Is there not a way to hold the FDA accountable? I would love that. Time after time pharmaceutical compnaies are sued yet the very body that approved its use in the US is untouchable. Its another abuse of the Americans dollars and system. They do not have our best interest in mind, but are driven by the root of all evil.
5 Likes
The FDA is a waste. Time after time they approve drugs and foods that end up in law suits with zero accountability. They need accountability.
5 Likes
The solution to bringing these Federal Government Agencies under control is to support the Convention of States initiative at your state level. Our founding fathers anticipated this time of government overreach. Article 5 of Constitution provides a way for ‘We the People’ to come together and peacefully change the way the government operates. We cannot expect the very people in power to gracefully or voluntarily surrender that power. Congress with never vote to limit itself or its cronies. However, Congress cannot stop a Convention of States, nor can the DOJ, nor the President. If you are frustrated by the FDA and other out of control agencies, I urge you to check out COS in your state, get informed and become an advocate. We are already over halfway there.
1 Like
Perhaps the FDA, EPA, and USDA need to be untethered from their corporate chemical capture… That is a vital first step. Biden re-installed Mr. Monsanto, Tom Vilsack. He needs to go first of all…
5 Likes
Great thought and policy recommendations. I would add examining the remaining farms and who owns them, what they are producing, and making sure the majority of subsidies aren’t just going to mega corporations. Thanks for posting.
1 Like
Crop subsidies and insurance definitely need to be reassessed. Our medium-sized farms are disappearing, and they are the backbone of both local food production and an about-face on industrial ag… Thanks for your input!
3 Likes
Pesticide free , Non Gmo and dye free food should be the norm. No added fillers made from mold(citric acid,…). No harmful preservatives (such as BHT,…) Glyphosphate should be banned from our food supply.
5 Likes
GMO anything isn’t natural! Not what God intended. As the lady said, it’s poison. I try to avoid it, not good for human consumption.
6 Likes
Ban GMO foods especially SOY
5 Likes
Do you really want to keep government agencies even in this arena?
2 Likes
Suggest renaming to something like…
“free and open food market”
“Deregulate limitations on personal commerce for food.”
I over looked it twice until deciding to actually open and read it. This is a must!
1 Like
Necessary evil? Any psycho could open a food stand or truck and poison so many if they wanted without any protections in place. A double edged sword i guess. At least they will be caught and have punishments now if an inspector asked for certification.
I would say each state choose. The authority for federal government to run an agency of this type is not specifically authorized in the constitution so the 10th Ammendment applies here too.
2 Likes
I don’t think we will be erasing the USDA overnight, or the SNAP program – that will be up to Congress as we try to do what we can withing an existing system.
Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 5. The USDA sets weights and measures, I believe. It also currently supports GMO crops, which need to be looked at more closely, and perhaps not so heavily subsidized… 
Perhaps less inspection and regs for small operators.
Excellent policy! We need new regulations on slaughtering and packaging. Small producers are forced into wholesale of their livestock. They are prohibited from processing and selling their goods to the public. This limits the producers ability to maximize profits and limits their communities access to quality, wholesome meats.
5 Likes
It also guarantees cheap animals for the big middle guys and processors who have killed off small farmers and mid-sized operators for years. The PRIME Act is a good start!
3 Likes
We need to abolish or control USDA and FDA
The Electronic ear tags need to go
We need to eliminate the packers monopoly of controlling the prices
And please do NOT let Trump put Salatin in charge of the USDA
He’s a grifter and knows nothing about what other practices farmers/ranchers use. There are a lot of upset farmers because of this. We are all hoping it’s a rumor. Food prices will go up even higher with him running it. Please find someone else!!!
We The People chose Trump. Now please hear our voice!!!
4 Likes
Sorry GMO’s have to go. Unfortunately the thought of anything positive coming from the use of GMO’s is a lack of education but I’m glad someone has posted about it. This is the equivalent of dentists saying we need to continue to put fluoride in our water because it’s good for our teeth, yet its horrible for the rest of our body. And please do not think that the backing of the FDA will change any well educated individuals thoughts about GMO’s. When the FDA is controlled by the Rockefeller Foundation there is nothing healthy about anything the FDA has labeled as “healthy.” If GMO’s were “healthy” why does the FDA fight against the requirement to force corporations to label their food when they have GMO’s? Why is it I can eat an organic meal and have no side effects after the meal, yet I can eat the same meal with GMO ingredients and my body begins rejecting the meal with signs of very thick mucus in my mouth and fighting to clear this mucus from my throat for an hour or better? If it were okay to use why have other countries banned all GMO products and seeds?
