Customize

WikiLeaks Cables Show US Diplomats Promote Genetically Engineered Crops Worldwide

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by The Wrong Guy, Aug 28, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

    My point exactly.
  2. grebe Member

    So are you agreeing with me, that peptide bonds in GMO and non-GMO foods are the same?

    Also, here is a book on the topic which has had some good reviews. It's even been recommended by Bill Gates:

    I highlighted the bit about the birds because I am a grebe.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. muldrake Member

    That's only the case when the creator deliberately engineers them that way.

    Far from being non-self-regenerating, some Monsanto-designed crops actually spread their genes to adjoining farms (whereupon Monsanto sues the farmers for infringement).

    The technology isn't the problem, it's Monsanto (and others that behave similarly).
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. Why? Because I demand scientific proof instead of listening to the shrill alarmism of morons? Kill yourself.
  5. As an aside, I'm glad to see some sanity in this thread that's not coming from Grebe or me. I have a bit of a mad-on for Monsanto, because they're dirty as hell.
  6. Kilia Member

    See answers above by "Gottabrain" and "Anonymous 3:34 am and 9:12am" , so I don't have to duplicate them here.
  7. grebe Member

    I'm assuming you are talking about cats and dogs and therefore meat.

    I can easily tell how a piece of meat is cooked --whether microwaved, boiled, pan fried, baked, or grilled. Microwaving is definitely not as good. It's hard to heat meat evenly in a microwave so you get parts that have a rubbery texture. Plus you lose the delicious crispy browning of the fat on the outside from searing the meat in direct heat.

    I'm not surprised that your pets don't like badly cooked meat. You likely are a warm hearted person who spoils them rotten (I could tell you about a certain cat who just licks the sauce off canned cat foot, and then only if a certain brand and less than two days in the fridge).

    But I bet you a week's pay that the barn cats on my uncle's ranch will take down a microwaved piece of meat in no time. I've seen them eat rancid tuna noodle casserole out of a dumpster like it was ambrosia from heaven. I've even seen them eat vegetables. They are some hungry fuckers.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Gottabrain Member

    I can't always tell the difference with microwaving. Cool that you can.

    Just out of curiosity, test the cat. Microwave the meat for a while, to be sure. Let's not guess, okay? Because even the wild small animals around here won't touch microwaved meat. I've tried it with Kookaburras and they won't go near it.

    I don't have cats as pets. Domestic cats left to roam kill an average of 300 wild animals a year and only 20% of those are mice or rats - the rest are mostly snakes, frogs and turtles (many are endangered) and ground-dwelling birds or birds with ground nests (much more endangered than those that fly, mainly due to people and cats.)
    Cats can be kept in a house well enough, but I don't like the hair or even the idea of pets except dogs. Most animals are best suited to live wild.

    Spoiled animals? With love, not with food. Dog gets dry food (cheaper & healthier than canned) and occasional leftovers.

    Non-regenerating plants are bad news, bottom line. Most industries and esp corporations are quite nasty in their treatment and appreciation of wildlife and ecosystems. A few days ago I did a great deal of research on an urgent US situation where thousands of honeybees died so others had to be imported from Australia (its been done a few times). There are no definitive answers from scientists as to why - and this is an insect we notice. Imagine the effects on those we don't... they aren't replaced, but still necessary to the ecosystem.

    I am no scientist so will not argue or question the other points - please don't lump me into some preconceived group or notion you have that "everyone against Monsanto are idiots". I talk about what I know a great deal about - which is ecosystems and animals and I don't have any problems with admitting what I don't know. I am not necessarily against developing better seeds, but certainly against monopolies, against ridding large areas of the world of regenerating seeds, against wholesale huge corporate decisions about land based on money and monopolies and not genuine, unbiased studies of entire ecosystems, against sneaky corporate plans to force farmers to buy from only one source and by doing so, scamming farmers into giving up financial independence of their own equity/savings of seeds from prior crops. That' s no small thing to a farmer. Fuck Monsanto.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. grebe Member

    I'm not defending Monsanto. I'm defending the science of understanding and manipulating genes. I don't see a way to solve many of the world's problems without that understanding.

