USDA Wants Genetic Engineering Allowed in Organic

“A recent USDA report is attempting to make the case for “organic genetically engineering” is part of a well-funded campaign coordinated by Monsanto and their governmental, corporate, and non-profit partners to legitimize a dangerous and untested technology. This is a campaign to impoverish farmers by making them dependent on expensive genetically modified seeds and the array of chemicals needed to grow them. It is also making guinea pigs of consumers who are being force-fed unlabeled genetically modified foods…”
– Organic Consumer’s Association, read more here

Whats weird about this is that I had a dream that the gov’t was going to try and get GM crops under the organic label. Its pretty logical when you look at it from a business standpoint and since the gov’t doesn’t care to regulate the labeling of products that contain GM ingredients, this was the obvious next step.

So the real question is, now what?

According to the USDA report thats trying to change the Organic label, organics is really a movement based on ideology, not science. I find that especially ludicrous considering the fact that they’re using the American public as guinea pigs for a sciene experiment that we haven’t even seen the results of.

Did you know that for some GM crops, in order to change their genetic structure they have to weaken the cell wall by infecting it with Ecoli bacteria (and now you’re going to eat this)??

Yeah, what AWESOME science. Thank goddess, for SCIENCE and not our silly ideologies that say its not right to use people as guinea pigs WITHOUT their knowledge.

The government is put in place with a set of ideals (called the constitution). We, as Americans, supposedly put people in power to PROTECT our rights. The Constitution is not based on fact or science. Its based on what people think is right. I know that is a little redundant, but how is it ok for a gov’t entity to decide all of a sudden that now, after being put in place to protect our rights and ideals as a country that its going to base its decisions on science and profit? WTF?

“The scientific community consistently responds that biotechnology has not created new ills for humanity or the environment.”

Actually, the biggest problem with GM crops and the conventional food industry in general is the lack of biodiversity. THAT is a HUGE problem with GM.

The commission reported that the primary difference between conventional plant breeding and biotechnology is the higher precision inherent in the latter. The National Research Council argues that the accuracy with which plant biotechnologists alter a plant’s genes makes the process even safer than conventional breeding.

Not true, in the documentary The Future of Food (if you haven’t watched this you need to!), they had scientists talking about the dangers of how cells can just reorganize and evolve without the control of their creators. It’s evolution people.

How Gene-Splicing is Radically Different fromConventional
Agriculture–Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union

This is wrong. This is a violation of basic human rights.

Take action and join the Millions Against Monsanto Campaign with the OCA

4 thoughts on “USDA Wants Genetic Engineering Allowed in Organic”

  1. “The scientific community consistently responds that biotechnology has not created new ills for humanity or the environment.”

    Um, ok, lets remember the L tryptothan fuck up in 1989 when a large outbreak (1,500 cases of permanent disability including at least thirty-seven deaths) of a disabling autoimmune illness called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS). This amino acid is wonderful in its natural form however, the Showa Denko facility used genetically engineered bacteria (The industrial production of tryptophan is also biosynthetic and is based on the fermentation of serine and indole using either wild-type or genetically modified E. coli.) to produce L-tryptophan gave rise to “speculation” that genetic engineering was responsible.

    But hey, let’s not get all geeky with the details when we can just remember the good old days when American biotechnologists just gave us the simple things in life, like biological warfare
    .deliberate poisoning of food and water with infectious material,
    .use of microorganisms or toxins in a weapon system
    .use of biologically inoculated fabrics

    The Iraqi biological weapons program demonstrated interest in the possibilities of altered E. coli bacteria as a biological agent, and it was shipments of E. coli was shipped to Iraq from the United States.
    That’s right, our biotechnologists supplied Saddam with the shit he used on his own people.
    (We knew he had weapons of mass destruction because we sent them to him. Can’t go finding bad shit with your name all over it now can you? )

    All this techno talk is making me hungry. Gotta go, eat some GMO!

  2. I can’t but agree with dear Hawk!
    Technological improvements (including biotechnological “improvements”) are NOT necessarily improvements for mankind but more certainly improvements for the yearly accounts of Monsanto and the likes.

  3. Even if it’s true (which actually I think it is in the case of GMO crops) that there aren’t any documented cases of illness or other harm, the argument that something must be safe just because it hasn’t created any problems yet is hardly convincing. It’s disappointing that there are still scientists with that much hubris after the experiences of the 20th century. And I’m a scientist! The fact (for instance) that starlink corn was accidentally and irrevocably introduced into the human food supply should be no less disturbing just because it was eventually certified for human consumption by the USDA. These are one way decisions, which once made are very difficult if not impossible to unmake.

    A few great, thoughtful talks on the subject, if you’ve got the time and inclination to watch: Michael Pollan on Deep Agriculture, pitching a very cautious approach to our food systems, which I think is appropriate. (I posted my thoughts over here

    And at the other end of the spectrum, Drew Endy and Jim Thomas Debate Synthetic Biology, and Craig Venter on Directing Evolution, talking about the future of GMOs, i.e. completely engineered organisms (my thoughts).

    And I have to say, I love your combination of a sex-positive naturism and vegetable gardening!

  4. Hmmm interesting topic and sorry to comment so late.
    Actually GMO arent new, not new at all. We (humanity) started making those roughly when we started farming. Selecting the biggest and strongest crops for bigger yields ending up with all soprts of grains from grass.

    Another example : potatos. The original potato made huams sick and ill due to its natural poison for protection against being eaten. However selecting the ones which made you less ill and crossmatching those lead to potatos which are edible and healthy.

    The all sorts of flowers (and what about pets) and other crops that exhist due to human GMO activities.

    Whether the increased technological capabilities and speed is a good or bad thing is debatable, i cant know for sure due to lack of information and i think only time will tell.

    However one thing that needs to be inproved (a bad thing for sure, partly, but not fully at all linked to GMO issues) is the monoculture in agriculture these days, same crops species selected for production speed and quantity. Forgetting that variety in agriculture is part of its strength (some plants for a natural inhibitors for pests. Also killing off pests with pesticides and killing their natural enemies along with it (even more thoroughly).

    To my opinion we need to go back to small scale local, organic farming. Less meat consumption and less corruption of global (affextion developing countries big time) economy by dumping our excess foods with reduced pricesm f**&*king up local developing markets (and not to mention nature).

    So far from me

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *