27 votes

GMO!

The parent companies below donated collectively approx. $13.2 million dollars in order to defeat Proposition 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative:

PepsiCo: $2.5M
Kraft: $2M
Safeway, Member of Grocery Manufacturers Assoc: $2M
Coca-Cola: $1.7M
General Mills: $1.2M
Con-Agra: $1.2M
Kellogg’s: $791k
Smucker’s: $555k
Hershey’s: $519k
Unilever: $467k
Dean Foods: $254k

For a complete list of all the companies that helped defeat Prop 37, and their brands, visit:

www.orgcns.org/V13Kvx

Boycott these brands, call these companies and tell them to support your right to know what’s in your food, as it DIRECTLY INFRINGES UPON YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY, therefore it is a libertarian issue.

Alexia – Con-Agra – 630-857-1550
Gardenburger – Kellogg’s – 800-962-1413
Bear Naked – Kellogg’s – 800-962-1413
Honest Tea – Coca-Cola – 800-865-4736
Ben & Jerry’s – Unilever – 802-846-1500
Horizon Organic – Dean Foods – 888-494-3020
Boca Burgers – Kraft – 877-966-8769
Hunt’s Organic and Natural Brands – Con-Agra 630-857-1550
Cascadian Farm – General Mills – 800-624-4123
Kashi – Kellogg’s – 877-747-2467
Dagoba – Hershey’s – 866-608-6944
Larabar – General Mills – 800-543-2147
Lightlife – Con-Agra – 800-769-3279
Morningstar Farms – Kellogg’s – 800-962-1413
Muir Glen – General Mills – 800-832-6345
Naked Juice – PepsiCo – 877-858-4237
Odwalla – Coca-Cola – 800-639-2552
O Organics – Safeway – 877-723-3929
Orville Redenbacher’s Organic – Con-Agra – 630-857-1550
R.W. Knudsen – Smucker’s – 888-550-9555
Silk – Dean Foods – 888-820-9283
Tostito’s Organic – PepsiCo/Frito-Lay – 800-352-4477
Tropicana Organic – PepsiCo – 800-237-7799
White Wave – Dean Foods – 888-820-9283

Peace and Love always.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

And by the way...

Organic does not necessarily mean Non-GMO.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Organic Food Bullshit?

How GMO foods alter organ function and pose a very real health

threat to humans. If you eat GMO's you can become a pesticide factory, you are what you eat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-IJikX1144

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Even if the GMO doesn't make

Even if the GMO doesn't make you sick, the Roundup probably will...


http://youtu.be/h_AHLDXF5aw

Yes Roundup is linked to Autism

Why are so many children born with it now? the only thing that was changed in our environment in a big way way was GMO's was added to our diet without our knowledge.

I seen a news story on ABC saying Autism was 1/50 now, but I remember just 20 years ago it was 1/20,000.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Monsatan and GMO's the plan for your extinction

I listed in a comment below that GMO's use viruses and bacteria as gene manipulators. There are also Antibiotics used as genetic markers, plus we have a pesticide that is actually a nerve agent built into the GMO's.

Here you can watch this short 10 min video and get educated on GMO's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI_J5Ylpka4

I remembered when I was a boy hearing all the good things about DDT, I watched the commercial with the singing cow "DDT is good for me". Everyone knows how that turned out. We are still dealing with DDT in our environment, all because the EPA, FDA, and USDA failed to do their job. Big agribusiness had them in their pocket then and now.

I could list over and over the lies told by Monsatan. They keep telling us GMO's are safe just like DDT was good for me.

Watch this video on DDT in our environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwb6OvvxMjg&list=PLCDCB1FBF66...

If this isn't enough to convince then see what Monsatan did to the town of Anniston Alabama, a town of mostly black Americans. Monsatan hid the facts because in their own internal memo they couldn't afford to loose $1 of business over Anniston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-9istrXrs

Monsatan is the devil reincarnated!

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

The DDT Ban Killed Millions of People

up to 50 million by some estimates. The problem wasn't the EPA FDA not getting rid of DDT. The failure was they DID get rid of it. Even Ron Paul has used this as an example of Government banning something with good intentions but it causing far WORSE consequences.

Since DDT was banned we will never know if there would have

been more deaths if it wasn't banned. But then DDT isn't some koolaid drink either.

What harmful effects can DDT have on us?

Probable human carcinogen
Damages the liver
Temporarily damages the nervous system
Reduces reproductive success
Can cause liver cancer
Damages reproductive system

Read more at EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Strossel on DDT

Stossel making the claim that all pesticides are good

is just idiotic. Obviously he doesn't know what he is talking about and most likely did no research before making this video.

My business of producing honey is totally wiped out due to the pesticide built in to the everyday produce we all eat. Bees can't tolerate pesticides built into produce because it is in the pollen and nectar.

So you can have your pesticides but we as a civilization most figure out a way to pollinate the vast amounts of produce required for our population. Maybe the answer is we all grow mono-culture crops and then import all other fruits and vegetables from countries more responsible.

But then Monsatan is busy developing bees that can tolerate the pesticide in the GMO crops. I wonder how we will all like our honey with a side of nerve agent pesticide. This is what nicotinoid pesticides really are a nerve agent that works on the nervous system of the insects. They say it is harmless to humans but no one is allowed to do any independent tests on GMO's, we have to take Monsatans word for it.

As I listed above the lies that come from Monsatan, can we trust them?

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Penn, Walter Williams, Stossel, Ron Paul, CATO institute

all libertarians that speak of the banning of DDT as a horrible consequence of poor government intervention


http://youtu.be/vW3BAq7gfME

DDT talk starts at 8 mins 40 seconds

More generally, it's

More generally, it's agriculture and the civilization that came about that's resulted in death and destruction.

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/audiobook.php

Places GMO's are not allowed in the USA

1. Obama's White house, Michell demanded only organic foods be served

2. The Bush family kitchen, they are the most resposible for allowing GMO on the market.

3. Monsanto's Cafeteria, Their employees are not allowed to eat GMO's

Seems this stuff is not good enough for the elites but is good enough for California

http://www.wellnessresources.com/freedom/articles/health_sca...

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

checking the source

Number 3, at least, appears to be untrue:

http://metabunk.org/threads/478-Debunked-Monsanto-canteens-%...

(Yes, information was taken from a Monsanto blog - that doesn't automatically make it false (or true)).

What food isn't GMO anyway?

What food isn't GMO anyway? This term needs better definition on our forum and in the public debate.

From the Wiki:
"The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism' defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

So did dear old Dad and your loving Mother create a GMO in you through selective breeding and hybridization?

What if a doctor selected the best traits from your mom's family and your dad's and stirred you up in a petri dish???

What if they went outside the family, the race, the genus, the species???

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPoB) is a little to NWO for me.

What are the lines here?

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Who would down vote this

Who would down vote this obvious question? Gees... Can anyone point me to the excepted political definition of GMO that defines the fighting lines here?

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Thank you, Liberty Poet

I'll keep this post in mind next time I go shopping.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

The libertarian case FOR labeling

Most libertarians believe that government has only three proper functions:
1. Police, to apprehend those who commit assault, theft or fraud.
2. Military, to prevent invasion by foreign governments.
3. Courts, to peaceably resolve disputes and to determine guilt in criminal cases.

If some company like Monsanto creates a new kind of plant -- a GE derivative of corn or soybean, for example -- which is so different from what people normally think of as "corn" or "soybean" that it can be patented, then selling the stuff in a can labeled simply "corn" or "soybeans" is an act of fraud which, under libertarian theory, should be punishable by law.

Monsanto would like us all to think that their GMOs ARE "corn" and "soybeans," and that eating the stuff poses no more health risks than are present with organic, heritage grains. Unfortunately, they have NOT proven that the stuff is safe, or that the insecticides they spray on it are harmless to important elements of the food chain like honeybees. So their whole game depends on keeping the public ignorant about the real GE nature of their products. A government which sides with the fraudsters against the public is a menace to us all.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

fraud is already illegal

This is the best case for mandated labeling I've seen argued on this thread. Unfortunately, it is still wrong, in my view.