    The argument, "But we can't know the consequences of our actions in full," has some merit. But it must be weighed against the known consequences of inaction.

    Without genetically enhanced crops, we can't feed the world's population today let alone when it doubles in 40 years. A lack of food means more than starving humans. It means accelerated habitat loss and species extinctions. Say goodbye to most of the migratory song birds of the Eastern US.

    A small family of possums wanders across my back porch from time to time. I've left out food scraps that have been warmed in the microwave. The possums don't seem to mind.

    More on microwaves and food at Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp

    I agree with you about keeping cats indoors. Cats are not native to North America where many small ground nesting birds and mammals are vulnerable to their rather compulsive predatory habits.

    We did that to the cats, the compulsive hunting trait. It was an early GMO project undertaken by our ancestors during the era of the Black Death. We didn't understand exactly how it spread, but we noticed that places with lots of rats seemed to have more sick people. So we selected the best hunters from among our cats for breeding. The rest we likely ate.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Gottabrain Member

    As a big fan of purely scientific research studies, I'm with you on this (mostly). Unfortunately, studies paid for by a company that will only benefit by its seal of approval are a far cry from pure science. Back in the 70s, studies always included long-term effects over, say 5, 10 and 20 years. It bothers me that I don't see these sorts of studies anymore in new drugs released and genetically enhanced this and that's and there are so many of them. The long-term trials are actually being done on the public and that is a shame.

    There are many solutions, though, from all sorts of angles. Eat less meat. Own and breed less pets. Birth control education and availability. Make desert areas crop sustainable (that's 38% of the earth's land mass!). Stop making seeds that don't regenerate just for a profit margin.

    As above, Grebe, I just see it as ONE solution and not necessarily the best one, either, though it might be if the seeds could regenerate and weren't patented, wouldn't it? That is, provided they were properly tested over time by purely scientific methods.

    Your possums eat meat?! :eek: Lol, ours don't. I believe you. Our Kookas will eat SOME cooked meat if hungry enough, but it's as if they don't even recognize microwaved meat as food.

    That's interesting about cats. Early introduced species were a disaster and messed up ecosystems all over the world. The cane toads still masacre the wildlife here and no easy solution in sight. The British were very irresponsible about this in the early days. No long-term studies, you know... :p

    Now if we can only introduce HUMANS to the idea of cutting back on their pets and looking after widlife and nature instead...

    These days we are smarter. Camels are doing very well in Australia, for example.
  11. Anonymous Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    Greta and Grebe, I'm taking the chance to educate two people who acts very much like brain washed Scientologists. Saving people one at a time. Failing that, you two should stay at home come November voting time. Otherwise, I'll give you a hint, the darker the better, but beware of fake deep tan. Lack of backbone is not good, but better than kowtow.

    GMO is around for more than a decade. The market share of GMO corn in US is about 90%, I would say 100%. You are just ignoring all the debate. If you are even half a scientist, you should know that evolution always wins.

    The idea of developing roundup resistance crop is fail. You end up using more and more roundup and going back to traditional methods, maintaining some sort of equilibrium. That's why some 3rd world farmers burn the seeds donated by Monsanto.

    You equate cross "breeding" to GMO, which is beyond me. One is "sex" between evolution tested organisms. The other is genetic code manipulation that create different organisms. You are a chimp are very similar in genes.

    Cross breeding has a lot of fails. Some can't reproduce. Some breed of dogs have lots of problems, which couldn't have survive without long term care of their masters in an indoor environment. That nature's way of taking care of things.

    It's proven nobody can control the propagation of GMO, even plants. If you produce an ideal efficient crop, what happened is that it will be dominant and replace the others, wiping out the gene pool which is against evolution. When evolution finds it's enemy, there won't be other similar species to replace it. Monsanto can't control GMO crops spreading to neighboring fields. They sue them for not buying their seeds. Canola is a weed. They use it for oil and now it's spreads like a weed, a GMO weed.

    The only thing Monsanto can think of is the "terminator", one that can't have next generation. But it's the same thing. It's so good that everybody wants it, and Monsanto sells it, and evolution find the mutation and creates an enemy of the terminator, then all the crop in the world will be wiped out in one season. Also, it just freak people out.

    Many mothers with babies know that it's a hard won battle to be able to label milk "grow hormone free". 90% of Americans wants GMO labelling, but can't because the law was long passed before people are aware of GMO in everything in the supermarket.

    What problem has GMO solved? Are 3rd world people less hungry? People need some proof after more than a decade. What happened is that housewife are brainwashed that Canola oil is good. It's 100% GMO. Monsanto got a lot of money. When it works, American farmers got a lot of money. Supermarkets are all rows and rows of GMO Canola and Corn oil. 3rd farmers cannot compete, and have to buy or secretly import the seeds (and buy more roundup). They have to buy seeds year after year. The only winner is Monsanto.

    Nobody is against scientific methods. People submit research to a scientific journal. Usually peer reviewed before publication. People point to it. Your reaction? It must be bad science. Of course it's not only you. Monsanto will find big guns to do that. So those guys put their reputation and career on the line and they should get more respect. GMO has plenty of time to proof itself. What you get in Monsanto that is proven evil time and time again.

    ps Greta you are welcome to check the dumb button.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  13. muldrake Member

    There's some dispute about that. In fact, there are some [citation needed] who theorize that actually, religious nuts persecuted cats as familiars of witches and agents of the Devil, and that the resultant population explosion of rats caused (or enhanced) the Black Death. Others [who?] contest this.

    In any event, cats more or less self-domesticated. Our stores of grain and other foods attracted vermin like rats, who ate and defecated upon our stores of food, ruining them. Cats were attracted by the vermin. We were smart enough to notice that the cats ate the vermin, but were uninterested in our grains.

    Then they learned to be cute, and no longer had to be useful.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. grebe Member

    I think you might be the only person talking about cross breeding in this thread.
  15. Anonymous Member

  16. grebe Member

    If we define "genetic modification" as the human effort to increase the frequency of genes coding for desirable phenotypes within some population, then clearly cross breeding, which usually produces sterile offspring, is not it.

    I realize that sterility might be a trait we want and we may use lab based genetic techniques to create sterile organisms. But I don't worry about sterile organisms fucking up our ecosystem. Maybe some GMO critics do, but I don't know why.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    Grebe, are you talking about genocide? That's artificial selection.

    And, are you forgetting evolution? Planting sterile seeds on a large scale is totally against natural selection.

    If you are a farmer, cannot it freak you out? It's holding a gun in your head by a loan shark.
  18. grebe Member

    "Natural selection" means some environment is doing the selecting. "Artificial selection" means humans are doing the selecting. Artificial selection is a way to modify the genome of some species. Nature does the same thing, but we don't say nature "modifies" the genome because that implies purpose.

    I imagine farmers want to run a profitable business. So they add up the costs and what they are likely to get after harvest and then make their decision to purchase GMO seeds or not based upon which option seems more profitable.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Anonymous Member

    Grebe, you are catching up with the issues. Slicing up and patching up genes is creating new creatures. Even for very simple molecules with identical atoms can have mirror images with different properties.

    GMO is basically an arm race. You are forced to buy seeds and roundup to stay competitive. Nobody wins except Monsanto.
  20. Kilia Member

    • Like Like x 1
  21. I'll check the dumb button because your comments are dumb. Where have I said that I support Monsanto or Roundup Ready? I can think of at least one or two places where I've done the opposite. My reaction is not, and has never been, that it's bad science. My reaction was, you illiterate bastard, that more studies are needed. I called the single study you cited a "lead", but also correctly stated that it had to be repeatable to be confirmed. Until then, the hypothesis that Roundup Ready is unsafe has some evidence to support it, but is far from confirmed. You claim that nobody is against scientific methods, yet you have displayed a glaring lack of understanding of how that works. That makes you an idiot. I have also made the point that GMO research is not the problem. It can be beneficial, if done responsibly. There's some interesting research going on that would replace the RuBisCO in some food crops with more efficient forms that evolved later in cyanobacteria. While I also oppose Roundup Ready for different reasons, the science does not yet back your view. If you don't like that, cry moar.
  22. grebe Member

    Maybe that is a problem sometimes. But it is not always a problem.
  23. Anonymous Member

    Greta, your reaction shows that you are under a pillow most of the last decade. Roundup is proven unsafe for humans. They are fined for it. GMO had a decade to prove their worth. Please don't point to any potential future benefits as a defence. We will only get terminator. People reference to a new article in a scientific journal, go criticize it just like everybody else responding to a journal article. It's pointless discussing specialized knowledge on WWP. As for the social and environment and evolution issues, you are lacking behind for at least a decade, or act like it. Are you for or against labelling?
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  24. Wow. Moving the goalposts and straw man, all in one flawed argument. I'm impressed, and by "impressed", I mean "what a fucking dumbass!" You're every bit as much of a lunatic fundamentalist as the anti-vax crowd. Again, there are no laws or regulations in the US that ban companies from voluntarily labeling products that contain GMOs. If there are, please cite them. If your concern is companies not being REQUIRED to label these products as such, please learn English. One study. One study is all you cited, and all you CAN cite. While interesting, it does not count as conclusive proof until it has been verified by repeated studies. Also, if you post multiple articles that cite the same study, that's still one study. For a hypothesis to be confirmed, it requires far more than that. So tell me this: Are you for or against the scientific method? How many times did you repeat 4th grade science? I'm genuinely curious.
  25. muldrake Member

    To the extent the dispute about GMOs has a basis in international law, it is a dispute over what is often called the "precautionary principle." This view, prevailing in Europe, is that if a policy choice (such as allowing GMOs) has a potential risk to the public, the environment, humanity at large, or whatever, the preference is for avoiding that policy until further evidence is available.

    The opposite of this principle, usually preferred by the United States and other superpowers or aspiring superpowers like China, is (to oversimplify) that we should immediately exploit any new technological advancement unless the scientific consensus is that it is dangerous.

    While I make this counter-position sound very stupid by oversimplifying it, it is a very strong argument in its favor that often, a failure to act is as dangerous as acting. Technological advances often solve very real and immediate problems, like not having enough food and that people are starving right now. Why shouldn't the precautionary principle apply to inaction as well as action?

    We know people will starve unless we grow more food and that, in fact, they are starving now. GMOs offer some solutions.

    My particular gripe with the "solutions" offered by Monsanto and their ilk actually make the problems worse.

    To take this out of abstract legal theory into the reality of human suffering.

    The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

    Thousands of farmers have committed suicide in India, humiliated by the failure of GMO crops they were extorted into purchasing by Monsanto and similar corporations, when they were peddled as "magic seeds" but were entirely vulnerable to other pests like boll weevils.

    Like they say about lawyers, 95% of GMO manufacturers give the rest a bad name.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    ^ anonylike
  27. Anonymous Member

  28. Anonymous Member

    Greta, now you know what you are up against. Nobody can totally utterly completely defeat Anonymous.

    For the only fault you can come up with. The current FDA guideline is:


    With FDA think we are all dumb, their recommendation cannot be taken seriously. Grebe, I got the cross breeding part from FDA, who equate cross breeders to new creature creators.

    I'm wrong on this, so what? Why I think this is the case? Because Monsanto sued milk producers who label their milk "artificial growth hormone free". Some lawyers could tell me how they can do that. And from what I see, no producers have yet label their corn - not bio-engineered. So what's the difference between not allowed and not done? I'm just somebody going to the supermarket. Or are they all 100% GMO?

    But that's trivial when 90% of US wants mandatory labelling. It may be 80%, may be 99%, may be 70%. Sue me if I'm wrong.

    People quote the paper, one of and kind, new, expecting popcorns. It is your reaction that is interesting. Nobody say to use that as "the" evident to ban GMO. You can ban orange juice too, or butter, or margarine. And honestly plenty of others did a better job criticizing that article.

    I'm not against GMO the technology, but companies like Monsanto. It's like the CoS vs Scientology. But without CoS, Scientology will be pretty useless (or harmless for politically correctness).

