Weird title isn't it. I mean yeah, it is pretty self evident that the FDA has failed miserably at what they have been tasked to do, which is protect all Americans from food borne illnesses and contaminants. So why rejoice? Well, I am sure that was completely unintentional on the part of the FDA themselves, they are just after all, a bunch of government employees. But the fact is that as part of the approval process for approving Genetically Modified Salmon, the FDA has already taken over two years to review the application. The company that applied for approval of these horrific new abominations, AquaBounty, has run out of money. They will have to declare bankruptcy in January because they don't have any new backers and no money. And with the possibility of years of FDA stalling, no new investors are likely to pony up millions of their dollars just to be told down the road that they won't approve.
So is this something that we should celebrate? No, of course not. Maybe the end result of not having these horrific creatures loose in the environment is good, but the fact that the FDA didn't just deny the application from the beginning is frightening. For more info on my opinion and facts about the salmon itself, see Salmon on my blog. I do so hope that the delays and reticence to approve these salmon will in fact stop any other companies from beginning, or if they have started, from continuing any more research into Genetically Modifying any other animals. My biggest fear is that Monsanto won't buy up all the research from the bankruptcy sale of AquaBounty and then pay off all the department heads and director of the FDA as they have done in the past and get that elusive approval. That would be scary indeed.
I don't know, I think that I am a lot like most people, back in the early 90's when the news came out about how gene tech companies were going to solve the world's problems with Genetically Modified plants that it was a good thing. How wrong we all were. In this aspect, I am like my holy roller brother, I believe that life is pretty complex. It took a billion years for life to get to where it is right now. Gene splicing is not a science, it is a hit or miss high tech game of darts. When Monsanto and other gene tech companies talk about their work, they make it sound like they know EXACTLY what they are doing and they are taking SPECIFIC genes and placing them into predetermined places within the chromosome structure of the plant that they want to alter. Well, it is all a load of CRAP! Techs have through trial and error have isolated some genes that do what they want, ie, produce a BT like toxin, grow after being sprayed with glyphosate, generate high concentrations of growth hormone, etc. They do have that part down, sort of. They load into their tiny cannon the genes they think work, add the dna of certain viruses that they have found help to turn on the new gene, and then they shoot it into the chromosomes of a seed. Then they grow that seed, and see what happens. Of the resulting new seed of a hopeful modified plant, they get about 1 (ONE) out of every 2,000 attempts, to germinate. Out of every 10,000 plants that germinate, they get 4 (FOUR) that grow into plants that somewhat resemble the plant they want. Out of those four, I have not been able to find how many of those grow into plants that don't produce toxins, allergens, are able to reproduce and are exhibiting the traits that they require. So, yeah, if Monsanto propaganda tells you they understand the science, it is a huge LIE. Let's be realistic, they don't have a clue. This is one of the reasons that I am so negative about the entire concept of Genetically Modified food now. Monsanto has NEVER done long term testing on ANY of their Genetically Modified foods. EVER! The longest feeding study Monsanto ever did was 90 days. And those studies were never included in any application to the FDA.
Ever since private research facilities have begun doing independent feeding studies on Genetically Modified foods; their findings have refuted claims from Monsanto about the safety of their money making little abominations against God, and nature. And yet, the FDA has yet to take any action. They won't. Anyone working at the FDA fully expects to join the revolving door and get to exit into HIGH, actually VERY HIGH paying jobs doing very little, at Monsanto itself, or any number of their associated companies. Pretty scary. But we all know money talks. And we, the American public, are the losers.
From your holy roller brother:
ReplyDeleteChristians and GMO food http://creation.com/hot-potatoes
Christians have generally had no problems with the idea of selective breeding to improve crops, milk output and so on—this is also a ‘manipulation of creation’, but one we would seem entitled to carry out. But that does not mean that it is always going to be the wise thing to do. All I am saying is that there is no moral/ethical/Biblical barrier, not that there are no good reasons for moving cautiously in such matters.
It has always been obvious that, just because we can do something, in the sense of technical know-how, does not mean that we should. Further, even where there is no absolute ethical barrier against something, it does not necessarily follow that we should.
It seems to me that a balanced approach would not try to force a blanket ‘for or against’ opinion on something which the Bible does not prohibit, even indirectly, but would instead look at the totality of the evidence, for and against.
And the weight of evidence might shift. It may well be that something which is unwise in one generation becomes appropriate in another. Surgery is a case in point. I can imagine how, when doctors first began to open up the human body, some well-meaning believers would have said things like: ‘We’re getting into God’s territory now…’ or ‘If He had wanted us to do that, He would have made an obvious access point…’. No doubt the horrific complication rate for some of the pioneer operations would have seemed to vindicate what now looks, with hindsight, rather naïve.
Similarly with GM crops; there may be a number of risks involved in pushing ahead in cavalier fashion at this point, and it may be true that the real motive is enrichment of large conglomerates, and not the feeding of the Third World’s hungry. But if so, perhaps future advances will change the equation.
Based upon that chart I showed you the other day unrefined foods vs heart disease certainly seems to favor the non GMO point of view. Maybe in the future if they learn more it might be what they think it is but now it certainly seems to be for profit and not for the good of mankind.