Alan Kapuler was kind enough to send me this previously unpublished article which I really love. Be sure to pass it around my friends and be sure to check out Alan Kapulers Peace Seeds for some great genetic gardening material!
Evolution is learning by AMK 5-2-07
(A new paradigm from Jonathan Weiner that appears in his book Time, Love and Memory, a story about perhaps the greatest geneticist among humans that we know about who lived on this planet.)
What a strange thing, evolution; poorly understood,
highly criticized; mainly by folk who are afraid,
afraid of what, learning?
And so it goes, new discoveries, uncovering unities hidden in the manifolds of disunderstanding.
The life we all get comes with childhood and youth, the times and our genes and the issues that conjunct over bigger time spans than our lives and perspectives allow.
Every once in a while an integration occurs.
The discussion of evolution, from Darwin and his allies, detractors and commentarians to the folk who know little and care less but have strong opinions about life, god and country, would improve were the nature of genetics, genomes and genes better understood.
This is a genome friendly era. We know the complete genomes of hundreds of the microbial bacteria, archaea and their viruses. Many dozens of eukaryotes from fungi to animals to plants have their gene sequences on chromosomes known with most areas assigned to functions, activities and locations. The human genome is well mapped and increasingly explored.
This gives us unprecedented ability to compare what has happened in the journey from intelligent macromolecules to cells, from cells to micro-organisms, from tiny creatures of a single cells to ones like us with more than 60,000,000,000,000 cells.
And this experiential record of life, written in the genes from time before time, and carried within each one of us, this immense multigenerational saga about survival and adaptation, about memory and love, about selection and direction, this process of evolution is what we have learned that stuck with us to give us this life at this time.
We call it evolution and it stands for learning.
Monday, March 9, 2009
H5N1 Accidentally Contaminates Flu Vaccine????
I'm sure the live H5N1 virus just accidentally contaminated a flu shot put out by a huge American Pharmacutacal company called Baxter. Why don't we hear the governments of the world and the media screaming "bio-terrorism"? Why is this company even still operating? What the hell is wrong with this world?
Push our buttons MF's!
Been away for a couple days, seeding flats, enjoying the beautiful springlike weather, composting, preparing fields and all kinds of stuff I love to do!
Anyhow, have those of you who are "awake" been paying attention to this H.R. 875?
Sort of a curious bill is it not? After reading it and doing a google search I came up with this from another site:
Pay special attention to
* Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it’s entirety.
* section 103, 206 and 207- read in it’s entirety.
What it Does:
* Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
* Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn’t actually use the word organic.
* Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
The thing is that this bill is written so vaguely that this could actually apply to us on a local, in-state, and regional level! If they think they are going to pull this shit off, I think they have a rude awakening coming. For those of you who wrote the bill or agree with it, allow me to break it down for you.
-For eight years we lived under a totalitarian government.
-While Obama is enjoying a wave of popularity, his disapproval rating in his first month was alarmingly high along with the number of controversial appointments and ensuing corruption of the cabinet that he has surrounded himself with he has sat himself up for failure.
-We are suffering from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, more and more people are waking up and realizing that this was an engineered crisis and are also coming to the realization that 9/ll, the Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan are a sham, engineered by some shadow puppeteer who is thirsty for blood.
-People are out of jobs, stocking up for hard times, and some very serious talk of the next American revolution is taking place.
-States are declaring their sovereign rights in your very face.
-You have repeatedly expanded governmental agencies and power into corporate hands and violated states rights.
-How long do you think it's going to last?
This country is ripping at the seams and when it falls, do you really think there will be somewhere in this world where those responsible will be safe? Have you read any history about the French Revolution?
Try and enforce this act on the small and local farms of the United States and see what happens. I think you know. As though we can't read this and tell that Monsanto, Syngenta, Tyson and others are behind it, are you really this stupid?
So, if you think you can get away with this, go ahead, push our buttons mother fuckers!
Anyhow, have those of you who are "awake" been paying attention to this H.R. 875?
Sort of a curious bill is it not? After reading it and doing a google search I came up with this from another site:
Pay special attention to
* Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it’s entirety.
* section 103, 206 and 207- read in it’s entirety.
What it Does:
* Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
* Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn’t actually use the word organic.
* Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
The thing is that this bill is written so vaguely that this could actually apply to us on a local, in-state, and regional level! If they think they are going to pull this shit off, I think they have a rude awakening coming. For those of you who wrote the bill or agree with it, allow me to break it down for you.
-For eight years we lived under a totalitarian government.
-While Obama is enjoying a wave of popularity, his disapproval rating in his first month was alarmingly high along with the number of controversial appointments and ensuing corruption of the cabinet that he has surrounded himself with he has sat himself up for failure.
-We are suffering from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, more and more people are waking up and realizing that this was an engineered crisis and are also coming to the realization that 9/ll, the Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan are a sham, engineered by some shadow puppeteer who is thirsty for blood.
-People are out of jobs, stocking up for hard times, and some very serious talk of the next American revolution is taking place.
-States are declaring their sovereign rights in your very face.
-You have repeatedly expanded governmental agencies and power into corporate hands and violated states rights.
-How long do you think it's going to last?
This country is ripping at the seams and when it falls, do you really think there will be somewhere in this world where those responsible will be safe? Have you read any history about the French Revolution?
Try and enforce this act on the small and local farms of the United States and see what happens. I think you know. As though we can't read this and tell that Monsanto, Syngenta, Tyson and others are behind it, are you really this stupid?
So, if you think you can get away with this, go ahead, push our buttons mother fuckers!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
So what do you call conspiracy thories when they are no longer theories?
Does coincidence theory work?
For eight years people though I was ape shit crazy. No more however (well, I'm sure they do, but I don't much care). The question is, since we now know we lived in what amounted to a dictatorship for that long, has anything changed? Obama is keeping extrordinary rendition alive as well as extensive secret prisons, so what has changed if anything? On a somewhat related note! why the hell is Glenn Beck of Fox news pulling a bait and switch? Something is up with that for sure! (just go to you tube and look up Glenn Beck videos over the past two years and then look at what he has been up to the past couple weeks to see what I mean?)
And before anybody jumps on that damned North Vs. South, Liberal Vs. Conservative, "would you say the same think about Lincoln?" bandwagon. Yes I would. The civil war was started and fought for many reasons, none of them from the north truly in regard to slavery, but then that requires an extensive study of history from both points of view to understand and if your operating off of your standard high school or college education you not going to understand where I'm coming from.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/...FtYXJlbGVhc2U-
Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos
By DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers Devlin Barrett And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers – Mon Mar 2, 11:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.
The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies
-------
The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."
-----
The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges
------
For eight years people though I was ape shit crazy. No more however (well, I'm sure they do, but I don't much care). The question is, since we now know we lived in what amounted to a dictatorship for that long, has anything changed? Obama is keeping extrordinary rendition alive as well as extensive secret prisons, so what has changed if anything? On a somewhat related note! why the hell is Glenn Beck of Fox news pulling a bait and switch? Something is up with that for sure! (just go to you tube and look up Glenn Beck videos over the past two years and then look at what he has been up to the past couple weeks to see what I mean?)
And before anybody jumps on that damned North Vs. South, Liberal Vs. Conservative, "would you say the same think about Lincoln?" bandwagon. Yes I would. The civil war was started and fought for many reasons, none of them from the north truly in regard to slavery, but then that requires an extensive study of history from both points of view to understand and if your operating off of your standard high school or college education you not going to understand where I'm coming from.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/...FtYXJlbGVhc2U-
Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos
By DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers Devlin Barrett And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers – Mon Mar 2, 11:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.
The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies
-------
The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."
-----
The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges
------
In responce to my several previous posts regarding the USDA and their corporate GMO monstrosity creating bed partners.....
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
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
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
USDA Admits GMO Contamination is Inevitable (so what are they going to do about it?.....Nothing apparently and even less if they can)
USDA Admits GMO Contamination is Inevitable
* USDA: "GMO contamination happens"
By Ken Roseboro
The Organic & Non-GMO Report, February 22, 2009
Straight to the Source
Since 2000, there have been six known incidents of unapproved genetically
modified corn and rice entering the US food supply or exports.
Common sense would seem to dictate that the US Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would want to tighten its
oversight of GM crops and force biotechnology companies to make sure their
unapproved GMOs stay out of Americans' corn flakes.
This is exactly what the Government Accounting Office (GAO) called for.
Following the most recent contamination incident involving an unapproved GM
cotton from Monsanto mixing with conventional cotton, GAO called for more
oversight and coordination among federal agencies‹attention USDA‹to prevent
unapproved GMOs from getting into the food supply.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin said, "When unapproved genetically engineered crops
are detected in the food and feed supply, food safety concerns rise, markets
are disrupted and consumer confidence falls."
"Lessen the regulatory burden"
Unbelievably, USDA¹s has been to propose less oversight, wanting to "lessen
the regulatory burden" on biotechnology companies, to quote APHIS
spokeswoman, Rachel Iadicicco.
Unfortunately, the government's track record of lessening the regulatory
burden does not inspire much confidence, as demonstrated by the recent
collapse of major Wall Street banks.
This has not dissuaded the USDA. In fact, USDA states that in some cases it
doesn't want to do anything when unapproved GMOs end up in our food.
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."
Basically, USDA is saying that GMO contamination happens, so we might as
well let it happen.
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.
"Serious abdication of responsibility"
The Union of Concerned Scientists lambasted the USDA¹s proposed rulemaking
as "a serious abdication of its responsibility."
Biotechnology companies are obviously pleased that USDA wants to lessen
their regulatory burden, allowing them to avoid responsibility for
contaminating the food supply. Monsanto, whose unapproved GM cotton recently
got mixed with conventional cotton, expressed its full support of the new
rules. A spokesman for Syngenta, which in March 2005 revealed that it had
"inadvertently" sold an unapproved GM corn for three years, said that it was
"appropriate to establish science-based criteria by which regulated material
would be considered 'not-actionable' by the agency."
I'm sure the USDA and the GMO "in crowd" will get all the hall passes they want from SOA Tom Villsack. This is bio-terrorism. This is a terrible mistake waiting to happen and these idiots don't even care because the payoff from their corporate handlers is too large. The USDA much like most of the current federal U.S. government is lagress and corrupt and in need of a serious overhaul. I fear that we are slowly loosing our rights, liberties, health, and heritage, and this is just as important as any of the other issues in the news these days. It's time to fight back against the system. The system works for us, we are not slaves to the system and it's getting high time to prove that.
* USDA: "GMO contamination happens"
By Ken Roseboro
The Organic & Non-GMO Report, February 22, 2009
Straight to the Source
Since 2000, there have been six known incidents of unapproved genetically
modified corn and rice entering the US food supply or exports.
Common sense would seem to dictate that the US Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would want to tighten its
oversight of GM crops and force biotechnology companies to make sure their
unapproved GMOs stay out of Americans' corn flakes.
This is exactly what the Government Accounting Office (GAO) called for.
Following the most recent contamination incident involving an unapproved GM
cotton from Monsanto mixing with conventional cotton, GAO called for more
oversight and coordination among federal agencies‹attention USDA‹to prevent
unapproved GMOs from getting into the food supply.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin said, "When unapproved genetically engineered crops
are detected in the food and feed supply, food safety concerns rise, markets
are disrupted and consumer confidence falls."
"Lessen the regulatory burden"
Unbelievably, USDA¹s has been to propose less oversight, wanting to "lessen
the regulatory burden" on biotechnology companies, to quote APHIS
spokeswoman, Rachel Iadicicco.
Unfortunately, the government's track record of lessening the regulatory
burden does not inspire much confidence, as demonstrated by the recent
collapse of major Wall Street banks.
This has not dissuaded the USDA. In fact, USDA states that in some cases it
doesn't want to do anything when unapproved GMOs end up in our food.
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."
Basically, USDA is saying that GMO contamination happens, so we might as
well let it happen.
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.
"Serious abdication of responsibility"
The Union of Concerned Scientists lambasted the USDA¹s proposed rulemaking
as "a serious abdication of its responsibility."
Biotechnology companies are obviously pleased that USDA wants to lessen
their regulatory burden, allowing them to avoid responsibility for
contaminating the food supply. Monsanto, whose unapproved GM cotton recently
got mixed with conventional cotton, expressed its full support of the new
rules. A spokesman for Syngenta, which in March 2005 revealed that it had
"inadvertently" sold an unapproved GM corn for three years, said that it was
"appropriate to establish science-based criteria by which regulated material
would be considered 'not-actionable' by the agency."
I'm sure the USDA and the GMO "in crowd" will get all the hall passes they want from SOA Tom Villsack. This is bio-terrorism. This is a terrible mistake waiting to happen and these idiots don't even care because the payoff from their corporate handlers is too large. The USDA much like most of the current federal U.S. government is lagress and corrupt and in need of a serious overhaul. I fear that we are slowly loosing our rights, liberties, health, and heritage, and this is just as important as any of the other issues in the news these days. It's time to fight back against the system. The system works for us, we are not slaves to the system and it's getting high time to prove that.
The Illegitamacy and moral issues of patenting part 2
This is a follow up to a blog from a couple days ago wherein a friend and I were discussing plant patents and particularly the ability to create a "open source" patent that would allow gardeners, traditional plant breeders, and farmers to share seeds but place limitations on coporations "stealing" those sees. My friend had a few new insights, particularly in regards to Siegers trying to patent "warty" pumpkins and the traits associated with them, this is interesting and goes deep, be sure to read it all the way through!
Well, Alan,
I must say that I was pretty surprised to open your main blog yesterday and discover that I had become an anonymous "star". No problem, but I am glad you did remove my "identity". As I mentioned, I've colleagues on both sides of this issue, and I know that the cross communications can become more than just "vituperative" at times.
Well, one of the best ways to learn is to shoot your mouth of and then get corrected.
I mentioned in my previous email that : "Plant Patents are only available for plants that are (and nearly always require to be) asexually (i.e. cloned, divided, "boutured" [sorry, can't think of the English word], etc.] to retain their uniform and stable distinct characteristics."
Well, this is, in fact true; and supported by the USPTO's own "Guidance" on Plant Patents (see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1) which makes quite a point of the "asexual reproduction" facet.
However, I have been referred to an interesting article by a Hawaiian “Patent Agent, Dr Robert Hunter, who points out that securing a “Plant Patent” is not necessarily the “best” way to secure rights to a plant discovery (or even a plant “creation”). In this article, which can be seen at : http://www.webpatent.com/news/news1_02.htm , he points out that Plant Patents, requiring asexual reproduction, have been available in the US since 1930. (Makes one wonder where the “loyal opposition” has been all these years), but, FAR MORE importantly, that “utility patents” for plants have been clearly legal since the US Supreme Court ruling in J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. (99-1996), Opinion of 10 December 2001 (see : http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1996.ZO.html) .
Now the scary thing about utility patents is that they are NOT limited to asexual reproduction; they are NOT limited to a claim of a particular plant variety; but they allow multiple claims, and , MOST FRIGHTENINGLY of all, and a fact that appears, so far as I can see in all of the opposition filings/blogs/criticisms, to not be addressed by critics of these patents, is that they permit patenting of “a method of achieving” the plants with the traits claimed in the patent.
I note that in an earlier blog, you make reference to Sieger’s Seed Company’s Patent Application US20080301830A1 wherein Sieger’s Seeds makes application to claims on a “warted pumpkin”. I would point out that this is NOT a “Plant Patent Application”, but is an application for a “utility patent”, claiming not just the variety, and its traits, but “Claim 25. : A method for producing a new variety of plant, the method comprising the steps of: pollinating at least one plant of a variety capable of producing warted pumpkins with another variety of Cucurbitacae plant to produce fruit with seeds; and germinating the seeds to produce the new variety of plant.”
A “Plant Patent” on Sieger’s Seeds “Super Freak” pumpkin would, as I mentioned in my previous message to you, be, essentially, a “non-issue”. It would restrict nothing you, I, or traditional producers of, say “Galeux d'Eysines” squash do from continuing to do what we do. This “utility patent’ application if granted, would however, probably legally prohibit you or me from making crosses by “pollinating [Galeux d'Eysines] with another variety of Cucurbitacae plant to produce fruit with seeds; and germinating the seeds to produce the new variety of plant.”
Another interesting point about this patent application is just how poorly (sloppily) it is written. It cites US Patent No. 6,300,546, a Patent issued for “Baby Boo” miniature white pumpkins ( patent, by the way, that appears to have stirred NO controversy in the gardening community). However, a point that really distinguishes this poorly constructed application from that of the “Baby Boo” patent or other previous utility patents for plants, is that each of the previous patents claimed only a “method” based on sexual propagation of the “discovered sport, mutant or hybrid”, whereas the present (warted pumpkin” application claims the “method” on the basis of a general, “traditional” breeding technique.
If I were going to be frightened by anything, I would be frightened by the “Method” claims in these “new” “Utility Patents” for plants, not by a 70-year-old “Plant Patent” procedure.
It appears to me that, in this poorly written application, Sieger’s is just “trying it on”, either on their own behalf or as representative for others. If THIS can get by the USPTO Examiners, then the gates really ARE open. In a final comment on Sieger’s Seeds’ application, I would like to refer to their own “About Us” statement on their Website, where they say : “Today, in the 21st century, Sieger's Seed Company continues with a long tradition of providing honest, dependable service that is based on Christian family values.” As does at least one Christian blogspot I ran across, I would have to remark that their concept of “Christian family values” is in significant conflict with my concept of “decent community values”.
In a final comment on “warted pumpkins”, however, I return to a remark I made in my last email to you : even this “patent” would have no practical impact on gardeners or farmers or on non-gardening/farming families that use their good sense and free will. How many market gardeners (which is to whom Sieger’s Seeds is peddling this “product”) have never heard of or seen Galeux d'Eysines or a similar squash/gourd? Probably almost none. I mean, market gardeners are not stupid or naïve people. If they use their good sense and free will, there simply will be no market for this phony “patented” plant.
I’d like to address the “urban mythology” of “Monsanto’s lawsuits against individuals” as well as the claim that Bayer somehow is further liable for some “bad practice” after agreeing to compensate indigenous farmers for their traditional knowledge (Bayer’s major offense seems to have been not “bio-piracy” but “contaminating” the crops of US & European rice producers who sell their products at well above the world market price), but I don’t want to open myself to a lot of personal invective. so I’ll leave it here at the moment.
Meanwhile, however, just in case you find it useful, I include (in attachment) the texts of the US Patent Law and the CFR regulating Plant Patents, as well as the text of the WTO’s own Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which makes it clear that patents for plants, other than micro-organisms, that are sexually produced, are a national option. In other words, Americans have chosen/allowed to issue such patents. They can change this.
I’m still talking with my colleagues, bouncing what I “know” off their better knowledge, and gaining info. Will keep you posted, if you wish.
Here is the attachment sent to me published to google docs
My friend also adds:
By the way, you may want to check this out/share it with others.
There is an alternative way, perhaps, but as CAMBRIA points out :
""Biological Open Source" is not a new way to patent, but a new way to share the capability to use patented technology".
Well, Alan,
I must say that I was pretty surprised to open your main blog yesterday and discover that I had become an anonymous "star". No problem, but I am glad you did remove my "identity". As I mentioned, I've colleagues on both sides of this issue, and I know that the cross communications can become more than just "vituperative" at times.
Well, one of the best ways to learn is to shoot your mouth of and then get corrected.
I mentioned in my previous email that : "Plant Patents are only available for plants that are (and nearly always require to be) asexually (i.e. cloned, divided, "boutured" [sorry, can't think of the English word], etc.] to retain their uniform and stable distinct characteristics."
Well, this is, in fact true; and supported by the USPTO's own "Guidance" on Plant Patents (see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1) which makes quite a point of the "asexual reproduction" facet.
However, I have been referred to an interesting article by a Hawaiian “Patent Agent, Dr Robert Hunter, who points out that securing a “Plant Patent” is not necessarily the “best” way to secure rights to a plant discovery (or even a plant “creation”). In this article, which can be seen at : http://www.webpatent.com/news/news1_02.htm , he points out that Plant Patents, requiring asexual reproduction, have been available in the US since 1930. (Makes one wonder where the “loyal opposition” has been all these years), but, FAR MORE importantly, that “utility patents” for plants have been clearly legal since the US Supreme Court ruling in J. E. M. AG SUPPLY, INC. V. PIONEER HI-BREDINTERNATIONAL, INC. (99-1996), Opinion of 10 December 2001 (see : http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1996.ZO.html) .
Now the scary thing about utility patents is that they are NOT limited to asexual reproduction; they are NOT limited to a claim of a particular plant variety; but they allow multiple claims, and , MOST FRIGHTENINGLY of all, and a fact that appears, so far as I can see in all of the opposition filings/blogs/criticisms, to not be addressed by critics of these patents, is that they permit patenting of “a method of achieving” the plants with the traits claimed in the patent.
I note that in an earlier blog, you make reference to Sieger’s Seed Company’s Patent Application US20080301830A1 wherein Sieger’s Seeds makes application to claims on a “warted pumpkin”. I would point out that this is NOT a “Plant Patent Application”, but is an application for a “utility patent”, claiming not just the variety, and its traits, but “Claim 25. : A method for producing a new variety of plant, the method comprising the steps of: pollinating at least one plant of a variety capable of producing warted pumpkins with another variety of Cucurbitacae plant to produce fruit with seeds; and germinating the seeds to produce the new variety of plant.”
A “Plant Patent” on Sieger’s Seeds “Super Freak” pumpkin would, as I mentioned in my previous message to you, be, essentially, a “non-issue”. It would restrict nothing you, I, or traditional producers of, say “Galeux d'Eysines” squash do from continuing to do what we do. This “utility patent’ application if granted, would however, probably legally prohibit you or me from making crosses by “pollinating [Galeux d'Eysines] with another variety of Cucurbitacae plant to produce fruit with seeds; and germinating the seeds to produce the new variety of plant.”
Another interesting point about this patent application is just how poorly (sloppily) it is written. It cites US Patent No. 6,300,546, a Patent issued for “Baby Boo” miniature white pumpkins ( patent, by the way, that appears to have stirred NO controversy in the gardening community). However, a point that really distinguishes this poorly constructed application from that of the “Baby Boo” patent or other previous utility patents for plants, is that each of the previous patents claimed only a “method” based on sexual propagation of the “discovered sport, mutant or hybrid”, whereas the present (warted pumpkin” application claims the “method” on the basis of a general, “traditional” breeding technique.
If I were going to be frightened by anything, I would be frightened by the “Method” claims in these “new” “Utility Patents” for plants, not by a 70-year-old “Plant Patent” procedure.
It appears to me that, in this poorly written application, Sieger’s is just “trying it on”, either on their own behalf or as representative for others. If THIS can get by the USPTO Examiners, then the gates really ARE open. In a final comment on Sieger’s Seeds’ application, I would like to refer to their own “About Us” statement on their Website, where they say : “Today, in the 21st century, Sieger's Seed Company continues with a long tradition of providing honest, dependable service that is based on Christian family values.” As does at least one Christian blogspot I ran across, I would have to remark that their concept of “Christian family values” is in significant conflict with my concept of “decent community values”.
In a final comment on “warted pumpkins”, however, I return to a remark I made in my last email to you : even this “patent” would have no practical impact on gardeners or farmers or on non-gardening/farming families that use their good sense and free will. How many market gardeners (which is to whom Sieger’s Seeds is peddling this “product”) have never heard of or seen Galeux d'Eysines or a similar squash/gourd? Probably almost none. I mean, market gardeners are not stupid or naïve people. If they use their good sense and free will, there simply will be no market for this phony “patented” plant.
I’d like to address the “urban mythology” of “Monsanto’s lawsuits against individuals” as well as the claim that Bayer somehow is further liable for some “bad practice” after agreeing to compensate indigenous farmers for their traditional knowledge (Bayer’s major offense seems to have been not “bio-piracy” but “contaminating” the crops of US & European rice producers who sell their products at well above the world market price), but I don’t want to open myself to a lot of personal invective. so I’ll leave it here at the moment.
Meanwhile, however, just in case you find it useful, I include (in attachment) the texts of the US Patent Law and the CFR regulating Plant Patents, as well as the text of the WTO’s own Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which makes it clear that patents for plants, other than micro-organisms, that are sexually produced, are a national option. In other words, Americans have chosen/allowed to issue such patents. They can change this.
I’m still talking with my colleagues, bouncing what I “know” off their better knowledge, and gaining info. Will keep you posted, if you wish.
Here is the attachment sent to me published to google docs
My friend also adds:
By the way, you may want to check this out/share it with others.
There is an alternative way, perhaps, but as CAMBRIA points out :
""Biological Open Source" is not a new way to patent, but a new way to share the capability to use patented technology".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)