"Watch" the scientists react when administrators said, "Hey! Let's say GMO's are so much the same that science isn't needed!" (high-five!)
You guys want to see how the scientists reacted when this incredible mindset of fast-tracking GMO's began? 24 documents of scientists objecting. And there's more on biointegrity.org including perspectives of religious people- something I've been looking for. I thought I'd seen it somewhere. These folks all took the FDA to court. Ahhh its good to find this site again. Real nostalgia. Here's an example document I plucked randomly. I love scientists. This document is the honest reaction when a real scientist gets handed complete malarkey calling itself analysis of research.
However, the logic used then to defeat the plaintiffs is very much still in use today. The technology is the same. The same main products based on this exact technology the scientists then were actively speaking out against (transgenes for herbicide-resistance and pesticide) are in the majority of our food and dominate our biggest crops. So even though these scientific objections are from the early nineties, these are still the relevant documents. A pro-GMO FDA is a regime, and the 90's were the drafting of the doctrine. And this drafting took place with a good deal of debate where a minority overpowered the majority. After that, the scientists were quieted or replaced and now by no coincidence FDA scientists are pro-GMO. So we have an opportunity to go back in time and "watch" the scientists react when administrators said "Hey! Let's say GMO's are so much the same that science isn't needed!" (high-five!)
Imagine them. Scurrying around asking each other if this was really happening. Science has not been done! Someone must not understand something. So, like logical people, they busily wrote memos. They gathered up their documents. They went to their bosses. And then they were fired. Except for those bosses who out of concern went to their bosses and then they were fired too.
A couple of minor editorial notes:
We don't have the luxury of throwing up our hands and saying there is nothing we can do. We can't say there is a machine that will keep turning. The truth is, nothing much stays the same for more than 20 years. It seems that way because we are disgruntled at the same old things through elections. The entire Soviet Union start to finish was a bit more than twice as long as this bad policy. The difference in women's "place" between the 50's and the 70's and the 90's. Throwing aluminum cans in the garbage can didn't make you cringe. How many smokers were there? Remember the ash trays on the airplane chair arms and in hospitals? How I feel about eating kale- then, and now! We operate anew with each generation of about 20 years. HOWEVER, every minute counts now. The GMO's are spreading and taking over life very quickly and they are being added quickly. The fire is being fanned. We can stop that fanning and then go put out the fires. All you have to do is become a no-GMO. Eating less GMO's helps. But it is when you eat none that you will affect the world. You do 100 times more as a quiet no-GMO eater just doing whatever it takes to feed yourself than a person that is a loud anti-GMO believer who makes a few concessions because its "impossible" to not eat them. It is not impossible. Its hard at first, and then it is awesome. If its too hard for people to do, including those who are vocal about GMO's being bad, lets pull together and make it easier for ourselves. We're not disarmed slaves. We're talking about life on earth versus our need of convenience food. If you do not like GMO's and are worried about consequences of them for life, you have to stop eating them right now, 100% and get help when its hard. We're here for you and others will be here soon too. I did not realize what would happen as I dug my heels and went from 95 to 100% GMO-free. But I could write a book about the effect it is having on others. When I ate less GMO's I had zero effect. My life got much better and so did my food too. Its just convenience food! As I said, I know it is hard. Talk to us. We can all help o
*I am making a phrase: do science. I think many others have used the term. There needs to be a word- the act of real science being conducted. Doing science means investigative research with peer review. Scientists ask a question that will yield valuable information no matter how it turns out - where they will display the results of tests designed to uncover truth openly and in entirety. They contribute their minds and consult with others to advise on what this may mean so that they and others may ask even better questions next. Earnestly searching for truth using the Scientific Method is doing science. And if you read the example document, whatever crud was in that draft and still in what became the 1992 policy was not written by people doing science. This poor man. Can you imagine having to systematically go through this process of seriously addressing a load of malarkey line by line that was an affront to your very ethics? What did he expect when he handed his review in? Probably for people to be amazed with him at the farce he just read- the spoof of scientific analysis that must have been the Biotechnology Draft Document. House will be cleaned soon and Oliver Stone will do an amazing movie on it. Really- don't worry. Scientists are finding their voice and speaking up. We just have to make sure the people are listening sooner rather than later.
For the sake of life.