Genetically Modified Failures of the US Government: June 8, 2016

The overall failure of the US government is that by promoting GMOs, global food security is at risk to the world’s population.

Genetically Modified Failures of the US Government (v4)

Jeff Kirkpatrick – Ban GMOs Now


It has been reported that Congress is returning this week to wreak more havoc and destruction to our country, and most notably, to our freedom and right to be informed consumers about the food we eat:

Congress Returns This Week Looking for Compromise on Biotech Foods,” by DTN/Progressive Farmer, KTIC Radio; June 6, 2016

According to the article, “Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the issue of labeling GMO foods is a symbol of the American public’s current conflicts over science.”

No: that is the FIRST FAILURE. There is no ‘conflict over science,’ – there is a conflict of science versus ideology posing as science – which the US government adheres to; their ideology is no substitute for science.

There is a conflict because of an adherence by the FDA on an outdated notion of science called the Central Dogma. That’s not science – it’s a theory that has been proven incorrect for decades. The theory includes the incorrect claim that one gene expresses one protein. This is not only wrong, it poses risks to consumers: “One risk associated with genetic engineering is that it is based on the idea that each trait of an organism is encoded in a single, specific gene, and that the transfer of that specific gene will also cause the transfer of the sought-after attribute. However, genes cannot be regarded as separate entities. They are all related, and they are all influenced by many factors including the external environment. This means that even though a gene may be related to a specific characteristic in one organism, it may not produce the same trait in another species or even in another organism of the same species. Therefore, it is almost impossible to predict the effect that transferring a specific gene will have on the individual to which it is transferred.” (See: “Genetic Engineering: A Question of Ethics,” by Teresa Carlson, Mälardalen University, Sweden; November 2006 – 8 pages).

The Human Genome Project proved that whole concept was nonsense back in 2001. The entire field of genetically engineering food is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how genes work: they have an interactive relationship with the ecosystem that they have evolved in which is fluid and constantly changing. They are not machine parts that can be extracted from one species and inserted into the DNA of another species without creating unknown and unanticipated consequences as well insertional mutations that could result in adverse events. (See: “GMO Commentary: GMOs discriminate against the poor,” May 31, 2016 – Ban GMOs Now)

The famous biologist and ecologist Barry Commoner* wrote:

“By any reasonable measure, the finding [of the Human Genome project published in 2001] signaled the downfall of the central dogma; it also destroyed the scientific foundation of genetic engineering, and the validity of the biotechnology industry’s widely advertised claim that its methods of genetically modifying food crops are ‘specific, precise, and predictable’ and therefore safe … Without detailed, ongoing analyses of the transgenic crops, there is no way of knowing if hazardous consequences might arise. Given the failure of the central dogma, there is no assurance that they will not. The genetically engineered crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic.”

Barry Commoner quote, GE crops massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is unpredictable and results could be catastrophic

He added, “Why, then, has the central dogma continued to stand? To some degree the theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science; dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism. [Emphasis added] (See: “Unravelling the DNA Myth – The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering,” by Barry Commoner, Mindfully; February 2002).

[*] Barry Commoner was an “American biologist, college professor, and politician. He was a leading ecologist and among the founders of the modern environmental movement.”

To reiterate, there is not a conflict of science: there is a conflict of science versus ideology posing as science.  This ideology comes from the Ronald Reagan era that was responsible for creating the Coordinated Framework (1986) which is the basis for (not) regulating GMOs in the US (SECOND FAILURE). The US policy of (not) regulating GMOs was not science based, it was policy based.

James Maryanski, former FDA Biotechnology Coordinator confirmed that existing GMO regulations were based on politics, not science.

[The quote is from the movie, ‘The World According to Monsanto.’ Marie-Monique Robin (author, ‘The World According to Monsanto’) interviewing James Maryanski, former FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, who confirmed that existing GMO regulations were based on politics, not science].

The foundation of GMO policy was based on the imaginary fairy tale which stated that the problem with federal regulations was that there are too many laws and that no matter the situation, the fewer federal regulations the better –because too many laws threatened freedom. That has turned out to be a disastrous ideology that has manifested in major negative consequences – particularly with regard to GMOs. Because regulations were generally considered bad, no new laws were created to regulate this emerging new technology that would later result in genetically engineering foods; GMOs (foods) had yet to be created or maybe even conceived at that point. Every other major country created new laws to regulate the new upcoming technology except the USA.

“Man is not free unless government is limited,” Reagan said in his 1989 farewell speech.* “As government expands, liberty contracts.” Because of this ideology, a handful of sociopathic corporations now control the world’s food system (THIRD FAILURE). Six corporations own the majority of seed companies.

[*] “Reagan’s 1989 Farewell Speech,” By PBS, WGBH American Experience

Seed Industry Structure 1996-2013 - Philip H. Howard, Associate Professor, Michigan State University

Seed Industry Structure 1996-2013 – Philip H. Howard, Associate Professor, Michigan State University

An interactive version of the Seed Industry Structure 1996-2013 image is also available HERE.

In Reagan’s dreamland, fewer regulations equaled greater freedom; in reality, fewer regulations have resulted in monopolies of biotech companies (which now control our food system) which is the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, and food sovereignty everywhere. “Control food and you control people,” said Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Ironically, Reagan also said in his speech, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Back to the featured article, and the FIRST FAILURE as quoted by Former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, “[T]he issue of labeling GMO foods is a symbol of the American public’s current conflicts over science.”

The absence of GMO labeling, the lack of support for GMO labels, and the resistance against them represent the FOURTH FAILURE of the US government. There is literally no excuse for the absolute and total failure of Congress to abide by the will of the American people and create and pass laws that would have enabled consumers to be informed about the food they eat. (For an extensive discussion on why GMOs should be labeled, see “An Open Letter to Congress: Label GMOs,” January 21, 2016 – Ban GMOs Now).

On the featured article mentioned above, GMO Shill Supreme Robert Wager made another bold claim why GMOs should not be labeled (the comments have since been removed by the website owner!)

Wager comment on article 'Congress Returns This Week Looking for Compromise on Biotech Foods'

This Canadian (‘scientist’) opposes the rights of Americans to know what they are eating and uses logical fallacies to argue against them, such as “GE is a breeding method not an ingredient.” This assertion is essentially stupid and really is nothing more than the typical spew of the disinformation that endlessly pours out from people like Wager. First of all, the process is inherently hazardous [1] because it causes hundreds to thousands of mutations [2] both in insertional events and tissue culture. The process is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the outdated notion of the Central Dogma and ignores Gene ecology.

“[T]he potential harm of the [GMO] product should be considered for risk assessment, but [also] the GM process itself. The data clearly invalidate the argument that ‘the regulatory trigger for risk assessment should be based upon the physical features of the product rather than the process by which the product was generated.’ … In addition, the products must be labeled and traceable, and the unpredictable and unintended metabolic changes that may occur in NEPs [nutritionally enhanced plants] require the thorough testing of the entire edible portion of the plant, not just the designated product as is almost always done by biotech companies.” [Emphasis added] (See: “The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants,” by David Schubert, Journal of Medicinal Food, Vol. 11, No. 4; July 2008 – 6 pages).

Beyond the basic science, there is an entire aspect of GMOs that is excluded, overlooked and ignored: GMOs are not just the result of a process of a flawed theory of genetics, nor are they just ‘things’; they are not separate from politics, policy, monopolies, patent overreach, a loss of freedom for farmers and consumers, an increase in forced child labor, the perpetuation of monocultures and industrial agriculture which is the main contributing factor to climate  change (Oh – right – Robert Wager denies that climate change is really happening, so I hear).

Debra M. Strauss, quote ‘nondisclosure fails from an ethical perspective’ - “Defying Nature-The Ethical Implications of Genetically Modified Plants,” 2007

GMOs are not just things, and genetic engineering that produces GMOs is not just a “breeding process.” It is a corruption of nature and religion, of spirituality and environmental ethics. People have the right to be informed if the food they eat is sourced from an industry whose values and methods are not only contrary to their own, but repulsive on several levels. It is unethical to arrogantly presume otherwise.

“Autonomy proceeds from the assumption that a competent adult should be able to make her own decisions about what she wants to do with her valuable information, they are unable to make intelligent choices about the foods they buy and the risks they assume.” (See: “Transgenic Crops in the Age of Human Rights: Moral Uncertainty and Rational Risk Policy,” by Jeffrey J. Mindrup, Chapman Law Review, Vol. 11, Issue 1; 2007 – 29 pages).

Wager’s claim that “GE is not an ingredient” is disingenuous and further proof of the attempts to mislead: Cry proteins from the Bt toxin or the EPSPS gene forcibly inserted into the DNA of corn didn’t exist before genetic engineers tinkered with Mother Nature’s intellectual property, and who obviously did not consider the ramifications of what they were doing; nor they did they display any evidence of ethical intelligence in the biohacking of life forms for the sake of profit.

Then Wager implies that since some organic foods stem from seeds that were once subject to the process of mutagenesis, GMOs should not be labeled. This is ridiculous. First of all, organic groups and supporters have fought for years to remove such products from the corrupted USDA’s list of acceptable organic foods. It’s well-established that the USDA has been sued repeatedly for trying to loosen the organic standards as it is. Secondly, to imply GMOs should not be labeled because other foods are not is like suggesting since people on motorcycles don’t have to wear seat-belts, people driving in cars shouldn’t have to either. Many people feel that Wager is the source of massive disinformation and his presence on social media websites is ubiquitous.

He has been called out for sophism before, and he still persists in using false arguments – but then, he has to: it’s the only way to promote GMOs (“sophistry is the deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick someone or a false or untrue argument.”)

“Ethical egoism is the belief that selfishness is a virtue, as each person is best suited to know his owns needs and interests. This means that each person should act in such a way that would benefit only himself, with no regard for the greater good or for society as a whole. When discussing genetic engineering, it is obvious that many researchers are practicing this technique in a very egoistic manner. While some companies or individuals may have enormous concern for the welfare of the environment and human health, others are genetically modifying organisms without thought of the possible consequences. These companies or individuals are thinking only of the benefits to themselves. Many will make a lot of money from their products, and may also achieve fame” (see: “Genetic Engineering: A Question of Ethics,” by Teresa Carlson, Mälardalen University, Sweden; November 2006 – 8 pages).

But then, people like Wager make all kinds of unfounded claims:

“The first big myth you hear about GM crops is – the critics will tell you [they’re] not safe – it causes every manner of disease. In fact I just pulled this off the Organic Consumer’s Association [website] just the other day, and they state that there is no testing done by the FDA. Well, we already heard that there is extensive testing done by the FDA.” [This audio file can be downloaded from HERE].

This is utterly wrong. In fact, this is the FIFTH FAILURE of the US government (FDA): allowing the biotech industry to self-regulate and make their own claims that their products (which they intend to profit from) are safe. “In effect, the biotechnology industry self-regulates when it comes to the safety of GE foods … the FDA classifies substances added to food like biotechnology traits as ‘generally recognized as safe’ (‘GRAS’) or as food additives. A company may voluntarily submit a GRAS notification and scientific documentation to the FDA, but it is not a requirement” (See: “Rubber-Stamped Regulation: The Inadequate Oversight of Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals in the United States,” by Genna Reed, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Volume 14, Issue 3; 2014 – 12 pages).

