 50036


http://g.co/maps/rw5sn ASI – KRUGER-DIKE 33730 160th Street Cedar Falls IA 50613


http://g.co/maps/8n69z DEKALB® Genetics Corp 3500 F Ave, NW – Suite 1 Cedar Rapids IA 52405


http://g.co/maps/s8b9v Monsanto Company 617-623 Central Ave West, PO Box 108 Clarion IA 50525


http://g.co/maps/eb4qp Monsanto Company 2476 370th St, PO Box 408 Dayton IA 50530 515-547-2550 515-547-2552


http://g.co/maps/szknj Monsanto Company 721 Hwy 6 E, PO Box 773 Grinnell IA 50112


http://g.co/maps/5zb3t Monsanto Company – Iowa Foundation 757 Hwy 6, PO Box 743 Grinnell IA 50112


http://g.co/maps/nqddx Monsanto Company 1551 Highway 210 Huxley IA 50124


http://g.co/maps/dvtzk Monsanto Company 2346 Henley Ave Independence IA 50644


http://g.co/maps/9mzjx Monsanto Company 2332 Henley Ave Independence IA 50644


http://g.co/maps/anp7q Muscatine Plant 2500 Wiggins Road Muscatine IA 52761 563-263-0093 563-262-5683


http://g.co/maps/q67d8 Monsanto Company 18739 Highway 20 Aplington IA 50604-9602 319-347-6633 319-347-2720


http://g.co/maps/6ktbe Monsanto Company 605 11th St SW, PO Box 244 Spencer IA 51301 712-262-1804 712-262-1806


http://g.co/maps/47j4n DEKALB/ASGROW 6135 S Hwy 71, PO Box 779 Storm Lake IA 50588


http://g.co/maps/g4f9f Holden’s Foundation Seeds 503 South Maplewood Avenue Williamsburg IA 52361


http://g.co/maps/99f4n DEKALB® Genetics Corp 2016 E Spruce St, PO Box 1002 Garden City KS 67846-1002


http://g.co/maps/bj7yr WestBred Research Center 14604 S Haven Rd Haven KS 67543


http://g.co/maps/4g94f 809 Levee Drive suite G&H Manhattan KS 66502


http://g.co/maps/sj98t DEKALB® Genetics Corp 7159 N 247 St W, PO Box 7 Mt Hope KS 67108


http://g.co/maps/dmyhh Monsanto Company 5912 North Meridian Street Wichita KS 67204


http://g.co/maps/q8ecj Monsanto Company 12501 River Road, PO Box 174 Luling LA 70070 985-785-8211


http://g.co/maps/pc2y2 Asgrow Seeds 32545 Galena Sassafras Road Galena MD 21635


http://g.co/maps/qfdu8 Monsanto Company 245 First Street, Suite 200 Cambridge MA O2142


http://g.co/maps/6mq6d Monsanto Company 67760 US 131 Constantine MI 49042


http://g.co/maps/23uy8 Monsanto Company 1440 Okemos Rd Mason MI 48854


http://g.co/maps/c2yzy DEKALB® Genetics Corp RR2, Box 2 Glyndon MN 56547


http://g.co/maps/eb2rz Gold Country Seed 16506 Highway 15 North Hutchinson MN 55350


http://g.co/maps/qp2hy DEKALB® Genetics Corp 2135 W Lincoln Olivia MN 56277-1702


http://g.co/maps/kdeej Monsanto Company 750 NW 32nd Ave, PO Box 433 Owatonna MN 55060


http://g.co/maps/drm6a Asgrow Seed 29770 US Highway 71 Redwood Falls MN 56283-2401


http://g.co/maps/ddp3u Monsanto – Redwood Falls – Pre-Foundation 1210 East Bridge Street, PO Box 46 Redwood Falls MN 56283-0219 507-637-2204 507-637-2352


http://g.co/maps/yq3rm Monsanto Company 29668 US Hwy 71 Redwood Falls MN 56283


http://g.co/maps/kt94r Holden’s Seed 2440 Highway 19 Blvd Stanton MN 55018-7220


http://g.co/maps/ydvuf Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd St Louis MO 63167 314-694-1000


http://g.co/maps/zb2jd Monsanto Company 700 Chesterfield Parkway North Chesterfield MO 63017 314-694-1000


http://g.co/maps/838q8 DEKALB® Genetics Corp 830 N Miami, PO Box 578 Marshall MO 65340


Monsanto Company 1565 Commerce Rd Marshall MO 65340-3904 660-886-2215


http://g.co/maps/7jk7d Asgrow Seed 2992 State Highway V Matthews MO 63867


http://g.co/maps/8fhej Monsanto Company 110 Paul Lenauer Memorial Drive Owensville MO 65066 573-437-8440


http://g.co/maps/cyjtd Monsanto Company 17812 US Hwy 61, PO Box 847 Sikeston MO 63801


http://g.co/maps/erzjt Monsanto Company 4846 Main Street Flora MS 39071 601-879-9237


http://g.co/maps/ueryz Monsanto Company 407 Goldstein Hollandale MS 38748


http://g.co/maps/adw7s Monsanto Agronomy Center 4006 Old Leland Road Leland MS 38756 662-378-1021


http://g.co/maps/26rm8 Monsanto Company One Cotton Row, PO Box 157 Scott MS 38772


http://g.co/maps/7u62k Monsanto Company 737 Blaylock Road Winterville MS 38703


http://g.co/maps/yswxs WestBred Research Center 81 Timberline Drive Bozeman MT 59718-6994


http://g.co/maps/3zrjc Monsanto Company 124 East Grant Street Blair NE 68008


http://g.co/maps/kp9wp Monsanto Company 10981 8 Street Fontanelle NE 68044


http://g.co/maps/yutqc DEKALB® Genetics Corp 2115 West State St, PO Box 309 Grand Island NE 68802


http://g.co/maps/mqdz2 Monsanto Company 76252 Hwy 47 Gothenburg NE 69138


http://g.co/maps/kr2pk Monsanto Company 76268 Hwy 47 Gothenburg NE 69138


http://g.co/maps/wj3qu NC Hybrids 3505 Yost Avenue Hastings NE 68901


http://g.co/maps/aufhk DEKALB® Genetics Corp 2617 Antelope Ave Kearney NE 68847


http://g.co/maps/r386w Channel 3820 N 56th Street Lincoln NE 68504


http://g.co/maps/vufwf Fontanelle Hybrids Box 595, East Highway 30 North Bend NE 68649 402-652-8626 Doug Liehs


http://g.co/maps/vstz7 Holden’s Seed 1110 East 9th St, PO Box 568 Stromsburg NE 68666


http://g.co/maps/b69y6 Monsanto Company 3605 N Delaware Avenue York NE 68467


http://g.co/maps/wzfjs Seminis, Inc 2026 North Park Drive Las Cruces NM 88005


http://g.co/maps/k7k8s Monsanto Company 1512 NC 55 West Mt Olive NC 28365


http://g.co/maps/8x6f7 Monsanto Company 110 TW Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park NC 27709


