A very clear understanding of GMO issues

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 10-11-2014, 09:58 PM
shcisamax shcisamax is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 2,535
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Take a look at the positions in government that Monsanto lobbyists hold.

The following info-graphic gives a few examples of the revolving door between Monsanto and the United States government:

Unfortunately, the graph doesn't copy. However, here is the link: Monsanto Controls both the White House and the US Congress | Global Research

Scroll down a bit to see it which is alarming at the very least and then read:

While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration appointed Michael Taylor, the previous vice president of Monsanto and a current Monsanto lobbyist, to a high level advisory role at the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. It is virtually inarguable that this appointment constitutes a massive boon for Monsanto and an undeniable conflict of interest for Taylor. Given the fact that Taylor is a lobbyist for Monsanto and is being paid by the agro-giant, it is reasonable to assume that his advice to the FDA is focused upon helping his employer reduce its regulatory burden and improve its profitability. It isn’t a secret who Taylor worked for and we can assume that the Obama administration knew who they were appointing when they did it.

Roger Beachy, the Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (a Monsanto organization), was appointed by the Obama administration as the Director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. NIFA is a department of the USDA which focuses on funding research and innovation in the field of agriculture as well developing more efficient ways to produce food. As the major grant-writing division of the USDA, the NIFA department has the ability to grant or reject agricultural research grants. By giving Beachy the Directorship of the NIFA, the Obama administration gave a Monsanto associate the most powerful position in the organization which allocates agricultural research grants. Needless to say, this appointment is a great boon for Monsanto and bad news for any group which disagrees with the agri-business giant.

Islam Siddiqui, a Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed to the post of Agriculture Trade Representative by the Obama administration. Trade representative are tasked with promoting trade of goods within their appointed field (ex. Agricultural trade reps promote the export of American crops). As Monsanto has a controlling interest in American corn production, the appointment of a Monsanto lobbyist to the position of trade representative is a large boon for the corporation. Siddiqui’s government job is to promote the export of American crops and his Monsanto job is to promote the sale of Monsanto crops—it is undeniable that these two jobs present a conflict of interest and will only lead to Siddiqui representing Monsanto’s interests as though they are the interests of the United State
  #17  
Old 10-11-2014, 10:05 PM
KeepingItReal's Avatar
KeepingItReal KeepingItReal is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shcisamax View Post
Take a look at the positions in government that Monsanto lobbyists hold.

The following info-graphic gives a few examples of the revolving door between Monsanto and the United States government:

Unfortunately, the graph doesn't copy. However, here is the link: Monsanto Controls both the White House and the US Congress | Global Research

Scroll down a bit to see it which is alarming at the very least and then read:

While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration appointed Michael Taylor, the previous vice president of Monsanto and a current Monsanto lobbyist, to a high level advisory role at the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. It is virtually inarguable that this appointment constitutes a massive boon for Monsanto and an undeniable conflict of interest for Taylor. Given the fact that Taylor is a lobbyist for Monsanto and is being paid by the agro-giant, it is reasonable to assume that his advice to the FDA is focused upon helping his employer reduce its regulatory burden and improve its profitability. It isn’t a secret who Taylor worked for and we can assume that the Obama administration knew who they were appointing when they did it.

Roger Beachy, the Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (a Monsanto organization), was appointed by the Obama administration as the Director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. NIFA is a department of the USDA which focuses on funding research and innovation in the field of agriculture as well developing more efficient ways to produce food. As the major grant-writing division of the USDA, the NIFA department has the ability to grant or reject agricultural research grants. By giving Beachy the Directorship of the NIFA, the Obama administration gave a Monsanto associate the most powerful position in the organization which allocates agricultural research grants. Needless to say, this appointment is a great boon for Monsanto and bad news for any group which disagrees with the agri-business giant.

Islam Siddiqui, a Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed to the post of Agriculture Trade Representative by the Obama administration. Trade representative are tasked with promoting trade of goods within their appointed field (ex. Agricultural trade reps promote the export of American crops). As Monsanto has a controlling interest in American corn production, the appointment of a Monsanto lobbyist to the position of trade representative is a large boon for the corporation. Siddiqui’s government job is to promote the export of American crops and his Monsanto job is to promote the sale of Monsanto crops—it is undeniable that these two jobs present a conflict of interest and will only lead to Siddiqui representing Monsanto’s interests as though they are the interests of the United State
So GE's big guy got a job in the administration too, does that mean GE products are bad? Don't we wish these were the only conflict of interest or improper appointments?

__________________
Better Days Are Ahead
  #18  
Old 10-11-2014, 10:28 PM
shcisamax shcisamax is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 2,535
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Gosh, got Monsanto stock?

No just because GE has a guy working in the administration doesn't mean the GE products are bad. That said, if you actually take a look at the chart in the link, you will see it isn't one or two people. It is a rather looooong list.
What it means is IF GMOs were not safe, but lucrative, they would have no problem ensuring the business.
I think you can find quite a bit of serious research that provides for the concern people are expressing as to the toxicity of GMOs.
  #19  
Old 10-11-2014, 11:25 PM
zonerboy's Avatar
zonerboy zonerboy is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tamarind Grove
Posts: 473
Thanks: 22
Thanked 78 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Still don't understand how coating a seed with Roundup has anything to do with genetic modification,
Roundup may not be good for people to ingest, but that does not necessarily mean it modifies the genome of the seed it is applied to, or that of the person who eats the plant that grows from the seed.
Please explain.
  #20  
Old 10-11-2014, 11:57 PM
KeepingItReal's Avatar
KeepingItReal KeepingItReal is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shcisamax View Post
Gosh, got Monsanto stock?

No just because GE has a guy working in the administration doesn't mean the GE products are bad. That said, if you actually take a look at the chart in the link, you will see it isn't one or two people. It is a rather looooong list.
What it means is IF GMOs were not safe, but lucrative, they would have no problem ensuring the business.
I think you can find quite a bit of serious research that provides for the concern people are expressing as to the toxicity of GMOs.
No stock but wish I did. If you look at the money spent by all companies and especially the large companies on lobbyist you can see they all want to have regulations and tax treatment to favor their position whatever it is. Why would we expect anything different right or wrong from Monsanto?

What is your plan or do you have a plan to fix it all?

There would not be near enough crop production to feed and meet the needs of world without them so what is the plan to fix it all say all GMO's were outlawed today?

Unless you have raised Corn, Wheat, Oats, Rye, Barley, Soybeans, Alfalfa, and Milo it is no doubt difficult to understand but the sky is not falling. Some have been modified for many years already and farmers would never go back to the yields and production issues of the past.

Maybe we can discuss Irradiated food next after GMOs. Here is an interesting link....http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/375.full

__________________
Better Days Are Ahead

Last edited by KeepingItReal; 10-12-2014 at 12:40 AM.
  #21  
Old 10-12-2014, 06:53 AM
shcisamax shcisamax is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 2,535
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

LOL. I learned a long time ago not to even try to discuss something with someone that is more concerned with being right than inviting questions and being open to alternative positions. Moving on.
  #22  
Old 10-12-2014, 05:00 PM
KeepingItReal's Avatar
KeepingItReal KeepingItReal is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

There are the facts and then there is everything else. I prefer to rely on research and proven results that work rather than the ramblings of a self proclaimed cynic that has no idea how to fix what he complains about, but each to his own.....

Josh Sager proclaims to be a cynic and writes The Progressive Cynic, he also wrote the article in Post 16


THE PROGRESSIVE CYNIC

MODERN AMERICAN POLITICS IS FILLED WITH PARTISANSHIP, LEGALIZED CORRUPTION AND EXTREMISM. ON THIS SITE YOU WILL FIND ARTICLES ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS AND POINTS OF VIEW THAT ARE NOT NORMALLY PORTRAYED IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA–DON’T EXPECT ANY SUGAR-COATING, PANDERING OR INTEREST MONEY PROPAGANDA HERE.

The Progressive Cynic | Modern American politics is filled with partisanship, legalized corruption and extremism. On this site you will find articles on a variety of subjects and points of view that are not normally portrayed in the corporate media&#

cyn·ic
ˈsinik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.


__________________
Better Days Are Ahead
  #23  
Old 10-13-2014, 02:26 AM
Bonanza's Avatar
Bonanza Bonanza is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,314
Thanks: 27
Thanked 289 Times in 131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL View Post
What about the steel-cut oats I buy at Aldi's? I wonder if that's safe to eat. I don't think the product is labeled organic.
Duh . . .

If it ain't on the label . . .

It ain't!
__________________
A Promise Made is a Debt Unpaid
~~ Robert W. Service ~~
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.