Organic Consumers Association ALERT: USDA Says Biotech (GE) Is Compatible with Organic

[NashVegas]

The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production
Global Agricultural Information Network
By Cyndi Barmore
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 5/26/2009

Report Highlights:

The organic movement rejects biotechnology as inherently contradictory to its fundamental goal of promoting environmental protection in agriculture. European organic promoters in particular stress respect for nature over yield maximization, campaigning for a return to traditional production methods and inputs. <1> In reality, the divide between organics and biotechnology is an artificial construction maintained by ideology rather than science. A governmental decision to change organic regulations to permit the use of biotechnology could have far-reaching policy implications for global agriculture.

Allowing producers to gain organic certification for biotech crops could encourage the development of a new type of environmentally sustainable agricultural production with greater benefits for the consumer.

Oh, there's tons more from these freaks - http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18764.cfm

OCA Editor's Note: This USDA report attempting to make the case for "organic genetically engineering" is part of a well-funded campaign coordinated by Monsanto and their governmental, corporate, and non-profit partners to legitimize a dangerous and untested technology. This is a campaign to impoverish farmers by making them dependent on expensive genetically modified seeds and the array of chemicals needed to grow them. It is also making guinea pigs of consumers who are being force-fed unlabeled genetically modified foods. Throughout the text posted here, OCA editors have inserted links to the truth about biotechnology.

[NYC_SKP]

1. This move was inevitable. It needs to be stopped or GE produce needs to be labelled as such.

Of course they want to get in on the organic produce market with their shit.

Who in congress is a champion of our side of this issue?

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

2. Among Dems, We Will Have to MAKE Champions

Because most of the ones I know? Wear red. How fricking sad is that?

In the meantime, they can try to shove it down our throats, but if they do you'll see a whole new organization spring up among organics advocates, that will reject USDA labeling and we'll have to start all over again. It's already happening, really.

[glitch]

4. Yep. They're counting on the noobies to not be well informed and they could be right

for awhile, long enough for the USDA to lose whatever is left of their credibility, but us old-timer organic consumers will get our accreditation elsewhere. Already there are organizations that certify organic to the highest standard.

[NashVegas]

14. True

Mostly I buy produce, anyway, but occasionally will pick up something processed and see the Oregon standards seal.

[SoCalDem]

7. That's why so many organic "brands" have been snapped up by corp-or-a-food co, inc

Once they OWN the brand, they can also dictate the terms of what to call it..

Oil companies/energry companies have been buying up solar patents for decades..not to produce solar products, but to PREVENT people from mass producing competition

[ShadesOfGrey]

3. K&R...

One of the reasons that I currently buy organic is because it's GE free. Damn!!!

[truedelphi]

5. If only, if only,

McCain had not gotten in.

Oops, he didn't! Guess Obama and his Monsanto appointees could care less about real, non-corporate-involved environmentalism.

[appal_jack]

6. K&R - _Organic_must _= GMO-free_

Right now, the only way that a US consumer can have a reasonable chance of avoiding GMO's is to buy organic.

Despite the corporate-shill obfuscation that fills the USDA report, GMO's are causing health problems in people (and animals: swine fed GMO corn and soy often fail to successfully breed) right now. The lack of 'scientific proof' of my assertion comes from the fact that there were too few long-term studies done on GMO's, and now in America, there is virtually no unexposed population that even could serve as a control group for comparison.

For some greater detail, context, and history, see:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html?print

-app

[onestepforward]

9. I second this! K&R

[truedelphi]

10. Yes Yes Orgasmically YES!! n/t

[SpiralHawk]

8. Don't want no steenkin mutant corporate chem-drenched irradiated processed food-product facsimile

crapola.

Jeeez, almighty.

[glitch]

11. Here's the original pdf directly linked from the USDA GAIN site

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/The%20Unexplored%20Potential%20of%20Organic-Biotech%20Production_Rome_Italy_5-26-2009.pdf

but what's weird is I don't find it listed in their directory.
http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Forms/AllItems.aspx?Paged=TRUE&p_FSObjType=0&p_Created=20090617%2018%3a49%3a02&p_ID=491&View={CE460CDC-9581-4832-A97A-840CC53E9D68}&FolderCTID=0x012001&PageFirstRow=301

[MrsCorleone]

12. Once again, we American peeps are shit upon by the monied interests. Remind me how

exactly is our quality of life any better than that of third world nations?

USA USA USA!

[Trillo]

13. This is exactly what was predicted back in the 90s about "organic certification"

That it would be a way for corporate to co-opt and ultimately change the definition of the word itself.

Recommend

[NashVegas]

15. There's Still a Good Chance

They'll lose this fight like they did back in 1998 or so. Mostly.

[Trillo]

16. I can't understand the continual changing of our language solely for the sake of profit.

Scientists also need to eat (such as the scientists working for corporate), but what is the harm in requiring scientific "proof of safety" before such things as saying "insect genes in corn" are every bit as healthy for us as traditional corn varieties, never mind referring to them as "organic."

In agriculture, "organic" means one thing historically, but in chemistry, it apparently means something else. These are the kinds of changes in language that if allowed, end up losing an entire culture, or cultural heritage.

[farmbo]

17. This whole thread is bu-lsh-t!!...."USDA" says no such thing!

Some numb nuts from USDA Foreign Agricultural Service-- NOT Ag Marketing Service, which actually oversees Organic certification-- speculates about a potential GM/ organic scenario... and some DUers panic and runs for the exits.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalOrganicProgramHome&acct=AMSPW

People... look at the USDA TO before you make thest silly assertions.

Pathetic.

[upi402]

18. I saw the film, FOOD INC.

and I'm not as confident in our "watchdog" as you are. In fact, I figure that dog will follow the first guy draggin' a ham bone past the fence.

[paulsby]

19. iow, the organic movement is anti-science

well, at least they are honest about it.

"The organic movement rejects biotechnology as inherently contradictory to its fundamental goal of promoting environmental protection in agriculture. European organic promoters in particular stress respect for nature over yield maximization, campaigning for a return to traditional production methods and inputs"

if we can use stem cells for human research (which i support) etc. the idea that we can't use (god forbid) biotechnology with agriculture is absurd. consumer choice? sure. if people want to buy food (and spend considerably extra) for food produced using often inefficient and scientifically antiquated methods, more power to them. but the idea that it's ok to limit scienfitic exploration out of "environmental protection" is a luddite-esque joke. it's one thing to choose not to buy foods that rely on such research, just don't limit MY choice.

i also find it ironic that so many organic advocates were so quick to discount scientific evidence that organic produce provides no statistically significant health benefits over non-organics.

btw, i grow my own organic produce? ironic? nope. i also purchase plenty of produce, but will continue to buy non-organics until ACTUAL science shows organics to be superior, let alone superior enough to justify ridiculous pricing.

[SpiralHawk]

20. If the biotech food is somehow safe, then why not label it?

What are the biotech-ag corporations hiding?

[paulsby]

21. that's an excellent question

i have no problem with labeling, as long as the labeling is fair.

i suggest the biotech companies know what i have witnessed, is that there are so many anti-science luddites when it comes to foods, that they are apprehensive. i can UNDERSTAND that, even if i think that labeling is a REASONABLE regulation on industry.

kind of like i suspect industry would be hesitant to say "we support the theory of evolution not creationism" on their labels because they know lots of illogical, anti-scientific types would shy away.

but since i agree that people have the right to be stupid, and anti-science, i have no problem with labeling. labeling is an example of industry regulation that still allows significant corporate and individual CHOICE , so i support it.

i'd support labeling of beef, for instance, as to which beef used growth hormone and/or cattle implants (trenbolone, etc.). i KNOW the science is clear that neither bovine growth hormoneor steroidal agents have ANY negative affect on meat quality or nutrition, and i would buy the hormone stuff if it was cheaper.

i also realize that plenty of anti-scientific ninnies DO think that, but the freedom to be stupid in one's own personal choices is sacrosanct.

[NashVegas]

22. Yeah. Trial and Error. Proven Results. Who Needs It?

ps - Foreign agriculture service - isn't that the branch that tries to force open markets to US GM/GE products and runs to the WTO when the EU and Asia say, "fuck GMO?"


Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.

[truedelphi]

23. If you truly support consumer choice, then you have to start questioning

Bio technology for food.

Comparing bio tech for the body to bio tech for seeds is really apples to redwood trees. Two different things.

Look at what has happened in India over the last ten years. The Bio tech cotton that is patented by Monsanto is just about the only seed that can be bought in that nation now. The few small farmers hat have held out are facing the wrath of the Monsanto lawyers, who will put the small farmer into the court system and strip him of his land.

You need to research what this bio tech for agriculture4re is about. Visit the Percy Schmeiser case. This is happening all over the nation. We now are abdicating our rights as a free people (A right that had our Founding Fathers create the Fourth Amendment) with new "farming regulations" that allow "inspectors" onto people's lands to see if there is or isn't any of Monsanto's product. How is that about consumer choice? That is a policy that is opposite to being able to hold private property.

Stem cells are different. One consumer/patient at a time needs them, the doctor recommends them, and the operation occurs. No "inspector" comes along and rips apart your body (or my body) to see if illegally gotten stem cells are in that body. Neither you or I will ever have to go into court nest year to prove to a judge that we do or don't have stem cells. But countless farmers each year have Monsanto hauling them into court, and the farmer always loses - if he can afford the lawyer or two to hold Monsanto's many lawyers at bay, then he loses his farm to the lawyers. If he doesn't get lawyered up, he loses his farm to Monsanto.