The FDA does not do any safety tests on GMOs at all, nor do they require any – the entire regulatory process is flawed. Biotech corporations voluntarily consult with the FDA and provide the FDA with their own studies and tell the FDA that their brand new shiny GMO object is safe and dandy (well, they say it is GRAS – generally recognized as safe). Then the FDA sends the biotech corporation a lovely letter which basically states “You said your products are safe – and really: Who the hell are we to disagree?” Highlighting one example, Krystle Blanchard writes, “One exchange between the FDA and a GM seed developer approving a new GM corn seed shows that the consultation simply consisted of the developer’s submission of its own assessment of the safety and nutrition of its own GM seed, to which the FDA gave its unreserved approval based on an unrealistic presumption of the study’s reliability.” (See: “The Hazards of GMOs: Scientific Reasons Why They Should Be Regulated, Political Reasons Why They Are Not, And Legal Answers To What Should Be Done,” by Krystle B. Blanchard, Regent University Law Review, Vol. 27:133-134; 2014 – 21 pages).

Krystle B. Blanchard, Quote -The Hazards of GMOs - Scientific Reasons Why They Should Be Regulated, etc. 2014; FDA BNF No. 000137Source: “FDA – Biotechnology Consultation Agency Response Letter BNF No. 000137 to Georges Freyssinet, CEO of Genective S.A.” from Dennis M. Keefe, PhD, Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA; May 7, 2013

This process is contrary to the FDA’s purpose of protecting the public from potentially harmful foods; the biotech industry is allowed to self-regulate their products. Many problems are associated with this, including the data submitted to the FDA. One example is the use of surrogate proteins. This is a technique used by the biotech industry that involves using a different protein than the one that will actually be used in the final GM product. In 2004 William Freese and David Schubert published a review of the regulatory process which discussed, among many other things, the use of surrogate proteins. They stated:

“Biotechnology companies rarely test the transgenic protein actually produced in their engineered crops. Instead, for testing purposes they make use of a bacterially generated surrogate protein that may differ in important respects from the plant-produced one … This surrogate protein is then employed for all subsequent testing, such as short-term animal feeding studies and allergenicity assessments. This is, however, a serious mistake in testing paradigms, since plants and bacteria are very likely to produce different proteins even when transformed with the same gene … As a result, animal feeding studies and allergenicity assessments that make use of bacterial surrogate proteins or their derivatives may not reflect the toxicity or allergenicity of the plant-produced transgenic protein to which people are actually exposed … Immunologic differences between plant-produced and bacterial surrogate proteins could have serious medical consequences … Given the use of bacterially produced surrogate proteins as the norm for testing, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the plant-produced transgenic proteins we actually eat are virtually untested.” [Citations omitted, emphasis added]. (See: “Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods,” by William Freese and David Schubert, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21; November 2004 – 24 pages).

In other words, these pseudo-safety studies use a protein that is different than the one actually used in the GM brand. To repeat: the biotech corporation submits to the FDA data from a so-called study that does NOT use the SAME protein as the one in the final GMO; the FDA apparently has no problem with that fact. What would it be like if a pharmaceutical corporation submitted data about a different chemical compound than the one intended for the final medication?  What if an automobile company used a different car to assess the safety of a car that is different than the one used in a crash test? And somehow, it’s okay to do this with GMOs?

Allowing biotechnology corporations to do this, and then to submit those unpublished “studies” as “proof” that their GMO brands are “safe” is further substantiation of the failure of the US Government regarding GMOs.

Put this in context: former FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg says in the featured article that “we need to have science-based approaches as to what the government would require as labeling.”

Seriously? Since when has the FDA used a science-based approach regarding GMOs? The entire policy is driven by ideology which promoted a failed policy that pre-dated the technology which resulted in products based on a faulty understanding of genetics. “Controversy surrounds the decision to fit biotechnology, a multi-billion dollar industry, into laws that were created years before the techniques and methods routinely used today were thought possible. (See: “Unapproved Genetically Modified Corn: It’s What’s for Dinner,” by Kyndra A. Lundquist, University of Iowa – College of Law, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 2; January 14, 2015 – 27 pages)

Science-based? The insinuation that the FDA and the government in general views GMOs through a science-based perception is the SIXTH FAILURE of the US Government:

