OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO'S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA

[ensho]

http://networkedblogs.com/lMhWu


Michael Taylor was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He "had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA he became Monsanto's Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. This is no joke."

Here's the full story:
You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/858

-snip-
----------------------

cripe

[Skink]

1. He must be hard up for camaign cash

[vi5]

2. This must be a lie.

Or if it's not a lie, then it's not a big deal and we shouldn't get upset over it.

And if you are upset about it, then...PRESIDENT PERRY!!! (updated from "PRESIDENT BACHMANN!!!", updated from "PRESIDENT ROMNEY!!!", updated from "PRESIDENT PALIN!!!!")


At least that's how I think it works around here. I figured just cutting to the chase would save us all a lot of posting time on here.

[hootinholler]

7. !

:rofl:

Sounds about right.

-Hoot

[Safetykitten]

10. Nice! You are right on the money.

[graywarrior]

27. LOL!

Now that made me laugh!

[truebrit71]

32. Niiiiiiiiiice!!!

+100000

[myrna minx]

61. LOL! n/t

[Skip Intro]

75. ROFL!

:rofl:

[hay rick]

76. President Perry definitely is the boogeyman du jour.

From current replies in my inbox:

"Welcome President Perry... (and I live in Texas, this would be a total disaster....)"

and

"I am so looking forward to president Perry! Are you? And dont' give me the often mentioned "better than the R is all you've got?".

[Jakes Progress]

77. You forgot to call the OP a right winger.

Oh and to attack any outlet that published what was happening.

[whatchamacallit]

89. Perfect +1

[tavalon]

90. And this, my friends, is why I don't drink liquids while reading DU

Another keyboard saved!

[Canuckistanian]

100. hahahaha

Yeah, that about covers it.. :rofl:

[RetroLounge]

113. LOL

:rofl:

RL

[Ignis]

114. Well done. Apparently the only argument left was "old news."

[uponit7771]

132. +10,000

[blm]

3. And the full Clintonization of Obama is nearing completion.

.

[Fuddnik]

15. Nah, this is more like St. Ronnie's appointments.

[blm]

23. Check again....Clinton was VERY cozy with Monsanto throughout his term.

I knew we were in trouble when Obama brought so many Clinton retreads into his administration.

[stevenleser]

39. See my #36

[tavalon]

91. Not really

He makes Bill Clinton look positively Democratic.

[arcane1]

4. I wish I could say I was surprised

I really, really do

[stevenleser]

38. See my #36

[ProSense]

5. Is this a

delayed reaction? He's been at the FDA since 2009: Noted Food Safety Expert Michael R. Taylor Named Advisor to FDA Commissioner

[Enrique]

8. think of it as a list

lists are good right? This is a list with one item in it.

[ProSense]

16. Here's one for "a list"

Why the Government Is Regulating Gluten-Free Foods

[Dr Fate]

20. I have saved this link that proves how awesome & free of conflict Monsanto is. nt

nt

[ProSense]

24. Well,

at least they're not fanning outrage over something that happened two years ago.

[Dr Fate]

31. I agree with you-Liberals only pretend to get mad once they find out about things.

Besides- so long as Obama is going after snooty, New Age, gluten free foods and leaving Monsanto's wholesome products alone,they have little to complain about.

[ProSense]

56. Actually,

Obama White House Appoints Former Monsanto Lobbyist to FDA

....there are likely several other posts on the announcement.

Recycling outrage, not pretty!

[Dr Fate]

62. Liberals have nothing to be outraged about. Monsanto is a liberal, progressive corporation.

and I'm sure he is a liberal democrat as well.

Liberals who were hoping that Obama would appoint a non-conflicted, non-corporate type who would maybe even advocate for whole foods, organic foods, family farms, etc. as a safer way to produce food-they will just have to help Obama win a majority b/f he can do that.

Once again, you are SOOOO right-Liberals had their chance to bitch about this when food and corporate conflicts were actually an issue.

[ProSense]

63. Yeah

Jon Corzine worked for Goldman Sachs.

Liberals in NJ are glad to be rid of him.

Liberals in NJ are thrilled with Chris Christie.

Is that how it's done?

[Dr Fate]

64. I tried to tell Liberals the same thing about Cheney's Haliburton connex. No biggie.

I told them we would look like fools if we tried to say there was a conflict of interest that should keep Halliburton from getting contracts.

Thank god us centrists disregarded to the liberals on that one, and this one.

I agree with you that The NJ situation proves that Monsanto has our health and well being as it's top priority and that Taylor is a good, Liberal Democrat with no conflicts of interest.

[ProSense]

67. Hmmmm?

"I agree with you that The NJ situation proves that Monsanto has our health and well being as it's top priority and that Taylor is a good, Liberal Democrat with no conflicts of interest."

Nope, you're not agreeing with me, but that certainly is silly.

One of the funniest things to witness since 2009 is the number of people claiming to be progressive simply because they don't agree with the President's appointments or a word he used.

[Dr Fate]

69. We agree that Taylor and Monsanto are more progressive than the malcontents here at DU.

I agree that the post 2009 people who came out of nowhere to claim they are more progressive than Taylor or other Monsanto VPs are one of the funniest things I've ever witnessed as well.

