Labeling GMO's (Page 7) - Off-Topic | futures trading

Go Back

> Futures Trading, News, Charts and Platforms > Off-Topic

Labeling GMO's
Started:August 21st, 2012 (09:11 PM) by Rachel Views / Replies:15,461 / 239
Last Reply:June 2nd, 2016 (10:55 AM) Attachments:21

Welcome to

Welcome, Guest!

This forum was established to help traders (especially futures traders) by openly sharing indicators, strategies, methods, trading journals and discussing the psychology of trading.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading forums:
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive on our forums.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendor advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in openness and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, it is not something tangible you can download.
  • We expect our members to participate and become a part of the community. Help yourself by helping others.

You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free and simple, and we will never resell your private information.

-- Big Mike

Thread Tools Search this Thread

Labeling GMO's

Old November 3rd, 2012, 04:05 PM   #61 (permalink)
Elite Member
San Diego
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Private
Broker/Data: private
Favorite Futures: CL future
Rachel's Avatar
Posts: 1,380 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 935 given, 1,946 received

Senator Barbara Box is now Yes on Prop 37

Our coalition enjoys broad bi-partisan support and we're so pleased to get this boost from one of our high-profile supporters. Thanks Sen. Boxer for standing up for our right to know what's in our food!

"By supporting Proposition 37, we can join with the 61 countries throughout the world — from Great Britain to Japan to Australia — that already ensure that genetically engineered foods are properly labeled.

More than a decade ago, I introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act in the Senate, which was aimed at ensuring that all Americans had more information about the foods they eat. That's why I am so pleased to join with the broad coalition of consumer groups, health advocates, nurses, doctors, restaurant owners, parents, faith leaders and food safety advocates who have rallied behind Prop. 37."

Please share this story with others, donate for our next radio ad buy on Monday, and join our phone bank to help us reach as many California voters as we can by Election Day.

I just want to add a footnote, many a time, I emailed Senator Boxer saying we need to get rid of GMO's etc and in her emails, her stance was agaisnt my view point. She stood with GMO's etc. Needless to say, I was very dissapointed etc. It is very interesting with the growing movement of concerned citizen's 3 days before we go to vote, she now joins with public opinion our right to know. Even more interesting, she says she brought a bill to label years ago. From my past communications with her, with her pro GMO point of view, I would LOVE to see that bill!!! I don't trust a word she says because of what her past pro GMO stance in past communications with me.

If we are getting our Senator's to stand with public opinion there is hope! It shows how strong this movement is getting.


Last edited by Rachel; November 3rd, 2012 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote

Old November 3rd, 2012, 10:35 PM   #62 (permalink)
Elite Member
San Diego
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Private
Broker/Data: private
Favorite Futures: CL future
Rachel's Avatar
Posts: 1,380 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 935 given, 1,946 received

Unmasking the No on Prop 37 lies and dirty tricks

Unmasking the No on Prop 37 lies and dirty tricks
By Alexis Baden-Mayer

This article was originally published by the Organic Consumers Association on October 31, 2012.

The Monsanto-Pepsi gang can't change the fact that 9 out of 10 people want to
know if they're eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). What they can do
is try to trick California voters into believing that a simple label on their
food is actually a nefarious plot to make consumers pay more for their food and
make trial lawyers rich.

The corporations desperate to keep you in the dark about GMOS have tried nearly
every trick in the book. Fake voter guides. Phony "scientists." Lies about
newspaper endorsements. Illegal hijacking of government logos.

Here are 37 lies and dirty tricks brought to you by Monsanto and the No on 37

#1 Fake Voter Guides - TRICK: It looks like a Democratic Party voter guide, with
President Obama's photo on the front. But inside is an appeal to vote "No on
37." TRUTH: "The Ballot Guide" is a sham. The California Democratic Party has
endorsed Prop 37!

