All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
20:37
Which 2016 presidential candidates oppose GMOs?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome.
You're going to love this report.
This is Mike Adams, the health ranger, the editor of naturalnews.com, the food lab science director of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab.
Got a lot of great announcements coming up this year from that lab.
You're going to be blown away.
But this topic is about GMOs and presidential candidates.
I'm going to give you a rundown here of each of the top candidates and their apparent position on GMOs.
Now, you may be aware that we don't cover pure politics anymore on naturalnews.com.
We split that off to a different website called newstarget.com, and since then I haven't actually done any political commentary.
I've been too busy in the lab.
But when it comes to GMOs, that is such a huge issue.
It's my number one issue for the presidential election.
Well, I can't say it's my number one.
I guess economics would be number one because if you don't have an economy, nothing else really works.
But aside from the economy, I would say in my mind, GMOs are really just a top, top issue, if not the next most important issue of all So I'm going to give you the rundown, and this is obviously my opinion, but I read all the news articles every single day.
I'm scanning the news.
I'm the editor of naturalnews.com, so I'm processing hundreds of stories a week.
So I have a pretty good sense of where the top candidates stand on GMOs, but the problem is that a lot of them have not really been very forthright with information about that.
Some of this is a guess.
It's just my professional guesstimate, if you will.
But here we go.
Let's start with the obvious person who is pro-Monsanto, pro-GMOs, pro-herbicides, pro-pesticides.
Her law firm actually represented Monsanto, and I'm talking about Hillary Clinton, of course.
Forget about everything else that you want to talk about with Hillary Clinton, whether you're pro-Clinton or anti-Clinton or what have you.
On the GMO front, Hillary Clinton is called the bride of frankenfoods.
She is so pro-GMO that it's scary.
If you care about GMOs, forget about supporting Hillary Clinton, period.
She's the worst candidate of all.
On this issue.
No question about it.
Going all the way back to Arkansas, and her husband Bill Clinton, and the deals that they did with Tyson Foods.
All the corruption in Arkansas and the dirty, dirty chicken industry, you know, factory raised chicken meat and the arsenic in the chickens and all that.
I mean, these two, Bill and Hillary, go so deep into the corruption of the food system and the poisons and the herbicide.
Even if you're a Democrat, don't support Hillary for God's sake.
She's the worst on this issue.
Now, in contrast to that, Bernie Sanders, Is actually opposed to Monsanto on many fronts, at least according to the information that I've seen so far.
And again, you've got to take this with a grain of salt.
Politicians can make promises that they don't keep, obviously.
However, Bernie Sanders is at least talking in a way that is anti-Monsanto and pro-GMO labeling, let's say, and opposed to the herbicides like glyphosate that are used on genetically engineered crops.
So, if you're a Democrat, your choice on this issue is, by far, Bernie Sanders.
Way, way, way over Hillary Clinton.
So, I mean, there's just no comparison.
These are the opposite ends of the spectrum if you're looking at just this issue of GMOs.
Like, Hillary is on the absolute evil Satan side, and Bernie Sanders is on the more angelic side on this issue.
So, just to be clear.
Now, that said, I personally have a huge problem with socialist economics of Bernie Sanders, but that's not the focus of this talk, so we'll move on.
Let's go to—and by the way, those are the only two I'm going to talk about on the Democratic side because I don't think anybody else is really in the running.
I mean, O'Malley?
Really?
Give me a break.
I don't think that's going to happen.
Let's go to the Republican side because here it gets very, very tricky, very difficult to sort this out.
But I'll give you my best guess.
Here it is.
Donald Trump, no matter what you think of Donald Trump on other issues, on the issue of GMOs, he hasn't come out and said anything aggressive or strong about whether he's for or against it.
But he does have a history of promoting organic food.
That's what's really fascinating about this guy.
In many of his, I don't know what you call them, retreats or hotels or what have you.
I don't know what all he owns, but apparently it's a lot.
He has been pushing for more organic type of foods.
And organic foods are of course non-GMO foods.
And Trump is from New York.
And New York, in general, has very high awareness of healthy foods.
And New York, much like LA, or let's say more like San Francisco, is very much against genetically modified foods and glyphosate and pesticides and herbicides.
I mean, if you go to cities like New York City, you can really find a huge, huge number of amazing, healthy, raw food cuisine restaurants, organic restaurants, organic grocery stores.
It's very popular in places like New York or even Seattle or Portland, Oregon, for that matter, or San Francisco.
So Donald Trump has at least the potential of being an anti-GMO candidate, even though he has not come out and said it.
And my guess is he's not going to come out and say anything on this issue because a lot of people on the political right are pro-pesticide agriculture.
And I'll talk about why that is in a minute.
But let's move on to the next guy, Ted Cruz.
And you might argue, well, maybe I should have mentioned Ted Cruz first since he won the Iowa caucuses.
All right, these are not in any particular order except just what happens to be on my mind.
So Ted Cruz, where does Ted Cruz stand on GMOs?
To my knowledge, he has not made any statements on GMOs.
Now, I may have missed something, but I haven't seen anything.
But there are clues.
Ted Cruz is from Texas, right?
Ted Cruz is a very, very conservative Republican.
The pattern is that Texas in general, politically speaking, is very much pro-Monsanto, pro-pesticide, pro-herbicide.
And for me, by the way, as a Texan, that's one of the embarrassing things about the state of Texas.
I love Texas.
I love our governor, Governor Abbott.
I love many, many things about Texas and Texas culture, but the fact that so many farmers use pesticides and herbicides and have no clue how much they're poisoning themselves, this really bothers me about Texas.
But you know, you can't live in a perfect place.
I'd much rather live in Texas than California, let me tell you.
Or New York for that matter.
Texas is just, it's a great place for people like me who love nature.
You know, I don't use any pesticides and herbicides on my ranch.
And the state actually has some contingent of people who are trying to be more environmentally conscious.
So that is happening in Texas government.
Anyway, Ted Cruz is likely to be pro-Monsanto.
And now I can't say that that's for sure.
He is kind of an anti-establishment guy.
There's a chance that he might be anti-Monsanto or pro-GMO labeling, but there's just no evidence of it yet.
So, on Ted Cruz, it's a big question mark.
Now let's go on to the next guy.
Let's see, who would that be?
Marco Rubio, let's say.
Marco Rubio, as far as I can tell, is an establishment puppet.
That's just my opinion.
But I don't think Marco Rubio is going to challenge the status quo at all.
And so I think that if Marco Rubio were president, he would be pro-GMO. He would be pro-Monsanto.
More pesticides, more herbicides, he would tell the USDA and the FDA, yeah, just keep approving all those poisons.
The American people will eat it.
They don't know any better.
So I'm not impressed with Marco Rubio's credentials on this issue of GMOs.
I think he would just go with whatever the lobbyist told him to do.
I mean, it's obvious that he's pro-open borders and pro-immigration because the businesses tell him to do that.
They need more immigrant workers to fill the jobs.
And so those same kind of institutions and businesses would just tell him, hey, let's just approve more pesticides, more GMO crops, more herbicides.
Yeah, screw organics.
This is the kind of thing that they would...
They would tell him to do, and I think he would be very obedient to those industries.
So not very impressed with Marco Rubio.
Now, let's go to Ben Carson, because Ben Carson is a guy I really like.
I like Ben Carson's ethics.
I like his persona.
I like the fact that he's not a bombastic, egocentric maniac.
I like Ben Carson as a person, or at least what I know of him.
I've never met him in person, but he's a physician.
He's obviously very intelligent.
He's a strategic thinker.
My guess is that Ben Carson has the potential of being properly educated about GMOs and the risk of toxicity from glyphosate exposure and contamination.
So I think that Ben Carson is a man of reason.
And that he could actually be informed and educated on this topic and could be swayed in the direction of good science, which is, of course, protecting the environment and protecting the people.
So I would love to see Ben Carson win this thing.
Just my personal opinion.
I like what he stands for.
But, sadly, he doesn't have very high numbers, you know, in the race.
So he's not likely to be the guy.
Then we have Carly Fiorina.
Her numbers are not anywhere even near high enough to talk about, sadly, because she's also a very intelligent woman and a great leader from what I hear.
Again, I don't know her personally.
So let's go on to the last candidate I'm going to mention here, and that is Jeb Bush.
Mr.
Bush.
Alright, so do we even have to discuss this?
Of course, Jeb Bush would be all pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO and pro-herbicides and pro-pesticides and pro-let's-go-bomb-Iraq-again and whatever else.
This is the Bush family we're talking about here, right?
I mean, if you look in American history, the two families that we need no more of are the Clinton family and the Bush family.
So let's just eliminate those possibilities from our minds of who we're going to vote for, right?
For God's sake, choose someone different.
Right?
Jeb Bush, there's no question, 100% pro-Monsanto, at least based on what I know.
I'm not trying to speak for him.
Obviously, maybe someone could ask him this question.
But from what we know about the Bushes and the history of the Bush family and Donald Rumsfeld and the history with Monsanto and the history of Aspartame and everything that went on in the Bush administration, We know that Jeb Bush is going to be a pro-Monsanto, poison-pushing, you know, third Bush.
Anyway, thank goodness that no one supports this guy.
I mean, not even the Republicans.
All right?
So to summarize, here's what we have.
On the Democratic side, on this issue, on GMOs, okay, I'm only talking about the GMO issue.
Your only choice on the Democrat side is Bernie Sanders.
Period.
That's it.
On the Republican side, your only choice is sort of Donald Trump.
And maybe Ben Carson, but he doesn't seem to have a shot anymore.
I don't know.
Hillary Clinton's out.
She's the bride of frankenfood.
