USDA Releases Notice Of Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement On The Use Of Genetically-engineered Insects

That is a comfort, we have the Iraq intelligence gang playing God; it should go well.

No, I am opposed to a cadre of corporate organizations whose only success has been in killing things being given a blank check to unleash their experiments without any boundaries. Experiment all you want just don't create irreversible changes in the global eco system just because it suits a corporate profit objective and precaution be dammed. It's be safe not sorry and the truth is the contamination is so bad we're beyond any safe point and its crisis management time.

Wow that was awesome. I tend to go a whole paragraph to say that. Hats off on the concise gem, thanks :~)

No one has impeded scientific advancement what they have done is try to introduce scientific princilpes to corporate groups acting recklessly with an eye on cash flow and not long term impacts and social costs. This next comment got me.

simply because there has been an incident in the past related to plants.

There are countless epidemic problems, contamination, mutant varieties and unknowns as an irreversible global transformation goes forward at warp speed. The bulk of the world's scientists are alarmed and opposed, the American medical community was totally uninformed or involved in any aspect of health study or consideration, and the assurance of safety come from the Agent Orange gang, who have never had a toxic finding they couldn't bury. This is bigger than global warming and related as Rainforest is clearcut for gmo soy.

There are countless epidemic problems, contamination, mutant varieties and unknowns as an irreversible global transformation goes forward at warp speed.

Please, keep the lies and embellishments to a minimum.

I never lie, I do make mistakes, but that was neither. We have far worse than that implied. The only thing I can conclude is that you're talking with some science background and not a flaming clue what's happening in the real world. Take a look at some archived news that you probably missed. US media doesn't report gmo details and there's a decade of events to report. We'll discuss the reality once you've caught up to me a bit. Mind you name calling thank you.

ccepting information from the site you have displayed would be like accepting information from Michael Moore.

How to be biased and closed minded, I linked you to nearly a decade worth of global articles and in minutes you've declared the entire archives worthless. As for the state of science within the USDA, the only partial oversight, here's an item from Union of Concerned Scientists.

December 11, 2006 10,600 Scientists Condemn Political Interference in Science New Guide Documents Ongoing Federal Abuse of Science; 110th Congress Must Act....AN FRANCISCO—A statement by Nobel laureates and other leading scientists calling for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policy making has now been signed by 10,600 scientists from all 50 states, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) announced today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. The announcement came as the scientists group released an "A to Z" guide that documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science.

See Ronnie isn't alone. It is doubtful he's banking big money on anything but glad he discloses what this regime represses. Secrets protect liars which is why Monsanto operates in secret so by the time people find what they're up to; it's too late.

oops forgot to insert the UCS page link

WHOIS directory ??

I'm flattered I've encouraged you to mistrust sources without verifying their funding but the one you cite is something unknown to me. Sourcewatch and PRWatch are my two preferred places to go.

I am relatively sure that you are the one that wants this science [and all related foods and animals] banned, not I. Why would you link to an article that defends my position?

I'm not against research and never remember saying the word ban, but to allow 5 corporations with toxic histories a blank check to go change the global ecosystem without oversight or followup, pursuing profits at any cost is short sighted and irresponsible way to proceed. Err on the side of caution when the stakes are this high for guessing wrong. So far much suggests a lot of the guessing is wrong.

but you are opposed to labels and regulations and you sure don't support the research. What is your position?

Have you even read any of my biotech articles? Where did that claim come from? Do you really grasp the issue here. Those two items are at odds and why would I oppose labels?

What I want is the truth. I want to decide what I eat. I don't want the research to be me and my kids as uninformed guinea pigs for the research. Let's have some openness and some public discussion. I want the government and media to quit working for the biotechs and supporting it with silence.

I want an end to media refusal to talk about the biotech food, as if we don't have enough food for your health spots to squeeze in the truth. If we have a free country and free markets let these companies put their names on their products. Botox markets over risks, so do cigarettes and junk foods. Get into the free market and compete like the rest of the business world. Sell the brand, Round Up Ready corn chips, and LL601 Rice Krispies, Are Bt potato chips from DOW better than better than the ones from Dupont?

Stop hiding behind Uncle Sam. Consumers like me don't want my dollars in Monsanto's pockets or their Frankenfoods in my home. I want to know before I put down my money what I'm buying and who it goes to, fair enough? Farmers like those in Hawaii who lost their papaya markets and crops to genetic pollution from gmo pollen want the right to be free of it in their fields? Isn't it right to expect technology to be kept from destroying property, markets, crops and livlihoods?

It is the Monsanto gang who oppose labels and regulation. The "biotech policy" was created under the original title of regulatory relief. A genius of a dirtbag named Michael Taylor, currently at the Pew group who provide the rare mainstream media quotes about consumers and biotech created a loophole bigger than Texas when he was working as Monsanto's lobbyist at King and Spalding and swung over to the USDA&FDA to rewrite policy.

He created a new category called "substantial equivalent" which stated that the novel food would be seen as equal in the eyes of the law, if the nutrient measures were the same. Beyond that, it's nobody's business what else was done and what changes exist to make the biotech product different. It's a don't look, don't find, report what we selectively can to slide by.

Industry "notifies" the agency of their new product under a voluntary program. The biotech company provides all assurances of safety. No government tests are done, no novel protein measures or allergens looked for. No one may label in America because it challenges their secrets. Under "substantial equivalence it slides by as equal enough to avoid tests.

Monsanto sued the organic dairy operations who tried to put "hormone free" lables on milk identifying it as from cows not treated with their Posilac, rBGH growth hormones. The story of having too much milk and using a product with health risks to make more milk and subsidize dumping $200 million a year is more of the waste of tax dollars to enrich killers.

Last year the "Uniform Food Labling Act", another terrible bit of legislation that sailed through the House, moved to strip away all state and local laws that supersede the Federal regulations. Here in NYC over 200 local food handling laws would have been eliminated, for whom? Not for consumers, because county by county, town by town Americans are fighting for the right to be free of the stuff in their fields and foods. It has been a stealth attack on consumers every inch of the way. I want an end to Congressional lip service and corporate rule, I want truth especially about my food.

As for the media, there should be a news station that is a subscription service - much like HBO. In doing so, it would not be tied to its advertisers or the government - and could accurately disperse news.

That was the charter of PBS but sadly they've fallen to the appointee revolving door syndrome. As far as I can see there's a bit of Stewart and Colbert filling the void but we could use more. This one's for you.