• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist: Barrack Obama
 

Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist: Barrack Obama

on

  • 572 views

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood ...

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood
the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in
the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
572
Views on SlideShare
553
Embed Views
19

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

2 Embeds 19

http://pinterest.com 16
http://www.pinterest.com 3

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist: Barrack Obama Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist: Barrack Obama Document Transcript

    • Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist:Barrack ObamaJon RappoportInfowars.comSeptember 24, 2012During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understoodthe GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once inthe White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks knowwhen their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlikethe FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant inpromising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be“responsive to people’s needs.”Then came the reality.After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMOfood and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had beenpulling a bait and switch.The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendousforce in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy,former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
    • As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the newfood-safety-issues czar, the infamous MichaelTaylor, former vice-president for public policyfor Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental ingetting approval for Monsanto’s geneticallyengineered bovine growth hormone.As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor,Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a nationalgroup, the Governors’ BiotechnologyPartnership, and had been given a Governor ofthe Year Award by the Biotechnology IndustryOrganization, whose members includeMonsanto.As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, aformer Monsanto lobbyist.As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for anotherbiotech giant, DuPont.As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Billand Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Roselaw firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, hadpreviously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed toexercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-termmemory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see whatGMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.Monsanto GMO alfalfa. Monsanto GMO sugar beets. Monsanto GMO Bt soybean. Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn. Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol. Syngenta GMO stacked corn. Pioneer GMO soybean. Syngenta GMO Bt cotton. Bayer GMO cotton. ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
    • A GMO papaya strain.And perhaps, soon, genetically engineeredsalmon and apples.This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact,makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.You don’t attain that position througherrors or oversights. Obama was, all along,a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto,biotech, GMOs, and corporate control ofthe future of agriculture.From this perspective, Michelle Obama’scampaign for home gardens and cleannutritious food suddenly looks like adiversion, a cover story floated to obscurewhat her husband has actually been doing.Nor does it seem coincidental that two ofthe Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gatesand George Soros, purchased 900,000 and500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively,in 2010.Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual. Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington. To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times: Wake up.The World According to Monsanto video belowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU
    • Monsanto Launches Damage Control OverGMO/Cancer StudyPaul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comSeptember 24, 2012Biotech giant attempts to discredit shocking findingsBiotech giant Monsanto has launched a desperate damagecontrol effort in the aftermath of a French study which foundthat rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically-engineered cornwere far more likely to suffer tumors, organ failure andpremature death.Aside from the details of the study, a wider questionremains. If Monsanto and other GMO giants are soconfident in the safety of their products and have no qualmsabout them being in the food supply, why have they spent acombined total of over $19 million dollars in an attempt toprevent Americans from knowing that their food isgenetically modified?Monsanto has bankrolled a huge campaign fronted bylobbyists in an effort to sink California’s Proposition 37, abill that would simply mandate genetically modified foodand ingredients be labeled at the retail level.If genetically-modified food is safe and the studies have proven it is safe, why is Monsanto sodesperate to keep its presence in our food hidden?The recent study, conducted by scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely. Monsanto immediately went into spin mode, issuing a press release over the weekend claiming that toxicologists and public health experts had found “fundamental problems with the study design,” without
    • specifically explaining what those problemswere.Given the fact that Monsanto-funded scientistsare routinely wheeled out in public to attack theabundance of evidence confirming the linkbetween GMO and cancer, the reaction to theFrench study was unsurprising.As Sayer Ji explains, the two previous studiesbefore the French inquiry, the results of whichclaimed that there was no link betweenMonsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide andcancer, were both funded by Monsanto itself.A study published in the journal RegulatoryToxicology and Pharmacology which exoneratedMonsanto contained this glaring admission of aconflict of interest;“The authors have disclosed the funding sourcefor this research. JSM [study author] has servedhas a paid consultant to MonsantoCompany….This research was supported by theMonsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri.”Is it really just a coincidence that the first study in recent years not to be funded by Monsanto producescompletely different results?“There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and theresults are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study,” Monsanto claimedin response to the French study.However, the results are only inconsistent with previous (Monsanto-funded) studies because the French study went beyond the 90-day period which Monsanto had previously been able to hide behind in claiming their GMO products were safe. As The Grocer highlights, the French investigation “Was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group.”
    • Since tumors and other ailmentswere only discovered after a fourmonth period, this throws intoserious doubt previous(Monsanto-funded) studies thebiotech giant pointed to asproving the safety of GMObecause they failed to extendbeyond a 90 day period, whereasthe French study looked at theeffects of GMO throughout thewhole life span of the rats.This again illustrates the fact thatfar from being inadequate orbadly modeled, the French studywas more extensive and morecomplete than any previous study– with the added bonus that it wasnot funded by Monsanto – it was completely impartial.As we reported last week, apologists for Monsanto have jumped on the bandwagon in an effort todiscredit the findings of the French study, lying by omission in an attempt to cast doubt on its findings.David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge tried to question the accuracy of the study byhighlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of whichalso got tumors.” However, Spiegelhalter failed to acknowledge that it took these rats anything up to 19 months longer to develop tumors compared to those fed on Monsanto’s GM corn. Having had its nose bloodied in various European countries and facing being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether, Monsanto is in panic mode right now. California’s Right to Know Act - otherwise known as Prop 37 - could spell the beginning of the end not only for Monsanto’s business model but for the whole GMO agenda across the globe.http://www.infowars.com/