Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea

[Truth Teller]

Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea
OCA, November 12, 2008
Nov. 12, 2008

* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn10230...

* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.

http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2... ...

* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s

The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.

*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Obama has betrayed us.

[Laelth]

18. Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I see him pulling pro-business and DLC Democrats out of Congress (where they can't be fired) and putting them in positions where they can be fired if they don't do Obama's bidding. If I am right about this, his strategy is brilliant, and it may serve the left's agenda in the long run. At this point, it's too early to tell.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BlooInBloo]

25. lol

[Zhade]

74. That's how I feel about the clinton pick.

If he doesn't betray the majority of Americans who, as you rightly state, support liberal policies -- then he's a genius.

[Laelth]

79. Obama openly admits to studying and adopting Lincoln's political strategies.

That's exactly what Lincoln did--keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

I could be wrong about this, but, as you say, if my read is right, Obama is playing his hand brilliantly and America may benefit from it when some truly progressive legislation gets enacted as a result.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hippo_Tron]

121. I agree, also people don't realize what the Cabinet's job is

The Cabinet does not wield nearly the influence that it once did. Other than the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General, and Homeland Security to a certain degree, most of these people usually don't have the ear of the President except in their policy area and they are not necessarily the most influential person on that policy matter. The Cabinet's job is really to help the President sell his agenda to Congress and the American People, Congress being the more important part of that equation since the President does most of the selling to the public.

Given that, it makes complete sense that for the most part Obama has filled his cabinet with DC insiders. These are the people who know Congress and know how to work them. As far as the "Change" part of the equation, I think it's going to come more from Obama and the Executive Office of the President. Melody Barnes, for example, is going to wield a lot of influence over domestic policy even though her position isn't extremely high profile.

Also I think that people are having a hard time getting used to the idea that their President will actually be engaged in policy. Unlike Bush and Raygun, Obama loves policy and will actually play an active role in formulating it rather than just delegating that authority.

[Hawkowl]

142. I agree

I've also thought this could be Obama's strategic plan of removing obstructionists from the congress/elected office. If true, it is truely a bold, brilliant strategy. As you say, we'll see.

[mucifer]

2. oh crap!

[Muttocracy]

3. We need someone who'll support small farmers and not just midwest agribusiness

Ag committees in congress are already dominated by the midwest.

[DainBramaged]

4. Too late. Oh well.

[Truth Teller]

6. Yeah I hate it

No way to criticize an appointment before we know who it is! :)

[DainBramaged]

30. Of course, it could be Joe the Farmer!

[EFerrari]

5. K&R

[Truth Teller]

7. Thanks - can I kick my own thread?

Ooops just did.

[EFerrari]

9. Oops!

[Truth Teller]

12. Stop that!

You are so obvious!

:rofl:

[leftchick]

8. K&R number 5

fuck!

:(

[Truth Teller]

10. Aw

Twas a noble effort. I've missed a few myself! :)

[nc4bo]

11. Help me understand... Just because Obama appoints Vilsack doesn't mean Obama supports

or agrees with genocrops, does it?

But Obama now has on his team someone who knows all about these processes and can provide inside information about it and the rest is up to the Obama Administration as to what to do with this knowledge and information, right?

Right?

[Truth Teller]

13. Right!

And appointing Cheney to an intellegence post is a great idea, too. Just because Obama appointed Cheney wouldn't mean Obama supports torture, would it?

Obama would have on his team someone who knows all about torture and can provide inside information about it and the rest is up to the Obama Administration as to what to do with this knowledge and information, right?

Right?

[nc4bo]

15. I don't know that's why I'm asking

so who else is available for the position?

Dick Cheney is far too arrogant and selfserving to serve any one other than Dick Cheney.

[leftchick]

90. I am sure there are a lot of NON DLC

NON Corporate whores available, Obama just seems to not be interested in finding them.

right?

[nc4bo]

94. but would they have the knowledge that a pro-corp person would

have?

I'm sorry that I just don't get the outrage of hiring extremely knowledgeable people to appropriate positions where this knowledge can only help Obama make intelligent decisions. Hopefully he remembers how he got elected in the first place and if he doesn't, there are plenty to remind him of these facts.

Obama just doesn't strike me as a stupid, weak man who will allow others to control what he does amd how he does it.

Why subject ourselves to double the outrage? No policies have been implemented yet. Save the outrage until Obama proves he's incompetent to make his own decisions as to what is best for America.

:silly:

[leftchick]

95. apparently

you did not read the original post links. He is a yes man for all that is wrong in current US agriculture practices that serve nothing more than profits for the corporations that make him quite wealthy. It is like any of bush's hundreds of political appointees in his administration. It is called Conflict of Interest and I find it almost as alarming as the wall streeters he has hired for economic rebuilding when what we need are genuine economists.

:crazy:

[nc4bo]

101. So basically you are saying that Obama will be Bush III? nt

[leftchick]

118. not exactly

so far just a little improvement. Like heading off of a cliff at 40 mph vs 90 mph. Sorry to be so cynical but it comes from years of abuse from the so called centrists.

[chelaque liberal]

139. Food Democracy Now listed 6 suitable choices in letter to PEO

55,326 people signed this petition to PE Obama
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/

The Sustainable Choice for the Next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

Gus Schumacher, Former Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Former Massachusetts Commissioner of Agriculture.

Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director, Center for Rural Affairs, Lyons, NE.

Sarah Vogel, former two-term Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of North Dakota, attorney, Bismarck, ND.

Fred Kirschenmann, organic farmer, Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA and President, Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, Pocantico Hills, NY.

Mark Ritchie, current Minnesota Secretary of State, former policy analyst in Minnesota’s Department of Agriculture under Governor Rudy Perpich, co-founder of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Neil Hamilton, attorney, Dwight D. Opperman Chair of Law and Professor of Law and Director, Agricultural Law Center, Drake University, Des Moines, IA.

[depakid]

14. I suppose the same could be said about Robert Rubin and Larry Summers

Given the various other picks, Vilsack was more or less to be expected....

[nc4bo]

16. I think *I* need to wait just a bit longer and see what Obama's

intentions are and I can't do it by simply judging who he picks to serve in his administration.

He promises to change the way Washington works and I can't do it until after he becomes President and starts keeping (I hope) his promises.

That's just me though.

[depakid]

89. No disagreement there

None whatsoever- though my thoughts on reading a lot of these takes is that people expect more micromanagement than one person- or even a close set of people can practically do.

[Hanse]

17. So have you got any good reasons?

"* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn..."

Finally, an administration which is pro-science instead of anti-science.

"
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership. "

Great

"* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows."

Sounds like more good news to me.

"* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address."

So he's not just pro-science, he's pro-farmer.

"* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack "

Is he really a shill for Monsanto? Has he done anything improperly with regards to Monsanto? Or is this just more conspiracy theories from the anti-science kooks? Everytime somebody speaks out in favor of GMOs they get labeled a shill for Monsanto. If I hadn't just pointed that out, I'd probably get accused of being a Monsanto shill in this thread.


"*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor. "

Meh.

[EFerrari]

20. Are you a Monsanto shill? Usually, they are more polished

and have better lines.

[Hanse]

22. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

24. I live to illuminate DU.

:hi:

[Hanse]

Well, I guess in the absence of content...

Illumination will have to do.

[EFerrari]

32. That's it. You nailed it.

lol

[Hanse]

37. Just to establish a baseline... what do you think of RFK Jr.?

How about stem cell research?

[DainBramaged]

29. I remember Monsanto when they made DDT, fertilizer, Agent Orange,

ya know, neat stuf like that!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[DainBramaged]

45. WHAT???

Talk about insensitive and out of line.

[Hanse]

53. Monsanto is to agriculture...

as GM is to cars.

:shrug:

[DainBramaged]

55. Bye Hansee!

[Selatius]

93. Yes, because we all know Monsanto was run to the point of bankruptcy and needs help.

:shrug:

[Hanse]

105. OK, OK.

Monsanto is better than GM.

Is that better?

[Truth Teller]

92. Alerted

Your snarky comment about Nazis gassing Jews is beyond the pale. And, no, it being a joke doesn't make it acceptable.

[Hanse]

106. No, it really wasn't. It wasn't a joke.

IBM really did help the Nazis gas the Jews. IBM sold various calculating machines to the Nazis which helped them crunch numbers of the victims, and IBM knew what they were doing when they did it. It's clearly worse than Agent Orange, yet I rarely see people bringing it up with regard to modern day IBM.

[EFerrari]

61. Yep. They're bigger and better now. n/t

[DainBramaged]

73. Which means they can kill more things faster!

I love companies like that. They are like GE, bringing good things to life.:puke:


I wonder if they still make chemicals for killing rats, moles, leeches, maggots, nasty bits like that?

[Le Taz Hot]

96. What do you mean "made?"

They still do. Except we can't use it in the U.S. so they ship it to places like Mexico, Central and most South American countries so they can use these poisons on their crops. They're then shipped back to the U.S. for our consumption. We need to think about that when we see strawberries in December or grapes in January. ALWAYS look on the boxes to see where they're coming from. Just one more reason to buy from local farmers if you can.

[DainBramaged]

98. I guess 'irony' didn't come through in my post

:eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

100. Ah, what do you want at 6:29 am BEFORE coffee?

And :eyes: yourself. :P

[DainBramaged]

108. You should have been here last night

:hi:

[leftchick]

91. I am duessing Syngenta

GMOs are yummy! :puke:

[NashVegas]

103. GM / GE Foods Aren't About Science. Not Even Remotely

They're about inserting corporations into the gravy train by patenting our food supply.

[Hanse]

110. Right, and stem cell research is about killing unborn babies.

"They're about inserting corporations into the gravy train by patenting our food supply."

And GM products from non-corporate entities like universities? GM products that aren't foodstuffs? Corporate GM foodstuffs that have expired patents?

This is scientifically illiterate anti-science, with anti-corporate sentiment as a red-herring.

[NashVegas]

111. Hey, I Stopped Hitting My Wife Ages Ago

What. A. Load.

[NashVegas]

112. self-delete

dupe post

[Critters2]

125. Not a friend of family farms

"Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address."

The same thing happened on Vilsack's watch regarding factory "farms" of hogs, chickens, and turkeys. Local communities have no say as to where such atrocities are built. County boards are not allowed to make decisions concerning zoning where factory "farms" are concerned. Vilsack seems to have some problem with grassroots democracy.

[happyiowan]

19. Friend of Small Farmers

I posted this on another thread and will gleefully say it again:

I am an Iowan (hence the moniker) and know a bit about Tom Vilsack from living here. His membership in the DLC, his relationship with Monsanto make him nothing more than a pragmatist. HOWEVER - do not be mistaken, Vilsack is a very strong supporter of small farmers and very much understands the issues related to the difficulties of them competing with the corporate operations in our state. He did his very best as our governor to navigate between the inherent political conservatism in Iowa and his own goals with regard to agricultural issues. I do not think there is a better choice for this position if you are interested in someone who understands that issues like health care and safety and education have everything to do with farming.

So there.

[EFerrari]

21. The kind of pragmatism that comes with partnering with Monsanto

has turned out very badly for farmers and, especially small farmers, all over the world -- unless you also have some kind of romantic attachment to the producers of Agent Orange.

But you are in Iowa and you know best.

[Condem]

23. Yes, indeed, sfexpat

Remember. Without Iowa, you got fuckin nuthin. Methinks, Obama has alot of shit on his plate. But, I'm close to the man so I forwarded your post to him. He just might lose some sleep tonight over your concern. I'll be sure to keep you informed.

[EFerrari]

26. I'm sure he won't break his campaign promise to listen.

:)

[Condem]

35. Since when have we ever believed campaign promises?

President Obama just might have to let some of you hardcore down a little bit. Does this make him a bad candidate? Hell, if Lincoln had his way , all blacks (slaves at the time) would have been exported to Liberia. But, he just saved the nation. Not bad for an inexperienced congressman from Illinois.

[EFerrari]

43. I think he will be a good president. And as a good president

I believe he can take my questions and my criticism. The day he can't, I'll go join al Qaida, okay?

[happyiowan]

28. Romantic?

Not one single bone in my body has ever been labeled thusly and I don't think tonight is going to be the start. I am very well of aware of the evils of Monsanto, their genetically modified corn seed, etc. As governor, Vilsack was in the difficult position of negotiating between a very large and powerful corporation, corporate farms and small farmers and he did a hell of a job. One thing you may not be aware of is that a large majority of farmers in my state are Republicans. Stupid choice for them? Hell, yes. Way to go - voting against your own self-interest. That said, he served the farmers well.

And so - yes, as a matter of fact in the end, it comes down to this. I am in Iowa and that means when it comes down to the overall knowledge of how Vilsack served my state - you bet your ass I know better than someone who doesn't live here and doesn't live in an agricultural state.

[EFerrari]

33. When you say, he served the farmers well, what do you mean?

Can you explain that for someone who doesn't live in Iowa? And, that's a real question.

[happyiowan]

39. Fair Question / Fairest Answer Possible

It is very difficult to make a living as a family farmer and family farming was something that Vilsack did his best to preserve. Being self-insured is very expensive for one. Just buying the seed, the fertilizer, the equipment, there is a very small profit margin in the end. Our rural communities are and were suffering terribly and he promoted initiatives to help insure children, to promote education, to keep lending institutions from preying on farmers. Being friendly with Monsanto represented the other side of that. And it meant in some cases that Monsanto provided seed very cheaply. Seed I don't approve of, but still. Stop me......I could go on.

[EFerrari]

48. I don't want to stop you. I am interested in these trade offs -- who isn't?

So much depends on them.

Monsanto is responsible for horrible things all over the world. And, for me, it's not a matter of bashing Vilsack or Obama, even though I might not like what they do, but much more a matter of trying to keep an eye on what is happening here and to our people.

[happyiowan]

57. I am in Total Agreement

I certainly can't find anything nice to say about Monsanto, nor will I try. But, yes, it is entirely about the trade-offs. I look at Vilsack as a very pragmatic choice as so many of the others have been. Do they suit my ideally. F that! I'd still like to see a Secretary of Peace. However, Obama is doing a fantastic job of assembling a team that understands both sides of the issues and understands the dirty, awful deal-making that goes on. What does that mean? It means that we get to see some small amounts of progress. And for me, after 8 years wandering the wilderness, it's a good start. Maybe 8 years from now we can start to move in leaps and bounds.

[hfojvt]

84. I was only there for three years - arriving just in time to help elect him

If rural communities are suffering, one thing they probably need is jobs, and I still remember Vilsack having as his top concern a supposed future labor shortage. I still drove to Chuck City to meet him in 2000, but kinda telling there that he sees a "problem" from the corporate point of view rather than the workers point of view. After 3 years of working as a temp, I finally left the state, couldn't wait any more for that worker shortage to actually create a job opening for me.

[scarletwoman]

41. It's like the cookbook in that old SciFi movie: "How to Serve Mankind".

I have no doubt that Vilsack (sp?) did what he could, considering that the corporatists have a stranglehold on our government.

When evil forces have all the power, what else can one do but compromise?

;)
sw

[Condem]

42. Well said, scarlet.

Well said!

[scarletwoman]

58. Thank you! (nt)

[PM7nj]

44. For some reason I am more inclined to listen to an Iowan than a San Franciscan.

I don't know why. :)

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[PM7nj]

71. Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

:banghead:

[EFerrari]

54. Maybe, your genes?

[Critters2]

126. Health care and safety in regards to farming...and Vilsack!

:rofl:

Tell it to every Iowan who has to breathe the toxins created by the confinements.

[AllentownJake]

27. Science Bad!

I'm not against bioegineering seeing that Human beings have been doing it since we first tamed a dog and grew wheat. We've just found a more efficient way of doing things.

[EFerrari]

38. This isn't about science in any way.

Good grief. Read for yourself:


Monsanto's global pollution legacy

In the Washington Post article (Jan 1, 2002) "Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told" a grim story of Monsanto's treacherous behavior in Anniston Alabama was revealed. It is summed up in this chilling paragraph: "They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew." <11> <12> For more see Monsanto's Global Pollution Legacy.

Monsanto, Agent Orange and dioxins

The following is excerpted from The Legacy of Agent Orange.

Agent Orange was manufactured by Monsanto, Dow Chemicals (manufacturers of napalm), Uniroyal, Hercules, Diamond Shamrock, Thompson Chemical and TH Agriculture. Monsanto the main supplier. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam.... Monsanto's involvement with the production of dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T dates back to the late 1940s. 'Almost immediately workers started getting sick with skin rashes, inexplicable pains in the limbs, joints and other parts of the body, weakness, irritability, nervousness and loss of libido,' to quote Peter Sills, author of a forthcoming book on dioxins. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems but once again a cover-up was the order of the day.... Operation Hades, later changed to Operation Ranch Hand, sprayed 6 million acres of forest in Vietnam, 19 million gallons of defoliant. The intention was to turn Vietnam into desert, to cause such destruction that Vietnam would never recover.... The most gruesome legacy caused by spraying Vietnam with dioxin contaminated Agent Orange was that born by the Vietnamese themselves. In a locked room of Tu Du Obstetrical and Gynaecological Hospital in Saigon are rows of formaldehyde-filled jars containing deformed foetuses, a grotesque illustration of Man's inhumanity to Man. The level of poverty in Vietnam prevents the preservation of further examples. Many of the living have fared little better, limb deformities, cancers. Says this CorpWatch article, "The Vietnamese government estimates that three million Vietnamese were exposed to these chemicals during the war, and that at least 800,000 suffer serious health problems today as a result". For more see Monsanto, Agent Orange and Dioxins

The Roundup Ready controversy

(Note: In addition to the issues raised on this page, there are a host of other concerns with genetic modification. Furthermore, the issues and statistics in the fast-paced biotech world are ever in flux. The reader is encouraged to visit the other websites below for more and up-to-date info.)

Monsanto is considered the Mother of agricultural biotech (1). Their "Roundup Ready" crops have been genetically engineered to allow direct application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds without killing the crops. "RR soybeans are heavily herbicide dependent" <13><14> says Charles M. Benbrook, an expert in the field <15>. For more see Monsanto and the Roundup Ready Controversy.

Terminator technology

Monsanto came under heavy public fire with the development of their "Terminator Technology", a.k.a. "suicide seeds", known technically as V-GURTs (varietal Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) in which the seeds resulting from the first year's planting would be sterile thereby forcing farmers around the world in the Roundup Ready System to buy their seed from them every year rather than saving their best seed for the next years planting, a traditional and economical practice <16>. Seed saving has had the benefit of allowing farmers to continually improve the quality of their crops through careful artificial selection.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

[Hanse]

52. Monsanto discontinued Agent Orange in the mid-seventies.

PCBs in 1977.

Tom Vilsack, on the other hand, did not enter a political office until 1987, when he was elected mayor of some small town.

As for Roundup Ready crops and terminator genes, in the absence of a rational explanation of why either of these things is bad, the anti-science luddite remarks remain valid.

[happyiowan]

63. Mt. Pleasant

Which, sadly to say in my state, isn't even a really small town! It's kind of big compared to a bunch of the others. But, you are spot on with regard to Agent Orange. I wish I felt better about Ready Roundup and terminator genes. Ready Roundup - we still don't know much about what it does to the water table, but I have a good guess. And terminator genes ain't so good for farmers since they have to re-purchase seed. Then again - who can bitch when someone uses the word luddite?

[EFerrari]

65. I can because the term implies some kind of aversion to science,

technology and to progress.

That's one of Monsanto's talking points and it elides all the awful damage they bear direct responsibility for that is not at all progressive.

[happyiowan]

67. I Agree, I Concur, I'm not Fighting with You

You are absolutely correct. But to conflate Vilsack with Monsanto is entirely incorrect. It is an oversimplication of his position and of his career here in my state. He was a governor, of a whole state. I know it's easy to make people into villians, but his tenure was far more complicated than that.

[EFerrari]

68. I'll have to do some digging because this isn't my area. Point taken.

[happyiowan]

77. Have an Excellent Night

It's funny. In some cases, Vilsack is/was the perfect example of a DLC-er. But he was also surprising. When he took office, Iowa was trending "red". He was savvy in striking deals that pushed our state's policy leftward. They weren't always great compromises. And, truth be told, his real strength is in education. That said, he knows where the bones are buried, who the bullies are and about the awful corporate transgressions. It gives him a hell of an advantage in knowing the way forward. And so, this is how we start.

And selfishly, I have to admit, as an agricultural state, I know that in Washington, he will represent my state as well as he can.

[Hanse]

75. Watertable?

What would a Round-up Ready crop do to a watertable that a wild-type crop plus weeds wouldn't?

"And terminator genes ain't so good for farmers since they have to re-purchase seed."

And copy protection on a video game isn't good for a gamer who wants to make many copies of that game. If a farmer doesn't want to buy seeds the following year, he doesn't have to buy terminator seeds in the first place.

That's something farmers have to consider when weighing the disadvantages of terminator crops with the advantages (e.g. more efficient crop rotation). Considering that terminator crops aren't even commercially available, it's a bit of a moot point.

[leftchick]

97. BEHIND THE LABEL: ROUNDUP WEEDKILLER

you really need to understand how roundup should not be sold at all.


http://www.irishseedsavers.ie/article.php?artid=368


A weedkiller that kills a lot more than simply weeds? If it's worse than poison, it's no cure at all, says Pat Thomas.

A weed, as an insightful gardener once said, is just a plant growing in the wrong place. But to deal with the simple problem of plants growing in the wrong places, globally we spend millions each year on chemicals designed to kill them. Chemicals such as Monsanto's Roundup. The name will be familiar to GM watchers – all over the world food crops are being genetically modified (also by Monsanto) to be 'Roundup resistant', which allows farmers to spray this pesticide with impunity around their crops.

This irresponsible type of agriculture has led to increased resistance to the herbicide and the emergence of 'superweeds' – and thus increased sales of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, which farmers have to use more and more of in order to get the same effect. For instance, according to a new report by the US Center for Food Safety, per-acre applications of Roundup on soybeans rose by a factor of 2.5 (250 per cent) between 1994 and 2006. It took until 2002 for corn farmers truly to embrace GM, but between 2002 and 2005, glyphosate use on corn rose from 0.71 to 0.96lb/acre/year – a 35 per cent increase in just three years (see also box, opposite page). Thanks to Roundup, farmers worldwide are on a chemical treadmill they are finding it increasingly difficult to get off.

Since its introduction during the mid-1970s, global use of glyphosate has increased rapidly, and it is now the world's most widely used pesticide. In 2002, the global sales for glyphosate amounted to around $4.705 billion and accounted for more than 30 per cent of the volume of total global herbicide sales. There are more than 70 glyphosate producers in the world (excluding China). With more than an 80 per cent share of the market, Monsanto is the biggest.

So busy are we focusing on the big agricultural picture of Roundup and Roundup-resistance that it is all too easy to forget the fact that millions of gardeners in the UK and elsewhere routinely use Roundup to fight weeds on the home front.

Most glyphosate-based herbicides are formulated with one or more surfactants. The surfactant in a herbicide works in the same way as the surfactant in your shampoo – it makes the active ingredients work harder. In a herbicide the surfactant spreads the solution across the leaf, penetrates the leaf and thus enhances the uptake of glyphosate by the plant.

Roundup reactions

Many people reason that Roundup would not be on sale if it weren't safe, or that it is safe as long as you use it according to the manufacturer's instructions. However, accumulating data suggests neither assumption is correct.

Short-term exposure to glyphosate can cause breathing difficulties, loss of muscle control and convulsions. Farm workers exposed even to small amounts of Roundup – by rubbing an eye, for example – report swelling of the eye, eyelid or face, a rapid heartbeat and elevated blood pressure, all as a result of the residues transferred from the hands after touching leaky equipment. Accidental drenching is known to cause eczema of the hands and arms that can last for months.

Roundup has never been fully tested for its cancer-causing potential. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency classifies glyphosate as a Group E Oncogen (no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans) this only because of 'a lack of convincing evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate studies with two animal species, rat and mouse' – in other words, the judgement is based on a limited number of studies of a limited number of non-human subjects.

[Hanse]

107. I'm quite familiar with glyphosate. It's a fantastic product.

The first part of your little cut and paste simply demonstrates how successful it is.

"Short-term exposure to glyphosate can cause breathing difficulties, loss of muscle control and convulsions. Farm workers exposed even to small amounts of Roundup – by rubbing an eye, for example – report swelling of the eye, eyelid or face, a rapid heartbeat and elevated blood pressure, all as a result of the residues transferred from the hands after touching leaky equipment. Accidental drenching is known to cause eczema of the hands and arms that can last for months."

Do not pour industrial chemicals into your eye. Good to know. Thanks.


"Roundup has never been fully tested for its cancer-causing potential. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency classifies glyphosate as a Group E Oncogen (no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans) this only because of 'a lack of convincing evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate studies with two animal species, rat and mouse' – in other words, the judgement is based on a limited number of studies of a limited number of non-human subjects."

This is, simply, a lie. Glyphosate has been heavily tested for safety. It is simply not a carcinogen.

[DainBramaged]

114. So being a shill for Monsanto, an Agent Orange apologizer,

and Reich-wing talking point machine gives you the right to piss on people's replies?

