The Proposal to Outlaw the Home Garden - HR 875 and S 425

[organichris]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

I've providing a link below to Michael Taylor's testimony before congress. Do you have any issues with the FDA plan or Michael Taylor's comments? How is Monsanto benefited?

In other words what happens when you look past the Monsanto thing?

Randy

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_12_04/Taylor.pdf

I wouldn't expect to find anything gosh darnoodleyable in the prepared remarks of anyone before Congress when his objective is clearly not to incriminate himself or Monsanto. I cannot say exactly what benefits there may be to Monsanto, but I can say that they have a long history of sharing employees with U.S. government, and in my estimation this makes strange bedfellows.

We might also have asked what would John Ashcroft's senatorial campaign donations from Monsanto have to with his ability to objectively govern as the attorney general. It may not have been apparent at the beginning, but when Ashcroft asked the Supreme Court to uphold plant patents, one has to wonder after the fact. Of course there are countless other examples of questionable actions taken by persons within the government who are former employees of Monsanto and other multinational corporations.

It is not our duty as citizens to make a determination as to whether a politician is not corrupt when there is a high likelihood that his prior relationship with a corporation such as Monsanto (or Halliburton for that matter) might have some influence down the road in policy decisions yet to be made.

In other words, security from government corruption requires that citizens be skeptical, suspicious, and dare I say cynical concerning the employment histories and motives of would-be government minders. Once these guys are in office, its too late. Because one day you'll wake up to the fact that your country's vice-president is giving no-bid contracts in Iraq to the company he formerly headed, all the while making handsome profits from company stock. And guess what? He's not going to apologize for it either. And why should he? He's already gotten over on you and there's nothing you can do about it.

[WVTomatoMan]

So, in the testimony you found nothing that concerns you? The only thing that concerns you about Michael Taylor is that he used to work for Monsanto?

And you found no issues with the FDA plan?

Randy

Originally Posted by organichris

I wouldn't expect to find anything gosh darnoodleyable in the prepared remarks of anyone before Congress when his objective is clearly not to incriminate himself or Monsanto. I cannot say exactly what benefits there may be to Monsanto, but I can say that they have a long history of sharing employees with U.S. government, and in my estimation this makes strange bedfellows.

We might also have asked what would John Ashcroft's senatorial campaign donations from Monsanto have to with his ability to objectively govern as the attorney general. It may not have been apparent at the beginning, but when Ashcroft asked the Supreme Court to uphold plant patents, one has to wonder after the fact. Of course there are countless other examples of questionable actions taken by persons within the government who are former employees of Monsanto and other multinational corporations.

It is not our duty as citizens to make a determination as to whether a politician is not corrupt when there is a high likelihood that his prior relationship with a corporation such as Monsanto (or Halliburton for that matter) might have some influence down the road in policy decisions yet to be made.

In other words, security from government corruption requires that citizens be skeptical, suspicious, and dare I say cynical concerning the employment histories and motives of would-be government minders. Once these guys are in office, its too late. Because one day you'll wake up to the fact that your country's vice-president is giving no-bid contracts in Iraq to the company he formerly headed, all the while making handsome profits from company stock. And guess what? He's not going to apologize for it either. And why should he? He's already gotten over on you and there's nothing you can do about it.

[organichris]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

So, in the testimony you found nothing that concerns you? The only thing that concerns you about Michael Taylor is that he used to work for Monsanto?

And you found no issues with the FDA plan?

Randy

Well, it's a little more complicated than that obviously. As I've already said, this has to do with a history of corruption and whether one is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I, for one, am not.

Why would I find something in his testimony that is concerning? Do you think he is eager to expose ulterior motives? Most of the time, this testimony reveals absolutely nothing.

I wasn't looking for any issues with the FDA plan. If I see some, maybe I can let you know. But I'm approaching this from an institutional analysis perspective. In other words, who is the FDA? Who is Monsanto? How do the function? What are their actual motives that can be demonstrated by previous behavior?

