Voters And FBI Put On Alert: Massive Deceptions Found In The No On 37 Campaign

page: 3
52
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayson

Originally posted by Kali74
There is not one single reason that GMO products should not be labeled as such. The original reasoning (I forget who) was that the people are too dumb and it will scare people off buying any product with the label. Give me a break. A true conspiracy if ever there was one.


I agree with the original reasoning especially if it helps civilization as a whole by making it easier to grow cheaper more plentiful and more nutritious crops.

I wouldn't be happy if eating them gave me cancer 50 years down the line, but I would take that if the alternative was starvation tomorrow.

I swear I remember reading something years ago about irradiating foods to make them last a long time. How you could cut down on loss due to spoilage and increase food yields and profits that way, but the companies were being required to label the foods as being irradiated and it scared uninformed people away from buying them because of their fear of the word "radiation".

It feels wrong to say this, but maybe people should be kept in the dark sometimes for the good of everyone? Especially if them not knowing won't hurt them. I mean, you might like a dish served somewhere. You'd probably be happier not knowing if it were made of bugs or something equally as gross. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
edit on 7-11-2012 by Mayson because: (no reason given)


The problem is that GMO and irradiation proponents tend to be extremely one-sided in what they present. Yes, given certain conditions, GMO crops can outperform natural crops, but there are heavy downsides. Runoff and ground-water absorption of the chemicals those crops are resistant to, but the DNA of humans, animals, beneficial insects, etc., is not necessarily, for example. The mass die-oofs of butterflies as a result of coming in contact with certain GMO crops, coupled with contamination of the genetics of natural crops is just one example of a potential long-term consequence where GMO foods could lead to mass worldwide famine eventually.

Irradiated foods have been proven to have damaged nutrient content. That's ok forour dogs' rawhide bones, as those are not for nutrients, but not for myself or my family in our vegetables. We want to eat a nutrient-dense diet, not food that fills us up, but takes more consumption to reach ideal nutrient intake level.

So yes, there are benefits, but there are drawbacks as well. And yes, people will avoid them for the wrong reasons (I.e. Thinking they're eating radioactive food, when in fact,it is not, but it is food with diminished nutrients. Lr that GMO foods will all cause direct harm to everyone, when in fact, some of those prices will be paid tenfold...but in the future.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I voted Yes on this.

It was the ONLY thing I voted on.

It was the ONLY thing that got me out of the house.

I didn't participate in any other vote.

I can't believe this didn't pass. Who would vote against labeling the ingredients in your food?
Yeah, somethings wrong with this.
We shouldn't even have to vote on this.
It should be COMMON SENSE!!!

Oh, hey, who ran on a campaign of COMMON SENSE?
Oh yeah, Ron Paul...
Ha, crazy old guy.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Aninonymous because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aninonymous
I voted Yes on this.

It was the ONLY thing I voted on.

It was the ONLY thing that got me out of the house.

I didn't participate in any other vote.

I can't believe this didn't pass. Who would vote against labeling the ingredients in your food?
Yeah, somethings wrong with this.
We shouldn't even have to vote on this.
It should be COMMON SENSE!!!

Oh, hey, who ran on a campaign of COMMON SENSE?
Oh yeah, Ron Paul...
Ha, crazy old guy.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Aninonymous because: (no reason given)


Yeah, this is the same sentiment I feel from far away. I don't know much about crap what's going on there as it doesn't affect me much, so I try not to form an opinion -- and just remain a skeptic imo =D

However, really, seriously, how can a simple food labeling initiative not pass? I think everyone would vote yes to knowing what's in their food, by law, regardless if they eat it or not -- or to help them make a conscious decision on what they purchase.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by AmenStop
 


Wow that was not my point at all.

I will not debate this anymore with people who are unable to comprehend my point.


Stay on topic about the labelling issue of GM products please. Its about stickers on food..shiny stickers



Oh so you admit that GMO cause cancer, and lead to a lower standard of health. But you just dont like shiny stickers on your food. Now I understand, that makes a ton of sense.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs




To conclude, as I have reiterated several times already, I am in no way in favor of GMO foods, I just want to emphasize the need for caution when making claims that are yet to be proven fact.










