Have a look who is on the FDA board though guys. I'll give you even money that there's one or two ex-Monsanto boys there. Now there's some food for thought (pardon the pun ;-))

bump

"also Ihave no illusons that the current government would honor ex post facto, and in fact didnt, which is how many nazis were tried and convicted under war crime laws that didnt exist when they were committed."

Waitwaitwaitwait.

You don't APPROVE of that?

I am a vehement anti-fascist

but you cant make up rules when you want to punish somone.

try them with murder or 6000000 counts of murder or wehatever but dont try them under a new law you just invented.

so no I dont approve

Well, I certainly don't approve of applying ex post facto laws in any situation, including against genocidal Nazis. Because if they can get away with it in one case, then that makes it all the easier to get away with it in the next case. Fortunately, the international political situation changed and the world did not go further down that path.

I support free speech for Nazis too, for the same reason. How about you?

Eh. If there hadn't been some sort of law against it, they would've avoided the current laws.

Just sayin' it sounds funny.

wow - I cant believe I just wasted so much time reading all of these comments ;P

seriously though - some of it was great and informative - thanks to those of you that took the time.

meanwhile - foodsafety and agriculture policy is not my forte... but I thought I'd check in with an organization I am familiar with... the Organic Consumers Association of America (800k strong membership).

http://www.organicconsumers.org/

below is a sample of what they wrote about HR 875.

http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/mailapp/



Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
Tell Congress to Improve Food Safety by Stopping Factory Farming
Take Action Now!
Enter Your Zip Code:
Read about this bill

HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a limited-vision attempt by moderate Democrats and Republicans to craft food safety legislation to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, "profit-at-any-cost" food system. This being said, OCA does not support HR 875 in its present form, given the fact that, if the bill's regulations were applied in a one-size-fits-all manner to certified organic and farm-to-consumer operations, it could have a devastating impact on small farmers, especially raw milk producers who are already unfairly targeted by state food-safety regulators. Although the OCA deems this bill somewhat well-intentioned, we are calling on Congress to focus its attention on the real threats to food safety: globalized food sourcing from nations such as China where food safety is a travesty and domestic industrial-scale and factory farms whose collateral damage includes pesticide and antibiotic-tainted food, mad cow disease, E.coli contamination and salmonella poisoning. And, of course, Congress and the Obama Administration need to support a massive transition to organic farming practices.

for those interested - they have several articles and analysis on their website that is very relevant to this debate - and they take food safety very seriously (so Invictus or other ideological anti-regulators might not find this group to be too appealing)

i cant believe i've fallen into this topic... but i read this article I thought many of you would appreciate:

link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17250.cfm



article excerpts (its long):

"1. Do GM Crops Increase Yield? The answer is No
Devinder Sharma
Ground Reality, March 10 2009
http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-gm-crop-in...

Lies, damn lies and the Monsanto site.

Tell a lie a hundred times, and the chances are that it would appear to be a truth. Monsanto makes that effort, probably for the umpteenth number of time. And the chances are that you too could be duped to accept these distortions as truth.

My attention has been drawn to an article "Do GM crops increase yield?" on Monsanto's web page. I must confess this is first time I am visiting Monsanto's site. This is what it says: Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.

Both claims are simply false."

...


"This is not amusing. It can't be taken lightly anymore. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way corporations try to fabricate and swing the facts, dress them up in a manner that the so-called 'educated' of today will accept them without asking any question."


....


then it goes through a looooooong list of GM 'facts' and debunks them... anyways - useful for some/many of you...

very enlightening reading for me ;)

the problem is that when you have 'profit-motive' and 'greater/social good' clashing... 'profit-motive' wins in a capitalist society. period. UNLESS government steps in through 'regulation' (which our righty friends dont like).

here again - the 'profit-motivated' have found a solution: co-opt the government regulatory agencies...


Why do we have an economic crisis you ask? whose fault is it you ask? its not Greenspan, its not citi or AIG... its the fault of Harvey Pitts.

who?

he was Bush's first SEC chair... the guy pulled in from the finance industry to help regulate the finance industry... and the fat F*** sat there with his s***-eating grin and his fuzz-ball face and let the whole thing go up in smoke.