#2 Illegal Use of the FDA Logo - TRICK: A No on 37 mailer contains the official
seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration along with what appears to be a
quote from the FDA opposing Prop 37. TRUTH: "The FDA has not made such
statements with respect to Prop 37," FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky told KPBS.
"We cannot speculate on Prop 37 and have no comments at this time."
Source: 'No On 37' Campaign Mailers 'Criminal'

#3 Use of Profits from Organic Brands to Fight your Right to Know - TRICK:
Organic and natural brands appear to share your values, promoting family farms,
sustainable agriculture and healthy and nutritious food. TRUTH: Many of your
favorite organic and natural brands are owned by big food companies donating
their profits to the No on 37 campaign, including Kraft, Kellogg, Coca-Cola,
PepsiCo and General Mills.
Source: Brands Attack Consumers Right to GMO Labeling

#4 Scientists for Hire - TRICK: University of California at Davis professors
oppose labeling GMOs because they understand the science of genetic engineering,
they know its benefits, and they're confident that GMOs are safe. TRUTH: UC
Davis professors oppose labeling because they are financial beneficiaries of the
same pesticide companies that are funding the No on 37 campaign.
Source: "Experts" are Shills for Big Biotech

#5 Scientists as Sock Puppets - TRICK: An anti-Prop 37 op-ed is authored by Kent
J. Bradford, a professor of plant sciences at the University of California,
Davis, and the director of the Seed Biotechnology Center. TRUTH: The words
Bradford uses to describe Prop 37 are taken verbatim from the No on 37 website.
The Daily Democrat and The Reporter (Vacaville) published Monsanto's talking
points disguised as legitimate opinion from a university professor of plant
Source: Did Monsanto Write This Op-Ed?

#6 Scientists with Hidden Strings - TRICK: Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc., is
the director of the International Biotechnology Program and an Adjunct Professor
of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. When she acts as a
proponent for genetic engineering, as she did recently on the Dr. Oz Show, she
presents herself as an independent academic scientist. TRUTH: Martina
Newell-McGloughlin's work is funded by the same pesticide company that backs the
No on 37 campaign, but the strings that attach her to Monsanto are rarely
reported along with her pro-GMO views.
Source: Seeds of Doubt

#7 Lies about the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics - TRICK: The "Argument
Against Proposition 37" in California's Official Voter Information Guide states
that the Academy "has concluded that biotech foods are safe." TRUTH: That
statement is false. "We are concerned that California's voters are being misled
to believe the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals
is against Proposition 37, when in fact, the Academy does not have a position on
the issue," said registered dietitian Ethan A. Bergman, president of the Academy
of Nutrition and Dietetics. "Voters need accurate information in order to make
an informed choice."
Source: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

#8 Lies about Newspaper Endorsements - TRICK: In an anti-Prop-37 TV ad, the San
Francisco Examiner is featured prominently as having editorialized against Prop
37. TRUTH: The San Francisco Examiner has endorsed Prop 37.
Source: No on 37 Ad Yanked

#9 Lies about Stanford University Affiliation - TRICK: A No on 37 TV ad features
an academic, identified on screen as "Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Standford
University." TRUTH: Miller is not a Stanford professor, but rather a research
fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the
Stanford campus.
Source: TV Ad Is Pulled

#10 Lies about Farmer Support - TRICK: No on 37 spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks
claims the "entire agricultural community of California" is opposing Prop 37.
TRUTH: More than 2,000 farmers, including some GMO farmers, as well as the
California Grange, the Central Coast Agricultural Network, the United Farm
Workers, California Labor Federation and United Food and Commercial Workers
western region all support Prop 37.
Source: No On 37 Lies Again

#11 Fake Yes on 37 Supporters Spreading No on 37 Lies - TRICK: The California
Right to Know Facebook page often gets posts from people who "Like" it that
begin with a statement of support for Prop 37 but end with lies straight from
the No on 37 disinformation handbook. TRUTH: Employees of the pesticide and junk
food companies fighting our right to know, including Frito Lay, are trolling
our pages. (No on 37 has to hang out on our page because California Right to
Know has literally 100,000 more Likes than they do!)

