Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

reply to post by burntheships


Perhaps you should read the WSJ article you linked more closely. It clearly states, "Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's decision".

Was that too long? Here, I'll shorten it further, "Vilsack's decision". Did you catch it that time?

Yes, it opens with the general "The Obama administration Thursday abandoned a proposal...", because the Agriculture Secretary is a general member of the Cabinet (aka the administration), but the article clearly makes things specific in the second paragraph. It was under Vilsack's authority as Agriculture Secretary, and it was Vilsack's decision.

Notice that the WSJ article does not make unsubstantiated accusations that Obama himself "pushed" Vilsack's decision in any direction at all. I agree that Obama made a horrible choice with his appointment of Vilsack; however, a simple look at Vilsack's history clearly shows he would need no push whatsoever to side with Monsanto all on his own, and as Agriculture Secretary he had the authority to do so.

Originally posted by redmage
I agree that Obama made a horrible choice with his appointment of Vilsack; however, a simple look at Vilsack's history clearly shows he would need no push whatsoever to side with Monsanto all on his own, and as Agriculture Secretary he had the authority to do so.

Why was Vilsack a horrible choice?

Do you have any proof to back that up?

reply to post by redmage


I suspect the article's intention in falsely claiming this was at "Obama's urging" is to bring in those on the Right who despise Obama into the anti-GMO tent. It's a noble effort, I suppose, but one that only ends up confusing the issue into unecessary partisan camps.

For some reason, several anti-GMO activists did the same thing recently when they blamed several companies like Horizon and Organic Valley for the Government de-regulating gmo alfalfa. It's almost like an intentional disinfo campaign.

Originally posted by burntheships


Why was Vilsack a horrible choice?

Do you have any proof to back that up?

So your defending Vilsach?

Are you unaware of his ties to the industry?

You're an odd cookie.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Confused much?

I did not address you, that is unless you and the other are the same?

Mixed identities?

reply to post by burntheships


I was 'confused' by your odd line of reasoning, regardless of who you were addressing.

Your thinly veiled accusations are an obvious deflection away from a simple question.
In addition, I notice you are now completely backing off your previous claims and sitings, as they have been proven to be completely irrelevant. Could that perhaps be the reasoning for your new, odd line of questioning and belittlement?

I really don't care if Obama is the one who is supporting Monsanto or not. The fact is is that he isn't doing anything about it and allowing GMOs to poison the people he's supposed to be representing.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet because I haven't read through all of the posts, but I think it's time that we used the Illuminati Card Deck against them. Remember the card that everyone was connecting to the Gulf Oil Gusher? The one depicting a man resembling Obama at a podium with smashed tomatoes and stuff on him and on the wall behind him? (I'd appreciate it if someone could post the image of this card.)

I say we watch for where he's going to be speaking and throw beets at him! If I lived near D.C., I'd pour jars of them in the streets around the White House. They'd never get the stains out of the concrete!

Remember how Bush had shoes thrown at him?
Obama needs to get smacked in the head with a big juicy beet!

Originally posted by burntheships
Why was Vilsack a horrible choice?

Do you have any proof to back that up?

Proof? Really? The nature of the comment "Obama made a horrible choice with his appointment of Vilsack" clearly shows that it is an opinion, and opinions are subjective. They can't be "proven" beyond the fact that someone either does, or does not hold one. Yes, do I hold the opinion that Obama made a horrible choice with his appointment of Vilsack.

As to why I feel that way, it's similar to my opinion regarding Bush's appointment of an oil lobbyist to head the EPA; there seems to be a clear conflict of interest in such lobbyist appointments.

Did you read the link I provided earlier? Vilsack has quite the history when it comes to his biotech support, and deregulations like the ones in the OP were predicted/expected way back when Vilsack was initially nominated for the Secretary of Agriculture position.

reply to post by redmage


it's not that he/she really needs 'proof' of your opinion, it's that he/she is trying to deflect away from your post at the top of this page that destroys his/her previous assertions.

This is a clear and present danger,that bastard is an elitist.
Ask any REAL hippie(who of course I'm still upset with over the they handled my soldiers in Viet Nam) about what GM foods are really doing if you're too lazy to research it yourself .


IMPEACHMENT IN DEFENSE OF OUR DAMN COUNTRY!

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I am not backing off of the WSJ article.
I just simply find it annoying that you inject into another conversation.

Originally posted by redmage

Did you read the link I provided earlier? Vilsack has quite the history when it comes to his biotech support, and deregulations like the ones in the OP were predicted/expected way back when Vilsack was initially nominated for the Secretary of Agriculture position.

Yes, I read I read. So, you think that Vilsack will continue to make these decisions based on his
support of the GMO industry as opposed to the actual mission statement of the USDA?

According to the USDA themselves, their mission is to:

"Enhance the quality of life for the American people by supporting production of agriculture; ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply; www.crohns.org...

And it seems that Vilsack working together with The Obama Admin have gone on a degregulation spree,
greenlighting GMO alfalfa, and corn, which is actually going against the USDA mission statment.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I am not backing off of the WSJ article.
I just simply find it annoying that you inject into another conversation.

Well, I find it annoying that you keep posting links that dont confirm what you claim they do. Bashing Obama is indeed a surefire way to get stars and attention on the internet. But it clouds the real issue here in relation to Vilsach and GMOs.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Who is bashing Obama?

I mean, just because he eats organic, and I point that out does not prove that I am
bashing Obama.

Originally posted by burntheships
So, you think that Vilsack will continue to make these decisions based on his
support of the GMO industry as opposed to the actual mission statement of the USDA?

I think you're presenting a a bit of a false dilemma here. I would not be the least bit surprised if he continues to make decisions rooted in his longstanding support of the biotech industry; however, as to whether such decisions actually oppose the USDA mission statement... that notion is debatable; so it's not a cut-and-dried "either/or" situation.

Originally posted by burntheships
And it seems that Vilsack working together with The Obama Admin have gone on a degregulation spree,
greenlighting GMO alfalfa, and corn, which is actually going against the USDA mission statment.

There's the clincher, there's really no impartial long-term data regarding possible effects on humans and animals when it comes to the consumption of these GMO crops; so it's difficult to claim that they're truly dangerous, or that their deregulation somehow knowingly goes against the USDA mission statement. That said, I don't like the idea of making large portions of the population unknowing guinea pigs. The FDA has a long history of prematurely approved products (as shown by the ever-growing laundry list of recalled pharmaceuticals); so I think people have a right to know what they're consuming, and items derived from GM origin should be clearly labeled as such.

I also disagree with Monsanto's history of litigation ruining small farmers when Monsanto products contaminate their fields. Such legal precedents clearly go against fostering an air of fair competition in the market, but that's not a USDA concern.

One thing we do know is that Roundup resistant weeds have now started to sprout up; so it seems Monsanto's efforts may have been somewhat in vain regarding their products intended for consumption.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Who is bashing Obama?

I mean, just because he eats organic, and I point that out does not prove that I am
bashing Obama.

No. And I didnt claim that. I claimed that the article you presented attributes this decision to 'obama's urging', but provides no evidence to support the claim. I suspect it does so because making the issue about Obama, a recognizable name, is more interest-generating than discussing the issue in relation tot he USDA and Vilsach, two names most Americans have a probably less formed opinion on.

Of course, I've mentioned this several times and I suspect you are merely feigning ignorance of that.

I didn't think Obama would have stood for such things, I guess every president does this.

Ever notice that the conservatives and liberals never act according to their ideas?


This is my first post hooray!

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Gee what a surprise with all the Monsanto people Obama has nominated in his administration and at key posts at the FDA!

Yes Bush and Clinton did it too, but it isn't an excuse.

Who didn't see that coming?

He needs to be freaking impeached. NOW.

edit on 2-6-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

At this stage of the game the US military would have to intervene. The current political/judicial system is so corrupt the normal avenues wouldn't work even if 75% of the country rallied behind an initiative.