</rant>


At some point - civilized society will come to realize that 'economic growth' is not in-and-of-itself good. and things that styme economic growth CAN and are good for society (taxes, regulation, rules, laws, etc)

My 2p:

I don't have a problem with GM food. When someone can point me to credible and unbiased research showing it's detrimental effect on people I'll reconsider, but so far nobody has. We've been crossbreeding plant types, and animal breeds (not at with each other, obviously) for centuries - what's that if not genetic modification? Just because we can now pull out the bit we want without any of the other attributes, doesn't make it a bad thing. And if the s*** does hit the environmental fan then we're going to need every single heat-, salt- and drought-resistant plant we can get our hands on...

And personally I welcome a more regulated and controlled 'organic' label as currently it's more of a PR thing than providing any actual benefit, as the soil, rain and air involved in growing it aren't taken into account. You can plant a field of 'organic' veg, it doesn't matter if massive amounts of chemicals run off from other fields or come down in the rain as long as you don't put it there deliberately. Anyone who is opposed to this is just asking to be treated like a mug by farmers and distributors.

"When someone can point me to credible and unbiased research showing it's detrimental effect on people I'll reconsider, but so far nobody has."

You've missed the point entirely! The burden of proof is on Monsanto to prove it to be completely safe!! Not for it to not be proven unsafe.

The same attitude was taken with cigarettes. Inhaling tobacco smoke was never proven unsafe until much later. Imagine if it were a requirement for tobacco companies to prove the smoke to be safe.

And that speaks only to a recreational habit by choice. This is the fricken FOOD SUPPLY we are talking about here!

Pretty soon, I will no longer have the choice to NOT eat GM foods as it taints our farms. What then?

How do you not see the recipe for disaster?

If we don't know where/how Morgellon's disease comes from, you cannot say for certainty that it's NOT from GM foods. Same with disappearing bees.

Why take the attitude that someone needs to prove it unsafe, rather then Monsanto prove it safe BEFORE they introduce this to our food supply?

That's just common sense, man. And it doesn't even take into consideration the history of Monsanto and Babak's wonderfully illustrated point here:

"the problem is that when you have 'profit-motive' and 'greater/social good' clashing... 'profit-motive' wins in a capitalist society. period. UNLESS government steps in through 'regulation' (which our righty friends dont like).

here again - the 'profit-motivated' have found a solution: co-opt the government regulatory agencies..."

All things considered, it is absolutely MADDENING to me how anyone can put faith and trust into GM foods with ZERO proof that it is safe.

Someone please explain this to me.

One misstep and it will wreak havoc on us. I cannot choose to NOT eat like I can choose to not smoke. Once the food supply becomes tainted, it will FOREVER be with us.

Shame on Monsanto and to anyone who gives the benefit of the doubt to big business and government regulation.

@ Chris "Monsanto has a terrible track record, but just because it has the resources to cover it up doesn't mean that it is..."

True, but as you said, given it's track record, why assume it hasn't? There doesn't seem to be any logic in giving a company that is pushing GM foods with suspected links to certain diseases the benefit of the doubt until such links can be demonstrably false...is there?

"You've missed the point entirely! The burden of proof is on Monsanto to prove it to be completely safe!! Not for it to not be proven unsafe."

This was a powerful point until you failed to accept burden of proof here:
"If we don't know where/how Morgellon's disease comes from, you cannot say for certainty that it's NOT from GM foods. Same with disappearing bees."

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree that GM foods should be proved to be safe. This burden does not lie with Monsanto, and I'd doubt you'd believe them if they said they ran tests and proved it was safe. This responsibility belongs to the FDA, since this is their governmental imperative. I think you're ignoring the fact that all GM foods produced and sold in America have been approved by the FDA.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon.html#list

Now the burden of proof lies with those who would refute the approval of the FDA, which requires greater links than the possible link to a possibly novel disease and to the possible link to the decline of bees which has been attributed to a great many environmental factors independent of GM foods.