My bet is that if Monsanto came out with a "scientific" study claiming GMO foods are safe; you would accept that without question. You are just invoking old rule number 14 imo.
Sorry, I just have to question everyone's motives.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12

My bet is that if Monsanto came out with a "scientific" study claiming GMO foods are safe; you would accept that without question. You are just invoking old rule number 14 imo.
Sorry, I just have to question everyone's motives.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Most people just pick and choose whatever fits their world-view.

For example, I'm not sure how GMO foods could give people cancer. I mean, if they were altered to express a gene that creates a substance that is carcinogenic, then I could see if. I wouldn't want to eat corn grown on a plant that makes corn and asbestos. I don't have a problem with eating something just because it's genes were fiddled with. The DNA gets broken down anyway when you eat it and I don't think the human body has a way of incorporating the DNA of what you eat into your own.

Lumping all genetically modified food into one group and, due to people's sometimes irrational fears, damaging its ability to sell seems unwise if not unconstitutional. They should be evaluated on a case by case basis and not be allowed to be brought to market if they are unsafe.

That's just me. If I read something contrary to my opinion I usually tend to just dismiss it or call into question the validity of the statistics. It doesn't seem as if I'm alone on this.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I live in Calif and voted yes on 37. I cannot believe for one minute this legitimatley failed in a state that is so obsessed wit hanti smoking and an organic restaurant on nearly every corner, farmers markets every where, and which legalized medical marijuana. It doesn't make sense that Californians would vote this down.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by missvicky
I live in Calif and voted yes on 37. I cannot believe for one minute this legitimatley failed in a state that is so obsessed wit hanti smoking and an organic restaurant on nearly every corner, farmers markets every where, and which legalized medical marijuana. It doesn't make sense that Californians would vote this down.


So many millions of dollars that Monsanto and other companies invested to make sure it doesn't pass really made an impact regardless of how people felt on the issue. Not to mention the investigation is still going on but sadly we might have to wait till the next voting session to make this prop a reality. Spread the word to your neighbors and friends about this and someday we will no longer be left in the dark and fed BS from plague bearers.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 





For example, I'm not sure how GMO foods could give people cancer. I mean, if they were altered to express a gene that creates a substance that is carcinogenic, then I could see if


Thats exactly what it does. I am constantly amazed at the people who come on here and act like ther eis no evidence...

www.i-sis.org.uk...

It is not irrational fear people need to get off their asses and do a little study instead of succumbing to the million dollar Monsanto campaign that it is all safe... Sigh!

GMO's are proven harmful and Monsanto is a proven liar and criminal. Just because people are ignorant does not make it any less criminal. This issue is not a matter of belief it is a matter of fact in harming millions!

www.isis.org.uk...

www.naturalnews.com...

It's a criminal act! It is poisoning people and the environment.

The biotech industrial complex should be rounded up and tried for attempted mass murder, destruction of property, and malice and hanged!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthOej
 


Good call & thanks for the share!!

∞LOVE
mayallsoulsbefree∞



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


There are still over 3 million votes to be counted that haven't and there are fingers pointing at voter hanky panky on multiple levels, since 62% polled were for it prior to the election. Here's some of the info coming in about this.

www.naturalnews.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by iggy50
 


Tell me more about this "hanky panky" and also that link you posted is busted. Do you have any other links that work?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


Here is another good link..

jonrappoport.wordpress.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I'm baffled that this did not pass- so maybe this new twist will help push the issue.
That being said..it would probably be easier to label foods that are NON Gmo, since gmo's infect many many aspects of most processed foods. I was thinking that companies could proudly proclaim that they were non gmo on their labels themselves, but when I read up on it- Monsanto sued anyone that tried because ..'it implies there is a difference' -!!!!- which, there is, but they don't want anyone to start thinking about what they are spending their $ on!
In reality, probably less than 10% of the population actually cares enough to change buying habits if they were to see it on the label, but it's a start.
tidbit from Mother Earth News article (link below)

Monsanto maintains a staff of 75 attorneys, with an annual budget of $10 million, specifically to prosecute these cases, which have resulted in judgments in favor of Monsanto totaling more than $15.2 million.

Mother Earth News article
edit on 12-11-2012 by Starcrossd because: added info





top topics
 
52
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join