Virtually All Major 2016 Presidential Candidates Oppose GMO Labeling
It's up to US to protect the food supply
As the 2015 presidential race continues to usher in debates over social policy and fiscal responsibility, no one is talking about another key issue: all of the major candidates are in completely opposition to GMO labeling — and many are directly supporting Monsanto’s biotech aspirations.
Last month I shared with you Hillary Clinton’s close support of Monsanto and GMO crops in a piece posted just hours after her campaign announcement, but many readers were writing in wondering about the rest of the front running political figures.
That’s when I began reading reports on the Iowa Agricultural Summit, an event in which the Republican presidential candidates were asked to speak on alternative energy, the state of the nation’s agricultural system, and their stance on GMO labeling initiatives at large.
Hidden in reports on the event that received very little coverage and almost no traffic, we find a concerning piece of information: all of the candidates who attended completely oppose GMO labeling in every way. In fact, they directly attack it as ‘anti-science,’ and go on to talk about how safe Roundup-filled GMO crops are for your health.
Speaking on the issue of GMO labeling, KCCI news reports Senator Ted Cruz responded:
“People who decide that’s what they want, they can pay for it already. But, we shouldn’t let anti-science zealotry shut down the ability to produce low cost, quality food for billions across the globe.”
And Jeb Bush was in agreement, stating:
“We should not try to make it harder for that kind of innovation to exist. We should celebrate it … I think that’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Even Mike Huckabee agreed, saying that GMO labeling just made a lot less ‘sense’ to him than labeling foods by their country of origin. All in all, the candidates concluded that it was in fact ‘anti-science’ to label GMOs.
But perhaps the candidates had failed to do their research on the highly publicized link between Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup and cancer — a link that has now been backed up by a major scientific arm of the World Health Organization known as the International Agency for Research. Now listed as a ‘probable carcinogen’ by the research organization, it has been known for quite some time that Roundup was wreaking havoc on the human body.
Bolstering the conclusions of the World Health Organization’s determination, it was a leading professor of Ecotoxicology at the National University of Littoral in Argentinaa that stated: “the international scientific community has warned for years, backed up by studies, that glyphosate is carcinogenic. It is good that WHO has recognized this fact.”
But beyond the science, there’s also the public outrage. As I’ve told you time and time again, we have seen massive public support across the board for GMO labeling, with mainstream polls demonstrating this:
- The New York Times: 93% found to be in support of labeling GMOs
- MSNBC: 96% in support
- Reuters/NPR: 93% in support of full labeling
- Washington Post: 95% in support of full labeling
- Consumer Reports: 95% agree GM animals should be labeled
- ABC News: 93% want federal GM labeling mandate
As we get closer to the 2016 elections, GMO labeling will continue to be a key issue that countless millions will be demanding answers on. Candidates like Ted Cruz, who speak towards a public that is desperate for a political revolution, could very well supercharge their campaign by adding GMO labeling initiatives to their agenda. After all, these initiatives are what helped Senator Bernie Sanders rise to the public eye to a much larger degree.
Natural Society staff contribution