Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently reposted a tweet from a follower blaming his trailing numbers in a new Iowa poll on genetically modified corn that “creates issues in the brain.” The GMO issue looms large for the candidates currently in the running.
“@mygreenhippo #BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain? #Trump #GOP“
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2015
Trump made his thoughts on GM foods clear with this tweet, but what do the other candidates think? Hillary Clinton is in favor of genetically modified foods, though Hilary recently spoke out about the biotech industry causing inflated drug prices. Clinton has been called a ‘shill’ for biotech, even:
“How is Hillary personally involved in supporting big agriculture? The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), which gathers leaders to solve the world’s problems, promotes Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp® and RoundUp Ready® seeds. Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s Chairman and CEO spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, 2014. Ms.
Clinton’s top campaign advisor, Jerry Crawford, was a lobbyist for Monsanto for years and is now the political pro for her Super PAC, “Ready for Hillary.” Clinton spoke in favor of the government’s Feed the Future (FtF) program, a USAID funded, corporate-partnered program that brings RoundUp Ready® technology to the most vulnerable populations of the world. Monsanto and Dow Chemical support Hillary and Bill’s ‘Clinton Foundation’ with generous donations.”
Clinton has also been known to try to ‘pretty up’ public perception of GM foods, saying that the term ‘Frankenfood’ is a misnomer, and that they should be called drought-resistant crops, instead.
Furthermore, as Secretary of State Clinton, according to CNN, has supported the DARK Act or TPP 45 times, even though she has recently come out in opposition of it.
You can see the words come straight from Hillary’s mouth, here.
“An overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling but virtually all of the major biotech and food corporations in the country oppose it . . .(Vermont’s labeling law is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2016.) The people of Vermont and the people of America have a right to know what’s in the food that they eat.”
Conversely, Jeb Bush has made it clear that he’s a huge fan of GMO’s. At a recent conference, Bush said he supported country-of-origin labeling for produce like the avocados and cilantro that go into his homemade guacamole, but said he said that he did not support the right to know if our food is genetically modified.
“I think that’s a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist,” Bush said, while calling GMOs one of the “greatest high technology innovative sectors of our economy.”
“We should not be trying to make it harder for that kind of innovation to exist, we should celebrate it…” he continued.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee also seems to play it safe politically by saying that science is consistently showing that GMOs are safe. He thinks that a “Country of Origin” label makes more sense than a GMO label.
While these aren’t all the 2016 presidential candidates, the front runners have definitely weighed in on the issue. Who do you trust to govern food safety in 2016? After Obama’s empty promise to label GMO foods, maybe the answer is none of them.
The better question would be, how well do the candidates understand the issue?
GMO labelling is not about science, it’s about personal beliefs and more generally how we want our agriculturally system to be organized.
Right to choice
Right to information
Right to personal beliefs
Right to diverse agriculture, not monoculture.
Not labeling is about denying people their rights.
Why are the scientific experts on a denying rights campaign?
What does biotech have to do with the people’s rights, isn’t that in the political arena?
Where do you find your rights in our constitution? You know the one that you want to get rid of?
You need to be more specific.
Which part of the Constitution did I question?
Where did I attempt to get rid of it?
You claimed rights 4 different things so where are these rights guaranteed in the constitution?
What is the purpose of the Constitution?
Obviously for you it is something to bash.
In other words, you don’t know.
I do, do you?
You have clearly demonstrated you don’t.
No you have by claiming fights that are not provide for n the constitution.
LMAO, what are the first 3 words of the Constitution?
Oh and maybe your referring to the Bill of Rights.
Try the 1st and 10th Amendment’s.
When your done with that, try researching some of the States Constitutions.
Right to choice
Right to information
Right to personal beliefs
Right to diverse agriculture, not monoculture.
You do not have the right to all choices. Do you have the right to illegal drugs? How about the choice to not pay taxes? In both cases the government says you don’t have a choice.