You know, Jeb Bush is out.
Ted Cruz is questionable on this point.
Marco Rubio's a puppet.
So if you care about GMOs, your only choice is Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Unless Ben Carson rises in the polls and takes on a stronger position, which he could, and I personally hope he does.
I would love to see him in the White House, but this is my opinion.
All right, so...
Obviously, there are more issues at stake than just GMOs.
So when you're evaluating these candidates, you have to evaluate their economic policies, their human rights policies, all these other aspects of them, which are really not the focus of this particular talk.
Food safety is probably, no matter who becomes president, they're probably going to push more power to the CDC, the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA, because these regulatory bureaucracies have become little fiefdoms of their own, little kingdoms of corruption.
If you think about it, the leader of the FDA is not an elected position.
It's someone who is appointed.
And so these bureaucracies, they sort of create their own laws, they write their own regulations, and there's zero oversight by Congress.
And what you really have more and more in America is a bureaucracy that's growing out of control, becoming a police state bureaucratic system, where the president is increasingly irrelevant.
That the FDA is in many ways out of control.
The EPA has become so incredibly corrupt that it covers up evidence of lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan, for example.
The FDA covers up the evidence of statin drugs causing diabetes, for example.
The USDA colludes with Monsanto to get more genetically engineered crops approved without safety studies that are adequate, allowing them to be released into the open air where they can cause genetic pollution.
And who else?
The CDC, totally corrupt, probably the most criminal operation of all of these that I've mentioned.
The CDC fabricating pandemic information, just inventing false numbers of how many people are killed by the flu and so on.
Just really probably the worst branch of these that I've mentioned.
So no matter who is president, you're still going to live under a bureaucratic regime of collusion with Monsanto by the USDA, the EPA raising the limits of glyphosate exposure, Because it already did that a couple years ago and it'll probably do it more.
And the FDA utterly ignoring the issue of food safety when it comes to glyphosate.
Yeah, the FDA will raise a big stink about E. coli and salmonella poisoning, but they'll never mention, oh, you're eating poison too, by the way, in the form of glyphosate, which is a cancer-causing deadly herbicide.
So keep that in mind.
Keep that in mind.
In many ways, it doesn't matter who becomes president when the system itself is so deeply corrupted and so out of touch with the people and the system will betray the interests of the people at every opportunity.
It almost doesn't matter, on many issues, who wins the presidency.
And this is how you know that the regime has just gone too far, that the system has become so deeply corrupted and out of control that it almost seems beyond repair by a democratic process of going to the polls and voting.
Again, you don't vote for the FDA, the head of the FDA. You don't vote for the USDA. You don't vote for someone to run the EPA. You don't vote!
You have no choice in the matter.
So, what point is there at voting?
I know a lot of people who say, vote no for president.
I'm not personally subscribing to that.
I think voting still has some value, even though maybe a lot of it is faked or nullified or cheated by the software.
But I don't think we can give up and just distance ourselves from the political process or we're really going to be stampeded by the bureaucracy.
I say, when it comes to who to elect for president in 2016, I say, well, I don't want to get too political here because that's not my focus of this talk, but I wish we had a candidate who was good on economics and And also good against Monsanto.
A candidate that was pro-environment, but also pro-free market.
And I know that they may sound like opposites to you, but they don't have to be.
We can have a nation where government regulators do exist to stop corporations from engaging in the most egregious type of poisoning, polluting rivers and streams and emissions into the air and so on.
But we have to still allow companies to compete on a level playing field.
And we have to allow free market principles to create jobs and create the abundance at the same time that we are protecting the environment and protecting the food supply from corporations and agribusiness giants that would poison us at every opportunity.
So, yeah.
I'm going to wrap this up.
You probably guessed my own position is I'm very conservative on economics.
I'm very progressive on environmental protection.
This is why I don't fit into a simple pigeonhole.
No one can figure out.
I don't just fall on one side or the other.
It's not that simple for me.
I think very deeply about these issues.
So in any case, I'll wrap this up.
But I hope that when it comes to voting for the president in 2016, I hope that you will consider their position on GMOs.
And I intend to ask this question of these candidates throughout the election, the campaign cycle.
I want to get answers from these candidates.
So I'll be contacting, for example, Roger Stone, the Trump spokesperson, and asking him if Trump is going to announce a position on GMOs.
That would be really interesting to know.
We already know Bernie Sanders' position.
What about Ted Cruz?
I would love to contact the Cruz campaign.
And find out if Ted Cruz is going to be pro-Monsanto or pro-consumer GMO labeling and perhaps banning glyphosate, having more caution about GMOs and so on and so forth.
So that's one of my goals this year.
And just keep watching naturalnews.com for some of those answers.
I hope this analysis has been somewhat useful to you.
And I appreciate your listening and your visiting naturalnews.com.
This is Mike Adams, The Health Ranger.
My podcasts are at healthrangerreport.com.
▲
Export Selection