from centerforfoodsafety.org:


A bill is pending in the United States House of Representatives
that would eliminate dozens of food safety and labeling laws.
The bill, H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act, does
this by stripping away the power of states to regulate food
safety.

This bill is set to hit the House floor for a vote this
Thursday, March 2nd - please contact your representatives TODAY
and urge them to vote NO on HR 4167! Take action now at:

http://ga3.org/ct/BdLBgq113z5d/

Here is how the bill works. Under the guise of promoting
"uniformity" of food safety and labeling laws in the U.S., the
bill requires all state food safety laws to be identical to the
requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. If the
FDA has not passed a regulation on a food threat, then all state
regulations on that threat would immediately be voided. And,
since the states regulate many food safety issues not covered by
the FDA, many food safety laws will be voided and replaced with
no law at all. For example, the bill would preempt Alaska?s
newly passed law to label genetically engineered fish and
California's Proposition 65, a very effective law that requires
labeling of food and consumer products that contain substances
known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. It would also
threaten state laws governing the safety of milk and shellfish.

The "uniformity" to be achieved by the bill is in many instances
the uniform absence of food safety regulation that the food
industry seeks.

Local and state officials are now responsible for 80% of the
nation's food safety enforcement. H.R. 4167 puts a strangle hold
on the people most informed about local needs. It is opposed by
dozens of environmental health groups, by California's State
Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug
Officials, the National Conference of State Legislators and the
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture.

If this bill passes, not only will hundreds of current state
food safety laws face being overturned, future state food safety
and labeling initiatives could be impossible to put in place.

There are currently 226 co-sponsors in the House of
Representatives to pass the bill in the House, so every letter
is needed to ensure that these Representatives understand what a
bad bill this is.

2/27/2006 6:17:27 PM

Quote :

"the bill would preempt Alaska's newly passed law to label genetically engineered fish "

this is a good thing

2/27/2006 6:22:31 PM

is this a continued resurrection of the month-old cheese theme?

2/27/2006 6:23:09 PM

^i think we should say it is

that way an innocent thread gets locked

2/27/2006 6:24:58 PM

^^i was gone when the cheese thing happened.

^^^so you dont think that a consumer has a right to know where their food came from? im sure plenty of people of there would like to know. why hide it?

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2006 6:25:26 PM

this is fine. i support this law.

however, i vehemently oppose FDA regulations banning the free labeling of food by manufacturers, such as, "this beef was tested for mad cow"

2/27/2006 8:17:41 PM

if a state wishes to test for additional things, why should they not be allowed to?

even if you think consumer rights are stupid (and i dont know why you wouldnt want said rights, you are a consumer), this is still an unprecedented stripping of the rights of the states to handle affairs that have been delegated to them so far.

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 8:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2006 8:51:28 PM

Why is this bill neeeded? What's the REAL motive? Who's lobbying for it?

2/27/2006 8:58:10 PM

To help agribusiness keep pushing crap onto our tables. Same. Monsanto, Cargill, et. al

2/27/2006 9:01:52 PM

So about the lawmakers supporting the bill...

Do you think they really believe this is about uniform labeling?

How many of them know exactly what's up but support it anyway?

When does an issue become too evil for a lawmaker to take money to support it?

How can we expose this nonense more effectively?

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 9:11 PM. Reason : sss]

2/27/2006 9:10:39 PM

nothing evil about this bill.

don't take such a biased source at it's word.

Quote :

"The bill takes a measured approach to national uniformity for food by providing a mechanism for a thorough, orderly review of existing state regulations that may differ from a federal regulation. The bill allows for the states to petition the FDA to adopt theirs as a national requirement or exempt it from national uniformity. No existing state requirement that differs from a federal requirement would be preempted without the opportunity for petition, and state requirements would remain in effect while FDA considers the states’ petitions. Uniformity would be achieved gradually as FDA acts on the states’ petitions, either adopting them as national requirements or concluding that they should not continue in effect. FDA’s decisions on state petitions would occur only after public input through a comment process. The bill provides that where FDA has acted by setting a safety standard for a food ingredient or constituent, the states would adopt and enforce the same standard. If FDA has not set a safety standard for a particular substance in food, the states would remain free to set and enforce their own standard. The bill would also provide for national uniformity in product warnings. States would not be permitted to require the regulated industry to communicate a warning in labeling, advertising, or any other form of public communication, if that warning differs from that imposed under Federal law. The authority of the states to issue warnings remains unhindered. States remain free to issue their own public warnings under state laws at any time and under any circumstance. The authority of the states to act if presented with an imminent hazard is preserved. The bill does not affect state authority in several areas that are traditional local food enforcement matters: freshness dating, open date labeling, grade labeling, state inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit pricing, and statement of geographic origin. Existing provisions related to food sanitation are not subject to national uniformity. Traditional federal/state/industry cooperative sanitation programs related to restaurants and retain stores would not be affected. Existing state requirements for shellfish warnings would also not be affected. "

http://www.gmabrands.com/publicpolicy/docs/whitepaper.cfm?DocID=606&

2/27/2006 9:20:56 PM

You see, DirtyGreek and Waluigi aren't getting paid to deceive me.

But perhaps you will answer my question differently than DirtyGreek....

PrawnStar, why is this bill neeeded?

In your own words, please.

And explain this as well:

Quote :

"The bill would also provide for national uniformity in product warnings. States would not be permitted to require the regulated industry to communicate a warning in labeling, advertising, or any other form of public communication, if that warning differs from that imposed under Federal law."

Why shouldn't they be permitted to do this? And don't waste your fingers typing about "inconveniencing businesses."

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 9:40 PM. Reason : sss]

2/27/2006 9:28:52 PM

an independent food safety group

vs.

an association of companies who make and sell said food

and youre calling my source biased?

there are holes in the current federal regulations which states are allowed to fill on their own discretion. why is there such a problem with this? why does this need reforming?

its serving lobbyists, not an actual pressing need.

i hope you arent dismissing it b/c you think its just some liberal activist garbage.

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2006 9:36:15 PM

Quote :

"PrawnStar, why is this bill neeeded? In your own words, please. "

The same old reason. Since the founding of this nation the various states have been trying to clamp down on what they perceive as "unfair" interstate trade. The purpose is the same old purpose: reward the friends of the politicians at the expense of producers in other states.

Oh, but wait, this is about genetically engineered fish! How could the purpose of this law be political pork? Easier than you think. I don't know the truth in this matter, but I suspect it goes something like this:

#1 The gulf states have been investing heavily in "fish farming" which encourages the use of faster growing and more efficient genetically modified fish stocks
#2 The quality and price of farmed fish has given deep-sea fisherman a tough lesson in economics
#3 Most of the Alaska fishing industry is driven by deep-sea harvesting of wild fish
#4 Fish caught at sea are probably not genetically engineered
#5 The governor's close high-school friend owns a fishing fleet in Alaska
Ultimately, this law is going to "discourage" the sale of out of state fish, driving up the sale price of in-state fish, making the politicians friends happy.

If there was a demand for this type of labelling, the grocers would already be providing it.

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/27/2006 9:51:40 PM

because I don't have the energy to argue this right now, let me just make some points:

1.) our food security is under attack. a small handful of companies now control most of the food sold in the US. As they consolidate more, small farmers AND consumers will suffer.
2.) Cargill and Monsanto, which own almost all seed, pesticides, fertilizers, farmland, food processing, labelling, packaging and sales in the united states, are currently researching seeds that will only germinate when combined with their chemicals. In other words, they would control almost all food in teh united states, and the only way to grow almost anything would be to pay them.
3.) These same companies are taking species of plants that were produced by generations upon generations of people, patenting them, and enforcing those patents. All they need to be able to patent a species is to prove that nobody else owns said patent. They have been able to enforce these patents almost everywhere in the world.

If that doesn't tell you the motivation of these people, I don't see any point of going any further in the discussion.

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2006 10:24:44 PM

Quote :

"2.) Cargill and Monsanto, which own almost all seed, pesticides, fertilizers, farmland, food processing, labelling, packaging and sales in the united states, are currently researching seeds that will only germinate when combined with their chemicals. In other words, they would control almost all food in teh united states, and the only way to grow almost anything would be to pay them."

this is actually a good thing... these genes are used to prevent cross-pollination of genetically-engineered plants with wild-type plants (i imagine it could also be used to more precisely time germination for more efficient harvests too). it seems like a pretty tight system too, from what i can remember... i believe it uses both promotor and inhibitor genes.

paranoia about stuff like this and irradiation is counterproductive to confronting real problems: the patenting of genes by biotech and pharmaceutical companies is a much bigger obstacle to real research that has the potential to actually improve our lives but this issue receives very little publicity or public outcry.

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 10:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2006 10:35:19 PM

Quote :

"this is actually a good thing."

i'm finished.

2/27/2006 10:58:27 PM

Quote :

"1.) our food security is under attack. a small handful of companies now control most of the food sold in the US. As they consolidate more, small farmers AND consumers will suffer."

Wait, how is that possible? The way to hurt consumers is to raise prices, the way to hurt small farmers is to lower prices, you CANNOT do both without government assistance to constrain the marketplace.

Quote :

"2.) Cargill and Monsanto, which own almost all seed, pesticides, fertilizers, farmland, food processing, labelling, packaging and sales in the united states, are currently researching seeds that will only germinate when combined with their chemicals. In other words, they would control almost all food in teh united states, and the only way to grow almost anything would be to pay them."

And it is your assertion that, through magic, Cargill and Monsanto will become the only companies in the world selling seed? What is to stop me from importing self-replicating seed from Brazil or India?

Final fact: If it turns out as horible as you proclaim, through magic or whatever, a simple flick of the pen and the President can trust-bust us out of it.

Even your worst-case scenario has an easy and obvious solution. What is wrong with you today?

2/28/2006 12:03:19 AM

from the International Dairy Foods Association:

Quote :

"Bill Would Create "National Uniformity" from Patchwork of State Labeling Rules. IDFA is working with a broad coalition of organizations in support of the measure. "The current system of food labeling is an unwieldy patchwork of state and federal regulations that leave consumers and manufacturers at a disadvantage," said Chip Kunde, IDFA senior vice president. "National Uniformity would give consumers the benefit of clear and consistent food labeling nationwide and put an end to manufacturers having to label their products differently depending on the state where the product is sold." If passed, the National Uniformity for Food Act would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to create a uniform, national system of food labeling. States would be able to petition the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to adopt their regulations as national requirements or to exempt them from national uniformity. No existing state requirement that differs from a federal requirement would be pre-empted without the opportunity for petition and public comment. "

from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA):

Quote :

"With the strong bi-partisan support of 220 members of Congress, the legislation will provide all consumers with accurate, consistent information about food safety. “Regardless of which state they live, all consumers deserve to have the same information about the safety of their foods. By relying on the best science available, the National Uniformity for Food Act will do just that,” said GMA Vice President of Federal Affairs Susan Stout. Congress has long recognized the importance of setting nationally uniform food standards. For example, Congress passed the “National Labeling and Education Act of 1990” to provide consumers with consistent nutrition information on all packaged foods and beverages. Other bills enacted to ensure uniform national food standards include the “Food Quality Protection Act of 1996,” the “Poultry Products Inspection Act” and the “Meat Inspection Act.” "

from the Food Products Association:

Quote :

"“FPA now urges that the House of Representatives take prompt action to pass this legislation, and we will work for introduction and passage of similar legislation in the Senate.” "

from the Snack Food Association:

Quote :

"This legislation would prevent states from establishing individual, often conflicting food safety laws and instead, provide a single set of food safety standards developed in cooperation with state policymakers and based on a consensus interpretation of the entire body of scientific evidence."

and this from The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA):

Quote :

"AHPA’s Executive Committee has voted unanimously to support legislation currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives that would generally prohibit individual states from requiring food products in interstate trade, including dietary supplements, to conform to state regulations or labeling rules that are not identical to federal provisions. The bill would also allow a state to establish a state-specific requirement if needed to address an imminent hazard to health that is likely to result in serious adverse health, and would continue to allow state and local laws relating to labeling or a consumer advisory relating to food sanitation imposed on a food establishment. Any state laws that conflict with this legislation and that are in effect on the date on which this federal law is passed would remain in effect for 180 days."

