Friday, September 13, 2013

GMO Labeling is a Compromise – If in Doubt, Keep Them Out!

© Farm Wars
GMO Labeling is a Compromise – If in Doubt, Keep Them Out!
Sept 11, 2013 | Farm Wars |  Barbara H. Peterson

I have a question for all those out there who are fighting for GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling in our food supply and not a complete ban: If a company decided to put rat poison in cereal, would we be fighting for labeling or for banning such an additive? In other words, if the generic name for rat poison is labeled, is it okay to put in cereal?

No? Why not? If labeled GMOs are okay to put in cereal, then why not rat poison? It would be labeled, so what’s the problem? That’s different, you say? How?

We have fluoridated water. People know it’s there, and want it out. The health effects are coming to light now and individual localities are fighting to get it out. Just how many people and animals have suffered because it is in the drinking water and everything made with that water?

We know it’s in there, yet people drink fluoridated water anyway. Food is made with it, toothpaste and mouthwash have it, people swim in it, and they think it is safe and actually good for them because the ADA, AMA, FDA, and a host of other alphabet soup agencies, including their own dentists and school districts tell them it is. Take a look at the following documentary on fluoride and just substitute “GMOs” for “fluoride,” and “the food supply” for “water.” Same game, different product.



We are headed down the same direction with GMOs as we were with water fluoridation, and it is becoming clearer to me that GMO labeling is a distraction. We have well intentioned people led by not so well intentioned people in a fight against the giant Monsanto for labeling laws, and Monsanto wants us distracted. The biotech giants can live with labeling. What they can’t live with is a ban, and the labeling fight is being used as a smoke screen to keep us occupied. It’s a strategy to keep us fighting back and forth with them about labeling, expending all of our energy and resources in a battle against a company with relatively endless resources, and meanwhile it’s just business as usual for them.

Can’t you see how distracting us from banning GMOs entirely by taking the slow route of trying to raise public awareness by concentrating on simply labeling works in biotech’s favor? Time is on their side. Sure, people want to make others aware, and the labeling fight does that. However, by the time we get around to actually doing it, and mind you, any labeling legislation will be full of loopholes that an elephant could walk through, the game will be lost and we will be eating labeled and unlabeled GMOs, and the other writing on the label will be “natural.” If you just label it they will eat it. The propaganda works, especially if you have unlimited funds and resources, such as the biotech industry giants like Monsanto do, to promote your product.

Labeling is a stage show using real people as well-intentioned pawns. Everyone is caught up in this phony fight and while all this is going on, no one even notices that GMOs are being made now that bypass all of the limited definitions of GMOs, and require absolutely no regulation and will successfully bypass any labeling law currently being considered. Don’t tell me that the guys leading the charge for labeling don’t know this. If they don’t they are either stupid or ignorant, and I don’t think they are either. What some are is invested and too far down the road to even consider the possibility that they have been led astray, so continue the path even if it is useless. What others are – well, does bought and paid for ring a bell?

GMO labeling is a false fight. It is a distraction from the real fight of banning them completely. It is also a compromise. Labeling does absolutely nothing to stop the spread of GMOs. So, what to do? Start pounding the airwaves and Internet waves calling for a ban. Three counties in Oregon are fighting to ban GMOs completely:
Lane is now the third county in Oregon to receive a petition to put the issue to a vote. A proposed ban has qualified for the 2014 ballot in Jackson County, and a petition in Benton County was filed but denied by the county clerk because it addressed too many issues. That denial is now being challenged in court. There’s also a group organizing a petition in Josephine County.

Backers of the Lane County petition say they’re aiming for a broader ban than the one proposed in Jackson County. They modeled their measure after the initiative filed in Benton County, and they’re asking for a local food “bill of rights” that would trump county, state or federal regulations as well as the rights of any agricultural corporation.
It’s designed to withstand a legal challenge that a countywide ban might not survive, as The Register-Guard reports:

A potential sticking point? Oregon’s “Right to Farm” law protects all generally accepted farm practices from being infringed upon by local governments.
Some counties in the United States — Mendicino, Marin and Trinity in California and San Juan in Washington state — have successfully banned GM crops. But their ordinances typically haven’t been challenged because those areas don’t contain the intensive agricultural industry that relies on GMOs — genetically modified organisms.
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/three-oregon-counties-see-petitions-to-ban-genetically-modified-crops/
Our voices are the loudest things we have. We need to spread the word one on one about the dangers of GMOs and their herbicides, and shout as loud as we can that we will not merely settle for second best. We will not fall for the labeling distraction. We want a ban and not labeled rat poison. We have got to start local and beat the streets. It’s a matter of either protecting life as we know it, or just accepting our poison and rolling over in submission to Monsanto et. al.

©2013 Barbara H. Peterson

2 comments:

  1. Men of science have spoken passionately against fluoride and fluoridation. Phillipe Grandjean has remarked on the

    lack of good studies on fluoride’s affect on the brain. (though we’ve been putting it in the water for 60 years)

    Dean Burk called it public murder on a grand scale after heading a department at the American Cancer society and

    studying and working there for 34 years on groundbreaking lifesaving research. Aarvid Caarlson winner of the 2000

    Nobel Prize in medicine advised the government of Sweden and recommends pharmacologically active substances not be

    added to the environment. nor medication given to the public instead of the individual. He called it obsolete. "I

    am opposed to fluoridation because of the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is not only potentially harmful

    but has already caused considerable, well-documented harm." Albert Schatz, Ph.D., biochemistry, world-renowned

    discoverer of streptomycin (Oct., 1999)Toxic waste should not be diluted then dumped into the ground and the

    waterways (through mopping sprinklers, toilets, baths, and washing) and it certainly shouldn’t be used to grow

    food, prepare food, be in most beverages and in one of life’s necessities. Most of the world has stopped doing

    this. More people receive artificially fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

    It may be good for teeth at 1-3mg per day, but the dosage you get is probably higher. It affects the thyroid, the

    pineal, the brain, the kidneys, and the bones. There are no studies of fluoride in regards to dermal absorption

    though when looking at similar issues intake when showering or bathing is often even higher than when drinking. If

    we drink, eat, brush with, and bathe in fluoride what is our total intake? There are few or no studies on many of

    these issues, and that is why you are told so frequently that fluoridation is safe. Why are there no studies of

    this nature after 68 years of fluoridation? This is about more than just teeth. Men of science speak against this,

    but to find anything for it one must turn to agencies, organizations, and bureaucracies.

    There is fluoride in most food:
    from the USDA http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf

    While daily intake of 1–3 mg of fluoride prevents dental caries, long-term exposure to higher amounts may have

    deleterious effects on tooth enamel and bone. from the world health organization.

    http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/123075/AQG2ndEd_6_5Fluorides.PDF

    “according to clinical research, the fluoride dose capable of reducing thyroid function was notably low-just 2-5

    mg per day over several months” (Galetti & Joyce 1958) “this dose is well within the range (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day) of

    what individuals living in fluoridated communities are now estimated to receive on a daily basis.”

    Fluoride is a neurotoxin http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf

    But don’t take my word for it. Read it yourself. It’s out there. If you are only skeptical about that which you

    are uncertain you are not using skepticism properly. Take out your beliefs and give them an airing out on

    occasion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agree, it is an extremely hazardous chemical and must be avoided at all costs. It's mind bending how warped these people really are.

    ReplyDelete