Hillary Clinton is Just Plain Wrong on GMOs and here's why

[TheNutcracker]

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/hillary-clinton-just-plain-wrong-gmos

August 28, 2014

In her June 25 keynote address to the BIO International Convention in San Diego, Calif., Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops. She earned a standing ovation that day by stating that the biotech industry suffers from a public perception problem and that it just needs “a better vocabulary” in order to persuade GMO skeptics who don’t understand “the facts” about genetic engineering.

And then Hillary proceeded to get the facts wrong.

Why does it matter what Hillary, who holds no public office and has not (yet) declared her candidacy for president, says or believes about genetic engineering and genetically modified crops and foods?

It doesn’t—unless she throws her hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And then it matters not just what her position is on GMOs, not just how deep her financial ties to the biotech industry run, not just how much she distorts the facts about the “promise” of biotech crops.

It matters, deeply, to more than 90 percent of Americans, what her position is on laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs in food and food products.

If elected, will Hillary support consumers’ right to know? Or will she support the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year, which if passed, will preempt state GMO labeling laws?

Hillary has been coy about announcing her candidacy. But when it comes to clarifying her position on GMO labeling laws, she’s been dead silent.

As she soon heads to Iowa—the testing ground for presidential candidates—Hillary’s presidential aspirations will no doubt become more clear. If she runs, as the pundits predict, it will be up to the GMO labeling movement to demand that she take a stand on GMO labeling laws.

Meanwhile, here’s why Hillary’s speech to the BIO convention was just plain wrong.

Wrong on the science of genetic engineering

Hillary brought the BIO convention-goers to their feet with her call for “a better vocabulary” to win over consumers.

No wonder. After all, that’s the line Monsanto has been feeding the public ever since the public became wise to the lies and false promises of an industry known for its reckless disregard for public health. It’s part of an aggressive, widespread public relations campaign to sugar-coat the facts about genetically engineered foods and the toxic chemicals required to produce them.

As scientists release studies, each one more alarming than the next, revealing the devastating health and environmental hazards of the herbicides required to grow GMO crops—toxic chemicals such as glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and Dow’s 2,4-D —consumers are connecting the dots between the rise of chronic illness and the unleashing of toxins into the environment (and onto our food).

No amount of “better vocabulary” will be able to counter the science behind the impact of toxic herbicides and pesticides on soil, on the environment, on human health.

But here’s where Hillary’s call for a “better vocabulary” really ran off the rails. Coverage of the convention included a video in which Hillary wrongly equated the age-old practice of seed hybridization with modern genetic engineering, in order to make the case that genetic engineering has been around since the beginning of farming.

Hillary would do well to go back to her science books. Here are the facts, as understood by every biologist. Seed hybridization occurs when the seeds of two compatible parent plants, within the same species, are crossed, either in a controlled environment or in nature. That process is in no way equivalent to genetic engineering, a process that requires human intervention, and consists of changing the genetic code of one organism by inserting into it the DNA from a completely different plant or animal.

Genetic engineering is an unnatural process that can take place only in a laboratory, aided by a human.

Wrong on genetic engineering and drought

In the same video from the June 25 conference, Hillary perpetuates industry claims that as global warming leads to more droughts, GMO crops will feed the world. She does this by focusing on GE drought-resistant seeds—as if engineering seeds for drought-resistance were a major focus on the biotech industry.

It’s not, of course. Drought-resistant seeds and crops make up a miniscule portion of the GMO crop market. Close to 98 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used to make biofuels, animal feed and processed food products, such as high fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds. They have nothing to do with drought-resistance.

In fact, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts are still in the experimental stages and so far have largely failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto’s DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved so far by the USDA, produces “only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.”

Yet to hear Hillary tell it, genetic engineering is all about saving farmers by providing them with magic seeds that thrive without water.

Wrong on genetic engineering and global warming

Toward the end of her video interview, Hillary switched gears to talk about climate change. She endorsed the Obama climate plan and called out the media for giving too much attention to climate-change skeptics.

Hillary believes we must address global warming. Good news.

But there’s just one problem.

A growing chorus of scientists warn that we cannot successfully address global warming unless we acknowledge the huge role that industrial agriculture, with its GMO mono-crop culture and massive use of chemicals, plays in cooking the planet.

If we’re truly serious about averting a global warming disaster, reducing carbon emissions isn’t enough. We have to acknowledge, and harness, potential of organic, regenerative agriculture to reverse global warming by sequestering carbon.

According to groups like the Rodale Institute, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty, a transition to sustainable, regenerative agriculture—not genetic engineering—is not only the only way we will feed the world, but absolutely essential if we want to slow global warming.

Hillary is just plain wrong if she thinks we can solve global warming while simultaneously promoting GMO agriculture, here in the U.S. and abroad. That’s why the Organic Consumers Association has launched a petition asking her to rethink her support for biotech, and commit to supporting a transition to a sustainable, organic food and farming system.

As consumers grow more knowledgeable about the link between food produced using toxic chemicals and the declining health of the U.S. population, they are looking more closely at those politicians who side with, and take money from, the biotech industry. Clinton’s ties to the biotech industry date back to the 1970s, when she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm which represented Monsanto.

A recent ABC News poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans believe food containing GMOs are unsafe, while 13 percent are “unsure.”

On mandatory GMO labeling laws, Americans are clear: 93 percent want labels.

Hillary, where do you stand?

Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is the international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate Via Organica.
*******************************

Older article, but now that Iowan's are switching to Bernie, being widely reported, here is where it fell apart with GMO activists.

[TheNutcracker]

1. When I watched her speech, I knew then I could not support her and wrote to Sen. Sanders

begging him to run.


Go Bernie!

[BootinUp]

2. The day we hear "GMO" in a Presidential debate is the day

I will read this post.

[leftofcool]

3. All of a sudden DU is anti GMO

I miss the good old days(last month) when GMOs were healthy and they fed the planet and we should be thinking about all the poor across the world.

[peacebird]

4. Actually a number of DUers are vocally antiGMO and call for labelling. We are shouted down by

rabid GMO supporters here who argue that labelling would cause the poor GMO products to lose sales. And they tell us that being antiGMO or pro-labelling means we support "woo"

[truedelphi]

6. It has been known for years that GMO crops do NOT

Feed the world or end suffering.

Instead, they force the world's poorest farmers, who struggle from season to season, often in very arid parts of the world, to go into debt to buy these "wonder seeds." Only after they allow the local Monsanto agent to take away their prior year's seeds, and plant the new seeds and then watch as sickly struggling plants come up, only then do they realize they have been snookered.

Tens of thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide, as they are so in debt, and were not allowed to save their seeds, so they have no way out except to end their suffering.

And Don Huber, who was Monsanto's "go to" researcher for decades has a busy retirement being an activist. He and his friends are probing into setting up studies and discovering that when soil is sprayed with Roundup, the nutritional aspect of the soil is depleted and then fusarium and vomitoxin moves in on whatever crops have been planted in the Monsanto-sprayed field.

This is why so many Americans now cannot get through a single day without ingesting Zantac or Prilosec - the wheat Americans eat is filled with the fungal diseases and mold, and so our stomachs cannot handle the mess.

Across the globe, most nations REFUSE OUTRIGHT to have our wheat enter their borders.

[leftofcool]

7. I don't disagree with you at all.

What I find amusing is that GMO's are so freeking wonderful to 90% of DU unless Hillary is involved and all of a sudden they become a death sentence. The hypocrisy is amazing.

[truedelphi]

9. I think if you compiled a list of everyone who was for GMO's

Say from two months or more back, and then a list of everyone who is for Sanders, you would find that very few names that are on the second list are a subset of the first list.

And one reason why the board itself is full of anti-GM types now is not because of hypocrisy - it is because many of us who were to the left of the prevailing message on DU and who weren't coming here much any more, well, we did stick our noses in occasionally to check out which way the wind was blowing.

Now that Sanders is a candidate and Skinner and EarlG are allowing our comments pro-Sanders, then it seems that there is suddenly a skew of opinion change. But in reality I think it is that most of us real "leftists" are now coming back more often to post.