#12 Lies about GMOs' Safety - TRICK: GMO's are "perfectly safe." TRUTH: No one's
vouching for the safety of genetically engineered foods. This summer, the
American Medical Association passed a new resolution calling for mandatory
pre-market safety testing of GMOs. The GMO foods that are currently being
consumed in the US not only aren't labeled, they have never been safety tested
by independent parties.
Source: GMOs Should Be Safety Tested Says AMA

#13 Lies about the National Academy of Science - TRICK: The National Academy of
Sciences says GMOs are safe and there's no reason to label them. TRUTH: The NAS
study referenced by the Monsanto-Pepsi gang is the 1987 report, Introduction of
Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment. The 1987 NAS report
doesn't address the issue of GMO labels and doesn't claim to present evidence
that GMOs are safe for human consumption. GMO foods didn't exist in 1987, so
they couldn't have been safety tested then. The NAS only argued that GMOs
shouldn't be treated differently from normal organisms. The fact that government
regulators followed the NAS approach and failed to treat GMO foods with any more
precaution than normal foods is not evidence that they are safe or shouldn't be
Source: Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into...

#14 Lies about the World Health Organization - TRICK: The World Health
Organization says GMOs are safe and there's no reason to label them. TRUTH: WHO
recognizes "the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health
of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification" and that
"consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labeling
GM foods, allowing an informed choice."
Source: The World Health Organization

#15 Lies About Pesticides - TRICK: Genetically engineered crops reduce pesticide
use. TRUTH: Genetically engineered crops have actually increased pesticide use,
especially the use of Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp. 527 million additional
pounds of RoundUp were used on genetically engineered crops between 1996 and
Source: Modified Crops Increase Herbicide Use

#16 Lies about Disease Resistance - TRICK: Genetically engineered crops are more
resistant to disease. TRUTH: Recently, scientists have identified new outbreaks
of blight, rust, and other fungal infections in Monsanto's genetically
engineered RoundUp Ready crops.
Source: Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

#17 Lies about a Ban on GMOs - TRICK: Prop 37 bans genetically engineered foods
unless they're specially re-labeled or remade with higher-cost ingredients.
TRUTH: Prop 37 wouldn't ban anything, it would just let us know what we're
eating and allow us to make an informed choice about GMOs. Prop 37 doesn't
confer any regulatory authority that could be used to ban GMOs under any
Source: A Label, Not a Ban

#18 Lies about Zero Tolerance - TRICK: Prop 37 has a zero-tolerance for
accidental GMO content in foods that aren't labeled as containing GMOs. Such a
policy would force producers of essentially non-GMO products to use the label
"may contain GMOs," simply out of fear of litigation. TRUTH: Prop 37 exempts
foods that do not intentionally contain GMOs.
Source: Incorrect Reports

#19 Lies about Frozen Pizza vs. Delivery Pizza - TRICK: Why would a frozen pizza
from the grocery store with genetically engineered ingredients be labeled GMO,
while a pizza with the same ingredients delivered from a restaurant wouldn't?
TRUTH: Frozen pizza from the grocery store has an ingredients label on it. Pizza
delivered from a restaurant does not. Prop 37 can add GMOs to a label, but it
can't add a label to food that doesn't already have one.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes

#20 Lies about Fruit Juice vs. Alcohol - TRICK: Why would fruit juice with
genetically engineered ingredients be labeled GMO, while alcohol with the same
ingredients wouldn't? TRUTH: Fruit juice has an ingredients label, alcohol
doesn't. Prop 37 is just about adding GMOs to the label, not adding labels to
products that don't already have them.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes

#21 Lies about Soy Milk vs. Cow's Milk - TRICK: Dairy products, eggs, meat and
poultry are all exempt. TRUTH: No, they're not. All dairy products, eggs, meat,
poultry, and fish, for that matter, will be labeled under Prop 37, if and when
genetically engineered animals are sold for human consumption.
Source: The Truth About Exemptions

