Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Are GMO ballot measures just another covert op?

Dees Illustration
Jon Rappoport
Activist Post

Here’s a quote in an ad Monsanto has run in the UK: “Food Labelling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing.”

The catch? The mandatory labeling of GMO food is already widespread in the UK.

But in the US, where the whole issue is quite contentious, Monsanto has poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat GMO labeling on foods.

There was Prop 37 in California, and now Prop 522, coming up for a vote this November in the state of Washington.

In these campaigns, Monsanto falsely claims labeling is unnecessary, confusing to consumers, and would make food prices escalate.

So which is it? Which position does Monsanto take? Yes on labeling? No?

Both. Whatever works. The truth doesn’t matter. Never has. Never will.

The Prop 522 campaign in the state of Washington is going up against the Monsanto slime. It appears the Yes on GMO labeling forces there have split apart.

I pointed out, during the Prop 37 debacle in California, that telling voters they had a right to know what’s in their food isn’t enough. Voters have to understand the health dangers of GMOs.

They have to understand GMO farming in the US is a disaster, in terms of the amount of chemical poisons sprayed on crops, in terms of crop yields, and resistant superweeds taking over growing fields.

But that wasn’t what the Yes on 37 bosses decided in CA. They firmly ordered their foot soldiers to stick to the “right to know” issue, first, last, and always.


I had a good inside source, after Prop 37 went down in California, who said the Washington state campaign to label GMOs would be very different.

The anti-GMO forces there would educate voters on the dangers of GMOs. The campaign wouldn’t only be about consumer choice.

So…today I found a USA Today article reporting on the Washington campaign (“Washington State battles over genetically modified food”). It contained a statement from an anti-GMO spokeswoman:
“We believe that we have a right to know what’s in our food,” said Elizabeth Larter, the Seattle-based communications director for the Yes on 522 campaign. “This campaign is not about whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad; this is really just providing more information for consumers.”
Really. This is just about “providing more information.”

Good and bad are irrelevant.

If so, then why should consumers care whether the food they buy and eat is labeled?

I can’t imagine a more disastrous message from the anti-GMO forces in the State of Washington. It’s pathetic, destructive. It’s a wet noodle.

Was Elizabeth Larter, the spokeswoman, misquoted, or is she working for Monsanto?

I urge all the people in Washington campaigning for GMO labeling to ask her. These people work their guts out. They sacrifice their time, energy, and in some cases their own money and jobs for the cause—and in return they get this:

GMOs, not good or bad, just nice information for consumers to have.

Yes, by all means, let’s stick to Nice. Let’s sport a big grin and a shrug and say good or bad GMOs don’t matter at all.

Maybe the Prop 522 people in Washington think they have the election all wrapped up. Maybe they think GMO labeling is coming to WA and they can soft-pedal the campaign.

Well, Monsanto and other big biotech corporations have just injected millions of $ into the WA scene. They’re not going to soft-pedal it between now and November.

Now, another insider has told me that the YES on 522 campaign in WA has split apart. On one side are the bosses, who insist on utilizing the same disastrous uni-message to voters: you have a right to know what’s in your food.

On the other side are some of YES ON 522 ground troops, who are determined to tell people: you have a right to know AND this is why—GMOs are dangerous to your health and dangerous to the future of agriculture.



The YES ON 522 bosses, as in California, are quite content to coexist with Monsanto and millions of their acres of of GMO crops. They’re resigned to the gene drift that will blow GMOs into American food crops from coast to coast.

As as you can see from Monsanto’s reaction to mandatory labeling in the UK, Monsanto can deal with GMO labeling wherever it’s passed.

The real threat to Monsanto is a massive popular uprising against the corporation and its horrendous desecration of food. For example, when a US county passes a law against the growing of any GMO crop within its borders, that’s a dagger.

Were such a movement to spread, Monsanto would be shaking in its boots.

But these ballot initiatives on behalf of labeling GMOs are soft. Their organizations are yuppified at the top. They’re Nice.

Which has led me to suspect that the ballot initiative movements have been infiltrated.

In intelligence-agency parlance, they’re limited hangouts. They seem to solve a problem, but they barely scratch the surface of it.

They misdirect attention. They frame the wrong questions. They dampen the much-needed outrage against Monsanto, which is an evil company.

They suck up available money. They co-opt volunteers who could otherwise be taking a much tougher position.

Instead of seeing hundreds of thousands of people in the streets rallying against Monsanto, the public is seeing press releases from spokespeople like Elizabeth Larter, who, if quoted correctly by USA Today, sounds like a Girl Scout selling cookies.

One more time, the public is being treated to a cartoon of dueling PR nonsense.

The effect? A dulling of the senses and the mind.

The ultimate message? Keep sleeping.

Because, you see, to do otherwise would not be Nice.

“Yeah…ballot initiatives, that sounds good. Yes or No on GMO labeling. Two sides. We can handle that. We’ve got plenty of money for false ads. And it’s all so remote. It’s a cool op, not a hot one. Stick with cool and polite and nice. Anger is bad. Outrage is bad. We can make this whole thing seem like slightly contentious diplomats exchanging memos. No real passion. Therefore, in the long run we win. The whole country is GMO.”

It’s a mind-controlled trance.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com



BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's what Joel Salatin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin) says about labeling: http://flavormagazinevirginia.com/rebel-gmolabeling/

I'm inclined to agree with him.

brad said...

We in Calif were 92% in favor of labeling GMOs. Then it came time to vote. Somehow, only 48% of us then thought that we should label, darn us. Then, as soon as voting was over, we magically wanted labeling at the 92% pro-labeling rate again.
Isn't magic wonderful?

But if over 40 million dollars can't literally buy the results of an election, then what can it be good for?

Anonymous said...

trying to convince people that this is happening is the hardest thing to do,everyone just sais yeah yeah I know but do nothing to change .like with the chlorine and fluoride in our water in Australia ,I tell them you wouldn't drink the water from the local pool would you then thay say NO but still don't filter their tap water .We need people in politics with the balls to change.

Anonymous said...

I have to say I think think Elizabeth Larter is right and she's being very clever. By saying that we should have labelling regardless of whether GMOs are good or bad it immdiately pulls the rug from Monsanto's argument as it means they can't act as if they're being villified and 'portrayed as the villain unfairly' (even if they are actually evil).

The argument should be that we just want labelled food to know what we're eating -- nothing more -- so nobody should have a problem with that...

Post a Comment