“Not only is there no requirement that GE food developers consult with the FDA, those companies are also not required to follow any recommendations that the FDA makes during or after such a consultation. This consultation process, which the FDA itself characterizes as ‘comprehensive scientific review of the data generated by the developer,’ culminates merely in an agency statement that it has ‘no further questions.’ This no-action letter is the sum total of the agency’s involvement – a role rather remote from the industry characterization suggesting that the agency actually reviews data and makes a decision that the food is safe. This is not a recipe for building public confidence. So, perhaps it is no surprise that the public remains ambivalent about the safety of these foods, and that support for labeling is nearly universal. Given the rhetoric about ‘science-based regulation’ of GE crops and foods, it is important to highlight just how much of the FDA’s ‘review’ of these products is actually based on unproven assumptions rather than on actual scientific data.” [Citations omitted, bold emphasis added] (See: “Is Anyone Regulating? The Curious State of GMO Governance in the United States,” by Rebecca Bratspies, Vermont Law Review, Vol. 37; 2013 – 35 pages).

FDA generic letter (example) - Biotechnology Consultation Agency Response Letter BNF No. 000148 to Monsanto Company - MON 87419 Corn

Falsely claiming that they sit upon the throne of the Authority of Science implies that those who oppose the FDA’s magical belief system of substantial equivalence (‘GMOs are just the same as non-GMOs’) and who are in opposition to the agency’s blatant promotion of GMOs (instead of protecting the American public) are anti-science. Obviously, it is the FDA (and the USDA, the EPA and many members of Congress as well as those in the White House, etc.) that fail to adhere to science. Those who do object do so not only on solid scientific grounds, but on ethical and other legitimate grounds as well. This is the SEVENTH FAILURE of the US government: the failure to incorporate ethical considerations as well as the concerns of the public in shaping GMO policies.

“While the risks generate a need for labeling of the presence of GMOs, such an approach is also necessitated above and beyond safety issues, as a matter of taste and preference and for many health-related reasons. It must be recognized that many consumers make food choices based on religious, ethical, and environmental considerations, for example, deciding not to eat veal, mass-produced chickens, or non-organic produce. If biotechnology raises similar ethical, health, and environmental concerns, it is not irrational for people to act on these preferences and aversions to risk. In order to make these informed decisions, food products must be comprehensively labeled. As a matter of ethics and public policy, since labeling laws are created to meet consumer needs, consumer opinion should be respected.” [Citations and internal quotations omitted]. (See: “Defying Nature: The Ethical Implications of Genetically Modified Plants,” by Debra M. Strauss, Journal of Food Law & Policy Vol. 3, No. 1; 2007 – 37 pages).

There are many reasons why people object to GMOs that necessitate GMO labels:

“From a theological point of view, genetic engineering is intrinsically wrong … Genetic engineers are gambling with their unproven introductions … As citizens, we must take responsibility for the future. We are at a time in our world’s history where we can no longer afford to violate the laws of nature in our haste for progress. We must not only acknowledge, but also honor the intimate relationship we share with everything in the universe. There is an order in the universe, a seamless web that nourishes and connects us all from the tiniest seed, to the beating of our hearts, to the stars in the galaxies. Every time we act without reference to this underlying intelligence of natural law, we harm ourselves, we harm each other, and we harm our planet.” (See: “Sikh Perspective on Modern Scientific Technology,” by Dr. Surjit Kaur, Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh; 2010). [Sikhism is a major religion of India and the fifth-largest faith in the world].

“The basic problem is a denial on the part of many geneticists that genetically engineered organisms are radical, new, and unnatural forms of life, which, as such, have no place in the evolutionarily balanced biosphere.” (See: “Redesigning the World: Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering,” by Ron Epstein, Vajra Bodhi Sea: A Monthly Journal of Orthodox Buddhism, Vol 32, No. 76; 2001).

