Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rbear

HERE’S THE POLITICIANS WHO WERE PAID TO MAKE GMO LABELING ILLEGAL

52 posts in this topic

Want to know where the dirty money is which is  helping to make GMO labeling illegal ?

Shockingly, or perhaps not to the individuals who have been observing the biotech charade, house members who voted to keep the public from knowing what is in their food in the latest land-slide win for Big Food supporters of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (known to its critics as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act)) were paid three times as much as representatives who voted to give us the right to label or ban GMO foods.

It seems odd that the bill would float through Congress so easily with a 275 to 150 vote when so many Americans have expressed a wish to have their food labeled. The Center for Food safety says that 93% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains GM ingredients. And that is just one of many surveys showing similar results:

Surveys repeatedly show that 80 percent to 95 percent of people want foods that contain genetically modified organisms to be labeled (in the least). Here is a simple breakdown of some reported polls on consumer demand for GMO labeling:

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

Petition: STOP the DARK Act Which Would Make GMO Labeling Illegal!

Really – we label everything from pillows with warning labels – ‘this tag not to be removed’ to our pants. Why not GM foods? What is it that Big Ag is trying to hide from us?

Usually, if everyone wants to purchase something, the free market dictates that companies jump on the bandwagon and try to sell that something – but not with genetically modified food. Our rights have been trampled on, and you have the right to know who has bought in this recent landslide vote in favor of the biotech industry and business as usual that protects profits instead of people.

According to opensecrets.org, this is where the money trail leads:

…the campaigns of Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), all cosponsors of the legislation (most of whom also sit on the House Agriculture Committee), received six-figure dollar amounts from providers of agricultural services and products — one segment of the agribusiness sector — during the 2014 election cycle. That put them high among the top 20 recipients of funds from the industry.

Cosponsors such as Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) aren’t on the Agriculture Committee, but nevertheless pulled in six-figure dollar amounts from the crop production and basic processing industry (another part of agribusiness; think Cargill Inc. and the National Corn Growers Association) during the midterm cycle — landing them among the 20 members who received the most from that industry.

Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), two original sponsors of the legislation, were the top two current House members receiving the most money from the Grocery Manufacturers Association in 2014. The grocery manufacturers — who have spent $4.1 million lobbying on all issues so far this year, almost as much as they spent in all of 2014 — have lobbied on the bill more than any other organization, mentioning the measure on 14 lobbying reports this year.

Do you see your representative in this list? If you do, they certainly weren’t representing you.

This article was originally featured on Natural Society

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Here’s_The_Politicians_Who_Were_Paid_to_Make_GMO_Labeling_Illegal/45298/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Everybody hates this fact. But genetic modification of foods goes back to the 19th century with Darwin and Mendal  crossbreeding selective crops .

 

 

 My apologies it's just another one of those pesty fact's I like to insert into theories .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to agree with you but up until recently, scientist have gone deeper In the 19th century they manipulated genetics by pairing specimens of specific qualities to enhance the products using nature.  Scientist now directly alter the genetic structure outside nature. They've done things like mice trees and mice glow in the dark. With foods they've taken cockroach DNA sequences not available naturally withing a species to make tomatos less prone to rot and decay. 

There is a big difference in the methods and limits of the 21st century in comparison to the 19th century technology. Today our science is much more capable of completely altering an organism to do things that were literally impossible in the 19th century. This is why it's important to understand the levels of risk from modification have become much more critical then in the past. People  who are concerned with GMO products have valid reasons considering the capacity of science and it's implications to natural organically altered products.

My first post BTW. 

 

 

Edited by Sarick
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to agree with you but up until recently, scientist have gone deeper In the 19th century they manipulated genetics by pairing specimens of specific qualities to enhance the products using nature.  Scientist now directly alter the genetic structure outside nature. They've done things like mice trees and mice glow in the dark. With foods they've taken cockroach DNA sequences not available naturally withing a species to make tomatos less prone to rot and decay. 

