In a speech before the world’s largest biotechnology gathering on Wednesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and for federally-sourced financial subsidies designed to keep companies from leaving the U.S. She also declared her desire to get industry representatives around a table to have an “intensive discussion” about “how the federal government could help biotechs with insurance against [financial] risk.”
The global biotech industry grew 11 percent last year with revenue of $262 billion. Acknowledging the “Frankensteinish” depictions communicated by those in opposition to the use of GMOs in agriculture, Clinton did not attempt to argue against their many warnings. Instead, she suggested that the negative perceptions of GMO agriculture could be fought if a more positive spin were promoted. Clinton suggested to the thousands of industry people in the room that “‘drought resistant’ sounds like something you’d want” instead of “genetically modified.”
Clinton supports “[GMO] seeds and products that have a proven track record.” She specifically acknowledged the type of drought-resistant seeds she championed during her tenure as the U.S. Secretary of State. During her speech at the San Diego Convention Center a group protesting against GMO foods marched outside. At least 26 countries ban GMOs from their agricultural land and/or their marketplaces.
Critics point to a number of issues against the use of GMOs in agriculture, starting with the warning that genetic engineering interrupts a food plant’s genetic code, thus possibly creating toxins, allergenic agents or altering the nutritional value of the food produced. Another warning is that pollens from GMO plants are inevitably released into the atmosphere, thus pollinating non-GMO plants and forever altering the latter’s more pristine genetic codes.
A third warning from critics is that GMOs can actually kill other organisms. For example, corn genetically modified with the Bt toxin (the intention was for the plant to manufacture its own pesticide) has been found responsible for the destruction of monarch butterfly larvae. Similar impacts could effect other plant and animal species, critics say.
Perhaps the most sinister argument of the anti-GMO crowd is that the trend is the final blow in the century-long global decline of small farmers. Power, they say, is concentrated with the very few corporations that own the patents for the plant seeds, and this dictates in farmers an addictive dependency on the must-be-purchased seeds and chemical inputs. Indeed, many see the epidemic of Indian farmers committing suicide (270,000 between 1995 and 2012) as being sourced in the inevitable abyss of debt generated by the requirement to buy ever-more-costly chemicals and GMO seeds.
Clinton charges an average of $200,000 per speech and her support for GMOs was made clear in last week’s 65-minute presentation. After her speech the overflow lunch crowd heard California Governor Jerry Brown tell all who would listen of his desire for their industry to see California as friendly to biotech. Brown told the industrials not to worry, that “I’m holding the line (on taxes and regulations).”
By Gregory Baskin
Sources:
IBISWorld
BIO International
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News
Times of San Diego
Discover more from Guardian Liberty Voice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
41 Responses
A broken clock is right twice a day.
It’s true, Gmos are safe and if you support the anti gmo viewpoint you are unknowingly supporting possible future global food shortages. The Organic method has worked for thousands of years but never before has the world population been anywhere close to this high.
shes one crazy biatch
She thinks it SAFE, Then let her chow down on this crap and I hope she CHOKES to death!!!
Gregory, I would like to commend you for a well-written article. You did an excellent job with this. I have a couple of things I would like to add by way of answering (and rebutting) a couple of the allegations made by the anti-GMO crowd.
First, this:
“Another warning is that pollens from GMO plants are inevitably released into the atmosphere, thus pollinating non-GMO plants and forever altering the latter’s more pristine genetic codes.”
I can see how one might think that GM crops have less “pristine” genetic codes, but consider a couple of things. First, practically all domestic crops have been extensively modified from their wild states.
Second, and this is more to the point, genetic modification through lateral gene transfer occurs in nature. For example, retroviruses can infect germ-line cells in sexually reproducing animals. They can then be passed down as part of the genetic code through sperm or eggs. Something on the order of nearly eight percent of the human genome consists of these endogenous retroviruses (ERVs):
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1626/20120504.full
“Indeed, many see the epidemic of Indian farmers committing suicide (270,000 between 1995 and 2012) as being sourced in the inevitable abyss of debt generated by the requirement to buy ever-more-costly chemicals and GMO seeds.”
Due credit to you, Gregory, for reporting this without endorsing it! The tragedy of Indian farmer suicides is much more complex and multi-causal than the anti-GMO propaganda would have you believe, and it is simply unfounded to blame the phenomenon on GMOs.
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/05/09/how-seeds-of-a-false-story-took-root-and-spread/#.U8B-xPkUfAl
Your aggressive ignorance is amazing. It has been shown that him crops don’t increase yields substantially. Hybridization is the traditional method of improving crops and livestock and is a natural method that allows the sharing of genetic traits by members of the same genus. Lab-created gmos break the genetic boundaries set up by millions of years of evolution and could never occur naturally. GMOs are created solely for shareholders and profit. The environment, ecology, and health are not considered when they sold. Those in favor of gmos are merely toting the corporate line and favoring profit over the future and our health.
Right on Tom!
This looks like a story based on political motivation rather than actual fact. I’m looking further into it.
Perhaps MS. Clinton does not know enough about the risks or she is being paid for her opinion. Either way, it is not good.
Please see my recent article about the speaking fees Hillary Rodham Clinton generates: https://guardianlv.com/2014/07/hillary-rodham-clinton-speaking-fees/.
We need to go to the source. Where are these GMO seeds produced? In Kauai where children and adults are getting sick from the toxins infused into the seeds. Lets take this serious it is a global issue. Its not just about your preference.
In the interest of fairness, you should know I wrote about this article.
erichbacher you wrote this article, not greg baskin? I don’t understand. It says “by Greg Baskin”. Explain please? Thanks
wrote about, not wrote. The link continues to be automatically removed, but it is at Grounded Parents.
A decade of EU-funded GMO research
European Commission (2010)
“The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies. (p. 16)”
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Except when GMOs cross pollinate conventional crop varieties leaving us with one big monoculture.
Once they’ve spread into the environment, how do you suppose we contain them? It’s suspected honey bee populations are already taking a knock because of GMOs.
We, as humans, know a lot. But we don’t know everything.
Dave, absolutely correct. It is unfortunate that there is so much misinformation and willful ignorance surrounding GMOs. There is ample scientific evidence attesting to their safety:
“In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.
“The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. ‘The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,’ the scientists concluded.”
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/#.U05Vp_lcJ76
We don’t know enough. We are experimenting on ourselves. There have been studies raising serious questions about the safety of GMO foods:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
http://responsibletechnology.org/State-of-Science-Health-Risks.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
Almost every commentator against GMOs says something like, “studies are clear about the fact that foods containing GMOs are linked to a host of chronic illnesses” and then immediately follows tht with statements like, “a recent pilot study found unsafe levels of glysophate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup.” Why does everyone link GMOs and Roundup together. How is that a logical link? GMOs and Roundup are two totally separate items.
What you’ve missed is that many of the GMOs are engineered to be “Round-Up ready”- which means you can spray them with Round=up and they don’t die.Monsanto has worked hard to create crops that can be sprayed with Round-Up ( which they make). This has created many super weeds that now need even more toxic weed killers, or that don’t even respond to any weed killers. Round-up has been shown to not be safe and to not biodegrade- yet Monsanto keeps pumping it out and all the present gov, officials with Monsanto ties ( there are many) continue to push Monsanto’s agendas.
Sickening. I’m not a Hillary fan and never was, for many many reasons. And this is a great example. Would adore to see a woman president. Just not her. I want Elizabeth Warren.
It’s ALL about campaign $$$, ALL POLITICAL, and that’s why I loathe her. I dont get that she gives a flying crap. Her coaching the biotech industry on how to sell their toxic, ineffective, ecosystem-crushing, gene-altering, creepy sh*t is enough to lose my vote right there. She’s never going to be able to sell it to me and neither are they. I’m not eating it unless there’s no other food left in the world. The terrifying thing is, if they keep this up, that could happen….We not only need to put a stop to GMOs, but to solve the problem of corporations having so much money that THEY’re the only ones who get to ‘educate” consumers (while smaller orgs trying to spread real facts never get airtime or reach). and corollary, how do we solve the problem of average consumers believing every stupid thing corporations pay to blitz them with as if it’s news and truth, everything they hear, everything that seems remotely credible? how do we create savvy consumers who care about and know to check (and how to check) where “news” and “facts” and “research” is SOURCED?
Eric, read and listen someone, anyone, beyond the Fox Network. Then come back and say something intelligent and better-informed.
amen.
GMOs are universally known to have no harmful side-effects, and in fact save lives by creating higher crop yields. The anti-GMO crowd loves to spout off, but they have never once (yes, that’s correct, not ONCE!) shown that there are any negatives to genetically modified crops. They also seem to forget that we’ve been using GMOs for thousands of years. Do you really think that crops like corn and bananas would be possible without genetic modifications? The aggressive ignorance of these people is just plain scary.
Her brain fell out somewhere along the way. No to GMO an no to Hillary.
GMOs were killing. Round Up is killing all of us. This is a deal breaker. I will not vote for a person who thinks GMOs for the American people are OK. They are not. They are making too many people and children sick. Why? So a company can make profits? This is unacceptable. Many countries have already said no to GMO,s and we should too. Hillary Clinton, YOU need to rethink your ideas on GMO’s!
I have no problem with anybody choosing to eat organic non-GMO crops. But anybody who points at conservatives who are and their wacky Climate Change denying ways and says “Anti Science!” then turns around and talks about the evils of GMO’s is a hypocrite.
GMOs are to liberals what climate change is to Conservatives.
I want to stress this. The Anti-GMO “science” would make a tobacco industry executive blush in jealousy.
Hillary is brilliant in so many other areas. Hope she changes her mind about GMO’s.
We should not have to risk our health to support the Bio-industry. One more politician being bought by big corporations. She lost me. No GMOs!
“Boo and hissss” to someone I thought had a brain. God help us.
I so agree with you. Such a disappointment.
This will put increasing pressure on Organic Farmers, especially small ones who supply our farmer’s markets as the revolving door with Monsanto & the FDA continue!
We the people do NOT want fake food from monsanto!!! Please stop Monsanto from poisoning us all!!!Say NO to GMO’s!!! Everyone should have the right to choose what we put in our bodies! Stop forcing Monsanto’s fake fo on us all!!! Thank you
This puts her smack in the middle of the Republican platform wich , unfortunately, does not surprise me. She always has been right leaning for a Dem.
Hillary just goes where the money is. She only pretends to be what the people want, but she always caves in to corruption and lobbying. She’s just as bad as the rest of them. She lost my vote!
That is so disappointing. That definitely makes me reconsider where I stand with her.
Just lost my vote!
I agree – I’m amazed at the unawareness here.
I guess I need to look more closely for alternate presidential candidates for 2016.
Im with you nilssonmeng