Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

The DARK Act

silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast. Veteran

I have no idea if there are any here who'd be interested in helping to keep the DARK Act from passing by placing a phone call to D.C., but I'm deeply concerned about having no say in whether we - and the individual states - have the right to know what is really in our food. If we let this slip by unnoticed, then our families and loved ones and selves will pay a very high price for a long time to come, in many ways. So…here's a link to Food & Water Watch, an organization that will help you make a phone call to the White House this Wednesday, to give them your two cents about this "Monsanto Dream Bill". Heck, even I can't believe that I am willing to make a phone call, but that is how strongly I feel about the GMO racket. No good can come from this bill passing.




  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    And here are the basics about the bill:


  • Steve_BSteve_B Far southwest corner of Indiana, USA Veteran

    There are all too many truly disgusting corporations on the planet. And even among that crowd, Monsanto is uniquely disgusting.

  • Nice little doublespeak - Food containing GMO ingredients may still be labeled "Non-GMO", GMO's don't have to to be identified as GMO's. It also appears that non-GMO's will have to jump through some hoops and "Natural" is regulated but not "GMO". Also, non-GMO's can not say they are safe then GMO's even if research backs up that claim.
    Not one ounce of consumer protection there. There is "Compassionate Conservatism" at work. True Conservatives as well as Liberals, Progressives and Libertarians should all be up in arms over this.
    The politics of the profiteers are trumping compassion, humanism and integrity, to say nothing of the right of consumers (you know, men, women, children and teenagers - the residents and citizens and visitors of and to the "Good 'Ol' USofA").
    And all this time I thought it was strange that folks were beginning to glow in the dark without the special lights... :p
    Of course, corporations being such engines of human compassion (the US Supreme court did rule that corporations are people with, it now appears, right superseding the rights of real people. :3 ), wouldn't run roughshod over the citizenry of any country. After all, aren't corporations "good citizens"?

    ...blown of enough steam here...

    Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do... o:) >:)

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    GMO Facts

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What are GMOs?

    GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

    Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

    Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

    Are GMOs safe?

    Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.

    Are GMOs labeled?

    Unfortunately, even though polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans want to know if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs, the powerful biotech lobby has succeeded in keeping this information from the public. In the absence of mandatory labeling, the Non-GMO Project was created to give consumers the informed choice they deserve.

    Where does the Non-GMO Project come in?

    The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization with a mission of protecting the non-GMO food supply and giving consumers an informed choice. We offer North America’s ONLY third party verification for products produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance (for more info, click here). Our strategy is to empower consumers to make change through the marketplace. If people stop buying GMOs, companies will stop using them and farmers will stop growing them.

    Do Americans want non-GMO foods and supplements?

    Polls consistently show that a significant majority of North Americans would like to be able to tell if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs (a 2012 Mellman Group poll found that 91% of American consumers wanted GMOs labeled). And, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53% of consumers said they would not buy food that has been genetically modified. The Non-GMO Project’s seal for verified products will, for the first time, give the public an opportunity to make an informed choice when it comes to GMOs.

    How common are GMOs?

    In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food. Click here for a current list of GMO risk crops.

    Why does the Non-GMO Project verify products that have a low risk of containing GMOs?
    Some ingredients that seem low-risk may have less-visible high-risk ingredients. Take, for example, dried fruit. Raisins and similar fruit are sometimes packed with a small quantity of oil to keep them moist. This oil, when used, is sometimes high-GMO-risk. As such, it is critical that we do take the time to look carefully at ingredient spec sheets during the verification process, to ensure that risks like this are effectively mitigated, even in apparently low-risk products.

    Contamination incidents have occurred with seemingly “low-risk” products (rice, starling corn, flax). Non-GMO Project Verification supports manufacturers in being able to quickly and proactively respond to unexpected contamination issues.

    Verifying only high-risk products puts a heavy burden on consumers to know what products are at risk of containing GMOs. Many people, even in the world of Natural Foods, don’t know what a GMO is, let alone which crops and processed ingredients are high-risk. As such, labeling only products that contain high-risk ingredients could give an unfair competitive advantage to products that contain ingredients containing corn, soy, etc. Taking the cereal aisle for our example, if we verified only high-risk products, a shopper might see the seal on a box of verified corn flakes, but not on the wheat-based cereal box next to them, produced with the same high standards by the same company. This could leave them thinking the corn flakes were non-GMO, but that they should avoid the wheat product, even though there’s no GMO wheat on the market. Given the lack of understanding of the issue, this presents some serious issues.

