It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Activist: Gulf fishermen being held responsible for toxic seafood

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Activist: Gulf fishermen being held responsible for toxic seafood


rawstory.com

Federal government admits not testing for arsenic, mercury or other toxic heavy metals in seafood

The US government, and even President Obama himself, have said that Gulf seafood is safe to eat in the wake of the massive BP oil spill.

But an admission from the federal government that it hasn't been testing Gulf seafood for toxic heavy metals, and news that fishermen are being forced to sign waivers making them liable for toxins in their catch, suggest not everyone is convinced of the safety of Gulf seafood.

Louisiana fishermen's activist Kindra Arnesen says dock owners are asking fi
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
At one time I would have found this hard to believe, but no longer.
Big business and big oil in particualr pulls all the strings in Government and pretty much have control over the lives of individuals, small businesses and private institutions; especially in the Southern United States.

www.youtube.com...



rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Sounds like a catch 22. The waters are open for fishing so BP doesn't have to continue paying for lost livelihood to fishermen but if they fish, they must assume full responsibility for contaminated seafood. What an absolute joke!

I would like to know just what does it take to permanently bar a company from operating in the U.S.? Corporate mentality is destroying America.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


What or where is your source?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
This needs to be flagged to the top.

You want a source? Look at the OP!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


further reading the article oe will discover:


Louisiana fishermen's activist Kindra Arnesen says dock owners are asking fishermen to sign waivers that put the full responsibility for toxins found in the catch on the fishermen themselves...


So this is an action taken unilaterally by the Dock Owners...
not the Government..
just why & how the Dock Owners decided to impose the waivers to
the fisherman, to accept liability... is beyond me...
perhaps their Lawyers told them to enforce waivers so as to not be liable themselves for the condition of the seafood catch.


later the article even says NOAA neither accepts or denies that they are monitering heavy metals in the Gulf seafoods...what's that about?


the independent fisherman need to find another buyer for their catches if the present dock owners are being so intractable ...


wish there were more to say, suggest,
the seafood industry there in the Gulf does not have very good Lobbysts, Activists, Advocates, Lawyers...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Due to current state of affairs, BP should have to turn over the fortune it made using its toxic chemical. (they do have shares in the company of the retardant they used) to reimburse humanity for this. Not the fisherman.

BP was paid billiions for their "accident".

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
S&F

...I posted this a minute or 2 ago - searched but didn't find yours. Glad you got bumped.


Here's another way the fishermen are boxed:

Claims fund designed to limit payouts, shield BP from lawsuits



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
forgive my ignorance on this. I was not able to find my answer in the article. What happens if they choose not to sign the waiver?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
...What happens if they choose not to sign the waiver?


Their fish don't get bought and distributed in the marketplace.

Which means:

If they DO sign the waiver, their fish get bought, distributed, and sold in grocery stores.

THEN, when people get sick from the toxins in the fish, they have to sue little-guy practically-bankrupt fishermen instead of the Big Rich Parasite Corporations who feed on little guys.

...And that's how it works. Nifty strategy, dontcha think?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



There is no doubt in my mind that we now live under a Corpratacracy in that the Government agencies tasked to look out for the citizens are now controlled by the corporations, in effect Fascism. Lying to the Citizens to protect big corporate business interests, the health of the people be damned.

www.dailyfinance.com...

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The fishermen should forge Obama's signature on the waivers.

He's pushing that it is safe, let him take the blame if it isn't.

Sadly, this comes as no surprise.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


So if they do not sign the waiver, they are not legally allowed to sell the fish they catch? How does that work? Did BP gain some sort of governmental authority?

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how BP can legally do this.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Giving it a bump, there is no doubt the larger companies don't want to take the blame and as always its easier to beat up and demand new rules responsibilities for smaller companies who can't afford to fight back.

This isn't a surprise is it? If someone gets sick I would venture a guess it will be BLAMED on the fishermen!!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by soficrow
 


So if they do not sign the waiver, they are not legally allowed to sell the fish they catch? How does that work? Did BP gain some sort of governmental authority?

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how BP can legally do this.



It's the dock owners, not BP, who are demanding waivers from the fishermen. Just illustrates capitalism and corporatocracy at work. The Big Boyz are too smart to hold the bag - and they make sure their 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' is signed.

...If the fishermen don't fish, they can't take care of their kids and pay the loans on their boats, or their mortgage and so on down the line... And they'll end up in line for food stamps, public assistance and drug testing... Not fair, is it?

These guys DO care about product quality, and the safety of the food they ship to our tables. So they're trying to hold out - demanding testing, and clean-up. But chances are good they've lost their livelihoods (along with a lot of other people in today's world)...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by soficrow
 


So if they do not sign the waiver, they are not legally allowed to sell the fish they catch? How does that work? Did BP gain some sort of governmental authority?

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how BP can legally do this.


Since when did BP care about the legality of anything? They didn't even follow legal protocol when they were drilling the hole.
They ignored safety procedures that caused 9 men their lives. Do you think that they give a damn about the safety of the consumers of seafood?
Obviously they don't care about the livelihoods of the fisherman.





So if they do not sign the waiver, they are not legally allowed to sell the fish they catch? How does that work? Did BP gain some sort of governmental authority?


BP has all the authority they need thru their lobbyist, campaign contributions, bribes and strong arm tactics.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Hmm.. so the dock owners and harbor masters will refuse to let them dock their boats? Wow, I wonder how much BP is paying them to do this?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by whaaa
 


further reading the article oe will discover:


Louisiana fishermen's activist Kindra Arnesen says dock owners are asking fishermen to sign waivers that put the full responsibility for toxins found in the catch on the fishermen themselves...


So this is an action taken unilaterally by the Dock Owners...
not the Government..
just why & how the Dock Owners decided to impose the waivers to
the fisherman, to accept liability... is beyond me...
perhaps their Lawyers told them to enforce waivers so as to not be liable themselves for the condition of the seafood catch.



What would prompt dock owners to do this unless they are beholding to some organization requiring it of them?

It's not "the government", but rather, the shadow government.
I bet these dock owners have allegiances to some foreign society with a vast network.

Guess the dock owners are doing their part to turn fishermen, restaurants, and customers into more fodder for lawyers and bankers.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Activist: Gulf fishermen being held responsible for toxic seafood



Now, how can that be when the US PRESIDENT says that the seafood from the Gulf is safe?

Activist: Gulf fishermen being held responsible for toxic seafood

The concerns of fisherman and scientists alike seem to contradict the positive tone the federal government has taken with respect to oil in the Gulf.

"Let me be clear: Seafood from the Gulf … is safe to eat,” President Obama recently said at an appearance in Theodore, Alabama.

It's "important for consumers... to know that their food is safe, but it’s also important for the fishermen and processors, who need to be able to sell their products with confidence,” Obama said.

Now, after hearing our "president", say that the seafood in the Gulf will be, ..."safe to eat", HOW does BP get off the hook if any fisherman in the Gulf sells any "unsafe", shall we say, seafood?



On one hand Obama says the seafood from the Gulf will be safe, then on the other hand, apparently, our government is letting BP off the hook if any fisherman sells anything that may have been contaminated from the oil spill!


[edit on 8/23/2010 by Keyhole]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
This is an almost incredible turn of events. In the first place I don't even understand how the Federal or State governments are even allowing fishing (or shell fishing) in any of the US territorial Gulf waters. It s simply too early in the process to truly know what the effects are.

And the effects may be much more than just whether the fish caught or harvested contain toxins. How about the effects on the overall marine life populations in general. They have just been dealt a big dirty, and circumspection would leave one to error on the side of caution all around. Have a one-year moratorium on all fishing in US Gulf waters period. If nothing is wrong, so what, the fish stocks get to explode in population, creating huge bounties in subsequent years. If the fish populations were devasted to a degree not yet understood, then they may get a crucial break to make up the devastation.

The Key in this process is the US and Gulf State government's holding BP accountable, by setting up some sort of compensation board that pays the affected fishermen and related industry workers a reasonable stipend, to help them through this moratorium. Using the workers W-2s or income tax forms from 2009, it would be relatively easy to establish a percentage of compensation, capped at some reasonable amount.

The risks are just too large to think otherwise. This should be a major government movement right now.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join