    We don't need proof that GMO food themselves is harmful to pass mandatory labelling, as long as people's wish are respected (90%). That will certainly kill GMO - the argument to allow voluntary (= no) labelling in the first place.

    Arguing that GMO food is harmless is like, ... , Scientology is good and it helps people.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  29. muldrake Member

    GMOs actually work, though. Unlike Scientology.

    For example, the bacteria now used to generate insulin are genetically modified. Should we just do without insulin? The molecule is exactly the same, whether it is from a bacterium or directly synthesized, or taken from an animal source.

    Does a molecule magically remember its origin in a way that makes it bad, if the source is a GMO bacterium?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. The Wrong Guy Member

    For me, this is pretty simple. I'd just like to be able to go into a supermarket and buy a tomato that tastes like a tomato. And when I slice it, I want it to act like a tomato, oozing juice and seeds, rather than being almost identical to when I slice an apple.

    I'd really be pissed off if there were no farmer's markets or organic produce stores.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    "GMO FOOD works, and it helps people."

    For the insulin example, the end product is supposed to be identical to the human version. We don't eat the bacteria. It reduces medical cost and performs better.

    Nowadays if you try to sell this via retail in Amazon (hypothetical speaking), you will get these comments. You are releasing live GMO to the wild. There is no way to undo. You are altering the natural mutation rate in that eco system. It could end up in the human food chain. It could wipe out others species, bacteria or higher orders.

    After over a decade, I like to see how GMO is helping world hunger. I think there may be a natural road block for food. There is the old saying that the perfect horse runs fast but don't eat grass. It doesn't happen. Or they would have ruled the world and eat meat from human farms.
  32. Anonymous Member

    There is always the real danger of failed organic certification because of genetic pollution from other fields.
  33. grebe Member

    RoundUp is pretty nasty for fish. And I've heard that alternative herbicides are even worse than RoundUp. So I'm all for small organic farms that try to avoid pesticides. But they are not efficient at growing enough food for millions of people.

    One of the reasons I like GMOs for the big farms growing staple crops is because they are using less herbicide and pesticide. But I don't claim an expertise in this area. I basically rely upon blogs I read like Tomorrow's Table and ERV.

    To change my mind I need to hear an answer to the question: How do we grow enough food for all the people while minimizing the damage that farming does to our environment?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Derail: If you want a tomato that really tastes like a tomato, the only way to really do that is to grow your own, preferably an heirloom variety. Seeds are cheap and easy to find online. The best tomatoes I've ever had looked ugly, and they tasted like heaven. Please don't get me started on the bullshit that is "organic", because I'm going to piss off more people, and I'm too tired to get into it tonight. If you want produce that tastes great, there's only one way to do it: shorten the time it takes to get from the ground to the plate. That means growing your own.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. grebe Member

    ^Yeah vine ripened FTW.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Yes, but this year (as usual for the Northwest) the tomatos are still mostly green. Any suggestion for heirlooms? Because these ones are pasty tasting.
    This year I cooked squash blossoms for the first time and so didn't get stuck with pounds of zuccini.
  37. I'm not an expert, especially for your region, so I found information from people who are. These links will help since you're in the Northwest:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2010/04/northwest_experts_pick_their_f.html

    http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/...To-Eat-Choosing-heirloom-tomatoes-1202021.php

    The Black Krim interests me. In the first article, it's the only tomato that got two recommendations.
  38. MochaKush Member

    "The large, anonymous crowds in which we now teem began with the agricultural revolution, and without agriculture we could survive in only a tiny fraction of our current numbers. Our high population is an agricultural (and technological and medical) artifact. It is far more unnatural than the population-limiting methods condemned as unnatural by the Pope. Like it or not, we are stuck with agriculture, and agriculture - all agriculture - is unnatural. We sold that pass 10,000 years ago.

    Does that mean there's nothing to choose between different kinds of agriculture when it comes to sustainable planetary welfare? Certainly not. Some are much more damaging than others, but it's no use appealing to 'nature', or to 'instinct' in order to decide which ones. You have to study the evidence, soberly and reasonably - scientifically. Slashing and burning (incidentally, no agricultural system is closer to being 'traditional') destroys our ancient forests. Overgrazing (again, widely practised by 'traditional' cultures) causes soil erosion and turns fertile pasture into desert. Moving to our own modern tribe, monoculture, fed by powdered fertilisers and poisons, is bad for the future; indiscriminate use of antibiotics to promote livestock growth is worse.

    Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'

    Moreover if, as I expect, the dire prophecies of GM doom fail to materialise, the feeling of let-down may spill over into complacency about real risks. Has it occurred to you that our present GM brouhaha may be a terrible case of crying wolf?

    Even if agriculture could be natural, and even if we could develop some sort of instinctive rapport with the ways of nature, would nature be a good role model? Here, we must think carefully. There really is a sense in which ecosystems are balanced and harmonious, with some of their constituent species becoming mutually dependent. This is one reason the corporate thuggery that is destroying the rainforests is so criminal.

    On the other hand, we must beware of a very common misunderstanding of Darwinism. Tennyson was writing before Darwin but he got it right. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. Much as we might like to believe otherwise, natural selection, working within each species, does not favour long-term stewardship. It favours short-term gain. Loggers, whalers, and other profiteers who squander the future for present greed, are only doing what all wild creatures have done for three billion years."
    -Richard Dawkins
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/may/21/gm.food1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  39. The Wrong Guy Member

    Genetically Modified Food Label Initiative Failing - Why?



    Published on Nov 1, 2012 by TheYoungTurks

    On Nov. 6, those of us who live in California will get to vote on Proposition 37, which requires mandatory labeling of genetically-engineered foods (GMOs). And the whole country is watching.

    It's shaping up to be quite the battle. A quick glance at who's supporting the bill and who's against it should tell you a lot. Supporters include Joe Mercola, the Organic Consumers Fund, Nature's Path Foods, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, Clif Bar and Co., and Annie's. Opponents include Monsanto, Dupont, PepsiCo, DOW, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills and Kelloggs.

    Questions, anyone?

    The issue of GMOs has been a perplexing one and not nearly as simple as people on both sides of the fence try to make it. People have been selectively breeding crops and animals for ages (how do you think we have jumbo roses, or Boston Terriers, or uniformly-red tomatoes)? And there are honest, well-meaning scientists who are trying to solve massive problems like vitamin deficiencies in third world countries using GMO techniques. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences, for example, have created a strain of "golden" rice that contains an unusually high amount of beta-carotene (vitamin A) and hope to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it."* Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss why GMO labeling is failing in the polls even though it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything and is already in wide practice worldwide (hint: money). Do people have a right to know if their food is genetically modified?

    Learn more about Prop 37 and genetically modified foods: www.carighttoknow.org/

    Read more from Dr. Jonny Bowden/ Huffington Post: www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden/gmo-prop-37_b_2035693.html
    • Winner Winner x 1
  40. The Wrong Guy Member

    From Twitter:

    Charlie Sheen@charliesheen
    CA VOTERS you have a right to know what you're eating! Whether you support the use of GMO's or not... YOU deserve to KNOW YES on prop 37

    Rob Schneider@RobSchneider
    What the hell is going to happen in CALI? Prop 37, Is Monsanto going to keep avoiding labeling their poison?

    5 Unfounded Fears About California's Prop 37 Which Would Label Genetically Modified Foods | Alternet

    Don't let industry's $40 million in advertising be your decider.

    <snip>

    Voting Yes on Prop 37 will give Californians a right to know what's in their food, something that studies show that 90% of of people across the political spectrum want. But certain companies including Monsanto, DuPont, Pepsi, ConAgra, Dow Chemical and others (detailed here) have spent over $40 million on ads against the Labeling Initiative, according to Dave Murphy, the co-chair of Prop 37, the California Right to Know Campaign and the founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!

    Overall, their aim is to cast doubt on the initiative through evoking the following Unfounded Fears Over the Labeling, which I survey here:

    More at www.alternet.org/election-2012/5-unfounded-fears-about-californias-prop-37-which-would-label-genetically-modified

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins