Ted Cruz goes all-in for Monsanto; insults tens of millions of health-conscious Americans by calling

Ted Cruz goes all-in for Monsanto; insults tens of millions of health-conscious Americans by calling them 'anti science zealots'
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Ted Cruz, Monsanto, anti-science zealots


(NaturalNews) U.S. presidential candidate and Texas senator Ted Cruz went all-in for Monsanto on the campaign trail in Iowa, parroting Monsanto's propaganda by proclaiming that GMOs are feeding the world while insulting health-conscious consumers by equating support of GMO labeling with "anti-science zealotry."

At the Iowa Agricultural Summit, Cruz revealed that he in effect fully supports the mass poisoning of the American people with hidden (unlabeled) GMOs, cancer-causing glyphosate herbicide, farmer suicides caused by GMO crop failures and the widespread genetic pollution unleashed by genetically modified crops. "[W]e shouldn’t let anti-science zealotry shutdown the ability to produce low-cost quality food for billions across the globe," he stated, invoking a false claim that's actually a widely disproven Monsanto talking point. (SOURCE)

Hilariously, in making that statement, Ted Cruz also implies that he is literate on scientific issues. This alone is highly questionable. He may be a brilliant constitutional scholar and student of the law, but he knows next to nothing about the health effects, environmental impacts and genetic pollution risk of GM crops. He could start by reading Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

For the record, my own book, Food Forensics, comes out this July and also covers GMOs and glyphosate.

The right to bear arms but not to read accurate food labels
In choosing Monsanto over the health and food freedom of the American people, Ted Cruz joins Hillary Clinton as a Frankenfood pusher who believes that Americans should not only be fed cancer-causing herbicide chemicals that are being banned all across the globe; he also apparently believes that the American people have no right to know whether they're even eating toxic GMOs.

As Natural News readers know very well, I am a supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that the right for law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms shall not be infringed by government. Ted Cruz agrees with this particular position, but he opposes the right of citizens to have access to honest food labels that describe the GMO content of the food they're buying. And in this, he is demonstrating his disturbing failure to think with consistency.

In effect, Ted Cruz believes that Americans have the right to buy a gun, but not to read a label. Apparently GMOs are far more dangerous than guns in the mind of Ted Cruz, because GMOs must be hidden from the public even as guns are readily accessible.

While people like Ted Cruz routinely invoke the right of self defense against violence as one justification for access to firearms, he simultaneously denies the right of self defense against chemical violence by failing to support the public's access to accurate GMO labels. (You can have a GUN, in other words, but you're not allowed to have a LABEL.)

Even worse, he insults all those Americans who share ever rising concerns over food pesticides, herbicides and chemical contaminants that the scientific literature overwhelmingly proves can cause cancer. If only guns could provide personal protection against pesticides, then Ted Cruz might find himself on the right side of this argument... but that's not how chemistry works. Chemicals are insidious, slow, invisible killers that commit violence on a cellular basis, day after day, meal after meal, until the victim is rendered diseased and ultimately dead. The primary defense against chemical violence is CHEMICAL AVOIDANCE. And that avoidance can only be achieved through the kind of honest food labeling that Ted Cruz opposes... even ridicules.

Here's a gun you can use to kill someone else, Cruz might say to a citizen. "But we offer you no defense against the chemicals in food that are killing YOU." Your right to self defense, in other words, ends where Monsanto's weedkiller profits begin.

Ted Cruz, it seems, is simultaneously opposed to criminal violence while wholly in support of chemical violence. This stance is self-contradictory. If you believe in the right of self defense, then you must believe in the right of Americans to exercise informed self defense against chemicals that cause harm, too. And the only way to exercise self defense against the chemical violence committed by the agrichemical giants is to have access to honest, accurate food labels that reveal the genetically engineered content inside those products. It is this access to accurate food labels that Ted Cruz inexplicably opposes... even insults... in precisely the same way the political left ridicules lawful gun owners who seek an effective means of self defense against criminal violence.

A violation of God and Biblical principles
Perhaps even worse than the betrayal of fundamental constitutional principles of liberty, by going all-in for Monsanto, Ted Cruz joins forces with the most evil corporate entity on planet Earth. Because Ted Cruz claims to be a supporter of Christianity, Biblical principles and God's creation, his betrayal on GMOs is far more than a political betrayal; it is spiritual treason against God.

Monsanto has taken a corn crop that was perfected through natural selective breeding by early humans, then turned it into a food POISON that damages the kidneys, liver and reproductive organs. This is a treasonous act against humanity, Mother Nature and even God.

By supporting Monsanto, Ted Cuz is openly encouraging a devious corporate entity that systematically violates the laws of Mother Nature and believes that Man's engineered (poisonous) seeds are superior to God's seeds that gave rise to nutritious corn via natural selection (humans working in harmony with nature to gradually shape phenotype genetic expression of food crops). The imperialist pushing of GM corn, for example, has led to the agricultural eugenics wipeout of diverse corn species across Mexico. See Mexican farmers fight to preserve 59 indigenous corn varieties against hostile GMO takeover. It has simultaneously collapsed the diversity of the seed supply in states like Texas, where seed diversity for home gardeners has plummeted as biotech corporate giants bought up seed companies and shut them down.

Not only does Monsanto seek to overthrow Mother Nature's seeds with its own genetically engineered seeds, it has aggressively sought to dominate the intellectual property of seeds that produce food for the entire nation, incessantly acquiring patent monopolies over many forms of food crops, food producing ranch animals and agricultural chemicals.

To put this into Ted Cruz's evangelical language, no servant of God can side with Monsatan without committing spiritual treason. By proclaiming his treacherous partnership with Monsanto and the biotech industry, Ted Cruz aligns himself more with the Devil than with God. The Devil seeks power and domination over Man... and so does Monsanto. The Devil operates out of deviousness and deceit... and so does Monsanto. The Devil wields power by fear, intimidation and threats... and so does Monsanto. If this is Ted Cruz's partner in his quest for the highest position of power in America, he is adamantly unqualified to lead any man or nation into anything other than darkness and destruction.

See Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit.



Ted Cruz abandons constitutional liberty and joins the totalitarian agricultural establishment
Beyond the spiritual and political implications of his siding with Monsanto, Ted Cruz has also abandoned his constitutional principles of American liberty in dismissing anti-GMO citizens who oppose deadly herbicides and seed monopolies.

Americans only possess the liberty to choose what to eat when that liberty is made possible by accurate food labeling. To side with Monsanto is to join forces with the DARK Act proponents who seek to crush all honest food labeling laws across America (such as Vermont's GMO labeling law, set to go live this summer). See Food tyranny to become federal policy as DARK Act threatens to censor all GMO labeling nationwide ... Take action!

To deny consumers an informed choice is to deny them liberty. And to deny them liberty is to entrap them in a corporate-run system of food deception and systemic chemical poisoning that can only accelerate the downfall of this nation from disease, suffering and medical debt. Ted Cruz's future for America is a future full of cancer, crop failures, starvation and disease, where corporations like Monsanto own all the intellectual property of seeds, placing farmers into de facto indentured servitude, all while the crony capitalist banksters pocket trillions in profits that are invisibly stolen from the working class via fiat currency money printing and fraudulent quantitative easing (currency debasement). It is a future wracked with poverty, suffering, disease and destitution, where America collapses into a third world nation of impoverished sheeple who are all systematically poisoned by insidious agriculture giants that serve as the new donor class for political power.

The corporate giants that dominate America's food supply today are nothing less than agricultural totalitarians, filled with hatred for health-conscious consumers, clean food and food transparency. Their enemies are food choice and truth in labeling, and they operate via violent character assassins and paid defamation mercenaries like Jon Entine, a devious liar and disinformation slinger who has ties to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the very same group of conservative thugs and haters of democracy who recently hosted a desperate, secret meeting among wealthy globalists to try to stop Donald Trump from getting elected.

See Jon Entine, biotech shill and character assassination operative, committed domestic violence and child abuse, states wife in court documents.

Ted Cruz now has ties to both Goldman Sachs and Monsanto, two of most destructive entities on the planet
No doubt the agricultural giants are now supporting Ted Cruz in precisely the same way the criminal central banksters do, too. Via his wife, Ted Cruz also has ties to Goldman Sachs, an entity that carries out global economic arson and unbridled destruction that rivals the agricultural and chemical destruction of Monsanto and the biotech industry.

With these allies in his corner, Ted Cruz has become the establishment he once claimed he would dismantle. He has become an enemy of truth and health and an ally of deception and death. He has sold his soul to Satan and demonstrated, for all the nation to see without question, that when the American people are dying from the very cancers that are caused by toxic glyphosate weedkiller and GMO crops, Ted Cruz will side with the agrichemical giants that are profiting from that poison.

Ted Cruz, it now seems, has become the Hillary Clinton of the right.

Here are the pictures of the GMO poisoned and glyphosate poisoned rats from the Seralini study:



Read the story: Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early.

Also read Scientific fraud? DuPont study deliberately hid toxic effects of GMOs fed to rats.

Who's left to vote for? Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump!
With both Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz now totally sold out to Monsanto, there's only one choice remaining in each of the two dominant political parties in America.

Bernie Sanders is openly supportive of GMO labeling. It's his own state -- Vermont -- that passed the nation's only GMO labeling law that's set to become active in just a few months. Perhaps for this reason, Sanders has become a favorite among anti-GMO activists and clean food activists. (Sadly, they do not yet fully grasp the economic destruction caused by socialism, but that's another topic for another website...)

On the political right, Donald Trump supports organic food but hasn't yet made a public position statement on Monsanto and GMO labeling, so he's a wild card in that arena but appears to lean towards organic. (It's just one of his many seemingly centrist positions that could cross party lines and appeal to many democrats.)

Whoever you vote for in the primaries or the general election, don't let it be Hillary Clinton (the Bride of Frankenfood) or Ted Cruz (Monsatan's Preacher). If God won't forgive either of these two people for their betrayal of humanity... you shouldn't give them your vote, either.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar...
http://www.foodforensics.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsanto_d...
http://www.naturalnews.com/053271_GMO_labeli...
http://www.naturalnews.com/053230_DARK_Act_f...
http://www.truthwiki.org/jon_entine/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/03/11...
http://www.naturalnews.com/047666_Jon_Entine...
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_...
http://www.naturalnews.com/046224_GMOs_DuPon...
http://www.naturalnews.com/044870_Vermont_GM...
http://www.naturalnews.com/050266_Donald_Tru...
http://www.gmoseralini.org/en/
http://www.naturalnews.com/046086_GMOs_indig...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053315_Ted_Cruz_Monsanto_anti-science_zealots.html#ixzz430y1VAmZ

he must be a special kind of idiot.

fonz,
 
Exactly!
A few years ago I was part of a very large Agriculture Study Group about Monsanto.
You wouldn't believe some of the information I data entered.

Cruz must have been paid 'big bucks' to hold up a sign that said ..."Americans are
anti-science zealots" if they choose non - GMO.

Yup!  he wasn't raised on a farm!
(Yeah what you said ... special kind of idiot!)

American farmers are Not stupid people. They are experts in their trade.
Your farmers supply goods you use everyday ... all over America!

I don't even know when to stop.... beef (steaks, hamburger etc), pork and chicken - cooked 
so many ways, fish - so many kinds and all the wild animals like  elk, deer, bison, bear,
reindeer and many wild birds - turkey, prairie chicken etc. ..... well you all know.


Cripers! I guess I shouldn't interfere with your politics.

.... but  when Monsanto is mentioned  ----- Gramma gets upset

Good Luck in your election of the next President of the US.

