X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Home Page   My Sky Valley   Advertising   Contact Us   Privacy Policy   About Us   Terms of Use 
Register Here
Welcome

Log In
http://skyvalleychronicle.com/?t=advertising_rates

Wed, June 20, 2018

"The #1 Read & Rated Sky Valley News Source
& Only Daily Paper in the Sky Valley!"

http://skyvalleychronicle.com/?t=advertising_rates


RSS Feeds
Everett, WATemp: 57°FSky: overcastForecast...
SECTIONS
BREAKING NEWS
FEATURE NEWS
SNOHOMISH
MONROE
SULTAN
STARTUP
BARING
GOLD BAR
INDEX
SKYKOMISH
STEVENS PASS
GENERAL
VALLEY NEWS
OPINION &
EDITORIAL
VIDEOS
LEGAL NOTICES
CLASSIFIEDS
AUCTIONS
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/?template=advertising_rates

--

FEATURE NEWS

Your Gov't Hard At Work
It wants to use your money to launch a promo campaign for genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

November 25, 2017




Anti-GMO sign on window in shop at St. Johns, North Portland, Oregon in ay 2015. Photo by Tony Webster. (Lic. Creative Commons 2.0)

By Anna Meyers

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)  --  While Congress hasn’t accomplished much in 2017, it did manage to pass a budget resolution — and within that budget, a sum of $3 million stands out.

Congress appropriated that $3 million to fund the Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative. That’s a partnership between the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) “to provide consumer education on agricultural biotechnology and food and animal feed ingredients derived from biotechnology.”

What they’re really talking about is a promotional campaign for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

There are two major flaws with this plan.

First, the FDA is tasked with building a campaign around the “safety and benefits of crop biotechnology.” But what about the risks, concerns, and unknowns?

Leaving those out means using government agencies and taxpayer funds for corporate propaganda. It benefits companies like Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, and Bayer, which collectively earn billions of dollars from these technologies, but does little to inform consumers.

Second, the initiative will push forward “science-based” education. The question is: Whose science are they using?

There’s very little independent or government research on GMOs and their corresponding pesticides. The lack of unbiased and comprehensive science on biotechnology is a result of corporations controlling who can do research on biotech products.

Much of the existing research is either industry-funded or straight out of biotechnology companies’ own labs. The existing regulatory framework relies on voluntary reporting and doesn’t require independent verification to prove the safety of new products before they land on dinner plates across the country.

If the government’s going to educate consumers on biotechnology, it must first do its own unbiased studies on the long-term environmental and health impacts of existing GMOs and pesticides. It also needs a much more rigorous — and mandatory — regulatory process.

The government must tell consumers the full truth, presenting balanced and unbiased information on the benefits, risks, and concerns around biotechnology. The FDA must openly address consumer concerns about long-term environmental impacts, corporate influence on government research, and corporate control of our industrialized food system.

We’re at a turning point in history where we can reverse the harm that we’ve done to our communities, farmland, and environment.

Industrialized, chemical-intensive agriculture designed to work around biotechnology is a failed system. It’s increasing herbicide use, exacerbating pesticide resistance, polluting our waterways, soil, and air, and promoting highly processed food and confined animal production.

In order to build a more sustainable food system for our health and our climate, we need to move away from chemical-intensive agriculture. Rather than promoting corporate interests, that $3 million would be much better used to promote the transition to regenerative organic agriculture, to build urban food hubs, and to aid the next generation of farmers in accessing land and resources.

The FDA doesn’t need a biotechnology marketing initiative. It needs an initiative to bring back public trust in federal regulatory agencies, and move the country forward towards truly sustainable agriculture.

 
______________________________

  

Anna Meyer is the Food Campaigns Fellow at Green America. This report first appeared at OtherWords.org and is reprinted here with permission.





BACK TO

HOME

http://murphyauction.com/
More Headlines

FEATURE NEWS
Woman Shot And Killed
In Her Home In Snohomish
In The Wealthiest Nation On Earth
40% Of Us Live Poor Or In Abject Poverty
What’s wrong with that picture?
Wall Street Mega-Bank Will Pay Washington And 41 Other
States $100 Million
For Interest Rate Manipulation
America’s Military Industrial Money Drain
The spigot’s been thrown wide open and it’s sucking up your money like there’s no tomorrow
The Swamp Water Ethics
Of The New American Era
New York State Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump Foundation Cites
‘Persistent Illegal Conduct’

    More->



http://skyvalleychronicle.com/


© 2008-2018 Sky Valley Media Group, LLC
www.skyvalleychronicle.com is owned and produced by
Sky Valley Media Group, LLC which is solely responsible for its content