MONSANTO IS NOT ABOUT A SINGLE ISSUE
Monsanto is not about one specific issue. As it relates to Hillary Clinton, deception, oligarchy, transparency, politics, decision-making, hypocrisy, indoctrination, the environment, corruption, conflict-of-interest and food safety are all spokes on the Monsanto debate wheel. Yet, whenever the issue of food transparency (or mandatory GMO labeling) surfaces, corporate publications like the NY Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are all quick to mutate the discussion into an argument that is rooted solely from perceived food safety. Of course! Why would the corporate news media mention “oligarchy” when they are instrumental in creating the oligarchy? Who do you think owns these newspapers? Large corporations with real agendas. They are part of the oligarchy.
Did you notice when the NY Times reported that George H. W. Bush would vote for Hillary, they conveniently omitted any mention of Bush and Clinton’s mutual and unshakable Monsanto roots? That was the first thing that jumped out at me; the obvious.
Remember in 1987, George H.W. Bush told Monsanto executives, “Call me, we’re in the dereg business?”
[It was during this time that Hillary Clinton was employed by the Rose Law Firm that represented Monsanto.]
In 1992, Bush then issued the executive order that essentially gave Monsanto carte blanche to adulterate our foods with unneeded, unwanted, unlabeled toxins. In other words, when Hillary wins, Monsanto can smugly claim they have had someone in the White House on their side since January 20, 1989. Not bad for a company that has been voted the most evil corporation.
Also, it is an unwritten taboo that this issue cannot be mentioned in presidential debates. Can you imagine what would have happened if in a Democratic primary debate if Bernie were to have asked Hillary, “Hillary, WHY have you ignored 90% of the American people on this? WHY do you feel that mothers do not have a right to know what is in the foods they feed their family?!”
Indirectly, this issue can be deemed disparaging to advertisers. Look what happened when a Fox affiliate in Florida almost dared to report a fact-checked news story that made Monsanto appear in a negative light!
This partly explains how Monsanto, despite being so despised, manages to create an untouchable firewall to protect their own corporate interests and their chosen candidates.
For over 22 years, Bernie Sanders fought back against Monsanto, he often alluded to “Monsanto’s elephant in the FDA room,” yet, in the two Bernie rallies I attended here in Arizona, the issue of Monsanto and/or food transparency never once surfaced.
Yet, for many people I know, it is a big reason why Bernie, and now Jill Stein, has won a slew of new supporters that refuse to vote for Hillary. The Washington Post reported on July 25, 2016, that 90% of Bernie supporters would vote for Hillary. Hmm.
Okay, while my Facebook friends represent just a small number of the general population, at first glance, it does not come anywhere close to coinciding with the claim that 90% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary. Yes, I realize that some of my Facebook friends have liked more than one candidate. But out of my 3,035 friends that liked Bernie’s official page, in recent months, by an almost 4 to 1 margin, have liked Jill’s official page over Hillary’s.
Dr. Jill Stein: 2,111
Hillary Clinton: 553
Donald Trump: 310
Gary Johnson: 307
I cannot speak for all Jill Stein supporters, but in several groups I am in, I have seen evidence that Hillary’s Monsanto love drove the #Demexit and #JillNotHill numbers more than one might think.
Monsanto is far bigger issue than the corporate news dares admit to. Further evidence is from Feb. 2008. Take a look at these poll numbers from February 2008. Hillary was beating Obama by five points in early February 2008. Then, a week later, BOOM, she is down 14 points!
What happened between Feb. 8, 2008 and Feb. 13, 2008? This open letter by Linn Cohen-Cole came out. At the time, I was actually on the fence deciding between her and Obama. But after viewing the oft-shared clip of Obama promising to label GMOs, my decision to choose Obama was an easy one. I never spoke a positive word about Hillary again. Cohen-Cole’s letter was an eye-opener at the time.
Of course, we all know now that Obama ever once tried to keep his promise, but at the time, he had given us no reason to doubt him. So, why did he get my vote again in 2012? Look at who his opponent was: Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man.
[Reminds me of this year’s senate race in Arizona, between McCain and Kirkpatrick, both major candidates are pro-Monsanto.]
Speaking of Arizona senators that are pro-Monsanto, see the names here on this infographic showing US Government officials with Monsanto ties.. Former Arizona Senator, Dennis DeConcini!
His law firm did work for Monsanto in 1999.
[My own mother actually held a fundraiser for him in the 1970s.]
WHY IS MONSANTO SO MALIGNED?
