So, the Maui, Hawaii initiative to ban the planting and growing of GMOs passes by a mere 1,000 votes. And how does Monsanto respond? They respond by saying they will petition (pay off) the Supreme Court to overturn and void the people’s choice.
Let me attempt to put into perspective what the bill called for and how Monsanto, who contributed $8 1/2 million against a meager $100,000, instilled fear and misinformation before the vote.
Let me attempt to put into perspective what the bill called for and how Monsanto, who contributed $8 1/2 million against a meager $100,000, instilled fear and misinformation before the vote.
During the past year, the biotech industry conducted an unprecedented PR campaign to put aside public fears about its intensive use of deadly and health damaging pesticides on the Hawaiian islands.
First and foremost, the initiative made it to the ballot by 19,000 Maui residents signing a petition that called for a temporary moratorium on the planting of GMO crops until a thorough, independent, scientific study could verify the safety to the human population of the horrific chemicals used.
Bear in mind that all reports accepted so far by Monsanto and the other demoniac companies were done by the biotech industry scientists and all of a few months duration.
As part of the GMO debate, the chemical industry claims that they respect the scientific process, while it derided the supporters of the initiative for basing their positions on emotions and misinformation rather than on facts.
But, the PR statements made by the industry indicated that they never even considered factual information.
For example, their media campaign aimed to evoke emotional and irrational fears within the community, base upon unsubstantiated claims about the initiative.
Despite the lies and ramblings of biotech, the initiative was not an attack on farmers as the initiative would only impact less than 2 percent of the farming acreage and less than 1 percent of the farmers on Maui.
Nor would the initiative stop the agricultural activities of the seed companies. The seed companies could easily change direction and grow non-GMO crops as they already do in other parts of the world.
Biotech then claimed that there was no science behind the initiative, which was far from the truth, as extensive data exists from independent scientific literature concerning environmental, social and health risks from the planting of GM crops and associated chemical practices.
While biotech asserts economic benefits, no independent data has ever been put forward to substantiate this nor has any costs arising from the negative and environmental health impacts ever been done, or opportunity costs of adopting more productive agriculture systems ever been considered.
For example, independent studies of diversified operations with per-acre earnings of over $100,000 would contribute more to the state tax piggy bank than the $9,000 per acre reported by the GM seed industry. This was ignored.
To assure that GMO farming is safe and well-regulated, the agrochemical industry cites third-party sources. The problem with this is that those third-party sources claiming the safety are not independent but from the chemical industry itself.
However, scientific reviews show that the industry-sponsored reviews have a negligible likelihood of reporting adverse effects.
Independent scientific reviews have found gaps with the government oversight of the chemical and GMO industry, with many toxic chemicals making it through the regulatory cracks and ending up in our food, water, rivers and oceans.
What would you expect from government agencies that are run by former biotech lawyers and executives? What to speak of a bought and paid for President.
One would think that a community discussion about the risks of pesticide-based GMO operations would be a welcomed development to anyone who supports the democratic process.
But, the multi-million dollar PR campaign fostered by the agro-chemical trans-nationals in Hawaii see it differently and would rather interfere with the community dialogue and thus with the democratic process of a small island community.
As the agrochemical industry was indeed engaged in a PR campaign to purposely incite irrational fears among the public, with unsubstantiated statements such as “this initiative will kill farming in Maui county”, this would then be counter to its claims of respect for the scientific process, and to its commitment of transparency and open dialogue with the community.
Despite their lies, duplicity, deceit and greed, they lost on the ballot. Now, their only other option is to pay off their hookers in the Supreme Court to get their way.
Let Maui be a classic example of how ruthless Monsanto, Dow, Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer, et al, are and take a stand. DO NOT BUY THEIR SHIT!
If ingredients of soy, corn, cotton, and sugar do not say organic, give ‘er a miss mate.
And, under no circumstances but any Canola oil even if it says ORGANIC. There ain’t no such thing.
Aloha!
References: Professor and crop specialist Hector Valenzuela, University of Hawaii.
First and foremost, the initiative made it to the ballot by 19,000 Maui residents signing a petition that called for a temporary moratorium on the planting of GMO crops until a thorough, independent, scientific study could verify the safety to the human population of the horrific chemicals used.
Bear in mind that all reports accepted so far by Monsanto and the other demoniac companies were done by the biotech industry scientists and all of a few months duration.
As part of the GMO debate, the chemical industry claims that they respect the scientific process, while it derided the supporters of the initiative for basing their positions on emotions and misinformation rather than on facts.
But, the PR statements made by the industry indicated that they never even considered factual information.
For example, their media campaign aimed to evoke emotional and irrational fears within the community, base upon unsubstantiated claims about the initiative.
Despite the lies and ramblings of biotech, the initiative was not an attack on farmers as the initiative would only impact less than 2 percent of the farming acreage and less than 1 percent of the farmers on Maui.
Nor would the initiative stop the agricultural activities of the seed companies. The seed companies could easily change direction and grow non-GMO crops as they already do in other parts of the world.
Biotech then claimed that there was no science behind the initiative, which was far from the truth, as extensive data exists from independent scientific literature concerning environmental, social and health risks from the planting of GM crops and associated chemical practices.
While biotech asserts economic benefits, no independent data has ever been put forward to substantiate this nor has any costs arising from the negative and environmental health impacts ever been done, or opportunity costs of adopting more productive agriculture systems ever been considered.
For example, independent studies of diversified operations with per-acre earnings of over $100,000 would contribute more to the state tax piggy bank than the $9,000 per acre reported by the GM seed industry. This was ignored.
To assure that GMO farming is safe and well-regulated, the agrochemical industry cites third-party sources. The problem with this is that those third-party sources claiming the safety are not independent but from the chemical industry itself.
However, scientific reviews show that the industry-sponsored reviews have a negligible likelihood of reporting adverse effects.
Independent scientific reviews have found gaps with the government oversight of the chemical and GMO industry, with many toxic chemicals making it through the regulatory cracks and ending up in our food, water, rivers and oceans.
What would you expect from government agencies that are run by former biotech lawyers and executives? What to speak of a bought and paid for President.
One would think that a community discussion about the risks of pesticide-based GMO operations would be a welcomed development to anyone who supports the democratic process.
But, the multi-million dollar PR campaign fostered by the agro-chemical trans-nationals in Hawaii see it differently and would rather interfere with the community dialogue and thus with the democratic process of a small island community.
As the agrochemical industry was indeed engaged in a PR campaign to purposely incite irrational fears among the public, with unsubstantiated statements such as “this initiative will kill farming in Maui county”, this would then be counter to its claims of respect for the scientific process, and to its commitment of transparency and open dialogue with the community.
Despite their lies, duplicity, deceit and greed, they lost on the ballot. Now, their only other option is to pay off their hookers in the Supreme Court to get their way.
Let Maui be a classic example of how ruthless Monsanto, Dow, Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer, et al, are and take a stand. DO NOT BUY THEIR SHIT!
If ingredients of soy, corn, cotton, and sugar do not say organic, give ‘er a miss mate.
And, under no circumstances but any Canola oil even if it says ORGANIC. There ain’t no such thing.
Aloha!
References: Professor and crop specialist Hector Valenzuela, University of Hawaii.
RSS Feed