Hillary, Bernie, and Monsanto


Most animal protection campaigns are knee jerk responses to one horror or another. They are driven by immediacy of need or media publicity or emotional shock or public outrage.

We seldom have, or take, the opportunity to plot a course of action solely upon the number of animals that might be saved.

Impacting animal agriculture even modestly will affect the most animals, as the Animal Holocaust conducted by agriculture industries murders upwards of 60 BILLION animals every year in slaughterhouses.

The number is so huge we have difficulty comprehending it. But it works out to over a MILLION animals being murdered every ten minutes, around the clock, 24/7!


1,000,000. Every. Ten. Minutes.

Fifty thousand died while you read this much of this article. One hundred thousand if you like to took your time.

That is more than all the dogs and cats rescued in America in a year.

My personal preference in dealing with Big Agriculture (Big Ag) and the slaughter industry would be to sabotage livestock trucks, burn down slaughterhouses and shoot the owners. But that is a fantasy. No such action is either legal or effective, as others would merely fill the vacuum and I would be in prison.

To have an impact on the number of animals being slaughtered requires driving down consumption and driving up the costs to consumers. As meat, dairy, and egg prices increase, consumption drops.

Most proposals that would raise the cost to consumers are politically impossible to institute. Taxing meat, for example, to offset the public healthcare costs of cardiovascular disease, is only logical and reasonable. However, it would be politically impossible to levy such a tax, as consumers and the industry are too much of a political impediment.

Like most animal activists and environmentalists, I have been active in the fight against GMOs.

GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms. Chemical giant Monsanto has patented GMO corn, soybeans, and other grains. The purpose of GMOs is to increase the yield per acre of crops, to protect them from insects, to increase their sugar and oil contents, to prolong ripening time to allow for long distance transport and increased shelf life, etc. All of these mean more money to farmers, and Monsanto sells them the seed.

Environmentalists are opposed to the introduction of GMOs into the wild because very little is known of their impact on either flora or fauna. Some GMOs designed to poison insects that feed upon them are now being consumed by insects that have developed an ability to withstand the GMO poisons.

Consumers are opposed to GMOs because there are no requirements that foods containing GMOs be labeled. Big Ag opposes labeling because most consumers are wary of genetically modified “Frankenfoods.” There is little doubt consumers would reject GMO foods if they were told which foods were genetically modified.

If labeling were required, Monsanto would be hit hard by farmers rejecting their GMO seed.

The conventional wisdom has been that even if labeling were to be required, Monsanto would still have a huge market for GMO seed used to grow animal feed.

Escalating the campaign to require labeling of directly consumed GMOs to one that requires indirectly consumed GMOs be disclosed would turn the consumer campaign into one that could save millions of animal lives by derailing GMOs being used for animal feed. If animal growers and feed lots have to buy non-GMO grain, the cost of meat production will increase. Those increased costs will be seen in the marketplace in higher prices per pound of meat, and higher prices for eggs and dairy as well. Higher consumer prices mean less consumer demand, less consumption, and fewer animals slaughtered.

The most effective, and politically feasible, proposal is to require truth in labeling of ALL food. We would require it across the board so that we can put together the broadest possible coalition of consumers, consumer advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, animal activists, children’s and seniors’ advocates, organic farmers and producers, health-conscious shoppers, etc.

Such a requirement would dictate that everything fed to cattle, pigs, chickens, etc, and everything injected or otherwise introduced into their bodies would have to be disclosed. That would mean GMOs, antibiotics, the corpses of other animals, etc.

We would join forces with those fighting against GMOs and those advocating for GMOs to be labeled.

But we go further, in that we want GMOs that are indirectly consumed by humans to be labeled as well as those that are directly consumed.

Most corn, for example, is not consumed directly by people, but by farm animals. Humans only eat about 6% of the corn produced, animals eat over 60%. The rest is consumed indirectly by people in corn syrup, corn starch, etc., or is made into ethanol or used in other industrial applications.

The state of Vermont recently passed a law requiring that foods containing GMOs be labeled. Vermont is perhaps the most politically courageous and enlightened state in the Union.

Vermont is the only state to have withstood the bribery by Monsanto and Big Agriculture. In every other state where liberals have tried to require labeling, a flood of bribes from lobbyists fronting for Monsanto and Big Ag have managed to kill all such proposals.

That Vermont has done so is a major victory. Now, Monsanto is leading a legal assault on the law, and has filed a lawsuit against the state of Vermont. Joining Monsanto is a list of corporate plaintiffs who do not want the people of Vermont to know what is in the food they buy, eat, and feed to their children.

By proposing an even broader attack on Monsanto and Big Agriculture we can forge an even broader coalition, relying heavily on the zeal, tenacity, and dedication of animal activists.

This is a battle we can win. Liberals control the Democratic party at the local level. Which is where this fight will be waged. It will be conducted state-by-state, at the most local level of political trench warfare; in the Democratic county central committees, in local Democratic volunteer organizations, in precinct meetings, union halls, church basements, and on college campuses.

At this level of political involvement, the bribes of Big Business are not an issue. The bribe money doesn’t trickle this far down to influence local Democrats.

This could be the defining issue in liberals re-taking control of the Democratic party from the Wall Street crowd, which currently owns most of the Democratic leadership from the president on down.

And if liberals see this as providing them with such an opportunity, the animals will benefit, the environment will benefit, consumers will control the marketplace, and the corporate state will have been weakened.

Requiring Truth In Labeling will almost certainly force farmers to stop most production of GMO corn, with a resulting increase in animal feed costs, translating into increased meat, dairy, and egg costs to consumers.

Even a few percentage point decline in consumer demand would mean a reduction of millions of slaughtered animals.

A caveat here. Reducing the number of animals slaughtered doesn’t mean they will be set free. It just means their deaths will be delayed.

If enough are delayed, fewer are bred to die.

Every animal in the food system is going to die a violent death. None can be saved. None will be set free. If the whole world became vegan tomorrow, every animal controlled by Big Ag would still be murdered for whatever money they can get, even if it meant turning the animals into fertilizer or rendering them for soap and cosmetics.

The only animals we can save are the ones who won’t be born.

If there are more animals than there is demand for their corpses, breeding is curtailed. The ones born are murdered, the ones not born are the ones we save.

And we must save billions from the horrors of the Animal Holocaust.

The very first step we each must take is to resolve to join the fight against Monsanto and GMOs.

The second step is to demand that mere disclosure of GMOs in our foodstuffs is not enough. We must demand that ALL GMOs, chemicals, medicines, antibiotics, steroids, and hormones, introduced into meat and dairy animals be disclosed as well.

The 2016 elections are nearly underway. Candidates are posturing for position to run for Congress, the Senate, state legislative seats, and governorships.

A reasonable inquiry of a candidate’s priorities and ideology could be determined by asking whether they support Big Ag or the consumer.

A litmus test to determine the truth is whether or not they support Truth In Labeling.

Truth In Labeling as a political issue would fuel the left, force moderates to take a stand, and result in the election of the most liberal candidates.

Most importantly, it would defeat conservatives.

The by-product of elections in which the left has an ideological stake is the recruitment of leftists, the growth of the movement, and, indirectly, the benefit to animals.

Nowhere would the issue demonstrate greater contrast between candidates than in the Democratic primary contests.

Hillary Clinton has been a supporter of Monsanto, and has received legal political bribes from their lobbyists. Bernie Sanders is an unrelenting critic of corporate influence in politics, is a critic of Monsanto, and has been a champion of consumers.

Sanders has already forced Clinton to the left. She has had to modify her positions as a Wall Street Democrat in face of the goundswell of rebellion by progressives in support of Bernie Sanders.

Clinton now opposes the Keystone pipeline, the Trans Pacific Partnership, favors reform of banking practices, addressing student loan debt, and curtailing the excesses of Wall Street.

If progressives and liberals can force the candidates to embrace Truth in Labeling, we could save millions of animals while crippling Big Agriculture.

I fully expect Bernie Sanders to support Truth In Labeling.

Whether Clinton will break with Monsanto is yet to be seen.



Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.


