Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"
Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.
- The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
- We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
- George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
- Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.
Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.
Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.
"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."
Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs
Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.
At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.
Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk
Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.
As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.
But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.
Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.
Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"
For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.
Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.
Change, Truth, Hope
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)
Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.
Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey guys!! How are you liking your change so far??!!! LOL
RON PAUL 2012!!! OR Rand Paul OR KUCINICH!
WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!
Time to wake up PEOPLE!!
(continued)
It is a bold move on Obama's part. Down the road, when his proposals are turned into actual policy, it will be easy to see which groups won out and which ones lost in the process. That transparency could lead to accusations of favoritism and quid-pro-quos as well as hurt feelings among certain industries that felt they were stepped over or ignored.
For good-government folks, meanwhile, this is potentially a very big deal. Obama is opening up his governing process to the public, which, for politicians, is hardly convenient. He is encouraging, in a way, a public competition between organizations to see who can produce the sharpest policy takes. And inevitably, he will be challenged to defend his work based on its merits, as observers will get an even keener sense of what kind of policy choices he had at hand.
These non-government groups, think tanks, unions and associations will likely welcome the new process, as it will provide them with greater public exposure than they enjoy simply by submitting a white paper to team Obama. And reporters -- searching for some copy in this transition period -- will welcome the move, as it provides policy-related material on which they can base stories.
The list will be made public moving forward on Obama's change.gov website.
CALLING JEFFREY M SMITH...
http://www
OBAMA To Reveal Groups He Meets With
December 5, 2008
Barack Obama will publicize the names and agenda items of the groups that are meeting with its transition team, the campaign announced on Friday. Moreover, the public will be allowed to review and discuss the information on Obama's website, Change.gov.
The move, announced by transition head John Podesta, is another tip of the hat towards a more transparent governing process. The campaign's Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, Michael Strautmanis, will do the posting, which will note not just the organizations that are meeting with the president-elect and his staff, but also the documents (policy "wish lists") they bring with them.
"Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing," reads a memo from Podesta to the Obama staff. "We want to ensure that we give the American people a 'seat at the table' and that we receive the benefit of their feedback."
Strautmanis discusses the move in the video below (please see origininal link).
(continued)
Forgot to say, thanks for including the link to the petition at the Institute for Responsible Technology! It's great to be able to DO something about the issue as well as read about it!
Thank you, Jeffrey Smith and Huffington Post for reporting on this issue. Just say NO to GMO! The best way is to buy organic and stay away from processed foods, most of which are riddled with unlabeled GMO ingredients and boosted with artificial vitamins, causing them to have no real food value anyway.
Michael Taylor's presence in Obam's Transition Team was mentioned yesterday on sanet - the Sustainable Agriculture Network's email discussion group SARE.orgg). Here's the post and my response:
"Michael Taylor from Monsanto, he's the guy that wrote the regulations that gave us "substantial equivalence" for GMOs..."
"substantial equivalence" is a classic example of the kind of dishonest manipulation of government policy that Monsanto has excelled at.
If we assume that Obama chose Taylor as a part of his team due to being poorly informed regarding Taylor's relationship with Monsanto and Monsanto's negative influence over American agriculture
and Agricultural Policy, we can also assume that Obama SHOULD BE INFORMED and that those aware of the issue should provide the pertinent information to him and his team, including saneters.
The following links may prove useful for that purpose:
www.change
(This is Obama's Transition related website - select "About" then
"Contact")
There are also Blogs on this site
Also - Telephone 202 540 3000 was established specifically for
Transition and Employment issues
Obama hasn't yet taken office and the reasons for excluding Taylor
are valid. Let's make sure that Obama and his staff are aware of
what's at stake.
Vanity Fair documented some of Monsanto's questionable practices in
an article published in May of this year:
And wikipedia mentions quite a few of the most controversial
aspects of Monsanto's activities:
Part II
Personally, I would hate have to a Monsanto representative making
agricultural policy decisions during the next administration.
If you feel the same way, I suggest you visit www.change
make your position known! (Select "About", then "Contact").