[Hanse]

150. Ah, but I'm not a shill for Monsanto.

You should read my original reply to this thread. I predicted this slur.

"an Agent Orange apologizer"

I'm no more an apologist for Agent Orange than you're an apologist for the Pinto with your support of American car manufacturing. Ford knew it was putting human life in jeopardy for the sake of making profit. They got caught. As far as I know they settled out of court, as did Monsanto. What happened in the seventies was important, but of minimal concern for modern politics.

"Reich-wing talking point machine gives you the right to piss on people's replies? "

It's the RWers who disregard science they don't like. The earth isn't flat, evolution happened, the globe is warming, and glyphosate doesn't cause cancer. If people want to post bullshit, they're going to get pissed on.

[DainBramaged]

153. Look up tool in the dictionary, I think your picture is still there

"Click" I know a Reich wing shill when I see one.

[Hanse]

154. Given that I predicted your response...

I knew you before you even replied to this thread.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Um, leftchick...

How do you think they test for carcinogenicity?

By injecting the chemical into humans and looking for cancer?

:eyes:

[leftchick]

133. ...

:eyes:

http://www.dontspraycalifornia.org/roundup-cats.html



Product: ROUNDUP
Active ingredient: GLYPHOSATE 41%
Type: HERBICIDE, (Systemic)
Other ingredients: 59% includes polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA) and isopropylamine (amount undisclosed); identity of remaining ingredients withheld by manufacture as trade secrets.

Mode of Action: Inhibits enzymatic activity necessary for aromatic amino acid biosynthesis, a process specific to plants. Other enzyme systems in plants and animals not specific to this biosynthetic pathway are affected by glyphosate. (Heitanen et. al. 1983)

Of pesticides used during 1994, glyphosate was #7 for overall total pounds of active ingredient applied in California. Of the total glyphosate used in California in 1994, 10% was used in grape production, yet grapes were the number one crop associated with glyphosate- related illnesses from 1984 to1990 (Pease1995).

TOXICOLOGY

In California agriculture, Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, ranked 3rd for reported pesticide related skin and eye acute illnesses, 15th for reported systemic and respiratory acute illnesses and 3th for reported pesticide related acute illnesses of any kind from 1984 to 1990 (Pease 1993). It ranked eighth in acute illnesses per million pounds applied.

Roundup inhibits enzymes involved in the detoxification of chemicals in the body. Test animals injected with glyphosate showed depressed function of cytochrome P450 and two other enzymes which are vital to the body's processing of toxicants (Heitanen 1983). At least two enzymatic steps are involved in the processing of toxicants in the liver of humans; the first involves cytochrome P450 enzymes and the second involves glutathione S tranferases (GSTs). People who do not possess certain GSTs due to genetic variation (estimated at approximately 50% of the Caucasian population), may have a greater risk of some types of cancer (Perera 1996).

U.S. EPA has recently reclassified glyphosate as a Group E chemical, meaning that evidence exists that the compound is not a human carcinogen. Studies submitted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation have shown possible adverse cancer effects, with rare tumor formation in the kidneys and adrenal cortex of test animals. Other studies found an increase of testicular tumors, thyroid cancer in females, and a rare kidney tumor (U.S.EPA 1982;1983;1985;1991).

Metabolites and breakdown products of glyphosate include the known carcinogen formaldehyde (Lund 1986). Formaldehyde is listed as a carcinogen by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment under Proposition 65. It also causes gene mutations and is a reproductive toxicant (MBTOC 1995).

N- nitrosoglyphosate, a contaminant of glyphosate, is a member of a chemical family of which approximately 75% are known carcinogens (Lijinsky 1974; Sittig 1980).

Glyphosate is a severe eye irritant. Symptoms of external exposure to glyphosate products include eye and skin irritation, which is sometimes quite severe and can persist for months (Temple and Smith 1992).

A study in humans documented a greater incidence of impaired lung function, throat irritation, coughing and breathlessness in workers exposed to dust of flax treated with Roundup, as compared to those exposed to untreated flax dust. (Jamison 1986)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. What's your point?

It's not a carcinogen.

:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

31. And Vilsack is going to be in charge of food inspection?

All I can say is, he'd better be kept on a tight leash.

[Condem]

40. What fuckin leash?

What fuckin food inspection?

[gravity]

36. Oh noes, Obama values science over fear mongering

[scarletwoman]

47. This isn't about fucking *science*, it's about corporate control of our food supply!

Jeebus. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

59. It's about privatizing the food chain, up to and including, water.

They don't know. About that or about cross contamination or about all those farmers committing suicide. It's just not anywhere on the radar. :shrug:

[gravity]

70. The food supply has always been privatized

and is heavily regulated by the government.

[scarletwoman]

80. The food supply has always been a matter of growing something, saving some of the seeds,

and planting the seeds you saved in the next growing season. Corporate patents on frankencrops that require farmers to buy new seed every season and use only patented chemicals to make them grow is a new and insidious development.

That's not "farming", that's corporate control of the food supply so that some greedy assholes can make obscene profits while they sit at their desks in their glass towers figuring out how much more money they can make by screwing farmers. And anyone who defends that shit is a fucking idiot.

sw

[gravity]

82. Farmers aren't required to buy seeds

If you don't want to use seeds developed by a corporations, then don't use them. Save your own seeds year to year.

