Dan Quayle and Michael Taylor's nightmare lives on
Popular resistance is boiling over on the GMO labeling issue, as the New York Times reported last week in a front-page story.
More than a million people have asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food on a legal petition in March and on May 2, nearly a million voter signatures were submitted in California to place a GMO labeling initiative on ballot in November. Clearly, Americans believe strongly in their right to know what's in their food. Ninety percent of U.S. voters want this type of labeling. Yet we still don't have it. Why?
Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food as part of his "regulatory relief initiative." The policy, Quayle explained, was based on the idea that genetic engineering is no different than traditional plant breeding, and therefore required no new regulations.
Five years earlier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, "Call me. We're in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help."
And help he did -- more than anyone could have ever imagined. Today, the politically motivated policy lives on, even though it contradicts modern scientific consensus.
How is it possible that the U.S. is making critical decisions about our food system with a decades-old policy that is at odds with global opinion? In a word: politics. As Quayle explained in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits "as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations."
Politics not Science Set the Agenda
Dan Quayle's 1992 policy announcement is premised on the notion that genetically engineered crops are "substantially equivalent" to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created position of deputy commissioner of policy.
In an ironic twist, the Obama administration appointed Michael Taylor as the deputy commissioner of foods in 2009, where he now oversees food safety policy for the federal government. Taylor's appointment was highly controversial, not only for crafting this pseudo-scientific policy, which laid the groundwork for helping GMOs avoid rigorous scientific testing and common-sense labeling, but also for his role in guiding the approvallof Monsanto's genetically engineered synthetic hormone rBGH.
From the start, the policy of "substantial equivalence" had many critics. The concerns by the FDA's own scientists were summed up in a memo by FDA compliance officer Dr. Linda Kahl, who protested that the agency was "... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole... [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices."
As Kahl wrote, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."
The FDA itself admitted as much in 2001, with a proposed policy that companies should notify the government at least 120 days before commercializing a transgenic plant variety and provide data on each separate genetic transformation event -- information they said they did not need for foods derived through traditional cross breeding.
In other words, the FDA said there is a difference between genetic engineering and traditional plant breeding. In spite of this, the FDA is still following the Dan Quayle/Michael Taylor-inspired policy instead of its 2001 policy to set the agenda.
Out of Step with World Opinion
Across the world, there is now agreement that genetically engineered foods are different from conventionally bred foods and that all genetically engineered foods should be required to go through safety assessments prior to approval.
These positions are spelled out by Codex Alimentarius, the food safety standards organization of the United Nations, which the World Trade Organization considers to be the global, science-based standards, and thus immune to trade challenges.
But, at present, none of the genetically engineered plants on sale in the United States can meet this global standard, because -- unlike all other developed countries -- the U.S. does not require safety testing of genetically engineered crops.
The U.S. stands nearly alone on the issue of labeling, too. More than 40 other countries require labeling of genetically engineered foods, including European Union member nations, Japan, Australia, Russia and even China, allowing consumers in those countries to make informed choices about whether or not to buy these foods. Yet we haven't been able to get labeling here in the U.S., thanks to Dan Quayle and Michael Taylor's deceptive policy.
Growing Pressure for Change
The FDA position on GMOs is also out of step with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans, 90 percent of whom want labeling. The issue is so reasonable and makes such common sense that in November 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama felt compelled to make a promise to Iowa farmers that if elected he'd label GMOs, saying he'd "let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying."
But lacking the courage or political will to get this done at the federal level, and stymied in the state legislative area -- nearly 20 states have tried to pass labeling mandates and failed due to intense lobby pressure by special interests -- all eyes are now on the California ballot initiative that will take the issue directly to voters.
As the Times reported, "The most closely watched labeling effort is a proposed ballot initiative in California that cleared a crucial hurdle this month, setting the stage for a November vote that could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture.
The 20th anniversary of Dan Quayle's announcement fell on Memorial Day weekend, a fitting symbol for the question before us: Will democracy win out and will Americans have the right to know what's in our food? Or we will continue to let our food policy be ruled by political decisions engineered last century in a Monsanto boardroom by corporate lobbyists?
Follow Dave Murphy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/food_democracy
Sen. Bernie Sanders: Label Genetically Engineered Food
OpEdNews Article: Independent studies refute GMO safety claims
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Indepen...
The US could learn from India, where the battle for food safety is bolstered by independent studies showing the varying dangers of genetically modified food.
Let us just study the man and his honesty in simply keeping campaign promises.
Obama quoted 06-24-12:
"We answer to the American people"
Didn't President Obama promise the American people to label all our foods containing GMOs before his election 2008? Has he broken his promise? Can we trust Obama to keep any promises he makes in this campaign?
Over 90% Of Americans were then and still are against GMOS.
http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/oct/3/obama_...
The big question is: Why did Obama lie to the American people so grossly just to get elected?
There has been nothing done on this promise. Not even a mention of any action unless this is being kept secret.
Will Obama do it again in the upcoming 2012 election?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
Now it's personal, researching further I see these GMOs have been banned in other countries or at least require labeling. Research for yourself, careful what you eat and stay healthy. The momentum is building as more people learn about these "patented foods".
Makes perfect sense, if the only way to manipulate a food cell is to inject new dna on the back of e-coli or bacteria to invade the food cells natural defense would also make us sick and or sterile. Another study shows even wild animals, given the choice won't touch GMO.
If they are so proud of their product, why hire Blackwater (what does a food co. need with mercenaries), why not label it?
-Yeah who ever said anything to the contrary?
“So you also resorted to a strawman fallacy. “
-No I really didn't. You honestly think bug parts are a huge risk to peanut butter? More so then PCB, HBCD or aflatoxin contamination? You are entitled to your opinion but I find that a bit silly.
“See how easy it is to criticize it someone else while you do it in the same comment. “
-Not even close.
“There are plenty of real dangers in our food supply like HBCD and aflotoxins but GMOs are not. “
-Says you, but you speak with such certainty. How can you be so sure? Other than reading the abstracts of studies put out by Monsanto and friends, what do you know about the subject? If you can tell me why the Binary Vector technique is preferred to the Cointegration Vector technique in transferring plasmids in Agrobacterium then perhaps you would catch my ear but to say “I'm only an aviator with a scientific background in cosmology” and then render an “expert opinion” that all GMO foods are safe to eat then, I got to say I am a little baffled at your qualifications to make such a statement.
But once again the more telling argument is you ignoring all valid points and resorting immediately to logical fallacies in an attempt to discredit my post and to divert attention from careful exploration of this topic. This time it's your trusty ad hominem attack. Poor HPF such a bellicose little creature. You live in such an intractable world. It might surprise you to know some of us have extensive knowledge of this subject. Anytime you want to go a few rounds, you let me know.
"How Many Rodent Hairs and Insect Parts Are In ...
The FDA's action level for peanut butter is 30 or more insect fragments or one or more rodent hairs per 100 grams.
Here is a very brief sampling of the FDA's Food Defect Action Level list. They begin investigation when foods reach the action level they've set. According to the FDA, typical foods contain about 10 percent of the action level, but others say they contain more like 40 percent.
CHOCOLATE AND CHOCOLATE LIQUOR
Insect filth: Average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined OR any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments
Rodent filth: Average is 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams in 6 100-gram subsamples examined OR any 1 subsample contains 3 or more rodent hairs
CITRUS FRUIT JUICES, CANNED
Insects and insect eggs: 5 or more Drosophila and other fly eggs per 250 ml or 1 or more maggots per 250 ml
RED FISH AND OCEAN PERCH
Parasites: 3% of the fillets examined contain 1 or more parasites accompanied by pus pockets
MACARONI AND NOODLE PRODUCTS
Insect filth: Average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples
Rodent filth: Average of 4.5 rodent hairs or more per 225 grams in 6 or more subsamples
PEANUT BUTTER
Insect filth: Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams
Rodent filth: Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams
POPCORN
Rodent filth: 1 or more rodent excreta pellets are found in 1 or more subsamples, and 1 or more rodent hairs are found in 2 or more other subsamples OR 2 or more rodent hairs per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples OR 20 or more gnawed grains per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples
WHEAT FLOUR
Insect filth: Average of 75 or more insect fragments per 50 grams
Rodent filth: Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams
Can these things be avoided? To avoid all unsavory food components, it seems, would be to stop eating all together. And perhaps we're just being too squeamish. After all, as Dr. Manfred Kroger, a professor of food science at Pennsylvania State University, says, "Let's face it, much of our food comes from nature, and nature is not perfect."
Bon apetit!!
-Oh really? Says who?
'I found this on the website sixwise.com:"
Total strawman fallacy. This information is old news and in no way has any bearing on labeling GMO foods. I'd be more worried about the aflatoxin or HBCD in peanut butter than bug parts.
Now you accuse me of raising a straw man argument, then you bring up aflatoxins and HBCD which are real dangers but not related to genetically modified organisms. Aflatoxins are naturally occurring too. So you also resorted to a strawman fallacy. See how easy it is to criticize it someone else while you do it in the same comment.
There are plenty of real dangers in our food supply like HBCD and aflotoxins but GMOs are not.
They don't want to understand! They're Frankenuts! Teach them Hazel!
They want to remain in the dark! With Uncle Chester and Auntie Science!
Maybe you're too young to realize this, but Organic farming IS "traditional methods". Pesticides weren't around for the first 99% of human agriculture, (not to mention GMO).
So, I do this thing with my fresh food, I hold it under running water and all that stuff washes away. Cool, right?
Besides, when it comes to produce, you should wash it no matter what the production method.
And as John pointed out, Big ChemAg is relatively new. After WW2 all the surplus war chemicals ended up feeding the NPK farming revolution.
5 minutes ago · Like
5 minutes ago · Like
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html
Because of the Monsanto rbHG/rbST/Fox News case the Appellate Court ruled it was OK to lie and mislead, and to call that news; which is another very good reason to avoid their products in the marketplace. This matters because rbHG is given to dairy cows to increase production, but it requires antibiotics which then end up harming children's health.
http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public