Clinton Backs Monsanto’s Case

8
6591

That to Be Anti Monsanto

Is to Be Pro Global-Warming

Eric Zuesse

On June 27th, I reported Hillary Clinton’s having privately told GMO industry lobbyists, on 25 June 2014, that the federal government should subsidize GMO firms in order to enable them to buy “insurance against risk,” and that without such federal subsidies, “this [insurance] is going to be an increasing challenge” for the industry to afford. I also reported that, in an interview she did immediately afterward with the GMO industry’s lobbying organization’s (the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s, or BIO’s) head, she compared the opponents of GMOs to the opponents of action in response to global warming; she said, in effect, that both environmental groups are ignoramuses who don’t know what scientists are saying about both the ’safety’ of GMOs and the dangers of global warming.

At the time when I wrote this news report (it was still news, even a year after the speech was given), the 15 June 2016 article in FORTUNE magazine, “Can Monsanto Save the Planet?” hadn’t yet come to my attention, but it importantly supplements the news that I had just reported, and so I now supplement the article I previously wrote on this. The FORTUNE article argued that Monsanto is the world’s champion of environmentalism, by enabling the planet to provide food to an expanding population even as the planet will be getting hotter and hotter. It said that Monsanto, and other GMO firms, are the only hope for a planet that’s burning up. The FORTUNE article also assumed, as did Hillary Clinton’s presentation to GMO lobbyists and to their chief, the equal validity of the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real, and of the GMO-corporate-funded bio-‘scientists’ who allege that GMOs have been proven to be safe long-term for human consumption and for the environment.

As regards the claim that the GMO-corporate funded ‘research’ proving GMOs to be safe is valid, there are many independently funded studies that have found GMOs not to be safe, and also not to be environmentally friendly. Funding of independent research on the question is sparse, but I tracked down the claimed main source of the funding of that meta-study (study of studies), and found it to be the Isvara Foundation, which seems to me likely to be independent of the GMO producers. Here is a summary of what that meta-study found: It found, for example, that, “A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are safe, in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102),” and, “A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies in fact shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161).”

There is no comparison between the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made, and the phony ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ that GMOs are safe. (And there’s more on that, and more.) Hillary Clinton, and the lobbyists know this, they can’t be so stupid as not to know, but they are paid to lie about it. The industry pays both them and their politicians (such as Clinton) to do this. (And Clinton wants to go even farther and have taxpayers help to fund the GMO firms, thus to subsidize those firms’ stockholders.)

Is it merely by coincidence that the puff-piece for the GMO industry (in the person of its main corporation, Monsanto) in FORTUNE magazine, and the secret statements that Hillary Clinton made at one of her $225,000+ speeches to (and interviews with) lobbying organizations, are almost carbon copies of each other?

You’ll have to decide that for yourself. But other voters won’t even be able to, because they read the standard ’news’ media, which hide such facts. (For example, the 27 June news report I did was rejected by virtually all newsmedia.) So, please pass along to other voters this news report, which is the third report that I’ve done about the only one of Hillary Clinton’s 91 speeches to lobbying organizations and to international corporations, which managed to have leaked out from behind her embargo against making public any of her corporate-funded speeches, for which she has received in total more than $21 million paid to her own account, not including any additional payments to her political campaign. Voters might think that Ms. Clinton ‘believes’ one way about an issue, when in fact she has actually been bought to impose as the future U.S. President the exact opposite. Her record shows: in public office, she does what her backers want, not what her voters might prefer. Ever since at least 1993, when she did what the HMO industry bought the Clintons to do in drawing up their healthcare plan (which plan the health insurers opposed strongly and successfully defeated), Hillary and Bill have both been on the take, being liberals or even ‘progressives’, who believe that their actual constituency is their paymasters — not their voters. They are similar to Barack Obama in this regard, no different — and no different from George W. Bush, and his father. (As regards Trump, he has no record at all in public office, so we can’t yet really know.)

And that’s why she continues to hide the transcripts and videos of her 91 corporate-paid speeches. But fortunately, the one speech she made to the GMO-producers, slipped away from her total control.

And the article in FORTUNE provides some evidence that the propaganda-campaign for the GMO industry is coordinated by their lobbying organization, the BIO, so that both one of their politicians, and one of their magazines, are singing the same song, even if different lyrics from it.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Steve Hudson

    Great. Hillary wants us taxpayers to subsidize Monsanto to poison us. What horrible judgement, what lack of concern for the people! The people are not on Hillary’s radar, only her power and her money pile. Based on this issue alone, one can make the correct judgement that Trump is by far the better choice. Not perfect, but better, and with the interests of the American people first in mind.

  • RenegadeProphet

    The evil cackling btch and the evil government are poisoning everybody because of Planet X!

