GMO's and Climate Change

[InRareForm]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/03/19/a-disturbance-in-the-green-movement/#.UU3uNxc3udp

[mouse]

To bad your not allowed to comment on these topics w/o being ridiculed.

[boutons_deux]

To bad your not allowed to comment on these topics w/o being ridiculed.

you're intimidated by Internet ridicule in a tiny political forum?

[boutons_deux]

GM is a corporate scam to increase corporate profits, and as always consumer/air/water/land health is not in corporate calculations.

Monsanto's death grip on your food

Monsanto’s near-monopoly gives the company the right to control access to a staple food item that is found in a wide range of consumer products.

Monsanto has yet another case pending in the court system, this time before the U.S. Supreme Court on the exclusivity of its genetically modified seed patents. Narrowly at issue is whether Monsanto retains patent rights on soybeans that have been replanted after showing up in generic stocks rather than being sold specifically as seeds, or whether those patent rights are “exhausted” after the initial planting. But more broadly the case also raises implications regarding control of the food supply and the patenting of life – questions that current p

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/03/19/monsantos-death-grip-on-your-food/

[boutons_deux]

Monsanto so worried about law suits about their shit causing disease and death that Monsanto is seeking a "shield law" that places Monsanto beyond the reach of the judicial system.

Rules Don’t Apply to Monsanto, GMO Companies Given “Immunity” From the Courts

Monsanto and the biotech industry received good news this week when Congress approved a resolution bill, which included a provision nicknamed the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

The six-month resolution grants manufacturers of genetically modified seeds the approval to plant genetically modified seeds if they haven’t been approved by a court of law. NPR reports the provision “was slipped into the legislation anonymously.”

According to Sustainable Food News, the Senate was not allowed to consider two amendments offered by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana), an organic farmer, that would have “removed policy riders that favored the largest seed companies and the largest meatpackers. Tester observed that these policy riders were worth millions of dollars to these companies.”

Food Democracy Now! said on its website that the decision “strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer and farmer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, citizens and the environment.”

“On the face of it, that sounds pretty bad,” reports NPR. “And when environmental and organic farming groups got wind of it earlier this month, they mounted a campaign urging voters to call and email their senators and voice their outrage over the provision, which they denounced as a “giveaway to genetically engineered seed companies” and even an act of “fascism.”"

http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/rules-dont-apply-to-monsanto-gmo-companies-given-immunity-from-the-courts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OrganicAuthority+%28Organic+F ood%2C+Healty+Recipes%2C+Green+Living+-+Organic+Authority.com%29 (http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/rules-dont-apply-to-monsanto-gmo-companies-given-immunity-from-the-courts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OrganicAuthority+%28Organic+F ood%2C+Healty+Recipes%2C+Green+Living+-+Organic+Authority.com%29)

[boutons_deux]

Did Congress Just Give GMOs A Free Pass In The Courts?

Tucked inside a short-term funding measure that Congress approved Thursday is a provision that critics are denouncing as a "Monsanto Protection Act."

The so-called "biotech rider" was included in legislation that won final approval from the House, avoiding a shutdown of the federal government on March 27, when the current funding was set to expire. The provision was slipped into the legislation anonymously. It explicitly grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture the authority to override a judicial ruling stopping the planting of a genetically modified crop.

On the face of it, that sounds pretty bad. And when environmental and organic farming groups got wind of it earlier this month, they mounted a campaign urging voters to call and email their senators and voice their outrage over the provision, which they denounced as a "giveaway to genetically engineered seed companies" and even an act of "fascism." Also dismayed was Montana Democrat Jon Tester, the Senate's lone active farmer, who had offered an amendment to strike the provision from the funding resolution.

The provision "tells USDA to ignore any judicial ruling regarding the planting of genetically modified crops," Tester said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor last week.

But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it doesn't already have.

"It's not clear that this provision radically changes the powers USDA has under the law," Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells The Salt.

If you read the provision closely (it's on page 78, Sec. 735, of this PDF), you'll see that it authorizes the USDA to grant "temporary" permission for GMO crops to be planted, even if a judge has ruled that such crops were not properly approved, only while the necessary environmental reviews are completed. That's an authority that the USDA has, in fact, already exercised in the past.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/21/174973235/did-congress-just-give-gmos-a-free-pass-in-the-courts (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/21/174973235/did-congress-just-give-gmos-a-free-pass-in-the-courts)

and of course USDA if fully captured and even populated by BigAd/BigFood/BigChem lobbyists and whore scientists

[pgardn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/corporate-irresponsibility-over-gmos/2015/05/14/902c95e6-fa5e-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z3


This opinion article absolutely nails the Bootian syndrome of choosing the science he likes.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/corporate-irresponsibility-over-gmos/2015/05/14/902c95e6-fa5e-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z3


This opinion article absolutely nails the Bootian syndrome of choosing the science he likes.

pfartin: GMOs are NOT for increased production, they are strictly for BigChem profits, to the detriment of land, water, air, humans.

[boutons_deux]

Gerson is a Repug VRWC stink tanker.

[pgardn]

I told you about the GMOs used in making ethanol from cellulose and many others.
you categorize them all under 1 label and its ignorant. I don't care what Gerson is, he nailed you.

[boutons_deux]

I told you about the GMOs used in making ethanol from cellulose and many others.
you categorize them all under 1 label and its ignorant. I don't care what Gerson is, he nailed you.

There's not enough land to grow enough cellulose, etc, etc, etc to make enough fuel to replace oil.

Gerson will support BigCorp and their toxic activities and products until they destroy they planet.

[pgardn]

There's not enough land to grow enough cellulose, etc, etc, etc to make enough fuel to replace oil.

Gerson will support BigCorp and their toxic activities and products until they destroy they planet.

Cellulose is ALREADY abundant on land used for food crops.
And of course it won't replace petroleum. It would make ethanol cheaper if the infrastructure follows; it would use parts of crops that are totally wasted right now. Example: we use such a small amount (seed) of the total biomass of corn for food, feed. We waste seed on ethanol production, it's stupid.

Bottom line is you painted GMO with a broad brush, this is just one example. This is also your special problem. You lump very diverse technologies into one neat group so you can dismiss the whole thing. Just like the Christian fanatic you despise so much; attempt to make any issue as simple as possible.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/corporate-irresponsibility-over-gmos/2015/05/14/902c95e6-fa5e-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z3


This opinion article absolutely nails the Bootian syndrome of choosing the science he likes.
The problem is, most of use who don't want GMO in out diet are as extreme as Shazbot.

I don't care if there isn't any proof that GMO is harmful, less nutritious, etc.

There is no proof that there are no harmful effects! This is the key in my view. Until there is certainty that GMO poses no harm to us, I want labeling so I can make informed choices. just because some organization says it's "OK". doesn't mean they are right, or someone wasn't paid off. Just look at how many products or drugs that were said to be good for us have proven decades or so later, not to be.

[sickdsm]

There is no proof there is no harmful effects?

Isn't that everything? Sun, dirt , money, PVC plumbing, vinegar(used as weed control for organic) etc.


The movement of the gmo labeling is a sham, if non gmo is so much in demand, they should voluntary label much like a made in USA tag. A product is no better simply because it's made in the USA versus Germany even through some people think so. It is the same with gmo/non gmo.

Non gmo should be labeled as such since it's considered by some to be a premium product. Not a law requiring it but any body in charge would know that it's in the company's best interest to do so.


Just because some/A lot of people want a label doesn't make it legal to require one.

I imagine there is racists that would love to avoid products made by a black factory worker. Or can we put labels on Chik fil a or hobby lobby on those products? How about those companies that process food that homosexuals handle? After all, there are those that consider them unclean. I am all for gmo labeling when the science is clearly stating it is unsafe.

I assume your advocating all sources of water including bottled and potable as having labels stating they may be carcinogenic?

[baseline bum]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/corporate-irresponsibility-over-gmos/2015/05/14/902c95e6-fa5e-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z3


This opinion article absolutely nails the Bootian syndrome of choosing the science he likes.

Chipotle fucking sucks. LOL dumbass hipsters who buy into their culture and their shitty bland burritos.

[SupremeGuy]

The global warmers, anti-vaxxers, and anti-GMO people must live in constant fear, tbh. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The global warmers, anti-vaxxers, and anti-GMO people must live in constant fear, tbh. :lol

Your problem is that the vast preponderance of evidence and studies supports global warming. The vaccination scare was on the basis of a single study linking vaccines and autism that lasted several years before it was able to be reproduced and demonstrated to be false. The GMO thing is just fearmongering by luddites.

You support your corporate overlords in the oil, pharmaceutical, and farm industries well though. That much is obvious just from your biasing.

[SupremeGuy]

I support fuel, medicine, and food? No way!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I support fuel, medicine, and food? No way!

If you want to conflate the product with the industries' lobbying efforts then sure.

[DarrinS]

I support fuel, medicine, and food? No way!

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Oh look. Here is your dog coming to sniff your ass, SupremeGuy.