Right to information? You already said I don’t have the right to know if lumpy was in the military so you handled this one yourself.
Personal beliefs. You have me here, as long as you don’t force your beliefs on me that is. But that doesn’t mean that I have to alter my labels to meet your beliefs.
Right to diverse ag? You most certainly can on your ground. But don’t try to force it on my ground if I do not want to.
It really isn’t very hard to make you look stupid. You do most of the work all by yourself.
Illegal drugs would be a choice, though they are still illegal. People still have the right to make choices, but they alone are responsible for the repercussions.
I don’t pay taxes unless I make a purchase.
I cannot disclose anybody’s personal information, that is a violation of federal law. You can find his information and make a FOIA request.
More than likely you own very little, you probably are still paying on your car, so agriculture and any decisions in this area wouldn’t effect you.
These are my personal beliefs.
It is also the companies right to not litter their labels with meaningless phrases. If you don’t like it then exercise your right and don’t purchase that product.
They are regulated, they have no rights. Once a law is passed they have to comply.
Corporations aren’t people.
They most certainly do have rights and thanks to congress their rights will be protected. The Supreme Court is also going to strike down the illegal Vermont law as well.
Please explain how the States rights to make laws is illegal?
I would, but you have shown repeated that you aren’t smart enough to grasp simple things.
Next time you get pulled over by a State Trooper for speeding, tell him the State laws do not apply to you. Please record it and post it on youtube so we can all get a laugh.
Again you simply don’t understand the law, science, math, or any basic things. Thanks again for proving it countless times.
And you don’t understand, finances, economics, Govt, politics or security.
Your information comes the egotistical college activists your surrounded by. Focus on your education and use your brain for something other than holding your ears apart.
Lets see, I run a business supplying farmers, there goes the finances and economics for you. If you are in agriculture these days, you must know the government rather well, so wrong again there wantabee vet. As for surrounding myself with activists, maybe you should get out to rural america (if you can find it) and see what you are actually talking about. Then you will understand just how stupid you really do sound.
Almost all farmers have a very good working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Your an egotistical college student here making money to pay off your student debt and the credit cards you got conned into.
You have displayed a lack of worldly knowledge on far too many occasions.
Proof of any of that? As always the babbling a of a loser moron.
All you say is propaganda driven, ie activist.
Farmers are good decent hard working folks, just trying to keep their land. Many are far too busy to involve themselves with activist activities and they won’t unless paid to do it. But again farming is time consuming, so very few real farmers, if any, will waste time on sites like this.
Everything you are doing here reeks of activist and programmed liar.
You just don’t care and it’s obvious.
If I didn’t care then why am I on here defending them? More of your stupidity.
Because your a professional activist (liar) and will say or do anything for money.
You don’t even know you sold your soul, your at the very bottom of the evolutionary chart, easily manipulated.
You keep saying that, but isn’t it funny how you haven’t been able to produce a single instance of lying. Also, if helping farmers feed the world is selling out then it only proves that you want the world to be controlled through a lack of food. How sad you are such an elitist.
Typical activist responses, besides you have already provided the evidence that your lying. The only story you can keep straight is the constant insults.
It is hard to prove to you your lying, because your paid to lie. Empowered by your masters to believe your filth because your of the belief you are protected.
Stealing land then claiming to feed the world is your view of humanitarian?
Kind of like your insisting that I intend to single handedly take over the world.
Seriously stinky get a grip.
Again you just babble with no evidence. Nice try there but no cigar.
Anybody can research the behavioral and social sciences and come to a conclusion about many of the posters here.
If you compare the activists comments between here and many other sites, it’s like there are 5 pro GMO activists in the world based on the responses.
That would stand logically as evidence that there is a group on the internet determined to maintain the reputation of GMO and attack any naysayers, not to mention the evidence in support if this observation.
If you were programmed to act like an individual the evidence would not support my assumption. Giving the same canned responses has destroyed the professional, as well as the scientific, activists credibility.
Group think eventually becomes obvious.
I wouldn’t know about the others like you do. I have a life and have to work, while you are living off mommy in her basement with nothing better to do. As for the rest of your babbles, that is all they are.
“Meaningless phrases” is your opinion.
Monsanto finds “contains GMOs” and “made by genetic engineering” VERY meaningful.
That’s why Monsanto fights to keep those meaningful words OFF the labels. Monsanto wants to hide its dirty work.
And that is your opinion. Fortunately congress and the courts are seeing things differently.
Legislative whores. They keep such nasty company.
Actually the courts would be judicial, but I’m sure that is way beyond you.
Your purpose is simply to ridicule anyone who refuses to eat GMOs or products that contain GMOs. Your obnoxious approach makes people scorn anything you favor. Go tell your masters that you need new propagandoids.
More lies? I have never once said we should get rid of organic or non gmo. If people choose to eat them then so be it. It is up to them. I have zero issues with the organic and non gmo labels. Although, I must admit I find that some of the things using these labels very amusing.
Actually, Stinky’s purpose is just to piss people off.
He’s not smart enough to debate without help from someone.
But don’t people who want foods without any GMO derived ingredients already have options available to them? How is it a person’s “right” to force others to act in accordance with that person’s beliefs?
The pro-GMO labelling argument seems evangelical to me; the primary purpose being to win converts over to a particular set of beliefs irrespective of scientific evidence.
Besides, labelling is not nearly as simple as many believe. For example, would a plant variety developed using CRISPR/Cas-9 genome editing be considered a “GMO”? If so, how you we even test for the presence of such plant material?
All of that has been said before. Rights are also considered, Equality under law.
Is it genetic engineering, then the end product is GMO.
The GMO corporations or their manufacturers can’t put, product contains GMO’s on the label for ease of consumer of information?
The millions of dollars spent fighting a simple label is rather stupid, the money could have been used else where. But in the end the cost will be passed onto the consumer, either way they get their money back.
But I don’t see how one can argue that his or her rights are being violated when clear opinions are available to him or her. It is like a Jewish person saying that lack of “non-kosher” labels violates his or her rights, despite there being food clearly labelled as kosher. It just doesn’t make sense and it is a weak argument.
Is it genetic engineering, then the end product is GMO.
Is a product that contains sucrose from GM sugar beet a “GMO” product? Should such a product have a “GMO” label? If you say yes, then you are no longer basing your opinion on science but instead on ideology. You are free to take that position, but at least be honest about it.
So you don’t think the law should recognize rights as equal?
Are rights an ideology, should they be done away with?
Should the right to demand informed choices be removes from the people.
Is your right to say there are already labels the deciding factor, placing yours above all else?
Quote, How is it a person’s “right” to force others to act in accordance with that person’s beliefs?
GMO is a person, or maybe we can apply this to consumer product information, since GE and GMO products are consumer products when available on the retail/wholesale market.
There is a lot of information on sucrose, though admittedly the scientific community is still learning. The scientific experts in the EU have decided,
Labelling:
Even though it is not possible to determine whether sugar, a
pure, crystalline product, was produced from GM sugar beet or GM
sugarcane, it is necessary to declare sugar that has been produced
from GM plants.
Source
gmo-compass dot org
Since the EU has studied and decided that their consumers have the right to know that the product “sugar” was derived from GE sugar beets, I’ll expect the same consumer rights.
Be honest, you don’t think people have rights?
“Contains GMOs” works fine with me.
Yup, fine by me also.
It is like a Jewish person saying,
That is their right!
If people don’t speak or question, how will they get answers?
You won’t supply them, your attacking basic natural human rights at every point.
You didn’t answer my question about CRISPR/Cas-9. I have taken the time to address your questions, I expect the same courtesy.
I mentioned GE, that is just another method.
Also the dangers relating to have not been fully realized, that technology comes with warnings from the scientific community.
