Category Archives: Bt Cotton

Whom do Your Elected Officials Represent?..Pecuniary Greed

Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Organics Admin

COO at Aladay LLC
Organic Farmer, Property Preservation Specialist and Custom Glass & Wood Worker. Blogger extraordinaire...
Organics Admin
Follow Me!!
This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Pecuniary Greed
So which is your elected Official??? Stupid or a liar???
So which is your elected Official??? Stupid or a liar???

In the days of my youth I was told what it was to be a man…Well about the time that song came out that just about what my father was discussion with me. You see one of the things that make us who we are is the ability to express self autonomy. The Ability to Own what you do if you will. Over the next few days I will be discussion one of the most divisive issues the United States of America has ever debated. GMO and how the products got into the food supply virtually untested all in the name of Pecuniary Greed.

Message_1463014053432

I believe the last time the American People were seriously hoodwinked for Pecuniary Greed was when DuPont had the useless patient for nylon rope and William Randolph Hearst and his Wood Pulp Paper. Refer Madness was name of that Propaganda Campaign. Sure seems like in my life time there have been a hell of a lot of Chemical Companies Manipulating the masses in the name of Pecuniary Greed. However, this time they may have gone too far as they are playing games wit the food supply, all for a little pocket change to send their pathetic offspring to Harvard. Pecuniary Greed sure can make strange bed-fellows.

Apparently when Malcolm Forbes the coined the phrase…He who dies with the most toys wins… The Baby Boom Generation took it to heart as there is only one reason for the massive smoke and mirror…I know I’m moving to a horse ranch but I’m a glass guy…show one need look no farther than Glyphosate. One Chemical Ladies and Gentlemen, one chemical all this deception, sleight of hand, Dog and Pony shows all in the name of Pecuniary Greed for one Chemical called Glyphosate. Amazing how much money is being generated for a chemical that is poisoning us daily because it has gotten into every facet of our lives.

Over the next few articles I will be bringing information from several places one of them the a fore mentioned publication of Malcolm. I will be providing links to information and videos, one of them will be a video from a remarkable young man Birke Beahr…so impressive his video plays on our site while this series will be run. It’s to the right as you read this.

The most notorious ruse the Monsanto propaganda machine is passing around is that “Selective Bredding” is the same thing as Genetically Engineering a new plant. One could even go as far as to say this is Science Fiction stuff playing out right before our eyes. What is so eerie is the fact that there are Scientists, Politicians, Media Empires, Social Media Platforms, all accepting revenues in some fashion to play the ruse out. In addition now the term being thrown around for those that oppose Monsanto and the Big 6 Agri-Chemical Companies “Agri-Evolutionists”. Which is interesting since Monsanto and the Big 6 Agri-Chemical companies seem to want to deny and refuse is happening with their Miss-Information campaign.

We the People need our voice LISTENED too.

I guess this is why it is so IMPORTANT for We the People do something. Just me but at the current moment EVERYONE in Washing DC should be impeached for ethical violations if they have accepted money from Monsanto, Syngenta, Con Agra, Dupont, Dow Chemical, Bayer, or any  other company that is remotely affiliated with any of the mentioned, and proposed, attached, or represented Monsanto interests while in office they should be charged with the crime of GRAFT. As that is what they are doing. Hillary Clinton received $325k to speak to at a Monsanto function. This would be Graft at its highest level Ladies and Gentlemen.

The definition of Graft… Graft, a form of political corruption, is the unscrupulous use of a politician’s authority for personal gain. The term has its origins in the medical procedure whereby tissue is removed from one location and attached to another for which it was not originally intended…..

12400922_10207992903851351_1413593894247738406_nMmmmmmmmmmmmmm not originally intended???? Seems that our Elected Officials do truly Represent their Constituents do they now??? Especially since the intention for one elected to go to Washington is to REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS and not generate profit via back room deals.

