Author Topic: Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched "GMOs-Feed-The-World" to an Audience of Experts--Oops  (Read 576 times)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He described the USDA's plans to improve school nutrition, support local food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for only one more question, I was handed the microphone.

"Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?"

He said yes.

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don't actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.

"When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual friends--I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our governor--assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I'm wondering, have you ever heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs? And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they've been put onto the market long before the science is ready, and it's time to put it back into the laboratory until they've done their homework."


The room erupted into the loudest applause of the morning.

Secretary Vilsack knew at once what kind of crowd he was dealing with. Or so I thought.

He said he was willing to visit with folks, to read studies, to learn as much as he possibly can. He pointed out that there are lots of studies, not necessarily consistent, even conflicting. He said he was in the process of working on a set of regulations and had brought proponents and opponents together to search for common ground. And he was looking to create a regulatory system with sufficient assurances and protections.

At this point in his answer, Secretary Vilsack, who has a history of favoring GMOs--and even appears to be more pro-GMO than his Bush administration predecessors--was trying to sound even handed. Then he made a tragic mistake.

After a slight pause, he added in a warm tone, "I will tell you that the world is very concerned about the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people."



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/vilsack-mistakenly-pitche_b_319998.html

Signifying Monkey

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
Oopsie

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He described the USDA's plans to improve school nutrition, support local food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for only one more question, I was handed the microphone.

"Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?"

He said yes.

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don't actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.

"When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual friends--I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our governor--assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I'm wondering, have you ever heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs? And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they've been put onto the market long before the science is ready, and it's time to put it back into the laboratory until they've done their homework."


The room erupted into the loudest applause of the morning.

Secretary Vilsack knew at once what kind of crowd he was dealing with. Or so I thought.

He said he was willing to visit with folks, to read studies, to learn as much as he possibly can. He pointed out that there are lots of studies, not necessarily consistent, even conflicting. He said he was in the process of working on a set of regulations and had brought proponents and opponents together to search for common ground. And he was looking to create a regulatory system with sufficient assurances and protections.

At this point in his answer, Secretary Vilsack, who has a history of favoring GMOs--and even appears to be more pro-GMO than his Bush administration predecessors--was trying to sound even handed. Then he made a tragic mistake.

After a slight pause, he added in a warm tone, "I will tell you that the world is very concerned about the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people."



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/vilsack-mistakenly-pitche_b_319998.html

This JARGON of "people are saying", "I was told by", "I heard from" "the world is concerned about" is what politicians use to try and push their points. Here in a room full of experts this guy has the affrontery to say "the world is very concerned about the ever growing population and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people" as though the people he is addressing are NOT those very people who are not only concerned about feeding the world, but concerned about using these DANGEROUS seeds being developed and used to accomplish the task. These politicians are putting the health of the world behind the desire to make money adn above all CONTROL the production adn amount of food in the world. What health ramifications are their to eating this modified food? mice, rates, bees etc have all died or suffered severe health effects form being fed ths stuff, so what makes these scientists, politicians, companieslike Monsanto think the same will not happen to the people? I guess witht he goal of eliminating people and making money in their hearts ...they really don't give a damn
C

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
there was a documentary I seen a while ago from BBC series horizon. I'm not for GM foods at all. But he does bring some valid questions to the table. Whats the best route to take because genetic engineering is here to stay. right?

some clips from the show in the link.

Can GM save the world?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7745726.stm

Torrent : http://www.mininova.org/tor/2044105

Rapidshare:

Code: [Select]
http://rapidshare.com/files/267493140/Jimmys.GM.Food.Fight.joeschatterbox.org.avi.001
http://rapidshare.com/files/267493718/Jimmys.GM.Food.Fight.joeschatterbox.org.avi.002
http://rapidshare.com/files/267493253/Jimmys.GM.Food.Fight.joeschatterbox.org.avi.003




MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
total agreement here.

Quote
Although I've seen no evidence that eating GM crops is bad for you I do believe that you should have the choice to avoid GM if you want to

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Don't think GM should be considered "here to stay"  I'd be happy with an international treaty with everyone signing a ban.  Not with any international policing, just a treaty.  easy enough to test and boycott nations in violation and any nation not signing obviously wouldn't be able to export their foods.  GM sucks ass and should be illegal and please, nobody try to tell me that it's the same as breeding for traits, it's absolutely not.