[quote=Veritas]Here you go eaves- not sure if you like the Huff Post or not…. [/quote]
Not particularly, Veritas. Although this is NOT a criticism of you. HuffPo is, in part, a content aggregating “service”: media outlets (small & large) pay HuffPo money to post their articles/info for the purpose of gaining readers outside their typical demographic. This includes agenda-driven content that outside organizations place on HuffPo to give the impression that it’s unbiased “news”.
However, this particular article was written by one of HP’s “staff writers” – in reality, an uncompensated blogger, Joanna Zelman, who contributes regularly to “Huff Post Green”. You can use your own judgement as to whether Ms. Zelman truly sought to write an unbiased report on the topic, but I can tell you this much: when you depress the designated links that supposedly document the allegations in the article, they lead to either other articles by Ms. Zelman, or outside organizations such as Treehugger.org or the Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance. And there are sources that she either doesn’t identify or misidentifies. At the bottom of the article, she cites “an article in the Washington Post” that is, in reality, an opinion piece from a Maine organic farmer/freelance writer. Even worse, Ms. Zelman, who should know better, quotes the *Washington Post* as saying, “[GMOs] You can’t recall them the way you can a car or a plastic toy. They’re out there for good. And no one knows what their full impact will be”, when it was actually the opinion of the *author*.
Another interesting point about the source of this information: From what I can see, your concern appears to be about the effects on RRA-fed farm animals, at least as far as this article. What’s very interesting is that one of the article links leads to an organization raising hell about the deregulation of RRA. But they make the statement to the effect that the RRA-treated crops have been proven *completely safe* to humans and animals (a patently false declaration, BTW), but their concern is the contamination of organic afalfa/ non-RRA fields by RRA , and the effect it will have on organic farmers’ ability to sell their alfalfa overseas. So in the HP article about the dangers to RRA-fed cattle, the writer has links to anti-GMC organizations that say GE food is dangerous and that GE food is safe. Talk about confusing to information-seeking consumers.
I don’t begrudge media outlets like HuffPo the right to publish anything they want, but I am seriously concerned by their presentation of blog entries as carefully researched, unbiased news stories. For instance, I often get pissed at people who bitch about the “liberal” WashPo, but if I had taken the “quote” in Ms. Zelman’s piece at face value, I’d be forced to agree. I blame both the WaPo for not clearly identifying the quoted article in their own paper, and the HuffPo for having an editorial policy which is, clearly, to deceive and mislead readers as much as possible.
That being said, the subject matter is intriguing, even if the HuffPo’s presentation isn’t.
[quote=Veritas]……but here is an article on Roundup Ready crops. I wonder if all the food allergies are not to the food, per se, but as a reaction to being poisoned by this chemical cocktail. The article says the the Sec. of Ag. is deregulating RRA. This will be fed to animals and the chemical then will work its way into humans via the animal products we ingest. Here it is:
“Recent research claims that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically modified crops contain an organism, previously unknown to science, that can cause miscarriages in farm animals. This disturbing find comes on the heels of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s decision to deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA). Roundup Ready is designed to survive Roundup, Monsanto’s weed-killing chemical.”
Veritas, according to what’s been reported (which isn’t a whole lot), a former Perdue faculty researcher/scientist and USDA policy contributor discovered a novel organism, resembling a fungus, upon electron microscopy examination of RoundupReady afalfa. He sent a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack, which the USDA ignored, choosing instead to deregulate RRA.
Since then, I haven’t been able to find anything on the alleged letter, aside from rumor-type stuff on anti-GMA and organic farming advocacy groups. There apparently was talk that the letter was a hoax, and using the name of Huber was a strategic move based on his long history of research on the direct and collateral effects of glyphosate application, and, more recently, GE glyphosate-resistant crops. Looking at the letter, there were inconsistencies that would not be expected from someone of Huber’s experience and status, and he’s been silent on the topic of the letter and the alleged organism, although not on the topic of Roundup use and RRA. He’s quite vocal against agricultural use of glyphosate, and appears to be able to back that up with research findings.
Please note that I can’t opine on the quality/ validity of Dr. Huber’s findings; while I find this topic very interesting, I am extremely limited on time and can’t do more than a superficial overview of available info on his career and research. But I admit to wondering about the validity of the letter: given that he is currently an on-site full professor at the Univ. of Florida, on influential committees at American Phytopathological Society, and a consultant to the U.S. government re: pathogenic agricultural microorganisms lends credence to the hoax rumor. And is pressure from Monsanto among the reasons Dr. Huber is no longer on Perdue’s faculty? It wouldn’t be a stretch for me to consider that a viable possibility.
The truth is that no one really knows whether or not GE food is safe. The corporations selling GMC seed and corporate farming entities were preparing for this long before the first seeds were planted, and with the tacit agreement and cooperation of the U.S. government, have managed to evade all but the most innocuous of regulations. They’ve kept the literature well supplied with corporation-sponsored research findings that, unsurprisingly, are sympathetic to their position. And they’ve dedicated huge amounts of money and influence to silence those researchers who have tried to warn of potential and existing drawbacks to GMA, or who have simply advised a more moderate course. What’s even worse is that agbiotech claims they can’t permit safety testing because it will endanger the security of their patented GE techniques. In 2005, Dr. David Schubert, head of the Cellular & Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute, summed it up very well in a response to corporate-sponsored research findings that had been published by Bradford et al in a highly-respected peer-reviewed journal. Though written 6 years ago, Dr. Schubert’s analysis remains pertinent to the ongoing dialogue:
“…The question is, of course, how can one know if a novel and potentially harmful molecule has been created unless the testing has been done? How can one predict the risk in the absence of an assay? Because of the high mutagenicity of the transformation procedures used in GE, the assumptions made by [authors & USDA] about the specificity of plant genetic engineering are incorrect. Nonetheless, it appears that the position of [the authors] and the agbiotech industry, as well as the current US regulatory framework for the labeling and safety testing of transgenic food crops is to maintain the status quo and hope for the best.
“The problem is that there are no mandatory safety testing requirements for unintended effects and that it may take many years before any symptoms of a disease arising from a transgenic product to appear. ……. although GE may enhance world health and food crop production, its full potential may remain unfulfilled unless rigorous prerelease safety testing can provide some assurance to consumers that the products of this technology are safe to eat.” Shubert, D.R. (2005), Nature Biotechnology, (23)7, 786-787
However, the current political atmosphere will only make things worse. A significant percentage of the American people are declaring that less government regulation is needed, and that regulation and oversight are “job-killers”. I, myself, believe that this is a patently ridiculous claim, and I have yet to see anyone in a position of authority present an actual documented case that proves how judicious oversight/regulation caused any well-operated previously successful corporation to go out of business. In fact, the roots of today’s horrendous economy can certainly be traced to a LACK of oversight and enforcement of regulations on the top execs and owners of financial institutions and businesses who intentionally engaged in business practices that posed a high risk to their employees, their customers, and to the nation. The executives, policy wonks, and office holders, who are paid at a much higher rate than the vast majority of American citizens, surely possess the education, intelligence, and skill to come up with a *balanced* plan of regulation that will help to protect these citizens.
Thanks for sending the link, Veritas. It’s a distressing but fascinating topic, and it’s far too easy for me to play hooky from my responsibilities to read up on it. But it’s very upsetting to realize that it is becoming almost impossible to access anything resembling traditional news – the “Just the facts” variety that is supposed to be based on unbiased reporting.