I suppose you could say the FDA can't be trusted because it must be in Monsanto's pocket, but this would be the fallacious assumption of which conspiracy theorists are often guilty. The burden of proof lies with you to prove they're in bed together, which would completely blow the lid off of the FDA. In the end, if you don't even trust the fact that the FDA says that these GM foods are safe, then who or what organization will you ever trust to say that GM foods are safe?

I'm just saying that most governmental food health regulatory bodies approve of GM foods as does most of the scientific professionals I've ever heard express an opinion on the issue, albeit with an appropriate level of caution.

What level of proof will satisfy you? It's not economically feasible to test for every possibly aspect... and it's ridiculous to wait until say organic farmers admit that GM foods are safe because they definitely have a stake in the matter. When you have to invoke shoddy correlations and an over-arching conspiracy between agribusiness and government food health regulatory bodies to say that GM foods should be disallowed I think you should reconsider your argument.

"This burden does not lie with Monsanto, and I'd doubt you'd believe them if they said they ran tests and proved it was safe."

Well, who would?

"Now the burden of proof lies with those who would refute the approval of the FDA"

The FDA is a joke...

http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/0406/aspartames_fda_approval_p.html

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

Not to mention the FDA approved vaccines that are suspected to, at least, aggravate autism and, at worst, cause autism.

Also, here's another example of big business caring not for the consumer and only profits...

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000647_Bayer_vaccines_HIV.html

My point here is this: Big companies and the government will not protect anyone, so long as money is involved.

Monsanto and GM foods are no different.

"if you don't even trust the fact that the FDA says that these GM foods are safe, then who or what organization will you ever trust to say that GM foods are safe?"

No, I think you are missing a step. The question should be, Why have GM foods even been introduced into the food supply in the first place? The fact that there's a suicide gene is all you need to know about it being a for-profit venture and nothing more.

YOu can call me conspiratorial all you want...however, it's only a logical development to corporatism and corruption that I know we can all see.

To put it another way, why should I trust anything big business or the government has to say?

I don't have much of a choice though, do I?

Exactly.

of course big business chooses profit over all other ramifications, this is because by law, they have to.



I will admit, that I was very emotionally charged when I wrote the first post.
that said I take nothing back.
yes the law is very vague, but look what has been done with other vague laws (espionage act, patriot act, military commisions act) reading the laws doesnt alarm you, they're all dry and boring. you have to read between the lines.
I just want to say, if you honestly think that putting large corporations in control of our food supply, who have in the past proven a callous disregard for human life to increase revenue, is a good idea... then this bill is really the least of my worries.

While the FDA may not be the most efficient system, I would most certainly not call it a joke. The two links you posted are tangents, but I'll address them anyway.

Your first link definitely dresses up the history... while I won't dispute that aspartame is a carcinogen and in significant quantities has detrimental effects, I would say the FDA behaved quite rationally in dealing with aspartame. It still requires aspartame to be listed in ingredients and it's not hard to avoid it. At the same time there are naturally occurring carcinogens and toxins in many foods that many would consider preposterous for the FDA to ban. While many people do consume more aspartame through soft drinks than is healthy and recommended by the FDA, this does not mean the FDA is somehow a joke... it's up to the population in large part to make the right choices.

Your link neglects to mention that Dr. Olney and his partner, attorney Jim Turner earn their bread fighting food additives. Fairly, the FDA granted them due hearings and reviewed their claims on the damaging effects of aspartame, while not permitting Searle to market their sweetener while they determined whether or not Olney had a credible claim. They convened an independent PBOI to determine this, and they came back saying that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that aspartame causes brain cancer in rats, but did not fully approve aspartame because brain cancer was not fully understood at the time, not at all the conclusion cited in your article claiming that the PBOI concluded that aspartame caused an unacceptable number of brain tumours in rats... They disagreed with Olney but in the interest of caution they said the issue warranted further research.

The FDA also sent a taskforce to review the safety studies conducted by Searle, and while your link claims this taskforce found the studies questionable, they actually determined that the studies were performed to adequate safety standards and that their conclusions were correct, despite a few minor but ultimately inconsequential inconsistencies.
http://www.gao.gov/products/HRD-87-46

Hayes approved aspartame citing a Japanese brain tumour study conducted that the PBOI did not have access to at the time. The PBOI chairman would later say of the Japanese brain tumour study that if they had that at the time of their deliberation it would have resulted in the unqualified approval of aspartame.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/answers/ans00772.html

I also find it funny that the article constantly reminds us that aspartame was originally explored as a treatment for ulcers as if somehow that means that it can't be used as a food additive. It's a chemical... just because it can be used for one process that seems more nefarious doesn't mean it can't happily fit somewhere. It's like saying water is used as an industrial solvent, do you really want to drink it now?!

I think you're also ignoring the enormous scientific consensus on the relatively safety of aspartame as a food additive from food safety authorities around the world, as well as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/chemicals-nutrients-additives-and-toxins/aspartame/
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out155_en.pdf
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/aspartame/index.htm#5
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/aspartame-eng.php

As for your second link, the home page lists the FDA warnings that are very consistent with the damages done by such anti depressants. Your second link actually bolsters it's argument with FDA consensus on anti-depressants. The fact is that anti-depressants do have a usage and are not automatically bad. My initial reaction to the site's stories is that while anti depression medication was correlated with all this violence and suicide, the cause could simply be the depression that the medication was aiming to treat in the first place, and not the medication. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that such medication is over prescribed and over demanded. This really doesn't undermine the authority of the FDA however because they did approve it while releasing appropriate public health advisories.

The real culprit in this disaster is doctors whose knee jerk response is to prescribe antidepression medication as well as patients who demand it thinking that their must be a quick fix pill to all their problems. Both my parents are medical professionals and they have told me first hand that they always get invited out to fancy dinners by large pharmaceutical companies to indirectly promote their product.

Your third link has nothing to do with the authority of the FDA. I wholeheartedly agree that there are many instances in which profit-driven motive is economically detrimental to society as a result of externalities not considered by profit-driven motive. I've already stated my stance on this in saying that it is up to government to impose regulation in cases where such externalities exist. This is why I believe in nationalized health care.

You're demonizing profit-driven motive when in many cases it's highly effective. I think you forget that almost everything is produced as a for-profit venture. You're asking the wrong question. GM foods exist because there is a demand for such a product from farmers and from many consumers as well, as was indicated by the initial response to FlavrSavr tomatoes. Just because something is decent as it is doesn't mean it can't be improved. You've also failed to apply the same critical eye to your sources. I think you forget that organic farmers still need to put food on their table and are very much driven by profit. I don't know how they can go around saying that organic farming practices actually increase yield and then go on to charge the consumer three times more than non-organic produce. They very much have a stake in whether or not GM foods are accepted or not by society.

I can think of much more effective and less nefarious ways of making money and gaining power than quietly getting one of your men into office as Vice President just to get a harmful food additive approved... honestly... it's not like they're intentionally trying to kill us... they need us to work for them!

Government will hopefully protect us because they depend on our votes and our labour. In the end, I'm not saying you should trust big business or government, but I'm saying you shouldn't discount anything they say simply because there's always the off chance of a conspiracy. Think critically, and equally.

It's interesting that organicconsumers.org deems the bill well-intentioned. Definitely called for some good old fashioned backpedaling on Sic's part. =)

I'll just point out that if I were masterminding a Monsanto conspiracy I wouldn't be trying to con people into purchasing harmful goods... oh no, I'd be very concerned about the health of my consumers because I only make money as long as they aren't dead and continue eating food. If anything I would push food additives that made people hungrier, increase the demand for food, such that my profits increase and only high yield GM foods would be feasible. But then, aspartame is commonly said to increase appetite... I'd definitely start there if I really wanted to come up with my conspiracy theory. Not some vague, "they must have done it for the money" sort of argument. =)

Chris, I suppose we ultimately disagree on the basics of our mindset. I am simply not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to big business or government agencies. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly willing to do this...despite independent research to the contrary.

