USDA withdraws GMO disclosure rule

[donnay]

USDA withdraws GMO disclosure rule

By Tim Devaney - 07/17/14 01:50 PM EDT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is backing down from a GMO disclosure rule that would have provided state regulators with critical information about the genetically modified organisms that farmers use to spray their crops.

In February 2013, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service proposed sharing information with state regulators about genetically engineered organisms that are released in their jurisdictions. But the USDA withdrew the rule Thursday, because it said it found "potential vulnerabilities" that would have put farmers' businesses at risk.

"We have decided to withdraw the proposed rule to ensure that our ability to protect confidential business information from disclosure is maintained," the USDA wrote in the Federal Register.

GMOs, also known as genetically engineered organisms, have been a subject of much controversy and speculation because of the potential negative health effects critics say they may have.

Farmers that want to use or import GMOs must register with the USDA and apply for permits. Through this process, the USDA receives information about farmers' GMO use.

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/212572...#ixzz37n48PMxy
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[presence]

"potential vulnerabilities"

40 Tons of GMO Crops TORCHED in America, Media Blackout

[Working Poor]

I guess Monsanto owns the world.

[Fox McCloud]

Hope they catch the people who did that--that's zero respect for private property.

[angelatc]

The dumb $#@!s that oppose GMOs, demanding more than a decade of testing despite the fact that they can't produce a single person who has been harmed by GMOs while burning down the fields they're tested in?

Loud, stupid bullies.

[Weston White]

The dumb $#@!s that oppose GMOs, demanding more than a decade of testing despite the fact that they can't produce a single person who has been harmed by GMOs while burning down the fields they're tested in?

Loud, stupid bullies.

Sure, sure and tobacco companies do not and have never hid the dangers of consuming their deliciously tasty and addictive products. Florida jury slams R.J. Reynolds with $23.6 billion in damages

“The jury wanted to send a statement that tobacco cannot continue to lie to the American people and the American government about the addictiveness of and the deadly chemicals in their cigarettes”

[Fox McCloud]

Warning labels have been on cigs for years, and there's mountains of scientific evidence that smoking is strongly linked to a plethora of health issues---that's not really relevant here.

[Weston White]

Warning labels have been on cigs for years, and there's mountains of scientific evidence that smoking is strongly linked to a plethora of health issues---that's not really relevant here.

No it is exactly relevant, cigarette manufacturers and their lobbyists have knowingly covered up and lied above the dangers of their products for decades... History is now repeating itself with GMO, pesticides, and the like. Are we to be doomed in repetition or not, that is the question?

[Fox McCloud]

No it is exactly relevant, cigarette manufacturers and their lobbyists have knowingly covered up and lied above the dangers of their products for decades... History is now repeating itself with GMO, pesticides, and the like. Are we to be doomed in repetition or not, that is the question?

They tried, yes, and it was very easily and quickly demonstrated by the scientific community they were wrong. Hardly ANYONE with credentials is downing GMOs...government or private. With the cigs, it was only the cig companies covering things up (way back when).

The person that died from chainsmoking was born AFTER labeling was put on cigs warning of their potential danger and after cig companies tried their coverup bull$#@!. Simple story, someone died from their bad habits and now someone is mad they're gone.

[acptulsa]

They tried, yes, and it was very easily and quickly demonstrated by the scientific community they were wrong.

Very quickly? That debate raged on for decades, child.

My how the young compress all the millennia of history before they were born into the blink of an eye.

Hardly ANYONE with credentials is downing GMOs...government or private.

Well, you know, when they pull your credentials for criticizing the status quo, no one with credentials criticizes the status quo. Pretty much by definition.

With the cigs, it was only the cig companies covering things up (way back when).

By the time I got through educating you on how very wrong this statement is, I'd have hijacked this thread.

The person that died from chainsmoking was born AFTER labeling was put on cigs warning of their potential danger and after cig companies tried their coverup bull$#@!. Simple story, someone died from their bad habits and now someone is mad they're gone.

Only one person ever chain-smoked themselves to death? No wonder it took so long for the big stink to be raised...

[Natural Citizen]

Are we to be doomed in repetition or not, that is the question?

While we're placing the FDA at the center of attention with this we're ignoring the fact that it's a much larger model for debate now. The issue is a global debate and what we'll see, I think, will be a so called GMO Test Ban Treaty. Non-GMO BRICSA nations, I think, are maneuvering to be the ones to set the standard here but the issue is also an aspect of a much larger phenomenon and one that gets caught up in the finance clearing mix with other nations who are scrambling during current geo-political events we have been seeing of late.

Oh, it's a hoot alright. Pay attention, kiddies. It's gonna get jiggy.

[Ronin Truth]

Well I guess the Monsanto check must have cleared.

[LogCabinGOProud]

Good. Governmetn shouldn't force any type of disclosure.

[presence]

Good. Governmetn shouldn't force any type of disclosure.

If someone sells you a pound of ground beef and you find out later its ground west african fruit bat meat, which may have exposed you to ebola virus, is that not fraud? Were you not put in a position of taking undue and unwanted health risks by the vendor? Is that not breach of contract?

[LogCabinGOProud]

If someone sells you a pound of ground beef and you find out later its ground west african fruit bat meat, which may have exposed you to ebola virus, is that not fraud? Were you not put in a position of taking undue and unwanted health risks by the vendor? Is that not breach of contract?

That would be fraud because they are misrepresenting what they are selling. They are saying it is beef when really it is bat meat. That is not the case with GMOs. GMO corn is still corn. They are not selling it as non-GMO corn or saying it is really a tomato. With regards to health risks, as angelitc pointed out, there have been over a decade of studies which have not shown health risks in relation to GMO food.

[William Tell]

That would be fraud because they are misrepresenting what they are selling. They are saying it is beef when really it is bat meat. That is not the case with GMOs. GMO corn is still corn.

No, it is not. They stick all sorts of weird genes in it. It is not corn.

[presence]

That would be fraud because they are misrepresenting what they are selling. They are saying it is beef when really it is bat meat. That is not the case with GMOs. GMO corn is still corn. They are not selling it as non-GMO corn or saying it is really a tomato. With regards to health risks, as angelitc pointed out, there have been over a decade of studies which have not shown health risks in relation to GMO food.

A donor organism may be a bacterium, fungus, plant or an animal. In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. So when you sell Corn its Corn. Plain and simple. When you sell GMO Corn you're selling Corn X Bacillus Thuringiensis. If I sell German Shepards and I sell you a German Shepard X Labrador cross claiming its a German Shepard... is that not fraud?

With regard to your belief in studies that there is no health risk to eating GMO food. There are many people in west africa that believe to this day there are no health risks to eating fruit bats. That doesn't mean that I do not percieve a health risk and that you are not causing me undue angst by fraudulently providing fruit bat meat when I contracted to purchase beef from you.

[Fox McCloud]

A donor organism may be a bacterium, fungus, plant or an animal. In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. So when you sell Corn its Corn. Plain and simple. When you sell GMO Corn you're selling Corn X Bacillus Thuringiensis. If I sell German Shepards and I sell you a German Shepard X Labrador cross claiming its a German Shepard... is that not fraud?

With regard to your belief in studies that there is no health risk to eating GMO food. There are many people in west africa that believe to this day there are no health risks to eating fruit bats. That doesn't mean that I do not percieve a health risk and that you are not causing me undue angst by fraudulently providing fruit bat meat when I contracted to purchase beef from you.

Only with GMO it's nowhere near a 50/50 cross.

If they took a gene or two from the Golden Retriever and spliced it into a German Shepherd Dog to say...reduce the chances of or eliminate hip dysplasia, then you're still going to call it a German Shepherd Dog--it's going to look like one, act like one, and exhibit all the same traits. I don't think modifying a couple of genes is enough for it to qualify as being a new hybrid--otherwise, each time your organism (plant, animal) etc gets exposed to a virus (which would apply to GMO and non-GMO alike), you'd have to classify it as something other than what the original organism was, because of horizontal gene transfer.