In 1997 the FDA implemented a proposed rule on generally recognized as safe (GRAS) food additives. This proposed rule eliminated the rigorous petition process previously required for new food additives and essentially green lighted companies to determine for themselves if a new food additive was GRAS. As a result since 1997, reportedly more than 250 new food additives have entered the food supply based solely on food manufacturer claims of safety.
In February 2014 the Center for Food Safety (CFS) attempted to right this grave wrong, by suing the FDA to vacate the proposed GRAS rule. The FDA is now fighting back with a motion to dismiss the CFS lawsuit. The FDA motion asserts, among other things, that the CFS lacks the requisite standing to sue the FDA. The FDA claims that lack of standing or ability to sue, exists in that the CFS has failed to demostrate that the plaintiff suffered a non-speculative injury caused by the challenged action that may be redressed by the court. Further, that even if such injury was proved, it was not caused by the FDA proposed GRAS rule and vacating the rule would not remedy the injury. In addition, the FDA maintains that the GRAS rule is not a "Final" rule and therefore not subject to judicial review.
The FDA has sat on their GRAS hands for 15 plus years, allowing manufacturers free reign with regard to new food additives. Now they are in part, using their own laches as a means to dismiss the CFS lawsuit. The sad truth is that the FDA makes a very sound and competent legal case for dismissal and in my humble opinion is likely to succeed. Unfortunately food safety is the job of the FDA and not the judicial branch.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia have raised the bar to new record heights in the fight against GMO's. While Americans fight amongst themselves in an environment of greed and profit, Russia is going straight for the knockout blow in what is shaping up to be the super fight of the century. Move over Rocky Balboa and Ivan Drago, as this fight is for real!
Russian legislators have drafted a bill, which if passed, will criminalize GMO related activities equating same to terrorist acts. The bill would impose criminal liability on those who produce, sell or distribute GMO's. In addition, the bill also provides fines for concealing or deliberately distorting information about the environmental impact of GMO's. Co-Author of the bill, Kirill Cherkasov, reportedly maintains that the consequences of GMO's can be greater than that of a terrorist act, "And punishment should be proportionate to the crime."
Noteworthy is that in Russia, a terrorist act is punishable with a jail sentence of 15 years to life. The bill will likely face many challenges including, among others, enforcement and demonstrating a causal link to GMO ramifications that take years to manifest. Notwithstanding, it represents Russia's no holds barred approach to Monsanto and the like.
In the movie Rocky IV, by the end of the fight the Russian people were cheering for the American Rocky Balboa to win the fight. In the very real fight of Russia v. Monsanto, this time it may be the American people that are cheering for the Russian to win.
The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of the press. This freedom is one of America's cornerstone rights and rightfully so. However, our forefathers guaranteed this right in large part, to protect the coverage and dissemination of credible news. The media's excessive and arguably obsessive coverage of couple Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, likely has our forefathers rolling over in their graves.
In addition, it has been reported that "Kim & Kanye" stand to make up to 21 million dollars from wedding sponsors and the sale of some wedding photographs. If the battle between corporate greed and the peoples' right to know what is in their food received a fraction of the media coverage attributed to "Kim & Kanye," we would have a federal GMO label law today. The good people of America are having their homes foreclosed upon, are struggling to pay their electric bills and worse are homeless and hungry, and "Kim & Kanye" stand to make up to 21 million dollars just for getting married. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
Perhaps the newly married wealthy couple will donate their up to 21 million dollars of found money, to feed the hungry and house the homeless. At least that way, some good will come out of this "media madness." But unfortunately, this entire matter is believed by many to represent a new low in American media coverage. It's not about whether or not you like or don't like the newly married couple. It is all about the credibility of American media coverage and providing objective news coverage of real issues in an "equal time" fashion. It appears that American media coverage has now strayed far off its intended course and there is no GPS to find the way back.
Walmart has settled 23 of the cases emanating from the 2011 listeria cantaloupe outbreak, that allegedly killed 33 people and sickened many more. Although many related cases remain unsettled, Walmart issued a statement maintaining that the company is "Committed to our customers' safety and we take food safety concerns like this very seriously."