I know who I would vote for  --- but I can't vote.

ann

GMOs: What You Need to Know
By Amy Paturel, and Robin Yamakawa Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD on June 10, 2015








Do you know what’s in your food? Chances are it’s been genetically modified. Up to 80% of processed foods in the U.S. are. But what does that mean, and what’s all the fuss about GMOs these days?

“Like it or not, genetically modified foods are almost impossible to avoid,” says Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, an adjunct professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts Medical School in Boston.

Unless you eat only fresh, unprocessed foods that are marked as non-GMO or certified organic, you’re probably eating food that has been genetically modified. Is that a bad thing? It depends on who you ask.



http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/truth-about-gmos

so unless you are tottaly foolish you are eating it and not dyeing .. and ann please its OUR election dear !

don't see 70% of women dying!!

Share Your Experience

People who are pro-GMO say they help farmers grow better crops faster. That means more, and cheaper, food for us.
But people on the other side of the GMO debate worry about their safety. They ask, "Do we know whether eating them over the long run can hurt people?"

How GMOs Are Made

Here’s how it works. Scientists take a plant. They change the plant by adding DNA from another plant, bacteria, or virus to it. DNA is what gives everything its special characteristics. So in this way, the original plant now has new qualities. The changes can make them more resistant to disease, bugs, or drought. It can give them other qualities too, like those that affect their taste or shelf life.

How is that different from the way we’ve improved crops for centuries? One big difference is that genetic modification speeds up the process.

Where it might take years to raise several generations of plants outside in fields to get all the right traits, inside, scientist can grow several generations in one year. Conditions are perfect in the lab. They don’t need to wait for the seasons to change.

GMO foods: What you need to know

Why is there so much fuss over genetically modified ingredients? This will help you sift through the facts.

Published: February 26, 2015 03:20 PM


Foods made with canola oil, corn, or soy often contain GMOs.

Find Ratings

Healthy snacks
Cereals


It’s a growing controversy: Should GMO foods always be labeled so consumers are aware that the product contains genetically modified ingredients?
GMOs—or genetically modified organisms—are created in a lab by altering the genetic makeup of a plant or an animal. Ninety-two percent of Americans believe that GMO foods—widely found in kitchens across the country—should be labeled before they’re sold, according to a recent nationally representative survey of 1,004 people from the Consumer Reports National Research Center. (Last year our tests discovered that GMOs were present in many packaged foods, such as breakfast cereals, chips, baking mixes, and protein bars.)
Demand for non-GMO foods has skyrocketed: In 2013, sales of non-GMO products that were either certified organic (by law, organic products can’t be made with GMO ingredients) or that carried the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal increased by 80 percent, according to the Nutrition Business Journal. It has prompted a growing number of companies to avoid using GMOs in new products or to voluntarily reformulate existing ones so that they can sport reliable non-GMO labels. PepsiCo, for example, sells Stacy’s Simply Naked bagel and pita chips with the Non-GMO Project Verified seal; General Mills, which introduced a non-GMO original Cheerios cereal early last year, also has the non-GMO product lines Cascadian Farm and Food Should Taste Good.
Yet GMO labeling has become a hot-button issue: Vermont passed a GMO labeling law last April. Last fall, the question of whether food manufacturers should be required to list GMO ingredients on their product labels was put to voters in Colorado and Oregon. On both sides were strong arguments and a lot of money spent—mostly on the part of food and chemical industry opponents to labeling. (In the Colorado election, for example, they outspent labeling supporters by about 16 to 1.) The measure was rejected in Colorado, and it failed in Oregon by a razor-thin margin in a recount—837 votes.
In an interesting twist, some food companies that expressed strong opposition to such mandatory labeling are the same ones turning out new non-GMO products. “They are experimenting, in case labeling does become mandatory and boosts demand for non-GMOs,” says Nathan Hendricks, Ph.D., an agricultural economist at Kansas State University. “Of course, they may do this without too much fanfare to avoid raising questions about why they’re removing GMOs from some of their products but not others.”
With so many voices in the conversation and products on the market, how can you make buying decisions that are best for you and your family? Our Q&A helps you separate fact from fiction.

Are GMOs bad for my health?

Those who support using GMOs point out that Americans have been eating foods containing them for more than 15 years and that there’s no credible evidence that people have been harmed. But saying there’s no evidence of harm isn’t the same as saying they’ve been proved safe. “The contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime,” says Robert Gould, M.D., president of the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
A joint commission of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has established a protocol for evaluating the safety of GMOs, which it says have the potential to introduce toxins and new allergens (or increase levels of existing ones), or cause nutritional changes in foods and other unexpected effects. Other developed nations have used those guidelines in their mandatory premarket safety assessments for genetically modified organisms. But the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require any safety assessment of genetically engineered crops, though it invites companies to provide data for a voluntary safety review.

Animal studies—commonly used to help assess human health risks—have suggested that GMOs might cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys. More studies are needed to determine long-term effects. And the ability of researchers to track potential health effects of GMOs in the human population is hampered by the absence of labeling. “Physicians need to know what their patients are eating,” Gould says. “If your patient has a problem with food allergies or other side effects that may be related to GMOs, it’s difficult to identify any links unless these foods are labeled.”
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/02/gmo-foods-what-you-need-to-know/index.htm

Genetically Modified Foods

What would you do in the following situations?

• You are a tomato farmer whose crops are threatened by a persistent species of beetle. Each year, you spend large sums of money for pesticides to protect your crops. A biotechnology company introduces a new strain of tomato plant that produces a natural pesticide, making it resistant to the beetle. By switching to this new strain, you could avoid both the beetle and the chemical pesticides traditionally needed to fight it.
  
• As a family physician, you often treat children who suffer from infectious diseases that could easily be prevented through vaccination. But the parents of many of your patients cannot afford the cost of vaccinations. You hear of a new approach that would reduce the cost to a fraction of its current price: genetically modified fruits and vegetables that contain various vaccines. By simply eating a banana, a child could be protected against disease—without getting a shot!
  
• You are the leader of a developing nation. Hunger is a problem among your citizens: the salty coastal wetlands of your country can't support the growth of needed crops, and your slow economy can't support importing enough food for everyone. A biotechnology company has genetically modified a rice plant that can thrive in salt water, providing your nation with the opportunity to feed its citizens while bolstering its economy.
  

Our ability to manipulate plants by introducing new genes promises innovative solutions to these and many other real-world problems. Yet there is considerable opposition to the use of genetically modified plants for food production and other uses.
Genetic engineering offers a time-saving method for producing larger, higher-quality crops with less effort and expense. Yet such benefits must be balanced against the risks of changing the genetic makeup of organisms.
What are those risks, and how likely are they to occur? In order to define them, we need to understand the science of plant genetic engineering.

---

Genetically modified: what exactly are we talking about?

For thousands of years, humans have been genetically enhancing other organisms through the practice of selective breeding. Look around you: the sweet corn and seedless watermelons at the supermarket, the purebred dogs at the park, and your neighbor's prize rosebush are all examples of how humans have selectively enhanced desirable traits in other living things.
The type of genetic enhancement that generates the most concern goes a step beyond selective breeding, however. Technology now allows us to transfer genes between organisms. For example, the tomato plant's beetle resistance relies on a gene from a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis), which scientists inserted into the tomato plant's genome. This gene, called cry1Ac, encodes a protein that is poisonous to certain types of insects, including the beetle.
How is this done? Gene transfer technology is simply a sophisticated version of a cut-and-paste operation. Once the desired gene is identified in the native organism's genome, it can be cut out, transferred to the target plant, and pasted into its genome. (The illustration to the right describes the "gene-gun" approach, which is one of several gene transfer methods.) Once the new gene has been introduced, the plant can be bred to create a new strain that passes the gene from generation to generation.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/gmfoods/

you take a dog... it a week breed you bread it with a healther one you have GMO dat dog ..same with plants no difference!