My fellow American consumers, welcome to the Orwellian version of protection that plays as public service by the corporate government in Washington.
The same Agencies, we the public fund with tax dollars, to protect us, are stepping up to protect industry instead.
This is shocking or shockingly routine, depending on your mainstream media diet but it is stunning in the clear message it sends to citizens. Eh, what you don't know won't hurt you, just close your eyes.
We are being protected in yet another new and different way, now we'll be saved from knowing anything that will negatively impoact the growth of the petrochemical markets, earnings and liability.
Whew, Uncle Sam always knows when to spare my little brain from details it doesn't need. Don't I feel smart to be in such good company with so many esteemed sources able to not know too.
What a lot of not knowers we'll be. Now researchers and other regulatory agencies like the EPA will be not knowing as much as me.
As acreage of the gmo crops has soared so has the chemical volume and strength to treat them. No sense alarming the public with figures on pesticide use.
We are going to talk about the numbers in Hillary's math to the White House for the next month. How many more numbers do voters really need to see?
No sense confusing folks by thinking about negatives when we can simply cut the reporting to unreported. With a stroke of the pen, the problem is solved.
It was about two years ago the FED did the same thing. They stopped reporting the M3 figures for the money supply and now we've got more money circulating than anyone can shake a stick at. No one even knows how much. How great is that? This not knowing is a catchy theme that's really caught on.
Success inspires imitation; all through our government the failings have vanished. If ignorance is bliss we are well on our way to the happiest time in America's history. Nirvana in a simple, don't look, don't find policy.
Here's a straighter take on the most recent outrage from the Center for Food Safety.
Elimination of USDA's Program Will Perpetuate Misinformation on Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture, Groups Charge
Washington, DC - May 20, 2008 - The day before the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) releases its scaled-back annual report on 2007 pesticide use in American agriculture, a coalition of 44 environmental, sustainable farming, and health advocacy organizations called on USDA to reverse its plan to eliminate its pesticide reporting program in 2008. Elimination of USDA's objective data will open the door wide to serious misinformation on pesticide use, charge the groups. USDA claims it lacks funding to continue the program.
"Americans are rightly concerned about the adverse impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment," said Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist at The Organic Center. "Without USDA's data, our organizations will be severely hampered in our ability to carry out research on the impacts of pesticides and offer informed input on decision-making regarding pesticide use and pest management systems in American agriculture."
Dr. Benbrook, former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, is one of the country's leading agricultural authorities, and has used USDAs pesticide data extensively in his work for many years.
"We strongly oppose this move by USDA to cut the legs off its publicly available database. Denying the public and regulatory agencies this critical information is bad science and bad public relations," said Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
State pesticide officials and major agribusiness groups have also objected to USDA's plan to end its pesticide survey and reporting program, say the groups. Others who rely on USDA data include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), academic scientists, and USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy.
Heck, why should all that information be available. People can just shutup and swallow whatever Congress and their lobbyists toss to us. Who does this government belong to anyway?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |