Monsanto buying the law - again

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: FyreByrd

So I'm confused, when I go read the actual bill and it's FACTSHEET I see this..

What exactly is the issue here?

Why do these types of threads always never link to the actual bill being discussed?

The issue is this:

Activists in nearly 30 states are attempting to require government warning labels on food products containing ingredients derived from biotechnology. These common ingredients, which include corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, are safe to eat.

The activists’ goal in mandating state labeling is to mislead consumers into believing that
America’s food supply isn’t safe.

This isn't true. It's lobbyists lies. The goal is simply to have accurate labeling. If food contains GMO there is literally 0 reasons to hide it from the customer. If the customer wants to make an informed decision he needs information.

Hiding information from customers is a common way for companies to manipulate them.


Also the FDA has a long history of collusion with the industry so it's very unlikely that they will ever claim a GMO is hazardous. And even if they wanted to be sure, clinical trials would take 10 to 20 years before reaching any conclusion, do you think they will ask a moratorium on GMO in the meantime, out of precaution? Of course not they rather make the most money out of it before it becomes finally proven that GMO are hazardous.

The US gov sold its soul to Monsanto and all big industries and lobbies long ago. In the US perfectly natural food like raw milk cheese can be banned while it's OK for chicken to be dunked in chlorine. Go figure. It's all tailor made to favor industrial companies VS small food producers.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

GMO seed= poison?

BS.

Billions of animals have eaten food derived from GMO seeds...why aren't they all dead?

Mindless fear mongering.

That's not the issue with GMO. Monsanto has ignored the risk of horizontal gene transmission while it happens all the time.

Creating GMO resistant to pesticides, they gave the opportunity for the same gene to be transferred to insects and fungi. Now this gene is out in the wild and there are already report of new species resistant to pesticide.

Furthermore Monsanto GMOs are sold in "package" with their roundup product. Roundup is a carcinogen and already banned in many countries.


Monsanto GMOs are literally gorged with roundup and cancer can take decades before manifesting.

They know very well it will be very hard to link cancers to roundup, exactly like cigarette makers denied for very long that cigarettes cause cancer.

They know one day their products will be banned like asbestos and they try to make the most money out of it today, or even to change laws to protect their monopoly.

a reply to: JUhrman

Just look at the posts here, they all think GMO food is unsafe, so it's not a lie, they're correct in saying that anti GMO activists are pushing the GMO is unsafe line.

GMO has been in the food market for over 20 years already, like I said billions of animals have consumed some form or another of it...metadata tells us it's safe.

Funny that everyone is happy to eat fruits that were created by being irradiated to cause fast mutations..

This is the issue with Monsanto. Their lobbyists and their lies and doublespeak. They have absolutely no ethics:

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JUhrman

Just look at the posts here

If I should base what I believe in on ATS posts rather than personal research, lol...

Sorry informed activists are not pushing for a "GMO is unsafe line". Labelling should be accurate and informative. If a product contains preservatives it should be indicated. So why if a product contains GMOs it shouldn't be indicated? Double standards.

GMO has been in the food market for over 20 years already, like I said billions of animals have consumed some form or another of it...metadata tells us it's safe.

actually...




I invite you to check thyroid cancer rates in countries banning GMO and roundup too.

a reply to: JUhrman

Sorry, but this is proof of nothing besides him being an idiot.

If you actually think that Monsanto supported or told him to say that glyphosate could be drunk, you're completely deluded.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Funny that everyone is happy to eat fruits that were created by being irradiated to cause fast mutations..

That's not why fruits are irradiated.

Also bombarding fruits with radiation doesn't make them radioactive nor unfit for consumption. Do you know how this all works? I doubt it. It only makes them lifeless and sterile. I admit I prefer my fruits straight from the tree but to compare pesticides and irradiation is ridiculous because only one of these methods leaves residues on the fruit.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Monsanto supported or told him to say that glyphosate could be drunk, you're completely deluded.

Thanks for the assumption. Monsanto paid him to say roundup is perfectly safe for consumption. Yet his behavior tells otherwise.

The graph I posted above does tend to indicate correlation between thyroid cancer and glyphosate though.

I really don't understand why you would defend a company with such an unethical track report as Monsanto, regularly trying to influence government to strengthen their monopoly. Their goal is that every seed ever planted must be purchased from them.