So it looks like the sides are shaping up to be the mainstream food industry groups vs the anti-food industry groups. Of course all the groups' lobbyists are the big winners.

2/28/2006 12:04:40 AM

LoneSnark, you're wrong about DG's first point, and you fucking know it.

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: 1.) our food security is under attack. a small handful of companies now control most of the food sold in the US. As they consolidate more, small farmers AND consumers will suffer."

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Wait, how is that possible? The way to hurt consumers is to raise prices, the way to hurt small farmers is to lower prices, you CANNOT do both without government assistance to constrain the marketplace."

LoneSnark is so full of fucking bullshit in this thread.

There are other ways to hurt consumers than just raising prices. And you fucking know it.

Again,

You fucking know it.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:33 AM. Reason : sss]

2/28/2006 1:24:31 AM

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes

2/28/2006 1:45:00 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "this is actually a good thing." i'm finished."

wtf could you disagree about? i was just refering to that particular point.

it's a solution to a problem in regards to controlling cross-pollination of genetically modified crops.

and if it's not economically advantageous, farmers aren't gonna buy it for the simultaneous germination advantage as well (assuming they are also using this for genetically unmodified plants).

this is one patent that seems legitimate to me, as well: it's modification of established promotor and inhibitor genes rather than a patent of "marker" sequences which is how most genes get patented today. if someone wants to create a competing method of controlling germination i'm sure there are plenty of other targets for such modification besides these specific inhibitors and promotors.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:52 AM. Reason : mate not mite]

2/28/2006 1:51:56 AM

2/28/2006 2:00:53 AM

Quote :

" it's a solution to a problem in regards to controlling cross-pollination of genetically modified crops. "

I said "I'm finished" because you were talking like genetically modified foods were a good thing, except for that pesky problem of their cross-pollinating. that IS a problem, but the solution is NOT TO USE THEM, not to let these companies, who own most of the seed, to use them AND make them only usable if they aren't sprayed with their pesticides.

couple all of this and my hatred for these companies with one fact - that small farms have been proven time and time again to be more efficient than large, industrial farms - and you'll see what I'm so upset about.

as for lonesnark, I've stopped really trying to argue with him at all, but his comments about the president trust-busting this are laughable. this is a GLOBAL issue. Even if the u.s. makes such actions illegal, there are tons of developing nations with governments who don't give a fuck, which is part of the problem now, as well, not just in the future.

if you care enough to read them, I've written 3 papers so far in my anthropological perspectives on food and agriculture class for my masters degree. All have gotten As, and my professor was just voted the president of the international association of applied anthropology, incase you're wondering about how much to believe in these papers.

Industrial Agriculture and Vertical Integration
http://www.dirtygreek.org/article/entry_id/60

Globalization of Food and Agriculture
http://www.dirtygreek.org/article/entry_id/61

The Effects of Globalization on Developing World Agricultural Systems
http://www.dirtygreek.org/article/entry_id/62

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:46 AM. Reason : l]

2/28/2006 8:44:28 AM

this is why I will always have my own veggie garden

2/28/2006 9:05:41 AM

no kidding, I just started seeds for the first time, and I'm glad I'm doing it. If you do care about this folks, you're probably not going to stop it. Best thing to do is just buy as much local food as possible, use fresh, organic ingredients from local farmers, and grow your own food. You'll be healthier that way anyway.

2/28/2006 9:14:02 AM

yeah but that shits expensive DG. next thing you know you'll be telling us not to shop at walmart.