“People just don’t have the time to characterize some of the very basic
parameters of the system,” says Bo Huang, a biophysicist at the
University of California, San Francisco. “There is a mentality that as
long as it works, we don’t have to understand how or why it works.”
By and large, researchers see these gaps as a minor price to pay for a powerful technique.
Basically ignoring the dangers for the budget friendly CRISPR/cas system technology is a serious ethical issue.
Ledford H (3 June 2015). “CRISPR, the disruptor”.
My goodness, what an utterly dishonest comment. Context. IT MATTERS! Did you even read the actual editorial article in Nature?
That quote you lifted from the Nature editorial focused on the use of CRISPR in medicine as a therapy for genetic diseases/disorders. That is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING!!!
Later the editorial goes on to discuss the use of CRISPR to produce GM plants for commercial use where to tone of discussion is very different. It raises EXACTLY the same question I posed to you, which you have completely ignored.
Will you finally answer my question now that I have clearly and repeatedly corrected you erroneous claims?
CRISPR/Cas-9 genome editing can have effects that may not be seen until a new generation is born. In some cases, off-target sites have had mutation frequencies ranging from 0.1% to over 60%. Moreover, genetic changes made by CRISPR affect nearly all the offspring. It’s possible that an unexpected malign change could spread very rapidly throughout food animals, food plants, or humans. Also, CRISPR use will make it hard to determine whether a mutation has occurred naturally or artificially. Thus, it will make long-term studies of GE’d products and GE’d diets difficult – how would scientists determine a true control group, e.g.? – I’d label products made by such editing either “contains genetically modified organisms” or “made with genetic engineering.”
Backcrossing. It’s used in plant breeding to remove unwanted genetic traits while maintain the traits of interest. In the case of genetic engineering, backcrossing can be used to remove off target mutations. Backcrossing is already a common practice in plant breeding. Google it.
My remarks about determining valid control groups and about affecting non-targeted sites still stand. You’re talking about using backcrossing to remove a mistake caused by the GE.
Backcrossing can be used in genetic engineering just like it’s used in conventional plant breeding. It’s about selecting only what the breeder wants. Off target mutations can be removed through this process making the point moot. I don’t see why you’re more concerned with off target mutations than you are with normal mutations that occur during plant breeding. Care to explain?
You asked about CRISPR/cas9 not backcrossing.
Care to explain?
Backcrossing is done in conjunction with genetic engineering. You need to understand the whole process before attempting to criticize it.
And you compared GE with conventional breeding?
Make your point.
The warnings have been made about your mentioned CRISPR/cas9. The differing scientific expert views just make the warnings more applicable, accept it and move along.
GE “research” is good and the new and innovative technologies are warranted.
But all should be used wisely, even conventional methods. There is quite a history on people damaging ecosystems. So your saying history should be ignored because you have it all figured out and as long as your favorite experts are fine with it, it’s ok?
You really can’t let go of the fact that the”warnings” you refer to are based on 1) an out of context quote and 2) a lack of understanding of the overall process involved.
Yes, it is completely reasonably to compare genetic engineering with conventional breeding. Especially in the case of CRISPR.
That would be 100% opinion.
Show me studies that find and demonstrate that natural selection and conventional breeding are the same as genetic engineering.
This isn’t something you’re going to find in a study. It has to do with understanding the fundamental principles of genetics and of the methodology involved. I have tried to explain this to you, but you seem resistant to any view other than the one you already hold.
GENETIC ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF CONVENTIONAL PLANT
BREEDING; How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding,
hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer
by
Michael K. Hansen, Ph.D.
Research Associate
Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union
January, 2000
consumersunion dot org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wide-Crosses dot pdf
That is one opinion, and a rather narrow opinion at that. For one thing, Dr. Hansen’s definition of genetic engineering is too narrow. He focuses only on gene insertion. Therefore, by Dr. Hansen’s own definition, a plant variety produced by CRISPR would not necessarily be “genetically engineered”. Also, Dr. Hansen incorrectly states that the insertion of transgenic DNA does not occur in nature. This is categorically wrong. Agrobacterium does this very thing naturally. The human genome includes numerous viral sequences, as do the genomes of many (if not most or all) higher life forms.