Here are the 6 unexpected effects of GMO’s the FDA refuses to publish:
- Toxicity
Genetically engineered foods are inherently unstable. Each insertion of a novel gene, and the accompanying “cassette” of promoters, antibiotic marker systems and vectors, is random. GE food producers simply do not know where their genetic “cassette” is being inserted in the food, nor do they know enough about the genetic/chemical makeup of foods to establish a “safe” place for such insertions. As a result, each gene insertion into a food amounts to playing food safety “roulette,” with the companies hoping that the new genetic material does not destabilize a safe food and make it hazardous. Each genetic insertion creates the added possibility that formerly nontoxic elements in the food could become toxic.
FDA was well aware of the “genetic instability” problem prior to establishing their no-testing policy. FDA scientists warned that this problem could create dangerous toxins in food and was a significant health risk. The scientists specifically warned that the genetic engineering of foods could result in “increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, [and] increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals).” These same FDA scientists recommended that long term toxicological tests be required prior to the marketing of GE foods. FDA officials also were aware that safety testing on the first genetically engineered food, the Calgene Flavr Savr tomato, had shown that consumption of this product resulted in stomach lesions in laboratory rats.
FDA’s response to the potential toxicity problem with genetically engineered foods was to ignore it. They disregarded their own scientists, the clear scientific evidence and the deaths and illnesses already attributed to this problem. The agency refused to require pre-market toxicological testing for GE foods or any toxicity monitoring. FDA made these decisions with no scientific basis and without public notice and comment or independent scientific review. The agency’s actions can only be seen as a shameful acquiescence to industry pressure and a complete abandonment of its responsibility to assure food safety.
- Allergic Reactions
The genetic engineering of food creates two separate and serious health risks involving allergenicity. The first is that genetic engineering can transfer allergens from foods to which people know they are allergic, to foods that they think are safe. This risk is not hypothetical. A study by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that when a gene from a Brazil nut was engineered into soybeans, people allergic to nuts had serious reactions to the engineered product. At least one food, a Pioneer Hi-Bred International soybean, was abandoned because of this problem. Without labeling, people with known food allergies have no way of avoiding the potentially serious health consequences of eating GE foods containing hidden allergenic material.
There is another allergy risk associated with GE foods. These foods could be creating thousands of different and new allergic responses. Each genetic “cassette” being engineered into foods contains a number of novel proteins (in the form of altered genes, bacteria, viruses, promoters, marker systems, and vectors) which have never been part of the human diet. Each of these numerous novel proteins could create an allergic response in some consumers. The FDA was also well aware of this new and potentially massive allergenicity problem. The agency’s scientists repeatedly warned that genetic engineering could “produce a new protein allergen.”
Once again the agency’s own scientists urged long-term testing. However, the FDA again ignored its own scientists. Because these foods were allowed to be marketed without mandatory testing for this kind of allergenicity, millions of unsuspecting consumers have continuously been exposed to a potentially serious health risk. This FDA action is especially negligent in that the potential consequences of food allergies can include sudden death, and the most significantly affected population is children.
- Antibiotic Resistance
Another hidden risk of GE foods is that they could make disease-causing bacteria resistant to current antibiotics, resulting in a significant increase in the spread of infections and diseases in the human population. Virtually all genetically engineered foods contain “antibiotic resistance markers” which help the producers identify whether the new genetic material has actually been transferred into the host food. FDA’s large-scale introduction of these antibiotic marker genes into the food supply could render important antibiotics useless in fighting human diseases. For example, a genetically engineered maize plant from Novartis includes an ampicillin-resistance gene. Ampicillin is a valuable antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections in people and animals. A number of European countries, including Britain, refused to permit the Novartis Bt corn to be grown, due to health concerns that the ampicillin resistance gene could move from the corn into bacteria in the food chain, making ampicillin far less effective in fighting a wide range of bacterial infections.
Again, FDA officials have ignored their own scientists’ concerns over the antibiotic resistance problem. Meanwhile, the British Medical Association (BMA) addressed this problem in its own study of GE foods. The BMA’s conclusion was unequivocal: “There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in microorganisms is one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st century.”
- Immuno-suppression
The well-respected British medical journal, The Lancet, published an important study conducted by Drs. Arpad Pusztai and Stanley W.B. Ewen under a grant from the Scottish government. The study examined the effect on rats of the consumption of potatoes genetically engineered to contain the biopesticide Bacillus Thuringiensis (B.t.). Thescientists found that the rats consuming geneticallyaltered potatoes showed significant detrimentaleffects on organ development, body metabolism, and immune function.
The biotechnology industry launched a major attack on Dr. Pusztai and his study. However, they have as of yet not produced a single study of their own to refute his findings. Moreover, twenty-two leading scientists recently declared that animal test results linking genetically engineered foods to immuno-suppression are valid.
-
Cancer
Along with its approval of GE foods, the FDA in 1993 also approved the use of genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), used to induce dairy cows to produce more milk. At the time the FDA assured consumers that the milk was safe. Since then, however, regulatory bodies in both Canada and Europe have rejected the drug, citing numerous animal and human health concerns. Perhaps of most immediate concern for consumers is that research shows that the levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) are increased in dairy products produced from cows treated with rBGH. The Canadians and Europeans further found that the FDA had completely failed to consider a study which showed that the increased IGF-1 in rBGH milk could survive digestion and make its way into the intestines and blood streams of consumers. These findings are significant because numerous studies now demonstrate that IGF-1 is an important factor in the growth of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. -
Loss of Nutrition
Genetic engineering can also alter the nutritional value of food. In 1992, the FDA’s Divisions of Food Chemistry & Technology and Food Contaminants Chemistry examined the problem of nutrient loss in GE foods. The scientists involved specifically warned the agency that the genetic engineering of foods could result in “undesirable alteration in the level of nutrients” of such foods. They further noted that these nutritional changes “may escape breeders’ attention unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes.” Once again, the FDA ignored findings by their own scientists and never subjected the foods to mandatory government testing of any sort.
Here are Myths & Facts about GMO’s:
MYTH #1: Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding.
REALITY: Genetic engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered “fishberries” are already in the field. With genetic engineering, these types of new organisms can be created and released into the environment (1). U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists stated that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, and so are the risks (2). Despite this warning, the FDA continues to assert that GE foods and crops are not different and don’t require special regulations.
MYTH #2: Genetic engineering can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting.
REALITY: The reason for the 170 million acres (data from 2013) of GE crops grown in this country today has nothing to do with nutrition, flavor or any other consumer benefit. There is little benefit aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing GE crops. Nearly all of the GE corn, soy, sugar beets and cotton grown in the United States has been genetically altered so that it can withstand more pesticides or produce its own.
MYTH #3: GE crops eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.
REALITY: Farmers who grow GE crops actually use more herbicide, not less. For example, Monsanto created Roundup-Ready (RR) soy, corn and cotton specifically so that farmers would continue to buy Roundup, the company’s best-selling chemical weed killer, which is sold with RR seeds (3). Instead of reducing pesticide use, one study of more than 8,000 university-based field trials suggested that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more herbicide than non-GE farmers who use integrated weed-control methods. GE crops may be the greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Many organic farmers rely on a natural bacterial spray to control certain crop pests. The advent of genetically engineered, insect-resistant crops is likely to lead to insects that are immune to this natural pesticide. When this biological pesticide is rendered ineffective, other farmers will turn to increasingly toxic chemicals to deal with the “superbugs” created by GE crops. Meanwhile, organic farmers will be out of options.
MYTH #4: The Government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.
REALITY: Neither the FDA (4), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (5), nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (6) has done any long-term human health or environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops, nor has any mandatory regulation specific to GE food been established. Biotech companies are on the honor system. They have virtually no requirements to show that this new technology is safe. FDA scientists and doctors warned that GE foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. The USDA has reviewed more than 5,000 applications for experimental GE crop field trials without denying a single one. USDA officials claimed they would conduct long-term studies of GE crops, but have no plans to require any pre-market or pre-release assessment. Studies conducted after our environment and food supply have been contaminated will be too late.
MYTH #5: There is no scientific evidence that GE foods harm people or the environment
REALITY: There is no long-term study showing that GE foods or crops are safe, yet the biotech industry and government have allowed our environment and our families to become guinea pigs in these experiments. Doctors around the world have warned that GE foods may cause unexpected health consequences that may take years to develop. Laboratory and field evidence shows that GE crops can harm beneficial insects, damage soils and transfer GE genes in the environment, thereby contaminating neighboring crops and potentially creating uncontrollable weeds.
MYTH #6: GE foods are necessary to feed the developing world’s growing population.
REALITY: In 1998, African scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto’s promotional GE campaign that used photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin.” The scientists, who represented many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems(7) Genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation. Biotech companies like Monsanto force growers to sign a technology use agreement when growing their patented GE crops which stipulates, among other things, they the farmer cannot save the seeds produced from their GE harvest. Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition.
5 Likes
If we focused more on the US and less on other nations that would be a start. Right now we don’t even track our spending or where the money is going nor to the hand it falls. With all of the red tape in this country one would think constant financial audits of taxpayer monies would be micromanaged from start to finish. Maybe once we abolish the FED and reduce the size of the IRS (gov in general) we can shift those positions/workers to a new department of the government created to ensure the health of our country’s soils, waters and foods. 
1 Like
As we speak, Ukraine is being converted to GMO crops, and its lands sold to foreigners and oligarchs. A repeat of Iraq. The USA is in a trade war with Mexico – trying to compel its people to eat GMO corn they don’t want. (Mexicans eat 10x as much maize as we).
Meanwhile Vilsack has pushed against Europe’s efforts to reduce synthetic fertilizer use – let’s consider the soil and water costs there.
1 Like