The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a biotechnology hearing for the first time in 10 years last week to discuss the future of food technology as the industry responds to increased demand, production challenges, and consumers’ calls for a safe and transparent food supply. But the meeting came up short on transparency and carried on more like a Monsanto share-holders meeting than an unbiased inquiry into the pros and cons of biotechnology where it concerns the food supply.
Senator after senator praised biotechnology and genetically modified foods, claiming they had ‘come a long way’ in ten years. Pamela Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association said:
“The Senate Agriculture hearing reaffirmed the broad consensus among scientists and regulators that GMOs are safe and highlighted the real world negative impacts a patchwork of state labeling mandates will have on farmers, businesses and consumers. Action by Congress is urgently needed this year to pass a national, uniform labeling standard.”
The senate hearing was scheduled shortly after the US House of Representatives passed the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,” otherwise known as the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know) by a vote of 275-150.
Bailey’s comments seem to be made about inhabitants from another planet since there certainly is no ‘consensus’ about the safety of GMOs. In fact, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSERR), a group of scientists, physicians, and experts from a variety of different fields, including biotechnology, completely reject the claim that there is any consensus on GM food safety.
To wit:
“Regarding the safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a comprehensive review of animal feeding studies of GM crops found “An equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns”. The review also found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as safe and nutritious as those obtained by conventional breeding were “performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants.”
There is also a huge lack of credible scientific studies in which GM feed is given to one group of animals and non-GM feed is given to another, comparing results. If the industry really wanted to prove GM safety, it could perform these tests (for more than a shortened period) and report the real results. This almost never happens. In fact, there are at least 40 rodent-feeding studies showing the hazards of GMOs.
Moreover, many credible scientists like United Nations doctor, Judy Carman, has outlined 5 key dangers of eating GM foods, but of course these were completely ignored at the recent Senate Ag Committee meeting. These are:
- 1. GMOs are not ‘substantially equivalent to’ non-GM foods.
- 2. GMO safety testing is rarely done in a way that is conclusive within the industry.
- 3. Eating GM crops cause numerous Americans, as well as others around the world, serious digestive ailments as they alter gut flora.
- 4. ‘Feeding studies’ are not required by Biotech nor the government agencies that allow new GM crops to be patented and unleashed on the public at large.
- 5. Biotech funds almost all of its own studies, so there is no ‘transparency’ as was touted over and over again at the Senate Committee meeting.
Instead of discussing these concerns, for more than three hours, both Senate Republicans and Democrats repeatedly praised GMOs, regurgitating Monsanto talking points, including the often-used propaganda speaking notes like the myth of “feeding the world.”
They also regurgitated the same old line that GMOs were perfectly “safe,” while intentionally ignoring the growing number of independent studies that point to real and potential harm from genetically engineered foods.
Who’s working for the US public? Not a soul in the Senate or House of Representatives. Any who have vocally spoken out against the industry get railroaded by their highly-paid lobbyists sitting in government office.
As Natural Society previously reported, here is an extensive list of who’s been paid off by Monsanto:
House of Representatives:
- Total paid by Monsanto to Democrats: $72,000
- Total paid by Monsanto to Republicans: $190,500
- Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500
- Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $5,000
- Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000
- Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $5,000
- Camp, Dave (R-MI) $5,000
- Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000
- Clay, William L Jr (D-MO)$10,000
- Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $5,000
- Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $2,000
- Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $4,500
- Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $2,500
- Fincher, Steve (R-TN) $8,000
- Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $7,500
- Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) $4,500
- Graves, Sam (R-MO) $5,000
- Griffin, Tim (R-AR) $1,000
- Guthrie, Brett (R-KY) $1,000
- Hanabusa, Colleen (D-HI)$5,000
- Hannemann, Mufi (D-HI) $1,000
- Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $3,000
- Holden, Tim (D-PA) $1,000
- Huelskamp, Tim (R-KS) $2,500
- Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) $2,500
- Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) $2,500
- Johnson, Timothy (R-IL) $3,000
- King, Steven A (R-IA) $2,500
- Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $7,000
- Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) $3,500
- Kissell, Larry (D-NC) $5,000
- Labrador, Raul (R-ID) $2,000
- LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $1,000
- Landry, Jeff (R-LA) $1,000
- Latham, Tom (R-IA) $10,000
- Loebsack, David (D-IA) $5,000
- Long, Billy (R-MO) $2,500
- Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $10,000
- Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO)$5,000
- Lungren, Dan (R-CA) $1,000
- McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $1,000
- Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX)$1,000
- Noem, Kristi (R-SD) $1,000
- Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $3,500
- Owens, Bill (D-NY) $2,000
- Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $10,000
- Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $7,500
- Rokita, Todd (R-IN) $5,000
- Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $1,000
- Schilling, Bobby (R-IL) $3,000
- Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $5,000
- Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $5,000
- Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $10,000
- Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $5,000
- Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN) $5,000
- Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS)$10,000
- Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $1,000
- Upton, Fred (R-MI) $5,000
- Valadao, David (R-CA) $2,500
- Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $10,000
- Walden, Greg (R-OR) $1,000
- Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) $2,500
- Womack, Steve (R-AR) $1,000
Senate
- Total paid by Monsanto to Democrats: $37,500
- Total paid by Monsanto to Republicans: $85,000
- Akin, Todd (R-MO) $3,500
- Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000
- Berg, Rick (R-ND) $10,000
- Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $10,000
- Boozman, John (R-AR) $5,000
- Casey, Bob (D-PA) $2,500
- Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $5,000
- Fischer, Deb (R-NE) $5,000
- Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)$1,000
- Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) $2,000
- Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) $1,000
- Johanns, Mike (R-NE) $1,000
- Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $5,000
- Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $1,000
- McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)$5,000
- McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $10,000
- Moran, Jerry (R-KS) $2,500
- Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $13,000
- Rehberg, Denny (R-MT) $2,000
- Risch, James E (R-ID) $3,500
- Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $9,000
- Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $8,000
- Thompson, Tommy G (R-WI)$5,000
- Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $1,000
- Wilson, Heather A (R-NM)$2,500
They’ve had a whole decade to come clean about GMOs, to tell the world, like Russia, Poland, Germany, (19 EU countries and counting) and others who have refused to feed their citizens GMOs, that GMOs are not truly the answer. Yet here we are playing the same old Monsanto charades.
Time for a mass firing? These Senators took an Oath of Office that included “defending the constitution.” I believe that includes the right to eat food that doesn’t kill you, or at least be informed so that you can choose to eschew it. The only oath that is being upheld here is one to Monsanto and the Big 6 companies who have ruined our food supply.
To date there remains a dearth of evidence showing genetic modification poses any inherent risks. That does mean we should be complacent. We should improve regulatory oversight and institute clear testing guidelines for new genetically modified traits. However, we must acknowledge that the fears propagated by websites like this one have no basis in fact.
All antiquated and in need of peer review using the technological advances and the newest data regarding DNA.
Antiquated??? It’s all within the last ten to twenty years. That’s still pretty recent. And the studies I’m referring to have been peer-reviewed. But I’m in favour of continuous research.
What new data regarding DNA are you talking about?
In 2012, a research program
called the ENCODE project concluded that around three quarters of the
noncoding DNA in the human genome did undergo transcription and that
almost 50% of the genome was available to the proteins involved in
genetic regulation such as transcription factors.
However, these findings have been criticized by other scientists
who claim that the accessibility of these genomic segments to
transcription factors does not mean they necessarily have any
biochemical function or that transcription of the segments is in any
way advantageous in terms of evolution.
Even if ninety percent of the genome does prove to be junk, that doesn’t mean the junk hasn’t played a role in our evolution.
Natural Geographic, 2014
Obviously not agreed upon within the scientific community, which also means the research is yet to be fully studied and agreed on.
Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA Sep 18, 2012
Scientificamerican dot com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/
Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function, 1994-1997
So anything before 2012 due to recent revelations would be antiquated accordingly to the scientific community.
