It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Monsanto and Big Food are taking the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds to the next level. And it’s no coincidence that they’re pulling out the big guns just as the Washington State I-522 campaign to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products is gaining steam.
Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by xuenchen
Now, be careful - you know they hired blackwater, Xe, or whatever name the jack-booted storm troopers are going by now. Don't want your front door kicked in at 3 AM.
Maybe that should be the first question asked.
Yes, probably. And here is the trick they have up their sleeve,
Originally posted by xuenchen
I bet that Q&A site will be chock full of 'planted' questions that will be easily answered.
www.nytimes.com...
It doesn't matter. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels.
I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe.
But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''
I think I'll get in there and ask about some compelling issues.
Let's see if the questions even get published ?
Originally posted by theMediator
Don't be fooled and keep on shining light
“that each gene had a single, unique, independent function,
and that moving a gene from one plant or animal to another would allow that gene to express
that particular function wherever and however it was located.” Now that our understanding of
genetic functions has advanced substantially, in fact is transformed from the unsophisticated
linear thinking of the past, the corporate argument is completely false.
Genes are also involved in other cellular regulatory processes and not just simply expressing traits. For this reason, the genetic engineering of plants is now being shown to disrupt the entire cellular mechanisms of an organism and we are only beginning to observe its detrimental effects.
prn.fm...
James Strange, a research entomologist and bumblebee specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, said perhaps as many as 20 percent of the 38 or 40 (depending on how you count them) species of bumblebee in the U.S. are in trouble.
Essentially, this is the story of our age, whether it’s birds, butterflies, amphibians, or small mammals. Biodiversity is taking it on the chin
www.benningtonbanner.com...
Originally posted by xuenchen
OOOhhh Boy !!
I bet that Q&A site will be chock full of 'planted' questions that will be easily answered.
This is going to be good.
Definitely shill-city.
I think I'll get in there and ask about some compelling issues.
Let's see if the questions even get published ?
ETA: geesh, here's the website:::::
GMO Answers
edit on Aug-07-2013 by xuenchen because:
healthfreedoms.org...
"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994
Originally posted by Superhans
*spoiler alert*
Monsanto wins, and in many years this religious food movement will shift to something else and everyone will forget about it.
A stunning multi-year study in Africa by the United Nations Environment
Programme provides an answer. High external inputs of chemicals and
fertilizers are needed for conventional industrial agriculture and it is for this
kind of agriculture that GM crops are designed. UNEP found in side-by-side
trials conducted in multiple countries that farmers using agroecological
science outperformed farmers using conventional approaches by up to 179%.responsibletechnology.org...
A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is
responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as
genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.
The study compared major crop yields and pesticide use in North America, which relies
heavily on GE crops, and Western Europe, which grows conventionally bred non-GE crops.
The study’s findings are important for the future of the U.S. food supply, and therefore for the
world food supply since the U.S. is a major exporter of many staple crops.
www.alternet.org...
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Superhans
Organic food is cheaper!
Just figure in the long term bills from all of your health problems
and Organic and Sustainable is way cheaper!
And it tastes better too!
We dont want to spend our lives funding Monsanto share holders!