Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   News 3   Valuable 3   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 4/8/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (11 comments)

GMO Clones, the FDA, HR 875, and Congress

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

The de­ci­sion re­moves the last big U.S. reg­ula­tory hur­dle to mar­ket­ing prod­ucts from cloned live­stock, and puts the FDA in con­cert with re­cent safe­ty as­sess­ments from Eu­ro­pe­an food reg­u­la­tors and sev­er­al oth­er na­t­ions.

“Meat and milk from cat­tle, swine and goat clones are as safe as food we eat eve­ry day,” said Ste­phen Sundloff, FDA’s food safe­ty chief.

But the gov­ern­ment has asked an­i­mal cloning compa­nies to con­tin­ue a vol­un­tary mor­a­to­ri­um on sales for a lit­tle long­er - not for safe­ty rea­sons, but mar­ket­ing ones.

USDA Un­der­sec­re­tary Bruce Knight called it a tran­si­tion pe­ri­od for “al­low­ing the mar­ket­place to ad­just.” He would­n’t say how long the mor­a­to­ri­um should con­tin­ue…

…FDA won’t re­quire food mak­ers to la­bel if their prod­ucts came from cloned an­i­mals, al­though com­pa­nies could do so vol­un­tarily if they knew the source. Last month, meat and dairy pro­duc­ers an­nounced an in­dus­try sys­tem to track cloned live­stock, with an elec­tron­ic iden­ti­fica­t­ion tag on each an­i­mal sold. Cus­tomers would sign a pledge to mar­ket the an­i­mal as a clone. 

So, we have GM cloned animals set to go to market, no labeling required, and bills set to implement a tracking system for all livestock. 

Tracking problem solved for the GM giants. You don’t have to go to a field and drag a cow back to the lab, or bring your equipment to the cow. If these bills pass, the animals will already be in a database, courtesy of Congress.

And just what does this mean to the small rancher?

(1988) The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in a new policy that could substantially change how lifestock and poultry are sold, has determined that companies holding patents on new animal forms have the authority to require farmers to pay royalties.

The royalties would be paid on the sales of patented animals and on generations of their offspring, meaning that farmers would have to pay patent holders a fee for adult animals and for generations of calves, colts, lambs, chicks, and piglets produced through the 17-year life of the patent. (New York Times)

Now let’s connect the dots. We have patents on GM animals, and most GM animals are clones. The FDA has approved both for our food supply, with no labeling required. We have, poised to be set in motion, a tracking system for all animals. Farmers have to pay royalties ”on the sales of patented animals and on generations of their offspring, meaning that farmers would have to pay patent holders a fee for adult animals and for generations of calves, colts, lambs, chicks, and piglets produced through the 17-year life of the patent.”

Isn’t this beginning to sound familiar? Does Percy Schmeiser ring a bell? Here is a possible scenario:

A GM bull gets out of a factory farm down the road and mates with a regular cow on a neighbor’s ranch. Since the neighbor is required to report and trace every animal’s movements, he must account for the new calf or face penalties. The factory farm has reported that the bull has gotten out, and was recovered at the neighbor’s ranch. The neighbor does not have a bull, so it is logical to assume that this new calf is a product of the GM bull and his cow. If testing shows that the calf is GM, just like Percy Schmeiser, the neighbor is now responsible for a patent holder’s fee for that animal and any offspring it may have.

© Barbara H. Peterson

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://farmwars.info

Barbara H. Peterson is retired from the California Department of Corrections, where she worked as a Correctional Officer at Folsom Prison. She was one of the first females to work at the facility in this classification. After retirement, she went to (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
11 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Holy Cow!!! by Kathryn Smith on Wednesday, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:57:45 PM
A few thoughts by Robert Wager on Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:25:29 AM
CODEX by Angelo on Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:25:54 AM
You are absolutely right! More: by Kathryn Smith on Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:39:20 AM
freedom of speech by Robert Wager on Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:58:03 AM
It's about impact on human life, not free speech by Kathryn Smith on Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:49:49 PM
Food Freedom and Body Integrity by Dawn B on Friday, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:42:39 PM
GAO by Barbara Peterson on Thursday, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:29:59 AM
not only, but also.. by amicus curiae on Sunday, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:52:28 PM
heres the links to more info by amicus curiae on Sunday, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:57:47 PM
Thanks! by Barbara Peterson on Sunday, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:07:03 PM