http://g.co/maps/55ke7 Monsanto Company 150 Research Campus Dr, Suite 3700 Kannapolis NC 28081


http://g.co/maps/5hg23 WestBred Research Center 2975 39th St South Fargo ND 58104


http://g.co/maps/x7asy Monsanto Soybean Seed Production 304 Center Street West Fargo ND 58078


http://g.co/maps/zu47a DEKALB® Genetics Corp 216 West Court St (Rear) Courthouse IN 43160


http://g.co/maps/tdvcy Monsanto Soybean Research 8390 County Road 140 Findlay OH 45840


http://g.co/maps/cbbkn Monsanto Company 1051 Landsdowne Ave Greenville OH 45331


http://g.co/maps/wy224 Monsanto Company 635 Olympic Drive Troy OH 45373


http://g.co/maps/pnrsw Monsanto Company 741 Coker Farm Road Hartsville SC 29550


http://g.co/maps/68zjh Monsanto Company 200 Industrial Drive Harrisburg SD 57032 605-743-5459


http://g.co/maps/mbn2f Monsanto Company 140 W Industrial Drive Harrisburg SD 57032 605-743-5459


http://g.co/maps/xrcy8 Monsanto Company 4745 6th Ave SE Aberdeen SD 57401


http://g.co/maps/3u42a Monsanto Company 46962 Mindy Tea SD 57064


http://g.co/maps/drw6h DEKALB® Genetics Corp 2303 Pleasant Valley, PO Box 504 Union City TN 38281


http://g.co/maps/bexaq Monsanto Company Highway 70 Aiken TX 79241


http://g.co/maps/vbvgr DEKALB® Genetics Corp Route 2, Box 373 Bishop TX 78343


http://g.co/maps/e274x Seminis, Inc PO Box 532 Donna TX 78537 (956) 461-3434


http://g.co/maps/25gm2 DEKALB® Genetics Corp Highway 87 W, PO Box 417 Dumas TX 79029


http://g.co/maps/gwdbt Monsanto Company 4512 N US Highway 87 Fredericksburg TX 78624


http://g.co/maps/ag92k Monsanto Company 247 US Hwy 380W Haskell TX 79521


http://g.co/maps/4j2k5 Seminis, Inc 1500 Research Parkway – Suite 120 College Station TX 77845


http://g.co/maps/gah8n Monsanto Company 1596 IH 27-87 Hale Center TX 79041


http://g.co/maps/2wn4e Monsanto Company 1104 park Plaza Lockhart TX 78644


http://g.co/maps/h6wdh Monsanto Company 3410 North Elm Lubbock TX 79404


http://g.co/maps/fuht6 Monsanto Company NOT LISTED Taft TX 78390


http://g.co/maps/rncrk Seminis, Inc 16631 LaConner Whitney Road LaConner WA 98257


http://g.co/maps/q8qn7 Monsanto Company 776 S Booker Road, PO Box M Othello WA 99344


http://g.co/maps/uz9wq Monsanto Company 1485 W Cunningham Othello WA 99344


http://g.co/maps/xjuzj Seminis, Inc 115 East 1st, North Warden WA 98857


http://g.co/maps/52uxp Monsanto Company 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 450 East Washington DC 20005 202-783-2460 202-789-1819


http://g.co/maps/bwdex Monsanto Company 410 Bullen Rd Arlington WI 53911


http://g.co/maps/ynr9r Seminis, Inc 7202 Portage Road DeForest WI 53532


http://g.co/maps/7d8dy Asgrow 5926 E US Highway 14 Janesville WI 53546


http://g.co/maps/bqbg6 Trelay 11623 State Road 80 N Livingston WI 53554


http://g.co/maps/d34v8 Agracetus 8520 University Green Middleton WI 53562


http://g.co/maps/zye7r Monsanto Company 341 S High St Randolph WI 35956

[donnay]

New study reveals how glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup inhibits natural detoxification in human cells

by: Lance Devon (http://www.naturalnews.com/040482_glyphosate_Monsanto_detoxification.html)

The modern age of industrial agriculture and manufacturing has dumped heavy metals, carninogens, plastics, and pesticides into the environment at alarming rates. These toxins are showing up in most human tissue cells today. One distinct chemical may be trapping these toxins in human cells, limiting the human body's ability to detoxify its own cells. In a new peer reviewed study, this sinister chemical, glyphosate, has been proven to inhibit the human cell's ability to detoxify altogether. Glyphosate, found in Monsanto's Roundup, is being deemed by publishers of the new study "one of the most dangerous chemicals" being unleashed into the environment today.

Download the PDF of the study here: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416


How glyphosate destroys human cells

Glyphosate, most commonly found in conventional sugar, corn, soy and wheat products, throws off the cytochrome P450 gene pathway, inhibiting enzyme production in the body. CYP enzymes play a crucial role in detoxifying xenobiotics, which include drugs, carcinogens, and pesticides. By inhibiting this natural detoxification process, glyphosate systematically enhances the damaging effects of other environmental toxins that get in the body. This, in turn, disrupts homeostasis, increases inflammation, and leads to a slow deconstruction of the cellular system. Toxins build up in the gut over time and break down through the intestinal walls, infiltrating blood, and ultimately passing through the brain/blood barrier, damaging neurological function.

Important CYP enzymes that are affected include aromatase, the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen, 21-Hydroxylase, which creates stress hormone cortisol, and aldosterone, which regulates blood pressure.


Getting to the gut

Even as evidence mounts, Monsanto asserts that glyphosate is not harmful to humans, citing that its mechanism of action in plants (the disruption of the shikimate pathway), is not present in humans. This is not true.

The shikimate pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan, is present in human gut bacteria, which has a direct relationship with the human body, aiding in digestion, synthesizing vitamins, detoxifying carcinogens, and participating in immune system function.

By inhibiting the body's gut flora from performing its essential function in the human body, glyphosate heightens many health issues facing the Western world today.

These conditions include inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn's disease, obesity, and even dementia and depression. Also, by restricting gut bacteria from absorbing nutrients, glyphosate voids the body of essential life-giving vitamins.


Depletion of serum tryptophan and its link to obesity

Glysophate's damaging effects on gut bacteria lead to depleted sulfate supplies in the gut, resulting in inflammatory bowel disease. As more chemicals are absorbed from the environment, alterations in body chemistry actively promote weight gain by blocking nutrient absorption. By effecting CYP enzymes in the liver, obesity incidence is compounded, impairing the body's ability to detoxify synthetics chemicals. Since serotonin is derived from tryptophan and acts an appetite suppressant, the depletion of tryptophan encourages overeating in the brain, leading to obesity.


In need of urgent, massive awakening

Authors of the new review point out that "glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply and may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment." Monsanto is already lashing back at these claims, calling this peer reviewed study, "bad science" and "another bogus study." What Monsanto fails to is mention that most of the studies on glyphosate's "safety" are conducted by Monsanto themselves, which is bias to the core.

The authors of this new study instead call out for more independent research to be done to validate their findings. They are concerned with glyphosate's inhibition of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the body, which are hindering the body's natural detoxification ability.