“In many places, following the introduction of these crops, productive land is concentrated in the hands of a few owners due to the progressive disappearance of small producers, who, as a consequence of the loss of the exploited lands, are obliged to withdraw from direct production. The most vulnerable of these become temporary laborers, and many rural workers end up moving to poverty-stricken urban areas. The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future. In various countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and other products needed for their cultivation. This dependency would be aggravated were the production of infertile seeds to be considered; the effect would be to force farmers to purchase them from larger producers.” [Citations & internal quotations omitted] (See: Encyclical Letter (Laudato si’) of the Holy Father Pope Francis, “On Care for Our Common Home,” May 24, 2015).

“We don’t know the long-term effects of genetic engineering; this is a questionable process. We have been force-fed something we should not have been. People are being hurt by this technology. Food is sacred. At the heart of Christian worship is a sacred meal, called the Holy Eucharist or Holy Communion. Eating means life. No one has the right to keep us in the dark about what we eat or feed our children and families.” – Dan Hinkle, Episcopal minister, quoted in “This Pennsylvania Community is Determined to Ban GMOs and Pesticides,” by Ken Roseboro, EcoWatch; October 7, 2015.

“In order for Jews to know if there is violation [of the Talmudic prohibition known as kilayim] it is imperative that we know if the food we seek to eat has been genetically modified.” – Rabbi Robin Nafshi (“Labeling of genetically modified foods draws a packed house to committee,” by David Brooks, Concord Monitor; January 27, 2016).

People have concerns about GMOs that demonstrate they do not want and should not be forced to support an industry because their products are not labeled. Because there have been no GMO labels, there has been no informed consent as people have been eating GMOs without knowing it. This reeks of a violation of the most fundamental level of ethics expected in a civilized society.

As people come to realize what has been happening to their food supply for over two decades, it’s no wonder they often express the sentiment that they feel like they have been used as lab rats:  “The hasty transition of the radically new technology of crop transgenics from the research and development stage to commercialization, in which products of the young industry have permeated global food markets, has resulted in what may turn out to be the largest diet experiment in history.” (See: “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise,” by Don Lotter, International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food, Vol. 16, No. 1; December 19, 2008 – 19 Pages).

“There are many reasons why we should be opposed to GM crops. They bring with them all sorts of hazards, they lead to an increased use of chemicals, they promote the development of superweeds and toxin-resistant insects, they court disaster by leaving the world with only a very few varieties of each crop, and they enable a small number of corporations to gain control of the world’s food supply. They are yet another part of the campaign by the major seed companies to pressure governments in developing countries to introduce laws that prevent farmers from saving, replanting, exchanging and selling seeds, as they have done for millennia and on which their livelihoods and their countries’ food security depend. (Professor Peter Saunders, “Genetic Modification Trails Conventional Breeding By Far,” Institute of Science in Society; October 15, 2014)

Objections to GMOs transcend the invalid policy arguments and “science-based” justifications (particularly when that ‘science’ is incorrect). Their objections should not be disregarded because of a failed regulatory system based on political ideology which is derived from the wrong understanding of how genes function.

“Ultimately ‘life’ can only ever be seen as a whole … Genetic engineering, on the other hand, treats living organisms as if they were simply an accumulation of DNA, whose individual components can be recombined like pieces of Lego … The genome and the epigenome are in constant interaction with the environment. They are part of a complex system that has been optimized over billions of years, the characteristics of which amount to far more than its individual parts … Ethical boundaries need to take the integrity of the genome into consideration. Genes and living organisms must be excluded from patenting.” (See: “Biotechnology, genetic engineering and our responsibility for nature,” by Testbiotech).


The EIGHTH FAILURE of the US Government is the support and promotion of the failed QR code scheme. This would require (at a minimum) an expensive cell phone and a more expensive contract with a carrier. The whole concept is basically beyond absurd and is another example of how the government fails to represent the will of the American people and instead, represents the will of the biotech industry.  This failure to fulfill one’s moral, legal and ethical obligation to represent constituents is the NINTH FAILURE of the US government.

The TENTH FAILURE is an extension of the last two: the US government discriminates against the poor.

