Sunday, August 11, 2019

It doesn’t take a tin-foil hat to smell a rat in Epstein’s ‘way too convenient’ death

RT | Aug 11, 2019 | Neil Clark

The death of disgraced financier, pedophile and alleged blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein came just a day after more court documents were unsealed, leading to speculation he may have been “suicided” to stop his case from going to trial.

On Saturday morning, I was discussing Jeffrey Epstein with a friend. "He'll be bumped off and found dead in his cell," was my friend's prediction. "It won't come to court."

A few hours later, I went on Twitter to see what was happening in the world and I saw #EpsteinMurder trending.

The whole thing was quite uncanny.

Let's be honest: has there been a death of a high-profile prisoner whose expiration has been so unsurprising?

Anyone claiming this time last week that Epstein wouldn't make it to trial because too many very rich and very important people would be dragged in would of course have been dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist."

But this morning, it's the "don't be so stupid, of course he'll make it to the courtroom" brigade who are looking rather silly – and you could also argue, quite naive.

If this means we get more open discussion on "conspiracy theories," it can only be a good thing. Here's why. When it comes to conspiracy theories, there are three types of people. There are well-paid, establishment gatekeepers who routinely use the CT term to gaslight people and close down legitimate debate. At the same time, these gatekeepers are themselves often the biggest pushers of conspiracy theories – but only when it comes to "official enemies." Let's not forget that the deadliest conspiracy theory of this century so far was the one suggesting that Iraq possessed WMDs in 2003. It was, by and large, peddled by those who routinely scoff at conspiracy theorists and label them "cranks." The same people are also very quick to blame Russia for just about everything, regardless of the lack of hard evidence.

The second category are those who seem to believe everything – or at least almost everything – is a conspiracy. The Moon landings were faked. Elvis never died. Sandy Hook never happened. Every terrorist attack is a "false-flag." I was once accused by someone at a public meeting of being a member of 'Agenda 21.' The fact that I didn't know what she was on about was proof that I was really an 'Agenda 21 agent.'

The third category – and this is where surely all sensible people are – accept that while not everything is a conspiracy, it's actually quite daft to think conspiracies never occur, especially when people involved are very wealthy and very powerful and the stakes are extremely high.

Put another way, did you really think, deep down, given who he was, the people who he was associated with – and the nature of the allegations – that Epstein's case would ever get to court? Be honest. I'd reckon about 90 percent, even though they might not publicly admit it, would entertain serious doubts.
You really don't have to be overly suspicious – or be a permanent tin-foil hat wearer to smell a rat in this one.
If, as was reported, Epstein did try to kill himself about three weeks ago, why was he taken off suicide watch just six days later? Who made that seemingly baffling decision? If he was still on suicide watch – and the source cited in the New York Times was wrong, why wasn't his death prevented?

These are only a few of the many questions that need to be answered. What is particularly interesting is the kind of people demanding answers. It's not just the "usual" suspects who are routinely labeled cranks by the gatekeepers. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein's death "way too convenient."

"How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he was engaged in?" he asked. Even the BBC website has as its heading of a news story today "Jeffrey Epstein: Questions raised over financier's death."
The FBI is investigating the case and who knows, we may get some answers. Perhaps Epstein did after all, kill himself – prisoners facing the prospect of 45 years in jail are quite likely to be depressed; moreover the sociopathic billionaire might even have relished evading justice and depriving his accusers of their days in court. But until more evidence of his suicide comes to light, (and we really do need to see some camera footage), it is reasonable to think that some other explanation is, on balance, more likely.

Taking that line doesn't make you barmy – just someone who very sensibly breaks with the binary when it comes to "conspiracy theories." 

Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66 and @MightyMagyar

RELATED:

Friday, August 9, 2019

Protective Stupidity and the Manufactured White Nationalist Threat

Kurt Nimmo Blog | Aug 9, 2019 | Kurt Nimmo

I’m probably as sick and tired of white supremacist canard as you are. I keep harping on it because I’m convinced it is a perfect storm, that is to say a chance for the state to aggravate already record-high political division to the boiling point and exploit it in order to expand the police state and outlaw free speech as terrorism and providing aid and comfort to Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, and nationalists. 