I don't think I can argue with you on this subject as neither of us will convince the other. However, there were a few things you wrote that I thought were worth commenting on...you'll have to excuse my cherry-picking in no particular order:

"GM foods exist because there is a demand for such a product from farmers and from many consumers as well, as was indicated by the initial response to FlavrSavr tomatoes."

- While I can agree there is a demand for heartier crops that are more resistant, the suicide gene in Monsanto's seeds are beyond explanation. This is exactly why I pointed it out as it being all you need to know about Monsanto's profit driven mentality...which is "the consumer be damned". Are you saying there is a demand for crops that cannot reproduce multiple harvests?

"Both my parents are medical professionals and they have told me first hand that they always get invited out to fancy dinners by large pharmaceutical companies to indirectly promote their product."

- I suspected this, so thank you for confirming it. Big Pharma, outside of the defense industry, is probably the largest profit-driven group in the world. My questions to you then, are: How prevalent do you think this sort of thing is? Do you think this sort of promotion is limited to fancy dinners? What about gifts? Or money?

"patients who demand it thinking that their must be a quick fix pill to all their problems"

- Isn't that exactly what Big Pharma counts on? Have a problem? Take a pill. That is the mentality of MOST of America nowadays. Where do you think that came from? When you say things like "Just because something is decent as it is doesn't mean it can't be improved.", the same can be said that "Just because we can make a pill for an ailment it doesn't mean it is needed or not harmful".
What isn't there a pill for? For anyone who wants a pill to cure their ailment, there is a doctor perfectly willing to prescribe them one.

Personally, I used to get bad heartburn...so I popped Tums and anything with calcium carbonate in it. But chewing on those things daily for years, decayed my teeth. I went to the doctor...and in less than five minutes, viola! a prescription for Zantac (or whatever that stuff is). I did not want to take a pill for the rest of my life...so I changed my diet instead. Guess what? No more heartburn.

Did the doctor mention this? No.

"My initial reaction to the site's stories is that while anti depression medication was correlated with all this violence and suicide, the cause could simply be the depression that the medication was aiming to treat in the first place, and not the medication."

Okay, so where are the studies to prove/disprove this? The lack thereof speaks volumes.

Are you starting to see my contempt for the industry as a whole?

Watch a commercial for ANY drug...any of them. Make a list of the side effects. I'll wait...

...the list is long. Now, what are the side effects to smoking pot? The munchies? But pot is illegal? Do you think the combination of Big Pharma and government has anything to do with keeping it that way? Of course, I have no proof...but someone's keeping it that way because the medical benefits of pot are WELL documented. Yet it remains an illegal substance (in most states, at least). I digress, but only to illustrate my point...

Big business + government "regulation" = bad for the consumer.

"I'm saying you shouldn't discount anything they say simply because there's always the off chance of a conspiracy. Think critically, and equally."

I will end my rant with this...take this very game for instance, diplomacy. Once someone lies to you, they have lost whatever trust they had with you, right? At the very least, you are now extremely cautious with everything they say.

Why is that different when dealing with companies or a government that lies?

I'm not going to drum up specific instances in which I felt lied to by either the government or large companies, but so long as I think I've been lied to even once, I have no reason to believe anything else they say.

Is that not thinking critically? Why should anyone who lies be offered up a clean slate of trustworthiness and not subject to more intense scrutiny? Ultimately, this is all I am suggesting.

And finally,
"But then, aspartame is commonly said to increase appetite"

That's what MSG is also...try finding something without that in it.

I apologize for being a bit unorganized. I don't expect that this has swayed you in anyway, I just hope my point has been made.

read my lips, no new taxes
I did not have sexual relations with that woman monica lewinsky
iraq has wmds and links to al quaeda

why wouldnt you trust them

"you shall know them by their actions"

"iraq has wmds and links to al quaeda"

To be fair, that isn't a direct quote.

