Comment: Changing perception

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: More power to you (see in situ)

Changing perception

happened with a close friend who is a licensed clinical pharmacist who became involved with nutritional therapies in the early stages of his career. He felt as you did about Mercola but has since changed his mind given his alarm over the proliferation of genetically engineered foods as well as the massive bee die-offs being attributed to neonicotinoids pesticides, another cause and warning Mercola is championing. My friend and I both felt that Mercola was the David fighting Goliath on Prop 37. Monsanto et al ridiculed Mercola for his opposition to them which turned my friend completely around.
Re bee die-off

Monsanto has benefited via the courts and the pols they’ve bought off to the detriment of small farmers who continue to be intimated by Monsanto. When you have a system that is rigged in favor of big corporations, the public suffers as free market tenets cannot operate in the optimum way we would like ergo monstrous legislation like the Monsanto Protection Act. Thus although you state, “If GMOs are legitimately dangerous, that info should be spread freely without restriction or bias,” (and in a free market that is the ideal case), the reality is we have incurred a massive disinfo campaign to keep the public misled with a marketplace vastly skewed in favor of Monsanto. A person has a basic fundamental right to know what he/she is eating especially since reports have come out already about the health risks of GMOs. As far as I am concerned, labeling evens out a distorted playing field so that the consumer stays informed. This is an excerpt of what I posted back in November. The Monsanto Protection Act having snuck in is now old news.

Monsanto gone wild
Canadian farmers are already prohibited from filing a class action lawsuit against Monsanto. Not only have private property rights been infringed upon by crazy patent laws that give Monsanto ownership claims to any GMO seed that drifts over to a farmer’s property, the farmer may incur the loss of his own crops when the “terminator (suicide) gene” Monsanto has engineered prevents the farmer’s own crops from regerminating once they are contaminated. The cost to the farmer and threat to his chosen livelihood (unless he plays ball with Monsanto) far exceeds in moral equivalence as well as monetarily the so-called ‘cost of labeling.’ The No on 37 Committee appears to have committed a felony by flagrantly posting the FDA seal on a trumped up FDA claim. So, the tenets of the free market argument are trumped by a rigged system. Ergo how do you inform the consumer when all he sees are false claims made and grassroots orgs don’t have the financial resources to challenge a big multinational company in bed with lobbyists and politicians? How do you protect a farmer’s private property rights when patent laws favor Monsanto’s proprietary claims? How do you hold Monsanto liable when the legislative bodies unwittingly give Monsanto immunity, the last straw blocking any recourse or accountability? At that point how do you ensure free market choices when organic farmers lose control of their farms via a Monsanto gone wild? Even as a conjecture, it begs the question, not if, but when does Monsanto become unstoppable?

FOCUS: Is Monsanto About to Gain Immunity From Federal Law?

“If this provision passes, it will allow unrestricted planting of potentially dangerous crops, exposing other safe and non-GMO crops to risk of contamination...consumers and farmers will lose what little control we have now over what we plant and what we eat.”
Monsanto Funded Anti-GMO Labeling Campaign Gets Away with Impersonating Govt. Agencies. (a felony)

I agree with Mike Adams who argues for mandatory GMO labeling - even if you believe in limited government because the situation is too urgent and dire as necessitated by a system rigged in favor of Monsanto et al.