Sounding Circle: GENETICALLY MODIFYING CONSUMER RIGHTS

 GENETICALLY MODIFYING CONSUMER RIGHTS3 comments
18 Jul 2003 @ 17:30, by Raymond Powers

GENETICALLY MODIFYING CONSUMER RIGHTS

Monsanto is suing Portland, Maine-based Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." According to Monsanto, manufacturer of the genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (known as rBGH or rBST), Oakhurst Dairy does not have the right to let its customers know whether its milk is laced with genetically engineered hormones. Oakhurst says they've been labeling their products like this for four years, in response to consumer demand. Although rBGH has been banned in every industrialized nation in the world except for the United States, Monsanto continues to claim that rBGH-derived milk is no different from the natural stuff, despite documentation that rBGH milk contains substantially higher levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1. Monsanto sued two dairies and threatened several thousand retailers in 1994 for labeling or advertising milk and dairy products as "rBGH-free." Despite Monsanto's intimidation tactics, more than 10% of U.S. milk is currently labeled as "rBGH-free," while sales of organic milk and dairy products (which prohibit rBGH) are booming. In recent months a Monsanto-funded front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched a smear campaign against organic dairies, including Organic Valley, claiming they are defrauding consumers. For a full discussion on the rBGH controversy, see the rBGH section on the OCA website:

HOW U.S. DEMOCRACY WORKS

Question: How is it that every industrialized nation in the world has banned Monsanto's rBGH as unsafe, but it's legal (and unlabeled) in the United States?

Answer: 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. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

HOW MONSANTO'S POLICIES HAVE BECOME U.S. POLICY

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

[< Back] [Sounding Circle]

Category:  


3 comments

19 Jul 2003 @ 14:25 by sharie : The FDA whorehouse
A prostitute is someone who "sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose." (from dictionary.com) Anyone who prostitute's their ethics, morals, or intellect for personal profit at the expense of another person's health or well-being is a prostitute.

The FDA has a long-standing history of approving drugs and chemicals which are banned or otherwise found detrimental to public health. The FDA-approval of Aspartame has a long-standing controversey:

Due to the 1977 Task Force findings, FDA ordered a grand jury investigation of Searle's aspartame studies. Assistant U.S. Attorney, William CONLON, and U.S. Attorney, Thomas Sullivan, failed to start any legal action against Searle concerning aspartame testing. Consequently, time ran out and the grand jury investigation terminated. CONLON was then hired by the law firm that represented Searle. It is interesting to note that this was not the first time Searle had been involved in a grand jury investigation. They had been accused of unreported tumors in the testing of their two drugs, Flagyl and Aldactone (The Deadly Deception 10-11).

According to an article in Technology Review, aspartame came up for approval again in 1980. This time the FDA recommended that a Public Board of Inquiry be created to determine aspartame's safety. The Board was composed of three scientists. They "recommended keeping aspartame off the market until further animal tests could show that it did not cause tumors" (Farber 53).

The disapproval of aspartame by the Public Board of Inquiry wasn't enough. The Deadly Deception states that a five member Commissioner's Team of Scientists was then formed to look at the results of the Public Board of Inquiry conclusions. Three scientists voted against approval and two scientists voted for approval. INEXPLICABLY, a [bribed?] sixth member joined the team with a vote of "yes" to the approval of aspartame creating a deadlock. Dr. Goyan, the FDA Commissioner, decided not to approve aspartame at this time (13, 16).

In April of 1981, Dr. Arthur Hayes became the new Commissioner. Searle applied again for approval of aspartame. A few months later, Dr. HAYES approved aspartame for use in dry foods. In 1983, he approved aspartame for use in diet soft drinks (The Deadly Deception 14-15). ONE MONTH LATER, Dr. HAYES left the FDA and within three months he was working for Searle's advertising agency, Burson-Marsteller (Farber 53).

From: [link]

***
For the record, Rumsfeld went from Secretary of Defense under Nixon to CEO of SEARLE. His related work experience was perhaps the military biological/ psychogenic weapons and the multi-million dollar military contracts.

Could it be that SEARLE, the U.S. Military, the FDA, and Rumsfeld have a special relationship?  



24 Jul 2003 @ 14:41 by repsyche : scary
its scary how such a small group of people can have such a negative impact on the world.

these are the kind of people who are giving the united states a bad name in the world, when most american people are far out.  



23 Apr 2004 @ 19:51 by No more "balanced" perspectives @68.40.81.144 : GMO's
How can these GMO companies and individuals in huge states of power be fought when if one doesn't sit in the middle and say "well GMO's can be good and can be bad," are accused of not taking a balanced perspective. It's like the only things people are aloud to be "unbalanced" about is how evil Hitler was and that slavery was bad. THERE ARE other things in this world that are just straight up not good besides the above mentioned! It's not good having three transnational companies owning, I forget, something like 80% of food production. It's not good poisoning the land with GMO's and destroying vast species and pattenting the rest!It's not good enslaing farmers, which make up a quarter of the worlds population, to factory farming mono cultures filled with disease! Ehy should I try to see the plus side of this!?  


Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other entries in
4 Aug 2008 @ 08:51: Importance of Alkaline Water
8 Jul 2008 @ 00:14: The HUB Experience
28 Jun 2008 @ 21:17: HUB - Actioning Your Brilliance Recap
7 May 2008 @ 18:16: Awakening Your Brilliance Seminar A Huge Success - Thank You!
29 Mar 2008 @ 18:00: Some Simple Brilliance
2 Feb 2008 @ 08:19: HUB (Humanity Unites Brilliance)
28 Dec 2007 @ 03:34: Update On Lakota Sovereignty
15 Jul 2007 @ 15:51:
18 Sep 2006 @ 23:03: Greenpeace Activists in Brazil Block Cargill Soy Facility
18 Aug 2006 @ 20:32: Ronald McHummer Sign-o-Matic


[< Back] [Sounding Circle] [PermaLink]? 


Link to this article as: http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/_v195/__show_article/_a.htm

Main Page: soundingcircle.com