Reporters Fired For Exposing U.S. Milk Contamination & MONSANTO

Yes that is far to ture.
obama just passes laws to get away with any thing they like.
it is definitely not about good health.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by soobie

 

These big corporations and organizations don't even care about covering it up anymore, they think they have finally got us over a barrel and we can't do anything about it. They own the government now and most laws are made in their favor. What can we do, they control all the food now. They can shut down everything.

The few little farmers that exist can't supply the country. We are at their mercy.

Originally posted by soobie
reply to post by Infi8nity

 

No, no. Come up with a product that's better for you and ABLE to produce at a cost within a slightly reasonable realm. Remember, like I said, they're distributing these things to MILLIONS. When you hit that scale (one you probably can't fathom, by the looks of it.) you can't care for each individual product any longer. Any food you begin to distribute on such a scale, then newer, quicker, more efficient precautions are needed. This is NOT new, it's not healthy, but it's not new!! Name one mass-producing company that hasn't had one bout with a news story with the "cancer-causing" chemical theme. You people act like this IS news. In fact, I see them put on Fox and every other News network almost monthly, so... why would Fox choose to "silence" this one and not all the others?
Nobody likes the chemicals that are needed to keep live-stock uninfected or whatever else in their food. That's why there is such an organic uproar. But it's necessary on production scales like that, and I tell you one thing... if one Organic company ever gets THAT big, you will start hearing the same stuff, just in a different way. "But this company was supposed to be organic, why do they put these chemicals in it!"....

And, as the world continues to grow, cheaper and more efficient chemicals WILL be introduced. It is one of the many inevitable parts of being alive today. It sucks, yes. But you shouldn't be drinking enough milk or doing anything else so unhealthy that it should matter. Just like with all the food.

The proper term here is probably carcinogen. This product probably has a lot of carcinogens. And guess what? Milk helps fight carcinogens, and so does your body naturally. So get to eating as healthy as you can and being as healthy as possible otherwise.

(I typed this before the last paragraph so it may seem redundant.....)
And no, these things don't HAVE cancer in them, they have things that may be a contributing factor to causing cancer, and my point was WHAT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!! Walking down the street inhaling exhaust contributes to cancer, a hundred-fold depending on the city you live in.

Actually, most of the things companies have to do to mass produce their products have far more to do with cost cutting, pocket lining and labor saving than they do with a 'true need' to distribute their product to "millions" of people. Mass production can still be done without a lot of ridiculous things they do because, as I said, a lot of those things are to save themselves money and not because they can't do without them.

And this news story specifically: they certainly did not need to increase milk yields so desperately. As far as I recall, long before this additive to milk, milk was being supplied to millions of people. In fact the ads, targeted to farmers FOR this growth hormone specifically talked about increasing profits. Did it NEED to be done? No.

Do you really think that with all the capabilities, technology, teams of brainstorming people hired to figure out how to do ANYthing, that they couldn't mass produce products without filling them with chemicals and still be able to feed millions of people. Please...

Take the antibiotics in chickens to avoid salmonella. If the chickens weren't treated the way they are, they wouldn't HAVE that problem. Do you think they couldn't figure out how to house the chickens, feed the chickens differently? Of course they could. They choose not to and use the band-aid that is antibiotics mainly for their own purposes.

Most of these modern practices were started in the last 60 years, and sure the population was less then, but not so much less that things were that different. Yet they had always managed before. What's changed? Those food companies back then were rich, but now they're INCREDIBLY richer than they were before.

reply to post by wutz4tom


If you wanna know why they're allowed, look at the the backgrounds of the major share holders, CEO, the board of director so on and so forth. I'm positive they were associated with banks and/or major companies and politicians in the past or still are. They have to protect their interest.

MSM covering its tracks and honest people getting screwed...nothing new

reply to post by XLR8R


if this is the one I read about in jeffery smiths book seeds of deception, its kind of alarming how that happened. apparently monsanto went straight to ruppert murdoch and other fox executives and threatend them, because of an ad company they owned that monsanto worked with and threatend to reduce business with them.

monsanto wnats to keep everyone in the dark about their growth hormones so much they even sued a dairy producer that advertised that it had no rgbh in the milk
www.nytimes.com...