The American public has heard a lot about GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in the past couple of years. Many scientists, particularly scientists working for large biotech corporations, insist that GM foods and the pesticides they are doused with are perfectly safe for human consumption.


Despite the comforting reassurances Americans receive from these massive corporations, a large number of the population wants little or nothing to do with genetically-altered foods. Many aren’t as concerned about actually consuming these foods, but would like to see products containing GMO ingredients clearly labeled.

Government officials from both parties have historically backed the interests of big corporations, and Hillary Clinton is no different. It’s no secret that, in the 1980’s, Clinton was employed at a law firm that worked for corporate giants like Monsanto and Dow Chemical. It would seem that Clinton had made some long-lasting friendships during that time.

Hillary Clinton has been outspoken in her¬†support of GMO foods and doesn’t seem to mind a bit that her name is often connected to many of these big companies. Clinton even asked Jerry Crawford, a longtime Monsanto lobbyist, to act as advisor for the Ready for Hillary PAC, and the Clinton Foundation has accepted generous donations from Monsanto in the past.

Even more disturbing is the fact that, according to numerous reports, the Clinton family eats a diet of organic, locally grown foods that are free of pesticides, hormones, and harmful chemicals, while at the same time expecting the American public to satisfy themselves with foods that have been genetically engineered to produce their own insecticides and have been insufficiently tested for safety. Why do the Clintons publicly support one sort of food while privately demanding a higher quality food for their own table? People are fed up (no pun intended) with this “do as I say, not as I do” attitude from political leaders.

As if this wasn’t enough, at a recent biotech conference, Hillary suggested that GMOs need to be re-branded. That perhaps, if we changed the language, people would overcome their inconvenient fears.

“`Genetically-modified’ sounds Frankenstein-ish,” Clinton said. “Drought resistant sounds like something you want. So, how do you create a different vocabulary to talk about what it is you’re trying to help people do? And that I would urge the association and companies working in this area to really try to be more thoughtful about so you don’t raise that red flag.” click here to see video clip

Does she mean to suggest that, by changing the name of something, Americans are foolish and ignorant enough to blindly accept whatever she and these big businesses mean to foist upon them? If the NRA were to “change the vocabulary” about guns and begin calling them high powered, mechanical slingshots, would guns suddenly become acceptable to the public?

People are tired of career politicians operating under the assumption that Americans are ignorant. The methods and views of Hillary Clinton bear a startling similarity to the administrations of Reagan, Bush Sr., and George W. A higher standard should be expected from a democratic candidate for the presidency. Americans are ready for a president that takes the the side of the working class over the interests of the wealthy. Clinton’s track record proves that she is not that candidate.

Photo by marcn

Comments

comments