There is certainly a need for more empowering education on chemicals like glyphosate. There needs to be a kind of public mass awakening that correlates Monsanto's Roundup with skull and crossbones. If anything, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced, engineered, and poisoned, and everyone should pitch in and stop using toxic glyphosate-laced Roundup at all costs.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

http://www.enewspf.com

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Which is why WE need to be involved to educate and direct them as to who the real enemies are. That's what I did, and it worked very, very well. The entire Greensboro event applauded loudly when I identified the FDA as the problem rather than the solution. We could have replicated that around the nation and ben a lot further along towards a genuine solution today.

You are right that most of these people do not know any better. The solution to ignorance is education. Educating them as to why the FDA is the problem and not the solution is our job. We should be doing it.


And THIS is why you're walking the walk. Some people around here act as if opinions are static.

[osan]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

This actually brings up an interesting and valid point.

Today we live in a world bombarded by all manner of information on any given issue. We also live in an era that is not so unlike others at its core. Go back several centuries and there was mania about witches and witchcraft and as "quaint" as it may all seem to us today, it was deadly serious business in those days and people were tortured, maimed, and murdered in generous abundance in its course.

What do we see today? Tons of "junk" science, which is to say baloney masquerading as science, cf. "global warming", the "need" to dope our children with dangerous psychotropic drugs, the ridiculous stretches of diagnosis that have been put into the latest revision of the DSM, and so forth. This so-called "incrementalism" coupled with a very clear flight from faith to what I will dare to label as proper moral principle constitute two elements in a formula for disaster. This is nothing new, but there is a difference: technology. More than any priest's or king's personal rantings, the levers that contemporary technologies provide result in arguments so powerful and so seemingly unassailable that people in general take them as the word of God hisownself. Those of a more reticently skeptical habit are really no better off because the end products of today's technological wonders leave very little indication as to their truth value in most cases.

Our only real fortune in all of this has been the occurrence of a handful of glaring failures of these technologies that have made us aware that they do indeed fail, and can and are used toward deceptive ends. All the more basis for worry, because the frauds are so good that those we discover we do so only because someone screwed the pooch. How many are upon us as we type, accepted as truth and not questioned?

Enter Monsanto and GMO. I hold a very low opinion of that entity and have repeatedly stated my desire to see them nuked. Then all of a sudden comes this "global push-back" and it jarred me to the thought and question, "is this truthful or is it all a contrived attack for reasons other than the obvious?" Are there ulterior motives?

Monsanto stands accused of all manner of evil. Is it true? Is it confabulation of truth to render deceitful pictures? Speaking only for myself, I cannot tell. There is a part of me that wants to believe they are the devil in the flesh. I want something to rail against and see destroyed in payment for all the evils I witness about me for which the average fool cannot be held strongly responsible, though not entirely innocent either. It is the realization of that almost reflexive desire which at this moment jarred my skeptic back into consciousness and who is now asking whether this is what it appears to be.

The evidence seems strong. The expertise working against Monsanto seems credible and overwhelming in many respects. The same was so in the middle ages when people were tried as witches and look at how we regard that now? Things were every bit as convincing then as now, yet we dismiss what was done then at best as having been ignorance and reason failure on a scale approaching the grotesque. But what of this? Is Monsanto really guilty? It pains me almost literally to write these words because I actually almost hate Monsanto and would revel in their destruction as a corporate entity for all the evil I perceive them as having foisted upon this world. Some of their deeds seem unacceptable, such as their claim to the right to destroy the crops of farmers whose non-Monsanto produce has been contaminated with their product. But is it criminal? Or is it a business entity looking after its own best interests and perhaps having run off the rails but not yet into the realm of actual criminality? I am not smart enough on this to know and I now sit wondering whether my ire against this entity is justified or whether I have been taken in along with many millions of others.

Consider some curious thoughts. What if everything Monsanto produces in GMO terms was actually not only safe, but in fact better for you than non-GMO fare? I do not claim this to be the case, but work with me a moment for argument's sake. Hell, even if the health value were precisely the same as that of non-GMO foods, the advantage there might be the ability of such crops to produce far higher yields, thereby making available to the world far more abundant food. By some points of view, this is a net gain, all else equal.

Now, consider the officially stated goals of organizations such as the UN. Consider the quasi-official statements of world leaders including our own (Bill Clinton?) who have openly stated that the goals of world governance include the drastic reduction of human populations. Rarely do they mention time frame or extents, but even if we cut that population by "only" 25%, that is billions of souls. Time frame in combination with percentage becomes key and this is not advertised. But we get clues in other statements that say "by 2030 the world will be doomed <this way> if we don't do X" and so forth (please do not take that statement too literally as I am only trying to make a more general point).

If it is indeed the goal of "world leaders" to significantly reduce world populations in a time frame that is shorter than what can be very reliably expected from a statistical standpoint based on a sample space of literally billions of people, the question immediately follows: by what inorganic means are populations expected to be miraculously reduced of their own accord? "Inorganic means", of course, so very directly implies culling. Forget for this argument the questions of who decides to live, how and when they are to be "harvested" and so forth and assume it is the case. Given it, would there not be a strong conflict of interest between those shadowy "leaders" and Monsanto, the technologies of which stand to feed the very people the Illumined Ones seek to eradicate from the roles of the living?

I am not saying this is in fact what is happening, but consider the sudden rise to prominence of this issue to the forefront of awareness in our esteemed and most solidly and honestly independent media. Monsanto has been up to its "tricks" for years - quite successfully. Why has there been no groundswell until now, despite millions of people having been aware, frightened, and seemingly fed up? We see example after example of selective media attention on all manner of issues. Why should this be any different? Why should this be all innocently organic and honest? What would have triggered this sudden attention such that millions of people worldwide now march against the evil capitalist giant Monsanto? Does nothing here leave an odor in your nostrils prompting you to at least wonder just a little what might be going on in fuller truth?

If this conflict of interest indeed exists, would we not expect to see precisely that which we are now seeing? In how many cases has "government" been caught, pants at their ankles, backing actions that are patently not in "our" better interests? Now all of a sudden they are the champions of the little people? I am sorry, but as I consider this, the odor takes on an augmented amplitude. Something seems possibly amiss here, given the broader context. But nothing can be strongly demonstrated and that is what worries me. What if there is in fact an agenda to neutralize Monsanto, not to destroy them, but to eliminate their ability to continue to provide bountiful food to the world?

Let us beware that there are two separate issues at work here where Monsanto is concerned. The first is the question of whether GMO is "safe" for some sufficient definition of that term. The other regards their business practices. It is possible that Monsanto operates on a less-than-clearly-ethical business level but nevertheless produces a perfectly safe product. I am not saying this is the case, but it is possibly so. How do we find out? I do not have an answer there, but am raising these questions so that people might stop, take a breath and at least consider the possibility that Monsanto is the target of a deliberate campaign to scuttle some aspect of their operations. If this were to be the case, how would we know it? If the truth is in fact being told, how can we verify it? We have no idea who these talking heads are, what their innermost motives might be, to whom else they might be in service incognito, or whether we are being given truth or just another pack of lies and deceit.

Look at the emotional level. Is it not high and heading toward feverish? Now look back into history, just that of the past 100 years or even less, and see where these conditions have arisen before. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, '68 Democratic Convention... get the picture? I now feel compelled to put on the brakes and reconsider my current assessment, and I can tell you that this is about as pleasant as stopping ones urination in mid-stream. The body chafes, and at this moment my mind is chafing aplenty. I don't want to reevaluate because it feels good to want to see Monsanto crushed in the belief that they have foisted great evils upon us. But my other side, the one with the tilted and bent halo about its head has that look on its face and tone in its voice of profound disappointment, expectation, and the attendant demand that I do the right thing, which is to withdraw from the union with my desire to see "justice" done and get back on the fence where the pickets irritate parts they were never intended to pay visit.

Perhaps Monsanto is in fact the devil as claimed. But what if they are not quite that? What if they are only guilty of having acted with unacceptable levels of avarice in pursuit of their business interests? What if their products in fact stand as a boon to humanity? What if that conflict between what Monsanto does in this case and those working toward the non-trivial reduction of human populations within unnatural time frames is real? Would any rational and honest adult having lived long enough to have witnessed what "government" does be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that this is all an effort to better ensure the agenda of depopulation is not compromised?

Stop. Take a moment to breathe. Take a moment to think. Just consider the questions I raise here and see if you can come up with your own. Do these questions put you at ease or do they raise red flags? This world is so crazy anymore I can no longer come to universally pat conclusions on such issues. The subterfuge is so thick and adept that it becomes passing difficult to tell who lies or does not.

I for one could use some help in some of this, so if anyone has anything earth shaking to offer, I'm all eyes.

[jmdrake]

Under an expansive (and wrong) interpretation it would but then if you recognize the Feds can label food you have to accept they can mandate you to buy healthcare and everything else which as you know was never the intention of the Founding fathers vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.


Ummmm.....no. Monsanto is actually engaged in interstate commerce. If you are not buying healthcare you are not engaged in interstate commerce. Years ago, when the interstate commerce clause was actually respected, there were all sorts of federal laws that included the words "going across state lines" simply so that they could fall under the interstate commerce clause. After Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government expanded its power to include not just interstate commerce itself, but anything that affects interstate commerce.

I think what's confusing is that there are libertarian principles that transcend constitutional ones. For instance, if you really believe that government mandated labeling of genetically modified food is a violation of the free market, it's still a violation whether California does it or the federal government does it.

The real question, from a libertarian point of view, is "What is the free market alternative to reining in Monsanto?" Answer? Pass federal legislation banning gene patents, or at the very least patents for agricultural genes. While the federal government has the constitutional right to grant patents, it is not constitutionally mandated to grant them and it certainly isn't constitutionally mandated to grant patents for every think that might be conceivably patentable. I think Monsanto would rather go with GMO food labeling than losing their patents.

[osan]

Fraud doesn't suddenly become OK just because someone, somewhere might know about it.

And nobody on RPF's much less in this thread believes that the FDA is capable of, well, pretty much anything. What needs to happen is abolish the FDA and then all of this becomes a moot discussion. The FDA, however, is not getting abolished any time soon, so we have to deal with the reality we are faced with.

But FDA CAN be reeled WAY in. There are functions FDA could discharge that could be validly called "proper". Their role as it stands, however, is out of the ballpark and in fact off-planet.


Any Federal level labeling requirements are unconstitutional. It would be Constitutional under the original intent of the commerce clause to require labeling for GMO foodstuffs that cross State borders, but it would not be effective, and would lead to unintended consequences. Therefore any labeling scheme at the federal level should be opposed.


Agreed, and this would open opportunities for free markets. If food purity is in fact so important, companies specializing in testing the products of corporations and small independents would have abundant opportunities to thrive.


Labeling requirements at the State level are both Constitutional and far more effective, but still not the best solution.

This I do not buy. The "states' rights" argument has a terrible stink on it and nobody as yet has been able to convince me of its legitimacy. If violation of a human right is not within the proper authority of the feds, why would it be in the case of the states? Fed !> states. States !> people.



Instead, the best solution would be to add to the definition of fraud the claim that a GMO [product] is just a [product]. Therefore, for as long as a company is required to label ingredients, then any GMO ingredients must be identified as GMO or the labeling is fraudulent. Then, when we finally manage to abolish the FDA and labeling laws, the requirement goes obsolete and we are left only with the basic requirement "don't perpetrate fraud."

Agreed. It would be my expectation that as the demise of FDA loomed, investment in new companies - food watchdogs - would be furious with activity. But such companies would have to be held to the same accountability. Make no unfounded accusations. Publish your findings, let others corroborate, then let prosecutors do their thing, if warranted. This could work VERY well.


I admit that I am astonished at the passion of those in the liberty movement who are OK with -- and even vehemently defend -- the practice of companies passing off frogmatos as though they were tomatos, with the full regulatory backing of the FDA to keep such things secret from the public. How is fraud OK just because some random guy doesn't mind it? Should it be OK to sell pork products to a Jew or a Muslim calling it 'beef' just because a Christian doesn't care? Of course not.


Logical consistency is not everyone's strong suit.


And "hire a lab" is asinine. It's Ok to perpetrate fraud on people simply because we have the capability of spending $5000 for every meal to test it before we eat it? I don't think so.


I do not envision that. But companies that operate like Consumer Reports could do the detective work in place of FDA.



People should have the right to consume GMO if they want, just like people should have the right to consume Drāno or heroin if they want. Putting heroin into my food in secret and telling me that it's OK because I can always have it tested before I eat it is not OK.

Your point is well taken, but does not account for accidental contamination of non-GMO by GMO and vise-versa. Plants flower and bees pollinate. They do not distinguish between GMO and non-. How will GMO salmon be segregated from non-? The argument that they will be "contained" fails monumentally. One SINGLE grain of pollen escapes a "safe" facility and makes it, however unlikely, to non-GMO flower of same species and you have potential contagion.

Because of the nature of the reproductive processes of most living things, we are faced as a very practical issue "To GMO, or not to GMO... THAT is the question..." I am in no way even remotely confident that GMO on anything but the most trivial scales conducted under military-like, shoot on sight security could possibly hope to maintain segregation. This, of course, raises the question of whose rights trump whose? Are the non-GMO consumers more entitled or are GMOs? This is a central question because as of this writing, it is IMPOSSIBLE in practical terms to keep the two camps from mixing. GMOers may view their foods as contaminated and the non-GMOers will most certainly regard theirs as having been contaminated. This is a Pandora's Box issue Glen. No question about it. Once opened, can the little bat-like things be caught and stuffed back in? Can we put grapes back on the vine?

[Thor]

This actually brings up an interesting and valid point.

Today we live in a world bombarded by all manner of information on any given issue. We also live in an era that is not so unlike others at its core. Go back several centuries and there was mania about witches and witchcraft and as "quaint" as it may all seem to us today, it was deadly serious business in those days and people were tortured, maimed, and murdered in generous abundance in its course.

