http://thegazette.com/2013/03/07/china-delays-gmo-corn-rice-to-woo-the-public/
Maybe GMO's are great. Maybe they aren't. But what if they aren't? That is the real issue. By letting big Ag companies like Monsanto gain complete control of the seed business, we are basically putting all of our eggs in that basket. But what if there were other ways to ensure that we protect the future while still taking a chance on progress.
Why not plant non GMO's on one side of the planet, and plant GMO's only on the other? Then, let people make their choice and if something goes wrong, at least we have the other "safe" half. That seems fair and reasonable. Of course, being fair, logical and reasonable means it wont happen. Because it also means lower profits for Monsanto.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022574354
"We regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama
signed H.R. 993, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act into law.
President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the
urgent pleas of more than 250,000 Americans who asked that he use his
executive authority to veto it. President Obama failed to live up to his
oath to protect the American people and our constitution."
http://planetsave.com/2011/07/21/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-maize-fields/
And since we have a President who talks a good game but doesn't really back it up, they can pretty much get away with whatever they want in the search for higher profits. Luckily, at least at this point, the rest of the world is not in such a hurry to put all its eggs in the Monsanto basket.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/china-gmo-idUKL4N0BY2BC20130307
At the very least, companies like Monsanto should be on the hook to provide profit free greenhouses to protect the current seed that has not been genetically altered. If and when the time comes that we need them (which at best is likely, and at worst certain) that they are there. Otherwise, they are playing Russian Roulette with the future of mankind.
Why should they have this kind of power? They shouldn't.
We elect governments to look after our interests. Isn't it in our collective interest to ensure that the food supply is protected from distortion to the point that it is irrevocable?
If it turns out that GMO's are all that and more, as Monsanto claims they are, then fine we can thank them for improving the way we grow food. However, their track record over time suggests that wont be the case. I wouldn't be betting my house on them getting this right. They simply have not over time. Sure, they always make huge profits, but they also leave huge devastation and destruction behind that.
I really have no interest in putting my future and all my eggs in their basket, and I think the time has come to make it clear to those who we elect, who we think represent our interests, that if they don't begin to start doing that we will remove them. This is just too important to leave to those like President Obama who can walk away in 4 years and not have to answer for what they allowed to happen.
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
GMO's, Conglomerates and Mennonites. Lies and Deception
We hear all the time these days about GMO's. But do we really know what they are, exactly?
Lets start there.
What is a GMO?
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods, and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food.
Altered using genetic engineering techniques. Let's ponder that for a second.
Isn't that what nature does now? Yes, nature does that. Plants interact, pollen is spread, as is genetic material, by natural means. Two organisms mate, reproduce and each time there is some genetic modification that occurs. Over time, that changes the nature of how things evolve. According to Darwinism, the strong will survive and flourish and the weak will become extinct.
Darwinism
In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.
Some would called Darwinism another form of social evolution. Survival of the fittest. In any case, it presumes that all factors are due to nature and man does not directly create the change by overt means. We know this has never been true, but for the most part it is presumed. We don't replant seeds from inferior plants. In that way we are altering mother natures way. But we also didn't used to take those inferior plants and alter their DNA so that they would serve our means. That is the distinction.
Over the course of time, that has worked well. There has never been a shortage of food in the world, unless man or beast over populates and creates that situation. Food does not become extinct. Man and beast do. Nature brings this back into harmony by not providing for overpopulation while still maintaining the correct amount of food. The strong survive, the weak perish and harmony returns. By trying to maintain the weak by altering the chemistry of the food supply, we go against Darwinism and attempt to circumvent the way nature works. Anytime we do that, there are likely to be grave consequences.
Generally speaking, I think most people are not in favor of GMO's. We just get an uneasy feeling when we know that man is trying to conquer nature. History has taught us that will backfire most of the time.
The thought that we are tampering with the food supply, the most basic of things to maintain life, just sounds like something that is going to come back to haunt man in a big way.