[Dr Fate]

13. He was just as awesome then, and he is awesome now. nt

nt

[Armstead]

18. Interesting in that press release link -- NO mention of his time with Monsanto

Funny how the press release carries no mention of his invaluable experience as an attorney and executive at Monsanto in their laudatory biography.

Hmmmmm...

On the other hand, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm representing the biotechnology company Monsanto,<2> where he established and led the firm's "food and drug law" practice.<3> On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Between 1994 and 1996 he moved to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), where he was Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service.

After briefly returning to King & Spalding, he then returned to Monsanto to become Vice President for Public Policy.[4

[paulk]

71. do you know anything about Monsanto or Mr. Taylor?

educate yourself

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

What point are you trying to make with your post?

That the Obama administration made a mistake in 2009 and is compounding that mistake?

This action by the Obama administration is not defensible.

[paulk]

103. crickets...

[moksha]

99. Is there a statute of limitations on criticizing a horrible pick?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Fuck. That. Shit.

:puke:

[stevenleser]

40. See my #36

[GreenPartyVoter]

120. +1,000,000

[Webster Green]

9. President clueless.

It just gets worse and worse.

We're so fucked!

[arcane1]

11. I wish it were simple cluelessness

at least then it would be possible to get a clue. Sadly, things like this happen by choice, not error.

[Dr Fate]

12. Monsanto's food is delicious and wholesome. What is the problem here?

If Obama were to appoint some organic-vegan-hippie, Murdoch would tear him a new one and call him a food elitist.

Best for Obama to FOOL Murdoch by never giving him the chance.

[Armstead]

17. How about just someone who is not in the pocket of the chemical/food industry?

That'd be a good compromise.

And do you honestly think Obama should govern by the Murdoch Standard -- "If Rupert might object we won't do it, and we'll do what he wants instead?"

[Dr Fate]

19. No, they are the only ones with the proper gravitias and experience.

And I am suggesting that Obama FOOL Murdoch by never giving Murdoch the chance to attack him over this, I'm not saying we just directly do whatever Murdoch wants.

[Armstead]

21. Since Murdoch (the RW) is going to attack him anyway...

why not just do what is correct, and give them reason for their attacks.

I guess he could fool Murdoch in a similar way by having Sarah Palin as his running mate next year. That way the RW could not attack him for having a liberal or moderate Democrat on the ticket either.

[Dr Fate]

22. Hell- the left tried to trick Obama into going after Murdoch himself.

Murdoch would have torn him a new one and made it look like DEMS oppose free speech.

Obama once again FOOLED Murdoch by never giving him the chance.

You dont play chess much, do you?

[Armstead]

25. I guess Obama made a huge mistake with his early stimulus plan

By proposing and passing a stimulus plan in 2009, Obama walked into Murdoch's trap, by really giving the Faux Noise machine something to complain about.

Obama screwed up big time on that. He would have been much better doing nothing to rescue the economy. Then Murdoch wouldn't have anything to complain about.

...Oh wait. That awful stimulus kept the economy from spiraling into a full blown recession.

But I guess it was the wrong thing to because Murdoch didn't approve.

[Dr Fate]

34. No- that failure was caused by the Lazy Left not supporting Obama enough.

Murdoch is not always why Obama fails- sometimes the blame falls with the lazy, professional left.

[Armstead]

43. Okay, I'm going to assume the posts about this below are correct

[tavalon]

93. I'm guessing you don't like to use the sarcasm smiley

Trust me, it can be your best friend.

[amborin]

86. 35% of the stimulus wasted on useless tax cuts, to appease rethugs, who all voted against it anyway

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

28. The sarcasm wasn't really that hard to spot on that post. nt

[Armstead]

29. Maybe...I hope so. It's getting harder to tell the sarcasm from the real thing these days

In this case I hope I've been bamboozled

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

30. Trust me it is totally sarcastic. I've read this poster's comments through the years. He just likes

to get into "character" sometimes. Especially the Murdoch part.

[hulka38]

104. There are a crap load of people

especially on GDP who are as dense and stubborn as Fate's character. It's entertaining though.

[Supersedeas]

134. There's that and then there's compromise that the chemical industry can believe in

[stevenleser]

37. See my #36

[Dr Fate]

42. Saw it. Read it. Loved it. Monsanto was not in conflict then, and they are not in conflict now.

Besdies- I'm sure the guy is a Democrat or maybe even a progressive.

[stevenleser]

45. Its wrong to discount a 20 year public career in food safety because they once worked for Monsanto

but good try at spin.

[Dr Fate]

47. I agree. Monsanto's food has gotten healthier over the past 20 years.

He says so himself.

Corn in general is purer,healthier and safer than ever too-we put monsanto's corn based products into much of what we eat, and just look at the HC stats, obesity rates, etc.

You must be responding to another post by accident. I support Monsanto's liberal and progressive values and actions, and I see no conflict of interest what so ever- just Obama being progressive again.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

51. I'm not debating- I am agreeing with you on how Liberal & Progressive Monsanto is. nt

nt

[harun]

105. Monsanto doesn't make food.

Just say'n.