Dr. Hansen asserts that the interspecies transfer of DNA introduces some inherent risk not present in conventional breeding. This is also wrong. The risk depends on what the transgenic DNA does, not where it comes from.
But congrats. You found one opinion that agrees with you. Too bad it doesn’t stand up to critical evaluation. Nice try though.
Nothing will stand up to your opinion based arguments, that’s just the way it is.
Genome editing is genetic engineering.
You Devils are totally destroying the Earth’s environment. It is time the patriots destroyed Monsanto.
Are you paid by Monsanto. Have you sold your soul to the Devil for money.
GMO Has E. Coli Bacteria DNA, Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Dna,
Antibiotic resistant markers, up to 6 varieties of Bt Toxin Pesticides, and
Roundup Residue.
GMO Bt toxin corn produces insecticide continually in every
cell of the plant. There’s absolutely no washing it off. Also known as a
“plant incorporate pesticide”. Roundup residue is absorbed into the
corn and it can’t be washed off. Could the antibiotic resistant markers be
contributing to antibiotic resistance?
Most people assume that if something isn’t listed on the ingredients label, it’s not in the product. Thus, no GMO label is False Advertising.
The so-called ‘experts’ are denying rights and denying actual science because they’ve been bought by the industry. – As the old joke goes, “We know what you are; we’re just debating the price.”
TROLL Alert – along with GMO Roberts. MonSATAN trolls………
Ad hominem attack.
You can do it, but no one else can?
Here we are all activists and historically there is a conflict.
Get over it.
Bull crap.
GMO Has E. Coli Bacteria DNA, Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Dna,
Antibiotic resistant markers, up to 6 varieties of Bt Toxin Pesticides, and
Roundup Residue.
GMO Bt toxin corn produces insecticide continually in every
cell of the plant. There’s absolutely no washing it off. Also known as a
“plant incorporate pesticide”. Roundup residue is absorbed into the
corn and it can’t be washed off. Could the antibiotic resistant markers be
contributing to antibiotic resistance?
Tons of countries are REJECTING MonSatan GMO seeds, fake food, ROUND-UP ..in essence everything coming from satanist MonSATAN company. SHUT THEM DOWN! They are killing the people, animals, plants…the planet! They need to be prosecuted and executed for their crimes against humanity.
Free People, It’s not right or fair to refer to the Monsanto Corporation as MonSatan. Satan aka The Devil has never been or could ever be as Evil.
Mon’santo’ means ‘my saint’..Santo is spanish for saint and so SATAN fits this invented name because it’s not the real family name anyway. They picked this name and changed their last name. They are a diabolical family. Yes, they are ruled by their master, the devil.
Free People, My comment was meant as sarcastic humor and not meant to be taken literally except I have a feeling my comment is actually true. 🙂
Oh, but who do you think is operating Monsanto? Children of the devil!
I agree with everything said by free people, I’m not ready to die because the food is poison and monsatan is the devil
Do you think Trump is realistic about his ability to find, round up, and deport millions of immigrants and pay for it?
Topic is GMOs and YES Trump is against GMOs too. Can he round up and deport millions of immigrants and ‘pay for it’? …I don’t know about having to PAY for it, but YES he will round ’em up and move ’em out! #1 Priority of his campaign. The amnesty crapola is OVER!
GO TRUMP 2016!
Chuckle. Topic is what various candidates think about GMOs. You also introduced the election per se, by touting Trump for 2016. So asking about his purported policies is fair game. Personally, I prefer someone with feasible plans, but suit yourself.
Who’s going to cook your burger or pick your strawberries if he deports illegal Mexicans? Joke aside Think about the mere numbers… 12 million, how would he deport them? Create a police state worse than it is now, military in the streets shoot them if they run? Is that the America you are dreaming of?
