It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Four Simultaneous Monsanto Attacks on Organic Food in California

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by purplemer

oh i totally agree and i am very careful about my diet and grow alot of my own food, i was just wondering about the other side of the coin because im sure its about money more than a conspiracy about hoping to make people sick or some other such thing.
For the record i am totally for GMO labeling, and alot of other labeling on foods.

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by purplemer

When will this madness stop? We allow these way-too-big, way-too-corrupt company's to essentially manipulate the people to its own benefit, regardless of the cost to the people regarding long term effects of genetic manipulation.

It's a seemingly endless cycle that will do no good for humanity, but it may help the economy (Cost vs. benefit of helping the economy by means that may be GREAT in cost to the long term outcome of our species and civilization).

They use big bucks and psychological tactics to control people's minds, to assert their insidious agendas. The thing that is really scary, is they lack morality to see how wrong this manipulation of my and your mind is. They rely on the ignorance, stupidity, and lack of will power in the populace to slip through these highly valid questions. That's just the damn truth. It's hard to swallow, but it's a pill we will take.

That bill is going to pass whether Monsanto likes it or not.

edit on 30-9-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by turbokid

im sure its about money more than a conspiracy

I think it would be prudent to make no separation of the above too in todays climate..

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by Soloro

That bill is going to pass whether Monsanto likes it or not.

I hope you are right. If it does pass it will be a massive blow to Monsanto who where voted the worlds most hated company last year. Further it will set a precedent that other states and countries may well follow...

We can but hope that times are a changin..

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by turbokid
Does anyone know why the regular food companies are fighting the GMO labeling so hard? Have any companies come forward with their side of why they dont want to label the products? any links to that info would be nice to read.

I have been looking into this and I haven't found very good answers, but lots of speculation. This article's title is " Food Giants Explain: ‘Why We’re Against GMO Labeling’" but that's misleading. They only state the arguments those food companies could use, but it's not from the Food Companies mouth. Still these are things to look for and the answers to counter these concerns.

We spent some of our weekend combing through the study, and then chatted with Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for California Right to Know. Here are some of the arguments we predict will be bandied about over the next 76 days until the November election.

TP: Some claim Proposition 37 has a zero-tolerance policy for accidental traces of GMO.

SM: That’s incorrect. Prop 37 says that the producer has to show evidence in the form of an affidavit that shows they’re not intentionally growing or using genetically modified crops.

TP: Will food labeled “organic” be exempt from testing?

SM: Yes. Certified organic will not be tested because it already falls under rules established by the USDA organic standards.

TP: Opponents of Prop 37 say there is no science-based mandate justifying the labeling of foods, and they add that the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization agree. Those are big guns. What’s your position?

SM: The American Medical Association said we should have mandatory safety testing of GM foods, and the U.N. says there are global consequences. GM ingredients should be safety tested, and we do not have that system here in the U.S. No evidence means just that, no evidence.

TP: Colin Carter argues that a consequence of Prop 37 would result in most products carrying the label and that because of the saturation; most consumers would just ignore the label.

SM: Information on labels is for people who seek that information.

TP: Food manufacturers will have to look for inferior, non-GM substitutes, like imported palm oil, which has its own set of environmental problems. True or false?

SM: It’s speculation whether they would turn to palm oil. There is still corn and soy that is not genetically engineered. Those foods are available here. I think it’s up to the market to decide. You give the market information, and consumers get to decide what to buy and eat.

TP: Exemptions from labeling include alcoholic beverages, restaurants, ready-made food, food entirely derived from animals as well as any food certified as USDA organic. True?

SM: True.
TP: Prop 37 would prohibit food labels with the message “natural,” “naturally grown,” etc. True or false?

SM: That’s misrepresentative. Prop 37 would prohibit foods containing genetically engineered ingredients from being labeled natural—because they’re not. (Indeed, lawsuits over what is natural are increasing nationwide, including claims that do not center around the genetic modification conversation. —TP)

TP: The No on 37 campaign claims the ballot measure will mean an avalanche of lawsuits. Is there any truth to that?

SM: They’re talking about headhunter lawsuits, meaning lawyers get an incentive to sue. But that’s a good point on how they’re making inaccurate claims around lawsuits. I can sue someone right now for having false claims on their label. We don’t expect there will be many lawsuits, because companies do label accurately. They label accurately now for calories, fat content and allergy information. And we expect they’ll label accurately for GE ingredients too, and not open themselves up to lawsuits.

TP: Is it true that the added burden of labeling will cause grocery prices to rise?

SM: Companies get 18 months to change their labels, and most do already within that time frame. It’s a simple, business-friendly law. Prop 37 allows them to put the label anywhere on the package, unless it’s a whole food, like GMO sweet corn, and then there needs to be a sign on the shelf as well.

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

If you're looking for information from the companies, try this:

Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails. Accordingly, we are supporting NO on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, a coalition of California farmers, food producers, grocers and retailers formed to oppose Proposition 37. The NO on 37 coalition includes stakeholders involved in producing, manufacturing and selling food products. Interestingly, 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. They are gearing up a campaign of misinformation.

Labeling and Consumers’ Food Choices

Opinion surveys consistently report that consumers support FDA’s current labeling policy – mandatory labeling for important nutrition or safety information. Food companies can and do provide additional information voluntarily to meet the preferences of their customers. Hundreds of organic or certified non-GM products are available for consumers who prefer these products. This approach offers choices for all consumers and does so without the risk of confusing consumers who are satisfied with the products they know, trust and can afford.

Impact on Food Safety Confidence

Food safety is a top priority for consumers as well as those involved in producing and selling food products. Proponents of the California labeling proposal are misleading people about the safety of food in the marketplace, and their opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations and government agencies. For example, the American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods. FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.

Scare Tactics

Leading proponents of Proposition 37 blatantly describe foods containing GM ingredients as untested and unsafe. This is simply untrue. Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production. While we respect that some people may choose to avoid GM ingredients, it is wrong to mislead and scare people about the safety of their food choices. The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.

The Right Thing to Do

Farmers have seen the environmental and economic benefits of modern food technologies for more than 15 years. Food companies see Proposition 37 as threatening the public’s confidence in the safety of their products. Both have encouraged us to join with them in the effort to oppose the California proposition. We agree and believe that supporting the NO on 37 coalition is the right thing to do.

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:39 PM
I hate Monsanto. Tinkering with genetic modification wether plant based, or in humans or animals is just wrong. What i really hate is how you can go to a grocery store and the food isn't even labeled GMO or not so you have no idea what you're actually eating. It's a prime reason i'm going to grow my own food with heirloom seeds that didn't come from Monsanto.

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by charles1952

Thanks Charles. . At least we know Monsanto's stance. Wow that blog post is thick with misdirection and disinformation on proposition 37. They seek to confuse the issue into something it's not.

I don't care if GMO's were the safest things on Earth, i still deserve the right as a consumer to know what my food is made of, to know what i'm putting in my body. It all boils down to that. I believe most people understand this and the proposition will pass. I think any food producer that denies me the right to know whats in the food they make for me is irresponsible in their duties. It's unthinkable they would do that if all the ingredients were non harmful.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Dear JohnPhoenix,

You're very welcome. There was one point in the blog that made me think a little, and that was under the sub-headline "Scare Tactics."

Do you remember the Alar controversy about 20-25 years ago? The claim was that Alar used on apples was poisonous, and the press broadcasted the claims all over. Not surprisingly, the apple industry was badly hurt. Later, it turned out to be an intentional fraud, designed to raise money for the National Resources Defense Council.

I wonder if that's possible here? I don't know of course, but that have been so many claims that were just wrong from the start, that I'm a little nervous.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by purplemer

As a citizen of the less than golden state...
I don't care what they say. If their product were safe they would not need to hide them in the ingredients.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by VforVendettea

I don't care what they say. If their product were safe they would not need to hide them in the ingredients.

I hate to say this, but you sound like a birther. "If he was legitimate, he would not need to hide all the records."

I think it can be dangerous to say that every thing that is hidden is bad. A lot of times, it is. But not always. I'm thinking about the thread here that took two frames of Netanyahu's speech to the UN and intimated that he was giving a Nazi salute. Sometimes, those who don't like you can twist even harmless things into great scandals.

Could the experience of the past be teaching people that anything that they say can be twisted? I think Monsanto and the other companies involved think this might be the case.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:57 AM
One simple way to beat Monsanto..

They want to stop GMO Products from being lables...Fine I say!!

Just make sure all non-GMO foods are labled and "anything without a non-GMO lable, is GMO"

Monsanto get what they want but we still have a choice of what to buy and most of us will buy non-GMO.

I don't see Monsanto being able to stop people from labeling their prodicts as non-GMO if they wish to.

Unless Monsanto want to make worldwide organic foods illegal all togeather, then thats another whole kettle of fish.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:09 AM
I see labels all the time stating "Sugar Free", "0 Trans Fat", or "Low Sodium". These are not mandated labeling choices, but rather an attempt by food producers to appeal to a certain audience. Proposition 37 notwithstanding, I don't believe food producers could not voluntarily put "No GMOs" on their product labels. As more and more producers do this, it will become the norm and the absence of the label would suggest that GMOs are used in the preparation.

I don't think we need more laws, just more common sense and rational thinking.
edit on 10/1/2012 by Shadoefax because: typo

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Shadoefax

I don't think we need more laws, just more common sense and rational thinking.

Common sense and ration thinking are humanistic attributes. I do not think they prevail when short term profit come first.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Do you remember the Alar controversy about 20-25 years ago? The claim was that Alar used on apples was poisonous, and the press broadcasted the claims all over. Not surprisingly, the apple industry was badly hurt. Later, it turned out to be an intentional fraud, designed to raise money for the National Resources Defense Council.

I wonder if that's possible here? I don't know of course, but that have been so many claims that were just wrong from the start, that I'm a little nervous.

With respect,

Of course anything is possible. We have the names of both parties for and against this proposition - or at least those who contributed monies for or against. There are far more companies against than there are for - except the public is on the side of those For - It would be a simple matter to examine those companies to see if they have a shared partner who may have a hidden agenda.

My final thoughts is it doesn't really matter. I still want to know whats in my foods. That way I can then research the pros and cons and determine if I want to eat that food or not. Just like I do with additives and preservatives.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:34 PM

Many people are lazy. Sometimes they start label checking with the best intentions then slide back into not checking when they need to grab something quick, or the store has limited brands etc..

I will strongly propose and may create a national campaign, if Proposition 37 passes, that all grocery stores separate their items by GMO and Non GMO. This way we can easily go to the non GMO sections. This would save time on the consumer and be a boon for the stores.

It would also serve as an indicator over the coming years which types of foods the general public uses and trusts more. If you want a way to take down Monsanto - This is the way. The public will speak through this buying power. If less and less people are buying foods from the GMO side, the stores will stop carrying those foods.

What do you folks think of That idea?
edit on 1-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Egyptia

Thank you for that...

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:53 PM
I'm not a proponent of genetically modified food. The really is that it does not provide that many benefits. Of our concerns primary would be, is there an increase in food production? And in this regard it just doesn't deliver. I think it provides a real convenience factor. and this may win out in the end. Of course as you can see the intent is to own the entire operation. The days of the smaller independent operation are limited. Streamline production and harvest the profits. It's the only way to feed all these people.

Or so they will tell you. and at what cost is this promise? Some engineered matter masquerading as food. Risky at best. And do we want something as essential as food to be assigned a system of extreme efficiency resulting in a ridged and brittle nature. All in the name of profit, profit for, the genius who thought it up.

The attack on organic production, while to some is an attempt to eradicate competition and choice, It is more likely an effort to polish their image by pointing out some very real sanitary deficiencies in organic product, and thus strengthen their GMO image.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:08 AM
I am not from california but was watching a tv station from LA when I saw a commercial today going on about prop 37 is going to hurt farmers. It also was blatant manipulation of the facts and was such a load of corporate BS my jaw dropped when I saw the ad.

They did not mention the word GMO once they didnt even mention anything about what prop 37 was about but they went on about how bad it was lol. I hope the people of California use their heads do some research and make the right decision GMO's need to be labled, its our right to know whats in our food plain and simple.

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:39 PM
A list of some of the food companies using Monsanto's products...

edit on 2-10-2012 by fluff007 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in