"We Need Gov't To Insure The Public Good!"

wkmac

Well-Known Member
I always wonder how far those who make such statements really drill down into gov't to see the reality beyond the surface illusions?

Here's just a tip of the iceberg of what they will find. Regulatory capture at it's best!

Thus begs the question, is regulation about protecting the public interest or is it about protecting the corp/cartel interest?


think.jpg
think.jpg
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Hubby brought home organic mini carrots by mistake. I like mini carrots steamed & buttered. They were awful!! Different taste, different texture....hated them. I don't buy anything organic.

Some people I know that work in the food business say organic is the worst as far as food safety is concerned.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Hubby brought home organic mini carrots by mistake. I like mini carrots steamed & buttered. They were awful!! Different taste, different texture....hated them. I don't buy anything organic.

Some people I know that work in the food business say organic is the worst as far as food safety is concerned.

No doubt about that ... in the short term.

In the long run which is better is in doubt.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Since you like films, google "The World According to Monsanto"

Good film and check out Food Inc too.

I've been doing hydroponics (working a nice lettuce crop now) and I'm hooked into a seed co-op and Monsanto is really turning up the heat on this approach. Even Whole Foods is caving to Monsanto.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
So the contradictions continue:

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the friend.D.A.'s job" - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.


"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" - FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229


"What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain" - Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise.

"People will have Roundup Ready soya whether they like it or not" - Ann Foster, spokesperson for Monsanto in Britian, as quoted in The Nation magazine from article "The Politics of Food" [49] by Maria Margaronis December 27, 1999 issue.

"'It's important for countries around the world to adopt a uniform standard' of acceptable levels of contamination" - Biotechnology Industry Association's Lisa Dry [50]

"I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle" - Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, "The Spirit of Enterprise", 1934.

In the movie Inside Job, one person interviewed says the current U.S. government is now a “Wall Street government” because of the revolving door between the financial services industry and those that regulate the industry. This means that those in power are on the side of Wall Street. The same can be said for Monsanto, which is really a chemical company. Key figures in the regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have, according to Rense.com, “held important positions at Monsanto” before working in those regulatory bodies or have held them “after their biotech related regulatory work for the government agency.” As a result, the government has become one with Monsanto in terms of favorable policy. The reason for this collusion was hinted at in Clifford D. Corner’s book, A People’s History of Science. Corner pointed out that government is often in collusion with those they are regulating.

It's a Monsanto Government

So we got change in Jan. 2009'? Think again cupcake!

It is a terrible scam on the American people that the man responsible for one of the biggest food safety loopholes in the history of Food & Drug Administration regulation is our so-called Food Safety Czar.

Michael Taylor, a lawyer who lobbied regulators on behalf of Monsanto before and after working as a regulator at the FDA, is responsible for the legal fiction -- and the official US regulatory policy -- that, if genetically engineered food is substantially equivalent to normal food in composition, there is no need to safety test or label it. This is the loophole that has prevented regulators and government scientists from investigating the truth about the harms of genetic engineering. This loophole has made it impossible for government regulators to reject new GMOs, and it that has made sure consumers don't know what they're eating. Today, even with almost all processed foods containing genetically engineered ingredients (made from corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, or sugar beets, or milk, meat or eggs from animals given GMO feed or growth hormones), only one quarter of the public believes that they've ever eaten GMOs.

Michael Taylor created this loophole to force the first genetically modified organism (GMO) into our food supply.

Why Obama Must Drop Michael Taylor


Nothing like the illusion of regulatory oversight when the real game is regulatory capture and competition control!

“Regulatory capture” has long played an
important role in efforts to explain alleged
regulatory failure. Suggesting that one interest
group among many in a field contesting for
recognition of their disparate interests has seized
control of the umpires, such that the game is no
longer taking place on a level playing field, or that
regulatory systems are even created by a strong
interest group in order to stifle competition,
capture is used by proponents of both regulation
and deregulation to make their case. In a world of
giant financial institutions, powerful chief
executives, and huge bonuses despite poor
financial performance, it seems that capture is to
blame, one way or the other. For those in favour
of more regulation, the industry’s ability to
influence regulators must be curbed. For those in
favour of less regulation, one of the reasons for
reducing regulatory influence is to prevent
favoritism by captured regulators.
 
Top