“Is that the America you are dreaming of?”
Knowing the mindset of most of these people, it probably IS!
See post right above yours for reply. The LEGAL Mexicans are losing their jobs due to O’ZERO’s import of more illegals and WORSE islamonazis. Those are the ones who are leaving. The legal immigrants who already do these jobs want their jobs back!
Google the following: where is the nearest mental facility. Though according to your rants a brain transplant should be required.
Fantastic idea! But……who’s gonna clean all the toilets, cut the grass, cook your food in restaurants, clean your hotel rooms, work the back breaking jobs in all of the farm fields across America?? You see a lot of white Americans lining up to take these jobs? ANY Americans? I think not. The huge Agri-business in this country would NEVER let Trump get away with this anyway – where and how are they going to replace ALL of that cheap farm labor? Hire white Americans to pick all those crops? At $8.00 an hour? Are you ready to pay $6 for your side of French fires????? $14 for a bottle of ketchup????
Try thinking things through once in a while.
You!… jk. There are many immigrants already in this country that are LEGAL and they have most of these jobs already. They are voting TRUMP because the ILLEGALS are taking their jobs! Trump has support from a wide variety of people who are SICK AND FED UP with what we have today. He’s a populist, nationalist and he is sacrificing his OWN money, businesses which evil protesters are shutting down on him, and his own LIFE to run for love of country. He’s not accepting a paycheck for being President either. He is CLEAR!
TRUMP 16! by a landslide.
If we stop paying the way of the able-minded and able-bodied citizens of this country you will see them take those jobs.
PS: Hope my time to respond isn’t too late. I’m a little slow sometimes.
Are you sure Trump would do anything against big business?? Please…
Which candidate running for either party do you know who is an EXPERT on Big Business? There’s only one and it’s Donald J. Trump.
I can tell you the health insurance companies who have generated billions with fraudulent o’bamanocare have insomnia right now. They are the first who will be OUT because the first thing the Donald is going to do is eliminate obamacare completely. It’s a hoax! He knows business and his IQ is156. He’s not a self made billionaire by ‘luck’. No other candidate compares to Trump and what he can do and WILL do.
Why do you think all the big guys are doing everything they can to take Trump out. They lose with Trump.
So he will promote GMOs thanks for pointing that out. And btw you sound scary… 156 IQ is the total IQ score at a Trump rally!
No, the king and queen of GMOs are the Clinton Mafia. They’re the ones who approved MonSatan POISON. Do your research. The Donald will BAN the diabolical MonSatan just like most sane countries have banned them.
TRUMP and ONLY TRUMP 2016!
Free People speak for Trump
You are free to do whatever you want I am free to be educated and think for myself.
lame, he has not done that well in his branding real estate businesses, so why assume he and he alone can and will do this?
I do not mean to take sides… My wish is that Trump would honour what he said about stopping GMO foods. BTW, if you were to read something where someone claimed to say Obama has an IQ of 101, would you believe that?
Trump’s promise was empty…. His integrity is simply missing unless he gets applauded and fears the opposite. Only that means he has to suppress the media or take it down.
Remember, Monsanto and Dow are American corporations that expanded to other countries for profit. Would Trump stop money from being made for corporations?
I did not understand anything you said. To respond to you last sentence, the only one making sense, no he wouldn’t and he would ask for a cut. My point.
Monsanto equals international terrorism!
Huckaphony and Bush can OD on GMOs for all I care.
TRMP 2016!
Bernie is the only one to support! To me it’s a no brainer! He is the only one talking about climate change and is NOT FOR SALE! #Bernie2016
No, he isn’t, check out
http://www.jill2016.com/
He’s just like Obama. Swears he’s not bought and paid for by the corporations, then takes their money anyways when the cameras are turned off. Why do you think such a fuss was made over that “political contribution” a pharmaceutical Co sent Bernie? So he could refuse it on camera and maintain his sound bite of not being bought and paid for. Just like Obama in 07, and 11. Wake up, princess. Bernie is a politician. He knows how to lie, and you’ll believe everything and anything he says cause he promises you something.
You certainly don’t know jack about Bernie do you?! This “princess” is wide awake and will keep supporting the most honest politician to come along in our lifetime. You want to keep living in an oligarchy country, by all means, don’t vote for him! Cheers! #Bernie2016
Dennis Kucinich is another. Sweet universe, I’d LOVE to see a Sanders-Kucinich ticket!
Sanders is a politicians, yes. Tell me ONE person in office or running for office who isn’t.
Bernie gave that money to an AIDS clinic – a lovely touch of ironic humor, as nasty little Shkreli was upping the price of a drug used to treat AIDS.
Troll… you make me laugh
And you make me worry. How did people become so damn afraid of the truth?
Good post.
I disagree vehemently with Sanders about vaccines. A vaccination mandate kills the principle (established by the US at Nuremberg) of Informed Consent, which must always include the right to refuse and have one’s refusal honored. If someone is informed of the active ingredients, excipients, side effects, etc. and CHOOSES to be vaccinated or have their child vaccinated, that’s fine. But I am a conscientious objector.
But I’ll never find a candidate I agree with 100%. I don’t think it’s humanly possible to do so. Grin.
Sanders is the ONLY one I’ll vote for in the primaries and the 2016 election, even if Clinton gets the nomination. Clinton and all the GOPers are liars, changing stance for political expedience; and they are all corporatist-fascists who will choose corporate profit over human health.
Sanders 2016!
The only candidate I was looking for isn’t here. I will assume that Dr. Carson is anti GMOs but I would like facts.
I know this is a silly editorial comment, but in the world of educated consumers, and especially when you’re bucking the political tide and fighting big ag and big pharma, it’s a good idea to write with perfect grammar. “Erstwhile” is an adjective or, sometimes, an adverb, but not used without a subject: “the erstwhile candidate” or “erstwhile the candidate of record” …
Oops! You forgot Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party candidate
She is a physician, got into politics when she tried to point out to legislators how the environment was contributing to her patients’ illnesses – when they paid no attention, she decided it was necessary to “throw the bums out” – she is the best candidate out there …
You won’t see much, if any, of her on MSM – TPTB don’t want you to know about her …
http://www.jill2016.com/
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that I may trust. The other candidates are definitely NOT trustworthy and the Clintons have been in bed with Monsantan for decades, Hillary even being their lawyer – yes protecting Satan!
This is one of the most important issues and NO American should vote for anyone in favour of GMO’s. GMO’S should not only be labelled They should be BANNED!
GMOs should be banned? All GMOs? I imagine diabetics and anyone who likes cheese will have a problem with that given GM microbes are involved in the production of both insulin and renant. Or do you mean only agricultural GM plants? If so, why the discrepancy?
LMAO, cheese and insulin have been around longer than GMO’s. The use of GMO’s in these products do nothing more than increase profits.
Ann is merely displaying her affections for Mr Sanders and expressing her concern over the health of the Nation’s people, which is her right.
Quit attacking everyone who exercises their rights.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }
Genetically manipulated foods may be one of the most
serious threats not only to our environment but to the health and
very survival of future generations. Typically, the blame for the
promulgation of genetic engineering of our food is placed on chemical
companies.
But there’s actually a hidden back story to how
genetically engineered foods were able to reach millions of dinner
tables.
Steven Druker, who you may not be aware of, is the
attorney who filed a lawsuit in the late ’90s challenging the most
important action the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
taken in this area: its presumption that genetically engineered (GE)
foods are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) and can enter the
market without a shred of safety testing.
However, the evidence clearly reveals that the FDA’s GRAS
presumption was fraudulent when first announced in 1992 and that it
remains fraudulent today. Nonetheless, it has played the central role
in allowing inadequately tested GE foods to permeate the American
market. There are many components to this story, and Steven is just
the man to set the story straight.
