Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction
I am trying to assess just what is going on here.
The action of the US president overiding the law and pushing deregulation of GMO food processes and applications is cause for some serious concern. Firstly, he is, again, violating his own promises to uphold the Constitution and laws of the country, right to Supreme Court level. Secondly, he is allowing/abetting a private company to bypass the country’s laws. Thirdly, he is putting his citizens at risk of unknown health problems, maybe even genetic damage.
Surely, the question of why? must be asked. He could be being blackmailed by the big Agra company. He might need money for his political campaign. He could perhaps think that he is God and can make decisions like this, for a reason no one else can even imagine. Such actions by a government leader are not acceptable or excusable.
Anyway, here is the story, by Robbie Hanna Anderman, ‘Truthout’ © care2.com .
Early this spring, while the world was distracted by Egypt’s uprising, President Barack Obama pushed the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets in the United States. The USDA came through as he directed, totally deregulating these Monsanto-patented genes in early February. In so doing, Obama and the USDA have chosen to override and ignore decisions and injunctions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned planting of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets without consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments, which showed high risks to organic and conventional (chemical) farmers. So how does this affect you and me? Neither of us remembers seeing alfalfa or sugar beets on our breakfast table or even on our Seder table. Or do we? Sugar beets provide over 50 percent of the sugar Americans use in their coffee, cereals, and desserts. For the moment, let’s not focus on the fact that sugar beets can cross-pollinate with red beets and make our borscht genetically modified. Alfalfa reaches our tables within milk, cream, butter, and meat, as it is used as a major animal feed in the dairy industry. It is also used to enrich soils in organic farming.
The author suggests one of the possibilities that might explain this strange behaviour:
Perhaps. Yet I am reminded that to run a presidential campaign requires a great deal of money. And since the Supreme Court Citizens United decision – supported by Clarence Thomas, a former attorney for Monsanto – to allow corporations the unlimited ability to anonymously fund political campaigns, it is becoming obvious that Obama owes something to many rich people.
There is a great deal of important information in the complete article, posted on Sott.net, linked here.
Related articles
- New Lawsuit Filed Over GMO Alfalfa (huffingtonpost.com)
- USDA to Let Monsanto Perform Its Own GMO Studies (newsfortheproactive.com)
- Hey, Big Food: Join Consumers in Rejecting GE Alfalfa (news.change.org)
- Alfalfa Plan B (liberationwellnessblog.com)
- Genetically modified crops get boost over organics with recent USDA rulings (wellnessdharma.wordpress.com)
- Monsanto Wins on Sugar Beets (food-ethics.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
“Murdering?” Has anybody, anywhere, ever died of eating a GMO?
Chris, nice to see some one prepared to stand behind their name.
Although, those words are attributable to the article’s author, I have to accept the responsibility of further publishing them.
Obviously, a death from GMO food contamination is only a possibility. More likely in the form of a miscarriage, birth defect or sterility than a direct death.
The point is that the safety risks are UNKNOWN. Quoting David Suzuki from this article “The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs…”
Your question is justifiable but not perfectly logical. A question mark accompanied the heading, making it a question, not a statement.
It is similar to another case where a commenter suggested the nuclear radiation at Fukushima wasn’t dangerous because no on has died. This is a time related situation, too soon to be judged right or wrong.
Hmmmm….. a question that you did not answer as well Chris
Imagine a blog entry entitled “Digital Watches Killing Us?”, which talked about the unknown dangers of radiation from digital watches.
First, would you really accept it if the author said, “hey, I’m just posing a question, not making an accusation”?
Second, would that be a reasonable question to ask, based on the fact that no one (and this is true) has ever *proven* digital watches to be safe? (After all, we’ve only had digital watches for 3 decades now — the effects might take longer than that to show up.) Wouldn’t you want to tell that person, look, you’re misunderstanding the science, here? There is effectively zero chance that the radiation from a digital watch is powerful enough to break molecular bonds and cause cancer?
Chris, you’re comments do you little credit.
This post is about the unnacceptable behaviour of your President AND the possible dangers to the citizens of GMO foods.
The headline use of the word “murdering”, adopted from the prior publisher ‘Sott.net’, I am ok with because it was a query and not a statement. There is no ambiguity there. Strong, provocative and sensationalist, but not a lie.
The source of the “possible, in the extreme, death scenario” relates to unregulated creation and marketing, without appropriate labelling, of GM foods. If you think this an unsupportable claim, I refer you to, as an example:
“Most Americans remain blissfully unaware (or don’t care) they are eating genetically-modified (GM) organisms every day. Passivity and blind faith in the USDA, FDA and EPA have largely contributed to this attitude. Perhaps that will change now that a new study reveals an insecticide produced in GM corn actually gets absorbed into the human body.” (http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/05/19/gmo-study-omg-you%E2%80%99re-eating-insecticide/).
To argue that there is no, or little danger is not sound. The danger is more probable than not. The degree of danger is unknown! To speculate on the dangers is valid. Certainly safety is NOT ASSURED.
Your reference to digital watch radiation is not, in any way, relevant.
I refer you to:
“Do digital watches emit radiation? If so, how much?”
“Not digital watches, but if you have an analog watch that glows in the dark (usually the hour and minute hands glow in the dark), and you don’t need to press a button or expose the watch to light to get it to glow, then the watch’s glowing bits are coated with a mixture of 1. a weak radioactive substance such as tritium and 2. a phosphor such as zinc sulfide or strontium aluminate.
The amount of radiation is negligible because the glass in front of the watch (and the body of the watch itself) will stop all the beta radioactive particles. In fact the beta radiation is so weak that it can’t even penetrate human skin. So the answer to your question is 0.
Older watches used to use radium for this purpose, but it’s now banned because it causes bone cancer. Modern watches use tritium which is harmless however.”
Source(s): http://science.howstuffworks.com/questio…
So, even if you meant analog wristwatches, your analogy is not relevant because some are safe and the older ones definitely not. Known, accepted information.
Could you please address specific technical issues rather than my particular method of presenting them. Will then be very happy to accept your comments.
Osama Obama Biden Bin Laden
One coincidence? Two coincidences?
NO COINCIDENCE
http://illuminaticonspiracy.blogspot.com