[eShirl]

14. Jesus.

[pepito]

26. okay,im sending

the WH a rotten tomato,i grow my own matos ,they are Heirloom,100 yr old seed,every year they give more....I hate these pricks...lets send the creeps rotten tomatos ,mebbe they will get itx( :wtf: :dem: :nuke:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[SpartanDem]

35. Since this guy has been at the FDA for two years

I'm sure people will be able produce a list of bad things he's done. I actally the original outrage over this appointment, but I haven't heard his name mentioned since then.

[brentspeak]

48. Some anonymous online poster personally "hasn't heard his name mentioned since then"?

Furthermore, Michael Taylor has also been at the FDA for two years...which, uh, therefore means he, uh, must deserve to be there, uh, for some reason...

The rabble should not at all be concerned that Monsanto's chief lobbyist is "advising" the FDA on such small matters like food safety.

[SpartanDem]

55. Fine if it's such a bad appointment

like I said you'll show me what exactly he's done. I would also point out that thr Food Safety Modernization Act passed while he was at the fda.

[Dr Fate]

53. Who can deny that food nutrition and Health in general has only gotten better?

Liberals will say that he is for giving subsidies to Monsanto and other corporations who produce GMO and additive rich foods- as opposed to advocating comparable subsidies and tax breaks to local, sustainable, famly owned organic farms. You know- hippie stuff.

I for one beleive that you can still be connected to multi-national corporations, still be for giving them subsidies and still be a progressive liberal who fights for progressive values.

This guy clearly fits the bill.

Besides- the guy below says 20 years, not 2, meaning he was advocating all these awesome things under Bush as well.

[SpartanDem]

54. You'll still haven't given specific actions he's taken or opposed

that should concern us all you have is guilt association. You'll remember the food safety bill passed that gives much broader inspection powers to the FDA for instance if told me he lobbied against it, that would be an example why he shouldn't have been appointed.

[Dr Fate]

59. Why would I? Just read the news-today's corporate food is very safe and healthy.

Also, I would like to correct a mistake I made- he is not the guy who DIRECTLY advocates subsidies for Monsanto-some other Liberal does that. He is they guy who tells us how safe the food is after Monsanto gets the subsidies.

I think some of the Liberals here just don't like him bc they think He is a conservative- but Obama is smart enough to know that certain conservatives can and should be trusted.

[stevenleser]

36. This guy has been in Food Safety since 1991. Why the manufactured outrage at this appointment?

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm170842.htm

He served as the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy from 1991 to 1994, overseeing FDA's policy development and rulemaking, including the implementation of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and issuance of new seafood safety rules.

From 1994 to 1996, he served at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety. During that time, he spearheaded public health-oriented reform of the FSIS. Since 2000, Taylor has worked in academic and research settings on the challenges facing the nation’s food safety system and ways to address them.

Taylor’s recent research agenda has focused on policy, resource, and institutional issues that affect the success of public health agencies in carrying out their prevention-related missions. He served as chair of the steering committee of the Food Safety Research Consortium, collaboration among six universities and a nonprofit think tank to improve food safety decision making and priority setting.

-----------------------------------

I guess this is the latest installment of Obama Derangement Syndrome at work.

[Dr Fate]

41. Monsanto was awesome then, and they are AWESOME now.

Your post just proves the DEGREE of how awesome they are.

I for one trust former officers of multinational corporations to put my saftey above the profit of their buddies.

Stupid Liberals always WAIT until they find out about stuff b/f they express an opinion about it. Clearly a sign of dernagement syndrome.

[stevenleser]

44. His 20 year public career in Food Safety isn't discounted by the fact he once worked for Monsanto.

If that is where you have to go to attack the administration then you have nothing.

[Dr Fate]

46. From where I sit, Monsanto's food additives are safer and healthier than ever. I agree.

After 20 years of telling us how safe, healthy and nutritious Monsanto's food is, who could doubt his credentials?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

52. What is to debate? We agree that he carries his Liberal values from the Monsanto Board Room...

....straight to DC, and then safely to our tables.

We also agree that his 20 year record of establishing how safe Monsato's products are is beyond reproach.

[tavalon]

95. Um, dude, he's yanking your chain

[brentspeak]

57. Actually, Taylor twice (not once) worked for Monsanto

From the OP link:

Michael Taylor was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He "had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA and then he became Monsanto's Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. This is no joke.

Michael Taylor timeline

1) Monsanto attorney
2) FDA "advisor"
3) Back to Monsanto, this time as VP and chief lobbyist
4) Back to the FDA, again as an "advisor", and now, today, as "food czar"

How come there's no mention at all of Taylor's Monsanto role in that FDA Pravda-like announcement http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=749738&mesg_id=750023">you linked to?

[Dr Fate]

60. so what? You guys act like Monsanto is making us sick or destroying family farms or something

Nt

[Hydra]

84. I have just one thing to say

:yourock:

[Ignis]

111. +1

[paulk]

83. he didn't just "work" for Monsanto

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

"shameful" doesn't really capture the full extent of this action by the Obama administration.

your comments on the subject are shallow and ignorant.