There is a big difference in the methods and limits of the 21st century in comparison to the 19th century technology. Today our science is much more capable of completely altering an organism to do things that were literally impossible in the 19th century. This is why it's important to understand the levels of risk from modification have become much more critical then in the past. People  who are concerned with GMO products have valid reasons considering the capacity of science and it's implications to natural organically altered products.

My first post BTW. 

 

 

I suppose that post was meant towards me. I can agree with furthe scientific manipulation. But the moment you crossbreed two different species of  The same  plants you are genetically manipulating them .

 

 we can split hairs but facts are facts .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that post was meant towards me. I can agree with furthe scientific manipulation. But the moment you crossbreed two different species of  The same  plants you are genetically manipulating them .

 

 we can split hairs but facts are facts .

Are you implying that science would take an apple tree and fertilise it with pollen from a pear? Think of it like scientist using human sperm to impregnate a hamster. The genetic differences would be two great for a compatible offspring making it near impossible for fertilisation to take place naturally. The GMO I'm talking about falls outside the boundaries of nature when DNA/gene splicing that would make such a pairing possible. Breeding two different types of corn from different parts of the world is still a form of GMO but of significant of lesser degree than the types of GMO modifications currently being done to alter the makeup of an end product. 

I don't disagree that GMO modification has been being done for centuries. My beef is that the methods of GMO modification are far far more impacting today than in the past when scientist didn't have massive computers with fully mapped DNA data sequences, electron microscopes etc.

It's my humble opinion that the biggest issue that confuses political proponents is the inability to recognise the difference in genetic breeding of hybrids between different species within the same genus. In short the two processes are phenomenally different then genetic splicing and direct infusion at the cellular level. It's been verified that portions of the genes inserted into altered product by splicing ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria in foods like soy beans. The resulting studies concerning directly manipulated GMO products concluded gene stably integrated and appeared to be producing unique potentially allergenic proteins that caused unplanned side effects unlike those of hybrid modified GMO products.  

The lack of understanding or inability to differentiate types of GMO modification is an issue that dumbfounds most political pundits and those who signed these bills. This is why most people are so easily confused by the subject or the overall after effects of GMO product manipulation.

Does this help with my explanation a bit.  ^.~

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No links for now. I'm an "organic" gardener. I don't use pesticides: insecticides, herbicides, fungicides. 

GM crops are bred to tolerate heavy applications of aforementioned pesticides. Those chemicals have a biological half-life that is determined by the manufacturer. Independent labs rarely if ever test the claims of Monsanto, aka Monsatan, and other companies. Mortality rates of rats and other animals can not be tested on humans, who consume many more pesticides in their considerably longer lifetimes. The glyphosate known as Roundup is widely used by homeowners to control "weeds" that invade their useless manicured lawns in their yuppie ghettos.  This product is a known hormone disruptor in human males. It causes sterility.  A young man with a Roundup applicator will likely be hoist by his own petard. NWO agenda? Maybe.

Look up bromide sterilization before you eat another perfect red strawberry.

Look up patented corn seed and the demise of the family farm and the rise of factory farms.

Look up run-off of pesticides and nitrate fertilizers and polluted groundwater and algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico.

You are what you eat. Eat frankenfood and become . . . .

Edited by grav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying that science would take an apple tree and fertilise it with pollen from a pear? Think of it like scientist using human sperm to impregnate a hamster. The genetic differences would be two great for a compatible offspring making it near impossible for fertilisation to take place naturally. The GMO I'm talking about falls outside the boundaries of nature when DNA/gene splicing that would make such a pairing possible. Breeding two different types of corn from different parts of the world is still a form of GMO but of significant of lesser degree than the types of GMO modifications currently being done to alter the makeup of an end product. 

I don't disagree that GMO modification has been being done for centuries. My beef is that the methods of GMO modification are far far more impacting today than in the past when scientist didn't have massive computers with fully mapped DNA data sequences, electron microscopes etc.

It's my humble opinion that the biggest issue that confuses political proponents is the inability to recognise the difference in genetic breeding of hybrids between different species within the same genus. In short the two processes are phenomenally different then genetic splicing and direct infusion at the cellular level. It's been verified that portions of the genes inserted into altered product by splicing ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria in foods like soy beans. The resulting studies concerning directly manipulated GMO products concluded gene stably integrated and appeared to be producing unique potentially allergenic proteins that caused unplanned side effects unlike those of hybrid modified GMO products.  

The lack of understanding or inability to differentiate types of GMO modification is an issue that dumbfounds most political pundits and those who signed these bills. This is why most people are so easily confused by the subject or the overall after effects of GMO product manipulation.

Does this help with my explanation a bit.  ^.~

nope I know and understand the message very well. But any modification done by man is genetic modification  period.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope I know and understand the message very well. But any modification done by man is genetic modification  period.   

Apples and oranges, they're both fruit but not identical. Artificially altering the mating system, mode of pollination, mode of seed dispersal and the particular characteristics of the habitat are not the same type as directly manipulating the genes though splicing or transgenic manipulation. The first can be simply done in an example by consuming the smallest corn after harvest and keeping the larger seeds to replanted the next year to improve output by selective quality control. This is why inadequate comparisons of the two don't give GMO classifications justice. Technically speaking by truly recognising the differences one can easily argue that all known consumer foods even those that are dictated as organic or by 19th century manipulation done by every farming practice can be classified as GMO. As I've indicated If the terminology is vaguely misinterpreted then the whole argument about GMO is irrelevant in it's entirety.

Basically there is no food on the market that isn't GMO by the lax standards you've proposed. This lack of classification gives credence that the politicians have little or no reason to label products as GMO. Why would they if people can easily classify  a  comment that "any modification done by man is genetic modification period." into public opinion making it appear as though all forms of genetic manipulation are equal and that humans have been doing these same practices for years on the same level of modification. 

Edited by Sarick
Added content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to agree with you but up until recently, scientist have gone deeper In the 19th century they manipulated genetics by pairing specimens of specific qualities to enhance the products using nature.  Scientist now directly alter the genetic structure outside nature. They've done things like mice trees and mice glow in the dark. With foods they've taken cockroach DNA sequences not available naturally withing a species to make tomatos less prone to rot and decay. 

There is a big difference in the methods and limits of the 21st century in comparison to the 19th century technology. Today our science is much more capable of completely altering an organism to do things that were literally impossible in the 19th century. This is why it's important to understand the levels of risk from modification have become much more critical then in the past. People  who are concerned with GMO products have valid reasons considering the capacity of science and it's implications to natural organically altered products.

My first post BTW. 

 

 

Welcome and Congrats on your first post!

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges, they're both fruit but not identical. Artificially altering the mating system, mode of pollination, mode of seed dispersal and the particular characteristics of the habitat are not the same type of as directly manipulating the genes though splicing or transgenic manipulation. The first can be simply done in an example by consuming the smallest corn after harvest and keeping the larger seeds to replanted the next year to improve output by selective quality control. This is why inadequate comparisons of the two don't give GMO classifications justice. Technically speaking by truly recognising the differences one can easily argue that all known consumer foods even those that are dictated as organic or by 19th century manipulation can be classified as GMO. As I've indicated If the terminology is vaguely misinterpreted then the whole argument about GMO is irrelevant in it's entirety. Basically there is no food on the market that isn't GMO by the lax standards you've proposed.

Potato or Potatoe  any man-made interference with natural selection is genetic modification by definition.

 

 The only natural genetic modification is mutation .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potato or Potatoe  any man-made interference with natural selection is genetic modification by definition.

 

 The only natural genetic modification is mutation .

Like I said by your definition all foods are GMO. Just selectively farming food in a garden to increase output capacity is GMO by those standards. It's obvious why these politicians are so easily able to ban GMO labeling when GMO is interpreted as such. Even by your own definition you directly agree with me, but don't want to admit the underlining differences concerning the anti-gmo movement. It's because the old modification methods aren't the same as the modern modifications that have been known to cause adverse side effects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.