If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding negative eugenics in third world Africa, should I really waste my time trying to find something wrong with all their legitimate charity work? Not really. If some kids get helped, great, but that doesn't give them a pass for the other stuff.

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by organichris

Why would I find something in his testimony that is concerning? Do you think he is eager to expose ulterior motives? Most of the time, this testimony reveals absolutely nothing.

To me it revealed a lot. For instance:

"Authorizing FDA to collect establishment registration fees and import fees to provide a steady base of resources for the food safety program."
Isn't it interesting that a lot of the proposed bills subsequent to the hearing of December 2007 has mechanisms for the FDA to collect registration fees? Coincidence?

Originally Posted by organichris

I wasn't looking for any issues with the FDA plan.

Really? It seems to me you've had issues with 2 bills. Both of those bills were in line with the FDAs approach to Food Safety (i.e. their plan for food safety). So, I really don't understand why you don't have issues with the FDA stated strategy since the bills are a reflection of that.

OBTW I suspect that the whole "treat food safety as a farm-to-table, system-wide problem" will place more burden on farmers which could be cripping for the small farms farmers.

Originally Posted by organichris

But I'm approaching this from an institutional analysis perspective. In other words, who is the FDA? Who is Monsanto? How do the function? What are their actual motives that can be demonstrated by previous behavior?

What have you found out so far? A summary or web sites where you found information would be fine.

Randy

[organichris]

So its official now. Michael Taylor from Monsanto has finally secured yet another position in the US government, this time as Senior Adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner.

Below is a link to an article about Mr. Taylor's new role and a bit of his history, along with the history Dennis Wolff, who is rumored to be Mr. Obama's choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.

Also you'll find a link in the article to the documentary, The World According to Monsanto.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_18635.cfm

[Earl]

The MOST effective way to control populations is to control their food source. If all food is grown from F1 type genetic seed that can not repopulate itself [as could open pollinated seed] then states must go to one source for their seeds. Being able to control our food source makes the oil sheiks look like pikers. Good intent is no dank good reason to mess with something that does not need messed with. We have a lot of "Good Intent" going on right now that is going to really mess up our way of life.

[organichris]

Originally Posted by Earl

The MOST effective way to control populations is to control their food source. If all food is grown from F1 type genetic seed that can not repopulate itself [as could open pollinated seed] then states must go to one source for their seeds...

I've heard people say this a lot, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but I always thought that an F1 would still produce seeds, albeit with different characteristics than the parent plant. Am I wrong about this?

Obviously there are forces in this world who want to control populations, and to an extent they have been able to do so. And manipulation of food supply is obviously one way this can be done. This can be accomplished via many different avenues, including alteration of weather as was done in Vietnam via Project Popeye when the US flooded the Ho Chi Minh trail. It sounds crazy, but this sort of thing (weather modification) is being experimented with in this country today. The use of this practice as a means of warfare has been outlawed by the UN, but that never stopped anyone before. If you've never heard any of this, I'm sure it sounds insane, but it is very real. Meteorologic terrorism is not only possible, it has been done before.

Weather modification techniques can be used to create rain, and was used to prevent rain from ruining the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Mr. Obama's Science and Technology Adviser recently suggested the use of geo-engineering (weather modification) as a means to combat "global warming".

[travis]

Originally Posted by organichris

I've heard people say this a lot, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but I always thought that an F1 would still produce seeds, albeit with different characteristics than the parent plant. Am I wrong about this?

I think Earl was referring to the Terminator gene that renders the F1 seed altogether unviable. Apparently Monsanto has the ability to incorporate Terminator genes into certain food crop germplasm.

[organichris]

Originally Posted by travis

I think Earl was referring to the Terminator gene that renders the F1 seed altogether unviable. Apparently Monsanto has the ability to incorporate Terminator genes into certain food crop germplasm.

Oh yeah, I seem to remember hearing about this before. That's pretty evil.

[hasshoes]

Home gardeners that are letting their late blight sporulate all over the place are no doubt giving politicians the ammo they need.