Which demonstrates the need for review on all Genetic Engineering and it’s effects on DNA.
That is partially correct, but largely incorrect. The ENCODE project did not re-write our understanding of so-called “junk DNA”. The term junk DNA is highly misleading. It is a term that has been used in biology to signify DNA that does not code for expressed proteins and is too far away from protein coding regions to be involved in cis-regulatory actions (i.e. promoter regions). The term also conveyed that we did not have a clear understanding of the role this DNA played into the function and architecture of the genome. However, to assume that scientists thought the DNA had no function at all is incorrect. Admittedly, this was a problem in communication as scientists (at least those I communicated with) understood that “junk DNA” likely had functions that we were simply not aware of yet, but to a layperson this nuanced understanding was not clear.
The findings of the ENCODE project absolutely does not mean we cannot trust our understanding of genetics. That is a completely wrong conclusion.
It states the scientific community’s understanding is in it’s infancy, science is developing and they are still learning and it’s effects are yet to be determined.
Antiquated due to advancing technologies and recent findings.
All GE technology should be reviewed and further researched.
There is a lot of information on the junk DNA, past and present, and scientists admitting they are unsure about DNA and conditions or actions and how they react or effect.
Science has been wrong before and all is only conclusive until someone proves their current theory’s wrong.
That’s just not true. Are you even able to acknowledge that you have made significant mistakes in your comments? Like mistakenly attributing a scientist’s comments about the use of CRISPR for human medicine as being about the use of CRISPR for plant genetic engineering. You seem oblivious to your errors, while plowing ahead with even more inaccurate statements.
Like this one, “scientists admitting they are unsure about DNA and conditions or actions and how they react or effect”. Who? Which scientists have made these claims? What is the context of the statements? You’ve already shown yourself to be rather duplicitous with other people’s word, so I’m certainly not going to take you at your word.
Science has been wrong before and all is only conclusive until someone proves their current theory’s wrong.
Based on that logic, I guess we should have stuck to living in caves and foraging for food.
I don’t seem much point in continuing this conversation. I feel like a teacher trying to instruct a student on a complicated subject, but in a situation where the student knows so little about the the subject they mistakenly believe they know more than the teacher. Unless you’re willing to at least acknowledge your mistakes when they are pointed out to you, we’re done. I have better things to do.
My only mistake has been quoting scientific experts, you will have to contact them and demand they correct themselves to fit your opinions.
Too arrogant to even acknowledge your own mistakes.
So you think insulting is the all telling answer.
Why did you ask about CRISPR/cas9. wasn’t even spoken of, what does that have to do with the studies on junk DNA.
My only mistake was not agreeing to everything you say.
I asked about CRISPR to illustrate that GMO labeling is not nearly as simple an issue as you, and pretty much all advocates, make it out to be. The fact that you can’t answer this question proves this point.
Yes you seem to be insistent, your voice should deny the rights of all. I just posted the scientific experts warnings. Keep blaming me for the experts words, your only denying the scientific community’s consensus.
Sorry to tell you, 95% of the population want labeling, in a democracy the majority rules. And since the European communities have established a basis for Labeling, that is the best working standard available. CRISPR is GE, maybe you could share your knowledge as to how genetic editing and manipulation isn’t GE. All your displaying is your willingness to attack all, even the scientific community if they don’t bow to your views.
Here is another clue for ya, startribune dot com/south-dakota-scientist-says-usda-censored-pesticide-research/338164501/
Keep blaming me for the experts words, your only denying the scientific community’s consensus.
As long as you keep misquoting and quoting people out of context, I’ll keep point out the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Sorry to tell you, 95% of the population want labeling, in a democracy the majority rules
Well, I bet the same number of people want flying cars. But when faced with the reality of the problems associated with flying cars, it becomes apparent that just wanting something isn’t enough to make it happen.
CRISPR is GE, maybe you could share your knowledge as to how genetic editing and manipulation isn’t GE.