Of course, this dinky minority (even the SPLC puts their numbers at a few thousand), is not a threat, at least not a threat on the scale of weekly shootings and murders in Chicago. 

The state and its media have blurred the lines between actual neo-Nazis and Trump-supporting “conservatives,” who are indeed MAGA nationalists, not racist white nationalists. The race part was added after Trump won the election. It fits the Identity Politics credo that declares all white people (especially white males) are somehow privileged and owe billions of dollars to “minorities at risk.” 

You know it is serious when the editorial board of the Gray Lady of Propaganda posts the following:
The awesome power of the state would work tirelessly to deny future terrorists access to weaponry, money and forums to spread their ideology. The movement would be infiltrated by spies and informants. Its financiers would face sanctions. Places of congregation would be surveilled. Those who gave aid or comfort to terrorists would be prosecuted. Programs would be established to de-radicalize former adherents.
The “awesome power of the state” was demonstrated when it incinerated men, women, and children at Waco, or when members of MOVE were incinerated (along with the rest of the neighborhood) in Philadelphia. 

On May 30 the FBI let us know the target. It’s not simply a handful of white supremacists. The threat comes from “fringe political conspiracy theories” that have the magical ability to make people “commit criminal and sometimes violent activity.” 

The editors The New York Times want the government to single out individuals, deny First and Second Amendment rights, close down bank accounts, and set-up the witless and incautious for phony terror attacks, a specialty of the FBI (the showcased arrest and trials of patsies reinforce the propaganda and the illusion of threat). The FBI also has plenty of experience with placing “spies and infiltrators” (the latter often responsible for initiating violence) in legitimate political organizations. In fact, it can be argued the FBI specializes in creating terror groups from scratch, as it did under its COINTELPRO. 

Did you buy something from Infowars or Breitbart, maybe a t-shirt or a coffee mug? According to the NYT, this makes you a “financier” of terrorism and you may face “sanctions,” whatever that means. Buying macho vitamins from Alex Jones is now considered giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. 
More surveillance—of email, posts, chats, phone calls, browsing history,  and the daily activity of millions of people—will be required to stamp out the fake scourge of white nationalism. 

The NYT is calling for re-education camps. Maybe a congressional task force can be sent to China’s Xinjiang re-education camps to study how to mass brainwash thousands, possibly millions of people not on narrative. Special mental hospital-prisons might be in order. 

SF author Philip K. Dick came up with the concept of “precrime,” an effort to prevent crime before it happens. Dick’s story, The Minority Report, depended on “precogs” (mutants capable of precognition) to prevent future crimes. 

Instead of precrime, we face the stigma of thoughtcrime, a political crime described in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. 

Precrime detection is not necessary if the public is trained the idea of political change is not only impossible but a seriously punished thoughtcrime. 

The NYT editorial board has suggested the creation of thought police. Any deviation from Big Brother’s totalitarianism brought agents of Thinkpol and the Ministry of Love (Miniluv) down on those suspected of independent thought. 

According to the novel’s arch-nemesis, Emanuel Goldstein, 
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Protective stupidity is precisely what the state with the help of its corporate propaganda media is attempting to accomplish. 

If you don’t want to lose your job, have your bank account shut down, your children taken away by the state, your firearms confiscated by a SWAT team, and your every move strictly monitored by an increasingly sophisticated high-tech surveillance state, you’ll embrace cognitive dissonance.

For instance, that a handful of Arabs violated the laws of physics, made buildings collapse in their footprints, and had the debris of a large aircraft disappear from a Pennsylvania farm field and the lawn at the Pentagon. 


Wednesday, August 7, 2019

“We Don’t Need No Regulation” – Biotech Bullies Want to Re-Engineer the Law

Sustainable Pulse | Jul 25, 2019 | Pat Thomas

Beyond GM - Biotech developers in the EU are lobbying hard to rewrite or remove regulations intended to protect consumers and the environment. With a little ‘help’ from the White House and – thanks to an apathetic mainstream media  – a lack of public awareness, they could succeed.