The 2011 listeria cantaloupe contamination was traced to Jensen Farms in Colorado. The Jensen brothers, after pleading guilty to introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, were sentenced to probation, home detention and community service. In addition, each brother was ordered to pay $150,000 in restitution. Jensen Farms was compelled to file for Bankruptcy within one year of the contamination.
Reportedly, the contamination problem stemmed from dirty water on the floor of the Jensen Farm's facility and old unclean equipment. Notwithstanding, it is stated that upon inspection one week prior to the discovery of the first victim, the facility received a "Superior Rating."
These cases bring to light, the fact that we have a food system in our country that has failed on many levels from A to Z or from seed to sale. Clearly the FDA and the USDA are overwhelmed, understaffed and under funded. Perhaps that is why the FDA continues to allow the irradiation of more and more of our foods. But, as detailed in our April 15, 2014 blog, assaulting our foods with radiation only addresses the symptom and not the cause of the problem.
Big companies such as Walmart, need to heighten their selectivity of food suppliers and be guided more by quality than price. In addition, there is a serious need for increased qualitative inspections in the growth, manufacturing, processing, delivery and sale of our foods. Although the affordability of the necessary changes is an issue, that is understandably no concern of the victims' families. For there is no amount of money, that is truly compensatory for the loss of a loved one.
The GMO battle between the people and corporate greed rages on. In the glaring absence of a federal GMO label law to uphold the peoples' right to know what is in our food, the state of Vermont has led the way by passing our country's first state GMO label law. Certainly one would think that it is reasonable for a state to take action to protect its people, when our President fails to stand by his promise to do so. But reasonableness does not necessarily apply when it comes to corporate greed.
"Today, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law HB 112, a bill that is critically flawed and not in the best interests of consumers. It sets the nation on a costly and misguided path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will do nothing to advance the safety of consumers."
The statement continued, "Consumers who prefer to avoid GM ingredients have the option to choose from an array of products already in the marketplace labeled 'certified organic.' The government therefore has no compelling interest in warning consumers about foods containing GM ingredients, making this law's legality suspect at best. In light of this fact, in the coming weeks GMA will file suit in federal court against the state of Vermont to overturn the law."
As part of their statement, the GMA encouraged policymakers in Vermont to support the so called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would require GMO foods to be labeled only if the FDA determines there is a health or safety risk. The GMA purported that it is in this way that, "Any labeling of GM ingredients would therefore be based on science, not fear… ."
It appears that the only fear present, is the GMA's fear of a lowered profit margin. Perhaps that is why they support the so called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which makes GMO labeling contingent on the FDA determining a health or safety risk. GMO proponents believe that waiting for the FDA to find a health risk with GM foods, is tantamount to waiting for Christmas to arrive in July.
Unfortunately, our President failed to honor and keep his campaign promise to the people, that he would make sure that we would know whether or not our food was genetically modified. Had Obama kept his promise, upon being elected he would have taken steps to enact a federal GMO label law. A federal GMO label law would have obviated the need for the long and costly battle on the state level that has ensued and continues to this day. But alas, once again it seems to be politics as usual. However, it is the people and not the politicians, that will pay the price.
The United States Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held in favor of prayer in the case of Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway. The case centered on prayers conducted at the beginning of the monthly Town Board meetings in Greece, NY. Citizens that initially filed suit, alleged that the prayers violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by showing a preference for Christians. In a split decision of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree.
In the court's majority opinion by Justice Kennedy, the court stated that there has been a long established history and tradition of prayer in Congress and State Legislatures. That the type of opening prayer held at the Town Board meetings at issue, falls under the umbrella of a ceremonial or legislative prayer. The court continued by stating that legislative prayer, "...lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society." Accordingly, the court did not find any First Amendment violation and held that the prayer at issue was permissible.
Many people believe that the high court's decision failed to uphold the "separation between church and state" as set forth in the Constitution. In fact, such language is not actually in the Constitution. The First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ." It was Thomas Jefferson that wrote the words of separation between church and state in a letter he penned on January 1, 1802, in his interpretation of the First Amendment. So at least for now, in God we (and the Supreme Court) still trust.