without at least having someone to keep a very close eye on the foxes. This apparently is not happening in the case of GMO testing where the seed owners make it difficult for independent scientists to have access to their patented seeds to do their own tests and confirm the results of the company paid scientists.
The GMO producers definitely do not want independent scientist doing their own research on their proprietary seeds. But isn't this how science is supposed to work? One scientist or group of scientist does some experiments and publish their results, other scientist try to duplicate the results and see if they can be repeated as originally documented. And with the knowledge that the US government and organizations like the FDA are joined at the hip to big agri-business companies like Monsanto your assurances that the company you worked for would never cheat on a study does not carry much weight with me.
From the interview linked in the OP:
What are the challenges of doing this type of research?There are two major challenges. First, it is very hard to get GM seed to conduct the research. In order to buy GM seed, you have to go to a licensed seed dealer, and sign a technology licensing agreement, which states that you won’t do any research on the seed, which includes agronomic, health, and environmental research. Also, scientists who try to research health impacts of GM food get harassed and intimidated by people with vested interests in GM technology. I’ve had 10 years of abuse from such people who’ve defamed me, driven me out of a university, and tried to get me fired from jobs. With that kind of intimidation, scientists often decide not to do any research.
Vested interests have been trying to find out about research I’m doing. They filed a freedom of information request with the Western Australian government to find out. The government denied their request. It could have ended up in court. My research protocol could have been stolen.
Funding for studies looking at health effects of GM foods is difficult to find in the United States. Do you find that universities and organizations in Australia also don’t want to fund such studies?Yes, it is very difficult to get funding. If you want to do medical research, you have to go to an organization that funds such research. In order to get funding, you need to have a proven track record in that area of research. However, in a new area of research such as GM food safety, no one has a track record, so it is difficult to get the funding. It’s a Catch-22.
We are thankful that the Western Australian government gave us funding. The research protocol was sent to 15 scientists worldwide for review and then approved by a steering committee. I wanted people to know that I was doing a thorough job with this research.
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/dec08/gm_food_safey_testing_inadequate.php Revolving Doors
But What was going on behind the scenes? "The FDA's pro-rBGH activities make more sense in light of conflicts of interest between the FDA and the Monsanto corporation. Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH. To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone. In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words. Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug" <16>. Rachel's Hazardous Waste News adds a few details, "It is no accident that the FDA and Monsanto are speaking with one voice on this issue. The FDA official responsible for the agency's labeling policy, Michael R. Taylor, is a former partner of King & Spaulding, the Washington, D.C. law firm that has brought the lawsuits on behalf of Monsanto.... In 1984 he joined King & Spaulding and remained there until 1991; during that time the law firm represented Monsanto while the company was seeking FDA approval of rBGH.... Taylor signed the FEDERAL REGISTER notice warning grocery stores not to label milk as free of rBGH, thus giving Monsanto a powerful boost in its fight to prevent consumers from knowing whether rBGH produced their milk" <17>.
"Taylor did not simply fill a vacant position at the agency", says Jeffrey M. Smith in his book Seeds of Deception, "In 1991 the FDA created a new position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation, overseeing the development of government policy. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA's internal files, 'During Mr. Taylor's tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists (1)), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that
foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary" <18> <19>. After his stint at the FDA Taylor went back to work as Monsanto's vice-president for public policy <20>.
In disappointing news however, Taylor was again appointed to the FDA, this time for the Obama administration in July of 2009 as an "Advisor to FDA Commissioner" as a "food safety expert" <21>. His new duties include, "Assess current food program challenges and opportunities", "Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities" and "Plan implementation of new food safety legislation".
Another example of the Government-industry revolving door is Margaret Miller, "In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA . Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen" <22>. Here <23> you can read Robert Cohen's testimony before FDA on the subject of rBGH including the disclosure that, while at the FDA and in response to increasing sickness in cows on the stuff, Miller increased the amount of antibiotics that farmers can legally give cows by 100 times. See also <24>. "Remarkably the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern" <25>.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Labeling_Issues%2C_Revolving_Doors%2C_rBGH%2C_Bribery_and_Monsanto
Third point: the independent scientists are often trying to do research on the long term effects of humans and/or animals ingesting GMO products, an area or research that the GMO pushers apparently are not too keen to get involved with.
Canadian researchers this year reported that the blood of 93% of pregnant women and 80% of their umbilical-cord blood samples contained a pesticide implanted in GMO corn by the biotech company Monsanto, though digestion was supposed to remove it from the body. "Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed," they wrote in Reproductive Toxicology.
As the biggest producer of GMO seeds and the compatible pesticide Roundup, Missouri-based Monsanto is at the heart of the GMO debate. Monsanto would not make a representative available for an interview but did offer a statement on the lack of long-term animal or human safety studies on genetically modified crops.
"Experts in the field of food safety are satisfied that
approach is sufficient and reliable to assure the genetically modified crops are as safe their conventional counterparts," the statement said. "This expert community does not see a need and thus does not recommend long-term tests in humans or animals in order to establish food safety." (emphasis added /JC)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gmo-20110602,0,6467043.story
If you want to trust such
amoral, mercenary, avaricious, polluting corporate entities like Monsanto and their facilitators within the FDA with the safety of your food supply, that's up to you. But I'll be damned if I want to take that risk. Unfortunately seeing as how agri-business fights tooth and nail to maintain their right not to label GMO food products as such, it's not like I have much choice.
I'll tell you now your government has sold you out. Monsanto's corporate profitability is much more important to them than your health or your family's health. Basically the revolving door examples listed above shows the FDA's priority is to act as whores for Monsanto and agri-business, not to protect the health of the American public.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
