You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, October 31, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Is the End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Saturday 29 September 2012
“After the study not only did France call for a potential worldwide ban on GMOs pending the results of their in-depth analysis, but Russia’s major consumer rights organization announced a ban on both the importation and use of Monsanto’s GMO corn.”
Article image

Is the end of Monsanto within reach? It has certainly been a rough couple of weeks for the mega corporation as the real dangers surrounding GMOs are being brought to the attention of consumers on a global scale like never before. It all started with the monumental French study finding a serious link between the consumption of Monsanto’s Roundup-drenched GMOs and massive tumors. Being called the ‘most thorough’ research ever published on the real health effects of GMOs, the study led to even larger victories.

After the study not only did France call for a potential worldwide ban on GMOs pending the results of their in-depth analysis, but Russia’s major consumer rights organization announced a ban on both the importation and use of Monsanto’s GMO corn.

Prop 37 Can Label Monsanto Out of Existence

And now, the Proposition to label all GMOs in the state of California is showing massive success. If Prop 37 passes, it won’t just affect California. It is very likely that other states will not just take note, but adopt similar legislation. Through this legal mechanism, we can essential label Monsanto out of existence.  This is possible when considering that the average consumer is actually opposed to GMOs and heavily in favor of proper labeling.

In a major Los Angeles Times poll, registered California voters in favor of labeling outnumber pro-GMO voters by more than a 2-to-1 margin. Altogether, a whopping 61% of those polled reported supporting the Prop 37 labeling initiative. Only 25% reported opposing it.

If GMO-containing products are properly labeled, the simple fact of the matter is that less people will buy them. As of right now, very few people are even aware of what they are putting in their mouth. In fact, if the public knew that they were consuming GMOs which were linked to massive tumors and organ failure, the overwhelming majority would abandon such products. Without labeling, however, they have no idea. The same can also be said for other ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and aspartame.

As Yes on 37 campaign manager Gary Ruskin explains:

“Monsanto, DuPont, and Coca-Cola do not want Californians to know what’s really in their food and drinks, because they fear consumers will turn away from their genetically engineered ingredients and pesticides that go with them.”

If they knew they were eating mercury in the HFCS and consuming an artificial sweetener with over 42 associated diseases, then major change would occur – change that includes forcing manufacturers to abandon these ingredients in order to stay profitable. And after all, Monsanto’s number one goal is profit. This is a company that has been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which ‘employees’ were forced to buy only from the company store and were not allowed to leave the area or their pay would be withheld.

If Monsanto’s profits were to plummet, their political reign would likely follow as well. Without an endless amount of cash to throw at crushing Prop 37, already contributing $4 million to fuel anti-labeling propaganda in California, the corporation’s massive grasp on the world of science (continually censoring studies and funding pro-GM research) and politics would virtually cease to exist.

It is essential that we ensure the passing of Prop 37 in a bid to generate the literal end of Monsanto. Once consumers actually know that they’re putting genetically modified creations into their body, real change will occur within the food supply.



Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

To KevinFolta: Gainesville,

To KevinFolta:

Gainesville, USF, PhD, Scientist, Geneticist, Scientific Method, Facts, Evidence, Proof, Critical Thinking...ad nauseum!!

Have you just graduated from Jr High school thinking the adults here were just born yesterday? Whip out the omniscient Science card relegating everyone not in your league to subordination? What an incredibly arrogant, elitist, professorial point of view! Bologna nonsense! Defend Monsanto with technicalities, elitist, (pseudo) intellectual banter? I'm not buying it!

One fact is made abundantly clear by your endless stream of negative running commentary, is that you are bent on using whatever training /education and intellect you may possess to bully and manipulate all contrary viewpoints to your own, and sustain whatever agenda you may have. Did you learn that at the University?

You are so stoned-out on being right, and making all contrary viewpoints wrong, then insulting the writer, you reveal your own toxicity and myopic perspective. As you exhibit your unbridled and brazen arrogance, made so transparent it's a joke, your proported intent to simply 'teach and educate' is simply not believable.

And given the decades of unconscionable, outrageous "Science" applied by Monsanto (do the research yourself A-hole...there's plenty of evidence by 'good scientists'), your obvious support for Monsanto Scientists and Attornys that propagate Monsanto's insane, thoughtless, heartless practices...for money, power, control, and more money!, not giving a rip about ecosystems, our Earth, or people, I myself, a native Saint Louisian, would be happy to line all of you up and personally knock you into the next galaxy...for having to put up with the endless dose of BS propoganda, and, just for giving my City a bad name--you prick!

That would restore some faith in humanity for me, as I am so mad I could spit. We all should be!

TROLLS or otherwise - how

TROLLS or otherwise - how about some facts. Hybridization has been going on for Centuries. Recombinant DNA technology is very new, and is what the term "GMO" refers to. Ask any geneticist - rDNA produces collateral damage at a hundred places along the DNA strand. There have been many studies showing the rats died, the cows died, any very serious health risks from eating rDNA foods. In the US, Monsanto executive Michael Taylor became the head of the FDA and in 1992 created the US policy of "substantive equivalence", stating, " if it looks like a banana and tastes like a banana, then it is a banana". This removes the FDA from any recourse on rDNA foods. I will happy to add to this discussion at each given opportunity. People have every right to do with the facts what they will.

MarkGM-- I am a geneticist,

MarkGM-- I am a geneticist, or at least teach genetics and use it every day. My Phd is in molecular biology and I've edited books on genomics. There is no such thing as "collateral damage" in any peer-reviewed literature, just in the fancy opinions of non-scientists that write books to sell you. Studies with rats dying are all from Seralini, who is currently facing allegations of misconduct and fraud. Cows? Please provide the source. Serious health risks? What is your source? Seralini? Please give me one source with an impact journal. No such thing. No, you are lying or uninformed. The FDA is part of the approval process, along with USDA and EPA. It takes 5-10 years and millions of dollars.

I welcome discussion too, but keep in mind that you are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Websites are meaningless, so please keep this in the context of the peer-reviewed literature and provide citation when possible. We'll talk!

I see there are a couple of

I see there are a couple of corporate trolls posting comments. The labeling of GM foods is to give consumers the power to make an informed choice. Someone else has already stated it, if GM foods are such a non issue, why all the hoopla and harangue from Monsanto and other corporate agri giants to suppress labeling? Kevin Folta can cite scientific studies that support his contentions all he wants, and Jose Leo can spout off about how humans have been GMing food for centuries. None of these things are at the heart of the issue: It's about having the freedom to choose. In a true capitalist economy there would be no need for giant corporations to lobby government and sway public opinion through advertising in order to protect their bottom line. Let your products stand on their own merits.

Johnny Canuck. I love when

Johnny Canuck. I love when people call me a "corporate troll". Why? Because I don't work for a corporation. I work for you, farmers and the rest of the public. My funding is an open record.

So when you label me as a "corporate troll" we should stop reading right there, because it says that you are here to perpetuate bogus information. It shows you do not rely on evidence or facts, but just belief. Welcome to the right wing climate change denial of science world.

Humans have been genetically

Humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries. GMO's are the reason there are over 7 billion humans on planet Earth. Everything on Earth is already genetically modified. Labeling only some foods will be a deception for everything that is not labeled. Organic food is the greatest urban myth of the century. Vote No on 37.

Corporate troll. That old

Corporate troll.

That old deceptive line is NO LONGER WORKING. Show me ONE INSTANCE when selective breeding or hybridization or any other traditional method of propagation was referred to as "genetically modified" PRIOR TO the use of genetic engineering. Can't find one? No?? That's because you're just trying to co-opt the term, AFTER its first use by proponents of labeling. But, IT WON'T WORK, because we're ONTO YOU, and there really is NO CONFUSION between traditional methods of breeding and the inherently invasive technique of genetically modifying in a lab, as it NEVER OCCURS in nature. When have you found a fish gene in a tomato occurring naturally? Yeah, I thought so.

Take some sound advice: FIND ANOTHER JOB than to perpetuate LIES and DECEPTION.

Rual Gal, wow, you swing and

Rual Gal, wow, you swing and miss. Selective breeding and hybridization have been going on for 20,000 years for most crops and by definition requires blind mixing of tens of thousands of genes. If that's not "genetic modification" then I don't know what is!

Transgenic (GMO) technology moves 1 gene, of known function, that can be traced in ways that are well understood, as well as assessed for negative effects. No problem. You can't do that with wide crosses, mutation breeding, forced polyploidy or any of the other techniques used to remodel plant genes and genomes. Sorry, transgenics are the LEAST invasive!

You also won't find a fish gene in tomato anywhere on the market. Maybe that might be under the heading of "lies and deception"?

Nicely stated.

Nicely stated.

I've always thought myself to

I've always thought myself to be an open-minded moderate, despite my strong environmentalist leanings. I have never felt good about GM stuff from the very beginning. For one thing, I'm not too happy about innocent insects being killed by pesticide-laced plants, or organic crops being contaminated by GM pollen and Monsanto denying culpability. And I generally don't appreciate large multi-national corporations having sway over my life just because they have money and I don't. I've also been convinced for years that Monsanto's primary concern is and has always been the almighty bottom line, not food for the starving or the health of the general public. In fact, I've seen and read enough evidence over the last several decades that cause me to be highly suspicious anytime Monsanto cries foul about anything. In other words, the louder Monsanto complains, the more inclined I am to believe whatever it is they are complaining about. That said, as much as I want to believe evidence against Monsanto and GM, I am open to reading and enlightening myself further, and forming my own conclusions. I suggest the naysayers read the following article from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer, as it gives solid evidence for why we should still take the Seralini report seriously. Also, as far as I can tell, all of the scientists finding fault with the report are in some way related to organizations that support GM. That makes them far from open-minded criticizers. Lastly, what is it about product labeling that they are so afraid of? If indeed there is nothing wrong with their additives and GM, then they have nothing to fear. Right??

Bullmoose, But why is the

Bullmoose, But why is the technology bad because MON uses it? This is the flaw in the argument. There is no harm associated with the technology beyond conventional ag. That Guardian article just trashes good scientists. Also, you are wrong about scientists. We look at data and experiments and draw conclusions. If you and others want to do a Google hangout I'll send you the paper and we'll go through each figure and I'll show you what is reasonable, what is outright wrong and what conclusions may be drawn. It is horrible science. If you choose to accept it, it only shows your illiteracy with respect to critical evaluation of scientific work.

Let's put aside all the

Let's put aside all the "scientific" studies and let the products stand for themselves. Label them so that people can make an informed choice, and let the consumer supply and demand chain answer the argument. Trying to sway others with your hand chosen scientific "facts" that support your position is just lobbying informationally rather than politically, but it's still a form of lobbying.

Our goal in life should be to

Our goal in life should be to fully understand Kevin Folta's view of "scientifically sophisticated" and live completely the opposite to that. The more angry he is the happier mankind is. Label all foods and buy accordingly!

Murray, I think that's a sad

Murray, I think that's a sad statement. I like reading NoC and am on the same page as you on so many topics here. However, I cannot abandon reason and critical thinking in this topic. By the way, I'm not angry at all. I'm very concerned about the environment and feeding people, and I don't like how a good technology gets smeared by people that don't know anything and are easily swayed by junk science. I'd like to help teach, that's all. Plus, as a fellow lefty it hurts our cred when people like you are spouting off like a young-earth creationist in your scientific understanding.

"Junk science?" Kind of like

"Junk science?" Kind of like "junk DNA" that was disregarded as having no effect on the placement of foreign genes, until IT DID? Biotech is far from precise and doesn't yet understand what collateral damage it's doing, turning on and off other genes with the placement of its targeted one. It's like throwing a pebble in a pond -- it's going to have ripple effects. The level of hubris that exists in the biotech field simply is unbelievable. Because the necessary precautions have not been taken, we no longer trust you. You can thank Monsanto and their ilk for that -- rushing to market by rushing to judgment. Shame on the entire industry and all their tentacled floozies for jeopardizing our welfare, chasing after the almighty dollar.

On this issue I see

On this issue I see progressives becoming the FoxNews of the left. That Seralini study has been discredited ten times over. Why does the left keep talking as if it was a valid study? Do you want to get rid of Monsanto's hold? Loosen the rules to get GM seeds approved. It's a proven safe technology despite what your worldview says. If you loosen the rules you allow universities and small biotech firms to enter the market.

Bernie, right on. Even if GM

Bernie, right on. Even if GM is gone tomorrow the same companies will fill the niche with hybrid seed. Give them competition.

Hey Kevinfolta. You have been

Hey Kevinfolta. You have been beating the Monsanto drum for ages. You and the others on their payroll need to give it a rest. Its over.

Charles, I love it when

Charles, I love it when people say this. It PROVES that you are willing to make up your own facts and tell absolute lies. You have ZERO evidence that I'm on the "payroll" because I'm not. Never was. If you have evidence of that, then show it. If you don't have evidence, maybe cool it. It exposes that you are a lying ideolog and not speaking from facts.

And I am not "beating a Monsanto drum". I am beating a SCIENCE drum. I don't think that food should be controlled by a handful of companies. I don't like when climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxers and anti-GM folks make false assertions against facts and science. You cannot find one reference in anything I've written that is pro-monsanto, other than they use the technology and there is no problem with it beyond conventional ag.

"beating a Monsanto drum?"

"beating a Monsanto drum?" Huh. I wasn't aware Monsanto made musical instruments. Well, I guess it doesn't hurt to diversify.

"Without an endless amount of

"Without an endless amount of cash to throw at crushing Prop 37, already contributing $4 million to fuel anti-labeling propaganda in California, the corporation’s massive grasp on the world of science (continually censoring studies and funding pro-GM research) and politics would virtually cease to exist."

Anthony, Monsanto's net income for 2011 was 1.6 billion - $ 1,600,000,000 - dollars. They'll have money to burn forever...

Who do you think are the

Who do you think are the companies that own the hybrid seed lines and can produce the seeds in the quantities needed? If you end transgenic crops today, the same companies will run the show. You'll just replace good crops with those that require more pesticide, fuel, labor and different herbicides, so food will cost more and be worse for the environment.

Keep in mind also that you are giving great weight to the Seralini report. There has been a massive backlash of academic scientists, myself included, against this report and how it is being interpreted. Missing controls, weird statistics, small numbers, and hidden data are the tip of the iceberg. Plus, the lead author had a book out this week and a movie on the way.

It is funny how the anti-GM folks will construct crazy circuitous means to dismiss scientific input because of perceived conflicts of interest (that don't exist). Yet when this guy, who's work is never expanded or replicated, gets a free pass when he has clear conflicts and shaky work in an unknown journal.

It underscores again the lack of scientific sophistication of those opposed to the technology. You are to the left what anti-climate change science kooks are to the right-- deniers of science. Prop 37 and this horrible paper are a turning point, as now people that actually know what they are talking about are starting to get engaged in the discussion, rather than feel good alarmists that have no idea and don't know how to tell quality science from trash.

Here's to a healthy future

Here's to a healthy future for all. Let our voices be heard, VOTE.
Look what a difference we can make.

If Monsanto were defeated,

If Monsanto were defeated, really defeated, then my faith in mankind which has plummeted to nearly zero, might be restored.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...