[tavalon]

94. Never mind what I said about the sarcasm smiley

You're pretty good at this stuff.

[Ignis]

115. He's caught me more than once on that hook.

Such artistry is rare 'round here these days.

[tavalon]

119. Yeah, he reminds me of Stephen Colbert

[blm]

108. acknowledged, mr l ... but, still Clinton and now Obama tapped a Monsanto man for

a key post. Monsanto has been pretty evil for decades now.

[GeorgeGist]

58. Tragedy in motion.

Jesus, I hate stupid.

[Remember Me]

65. He sure seems to love those damn foxes.

I sure am sick of it.

[tavalon]

96. Are you saying we're all hens here?

Because I think I should be offended. Or something.

[Remember Me]

133. Foxes eat roosters too

even banty roosters.

[Fearless]

66. Corporate sell out!

:nuke:

[mistertrickster]

68. Satan to chair "religion in America" task force. nt

[Vidar]

70. Oh joy, Now Obama's endorsing Monsanto's kindler, gentler genocidal policies.

[Dr Fate]

72. Read Prosenses posts above that prove you wrong. Monsanto and Taylor are progressives.

besides, even if they are not, you waited too long to complain. Taylor has been doing progressive things with Monsanto for 20 years-to come out of nowhere and complain now proves that all the complaining is manufactured and not sincere,

[hulka38]

107. .

I'm becoming a fan - well done.

[treestar]

127. This remark is equally insane as the ones right wingers pose

about Obama paling around with terrorists.

[bhikkhu]

73. the "advisor to the commissioner" is THE food safety czar?

...it sounds like an unpaid post, where you get to sit in on long boring meetings endlessly reviewing procedure every month or two, and now and then you have a secretary look up some information and fax it to somebody.

Or I could be wrong...

[scentopine]

74. He'll get an office next to Bill Gates and Jeffrey R. Immelt

Bill Gates - CEO famous for committing predatory anti-trust crimes that crippled high-tech competition and snuffed out s/w innovation for a decade or more. Dropped out of college. Richest man in the world several times. Appointed by Obama Administration to advise the administration on Education policy. Qualifications? He is rich, a strong advocate of raising personal property taxes to pay for microsoft products starting in kindergarten. Also famous for outsourcing to slave labor in Bangalore call center sweatshops and s/w sweatshops, i.e. jobs that microsoft educated students will not have in America.

Jeff Immelt - CEO famous for outsourcing 10s of thousands of jobs and overseeing massive share loss at GE while giving himself massive bonuses. Hired by Obama to advise on jobs Policy. Qualifications? He is rich and hostile to American workers and has hired a few thousand MBAs to help GE avoid paying any federal taxes.

So how bad can this man Taylor be? Just as bad.

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90′s, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST)—injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk—unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA’s approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/858

Post #36 says it all - a democratic party, so arrogant and out of touch they post government issued press releases to defend unacceptable men and women appointed to policy making positions.

If Rick Perry wins, it will be thanks to his enablers in the democratic party who refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for a disaster of public trust and confidence while Obama has been in office.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing more dangerous in this country than the deniers in the democratic party who think that Obama is on the "right" track with his conservative republican outreach program.

Every day that goes by the rich are getting rich, the non-rich getting poorer. Democratic party hardliners not willing to negotiate with the left are putting the nation at risk. In this respect, the extreme centrists and other right wingers in the democratic party are just as bad as the tea baggers who would see a nation suffer rather than negotiate with those who present proven solutions to difficult social problems.

Obama and his handlers would rather lose the election and see the nation's economy crash to the ground than negotiate and compromise with anyone left of Ronald Reagan.

I promise that Rick Perry is laughing at the wonks here handing out government press releases to defend Obama. You should all be fired from the campaign.


fixed the referece to #36

[Jakes Progress]

78. Must alert on this OP.

It has the nerve to tell us something true that doesn't make Obama look good.

[Hawkowl]

79. We are all Republicans now

That should be Obama's campaign slogan.

[tavalon]

97. Or,

Hah, who else are you gonna vote for?

[blkmusclmachine]

80. There's some "change" you CAN believe in:

From Bad to Worse.

[slay]

81. It just keeps getting better

and by better i mean worse - ugh - if Obama hadn't already lost my vote a long time ago - this would do it.

[boppers]

82. Science > Hysteria

"GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety", BTW, is a huge misdirection.

The FlavrSavr was the the first commercially produced plant GMO, and its safety was scrutinized for *two years*.

What that post was probably *trying* to say, is that food, and drug, testing, are two different things. Foods are not tested the same way as drugs... because the "natural" folks tend to throw a shit-fit every single time they're asked to prove their "supplement"/"product"/"herbal remedy"/"organic food" is "safe".

[Hydra]

85. Is that like the "Science" we used in the Gulf of Mexico?

Or the "Science" that was used to take us to Fukushima?

