Maui GMO protest

[PaulW]

"Head of FDA is named Michael R Taylor"

"Michael R. Taylor is the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

This is some new and unique meaning of the word "Head".

[Obie]

"You might want to check facts before running your gums."
You might want to practice what you preach !

This is the head of the FDA.

Margaret A. Hamburg became the 21st commissioner of food and drugs on May 18, 2009. The second woman to be nominated for this position, she is an experienced medical doctor, scientist, and public health executive.

As the top official of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Hamburg is committed to strengthening programs and policies that enable the agency to carry out its mission to protect and promote the public health.

[Bullwinkle]

.........As analytical instrumentation increased in power and more and more agents were found to be carcinogenic at very low levels, the agencies had developed a quantitative risk assessment approach to interpreting the Delaney Clause, which stated that if a carcinogen was present at levels less than 1 in 1,000,000 parts, the risk of that carcinogen was "de minimis" and it could be allowed on the market.[5] In the article, Taylor presented arguments in favor of this approach. Advocates in favor of organic food have criticized Taylor for taking this stance and have attributed the stance not to a good faith effort to reasonably regulate, but to an alleged desire to benefit Monsanto financially.[6]

On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid-1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations...

[robguz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullwinkle

So.... what I am reading, is that according to many members of Punaweb ... The reason GMO cant marked as to containing GMO -

Is because the manufacturers are unclear what batches ingredients they have included in the product as well of not knowing the source of the ingredient

heaven help us if any one ingredient is ever tainted..... quite an indictment of the US food industry....

Im not buying - grin I think its just more parroted Koch Bros. drivel

---

You're conveniently ignoring the more compelling argument that there is no legitimate reason to and that there are literally hundreds of other legitimate potential health hazards that have actual evidence supporting them and we don't label for any of them.

If a sizable but grossly uninformed anti-science group strongly believed that certain types of food should be labeled because a demon might jump out of the package and eat your brains that would be no reason to institute such a labeling requirement. The paranoid GMO health fears are basically equivalent.

[Bullwinkle]

one argument at time please - are we done with "the we cant track the ingredients" dodge and now we are back to the "no proven harm " dodge

which is it?

[Obie]

So why do keep posting misleading and outright ridiculous statements?You copied and pasted part of a statement about Michael Taylor that paints a wrong picture.

Here is the rest of the story

In 1999, a lawsuit (Alliance For Bio-Integrity v. Shalala) and GAO report revealed considerable disagreement within the FDA concerning decisions about biotechnology products made during Taylor's tenure there. The lawsuit and report also revealed that Mr. Taylor had recused himself from matters related to Monsanto’s BGH and had “never sought to influence the thrust or content” of the agency’s policies on Monsanto’s products.

Do you know the meaning of recused ?

[Bullwinkle]

I know a fair factual argument - GMO has not been

Re: your comments - footnotes please and we can expand on the point

tea party "facts" wont cut it - foot notes - peer reviewed studies that GMO is safe - or not - standing by

one at a time please.... helps keep the points clear - thx

we all done with the "we cant keep track of the ingredients" argument? (pretty weak argument and counter to modern manufacturing methods)

all agreed? If so, good lets move on.... to safety studies

looking forward to Manana

[Obie]

Let's turn the argument around and have you do the same.Scientific peer reviewed studies that GMO's are unsafe.

Got Any ?

So far you have quoted Jeffery Smith as your expert.Sorry I am not going to believe a dance instructor who thinks he can fly !!!

[Guest]

Michael Taylor, is in charge of FOODS. We are talking FOODS now arent we ? Taylor started off as a partner at the law firm that represented Monsanto on GBH issues (artificial growth hormones that make cows give more milk).
Then, as the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, he wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines – the ones that insisted there was no difference between rGBH and regular milk.
He also deleted references to problems with GMO foods, over the objection of staff scientists.

Margaret is head of FDA as it pertains to ALL. Including DRUGS.

With that being said, look at the list of former Monsanto members that are part of the government, and you wont question why the FDA and other sources wont say its bad and wont label.


There are almost 20 former Monsanto members CURRENTLY in government.

[Bullwinkle]

No long term peer reviewed studies were ever done by the FDA- neither one of us having access to the truth

everything else regarding outcome established being conjecture - imho

Links to "real" credible US based peer review GMO studies? - dont exist