PDA

View Full Version : Environment Stop Federal Takeover of Food Regulation in H.R. 875


KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2009, 10:41 AM
(NaturalNews) The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund recently reported the unveiling of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) on Feb. 4, 2009, by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), to both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture. Cosponsored by 36 other Congressmen, all Democrats, H.R. 875 would essentially transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly-established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Its implications point to the elimination of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations due to overbearing federal regulations subjectively determined by FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.

Some of the requirements set forth within H.R. 875 include:

- Designating FSA as sole regulator of food safety rather than the individual states, including granting FSA the power to implement and administer a "national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments" under its own terms.
- Reclassifying all farms as "food production facilities", ensuring they come under the regulatory and inspection protocols of FSA as well as enforcing compliance with whatever FSA deems as appropriate food safety requirements.
- Requiring farmers to comply with FSA-established "minimum standards" for farming practices, including requiring them to establish Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans and other written documentation as determined and mandated by FSA.
- Granting FSA the power to arrogate "preventative process controls to reduce adulteration of food" as it deems fit.
- Instituting FSA as food safety law enforcement, allowing it to assess civil penalties and fines for violation of any and all FSA safety laws up to $1 million for each violation. Collected fines would become unappropriated slush funds to be used however FSA deems fit in order to "carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law".

While many of these provisions may appear benign due to language emphasizing safety and to standardized regulations, the implications are far more mischievous. While stripping states of what little tenth amendment powers remain, H.R. 875 would establish a central regulatory body with even more unaccountable authority than that of the FDA. Similar to the provisions contained in the Obama "stimulus" package and the Bush "bailout" before it, H.R. 875 would bolster the ever-burgeoning federal empire in eliminating state sovereignty and individual freedom, particularly in relation to food.

The legality of any type of raw milk distribution across the country is also in jeopardy as H.R. 875 would grant FSA the statutory authority to impose a ban on its sale and distribution, period. If, for example, FSA determines that pasteurization is a necessary "preventative process" for safe milk production, it could override any current state provisions permitting intrastate raw milk sales, an area where even the overbearing FDA does not have legitimate jurisdiction. This limit would not apply to FSA, however, which would be granted unlimited jurisdictional power over all decisions concerning food safety, despite the unconstitutionality of such authority.

Additionally, the bill contains language that would expand the definition of the word "contaminant" for purposes of widening the scope of what constitutes "adulterated food". In other words, the vague, open-ended language would grant seemingly unlimited authority to FSA to arbitrarily levy fines whenever and to whomever it deems fit for breaching its subjective food safety rules.

The full text of H.R. 875 can be found here as well as committee contacts and a listing of the bill`s cosponsors. It is important to keep in mind that Rep. DeLauro`s husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for biotechnology giant Monsanto, the multi-national corporation responsible for the creation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in cows, the perpetuation of "Round-Up Ready" sugar and soy products hidden in conventional foods, and the instigation of lawsuits against farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto`s patented seeds. H.R. 875 provides the means by which corporations like Monsanto can seize control of the last-remaining independent farming operations in the United States.

H.R. 875 is still being reviewed by the committees with no official date set for a vote. Now is the time to contact both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture to express opposition to this federal takeover of the food supply. Also, be sure to contact your representatives to express opposition as well.

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." -Henry Kissinger, 1970



http://www.naturalnews.com/025824.html

KC Dan
03-19-2009, 11:05 AM
I seriously wonder what other federal gov't takeovers are being worked now as we are all distracted with AIG bonuses. They tried making veterans pay for their service related injuries but thankfully that seems to have been averted. What's next? We certainly are not hearing enough about the coming Fannie and Freddie bonuses since that is gov't run and was injected with a lot of our tax dollars.

KC native
03-19-2009, 12:53 PM
(NaturalNews) The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund recently reported the unveiling of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) on Feb. 4, 2009, by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), to both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture. Cosponsored by 36 other Congressmen, all Democrats, H.R. 875 would essentially transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly-established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Its implications point to the elimination of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations due to overbearing federal regulations subjectively determined by FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.

Some of the requirements set forth within H.R. 875 include:

- Designating FSA as sole regulator of food safety rather than the individual states, including granting FSA the power to implement and administer a "national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments" under its own terms.
- Reclassifying all farms as "food production facilities", ensuring they come under the regulatory and inspection protocols of FSA as well as enforcing compliance with whatever FSA deems as appropriate food safety requirements.
- Requiring farmers to comply with FSA-established "minimum standards" for farming practices, including requiring them to establish Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans and other written documentation as determined and mandated by FSA.
- Granting FSA the power to arrogate "preventative process controls to reduce adulteration of food" as it deems fit.
- Instituting FSA as food safety law enforcement, allowing it to assess civil penalties and fines for violation of any and all FSA safety laws up to $1 million for each violation. Collected fines would become unappropriated slush funds to be used however FSA deems fit in order to "carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law".

While many of these provisions may appear benign due to language emphasizing safety and to standardized regulations, the implications are far more mischievous. While stripping states of what little tenth amendment powers remain, H.R. 875 would establish a central regulatory body with even more unaccountable authority than that of the FDA. Similar to the provisions contained in the Obama "stimulus" package and the Bush "bailout" before it, H.R. 875 would bolster the ever-burgeoning federal empire in eliminating state sovereignty and individual freedom, particularly in relation to food.

The legality of any type of raw milk distribution across the country is also in jeopardy as H.R. 875 would grant FSA the statutory authority to impose a ban on its sale and distribution, period. If, for example, FSA determines that pasteurization is a necessary "preventative process" for safe milk production, it could override any current state provisions permitting intrastate raw milk sales, an area where even the overbearing FDA does not have legitimate jurisdiction. This limit would not apply to FSA, however, which would be granted unlimited jurisdictional power over all decisions concerning food safety, despite the unconstitutionality of such authority.

Additionally, the bill contains language that would expand the definition of the word "contaminant" for purposes of widening the scope of what constitutes "adulterated food". In other words, the vague, open-ended language would grant seemingly unlimited authority to FSA to arbitrarily levy fines whenever and to whomever it deems fit for breaching its subjective food safety rules.

The full text of H.R. 875 can be found here as well as committee contacts and a listing of the bill`s cosponsors. It is important to keep in mind that Rep. DeLauro`s husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for biotechnology giant Monsanto, the multi-national corporation responsible for the creation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in cows, the perpetuation of "Round-Up Ready" sugar and soy products hidden in conventional foods, and the instigation of lawsuits against farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto`s patented seeds. H.R. 875 provides the means by which corporations like Monsanto can seize control of the last-remaining independent farming operations in the United States.

H.R. 875 is still being reviewed by the committees with no official date set for a vote. Now is the time to contact both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture to express opposition to this federal takeover of the food supply. Also, be sure to contact your representatives to express opposition as well.

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." -Henry Kissinger, 1970



http://www.naturalnews.com/025824.html

Sorry, our current system is broken with regards to food inspection so I back this proposal. How many salmonella, e coli, etc outbreaks does it take before food safety is taken more seriously?

How many bad drugs (vioxx for example) have to get through the system before the FDA's approach is declared broken?

petegz28
03-19-2009, 12:56 PM
Sorry, our current system is broken with regards to food inspection so I back this proposal. How many salmonella, e coli, etc outbreaks does it take before food safety is taken more seriously?

How many bad drugs (vioxx for example) have to get through the system before the FDA's approach is declared broken?

You oppose organic farming?

KC native
03-19-2009, 01:09 PM
You oppose organic farming?

No, not at all. I'm for sensible regulation and enforcement. I'm not saying we need to crack down on everything but there does need to be a system that ensures people's safety. Currently there are too many ways to corrupt the system.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2009, 01:33 PM
No, not at all. I'm for sensible regulation and enforcement. I'm not saying we need to crack down on everything but there does need to be a system that ensures people's safety. Currently there are too many ways to corrupt the system.

Great then leave it up to the states and tell the feds to take a flying leap and keep their hands off our food.

KC native
03-19-2009, 01:35 PM
Great then leave it up to the states and tell the feds to take a flying leap and keep their hands off our food.

What we're doing now isn't working.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2009, 01:53 PM
What we're doing now isn't working.

What is the FDA for 500?

talastan
03-19-2009, 02:19 PM
Sorry but this is like using a nuclear bomb as spot remover. The system isn't perfect but it is far from broken. While you hear about outbreaks that have happened the majority, and it is a large majority, of food producers play by the rules and safety is strictly enforced. As for this piece of legislation, increasing overhead costs for food from the producing end will just result in higher taxes passed on to the consumer. Not only will the taxpayer have to pay for yet another bloated government run oversight program, but the increased food production costs will be a second hit to the consuming taxpayer. :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-19-2009, 02:24 PM
We should just let the companies control their own food safety and the products they include.

The market will ensure that we are all taken care of. Like The Jungle.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2009, 02:49 PM
Sorry, our current system is broken with regards to food inspection so I back this proposal. How many salmonella, e coli, etc outbreaks does it take before food safety is taken more seriously?

How many bad drugs (vioxx for example) have to get through the system before the FDA's approach is declared broken?

You believe the salmonella and e coli outbreaks started on the farm?

KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2009, 02:59 PM
We should just let the companies control their own food safety and the products they include.

The market will ensure that we are all taken care of. Like The Jungle.

exactly so many people have stated this, oh wait no one has said this because it's beyond stupidity.

KC native
03-19-2009, 03:05 PM
exactly so many people have stated this, oh wait no one has said this because it's beyond stupidity.

It's coming if patty or BEP make it in here.

penchief
03-19-2009, 03:06 PM
I buy organic foods as much as I can. It's more expensive but I feel a lot better about my health. Ironically, the reason I go organic is because the food being produced by corporate farms and processed by corrupt companies can't be trusted anymore.

Where does it say this measure targets organic farmers? I would oppose anything that further empowered corporate farming while hurting those who want to produce a healthier alternative. That said, I support anything that is going to regulate corporate grown and corporate processed food simply because it's gotten to the point where they don't give a shit whether they're selling us crap that will make us sick.

It's high time for tighter regulations of corporate conduct when it comes to the public's health and safety.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2009, 03:12 PM
I buy organic foods as much as I can. It's more expensive but I feel a lot better about my health. Ironically, the reason I go organic is because the food being produced by corporate farms and processed by corrupt companies can't be trusted anymore.

Where does it say this measure targets organic farmers? I would oppose anything that further empowered corporate farming while hurting those who want to produce a healthier alternative. That said, I support anything that is going to regulate corporate grown and corporate processed food simply because it's gotten to the point where they don't give a shit whether they're selling us crap that will make us sick.

It's high time for tighter regulations of corporate conduct when it comes to the public's health and safety.


E Coli or Salmonella dont care if the product is organic. What is a "corporate farm"?

KILLER_CLOWN
03-19-2009, 03:16 PM
I buy organic foods as much as I can. It's more expensive but I feel a lot better about my health. Ironically, the reason I go organic is because the food being produced by corporate farms and processed by corrupt companies can't be trusted anymore.

Where does it say this measure targets organic farmers? I would oppose anything that further empowered corporate farming while hurting those who want to produce a healthier alternative. That said, I support anything that is going to regulate corporate grown and corporate processed food simply because it's gotten to the point where they don't give a shit whether they're selling us crap that will make us sick.

It's high time for tighter regulations of corporate conduct when it comes to the public's health and safety.

Not if it's the Corporations policing themselves, This is nothing more than the big corporations opportunity to eliminate the small farmer and eliminate organic farming.

talastan
03-19-2009, 03:23 PM
I buy organic foods as much as I can. It's more expensive but I feel a lot better about my health. Ironically, the reason I go organic is because the food being produced by corporate farms and processed by corrupt companies can't be trusted anymore.

Where does it say this measure targets organic farmers? I would oppose anything that further empowered corporate farming while hurting those who want to produce a healthier alternative. That said, I support anything that is going to regulate corporate grown and corporate processed food simply because it's gotten to the point where they don't give a shit whether they're selling us crap that will make us sick.

It's high time for tighter regulations of corporate conduct when it comes to the public's health and safety.

It is the added cost of these inspections on some of these small organic farms that this will harm the most. Not to mention the option of government fines and seizure. By the way the Representative that is bringing this piece of legislature up is married to a Executive at some Farming/Pesticides company IIRC

banyon
03-19-2009, 03:32 PM
http://sharonastyk.com/2009/03/14/why-im-not-panicking-about-hr-875/

The rhetoric has been overblown to a destructive degree. As Tom Philpott points out at Grist:

“I’ve been reading hysterical missives about H.R. 875 for weeks. I could never square them with the text of the bill, which is admittedly vague. For example, the bill seeks to regulate any “food production facility” which it defines as “any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.”

But then again, the USDA already regulates farms. And “24 hours GPS tracking of … animals”? Not in there. “Warrentless government entry” to farms? Can’t find it.

More recently, reading around the web, I found more reasoned takes on H.R. 875. The bill may not be worth supporting — and from what I hear, it has little chance of passing. But it hardly represents the “end of farming,” much less the end of organic farming. The Organic Consumers Association, an energetic food-industry watchdog, recently called the paranoia around H.R. 875 the “Internet rumor of the week.”

BucEyedPea
03-19-2009, 04:15 PM
E Coli or Salmonella dont care if the product is organic. What is a "corporate farm"?

In the 15 years I've been buying organic I know of no e coli or salmonella outbreak. I would call it "chemical farming" not just "corporate." Anyone in the mid-west accepting farm subsidies is on welfare too. :D

petegz28
03-19-2009, 06:32 PM
In the 15 years I've been buying organic I know of no e coli or salmonella outbreak. I would call it "chemical farming" not just "corporate." Anyone in the mid-west accepting farm subsidies is on welfare too. :D

Have to agree here. We have been buying as much organic as possible and not only does the food taste better and last longer..we are not sick near as much as we used to be.

oldandslow
03-20-2009, 09:29 AM
E Coli or Salmonella dont care if the product is organic. What is a "corporate farm"?

Industrial farm is a better term. Corporate farm doesn't mean anything. Almost all farms are corporations of some sort. Mine isn't, but it probably will be if my sons ever want a piece of the action.

Industrial farming, on the other hand, is the devil. Michael Pollan's book, "the omnivore's dilemma" is a great read on the subject.

And you are correct that e coli or salmonella have nothing to do with "organic." I will argue, however, most outbreaks come from industrial farms, not organic ones.

HonestChieffan
03-20-2009, 09:43 AM
I believe most outbreaks occur as a result of the processing phase not the raising or growing and transportation phase. If you get ecoli or salmonella in your cut and processed chicken, that contamination occured at the killing plant not on the farm. The recent peanut issue is a good example...the peanuts were screwed up at the factory floor, not in the peanut growers field.

Garcia Bronco
03-20-2009, 09:50 AM
I believe most outbreaks occur as a result of the processing phase not the raising or growing and transportation phase. If you get ecoli or salmonella in your cut and processed chicken, that contamination occured at the killing plant not on the farm. The recent peanut issue is a good example...the peanuts were screwed up at the factory floor, not in the peanut growers field.

Exactly. This nothing more than a grab at private farms.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-21-2009, 01:09 AM
Have to agree here. We have been buying as much organic as possible and not only does the food taste better and last longer..we are not sick near as much as we used to be.

Yup, I lost a ton of weight and haven't had as much as a sniffle since i switched a year and a half ago. Really turned my health around.

penchief
03-21-2009, 08:47 PM
Exactly. This nothing more than a grab at private farms.

Corporate farms have been running family farms out of business for years. What's it going to take before some of you realize that you're accusing the people's representative government of wanting to do something that big business has already been doing for years? Your willingness to buy into their propaganda of blaming the villain's foil for the villain's crimes only further enables their agenda by endorsing their duplicitous behavior.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 07:47 AM
Corporate farms have been running family farms out of business for years. What's it going to take before some of you realize that you're accusing the people's representative government of wanting to do something that big business has already been doing for years? Your willingness to buy into their propaganda of blaming the villain's foil for the villain's crimes only further enables their agenda by endorsing their duplicitous behavior.

What is a corporate farm? Who are these corporations? Why would they get into farming?

stevieray
03-22-2009, 07:56 AM
What is a corporate farm? Who are these corporations? Why would they get into farming?

don't worry, whoever is involved in anything bad, it won't be any dems or liberals...

penchief
03-22-2009, 09:06 AM
What is a corporate farm? Who are these corporations? Why would they get into farming?

Dude, do a google search of corporate farming or industrial farming.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 09:07 AM
So you have no earthly idea what you even mean when you say "corporate farm". Just as I thought. Dude.

penchief
03-22-2009, 09:08 AM
don't worry, whoever is involved in anything bad, it won't be any dems or liberals...

Once again avoiding the topic to make an implication. I don't care what denomination somebody belongs to. If they're part of the problem they're part of the problem.

penchief
03-22-2009, 09:11 AM
So you have no earthly idea what you even mean when you say "corporate farm". Just as I thought. Dude.

Dude, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you are running your mouth without understanding some of the root causes of the problem doesn't mean you get to act like everyone else is doing the same thing.

Corporate farming is taking over in this country. It's not a made-up phenomenon. Family farms have been organizing themselves in resistance to coporate farming. Some states have legislation restricting corporate farming. Just do a search and you will find plenty to read up on.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 09:17 AM
Setting ones hair on fire and running about screaming a catch phrase like "corporate farm" does not do much to advance whatever it is you are attempting to explain.

Many family farms are set up as corporations thus your braod sweeping statement becomes rather meaningless.

Farming is perhaps one of the worst investment opportunities that exist. The inability to control income, production or costs outweigh and advantages of scale beyond a certain point.

The guy who raises a thousand acres of wheat does it just like the guy with 5000 acres or the guy with 250 acres...the use of a term like "corporate farm" tells us zero about the evils you see inherent in agriculture.

banyon
03-22-2009, 09:19 AM
Yeah, farming isn't for regular people, they've only been doing it for several millenia. We need to entrust it to more corporate stooges like HonestChieffan's former colleagues.

penchief
03-22-2009, 09:26 AM
Setting ones hair on fire and running about screaming a catch phrase like "corporate farm" does not do much to advance whatever it is you are attempting to explain.

Many family farms are set up as corporations thus your braod sweeping statement becomes rather meaningless.

Farming is perhaps one of the worst investment opportunities that exist. The inability to control income, production or costs outweigh and advantages of scale beyond a certain point.

The guy who raises a thousand acres of wheat does it just like the guy with 5000 acres or the guy with 250 acres...the use of a term like "corporate farm" tells us zero about the evils you see inherent in agriculture.

It's also referred to as factory farming. And it's a much different thing than a family incorporating it's family business.

Maybe you should introduce yourself to what's really happening out there in the real world instead of playing semantics. If you have any objectivity at all you already know what I'm talking about. But I suspect your feigning of ignorance is just a knee-jerk defense of an economic ideology that is being exposed as a fraud.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 09:30 AM
Explain to me how a "factory Farm" grows an acre of corn and how that differs from the single entity farmer and how he grows thae acre of corn across the road?

penchief
03-22-2009, 09:31 AM
Explain to me how a "factory Farm" grows an acre of corn and how that differs from the single entity farmer and how he grows thae acre of corn across the road?

Factory farming mostly refers to the raising of livestock.

The problem inherent with agribusiness is the same as any other business. When the profit motive dictates the ethics we have a problem. And those problems are showing up in the areas of environmental destruction and food safety. Those are tangible results that cannot be argued with. If big business wouldn't shirk it's responsibilities we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But since greed has caused the process to fail regulation and oversight is in order. Big business has nobody to blame but itself.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 09:36 AM
OK. So what your real issue is is meat and egg production. Thats better.

How does a corpoate raised cow, her baby calf and the grass they graze on differ from the cows and baby calves I have in my pasture?

banyon
03-22-2009, 09:43 AM
Explain to me how a "factory Farm" grows an acre of corn and how that differs from the single entity farmer and how he grows thae acre of corn across the road?

GMO and monoculture and destruction and patening of seed stocks would be the biggest differences with industrial corn production.

penchief
03-22-2009, 09:45 AM
OK. So what your real issue is is meat and egg production. Thats better.

How does a corpoate raised cow, her baby calf and the grass they graze on differ from the cows and baby calves I have in my pasture?

Uh....take a look at recent events. Seems to me we recently had an example of sick cows intentionally being introduced into the food supply.

In answer to your question, there shouldn't be any inherent differences. But ethical behavior shouldn't be considered an inherent issue, either. That said, regulations designed to protect the public health and general welfare should apply to everyone equally (both family farm and corporate farm).

Ultra Peanut
03-22-2009, 09:48 AM
How many salmonella, e coli, etc outbreaks does it take before food safety is taken more seriously?
Durrrr. The answer is LESS regulation, not more! The invisible hand of the free market will make our food safer, because companies who shirk their responsibilities will go out of business after their products kill a certain number of people.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 09:53 AM
GMO and monoculture and destruction and patening of seed stocks would be the biggest differences with industrial corn production.

I assume you refer in GMO terms to Roundup Ready technology and the spin offs from that. The RR technology and stacked genetic traits are used on the vast majority of the acres of soybeans and corn grown in the US and is not in any way limited in availability. In fact, if I am not mistaken, all of the Pioneer Brand corn seed for 2009 is roundup ready. The traits that are currently in the market have great advantages over non GMO's from an environmental POV brecause of the dramitic reduction in pesticides used to produce the crop. That also benefits all producers with no advantage given to a lrger or smaller sized operation.

Hybred exclusivity has been a fact since the 1920's and 30s when the selection of different pollinator and ear parent corn lines were used to create the first hybred lines of corn.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 09:55 AM
Uh....take a look at recent events. Seems to me we recently had an example of sick cows intentionally being introduced into the food supply.

In answer to your question, there shouldn't be any inherent differences. But ethical behavior shouldn't be considered an inherent issue, either. That said, regulations designed to protect the public health and general welfare should apply to everyone equally (both family farm and corporate farm).

So now we are moving toward an issue I think...you are more worried about animal ethics and public health. Those two issues would be far removed from factory farming/corporate farming vs whatever the alternative descriptor is.

Ultra Peanut
03-22-2009, 09:55 AM
Hybred exclusivity has been a fact since the 1920's and 30s SO WAS SEGREGATION

banyon
03-22-2009, 10:12 AM
I assume you refer in GMO terms to Roundup Ready technology and the spin offs from that. The RR technology and stacked genetic traits are used on the vast majority of the acres of soybeans and corn grown in the US and is not in any way limited in availability. In fact, if I am not mistaken, all of the Pioneer Brand corn seed for 2009 is roundup ready. The traits that are currently in the market have great advantages over non GMO's from an environmental POV brecause of the dramitic reduction in pesticides used to produce the crop. That also benefits all producers with no advantage given to a lrger or smaller sized operation.

RR as you call it is just one of a multitude of GMO corn varieties. Monsanto alone has over 800 different strains they have developed. While the pesticide issue is a benefit, the main problem is that the risks are not well understood, which is important when we are talking about the food supply and saving a few bucks might not ought to be our highest priority here. By definition, there are ZERO long term health studies of the effects of consuming these products on a regular basis. It has been found however to cause cancer when fed to animals in certain combinations:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/03/08/warning----gm-food-linked-to-cancer.aspx
Warning -- GM Food Linked to Cancer



A Russian study has confirmed a link between genetically modified (GM) potatoes and cancer in laboratory rats, according to UK Greenpeace activists. The results vindicate the research of Dr. Arpad Pusztai, whose work was questioned by industry backers.

The research was conducted in 1998 by the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy, but was suppressed until a recent victory for anti-GM activists in the Russian court system that released the findings to the public. The study showed that GM potatoes did considerable damage to rats' organs.
Also: the risks of cross contamination aren't understood AT ALL:


http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/science_technology/dna_gmo/news.php?q=1236135792

Here is just a short list of the many instances experimental GM crops -- crops never intended to be in the food supply -- ended up cross-contaminating non-GM crops and entered the food chain:



• In 2001, a CBC (Canada) radio broadcast (6/2/01) reported GM canola plants were showing up in farmers' fields all across the Canadian prairie, even though many of them never planted GM seeds.


• In 2002, drug-producing transgenic corn made by ProdiGene Inc. started appearing in soybean fields in Nebraska and Iowa. The U.S. government seized 500,000 bushels of soybeans, and fined ProdiGene almost $3 million.


• In 2006, small amounts of an experimental genetically engineered rice, LLRICE 601, appeared in commercial long-grain rice shipments earmarked for Europe.


• In 2008, farmers in five states sued Bayer after trace amounts of their experimental modified rice being grown in Louisiana were found in rice raised for consumption.


This doesn't go into the lines of corn developed to be drought resistant, or to repel certain kinds of insects.

Nor, of course does it address the other two wholly separate problems that you didn't address of monoculture or seed stocks.

Hybred exclusivity has been a fact since the 1920's and 30s when the selection of different pollinator and ear parent corn lines were used to create the first hybred lines of corn.

Natural hybridization has been around since Gregor Mendel of course and has little, if anything to do with directly altering the genes through artificial manipulation.

penchief
03-22-2009, 10:20 AM
I assume you refer in GMO terms to Roundup Ready technology and the spin offs from that. The RR technology and stacked genetic traits are used on the vast majority of the acres of soybeans and corn grown in the US and is not in any way limited in availability. In fact, if I am not mistaken, all of the Pioneer Brand corn seed for 2009 is roundup ready. The traits that are currently in the market have great advantages over non GMO's from an environmental POV brecause of the dramitic reduction in pesticides used to produce the crop. That also benefits all producers with no advantage given to a lrger or smaller sized operation.

Hybred exclusivity has been a fact since the 1920's and 30s when the selection of different pollinator and ear parent corn lines were used to create the first hybred lines of corn.

There are some studies that show that pesticides are still necessary during the growing process, thereby, increasing the level of pesticides for the consumer.

Are you content that enough safety studies have been done to ensure that there will be no long term negative affects of genetically modified foods on humans? There appears to be a lot of concern that the adequate testing has not been done. There are also a lot of concerns about being able to ensure the purity of non GMO foods.

I have nothing against GMOs, per se, as long as the public's safety has been assured and the public has the choice to avoid genetically modified foods. Is the labeling adequate at this point? Some reports indicate that non-GMO soybeans are becoming harder to find and that traceability is becoming increasingly difficult.

My biggest concern is that every person has the right to determine what they put into their body. If food labeling is not sufficient, traceability is not preserved, safety testing has not been adequate, and non-GMO products are slowly being squeezed out, I would have a real problem with the entire process.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 10:24 AM
Banyon, you never cease to amaze me with the same old garbage science references that have been disproven, debunked and buried under mounds of research that has been done all over the world by independent scientists, universities and governmental agencies. You come up with all there wild "facts" from the same old sites that re-refer to the same bad data. This is nothing more than the same garbage BS that you global warmers do.

I have no idea when you use the term monoculture what your issue is. A monoculture in and of itself is not bad and if you grow a crop like corn you cannot grow it in combination with something else. Id have to see what your monoiculture issue is because as a standalone word, there is no issue and you have not made a point other than a monoculture is bad

What was your point when you stated "This doesn't go into the lines of corn developed to be drought resistant, or to repel certain kinds of insects."...are you saying drought resistance is bad? Insect resistance is bad?

Explain "seed stocks"...no idea what that throwout means either...are you aginst , for, confused over where they are, who owns them, preservation thereof, purity? You need to be better at saying what you mean unless you have no idea what they mean and just toss them out for giggles and grins.

penchief
03-22-2009, 10:28 AM
So now we are moving toward an issue I think...you are more worried about animal ethics and public health. Those two issues would be far removed from factory farming/corporate farming vs whatever the alternative descriptor is.

Not necessarily. When factory/corporate farming is the driving factor behind producing, processing, and peddling unsafe, inadequately tested, or cantaminated foods it is most certainly an issue. Especially when they are trying to do so on a widespread scale.

You can't separate the public's health from the practices that have a negative impact on it. It is the corporate culture that has given birth to practices that have led to problems. Therefore, corporate/factory farming is very much an issue when it comes to the public health.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 10:35 AM
There are some studies that show that pesticides are still necessary during the growing process, thereby, increasing the level of pesticides for the consumer.

No one said pesticides were eliminated but the pounds of pesticide per acre has been reduced and the types of pesticides that have become for all intents and purposes obsolete have made a dramatic improvement in moving away from a heavily chemical dependent agriculture for weed and insect control.

Are you content that enough safety studies have been done to ensure that there will be no long term negative affects of genetically modified foods on humans? There appears to be a lot of concern that the adequate testing has not been done. There are also a lot of concerns about being able to ensure the purity of non GMO foods.

In our world we have no ability to determine a "No effect level" for most things. We can have this discussion as it relates to dish soaps and phosphates in soap, or long term studies to determine the effect of high tension transmissioon lines on people living under them or just about name the issue anf the fight can be fought.

If you ask do I believe we have data to support the safety of GMO corn on people, Id say yes I do. People dont eat very much GMO corn...in fact most corn directly consumed by humans is non gmo. And the cow pig or chicken that eats the corn trransforms the kernal into protien no different that non gmo...as well the genetics of these traits are such that the modification in many cases is not found in the seed produced rather it is in the root or stalk and has no link to the seed itself.Mush of the worry about GMO's and food supply are overstated by people who do not understand how food is produced and what goes into it from the get go.

I have nothing against GMOs, per se, as long as the public's safety has been assured and the public has the choice to avoid genetically modified foods. Is the labeling adequate at this point? Some reports indicate that non-GMO soybeans are becoming harder to find and that traceability is becoming increasingly difficult.

Non GMO soybeans are not that hard to find, its non gmo corn that is becoming more difficult to find. I dont disagree with you on that score. Tracebility is a very simple process with the diagnostics we have today.

banyon
03-22-2009, 10:41 AM
Banyon, you never cease to amaze me with the same old garbage science references that have been disproven, debunked and buried under mounds of research that has been done all over the world by independent scientists, universities and governmental agencies. You come up with all there wild "facts" from the same old sites that re-refer to the same bad data. This is nothing more than the same garbage BS that you global warmers do.

No, there aren't these studies that you're making up. And as I've already stated, GMO hasn't been around long enough to have ANY LONG TERM HUMAN HEALTH DATA on it. That's not "garbage science" that's a pure fact that you can't refute. On top of that are the studies I already cited.

I have no idea when you use the term monoculture what your issue is. A monoculture in and of itself is not bad and if you grow a crop like corn you cannot grow it in combination with something else. Id have to see what your monoiculture issue is because as a standalone word, there is no issue and you have not made a point other than a monoculture is bad

Well I assumed you might have a passing familiarity with the term, I apologize for my mistaken assumption. Basically, monoculture refers to the mass production and consumption of one genetic strain of a food source to the exclusion of a variety of others. By removing the biodiversity from the food supply, we may see a gain in efficiency of production due to economies of scale, but there is an increased risk of susceptibility to a pathogen because the pathogen will also be able to reproduce more efficiently, in addition we may have lost the key resistant quality which would have saved the crop/speicies from the blight which a more diverse (and natural) crop selection would have.


What was your point when you stated "This doesn't go into the lines of corn developed to be drought resistant, or to repel certain kinds of insects."...are you saying drought resistance is bad? Insect resistance is bad?

My point was that there are a multitude of types of GMO corn and not just the one you talked about. More genetic manipulation means more unknowns.


Explain "seed stocks"...no idea what that throwout means either...are you aginst , for, confused over where they are, who owns them, preservation thereof, purity? You need to be better at saying what you mean unless you have no idea what they mean and just toss them out for giggles and grins.

Yes, it's a term you didn't understand so you want to throw it out, that comports with the general sense of intellectual engagement that you ordinarily demonstrate in this forum.

The loss of seed stocks and the patenting of genetic information is a problem relatedto, though not the same as the monoculture problem. Rather than just talking about the detriments of a possible lack of genetic variance, the loss of seed stocks is referring to the loss to biodiversity and potential benefits which may occur if we breed out existing natural food sources. Again, we don't have the long term data, but often times pharaceutical and organic cures for disease are found in rare natural strains, or there may be new diseases for which stocks that might be eliminated would have the answer, or more likely the adaptibility to the natural environment or shifts in it might be answered by an older, more weathered and tested line.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 10:54 AM
Play as you will with cut and paste and going off to google another set of wack job bad science and unsubstantiated claims and fear mongering. You are so clueless on the issue its embarrasing.

The seed stocks you refer to is an issue that has been managed quite well with the storage maintainence, reproduction and cataloging of every line of hybred and inbreds that have been in production gloabally for years and is ongoing there are even organizations taht are still briningin new discoveries of related plants and the parent lines of what we call corn or for that matter soybeans ...to the extent we have a wider base of genetics and seed stocks on habd today that ever before....but then your cut n paste source probably has no link to that and you woint go look for it. "Loss of seed stocks" is not real, its false and shows your understanding is below your normal level of understanding on many issues.

Monoculture and biodiversity are so distantly related its hard to follow how you get the two in a sentence. But you did.....How ould you propose to raise an acrre orf corn in a diverse non monoculture way? Explain that process...hell even the indians when we came here understood that some crops had to be grown seperate from one another...that in itself does not reduce biodiversity. Your ability to bring disseperate and exclusive arguements into a discussion is unparralleled.

banyon
03-22-2009, 11:21 AM
Play as you will with cut and paste and going off to google another set of wack job bad science and unsubstantiated claims and fear mongering. You are so clueless on the issue its embarrasing.

The seed stocks you refer to is an issue that has been managed quite well with the storage maintainence, reproduction and cataloging of every line of hybred and inbreds that have been in production gloabally for years and is ongoing there are even organizations taht are still briningin new discoveries of related plants and the parent lines of what we call corn or for that matter soybeans ...to the extent we have a wider base of genetics and seed stocks on habd today that ever before....but then your cut n paste source probably has no link to that and you woint go look for it. "Loss of seed stocks" is not real, its false and shows your understanding is below your normal level of understanding on many issues.

I didn't "cut and paste" anything in my last post. And no, despite your anectodal assurances that everything is swell, there is much evidence to the contrary that many lines of seed are being lost, and conversely are attempted to being patented and "owned". Again, NO, I DON'T NEED ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THERE ARE NO (ZERO) studies of the long term effects of GMO food on human health. You keep running away from that point, no matter how much I bold it like a little b*tch, and try to conflate it and make it about my source or whatever with some ad hominem point.

Monoculture and biodiversity are so distantly related its hard to follow how you get the two in a sentence. But you did.....How ould you propose to raise an acrre orf corn in a diverse non monoculture way? Explain that process...hell even the indians when we came here understood that some crops had to be grown seperate from one another...that in itself does not reduce biodiversity. Your ability to bring disseperate and exclusive arguements into a discussion is unparralleled.

First off you could at least attempt to spell and not look like a moron. Secondly, these "disseperate" (sic.) topics are all part and parcel of industrial/multinational corporate farming which was the topic. Then you feigned ignorance about what that meant and asked for an explanation. Then when an explanation is offered "Wahh that's too much, I don't like that you used a source, wahhh, too many topics". I don't think anyone in this forum has merited the label of "disinterested dullard" more than yourself. You routinely pretend to be interested in an answer to a question, then when the answer is given you don't want to read or discuss it and find as many excuses as you can to avoid the conversation.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 11:28 AM
Let me know when you have enough background to understand your own statements.

Your wild "lost seed stocks" are just one example that you dont have any understanding beyond some populist uniformed website somewhere that is designed to support some fearmongers position of the end is near we are all gonna die globalwarming and other unrelated BS theories. Thats clear from the use of seed stocks as a term that is just a misnomer used by people who peddle these sorts of things. "Lines of seed"...another one...

What is "long term" to you. "Long term studies " have been defined and refined for years in the scientific community. I just wonder if you know what a long term is or if this is just another alarmist tactic that will be ongoing forever?

Maybe you should contact the WHO and make sure they know that you have discovered how far off they are since they have come out on the side of GMO's, safety to humans and to the environment. Clearly they need your expertise to save the world on this issue.

The patents are on the method of inserting a gene and is unrelated to the genetic purity of the original hybred...but then you wouldnt understand that either.

Nice ploy to try to drag back up the old "corporate farm multinational hobgobblins" But that wont carry much weight in a third world country that is facing starrvation when a GMO foodstuff comes into thier world....see, GMOs are no all about a weed killer or a patent or the other evils you see. There are huge social benefits as well as health benefits outside of your world.

banyon
03-22-2009, 11:34 AM
Yeah, you've been a regular fount of information in this thread. :rolleyes:

"Hey Biodiversity and monoculture are unrelated cuz I said, I is know wht I talking about"


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monoculture

mon·o·cul·ture (mn-klchr)
n.
1. The cultivation of a single crop on a farm or in a region or country.
2. A single, homogeneous culture without diversity or dissension.

Taco John
03-22-2009, 11:40 AM
Sorry, our current system is broken with regards to food inspection so I back this proposal. How many salmonella, e coli, etc outbreaks does it take before food safety is taken more seriously?

How many bad drugs (vioxx for example) have to get through the system before the FDA's approach is declared broken?



How many times does the federal government have to fail before you realize that it's not actually good at this stuff?

Brock
03-22-2009, 11:47 AM
The answer to bad government is more of it, apparently.

HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 11:48 AM
The answer to bad government is more of it, apparently.

Work "more funding" into that and I think you have it.

penchief
03-22-2009, 03:07 PM
How many times does the federal government have to fail before you realize that it's not actually good at this stuff?

If the people's representative government were doing it's job properly it would not be corrupted by corporate influence. The problem is not that there is too much oversight or too many laws to prevent abuses. Clearly, if there were no rules at all the problem would persist. The problem is that government is not doing the job it is supposed to do because it has been corrupted by the very entities creating the problem and whom you wish to give free rein.

When is history and current events going to be enough before you realize that unregulated business practices will always restult in unethical individuals or powerful entities exploiting the system at the peril of everyone else?

penchief
03-22-2009, 03:09 PM
The answer to bad government is more of it, apparently.

The answer to corrupt government is to eliminate the corruption and begin doing the job it was intended to do, represent the people and their general welfare. Laws and regulations are designed to do just that. Deregulation has made a mockery of the spirit of laws intended to do that. The answer to our current dilemna is not to continue giving the business crooks and robber barons free rein to rape and pillage. The answer is to put a halt to the shenanigans via oversight and regulation.

orange
04-09-2009, 05:38 PM
DeLauro responds:

"HR 875" Myth Sows Terror Among Organic Gardeners
April 9, 2009 at 02:25 PM

Rep. Rosa DeLauro knew she had a problem when her colleagues began asking her on the House floor about her bill that was going to put small farmers out of business. Her own offices in Washington and back home in Connecticut are getting bombarded with calls from angry constituents demanding she stop her assault on backyard organic farms.

What, they want to know, does she have against organic heirloom tomatoes?

"It was substantial and it wasn't just my office," DeLauro tells the Huffington Post. "All of my colleagues -- I have colleagues who come up to me on both sides of the aisle and they say to me, 'Rosa, what's this about 875?'"

H.R. 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, has become an Internet phenomenon, the subject of alarmist e-mails warning gardeners that Congress is plotting against their plots, that the vote is coming any day, and we must take action! The outraged constituents span the political spectrum.

The bill, it's argued, is being pushed quietly by big agribusiness, herbicide and pesticide behemoths such as Monsanto, who want to outlaw organic farming using backdoor food-safety rhetoric. The richest irony, for anyone who has followed DeLauro's career, is that she's as far from a friend of Monsanto as can be conjured.

The anti-875 movement latched onto DeLauro's definition of a "food production facility" as "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation." The bill makes such facilities subject to safety inspections, leading to fears that clipboard-wielding bureaucrats will soon be strolling through your lettuce patch.

"Didn't Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain control over the food supply? " recalled one libertarian blogger at CampaignforLiberty.com. "Didn't Stalin use the food to control the people?"

Yeah, Stalin did. But DeLauro has no plans to collectivize agriculture in the United States. The opposite, actually.

"The intent of the bill is to focus on the large, industrial processes such as the peanut processing plant in Georgia that was responsible for the salmonella outbreak that killed nine people," she says. She emphasizes that the Constitution's commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating commerce that doesn't cross state lines. DeLauro says she's open to making technical changes to the bill if any small farmers remain concerned that the bill is aimed at them.

Currently, 15 separate federal agencies are involved in regulating food safety and there is no system in place to get to the source of an outbreak once it happens. We still don't know what contaminated the tomatoes leading to a previous salmonella outbreak, one which was originally blamed on spinach -- to the great detriment of spinach growers. DeLauro's bill would put one agency in charge and try to organize the chaos that is the current system.

"This notion that we're destroying backyard farms is absurd. It's ludicrous," she says. "I chair the agriculture subcommittee of appropriations. Why would I be putting farmers out of business?"

DeLauro says she has been told that the disinformation campaign "was a libertarian operation somewhere in the country, but we're trying to figure it out."

In the meantime, she sent a letter to all of her colleagues explaining what the bill does and is planning a more public campaign to clear the air. She has marshaled organic farming organizations in her defense. Her homepage directs people to "get the facts on H.R. 875."

For a long time, DeLauro figured that the campaign was too absurd to take hold - similar to the assumption John Kerry made about charges he lied about his war record. The bill wasn't even new, she reasoned, having introduced the same thing the year before.

"I made an assumption, maybe it was the wrong assumption, my God," she says. "I guess it was naïve in a way." As the calls and questions from colleagues mounted, she decided she had to respond. "It was significant enough that I said to myself, 'Whoa, this is beyond anything I'd dreamed could catch on.'"

Watching a viral Internet campaign take shape can be a bizarre experience, she says. "You have a sense of who you are and what you're about. But that may be thinking too much about who you are and what you do. You have to explain to people; you have to tell them; you have to retell them."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/hr-875-myth-sows-terror-a_n_185230.html