I have no idea why you would defend such a company when it is criticized.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Funny that everyone is happy to eat fruits that were created by being irradiated to cause fast mutations..

That's not why fruits are irradiated.

Also bombarding fruits with radiation doesn't make them radioactive nor unfit for consumption. Do you know how this all works? I doubt it. It only makes them lifeless and sterile. I admit I prefer my fruits straight from the tree but to compare pesticides and irradiation is ridiculous because only one of these methods leaves residues on the fruit.

Yep my mistake it's not irradiation I meant, I meant radiation breeding. Exposing plants to radiation to force mutations, plenty of everyday foods are the result of such practices.

a reply to: JUhrman

So, that graph.. I'll just place this here and hopefully you'll get it..

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Monsanto supported or told him to say that glyphosate could be drunk, you're completely deluded.

Thanks for the assumption. Monsanto paid him to say roundup is perfectly safe for consumption. Yet his behavior tells otherwise.

No assumptions, you're proving it as you post..

Show sources that show where Monsanto, or ANYONE (besides him) says that glypgosate is safe for consumption. Time to read the MSDS for glyphosate methinks, particularly the part about ingestion.

That graph is disinformation.

I thought you were smart?

Clearly your complete hate for monsanto has clouded any critical thinking you may have.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Yep my mistake it's not irradiation I meant, I meant radiation breeding. Exposing plants to radiation to force mutations, plenty of everyday foods are the result of such practices.

I agree these mutated varietals should be followed up closely exactly like GMOs. In some countries it's the case. 2 remarks though:

1)

Funny that everyone is happy to eat fruits that were created by being irradiated to cause fast mutations..

This is exactly the same issue as with GMOs; lack of information. Everyone is happy to eat such fruits because they have no information about their origin. If they knew more you bet they would be more suspicious. But of course these varieties are also usually created by the industry and we already saw of that industry doesn't really want people to be more informed about what they eat.

2)
The problem with GMO is not as much with their mutations (even if there also problem with that) than the intensive use of glyphosate associated to their culture. Hence it's hardly a comparable situation.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JUhrman

So, that graph.. I'll just place this here and hopefully you'll get it..

Action-reaction.

Without the push from Monsanto to force their products on us you wouldn't see an increase in organic food sales. Shows that people are concerned by the lack of info and they are right.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
That graph is disinformation.

Develop

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Clearly your complete hate for monsanto has clouded any critical thinking you may have.

Refocus on the topic rather than on me.

a reply to: JUhrman

Ok, you don't get it.

Thyroid cancer deaths are on the rise.
The use of GMO crops is on a similar rise.
US Organic sales is also on a similar rise.

Someone with an agenda put the first two together to trick people into thinking the two are linked.

Maybe it's organic food that's causing thyroid cancer death increases? The graph shows the two are increasing, right?

See my point?

Maybe it's bottled water

As in the days of Noah...genetic manipulation,hybrids and such are not
new science of today.There is nothing new under the sun and we are
repeating what was happening before the flood.We are altering God's
work and defiling creation.
We are slowly killing ourselves off with frankenstein type foods and allowing
companies like monsanto to get away with it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
But don't people ever believe in science?

Geesh.

An informed public should have the right to choose which products they buy and don't if products are not correctly labelled that choice is mitigated..

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JUhrman

Ok, you don't get it.

Thyroid cancer deaths are on the rise.
The use of GMO crops is on a similar rise.
US Organic sales is also on a similar rise.

Someone with an agenda put the first two together to trick people into thinking the two are linked.

Maybe it's organic food that's causing thyroid cancer death increases? The graph shows the two are increasing, right?

See my point?

Maybe it's bottled water

All these other things have not been classified as "probably carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Also I never said the causation is proved, I'm saying the principle of precaution requires us to increase the number of studies and to put a moratorium on the use of glyphosate until the health effects over the long term are determined.

Something that obviously neither Monsanto neither the various American farmer associations want. Yet it's what most informed people want and it should be respected.

originally posted by: purplemer
An informed public should have the right to choose which products they buy and don't if products are not correctly labelled that choice is mitigated..

It boils down to that, it's so easy to understand that I can't see why someone would advocate for LESS transparency in today's age.

a reply to: JUhrman

Yeah. Probably carcinogenic to the people who work with glyphosate every day.