listen you government loving a-holes!!!!
privatization is much more complex, then all your biased one party marxist idea of economic finances.
1. the contract which the CITY GOVERNEMENT writes out, determines the quality in which services you allow private to handle.
2. public private partnerships are far more efficient than privatization.
3. if you guys had brains, maybe you guys would realize that if government ever wanted to outsource their services, doesnt that mean and display the inneficiency of the city government.
4. the job of the public sector is to serve taxpayers. not to create jobs.
1. Peer reviewed science has shown toxicity in connection with GMOs.
2. We do not need GMOs.
3. Pesticides are toxic and increased use is resulting from GMOs.
4. The stupidity of this stuffed doll, well what can I say?
5. Patenting genes and organisms containing them is a crime against humanity and must be made illegal.
I am not an organic farmer or any kind of farmer but I completely agree with everything Rob says in the above comment. If ever two people cared about the correct information getting out to the public, Anastasia and Karl do. Frank is an attempt at better accessibility and approachability - no more, no less. This article comes across as a smear campaign.
I think it's important to point out that just because someone, or an organization, or a non-profit informational website supports the use of GMOs does not make it or them a corporate shill. That is perhaps the worst myth spread by anti-GMO activists. Some people, myself included, just regular folks, support the technology because it has huge promise for an uncertain global food future. The advancement of the technology is being hampered by throngs of people who don't understand it and fear it. It is mob mentality.
This article looks slick and like it is legit and for the people but it's really just a copy of all the other attacks on anyone who thinks GMOs could be a good idea. It's the familiar "they must be a shill for the industry" if they could ever support the use of GMOs. I'm not going to go into a long rant here but I do want to point out that you mentioned that the Borlaug video was being promoted by all the major Ag companies. I don't follow your logic here, or see how that particular example shows that Biofortified is 'in cahoots' with them. The video was created. The companies posted it because they liked the message and furthermore, it is probably in agreement with their company mission statement. If an independent information website posted a video about a Nobel peace prize winning organic farmer, wouldn't it be acceptable for the major organic brands to feature it on their websites?
Pages