Just as GMOs discriminate against the poor* – so do the policies of the USDA and other agencies and entities of the US government. The simple fact that the stupid idea to use QR codes is presented as a solution is absolute proof of the lack of consideration, and thus discrimination, of the poor.  The QR code scheme is intrinsically discriminatory against the poor because – if for no other reason – they cannot afford to uses such a ridiculous system. That USDA Secretary Vilsack and Senator Stabenow and other promoters of this ludicrous and ill-advised idea promote and support this idiocy indicates that they are not just biotech prostitutes, but they have absolutely no ability to understand or experience any degree of empathy about what is happening in this country: over 49 million Americans are food insecure; people live in food deserts, they struggle to put food on the table period. These supreme idiots consider a QR code scheme as a valid way to address consumer demands for GMO labels, and in doing so, they are spitting in the faces of millions of people. It’s no wonder that the ELEVENTH FAILURE of the US government is to not recognize that the American people have already lost faith in their useless governmental agencies and representatives.

[*] See: “GMOs discriminate against the poor: GMO Commentary,” May 31, 2016 – Ban GMOs Now.


The featured article closes with: “Dan Glickman, an Agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration, noted at the Georgetown event that the conflict over GMOs and science is part of ‘a growing lack of trust by Americans in their institutions.’”

Gee, Glickman, YOU THINK?

“Glickman … added, ‘We have to make sure we have a modern regulatory system. These issues do require a regulatory system that people have trust in.’

This is the TWELFTH FAILURE of the US government: failure to acknowledge that the regulatory system is NOT modern; it was created long before any GMO brand was introduced in agriculture; it is ancient and outdated; it is driven by a wrong understanding of science: it needs a complete overhaul. In fact, the entire food system needs a complete overhaul, from patent rights to international trade agreements that essentially force GMOs down the throats of people in countries that do not want them and reject them – all at US taxpayer expense.

It’s time for US Governmental agencies and politicians to GET A CLUE: Americans don’t support tax money invested in the promotion of GMOs on an international level to benefit the bottom line of a handful of sociopathic corporations to further the goal of those biotech corporations to control the food system – especially when they use the false assertion that GMOs are needed to feed the world: they are not. This is the THIRTEENTH FAILURE of the US Government: promoting GMOs which are unwanted and not needed, and which are causing massive ecological and sociological damage at the expense of American taxpayers. Taxpayer money should first and foremost be spent solving food insecurity in the US, which has increased since the introduction of GMOs.

Finally, the end of the featured article arrives, with Dan Glickman making a statement that embodies more major failures of the US government: the FOURTEENTH FAILURE is to blame farmers for something they are not responsible for:

Glickman “added that the farm community had not done a good job of explaining the value of GMOs to consumers.”

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. It’s not up to farmers – you reeking pile of ignorance – to explain the alleged benefits of GMOs to consumers. It is up to farmers to grow food (that in this case, people don’t want to eat); the only reason people eat GMOs is because they don’t know they are or because they cannot afford the alternative. This is reminiscent of the time farmers were blamed (not Monsanto, not the USDA or EPA or FDA etc.) for the explosive growth of glyphosate-resistant superweeds during the 2010 Congressional hearings* (“Are Superweeds on Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy?” Session of the hearing of the United States House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy held on July 28, 2010 and September 30, 2010).

[*] Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill-R) blamed farmers for the explosive growth of Roundup resistant superweeds during a 2010 Congressional hearing on superweeds (his opening remarks do NOT appear on video, but they are in the transcript:  “[I don’t believe] that by some unnatural process the use of genetically engineered seeds and the use of weed repellent have led to some unnatural superweed.  [T]het the facts couldn’t be further from the truth … It makes sense for farmers to do what is right. Obviously to invoke best practices, to follow the EPA prescribed guidelines on the chemicals that are being used, vis-a-vis the crops that are being planted. And really, by and large, this problem can be mitigated through proper farming techniques. Now, as I mentioned, we have bad actors. We have people who don’t follow it.”

Listen to and download and then share the statement by Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill-R). He is an embodiment of government failure compounded by his assertion that farmers are to blame for the absurd government policies that idiots like him have supported and promoted due to an inability  to grasp science 101: evolution and adaption.


The FIFTEENTH FAILURE of the US government is to presume that GMOs are beneficial in some mystical way to consumers. This is wholly false and untrue. The ONLY entities that benefit from GMOs are the corporations, shareholders, and others who have a vested interest in assuring people consume them unknowingly and against their will.

This last point is more than just a failure: it is the essence of what a GMO really is about: deception and disinformation.

The reality is that the only way to promote GMOs is to spread disinformation or to outright lie – or do both.

GMOs are unwanted, not needed, rejected and discriminate against the poor. GMOs threaten food security. GMOs are based on fraud through and through.

There will be a backlash if the desire of voters and consumers continues to be ignored about their inherent right to know what they are eating. In the end, more and more people are recognizing that the struggle for GMO labels is revealing what is REALLY happening to our entire food system. Consequently, more people are seeing the absolute necessity of moving beyond the desire for GMO labels: when a more comprehensive understanding of GMOs is considered that includes how they affect the environment and socio-economic and sociological conditions, the response to these extremely negative impacts transcends a mere call for GMO labels and instead it is recognized that the rational and just solution is to demand a total ban on GMOs. GMOs should be banned.

Ban GMOs Now.

The corporate control of our food system threatens the biodiversity of this planet which is a threat to our very survival. The overall failure of the US government is that by supporting and promoting GMOs domestically and on countries around the world (forcing countries to accept them), the food security of the world’s population is now at risk.

“When genetically modified organisms are released into the environment, they cannot be removed, and it may take decades or centuries to fully realize the consequences. The impacts will affect the entire world, not only those people who create and release the organisms. Some people are so eager to proceed quickly and develop new potentially beneficial GMO’s that they do not stop to fully consider the impacts of their decisions. Researchers are too blinded by the opportunity for wealth that they cannot see the potential disastrous effects” (see: “Genetic Engineering: A Question of Ethics,” by Teresa Carlson, Mälardalen University, Sweden; November 2006 – 8 pages).


This is, by no means, a complete overview of the genetically modified failures of the US government. It illustrates, however, how a single article can be the source for so many failures regarding the policies and attitudes of the government – which are largely influenced by people like Wager. There are many pro-GMO proponents just like him who have testified in front of Congress – consequently, the proliferation of disinformation that is spread by people like this ends up influencing law makers.

Prior to the House vote on HR 1599 – the DARK Act (which happened on July 23, 2015) Representative Dan Newhouse falsely claimed that “the USDA & the FDA rigorously test every biotech crop for human safety for years before anything can be brought to market.” This is not just FALSE – it also highlights the depths of ignorance & disinformation that prevails in Congress about GMOs.

This sound file can also be downloaded HERE (share it – let people know how ignorant members of Congress are about GMOs).


[1] “Why GMOs Can Never Be Safe,” by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society; July 22, 2013

[2] “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,” by Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson & Ricarda Steinbrecher, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Vol. 2006; March 1, 2006 (7 pages)


Genetically Modified Failures of the US Government (TW)

सत्यमेव जयते – Satyameva Jayate

(Truth Ultimately Triumphs)


Re-posting is encouraged, provided the URL of the original is posted with attribution to the original author and all links are preserved to the referenced articles, reports, etc. on their respective websites.

Updated June 15, 2016

Copyright © Jeff Kirkpatrick 2016 Ban GMOs Now All rights reserved.



4 thoughts on “Genetically Modified Failures of the US Government: June 8, 2016

  1. Reblogged this on Ban GMOs Now Blog and commented:

    “Since when has the FDA used a science-based approach regarding GMOs? The entire policy is driven by ideology which promoted a failed policy that pre-dated the technology which resulted in products based on a faulty understanding of genetics.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s