How are we going to test a plant to see if it contains genetic modifications introduced by CRISPR? Furthermore, explain to me how a gene knockout achieved by CRISPR is materially different from that achieved with a mutagen? A variety developed using the latter approach would not be labelled as “GMO”. The fact that you can’t address these questions (and seem to actively be avoiding them) shows how shallow your understanding of this issue is.
All your displaying is your willingness to attack all, even the scientific community if they don’t bow to your views.
You’re a hypocrite. YOU are the one DEMANDING that others fall in line with your views on GE. I’m just asking questions. In fact, I have never even said I’m against labelling. Have you even noticed that fact?
I just made mention of antiquated research and pointed out that the advancements might signal that some of the research should be reviewed.
You went off on a tangent and demanded to see my degree, while denying that any scientific research should be subjected to review.
I merely made mention of some of the recent discovery’s.
Everything else was baiting to make me look stupid, I did really make an attempt to understand. The CISPR/cas9 information was really interesting.
I also found an online Genetics/DNA training course by McGraw Hill, I’m a B student, lol.
But my initial message was review, which you say NO.
Good enough for me.
I just made mention of antiquated research and pointed out that the advancements might signal that some of the research should be reviewed.
Yes, I know what you said. Believe it or not, I do read and consider what you write. I actually agreed with you about continuous research (not sure if you caught that or not). However, I pointed out that recent advancements did not hold the significance that you believed they did.
You went off on a tangent and demanded to see my degree, while denying that any scientific research should be subjected to review.
I did? Show me the exact wording where I said any of that. The fact is, I said nothing of the sort. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
Everything else was baiting to make me look stupid
No. I’m not trying to do that. I’m trying to get you to see that you have knowledge gaps, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
I also found an online Genetics/DNA training course by McGraw Hill, I’m a B student
That’s fantastic that you’re looking to improve your understanding of this field. Really, I’m happy to hear that.
How can any sane and rational thinking person
trust the same scientists calling anyone who doubts
their findings, “Science Deniers?” What type of science throughout all
of recorded history has been declared “closed” to new data that might
suggest the theory is flawed?
Science is never “closed”. Our understanding continues to evolve as new information becomes available. This is not a reason to distrust science at all.
Here is another clue for ya, startribune dot com/south-dakota-scientist-says-usda-censored-pesticide-research/338164501/
Good grief. You’re really grasping at straws here.
1) Did you read this article?
2) Do you know the difference between a pesticide and a GMO?
3) Explain how neonicotinoids relate in anyway to GMOs and GMO labelling?
4) Look up a red herring fallacy, because you just made one.
WTF, really?
Yes. Really. Arguments against pesticides do not logically extend to GMOs.
The article was about scientists being punished for not adhering to leadership’s agenda/views?
So logically if the scientific community is being threatened or coerced to provide information that doesn’t upset an agenda, it doesn’t apply to the scientific community?
At this point all science needs to be reevaluated and that the researchers were able to conduct research without outside interference or threats.
Well, that’s your opinion. I disagree.
So you think outside influence and threats within the scientific community will advance the technology and maintain quality scientific work?
COI within the academic institutions is accepted and the scientists should strive to satisfy the funding parties to not discourage future funding?
COI within the regulatory agencies is accepted and should be hidden to also advance science?
Conflict of interest is an ongoing issue and one that seems to he getting worse, if anything, unfortunately. But COI along is not going to sway my opinion on what is ultimately a biological issue. COI may mean I weight a particular study less than another. But it’s not a basis upon which to make sweeping judgements. Each study must be evaluated individually.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again,
As soon as the scientific community can act like adults and focus on the community, people will begin to have more faith in the sciences.
You all are doing it to yourselves.
I agree, scientists could do a much better job communicating with the public. And in the vacuum of understanding, fear develops. Pseudoscience blogs like Naturalnews and Naturalsociety certainly help though!
Again the scientific community has too many contradicting opinions and views on the same subject, within their own community. That’s the problem and everybody sees and knows it!
Obviously if your so willing to shift blame and not accept any responsibility, the problem will continue.
You usage of keywords are very telling in their context, ie information and sharing of thought or ideas goes against your agenda.
Quit acting like a bunch of children get on the same sheet of music and the public will have more faith in the sciences.
I’m sorry, but if you refuse to take the time to understand the science of genetic engineering then you can’t expect me to value your opinion. You are not in touch with the scientific realities of this field. I have repeatedly attempted to enlighten your understanding, but as the adage goes ‘you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink’.
What does GE have to do with the scientific community running around acting like 5 year olds on a play ground without adult supervision?
Scientific realities are, ALL PEOPLE are capable of all of the common human short comings.
Your just here as an activist and you happen to be pro, I understand.
the scientific community running around acting like 5 year olds on a play ground without adult supervision
Highly biased and prejudicial statement based solely on your personal beliefs. If you want to be taken seriously, conduct yourself in a serious manner.
Ahh, trying to get an emotional response from me.
There is way too much evidence out there of the agenda driven corporate scientists, from all sciences, destroying those scientists who have moral and ethical driven desires within scientific research. Mainstream media and otherwise.
If you don’t have an ethical and moral stance on research, not my problem, maybe a little backbone on your would be warranted.
So the content of the article is opinion?
You stated the article was about pesticides, lmao.
I never read the article in nature, I was referring to this one,
geneticsandsociety dot org/article.php?id=8628
Look at the byline of that article. See the “Nature News” link. Click it. Viola. The article is originally from Nature News. Again, my points stand. The article does not support your interpretations.
Your just fishing to advance your agenda and discourage an informational dialogue. Your responses have all been opinion and activist agenda based.
I merely made the reference as to where I got the information.
Anyone can read through the whole article and see you have narrowed the information to maintain your bias and discredit anything anyone posted in response to your requests.
GE has many discoveries yet to be realized, and CRISPR/cas9 is just proof of that.
All I said was more research needs to be conducted, including peer review of all of the stated conclusive COI studies.
Your the one who mentioned CRISPR, I just found the scientific experts warnings and recommendations.
You must be a law student, sorry you got scammed into the credit cards and student debt, being a paid activist will help reduce your debt.
Good grief, you are such a hypocrite.
Your just fishing to advance your agenda and discourage an informational dialogue.
This accusation carries no weight when its coming from someone who cherry picks quotes and then uses them out of context.
Anyone can read through the whole article and see you have narrowed the information to maintain your bias and discredit anything anyone posted in response to your requests.
I did nothing of the sort. Unlike you, I distinguished between the use of genetic engineering for medical purposes and for commercial agriculture. You are using concerns about the former in attempt to attack the latter, which again makes you a total hypocrite.
Your the one who mentioned CRISPR, I just found the scientific experts warnings and recommendations
You found something, but you didn’t take the time to actually understand it before rushing to judgement.
You must be a law student
And you just keeping rushing to those judgements, don’t you?
Subject: Just in case you’re not already adequately upset about GMOs……
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Government Planned To “Retaliate & Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs
Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. There is fact that previously classified secret government documents exist which show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds, for example. If information about our food needs to be concealed from the public domain, then something has gone seriously wrong with the food industry. It’s great to have an organization like WikiLeaks shed some light into the world that’s been hidden from us for so many years.
The cables reveal that the State Department was lobbying all over the world for Monsanto and other major biotech corporations. They reveal that American diplomats requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to meet with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries.” These included countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe.
A non-profit consumer protection group called Food & Water Watch published a report showing the details of the partnership between the federal government and a number of biotech companies who have pushed their GMO products on multiple countries for a number of years.
“The United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and government, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives. The U.S. State department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology politics and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged common sense biotechnology safeguards and rules – even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.” (source)
HERE is one cable (out of many) from Morocco.
HERE is a 2008 cable that summarizes a French documentary called “The World According to Monsanto,” which attacks the U.S. biotech industry and the fact that Monsanto and the U.S. Government constantly swap employees and positions. Below is a excerpt from the cable:
Corporations Dictate Government Policy
“The film argues that Monsanto exerted undue influence on the USG. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is interviewed saying he had felt that he was under pressure and that more tests should have been conducted on biotech products before they were approved. Jeffrey Smith, Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, who is interviewed says that a number of Bush Administration officers were close to Monsanto, either having obtained campaign contributions from the company or having worked directly for it: John Ashcroft, Secretary of Justice, received contributions from Monsanto when he was re-elected, as did Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health; Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was director of Calgene which belonged to Monsanto; and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was CEO of Searle, a Monsanto subsidiary; and Justice Clarence Thomas was a former lawyer for Monsanto.”
This is just one example that clearly shows how giant corporations pretty much dictate government policy. These food corporations are responsible for forcing independent agriculturists to go out of business. They control the world’s seed supply, forcing farmers to become dependent on their seed. Monsanto and corporations like it have created patented GMO seeds and are preventing farmers from seed saving and sharing, resulting in a dependence on their genetically modified product.
“The state department sent annual cables to ‘encourage the use of agricultural biotechnology,’ encouraging every diplomatic post worldwide to ‘pursue an active biotech agenda’ that promotes agricultural biotechnology, encourages the export of biotech crops and foods and advocated for pro-biotech policies and laws.” (source)
“The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy. 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.” – Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive (source)
One of the most revealing cables is from 2007, it looks at French efforts to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. HERE is a cable that shows Craig Stapleton, former ambassador to France under the Bush administration, asking Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.” (see source in above paragraph)
The U.S. government was not only working for the biotech industry, they were also threatening other governments who did not comply. Think about that for a moment. Over the years the United States government and Monsanto have collectively pushed their GMO agenda upon the rest of the world. Why? Do you really think it is to help feed the world? This could easily be achieved if we came together and pooled our resources. The entire planet could have access to organic food and it could be done for free.
The World’s Resistance To GMOs
The past two years alone have seen millions of people from across the globe gather to show their opposition towards Monsanto and similar corporations. The “March Against Monsanto” is clear evidence of this. The people of the world are starting to see through the veil that’s been blinding the masses for years, and our food industry is one small but important area where that veil is being lifted.
Activism and awareness have contributed to the banning of GMO products and the pesticides that go with them in multiple countries across the planet, it’s time for North America to follow suit.
Source(s):
http://www.collective-evolution.com
wikileaks.org
http://www.cablegatesearch.net
It’s just so yummy and our government is so altruistic it must be good for everybody!!!!! Yeah! ## I love chemicals epically in my cheerios! !!
Chrissy must hate this, but there is a chance the truth might win after all!!
Subject: Just in case you’re not already adequately upset about GMOs……
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Government Planned To “Retaliate & Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs
Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. There is fact that previously classified secret government documents exist which show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds, for example. If information about our food needs to be concealed from the public domain, then something has gone seriously wrong with the food industry. It’s great to have an organization like WikiLeaks shed some light into the world that’s been hidden from us for so many years.
The cables reveal that the State Department was lobbying all over the world for Monsanto and other major biotech corporations. They reveal that American diplomats requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to meet with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries.” These included countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe.
A non-profit consumer protection group called Food & Water Watch published a report showing the details of the partnership between the federal government and a number of biotech companies who have pushed their GMO products on multiple countries for a number of years.
“The United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and government, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives. The U.S. State department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology politics and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged common sense biotechnology safeguards and rules – even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.” (source)
HERE is one cable (out of many) from Morocco.
HERE is a 2008 cable that summarizes a French documentary called “The World According to Monsanto,” which attacks the U.S. biotech industry and the fact that Monsanto and the U.S. Government constantly swap employees and positions. Below is a excerpt from the cable:
Corporations Dictate Government Policy
“The film argues that Monsanto exerted undue influence on the USG. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is interviewed saying he had felt that he was under pressure and that more tests should have been conducted on biotech products before they were approved. Jeffrey Smith, Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, who is interviewed says that a number of Bush Administration officers were close to Monsanto, either having obtained campaign contributions from the company or having worked directly for it: John Ashcroft, Secretary of Justice, received contributions from Monsanto when he was re-elected, as did Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health; Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was director of Calgene which belonged to Monsanto; and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was CEO of Searle, a Monsanto subsidiary; and Justice Clarence Thomas was a former lawyer for Monsanto.”
This is just one example that clearly shows how giant corporations pretty much dictate government policy. These food corporations are responsible for forcing independent agriculturists to go out of business. They control the world’s seed supply, forcing farmers to become dependent on their seed. Monsanto and corporations like it have created patented GMO seeds and are preventing farmers from seed saving and sharing, resulting in a dependence on their genetically modified product.
“The state department sent annual cables to ‘encourage the use of agricultural biotechnology,’ encouraging every diplomatic post worldwide to ‘pursue an active biotech agenda’ that promotes agricultural biotechnology, encourages the export of biotech crops and foods and advocated for pro-biotech policies and laws.” (source)
“The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy. 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.” – Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive (source)
One of the most revealing cables is from 2007, it looks at French efforts to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. HERE is a cable that shows Craig Stapleton, former ambassador to France under the Bush administration, asking Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.” (see source in above paragraph)
The U.S. government was not only working for the biotech industry, they were also threatening other governments who did not comply. Think about that for a moment. Over the years the United States government and Monsanto have collectively pushed their GMO agenda upon the rest of the world. Why? Do you really think it is to help feed the world? This could easily be achieved if we came together and pooled our resources. The entire planet could have access to organic food and it could be done for free.
The World’s Resistance To GMOs
The past two years alone have seen millions of people from across the globe gather to show their opposition towards Monsanto and similar corporations. The “March Against Monsanto” is clear evidence of this. The people of the world are starting to see through the veil that’s been blinding the masses for years, and our food industry is one small but important area where that veil is being lifted.
Activism and awareness have contributed to the banning of GMO products and the pesticides that go with them in multiple countries across the planet, it’s time for North America to follow suit.
Source(s):
http://www.collective-evolution.com
wikileaks.org
http://www.cablegatesearch.net
It’s just so yummy and our government is so altruistic it must be good for everybody!!!!! Yeah! ## I love chemicals epically in my cheerios! !!
0
1. How can anyone make a case for NOT labeling the food we eat? I’m 100% for mandating this ASAP at the federal, state and local levels. People should know what they are eating—Congress, what are you thinking!
2. The consequences of going cold turkey on eliminate of all GMOs would be catastrophic. Millions starve, fuel/labor and farm costs out of control, soil erosion, increased fossil fuels, etc. all go up dramatically. Much more suffering in underdeveloped countries than in the USA.
3. I don’t think Monsanto is the boogie man and articles like this are taken as a nutcase “conspiracy theory” — so stop already.
4. We do need to make logical, informed decisions based on science rather than emotion. This is not about having balance it is about making trade offs, the two are fundamentally different.
You seem to think like most H.Sapiens that it is more important than Nature and is the rightful owner of planet Earth as your belief makes out that this planet was created for a Jewish couple called Adam and Eve,even before Solaris was created and your tribal god rested.
ENSERR is a group with a political bias inherent in it’s name.
How about picking a group that isn’t self-selected to this bias, like the EASAC, the European Academies Science Advisory Council.
The report from EASAC, published in June 2013, warns of the “grave scientific, economic and social consequences of current European Union policy towards GM crops”, saying European countries should “rethink” their widespread rejection of the technology.
The study came as a blow to environmentalists opposing GMOs as it received backing from the national science academies of all EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland.
NATIONAL SCIENCE COMMITTEES OF ALL EU member states sure sounds like a consensus to me.
“We estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,” said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC.
“In this specific case, extra care was taken in order to ensure that none of the experts had strong ties with industry, although a certain level of industry connections cannot be completely excluded,” she told EurActiv, saying the report included several peer-review rounds by external experts and scientific academies.