At least three counties have thrown out election observers which Monsanto and their cronies flew into Oregon to influence the current recount of votes for Measure 92 to label genetically modified foods.
According to Oregon law, only registered voters can serve as recount observers. In at least 3 counties, Monsanto’s out of state political operatives have been forced to leave the recount room. Who knows what other shady tactics they have employed.
The law requires all election observers to be from within the state. As of this writing, there are only 812 votes between the ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ sides of the labeling debate in Oregon. More than 3000 outstanding ballots had to be chased down and clarified for the recount. More than 1.5 million ballots had to be counted by hand starting last Tuesday, and workers have until December 12 to finish the recount, though some counties are expected to finish earlier.
In 22 statewide recounts around the U.S. since 2000, the average shift was only 0.03 percentage point, according to FairVote, a Maryland-based advocacy group. But this election seems to be following a different trend. The initial difference of 812 votes out of 1.5 million is already suspect, and many of the contested votes have fallen on the ‘yes to label’ side. Long-time KGW political analyst Len Bergstein now says that he believes the YES side will be victorious!
Oregon’s GMO labeling Measure 92 was originally reported defeated thanks to Monsanto’s onslaught of more than $22 million dollars in negative ads. But the measure is still alive.
If you want to ensure that Monsanto doesn’t win again with their funny money and manipulative political tactics, you can contribute by chipping in to the Yes on 92 Emergency Recount Response Fund to help us make sure every vote is recounted fairly and accurately.
Even if the YES to label wins, you can bet Monsanto and the GMA will sue Oregon just as they have in Vermont and Hawaii, but at least they will have to launch multiple lawsuits at once. If we keep adding the pressure, at some point they have to surrender. Keep it up!
I’m surprised someone hasn’t gone to Monsanto’s headquarters and did something nasty.
And guess what? The mainstream media still won’t report on it, even if the recount favors “Label It”
Nope, they won’t…because Monsanto is in bed with the media and the government.
On what right does Monsanto have to sue? What the hell is their legal right?
Won’t matter anyways, Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional due to the fact that grocery stores still will need food shipments to come in or they will shut down. People will have to go to Washington, California, Idaho to buy most of their food. Unless you want to live on beef, pork, chicken, brocolli, eggs, carrots, a few greens and wheat products. All Restaurants, Grocery stores are against labeling because they won’t get any product in if it requires labeling. Farmers, Manufacturers, Retail stores see no point in labeling since all Non GMO already is labeled.
How is it unconstitutional to label the ingredients in packaged food? Labeling GMO’s is about transparency. The argument from the opposition that labeling GMO’s will be misleading is a crock. The current labeling system already is misleading. One of the biggest problems with our labeling process now, is there are no regulations on what you can call natural, Companies are mislabeling genetically modified ingredients as being all natural. They do not occur naturally in nature and they should not be labeled as such. The entire American populace is being used as guinea pigs by these corporations and it isn’t right. It isn’t ethical. How more people aren’t concerned about this or global climate change is dumbfounding to me.
Soybean or corn is just an ingredient, It is natural whether it is GMO or Non GMO, they are both the same. GMO is only a term from inserting a lone gene from a flower that repels insects or a simple harmless soil bacteria to get glyphosate tolerance. Same thing can be achieved from cross breeding, it just would take longer, but can be done. That is how GMO is and remains a natural product because nothing synthetic is included. Hoping one day they can find what gene is responsible for protein in wheat so that can be increased. GMO crops have higher yields, higher yields, healthier plants absorb more CO2.
You don’t really know what you are talking about. GMO and Non GMO are not the same. You are propagating misinformation. You need to educate yourself better.
Genetic modification is the process of forcing genes from one species into another entirely unrelated species. Unlike cross breeding or hybridization—both of which involve two related species and have been done without ill effects for centuries—genetic engineering forcefully breaches the naturally-occuring barriers between species. It is a completely unnatural process that does not occur naturally in nature.
Foreign DNA is inserted into the primary plant species using one of three methods:
E.coli bacteria is combined with a soil bacteria that causes tumors that allows the foreign bacteria to breach the host plant’s cells.
Electricity is applied to the host plant to rupture its cell walls, thus allowing the foreign DNA to invade; or
A “gene gun” blasts the engineered DNA directly into the plant’s cells.GMO crops also do not have significantly higher yields. source: (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf)
I know of yield results from local crop trial results as well as personal history knowledge related to this among 3 crops. GMO yields 15 -30% higher than it’s Non GMO counterparts.
Genetic modification is the process of forcing genes from one species into another entirely unrelated species. Unlike cross breeding or hybridization—both of which involve tworelated species and have been done without ill effects for centuries—genetic engineering forcefully breaches the naturally-occuring barriers between species.
Foreign DNA is inserted into the primary plant species using one of three methods:
E.coli bacteria is combined with a soil bacteria that causes tumors that allows the foreign bacteria to breach the host plant’s cells.
Electricity is applied to the host plant to rupture its cell walls, thus allowing the foreign DNA to invade; or
A “gene gun” blasts the engineered DNA directly into the plant’s cells.
GMO and Non GMO are not the same. GMO’s don’t occur naturally in nature. They also don’t produce higher yields or more nutritious plants. Most of them are made to withstand higher and higher amounts of pesticides and herbicides. It is all a scam. GMO’s are not a better alternative to nature.
The placement of the specific gene is very precise. They certainly can produce a fully roundup resistant variety through cross breeding, slowly increasing rates of glyphosate over time till resistance develops so in the end, there is no difference, so in fact, it can be considered natural.
I know for a fact that GMO Yields higher than it’s Non GMO counterparts and the nutrition is exactly the same. GMO actually DECREASES the amount of herbicides on a per acre basis over a Non GMO counterpart. I also KNOW this for a FACT! Annual use of Herbicide on Non GMO soybean is 80oz plus a soil applied, causing crop injury. GMO uses a max allowable of 56 oz per acre plus an option of soil applied if dealing with glyphosate resistant weed species and causes no crop injury. Plus when using Glyphosate we can decrease the water a sprayer uses by 25 to 50% which saves on critical water resources. Yields of GMO are 15-30% higher than Non GMO.
I have read were if someone is close enough to these ballot machines they can electronically change any vote.