Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Anti-GM protesters kept from tearing up wheat crop by police [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)35. Nice summary of absence of consensus among FDA scientists described in 2001 legal brief at link.
http://www.purefood.org/gefood/fdasued.cfm
Legal & Scientific Critique of FDA's "No Labeling, No SafetyTesting" Policy on GE Foods
This public comment letter on the FDA's proposed regulation of GMOs is a
must read. Please pass it on to anyone interested in the GMO issue.
Druker is an attorney who filed a public interest lawsuit against the FDA
over lack of safety regulations, phony substantial equivalance and other
unfounded regulations. People need to know just how biotech foods got
regulatory approval. It's shocking!
Comments prepared by Steven M. Druker, Executive Director [Alliance for
Bio-Integrity]
2 May 2001
[Docket No. 00N-1396]
Dockets Management Branch [HFA-305]
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
To Whom It May Concern:
The Alliance for Bio-Integrity (ABI) provides the following comments
in response to the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and
Drug Administration's ("FDA" "Premarket Notice Concerning
Bioengineered Foods" 66 Fed. Reg. 4706 (January 18, 2001).
In submitting these comments, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity
incorporates by reference all documents submitted to the District
Court and the FDA (including the complaint, legal briefs, and
declarations) and all the assertions made therein, as well as the
administrative record provided by the FDA, in the case of Alliance
for Bio-Integrity, et al, v. Shalala, et al, Docket No. 98-1300 (CKK)
(filed May 27, 1998).
More specifically, ABI finds the new FDA proposal to be not only
inadequate and contrary to the best scientific knowledge, but (a)
contrary to the clear intent of U.S. law and (b) based on
misrepresentation. Further, ABI maintains that a full consideration
of the evidence makes it difficult to believe that these
misrepresentations are innocent mistakes but instead strongly
indicates they are fraudulent and are part of a calculated,
systematic endeavor to deceive Congress and the American people about
the potential health hazards of bioengineered foods (commonly
referred to as "genetically engineered" or "GE" foods). This
statement is not made lightly but is based on thorough knowledge of
the facts, and it is prompted by a belief that such behavior on the
part of the agency entrusted with assuring the safety of the nation's
food must be clearly categorized as wrong, directly confronted, and
promptly corrected.
The following paragraphs explain in detail why the FDA's behavior in
permitting the marketing of bioengineered foods is so unscientific,
unethical, and unacceptable - and why the proposed regulations must
be withdrawn and every bioengineered food withheld from the market
until proper testing has confirmed it is safe according to the
standard required by law...
Legal & Scientific Critique of FDA's "No Labeling, No SafetyTesting" Policy on GE Foods
This public comment letter on the FDA's proposed regulation of GMOs is a
must read. Please pass it on to anyone interested in the GMO issue.
Druker is an attorney who filed a public interest lawsuit against the FDA
over lack of safety regulations, phony substantial equivalance and other
unfounded regulations. People need to know just how biotech foods got
regulatory approval. It's shocking!
Comments prepared by Steven M. Druker, Executive Director [Alliance for
Bio-Integrity]
2 May 2001
[Docket No. 00N-1396]
Dockets Management Branch [HFA-305]
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
To Whom It May Concern:
The Alliance for Bio-Integrity (ABI) provides the following comments
in response to the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and
Drug Administration's ("FDA" "Premarket Notice Concerning
Bioengineered Foods" 66 Fed. Reg. 4706 (January 18, 2001).
In submitting these comments, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity
incorporates by reference all documents submitted to the District
Court and the FDA (including the complaint, legal briefs, and
declarations) and all the assertions made therein, as well as the
administrative record provided by the FDA, in the case of Alliance
for Bio-Integrity, et al, v. Shalala, et al, Docket No. 98-1300 (CKK)
(filed May 27, 1998).
More specifically, ABI finds the new FDA proposal to be not only
inadequate and contrary to the best scientific knowledge, but (a)
contrary to the clear intent of U.S. law and (b) based on
misrepresentation. Further, ABI maintains that a full consideration
of the evidence makes it difficult to believe that these
misrepresentations are innocent mistakes but instead strongly
indicates they are fraudulent and are part of a calculated,
systematic endeavor to deceive Congress and the American people about
the potential health hazards of bioengineered foods (commonly
referred to as "genetically engineered" or "GE" foods). This
statement is not made lightly but is based on thorough knowledge of
the facts, and it is prompted by a belief that such behavior on the
part of the agency entrusted with assuring the safety of the nation's
food must be clearly categorized as wrong, directly confronted, and
promptly corrected.
The following paragraphs explain in detail why the FDA's behavior in
permitting the marketing of bioengineered foods is so unscientific,
unethical, and unacceptable - and why the proposed regulations must
be withdrawn and every bioengineered food withheld from the market
until proper testing has confirmed it is safe according to the
standard required by law...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's hard to have symptathy for idiots who attack publically funded research institutes.
enki23
May 2012
#1
Plants produce all kinds of defensive chemicals. Scientists study them for effects on human health.
yellowcanine
May 2012
#49
Big business, altruism? Read this reporting, though it sounds like a fictional political thriller.
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#25
NOTE: Posts #23 and #25 refer to Dr. Arpad Pusztai's work in the UK described in post #18.
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#45
Suppression of science free of conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#18
Another grossly misleading oversimplification. Not up to speed? FORBES on the CDC here.
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#20
Correction: they could sue YOU for their pollen on your property if they own the pollen patent.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#57
Sad. "We know that their primary goal is not anybody’s food security but their own bottom line."
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#31
Again, "Unlike big companies, small-scale women farmers do NOT grab millions of acres of land
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#32
He can't have it both ways. Either help Africa or help agribusiness, but they're mutually exclusive
WriteWrong
May 2012
#43
Says enhanced to fight aphids, hence it makes its own bug spray, hence, yeah Monsanto,
bemildred
May 2012
#28
No, it makes the natural bug "ew, don't eat this" scent that 400 other plants already do.
boppers
May 2012
#29
Nice summary of absence of consensus among FDA scientists described in 2001 legal brief at link.
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#35
Fear, uncertainty, doubt? How about independent FDA scientists being overruled by bureaucrats?
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#41
Selection is a slow method to find vertical mutations, variants, and interesting gene transfers.
boppers
May 2012
#46
You really want to go there? How's the health ofAmerica's children since the introduction of gmos?
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#48
Roundup-ready crops do NOT fight weeds. They resist being poisoned by a broad-spectrum herbicide
WriteWrong
May 2012
#38
5/23/12 Press Release: American Medical Association Considers GMO Labels
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#56
"...AMA delegates decided to refer this resolution to a committee that would review recent science."
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#59