Make no mistake, GMO's do have some upside. They do provide us with the means to have bigger harvests and sustain a larger population over the short term. That isn't the motivation for why the big conglomerates like Monsanto and Dupont promote them. They are just in it for the money at all costs. We all get that. That is part of the reason it makes us feel uneasy. We don't have any confidence that they will do the right thing for the sake of society and man. Their decisions are based on greed. If it makes them more money, then that is the overriding principle. We saw that with the way they handled DDT and PCB's, among other very harmful products. They have a long history (as do most conglomerates) of covering up the truth for as long as possible to maintain the profit margin (see the cigarette companies for many examples).
Maybe the GMO's are the best things ever. Maybe they are progress. Maybe they are not. Only time will tell. The real question is this: What if they are not?
Will those who didn't want them to be the be-all and end-all solution of all our food problems have to suffer for that anyway?
Let's examine why they have become so popular in the first place. There has to be a reason.
What is the basic underlying principle that drives farmers to use GMO's? Seeds that are engineered to withstand insects and rot sounds like a good thing. But with any upside there are likely to be drawbacks. Crops that die naturally are probably inferior and carry some sort of genetic disease from the mutations caused in cross pollination. Nature takes care of that by encouraging us not to replant their seeds. That is just common sense. If we then take those seeds and modify them, sure, they will likely grow well. But they likely also have a huge downside. One we don't realize or understand yet. Much like PCB's and DDT sounded great when they helped us make stuff better and fight wars..until they caused cancer at an alarming rate 20 years later and had to be banned.
But we are talking about food here, not plastic. If we destroy the food chain and supply that surely means extinction at some point for humans.
All that being said, it should be up to each individual person to decide for themselves. If you want to risk your life and health--and the future of your offpsring--then I don't have any problem with that. As long as I have the choice not to, so be it. As long as viable options are maintained, then the information and choice remains mine and yours. Freedom of speech and choice are maintained. That is where it all seems to be breaking down for most.
When I think about the issue in this way, my first thought is of cult like societies like the Mennonites.
When you grow up in a Mennonite community, there is only one way of life and one theory of how you are taught. Brainwashing starts early and it consistent. You are sheltered from the world at large and making informed decisions is something that is taken away from you for as long as it can be.
The first example of this is something I always think of when I see the Mennonites anywhere. They don't use motorized vehicles to get around. In fact, they shun all modern technology. That includes phones, televisions, radios and cars.
If you live anywhere near Mennonites you would know that they travel by horse and carriage.
For most in society, the invention of the car was a true revolution in how society was allowed to move forward. That was followed by the invention of airplanes. For Mennonites, they simply don't believe in using these technologies. That is certainly their choice to make. But is it the choice their children want? Do their children even know that it is an option? Certainly they can see airplanes in the sky and cars on the road. But are they really able to live the life they have now and make these options available to themselves?
The answer is no. They are not.
Now back to the GMO's.
Many could argue that automobiles and all the trouble they cause are not worth the benefits. I would not be one of those, but it is my choice to make. As it is yours. You should have a choice and you should know what you are choosing from.
I know that many have an issue with the way Mennonites live their lives. I don't. If people want to live a certain way and that does not harm others, I am all in favor of that. The problem I have with them is that they attempt to brainwash those they raise and shun others who wont conform. They really give the society member very little choice or option. That is where I take issue.
You could argue, that on some level our society does this as well. And that is true. However, for the most part, every member of society has full access to information. That cannot be said of the children of Mennonites. That is where I make the distinction.
That is also where I take issue with Monsanto. If they want to create GMO's, fine do that. But I should have a reasonable option to that and if they do things to make sure I do not, then they are infringing on my rights and freedoms.
The biggest issue with the GMO's is the lack of choice that people are going to end up having if the companies like Monsanto get their way. They are not just taking away our choices they attempt to take away our freedom for the sake of profits. In the same way that the Cigarette companies lied and didn't give the smokers the true facts of how addictive and harmful their products were, we can't trust Monsanto and others like them to give us the facts as they see fit while they destroy the food supply in the meantime. We should have the true facts and make sure that all are informed so they can make the decisions they see fit..with the proper information to do that with.
Currently, that is not the case. Just as it isn't with kids in a Mennonite community.
The day we allow a Monsanto or Dupont to have complete control of the food supply to the point we have no choice but to eat GMO's to survive we are basically signing our own death warrants as a species. I am all for choice. But choice means everybody has a choice, not just those with the power to influence. Progress is a great thing. But there is no progress if the choice to abstain is taken away for those who don't believe it is progress.
That is where we are at today.
Lets start there.
What is a GMO?
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods, and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food.
Altered using genetic engineering techniques. Let's ponder that for a second.
Isn't that what nature does now? Yes, nature does that. Plants interact, pollen is spread, as is genetic material, by natural means. Two organisms mate, reproduce and each time there is some genetic modification that occurs. Over time, that changes the nature of how things evolve. According to Darwinism, the strong will survive and flourish and the weak will become extinct.
Darwinism
In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.
Some would called Darwinism another form of social evolution. Survival of the fittest. In any case, it presumes that all factors are due to nature and man does not directly create the change by overt means. We know this has never been true, but for the most part it is presumed. We don't replant seeds from inferior plants. In that way we are altering mother natures way. But we also didn't used to take those inferior plants and alter their DNA so that they would serve our means. That is the distinction.
Over the course of time, that has worked well. There has never been a shortage of food in the world, unless man or beast over populates and creates that situation. Food does not become extinct. Man and beast do. Nature brings this back into harmony by not providing for overpopulation while still maintaining the correct amount of food. The strong survive, the weak perish and harmony returns. By trying to maintain the weak by altering the chemistry of the food supply, we go against Darwinism and attempt to circumvent the way nature works. Anytime we do that, there are likely to be grave consequences.
Generally speaking, I think most people are not in favor of GMO's. We just get an uneasy feeling when we know that man is trying to conquer nature. History has taught us that will backfire most of the time.
The thought that we are tampering with the food supply, the most basic of things to maintain life, just sounds like something that is going to come back to haunt man in a big way.
Make no mistake, GMO's do have some upside. They do provide us with the means to have bigger harvests and sustain a larger population over the short term. That isn't the motivation for why the big conglomerates like Monsanto and Dupont promote them. They are just in it for the money at all costs. We all get that. That is part of the reason it makes us feel uneasy. We don't have any confidence that they will do the right thing for the sake of society and man. Their decisions are based on greed. If it makes them more money, then that is the overriding principle. We saw that with the way they handled DDT and PCB's, among other very harmful products. They have a long history (as do most conglomerates) of covering up the truth for as long as possible to maintain the profit margin (see the cigarette companies for many examples).
Maybe the GMO's are the best things ever. Maybe they are progress. Maybe they are not. Only time will tell. The real question is this: What if they are not?
Will those who didn't want them to be the be-all and end-all solution of all our food problems have to suffer for that anyway?
Let's examine why they have become so popular in the first place. There has to be a reason.
What is the basic underlying principle that drives farmers to use GMO's? Seeds that are engineered to withstand insects and rot sounds like a good thing. But with any upside there are likely to be drawbacks. Crops that die naturally are probably inferior and carry some sort of genetic disease from the mutations caused in cross pollination. Nature takes care of that by encouraging us not to replant their seeds. That is just common sense. If we then take those seeds and modify them, sure, they will likely grow well. But they likely also have a huge downside. One we don't realize or understand yet. Much like PCB's and DDT sounded great when they helped us make stuff better and fight wars..until they caused cancer at an alarming rate 20 years later and had to be banned.
But we are talking about food here, not plastic. If we destroy the food chain and supply that surely means extinction at some point for humans.
All that being said, it should be up to each individual person to decide for themselves. If you want to risk your life and health--and the future of your offpsring--then I don't have any problem with that. As long as I have the choice not to, so be it. As long as viable options are maintained, then the information and choice remains mine and yours. Freedom of speech and choice are maintained. That is where it all seems to be breaking down for most.
When I think about the issue in this way, my first thought is of cult like societies like the Mennonites.
When you grow up in a Mennonite community, there is only one way of life and one theory of how you are taught. Brainwashing starts early and it consistent. You are sheltered from the world at large and making informed decisions is something that is taken away from you for as long as it can be.
The first example of this is something I always think of when I see the Mennonites anywhere. They don't use motorized vehicles to get around. In fact, they shun all modern technology. That includes phones, televisions, radios and cars.
If you live anywhere near Mennonites you would know that they travel by horse and carriage.
For most in society, the invention of the car was a true revolution in how society was allowed to move forward. That was followed by the invention of airplanes. For Mennonites, they simply don't believe in using these technologies. That is certainly their choice to make. But is it the choice their children want? Do their children even know that it is an option? Certainly they can see airplanes in the sky and cars on the road. But are they really able to live the life they have now and make these options available to themselves?
The answer is no. They are not.
Now back to the GMO's.
Many could argue that automobiles and all the trouble they cause are not worth the benefits. I would not be one of those, but it is my choice to make. As it is yours. You should have a choice and you should know what you are choosing from.
I know that many have an issue with the way Mennonites live their lives. I don't. If people want to live a certain way and that does not harm others, I am all in favor of that. The problem I have with them is that they attempt to brainwash those they raise and shun others who wont conform. They really give the society member very little choice or option. That is where I take issue.
You could argue, that on some level our society does this as well. And that is true. However, for the most part, every member of society has full access to information. That cannot be said of the children of Mennonites. That is where I make the distinction.
That is also where I take issue with Monsanto. If they want to create GMO's, fine do that. But I should have a reasonable option to that and if they do things to make sure I do not, then they are infringing on my rights and freedoms.
The biggest issue with the GMO's is the lack of choice that people are going to end up having if the companies like Monsanto get their way. They are not just taking away our choices they attempt to take away our freedom for the sake of profits. In the same way that the Cigarette companies lied and didn't give the smokers the true facts of how addictive and harmful their products were, we can't trust Monsanto and others like them to give us the facts as they see fit while they destroy the food supply in the meantime. We should have the true facts and make sure that all are informed so they can make the decisions they see fit..with the proper information to do that with.
Currently, that is not the case. Just as it isn't with kids in a Mennonite community.
The day we allow a Monsanto or Dupont to have complete control of the food supply to the point we have no choice but to eat GMO's to survive we are basically signing our own death warrants as a species. I am all for choice. But choice means everybody has a choice, not just those with the power to influence. Progress is a great thing. But there is no progress if the choice to abstain is taken away for those who don't believe it is progress.
That is where we are at today.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Maybe we are going about this wrong
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html
With the news this week that Whole Foods will have all products labelled for GMO's by 2018 it seems that the tide is turning. But why does it seem so difficult to get this onto the product?
It seems there is a big push to have genetically altered foods labelled. There is a growing demand for it. But we all know the big corps are totally against it. We know why. They want to put as much cheap crap as they can in anything so they can make bigger profits and they don't want you to know about. They have every incentive in the world to stop this from happening.
In the past, we saw this resistance with the zero calories claim, the trans fat claims, the sugar free claims and all sorts of deceptive labeling that they got away with for as long as they could.
Last week when I was in the grocery store, I noticed just how small they make the list of ingredients. It is surely because they are required to put them there but don't want you to see them. If you did, you might notice something like this:
http://blog.medfriendly.com/2011/11/does-your-kids-cereal-contain-bht-or_7163.html
My take on this:
It is going to be very tough to get them to label these products. The easier way would be to get those products that don't have any GMO's in them to label that they are GMO free. In that way, the resistors are outed by not labelling and then will be forced to either remove the GMO's or admit that they have them.
This works exactly the way the trans fat free labelling works now. When you see any product, if it doesn't say it is trans fat free then you know it has trans fat. Because that is a big selling point, it becomes an advantage to have that as a selling point. Once people begin to notice non GMO labelling they will ask questions. At first directly to the grocer and companies, but then just generally they might do some research to see why and what it all means.
You go shopping and if it doesn't say it is GMO free then you assume it has them. Seems to me the easiest way to get what we want. And we don't need any government approval for it.
When big corps try to be deceptive the only way you beat them is to outsmart them and show them they will lose money.
Just like any other instance money and profit are the determining factor. Take away market share and companies will come back in line and they will be lining up to label their products or ditch the GMO's if necessary.
With the news this week that Whole Foods will have all products labelled for GMO's by 2018 it seems that the tide is turning. But why does it seem so difficult to get this onto the product?
It seems there is a big push to have genetically altered foods labelled. There is a growing demand for it. But we all know the big corps are totally against it. We know why. They want to put as much cheap crap as they can in anything so they can make bigger profits and they don't want you to know about. They have every incentive in the world to stop this from happening.
In the past, we saw this resistance with the zero calories claim, the trans fat claims, the sugar free claims and all sorts of deceptive labeling that they got away with for as long as they could.
Last week when I was in the grocery store, I noticed just how small they make the list of ingredients. It is surely because they are required to put them there but don't want you to see them. If you did, you might notice something like this:
http://blog.medfriendly.com/2011/11/does-your-kids-cereal-contain-bht-or_7163.html
My take on this:
It is going to be very tough to get them to label these products. The easier way would be to get those products that don't have any GMO's in them to label that they are GMO free. In that way, the resistors are outed by not labelling and then will be forced to either remove the GMO's or admit that they have them.
This works exactly the way the trans fat free labelling works now. When you see any product, if it doesn't say it is trans fat free then you know it has trans fat. Because that is a big selling point, it becomes an advantage to have that as a selling point. Once people begin to notice non GMO labelling they will ask questions. At first directly to the grocer and companies, but then just generally they might do some research to see why and what it all means.
You go shopping and if it doesn't say it is GMO free then you assume it has them. Seems to me the easiest way to get what we want. And we don't need any government approval for it.
When big corps try to be deceptive the only way you beat them is to outsmart them and show them they will lose money.
Just like any other instance money and profit are the determining factor. Take away market share and companies will come back in line and they will be lining up to label their products or ditch the GMO's if necessary.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
5 Ways To Beat Monsanto With Very Little Effort
Most of us are appalled when we hear about the things that Monsanto does. The bullying, food hogging, putting a patent on life. The lying. Buying government officials. Lying about the effects of their chemicals. Covering up the effects of the chemicals. The list goes on and on.
As much as we hate it, it seems they are so powerful that there is nothing we can do about it. That would be where we are wrong. We can do lots about it without much effort or change of lifestyle.
Here are 5 things we can all do to stop them. It may take a while, but it is easy to stop them. As with anything, it all boils down to money. Take money out of their pockets and they will listen. They have no choice. That is the only power you have left, your buying power.
1. Make any politician aware that they are being watched. If they support Monsanto and their attempts to gain control and modify the food supply and chain they will be outed and they will be on the wrong side of the issue. Right now they think siding with Monsanto is the easiest way to keep riding the gravy train. Make them believe that is the worst thing they can do, and they will flip flop to the other side. There was a time when lawmakers siding with big Tobacco. Remember that.
2. Don't buy any product that contains anything that Monsanto produces. For example, they have gained control of Canola Oil Seeds. Don't buy any Canola Oil. No demand, no need to plant the seeds. They become worthless. There are lots of cooking oils that don't have GMO seeds. Buy them. Olive oil and sunflower oil are two off the top of my head. It isn't that hard to find options that don't cost you any more money. Find them. Make an effort. Stop talking and start acting, or stop complaining about it. Complaining does no good. They count on you yapping then just going out and buying anyway. Make them see you are more than just a whiner and take action.
3. Don't buy any financial product that contains their stock. Drive the stock price down. Let it be known that it is a poison stock. No capital, no capability to buy companies, create monopolies and buy politicians. If you tell mutual fund managers that the stock is viewed as a fund killer they will ditch it immediately. Stock prices these days are based more on market demand than actual company performance. You have the power to drive them into a penny stock if you wish. Doing that will let them know you have the power, they don't.
4. Social media. Monsanto cannot stop anyone from creating a Facebook page to spread info that is true. You have 500 friends...let them all know what they are being subjected to and make sure they understand how important it is to tell everyone they know. They cannot stop any of us from doing this. People have knowledge..they can make more informed decisions. Give them options. Tell them specific products to avoid and which ones to buy. Make it easy for them to comply. People like causes..causes that are easy to support. Make it easy. Make them realize they can do it. They can control the labeling on the package, they can't control the information on the internet. We can very easily reach the masses on the internet.
5. Spend a bit more to make sure that GMO's don't gain market share. If that means you pay $7 for olive oil once every 3 months instead of $4 for canola oil, then do it. It isn't much money to make sure your way of life is insured. Do as much as you can. If you do, they will get the message. Money talks. They will listen to that, and only that.
Let's send a message to the Monsanto's and their kind. You try to mess up our lives, we have ways to fight back and you don't own us or everything.
As much as we hate it, it seems they are so powerful that there is nothing we can do about it. That would be where we are wrong. We can do lots about it without much effort or change of lifestyle.
Here are 5 things we can all do to stop them. It may take a while, but it is easy to stop them. As with anything, it all boils down to money. Take money out of their pockets and they will listen. They have no choice. That is the only power you have left, your buying power.
1. Make any politician aware that they are being watched. If they support Monsanto and their attempts to gain control and modify the food supply and chain they will be outed and they will be on the wrong side of the issue. Right now they think siding with Monsanto is the easiest way to keep riding the gravy train. Make them believe that is the worst thing they can do, and they will flip flop to the other side. There was a time when lawmakers siding with big Tobacco. Remember that.
2. Don't buy any product that contains anything that Monsanto produces. For example, they have gained control of Canola Oil Seeds. Don't buy any Canola Oil. No demand, no need to plant the seeds. They become worthless. There are lots of cooking oils that don't have GMO seeds. Buy them. Olive oil and sunflower oil are two off the top of my head. It isn't that hard to find options that don't cost you any more money. Find them. Make an effort. Stop talking and start acting, or stop complaining about it. Complaining does no good. They count on you yapping then just going out and buying anyway. Make them see you are more than just a whiner and take action.
3. Don't buy any financial product that contains their stock. Drive the stock price down. Let it be known that it is a poison stock. No capital, no capability to buy companies, create monopolies and buy politicians. If you tell mutual fund managers that the stock is viewed as a fund killer they will ditch it immediately. Stock prices these days are based more on market demand than actual company performance. You have the power to drive them into a penny stock if you wish. Doing that will let them know you have the power, they don't.
4. Social media. Monsanto cannot stop anyone from creating a Facebook page to spread info that is true. You have 500 friends...let them all know what they are being subjected to and make sure they understand how important it is to tell everyone they know. They cannot stop any of us from doing this. People have knowledge..they can make more informed decisions. Give them options. Tell them specific products to avoid and which ones to buy. Make it easy for them to comply. People like causes..causes that are easy to support. Make it easy. Make them realize they can do it. They can control the labeling on the package, they can't control the information on the internet. We can very easily reach the masses on the internet.
5. Spend a bit more to make sure that GMO's don't gain market share. If that means you pay $7 for olive oil once every 3 months instead of $4 for canola oil, then do it. It isn't much money to make sure your way of life is insured. Do as much as you can. If you do, they will get the message. Money talks. They will listen to that, and only that.
Let's send a message to the Monsanto's and their kind. You try to mess up our lives, we have ways to fight back and you don't own us or everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)