He’s written a landmark and historic book Altered
Genes, Twisted Truth, with the revealing subtitle: How
the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science,
Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.
If you have even the remotest interest in this topic, I
would strongly encourage you to get a copy of this book. It is,
without a doubt, the best book on the topic and provides a treasure
trove of facts that will help you decimate anyone who believes that
GMOs are safe.
Steven was aware of this issue 10 years before I was, and
he’s really a pioneer and a champion in warning the public and
protecting us from the negligence and irresponsible action of the US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
FDA = Federal Death Administration. Never trust them.
Monsanto are the armed wing of the Nazi nwo globalist mass murderers. We are legion. We don’t forget. We don’t forgive. You can expect us.
Other then Bernie Sanders supporting vaccinations that contain nagalase that destroy GcMAF the instant it is injected, Bernie vs Donald is our best hope for eliminating the control the chemical killer industry that is destroying our natural human immune system. Donald knows that vaccinations cause autism. Bernie has the ability to learn the truth and change his position. In addition, Bernie, Donald, Rand, & Barack are the only 4 people who opposed the Iraq war and Donald was the only one with the castagnas to call our Jeb!’s brother. Donald should have quoted Richard Clarke:
Published on May 28, 2014
http://www.democracynow.org – In a Democracy Now! exclusive, the nation’s former top counterterrorism official has said he believes President George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Richard Clarke served as national coordinator for security and counterterrorism during President Bush’s first year in office. He resigned in 2003 following the Iraq invasion and later made headlines by accusing Bush officials of ignoring pre-9/11 warnings about an imminent attack by al-Qaeda. On Tuesday, Clarke spoke to Democracy Now! in an interview that will air next week.
Amy Goodman: “Do you think President Bush should be brought up on war crimes [charges], and Vice President Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld, for the attack on Iraq?”
Richard Clarke: “I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried. So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing. And I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not it would be useful to do that in the case of members of the Bush administration. It’s clear that things that the Bush administration did — in my mind, at least, it’s clear that some of the things they did were war crimes.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pntDF0QK9Ys
39,526 Views as of 10/22/2015
Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, Apologizes for 9/11
11,283 Views as of 10/18/2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_pj9JiIXC4
Donald knows that vaccinations cause autism.
If that’s true I wouldn’t be surprised. The Donald strikes me as the type of person who believes stuff without any supporting evidence. Vaccines don’t cause autism. That has been completely and utterly debunked.
So the science is conclusive and done on vaccines, proven?
Yes, with respect to the claim that vaccines cause autism.
Opinion based statement.
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific
proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a
scientific proof.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.
Conclusive tending to terminate; closing, final.
Since this is your stand, I’ll assume you know exactly what causes autism, please enlighten us.
Exactly! “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” –Richard Feynman, physicist – Nobel Prize winner, and amongst the ten best worldwide of all time.
His papers on CARGO CULT SCIENCE are a real eye-opener on how these frankensteins work to ‘conclude’ their ‘science’.
Here is the supporting evidence: GcMAF is destroyed by nagalase and causes autism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALgIHETMDU
209,233 Views as of 7/27/2015
Published on Jul 23, 2015
Please help to protect me as I am those who helped me with this explosive information share everywhere so it is less likely they will come for me like they have for these now deceased doctors. Read this article first please:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mo…
https://gcmaf.se/
http://www.faim.org/autism/gcmaf-trea…
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/10/dr…
http://gcmaf.timsmithmd.com/book/chap…
http://www.betterhealthguy.com/gcmaf
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/hea…
http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/index.htm
Nagalase eliminates all GcMAF https://gcmaf.se/
Thanks for the links. I’m saving them. This is a battle I think only Trump can resolve by launching a serious investigation into the fraud that is vaccines. He doesn’t mess around. It’s time to expose all the frauds that this government has been promoting.
TRUMP 16!