Farmers ain't dumb and the reason they usually buy seeds from corporations because it allows them to produce greater yields, which allows them to make more money even if they have to purchase seeds yearly.

[EFerrari]

83. If farmers save seeds from these crops, they are sued.

You might try the google because scarletwoman is right.

[gravity]

86. If you don't like the terms, then don't buy the seeds

Problem solved.

[OwnedByFerrets]

102. That sentence is just fucking stupid. They arent given the terms...

but of course a large corporation like Monsanto would NEVER lie to us, would they? Farmers are commiting SUICIDE because of being lied to by Monsanto. I guess THEIR problem is solved, HUH?????????:mad:

[gravity]

109. Yes they are

You are assuming that farmers are being duped, when they actually choose to buy the seeds every single year.

[gravity]

62. You are just fear mongering

All of Vilsack's positions are supported by extensive scientific research.

[EFerrari]

64. What all of his positions?

[scarletwoman]

69. You obviously didn't read my post.

IT'S NOT ABOUT FUCKING SCIENCE!!!!! It's about CORPORATE CONTROL OF OUR FOOD SUPPLY!!!!

What part of that do you not understand?

[gravity]

72. The whole statement

[scarletwoman]

76. Well, at least you admit it.

[superduperfarleft]

46. And here's where DU defends GMO crops and Monsanto.

I can't even get irritated anymore by it. Fucking LOL.

[EFerrari]

49. I know. n/t

[scarletwoman]

51. It just blows my mind. How can people be so fucking disconnected and deluded?

Yeah, let's give control of our fucking FOOD supply to fucking corporations who don't give a shit about anything except making a big fat fucking profit for themselves.

Yeah, hooray for fucking "science".

Fucking idiots. :mad:

sw

[Hanse]

56. I'm thinking the exact same thing.

:rofl:

[scarletwoman]

66. So, you're all for corporate control of our food supply? You're all for the destruction

of biodiversity? You're all for the extinction of millennias-old genetic material so that some CEOs who've never so much as gotten their fingernails dirty can get filthy rich on patents on our food supply?

You make it clear which side you're on -- definitely not on mine.

sw

[Hanse]

78. False dichotomy.

Not having a knee jerk objection to Tom Vilsack is not an endorsement of "corporate control of our food supply." Whatever that means.

"You're all for the extinction of millennias-old genetic material"

See? This is where the anti-science and conspiracy talk comes from. Monsanto has not caused the extinction of any genetic material.

"You make it clear which side you're on -- definitely not on mine."

Ah, but you've just demonstrated my point about false accusations of shilling for Monsanto in the absence of a valid argument. So you've supported my side of the argument, whether or not you realize it.

[scarletwoman]

81. Yeah, right. Let's compromise with those whose only interest is sucking up the wealth of the earth.

Because you're such a rational, reasonable person -- right?

Me, I want Monsanto and all big corporate agri-business drowned in a bathtub. And I'll never apologize for feeling that way.

sw

[Hanse]

85. Making money is the natural goal of any given business.

Whether it's small farmer or aninternational corporate agricultural juggernaut. That in and of itself is not a good reason to drown it in a bathtub.

"Because you're such a rational, reasonable person -- right?"

Well, I've forwarded rational, reasonable arguments as opposed to knee-jerk hysteria and faulty logic.

"Me, I want Monsanto and all big corporate agri-business drowned in a bathtub."

And I wanted to be born with a big beautiful pair of tits. Tough luck.

[scarletwoman]

87. And when that business is engaged in destructive practices that threaten the quality of life

on the planet earth, why should we put up with it?

[Hanse]

88. Who says we should?

[Moochy]

99. "Whatever that means."

You are a pusillanimous wart.

[Hanse]

104. I may be a pusillanimous wart.

But I've won the exchange.

[NashVegas]

116. I Think You'd Be Happier

here

[Ignis]

124. "Monsanto has not caused the extinction of any genetic material."

You are stunningly wrong.

Google: bio-diversity of corn/maize in Mexico post-1990.

[Hanse]

151. Alright, I googled it.

I see nothing that leads me to conclude GM corn led to the extinction of any wild-type or heirloom corn.

If you've got an actual link you'd like me to debunk, feel free to post it.

[Ignis]

155. "you'd like me to debunk"

Just post a link to the Monsanto Public Relations department and your work here is done. :eyes:

http://www.truthout.org/111208A
http://www.truthout.org/121208D

But don't take my word for it, pick up the November 13 issue of Nature. And if you really want to see how long the problem has been apparent, pick up the 10/11/01 back issue.

Of course, you're not really looking for science, are you? You've already formulated your pro-corporate worldview, and now you're just cherry-picking evidence to support it.

Enjoy your stay.

[NashVegas]

113. Overall, DU Kicks GM/GE Proponents' Asses

There's a handful or two of vocal pro-biotech propagandists who pop up everytime the subject comes up. They call us anti-science, we put up links to scientific studies showing what a load of bunk GM/GE propaganda is. They shut up and save it to pop up and call us names again in the next thread.

[gravity]

115. Science kicks GMO oponents ass

Time and time again.

Every single GMO plant that goes into production has to pass extensive testing by the EPA, USDA, and FDA. It has been shown time and time again that they are just as safe as non GM food, and if there were ones that were dangerous, it would get rejected. This fear is really unfounded.

[NashVegas]

117. Yeah. So Why Change the Subject?

I said nothing about safety. Only that they were about equally and often less profitable for farmers than traditional seed/methods, and, above, serve the interests of corporations far more than farmers and eaters.

But, just hell of it, GM/GE do risk the safety of public domain methods for self-sustaining growing of food.

[gravity]

119. Then why do farmers use the seeds?

There are plenty of studies that show that using the crops aren't as good in certain conditions, but they also show that other conditions, they are more profitable.

A good agriculture policy should find the best solutions for the conditions the farmers face, instead of choosing sides on a battle. If it involved GM crops, then use them, if it doesn't, then don't.

[NashVegas]

120. Same Reason Some People Buy Crappy Cars

When they get socked by a great sales pitch.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. Apparently Monsanto forces, tricks, or hypnotizes farmers into buying them.

Apparently farmers are illiterate country bumpkins, according to some.

[EFerrari]

127. Monsanto: Indian farmer suicide.

http://current.com/items/89109359/monsanto_indian_farmer_suicide.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. Yeah, I'm familiar with that particular conspiracy theory.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026814.600-gm-cotton-in-the-clear-over-farmer-suicides.html

Reminds me of the time Dungeons & Dragons led to Satan Worship.

[EFerrari]

134. The report this article is based on was produced by CGIAR

who is the Rockefeller Foundation + window dressing, who is a huge promoter of GMOs.

You might want to revisit this issue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. Ah, another conspiracy.

OK.

[EFerrari]

138. Conspiracy? You mean, you've never read propaganda before?

lol

Yes, Bornagain, there is propaganda.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

143. Yes.

"Monsanto causes farmers in India to commit suicide," for example.

[EFerrari]

145. Well, find a source that disproves the charge not funded by GMOs

and, I'll read it gladly.

[EFerrari]

128. I saw an interview with a Canadian farmer. He's being sued by Monsanto

because his neighbor used Monsanto seed that blew over into his fields -- his organic fields. So, he lost his organic certification AND Monsanto is suing him. Science.

/typo

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Percy Schmeiser.

Professional victim. Not unlike those people suing Obama over his birth certificate. Monsanto was able to prove in court that he saved the seed purposefully to get around the copyright.

[EFerrari]

137. Yes, obviously a charlatan:

from his wiki page:

"In 2000, he received the Mahatma Gandhi Award for working for the good of mankind in a non-violent way. In 2007, Percy Schmeiser and Louise Schmeiser were named winners of the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) <2>"

Has he been asked to return these awards that he obviously conned?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

141. The Alternative Nobel? For attempted chemistry?

:rofl:

"Has he been asked to return these awards that he obviously conned?"

Considering the number of quacks and cranks who've recieved these awards, Samuel Epstein for example, they're probably not worried about their credibility.

[EFerrari]

147. There's a list of them on his page. They must all be in the conspiracy, too!

[gravity]

132. That wasn't a clear cut case.

That farmer knowingly chose the seeds from that were affected by the GM genes to include in his own crop.

The farmer said that because the genes got in there from cross pollination, so he was allowed to use them. Monsanto said that who couldn't use those genes in his own crops because they are patented. Both sides had reasonable arguments for their case.

If that contamination permanently destroyed the organic crops of someone who trying to keep it that way, that would be a lot worst.

[EFerrari]

140. The History Commons has an excellent timeline:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=seeds_tmln&seeds_legal_actions=seeds_legalMonsantoVSchmeiser

[gravity]

144. What are you trying to prove?

[EFerrari]

146. In introducing information to the thread?

[Individualist]

152. DLC loves corporations,

the military industrial complex, and neocons.

[Cha]

60. I wrote Obama on change.gov how I feel about this..

..why don't you join me? He may appoint Vilsack but that doesn't mean things can't change.

Is it too late to tell Obama on
http://www.change.gov that loving mansanto is not the best thing? Because I just did..

"Please don't appoint Tom Vilsack as Sec of Argriculture. We need someone friendly to organic farming and smaller produce farms not someone who supports big Agriculture and monsanto!"

Thank you for your consideration, zidzi

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573 ....

[Khaotic]

131. while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor

If 80%+ of corn wasn't used to produce high fructose corn syrup then using it to produce E85 wouldn't have a negative effect.

Plus, too many of our livestock are fed corn. Our livestock should be grass and hay feed.

If corn was grown for human consumption and for E85, and someday E100, and not used for HFCS and fed to our livestock, then life would be better.

Don't give me the "while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor" crap.

It's a load of shit.

We need to get off of HFCS and use the Stevia plant instead. It's a natural sweetner that's much better than sugar.

[newtothegame]

148. Agreed. Sorry DU'ers, but this is kind of what we bought by wanting a "historical" candidate...

instead of a liberal one.

[makinguphumans]

149. top links not working

ADODB.Field error '800a0bcd'

Either BOF or EOF is True, or the current record has been deleted. Requested operation requires a current record.

/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp, line 23

and the one you added says not there either.