Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act Into Law

[Kosar_For_President]

Heck, ANYONE defend this?

 

Genetically engineered food, for your kids. At least they will have free health care to treat their tumors.

 

LINK

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Heck, ANYONE defend this?

 

Genetically engineered food, for your kids. At least they will have free health care to treat their tumors.

 

LINK

 

If you haven't noticed, they never reply to something obviously wrong.

[MLD Woody]

Well, the hour response time passed guys...

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sorry, I've been away on business. But I'm not one of those people who is terrified of GMOs. Until the science tells me that they're bad for human consumption - and a bunch of major studies have found that they're not - I'm not going to scream about their use. It may be increasingly necessary to design our crops to grow with less water, fewer pesticides, etc.

 

As for the particulars of this bill, I'm not familiar with it.

[Kosar_For_President]

You guys know me I am pretty even keel when it comes to this stuff (at least I am now). I am sort of similar to Steve, believe in what I believe, in moderation. But this is pure fucking bullshit. This is just plain old fucked up and I am sick of it. If I would of known I would of voted Romney (I didn't vote for either). Just to make sure this ass clown is not elected. Does the black community even know this shit, do they care?

 

Michelle Obama's healthy eating campaign. LOL, Let's move, I think she meant bowels.

 

So let's get this straight. Obamacare is supposed to protect citizens providing them with health care, then over look the fact at they are poisoning them with unlabeled food.

 

Hey Woody defend this, lol. Heck, how to you feel about feeding your kids poison?

 

"The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters."

 

I've talked to 6-7 staunch liberals and Obama voters. Every one said the same thing, "they feel duped".

[The Cysko Kid]

I'm pretty ignorant of this topic really, but I can't help but think of the poor starved bastards in Africa. Do you think they'd rather eat food genetically modified to grow in a dry ass climate which may or may not cause problems? Or nothing at all?

[Kosar_For_President]

Sorry, I've been away on business. But I'm not one of those people who is terrified of GMOs. Until the science tells me that they're bad for human consumption - and a bunch of major studies have found that they're not - I'm not going to scream about their use. It may be increasingly necessary to design our crops to grow with less water, fewer pesticides, etc.

 

As for the particulars of this bill, I'm not familiar with it.

 

LOL, dude Google GM Food Health Risks, there are 100's of articles I see dating back to 1995. NOW the science isn't sufficient enough to make a judgment, dude.

 

I would be more concerned over the lack of risk assessment. There has been A LOT more evidence proving health risks, environmental risks (now it's ok to ruin the planet) & societal aspects. So when you do other studies on animals and are proven THAT is science. Now the ass clown in office passes this shit and it's NOT PROVEN YET. Got it.

 

It's so fucking hypocritical of you guys.

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's not the science on GMOs as I understand it.

 

From COUNCIL FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

The American Medical Association, the largest physician organization in the U.S. that many consumers associate with safeguarding public health, adopted a formal statement explicitly opposing the mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

 

During a conference in Chicago, AMA's House of Delegates also adopted a report reaffirming there is no evidence that the genetic modification process presents any unique safety issues and recognizing the potential benefits of the technology.

 

The council's decision to oppose labeling comes amid California's consideration of legislation that would require genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores to be labeled. Beyond its potential to create unnecessary alarm for consumers, a review by the independent state legislative analyst points out the measure would cost the state and its taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and to pay for lawsuits.

 

The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council's policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods."

 

Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.

[Kosar_For_President]

I'm pretty ignorant of this topic really, but I can't help but think of the poor starved bastards in Africa. Do you think they'd rather eat food genetically modified to grow in a dry ass climate which may or may not cause problems? Or nothing at all?

 

We are not talking Africa, we are talking about a president touting health reform and a wife touting healthy living and even if it is adverse or not to our health, the environment, society, etc (I believe all to be true), shouldn't we be informed.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Dude, calm down. I'm not defending the bill. I haven't even looked at it. But California just went through this with GMO labeling last year and based on what I read about it the major scientific studies have not found that they pose a risk for human consumption.

 

I do not contest that if you Google GMOs you'll find information declaring it unsafe, but I'm going by the major studies.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Not only GMO, but irradiated beef/food. This was in DEC 2012, who was President then?

 

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/12/fda-expands-irradiation-uses-for-meat-and-poultry/#.UVR0OHBq6xI

[Kosar_For_President]

Dude, calm down. I'm not defending the bill. I haven't even looked at it. But California just went through this with GMO labeling last year and based on what I read about it the major scientific studies have not found that they pose a risk for human consumption.

 

I do not contest that if you Google GMOs you'll find information declaring it unsafe, but I'm going by the major studies.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz8EQT2LB-w

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, that's a fun game to play, accusing someone of accepting phony science, but in order to do that you've got to show me a scientifically legitimate study that tells me they pose a real harm. But I've looked for those in the past, and despite the prevailing liberal opinion that GMOs are dangerous, I can't find the science to back that up. I find the opposite.

 

And you're playing the same game. You've given me a quote from the internet, told me to Google GMOs, and posted this video. Count me as unconvinced.

 

The National Academy of Sciences and the WHO are not fronts for industry. There are legitimate questions and areas of research to follow up on regarding GMOs. But I'm a guy who always sides with the best available science, not what I can Google in my spare time, or what everyone at Whole Foods thinks.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's the National Academy of Sciences:

 

"To date more than 98 million acres (39 hectares) of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified, but concerns have been raised about the potential for transgenic food products to cause allergic reactions or produce toxic compounds. In addition, concrete information on the effects of transgenic plants on the environment and on biological diversity is still sparse."

[FairHooker11]

mustve had a powerful lobby in DC to insure the enactment of the bill - (think Corgan?) no- vapors Carlin quote.....

 

this aint an executive order, this is a full fledged bill sent through (secretly) the house and senate ( farm bill or something)

 

so this is on the whole lot of em.....

[blowe]

Well, the hour response time passed guys...

 

I invite you to add something of substance to one of these threads. Just one is all I'm asking.

 

As for the article, it's pure bullshit. The sooner this fucktard is out of office the better.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You guys sure you're not just blowing off your usual Obama steam here? After all, I just looked and this is a couple lines in a massive continuing resolution bill that avoids having the government shut down. This funding, including the Monsanto provision, lasts for six months.

 

If you want to get mad at someone, find out who slipped it in to the CR and call his/her office. From what people are saying it's Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who is a Democrat from Maryland. I don't see any proof that it's her, but she's the Appropriations Chairwoman and she'd be the one to call.

 

The number for her DC office is (202) 224-4654.

 

If you want to be mad and do something, then call and lodge your protest. They actually pay attention to those calls. I'd also recommend you pretend you're from Maryland and you voted for her, but now you're not going to.

 

If you want to be mad at Obama because he signed the continuing resolution bill and someone had stuck this in there and you expected him to veto the bill based on the "Monsanto Protection" rider, then God bless. Your indignation has been noted.

 

Somehow I suspect it's the latter.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, tell her office that you want her to support Senator Tester's amendment to strip the rider out of the bill.

 

As for the rider itself, it seems like a total giveaway to a specific business with a powerful lobby. Glad you guys are finally coming around to seeing how our democracy works.

[Westside Steve]

Sorry, I've been away on business. But I'm not one of those people who is terrified of GMOs. Until the science tells me that they're bad for human consumption - and a bunch of major studies have found that they're not - I'm not going to scream about their use. It may be increasingly necessary to design our crops to grow with less water, fewer pesticides, etc.

 

As for the particulars of this bill, I'm not familiar with it.

I hate to do it but I gotta agree with heck here.

I'm not very frightened. Oh there might be some science fiction type consequences but who knows?

 

As for the genetically modified hamburgers or whatever what me paraphrase Dean Wormer: " put Bloomberg on it stolen he's a sneaky little shit just like you right?"

 

( Not you die hard)

 

But as to a later portion of the thread yeah that's 1 of the things that pisses me off about government.

It is impossible to get a clean bill.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The GMO debate is part of this, but no matter how you feel about GMOs corporations shouldn't be getting special treatment because they can lean on Congress. But this is the world we live in. Happens every day.

 

And look, I'm pretty particular about what I eat. I'd rather buy the stuff Cal grows in his farm than just about anything. I like my food to be, you know, food. But if you're going to worry about shitty food that makes you fat and sick, or farm bills that encourage the production of shitty food instead of healthy, there are lots of places I'd start before I'd worry about GMOs. Unlike all of the other stuff, the science against GMOs simply isn't there.

 

But seriously, guys. Call her office. If it matters to you that much, tell her it's exactly what's wrong with our politics, and that she shouldn't allow it when the bill comes up again. They notice the calls and the letters because they know those are people who are engaged and vote.

 

Online petitions you can click on scare pretty much nobody. They only notice things that take actual effort.

[Kosar_For_President]

But 44,000 FDA internal documents later made public as a result of a lawsuit revealed problems. The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s scientists was that GM foods were substantively different, so different that their consumption might result in unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. Agency scientists urged superiors to require long-term studies, but were not only ignored, their statements about possible negative effects of GMOs were progressively deleted from FDA policy statement drafts. Evidence of this FDA activity was presented at a Washington, D.C., press conference in 1999, another story major media didn’t publicize.

[Kosar_For_President]

In his book, Genetic Roulette, Jeffrey M. Smith, provides a detailed discussion of the documented health risks of GMOs, including evidence of reactions seen in animals and humans. Following are just a few of the indications he provides that GMOs are significantly changed by the process and may produce undesirable effects:

 

1. Evaluation of gene insertion sites have shown relocations of up to 40,000 DNA base pairs, mixing together of foreign and host DNA, large scale deletions of more than a dozen genes and multiple random insertions of foreign DNA fragments.

 

2. During insertion, the foreign gene may become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with extraneous pieces of DNA. The proteins produced by the distorted foreign gene may be misfolded or have added molecules, so they may operate differently and be harmful in unpredictable ways.

 

3. One study using a micro-array gene chip found that 5% of the host’s genes changed their levels of expression after a single gene was inserted.