Tied up in a pretty bow of feeding the hungry and fighting climate change, their argument really boils down to this: there are no limits to what genetic engineering can do in any sphere, including food and farming, and there should be no regulatory limits to hold us back.

Although complaints about restrictive regulations, in the EU and elsewhere, are common, the research and scientific establishment’s activity around this has ramped up considerably in the last 12 months.
As this article was written the new UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, used his first speech to support the idea of reducing regulation on GMOs: “Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti genetic modification rules and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world.”
That’s because a year ago today the European Court of Justice ruled that organisms that arise from a new technique called directed mutagenesis are GMOs as defined by the EU GMO Directive. As such they should be regulated in the same way as GMOs produced using older techniques. Since many new GMO techniques use this step the law has been widely interpreted as applying to all new GMOs.
You might think that a ruling made by the highest court in Europe in matters of Union law, would be the end of the story. In fact it was only the beginning.

The ECJ ruling was made after considerable deliberation and consultation with experts in the field, and was fully in line with strict EU regulations on genetically engineered organisms as well as the current status of the science for this technology.

Nevertheless, following the announcement, barely a heartbeat had passed before biotech scientists were wringing their hands, sounding the death knell for science and innovation and demanding that something be done.

They described the ruling as a departure from “science based decision making” and “backward looking and hostile to progress” – ridiculous pronouncements that were heavy on the hysteria and light on fact.

The big push


They might also have been a form of misdirection. Behind the scenes, ‘Big Biotech’ has long been lobbying for the regulations to be rewritten or abandoned altogether. In addition, the European Union has been a target of aggressive lobbying, bordering on bullying, by the US to abandon its exemplary precautionary approach to GMO regulations.

The ECJ ruling opened the door for this and this past year has been defined by attempts, particularly from scientific institutions in the UKand Europe, to rewrite the regulations and advance this agenda.

It comes as no surprise, then, that outgoing EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis has stated: “we need a new legal regulatory framework for these new techniques”. Or that a coalition of 14 EU member states are calling on the next European Commission to update EU GMO laws. In lockstep with the biotech research community’s wishes, the EU’s Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) has also called for the existing GMO directive to be revised.

In the US, President Trump has also joined the party by issuing an Executive Order which aims to hasten the deregulation of GMOs in the US and fund a programme of outreach and “education” to help Europeans adjust their attitude to genetically engineered foods.

Alongside this, scientists have been a ratcheting up of efforts to genetically engineer not just plant crops but farm animals intended for food, while a wave of tech start-ups around the globe are working on bacteria that can pump out novel ingredients like fake vanilla and citrus flavourings.

No barrier to innovation


Earlier this year, in meeting attended by the (now former) UK Secretary of State for the Environment Michael Gove, I listened to the Who’s Who of UK agritech R&D complain that regulation was preventing them from bringing their innovations to market. But is this really so?

In the R&D stage there is nothing hampering or preventing experimentation and innovation with genetically modified organisms. Research in this area is lavishly funded, both by private and public money. A peek at the EU register of genetically modified food and feed shows regulation hasn’t stopped genetically engineered plants and other organisms from being authorised.

It’s a fair assumption that these approvals will not be overturned in post-Brexit UK.
So why aren’t there more GMOs in our fields and in our stores? Because, thus far, many of the approved crops, which are so useful in American agriculture, are not really suitable for EU or UK farms, either because they won’t grow well here or because conventional varieties which do the same job are available. It’s also because consumers don’t want them and because strict labelling laws mean manufacturers can’t simply slip them into our foods.

Farmer’s attitudes may soften as new crops come on stream, but consumers’ attitudes are unlikely to. The only way to finesse genetically engineered foods onto our plates is to change the regulations so that ‘new’ GMOs – the so called ‘gene edited’ (GE) organisms which, are produced using technologies like CRISPR – are exempted from testing and, crucially, from labelling. With no labelling to differentiate them from other food products, consumers could be nudged into a kind of passive acceptance.

What is regulation for?


This is already in motion in the US where the USDA has recently proposed to revise its current method for regulating genetically modified plants and animals, to exclude newer so-called ‘gene-edited’ GMOs. Countries like Australia and Japan are considering similar proposals.

At this point it’s worth asking: what is regulation for? I’ve asked this question in several fora – I’ve asked it of Mr Gove – and it is surprising how often it gets batted away as absurd. Nevertheless, it seems important to restate that regulators are gatekeepers, not doormen and that the purpose of regulation is to provide protection, either to individuals or to the environment, not to create or promote markets.

Biotechnology likes to promote itself as ‘disruptive’. If that is the case then regulation is even more important. By their very nature, disruptive technologies – e.g. driverless cars, social media and AI – cut across multiple areas of concern and have wide ranging implications for accepted narratives around things like freedom and food, for impacts on environment, for trade and for consumer choice and health. Because of this, they require more comprehensive and carefully considered regulation (and a much stronger code of ethics) underpinning them.

For those who carp about science-based regulations it’s equally important to ensure that ‘the science’ is considered in its entirety. In a recent article about why we should not deregulate GM foods and crops, Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist at Kings College London, reminds us that regulation is not the same as a ban (though the two are often conflated) and, in fact, represents a reasonable “middle way” that is true to science, that reflects “the uncertainties of the gene editing process” and provides protection for consumers and the environment.

Getting our priorities right


In the UK, it is uncertain if any meaningful European regulations around GMOs will survive Brexit. Biotechnology was a main driver in Michael Gove’s proposed fourth agricultural revolution, and government has signalled full steam ahead this year by authorising four new field trials for GMO potatoescamelina (false flax)wheat and brassicas. The UK’s new ‘food tsar’, Henry Dimbleby, tasked with providing the vision and strategy for the future of UK food, has publicly acknowledged what he sees as the potential of lab grown meat and genetically engineered crops.
Most shockingly, as he slipped into office on July 24th, the UK’s controversial new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson made the government’s priorities clear: “Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world”. 

Given our current trajectory, here are some priority considerations:

All stakeholders need a voice. The current debate is being stage-managed by a small, unrepresentative, but nevertheless powerful, group of people. A more open and inclusive dialogue around new GE technologies in agriculture is what is needed and this demands interaction from a well-balanced group, with experts and practitioners from all sides of the debate, representing diverse approaches to, and perspectives on, “innovation”.

A participatory process for assessing technological innovations especially needs to involve citizen stakeholders. This, as the recent IPES report notes, is the direction of travel for governments and regulations worldwide.

Other types of agricultural innovation must be supported. If we truly aspire to sustainability then we need to put our money where our mouths are. Currently, public funding is used almost exclusively to research new GE varieties intended for production systems reliant on high inputs of fertilisers and pesticides. Every major report on the future of food in recent years has concluded that this system is at the end of its shelf life.

For every British pound that is put into GE research another should also be invested research into non-GE food crops and animals which can perform well within resilient agroecological farming systems. In order to meet the challenges of a changing climate and increased extreme weather events, this must be a priority.

Farmers and growers want strong regulation and assurances that, for those who eschew GE crops, supply chain integrity will be maintained post-Brexit. It’s important to consider the impact on the UK food sector as a whole if UK regulations on GE were no longer in line with those of our major trading partners in Europe.

There is potential for unintended consequences, for instance from contamination from trials, from unregulated commercialisation including damage to existing internal and export markets. We must also consider the impact on third party certifiers, for example organic, and the damage that contamination from GE could do to businesses and to consumer trust.

The public wants strong regulation. The majority of the British public are against genetically engineered crops and foods.2017 poll for Bright Blue, which looked at opinions around a green Brexit, across the political spectrum, found that 61% of Conservative voters polled wanted a ban on the production of GM crops. Looked at through the lens of ‘leavers’ and ‘remainers’ the survey also found that a similar percentage, on both sides, favoured maintaining or strengthening regulations around GM crops.

Strong regulation must also include provisions for clear and comprehensive labelling – a core demand of citizens/eaters/voters.

Clearly agriculture faces a great many challenges, but there is no convincing evidence that loosening up regulations on genetically engineered organisms will solve any of these. Given that GE is primarily used to shore up an intensive industrial model of farming, it may serve to further entrench them.