[bhikkhu]

14. I have a lot of respect for Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders

I'm not sure who I'll vote for in the primary, but Sanders and Clinton are both on the right side as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not "rabid", but I do think GMO technology is a necessary thing to continue feeding the global population. It can be done better, of course, but agriculture and science do go together.

[sabrina 1]

20. Bernie is bringing a lot of people back to the Dem party, just to vote for him.

[BrotherIvan]

10. Then you have not been reading any of the threads discussing the subject

Because there are plenty. Long before talks of Hillary.

[L0oniX]

11. I'll bet if I post a poll in GD on GMO yes/no ...the no's will be over whelming.

[cali]

29. no. most duers have not historically thought that gmos are freaking wonderfull

it's been a contentious topic here for over ten years- and the majority of duers have and continue to be pro-labeling. Most DUers have long had concerns about gmos. there are a handful of people here are vehemently pro-gmo- and that's it.

[MaggieD]

16. Not all GMOs are bad

And the UN disagrees with you on whether they help food and farming challenges in 3rd world countries.

[Art_from_Ark]

21. What does the UN say about GMOs?

"The food and agriculture organization (FAO) of the United Nations has warned Uganda against the use of genetically modified organisms. They are not needed to improve food production and are unsuitable for countries like Uganda."

http://www.gmeducation.org/government-and-corporations/p207350-un-s-food-and-agriculture-organisation-issues-gmo-warning.html

"Even as the United States government continues to push for the use of more chemically-intensive and corporate-dominated farming methods such as GMOs and monoculture-based crops, the United Nations is once against sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a more sustainable, natural and organic system.

"That was the key point of a new publication from the UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled “Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,” which included contributions from more than 60 experts around the world.

The cover of the report looks like that of a blockbuster documentary or Hollywood movie, and the dramatic nature of the title cannot be understated: The time is now to switch back to our natural farming roots."

- See more at: http://althealthworks.com/1366/wake-up-before-its-too-late-new-un-report-calls-for-dramatic-shift-toward-natural-agriculture/#sthash.N9R0pDDL.dpuf

[MaggieD]

22. How about straight from the UN

.... without the biased filter?

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

[Art_from_Ark]

23. That report is from March 2003

How about a more recent report issued in 2013 by UNCTAD?

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf

[MaggieD]

24. Did you read it?

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Yes, I read it

all the way to where it said "March 2003"

Did you read my link?

[MaggieD]

28. No I mean the 341 page document

.... You linked to. Did you read it?

[truedelphi]

33. Is the office from where you type these things located inside

St Louis Monsanto Headquarters, or the WH?


I ask this because:
You once told me, months and months ago, that the WH did indeed have up links that documented what the TPP would do, and when I went there to read them, those links were like this:

Page One) The TPP will be wonderful!

Page Two) The TPP will be fabulous.

So SIGH yes, indeed-y, I was wrong that the WH had released nothing about the TPP, but I was right about what a vacuous bit of information has been given to the public.

[truedelphi]

32. Could I mention the nefarious political wrangling that has to go on to ensure that

The officials in charge of seeing to it that the UN allows for Gm seeds and foods are from that very industry?

These methods are atrocious, and counter to both science and to democracy.

I don't have time today to spell it out for you, but the methods utilized to arrange UN officaldom were once (Under Reagan) utilized here in the USA to bring Aspartame toxins into our food supply. Just google "aspartame + Monsanto + Rumsfeld" to see what happened then, and the same thing is now happening in terms of lining up the "right people" to serve on the board of journals, and of Administrative and Governmental bodies like the UN, with regards to GM food.

[TheNutcracker]

39. huh?

[roody]

17. not sudden at all. We have been having

these discussions for years.

[sabrina 1]

19. Are you new here? Democratic forums including DU have always been anti-Monsanto/GMO

Mainly because Democrats tent to be more educated about this issues.

I used to post on a forum dominated by Bush supporters. They totally defended the use of GMOs and opposed food labeling. Bush Sr was a huge Monsanto fan, even used to dress up in a White Coat and pose at their headquarters trying to improve their image.

People are not just anti-something for no good reason, especially Democrats. They are opposed because they are knowledgeable and do not buy the propaganda perpetrated by these corporations.

Monsanto is one of the most hated Corporations in the world, and finally is beginning to feel the backlash of countries all over the world as more and more of them are banning their poisonous products.

The recent WHO finding that an ingredient in their products may indeed, as alleged for a long time, cause cancer, has upped the opposition around the world, to the use of their products.

AND the findings that their insecticides may be contributing to the disappearing honey bees, has caused them even further opposition.

They are attempting to control the World's Food supply, are hated world wide, and DU has always been anti-GMO as long as I have been here.

Except for a handful of people.

[MaggieD]

27. The UN and WHO do not agree

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/gmo-foods_n_3693246.html

The issue with GMOs is mixed. They aren't all good, and they aren't all bad. That's reality.

And yes, the extreme left is often against things things for no reason other than because they thinks its cool to be against them. Fuck it if people starve as long as you can feel hipsterish.

May I ask, if you are so educated why did you ask someone with 9000 posts that joined in 2004 if they are new here?

[NYC_SKP]

5. For people who think GMOs are just about labeling, some video suggestions.

Last edited Thu May 21, 2015, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

We have the horrible corn lobby.

Horrible Monsanto and more.

[TheNutcracker]

8. Exactly! Thanks for posting this valuable information. The big tumors on the rats are enough!

[NuclearDem]

35. Seeds of Death, produced by notorious AIDS denialist Gary Null.

Maybe not advertise that shit here.

[NYC_SKP]

37. How about King Corn and Food Inc.?

And I think DUers can discern good and bad material.

I thank you for pointing out something about which I was unaware.

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. Two BIG problems with most discussions. "GMO" is not what is controversial - should be "GEO"

We are all genetically modified organisms, as are cats, dogs, essentially anything that grows - because genetic modification is what happens during a natural cross.

The high anthocyanin tomatoes with the dark black/blue tint are bred using a wild tomato with the blue/black coloration. But it is a tomato X a tomato.

But when a blue color gene from blueberries is inserted into the tomato genome, that is genetic "engineering" - an unnatural combination. That is where I get concerned about lack of long term, independent studies - not only on impact on human health, but of the pollen on pollinators.

The other BIG problem - this is way too complex a topic for black/white, right/wrong reactions. It needs nuanced, intellectual, fact-based discussions.

[mopinko]

13. you really think 90% of americans care deeply about gmos?

you have to be kidding. i dont believe 90% of american know what gmo stands for.

eta-http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-liberal-science-denial-and-gmos/

https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food

[MaggieD]

15. There are two sides to that argument

Here is the United Nation on the issue. Preview - HRC is not evil simply because she supports helping poor people in countries that have food and farming challenges.

"labeling" is most assuredly a FIRST WORLD problem.

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

[sabrina 1]

18. I just found this out today, that she support GMOs and Monsanto, and was frankly shocked.

But it shows more than anything else, the corrupting influence of MONEY ON OUR ELECTIONS.

She is not free to do anything OTHER than support her big donors, EVEN WHEN it goes against the people she says she wants to 'Champion'?

90% of the American people WANT THEIR FOOD LABELED. THAT should be THAT.

No wonder she is avoiding the press. How on earth is she going to explain this to Democratic voters?

If I wasn't sure that I had made the right decision in supporting Sanders before, I am absolutely certain of it now.

Who ever thought that the 'most hated Corporation in the world' would be championed by a Democrat running for the WH?

[NobodyHere]

25. If 90% want their food labelled

Then how did California Proposition 37 fail in 2012? Apparently the 90% don't reside in California or just don't vote.

[OnionPatch]

30. Because they scared everyone

By telling them new labeling would cause food prices to rise dramatically.

[NobodyHere]

31. Or Americans just don't care as much as you think they do.

[NuclearDem]

34. The OCA foaming at the mouth over GMOs?

Color me shocked.

[JaneyVee]

36. I'm not against GMOs, but I am for labeling.

[NYC Liberal]

38. Organic Consumers Association: Your one-stop shop for woo and conspiracies,

bringing you such enlightening articles as:

[*]• Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For Martial Law
[*]• Martial Law Shakes Hands with the US Vaccine Program
[*]• No Historical Benefit in Vaccines

Right-wing Alex Jones crap is frequently posted there.

Great source for an anti-Hillary screed.