2/28/2006 9:34:45 AM

Quote :

"yeah but that shits expensive DG"

go to your local farmers market, they are cheaper and better quality than a grocery store


I do


but you know I dont like buying at a healthfood store b/c they don't prep and maintain their veggie/fruit products properly


starting seeds isn't hard. GD let me know how it goes for you

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 9:43 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2006 9:41:45 AM

Quote :

"There are other ways to hurt consumers than just raising prices. And you fucking know it."

Geez, why all the hostility, BridgetSPK? There are only so many ways to harm customers, higher prices or lower quality. But something tells me the monsanto food stuffs taste just as good, so what are you talking about?

Genetically modified crops are going to make growing food cheaper on a large scale, lowering prices, helping consumers, and harming small farmers. The American food supply has been substantially genetically modified for 10 years now, I have seen no ill effects. The "cross polination" issue is a legal question, but I suspect the courts can easily manage it because very few farmers harvest their own seeds, it's just not worth the effort compared to the low price of seed. As such, even if my farm is constantly being infected with genetically modified pollin from a neighboring farm, the food I produce never will be because all the seeds resultant from that polination never get to germinate.

And the scenario where eventually monsanto becomes the only seed provider the world over is utterly rediculous. Wheat seeds discovered in Egyption crypts from thousands of years ago still germinate, and I guarantee some farmer or organization somewhere is going to keep samples of non-modified corn and wheat around for the odd event of Monsanto achieving a monopoly and then jacking up seed prices in hopes of using its patent to prevent competition. It would work, for one season. The next season, a thousand companies selling non-Monsanto seed bred from storage would spring up, restoring prices, and ruining Monsanto.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2006 10:09:12 AM

Quote :

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations"

2/28/2006 10:21:43 AM

the only reason to hide a genetically modified label is because of the huge ammount of bullshit propaganda spewed from the environmental fascists. Their religious crusades against GM foods does nothing but add to world hunger.

these guys are worse than rapists and serial killers.

2/28/2006 10:30:37 AM

http://carbon.org/

2/28/2006 10:37:14 AM

^^ quoth Penn and Teller

2/28/2006 10:47:38 AM

Quote :

"It would work, for one season. The next season, a thousand companies selling non-Monsanto seed bred from storage would spring up, restoring prices, and ruining Monsanto."

Not if monsanto had already patented all of those species, meaning that anyone growing those species had to pay monsanto to grow them.

2/28/2006 10:55:31 AM

^are your reasons for being against genetically modifed crops b/c of the use/abuse of patents by the corporations or b/c of the fact that they are genetically modified?

would you be against crops that are genetically modified by only reproducing portions of the genome already present in that plant (such as duplicating genes or inserting multiple promotors)?

what about transgenic or genetically modified animals? bacteria?

i'm not trying to be a douchebag--i realize that we disagree on this issue and have no desire to change your mind but i am genuinely interested in the motivations behind your feelings. it seems like a lot of people base their opinions on this issue on ignorance, which you obviously aren't. i will admit a lot of my opinions on this issue are based on pure self-interest. i'm starting an MD/phD program next year in stem cells/developmental genetics and i sometimes feel a need to defend this type of stuff: if the general population becomes accoustomed to eating/dealing with GM foods all the time, i can't help but think it will make them more accepting of other advances in biotech that could be viewed as more morally ambiguous.

2/28/2006 11:40:23 AM

No, it's certainly not ignorance. My reasons for disliking GMOs are manyfold, but the primary reason is that there is no way of knowing what will happen when seeds and pollen drift. There are already cases of "superweeds," and the thought of a dangerous plant that hybridizes with a roundup-ready crop or something to that effect is quite frightening.

I'm also against GMOs that are genetically bred to already contain pesticides. There were the newleaf potatoes, for instance, that weren't even registered as food by the FDA. they were registered as pesticides. and we ate them every time we ate mcdonalds fries, without even knowing it.

then, of course, there are the companies and the terrible things they've done to people. for instance, the farmers who have been sued because patented seed from a tractor bed or a neighboring farm blew into their farms, even without their knowledge. people have lost their livelihoods over that or quit farming.

finally, there's the issue of sustainability. say that monsanto does start selling seeds that only they can germinate. say that seed becomes dominant in the world. then what happens if, all of a sudden, something causes them to be unable to produce those pesticides? Not only that, but you wouldn't be able to grow organic foods anymore, because all seeds would need monsanto's pesticides.

the problems with gmos are ENDLESS. It's not a fear of the technology itself or even a problem necessarily with eating GMOs, though i do have a few. It's a problem with the lack of research and regulation and the power these companies have over our food.

Quote :

"if the general population becomes accoustomed to eating/dealing with GM foods all the time, i can't help but think it will make them more accepting of other advances in biotech that could be viewed as more morally ambiguous."

I don't doubt you're right, but that's exactly what I'm afraid of - that people will allow this into their lives without realizing the possible consequences, so that by the time the consequences are found, it's too late.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 12:12:01 PM

Quote :

"for instance, the farmers who have been sued because patented seed from a tractor bed or a neighboring farm blew into their farms, even without their knowledge. people have lost their livelihoods over that or quit farming."

How many? Three or four? We've been growing GM crops for years now, we've never sued our neighbors and they have never sued us. Please, for this to be a problem then it must be common, at least one out of every hundred farmers must have been sued by now, right? It has been stated on this board that doctors are not substantially hindred by lawsuits, but I bet a greater percentage of doctors have been sued for malpractice than farmers have been sued for GM contamination.

Quote :

"say that monsanto does start selling seeds that only they can germinate. say that seed becomes dominant in the world."

Big assumption. Why would I be so stupid as to become completely dependant upon a single supplier for my livelihood? For this to be a problem, Monsanto would need to completely dominate the market within 15 years, the life of a patent. After that, every john dick and harry on the planet can wash, wrinse, and repeat. And I seriously doubt Monsanto wheat is that much better than their competition, every other major conglomerate genetically modifying seed.

If you seriously believe this, then you know what to do: start a company, GM your own crops, keep everything a secret, then sit back and do nothing for 10 to 15 years. When Monsanto tries to pull the switch, the world's farmers will pay top dollar for your seeds. You will overnight claim 90% of the market, become the richest man on the planet, Monsanto will declare bankruptcy, everyone goes home happy.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2006 12:26:58 PM

Quote :

"How many? Three or four? We've been growing GM crops for years now, we've never sued our neighbors and they have never sued us."

probably just a few, but that's enough for me to see what their motivations are.

Quote :

"Big assumption. "

So is the assumption that GM crops are safe and won't cause any harm.

and I just think you have to be purposely lying or not doing your research. monsanto isn't just some company that's doing something. they have full support of the u.s. government, not to mention insiders:

Quote :

"David W. Beier . . .former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc., . . .now chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore, Vice President of the United States. Linda J. Fisher . . .former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, . . .then became Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation and now (2001) is Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Michael A. Friedman, M.D. . . former acting commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human Services . . .now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation. L. Val Giddings . . . former biotechnology regulator and (biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS), . . .now Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Marcia Hale . . . former assistant to the President of the United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, . . .now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporation. Michael (Mickey) Kantor. . . former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of the United States, . . .now member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. Josh King . . . former director of production for White House events, . . . now director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation. Terry Medley . . . former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory committee, . . . and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont Corporation's Agricultural Enterprise. Margaret Miller . . . former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, . . .now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).* Michael Phillips . . . recently with the National Academy of Science Board on Agriculture . . . now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. William D. Ruckelshaus . . . former chief administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), . . .now (and for the past 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. Michael Taylor . . . former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA, . . . still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, . . . still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, . . . and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding. . . . now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.* Lidia Watrud . . . former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, . . .now with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. Jack Watson. . .former chief of staff to the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, . . .now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in Washington, D.C. Clayton K. Yeutter . . . former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. Larry Zeph . . . former biologist in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, . . . now Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred International. *Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA "primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production applications" ) were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 1994 for their role in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of Posilac, Monsanto Corporation's formulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbST or rBGH). The GAO Office found "no conflicting financial interests with respect to the drug's approval" and only "one minor deviation from now superseded FDA regulations". (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report)."

The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.


[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 12:29:35 PM

For the environmental fascists:
On the subject of altering plants from an historical standpoint, broccolli was originally a leavey vegetable and over time has been grown into its current form over thousands of years by experiments of farmers in ancient China. It's the same thing as chickens and pigs, they weren't originally domesticated and the first unable to fly and the second hailess and prone to sunburn. We've been mutating and altering organisms to our benifit for a long time albeit we haven't been doing it on the genetic level till recently. The only difference now is that we can alter plants to be safer and with less defects (like disease immunity), and also have more nutrition and better yield.

When it comes to controlling the spreading of seed dispersal and diverting a possible overtaking of the land and natural species scenario, thats easy. Genetically altered plants can be made to grow in certain soils that have certain additives. All it takes is experimentation.

2/28/2006 12:34:19 PM

ugh. not THAT argument again. It's not a problem with human modification of plants, man, and again, I'm in a graduate level anthropology of food class right now. It's my third class on similar topics. I know all about the history of plant domestication.

what we're talking about here is a COMPLETELY different animal from selectively breeding. We're talking about removing one gene from one plant and putting it into another, not having any real sort of testing (especially long term) to realize whether or not such modifications are safe, then just putting them out in stores without even telling anyone that they're GM.

Quote :

"Genetically altered plants can be made to grow in certain soils that have certain additives. All it takes is experimentation."

right, and then the company that owns those additives control all of the food. however, so far that HASN'T happened, and GM crops have already spread past the places they've been intentionally grown (something they told us wouldn't happen).

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 12:37:01 PM

^ Sorry, you missed my edit:
"It has been stated on this board that doctors are not substantially hindred by lawsuits, but I bet a greater percentage of doctors have been sued for malpractice than farmers have been sued for GM contamination."

Quote :

"So is the assumption that GM crops are safe and won't cause any harm."

That is not my assumption at all. My assumption is that "People should mind their own business." Whether or not GM crops are good or bad is irrelevant (I do suspect they are good, but I am not in a position to know for sure). If you do not want to eat GM crops, then do some research, ask your grocer, then find some non-GM crops. What you eat is your business and therefore you should tend to it, but whether or not a farm a thousand miles away is planting GM crops is not your business, it is the farmer's business, and he should live with the consequences of his actions.

Your assumption is that "People should act how I say they should act." This is the disconnect, it has nothing to do with GM being safe or not. If I believed as you do, then I should be arguing that all non-GM crops should be banned or simply heavily regulated because GM crops are good, therefore non-GM crops are bad, and my beliefs should dictate the actions of all farmers.

2/28/2006 12:38:39 PM

Quote :

"That is not my assumption at all. My assumption is that "People should mind their own business." Whether or not GM crops are good or bad is irrelevant (I do suspect they are good, but I am not in a position to know for sure). If you do not want to eat GM crops, then do some research, ask your grocer, then find some non-GM crops. What you eat is your business and therefore you should tend to it, but whether or not a farm a thousand miles away is planting GM crops is not your business, it is the farmer's business, and he should live with the consequences of his actions."

ok, now I just really think you're screwing with me. You should know by now, after arguing with me in the past, that I am NOT against people making their own choices. People are welcome to eat whatever they want, and that's not the issue at all. The issue is that when you DO grow genetically modified crops, they DO spread over wind, through the digestive tracts of animals, and otherwise. They can crossbreed with other species and create all sorts of environmental problems, some of which have already happened, some of which are very likely, and some of which are less so. this is not, at all, about individual choice of what you can and can't eat.

it is your right to do what you like with your land and your body. it is NOT your right to do something when it directly affects other people's freedoms, and that has been and will be the case with GM crops.

Also, it's not as easy as you're acting like ti is to choose not to eat GM foods, because they aren't labelled, the manager at harris teeter won't know, and the company that produces it typically won't tell you.

also, let me point out that gm crops aren't even necessary to "feed the hungry."
there is enough food in the world to feed everyone more than they need RIGHT NOW. We don't need GM crops to do this. they're just another panacea, just like the green revolution was a panacea.

Japan’s productivity per acre is approximately 10 times America’s (Goldschmidt 1978:xxxii), and small farms produce as much as 1,000% more output per unit of land (Halweil 2004:75).

Goldschmidt, Walter
1978 As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social
Consequences of Agribusiness. Pp. xxiii – 54. Allanheld, Osman & Co Publishers Inc. Montclair, NJ

Halweil, Brian
2004 Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket. Pp.
59-78. W.W. Norton & Co. New York

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:48 PM. Reason : k]

2/28/2006 12:42:26 PM

corporations would never do anything bad

sincerly,

Enron
Global Crossing
MCI/Worldcom
Arthur Anderson

2/28/2006 12:47:50 PM

In a free society, people are free to hinder others. By choosing to drive to work this morning I have increased the traffic you experience going to work. By buying the last donut, you don't get one. By building an ugly house, I have increased the traffic around your home and lowered the resale value of your home. By closing down my import business, you can no longer easily acquire Italian Wine.

You do not have a right to non-GM foods, just like I do not have a right to GM foods, italian wine, high property values, the last donut, light traffic, etc. etc.

2/28/2006 12:49:25 PM

a company selling non-GM foods should have the right to label their food as such

and the state should have the right to require GM Foods to be labeled.

^and in your reasoning there, you have given the government the right to hinder people. Way to disprove your libertarian ideology.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 12:51:00 PM

Dirty Greek, I came at the tail end of the argument not really knowing what was going on. I just wanted to input some of my stuff. It seems I incited some more post though

2/28/2006 12:59:21 PM

^^ The purpose of government is to secure our rights by hindering others, as most people understand it. Our right to Social Security payments, our right to labor laws, etc. If I am right and you have no right to products that people do not want to produce, then there is nothing the government can do. Because we live in a democracy you might have a right to non-GM foods. If my side wins then it is not a right and you must fend for yourself in the marketplace.

2/28/2006 1:09:24 PM

Quote :

"The purpose of government is to secure our rights by hindering others, as most people understand it. Our right to Social Security payments, our right to labor laws, etc. If I am right and you have no right to products that people do not want to produce, then there is nothing the government can do. Because we live in a democracy you might have a right to non-GM foods. If my side wins then it is not a right and you must fend for yourself in the marketplace."

if a company doesn't want to produce non-GM foods and the people (us) want it, then we can force that company to do so through the government, since after all the government is the people.

You do not believe your own libertarian values.

also, not everything is a right has you define them.

2/28/2006 1:11:30 PM

exactly. not all privileges are rights. the "right" to get to work on time is not a right, it's a privilege. just like driving, eating candy, etc. "rights" are those things that a person is inalienably given "by his creator," should you believe in one, as stated in the founding documents

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you fuck up my farm by cross-pollinating and creating a superweed, you're stepped on my rights.

lonesnark is a troll. I'm sure of that now.

2/28/2006 1:17:16 PM

Quote :

"if a company doesn't want to produce non-GM foods and the people (us) want it, then we can force that company to do so through the government, since after all the government is the people."

That would be you securing your right to non-GM food. Your democratically instantiated right to non-GM food has trumped that company's moral right to self determination.

Semantics.

Quote :

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you fuck up my farm by cross-pollinating and creating a superweed, you're stepped on my rights."

I have not, I have damaged your property. Sue me. Not having your farm cross-pollinated and creating a superweed is a priveledge, not a right. Deal with it.

Also, it is nice to know that arguing people should "Mind their own business" is trolling.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:31 PM. Reason : DG]

2/28/2006 1:17:22 PM