45 votes

Monsanto's Bt GMO corn to be sold at Walmart with no indication it is genetically modified

(NaturalNews) Most of the genetically-modified (GM) corn products forced on American consumers today are hidden in processed foods in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn oil, corn starch, and various other corn-based additives. But soon to be available at a Walmart near you is Monsanto's Bt sweet corn, the agri-giant's first ever GM corn product made available to consumers as whole ears right on the cob in the produce section-- and like with all other GMOs, neither Walmart nor Monsanto has any intention of labeling this new "Frankencorn."

Monsanto first unveiled this new variety of GM sweet corn back in August, which rivals Syngenta's GM sweet corn that has already been on the market in limited form for the past ten years, claiming that it would be available to farmers for planting during Fall 2011. Now, the corn appears set to make its debut in Walmart stores across the country as early as Summer 2012, unless massive public outcry is able to convince the multinational retailer to scrap the corn, or at least voluntarily label it.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035029_GM_corn_Walmart_Monsanto.html




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nope...

Neither nuclear power nor GMO technology are anything remotely related to voluntary trade. Both were developed through completely non-voluntary confiscation of resources (the enslavement of the American people by the corporations through the government they run), and they are extremely heavily subsidized by the same means.

Why aren't you concerned with the ethical implications of that? Let me guess. Taking from individuals to provide welfare for corporations is OK. Because they love us and take care of us.

How sweet.

I know, though. Your religion says that all technology is GOOD. They've taught you that since you first entered the indoctrination camps.

There once was some "public hysteria" about a managed society. It resulted in the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1784. There are still some of us who don't like having our labor stolen in order to have our lives managed.

This is not even touching on the use of government by corporations like Monsanto to destroy the lives of independent farmers. When an individual uses his own resources to build a nuclear power plant in his own back yard AND takes full responsibility for the liability involved, then we will have something to talk about.

Voluntary trade my foot.

Nice straw man

But I already said, and can't emphasize enough, that subsidies are evil. Are you incabable of seperating the actual things subsidized from the subsidy? Does the failure of government education mean education as such should be abolished? Failed government control of money means we shouldn't have money at all? Maybe we should abolish roads because we're incapable of seperating the moral status of ROADS AS SUCH from the moral status of GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF ROADS? This is ridiculous! Trying to paint me as an advocate of a managed society is *incredibly* disingenuous. What's your next tactic? Are you just going to start lobbing cuss words? That'd probably be a step up.

To be clear: I'm not here to defend any corporation. I'm here defending genetic modification AS SUCH. And nuclear power, for that matter.

Have a problem with cronyism? Have a problem with the atrocities commited under patent law? I AM WITH YOU, but let's please try to stay on target.

Edit for one final thought: If people's objections to GMO's really had so much to do with subsidy, they'd be screaming just as loud about "natural" crops grown in the US, which are not only subsidized but protected from "unfair" competition by tariffs. They aren't. They're only screaming about the new, scary bogeyman.

(I'll make it explicit just in case: I'm also against tariffs.)

"Don't like them? Fine! Don't

"Don't like them? Fine! Don't buy them!"

I suppose you missed the article headline. They won't be labeled.

They don't have to be banned. Returning proper property rights back to the farmers, removing special privileges granted by government, allowing freedom of information about the issues of GMO's is likely all that would be needed.

THIS is the kind of talk I like to hear.

And expected to hear here, of all places. Your point is taken about the labeling, though some commenters further down were mentioning something about code numbers indicating GM status.

I'm all for total property rights. Let the market sort it out one way or the other.

Agree and would like to add

Agree and would like to add on your behalf this is what you meant when you said: I don't know anything about this company and I don't care.

The great thing about libertarian philosophy is that it is so general that you simply apply free markets across the board. You don't need to be an expert in manufacturing or an expert in GM in order to comment on how the market should be "designed". It should just be free.

You seem to be missing the point...

Coming to the aid of corporations which operate in anything but the free market is, it is true, typical of many strains of libertarian thinking. But it is totally inconsistent and counterproductive. You've got to go back to the foundation and realize that these corporations and their products did not result from anything like a free market. It is very likely that in a free market they would not and could not exist.

So what you're saying about "free markets across the board" sounds good, but how about really advocating them instead of drawing the line outside corporate welfare?

If there's been any defense of corporate welfare here,

I haven't read it. See my other response above.

Even free markets require you to care

I know you mean, but it doesn't absolve you from knowing what is going on.
For a free market to work, you MUST know what is going on. We are the checks and balances, not some government agency. Free market pressure only comes about from informed consumers. So when someone says they don't care, this is like saying I could care less what politicians are doing because the elections will sort it out. No, you get informed, campaign, and vote. If Monsanto has a bad, unsafe product, you do the same, get informed, campaign to spread the knowledge and take action if they have infringed your property rights.

And that is exactly why you might want to consider informing

yourself.

2 google search results.

gmo+foods+fertility
http://tinyurl.com/7y6uzcz

gmo+foods+cancer+study
http://tinyurl.com/7ljf6ow

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

For the sake of argument

let's assume that all modified foods do in fact cause cancer and infertility.

I'm still waiting to hear how you're better than drug warriors.

Why should I bother communicating any further with you

Submitted by Aegidius on Tue, 02/21/2012 - 09:36.
I know virtually nothing about the corporation involved and I don't really care.

I didn't post those links for your benefit and have not the time right now nor the desire to go any further because of your attitude.

Go fight you war somewhere else "Aegidius"

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

My attitude?

I think I was asking a valid question. A rhetorical question, admittedly, but valid.

Your point is much

Your point is much appreciated. How people who are members on this site can possibly think that government regulation is the answer is ridiculous. Let a private organization establish requirements for using a "GMO free" emblem, just as the "Certified Organic" folks did.

Great to hear this, and

Great to hear this, and lovely to find it at the end of a frustrating thread of people who have let the message of freedom wash over their heads.

Sometimes I wonder whether people here actually support Ron Paul.

"And just what happened to

"And just what happened to liberty, anyway?"

Monsanto and GMO's are neither liberty friendly or property rights friendly irregardless of what you believe about the technology. Please read up on the issues, many people have provide lots of material in this post.

Sounds like trolling or ignorance on your part

This isn't a conspiracy, it's a health issue and an issue of fairness to farmers as patented seed has "contaminated" farms unbeknownst to the farmer and then Monsanto comes calling with their lawyers for "patent infringement". Watch the movie Food, Inc.

Want more info? Here: go to that "fringe radical group" called the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questio...

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

"Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods."

Their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

OF COURSE it's not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. That'd be monumental hubris; the potential modifications are varied beyond comprehension. They're merely stating the obvious. The fact that not EVERY CONCEIVABLE modification that can be made would be a good idea is no more a justification for a ban than is the fact that not all natural plants are safe for banning those!

As far as the patent infringment business, I concede that that is a problem. Once again, though, the answer isn't to ban modifications, but to reform copywright/patent law.

Not much of

a surprise with this story. Monsanto takes down our health and Walmart takes down our economy. Sure, Walmart provides lots and lots of low paying jobs for americans and at the same time kills the economy with cheap chinese products. Not to mention, the countless numbers of small stores that sold american products that Walmart drove out of business.

Don't forget that Walmart...

teaches their employees how to get on welfare because they know that they are underemployed (i.e. more profitable).

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

I think that's fine. This is

I think that's fine. This is an example of greed. Yes, this greed will bring down the government as is (the status quo), and I think that is great! It further exposes the ridiculousness of the policy of welfare, and why it is doomed to fail - because companies/individuals will act in their own self-interest!

Meanwhile, libertarian thrives under greed. There are no handouts, no one to "enhance revenue" (i.e. take others money) for you. The only way to get rich under a libertarian society is to provide value. And so the greediest realise you have to be like Steve Jobs / some other (ultimately) consumer-focused genius to get there.

I prefer normal food

From a health and environmental perspective
there are quite a number of reasons why
genetically modified (GM) crops are dangerous and
different from breeding. Many of the finding
related to toxicity and other problems found
in independent research can be found on the
Institute of Science and Society web page:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php

One of many examples of GM research discussed
by the geneticists and other scientists who
have published scientific papers on these issues:

-----------
"GM Feed Toxic, New Meta-Analysis Confirms:
A meta-analysis on 19 studies confirms kidney and
liver toxicity in rats and mice fed on GM soybean
and maize, representing more than 80 percent of all
commercially available GM food; it also exposes gross
inadequacies of current risk assessment"
-----------

From a libertarian perspective, GM crops may end
up being eliminated for several different reasons:

1. Property Rights -- GM crops pollute crops in
nearby fields, including organic crops. In a
normal justice system, the victim could sue the
farm causing the pollution and that would likely
be the end of GM crops. But with Monsanto backed
by government influence, it is the company
(Monsanto) that ends up suing the pollution victims
and winning royalties for "use" of the GM crops!

2. Patenting Life -- I believe that most libertarians
would be against having federal government-enforced
patents on life forms.

3. Government / Corporate Fascist Partnership -- The
Obama administration threatened other countries in
Europe in order to attempt getting approval for
Monsanto's GM crops. One quote from our Paris embassy
states, "“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate
a target retaliation list that causes some pain across
the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but
that also focuses in part on the worst culprits."

One can see the level of takeover of the Obama Administration
by Monsanto and this is an excellent way I have shown
to people (especially former Obama supporters) that
fascist partnerships are dangerous:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alli...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tell-Obama-To-Cease-FDA-Ties-t...

A little bit more about Monsanto using the government
to try and control our food supply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYO2k_o16E0

4. Attacks on small organic farms -- I think you'll see
the Federal Government increase regulations and attacks
on small organic farms in order to try and eliminate
Monsanto's competition.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-sioux-falls/farmaged...
http://www.examiner.com/green-living-in-national/monsanto-lo...
http://rockrivertimes.com/2011/12/14/to-your-health-small-fa...

So who is going to force

So who is going to force Monsanto to properly label its corn?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The courts and law enforcement,.

Falsely representing something to customers as food is counterfeit and fraud.

Firstly, the "courts and law

Firstly, the "courts and law enforcement" are both part of government. Just saying.

Secondly, I think it is a tough argument to make that the witholding of information is fraud.

If Monsanto said "these are not GMOs!" then one would have a case against them on the basis of fraud.

If Monsanto made no claims about anything and just presented the corn, one's case would be very weak. If that is the measurement of fraud, a company would have to detail every potential issue a consumer might have with his product...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

*shaking my head*

well, I guess it's a good thing I stay away from WalMart--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Easy way to remember?..

Hate 8 but nine is fine. Here's the breakdown...If there is a 4-5 number code starting in 9 it is organic.
If there is a 4-5 number code starting in 8 it is genetically modified.
If there is a 4 number code starting in 4 it is conventional.
If there is a 4 number code starting in 3 it is irradiated.
 

Thanks

Is this the bar code? Does it only work for fresh fruits and veggies or is it any food product?

Great info thanks!

It's on the sticker

of fruits and veggies

Thanks

Great info.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15