I got an interesting reply to my previous post from yesterday reprinting the article about the USDA and their "non-issue" with GMO's ending up in the food and seed supply, and believe it or not, this guy actually works for the USDA, even commented on the blog directly from an IP address at the USDA Office of Operations! Is this the official stance? Does "Mr. Richard" (dick for short? or maybe Mr. Short Dick?) represent the majority of the USDA it when it comes to this issue. Well for better or worse, here is his response from my comments section:
Richard (Mr. Short Dick) Says:
I love blogs, they are so full of rhtoric that they are actully used in law school to identify the differant types of rhtoric.
Ok, lets see what we have here, you say ...
"Does that mean that when some GM corn, which contains genes from some unclassified organism found 20,000 leagues beneath the sea (see Syngenta¹s new GM ethanol corn), gets into someone¹s taco shell and causes anaphylactic shock that USDA will consider it "non-actionable?" I would hope not."
The USDA do not use unclassified genes from any source in any experiments. Come on, if it is unclassified, how will they know how to use it?
Moving along ...
"APHIS's plan states that "a low level presence of [GM] plant materials in
seeds or grain may not be cause for agency remedial action," saying such incidents will be evaluated on a "case-by-case basis" and may be
"non-actionable.""
Yep, that is the plan of attack and yes it works very well. The amount of cross contamination is so small that those times it was caught (small scale) it was by pure luck. The amount of cross contamination is less then the PPM's of animal and fowl waste that enters the food chain naturally, but I don't hear anybody screaming about that.
Moving right along ...
"Basically, USDA is saying that GMO contamination happens, so we might as
well let it happen."
The USDA never said that. More rhtoric to try and scare people of something that is not true.
Fact, except for fish, fowl, and animals there is no food that had not been altered. Yes, we know of the organic farms that raise all natural food. However, the rain and soil do have the chemicals that have been and are still being used and are desposited into the food through the root system or watering from rain.
Finally, the GM food is unapproved only because it has not been submitted to the FDA for approval to market. All strains used by the USDA are subject to testing on animals and humans in labs prior to large scale planting.
RJ
Researcher
ARS
by the way, here is his info from stat counter:
Usda Office Of Operations (199.133.185.108) [Label IP Address]
United States Fort Collins, Colorado, United States, 0 returning visits
Date Time Type WebPage
4th March 2009 09:09:33 Page View No referring link
homegrowngoodness.blogspot.com/2009/03/usda-admits-gmo-contamination-is.html
4th March 2009 09:18:44 Exit Link https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=793541490735805516&postID=904732570976436361
4th March 2009 09:58:54 Page View No referring link
homegrowngoodness.blogspot.com/2009/03/usda-admits-gmo-contamination-is.html
So let us break down his "Rhetoric":
First he says: "Does that mean that when some GM corn, which contains genes from some unclassified organism found 20,000 leagues beneath the sea (see Syngenta¹s new GM ethanol corn), gets into someone¹s taco shell and causes anaphylactic shock that USDA will consider it "non-actionable?" I would hope not."
The USDA do not use unclassified genes from any source in any experiments. Come on, if it is unclassified, how will they know how to use it?
My Reply: While I didn't write the article, I'm sure the genes aren't unclassified, however there are many dangers involved in GMO's and their untested appearance in the food market, allergic reactions, transgenic effects of bacteria and viruses on the human system, the soil system, and insect systems drive the dangers of GMO's home for all of us. Starlink corn is all the proof we need, we have that proof. In my book that makes the score Good Guys plus one, Mr. Short Dick 0! :)
He Says: "APHIS's plan states that "a low level presence of [GM] plant materials in
seeds or grain may not be cause for agency remedial action," saying such incidents will be evaluated on a "case-by-case basis" and may be
"non-actionable.""
Yep, that is the plan of attack and yes it works very well. The amount of cross contamination is so small that those times it was caught (small scale) it was by pure luck. The amount of cross contamination is less then the PPM's of animal and fowl waste that enters the food chain naturally, but I don't hear anybody screaming about that.
My Reply: So we were right? You fail to do your job and take corporate payoffs and board positions in the companies that your supposed to protect the farmer and consumer from and ignore the danger of genetic modification while comparing it to a natural pollutant? Wrong. GMO's are preventable, 100% preventable. Shit on the other hand happens. Not that I'm saying it's good for you, but it happens, GMO's do not.
He Says: "Basically, USDA is saying that GMO contamination happens, so we might as
well let it happen."
The USDA never said that. More rhtoric to try and scare people of something that is not true.
Fact, except for fish, fowl, and animals there is no food that had not been altered. Yes, we know of the organic farms that raise all natural food. However, the rain and soil do have the chemicals that have been and are still being used and are desposited into the food through the root system or watering from rain.
My Reply: The USDA didn't have to come out and say it, one of their researchers (Mr. Short Dick) just did! You just said that up above you idiot!.
Then you follow that up with blah, blah, blah, our buddies in corporate ag have modified everything and there ain't nothing you can do about it! Then you take your time to try to tear down organic agriculture because of environmental pollution, are you conciously trying to make the observation that there is no difference between GMO's contamination and organic farming?? Wow, this looks really good on the USDA. Thanks for the propaganda! Do your bosses know that your doing this from work? How did they like that I blocked the IP and sent it to a porn site?
He Says: Finally, the GM food is unapproved only because it has not been submitted to the FDA for approval to market. All strains used by the USDA are subject to testing on animals and humans in labs prior to large scale planting.
My Reply: In other words you guys will approve anything? You do know that a revolution in the style of the European destruction of GMO's is on the horizon right?
OK, after all that, I have to agree, that my friend Glenn had a good response, here it is:
Apparently RJ is not familiar with the Percy Schmeiser case in Canada or the stories about GMO contamination in Mexico's "Cradle of Corn".
Dozens of US and Candian farmers have been forced into settlement or litigation by Monsanto for "illegally" growing GM crops, when the apparent truth is that those farmers fields have been contaminated by pollen from nearby GM crop planted fields or escaped GM seeds that have germinated in or near their fields.
And in Mexico, studies conducted by Mexican, American, and Dutch researchers demonstrates the presence of genes from genetically modified organisms (GMO) among the varieties of traditional corn cultivated in the remote regions of Oaxaca State in the southern part of the country, even though the Mexican government has always maintained a moratorium on the use of transgenic seed. You can find published versions of those studies in the scientific journals "Nature" and "Molecular Ecology" if you want the nitty-gritty.
I'm willing to accept that RJ may be among the millions of people who have willingly swallowed the pill that fosters the belief that GM crops can feed the world. It's easy to get caught up in the idea that some good may come from development of GM crops...and perhaps some day that will be true.
To the best of my knowledge, the process of development and cultivation of GM crops is done totally without any method of preventing cross-pollination or contamination of other people's fields. There are no mandatory labeling laws for products containing GM ingredients, no mandatory process for preventing contamination of non-GM cultivating farmers crops, and no mandatory testing for presence of GM in food products. In my humble opinion this is essentially the same thing as the USDA or FDA saying "GMO contamination happens, so we might as well let it happen."
You can mince words and call this blog "rhtoric" until you're blue in the face, but all of the spinning in the world can't put this beast back into Pandora's Box.
I am not an absolute opponent of the concept of gene based research. However, I am against doing such research and allowing the products of that research to be introduced into the world at large in an unmanageable and unstoppable way. (I was going to add unpredictable to the preceding sentence, but there are plenty of people who predicted the current situation long before it occurred.)
The very idea of winning over the support of those of us who are skeptical about the motives and motivation of companies like Monsanto by trying to defend their irresponsible practices and the devastating fallout that is occurring from their engineered genetic material escaping into the "wild" is, at the very least, insulting.
And RJ, please don't insult us further by claiming that self-admittedly negligent and overburdened government agencies like the FDA or USDA (that are often staffed by former GM producing company employees) are our watchdogs against the increasingly complex and dangerous issues facing our nation's food supply and food security.
I love blogs too. They make you think and can often times lead you to the truth if you just dig a little deeper than the "rhtoric".
March 4, 2009 2:07 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment