MONSANTO DEMOCRACY

international | environment | opinion/analysis

Thursday July 17, 2003 13:53

by ollie - katalyzer

as our pal greg says, the best democracy money can buy

The following short quote is taken from Organic Bytes, a weekly mail out from the good ppl at the organic consumers website....and, with the new US offensive against (Good) old europe's desire to _label_ (and perhaps even... ban :-0 )genetically engineered products, its time to remind ourselves, once again, of what the bastards are at:

QUICK QUIZ: HOW U.S. DEMOCRACY WORKS

Question: How is it that every industrialized nation in the world has banned
Monsanto's rBGH as unsafe, but it's legal (and unlabeled) in the United
States?

Answer: In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that ntopic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not
to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

you can subscribe to this excellent, (once a week only) mail-out at http://www.organicconsumers.org/publications.cfm

and if you go to http://www.organicconsumers.org you will find the necessary links.

btw I couldn't shorten this as it seemed so concise ,I have contextualised it with newsworthyness , and, sadly, it didn't come with a specific url link - otherwise I would have (tried) to shorten it and give a link....so don't start ;-)

Along with http://www.panna.org, this crowd are 'ar an liathroid', ;-)....

for eg, if you hear strange dribbley drivvel coming from a group calling itself 'the centre for consumer freedom' ,organic bytes tell us that they are monsanto backed. We need to know these things.

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

HOW THE U.S. FDA APPROVED GE FOODS DESPITE THE DEATHS ONE HAD CAUSED

by Raymond McInerney

Thu Jul 17, 2003 16:47

raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie

On May, 29 1992 the FDA formally recognized genetically engineered foods to be safe and declared they do not require safety testing. (U.S. law clearly states that a new method of producing food such as bioengineering can only be presumed safe if there is a "reasonable certainty" it will not be harmful. 21 CFR Sec.170.3(i))

On May, 29 1992 the decision-makers issued a policy statement asserting there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods do not entail different risks than conventional foods. Accordingly, the policy presumes every GE food is as safe as its conventional counterpart unless demonstrated otherwise. (The only exception is for foods from one of the few species involved in the most common food allergies.) The FDA does not require any testing, and testing is done on a purely voluntary basis by the manufacturer, with all critical decisions left to its discretion.

On September 30, 1992, FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator requested the Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products to evaluate the proposed use of the kanamycin resistance marker gene. (11) On December 3, 1992, the Division's experts submitted their written opinion. To emphasize their concern, they capitalized all the letters in the key sentence of their conclusion: "IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTI-BIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION." (emphasis in original) (12) In sending the document to another FDA official, the Division's director included a cover letter titled, "The tomatoes that will eat Akron." (The first commercial use of the marker was planned for the Flavr Savr tomato.) He said: "You really need to read this consult. The Division comes down fairly squarely against the kan gene marker in the genetically engineered tomatoes. I know this could have serious ramifications." (12) On March 30, 1993 the Division's Supervisory Microbiologist sent a follow-up memo to the Biotechnology Coordinator in which he strongly criticized the proposed use of the marker. He noted that although other markers are available, industry prefers the anti-biotic resistant ones because they are more economical. He stated that to make the choice on this basis was wrong, considering the risks involved: "In my opinion, the benefit to be gained by the use of the kanamycin resistance marker in transgenic plants is out weighed by the risk imposed in using this marker and aiding its dissemination nation wide. If we allow this proposal, we will be adding a tremendous quantitative load of genetic material to the environment which will probably assure dissemination of kanamycin resistance." (13)

FDA Response: The agency approved the use of the kanamycin resistance gene not only in tomatoes but in other vegetables as well. Currently, most bioengineered foods contain anti-biotic resistance genes.

The FDA has an admitted agenda to promote the U.S. biotech industry

The FDA acknowledges it has been operating under a federal government executive policy "to foster" the U.S. biotechnology industry. ("Genetically Engineered Foods," FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14) This policy was initiated by the Reagan/Bush administration and has continued through Clinton/Gore to Bush/Cheney. Further, when in 1991 the FDA created a new position of Deputy Commissioner for Policy to supervise the formulation of its policy on GE foods, it appointed Michael Taylor, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who had been representing Monsanto and other members of the biotech industry on food regulatory issues. During Mr. Taylor's tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the potential unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that GE foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary. (Subsequently, Mr. Taylor was hired by Monsanto as Vice-President for Public Policy.) Moreover, when Vice-President Dan Quayle introduced the FDA's policy statement in 1992, he referred to it as "regulatory relief" for the industry.

GM cull

by Organoboy

Thu Jul 17, 2003 17:13

Was there a GM cull last week in Switzerland or Germany last week
(Cant remember,Euronews is on very late),because of cross polinistation?

Italy Farmers Resist Order to Wreck Gene Crop

by Ray McInerney

Thu Jul 17, 2003 22:57

I'm sure there are plenty of italian that would love to wreck the gene crop.

Under Italian law, the sowing of genetically modified crops in open fields is banned.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

MONSANTO DEMOCRACY

Comments (3 of 3)