This article is a great start. GMO is only a fraction of what the biotech conspiracy is doing. If the truth is not understood by all,Obama's Universal Healthcare Program will be a failure. Unfortunately it appears as if he owes the BigPharma and BigFarmChem lobbies etc. not knowing their monstrous web. Thank you so much for t5hios important article. It should be on billboards TV radio throughout the country and world. Frank Mattison
Don't be discourged yet. Rather, talk this up to everyone you can, like Bill Moyers did last Friday,
http://www
November 28, 2008
Bill Moyers sits down with Michael Pollan, Knight Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley, to discuss what direction the U.S. should pursue in the often-overlooked question of food policy. Pollan is author of IN DEFENSE OF FOOD: AN EATER'S MANIFESTO.
and Michael Pollan in October.
http://wel
October 24, 2008
Mr. President, Let’s Talk About Food
Author Michael Pollan, whose best-selling books have prompted readers to think differently about food, is now asking the next president to rethink the nation’s food policies.
Don't be discouraged yet. Rather, talk this up to everyone you can, like Bill Moyers last Friday,
http://www
November 28, 2008
Bill Moyers sits down with Michael Pollan, Knight Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley, to discuss what direction the U.S. should pursue in the often-overlooked question of food policy. Pollan is author of IN DEFENSE OF FOOD: AN EATER'S MANIFESTO.
and Michael Pollan in October,
http://wel
October 24, 2008
Mr. President, Let"s Talk About Food
Author Michael Pollan, whose best-selling books have prompted readers to think differently about food, is now asking the next president to rethink the nation"s food policies.
LET'S MAKE THIS INFORMATION GO VIRAL.
More discussion with link to original article here -
http://www
and here
http://www
Mr. Smith, Don't stop being a crusader for GE reform. You are informed and you write well about it. Don't stop. Just don't stop.
about BT corn:
Bacillus thuringiensis
B. thuringiensis is closely related to B. anthracis, the cause of anthrax.
BT forms crystals of protein that poison insects by giving them a terminally leaky gut. When insects consume BT, the crystals are activated by the alkaline pH of the insects' digestive tract and then basically melt holes in the gut wall, killing the insect.
BT corn has been genetically altered to produce the toxic protein. Why doesn't it harm humans? It depends on who you read.
We have an acid phase in our digestive process, followed by an alkaline phase in the small intestine. There are different natural strains of BT and they produce proteins that are designed to attack certain insects. Maybe our proteins are different enough.
The whole thing sounds just barely safe to me. We have to rely on expert authorities. I hope they are obligated to the public more than to big ag.
I propose Jeffrey M. Smith for a leadership position in the Obama-Biden administration.
http://cha
Clearly, the informed public needs to spread the word about Jeffrey M. Smith's books and DVDs, while insisting upon the accountability promised below - before getting really mad, organizing and demanding responsible consumer protections.
http://cha
Bring Government into the 21st Century: Use technology to reform government and improve the exchange of information between the federal government and citizens..
Restore Scientific Integrity to the White House: Restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientific
I agree and support. One big problem. The best available science is made available only as long as it is pro-BigPharma pro-BigAg pro-BioTec. The depth and magmitude of the power and influence is unfathomable. They havebillions to spend on staff to write articles to confuse he facts just for profit. Look at Codex and you will see their blatant plans to even more fully dominate their system. The were sued in Europe for writing articles throughout the country that confused the masses into thinking that Shell(part of the conspiracy) was pro-environmental. Shell has yet to pay for damages in the 30 year old Exxon-Valdeez spill...
People must be educated and not in the universities,some other way?
Please! By Now everybody should know that Obama is creating a:
Team of Rivals.
Whatever you call it, he want's all the major ideological factions represented by the best people in the field.
Will it work?
Obama may be smart and tough enough to do it.
More speculative BS
How so? GMOs are HUGE business. Like all other technologies they have their upsides and their downsides. But the main driver for their adoption is the money that can be made with them. That's no different from any other technology. If you don't get that, you are fairly naive.
Making money is fine,if made with morals. Profitability first,morals and safety last.
This is pretty sickening. Get these cancer causing wretches away from this new administration please.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