What do we see today? Tons of "junk" science, which is to say baloney masquerading as science, cf. "global warming", the "need" to dope our children with dangerous psychotropic drugs, the ridiculous stretches of diagnosis that have been put into the latest revision of the DSM, and so forth. This so-called "incrementalism" coupled with a very clear flight from faith to what I will dare to label as proper moral principle constitute two elements in a formula for disaster. This is nothing new, but there is a difference: technology. More than any priest's or king's personal rantings, the levers that contemporary technologies provide result in arguments so powerful and so seemingly unassailable that people in general take them as the word of God hisownself. Those of a more reticently skeptical habit are really no better off because the end products of today's technological wonders leave very little indication as to their truth value in most cases.

Our only real fortune in all of this has been the occurrence of a handful of glaring failures of these technologies that have made us aware that they do indeed fail, and can and are used toward deceptive ends. All the more basis for worry, because the frauds are so good that those we discover we do so only because someone screwed the pooch. How many are upon us as we type, accepted as truth and not questioned?

Enter Monsanto and GMO. I hold a very low opinion of that entity and have repeatedly stated my desire to see them nuked. Then all of a sudden comes this "global push-back" and it jarred me to the thought and question, "is this truthful or is it all a contrived attack for reasons other than the obvious?" Are there ulterior motives?

Monsanto stands accused of all manner of evil. Is it true? Is it confabulation of truth to render deceitful pictures? Speaking only for myself, I cannot tell. There is a part of me that wants to believe they are the devil in the flesh. I want something to rail against and see destroyed in payment for all the evils I witness about me for which the average fool cannot be held strongly responsible, though not entirely innocent either. It is the realization of that almost reflexive desire which at this moment jarred my skeptic back into consciousness and who is now asking whether this is what it appears to be.

The evidence seems strong. The expertise working against Monsanto seems credible and overwhelming in many respects. The same was so in the middle ages when people were tried as witches and look at how we regard that now? Things were every bit as convincing then as now, yet we dismiss what was done then at best as having been ignorance and reason failure on a scale approaching the grotesque. But what of this? Is Monsanto really guilty? It pains me almost literally to write these words because I actually almost hate Monsanto and would revel in their destruction as a corporate entity for all the evil I perceive them as having foisted upon this world. Some of their deeds seem unacceptable, such as their claim to the right to destroy the crops of farmers whose non-Monsanto produce has been contaminated with their product. But is it criminal? Or is it a business entity looking after its own best interests and perhaps having run off the rails but not yet into the realm of actual criminality? I am not smart enough on this to know and I now sit wondering whether my ire against this entity is justified or whether I have been taken in along with many millions of others.

Consider some curious thoughts. What if everything Monsanto produces in GMO terms was actually not only safe, but in fact better for you than non-GMO fare? I do not claim this to be the case, but work with me a moment for argument's sake. Hell, even if the health value were precisely the same as that of non-GMO foods, the advantage there might be the ability of such crops to produce far higher yields, thereby making available to the world far more abundant food. By some points of view, this is a net gain, all else equal.

Now, consider the officially stated goals of organizations such as the UN. Consider the quasi-official statements of world leaders including our own (Bill Clinton?) who have openly stated that the goals of world governance include the drastic reduction of human populations. Rarely do they mention time frame or extents, but even if we cut that population by "only" 25%, that is billions of souls. Time frame in combination with percentage becomes key and this is not advertised. But we get clues in other statements that say "by 2030 the world will be doomed <this way> if we don't do X" and so forth (please do not take that statement too literally as I am only trying to make a more general point).

If it is indeed the goal of "world leaders" to significantly reduce world populations in a time frame that is shorter than what can be very reliably expected from a statistical standpoint based on a sample space of literally billions of people, the question immediately follows: by what inorganic means are populations expected to be miraculously reduced of their own accord? "Inorganic means", of course, so very directly implies culling. Forget for this argument the questions of who decides to live, how and when they are to be "harvested" and so forth and assume it is the case. Given it, would there not be a strong conflict of interest between those shadowy "leaders" and Monsanto, the technologies of which stand to feed the very people the Illumined Ones seek to eradicate from the roles of the living?

I am not saying this is in fact what is happening, but consider the sudden rise to prominence of this issue to the forefront of awareness in our esteemed and most solidly and honestly independent media. Monsanto has been up to its "tricks" for years - quite successfully. Why has there been no groundswell until now, despite millions of people having been aware, frightened, and seemingly fed up? We see example after example of selective media attention on all manner of issues. Why should this be any different? Why should this be all innocently organic and honest? What would have triggered this sudden attention such that millions of people worldwide now march against the evil capitalist giant Monsanto? Does nothing here leave an odor in your nostrils prompting you to at least wonder just a little what might be going on in fuller truth?

If this conflict of interest indeed exists, would we not expect to see precisely that which we are now seeing? In how many cases has "government" been caught, pants at their ankles, backing actions that are patently not in "our" better interests? Now all of a sudden they are the champions of the little people? I am sorry, but as I consider this, the odor takes on an augmented amplitude. Something seems possibly amiss here, given the broader context. But nothing can be strongly demonstrated and that is what worries me. What if there is in fact an agenda to neutralize Monsanto, not to destroy them, but to eliminate their ability to continue to provide bountiful food to the world?

Let us beware that there are two separate issues at work here where Monsanto is concerned. The first is the question of whether GMO is "safe" for some sufficient definition of that term. The other regards their business practices. It is possible that Monsanto operates on a less-than-clearly-ethical business level but nevertheless produces a perfectly safe product. I am not saying this is the case, but it is possibly so. How do we find out? I do not have an answer there, but am raising these questions so that people might stop, take a breath and at least consider the possibility that Monsanto is the target of a deliberate campaign to scuttle some aspect of their operations. If this were to be the case, how would we know it? If the truth is in fact being told, how can we verify it? We have no idea who these talking heads are, what their innermost motives might be, to whom else they might be in service incognito, or whether we are being given truth or just another pack of lies and deceit.

Look at the emotional level. Is it not high and heading toward feverish? Now look back into history, just that of the past 100 years or even less, and see where these conditions have arisen before. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, '68 Democratic Convention... get the picture? I now feel compelled to put on the brakes and reconsider my current assessment, and I can tell you that this is about as pleasant as stopping ones urination in mid-stream. The body chafes, and at this moment my mind is chafing aplenty. I don't want to reevaluate because it feels good to want to see Monsanto crushed in the belief that they have foisted great evils upon us. But my other side, the one with the tilted and bent halo about its head has that look on its face and tone in its voice of profound disappointment, expectation, and the attendant demand that I do the right thing, which is to withdraw from the union with my desire to see "justice" done and get back on the fence where the pickets irritate parts they were never intended to pay visit.

Perhaps Monsanto is in fact the devil as claimed. But what if they are not quite that? What if they are only guilty of having acted with unacceptable levels of avarice in pursuit of their business interests? What if their products in fact stand as a boon to humanity? What if that conflict between what Monsanto does in this case and those working toward the non-trivial reduction of human populations within unnatural time frames is real? Would any rational and honest adult having lived long enough to have witnessed what "government" does be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that this is all an effort to better ensure the agenda of depopulation is not compromised?

Stop. Take a moment to breathe. Take a moment to think. Just consider the questions I raise here and see if you can come up with your own. Do these questions put you at ease or do they raise red flags? This world is so crazy anymore I can no longer come to universally pat conclusions on such issues. The subterfuge is so thick and adept that it becomes passing difficult to tell who lies or does not.

I for one could use some help in some of this, so if anyone has anything earth shaking to offer, I'm all eyes.

Interesting thoughts. I see where you are coming from and I see where you want to be aware of false witch hunts. However, there have been lots of independent studies on GMO foods and their effects on living animals and I don't feel like those results have a motive of disinformation to undermine and neutralize a beneficial force.

I think you are correct in pointing out their business objectives; but if their goal is populace sustainability, I think that the food they craft would not have the long term effects the studies have uncovered. And they might be more about seeds being able to reproduce to create bounty if their goal is sustainability, rather then the built in destruction of the regenerative nature of the plant so new seeds must be bought each season.

Therefore I think it is more about greed and controlling what is currently natural - to collect a toll (from patent protection and engineered destruction for lack of sustainability), no matter the cost to the human species. It just means more drug sales for big pharma, to sell pills and treatments to correct the wrongs their creations have created. So "they" (big corporations) get you coming and going. You are just an organism for them to live off of, financially speaking.

Social media is waking people up by sharing information like this. Until social media starts controlling the information being shared - Facebook censors pictures of children rallying against GMOs during global March Against Monsanto (http://www.naturalnews.com/040484_Facebook_censorship_children_Monsanto_rally .html) - and yes, it is Natural News.

I think, if GMO's are allowed to expand unabated, the long term outlook for the human species is one of sickness and further enslavement to the system. Not allowed to eat unless you pay into the system for their version of "food", sickness from what you eat meaning you need big pharma cures that you must pay into. While being taxed at the same time.... Feed the machine. Depend on the machine. A cog in the machine. A cow or sheep if you will.

Edit: While you might think global warming or climate change is "junk science," I think it is short sighted for the human species (that you point out there are others who think we cannot keep growing at such a rate and live on this planet for much longer) does not impact this planet at all. Looking at micro-ecosystems and the effects that can play out in those environments with over population, or other variables introduced such as toxic substances, etc. is no different when the numbers of humans expands to the point that earth becomes a micro-ecosystem in and of itself. I will agree that there are those using this to further their own socialist objectives, which is wrong, but I think dismissing the entire premise of people pissing and crapping everywhere (literally and figuratively) having no impact is equally wrong.

[Roxi]

Some of you completely miss the point of everything.

Of all of the people I know who attended marches, and this would include myself if I had been able to attend one, NONE of them are for government encroachment on private business.

The march was about raising awareness, not demanding government intervention. Sure there were plenty of bleeding hearts there that probably wanted that, but I would not say that was the majority.

As an aside, some of us are waiting for the app to get back into the Google Play store.

I guess it's all kind of pointless though when thousands of people from cities all over the world to gather for a cause and national media doesn't touch it. Oh well, might was well just stay home and sit on the couch and bitch about it right?

Find a cause, stand up and be vocal about it, or quit f*$#&ing ragging on people who ARE doing that.

[PaulConventionWV]

My far left uncle is attending this march. The left will certainly attend any march that villifies a business or corporation.

You people who think Monsanto is a legitimate business are so full of shit. Why can't you see what's really going on here?

[PaulConventionWV]

A lot of those people would identify the problem as rich people controlling government. In these parts, people identify it as businesses controlling government.

I'll submit this for your consideration. If businesses are large enough to control government, aren't we also talking about rich people controlling government?

I would say it's government controlling business.

[Working Poor]

Zz

[Debbie Downer]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/378011_10200555334797330_789878519_n.jpg

[Warlord]

That is completely naïve. 98% of the corn and soybeans grown in our country are GMO.

So avoid corn and soybeans then or find the 2% that aren't :/

[Natural Citizen]

I guess it's all kind of pointless though when thousands of people from cities all over the world to gather for a cause and national media doesn't touch it.

Consider this a blessing. :)

[Warlord]

Ummmm.....no. Monsanto is actually engaged in interstate commerce. If you are not buying healthcare you are not engaged in interstate commerce. Years ago, when the interstate commerce clause was actually respected, there were all sorts of federal laws that included the words "going across state lines" simply so that they could fall under the interstate commerce clause. After Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government expanded its power to include not just interstate commerce itself, but anything that affects interstate commerce.

I think what's confusing is that there are libertarian principles that transcend constitutional ones. For instance, if you really believe that government mandated labeling of genetically modified food is a violation of the free market, it's still a violation whether California does it or the federal government does it.

The real question, from a libertarian point of view, is "What is the free market alternative to reining in Monsanto?" Answer? Pass federal legislation banning gene patents, or at the very least patents for agricultural genes. While the federal government has the constitutional right to grant patents, it is not constitutionally mandated to grant them and it certainly isn't constitutionally mandated to grant patents for every think that might be conceivably patentable. I think Monsanto would rather go with GMO food labeling than losing their patents.

If Monsanto or an affiliate is based in TN, sells some GMO seeds to a TN farmer and the TN farmer supplies his wares to a TN wholesaler who then supplies to a TN store how is this interstate commerce?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Well part of the problem is that the rallies are distributed and smaller so easier to ignore. Still, reports of 2 Million ppl and 450+ cities (from the organizers) comes in around ~4,000ppl per rally. It didn't look like that number of rallies or people.

For some perspective, there are a bit over 7 billion people living on this planet. 2 Million of them showed up. The world has a birth/death ratio of just over 2/1. That's basically an exponential curve of new mouths. The earth has a pretty good immune system. Black Plague, Hemorrhagic Fevers, AIDS, Cholera, Famine...

Just something to think about as far as the big picture goes...

The uprising is good, but what I think is doing more good is countries banning their seeds and research interest into how hazardous they are to health.

-t

[Thor]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/378011_10200555334797330_789878519_n.jpg

That is so wrong and such a lame analogy it is hardly worth commenting, but I will...

"Banning GMO's because.... they infringe upon Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Monstanto, Bayer, whomever the company trying to control the food supply.

Having a corporation control, gate keep, manipulate and adulterate your food is encroachment and infringement on Life.
Sickness resulting from GMO's is destructive and infringement to your Life and Happiness.

[Warlord]

That is so wrong and such a lame analogy it is hardly worth commenting, but I will...

"Banning GMO's because.... they infringe upon Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Monstanto, Bayer, whomever the company trying to control the food supply.

Having a corporation control, gate keep, manipulate and adulterate your food is encroachment and infringement on Life.
Sickness resulting from GMO's is destructive and infringement to your Life and Happiness.

That's a gross infringement of Monsanto's constitutional rights.

Lets ban cigarettes and beer. After all they can cause cancer and liver damage.

But no, that too would be an infringement of a corporations rights.

[Thor]

That's a gross infringement of Monsanto's constitutional rights.

