posted on May 21, 2003 08:14:57 AM new
The director of the EPA has apparently given up on her struggle to actually protect the environment AND the Bush administration simultaneously.
Whitman was brought on board in an attempt to actually make Bush appear as if he cares about the environment - which of course, he doesn't. Since, as it turns out, the environment no longer matters, I guess the next nominee will be the chairman of Exxon or something.
(Oil drilling in the Arctic National Reserve? Sure! Allow tons more poisons in the air, water and soil? No problem! Rewrite the rules so polluters don't have to pay the cost of fixing the damage they've done? Sounds good - and why don't we cut the federal cleanup budget as well! Two-headed babies can be fun!)
[ edited by msincognito on May 21, 2003 08:16 AM ]
posted on May 21, 2003 09:24:56 AM new
As the article says....now is the time for any who don't expect to be staying with the Bush administration should he be relected, to leave now. Very common during most administrations....for people to leave about this time...if they plan to leave at all.
For those who don't want to register to the NYT's the article also says:
Whitman, in her letter, defended the administration's environmental policies which have been under attack by environmentalists as a series of rollbacks in protecting the nation's air, water and land.
"Our work has been guided by the strong belief that environmental protection and economic prosperity can and must go hand-in-hand," she wrote. "The EPA has built an enviable record of success that will result in significant improvements to the state of our nation's treasured environment."
She pointed to initiatives to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines, a push to cut pollution from school buses and "our aggressive and effective efforts to enforce the nation's environmental laws."
posted on May 21, 2003 09:45:32 AM new
The only problem I have with glowing statements regarding an adminstrations policies by anyone who is leaving is the fact that this person is going to be looking for a new job and an exit statement saying 'This guy is a putz. He coldn't care less and and if he thinks it'll make a buck he couldn't care less what the ramifications are" isn't going to help that search.
I am not saying that this is what she meant but if she was truly happy with the administrations efforts why is she leaving? If she epects to be replaced that's generally a sign that you've been butting heads to much with the admin and they want someone a bit more agreeable to their outlook which unforunately with Bush does not seem to be very enviromentally friendly.
posted on May 21, 2003 09:58:11 AM new
WASHINGTON (May 21) - Christie Whitman, often at odds with the Bush White House over environmental issues and a lightning rod for the administration's critics, resigned Wednesday as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Whitman said in a letter to President Bush that she was leaving to spend time with family.
``As rewarding as the past two-and-a-half years have been for me professionally, it is time to return to my home and husband in New Jersey, which I love just as you do your home state of Texas,'' she wrote Bush.
With Whitman's departure as EPA administrator, Bush loses one of the most prominent women in his Cabinet - a moderate former New Jersey governor selected by the president to help soften his image as a political conservative, particularly on environmental issues.
Whitman had a history of clashing with the White House, starting with the president's abrupt decision to withdraw from the Kyoto global warming treaty.
With Bush's re-election campaign gearing up, the White House has told senior staff and Cabinet members that if they are thinking of leaving the administration, this is the time to resign; otherwise, they will be expected to remain aboard until after the 2004 election if Bush wins a second term. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer announced Monday that he will resign in July.
Three White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, insisted Whitman was not forced out, but rather wanted to return home.
Bush will be under pressure to replace Whitman with a nominee who will acceptable to his GOP supporters without alienating swing voters who tend to be wary of Republicans on the environment.
Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., who has frequently clashed with the administration over environmental issues, praised Whitman for her service. ``She brought grace and leadership to the EPA at a trying time and did the best job she could under very challenging circumstances,'' he said.
Whitman, a former New Jersey governor, said her resignation is effective June 27. She met with Bush at the White House on Tuesday afternoon to inform him of her decision, the agency said.
Whitman, in her letter, defended the administration's environmental policies which have been under attack by environmentalists as a series of rollbacks in protecting the nation's air, water and land.
``Our work has been guided by the strong belief that environmental protection and economic prosperity can and must go hand-in-hand,'' she wrote. ``The EPA has built an enviable record of success that will result in significant improvements to the state of our nation's treasured environment.''
She pointed to initiatives to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines, a push to cut pollution from school buses and ``our aggressive and effective efforts to enforce the nation's environmental laws.''
She said she was proud of the EPA work under her leadership.
Whitman, 56, joined the administration after seven years as governor of New Jersey, where she made preservation a priority but never managed to convince environmentalists she was one of them.
Critics said that in the name of attracting businesses, she compromised water pollution protections and cut spending for state offices that prosecute environmental abuses by industry. Whitman, an avid mountain biker and skier, insisted she retained needed protections while eliminating red tape.
When the Bush administration took office, Whitman had only the briefest honeymoon. Within the first three months, she had upset industry executives and conservationists, disappointed moderates who like her and angered conservatives who don't.
``Christie Whitman must feel like her own long national nightmare is over,'' said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, an advocacy group. ``No EPA administrator has ever been so consistently and publicly humiliated by the White House.''
The conservation group Friends of the Earth wasted little time in urging her to resign, saying that Bush's decisions on the environment had undermined her credibility. But Whitman stood steadfastly behind Bush, even when their own disagreements became public.
As she did while New Jersey governor, Whitman frequently hit the road for official as well as political trips around the country. But she said her goal was to spend weekends, when possible, back home in New Jersey. ``It's important for my sanity,'' she said.
posted on May 21, 2003 10:01:21 AM new
Rumors that she was leaving have been circulating for months. The general perception is that she's tired of getting slammed by environmental groups for policies she herself disagrees with. That would be a threat to anybody's sanity.
[ edited by msincognito on May 21, 2003 10:01 AM ]
posted on May 21, 2003 10:05:52 AM newwhy is she leaving? She said she'd like to return to her family. I believe what people, themselves state.
I sure can understand that most who take on these humongous jobs and leave their families behind would create hardships. And from what I've seen in the past this is pretty common. In different administrations people find that two to three years was more than what they'd bargined for and resign. Look at Ari...recently married...what type of life does he have working almost 24/7 with his wife? Not the best way to start a life together.
And yes, I'd agree that there are also those times when they feel they're butting heads with any administration...and they're tired of it.
posted on May 21, 2003 10:47:11 AM new
Linda - I don't doubt that she wants to return to her family. When I left my old job I stated a desire to pursue different avenues and to have time for a personal life. These were also euphemisms for "The lawyer is an idiot, he's great with contract, hideous at marketing and if I have to implement one more of his half brained ideas and then answer to it's failures I'm going lose my ever loving mind."
Had I been happy in my job I would have found a way to make both things work. but job frustration led me to seek an escape and it was much easier to say that I was running to something rather than away.
posted on May 21, 2003 01:00:19 PM new
This week as an add on to a key miltary appropriations bill are a number of unrelated items removing protection from a large number of marine mammals and ocean enviornments. It is no surprise that Whitman is moving on.
posted on May 21, 2003 03:07:46 PM new
Hi KD - Funny your mention how you feel about Ari. I always like Mike McCreary (sp?) too. Never cared for Joe Lockhart though.
--------------
a number of unrelated items removing protection from a large number of marine mammals and ocean enviornments.
Isn't that, in part, because our military need to test their equipment out in the ocean and the fanatics are worried it's going to affect the lives of the mammals?
I sometimes find myself with mixed feelings on the environmental issues, but most often fall on the side of choosing people over animals. Owners rights over some fish or development of private land. I feel the concerns ***WE ALL HAVE ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT*** are taken way too far overboard by a lot of those in these groups. Most times they appear to me to give more concern to animals over people and their ability to earn a living. There must be a better balance in there somewhere.
I'm in full agreement with Whitman's statement: environmental protection and economic prosperity can and must go hand-in-hand. Not that we have to protect the environment and tell the people to go play with themselves.
posted on May 21, 2003 05:04:10 PM new
Isn't that, in part, because our military need to test their equipment out in the ocean and the fanatics are worried it's going to affect the lives of the mammals?
No, the protections given to these endangered species (marine mammals)is being set aside for both military and industrial interests. Somehow I think we can achieve our military goals without sacrificing these helpless creatures. Because we have the technology does not give us the implicit right to destroy this most important ecosystem. There is opposition to this on both sides of the aisle.
BTW protecting the enviornment insures there will be a future and is looking out for the rights of the people.
posted on May 21, 2003 05:30:46 PM newI sometimes find myself with mixed feelings on the environmental issues, but most often fall on the side of choosing people over animals. Owners rights over some fish or development of private land.
Amazing statement. People cannot survive on water and air alone and need plants (and some think animals) to survive. Doesn't it make sense to take care of them first? Before we get all concerned about those who lose the right to snowmobile, mountain bike, fish or cut down trees we should worry about
what it is doing to the environment.
Guess I am one of those environmental fanatics. If is truly amazing to me how some who espouse religion at every turn can care so little for God's/Mother Earth's other creations.
I can't imagine any Mother going into the EPA (or FDA offices for that matter), learn what is happening and actually stay and add to the mess. Starlink gets into the food supply although it is meant for animal feed; Mexico finds starlink corn in it's high fields and is contaminated; Bush tells 3rd world countries to take our GE food or else; Bush takes the EU to court to force our food on them as he plays GLOBAL BULLY. What a boss!
Thought these might be interesting to some.
A warning to Linda, one is from an alternative news site.
The White House announced today that it plans to begin serving some genetically modified foods at official government functions. The move is intended to head off criticism by environmental and consumer groups that the altered foods are unsafe.
Not everyone in the Bush administration supports the new policy, which is said to have been the idea of Vice President Dick Cheney. Just last weekend, Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman voiced concern about the safety of the altered foods while appearing on the weekly political talk show Meet the Press. "This administration plans to keep a watchful eye on these products," said Whitman.
Ashville Global Report
Ashville, North Carolina
No. 109, Feb. 15-21, 2001
Greenpeace claimed Whitman, as governor of New Jersey, was soft on polluters and likely to favor the chemical and biotech industries.
“Christy Whitman has been cozying up to the chemical and biotech industries while environmentalists and consumers are left holding the feed bag,” said Charles Margulis, Greenpeace genetic engineering specialist. “Wealthy companies should not be granted pardons. They should be held accountable for polluting our food.”
============================
Dear Friends of the Earth (FoE) Members,
3. Keep Genetically Engineered Corn
Out of Our Food!
Tell the EPA Not to Approve StarLink!
StarLink Corn Back on Supermarket Shelves???
Aventis seeks approval of suspected
allergen in the food supply
StarLink corn is genetically engineered to produce it's own pesticide (Cry9C). It has been approved for animal feed only, since Cry9C is suspected of causing allergies. Yet millions of tainted food products have been discovered, leading to massive recalls. Now, Aventis is pushing for approval of Cry9C residues in foods to avoid liability, though allergy experts say there is no safe threshold for food allergens.
StarLink investigation deeply flawed
Don't let the government declare StarLink
safe based on test results from just 17 people, including only one child. Experts say children are at greatest risk of allergic reactions to StarLink's Cry9C. Furthermore the FDA ignored over 200
individuals who reported similar complaints to the food industry.
In the tests, the FDA used a bacterially produced version of Cry9C rather than Cry9C extracted from corn. The FDA admits that antibodies to corn Cry9C might not recognize the bacterial version. This could give false negative results.