#22 Lies about Dog Food vs. Steak - TRICK: Dog food with beef would be labeled,
but beef wouldn't. TRUTH: Cows haven't been genetically engineered yet. If and
when they are, GMO beef and dairy will be labeled under Prop 37. "Dog food with
beef" contains other ingredients (vegetable oils, for instance) that might be
genetically engineered and therefore might be labeled.
Source: Vote Yes on Prop 37

#23 Lies About Animals Fed GMOs - TRICK: I'd support Prop 37's labels on GMO
fruits, vegetables, animals and ingredients - if it covered animals raised on
genetically engineered feed. TRUTH: The Monsanto-Pepsi gang isn't opposed to
Prop 37 because it doesn't go far enough. The fact is, no labeling law in the
world covers animals raised on genetically engineered feed. Prop 37 is designed
to be compatible with the laws of our 61 trading partners who already label
genetically engineered food, because most US farmers and food processors are
already aware of and complying with those laws abroad.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes

#24 Lies about Special Interest Exemptions - TRICK: Prop 37 is funded by the
organic industry and it looks like they've exempted themselves from the law. Why
would organic be exempt, while producers of conventional food have to label
GMOs? TRUTH: Organic food is verified by a USDA accredited certifier to be made
without the use of genetic engineering. The organic law is actually much
stricter than Prop 37 because it requires third-party certification.
Source: The Truth About Exemptions

#25 Lies about Costs to Consumers - TRICK: GMO labels will result in increased
food costs for needy families. An average family's annual grocery bill would
increase by $400. TRUTH: 61 other countries label genetically engineered food
and there isn't a single real-world example of increased food costs. Likewise,
food prices didn't go up in the US when information about allergens - or any
other piece of information - was added to labels. What makes the Monsanto-Pepsi
gang's grocery bill trick so dirty is that the $400 figure they cite is actually
their estimate of the cost of companies switching from GMO to organic to avoid
labels, not the cost of GMO labels themselves.
Source: Anti-Prop 37 Ad Misleads

#26 Lies about Costs to Farmers and Processors - TRICK: UC Davis Professors of
agricultural economics released a report that showed Proposition 37 would
increase costs for California farmers and food processors by $1.2 billion.
TRUTH: The No campaign paid the authors of this study, Julian Alston and Daniel
Sumner, at least $30,000. The study assumes that farmers and food producers will
respond to Proposition 37 by switching from genetically engineering to organic
to avoid the labeling. The authors don't devote much attention to the
possibility that producers will respond to the labeling mandate by simply
Source: Perils of the Initiative Process

#27 Lies about Costs to Taxpayers - TRICK: Prop. 37 "would cost California
taxpayers millions for more bureaucracy and red tape." TRUTH: This nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst's Office's estimates the annual cost of enforcement as "a
few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million."
Source: The Truth About Cost

#28 Lies about "Natural" Claims - TRICK: Based on an analysis by Peggy Lemaux,
part of the Monsanto-Pepsi gang, NPR's Eliza Barclay wrote an article claiming
Prop 37 would stop producers of any processed food from using the term
"natural." TRUTH: Only processed food containing GMOs will be blocked from
carrying "natural" claims under Prop 37. The Center for Environmental Health
pointed this out to Barclay and she corrected her report.
Source: GMO Food Labeling Lies

#29 Lies about Prop 65 - TRICK: Prop 37 is just like Prop 65. TRUTH: Proposition
65 granted private attorneys a share of fines and penalties exacted from
violators, making it more of a bounty system. Proposition 37 doesn't do that.
Private attorneys can sue only to obtain injunctions, not penalties.
Source: Perils of the Initiative Process

