The MPA isn’t actually called that. What it is, is a rider placed anonymously into a spending resolution in the Senate. It passed both chambers very quietly, with most Congress critters claiming they didn’t even know they had voted for it, and Obama signed it. No one has admitted to placing it into the bill, but Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo) has admitted that he “worked with Monsanto” to draft the rider, and it appears the thing was put into the bill by Blunt or the late Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). What it does is that it bars federal courts from halting the sale or planting of GM seeds even if the court finds the seeds to be harmful. This appears to be in response to a 2010 ruling by a federal court that ordered the USDA to halt Monsanto from planting GM sugar beets after the court found that the USDA approved the planting of those beets before the environmental impact assessment was even completed. In other words, the USDA declared it safe before its own scientists studied whether or not it was safe. Naturally, we can’t have courts doing things like that to stop our corporate masters!
But this is nothing new for Monsanto. They use the courts like a weapon and they are THE poster boy for “cronyism.” Consider the case of bovine growth hormone. That growth hormone is used in cows in the US because the USDA approved it. It was approved by Michael Taylor of the USDA. Before joining the USDA, Taylor was a Monsanto lobbyist. After approving it, he returned to Monsanto as a Vice President. The USDA approved it after the FDA declared it safe. The FDA reached that conclusion based on a report submitted by Monsanto about the hormone’s safety. The FDA employee who examined the Monsanto report and approved it was Margaret Miller. Before joining the FDA, Margaret Miller worked for Monsanto AND she wrote the very report she would then approve at the FDA. In other words, she wrote a report claiming this stuff was safe when she worked for Monsanto, that report was submitted to the FDA, Miller then moved to the FDA, where she reviewed her own report and approved it. Talk about a rigged game! But is there any reason to think the hormone isn’t safe? Well, Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada all ban it. Want another example of cronyism? Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, took a job at the USDA, where he wrote the USDA’s “organic food standard,” which allows GM foods to label themselves “organic.”
“Coincidentally,” the USDA has never denied a single application by Monsanto to use GM crops. Yet, it is interesting to note that Monsanto does not have similar success anywhere else in the world. GM foods are banned or labeled in 60 countries. In fact, Monsanto has stopped trying to change the laws in Europe to get GM crops approved because: “We’re going to sell the GM seeds only where they enjoy broad farmer support, broad political support and a functioning regulatory system.” Translation: they’re only going to sell where they can control the regulators. Hey, that’s us!
So what’s the danger?
Well, leaving aside the health question, there is this problem: GM foods are banned or labeled in 60 countries. When GM crops are planted here, there is a high risk that these crops will contaminate other fields, as just happened in Oregon – Monsanto blamed “saboteurs” (the rest of you call those things wind and birds). When that happens, it becomes impossible to separate the GM from non-GM products as they mix. Since GM products are banned in a vast number of countries, a few careless GM farmers can potentially destroy the ability of all American farmers to export their products.
That’s the concern with salmon. The FDA is in the process of approving a GM salmon created by a company called AquaBounty. Their salmon grow faster and twice as large as normal salmon. And while GM proponents typical (falsely) claim that their products are no different than selective breeding and thus “could be found in nature,” the salmon completely disproves that. This thing was engineered with genes from eels and could never be found in nature. It is a true frankenfish, and the salmon industry is freaked out about this because consumers don’t want these things and, if they escape into the wild, it will be impossible to tell real salmon from the frankensalmon. If that happens, it will kill the US salmon industry as consumers shift to salmon from other parts of the world. It’s also not clear what will happen if these mongo salmon start eating everything in sight.
AquaBounty, like all other GM food makers, not only opposes mandatory labeling, but it opposes letting others label their salmon as non-GM. Why oppose voluntary labels? Because consumers don’t want this GM stuff and the industry knows that. This is why Monsanto has given up on Europe, because their regulators won’t let them hide the GM products amidst the others and Monsanto has concluded: “We’ve come to the conclusion that this has no broad acceptance at the moment.” And they know that if companies start labeling their products as free of GM materials, then the products made from GM materials will be abandoned. Yep.
I’ve discussed this briefly in my book, but the Republicans need to latch onto these issues and stop being patsies for industry. When (not if) these things escape, we could be looking at billions of dollars in lost sales as other countries ban our foods.
Even more importantly, though, why are we helping companies hide information consumers want? Consumerism lies at the heart of conservatism because consumerism is about letting billions of consumers make their own choices. . . it IS the free market and conservatives should never support laws that seek to control consumers to protect the politically connected. Robbing people of knowledge is no different than forcing them to do what you want. It’s time conservatives grasped that and stopped believing that industry is always good. Industry is great... when it satisfies consumers. But when it uses the government to control consumers, then it’s evil. Pure and simple.
Fortunately, some conservatives are starting to get this. Mixed in with the consumer advocates, environmentalists, and food safety advocates who are opposing things like the Monsanto Protection Act are Tea Party people. Said the blog of the Tea Party Patriots: this is “a special interest loophole and a doozy at that. This is a situation in which a company is given the ability to ignore court orders, in what boils down to a deregulation scheme for a particular set of industries.” Yep.
Keep this principle in mind: companies turn to the government when they can’t win over consumers in a free and fair market place. The role of the government should always be to ensure that producers are as free as possible to offer what they think consumers want AND that consumers are free to make informed decisions about what they want. For free markets to work, you can’t just support half that equation.
40 comments:
Andrew.....Primum comment!
I know you have the answer to your own question:
"Even more importantly, though, why are we helping companies hide information consumers want?"
We being certain members of Congress of course. $$$
Honestly, without knowing long-term effects of genetic engineering in food, for us to sanction this action is asinine. But, once we opened Pandora's Box with the ability to do this, we can't stop it completely.
OTOH.....I wonder if we would look at Gregor Mendel's work the same way back in the 1800's? (Genetic engineering?) Who knows if his work hasn't led to an increase in certain types of food allergies, cancer, etc...?
this is a function of government that is worth having, and it is almost a perfect example of the problem of "big" government and "big" business and why people feel powerless today. Government loves the power and money from protecting their cronies (sponsors.) We end up not trusting the government because they lie, and take care of themselves rather than the people they were elected to look out for. At best, we get bloated bureaucracy bent on lavish "morale" trips where self-preservation is the prime directive. And yes, (R's) tend to focus on govt. corruption while )D's) tend to focus on big business.
Patriot, It is all about money.
I agree that this is asinine. For one thing, it's asinine to force something like this on consumers who have not been won over. Make them win over the consumers like every other industry has to do.
As an aside, they play a shell game with this too. First, they fight to prevent the labeling through their regulatory friends. They claim that if they label, then consumers won't buy their products and since the products are clearly safe, that would be unfair. After greasing a few palms, they keep the labels out. THEN they turn around and claim the fact they aren't labeled is proof that consumers don't want the labels, even though they just admitted that labeling would kill their business.
It's equally asinine that we are willing to risk things like the entire salmon industry because one company wants to do this. Or risk our entire grain exporting business just to help Monsanto and a few others.
In terms of Mendel, these guys claim that what they've done is no different than what Mendel did, but that's true. He cross pollinated different varieties of the same plants to breed better strains -- basically, he did what could have happened in nature on its own. These guys are taking from different plants to create new hybrids, just like the Salmon. That cannot happen in nature. Moreover, they're big into things like the growth hormones.
Jed, Exactly. This is the sort of thing where regulation is needed because the harm these companies could do to others in the industry is immense and because this is information consumers are demanding. Yet, our government has been perverted to do their bidding -- and both parties do it.
Then, as you note, they play this game where the Democrats lie to their followers by claiming to fight against the corruption of big business (while doing their bidding) and the Republicans lie to their by claiming to fight big government corruption even as they support.
It's a shell game.
Nice article. Reading about the salmon (they are only female and they are sterile!) reminded me of Jurassic Park (literally the same explanation was given).
Thanks Anthony. I thought of Jurassic Park too. Don't worry, they're all female and they can't breed.... "nature finds a way."
Then they admitted that maybe "up to 5%" won't be sterile but they said it won't be a big deal. Except, that's a pretty big number once you start talking about millions of fish. And even more so, all it takes is 1 fish to appear in the wild and consumers will assume the worst.
Not to mention, since the FDA won't label this stuff and people won't know which fish in the stores are which, there is very real concern that people will just abandon anything except wild salmon. Again, this puts a whole industry at risk and should not be allowed. If they really believe in this thing, then at the very least label it.
Genetically engineering crops to produce higher yields has saved thousands, if not millions, of people from starvation.
Norman Borlaug
Green Revolution
Kit, So what? Does that give them a right to have consumer preferences quashed by the government?
Microsoft has made the desktop computer what it is today, should Congress pass a law preventing you from knowing what operating system your phone uses until after you buy it just because Microsoft can't convince people to buy their phones?
Kit, The issue isn't whether these things are good or not. I can find a good use for anything. The issue is that the government should not be in the business of wiping out consumer choice (and possibly endangering whole industries). If these things are worthwhile, then they should be required to win over consumers just like every other product.
Moreover, with things like the growth hormone, it's shameful that this thing wasn't independently reviewed.
Good point.
Why not have all foods labeled. If it was grown "naturally" or "organically" then label it. Or set up a classification system for foods.
Kit, They do label some things. And they have "very strict" rules about when you can make certain claims.
Only, "very strict" doesn't mean accurate. "Grass-fed" is the perfect example. The idea behind "grass-fed" beef is that it tastes better and sounds healthier, so producers want to label it as such. And most people think this means the cows live in a pasture and eat grass. BUT the FDA label actually only requires that the animal be fed grass for the first 6 months of its life, after that you can send it to a feedlot and pump it full of grains (and hormones and antibiotics) just like any other cow.
Similarly, as you see in the article above, the "organic" label does not exclude GM products. Thus, this frankensalmon can win an "organic" label.
And of course, the real problem with labeling is the above -- producers of things consumers don't like fight both mandatory and voluntary labels because they don't want consumers to be able to distinguish between products.
Unfortunately, our regulatory system tends to do the dirty work of the bad players rather than the good players.
I see your point.
Put labels describing what kinds of artificial genetic modifications were made?
Kit, The best solution is to come up with a credible labeling system the warns consumers of things that consumers may consider relevant. Then let the market forces do their thing and decide what products live and which ones die.
This is getting afield of the topic, but the term "genetically modified" (GM) is itself problematic. There's a difference between highly-ordered husbandry and gene-splicing, but they all get lumped together. On the other side, proponents of "organic" food want the term to mean no pesticides, no fertilizers whatsoever, while most folks are more tolerant than nil.
tryanmax, Agreed. There needs to be a more clear labeling system to tell people exactly what they are getting with sufficient specificity to separate things that consumers have different degrees of concern over.
Then consumers can make informed decisions and producers can adjust accordingly.
In fact, as an aside, if they ever want the public to accept these things, then they're going to have to face this and try to convince the public that these things are good. Tricking the public will only raise suspicions.
The second part of your article is good but the first part could have been lifted off a ELF website.
Tryanmax is correct. There really isn't a clear definition of genetically modified. All of the food we eat have been genetically modified. The other flaw was right in your article:
"...if they escape into the wild, it will be impossible to tell real salmon from the frankensalmon..."
If you can't tell the difference than what is the problem? Finally, commenting about Europe and their refusal to approve these would be like saying a greenie refuses to drive a car so all cars must be bad. Europe has had a very backwards view of this technology to grow crops faster, using less water, less herbecides, less pesticides, and with more nutrients. Golden rice was specifically designed to help cure vitamin A deficiency in the third world; the leading cause of blindness. Opponents to GMO's have continued to protest its use.
The public should know and be better educated but people are often reactionary and not very scientifically astute. Just look at the garbage behind BPA or pink slime.
The going back and forth between government jobs and industry is not new or unique and does not necessarily mean there is a conspiracy. They should be able to defend their decision in front of anyone. As with any issue in government you would often look for those with experience in the private sector and vice-versa. Such as ex-military in defense and physicians working for Medicare. One of our complaints about the Obama administration is that hardly anyone in his staff has private sector experience. Now were saying this is bad?
I agree with Koshcat that all produce is genetically modified in some way - whether it is to have a longer shelf life or to fatten up faster. We are more threatened by non-native invasive species being introduced in the general course of transport than we are from GMOs. Even those vegetables that are now labeled "humanely raised" and "organic" have in some way been modified. As long as they are not mixing corn DNA with human DNA, I am okay with it. And yes, someone tried to do this giving new meaning to the term "Children of the Corn"...
BTW - two more examples:
Wheat called "dwarf wheat" was genetically modified to fully mature in a shorter time and has saved 100's of millions of people from starvation.
The French champagne industry was saved in the early '20th Century by a Texan (obviously!) who genetically modified the French champagne grape to resist a rampant blight that was killing the native grapes. So there! Viva la Texas GMO champagne grape!
Koshcat, Don't mistake your aversion to a source with meaning information is false. ELF and the such may be raving morons, but the facts above are correct (and no, that's not where I got them).
And these types of conflicts do matter. There is a fundamental difference between someone leaving medicine to work for Medicare or the military to work for a defense contractor and bringing their expertise versus someone going to the government and having decision-making authority over issues that they had a personal stake in before they went to the government.
This is why judges recuse themselves when confronted with former clients or with issues that affect friends, family, neighbors or organizations with which they have some affiliation. Not only is there a presumption that people are incapable of being fair in those instances, but it destroys the faith of the public in the fairness of government to have people with an interest acting as supposedly impartial decision-makers.
As for the "flaws," neither is a flaw. First, they are not indistinguishable. Producers can easily tell the difference, but consumers can't. That's the problem. The salmon in question are much, much larger than normal salmon so long as you wait until they are adults to catch them, then they are easy to spot. The problem is that consumers can't tell them apart because they don't see the fish. All consumers will see is salmon meat in a container... if you're talking grains, then they see only the loaf of bread. So unless consumers want to perform DNA tests on the foods they eat, they (consumers) will have no way to know. Hence, consumers are worried about being sold things they do not want and producers are worried that if these things are allowed and are not labelled, then consumers will avoid entire product groups. The salmon industry is reacting with extreme hostility to this fish, for example, for this very reason.
(continued)
(continued)
Secondly, as for the definition of what is "genetically modified." You are making two logical errors. First, you are making the mistake of considering the fringe as representative of the whole. Just because one person protests something does not mean everyone protests. This is a common error you see both sides make constantly these days by finding one person with extreme views and assuming that those views are representative of everyone on that side. I think you will find that the public's concerns rarely mirror the fringe on any issue.
The second error is concluding that because the fringe has concerns that are unreasonable that all concerns by everyone are unreasonable. That's logically incorrect. And that's something you see a lot of conservatives do on this issue, on consumer protection and on environmental protection -- "global warming enthusiasts are pushing bad science... they are environmentalists... hence, all environmentalism is bad." That's logically flawed. Issues stand on their own weight and who advocates for them does not affect their validity.
Moreover, just because there isn't a perfect official definition of GM at the moment does not mean the public doesn't have one in mind. The English language is vague by its very nature, which is why the law focuses on "reasonable" interpretations, i.e. "what most people mean when they say something." And in that regard, the things that bother the public consistently are not the broad-bush definition of "All of the foods we eat have been genetically modified", but are instead opposition to changes that could not happen in nature or which add negative traits. Not only is that what most people mean when they think of GM, but that's the definition industry groups try to squeeze their product into when they defend them. So while there is no official definition, there is a functioning definition at which point the public-at-large becomes upset.
Finally, as for Europe having a backwards view, I think you would find that Americans have the same view if labeling is required. Given the intense fears of industry and the massive numbers of people who participate in this issue, I think you would find that American consumers will do exactly as European consumers will do if given the choice. And if that isn't true, then again, there's no reason not to require labeling.
Bev, I'm not saying that all these things are bad. What I am saying is that consumers should be given a choice. The government should not be making the choice for them. Whether or not these things are good is not up to us to decide and to impose on other people... it's up to consumers to decide if they want it.
P.S. It must gall the French that they were saved by a Texan! LOL!
Ha ha! New IRS scandal coming -- they're paying $70 million in bonuses even as they are whining about sequestration.
Yes, and that's after the $100+million wasted on conventions/training sessions/retreats and fun party videos (with no receipts to back it up)! Of course, let me say out loud what is on everyones' minds, but are too afraid of an audit:
Why do public sector employees even get bonuses?
Bev, I have no idea. When I worked for Club Fed, everyone in our office got $400 a year no matter what you did. I have heard of some serious bonus money being paid though.
It's amazing that they would pay bonuses and blow money on conventions instead of keeping from having to furlough employees. Nice priorities!
Well, the "furloughs" were/are scheduled thusly:
The Friday before Memorial Day
The Friday after Independence Day
One non-3 day holiday weekend in August
The Friday before Labor Day
So, it does not surprise me that they would rather furlough themselves...heck, I wish someone would furlough ME that way.
Couple issues. Generally a single individual doesn't approve or disapprove an item like this. There are usually many levels of bureaucracy and advice panels before a final decision is made. If a decision went through skipping normal processes than that final decision is challangable. See NRLB.
The other complaint I often hear is that the FDA will approve a food or drug based on data provided by the company (usually followed by a stronger BY THE COMPANY). All items approved or not by the FDA are based on information provided by the company. It is the company's responsibility to test and provide the data. If the FDA is not satisfied they can and will ask for more data. SOP
I am not here to defend Monsanto but they are being painted as the next Illuminati and it seems out of control.
A specific definition is necessary because just about anything can be defended for or against. Even the statement "wouldn't occur in nature" is technically incorrect because again all of our food has been modified over thousands of years. Crossbreeding and selective breeding were the most common but they take time and very labor intensive.
Regarding safety, there seems to be this level of evidence demanded that is frankly impossible. Basically Monsanto has to prove that there isn't a hidden black swan.
All of this sounds like the anxiety the left had about Halliburton. Yes, it is a big company. Yes, it does have a lot of government contracts. Yes, Cheney did work there. But like Monsanto it too is a publically traded company that has been around for many years that has learned how to play the games as good as anyone.
Finally, as for the law passed by congress. Blame them for passing overbloated pieces of crap where things get slipped in. And I find it hard to imagine that a federal judge who really thought there was a problem couldn't stop the sale and planting. I can't imagine there isn't precedence for the judge to say "watch me."
Koshcat, There are panels and the such, but the decision is always made by one person. And as long as they follow the procedures, that person can make almost any decision they want and it's reviewable only under an "abuse of discretion" standard... which is an impossible standard to overturn.
I have no problem with the FDA using company data, though I would ultimately prefer an independent testing agent. But I don't see a conspiracy in that.
The Halliburton stuff was purely political. Halliburton is no different than any other large company out there and they didn't do anything differently in terms of government contracts than any other government contractor. What made them a target was their connection to leftist-boogeyman Dick Cheney. That's why the left hated Halliburton.
Monsanto is a different animal. Monsanto has a history of abusive litigation such as suing farmers for "theft of intellectual property" when birds and wind carried their seeds onto farms who did not pay for the seeds. Monsanto also has some other infamies, like developing plants that did not create seeds so farmers couldn't replant without buying more. They were also the makers of Agent Orange and I understand they still claim it doesn't have harmful side-effects.
But in any event, the point is bigger than Monsanto. The salmon is not made by Monsanto. The point is that our government has a history of trying to take away consumer choices in favor of producers. That's what needs to change. We need to become pro-consumer -- which does not mean anti-producer... it means ensuring that consumers can get information they need to make informed decisions.
On the judge verses Congress, that's an unresolved question actually -- can Congress tell the courts that something is off limits? Most people think Congress can, but it's never been decided. And this is a blanket prohibition on issuing any ruling on the matter, so I'm not sure how they could get around it.
They also make Round Up, which I love, dioxin, and our favorite saccharine.
I agree that Monsanto can't haven't both ways: claim to be for the little guy while suing his pants off. And they probably play the government game as good or better than anyone else. This is where good government could actually help.
-Define what GM really means
-Define what is and isn't patent protected
-Define what goes on labels and what is ok to leave off
These should be public and put on jointly by the FDA and USDA.
I would also defer any complaints about the recent law right back to congress. I think there aughta be a law where laws can only less than 10 pages and single issue only. Some states have rules at least about the single issue. My father told me if anyone tries to bring up a law in Montana (single issue state) and it is more than a dozen or so pages, the legistlature will not even look at it.
Koshcat, I do love me some Round Up.
I agree with your comment. :)
I especially would like to see them have to stick to one issue. Several states have done that with varying degrees of success.
Koshcat, I would add one more thing to your list: aside from false information, I cannot see any logical reason to prohibit any information from a label.
tryanmax, This issue is a complex one because it deals with multiple things, but it goes a little something like this...
Certain products, like drugs, are banned from sale unless they are first approved by the FDA. When the FDA approves it, they approve it only for the things for which approval was sought. Thus, if I submit something as a headache drug, but it causes you to lose weight, I can't advertise it as a weight loss product because I didn't submit it to get approval for that. If I want to make that claim, I need to resubmit it for that purpose.
Sometimes, approvals are granted only on the condition of including warnings -- like cigarettes.
The USDA regulates what claims can be made about food products under its power to require nutrition labels. Thus, for example, they have the power to define words in ways which can then only be used if you comply with their requirements. That's where "organic" and "GM" fit in.
In addition, the FTC regulates what can be said in advertising and they require that only truthful claims be made -- though they allow "puffery."
Between each of those, you get a rather complex set of regulations about what you can and cannot say.
I can accept that drugs are a somewhat different animal. I think the rest just speaks to agreed upon definitions. From your article, I really feel that someone ought to challenge the commercial use of the word "organic" as the common understanding of that definition runs counter to what is legal.
tryanmax, The problem is this...
It's obvious that the public doesn't understand it the way the USDA has defined it. BUT you can't challenge it on that basis. It went through a rule-making procedure and this was what the agency decided.
To change it in court (which I'm sure they already tried), you would need to prove that the agency's decision was so obviously wrong that the decision was "arbitrary and capricious." Anything short of that and the court will uphold it. You'll never prove that.
So now, to change it, you need new legislation OR you need the agency to re-open the regulations and redefine it. But that's a little more complex because now you need to explain why you narrowed the definition.
Well then, your case is made!
Just so the check clears. :D
Yes, but it's written for CommentaramaCash. Redeemable for all sorts of invisible merchandize.
Oh good, I can turn those into airline points on Hindenburg Air.
Hindenburg air is the safest. One of their own guys runs the FAA. :)
LOL! I love the sense of humor around here! Nicely played! :D
I have family that use Monsanto seed, among others. They have no objections to Monsanto, but wish that our hysterical cousins would stop their knee-jerk anti-GMO nuttiness.
I, however, cannot respond intelligently to the debate beyond saying that these farming folks are some of the most level-headed, sensible, conservative people I know.
Post a Comment