    The entire government are evil treasonous criminals. The day of the next false flag using the nuke they stole in 2007 and blamed on Iran, America will be destroyed by Russia, China and the SCO. This is the war of Armageddon and you can know it is now because of Planet X and the toxic chemtrails that hide it every day. Planet X will end the war when it rips the earth apart again but 90% of Americans will be dead already. All planned by your evil government.

  • RenegadeProphet

    Everybody HATES that evil cackling btch and the evil media that shoves the evil btch in our face every day!
    The entire government are evil treasonous criminals. The day of the next false flag using the nuke they stole in 2007 and blamed on Iran, America will be destroyed by Russia, China and the SCO. This is the war of Armageddon and you can know it is now because of Planet X and the toxic chemtrails that hide it every day. Planet X will end the war when it rips the earth apart again but 90% of Americans will be dead already. All planned by your evil government.

  • The Plumbery269

    what did you expect, she was on the board of directors for monsanto along with a bunch of other congressmen

  • Colin

    “the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real”

    The abstract that the text quoted above links to does not state that 97% of global warming scientists believe AGW is real. It only states that 97% of the 34.6% of the abstracts which took a view believed in AGW.

    33.6% does not constitute a proven “consensus” among scientists either if 66.4% of abstracts take no view either way.

  • Colin

    “the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real”

    The abstract (that the text quoted above links to) does not state that 97% of global warming scientists believe AGW is real but that 97% of global warming scientists expressing an opinion believe AGW is real. This is significant distinction to make because only around a half of the abstracts and self-rated papers express an opinion.

    The abstract only states that 97.1% of the 34.6% of the abstracts which took a view and 97.2% of the 64.5% of the self-rated papers which took a view believed in AGW.

    33.6% of abstracts does not constitute proof of a “consensus” among scientists if 66.4% of abstracts take no view either way. The same goes for 62.7% of self-rated papers if 38.3% take no view either way.

    The figures (in the abstract linked to) show that the total percentage of writers of abstracts and self-rated papers related to have expressed a belief in AGW is 48.15%.

    One would have to garner the opinions of the remaining writers of the other abstracts and self-rated papers in order to evaluate in this way the existence of a consensus. The figures clearly show that there is a consensus of over 97% among the opinionated that AGW is real but one would have to get an opinion from the o”the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real”

    The abstract (that the text quoted above links to) does not state that 97% of global warming scientists believe AGW is real but that 97% of global warming scientists expressing an opinion believe AGW is real. This is significant distinction to make because only around a half of the abstracts and self-rated papers express an opinion.

    The abstract only states that 97.1% of the 34.6% of the abstracts which took a view and 97.2% of the 64.5% of the self-rated papers which took a view believed in AGW.

    33.6% of abstracts does not constitute proof of a “consensus” among scientists if 66.4% of abstracts take no view or a different view. The same goes for 62.7% of self-rated papers if 38.3% take no view or a different view.

    The figures (in the abstract linked to) show that the total percentage of writers of abstracts and self-rated papers related to have expressed a belief in AGW is 48.15%.

    One would have to garner the opinions of the remaining writers of the other abstracts and self-rated papers in order to evaluate in this way the existence of a consensus. The figures clearly show that there is a consensus of over 97% among the opinionated that AGW is real but one would have to get an opinion from the other half of those writers who did not take a stance in order to establish evidence for a 97% consensus among global warming scientists.ther half of those writers who did not take a stance in order to establish evidence for a 97% consensus among global warming scientists.

    The problem with the extract is that it does not make clear whether or not the abstracts and self-rated papers mentioned relate to one and the same material. If they do, we are nevertheless left with a mere majority of 62.7%, not a 97% consensus.

  • Colin

    There were 29,083 authors of abstracts but only 8,547 of those authors were contacted to self-rate their papers and only 1200 (14%) of them did self-rate, with only 746 (2.5%) of those endorsing AGW. In terms of overlap, it is unclear from the paper how those 746 (2.5%) relate in identity to the 10,188 (34.8%) authors who endorse AGW in the abstracts. The article linked to thus leaves us with “proof” only of a minority (no more than 37.3%) of global warming scientists believing in AGW.

    One would have to garner the opinions of the remaining writers of the other abstracts in order to “prove” in this way the existence of even a majority, never mind a consensus. The only consensus derivable is from the 97% agreement between those global warming scientists who expressed an opinion although that evidence alone would convince most reasonable and sufficiently educated people that a consensus most probably does exist.

  • Colin

    “the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real”

    The abstract (that the text quoted above links to) does not state that 97% of global warming scientists believe AGW is real but that 97% of global warming scientists expressing an opinion believe AGW is real. This is a significant distinction to make because not even two fifths of the abstracts assessed express an opinion or were self-rated.

    The abstract only states that 97.1% of the 34.6% of the abstracts which took a view and 97.2% of the 64.5% of the self-rated papers which took a view believed in AGW.

    33.6% of abstracts does not constitute proof of a “consensus” among scientists if 66.4% of abstracts take no view or a different view. The same goes for 62.7% of self-rated papers if 37.3% take no view or a different view.