True Invictus, but can you agree that that's essentially what he said? ANd if not, what was it?

"- While I can agree there is a demand for heartier crops that are more resistant, the suicide gene in Monsanto's seeds are beyond explanation. This is exactly why I pointed it out as it being all you need to know about Monsanto's profit driven mentality...which is "the consumer be damned". Are you saying there is a demand for crops that cannot reproduce multiple harvests?"

No, I'm saying that many farmers are willing to trade off multiple harvests in exchange for a hardier crop. There will be farmers who won't accept this. As long as there is a demand for non-GM foods I assure you that you will be able to buy non-GM food products, even if it means growing them hydroponically or isolated in the off chance of pollination. I completely agree that suicide genes are bad, but saying that they are clearly profit driven means nothing. I would say the way to solve this problem is to push for government prohibition of Terminator technology, because it's clear there are externalities involved.

I'm not going to argue with you about Big Pharma because for the most part I agree with you. But this doesn't mean that GM foods are bad, or that the FDA is a joke... which is essentially what I'm arguing. I've been saying all along I understand that profit-driven motive can often lead to terrible externalities, but it should be looked at upon a case by case basis. From my research I definitely condemn anti-depressants as they are currently prescribed, but they are effective in treating obsessive compulsive disorder, Prozac has been found to have a higher benefit/risk ratio for treating depression, and most suicidality and aggression caused by anti-depressants is in children, while adults for the most part can use them relatively safely.

"Okay, so where are the studies to prove/disprove this? The lack thereof speaks volumes."

I suspect you didn't look very hard... I only had to google the subject to find out that my initial reaction was wrong. Suicidality and aggression has been found to increase in children on anti-depressants as opposed to those not on anti-depressants. The FDA has very appropriate warnings and public health advisories on the subject...

"...the list is long. Now, what are the side effects to smoking pot? The munchies? But pot is illegal? Do you think the combination of Big Pharma and government has anything to do with keeping it that way? Of course, I have no proof...but someone's keeping it that way because the medical benefits of pot are WELL documented. Yet it remains an illegal substance (in most states, at least). I digress, but only to illustrate my point..."

I absolutely agree that marijuana should be legalized, but I wouldn't say it's because Big Pharma is lobbying against it... honestly, I have no doubt that if it were legalized Big Pharma would be one of the first on board in creating cannabis derived drugs that they could patent. I would say it's mostly because of political chauvinism. Very few politicians are willing to say they support the legalization of marijuana because for many this is career suicide. The history behind marijuana prohibition is much longer and more complex than some big corporate-government conspiracy. If policy were more based on current scientific consensus than I suspect we'd see legalization, but since the general public is not as approving, it will still be some time.

Ultimately all the above is a tangent unrelated to the dangers of GM foods or the credibility of the FDA.

"Big business + government "regulation" = bad for the consumer."

This is where I think you make a horrible assumption. Big business is only sometimes bad for the consumer. For the most part they are extremely good for the consumer and for the economy. In the instances where economists have identified externalities there is usually government regulation in place to protect the consumer from profit driven corporations. It's not a simple equation... You can assume corruption and coercion, but this would be fallacious and the issue should be dealt with case by case and not with a blanket statement about large companies.

"Chris, I suppose we ultimately disagree on the basics of our mindset. I am simply not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to big business or government agencies. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly willing to do this...despite independent research to the contrary."

Actually, I didn't have much of an opinion on the subject until you got me researching. The more and more I researched the more and more I found myself disagreeing with you. My default stance isn't for or against whatever big business and government do... Take it case by case. I'm against the mass proliferation of mind altering substances, but I'm for the development of GM foods. This is what bodies of scientific research currently agree upon, and I would base my support or condemnation on that. You seem to be against whatever big business does simply because they do it for money. That money is our money, it's the money we as consumers pay them. You're also neglecting that economic consensus is that oligarchies create the most innovation.

MSG is another tangent, but one that I was very much interested in a couple years back. Personally I like the taste of MSG, and I've found that it isn't very hard to find foods without MSG. I just went through my fridge and the only thing I have that has MSG is in two packs of instant noodles. I'm far less worried about MSG than say... obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. While my current stance is that MSG is relatively safe based on current scientific research I recognize that neuroscientists are still divided and many still think there is danger involved. If research is published that conclusively links MSG to excitotoxicity in the brain than I will obviously change my stance, and I expect the major governmental food safety regulatory bodies will as well.

Chris, I respect your opinion...so thank you for chiming in here. You always know how to separate the emotion from argumentation. Are you a robot? Am I taking a Turing test? =D JK.

Anyway, my above equation was definitely a blanket statement...I just disagree that it's a horrible assumption. An assumption, yes...horrible, no.

"You can assume corruption and coercion, but this would be fallacious and the issue should be dealt with case by case and not with a blanket statement about large companies."

I suppose my reasoning is if, at the slightest indication, why not assume corruption and coercion? Why not assume that, instead of waiting for someone else to tell you it isn't?

I'm speaking as a consumer here, not as a regulatory body or anything. I think that all of us could use, and benefit from, more large doses of skepticism.

Again, Babak wrote this wonderfully...do you agree or disagree?

""the problem is that when you have 'profit-motive' and 'greater/social good' clashing... 'profit-motive' wins in a capitalist society. period. UNLESS government steps in through 'regulation' (which our righty friends dont like).

here again - the 'profit-motivated' have found a solution: co-opt the government regulatory agencies..."

In other words, if the President of Monsanto had to make a choice between doing what's good for the consumer at the detriment of the company and doing what's good for the company at the detriment of the consumer, I'm willing to bet that 100% of the time, he will choose the latter. Do you agree or disagree?

The example I proposed above about Bayer exemplifies this.

To take this a step further, my own version of this would be something like, if an opportunity arose to those powerful enough to take advantage of it, they will, without a doubt.

To an extent, I agree with your case by case suggestion, if only the company or regulatory body has an exemplary record. Because just like this game of diplomacy can harbor ill feelings toward players who have been deceitful, so too can those ill feelings be attributed to companies who lie which, I think, justifies the nullification of the benefit of the doubt and thus evaluation on a case by case basis.

I can agree that some big business is good for the consumer...so my blanket statement was not worded well.

As to some of your comments:

"I would say the way to solve this problem is to push for government prohibition of Terminator technology"

Agreed. But as you can imagine, I doubt we will see this.

"most suicidality and aggression caused by anti-depressants is in children"

But Prozac is approved by the FDA to be prescribed to children. Where is the FDA's responsibility here? Because to me, they seemed to have shirked it.

It is exactly things like this that lead me to my conclusions. If I cannot trust big business to produce a safe product and if I cannot trust regulatory bodies to protect me from unsafe products, who do I trust?

Myself. Case by case be damned. If there are suspicions of a product being unsafe or suspicions of the regulatory body shirking their responsibility, you can bet that I will be on high alert. As I think everyone should.

All too often people put a tremendous amount of trust into products deemed "safe" without looking into it themselves. And you know what? Shame on them.

I thought I made myself clear in saying that yes, I believe that corporations will choose profit over social good because that is the way they are engineered. It's unrealistic to ask them not to be profit-driven and this crime is not solely one of big business. It can be found even in non-profit organizations. These are called externalities and it is commonly agreed by prevailing neo-classical economic theory that in such industries where externalities exist, government regulation is required.

"But Prozac is approved by the FDA to be prescribed to children. Where is the FDA's responsibility here? Because to me, they seemed to have shirked it."

Well, you seem to forget that the FDA is on your side when it comes to SSRI's... your link fully endorsed the FDA and much of the research done linking suicidality and aggression to SSRI's was done in collaboration with the FDA. Prozac has actually been found by the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency to have a favourable benefit/risk ratio as a treatment for depression.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf

The FDA has conferred it's most serious warning, the black box warning, to SSRI's in general to inform the public about the adverse effects of SSRI's in children... I would say that the FDA is very much taking responsibility.

I can't guarantee that the FDA has never made poor or questionable judgements in the past, but everything I've checked indicates that the FDA is very much trustworthy and at the very least bases it's judgements on the current available scientific research and consensus, often erring on the side of caution for our safeties. I would definitely say if you can't trust such regulatory bodies than you really can't trust anyone, certainly not some organic foods or New Age website... and you might be confined to your paranoia about your diet. I take comfort in knowing that the professionals at the FDA and the independent researchers on whom they rely are generally far better equipped to judge the safety of foods than I am, and generally have our well-being in mind, since this is their job. These are people too... with families and reputations and moralities.

Okay, my bad...maybe you were clear about profit-driven companies...so at least we have some common ground.

However, pardon me but your comments related to the FDA so far seem like nothing more than a simple appeal to authority.

You may or may not see the FDA in a negative light with regard to SSRI drugs. But what about the following...would you care to check into these as well?

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/574.html
The pharmaceutical industry employees one sales rep for every four doctors.

Research on drug effects has been virtually completely taken over by the drug industry.

The number of deaths caused by specific medications is often withheld by the FDA because it's considered a "trade secret."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aip8p9P.dMzg&refer=us#
The Food and Drug Administration ejected panel member Sanjay Kaul after Indianapolis-based Lilly complained about research articles written by Kaul questioning prasugrel’s safety and effectiveness, said Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/01/28/mercury-found-in-high-fructose-corn-syrup.html
Quantities of mercury have been found in high fructose corn syrup, the ingredient that has replaced sugar in many of our processed foods. Reports have also come out that the FDA knew about traces of the toxic substance in food, and sat on the information.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-19-fake-foods_N.htm
Experts say dangerous U.S.-produced foods are comparatively few, but producers have been known to practice "economic adulteration" — adding a little to their bottom line by padding, thinning or substituting something cheap for something expensive.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration regulate the food industry, but with safety issues to deal with, economic adulteration has "really been back-burnered," says Bruce Silverglade of the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news/no-need-for-condoms-ge-corn
New research from Austria shows that a commercial strain of Monsanto-made GE corn causes mice to have fewer and weaker babies. What is this doing to human fertility?

Regulators around the world said Monsanto’s GE corn was as safe as non-GE strains.

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000622_mercury_FDA_fish.html
Last week, the FDA declared trace levels of melamine to be safe in infant formula. A few weeks earlier, it said the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A was safe for infants to drink. Now it says children can eat mercury, too. Is there any toxic substance in the food that the FDA thinks might be dangerous? (Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite and now mercury...)

This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it "scientifically flawed and inadequate," reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group (www.EWG.org) issued a letter to the EPA, saying "It's a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America's health, and now it's nothing more than a patsy for polluters."

You want to know the REAL reason the FDA is easing up on its warning about mercury in fish? It's because the agency is being relentlessly pounded over two related issues: Mercury in dental fillings and mercury preservatives in vaccines. And the FDA can't keep up its lie about the "safety" of vaccines and mercury fillings if it has already declared mercury to be dangerous in fish, right?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fda-reluctantly-admits-mercury-fillings-have-neurotoxic-effects-on-children.html
For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.

“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” reads a statement that has been added to the agency’s Web site. “Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”

The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024947.html
Up to 90 percent of the infant formula sold in the United States may be contaminated with trace amounts of melamine, the toxic chemical linked to kidney damage, according to recent tests. The FDA's test results, which the agency hid from the public and only released after the Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request, showed that Nestle, Mead Johnson and Enfamil infant formula products were all contaminated with melamine.

Has your trust and comfort level in the FDA been shattered yet, or shall I go on?

found this vid. has some good info in it

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

I'm still going to respond to this, no worries. =)

I've just been really super busy.

I understand...Don't even worry about it, Chris. What you have going is far more important than an internet debate. Besides, I think I have a good idea of what you might say.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way...I'm only saying it cuz I think it's funny, but let's face it, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded.

:) lol.