Pecuniary Greed the criminal activity of Graft

This issue has not even been tried to be covered up. The Graft is at the highest levels of our Government. Our Current Democratic Candidate is under and FBI investigation, she wears $4000.00 coats while speaking on income inequality to groups of minimum wage employees and gives speech on how to dress the duck to Monsanto C-Level employees to the tune of $350,000.00 for about 90 minutes of dressing the duck talk.

ventotene
Steven Savage

The first discussion thread is very articulated article penned by Steven Savage, claiming the same thing that the Famed Astrophysics Neil de Grasse-Tyson made a few years ago. I found the comment and correlation coming from Mr deGrasse when the same almost word for word came from Penn Jillette about a year earlier. Only Penn had to emphasize the point with the statement….Anyone against GMO technology has never watched a child starve to death…With all your money Mr. Jillette, I certainly hope you haven’t either.

For the article written by Steven go here.

Now please keep in mind the Steven has a career in the Bio tech industry and a long history of employment with the creators of the chemicals they want to place in the food supply.

Reviewing some of the commentary on Steven’s article and one can see that not everyone failed third grade science like the scientists working for Monsanto, that would be third grade science the Monsanto employee want to ignore.

Here is what some of the conversation has consisted of so far. This is still an active discussion that you can participate in if the desire is there.

Bill Kelleher

Seriously? This same tired old argument? It didn’t work when Neil de Grasse-Tyson tried to make it, and it not working for you now. There is a huge difference between traditional plant breeding and genetically engineered crops. Traditional plant breeding is outpacing GE on traits like drought resistance and others. GMO crops have increased overall pesticide use and have not increased yields. There is mounting evidence of harm across multiple organ systems from GMO crops, not to mention the ever increasing amounts of known carcinogen glyphosate sprayed on them.

One thing I will say is that “non-GMO” can be an advertising gimmick in some cases, especially when it is used on a food that currently has no GMO equivalent on the market.

Another comment went to the heart of the lopsided commentary provided in the article

Steven. Truly independent researchers, scientists and professors disclose their connections so as to remove any doubt of conflict of interest. The fact that you choose to keep yours secret only backs the opinion that you are a paid mouth piece of the bio industry. Sure, they are not paying you for *THIS* article, but we are all sure they are paying you quite handsomely for other work. A Google search of you turns up a long connected career to the bio industry exposing your lies and propaganda for what it is. The sad part is simply the fools who swallow it as truly independent facts.

Then there is this from Colleen

Colleen Whalen: The entire article is riddled with obsfucation and ad hominum arguments. There is a massive difference between hybridization and splicing genetic DNA and interjecting animal and plant genes into each other. GMO does not exist in any form in nature. Dating back 10,000 when agriculture was invented in Mesopotamia, farmers have always selected drought resistant, pest resistan and more prolific, attractive and tastier plants to breed and cross with hybrids. This has no connecton to what happens in a Biotechnology laboratory where scientists and technician artificially tweak animal and plant DNA and create an organism which never occurs in nature. Trans Species DNA splicing has been strongly criticzed by the Vatican. The entire organic farming industry in Hawaii has been destroyed due to cross contamination with GMO crops through pollen and seeds drifting in the wind. Monsanto has a 400 acre experimental GMO farm in Woodland, which is near Sacramento, California. There are more organic farmers in the Central Valley of California than anywhere else in the world. Once an organic crop has been contaminated by GMO drift from wind currents, it cannot be legally sold as organic. When reviewing the authors biography it was clear he has an extensive work history working for the GMO industry and is clearly guilty of a conflict of interest. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas should have RECUSED himself when he was the deciding vote in 1990 when GMO was legalized for crops in the USA. Clarence Thomas worked as a highly paid legal advisor to Monsanto and owned stock in that company when he voted in favor of legalizing GMO in 1990. There is a revolving door in the USDA of former Monsanto executives – Archer Daniel Midlands, Cargill and other hegemonic corporate cartel Big Ag conglomerates – and then being hired to run the USDA. If there is “no difference” between non-GMO and GMO crops then why do biotech firms insist on obtaining legal patents and charging huge royalty fees to farmers who use GMO seeds? Selective breeding and hybridizing plants is not remotely the same as what is done in Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont laboratories. Can the author name one organism that naturally has both plant and animal DNA?

And of course in all fairness there is the Good Sargent Zim…

sgt_zim…..Thanks, Dr. Savage. My father was in agriculture for 40 years (retired ag. vice chancellor from a large land-grant), and I’ve heard essentially the same from him. I find it more than a bit depressing that people can be so ignorant of science and agriculture. Most of us are not more than a couple generations removed from the agrarian lifestyle and just pig-ignorant of how things like this actually work.

Sandra brought up a common sense fact The poison is in the food with no lace to go….

Steven Savage’s response

Sandra, the biotech “Bt crops” don’t “kill any bug that takes a bite.” They are using the extremely selective, Bt proteins that are commonly sprayed in organic. These proteins have no effect on animals. As for standing up to the “harshest of weed killers” the real thing is also extremely selective. Glyphosate inhibits one specific enzyme that is in a pathway that does not occur in animals. The herbicide tolerant crop has a slightly different version of that EPSPS enzyme which is no longer effected. By the way, there is no lettuce on the market that is glyphosate tolerant or tolerant to any herbicide. Weed control in that crop is highly dependent on back-breaking hand labor, and fortunately today heading towards robotic systems. Chemicals that “build up in your body” have been banned for decades. The residues of chemicals on/in our foods are well documented to be at incredibly low and safe levels. The narratives you seem to have been reading don’t seem to capture the huge advances in all these areas over the past 40 years.

Where did you hear about poison dart frog DNA in beets? There is no such product out there. There is a website where you can see exactly what “GMO” crops exist anywhere around the world. Go to the green tab that says GM approval database.

This website Steven has refereed us to is the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Now when you run a “WhoIs” search on this website you draw a blank. There is no information available. Wonder why that is? Once you poke around the website there can be no question whom is behind the curtain pulling the strings and providing the information.

In Sandra’s defense the poison dart frog comment was a little tongue-n-cheek.

In closing today allow me to point out the obvious. Monsanto and company are going to tell us there is absolutely no way they could cook up a conspiracy this big…However, remember this folks. The American tax payers are currently spending and have been spending Billions of dollars to undo Refer Madness, that was given to us by…you got it a Chemical Company so they could profit.

Until Next Time

Happy Gardening

Written by: Aaron Aveiro

Photographs: Steven Savage courtesy his website, Google Images, and of course Refer Madness Poster photo Moi!!!!

Opinions expressed do not Reflect those of Aladay LLC ownership.

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Organics Admin

COO at Aladay LLC
Organic Farmer, Property Preservation Specialist and Custom Glass & Wood Worker. Blogger extraordinaire...
Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Why the FDA’s Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods is Fraudulent and Illegal…

Tell your representatives to stop taking Monsanto Political Influence Donations!!!!
Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent???

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

For some time now I have been asking the burning question, “Whom do Your Elected Officials Represent??? It is time that “We The People” ask this question every chance we get to bring attention to how Monsanto is manipulating our courts and purchasing our government.  When the political candidates come asking for assistance I have been asking the following four questions;

Prior to any support for any candidate I must ask the following questions…
I have to ask the following questions;
#1 Have you ever, or will you ever accept any type of contribution from Monsanto or any of the BIG 6 AG Chemical companies?
#2 Will you vote the will of your constituents and not bow to outside pressures?
#3 Will you vote against any type of legislation that prevents states rights or is counter to proper food labeling?
#4 All Political Representatives have a goal for their state. As a Senator what is your goal or vision for Nevada ?
I thank you for your time….

Although the fourth question is specifically for Nevadan politicians you can plug your state into the series of questions and ask those asking for your financial assistance. Of course I blog and I’m on the radio so perhaps that is why none of those that have come asking have responded. Or perhaps it is the fact that 90% of America, which means 90% of every elected official in this country has voted against their constituents when it comes to matters concerning our food supply and they do not wish to get locked in to something that could come back to haunt them. I mean what the Hay??? Monsanto money is green and spends just as well as yours and mine right????

