(It is astonishing that people like O'Leary want consumers to have less information about what they're buying, keeping them in the dark and subjecting them to the accidental ingestion of modified foods that have been linked to organ damage and cancer tumors.)
See Rachel Parent's Facebook page here.
Tips for Rachel -- how to respond to GMO death cultists
In addition to celebrating Rachel's amazing debate, I also wanted to offer her some advice in confronting these manipulative, anti-human "death cult" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary, who actually suggested, when asked about GMO labeling advocates, "I have an answer for these people. Stop eating. Then we can get rid of them." (Yes, he would love to usher in another holocaust as long as Monsanto got to run the concentration camps...)
First, you've got to fire back and remind people like O'Leary that GMOs are not without their own risks. O'Leary's claim that Rachel endorses the death of children because she doesn't support genetically modified rice engineered with extra vitamin A completely glosses over the inherent risks of toying with the genetic code of self-replicating crops.
Risk #1) Human health side effects. What is the effect of GMO crops on humans who eat them? Will they cause organ damage? Infertility? Unforeseen side effects? Wouldn't it have been wise to answer these questions before rolling out GM crops across the world?With arguments like these, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire planet at risk of a man-made ecological disaster worse than the Great Dust Bowl." She could have then asked O'Leary whether he "supported global starvation for humanity."
Risk #2) Genetic pollution. Will the artificially engineered genes spread through the crops grown in the wild, altering them in unforeseen ways and possibly creating new genetic vulnerabilities that could lead to sudden crop failures? By invoking this argument, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire human race at risk of starvation" from an unforeseen crop failure caused by GMO pollution. And if challenged on that, she could have pointed to all the other times "scientists" have failed to foresee the devastating implications of technologies that were widely believed to be safe when they were first rolled out: thalidomide, DDT, nuclear power plants, the agricultural policies that caused the Dust Bowl, etc.
Risk #3) Ecosystem devastation. How will GMO crops interact with insect pests and pollinators? Rachel could have rightly invoked the global collapse of honeybee pollinators and pointed to GMOs as one of the factors believed to be partially responsible. Will GMOs also alter insects and make them more resistant to natural plant defense mechanisms in non-GMO crops? If so, that could prove devastating to non-agricultural ecosystems such as forests or plains. We've already seen how the use of Roundup -- the herbicide commonly used on GM crops -- has resulted in the rise of "superweed" that require enormous quantities of herbicide chemicals to eradicate. That's alarming proof that GMOs actually lead to the use of more chemicals, not less.
Rachel Parent is the kind of truth-telling activist who will ultimately defeat Monsanto
Natural News salutes Rachel Parent, and we know that her debate skills will only continue to gain strength as she acquires more experience doing battle with "cult of death" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary -- the kind of people who don't mind risking the entire future of life on Earth as long as profiteering companies like Monsanto can make a few extra bucks next quarter.
In my opinion, they should fire O'Leary for being such a homicidal racist -- i.e., openly supporting risking the death of the entire race of humans -- and replace him with Rachel Parent who obviously makes a lot more sense and has a far better ability to connect with the viewing audience.
Check out Rachel leading the "Kids Right to Know" march: