Obama's War on Science

[LowDown]

Obama's Science Commitment, FDA Face Ethics Scrutiny in Wake of GMO Salmon Fiasco - Forbes

Two years ago, the FDA had said it was going to release its environmental assessment, the final document in the approval process, within weeks. It was finally and quietly posted on the FDA’s website only last Friday—just hours before the long holiday weekend—and published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The release came, FDA sources say, in response to the publication of an investigation in Slate by the Genetic Literacy Project two days before, on December 19. The GLP, which I head, had reported that the FDA had definitively concluded last spring that the fish would have “no significant impact” on the environment and was “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” However, the draft assessment, dated April 19, 2012, was not released—blocked on orders from the White House.

The seven month delay, sources within the government say, came after discussions late last spring between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius’ office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office, who were debating the political implications of approving the GM salmon. Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity. . . .

According to sources, the White House political block—a direct violation of numerous ethics regulations and possibly of federal laws—was instituted over the objections of scientists at the FDA, but with the awareness of HHS Secretary Sibelius, her senior adviser Andrea Palm and the Office of Science and Technology Policy and its director John Holdren, who is responsible for enforcing “science integrity” across government agencies.

When it comes to politically sensitive issues the Democrats are no more likely to follow the science than anyone else.

 

[Moot]

It appears it might have been a bi-partisan effort to stall the report....with Republican being the most outspoken against the science.....


"...The political genie is now out of the bottle. In a bi-partisan display of pork barrel politics, Congressional officials in Northwest salmon country are making it clear that they will pull out all stops to block the FDA from issuing a final approval letter.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), well-funded by Alaska fishing organizations, has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape. In a video released by her office last week outlining her renewed opposition, she let it slip that the demand for better science was nothing more than a smokescreen for efforts to simply kill the idea. “I just don’t believe that these fish should be approved.”

“The notion that consuming Frankenfish is safe for the public and our oceans is a joke,” Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said in a statement. [The FDA] report is by no means the final say on this issue.”

You keep those damn fish out of my waters,” said Congressmen Don Young (R-Alaska). “If I can keep this up long enough, I can break that company,” he said, referring to AquaBounty, “and I admit that’s what I’m trying to do.”...read

Obama's Science Commitment, FDA Face Ethics Scrutiny in Wake of GMO Salmon Fiasco - Forbes


Is it possible that pen fed GM salmon will put Alaska's and the northwestern salmon fishing industry out of business? Seriously, how they can compete with farmed fish genetically modified to be bigger than salmon caught in the wild?

 

[Bob N]

From the Forbes magazine article you supplied:

Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity.

Of all the presidential debates, that occurred back in November, I can't remember where there was a major point when Mitt Romney and the President was heatedly debating genetically modified animals or plants, so if Governor Romney, or the media, or the public,(and we did have the public involved with one debate.) didn't feel it was a major staple point than it must have not been one, so therefore I disagree with Mr. Entine's assessment of that the point of it being a major political vantage point being irrelevant. However, if an investigation should be one in enough of demand, especially seeing that we have only one circumstance in science being withheld that has been an ongoing one for seventeen years, than let it be. Yet one would be advised that in those articles (Forbes and Slate.) there were statements that printed only "spokesperson" or "sources" said, and seeing that that kind of journalism can be questioned to who said what can only lead one to believe that someone has an axe to grind to be lead to further questions, I doubt that the shovel is going to even break the dirt on this.

When it comes to politically sensitive issues the Democrats are no more likely to follow the science than anyone else.

 

[LowDown]

From the Forbes magazine article you supplied:

Of all the presidential debates, that occurred back in November, I can't remember where there was a major point when Mitt Romney and the President was heatedly debating genetically modified animals or plants, so if Governor Romney, or the media, or the public,(and we did have the public involved with one debate.) didn't feel it was a major staple point than it must have not been one, so therefore I disagree with Mr. Entine's assessment of that the point of it being a major political vantage point being irrelevant. However, if an investigation should be one in enough of demand, especially seeing that we have only one circumstance in science being withheld that has been an ongoing one for seventeen years, than let it be. Yet one would be advised that in those articles (Forbes and Slate.) there were statements that printed only "spokesperson" or "sources" said, and seeing that that kind of journalism can be questioned to who said what can only lead one to believe that someone has an axe to grind to be lead to further questions, I doubt that the shovel is going to even break the dirt on this.

All that one needs to know about it is that the subject was politically sensitive and the conclusion adverse to the President and that they illegally and improperly held it until after the election.

We can add this to the list of items about which the Administration has been less than transparent and the President has abused his authority.

 

[Bob N]

All that one needs to know about it is that the subject was politically sensitive and the conclusion adverse to the President and that they illegally and improperly held it until after the election.

We can add this to the list of items about which the Administration has been less than transparent and the President has abused his authority.

OK. So start digging and be appalled at what you find from both sides of the political railroad tracks. :shrug:

 

[ChuckBerry]

Salmon are chock full of cholesterol friendly omega 3 fatty acids. I can't think of a better animal stock to encourage significant increases in to lower prices and encourage greater consumption, particularly over beef and pork. Far fewer cruelty issues too I would think.

I can see widespread upside in terms of improving healthy food choices and little downside in terms of lost jobs and Luddite fears of "frankenfoods".

Smoked salmon is the tits, btw.

 

[ChuckBerry]

Congressmen Don Young (R-Alaska). “If I can keep this up long enough, I can break that company,” he said, referring to AquaBounty, “and I admit that’s what I’m trying to do.”

Republicans, party of free markets and no government interference...

 

[Dittohead not!]

When it comes to politically sensitive issues the Democrats are no more likely to follow the science than anyone else.

No surprise there.
Politics trumps science every time, whether the issue is global warming, evolution, or genetically modified plants and animals.

 

[Diogenes]

We can add this to the list of items about which the Administration has been less than transparent and the President has abused his authority.

That's getting to be a pretty long list.

 

[Moot]

Salmon are chock full of cholesterol friendly omega 3 fatty acids. I can't think of a better animal stock to encourage significant increases in to lower prices and encourage greater consumption, particularly over beef and pork. Far fewer cruelty issues too I would think.

I can see widespread upside in terms of improving healthy food choices and little downside in terms of lost jobs and Luddite fears of "frankenfoods".

Smoked salmon is the tits, btw.

Smoked salmon, yum. Ya know, I don't really have a problem with it either. In fact, I think the GM salmon raised in pens might even help the wild salmon survive and thrive from being over fished...not to mention lower the cost of salmon at the market. I think it's a win/win/win for science, the environment and consumers. Besides, humans have been hybridizing plants and animals for eons, and I don't really see the difference.....except that Monsanto is trying to control our food chain....which might have some serious implications. .

 

[ChuckBerry]

Agreed, I think that monopolization of crops is certainly to be avoided, and a good use of government power to break up the power of corporations.

 

[Fisher]

I do not see GM foods as inherently bad. What I do see is that it allows farmers to produce more reliably and more efficiently in a field where labor intensive alternatives would drive up prices and lead to supply issues.

 

[CS5150]

That's so ridiculous. No equivalency whatsoever. Democrats don't try to insert creationism in science class as legitimate. Democrats don't believe that women can magically shut down rapists' sperm. Democrats don't ignore or deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Democrats don't push for vouchers for public schools. Democrats don't try to push junk science about "gay conversion therapy."

 

[Wiseone]

When it comes to politically sensitive issues the Democrats are no more likely to follow the science than anyone else.

As a proud fan of genetically modified everything I have to agree, but what kind of libertarian even acknowledges the FDA in the first place. I'm sorry I know I agree and all but I'm so used to being on the opposite side of your antics.

 

[LowDown]

As a proud fan of genetically modified everything I have to agree, but what kind of libertarian even acknowledges the FDA in the first place. I'm sorry I know I agree and all but I'm so used to being on the opposite side of your antics.

All political labels are imperfect. They draw hard lines between people who actually agree on most things.

 

[LowDown]

That's so ridiculous. No equivalency whatsoever. Democrats don't try to insert creationism in science class as legitimate. Democrats don't believe that women can magically shut down rapists' sperm. Democrats don't ignore or deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Democrats don't push for vouchers for public schools. Democrats don't try to push junk science about "gay conversion therapy."

Well, of you want to play the game of reciting all the "silly things the other guys believe" we can do that, but it's beside the point of how the respective administrations handle certain issues.