Any development of gene-edited crops must be conducted with an eye on the systemic nature of agriculture and within the limits of what is deemed to be responsible and prudent, and regulations must be in line with the Precautionary Principle.

Anything else and governments and regulators should be prepared for an almighty backlash from civil society and the general public.

————-

Get involved

 If you live in the UK now is the time to get involved.

Sign our joint petition hosted by Beyond GM and GM Freeze calling on the UK government maintain strong regulation of new GMOs post-Brexit and continue to label GM-containing foods. Please sign and pass on to others who might be interested.

You can also write to your MP, MSPs, AM or MLA and, while we are still members of the EU, your MEP.

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard Stands Up Against Big Brother Google Suspending Her Ad Account Directly After Debates: Files $50M Lawsuit

The Jimmy Dore Show | Jul 31, 2019

Editor's note: Google made sure Tulsi Gabbard was not seen in search traffic when millions were searching for her directly after the debates by making the claim of unusual activity as an excuse to censor her from traffic trying to find her, thus they were involved in a type of election meddling. They are seemingly able to get away with this because they have way too much control over the Internet and to begin remedy they should be broken up into smaller less influential parts.

The Jimmy Dore Show links..

RELATED:



Tuesday, July 30, 2019

'Don't ask don't tell' approach to new GMOs proposed by the USDA

SOTT | Jul 24, 2019 | Pat Thomas

© Genetic Literacy Project

Organic Consumers Association -  Our right to know if it's GMO is officially under attack — again.

On June 6, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed to overhaul longstanding regulations governing genetically modified organisms (GMO). The proposed new rule would revise the agency's current method for regulating genetically modified plants, and would exclude newer so-called "gene-edited" GMOs.

In a statement, the USDA said the new rule came "in response to advances in genetic engineering."

A week later, in the political equivalent of a one-two-punch, President Trump bolstered the USDA's proposal by signing an executive order directing the USDA, as well as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to "streamline" GMO regulations in the U.S. for agricultural biotechnology, including for genetically modified livestock and seeds.

The full import of these two moves, and specifically the threat that they represent to consumer freedom, is only just starting to sink in — and the need for consumer action has become urgent. Contact the USDA here.

Steamrolling the regs

According to the USDA, it' proposed new rule — the "Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms" — aims to make the process of approving GMOs Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient, which is why it has been given the nickname the SECURE Rule.

If adopted the new rule would mark the first significant revision of USDA's biotechnology regulations since they were established in 1987.

In reality, SECURE is akin to driving a steamroller through the regulatory system. If approved, most consumers will be left without a clue as to whether or not their foods have been genetically engineered.

USDA argues that the process of genetic engineering has changed dramatically over the years and that current regulations don't reflect those changes. New technologies such as CRISPR make genetically engineering food faster and simpler. Scientists argue that they can make big changes to plants and animals my making small precise changes in the genome — changes they say are more like 'tweaking' or 'editing' rather than 'engineering. That's why they have given these new techniques the media friendly name "gene editing" (GE).

Close (enough) to nature?

Scientists also argue that the gene editing process is "close to nature" — or at least close enough — that it shouldn't require oversight or labeling.

The truth is, that while the technology has certainly advanced, gene editing is still genetic engineering. It is still prone to all the same problems — for instance unpredictable effects in the organism itself, in the wider environment and for human health — as other forms of genetic engineering. Most importantly it is far too novel and untested to simply give it a free pass in the regulatory system.

USDA says that plants and animals with traits "similar in kind" to modifications that could be produced through natural and traditional breeding techniques should be exempt. But this is just rewording of the tired old "substantial equivalence" dictate which says that no matter how it was produced, if it looks like an apple or a fish it must be an apple or a fish.

Don't be fooled by this. The products of gene-editing are the products of genetic engineering. After all, they're significantly different enough from natural foods to allow their developers to patent them. Truly natural foods can't be patented.

Accepting that these new gene-edited plants and animals are "similar in kind" to natural food means that far fewer genetically engineered plants would need federal approval — or notification — before being brought to market. In fact, under the new rulings biotech companies will be allowed to regulate themselves. They can "self-determine" if their gene edited plant or animal fits this category.