7 thoughts on “Hillary, Bernie, and Monsanto

  1. The World Health Organization recently had something more to say about processed meat, but all carnists I have talked with don’t care about the admonitions of this entity, particularly if it is in regard to “their” cherished bacon. When I said, “We need to liberate our children before we can liberate the children of other species,” I was suggesting the ideology or metaphysics of veganism and biocentrism needed to be included in the elementary education of our children. This discipline of veganism/biocentrism would be a subject taught at every grade level. It would be mandatory. It would be on par with mathematics and language arts (and other disciplines we sadly despise). Demanding the inclusion of the veganism/biocentrism discipline is where your focus ought to be.

    Provided we don’t kill each other any time soon, the advances of genetics and our nanotechnologies will continue, unabated, far into the future with our increased understanding of the consequences of our actions. Disclosure of those (G.M.O.) modifications will hardly change the behaviors of consumers in regard to their food choices. Also, I tend to believe our increased understanding of genetics will prove more positive than negative, though this may say nothing of our ethics.


  2. The numbers are so dismal–billions of animals tortured and killed and all the animal rights organizations and members haven’t made much of a dent. I’m all for anything that would help, and going after the GMO industry would be good for helping animals and the environment. But a lot of work lies ahead.

    The news from Vermont was good, and I’m hoping the lawsuit fails. But Monsanto is the poster child for corporate/government “partnerships.” The list of those involved as both government bureaucrats and Monsanto employees is long, and those going through the revolving door include Roger Beachy, Director of Danforth Plant Science Center, a Monsanto organization, appointed as director of the USDAs National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This department has the discretion to grant or reject agricultural research grants (convenient!) Siddiqui, a lobbyist for Monsanto, was appointed to the post of Agriculture Trade Representative.

    Other, more famous names, tied in some degree or another to Monsanto, are Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan (Supreme Court), Donald Rumsfeld, Mitt Romney, and Tommy Thompson, and Tom Vilsack (once government of Iowa and a leading advocate for Monsanto’s seeds and pharmaceuticals, now the current Secretary of Agriculture and a strong proponent of factory farming and animal cloning!).

    Michael Taylor, a prior vice president of Monsanto, was appointed to an advisory role at the FDA. Apparently Taylor was involved in policies concerning Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST), which has been banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Mr. Taylor is no friend of labeling. According to consumer advocate Jeffrey Smith, Taylor argued against letting people know what they were buying:

    “Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer, Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

    Apparently, there are virtually no regulations regarding GMO development or use.

    So, the work is cut out for animal advocates, as well as all the others fighting Monsanto and the GMO industry. If it will help the animals, they should be targets.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Rachel Maddow is hosting a Bernie/Hillary debate next Friday evening in South Carolina to be telecast on MSNBC…and wants folks to send questions for them to her blog…either RACHELBLOG.COM or BLOGRACHEL.COM…forgot which site I remember her emphasizing…but this article is superb and provides fodder for a fabulous question directed to the two of them…Roland, go for it…YES!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Neither of those addresses worked. I did determine Rachel Maddow’s email is rachel@msnbc.com, but my email server is down. Would you send the following to her?:

      Questions for Hillary and Bernie:

      1. What is your position on truth in labeling of foods? Would you require complete disclosure of GMOs? Antibiotics? Hormones? Supplements? Animal by-products?

      2. Would you continue the practice of the current and previous presidents of appointing industry lobbyists and executives to Departments and regulatory agencies which oversee their industries?

      3. Would you support banning all private financing of political campaigns? Banning corporate and special interests from influencing campaigns? Would you support public financing of campaigns?

      You might also add the link to this blog: https://armoryoftherevolution.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/hillary-bernie-and-monsanto/



  4. Very helpful, easy to understand, and provides a way to determine which candidate to vote for…where are they on Truth on food labeling!

    Keep up the excellent work because got to keep Mother Earth healthy!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Bernie’s the guy. If we have no other choice but Hilary, at least she’ll have been reined in by Bernie’s campaign and the sheer numbers of support that he’s receiving. I certainly don’t trust that she’ll keep her word on what she says she’ll do, however. Her platform changes with the wind. I hope it’s Bernie.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.