    Through verifying low-risk products, the Non-GMO Project’s work builds consumer interest and industry investment in Non-GMO, even for crops that aren’t genetically engineered yet. Biotech is constantly working to patent and commercialize new organisms (salmon, apples, etc.), and the more companies that have committed to Non-GMO production, the more resistance these new developments will see prior to release.

    What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?

    Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

    How do GMOs affect farmers?

    Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.

    How can I avoid GMOs?

    Choose food and products that are Non-GMO Project Verified! Click here to see a complete list.

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    GMO crops factor in to the suicides of India farmers, as well:


  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    I just made my call (to my senator's office) - how 'bout you?


  • Steve_BSteve_B Far southwest corner of Indiana, USA Veteran

    I have not called your senator 's office.

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    Clearly, she is NOT amused...

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    . “They (mankind) fall over themselves in their eagerness to make this world, which we should trust and delight in, evil and worthless and so they deliver the earth more and more into the hands of those who are prepared to wring at least a quick profit out of it. . . . The increasing exploitation of life today, is it not due to a continuous disparagement of this world, begun centuries ago? What madness to divert our thoughts to a beyond, when we are surrounded here by tasks and expectations and futures! What a swindle to steal pictures of earthly bliss in order to sell them to heaven behind our backs! Oh, it is high time that the impoverished earth got back all those loans from its happiness with which men have endowed the hereafter. . . . And, there being no such thing as a vacuum, is not the place of everything removed from here taken by a counterfeit is that why our cities are so full of ugly artificial light and noise, because we have surrendered the true brightness and song to a Jerusalem which we hope to move into presently? “


  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator

    People do run scared at any change they cannot see or understand.
    This guy says exactly what I have been saying...

    If you won't listen to my self-same argument, listen to him....
    (I understand he has some influence in the US...?)

  • Steve_BSteve_B Far southwest corner of Indiana, USA Veteran

    First, the casual dismissal by the charismatic astronomer notwithstanding, in biology genetic engineering differs from selective breeding in two significant ways: optimizing existing traits by selecting the right "parents" vs literally altering the chromosomes to introduce new traits; and the traits themselves.

    In selective breeding, which works the same way in plants as in dogs, desirable traits like sweetness can be selected for planting. In genetic engineering, artificial sequences are gene-spliced into the DNA. These two techniques are not at all the same.

    Monsanto famously modified soybeans to be resistant to Roundup, not to improve nutrition or taste. Why? Monsanto manufactures Roundup, so now this carcinogen can be applied in massive quantities to food crops. They are not interested in your nutrition or health, they are interested in selling Roundup.

    The purpose of DARK is to conceal these biochemical activities from consumers. The social question is not whether engineering plants to, for example, secrete insecticides is a good idea; it is whether to hide the fact that you're eating this fascinating experiment. If it's so Mom and Apple Pie, why not say so and let consumers choose? The question at hand is not about science, it is about labeling.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator

    I still think people are making too much of this.
    So boycott Monsanto goods. I never buy Nestle products because of their marketing policies and distribution conditions.
    People should 'vote with their feet', but you know what? We all have to die of something, even if it's old age.
    The benefits of GM foods outweigh the disadvantages, IMHO.
    Work at ground level where you can.
    And even if it's in a window box, anyone can grow tomatoes....

  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran

    They are now labelling quorn fillets as "chicken fillets" on the packaging. Is this something I should be worried about? ;)

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    Evidently, it's NOT just about human consumption of built-in (GMO) pesticides:

    A quote and a link from Wikipedia about CCD:

    "The second annual Steering Committee report was released in November 2010. The group reported, although many associations, including pesticides, parasites, and pathogens have been identified throughout the course of research, "it is becoming increasingly clear that no single factor alone is responsible for [CCD]". Their findings indicated an absence of damaging levels of the parasite Nosema or parasitic Varroa mites at the time of collapse.[22] They did find an association of sublethal effects of some pesticides with CCD, including two common miticides in particular, coumaphos and fluvalinate, which are pesticides registered for use by beekeepers to control varroa mites. Studies also identified sublethal effects of neonicotinoids and fungicides, pesticides that may impair the bees' immune systems and may leave them more susceptible to bee viruses.[22][48][49]

    A 2015 review examined 170 studies on colony collapse disorder and stressors for bees, including pathogens, agrochemicals, declining biodiversity, climate change and more. The review concluded that "a strong argument can be made that it is the interaction among parasites, pesticides, and diet that lies at the heart of current bee health problems."[50][51] Furthermore:

    "Bees of all species are likely to encounter multiple stressors during their lives, and each is likely to reduce the ability of bees to cope with the others. A bee or bee colony that appears to have succumbed to a pathogen may not have died if it had not also been exposed to a sublethal dose of a pesticide and/or been subject to food stress (which might in turn be due to drought or heavy rain induced by climate change, or competition from a high density of honey bee hives placed nearby). Unfortunately, conducting well-replicated studies of the effects of multiple interacting stressors on bee colonies is exceedingly difficult. The number of stressor combinations rapidly becomes large, and exposure to stressors is hard or impossible to control with free-flying bees. Nonetheless, a strong argument can be made that it is the interaction among parasites, pesticides, and diet that lies at the heart of current bee health problems."[50][51]

    Further information: Pesticide toxicity to bees, Imidacloprid effects on bee population and Bees and toxic chemicals

    According to the USDA, pesticides may be contributing to CCD.[52] A 2013 peer-reviewed literature review concluded neonicotinoids in the amounts typically used harm bees and safer alternatives are urgently needed.[53] At the same time, other sources suggest the evidence is not conclusive, and that clarity regarding the facts is hampered by the role played by various issue advocates and lobby groups.[54]

    Scientists have long been concerned that pesticides and possibly some fungicides may have sublethal effects on bees, not killing them outright, but instead impairing their development and behavior. Of special interest is the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which contain the active ingredient imidacloprid, and similar other chemicals, such as clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Honey bees may be affected by such chemicals when they are used as a seed treatment because they are known to work their way through the plant up into the flowers and leave residues in the nectar. The doses taken up by bees are not lethal, but possible chronic problems could be caused by long-term exposure.[21] Most corn grown in the US is treated with neonicotinoids, and a 2012 study found high levels of clothianidin in pneumatic planter exhaust. In the study, the insecticide was present in the soil of unplanted fields near those planted with corn and on dandelions growing near those fields.[55] Another 2012 study also found clothianidin and imidacloprid in the exhaust of pneumatic seeding equipment.

    A 2010 survey reported 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in aggregate concentrations up to 214 ppm in bee pollen; this figure represents over half of the individual pesticide incidences ever reported for apiaries. It was suggested that "while exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined."[56]

    Evaluating pesticide contributions to CCD is particularly difficult for several reasons. First, the variety of pesticides in use in the different areas reporting CCD makes it difficult to test for all possible pesticides simultaneously. Second, many commercial beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen and honey into long-term storage, effectively meaning a delay may occur from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred.

    Pesticides used on bee forage are far more likely to enter the colony by the pollen stores rather than nectar (because pollen is carried externally on the bees, while nectar is carried internally, and may kill the bee if too toxic), though not all potentially lethal chemicals, either natural or man-made, affect the adult bees; many primarily affect the brood, but brood die-off does not appear to be happening in CCD. Most significantly, brood are not fed honey, and adult bees consume relatively little pollen; accordingly, the pattern in CCD suggests, if contaminants or toxins from the environment 'are' responsible, it is most likely to be via the honey, as the adults are dying (or leaving), not the brood (though possibly effects of contaminated pollen consumed by juveniles may only show after they have developed into adults)."

    ---There was more I wanted to quote, but it said I was over 200 characters too long to post, but you can check out this link for the whole Wikipedia article:


  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    They are now labelling quorn fillets as "chicken fillets" on the packaging. Is this something I should be worried about? ;)

    What the bleep is a 'quorn'?



  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran

    @silver said:

    I didn't realise quorn was dangerous! You can't win really!

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator

    @silver said: What the bleep is a 'quorn'?



    This is bollocks.
    If Quorn were really this dangerous, it would be a credible topic. Nobody's tried to ban peanuts, pollen or dairy products. For goodness' sake, talk about scaremongering...

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator

    I'v just realised the site it's on.
    I tried on another occasion to post something to them regarding their inaccurate data, and the questionable, so-called 'evidence' they put forward for another food product.
    My comment was not posted, and my account - which I had to create in order to comment - blocked/deleted.

    They're full of bad news, but try to address inaccuracies and they don't want to know.
    It's manipulative bullshit.

  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran
    edited October 2015

    Oh that's a relief, I do like my quorn fillets. Next they'll be saying that ice-cream is dangerous, and start going on about eating it in moderation...pah, a couple of litres never hurt anyone....though maybe I should eat a bit of bleedin' lettuce wiv it occasionally, it's all so complicated innit? ;)
    They'll be trying to ban cockney tea next, going on abart how there should be more water and less sugar in it, gawd blimey, it's all going Mary bleedin' Poppins....

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

  • Field Roast products now have to be labelled with 'simulated sausage' and 'contains no meat' in Canada.

    Oh well, at least they are being sold again. Mrs. Walker was pretty pissed when we weren't able to buy them!

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    edited December 2015

    Here's some news for you.... Monsanto's going to court....

  • LionduckLionduck Veteran
    edited December 2015

    Sorry @silver, your video is blocked here in the 'MERIKA' er, the America (Unitos Estados)

    A remake of that song from 'Little Abner':
    What's good for Monsanto is good for the USA, Canada, Mexico, England, France, Japan, India, China, Kenya....HEY!

    We are in a race, folks. The future of our species, of life on this rock, is at stake.
    Monsanto is just one of many. Then there is coal, gas, fracking, air, water and land pollution...

    Damn! Caffeine Withdrawal! Arrrrrrrrgghhh!!!

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    edited December 2015

    You need to see what Mark Ruffalo is getting up to. I think he have a damn finger in every one of dem pots....

    'Nuff said.

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    Hey thanks for the news flash, @Federica.

    I've promptly tweeted it, heheh. ;)

  • Steve_BSteve_B Far southwest corner of Indiana, USA Veteran

    I clicked on that link for the news article about Monsanto going to court. I don't think Monsanto is going to court.

    That site seems to be a far left eco-freak advocacy. Being myself a far left eco-freak, I am quite sympathetic to their views. But this could hardly be considered an objective source of actual news. I googled the topic and spent some time reading. It seems that a panoply of eco-freaks and sympathizers will put on a show at The Hague next year. But I have a hard time imagining why anybody from Monsanto would choose to join them.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    edited December 2015

    Okay.... well, I found this, but I'm not sure whether it qualifies as ranting, rhetoric or reality....

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran
  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    I'm in the middle of watching a show on Netflix, "GMO / OMG". I'm learning more about why many countries fight against Monsanto. The bottom line for Monsanto is the money. If they can say out of one side of their mouths that they want to help feed the world, and sue farmers for 'planting' their patented precious seeds because the winds carried the Monsanto pollen miles away to other farms that had not dealt in with them, is pretty much an outrage in my book.

    ...more to come...

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    After that big earthquake in Haiti, Monsanto wanted to give them their seeds but the deal was nonsensical in that they could only plant Monsanto seeds once, and not be able to utilize the seeds that came with the growing of those Monsanto seeds. Make any sense yet? Only to Monsanto for wanting to change the natural way of things from time immemorial, by getting their toe in the door of patenting nature! In the movie I mentioned that I'm watching for free on Netflix (GMO / OMG), the man who made the film said that in 1980, SCOTUS ruled that living organisms could be patented, and THAT was the beginning of the race to own the building blocks of life. So, in essence, Haiti rejected their 'gift' because it was plain to see Monsanto wanted to create a monopoly, using Haitian farmers to do so.

  • silversilver In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. USA, Left coast. Veteran

    It's been said elsewhere that the runoff from the GMO seed coatings puts more of the pesticides into the world's waters, in essence creating pesticide pollution, which is easy to see down the road it WILL become a serious issue.

    I say that from everything I've heard/read, the bee colony collapse problem is partly the fault of GMO crops. And I'm not talking about the initial 'gmo' stuff that mainly involved splicing one or more plants together - I'm talking about the modern gmo-ing where they change the very dna of the plants in ways that makes it very easy for me to see why some call them Frankenfoods.

Sign In or Register to comment.