Aug 22, 2011 -- 7:35PM, Roodog wrote:

Aug 22, 2011 -- 5:42PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

Adam Vs the man:- Monsanto,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oza03d4HCK0

Thought you all might like to discuss the seed monopoly Monsanto has and their desire to own all plant life.

and discuss the comming court case.

These schmucks tried to get an anti gardening law passed. Talk about controlling the people!

While I certainly agree that Monsanto, like most corporations, want to increase their power and control over the economy, the Food Safety Modernization Act says nothing that can be interpreted as anti gardening according to 2 different fact checking organizations. Link 1 Link 2

Aug 23, 2011 -- 4:19PM, Paravani wrote:

Hi, All!

I'm immediately suspicious of any legislation that relies on everyone to be reasonable.  It's been my experience that there is no universal definition of what is "reasonable".  What each individual considers to be "reasonable" is so subjective that the word when found in a legal context may effectively be replaced by "any", "no", or "unreasonable".

So, how does this paragraph of the legislation that was signed into law in January sound with the above replacements?

"(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable any probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably unreasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable any times and within reasonable no limits and in a reasonable any manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably unreasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable any probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals."

The above authorization for a warrantless intrusion and search sounds extremely vulnerable to individual interpretation.

Love,

-- Claudia

Sounds awfully openended to me. It almost sounds like we might not be allowed to cook our own food without some kind of licence.....

Aug 23, 2011 -- 11:17PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

Aug 23, 2011 -- 4:19PM, Paravani wrote:

Hi, All!

I'm immediately suspicious of any legislation that relies on everyone to be reasonable.  It's been my experience that there is no universal definition of what is "reasonable".  What each individual considers to be "reasonable" is so subjective that the word when found in a legal context may effectively be replaced by "any", "no", or "unreasonable".

So, how does this paragraph of the legislation that was signed into law in January sound with the above replacements?

"(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes  that there is a reasonable any probability that the use of or exposure to  an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably unreasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will  cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals,  each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures,  processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article  shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the  Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of  appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at  reasonable any times and within reasonable no limits and in a reasonable any manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article  and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably unreasonably believes  is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist  the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable any probability  that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse  health consequences or death to humans or animals."

The above authorization for a warrantless intrusion and search sounds extremely vulnerable to individual interpretation.

Love,

-- Claudia

So if the secretary unresonable believes that there is

any probability that the use of or exposure to  an article of food

will  cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals

then

at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the  Secretary

and

upon presentation of  appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person,

at  reasonable any times and within reasonable no limits and in a reasonable any manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article  and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably unreasonably believes  is likely to be affected in a similar manner

to

assist  the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable any probability   that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse   health consequences or death to humans or animals.

----------------------

Right, so if he unreasonabley believes there might be a problem with some food, he can do all that just so he can then, decide if there is a problem.

It says nothing about steps afterwards if there is a problem

The word changes in Claudia's post are not in the bill. Does anyone actually believe that allowing breakouts of foodborne illnesses are better than regulation of the food industry? Link

Aug 24, 2011 -- 12:56PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

 if food companies are smaller then the amount of people they harm is also smaller. 

I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big business and criple smaller compertician.

FDA conducting secret war against raw dairy farmers:- Follow link

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sygg5zxssP0

Of course we all know that the Pasteurization process was only done to increase the profit of large dairy companies and worsen the general health.  RIGHT

The following link exposes the microbiology of raw milk which is a well known cause of food borne illness including tuberculosis.

www.notmilk.com/forum/463.html

Luddites Go Home

Aug 24, 2011 -- 3:40PM, Paravani wrote:

Aug 24, 2011 -- 12:56PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

The food industry already has  regulations, if food companies are smaller then the amount of people  they harm is also smaller. 

I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they  want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big  business and criple smaller compertician.

Hello, All!

Yes, "food" is already regulated.

However, Monsanto's "New Leaf" potato isn't regulated as food because it isn't food -- it's a pesticide.  It contains the biological pesticide bacterium Bt in every cell, so it isn't a "food", and is therefore not regulated by the above new legislation or by the FDA.  It's regulated by the EPA as a pesticide, not an edible.

I checked with the F.D.A. to find out exactly what had been done to  insure the safety of this potato. I was mystified by the fact that the  Bt toxin was not being treated as a ”food additive” subject to labeling,  even though the new protein is expressed in the potato itself. The  label on a bag of biotech potatoes in the supermarket will tell a  consumer all about the nutrients they contain, even the trace amounts of  copper. Yet it is silent not only about the fact that those potatoes  are the product of genetic engineering but also about their containing  an insecticide.

At the F.D.A., I was referred to James Maryanski, who oversees  biotech food at the agency. I began by asking him why the F.D.A. didn’t  consider Bt a food additive. Under F.D.A. law, any novel substance added  to a food must — unless it is ”generally regarded as safe” (”GRAS,” in  F.D.A. parlance) — be thoroughly tested and if it changes the product in  any way, must be labeled.

”That’s easy,” Maryanski said. ”Bt is a pesticide, so it’s exempt”  from F.D.A. regulation. That is, even though a Bt potato is plainly a  food, for the purposes of Federal regulation it is not a food but a  pesticide and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the E.P.A.

Yet even in the case of those biotech crops over which the F.D.A.  does have jurisdiction, I learned that F.D.A. regulation of biotech food  has been largely voluntary since 1992, when Vice President Dan Quayle  issued regulatory guidelines for the industry as part of the Bush  Administration’s campaign for ”regulatory relief.” Under the guidelines,  new proteins engineered into foods are regarded as additives (unless  they’re pesticides), but as Maryanski explained, ”the determination  whether a new protein is GRAS can be made by the company.” Companies  with a new biotech food decide for themselves whether they need to  consult with the F.D.A. by following a series of ”decision trees” that  pose yes or no questions like this one: ”Does. . .the introduced protein  raise any safety concern?”

Since my Bt potatoes were being regulated as a pesticide by the  E.P.A. rather than as a food by the F.D.A., I wondered if the safety  standards are the same. ”Not exactly,” Maryanski explained. The F.D.A.  requires ”a reasonable certainty of no harm” in a food additive, a  standard most pesticides could not meet. After all, ”pesticides are  toxic to something,” Maryanski pointed out, so the E.P.A. instead  establishes human ”tolerances” for each chemical and then subjects it to  a risk-benefit analysis.

When I called the E.P.A. and asked if the agency had tested my Bt  potatoes for safety as a human food, the answer was. . .not exactly. It  seems the E.P.A. works from the assumption that if the original potato  is safe and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole New Leaf  package is presumed to be safe. Some geneticists believe this reasoning  is flawed, contending that the process of genetic engineering itself may  cause subtle, as yet unrecognized changes in a food.

-- Playing God in the Garden, by Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine

The biggest problem with this Bt potato, as I see it, is that the pesticide IS in every cell.  Normal pesticides are applied topically -- that is, by spraying the surface of a plant -- and dissipate over time.  So normally, when a bee enters a flower that's blooming a week after spraying, the bee isn't consuming pesticide-laced nectar.

However, if the flower is on a New Leaf potato plant, the bee IS consuming Bt-laced nectar and being covered in Bt-laced pollen.

Not surprisingly, the honey-bee population has crashed over the last decade.  I used to see dozens of honeybees in my small urban garden every day, but that number has shrunk to nearly none all summer long.  Last year I saw half a dozen total over the summer; the year before that I saw only two, and one of them was obviously sick and disoriented.

Love,

-- Claudia

Thanks for the posting when I get the chance I'll finish reading it, just to say breifly- G.R.A.S is a joke!