I don't think Monsanto is actually passing off GMO product as if it were non-GMO. I am unaware of a single instance where this has occurred. Further, fraud is already illegal. Hence, if Monsanto is engaging in fraud, redress via the court system is your go-to; not mandated labeling - which imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden in an ex ante fashion.

You may be right that GMO products are widely purchased because of ignorance, but this is NOT fraud. Indeed, many transactions are a function of asymmetry in knowledge. Caveat emptor still applies.

Oh my God!!!

"I don't think Monsanto is actually passing off GMO product as if it were non-GMO. I am unaware of a single instance where this has occurred. Further, fraud is already illegal. Hence, if Monsanto is engaging in fraud, redress via the court system is your go-to; not mandated labeling - which imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden in an ex ante fashion.

You may be right that GMO products are widely purchased because of ignorance, but this is NOT fraud. Indeed, many transactions are a function of asymmetry in knowledge. Caveat emptor still applies."

I am posting one last time to say a few things...

Number 1: Yes they are passing it off that way otherwise they'd be proud to present their wonderful and unparalleled bullshit products to the people, which they AREN'T doing and are actually suppressing it from occurring at ALL costs.

Number 2: You are not aware of a single instance, but yet you pass by a multitude of products every time you go grocery shopping that are purposely not labeled as such because they do not wish to announce those products as possessive of GMO, therefore they are perfectly satisfied with them being unlabeled wherein the deceit can perpetuate at our expense.

Number 3: Redress via the court system...did you really just say that! The court is the biggest farce there is...no individual or small collective of farmers of citizens can stand against such an immunity of our judicial system..."The Monsanto Protection Act"...

Number 4: The ignorance is due to the fraud of labeling, the unwillingness of them to call their products as they truly are: modified and unlike the naturally occurring crop derived by natural selection and natural means.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

try to put emotional outrage aside

Number 1: Your assertion is extremely speculative, at best. There are a whole host of potential reasons why food companies oppose mandated labels - cost of regulatory compliance being one of them.

Number 2: It's not fraudulent if I already know the contents of the can (e.g., we know the food product may contain GMO). Further, "the deceit" (as you state) doesn't "perpetuate at our expense" IF YOU DON'T BUT THE PRODUCT. THIS IS THE NATURE OF VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS.

Number 3: If you have so little faith in the institutions of government (which, admittedly, may be warranted), then how can you reasonably think more regulation (i.e., mandated labeling), subject to regulatory capture, is going to fix things?

Number 4: I've dealt with this incorrect assertion elsewhere in my comments. Failing to label "GMO" does not amount to fraud, at least without more.

You are wrong Monsatan did pass GMO's as non-GMO's

to Argentina. Argentina refused to let their farmers plant GMO's. So Monsanto bagged up GMO's as non-GMO's and sold them to Argentina. Later in the fall when the Government tested the Soy beans and found GMO's, Monsanto demanded their payment for the GMO soy beans. Argentina government had no choice but to pay up or face a lawsuit.

Now you would have known about this if you would have watched the video "The World According to Monsanto". Here you are making untrue statements because of ignorance. I say again please educate yourself on Monsatan.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Been to the supermarket lately?

Look at the Green Giant or Del Monte cans of "corn." Do you see "GMO" or "GE" anywhere on the label?

There's your fraud. Unfortunately, it is not "illegal" to commit this fraud, because the FDA sides with Monsanto, that their Frankencorn doesn't need special labeling as something other than "corn." Regulatory capture leads to institutionalized, legalized fraud.

Caveat emptor doe apply: government is hazardous to your health.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

No, that's not fraud

Simply failing to provide a label in your scenario is NOT fraudulent. It's especially not fraudulent when you have reason to believe the food product might contain GMOs - which, based on your comments, you obviously do.

You might have a case of fraud where you ask the store clerk, "does this contain GMO?" and he responds, "no, it does not," when it actually does contain GMO.

Silly.

Monsanto's client companies do not FAIL to provide a label. They label it "corn." That label is fraudulent. BT corn is a genetic soup of corn, virus and bacterial DNA.

If I were to sell you a bottle of "water" which contained measurable amounts of cyanide along with the water, would you consider it something less serious than criminal fraud?

P.S. It seems I was mistaken about Green Giant selling BT corn. Their corn, I've read, is natural, but they cannot LABEL it as being non-GMO, for fear of being sued by Monsanto. Very interesting, hm? Caveat vendor?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

interesting analogy

While I find your analogy interesting, it is distinguishable. GM corn is still corn. On the other hand, cyanide is obviously not water and is known and proven to be deadly, even in small quantities.

As I've stated in many other posts on this thread, however, if you can prove GM corn causes harm, then I think you can seek legal redress for such harm.

I don't know how/why Green Giant could be sued for (properly) labeling something non-GMO. If this is the case, I find it troubling. Maybe you can provide a link for more info...?

Corn is corn like water is water.

I believe my analogy remains valid. A bottle of water that contains a teeny bit of cyanide may be dangerous -- but hey, it's truly 99% water, so it is not any more fraudulent to simply label it "water," than it is to label a plant with 1% (guesstimate) viral DNA "corn." Changing a few genes in a corn plant to tolerate glyphosphate insecticide may or may not make consuming the stuff dangerous -- and that's the point. We don't KNOW, and Monsanto has refused to allow independent studies to find out. Calling it "corn" is to accept Monsanto's unproven assertion as to its safety. Inquiring minds want to know: is it safe to eat the stuff, or is it a slow poison? Corn is corn -- but some corn may be more poisonous than others.

I don't have a lot of info about Monsanto's threatened lawsuits -- I just saw a couple posts about it on the Green Giant blog, here. Search that page for "Monsanto" references, and you'll see what I've seen.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

analogy doesn't wash

We both know cyanide is proven and widely known to be deadly. You effectively undercut your own argument with respect to GMOs with this admission: "Changing a few genes in a corn plant to tolerate glyphosphate insecticide MAY OR MAY NOT make consuming the stuff dangerous...." The corn/GMO corn vs. water/cyanide analogy simply doesn't wash.

Your latter comment seems awfully speculative if it is based on a reader comment on a blog posting, at least without additional support. (I searched the webpage).

Is "maybe poisonous" substantially different from "poisonous"?

Would you willingly drink a glass of liquid with "secret ingredients" that "may or may not" be poisonous, any more eagerly than you would a glass with a little known poison? Well, if you could test it first, you might . . . but Monsanto won't allow anyone off their payroll to test it! Those 40 "studies" you mentioned -- looks like they are ALL Monsanto work. The fact that their publication is "peer reviewed" is meaningless if the studies cannot be independently duplicated and verified -- and Monsanto will NOT provide seeds to independent researchers.

I agree that the reader comment about Green Giant's fear of Monsanto's propensity for lawsuits is speculative, but I still found it interesting that the comment appeared on Green Giant's official corporate blog -- and they didn't deny the speculation.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

let's strive for objectivity

Now I feel like you're really stretching (and I think you know it). Again, cyanide is known and widely accepted as deadly; it is clearly not water. GMO corn is still corn. But, as I've stated time and time again, if harm can be proven, (just as with cyanide), Monsanto should be liable.

The most interesting thing about the link you've posted, however, is that it calls for patent reform, not mandated labeling. I feel like a broken record, here, but I'm going to write this again: the article I cited was not meant to prove Monsanto's gilt or innocence, but merely to counter beeman's claim that there had never been a study showing GMOs to be safe. Hence, even if your claim that all studies were conducted by Monsanto, that is irrelvant with respect to the reason I cited it.

Failing to deny hoards of speculation in a corporate website's blog can hardly be used to show guilt. It's simply unreasonable to assign guilt for failing to respond to every blog post. I think you know this. (I can't even keep up with the comments on this thread.)

I read your profile's manifesto. At some point you're going to have to decide whether you think mandated labeling is consistent with the philosophy laid down in it. I'm fairly confident it is not.