Clinton's Monsanto Skeletons out the closet, into the light of day.

[99th_Monkey]

William Clinton & Monsanto – a Team for Mutual Profit
April 19, 2008 at 13:27:54
by Siv O'Neall Page 1 of 6 page(s)

How did we come to this state of the world where we don't know what we eat or drink, where there is nothing but secrecy as far as what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is plotting with the gigantic Monsanto corporation? Secrecy for the purpose of making Monsanto immune to legal suits, secrecy to make people unaware of what risks they are running when they drink rBGH milk, which is not labeled as coming from cows injected with the dangerous Bovine Growth Hormone. Yes, you read this right. U.S. dairy products are not even labeled as originating from rBGH milk. Incredible? Shocking? You bet.

There is no more any freedom to choose what we eat, what kind of seeds farmers sow, or even what cultures we are going to grow in our own fields. There is no more freedom. Individual freedom has been replaced by control. Giant corporations like Monsanto decide how we live and die. They put our health in danger and since the governments have sold out to them, are working hand in hand with them, there are no legal means of putting an end to this unethical and life-threatening control by Big Brother. Big Brother runs the world, Big Brother is going to drive the world into ever increasing poverty and starvation – under the pretense of solving the problems of world-wide hunger.

If Big Brother decides that you should grow corn to produce ethanol, so be it, but where goes the culture you used to grow to produce food and not fuel?

How did this whole sordid business start?

It was a clever plan by biotech companies to increase food production under the pretext of saving the world from hunger. In reality, it was intended to make biotech companies filthy rich, to own the world. Today it's the giant Monsanto corporation that controls 90% of all the genetically engineered products world wide. Genetically Modified (GM) products are planted, sold and eaten all over the world, without, lots of the time, the public being aware of what they are consuming.

"The United States Government has been financing research on a genetic engineering technology which, when commercialized, will give its owners the power to control the food seed of entire nations or regions. The Government has been working quietly on this technology since 1983. Now, the little-known company that has been working in this genetic research with the Government’s US Department of Agriculture-- Delta & Pine Land-- is about to become part of the world’s largest supplier of patented genetically-modified seeds (GMO), Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri." (William Engdahl)

"Bill (Clinton)’s FDA gave Monsanto permission to market rBGH in 1993 (a GE bovine growth hormone), the first genetically engineered product let loose on us (or did tomatoes with fish DNA get there first?)." (Linn Cohen-Cole)

The Rose Law Firm, the corporate law firm of which Hillary Clinton was a partner from 1977 is home to Industrial Agriculture and genetic engineering. <1>

Why is the public not informed?

In the U.S. dairy farmers for over a decade were not allowed to label their products as non rBGH, free from synthetic growth hormones. How come Monsanto can get away with their secrecy policy, with criminal acts such as banning the correct labeling of dairy products? Instead of being sued themselves for lack of transparency, Monsanto sued the farmers who labeled their milk non rBGH. Does that sound pretty much like the upside-down world to you? Yes, probably it does, because it is.

The truth behind this shocking state of things is the fact that Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration have been working very close together ever since the Clinton era. Michael Taylor, formerly legal advisor to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Deputy Commissioner for Policy at FDA (1991-94), had also previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto. "One of Taylor's duties was to represent Monsanto's efforts to get its bovine growth hormone approved by the FDA." (Political Friendster) <2>

" Attorney for Monsanto who rewrote the "regulations" for Genetically Modified foods. His brilliant addition is the "substantial equivalence" measure which says if the nutrition measures are the same … " (Political Friendster).

Since they were now declared to be "substantially equivalent", there was no more any need for proof as to their harmlessness for human consumption.<3>]

The Clinton administration even attempted to alter the organic food standards to include genetically engineered foods, irradiated foods, and sewage sludge as fertilizer for organic crops.

MUCH MORE IN 6 PAGE ARTICLE AT:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_siv_o_ne_080419_william_clinton_and_.htm

[papau]

1. there are stretches and then there are stretches - but this is ridiculous

[99th_Monkey]

2. So Clintons had no responsibility for the policies of their own FDA? Now there's a "stretch" for you

[bigtree]

4. inflating the debate over altered food into some scandal may be convenient for opponents of genetics

. . . but it's just a slippery tactic by opponents of irradiated food and genetically altered food to piggyback on the republican campaign against the Clintons in the '90's.

And that connection to Rose? Hilarious.

[99th_Monkey]

6. You're the one calling it a "scandal". The article simply tells some inconvenient truths

and is emblematic of the Clinton's love affair with unfettered corporatism.

[papau]

14. inconvenient truths? - no - you have benefited from past genetic work - this helped us

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Clinton appoints Monsanto Lobbyist To Represent US

Clinton Administration Appoints A Former Monsanto Corp. Lobbyist To Represent US Consumers On Genetically Engineered Food Issues

by Tom Abate
July 24, 2000 in the San Francisco Chronicle

Leading consumer and environmental groups are fuming because the Clinton administration has appointed a former Monsanto Corp. lobbyist to represent U.S. consumers on a transatlantic committee set up to avoid a trade war over genetically engineered foods.

U.S. farmers have planted millions of acres of corn and other crops that have been genetically engineered to resist pests, and the growers want to export such produce freely. But in Europe, where genetically altered crops have been dubbed Frankenfoods, governments have imposed labeling rules and safety tests that have restricted U.S. imports.

Friction between the United States and Europe over the foods issue torpedoed last year's World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Seattle and now threaten to erupt into a transatlantic trade war.

In a last-ditch effort to settle their differences, U.S. and European leaders agreed in May to create a 20-person Biotechnology Consultative Forum, representing pro and con interests on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a letter appointing the U.S. members of this advisory forum, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked them to suggest a compromise on labeling, safety testing and other regulatory issues, and to present it to the next U.S.- European economic summit in December.

To build support for this compromise effort, the State Department asked environmental and consumer opponents of bioengineered foods to nominate their representatives to the biotech powwow.

But this gesture backfired when the State Department ignored the nomination of consumer representative Michael Hansen -- a scientist with Consumers Union -- and instead gave the post to Carol Tucker Foreman, a Capitol insider who recently took over food issues for the Consumer Federation of America after 18 years as a lobbyist.

What angered critics most is that during her lobbying days, Foreman helped Monsanto -- the firm most closely identified with genetically engineered foods -- win approval for bovine growth hormone, a chemical that stimulates milk production.

``We think it's a big mistake to appoint a person to represent consumers who's been so closely tied to the biotech industry,'' said Dan Seligman, the Sierra Club's representative on trade issues.

A U.S. government official, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the State Department is aware of the flap created by Foreman's appointment but believes the committee -- which includes Norman Borlaug, the father of the ``green revolution'' -- represents ``a broad range of civil society.''>>>>snip


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072600-03.htm

[99th_Monkey]

8. Whao! that's a nice complement to the OpEdNews article. thanks.

[msallied]

12. Oh but don't lobbyists represent real people??

Hillary thinks so! lol

This is incredibly disturbing.

[jwirr]

5. Maybe most important here is what each candidate's position is on

GE foods. Anyone know?

[bigtree]

7. Clinton supports labeling

I don't think Obama has committed to that yet.

[99th_Monkey]

Everyone supports labeling, that's not the issue. The issue is what must be written on the label.

Like whether the milk you drink is polluted with rBGH (bovine growth hormone) or not.

[bigtree]

10. I doubt you'l be able to make an issue of this between the candidates

Without hyping it into something apart from the issues which are actually going to be in play. Labeling is a big part of that. It looks kinda of silly knocking Clinton for her stand without having Obama's at hand.

[99th_Monkey]

11. This is an issue for me personally, not just a theoretical or abstract political one.

I can't tell you how much time and energy it takes me to track down the milk brands that
dare to label that it's rBGH free, and it sucks; and I'm pissed about it at a personal level.

That's why this article got my attention. Monsanto is going to be there behind the scenes in DC
with their cadre of lobbysts and lawyers .. waiting for the next Administration with open arms.

OK admittedly I'm not certain of Obama's stand on this, but I DO know Clinton's stand, and it
sucks hard and it's also emblematic of Clinton's cozy vibe with unfettered corporatism.

I see no reason to gag myself about this information just because I don't know Obama's stance.
It's good accurate information that I'd kind of forgotten or was fuzzy on; so I shared it with
others. so what.

[bigtree]

15. the point is, that, it makes your concern here look trivial and opportunistic

. . . when you admit that you haven't a clue about her rival's position on the issue.

[99th_Monkey]

17. But I DO know Obama's stand. He's NOT on Monsanto's dole & he's not in their pocket like Hillary.

because **gasp** he doesn't take ANY donations from ANY corporate lobbyists ... but you knew that.

http://www.progressivessouthbend.org/2007/10/hillary-clinton-and-monsantos-k-street.html
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Hillary Clinton and Monsanto's K Street Test Plot

The ironically named "Rural Americans for Hillary" are holding a shindig to raise some funds for her presidential hopes. Where is this being held?

Iowa? No, sir.

Western New Hampshire? Nope.

South Carolina's low country? Wrong Again.

ABC News reports (and this flyer confirms: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/cl inton_invitation.pdf) that Rural Americans for Hillary are holding this high-toned get together at a lobbyist's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

"... and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs...

...which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2007/10/yee-haw.html)

You can't take big money and expect big change.


http://www.counterpunch.org/cole02082008.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164330/061/295/461425
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7940.cfm
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/dude4hope/gGCxNJ

[KoKo]

9. It is something we need to know from our candidates......Media wont ask it

but maybe some of the Campaign Ops who stop by on DU could check it out and post their candidates postion.

[msallied]

13. The sad thing is...

this is but one way that politicians have worked over the decades to sell out the American people in the pursuit of greed. The fleecing of America will continue, I'm afraid, no matter who runs this country. The Clintons just happen to be pros at it because they've been at it for so long.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Well there are very different rules for Barack versus the rest of them.....

He can be asked about anything, the rest, not so much.