Hillary Clinton Goes to Bat for GMOs at Biotech Conference

[ashling]

This was last year, but it is still important

The potential presidential candidate's old industry ties resurface

"If Hillary Clinton intends to run for office in 2016, she should think carefully about supporting a food and farming system that is proven to be detrimental to public health." —Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association

[Just for Fun]

1. Another reason to reject her as an candidate

Monsanto is the devil.

[newfie11]

2. I sooo agree!

[840high]

9. I do.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Exactly! But wait! I'm sure she's concocting a nuanced position that tries to splain, ie, deny, her corporatist leanings.

Let her try tho; it only makes her come off as phony. People can see right through her.

[Boreal]

68. They aren't called Monsatan for nothing - nt

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose.

And that may be the plan.

[AgingAmerican]

73. Doubtful that would happen

But then I see Obama as a Republican Trojan horse.

[mathematic]

4. Great! Another reason I'm glad she'll be our next President

Fuck the anti-science loons with a degree from Google U.

[laundry_queen]

23. lol. nt

[misterhighwasted]

5. This was also last year: Which Democrats Just Voted Against GMO Labeling?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/23/1211190/-Which-Democrats-Just-Voted-Against-GMO-Labeling#

(snip), progressive champion Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced an amendment that would guarantee states the right to pass and implement GMO labeling laws. The statement of purpose for Sanders's amendment reads "to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." Companies like Monsanto have argued that states do not have the right to pass such laws, that only the federal government has that authority. Sanders's amendment would eliminate that counterargument.

(snip)In a YouGov poll from two months ago, 82% thought GMO foods should be labeled, with just 9% opposed.

In what should come as no surprise because Congress listens more to industry than to public opinion, the amendment failed. The vote count was 27-71. Among the 27 supporters were 24 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 lone Republican.

(snip) Which Democrats, however, voted against the interests of consumer rights and environmental sustainability?

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Mo Cowan (D-MA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

I was very disappointed with Baldwin, Brown, Franken, and Warren here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone with an explanation as to WHY the NO votes on Sander's consumer protection amendment?
Perhaps they have since changed their minds. Hoping so.
Thanks
mhw

[RiverLover]

6. Here was Elizabeth's reason for voting "no" on this~

UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren Supports GMO-Labeling

Her Press Secretary, Lacey Rose gave me this statement after the vote yesterday: "The Senator supports labeling and supports the rights of states to set labeling standards based on health and safety. She supports the purpose of the Sanders amendment but voted no because the proposal would have eliminated the ability of the FDA to force states to comply with a more pro-consumer standard in the future."

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/05/gmo-no-one-is-perfect-not-even.html

[wyldwolf]

59. Which is pretty lame

From comments in the same source you've provided:

I don't understand why you say "OK; there you go." Is there actually something in Sanders's amendment that would have "eliminated the ability of the FDA to force states to comply with a more pro-consumer standard in the future" as Warren's press secretary claims?
Has anyone here found the actual text of the amendment, or seen any further reasoning or a response from Sanders?

----------------

OK, I found the text of the amendement at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r113:./temp/~r113K9vL3r - search for "SA 965". I don't see anything supporting what Warren's press secretary claims.

[rhett o rick]

13. Do you have a point or just showing some statistics? Do you deny that H. Clinton-Sachs favors GMO's

Sen Warren supports GMO labeling. H. Clinton-Sachs does not. Now what's your point?????

[misterhighwasted]

15. ??? Not denying anything. Just offering a list of all the Dems who voted no.

Why would I be denying anything about Hillary?
I am NOT defending Hillary Clinton.
Just POINTING out the many Dems who voted no on Sanders amendment to protect consumers.
Some of the Dems on the vote NO list surprised me. I thought a few MORE of them would have voted with Sanders.

Since GMO was the topic of the OP.

What's your point of the hostility?
I would have liked a link in the OP to read more as to the date of the quote, but in googling this Sanders amendment, I find out that many Dems who I normally support, voted NO. It was disappointing. I thought many of them would never side with Monsanto over consumers.

As to your reference to Warren supporting GMO labelling, that is great that she has thus changed her mind from the vote on Sanders amendment.
HOWEVER, I wasn't singling out E Warren was I?
Nor Defending Hillary Clinton.
I was pointing out the list of Dems who, to much disappointment, voted against Sanders fair & necessary amendmentto stand up for consumer rights.

That's my point.
I have no idea what your reply to my post was about.
Glad I could make it clear where I stand & the intention of listing the many Dems who favor Monsanto's call for Federal labelling rights over States GMO labelling.
That was in 2013, tho, so hopefully by now some more of those Dems have changed their minds on this subject.

A peaceful 2015 to you rhett o rick. Nice to know you & I'm certain we will be crossing paths again on DU.

[rhett o rick]

71. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. You weren't very clear. nm

[billhicks76]

7. She's Not What She Seems

Last edited Fri Dec 26, 2014, 04:07 AM - Edit history (6)

I'll edit this post all the way down since some really cannot handle the truth and have a hard time with someone who is VERY liberal. I've been involved with the political scene for 3 decades. If it offends someone that Hillary is so closely aligned with the Bush family that she is considered inner family then that really isn't my problem and alerting me is childish. I know all about how dark the Bush family is and the Clintons traded being their surrogate for fame and fortune in my opinion. Hillary will start wars on the behalf of them and their corporate friends. Frankly I'm stunned at the vehement supporters of hers who can't wrap their head around this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

[Logical]

12. You were alerted......

On Thu Dec 25, 2014, 08:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

She's An Evil Bush Loving Warmonger
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6004976

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is an over-the-top characterization of the person who is currently the favorite of the large majority of Democrats. Criticism is one thing. Name calling and slurs is another.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 25, 2014, 08:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: sick of this kind of thing.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah, this post is over the top. Go to FreeRepublic.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just this posters opinion. You are welcome to counter it!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To paraphrase Bill Clinton, politics is a contact sport, and that's the way it is. Nothing wrong with this post at all - she is NOT the nominee yet, voting to leave.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Opinions are OK with me.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[billhicks76]

14. I'm Sorry To See

That some censoring over-sensitive people will not tolerate criticism of their candidate. I hope they understand that no one is entitled. No one gets an automatic coronation due to seniority and no one automatically deserves anything. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Obama beat Hillary because most people saw her as disingenuous. LBJ felt that he deserved the nomination too as Senate Majority and was livid that JFK won. Probably a bad move giving him the VP slot to garner Southern votes as another candidate may have not gone all in to Vietnam. It hurts worse when one of your own turns out to be fake as in any relationship so the thin skinned that flagged my previous comment may want to reconsider their assumptions about others loyalty.

[Aerows]

17. I guess they can alert on me, too

I do not like her as a candidate, but hey, she isn't even running yet (and I hope she doesn't).

This isn't HillaryClintonUnderground.com last I checked, so I'm allowed to dislike her as a candidate in the primary.

[billhicks76]

21. Thank You

Any alert I've had here was always when I commented about Hillary and her alignment with the Bushes. At one point I got stalked over it but did nothing because frankly I'm a free speech advocate and I rarely flag a comment unless it's clearly racist, misogynistic, or threatening. The same stalker tried to argue I was misogynistic for saying Hillary is close with the Bushes because Bill is as they are "separate people". That argument got weakened when GW called Hillary his sister-in-law a couple weeks ago. I'm a feminist. Anyone suggesting I'm not just gives their allies a bad name.

[Logical]

33. + 1000 nt

[billhicks76]

52. What Really Sucks

Is that I only say whatever I say because I truly care about this country and everyone in it. I am saddened by those who walk on the backs of others for personal gain and don't vocally defend the oppressed. Our land has been hijacked by fascists willing to exploit any opportunity for self-gain and we have our own Vichy brand of Democrats willing to go along and close their eyes to war atrocities committed abroad and increasingly at home. We have 2 million people in jail mostly because of the drug war. It's simply criminal for our reps not to be speaking out about this.

[Doctor_J]

8. anyone else think she's going to run for president....

in the republican primary???

Think about it

[Aerows]

16. I love DU

and I'm going to state that I will vote for anybody but Clinton. I'm serious about this, and I will be upfront about it - she isn't even a candidate yet, so I think it is safe to express my ire towards her EVER becoming a candidate. There are at least a dozen better people than Hillary in the Democratic primary.

I like Hillary, but she has too much political baggage.

That's my two cents.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. A damn fine reason to vote for her.

Pro science leaders are needed. Not gullible followers and peddlers of woo.

[cui bono]

19. You really believe that anyone who is against GMO is against science? n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

20. Yes.

Just as antivaxxers and global warming denialists are. All three groups ignore peer reviewed science in favor of discredited and retracted studies. If that's not anti-science, then I don't know what is.

[NYC_SKP]

22. You don't understand how GMO's scientifically and negatively impact soils, crops, people.

It's not about good or bad science, it's about good or bad long term consequences.

[RiverLover]

25. How about just plain ole facts on herbicide use, then.

This is why I'm very much ag GMOs~

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

Monsanto & Dow spend millions so that people like you will believe as you. Much like FoxFiction viewers do.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/02/27/health-myth-are-gmos-actually-bad-for/

And we should know what's in our food. Europe has that right, why should they be better than US?

[evirus]

30. GMO is a tool, like a hammer, just because someone uses it to bludgeon...

Doesn't mean we should label or ban it as if that's the only use, simply saying "this uses GMOS" causes a guilt association

[Cosmic Kitten]

31. LABEL or BAN????

Really, that's the choices?
We can't label this franken food
because it's equivalent to banning it?

Do you live in an active agricultural area?
Do crop sprayers fly around YOUR neighborhood?
Do YOU have well water that is being infiltrated
with with those toxic chemicals?

[evirus]

35. What other option is there for opponents of GMOs?

And again you are equating GMOs with herbicide resistance, like my metaphor of equating a hammer with blunt force trauma

[nationalize the fed]

24. Any idea why Candidate Obama promised to make GMO labeling a priority?

Was he "peddling woo"?

Of course he also campaigned on no insurance mandate and re-negotiating NAFTA. And "transparency". Con after Con.

[evirus]

29. ObAna wasn't a geneticist or a biochemist

He was a senator running for president. Just because he at one point supported labeling doesn't mean that the labeling movement isn't based on some pretty thick woo

[Cosmic Kitten]

32. So the PUBLIC has no right to know what they are eating?

It's "woo" to tell people the truth?

If there is nothing to hide, just put a label on it.
We can decide if we want to buy those products.

[evirus]

34. If only it were that simple

The problem with ideas like "the right to know" is that they assume that simply know what is in your food is the same as understanding what is in your food.

A simple "this product contains GMOs" label doesn't tell you what the ingredient is or how it was modified, a safe rigorously tested modification to increase shelf life will be labeled just the same as one that isn't as well tested and modified to survive herbicide treatments. Should we burden the users of safe GMOs for the sake of a right to know?

Why not for Islamic cab drivers to be labeled? It's our right to know

[RiverLover]

36. I call BS. They have to put the sugar & fat content on labels

So that people have the right to know & chose if its important to them.

Eating GMO foods should be no different.

And as evidenced here there are PLENTY of people who don't think GMO is bad, their million$$$ propaganda machine has already paid off, so just give us the right to know what's in our food. ALL of it.

[evirus]

41. I'd go farther, anything less than a detailed description of how the ingredient differs from nature

Will cause unfair competition. I don't want to just know that my TV dinner contains GMOs I want to know which ones. After all roundup ready konola oil is quite a bit different from golden rice.

[misterhighwasted]

64. ObAna? He is President Obama.

He is our Democrat elected President. Would be respectful to address him by his name at least here on DU.
Call Obama whatever you like in the yahoo comment pages where Gop paid trolls think its fun to degrade him with names like ObAna and refer to Dems as "them libtards". At least refrain from such disrespect here on DU.
You don't have to agree with his policy but Obama is our elected Dem President.
Or maybe it was just a typo.

[evirus]

72. Just a typo

[bhikkhu]

37. Good for her. Anti-GMO'ers are the creationists of this party

...which is a little unkind to say, but I have to back the science. Most of our food is the product of thousands of years of deliberate genetic manipulation and hybridization, and the current trends are along the same track. Its ridiculous that it has to be considered a "brave stance" to support GMO science, but so it goes.

[RiverLover]

40. You've bought the propaganda.

We don't see all of the facts in MSM, not only because of Monsanto & Dow Chemical, but also because most GMOs are in processed foods and only 5 huge monopolistic companies provide 80% of our processed food choices. And they don't want GMO labeling either, and they provide the advertising dollars to mainstream media...

It isn't surprising that you've bought into their spin. They're good at it.

[evirus]

42. Sounds like you bought the propaganda coming from green peace

Easy to accuse isn't it?

[RiverLover]

38. This was THIS year, and it is still important

HIllary was the keynote speaker at a Biotech convention in July 2014...

...Meanwhile, here’s why Hillary’s speech to the BIO convention was just plain wrong.

Wrong on the science of genetic engineering

Hillary brought the BIO convention-goers to their feet with her call for “a better vocabulary” to win over consumers.

No wonder. After all, that’s the line Monsanto has been feeding the public ever since the public became wise to the lies and false promises of an industry known for its reckless disregard for public health. It’s part of an aggressive, widespread public relations campaign to sugar-coat the facts about genetically engineered foods and the toxic chemicals required to produce them.

As scientists release studies, each one more alarming than the next, revealing the devastating health and environmental hazards of the herbicides required to grow GMO crops—toxic chemicals such as glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and Dow’s 2,4-D —consumers are connecting the dots between the rise of chronic illness and the unleashing of toxins into the environment (and onto our food).

No amount of “better vocabulary” will be able to counter the science behind the impact of toxic herbicides and pesticides on soil, on the environment, on human health.

But here’s where Hillary’s call for a “better vocabulary” really ran off the rails. Coverage of the convention included a video in which Hillary wrongly equated the age-old practice of seed hybridization with modern genetic engineering, in order to make the case that genetic engineering has been around since the beginning of farming.

Hillary would do well to go back to her science books. Here are the facts, as understood by every biologist. Seed hybridization occurs when the seeds of two compatible parent plants, within the same species, are crossed, either in a controlled environment or in nature. That process is in no way equivalent to genetic engineering, a process that requires human intervention, and consists of changing the genetic code of one organism by inserting into it the DNA from a completely different plant or animal.

Genetic engineering is an unnatural process that can take place only in a laboratory, aided by a human.

Wrong on genetic engineering and drought

In the same video from the June 25 conference, Hillary perpetuates industry claims that as global warming leads to more droughts, GMO crops will feed the world. She does this by focusing on GE drought-resistant seeds—as if engineering seeds for drought-resistance were a major focus on the biotech industry.

It’s not, of course. Drought-resistant seeds and crops make up a miniscule portion of the GMO crop market. Close to 98 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used to make biofuels, animal feed and processed food products, such as high fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds. They have nothing to do with drought-resistance.

In fact, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts are still in the experimental stages and so far have largely failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto’s DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved so far by the USDA, produces “only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.”

Yet to hear Hillary tell it, genetic engineering is all about saving farmers by providing them with magic seeds that thrive without water.....

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/29/hillary-clinton-just-plain-wrong-gmos

[RiverLover]

39. MoveOn petition to Hillary Clinton re: GMOs

Petition Background
Hillary Clinton could be the next Democratic presidential nominee. Do we really want someone in the White House who protects Monsanto's profits at the expense of public health?

Scientists, medical professionals and climate experts warn us that a food and agriculture system built around poisons like Monsanto's Roundup and Dow's 2,4-D, a system that promotes soy and corn monocultures instead of crop diversity, is unhealthy for humans and the environment. Genetically engineered agriculture has failed. It has created superweeds that require increasingly toxic poisons, and those poisons are showing up in the blood, urine and breast milk of humans. The United Nations last year issued a report entitled "Before It's Too Late," stating that not only will genetically engineered crops not feed the world, as the biotech industry claims, but they are a huge contributor to global warming.

Polls show that 93% of Americans want GMO labeling laws. Yet politicians like Hillary Clinton, whose ties to the biotech industry run deep, continue to pander to Monsanto. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who claims that he is pro-states' rights, has said he would not defend states' rights to label GMOs....

--------------------


Hillary Clinton: It's time to dump Monsanto and support public health, and regenerative, organic agriculture
Petition by Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association

To be delivered to Hillary Clinton

Speaking at this year's BIO International Convention, you reiterated your support for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). You said the industry needs "a better vocabulary" to change negative public perception about GMO agriculture.

But mounting scientific evidence says the public is right to be concerned about the impact of Monsanto's GMO crops and food on the environment, public health and global warming. We don't need a better vocabulary. We need leaders who will stand up to Monsanto.

As a mother, soon-to-be grandmother and potential future candidate for U.S. president, please do what's right, not what the biotech industry lobbyists want you to do.

There are currently 104,189 signatures. NEW goal - We need 125,000 signatures!

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/hillary-clinton-its-time

[laserhaas]

43. signed. Against Romney is the ONLY time I'm

For Hillary

But, that's not saying much, as I'd vote for a dead jellyfish versus Pitten,s

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Monsanto is Ready for Hillary.

[L0oniX]

63. Them and all the agra industry shills.

[misterhighwasted]

66. Yes & they apparently have quite a few more Dems

As shills also. Check my Post #5. Look at the long list of Dems who refused to vote with Sanders. He deserved their support. Not a NO vote & followed by a press release with a lame reason why in an attempt to smooth the constituents ire, who expected better from them.
Why vote no & give Monsanto so much as an day more time to carry on their crappy policy.
To say they did so to bring it up at a later date, was wrong.
They are either for Monsanto or will grab an opportunity when it presents itself to lessen their power.
These Dems should have voted with Senator Sanders.
His amendment gave them the opportunity & the NO votes speak for themselves.
They dropped the ball & apologized later.
Something we often see politicians doing anymore.

Sanders doesn't waste his time creating & presenting frivolous amendments.
He offered a chance to side with consumers rights.

[RiverLover]

70. That bill for GMO labeling gave too much control to the states in the future

and would have limited the FDA's control over it.

If progressives were against it, they had a damn good reason.

[AgingAmerican]

74. And Warren, and Franken

....

[Thinkingabout]

45. It seems like those concerned would start farming their own produce, etc.

It would be a good exercise and create a greater understanding of how produce, etc happens.

[Nye Bevan]

46. I expect that the loved ones of those killed by GMOs will campaign against her (nt)

[wyldwolf]

47. like who?

[Nye Bevan]

49. There must be thousands, judging by all the threads on DU.... no? (nt)

[wyldwolf]

55. ah, yes. We're on the same wavelength now.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

60. +A Brazilian! n/t

[gerogie2]

48. Hillary would be a republican...

if it wasn't for Republicans being against women's reproductive health choices. Remember she was on the board of the employee oppressive Walmart.

[Nye Bevan]

50. At least she never supported Reaganomics (nt)

[immoderate]

53. All presidents since the mid 70s have been Reaganites.

By their actions, they support trickle down.

--imm

[wyldwolf]

56. you forgot the 'sarcasm' tag

[gerogie2]

57. No I didn't

[wyldwolf]

58. So you seriously think the only thing separating Clinton from the GOP is reproductive rights?

And that her being on the board of Wal Mart is proof of that?

[gerogie2]

61. She was a Goldwater Republican.

[wyldwolf]

69. So?

Elizabeth Warren was Republican during the Reagan/Bush and Clinton years.

Next?

[AgingAmerican]

75. When she was 17

Elizabeth Warren was a Republican most of her adult life.

[FiveGoodMen]

67. Hillary would be a republican...

Except that that would allow the Dems to run someone worthwhile.

[truebluegreen]

77. ba-da-Boom! goes the dynamite. nt

[True Blue Door]

51. Agribusiness is detrimental to public health

not the technology of genetically modifying crops.

Stop demonizing technology because it can be abused - especially tech with such high potential for good.

That's backward, medieval, and superstitious.

[Marr]

54. I'm no Hillary supporter, but I don't see the problem with GMOs.

I mean, by all means test them rigorously. But GMO crops have improved food yield tremendously, as I understand it.

[L0oniX]

62. Making sure we don't have the right to know what is in our food.

[dilby]

65. People who are anti GMO kind of remind me of climate deniers or anti-vaccers.

Sounds good on paper but there really is no scientific evidence to back it up.

[truebluegreen]

76. Of course she does.

[wildbilln864]

78. k & r for more exposure! n/t