GMOs and Hillary Clinton : What Is Her Policy?


By Susan Patterson | The Alternative Daily

Hilary Clinton GMO policy

I am not a fan of politics, I never have been. However, when a candidate so openly supports something that is so obviously wrong for human health and the environment, I find it hard not to become interested and, to tell you the truth, even outraged.I don’t know about you, but I spend a good part of my brainpower and energy ensuring I make wise food choices for myself, my family and the environment. Living a healthy life and being as Earth-friendly as possible is not a job for the faint of heart.Enter, GMOs… now we are talking about an all-out battle to protect our health and the health of our planet.

Too little evidence means too much risk

Too little research, too many risks, and far too much messing around with nature where we don’t belong. There is no clear evidence to date — and much to the contrary — that genetically modified organisms are the answer to some of the world’s problems, including yielding crops with higher nutrition and providing safe food to feed the hungry.

With the health of Americans already seriously at risk due to an alarming rise in lifestyle-related illnesses — perpetuated by a food industry swollen with greed — GMOs are only adding fuel to the fire.

Individuals and organizations are padding their pocketbooks from what has been called the greatest living human experiment of all time. However, educated consumers are now beginning to question their claims. But what about those supporting Hillary Clinton? Do they know the truth? Do you know the truth?

Hillary Clinton on GMOs

Hillary Clinton may have had the thumbs up from many Democrats, especially women, that is until she openly expressed her support for GMOs and her Monsanto connection became evident.  In June of 2014 Clinton gave a keynote address at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention in San Diego. This is just a snippet of what she had to say, “I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record.”

She also added that biotech professionals should continue to make a case for GMOs to convince skeptics of their value. According to Clinton, there is a gap between facts and perceptions.

What are the facts, Hillary?

Here are just a few facts that we do know about genetically modified foods. Maybe Hillary Clinton is not aware of these yet:

GM foods have NOT been proven safe for human consumption

GMO-peddling companies like Monsanto would love for you to believe that the GMO debate is over, that the research has been done, and that the results are perfectly clear: GMOs are totally safe. This could not be further from the truth.

In response to propaganda spread by agri-tech companies like Monsanto claiming that the debate on GMOs is “over,” leading consumer, food safety and environmental groups have been trying to set the record straight. They cite a recent statement in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe — signed by 300 scientists, physicians and scholars — declaring there is absolutely NO scientific consensus that GMOs are safe.

Studies that have been done to date show that there is good reason to be concerned when it comes to the safety of GM foods. In fact, all of the published studies have cited health risks.

In one study, a GM soy variety was modified with a gene from Brazil nuts. This GM food reacted with antibodies present in blood serum taken from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts.

This indicates that people with a Brazil nut allergy could react adversely to this soy. Rats who were fed genetically modified tomatoes developed bleeding stomachs, and several even died.

The tomato was approved even though these safety issues remain unresolved. Twenty-five percent of sheep allowed to graze on Bt cotton plants (a genetically modified cotton variety) after harvest in India died within a week, and a post-mortem investigation showed a toxic reaction.

Farmers have reported that both pigs and cows have become sterile after consuming GM corn. Low conception rates have been reported along with cows giving birth to bags of water.

These findings clearly show reason to be concerned regarding the safety of GM foods; however, the concerns are disregarded and the research deemed irrelevant, while the march to produce more and more GM foods presses forward.

“Preeminent science bodies like the National Research Council have recognized that some engineered foods could pose considerable risk. It is widely recognized by scientists that those risks depend on the particular engineered gene and crop. It is unfortunate that self-appointed advocates for the technology have selectively cited the literature and organizations to suggest that GE crops, generally, present no risks that warrant concern,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist and director of sustainable agriculture at the Center for Food Safety.

No epidemiological studies on GMO food have been undertaken. Without epidemiological research — which is the accepted method of studying human populations to determine whether something is harmful or beneficial over the long term — GMO safety cannot be scientifically established.

Related Article: What the World Thinks of GMOs

GM animal feed could hurt humans

So, if we are what we eat — and we are — how is it possible that the meat from a cow or a pig fed GM foods would not pose some risk to human health? The majority of GM crops are used to create animal feed.

The GM industry and the government state that eggs, dairy products and meat from GM-fed animals do not need to carry a GM label because the GM molecules are broken down in the digestive tract of the animal and do not influence the food product at all.

This assumption is false, and reports of GM particles found in food prove this. GM DNA common in animal feed has been found in milk sold in an Italian market, while modified DNA was also found in the organs of meat and fish. Bt toxin (Bacillus thuringiensis) has been found in the blood of pregnant women and also the blood supplied to their fetuses.

So, it is clear that when an animal is given GM feed, it does, in fact, transfer to the food we eat. Interestingly enough, when animals are given a choice between GM feed and non-GM feed, they choose the non-GM feed; they are not dummies.

Even pigs, who are notorious for eating anything, passed by the GM feed. The fact is, the body of evidence indicating how damaging GM crops can be to animals is rising, and it follows that consuming products derived from these affected animals could cause adverse health reactions in humans.

GM crops do NOT yield foods with higher nutrient value

Those in favor of genetic engineering have stood on the platform stating that GM crops will provide healthier and more nutritious foods for people. There is, however, no evidence to back up this claim to date.

In fact, the opposite has been proven true; GM crops are actually less nutritious than traditional crops. Genetically modified soy has been found to have a 14 percent lower level of isoflavones, which are responsible for fighting cancer, than non-GM soy.

Rapeseed oil (canola oil) that has been engineered to contain vitamin A has been found to have lower levels of vitamin E as well as altered oil-fat composition, compared to non-GM oil. GM rice crops grown directly beside non-GM crops had significant nutritional imbalances. Researchers involved in this particular study noted that the differences between GM rice and non-GM rice were alarming and deserved more attention.

But wait… Hillary says that drought-resistant seeds are the way to feed the hungry

Hillary Clinton has promoted drought-resistant seeds all over Africa.


Tags: , , , , , , ,


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

25 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1.' Derek Morvant says:

    Who cares she’s heading to jail they just reopened the investigation she’s through

  2.' Benjamin Jason LaMora says:

    Her policy is whatever her puppet masters say… She has zero opinions or beliefs of her own!!!

  3.' Sue Watson says:

    Not caring for the people or world

  4.' Joshuahn Jackstonburg says:

    It doesn’t matter what she or anyone says their policies are – as soon as they get in they’ll just put GMOs forward because of the personal money they will get paid into their off-shore bank accounts to do so – the same with harmful pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, fossil fuels, petro-chemicals etc etc etc.

    • clnKimberlay says:

      That has truly been the practice for a very long time.Whatever happened to government of the people, by the people, for the people???

  5.' Katrina Eden Koch says:

    It won’t matter if we run out of food and clean water and clean air the way we waste, and pollute them…

    • clnKimberlay says:

      What do you think of the comment that the series Hunger Games is in fact a representation of the direction the United States is going?

  6.' Dave Marriott says:

    don’t believe anything with hazel has to say.. evil to the bone..

  7.' Veronica Abarca says:

    I don’t see any progress I see more homeless pollution on more people getting cancer 🙁

  8.' Eddy Waddell says:

    Black Friday and the Christmas tree Lighting will be the Perfect time to protest for any and all reasons people have today. Low wages, high rents, homelessness ect….. YOU WILL HIT A NERVE AND THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT. Rise up

  9.' Nicky Aponte says:

    The bride of franken foods

  10.' John C. Campbell III says:

    Hillary also made similar “Go GMO” speech in front of the “Grocery Manufacturers Association” (GMA) earlier this year saying in essence that when she’s elected president? she’ll convince the American public that they really want unlabeled GMO vegetables in their produce section at the grocery store. The GMA consists of many companies including Monsanto, Target, Safeway etc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use' must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Send this to a friend