No, not at all. They do not have a constitutional right to harm others, or prevent others from Life, Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness. And they are. Constitutional rights should not be extended to harming others.

[Warlord]

No, not at all. They do not have a constitutional right to harm others, or prevent others from Life Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness. And they are.

So you want to ban cigarettes and prohibit alcohol too?

Party like it's 1920!

[Natural Citizen]

But no, that too would be an infringement of a corporations rights.


Heh.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c

[FrankRep]

Um. I was a speaker at the rally and I don't think that. Indeed, I think the FDA is the problem. And I said so. And it got wildly applauded. So I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Is that something the media is saying or something the people involved were saying?

Thankfully you're a small government speaker, but this March was primarily organized by left-wing liberals and left-wing liberals will probably dominate the speaking positions and would want the FDA to regulate GMO products and expand their powers.

[Thor]

So you want to ban cigarettes and prohibit alcohol too?

Party like it's 1920!

People have choices for those items. I can choose to smoke or drink. When the food supply is controlled and adulterated, and hidden from the individual as far as consumption, that is quite a different realm.

[Warlord]

Romney got something right.

[Warlord]

People have choices for those items. I can choose to smoke or drink. When the food supply is controlled and adulterated, and hidden from the individual as far as consumption, that is quite a different realm.

You have a choice with food supply too..

Alex Jones tells me efood direct's range is not only delicious but necessary to prevent a crisis in the event of hoards of starving mobs roaming the streets.

[Thor]

You have a choice with food supply too..

You have choices when it is labeled so you are aware. But when it is hidden, you don't.

[Warlord]

You have choices.

So not you're not being chained down and force fed by the evil corporation? Glad to hear it.

[Thor]

So not you're not being chained down and force fed by the evil corporation? Glad to hear it.

Force fed? No, I can choose to starve. But maliciously fed, indeed. When it is hidden and not divulged.

[tangent4ronpaul]

You have a choice with food supply too..

Alex Jones tells me efood direct's range is not only delicious but necessary to prevent a crisis in the event of hoards of starving mobs roaming the streets.

More effective (cheaper) to go through Emergency Essentials or the Internet Grocer. Think Mormon, not MRE's.

-t

[better-dead-than-fed]

You have choices when it is labeled so you are aware. But when it is hidden, you don't.

By "hidden" you mean that you're not initiated enough to consult a private lab to find out what's in the food, so you want a nanny to do it for you?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ban GMO foods, and many will be unable to afford the remaining food. Socialism inflates the human population.

If GMO foods didn't dominate the market, the prices of other foods would go down.

[Warlord]

More effective (cheaper) to go through Emergency Essentials or the Internet Grocer. Think Mormon, not MRE's.

-t

But then Alex won't get his cut and won't be able to put all his money back into the operation (less his own 15-20% of course).

He deserves it.

[luctor-et-emergo]

So you want to ban cigarettes and prohibit alcohol too?

Party like it's 1920!

I don't think we have to outright BAN GMO's.
In my opinion the problem lies in the patents, without patents there would not be a monopoly and no reason to produce GMO's for agriculture since independent reviews have shown that yields don't increase by using GMO's, at least not on average. In fact, an argument that's often made is that it's impossible to feed the world without the use of these technologies and I think that's the biggest pile of crap that has been served to the people. There have been numerous independent studies showing that some crops yield less when grown organic and other crops yield more than regular(GMO) varieties. Overall there isn't much of a difference. Well the difference lies here; at a conventional farm most of the cost of production lies in acquiring seeds and pesticides, herbicides. On an organic farm most of the cost of production is labor, no money for the giant multinationals. I would even argue that organic agriculture is superior in the long term because it takes care of the soil and does not degrade it by erosion. Soil life will over time reduce the amount of pests and careful treatment of the soil cuts down massively on the number of weeds. What you need though is a long-term perspective, something that most people looking to make a quick buck aren't interested in, certainly farmers...

[Warlord]

Patents are constitutional boohoo... go and lobby congress.. you won't get far though. They're all bought off.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Patents are constitutional boohoo... go and lobby congress.. you won't get far though. They're all bought off.
Off course, but it's the 'root' of the problem.

[Thor]

By "hidden" you mean that you're not initiated enough to consult a private lab to find out what's in the food, so you want a nanny to do it for you?

The essential role of a limited government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual. Don't infringe on the rights of another. If this destroys or infringes upon those rights, then the role of government in it's limited form is to keep that in check. So if doing that is calling on a "nanny", then yes. When the choice is hidden and virtually unavoidable.

The role of government should not be to protect the interest of that corporation and prevent states from disclosing information that can hinder Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Warlord]

Off course, but it's the 'root' of the problem.

It's been like that for 220 years :/

And even if you by some miracle get a majority in congress to amend the patent laws the bought off judges will override that in a heartbeat.

[FrankRep]

More effective (cheaper) to go through Emergency Essentials or the Internet Grocer. Think Mormon, not MRE's.

-t

What are the price comparisons?

I think efoodsdirect gives you a discount if you mention "Alex" or "Infowars" to them.

[Warlord]

The essential role of a limited government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual. Don't infringe on the rights of another. If this destroys or infringes upon those rights, then the role of government in it's limited form is to keep that in check. So if doing that is calling on a "nanny", then yes. When the choice is hidden and virtually unavoidable.

The role of government should not be to protect the interest of that corporation and prevent states from disclosing information that can hinder Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As a proud US corporation Monsanto also has rights, right there in the constitution. Even their patents are constitutional.

[Warlord]

You dont like Monsanto... we get it Thor.

I don't like the tobacco industry but i'm not going to march against them and make a fool of myself.

[luctor-et-emergo]

The essential role of a limited government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual. Don't infringe on the rights of another. If this destroys or infringes upon those rights, then the role of government in it's limited form is to keep that in check. So if doing that is calling on a "nanny", then yes. When the choice is hidden and virtually unavoidable.

Nanny state = Proactive government
Liberty = Reactive government

The difference being that a proactive government will ban certain activities outright, with no regard to intention or outcome. A reactive government will charge people with infringing on the rights of others, hold a trial and convict if necessary.

A proactive government says it has the right to keep you safe from yourself. A reactive government wishes you the best, but leaves you free to live your life as you see fit, as long as you don't infringe on other peoples rights. It's individualism v collectivism.

[Natural Citizen]

You dont like Monsanto... we get it Thor.

I don't like the tobacco industry but i'm not going to march against them and make a fool of myself.

Do you support Monsanto?

And by no means did these people make fools of themselves. This is a continuing world wide legitimate boycott. Will continue.

[Debbie Downer]

You have choices when it is labeled so you are aware. But when it is hidden, you don't.

Don't buy anything that isn't labelled 100% organic and/or has the Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/) verified logo or grow your own organic produce, or buy from a local farmer who doesn't use GM seeds...

There are tons of choices.

[luctor-et-emergo]

It's been like that for 220 years :/

And even if you by some miracle get a majority in congress to amend the patent laws the bought off judges will override that in a heartbeat.

Then why debate the matter if it won't ever change ? You do agree I hope that patents are the root of this problem ?

[Thor]

As a proud US corporation Monsanto also has rights, right there in the constitution. Even their patents are constitutional.

As long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, yes. But they are...


You dont like Monsanto... we get it Thor.

I don't like the tobacco industry but i'm not going to march against them and make a fool of myself.

With tobacco, you have the choice to use or not. When the food supply is controlled and contaminated, you don't.

[Debbie Downer]

If GMO foods didn't dominate the market, the prices of other foods would go down.

That's not true. Banning GMOs would probably lead to a massive increase in food prices. GMO crops are much easier to grow, are more pest/disease resistant, have higher yields, use less water, and many times are designed to have more nutrients per volume.

[Warlord]

Do you support Monsanto?

And by no means did these people make fools of themselves. This is a continuing world wide legitimate boycott. Will continue.

I support Monsanto's constitutional rights to act within accordance of the law.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Do you support Monsanto?

And by no means did these people make fools of themselves. This is a continuing world wide legitimate boycott. Will continue.

Voluntary boycotts are ALWAYS legit.

[Warlord]

As long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, yes. But they are...



With tobacco, you have the choice to use or not. When the food supply is controlled and contaminated, you don't.

I'm afraid Warlord has NO choice. He's addicted to nicotine and his trusty shisha pipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah)

[better-dead-than-fed]

Of all of the people I know who attended marches, and this would include myself if I had been able to attend one, NONE of them are for government encroachment on private business.

These people, calling themselves the "organizers", are calling for government encroachment on private business via FDA labeling: http://occupy-monsanto.com/


Find a cause, stand up and be vocal about it, or quit f*$#&ing ragging on people who ARE doing that.

People marching to expand the FDA should not be immune from criticism. Next time the FDA wants to expand their power, they know who they can turn to for grassroots support.

[Debbie Downer]

It's been like that for 220 years :/

And even if you by some miracle get a majority in congress to amend the patent laws the bought off judges will override that in a heartbeat.

Patent laws actually got a huge overhaul in 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act) when the entire system was moved from a "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system. This was the first significant change to the patent system since 1952.

[Natural Citizen]

As a proud US corporation Monsanto also has rights, right there in the constitution.

People like you are why we have corporations producing legislation of, by and for themselves against the interests of natural citizens. This is fascism in itsface.

[Debbie Downer]

I'm afraid Warlord has NO choice. He's addicted to nicotine and his trusty shisha pipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah)

I'd expect Warlord to at least be mixing in a little hashish in his shisha.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You people who think Monsanto is a legitimate business are so full of shit. Why can't you see what's really going on here?

Has "what's really going on here" been posted in this thread, or am I expected to watch a hundred YouTube videos to find out?

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not an expert, but I don't have to be to know that Monsanto's manipulation of the plant gene pool is not good. Their practices are abysmal.

I thought you were scientist? What science do you practice?

[FrankRep]

People like you are why we have corporations producing legislation of, by and for themselves against the interests of natural citizens. This is fascism in itsface.

I still blame Big Government, not the Corporations, for abuse of power. People write legislation, not corporations.

PS:

The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation.

[Thor]

Nanny state = Proactive government
Liberty = Reactive government

The difference being that a proactive government will ban certain activities outright, with no regard to intention or outcome. A reactive government will charge people with infringing on the rights of others, hold a trial and convict if necessary.

A proactive government says it has the right to keep you safe from yourself. A reactive government wishes you the best, but leaves you free to live your life as you see fit, as long as you don't infringe on other peoples rights. It's individualism v collectivism.


There have been enough independent studies on GMO's that it is hardly proactive at this point. It is an ongoing experiment with US as the lab rats. Labeling GMO's at the very least is not proactive. It is reactive. Banning GMO's could be labeled reactive in light of the studies.

[Thor]

I still blame Big Government, not the Corporations, for abuse of power. People write legislation, not corporations.

And those people writing legislation are influenced by lobbyist. Which are paid for by corporations.

[FrankRep]

And those people writing legislation are influenced by lobbyist. Which are paid for by corporations.
And corporations are made of people. Blame Big Government, not Corporations.

[Natural Citizen]

I support Monsanto's constitutional rights to act within accordance of the law.

I support a government of the people, by the people and for the people.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4


Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. The choice of the word "person" arises from the way the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was worded and from earlier legal usage of the word person. A corporation is an artificial entity, created by the granting of a charter by a government that grants such charters. Corporation in this essay will be confined to businesses run for profit that have been granted corporate charters by the States of the United States.

Corporate Personhood versus Democracy (http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html)

[Warlord]

I support a government of the people, by the people and for the people.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4

Kucinich also believes in socialized medicine and uses the same justification. He's wrong.

Corporations are nothing more than a band of individuals investing and being granted limited liability as prescribed by the laws passed by Congress who the People elect.

[FrankRep]

I support a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4


The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation.

[PaulConventionWV]

So avoid corn and soybeans then or find the 2% that aren't :/

Haha. Very funny.

[Roxi]

These people, calling themselves the "organizers", are calling for government encroachment on private business via FDA labeling: http://occupy-monsanto.com/

Just because they are part of the group, doesn't mean they represent the entire group. I get your point, but to lump all of us who support these marches in as promoting government intervention isn't fair (I realize you may not have done that personally, just making a point.)




People marching to expand the FDA should not be immune from criticism. Next time the FDA wants to expand their power, they know who they can turn to for grassroots support.

I agree, and anyone with half a brain going to these marches/protests should feel an obligation to educate the people attending that expanding the FDA is NOT an option. I know many of my friends did exactly that. Some handed out flyers on why the FDA is a fat failure.

[Natural Citizen]

The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation.

I don't believe our founders needed a pac to speak for them. So why do we? This is yet another example of repatriation of representation. An extension of the war on natural citizenship.

[Natural Citizen]

Kucinich also believes in socialized medicine and uses the same justification. He's wrong.

Corporations are nothing more than a band of individuals investing and being granted limited liability as prescribed by the laws passed by Congress who the People elect.


Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. The choice of the word "person" arises from the way the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was worded and from earlier legal usage of the word person. A corporation is an artificial entity, created by the granting of a charter by a government that grants such charters. Corporation in this essay will be confined to businesses run for profit that have been granted corporate charters by the States of the United States.



Corporate Personhood versus Democracy (http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html)

[PaulConventionWV]

Has "what's really going on here" been posted in this thread, or am I expected to watch a hundred YouTube videos to find out?

Something wrong with watching youtube videos? That's what documentaries are for. There have been several on the subject. Take your pick. Why shouldn't you expect to do work in order to uncover the truth? Some things can't be explained in a single post. If it's too long, you just probably just decide it's tl;dr.

[FrankRep]

Just because they are part of the group, doesn't mean they represent the entire group. I get your point, but to lump all of us who support these marches in as promoting government intervention isn't fair (I realize you may not have done that personally, just making a point.)

If a poll was conducted at the "March Against Monsanto" a large majority would say that the FDA needs to do its job and "protect us" from GMO products. That "large majority" will label the entire group, including the minorities like yourself.