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

The following has been reprinted with permission. While it does not ask the burning question, Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent??? It does support the statement above about purchasing our government.

So as you get ready to start your new week and the emails start coming in asking for financial assistance from those hopeful aspiring political candidates, ask those sending such requests “Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent???” and the four questions above.

For more information on this and other GMO matters go here

From Organic Consumers  Association and Author Steven Druker…..

Although most Americans (including those who serve in government) are unaware of it, genetically engineered foods are on the market only because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has covered up the warnings of its own scientists, misrepresented the facts, and violated explicit mandates of U.S. law.

The following points provide the details.

1. The Food Additive Amendment of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act institutes a precautionary approach and requires that new additives to food must be demonstrated safe before they are marketed. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 321)

2. An official Senate report described the intent of the amendment as follows: “While Congress did not want to unnecessarily stifle technological advances, it nevertheless intended that additives created through new technologies be proven safe before they go to market.” (S. Rep. 2422, 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5301- 2)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

3. Though the FDA admits that the various genetic materials implanted in bioengineered organisms are within the amendment’s purview, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). (Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991)

4. However, the FDA’s regulations state that substances added to food that were not in use prior to 1958 cannot qualify as GRAS unless they meet two requirements. Not only must they be acknowledged as safe by an overwhelming consensus of experts, but this consensus must be based on “scientific procedures” – which ordinarily entails studies published in peer-reviewed journals. (21 CFR Sec. 170.30 (a-b))

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

5. FDA regulations further stipulate that these scientific procedures must provide a demonstration of safety and that GRAS substances “…require the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive.” (21 CFR Sec. 170.30(b)) Thus, it’s clear that the GRAS exemption is not supposed to reduce the degree of testing but rather to relieve a producer from performing new tests for substances already known to be safe on the basis of previous ones.

6. Genetically engineered (GE) foods fail both requirements. There is substantial dispute among experts about their safety; and none has been confirmed safe through adequate testing.

7. As the FDA was developing its policy on GE foods during 1991-92, there was not even consensus about safety among its own experts. The predominant opinion was (a) that these new foods entail unique risks, especially the potential for unintended harmful side effects that are difficult to detect and (b) that none can be considered safe unless it has passed rigorous tests capable of screening for such effects. These scientists expressed their concerns in numerous memos to superiors – memos that only came to light in 1998 when the lawsuit led by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity forced the FDA to divulge its files. (Copies of these FDA memos are posted at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

8. For example, microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl stated: “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering ….” He added that several aspects of gene- splicing “. . . may be more hazardous . . .” (FDA Document 4 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents) Similarly, Dr. E.J. Matthews of the FDA’s Toxicology Group warned that “. . . genetically modified plants could … contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants…,” and he cautioned that some of these toxicants could be unexpected and could “…be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants.” (Document 2 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents) Citing the potential for such unintended dangers, the Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) called for bioengineered products to be demonstrated safe prior to marketing. He stated: “… CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique [emphasis added] animal and food safety concerns.” (Document 10 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents) He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.

9. In light of these unique risks, agency scientists advised that GE foods should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests. (e.g. Documents 2 & 6 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

10. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official who protested 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.” She declared: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” (Document 1 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents)

11. Moreover, FDA officials knew there was not a consensus about the safety of GE foods among scientists outside the agency either. For instance, FDA’s Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged in a letter to a Canadian health official that there was no such consensus in the scientific community at large. He also admitted, “I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict.” (Document 8 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

12. This lack of consensus in itself disqualifies GE foods from GRAS status. But even if consensus did exist, no GE food would qualify as GRAS because none has satisfactorily passed the level of testing that the law requires – and that the FDA experts stated is necessary. The agency’s files demonstrate that as of 1992, there was virtually no evidence to support safety, with one official’s memo to the Biotechnology Coordinator querying: ” … are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data?” (Document 1 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents) And the evidentiary base is still deficient because the FDA does not require any testing; and the tests relied on by the EU, Canada, and others do not adequately screen for the unexpected side effects about which the FDA scientists warned. The inadequacy of current testing has been pointed out by numerous experts, including the Royal Society of Canada and the Public Health Association of Australia. (Also see paragraph 27 below.)