Fact: Since July 20, 1989, a pro-Monsanto candidate has occupied the White House. This is not only disturbing, it reveals how they always get their way then and continue to get their way now. Why? First, it is important to identify reasons why Monsanto is maligned.
Aside from winning the dubious distinction of blowing away the competition with a whopping 51% of the vote for being dubbed the most evil corporation in a Natural News poll, there are plenty of reasons why this company is so "maligned." Here are some valid questions to ask yourself.
Ask why they settled a lawsuit for $700 million with 20,000 Anniston, AL residents for PCB contamination.
Ask why they settled a lawsuit with tens of thousands of plaintiffs in West Virginia for $93 million in 2012 for Agent Orange.
Ask why Portland and seven other US cities plan to sue Monsanto for PCB contamination.
Ask why they threatened to sue a Fox News affiliate for airing a fact-checked news segment for linking their rGBH in milk to cancer.
Ask why Monsanto, an international pesticide company in St. Louis, spent 5.98 million dollars opposing a food transparency initiative in Oregon.
Ask why Monsanto hired Bollywood actors to dupe farmers in India to buy seed that did not deliver the results they promised.
Ask why March Against Monsanto's Facebook page has over a million likes and why thousands of families in over 400 cities march against Monsanto every year.
Ask why Hillary Clinton was paid 335K to speak in San Diego at a Biotech Conference where she advised them to "create a new vocabulary."
Ask why Donald Rumsfeld was paid (and the role he played in FDA approval) 12 million dollars when Searle, the manufacturer of Equal, was sold to Monsanto.
Ask why an ex-Monsanto VP, Michael Taylor, was appointed to Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA.
Ask why "Monsanto went to extraordinary efforts to keep the public in the dark about PCBs, and even manipulated scientific studies by urging scientists to change their conclusions to downplay the risks of PCB exposure. "
The general disdain for Monsanto is wholly justified. The last link above sheds volumes on their lack of corporate character. Has anyone noticed that NOT ONE MEMBER of the corporate media has dared ask Obama why he failed to keep his 2007 campaign promise to label GMOs? The media has also abstained from asking why he appointed ex-Monsanto VP, Michael Taylor to a position that involves overseeing our food safety. This really is absurd and reprehensible that our president has trusted all our family’s health to an industry insider that has shown by his past actions, he has an agenda to enable Monsanto to profit at our expense.
It is also equally reprehensible that the corporate media abstains from reporting what the Monsanto Dark Act really means:
In short, the Dark Act “effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future.”
The last line is huge! Regardless of what health issues arise, Monsanto is off the hook. I guess they learned a lesson from Phillip Morris.
DECEPTION
Anyone that has voiced their concerns about Hillary being tied so closely to Monsanto has probably seen her supporters quickly post this link to Snopes that avows that, it is true, Hillary was never on Monsanto’s Board of Directors. Yes. This is true. Hillary served on Walmart’s Board of Directors, not Monsanto’s. But this does not invalidate her countless ties to Monsanto, like her dozen years working for the Rose Law Firm that represents Monsanto, speaking to the biotech industry supporting their agenda and using her position as Secretary of State
What the astroturfers have done is create an orchestrated means to confuse and influence people and dupe them into thinking that Hillary’s irrational and unyielding Monsanto loyalty is just a rumor, by creating a false claim (a rumor is more than a planted comment or two) to debunk.
This is like hearing someone refer to Charles Manson as a red-haired sociopath and then yelling out in his defense: “NOT TRUE! Charlie never had red hair!”
[No one ever called Manson a redhead, just like no one ever said Hillary was on Monsanto’s Board of Directors. A false claim does not invalidate the primary gist of the claim.]
Astroturfers and sockpuppets are a real threat because they create the illusion of majority opinions that simply do not exist. If you see the aforementioned Snopes link posted in the comments here, you can spot an astroturfer firsthand. To familiarize yourself with the practice of astroturfing, see this highly informative Ted Talk by former CBS correspondent, Sharyl Attkisson. She nailed it.
[This really is worth ten minutes of your time!]
A better example of how deception relates to Hillary and her Monsanto loyalty is to examine her choice of words at the biotech conference in San Diego in 2014 where she advised the industry to “Create a new vocabulary.” In other words, instead of her addressing the issue that 90% of all Americans support food transparency, instead she advised the industry to continue deceiving the public.
WHY CREATE A NEW VOCABULARY? Maybe because people are wising up? Evidently, the biotech industry took her advice to create a new vocabulary. Do not be fooled.
“…on the front of Vanilla Chex box from General Mills, it says that the product contains “no high fructose corn syrup” , but in the ingredient list it is hidden under – the new isolated fructose.”
Another area that relates to mass deception and misinformation is that a vote against Monsanto is a vote against science. Wrong.
The voice of the American people being blatantly ignored is the number one problem in politics today.
OLIGARCHY
This is the number one reason why I did not vote for Hillary. When the voice of 90% of the people is blatantly ignored again and again, this is an obvious telltale sign a candidate has no intention of ever doing the right thing for the consumer.
Even when eight major US cities planned on suing Monsanto for PCB contamination, Hillary refused to say one negative word about the biotech behemoth. Not one word.
Here is the one stat that sums up the absurdity of all facets of the Monsanto debate.
In 2014, 101 million dollars was spent to keep a couple of words off a food label.
Senators that ignore the pleas of their constituents need to be voted out.
TRANSPARENCY
The argument against transparency is that it would create fear. Strange. A huge company with a myriad of patents is ashamed to have their products labeled? Really? Why?
When I was a kid, if any of the neighbor kids had a bicycle with Campagnolo bicycle components, it usually served as a preliminary indication that the bicycle was a good one. Good bikes have good components. Campagnolo is proud to have their name on their products!
Herein, lies the major problem with not having mandatory labeling. This gives Monsanto a loophole to keep them from being boycotted. Boycotting Monsanto is not as easy as simply not buying their Roundup. That is easy to avoid. Monsanto’s name is on the product.
But I also know that there are many products in my grocery store, like a regular can of peanuts that has soybean oil, so it is most likely sourced from bt soy or Roundup Ready soy, Monsanto products. This means that even if someone loathes Monsanto as I do, it is easy to accidentally support them by buying a can of peanuts that does not have their name or the words, “genetically modified,” on the label. This is wrong.
Even Whole Foods Private Label (365 brand) saltine crackers contains soy lecithin. How many people even consider the possibility that if they are buying saltine crackers from Whole Foods, they might be indirectly supporting Monsanto’s ge soybeans?
Boycotting companies that we find appalling or that fight against our best interests, is the American way! Heck, I even boycott companies that air commercials that I feel contribute to the dumbing down of America. It is my right as a consumer to vote with my pocketbook.
POLITICS
This is the number one reason I boycott a growing number of consumer products. If a company spends big money fighting against my best interests, it is my right as a consumer to boycott them forever.
I realize this is debateable. What if our petitions and proactive efforts are heard and acknowledged by these companies? Like General Mills making an occasional consumer-driven change? Why not support them? In my view, to buy products like Cascadian Farms, Kashi, Santa Cruz Organics (all owned by different companies that spent money fighting consumer initiatives) it would be like throwing noble companies like Nature’s Path, that have done the right thing all along, under the bus.
I can spot sincerity. I know when there is a profit-driven, token change to appease the consumer and repair their battered P.R. These corporations lost my trust.
Despite what the biotech insiders claim,. the right to know is not just based on perceived food safety. Kind of like boycotting Koch Brother’s products like Bounty, Angel Soft, Quilted Northern, Vanity Fair and Dixie Cups. It is not so much that their products are toxic, their policies are!
Several years ago, Chick-fil-A had to deal with consumer boycotts of political stance.
Why should Monsanto be given a special loophole to avoid getting boycotted by consumers? In The past couple of years, Monsanto has spent big money fighting against consumer initiatives.
They spent $8,112, 867 fighting California’s Prop 37, $5,374,411 fighting Washington’s I-522, $5,958,750 fighting Oregon’s Measure 92 and another $4,755,878 fighting Colorado’s Prop 105.
THIS IS POLITICS! I repeat, the NY Times and the Washington Post have refused to acknowledge that this and fighting oligarchy is one of many reasons why consumers want transparency.
I think of Monsanto as an unwanted guest at my dinner party. Heck no. Stay away. They are not welcome in my home. It is like trying to keep Norton and McAfee out of my computer. It takes a lot of conscious effort. Being vigilant is time-consuming and takes warrior-like energy to be uber-alert and pro-active too.
This might sound extreme to be unforgiving with these companies. but if everyone fought back, WE CAN DEFEAT OLIGARCHY!
Saying NO takes resolve. Like boycotting Nestlé . Over 230,000 signatures were signed by consumers to boycott Nestle for something that happened in Canada.
Imagine if American mothers gathered together because they got informed and finally got fed up at Nestlé for continuing to put unlabeled ge soy in their children’s Gerbers, also owned by Nestlé ?
WE WOULD BEAT OLIGARCHY.
DECISION-MAKING
I have often heard from countless Democrats that the Supreme Court is a good reason to vote for Hillary. But the fact that she continues standing by Monsanto, refusing to acknowledge concerns from fellow progressive women like Marianne Williamson is proof that she will continue refusing to budge on an issue that 90% of Americans support.
On November 5, 2015, when Bernie was still an option, I posted the meme on the right. Surprisingly, it got over 460 shares. Why? It illustrates the abstract absurdity of why the Supreme Court is a sane reason to vote for Hillary. In the text that accompanied the meme, I mentioned that Hillary would simply appoint a pro-Monsanto Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas. I still stand by my words.
Before appointing Tim Kaine as her VP choice, she was considering Tom Vilsack, another pro-Monsanto choice.
Well, Hillary ended up choosing Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine voted the exact same as Ted Cruz, for Monsanto’s Dark Act. No surprise.
Okay, Kaine is a Democrat and Thomas is a Republican, but so what? They both refuse to do right and stand up for the 90% of Americans by voting against any bill that does not benefit Monsanto’s agenda. The Supreme Court argument is moot.
Obama and Hillary’s unyielding Monsanto loyalty is why I quit being a Democrat after more than 39 years. If a pro-Monsanto candidate is the best the Dems can do, they no longer stand for issues that actually affect me. This is why the Green Party makes sense.
HYPOCRISY
This is a big one for me. The old, “do as I say, not do as I do.”
From Ring of Fire Radio:
“Hillary Clinton isn’t willing to put her own money where her mouth is. Presidential head chef Walter Sheib, who ran the White House kitchen under President Bill Clinton, was instructed that Hillary Clinton would consume only “nutritionally responsible food…obtained from local growers” as well as the White House rooftop vegetable garden – which was grown without the use of pesticides, fertilizers or GMO seeds.”
INDOCTRINATION
Indoctrinating school children with Monsanto propaganda cannot be overlooked. This really is a growing problem. Using 4H to advance a covert, profit-driven corporate agenda is just plain wrong.
From Food Democracy Now:
“4-H is the country’s largest youth organization with more than 6 million members in 80 countries around the world, involving children from elementary school age through high school.
The organization is extremely influential to children, impacting their intellectual and emotional development through their numerous programs and clubs. Unfortunately, Monsanto is using its partnership with 4-H as a vehicle to worm its way into your child’s mind in order to influence her developing beliefs and values.”
From Nick Meyer’s AltHealthWorks:
“Monsanto has a lot of money invested in the genetically modified seed, farm chemical and many other industries, but they also have a lot invested the hearts and minds of the next generation.
After all, as more and more people catch on to the truth about GMOs; that their main function is to sell more agricultural chemicals like Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, and that they really aren’t the answer to “feeding the world” after all, more and more people are beginning to consciously avoid making decisions that could support pro-GMO companies.
Monsanto in particular is doing everything it can to counteract this awareness movement by spending more money on the public relations side of things, in an attempt to convince the younger generation that GMOs are a “scientific advancement” rather than the environmental and health catastrophe they’ve actually been.”
THE ENVIRONMENT
From the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Monsanto aggressively touts its technology as vital to achieving laudable goals such as ensuring adequate food production, responding to the challenge of global warming, and reducing agriculture's negative impacts on the environment.
The reality is not so flattering. In fact, Monsanto has held back the development of sustainable agriculture, and continues to do so, in several ways:”
CORRUPTION
I am not surprised at anything I saw in the video esp., the mention of Monsanto that began at the 2:55 mark. I have been questioning this all along. Why major TV news never mentions the connections and the various dealings between Monsanto and the Clinton Foundation.
I get that her spin on this is "promoting US Agriculture abroad." But if Monsanto was the corporation that reaped great profits in foreign lands and by paying the Clinton Foundation between 1 mil and 5 mil to use Clinton's position as SOS as their market gateway, it seems like that alone should warrant some kind of scrutiny. Just kidding. But this is no longer about her stance on labeling initiatives going contrary to the 90% of Americans that support transparency.
This sounds like a government official used her position in a "pay to play" deal with a biotech behemoth to reap profits for both of them in distant lands.
At close glance, this does embody the very spirit of “corruption.”
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Just like Clarence Thomas has a conflict of interest when it comes to Monsanto, so too does Hillary. As shown by her lifelong, unyielding loyalty to a company like Monsanto, no way can she ever address consumer concerns when it comes to being objective about her former Rose Law Firm client.
She is in 100% their corner. The people be damned. This is a huge red flag. If the voice of 90% of the American people do not matter, why even bother with the idea of democracy?
At least when cornered about her Wall Street connections, she claims to have said to Wall Street in 2007: “Cut it out.” Why not Monsanto?
Her December 22, 2015 townhall in Iowa (with Tim Vilsack) a question was asked of her, she simply alluded to trusting Vilsack, a fan of the bar code that serves no use to folks like myself.
FOOD SAFETY
The last and most bantered of all the reasons why Monsanto is so hated is “perceived food safety.” After watching the Will Smith movie, "Concussion," I was reminded of the smear campaign the NFL employed to try their damnedest to discredit Dr Bennett Omalu (a man with eight degrees) for linking playing football to CTE.
The same tactics are being used by Monsanto against any man or woman of science that dares to opine a legitimate and candid view that goes contrary to their corporate bottom line.
Some of the controversial topics relating to GMO safety include cancer, autism and diabetes. While I agree, there are clearly differing views on this, the fact that the mice in the Seralini studies began developing tumors after three months (the length of time used in previous studies) is something worthy of examination.
Remember, last November, Seralini’s team won their defamation and forgery court cases on GMO and pesticide research.
While this was not total vindication for Seralini’s team, it was something.
Here is a link to over 200 different health or science related organizations from around the world that are in agreement with the IAASTD report, and/or support mandatory GMO labeling.
It isn’t easy to prove and report and exactly what is safe for humans. Think of the tobacco industry and lung cancer, or the NFL and concussions. When a behemoth industry’s bottom line is threatened, big money and heavy hitters come out of the woodwork.
I will abstain from drawing links to autism, cancer and diabetes and GMOs. There are literally thousands of artcles, studies, blogs and graphs that you can research for yourself.
Since, GMOs were introduced in the mid-90s, diabetes and autism soared accordingly. The biotech industry will repeat their mantra:
”Correlation does not imply causation.”
Fine. Let mothers do their own research to see if the bt corn in their child’s cereal is okay. Bt corn, is merely corn that has the bt toxin engineered into each kernel (cannot be washed off) that was created to kill the corn rootworm, in it’s tracks. Let your kids eat this. Trust Monsanto.
Disregard the Tests Show “Healthy” Kashi GoLean Cereal Has Six Times More Glyphosate Than Kellogg’s Fruit Loops
I will share my own experience with my own family that makes a case that this is literally might be a life or death issue.
On September 13, 2016, I received a call from the hospital that they discovered MRSA in my 88 year old father’s blood. Immediately, I thought of two friends I knew (both in their mid-50s) that had died from this scary antibiotic-resistant staph bacteria. Both of these friends died in less than four weeks. After four weeks in skilled nursing, where my dad received antibiotics by IV, my dad was “out of the woods.” Whew! He still has serious heart issues, but he beat the MRSA. I thought back to the organic corn tortillas and organic cereal and milk he has been on the past five years.
I mentioned to the doctor this old study from 2000 I came across.
"The spread of antibiotic resistance is the main threat from gene transfer from
GM crops," said Joe Cummins, Ph.D., professor emeritus of genetics at the
University of Western Ontario, Canada. "I have found that the antibiotics
used in GM crops are used in surgery and to treat a number of diseases."
“An antibiotic-resistant gene is also added to the mix as a marker. This gene
will allow biotechnologists to identify the cells in which the transfer has been
successful. "The foreign DNA segment does not take hold in every cell, only
in a fraction of them," said Richard Wolfson, Ph.D. "To determine in which of
the cells the DNA has taken hold, researchers pour antibiotics into the cells.
The cells that do not die are the ones that the [foreign] DNA has been
incorporated into." The problem, Wolfson said, is that antibiotic-resistant genes
could transfer to pathogens. "They could become antibiotic resistant," he said,
"and this could produce diseases that can't be controlled by antibiotics."
Of course, I can never know with absolute certainty that my 88 year dad consuming mostly organic foods helped him beat MRSA that took down two younger, otherwise healthier people I know. But when it comes to 50/50 chances for a family member’s health, I have no problem trusting my 2,000+ hours studying every pro and con GMO article I can access and make my own decisions. My parent’s health matters. They will celebrating their 66th wedding anniversary in less than three weeks.
This is an issue worth fighting for. Be vigilant!
WE CAN BEAT OLIGARCHY!