Tom Usher wrote or added | There is no doubt that products on the market that are the result of so-called hi-tech genetic engineering, such as recombinant DNA technology and gene splicing and the like, should be clearly labeled as such.
It amazes me the stupidity of many people in "high" places. The vast majority of them put full stock in the theory of evolution. Their own science tells them that gene mutations have been occurring in the flesh since the beginning of such and that the mutation process has resulted in speciation (entities that cannot inter breed by natural sexual-intercourse).
To the point about evolution and GMO's (genetically modified organisms) especially served up as "food" for humanity and other creatures, the evolutionary process has, according to vaunted science, had literally millions and billions of years to work out what worked best up to the point of the human introduction of GMO's. What humans could and should eat was worked out by Darwinian natural selection. If something wasn't healthy to eat, it made people sick and they died and were not capable of reproducing. Those who avoided the bad material survived to pass on their superior makeup (genes) concerning this aspect. In addition of course, the human mind became capable of making the connection between what was bad as food and the sickness and death and could pass on that knowledge by teaching. Other species do this as well but where instinct leaves off and self-awareness, as we understand it about ourselves as humans, picks up is something we don't fully know.
Suddenly though with the advent of GMO's introduced into the food chain, the wisdom of the hand of natural selection is thrown aside for the rashness of capitalistic greed. The moneyed interests have funded the corporations bent upon cornering the market with GMO's. Unless stopped, they will corner the market via patents and secrets undercutting natural and organic products. They will literally ruin nature.
It is morally stupid and should be illegal that food ingredients and processes concerning foods placed on shelves where the producers are not known to the consumers to be trustworthy should be considered proprietary secrets. The right of the people to be safe in their food trumps or supersedes the competing right of any capitalist to protect his or her ingredients or processes at any level. This is true for the simple reason that it is a matter of life or death for every consumer whereas the producer has options such as that proprietary ingredients and processes can be made public but subject to licensing agreements.
As a Christian, I find the greed and selfishness inherent in the competitive rather than cooperative system abhorrent; but I believe that given that abhorrent system, it is still my obligation to explain what is better. I would rather that the whole of humanity move to doing only what is best for everyone in the long term rather than for some in the short term that leads to collapse. Why people haven't turned to unselfish reasoning and action is what separates us both spiritually and mundanely.
The whole New World Order "food" system throws caution to the wind for the sake of stock-price rises. This is not the way to be properly organized as the human species.
The regulators at the FDA are the product of the revolving door to the very corporations they supposedly regulate. This is bad, corrupt, crony capitalist government that must be stopped and corrected. The same applies in all sectors, especially banking, where the regulators are the private bankers themselves actually currently controlling the whole government and all corporations by controlling the currency.
As a brief aside before continuing, let me explain in this one paragraph and as a Christian that Old-Earth Creationists do not subscribe to what is called the literal interpretation of the very beginning of the Book of Genesis. They openly believe that the scriptures are loaded with both literal and figurative language. Their spiritual belief system can encompass what is termed modern science, that is experimentation or testing to arrive at what is possible, albeit only within non-spiritual confines.
Organic Consumers Association July 5 at 7:50am Report:
The FDA is looking at what might be the first genetically engineered animal to hit our dinner plates: salmon that can grow at twice the normal rate.
The FDA reviews genetically engineered animals in a secret process that protects what they consider the company's proprietary information, so we don't know what they're learning about genetically engineered salmon.
But, if the FDA looked at the science reviewed by an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada, they would see that genetically engineered fish commonly suffer deformities that effect just about everything about them: the way they look, their ability to breathe and move through the water, their enzyme activity, their behavior and their hormones.
This is not normal salmon.
Don't let Obama's Food & Drug Administration approve genetically engineered salmon! Click here to take action:
If the FDA decides to approve this Franken-Salmon, they might have to require it to be labeled as a genetically modified organism.
Of course, as a Monsanto subsidiary admitted sixteen years ago, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Ever wonder how Monsanto's executives figure out what to feed their kids? The following quote, taken directly from Monsanto's Web site, shows that Monsanto's savvy employees understand that if they want to avoid genetically engineered foods, all they have to do is buy organic:
"Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM [genetically modified] ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients. The law allows for voluntary labeling so long as the information is accurate, truthful and avoids misleading consumers about the food. Monsanto supports both options."
Of course, Monsanto's bottom line business model relies on misleading consumers, monopolizing seeds, buying off scientists and politicians, and strong-arming farmers. They're not afraid of organic, so long as certified organic crops and foods remain a small niche market.
Unfortunately Monsanto's business model seems to be working, at least in North America. The overwhelming majority of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. and Canada are Monsanto's patented GMO varieties, despite mounting evidence that these "Frankencrops" are bad for the environment and hazardous to animal and human health. While nearly everyone in North America has eaten genetically modified foods, only 26% believe that they have.
The only way to turn this around is to label genetically engineered foods, which Monsanto, of course, opposes. They understand that health and environmentally conscious consumers are increasingly becoming aware of the dangers of GMOs, and that, if given the choice through mandatory labeling, as in the European Union, they will avoid them or boycott them.
We need to help consumers defend themselves from Monsanto and the biotech bullies. The most effective way to do this is to pass a law requiring labels on genetically engineered foods. Please send a letter to your US Senators, Member of Congress and candidates for federal office, asking them to support the pending bill in the U.S. Congress, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)