...I keep seeing this "Science" you speak of lead to people asking for Prayers and comments of "May God have mercy on us(and our stupidity)"

[boppers]

87. If they're praying, they don't want to understand Science.

Magical sky-gods don't cap wells, or stop atomic reactions, no matter how much a person prays. Humans do that, and God, so far, hasn't given two shits to control or stop it.

"I keep seeing this "Science" you speak of lead to people asking for Prayers and comments of "May God have mercy on us(and our stupidity)""

A re-phrase:
'I keep seeing this "Science" you speak of lead to people asking for actual help and comments of "May we have mercy on us(and our stupidity)"'

So....

Some people have a medical emergency... and pray.
Others have a medical emergency... and contact doctors.

Guess which one has a higher survival rate.

Go ahead, guess.

In Oregon, we've started convicting people for child abuse when they "pray" to end illness.

[Hydra]

101. Nice reframing

Too bad it's not correct.

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology.

...

The third part of our response plan is the steps we’re taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe –- that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.

...

Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there.

It’s a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.

...

Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

This happened as a result of non-regulation by a dept. Monsanto is guarding another henhouse, and you believe that real science will prevail over money and cronism? Ask how that worked in the SEC, by the by.

[boppers]

126. I'm not sure how praying actually helped from your post.

"This happened as a result of non-regulation by a dept."

Regulation was there. It actually contributed to the problem, by having conflicting regulations, which led to a lack of redundancy in the BOP.

"Monsanto is guarding another henhouse"

Heh, was that an intentional farming reference? If so, hat tip to you!

"and you believe that real science will prevail over money and cronism"

It has for the last 400 years. Prayer has not.

"Ask how that worked in the SEC, by the by"

It worked pretty damned well. There was no stock market collapse, the rich lost a hunk of money in their game, and most scientists have a pretty good grasp on probability, even if many poor folks who "invest" in gambling schemes (lotteries, stock markets, precious metals) do not.

On that note: "it would be absolutely safe" (from the speech) is a pile of horseshit.

Nothing is safe. Nothing.

Bananas cause cancer, so does sunlight, and whenever you talking about huge amounts of explosive material, some of it will explode, in an unexpected way, eventually.

Scientific method then will step in, realize "hey, we hadn't thought about that", make an improvement, and move on. It's not perfect, but it tries to self-correct, something that religion does not do.

[scentopine]

88. "natural" folks tend to throw a shit-fit"... ?

Probably the same ones that throw a shit fit about nuclear power and deep water oil drilling and torture and wire tapping and wall street bankers Obama hires who control the treasury and the same ones who moan about unemployment and the same ones who bitch about the three wars and cutting taxes for the rich and the same malcontents who complain about health care costs and no coverage and about jobs to India and China and same ones who wonder where the bill is undoing Citizens United and the same ones horrified by banker bonuses and cuts to children's aide

I'm sure you get the point.

Don't you hate those people? Sheesh if they would just shut up things would be better, right? Do you suggest that they shouldn't vote for a democrat if they don't like these things? What should these people do who are so unhappy? Stay home and not vote?

I'm very curious to hear what people should do who have no representation? Do you feel the democratic party has enough votes to win all the races they need so these malcontents should just stay home and not vote?

I think people should know where the democratic party stands. Should democrats represent these people or not? If not, why should these malcontents vote for democrats?

Or do you think people who are active and educated enough to post their thoughts here on a political message board just stay home on election day?

If so, why would you think that? Voting is easier than reading and responding to stilted political nonsense that just inflames the people you need to vote for your candidate.

Pending your reply, I'll accept that the democratic party doesn't need those few million extra votes from these ignorant malcontents.

Oh - and FlavrSavr tomatoes? Great example. I'd like to try one of those yummy genetically modified tomatoes that were so carefully studied. Where can I buy one?

Or did those "natural people" throw a shit fit about them and put those for factory farms out of business <sniff>?

[Ignis]

117. Apparently, environmentalists are now targets for DU hippie-punching.

It's a big tent, after all.

[scentopine]

118. Clearly, Democrats don't want the non-republican vote. -nt

[boppers]

122. "Environmentalists" like Glenn Beck and Orrin Hatch?

I'm pretty sure they're not pro-DU, they just want people to be able to sell their "food" without any claims about it having to be true or factual.....

Like claiming a food is "natural", *and* proving that it's safe to consume.

http://www.foodditive.com/article/natural-additives-may-not-be-what-you-expect

[boppers]

121. Nice rant.

Flavr Savr's weren't any better in the long run, but cost slightly more, so they were a loss crop, and failed.... they just weren't profitable enough for the factory farms, so they simply returned to growing other products. (It didn't exactly crash factory farming.)

As far as the natural food people go, they already have huge representation. Did you know that Utah is "the Silicon Valley of Supplements"? (Yes, Utah. Not exactly the bluest state). Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) are the ones who came up with the great idea of not regulating food products for safety in the same way as drugs... it helps out the mega-farms, the quacks selling "medicines", the "diet" industry, the "small farmer" who doesn't want to prove his crops are actually safe to consume, etc.

[scentopine]

125. Do you blame the "natural" folks for Monsanto's Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone?

Do you think a company that stands to make billions on genetically modified foods is the right company to be advising policy decisions regarding genetically modified foods?

If so ,why? And why is Monsanto or GE or Microsoft the best corporations to advice Obama on public policy decisions regarding food/drug and jobs and education, respectively.

In terms of national priority, food/health, jobs, and education are top of list. Do you think these corporations are the most qualified and best serve the nation regarding maters of conflict-free public policy that benefits its citizens rather than a plutocrat?

Do you think anyone who complains about this is just a liberal malcontent?

I'm interested having you clarify your remarks below. Are you saying that Monsanto can be trusted because someone studied a tomato for two years? That is not a very long time for something as potentially dangerous as introducing genetically modified plants into the wild.

--------------
"GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety", BTW, is a huge misdirection.

The FlavrSavr was the the first commercially produced plant GMO, and its safety was scrutinized for *two years*.
---------

These tomatoes were genetically modified with anti-bacterial resistance. It is now widely known that this would have the effect of creating even more powerful bacteria. Had the plant actually been successful we would be using even more powerful chemicals to save VERY expensive plants as well as putting other crops at danger.

Do you think Obama made the right decision with this appointment? Why shouldn't anyone educated in the history of corporate corruption and influence in the food and drug business (as well as banking, oil drilling, mining, etc) be concerned by this?

Or do you believe a government held captive by Wall Street CEOs serves the general population better than a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

Just trying to understand why you would defend a Monsanto executive in charge of public policy by using the peculiar example of a mid-1990s tomato that was never sold in USA.

[boppers]

128. Wow, okay, lots of questions, and I didn't answer a lot earlier. Let's start with the subject:

'Do you blame the "natural" folks for Monsanto's Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone?'

Yes, as they are objecting to an entirely natural molecule found in cows being...in cows. I blame gross scientific illiteracy.

"Do you think a company that stands to make billions on genetically modified foods is the right company to be advising policy decisions regarding genetically modified foods? "

Strawman. A single person is not a company.

"If so ,why? And why is Monsanto or GE or Microsoft the best corporations to advice Obama on public policy decisions regarding food/drug and jobs and education, respectively."

Same strawman. Regarding hiring experts from different fields, that should be self evident... you get the people who actually have experience in the topic, not people whose experiences did not lead them to actually really consider a topic.

(Arne Duncan worked at Microsoft? No. I believe this demonstrates the strawman adequately).

"In terms of national priority, food/health, jobs, and education are top of list."

That varies from year to year, but lets see the rest of the argument:

"Do you think these corporations are the most qualified and best serve the nation regarding maters of conflict-free public policy that benefits its citizens rather than a plutocrat?"

Well, that's a really stuffed sentence.

"Do you think these corporations <1> are the most qualified <2> and best serve the nation regarding maters of conflict-free <3> public policy that benefits its citizens rather than a plutocrat<4>?"

1. I believe that non-profit corporations should be heard, for-profit corporations should be heard, union-corporations should be heard, etc. "Corporations" gets thrown around a lot on DU in hilarious ways (DU, BTW, is a corporation).
2. They are more qualified than people who are not involved in actual decision making on the issues. I would like to see a variety of qualified voices, and even some wildcards, which has been the pattern.
3. Conflict-free public policy? Hilarious oxymoron... ranks up there with "conflict free election".
4. Most plutocrats *are* citizens. You don't lose a right to citizenship if you acquire wealth/power in the US. Guessing that you meant "a majority of citizens" could be one thing to answer to, "a majority of the poor" another, "all citizens", another...

"Do you think anyone who complains about this is just a liberal malcontent?"

No, my personal thoughts really depend on the arguments offered. I think people sloganeering with "OBAMAS A SOCIALIST" have an equally valid argument to those screaming "OBAMAS A COPORATIST"... which is to say, not a valid argument, because it's usually filled with cherry-picking on facts. Take, oh, the "Catfood Comission". The SOCIALIST side argues that a union leader was on the commission, the CORPORATIST side argues that business leaders were on the commission....both sides seem to miss the idea of a middle.

Since this thread is about AG policy, (and the OP seems to insinuate that one man sets all policy, and the noted strawmen in this post point out the same thing), I think it's a good thing to see more voices having an impact. This is the change I voted for.

"I'm interested having you clarify your remarks below. Are you saying that Monsanto can be trusted because someone studied a tomato for two years? That is not a very long time for something as potentially dangerous as introducing genetically modified plants into the wild."

Will do. I'll use the above format as I parse this out:
"I'm interested having you clarify your remarks below. Are you saying that Monsanto can be trusted<1> because someone studied a tomato for two years<2>? That is not a very long time<3> for something as potentially dangerous<4> as introducing genetically modified plants into the wild<5>."

1. I'm saying that trust is a useless concept, when either trusting, or not trusting, an organization.
2. They put tomato ingredients.... in a tomato. See above about putting cow ingredients into a cow.
3. You are correct, it is not a long time, but humans have been eating plants for a much longer time.... and we put a plant gene (that we ate) into a plant (that we ate).
4. "Potential". Well glad that's clear, it's not actual danger, just 'potential'.
5. I assume you do not eat apples, bananas, corn, or soy, as all four have been genetically tampered with, to the point where naturally occurring strains have almost vanished.

"These tomatoes were genetically modified with anti-bacterial resistance."

With naturally occurring resistance.

"It is now widely known that this would have the effect of creating even more powerful bacteria."

It was known back then, too. Hell, we had that figured out 60 years ago.

The world is not a static place. It's an arms race, that is constant, with all forms of life at constant war with other forms of life. If you make a "cure" for something, life will mutate. If you don't make a cure for something, life will also mutate (It mutates anyways). What a "cure" accelerates is mutations that survive can fill a void.

"Had the plant actually been successful we would be using even more powerful chemicals to save VERY expensive plants as well as putting other crops at danger."

This (chemistry changes, as "bugs" mutate) keeps happening anyways, to a certain extent, but you'll have to explain what you mean by "more powerful chemicals". More specifically, "powerful". If you mean "more lethal", I'd guess that the chemical most lethal to humans is one of the oldest (and also "natural", as in, found in nature) ones made by humans, EtOH. H20 comes up second, but we don't make factories to synthesize it (because it's everywhere already).

"Do you think Obama made the right decision with this appointment?"
1. Knows the field.
2. Knows the moral and ethical issues of the field.
3. Worked in both public, and private, sectors in the field.

I don't know if he's the *best*, but it's a hell of a lot better than hiring a racetrack guy to work in disaster management. (That's a "brownie" reference, FWIW)

"Why shouldn't anyone educated in the history of corporate corruption and influence in the food and drug business (as well as banking, oil drilling, mining, etc) be concerned by this?"

Be concerned. Be very concerned. Get ulcers, heart diseases, die young, because somebody who worked for company X may work in a job tangentially related to company X. If that's your concern, seriously, I'll wish you well and hope for your health.

"Or do you believe a government held captive by Wall Street CEOs"
...and unions
...and small business
...and MIC
...and media
...and bloggers
...and legacy decisions
...and Congress
...and law
(etc.)

"serves the general population better than a government of the people, by the people and for the people?"

False dilemma argument. There aren't two parties at this table, there's hundreds. I listed a few.

"Just trying to understand why you would defend a Monsanto executive in charge of public policy by using the peculiar example of a mid-1990s tomato that was never sold in USA."

A shitty product does not condemn an entire strain of technology. See: Portable phones, portable computers, etc. Working for a company that made a product that one individually dislikes is even further away.

[scentopine]

130. You answers indicate you are a neo-conservative, is that correct?

Most of your replies are perfectly consistent with the historical beliefs and policies of neo-conservatives who came to power under Ronald Reagan. Your arguments and line of debate are identical to the global warming deniers who I am loath to argue with, but against my better judgement will point why your line of thinking is good for fascism bad for democracy.

I'll touch on a few that are most troubling and represent a mindset and political ideology that has infected and destroyed the democratic party, rendering them impotent, one bad policy at a time.

------------------
Me - 'Do you blame the "natural" folks for Monsanto's Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone?'

You - Yes, as they are objecting to an entirely natural molecule found in cows being...in cows. I blame gross scientific illiteracy.

Me - This is 100% false. There is nothing natural about synthesizing genetically modified artificial hormones that make cows produce more milk.

Since 1994 it has been possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. Monsanto was the first to develop the technology and marketed it as "Posilac" - a brand now owned by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.

The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.<2> Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

Demand for milk without synthetic hormones has increased substantially in the US since Monsanto introduced their rBST product; organic milk is now an important sector of the organic food market. http://ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/aib777c.pdf

I believe consumers must know when they are being sold genetically manufactured food because it is a matter of public health and the historical record supports that mass production of manufactured/processed foods and drugs frequently has serious health and safety consequences. Consumers should be allowed to make the choice.

I won't drink that milk. I am not a scientific illiterate. Having worked in research and development for over 30 years, I have working knowledge of the scientific process and it's corruption by politics and immediate demand for profits. Or to put in terms that right wingers can understand, corporations should not be allowed to shove frankenfoods down our throats.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Me - "Do you think a company that stands to make billions on genetically modified foods is the right company to be advising policy decisions regarding genetically modified foods? "

You - Strawman. A single person is not a company.

Me - No strawman. It is commonly accepted in law worldwide, that an individual with ties and interests to a corporation and who stands to profit from that corporation, presents a conflict of interest when regulating or developing public policy or judicial precedent. A recent example Billy Tauzin, congressman and lobbyist for Phrma. In fact many of the government employees who wrote and pushed Phrma's legislation through congress now work for Phrma. The Govt. is not allowed to negotiate drug prices (amazing). That was pushed into the bill by government employees who later went to work for Phrma as lobbyists. In legal matters, such a person would be recused from rendering law. It is bad government to allow government officials jump back and forth between corporations who profit from the law's they legislate.

Given the huge number of scientists and public policy experts in the United States, why would you appoint someone who has repeatedly profited from the very industry he is expected to regulate? He was hired by Monsanto as a V.P. of public policy aka a lobbyist. I don't agree that large corporations are the right entities to regulate public policy because the write and pass legislation to their exclusive benefit.