Removing regulatory barriers will reduce the cost of developing new GE foods. So at a time when we desperately need more farmers to care for our land and produce healthy nutritious food, we could see instead more GE food developers taking control of our food supply.

Executive interference

"It should come as a surprise to no one that, under the Trump administration, the biotechnology industry is basically getting its way on every policy issue and policy forum," said Charles Benbrook, agricultural economist, organic proponent and one of the expert witnesses in support of Lee Johnson Roundup trial.
"But as in the past, the real constraints will be the willingness of consumers to buy new products that haven't been adequately tested and of course, whether the food industry and farmers will actually embrace the new technology."
In fact, President Trump's executive order goes to newer — and creepier — heights to try and ensure consumer compliance.

In addition to a mandate to remove the "undue burdens" of regulation from gene-edited foods, the President also ordered the relevant agencies to produce "educational materials" that "clearly communicate the demonstrated benefits of agricultural biotechnology" — to be used in both science education and consumer outreach.

The order states that the agencies: "shall develop an international communications and outreach strategy to facilitate engagement abroad with policymakers, consumers, industry and other stakeholders."

But this education package isn't intended solely for consumers in the U.S. The order further mandates that the agencies spread the GMO gospel internationally by developing "an international strategy to remove unjustified trade barriers and expand markets for products of agricultural biotechnology."

But hang on a minute

In the President's imagination this vast propaganda exercise will "increase international acceptance" for GMOs and open up vast new markets for U.S.-produced GE crops and animal products.

Certainly ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and China have seen the U.S. casting around for new export markets. The Chinese have a stricter approval process for GM crops, licenses are granted for short periods of three years. U.S. companies and farmers complain that these limits stall trade by restricting the sale of new products from companies such as DowDuPont, Bayer and Syngenta.

But a simple reality check reveals that the "don't ask don't tell" approach to new GMOs proposed by the USDA is not only out of step with what consumers want, and with USDA organic standards, it's completely out of line with the regulatory requirements in the European Union (EU) — America's biggest trading partner. Colorful leaflets and happy-clappy infomercials about the benefits of GMOs are not likely to change that.

New U.S. labelling requirements are also out of step with those in the rest of the world. From January 1, 2020, the USDA will require some — but not all — genetically engineered products to carry the Bioengineered (BE) label. Those made using gene-editing technologies are likely to go unlabeled, but as Benbrook notes "just because they're not labeled in the U.S. doesn't mean they won't be labeled in other countries."

As a regulatory term, the word 'bioengineered' is meaningless outside of the U.S. (and some would argue inside the U.S.) and the EU does not distinguish between gene editing and genetic modification. Those products would either not be allowed or could require extra certification before they can be exported to countries with stricter regulations.

An example of this is the Calyxt GE soybean which can be sold in the U.S. without labeling but which, under EU law is a GMO and has not been approved for sale there.

All is not lost

Although they support each other, Trump's seemingly hastily thrown together executive order is ultimately of less concern than the changes proposed by the USDA.

According to Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Staff Scientist at Consumer Reports, "This is all part of the strong deregulatory stance of this administration, which wants to take safety assessments away from the government and put it in the hands of the companies."

"The thing that just baffles me," says Benbrook "is that the industry appears to not have learned anything from the really disastrous rollout of these technologies in the past. From bovine growth hormone to the GE tomatoes, the Arctic Apple and the AquaBounty salmon, consumer skepticism has delayed the marketing or direction of these products, or even made them obsolete."

Once the USDA regulations become final it is highly likely that civil society groups will challenge them through the courts. But consumers can also help shape the outcome. Members of the public can (and should) submit comments about the proposed new rule to the USDA until August 5.

Now is the time to let the USDA know that we will continue to meet these new untested, unlabeled food products of biotechnology with skepticism and the demand that regulators fulfill their primary function — to be gatekeepers, not doormen.

About the author

Pat Thomas is a journalist, author and campaigner specializing in food, environment and health. See more on her website. To keep up with Organic Consumers Association (OCA) news and alerts, sign up for our newsletter.