13. Despite the ample evidence indicating a lack of consensus abut safety, as well as the lack of requisite evidence to confirm it, the FDA’s decision-makers (who acknowledge they’ve been operating under a policy “to foster” the U.S. biotechnology industry) declared that as long as a GE food does not introduce a known toxin or allergen, they would presume that it’s GRAS – and can therefore be marketed without any testing. In doing so, they professed themselves “not aware of any information” showing that GE foods differ from others “in any meaningful way,” even though they had received extensive input from their scientists pointing out the significant differences and their serious implications. (The agency’s promotional policy was acknowledgement in “Genetically Engineered Foods,” FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14. Its fraudulent denial of awareness appears in: Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

14. Although many people have been led to believe that the U.S. district court in Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala determined that GE foods are on the market legally, its decision actually highlights the extent to which their presence is contrary to the law. (Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. 116 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) at p. 179)

15. In her written opinion, the judge stated: “Plaintiffs have produced several documents showing significant disagreements among scientific experts.” (116 F.Supp.2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) at 177) However, she ruled that the crucial issue was not whether GE foods were in fact GRAS at the time of the lawsuit (or were actually GRAS when the FDA issued its policy statement on GE foods in May 1992) but whether FDA administrators had acted arbitrarily in 1992 in presuming that they were GRAS. Therefore, because she held that the case hinged on this narrow procedural issue of whether there had been adequate rational basis for the FDA’s presumption, she said that any evidence showing lack of expert consensus at the time of the lawsuit was irrelevant, since it was not within the administrators’ purview when they formed their policy in 1992.

16. As for the evidence that had been within the FDA’s own files in 1992, she ruled that the administrators were free to disregard the opinions of subordinates when setting policy. (116 F.Supp.2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) p.178) This conclusion is odd, since the written opinions of the agency’s scientists represented far more than mere policy preferences. They constituted solid evidence that a significant number of experts did not recognize GE foods as safe. Further, the judge failed to mention the fact that the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator had admitted there was not a consensus within the scientific community, even though plaintiffs’ briefs had emphasized it and cited the relevant document.

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

17. She additionally disregarded the fact (which had also been clearly pointed out to her) that the FDA’s files demonstrated there was insufficient technical evidence about safety to support a presumption that GE foods are GRAS. Although her opinion initially acknowledged that such technical evidence is legally required, she never returned to the issue – a highly irregular outcome.

18. Therefore, because she ignored so much important evidence, her ruling is very dubious. It’s also quite narrow. She did not determine that GE foods are (or ever were) truly GRAS. Nor did she determine that any has been demonstrated safe. She merely held that given the evidence before them in 1992, FDA officials had not acted arbitrarily in presuming that the foods were GRAS. Further, she emphasized that their presumption is, as a matter of law, “rebuttable.” (p.172)

19. This is a crucial point, because even if one believes that the FDA administrators had reasonable basis in 1992 to presume that all GE foods are GRAS, it’s obvious that their rebuttable presumption has been clearly and continually rebutted – both by the ever-growing dispute among experts and the ongoing lack of adequate testing.

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

20. Moreover, the lack of consensus and the lack of evidence are glaringly apparent, as the next seven paragraphs amply demonstrate.

21. In the Alliance for Bio-Integrity lawsuit, nine of the plaintiffs were well-credentialed life scientists (including tenured professors at UC Berkeley, Rutgers, the University of Minnesota, and the NYU School of Medicine) who asserted they did not regard GE foods as safe. As noted in paragraph 15 above, the judge acknowledged we had demonstrated there were “significant disagreements among scientific experts.” This in itself established that as of May 1998, GE foods could not be considered GRAS.

22. The following year, the respected medical journal The Lancet strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional foods, stating that there are “good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist” and that “governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.” (The Lancet, Volume 353, Issue 9167, Page 1811, 29 May 1999)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

23. In 2001, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report declaring (a) that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the “default presumption” for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects. (“Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001) In describing the report’s criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: “The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions.” (Calamai, P., “Ottawa Rapped, Expert Study Considered Major Setback for Biotech Industry,” Toronto Star , February 5, 2001)

24. The British Medical Association has also expressed reservations about the safety of these novel products. As described in the British Medical Journal, the Association released a 2004 report stating that “more research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real benefits over traditionally grown foods.” (Kmietowicz, Z. “GM Foods Should Be Submitted to Further Studies, says BMA,” British Medical Journal, 2004 March 13; 328(7440): 602)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

25. In January 2015, a peer-reviewed journal published a statement signed by more than 300 scientists asserting that there is not a consensus about the safety of GE foods and that their safety has not been adequately demonstrated. (Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) 27:4. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf)

26. Thus, the absence of requisite consensus is irrefutable, especially in light of the fact that the FDA has, in court, established that an additive was not GRAS merely by producing testimony from two
experts who did not regard it as safe. (United States v. Seven Cartons . . . Ferro-Lac, 293 F. Supp. 660, 664 (S.D. Il. 1968)

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

27. Further, not only has there never been a genuine consensus about the safety of GE foods, the evidentiary base on which such a consensus is legally required to rest has never existed either – and is still absent. This is well-attested by David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who recently asserted: “As a medical research scientist who published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed critique of genetically modified food safety testing, I can state confidently that it is false to say such foods and the toxic chemicals they require are extensively tested and proved safe.” (Letter to the LA Times, October 28, 2012)

28. Moreover, although the proponents of GE foods claim that the FDA subjects them to scientific reviews, the voluntary consultations that the agency conducts with the manufacturers are not scientific reviews – and the FDA has admitted that they aren’t. As its Biotechnology Strategic Manager has described the process: “The FDA requests that firms submit a summary of their assessment to the agency. The FDA does not request the original data and, therefore, does not conduct a scientific review of the firm’s decision.” (Maryanski, J., “Safety Assurance of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology in the United States,” July 1996.) In January 1999, the FDA affirmed that it still was not conducting scientific reviews, stating: “FDA has not found it necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants . . . consistent with its 1992 policy.” (Reported in The Lancet, May 29, 1999) And this lenient approach is still in place.

29. Although the FDA has been illegally, and fraudulently, exempting GE foods from the testing requirements established by Congress in 1958, hardly any current members of Congress are aware of the malfeasance. Consequently, the House of Representatives (in passing a bill titled the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015”) voted to remove the requirements that the FDA has been illicitly waiving; and it appears that virtually none of those who voted “yes” realized that they were in essence forgiving the FDA’s flagrant violation of the law (and its snubbing of the Congressional will) – and legitimizing a policy that was deemed both unscientific and risky by the agency’s own experts.*

30. Hopefully, if that bill is considered by the Senate, its members will deliberate on the basis of more complete and accurate information.

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

* Although the provisions of the bill that have garnered most attention are those that relate to labeling (especially the one that prohibits states from requiring the labeling of GMOs sold within their borders), the provision that legitimizes the FDA’s lax and illegal no-testing policy is the one that alters current statutory law.

Copyright © 2015 Steven M. Druker.  Permission is granted to reproduce and circulate this document as long as all the text is maintained.

Steven M. Druker, J.D., is executive director of Alliance for Bio-Integrity http://www.biointegrity.org/ and author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public. http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441115656&sr=1-1&keywords=altered+genes+twisted+truth

Folks HR 1599 is now in the Senate. This bill is just INSANE!!! I ask you good people of the United States of America, if 90% of us want something then why are our elected officials even wasting out tax dollars to argue these types of legislation??? Again…

Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent?

Until Next Time

Happy Gardening