Archive for the 'GMO' Category

The UN Production of the Flim Flam Man

Posted in wordpress, Hamas, GMO, Foreign Affairs, Rep Barney Frank on October 28th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

Ban Ki Moon aka Flim Flam Man
crossposted at:
Reject the UN
Screw the UN
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts

A scarred reputation from the oil for food program, the failing Millennium Development Goals, another lame example of international intervention featured prominently in Burma as well as the abuses of sex scandals and general corruption now lay the back drop for a budget increase at the United Nations.

By Patrick Worsnip
Thu Oct 25
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed on Thursday a rise in the U.N. budget for the next two years, seeking extra funding to head off conflicts and promote human rights amid new demands on the world body.

By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
Thu Oct 25
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Secretary-General proposed a two-year budget of $4.2 billion on Thursday, saying the small increase isn’t much in light of the growing demands on the United Nations to address a range of diplomatic and security challenges.

What a preposterous notion noted in the two news reports. Ban Ki-Moon apparently cites heading off conflicts, growing demands and addressing diplomatic, security and human rights issues as reasons for a budget increase. In the private sector, bottom line and key performance measures commonly dictate funding parameters for future allocation of resources. Not unlike most governments, public sector organizations in general draw no attention to the fact that no budget decisions reflect the effectiveness of the entity seeking more money. School boards and other local government bodies as well as state and federal governments routinely raise budgets without the corresponding justification of successful past performance.

In the UN’s case, the Millennium Development Goals alone are sufficient cause to deny budget increases. The little that will prove successful over a minimum of two decades demonstrates clearly that the UN has never possessed the ability to be effective. Certainly there are numerous other examples of the organizations futility but the MDG have special significance. The initiative was to benefit all people of the world who suffer from common deficiencies related to poverty, hunger, disease and similar difficulties not related to the benefit of any particular country or group. So even programs that remove any suggestion of favoritism are beyond the UN’s ability to achieve success.

“That is not much, considering the demands upon us,” he said, naming conflicts and potential crisis areas as well as longer-term challenges of alleviating poverty, providing humanitarian aid and fighting climate change and HIV/AIDS.

Listening over and over again to the identical sounds of each United Nations pronouncement…. last year …. $3.8 Billion. Price of allowing this scam to continue….. limitless. Let’s see Mastercard do an ad on this. There are many voices echoing the call for an end to the United Nations and it is not limited to any one website. Whether campaign rhetoric or not, several US Presidential candidates have made equivalent statements. It may be necessary to engage in the typical demeaning activities characterized by radical public protests. Thoughtful communication focusing attention toward the flaws of the United Nations may already having the needed impact, one post at a time.

One last note on the words of Ban Ki Moon. An example of his budget increase justification specified an amount for an extremely vague purpose. $18 Million dollars to ’strengthen the Department of Political Affairs.’ How about using at least that much money to do some good for the people you are charged with serving, e.g., helping. And by that it is not meant that the money should be given to those within the United Nations organization. That is the biggest problem. All that money that never gets to a legitimate destination.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Again with the GMO

Posted in Uncategorized, Public Affairs, Science, disclosure, ethics, oversight, United States, Agriculture, E.coli, Food, Public, GMO, EU on November 19th, 2006 by Stanford Matthews

U.S. lawmakers: EU dragging heels on biotech trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States must pressure the
European Union to stop dragging its feet on approving new imports
of bioengineered food, senior U.S. lawmakers said in a letter
released on Wednesday.

WTO.gif

Biotech Rice Saga Yields Bushel of Questions for Feds
USDA Approval Shortcut Emerges as Issue
By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 6, 2006; A03
When the biotech company Bayer CropScience AG requested
federal permission in August to market a variety of gene-altered
rice, it assured itself a small, unwanted place in history: the first
to seek approval for a genetically engineered food that was
already — illegally — on the market.

GlobalAg.jpg

GMO ban ordinance eyed

Visayan Daily Star, Philippines - Nov 12, 2006
Oriental Negros Vice Gov. Jose Baldado said he will work for
the passage of an ordinance banning genetically-modified
organisms in the province. …

Cognis launches 3 natural, non-GMO health ingredients …
SpiritIndia, India - Oct 30, 2006
… West trade show is expected to be brisk as dietary supplement
and functional food manufacturers discover the benefits of three
new, non-GMO natural health …

Seems to be a great deal of quiet discussion on GMO foods. What
is the upside? What do we really know about GMO foods? Is it
reasonable to blindly accept GMO as healthy without valid data on
long term probability or potential of future health problems? What
about causing unexpected changes in natural food sources? Is the
United States the only country promoting GMO foods? There is a
large enough reference to reports around the world that suggest an
uneasy climate toward these foods. Why is it the job of government
officials to influence or intimidate other countries to comply with the
US government’s agenda? Especially when it appears to merely be
on behalf of corporate America and not based on the well-being or
benefit of
all affected parties.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Some of the people pushing for the EU to accept US GMO:

TomHarkin.jpg Tom Harkin

CollinPeterson.jpg Collin Peterson

SaxbyChambliss.jpg Saxby Chambliss

BobGoodlatte.jpg Bob Goodlatte

SusanSchwabUSTR.jpg Susan Schwab USTR

CaniceNolanEU.jpg Canice Nolan

It is bipartisan. It is international. And it is suspicious. There are too many countries opposed to believe that accepting GMO without proof of concept is not right.

GMO: Genetically Modified Organisms

Posted in Uncategorized, Public Affairs, Agriculture, Safety, Public, GMO on October 21st, 2006 by Stanford Matthews

Global Ag

Genetically modified organisms or GMO do not seem to be making
much noise in the mainstream media. Some may find it boring or
inconsequential. At least one point raised by environmental types
is not knowing the ultimate consequence to the biosphere if we are
to modify organisms without benefit of understanding the results.

So much flack was generated not long ago on cloning or stem cell
research methods that you might expect more controversy in the
press over similar activities with other living things. The ethics of
it may not be at issue but certainly food safety and the effects of the
modifications should at least provoke questions. You could make the
case that if the WTO is involved it is worth a look. When has the
WTO not caused controversy in most of what they do?

>WTO

EU set to decide on compulsory tests for GMO rice
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Oct 16
EU regulators will decide this week whether to force testing of
all U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of a
genetically modified (GMO) strain not allowed in Europe, an
official said on Monday.

USDA verifies 2nd test for unapproved GMO rice
Reuters - Sep 15, 2006
Dr. Manfred Schneider is a former Chairman of the Management Board,
Bayer AG. Full Bio. WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The US Agriculture

Consumer group urges USDA not to approve GMO rice
Truth about Trade & Technology, IA - Sep 18, 2006
Washington (Reuters) - A controversial genetically modified rice strain found
in commercial supplies last month should not be approved by the US Agriculture

WTO Sides With US in GMO Dispute With EU
AgWeb - Sep 29, 2006
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled in favor of the United States,
Argentina, and Canada in their WTO case against the European Union (EU) over its

EuropaBio welcomes ’science-based’ hearing on GM food
FoodNavigator.com, France - Oct 10, 2006
Furthermore, the WTO ruled earlier this year that the EU and six member United
States, Argentina and Canada that an effective moratorium on GMO imports between