decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Controls? What controls? | 215 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Controls? What controls?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 09:30 PM EDT
I hate to disillusion you but: (emphasis added)
Q: Does the FDA test these foods before they're allowed on the market?

A: No. Instead there is a voluntary consultation process. Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process. Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA "has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it's safe to FDA's satisfaction before it can get on the market," he says.
source

and a recent addition
The provision would [has] strip[ed] federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” dozens of farmers wrote the House of Representatives before the bill was passed in March. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.
source

I would love to believe that the FDA was doing it's job, and proper studies are being done. Unfortunately, I can't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Monsanto wouldn't want the backlash?
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 11:49 PM EDT
You don't know Monsanto very well, do you?

I worked for Monsanto. Or at least for one of their
divisions - Fisher Controls.

But back to Monsanto and backlash.

Have you ever heard of Love Canal?

How about the Terminator gene that they patented? The one
that would bring plant life to an end on earth if it spread?

How about DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and recombinant bovine
somatotropin (rBGH) ? All supposedly safe. All environmental
disasters.

No, Monsanto just figures backlash as part of the cost of
business, because it does not come from their customers.
Those who protest are just misguided dupes.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )