83 votes

Attention Californians: David vs. Monsanto Documentary

Watch it now:

http://youtu.be/mSkjnz5eUE4

http://articles.mercola.c...

Californians can view this documentary and learn about GMOs and the intimidation Monsanto is wielding over farmers before voting (YES hopefully) on Prop 37.Dr. Joseph Mercola is being attacked and smeared in negative ad mailers, but he posted the documentary link so people can view it for free before that privilege expires on November 10, 2012.

Percy Schmeiser, a feisty and savvy farmer, battled with Monsanto. In the process he has brought to light not only Monsanto’s attempt to control the food supply, but the pitfalls of any company being allowed to have the right to put a patent on higher life forms including birds, fish and human beings.

29:40 minutes in, Percy explains the damage seen from GMOs. He says GMOs are not based on proven science. “We do not want any more GMOs.”… “The corporations want total control of the seed supply which will then give them total control of the food supply. That’s what GMOs are all about; not more food to feed a hungry world but control of the seed supply.”

The second half of the documentary addresses the quality, technology and science associated with GMOs.

www.percyschmeiser.com/Ar...

Comment viewing options

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

The more local the

The more local the government, absolutely the better. But I'm against the usurpation of power by government at any level.

It is not the Federal Government - it is the State

Don't forget that.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Philosophically, what

Philosophically, what difference does that make?

What is the difference between State and Federal Govenment?

All I can say to that is you need to listen to Ron Paul a little closer

I think you might want to

I think you might want to listen a little closer. He is against the nanny-state in general.

You had 2 down votes

I voted you up and so did someone else. Apparently SOME people here don't think the states should have the say even though Ron Paul CLEARLY thinks they should!

skippy

How about a free-market

How about a free-market solution? How about one that is voluntaryist, i.e. doesn't depend upon force at all?

Michael Nystrom's picture

If the State says,

"Monsanto owns the gene, therefore Monsanto owns the plant. That means any plant containing the gene - no matter where that gene turns up. No matter what kind of a plant it turns up in. No matter what kind of a lifeform it turns up in," how is a voluntayirist solution possible?

The next logical step is that if that gene somehow shows up in your body, then Monsanto owns you -- according to the State.

So you tell me. What is the voluntaryist solution when the State says Monsanto owns you?

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

So you are saying that

So you are saying that because we have caused big problems by giving our power away to the state, we must give more power to the state?

Michael Nystrom's picture

This is not giving "more power" to the state

Say for example a producer came out selling "eggs" across the country. "Farm fresh eggs." But as it turns out, they weren't eggs at all. They were plastic, synthetic eggs that were so realistic, it was difficult, if not impossible, to tell them apart. Such a thing happened in China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T55tz4qwFMo

Is it giving "more power" to a state government simply to require producers to state exactly what it is they're selling?

Or is this a matter of "free speech" to lie, cheat and misrepresent what one is selling?

As one poster pointed out below, this is an anti-fraud statute.

Are you saying that even though the state caused a big problem, we should just ignore that half of the equation and all become "voluntaryists" as a way of addressing it?

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

State puissance vs. free market impotence..?

Hi Michael,

Richard here, from across the Big Pond.

Perhaps this is not so much a question of transparency and ingredient lists, but rather a question of who will provide them, the market (i.e. we, the people that is..) or some bureaucratic agency.
And for sure, if enforced by govt regulation, this would entail giving more power to the state. There's no way around that fact.

I must say I'm a bit puzzled by the suggestion that if we don't accept the state protecting the public from big corporations, that the most likely alternative would be a general state of voluntaryist powerlessness.

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /, Holland,
Richard

R3V ON!

Michael- I hope you consider

Michael-

I hope you consider that voting in government regulation in order to fight Monsanto's abuse of government power is a perfect example of choosing between the "lesser of two evils"... something Ron Paul would vehemently oppose. You've made your point that Monsanto is so evil and so entrenched that whatever means is necessary to stop them is allowable. One could just as equally argue that Obama is so bad that any means necessary to stop him (Romney) is allowable. I would hope that the inclination of those who frequent this sight would be to -never- settle for the lesser of two evils. Consistent principle, even in the face of defeat, is what I've learned from Dr. Paul.

so what is your

solution? You didn't even address Michael's comment

Classic number 3.

Classic number 3.

sorry I don't know what is a "Classic number 3"?

?

I screwed up the link. Here

I screwed up the link. Here it is again: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-inter....

actually

I'm sincerely wanting to know what your solution would be? I like to get people to think, I think we both agree the free market is the best approach, please see my comment here: http://www.dailypaul.com/261494/david-vs-monsanto-documentar...

SteveO24's picture

yep asking criminals

to regulate criminals

That would be the case if...

the FDA or some other branch of the Federal Government were regulating Monsanto (like has been done in the past and still is)
The thing that scares them about this is they don't have their former executive Micheal Taylor to call the shots for them like they would at the FDA level. If you don't think it should be done at the State rather than the Federal level, what is your solution?

How is asking the state to

How is asking the state to force producers to label their products in a certain way not giving more power to the state?

It will deflate the unholy

alliance the GE companies have with government. It's a regulation aimed at corrupt market distorters, just like RP says he wants the regulations on the Federal Reserve.

There is an ingredients list on every grocery store item. This is a simple addition to the list. Your product has carbohydrates? Vitamin C? High Fructose Corn Syrup? Made in a facility that processes nuts? Contains patented life forms?

There is an actual war being conducted by the Federal government on small farms. The FBI is literally staking out and raiding small farms with SWAT teams, weapons drawn, over raw milk. That probably sounds crazy. Here's a documentary showing SWAT raids on sheep farms, with a Ron Paul interview near the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uah8LBUbfc

The Farm Bill that Congress passes every year completely dominates the ground rules for agricultural markets in the United States. There couldn't be a more politically manipulated economic environment than American agriculture. A farmer's profit is largely determined by what's in the farm bill.

Labeling for GMOs is like adding an asterisk. Why the politically charged, multi-million dollar media battle? Because there are 100's of billions of dollars at stake, for government and industry, in keeping people ignorant of what they are eating, and ever more control of Agricultural markets and regulatory levers.

Label them, and bring in some sunshine? The beast that runs the FDA will wither. People don't want to eat frankenfood. Look into Michael Taylor, Obama's head of the FDA. It's just such an ugly story of conflicts of interest and gross manipulation on behalf of industry, in direct conflict with free markets and the interests of citizens. A little information to the public could have a powerful impact on correcting endemic corruption in the billions per year, in a market that is determined by politics, and intimate to your health.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Because they already have that power

Ever looked at the side of a can of food? This is what you'll see:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nutrition+label&hl=en&prmd=i...

i.e. the state to forcing producers to label their products in a certain way.

What's the difference?

How is being a "voluntaryist" going to solve this problem?

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

This whole issue is a matter

This whole issue is a matter of trust. We want to know that the food we eat is what we want it to be, or at least what we are lead to believe it is. How do we make the determination? Short of acquiring the skills necessary to test the food ourselves, we can ideally either grow it ourselves, or have a personal relationship to the producer. If that fails then we must rely on someone else's judgement. Again, it's a matter of trust. We must trust the person or entity we are relying upon for whatever answer we are seeking. Why can't independent certifiers fulfill that role until we shift back toward locally produced food? Unlike the government, at least the free market has an expedient way to deal with independent certifiers who break our trust - and with no force at all. What has the government done lately to earn your trust? What can we do about the fact that the government broke our trust long ago? We can fire them. If not outright, we can stop giving them legitimacy by asking them for things. We can ignore them to the best of our abilities, and learn to take care of ourselves.

Are you really willing to say that the consumer has no way of finding out that a product is what he wants it to be, or at least what he is lead to believe it is, without the help of government? Are you really arguing that none of us are capable of being adults, and are forevermore condemned to be as children, with the government as our protector and guardian? I thought this movement was about empowering ourselves to be strong and self-reliant complete human beings, to turn away from force (except in defense of our life liberty and property, and when all other avenues are exhausted), and voluntarily associate as we see fit. If you want good food, why not devote energy to joining or even starting a food coop instead of asking the government for this that or the other. This will do double duty by depriving Monsanto of revenues. If everyone did this, factory farming and its inhumane practices would wither away in general.

The problem is the FDA

will not even allow the label to state that a product is "GMO-free"

Non-GMO project (www.nongmoproject.org) has a label, but notice it doesn't say "GMO-free" Now I know that that is the case because the company tests the products, but they can't even put that on the label. So this is a start to what you are promoting, but it is still not the free market as long as the FDA is involved.

Exactly on point. It is not

Exactly on point. It is not the free market as long as the FDA is involved. Therefore one of the main solutions is to disband agencies such as the FDA.

agreed

again this is not an FDA law, if you only knew how hard I fought to try and stop the "Food Safty Bill" which gave the FDA even more power

All of these things are in play,

and the markets are working as you prescribe to some degree, with good success. But the distortions of law, regulation and money are as overwhelming as QE1, 2 and 3 are to the federal budget. It's like asking the fed to at least publish some statistics on the money supply. They won't! Look where that's leading. GE crops will eventually contaminate all heirloom varieties. Some are reporting that 2nd and 3rd generation livestock fed on GE corn have dramatically reduced fertility. Is that happening to us? There's no way to put that genie back in the bottle. It's in the wind. It's not being done on a level playing in a free market with full information and informed people. Even still, your thinking is correct, and the market is king, organic grows 10% or more per year. Ron Paul says that about interest rates, that even the fed can't overcome them. What's wrong with knowing what we're eating?

Tell that to a raw milk producer

What's voluntary about Percy losing a lifetime of developing his own canola variety? The government is playing an active role. It grants the patent. It also promotes GMO globally as American policy (since Daddy Bush). Does anyone elect patent office officials? What's anti-market about a voter initiative to require products be reasonably identified? When you fill your tank, you don't wonder what octane fuel it is. If a new gasoline formula appeared on the market that damaged some engines, and you couldn't tell what you were putting in your tank, except in a lab, would it be anti-market to advocate the new mixture be identified? Improper role of government? What about standard weights and measures? What if your car was damaged, and Exxon, Shell and the Saudi government spent 34 million dollars on a "substantial equivalence" campaign?

You've just implicated patent

You've just implicated patent officials and the government as the source of this problem. So why are you targeting a private company instead of targeting the problem's enabler?

Example of the free market at

Example of the free market at work: The best and most reliable organic food certifiers are not the USDA. If they are bought off or otherwise loose the trust of the market, the consumers will no longer buy products certified by them. If consumers no longer buy products that are certified by them, then the producers will move on to the more reliable certifier. The unrealiable or unethical certifier will go out of business.

Example of a non-free market: Unfortunately, the USDA can and does continue to take our money, whether they act in the consumers interest or not.