Reply With Quote
anything that's good for criminal Monsanto is bad for Human-Americans and the environment.
Today, voters in the state of Washington will be voting on Initiative 522. I haven't paid much attention to the initiative since I live in Oregon, but I do catch a glimpse on the commercials on the TV and radio. Parts of Washington are part of the Portland metro area.
On the surface, it appears to be a good bill. Some farmers who already grow without GMO are against it. Most are for it. Of course, companies like Monsanto are spending gobs of money against it.
Thoughts? I think it will pass. It will at least provide a good or bad model for other states to follow.
link: Initiative Measure No. 522
anything that's good for criminal Monsanto is bad for Human-Americans and the environment.
I'm shirking my civic duties and not voting this year mainly because this is the only major issue on the ballot. From what I've been reading, it should fail handily.
Editorial
October 27, 2013
The Lewiston Tribune
Marty Trillhaase
Its air leaking, I-522′s balloon is going flat
If you’re asking Washington voters to label food products containing genetically modified organisms, you ought to offer something more compelling than simply saying it’s the right thing to do.
The burden of proof is on the groups supporting Washington’s Initiative 522. It’s their case to make.
Where is it?
Products are labeled for a reason. It’s not simply a right to know. Labeling requires a need to know. If you ingest a product, will it harm you? …
What’s the point of labeling food containing GMOs? What’s dangerous or harmful about consuming them?
So far, the I-522′s advocates may have hinted at concerns, but they’ve offered no direct argument.
Could it be because humans have been altering genetics ever since Gregor Mendel began experimenting with peas and honey bees?
Could the reason be the evidence is on the other side? Organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, the European Union and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have found GMOs just as safe as other foods.
Or it could be using GMOs to expand agricultural production beats the alternative of famine?
If GMOs are so bad, why does I-522′s labeling exempt meals purchased in restaurants, alcoholic beverages as well as meats, fish, poultry and eggs produced from livestock raised on genetically modified feed?
And where’s the rebuttal to I-522′s critics, who have bombarded Washington residents with claims that labeling GMOs will be expensive?
As of now, the question is not whether I-522 will drive up costs – only by how much.
Taxpayers will be on the hook for the cost of education, compliance and lab testing. The Office of Financial Management puts it at $3.4 million during the next six years. The anti-labeling Washington Research Council estimates the price at $22 million each year.
Suppose consumers see a skull and bones behind each GMO label. What then? Does Washington becomes a GMO-free zone? Replacing GMO products with non-GMO foods could cost each family $450 a year, says the Washington Research Council.
Nobody knows because no state has set up a GMO labeling system. California voters rejected a similar ballot measure, and legislatures in Maine and Connecticut would prefer to follow their neighboring states before implementing their GMO labeling programs.
Why make Washington the national petri dish? …
Vote no.
If GMO is so harmless, why do Monsanto and friends fight so hard to suppress labelling AND to suppress testing?
One reason is that the corps want to keep people as dumb and ignorant as cows, feed people the tiest possible food for the highest possible (and subsidized price if possible).
Well, it was defeated. 45.19% yes, 54.81% no.
UCA bought the election, like BigAlcohol $Ms defeated mj in CA, BigTobacco $Ms defeated cig taxes in CA.
And you clowns think Human-Americans' votes count?Human-Americans' votes, esp the sheeple votes, are for sale to highest bidder.
Monsanto & Friends Make Biggest Illegal Contribution on Record to Stop GMO Labeling in Washington
If you haven’t already heard of the Grocery Manufacturer’s of America and their aims at stopping Initiative 522 from passing in Washington just days from now, you will shortly. With companies like Monsanto taking the lead, millions of dollars have been funneled illegally through a slush fund to try to sway voters against passing the 522 Initiative that would require grocery stores that sell foods containing GMO food to label it as such.
This group of slick corporate greed-mongers only disclosed their ‘donations’ to the fund after state Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit earlier in October. More than $1 million has already been used to try to defend organic and right-to-know activists from getting their labeling bill passed. The companies know that the word is out, and if they don’t spend a king’s ransom on misinformation campaigns and propaganda then the 522 Initiative will be voted down.
Last year when a similar bill was up for a vote in California, Prop 37, these same corrupt corporations spent more than $46 million making sure they didn’t have to label anything as GMO!
The largest donors, along with Monsanto, include ConAgra, General Mills, Pepsi Co, Coca-Cola, Kellogg Company, Campbell’s Soup Co, Land O’ Lakes, Ocean Spray, Cargill, Dean Foods and the Hershey’s Chocolate Company.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/days-left-...#ixzz2jtB4D3ta
When UCA United Corporations of America want something, they buy it.
Love how people hate transparency
Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37 (from the CA election)
1. The bill ”would require a warning label on food products.”
2. ”The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.”
3. ”FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.
4. ”The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”
5. ”…the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.”
6. ”The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.”
7. ”Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.”
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-...#ixzz2jtH1I0PH
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