TELL EPA TO DENY AVENTIS' PETITION FOR A
TOLERANCE AND KEEP STARLINK OUT OF OUR FOOD
posted on May 21, 2003 08:15:20 PM newBefore we get all concerned about those who lose the right to snowmobile, mountain bike, fish or cut down trees we should worry about what it is doing to the environment. I wasn't referring to sports equipment that polute nor to property owed by the public. But rather to all the regulations that those fanatics would like to see get passed that infringe on the rights of people to use and build on, cut their trees on *their own property* because of any animal, wetland etc. Farmers who can't irrigate their land because some nut cases don't want to see some fish to be hurt. That's just not right, imo. People who 40-50 years ago bought beach front property that they can't build on because others have decided they want it to stay open and natural. IMO, they can go buy their own property and keep it open and natural.
Yes, there are major poluting issues that need to be dealt with, I'm not speaking to that issue. And it's because people do care that these issues ARE being dealt with. I'm saying a LOT has been carried way too far....beyond reason.
If is truly amazing to me how some who espouse religion at every turn can care so little for God's/Mother Earth's other creations. LOL Funny I've never met anyone, religious or not, who doesn't care about our environment. It's the degree that some want to take it to that's the issue.
------------
Dave - I said "IN PART". What "Industrial interests" are you referring to??? The fishing industry that feeds us? I believe the military testing their equipment is more important than *disturbing* the mammals. I haven't read reports these tests are "killing" them. Just that some believe it "disturbs" them. People are more important to me, but that doesn't mean I don't value other forms of life. I just see humans as higher on the 'food chain'. If I owned a farm and needed water in order to grow my crops to feed and support my family...you're darn right...the fish living is the least of my concerns. Same goes for the military testing. If it's needed for the protection of our country, then the mammals are going to have to adjust or relocate for the period of time the tests are being carried out.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 21, 2003 08:18 PM ]
posted on May 21, 2003 08:26:42 PM newAll modern ag production corn is genetically modified, as are all domestic food animals. If genetic modification is harmful, then we need to cease all sexual reproduction in the animal and plant kingdom.
You might not want to believe in eveything you read in the newspapers. Remember Monsanto (Agent Orange & transgenic seed producer) was able to strong arm Fox (entertainment) News and have a story on our food supply (milk) squelched. When taken to court, Fox lost.
If you click on the Union of Concerned Scientists link below, then click on biotechnology on the left sidebar you will get some good reasoning about the technology.
Nature has always done natural genetic modifying and man helped it along so we could have longer shelf life food, different colored foods and flowers, etc.
We are NOW playing with the environment through transgenic manipulation and not even testing to see what effect it is having. If transgenic (genetically altered) canola and corn have been in the food chain for a few years and there is worry about allergies or other problems, ask yourself why people aren't being tested!
Call an allergist's office and ask how he/she is testing for allergies today. Ask them how many tests they do for corn. If they say one, then they could be risking their patient's life.
To have a complete testing you have to test each different type of corn you may eat. If you are not eating organic you could be eating a variety of transgenically altered corn. Round-up ready corn, conventional corn, Bt corn, pharm corn (meant for drugs)all have different makeup and must therefore all by tested separately. THEY are not doing that! Just call and ask. Probably not doing it because it would be a nightmare to find all the corn types eaten. The USDA and FDA KNOW this. I don't know if Dr. Dean Metcalf is still with NIH and head of the allergy clinic there but you should speak with him. Ask him if ge foods are being tested. And when he answers No, ask why not.
Monsanto, Novartis, ADM and others are using the "Nature has been genetically modified for centuries" reasoning to confuse US citizens. What they are not saying is until the 1980s (and Mr. Reagan) we did not insert genes from one species into another. There has been more discussions in other countries.
You would think they would want to test these
foods before they go to market. Well, actually they are testing on US citizens (guinea pigs) we just don't know it and if we have problems it will be blamed on something else. Didn't you EVER wonder why African and the EU citizens don't want our food?
I think Todd Whitman knew. She was privy to all the documents we are not.
posted on May 21, 2003 08:49:09 PM new
I received this the first week in May so it is a little old, but very informative. I am sure Todd Whitman had the email before I did.