 

4. The promoter used in nearly all GM crops permanently turns on the foreign gene at high output. Scientists had thought the promoter would only turn on the foreign gene, but, in fact, it can accidentally turn on other natural plant genes–permanently–genes that may overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen or anti-nutrient, or regulators that block other genes.

 

5. When certain viruses infect an organism, they splice themselves into the host’s DNA. If the GM promoter is inserted in the vicinity of a dormant virus, it might switch it on, resulting in virus activation.

 

6. In GMO Roundup Ready soybeans, the “stop signal” placed at the end of the gene cassette is dysfunctional, so longer than intended RNA proteins are produced, which are further rearranged into four non-intended variants, any one of which might be harmful.

 

7. DNA changes in GM plants can alter the amounts of the chemicals the plant naturally produces, increasing its output of toxins or decreasing the amount of protective phytonutrients produced. For example, GM soybeans produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones.

 

8. GM proteins in soybeans, corn and papaya are similar to known allergens and may cause allergies.

 

9. Transgenes survive digestion and can transfer to gut bacteria or move into the blood and organs, including passing through the placenta into the fetus and through the blood-brain barrier. The only human feeding trial ever published confirmed that genetic material from Roundup Ready soybeans transferred into the gut bacteria in three of seven human volunteers. Once in the human gut bacteria, the transferred portion of the transgene produced herbicide-resistant protein. If the antibiotic-resistant genes that have been inserted into most GM foods on the market were to transfer to pathogenic bacteria in the gut, antibiotic-resistant diseases could develop. If the transgene for the Bt pesticide were to transfer to our gut bacteria, we could become living pesticide factories.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

But they were not reliable, according to Obama and Michelle. You can't google them. Ask Heck.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Again, you can find any of this stuff that isn't going to make sense to anyone who doesn't have relevant expertise in the field, then post it and say, "See?" The problem the anti-GMO crowd is having is that they don't have the weight of the scientific evidence on their side. You resort to something like this, which is a book by a guy who, even as a layperson reading his points, seems rather unconvincing. He isn't establishing any links here. He's pointing out some stuff - and we have no way of knowing whether or not it's true or relevant - and then suggesting that it might or could have some effect we don't want. Which isn't to say there aren't or could not be issues with GMOs. It's to say that there isn't a lot of evidence of it. As the American Association for the Advancement of Science put it, “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

 

Again, I'm listing one major scientific body after another, and you're giving me a guy who wrote a book. And who is Jeffrey M. Smith? A scientist? Nope.

 

"Jeffrey M. Smith is an American consumer advocate, author and politician. He is the author of three books on genetically engineered foods and has appeared twice on The Dr. Oz Show."

 

Well, the Dr. Oz Show. That settles it.

 

So, I know you're outraged about GMOs, and you'd like to accuse anyone who isn't of being blind or a hypocrite or a flack or all of them at once. I'm just telling you that I'm not outraged about GMOs because the science against them is not there.

 

As for protecting Monsanto from lawsuits, let's read what the law actually says and what it actually does because in that respect I'd be inclined to agree with you. Then again, I just have to laugh at some of you guys. Because how to you control the big corporations when they do things like this that we don't like? With regulations and with lawsuits. Those are the only two means at our disposal. You can write laws that govern what they can and can't do, or you can sue them after they do something you think is illegal.

 

And if you're a corporation that wants to exert its influence on the political process in order to clear the way for your company to do whatever it wants in order to maximize profit, what do you think you'd push for? That's right: limiting lawsuits, and eliminating regulations.

 

And which two things have to you guys convinced yourself are huge problems with our country? Out of control lawsuits and too much regulation! And then you accuse me of shilling! It always makes me laugh.

 

You guys just don't know who you're shilling for.

[calfoxwc]

I don't know about GMO's. I just don't.

 

But Monsanto is all about monopolizing the food biz.

 

Soybeans that are impervious to Roundup. so everybody uses them.

 

But you have to buy their seeds every freakin year.

 

And hybrids - Monsanto is trying to buy up most of the heirloom and open-pollinated seed companies that will sell.

 

Then you'd have to buy vegetable seed from them... every year. At least to get the veggie you expect.

 

It's all about control, and big, dependable money - meaning, eliminate the competition.

 

Monsanto sucks and and I have no use for them, so they can stick their gmo's no matter what the actual truth is about the safety.

 

I would think only after studies of more than one generation would be required to ascertain the safety of the gmo stuff.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal is ...actually correct. Monsanto's real game is to design GMO crops, own the rights/patents for the seeds, and often create crops that are only treatable with Monsanto pesticides like Roundup. They want to own the entire process.

[Westside Steve]

Cal is ...actually correct. Monsanto's real game is to design GMO crops, own the rights/patents for the seeds, and often create crops that are only treatable with Monsanto pesticides like Roundup. They want to own the entire means of production.

I'm pretty sure Roundup is an herbicide.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well I must be wearing orthopedic shoes because I stand corrected.

[Westside Steve]

Well I must be wearing orthopedic shoes because I stand corrected.

Ahhh channeling Maher....

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Huh?