blueollie

Clinton: better stance on science than Sanders

When it comes to science and GMOs, Hillary Clinton seems to understand science better than Bernie Sanders does.

This is a woo-woo article attacking Hillary Clinton:

Speaking at a conference in San Diego last week for the world’s largest trade organization of biotechnology firms, potential presidintial candidate Hillary Clinton backed GMOs and Big Ag, further displaying her allegiance to the industry in the eyes of sustainable food and organic advocates.

While trumpeting her endorsement of GMO seeds when she served as Secretary of State, Clinton told the crowd that the term “‘genetically modified’ sounds Frankensteinish,” and thus turns people off to GMOs. “Drought resistant sounds really like something you’d want,” she said, encouraging the industry to improve their semantics. “There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.”

Sanders, on the other hand:

There was concern among scientists at the FDA in the 1990s that genetically engineered foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. Those concerns were largely brushed aside. Today, unanswered questions remain. In the United States, resolutions calling for labeling of genetically engineered foods were passed by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association. In Canada, a landmark independent study by Canadian doctors published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found that toxin from soil bacterium engineered into corn to kill pests was present in the bloodstream of 93 percent of pregnant women. There is a great need for additional research because there have never been mandatory human clinical trials of genetically engineered crops, no tests for carcinogenicity or harm to fetuses, no long-term testing for human health risks, no requirement for long-term testing on animals, and only limited allergy testing. What this means is that, for all intents and purposes, the long-term health study of genetically engineered food is being done on all of the American people.

Uh, Senator Sanders, G<O foods meets the same tests that organic foods; they just "sound" icky.

I'd go with the science community says rather than what some "activists" say, but hey, that is me. And, evidently, Hillary Clinton. Good for her.

July 23, 2015 - Posted by | 2016, Democrats, hillary clinton, science | , , ,

6 Comments »

  1. […] Yes, right now I am backing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. I feel that she is a better politician than the other candidates; she is a bit more level headed and accepting of expert consensus (example: science of GMOs) […]

    Pingback by Democrats and “activists”: this is how we roll « blueollie | July 24, 2015 | Reply

  2. […] I admit that I like that Senator Sanders has a Keynesian approach to economics (demand side economics) and is speaking to wealth inequality and the problems that it causes. I don’t like his stance on science issues though. […]

    Pingback by Bernie Sanders: not a leader « blueollie | August 11, 2015 | Reply

  3. If GMOs are so great as Hillary Clinton and the Biotech industry claim, why do they spend millions of dollars to defeat every labeling effort that is offered up? What are they trying to hide? They should use GMOs as a selling point. For example: “New cornflakes made with GMO corn to withstand herbicide use, and make you smarter!”. The author of the above article also points out that “G<O foods meets the same tests that organic foods; they just "sound" icky". Well my friends that is not exactly true. Organic foods (staple foods in their natural genetic configuration that have not been sprayed with any man made chemicals) have been here for thousands of years and have withstood the tests of time. GMOs have not. They have only been around for 20 years or so. And in the last 20 years, people's health has greatly declined and the rates of deadly diseases have skyrocketed! Breasts cancer used to afflict 1 in 20 women. Today its 1 in 3. Other cancers are way up as well. Diabetes is way up, as is Parkinson and Alzheimer's. Food allergies and gastro intestinal disease is way up. 2/3 of the country is now overweight and or obese at least partially from an highly addictive GMO sugar substitute called "high Fructose corn syrup". As a country, the United States is the most over fed, under nourished nation in the world, and we have the highest percentage of GMOs in the food chain. The money spent on so called "health care" (really "sick care" is more accurate) is a good indicator of this as it is nearly 20% of the GDP! To put that in perspective that is twice as much as our Military budget! Not surprisingly these are similar results that the independent rat studies found that raised the red flags on GMOs years ago which found that rats started getting very sick from eating GMOs after about 105 days or about 10-15 years in human years. This mimics what is presently happening to the American people. What happened to these red flags? They were taken down by big Biotech and their authors discredited. Much the same way as the whistle blowers of 50-60 years ago who were saying the same thing about cigarettes. There was a time not long ago when they claimed that smoking cigarettes was "good for you". We know better now and not surprisingly about 95% of all cigarettes are made from GMO tobacco which can withstand heavy application of Round-up herbicide. Roll up that Round up smoke it! Perhaps Hillary Clinton's great love of Big Biotech comes from the fact she once was a lawyer for Monsanto representing them against lawsuits arising from their destruction of local communities and poisoning of local people. Monsanto is responsible for 93 "Superfund" clean-up sites, 11 of which are ongoing. Dupont and Dow have over a 100 each "Superfund" sites to their credit. These 3 giants control about 95% of the GMO seed, Herbicide and Pesticide markets. They have had many past and present government officials on their payrolls at different times in their history. Folks from both sides of the aisle like Hillary, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and many others. Currently they have Michael Taylor (former Monsanto Lawyer, lobbyist, VP) at the helm of the FDA, Tom Vilsack (former Biotech governor of the year) heading up the USDA, former Monsanto Lawyers Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme court, and former Monsanto lawyer Michelle Obama sleeping with the President! With the Biotech industry's infiltration of these high posts in our government, it is not surprising how these GMO food "products" have been fast tracked through the approval process and a few inconvenient concerns of some very smart scientist's swept aside for the higher good of Biotech Corporate PROFIT! Do you really trust the big 3 with the food you are feeding your kids?? Getting Hillary elected as President would be their biggest prize yet! Which is why I will support Bernie Sanders in 2016!

    Comment by Keoki | August 18, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. Punctuation and paragraphs are a good thing.

      2. When our National Academy of science says one thing and some “activist” who wouldn’t know an allele from an Aleve says something else, who do you think that I’ll trust?

      Comment by blueollie | August 18, 2015 | Reply

      • Obviously you will follow the money as that is what they count on the good sheep to do! Like so many of these organizations, the National Academy of Science receives huge direct and/or indirect funding from big Biotech, so its no wonder they would not bite the hand that feeds them. Like I said at the beginning, why not label everything? If one is a “Capitalist” would it not be best to let the free market decide the fate of GMOs? Labeling levels the playing field and allows the consumer to decide? Labeling allows the consumer to make a informed decision on what food to purchase? Bernie Sanders supports Labeling, whereas Hillary supports whatever position they tell her to support?

        Comment by Keoki | August 19, 2015

  4. Companies can label if they want to; forcing them to would be a bad idea for many reasons.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

    Comment by blueollie | August 19, 2015 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: