"Gordon Couger" wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their
milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until
they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue
stands on its own.

Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise
we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs.

Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.
Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he
wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product
saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto.

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

Margaret Miller worked on rBGH safety studies at Monsanto, then got hired
as an FDA deputy director, coincidentally around the time Burroughs was
fired, where she approved the studies she had done while at Monsanto.
Her assistant at the FDA and primary rBGH reviewer coincidentally happened
to be Suzanne Sechen, who had previously worked on Monsanto-funded studies.

A USA TODAY analysis of 159 FDA advisory committee meetings found:
At 92% of meetings, at least one member had a financial conflict of interest.
At 55% of meetings, half or more of the FDA advisers had conflicts of interest.
At the 57 meetings when broader issues were discussed, 92% of members had
conflicts of interest. At the 102 meetings dealing with the fate of a specific
drug, 33% of the experts had a financial conflict.

The faked studies of Lynx,
Please inform yourself. What was faked in this affair was the charge
that there was a scandal.
What actually happened was a perfectly normal blind test of a
laboratory suspected of doing faulty analysis.
The sample from a captive lynx was just intended as a control.
But that doesn't stop those with a political agenda from spreading
talk about "planted evidence", or their readers from falling for it.

and the forest
fires from the lack of proper forest management are detracting from the
environmentalist credibility with the large majority of people in the US.

It's the logging industry and their servants at the USDA whose credibility
is suffering as the scientific facts come to light.

"Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate,
and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent
human activity. "
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final report to Congress

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email