As I said I don't know how any Mother could condom what is happening to our food supply for the sake of multi-national seed and pesticide company's profits. I have not edited for length, nor left off the endorsers. It is all important. It is all relevant to life as our gr-grandchildren will know it. And it could be another of the reasons Todd Whitman left this horrific administration! I would like to think that anyway.
Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
Genetic engineering in agriculture has significantly increased the economic uncertainty of family farmers throughout the U.S. and the world. American farmers have lost critical markets which are closed to genetically engineered products. Corporate control of the seed supply threatens
farmers' independence. The risk of genetic drift has made it difficult and expensive for farmers to market a pure product. Genetic engineering has created social and economic disruption that threatens traditional agricultural practices for farmers around the world. Farmers, who have
maintained the consumer's trust by producing safe, reasonably priced and nutritious food, now fear losing that trust as a result of consumer rejection of genetically engineered foods. Many scientists believe
genetically engineered organisms have been released into the environment and the food supply without adequate testing. Farmers who have used this new technology may be facing massive liability from damage caused by genetic drift, increased weed and pest resistance, and the destruction of wildlife and beneficial insects.
Because of all the unknowns, we, as farmers, therefore:
1. Demand a suspension of all further environmental releases and government approvals of genetically engineered seeds and agriculture products.
2. Demand an immediate, independent and comprehensive assessment of the
social, environmental, health and economic impacts of genetically engineered seeds and agricultural products.
3. Demand a ban on the ownership of all forms of life including a ban on the patenting of seeds, plants, animals, genes and cell lines.
4. Demand that agrarian people who have cultivated and nurtured crops for thousands of years retain control of natural resources and maintain the right to use or reuse any genetic resource.
5. Demand that corporate agribusiness be held liable for any and all damages that result from the use of genetically engineered crops and livestock that were approved for use without an adequate assessment of the risks posed to farmers, human health and the environment.
6. Demand that the corporations and institutions that have intervened in the genetic integrity of life bear the burden of proof that their actions will not harm human health, the environment or damage the social and economic health of rural communities. Those corporations must bear the cost of an independent review guided by the precautionary principle and conducted prior to the introduction of any new intervention.
7. Demand that consumers in the U.S. and around the globe have the right to know whether their food is genetically engineered and have a right to access naturally produced food.
8. Demand that farmers who reject genetic engineering should not bear the cost of establishing that their product is free of genetic engineering.
9. Demand the protection of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and the environment by ending monopoly practices of corporate agribusiness through enforcement of all state and federal anti-trust, market
concentration and corporate farming laws; by a renewed commitment to public interest agricultural research led by the land grant colleges; by an immediate shift of funding from genetic engineering to sustainable
agriculture; and by expanding the availability of traditional varieties of
crops and livestock.
10. Demand an end to mandatory check off programs that use farmers' money to support and promote genetic engineering research and corporate control of agriculture.
What many farmers have found about genetic engineering:
Genetically engineered agricultural products were released on the market
without a fair and open process to assess the risks on human health and the
environment or the social and economic risks to farmers and rural communities.
Family farmers' livelihoods and independence will be further compromised
by genetic engineering. Genetic engineering empowers corporate agribusiness to accelerate capital and chemical intensive agriculture at the expense of family farmers and rural communities around the world, increases corporate concentration in agriculture, and poses unknown risks to the safety and security of the food supply.
Genetic engineering disrupts traditional agricultural practices creating social upheaval in rural communities and threatening agrarian cultures throughout the world.
Consumers worldwide are rejecting genetically engineered foods, driving
down farm prices. This will force significant numbers of family farmers out
of business.
Family farmers have been unfairly forced to assume liability for genetically engineered products that were not adequately tested before being released into the environment and food supply.
The corporate ownership of genetic resources and the corporate use of
genetic engineering in agriculture is not designed to solve the problems farmers face in agriculture such as increased weed resistance, growing staple crops on marginal land, or making traditionally bred crops available to farmers worldwide, but rather to enrich corporations.
Genetically engineered seeds increase costs to farmers, have failed to perform as promised by corporate agribusiness, and, in some cases, yields have been lower and crops engineered to be herbicide tolerant have required increased use of herbicides manufactured by the corporations that market
the seeds.
The "terminator" gene, which renders corporate seeds sterile and was developed with USDA resources, is an unconscionable technology because it destroys life and destroys the right of farmers worldwide to save seeds, a basic step necessary to protect food security and biodiversity.
Genetic engineering*: Genetic engineering involves taking a gene from one species and splicing it into another to transfer a desired trait. This could not occur in nature where the transfer of genetic traits is limited by the natural barriers that exist between different species and in this
way genetic engineering is completely new and incomparable to traditional animal and plant breeding techniques. Genetic engineering is also called biotechnology. Another name for genetically engineered crops is genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
(*Reference: Genetic Engineering, Food and our Environment by Luke
Anderson, Chelsea Green Publishing Co., White River Junction, Vermont).
ENDORSERS OF THE FARMERS' DECLARATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
<http://www.acga.org/>American Corn Growers Association
California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
<http://www.citact.org/>Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana (CAC)
Dakota Resource Council (ND)
Empire State Family Farm Alliance
Family Farm Defenders
Federation of Southern Cooperatives
Illinois Stewardship Alliance
Indiana Citizen Action Coalition
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Land Loss Prevention Project (NC)
Land Stewardship Project (MN)
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
Minnesota COACT
The Minnesota Project
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture
National Catholic Rural Life Conference
National Family Farm Coalition
Northeast Organic Farming Association (VT)
North American Farm Alliance (OH)
Northern Plains Resource Council (MT)
Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Assocation
<http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2777/>Ohio Family Farm Coalition
Organic Growers of Michigan
Rural Advancement Foundation International - USA
Rural Coalition
Rural Vermont
Sustainable Cotton Project
Western Colorado Congress
Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Women, Food and Agriculture
posted on May 21, 2003 08:53:22 PM new
oh yeah the environment. Like the endagered megatella rat that held up 6 million dollars worth of buiding contracts and jobs for months because "the rat" was on the endangered species list? Oil comes down the Alaska pipeline everyday and the environment there seems to be just fine. I guess we should just drill on other peoples useless piles of sand? When they put the saw to the Redwood trees then its time for an all out rebellion. I really don't think that is going to happen. Its just more alarmist liberal left wing hysteria ---who also probably generate more garbage in a week than a normal joe in a month. Like Mr. Kennedy who rides around in his personal JET lecturing everyone why SUVS are bad for the environment and deplete natural resources. Never mind he is using the fuel of a 100 suvs for one lecture. When he is driving a neon to lecture I'll listen.
posted on May 21, 2003 09:01:37 PM new
Genetically altered food? another wacko obession. I could care less. I highly doubt anyone is going to make food to kill us. That would be a bit counterproductive.
Its more unbearable to see a mother have to walk away from the pharmacy because her baby's medicine cost TWOOOO HUNDRED FRIGGIN DOLLARS! for 6 pills.
That genetic obesso food stuff is more patchouli stinking hippy speak from a bunch of dead heads in seattle with rich parents.
posted on May 21, 2003 09:22:10 PM new
Since when do we not move technology forward because of all the "unknowns" ?
You can never test for every contingency, and the transgenic items have shown no adverse effects.
These same "concerned" scientists are the ones that sign petitions against global warming without any credible evidence of its cause or evidence that we are really in a warming trend. They have yet to explain all the historic warming and cooling trends that happened long before humans burned any fossil fuels.
If you want to see scientific logic and how science actually works, read Sir Karl Popper's works on the philosophy of science. What most of these alarmist "scientists" are claiming is neither true nor science.
posted on May 21, 2003 11:17:40 PM new
"Ecology" is a buzzword that attracts an incredibly stupid selection of people. You have to realize most of the hysterics come from people who know nothing about something but flock to the flag of noted "experts" who say things that sound good to their ear.
These are the people that lobby and besiege Congress to MANDATE that Exxon steam clean certain areas after the Valdez spill thereby creating more damage than any oil spill ever could.
These are the people who demand that Congess force people to buy electric cars. Where are you going to charge them??? Why, build more coal-fired power plants of course (nukes are a big no-no). I'd much rather live by a nuclear power plant than the smokestack of a coal plant.
These are the people that lobby for NEW cars to be made ever cleaner even after hundreds of studies show 10% of cars generate 85% of the pollution and billions are squandered seeing to it that your new 2004 is 1.5% cleaner than your 2003.
posted on May 22, 2003 04:10:18 AM new
Life will go on.
For the better I believe. I love a good clean environment but think some of this crap has been taken too far.
I want the Oil we may have in the North. I think the cutting of some old timber to thin out the forest is a good and sound idea. Forest fires will do the same thing and are much more dangerous.
posted on May 22, 2003 07:51:17 AM new
orleansgallery, welcome to the boards. New right ID?
The first on the list is the American Corn Growers Assoc. Do you actually think these guys are a bunch of wackos or environmentalists for that matter? Please. Don't you think they have had numerous meetings with Todd Whitman?
Don't you wonder why a group of farmers like the corn growers would sign a paper like this? What did they find out that isn't in the US newspapers or on network/cable entertainment news? If Monsanto strong-armed one TV station, how many others got the same treatment.
Our government or medical establishments do NOT test GE foods. The producing company's word is taken that they did not use
any highly allergic substances. If you are allergic to a substance that is used, but others are not, you could face real problems.
Do you think a company who made Agent Orange cares more for the bottom line or safe food?
To save the company's expensive research from competitors, they do not have to disclose what was used in the manipulation process. If you file an FOI request you will find sentences crossed out.
It is nice Reamond that you know "transgenic items have shown no adverse effects." I would like to know on what you base that conclusion? If you speak to anyone in government agencies, the USDA, FDA, NIH or even the companies themselves, they cannot come up with that conclusion. How did you?
I know many more people who are allergic or just plain sicker now than 20 years ago, don't you? We are not just talking staple foods like corn, but transgenically manipulated ingredients/additives used to make packaged foods and transgenic additions to products like vitamins. Many of those ingredients were used for years before the staples hit the markets from what I understand.
posted on May 22, 2003 10:14:41 AM newIt is nice Reamond that you know "transgenic items have shown no adverse effects." I would like to know on what you base that conclusion? If you speak to anyone in government agencies, the USDA, FDA, NIH or even the companies themselves, they cannot come up with that conclusion. How did you?
Everyone has come to the same conclusion as I stated. There is no recorded adverse effects from the transgenic corn. It has been around for years.
The first on the list is the American Corn Growers Assoc. Do you actually think these guys are a bunch of wackos or environmentalists for that matter?
They may not be whacko, but they do have an economic stake in the transgentic corn never reaching the market. The corps that developed the corn have a patent on the genetic structure and there-by have total control of its cultivation. A corn grower can be sued and have his crop taken if he were to save some of his harvest for next years seed crop. The patent owners can also test harvested corn and if the genetics are their patent and the farmer didn't buy seed, the crop can be confiscated.
These farmers are using alarmist rhetoric about non-existent health concerns to keep these new patented varieties from taking over the market.
The producing company's word is taken that they did not use any highly allergic substances
If the process for producing the product is patented, it can easily be found at the patent office, the same applies for the patent for genetic make-up of the product.
It is a specious and untrue argument to say that the patented processes and genetic designs aren't available to anyone who wants to look up the patent.
It is also impossible to produce products for the mass market that will not have an allegeric effect on someone, somewhere.
posted on May 22, 2003 10:45:30 AM new
I don't know how this discussion got derailed into a discussion of genetically altered food, but the fact is that we are busily destroying this environment and we're all going to suffer for it.
The question is not "people vs. enviroment." It's "irresponsibility vs. the environment and the people."
Just a few examples of the impact irresponsibility has had on "we the people:"
People love to mock Al Gore as "ozone man." But - car emissions, CFCs and other contaminants (all of which had cheaper alternatives available long before they came into use) have caused the ozone layer to thin and the rate of skin cancer to soar. When I was a little girl, I could stay outside for hours. My 8-year-old niece, who has the same olive skin as I, burns inside of two hours without sunscreen. That's a people thing - the many suffering for the profits of the few.
LindaK talks about the needs of farmers to irrigate rather than save "some fish." In many cases, farm irrigation (and discharge) has been so poorly managed that it causes disaster. A few examples that hit very close to home for me: The Everglades. Lake Apopka, which was turned into a chemical swamp (and forced all the nearby homeowners to switch from wells to central water systems.) Ever heard of sinkholes? You know what causes them? Overpumping - usually agricultural. Talk about your property rights -- what about the right not to see your house, car and everything you own disappear into a hole in the ground? Once again, it's people bearing the cost of environmental havoc.
Do you know why so many people in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina can't afford property insurance? They're being forced to subsidize the risk of people who build on hurricane-prone beaches, get wiped out, and rebuild right in the same place. Do you know why many of the country's most famous beaches are disappearing? Erosion caused by shore anchoring (to protect private homes and condos) and the overshadowing effect of high-rise buildings along the beach. And who's bearing the cost? People.
I see bumper stickers from time to time: "Welcome to Florida, where manatees are more protected than school children." That's an example of the kind of mentality we're dealing with. People who can't understand that Florida's waterways have become dangerous high-speed highways - for people as well as manatees. That boat propellers from the tens of thousands of new boat registrations every year are chewing up river-grass beds that are the spawning grounds for this state's multi-BILLION dollar sport fishing industry. That the manatees themselves are responsible for millions of dollars' worth of tourism dollars every year - money that translates into local jobs.
People suffer when the environment is disrespected. It's not some intangible "don't you want your kid to see a manatee" kind of suffering, either. It's the kind that shows up in lost income, ruined wells, sickly babies, noxious stenches, contaminated soil, an ever-climbing allergy rate, smog in the air, and cancer of a thousand different types.
Mother Nature fights back, you see. And that's something the Bushies would rather forget.
posted on May 22, 2003 12:59:31 PM new
Sorry. I didn't mean to derail.
I thought the thread was about Christy Todd Whitman, who was in charge of the pesticides used on the only planet we can live on so far.
Someone on TALK OF THE NATION today said that pesticides used on seeds bioengineered to stay alive with Round-up or other pesticides used are not using LESS of it,
just a different brand. Her office is responsible.
msincognito, I don't know if you were here last year when someone's child died from a bacterial infection of the brain (something like that) from splashing in the water in a Florida lake/pond. The authorities said it was rare, but it turned out there were quite a few small children dying each year in warm water ponds. If I remember correctly they thought it due to run-off from factory farms in the area.
Edited because it is warm water ponds, not problems.
Aposter, I remember that you posted some very interesting links to information about that tragedy in this thread. The boy died of meningoencephalitis after swimming in a fresh water pond.
posted on May 22, 2003 01:47:48 PM new
"Derailed" probably isn't the right word. "Restricted" would probably be better. EPA only covers pesticides when they are spilled or otherwise illegally used, not when they are used "as approved" by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Secretary Ann Veneman, and ain't she a peach.) (NOT.)
I'm not happy about the way biotech is exploding, but that's just one facet of what's going on and a tough one for people to grasp. I do remember the deaths (one occured very near my former residence) and you're right, that's one more example of what we're doing to our environment.
[ edited by msincognito on May 22, 2003 01:50 PM ]
Funny I've never met anyone, religious or not, who doesn't care about our environment. It's the degree that some want to take it to that's the issue.