As far as lobbyist influence over public policy, Obama said this:

I intend to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over, that they had not funded my campaigns, and from my first day as president, I will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in U.S. history. We will make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people.

Yet, he appointed Monsanto's lobbyist to as the food safety czar at FDA. Do you think liberals should just shutup about it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me - "If so ,why? And why is Monsanto or GE or Microsoft the best corporations to advice Obama on public policy decisions regarding food/drug and jobs and education, respectively."

You - Same strawman. Regarding hiring experts from different fields, that should be self evident... you get the people who actually have experience in the topic, not people whose experiences did not lead them to actually really consider a topic. (Arne Duncan worked at Microsoft? No. I believe this demonstrates the strawman adequately).

Me - President Obama enlisted the help of billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates in selling his education reform ideas on Tuesday, a move he hopes will help convince business leaders to get behind his plans. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/09/nation/la-na-obama-education-20110309

Bill Gates was CEO at microsoft. He is very rich. He accumulated billions in fines and judgements against Microsoft for anti-trust crimes. He accumulated a monopoly in s/w operating systems by systematically shutting down competitors by suing them over and over. He is a college drop out. Why does Obama think this man is best person to advise on education policy?

Why would Obama use a CEO who has a massive investment in Microsoft and who has 1000s of people employed to push Microsoft products in schools, to push his education plans on businesses? I work in demanding technical field. Our entire executive staff spends every day cut personnel costs. Innovation is stagnating in the industry. Corporations are outsourcing to low skill workers in Asia who are 22 yrs old and using a computer for first time. Your GPA does not compete with a slave in Bangalore working for $7 / hr with no benefits. When he gets sick he gets fired.

I don't agree with Arne Duncan's or Obama's corporate model for education. It will fail. Teachers are under attack, students are under attack, they will graduate college with $75,000 in debt, and they will not have a job. Do you think liberals should just shut up about this?


-----------------------------------------------


ME - "These tomatoes were genetically modified with anti-bacterial resistance."

You- This (chemistry changes, as "bugs" mutate) keeps happening anyways, to a certain extent, but you'll have to explain what you mean by "more powerful chemicals". More specifically, "powerful". If you mean "more lethal", I'd guess that the chemical most lethal to humans is one of the oldest (and also "natural", as in, found in nature) ones made by humans, EtOH. H20 comes up second, but we don't make factories to synthesize it (because it's everywhere already).

Me -I don't know what to say about this. It is the same problem of over prescribing anti-bacterial drugs. The problem with MBAs and neo-cons and others who consider them smarter than average scientist is that you lack training and skills in technical fields where the consequences may not be immediately quantifiable. When you factor in the profit motive, you are introduce grave risks with expensive consequences.

You're views are not unique, of course. They are shared by Obama and other right wingers who are remaking the democratic party into the newer friendlier republican party.

Millions of us don't agree that things are "better" with the new democrats. I can see in my business and in all macro and micro economic indicators, that things are getting worse. They are getting worse, because individuals who share your philosophical views have taken control of both demcoratic and republican parties.

I *do* claim to represent the concerns of 10's of millions of voters who are angry at the arrogance of the democratic party. Their policies have been bad for the nation and bad for political stability.

I do appreciate your candor. You have clearly articulated that the far right wing republicans and the democrats are not so far apart except for wedge issues of religion.

Dem party has moved to the hard right in recent years, riding in the slip stream of the right wing extremists. I'm happy for corporate CEOs and the relatively small number of people who have profited. There's almost 270 million or more who have seen their wages, benefits, civil rights, health in decline.

I live in Texas and your statements could have easily been written by Rick Perry. That's not enough reason for people to galnanize behind the democratic party. They'll stay home rather than vote for anyone who refuses to represent them.

[tavalon]

92. Not the Onion?

Really?

[whathehell]

98. Oh well...

He's consistent, if nothing else.:eyes:

[uponit7771]

102. This guy has been in office for 2 years already!!! DU Pony Rage is hitting it's peak

[whathehell]

109. Pony Rage my ass....We have a right to be pissed. n/t

[Robeson]

124. Actually, we just wanted a Democrat...

...instead of a corporate whore.

[Dr Fate]

135. Obama would have appointed a Liberal if they had complained ON TIME.

Besides, Taylor IS already a Liberal Democrat and a true progressive.

[harun]

106. Surviving the Corporate Representative Republic.

[mistertrickster]

110. "just appointed senior adviser . . ." in 2009! Breaking news--Obama beats McCain.

nt

[Sheepshank]

112. Joke...right? 2 years ago and now is on here? Interesting timing n/t

[paparush]

116. What is this? George Bush's 3rd term?

For fuck's sake.

[Robeson]

123. Thank you sir, can I have another?...

...The only question here is, is everyone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

[libodem]

129. man that sounds wrong

Bad idea.

[Johnny2X2X]

131. Disgusting

Change? Monsanto makes Halliburton look like the Red Cross. To put anyone associated with this evil corporation in charge of anything just shows you that we are screwed as a Country.

[woo me with science]

136. K&R