#30 Lies about Damages - TRICK: The independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst
says that Proposition 37 would allow trial lawyers "to sue without needing to
demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged
violation." TRUTH: Say you buy a box of cereal whose main ingredient is corn.
It's not labeled GMO, but you get it tested and find that it has levels of GMO
above what could result from unintentional contamination. You bring a lawsuit
under Prop 37. You might be right that the processor intentionally used
genetically engineered ingredients without labeling them, but what's your
"damage"? If you suffered no harm, there aren't any damages that can be
recognized under the law, except maybe what you paid for the cereal. If Prop 37
required a demonstration of damages before a violation of the law could be
rectified, GMO labels couldn't be enforced. The advantage to this system is that
the only incentive to sue will be to enforce the law, not to win money
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#31 Lies about Trial Lawyers - TRICK: Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers for
trial lawyers. TRUTH: The California Right to Know campaign began with the
efforts of Pamm Larry, a former midwife, farmer and longtime Chico resident. In
2011, Pamm started organizing mothers and volunteers across the state toward a
2012 ballot drive with only one goal in mind: to let California consumers know
if the food they are eating is genetically engineered. With the help of
thousands of volunteers, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million
signatures from California voters within a 10 week period.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#32 Lies about Grocers - TRICK: Prop 37 is "a nightmare scenario for grocers"
and retailers because they have to obtain and keep "reams of paperwork." TRUTH:
Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya,
squash) that are genetically engineered - if they were buying them directly from
farmers, as opposed to a packer who would have responsibility for labeling. They
can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their
farmer supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#33 Lies about Lawsuits - TRICK: Prop 37 will lead to a bonanza of lawsuits.
TRUTH: Lawsuits are expressly forbidden unless the potential defendant is given
a chance to put the labels on. If the defendant labels the product, no lawsuit.
Second, the law protects anyone for whom a claimed violation was not intentional
or resulted from an error.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#34 Lies about Lawsuits Against Farmers - TRICK: Farmers will get sued. TRUTH:
If they're selling direct to customers, farmers need to label their genetically
engineered produce. If they're selling into the supply chain, all farmers have
to do is provide sworn statements as to whether or not their crops are
genetically engineered (if the crops are typically GMO). Genetically engineered
seeds are patented, they can only be used under contract and must be purchased
each year, so farmers definitely know whether they're growing GMOs. Monsanto's
the only one suing farmers.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#35 Lies about a Corporate Agenda - TRICK: In California, there is nothing on
the ballot that doesn't serve some corporate agenda. TRUTH: Look at the list of
donors for and against Prop 37. Will you stand with the natural health advocates
and organic consumers, farmers and retailers who support your right to know, or
the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world who want to hide the
GMOs you're eating?
Source: Prop 37 Funders

#36 Lies about Foreign Corporations - TRICK: Foods imported from foreign
countries are exempt if sellers simply declare that their products are
"GE-free." TRUTH: There are no special provisions related to imported food.
Source: Read the Initiative

#37 Lies about Consumer Choice - TRICK: Mandatory GMO labels are unnecessary
because food that is certified organic or non-GMO verified is labeled for
consumers who choose to avoid GMOs. TRUTH: Only a small fraction of the public
is aware of GMOs in their food. In fact 74% of the public is ignorant of the
fact that they're already eating GMOs. It isn't fair to keep consumers in the
dark. We deserve the right to know what we're eating! California, vote Yes on
Source: Public Sentiment About GM Food

The GE News Service is aggregated and distributed by EFA Board Member Thomas Wittman. Thomas created this service in 1991 to provide the latest news about genetically engineered foods and the movement advocating for labeling and public awareness. To contact Thomas, email

The Ecological Farming Association nurtures healthy, just food systems and communities
by bringing people together for education, alliance building, and celebration.
To learn more, visit Welcome to EcoFarm | Organic, Sustainable, Local Agriculture | Ecological Farming Association.

Reply With Quote

Old November 4th, 2012, 04:14 AM   #63 (permalink)
Elite Member
San Diego
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Private
Broker/Data: private
Favorite Futures: CL future
Rachel's Avatar
Posts: 1,380 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 935 given, 1,946 received

Sharing some thoughts

When I started learning about GMO's it was very disturbing, how could these people introduce this into our lives and genetic pool? How could other's harm us with no regard?

Then as I have been a member of (formerly BMT), watching and learning in the Unexplained thread, I learned more and more. My eyes were opened more besides my own observations of what was going on with our society from the fact that I am a trader. Most traders are agaisnt the devaluing of the US dollar etc.

When I look at all the things going on the world:
1. Our elected officials are in the pocket of corporations
2. The Federal Reserve: who are not elected officials, get to decide the fate of our dollar
3. Our Presidents don't keep their campaign promises
It goes on, how I would love to have the Federal Gov. smaller and out of my business etc. but I am just a small individual etc.

What I see happening with Prop 37, people coming together to make a positive change, is very inspiring and gives me hope. Even if we do not win in this election, people are becoming informed and will vote with their purchasing dollar and that will eventually make the change we need.

Also, it came to me, how to deal with all these powerful forces in the world: I am not buying into their belief system, I am going to sing's John Lemon's song: Love, Love, Love, da da da da, All you need is Love, Love, Love, Love etc.

Even if this brings a smile to your face, that is great.

I am going to hold thoughts of Love for all living creation and whatever the future brings, my response will be one of love and compassion. I may not be able to have a big impact in the world or course of events but I can make a difference in my life and hold a positive frame of mind, no matter what the outcome is on this coming election.

It might be a simple idea but I think it is a lovely one.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Rachel for this post:

Old November 4th, 2012, 05:27 AM   #64 (permalink)
Elite Member
desert CA
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NT7, TOS
Broker/Data: AMP/wCQG, TDA
Favorite Futures: CL,YM
Posts: 1,994 since Jul 2011
Thanks: 2,171 given, 1,498 received

Thanks for all the work you do on this thread and alerting about GMO's Rachel. Just like big oil, big pharma, big media, it's all about the dollar and corporatism imo. On one hand as we are all trying to make money off the markets as traders or investors here, I believe in the freedom of the investor and the markets, on the other hand disregarding the public good and ramming through national and state policies trying to bypass or fool the voting public, in the name of commanding shareholders and insider trading is just going too far.

Thanks for the thread and information which helps inform my vote on proposition 37 as a fellow Californian. I am voting no on prop 30. Unfortunately, the public sector in California which I do realize are many families , even neighbors , has to realize state worker wages and pentions can not be maintained and increased at the expense of the state taxpayer, while the rest of the private sector's wages have stagnated and continue to fall below the rate of inflation. Until or if, the state and country figures out how to solve all this collapsing job(real full time jobs) market, wage deflation and offshored job mess. And there are too many useless "required breadth" classes taught in high school and state colleges that do not prepare anyone for the real job market. Despite the union ads for prop 30, research by taxpayer associations have found out prop 30 does NOT guarantee the raised taxes proposed will go straight "to... the.. children!"; in fact the funds are meant to support salaries and pensions.

California has enough food and crops to feed the entire world. Yet somehow food prices keep rising and the food never reach the hungry populations in the third world nations.


Besides the big banks and franchises, i.e. BoA, Costco, Home Depot, Walmart, most of the rest of "industrial" buildings around are "for sale/for lease" signs.

Attached Thumbnails
Labeling GMO's-monsanto_seminis_oxnard.jpg   Labeling GMO's-countrywide_now_boa.jpg  

Last edited by Cloudy; November 4th, 2012 at 05:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Cloudy for this post:

Old November 4th, 2012, 07:14 PM   #65 (permalink)
Elite Member
San Diego
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Private
Broker/Data: private
Favorite Futures: CL future
Rachel's Avatar
Posts: 1,380 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 935 given, 1,946 received

4 questions to ask before you vote on Tuesday

Futures Edge on FIO

What happens to the S&P 500 when a new President takes office?

4 Questions Voters Should Ask About Prop 37

Also, just finished watching this video posted in the Unexplained Thread:
Excellent, if you are feeling apathetic, you will get inspired.

Last edited by Rachel; November 4th, 2012 at 07:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Rachel for this post:

Old November 4th, 2012, 07:44 PM   #66 (permalink)
Membership Revoked
LA, California, USA
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Favorite Futures: CL,ES mainly
Victory Trader's Avatar
Posts: 531 since Sep 2011
Thanks: 205 given, 373 received

David vs. Monsanto


Not sure if this posted before, Worth the watch even if it was.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Victory Trader for this post:

Old November 7th, 2012, 12:35 AM   #67 (permalink)
CL Assassin
Near Dallas, Texas, US
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker/Data: ZenFire
Favorite Futures: CL
Gary's Avatar
Posts: 1,070 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 504 given, 2,222 received

Anyone have live results on prop 37 vote?

Reply With Quote

Old November 7th, 2012, 01:25 AM   #68 (permalink)
Elite Member
Bend, Oregon
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Ninjatrader/Sierra Chart
Broker/Data: IB
Favorite Futures: Futures
Posts: 29 since May 2011
Thanks: 399 given, 34 received

Gary View Post
Anyone have live results on prop 37 vote?

42.7% Yes to label 57.3% No to labeling . . 22% of precincts reporting

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to bob5e for this post:

Old November 7th, 2012, 09:39 AM   #69 (permalink)
Site Administrator
Manta, Ecuador
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Favorite Futures: E-mini ES S&P 500
Big Mike's Avatar
Posts: 45,432 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 28,836 given, 79,560 received

The bill was defeated (no labeling).


Due to time constraints, please do not PM me if your question can be resolved or answered on the forum.

Need help?
1) Stop changing things. No new indicators, charts, or methods. Be consistent with what is in front of you first.
2) Start a journal and post to it daily with the trades you made to show your strengths and weaknesses.
3) Set goals for yourself to reach daily. Make them about how you trade, not how much money you make.
4) Accept responsibility for your actions. Stop looking elsewhere to explain away poor performance.
5) Where to start as a trader? Watch this webinar and read this thread for hundreds of questions and answers.
Help using the forum? Watch this video to learn general tips on using the site.

If you want
to support our community, become an Elite Member.

Reply With Quote

Old November 7th, 2012, 01:36 PM   #70 (permalink)
Elite Member
San Diego
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Private
Broker/Data: private
Favorite Futures: CL future
Rachel's Avatar
Posts: 1,380 since Mar 2012
Thanks: 935 given, 1,946 received


I have been waiting to receive any emails regarding inaccurate polling stuff but haven't heard anything yet. It is dissapointing the bill didn't get passed this time. The good thing is, more people got informed about GMO's and will use their purchasing power to avoid them in the future and that will eventually lead to the tipping point.

It is certainly a battle of David and Goliath but we know, who one eventually. Today was one step back after many steps forward and there are other states that will bring their right to know to their citizens.

I also did a little research from all the video's posted and forgot the website but 3 years ago they did testing of organic corn, to see if it had any GMO's in it? There were a few kernals of the organic corn that had GMO's in it. So, I have decided not to eat any organic corn or soy beans because I think it is on it's way of Canadian Soy which is now all GMO.

So, my fellow human beings, be the change in the world you want to see.

Big Internet Hug to you all,


Reply With Quote

Reply > Futures Trading, News, Charts and Platforms > Off-Topic > Labeling GMO's

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Upcoming Webinars and Events (4:30PM ET unless noted)

An Afternoon with FIO trader bobwest

Elite only

NinjaTrader 8: Programming Profitable Trading Edges w/Scott Hodson

Elite only

Anthony Drager: Executing on Intermarket Correlations & Order Flow, Part 2

Elite only

Adam Grimes: Five critically important keys to professional trading

Elite only

Machine Learning Concepts w/FIO member NJAMC

Elite only

MarketDelta Cloud Platform: Announcing new mobile features

Dec 1

NinjaTrader 8: Features and Enhancements

Dec 6

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GMO short coming? Rachel Off-Topic 4 November 7th, 2012 03:28 PM
Roundup Ready Megadeath - GMO Madness Zondor News and Current Events 2 December 16th, 2011 09:32 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM.

Copyright © 2016 by All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
no new posts

Page generated 2016-10-23 in 0.23 seconds with 21 queries on phoenix via your IP