A perspective on the USDA & Factory Farming: Help to Protect Our Food Supply

Why isn't the issue of indoor air quality being considered?

These websites come from an International Discussion group for Indoor Air Quality, addressed by medical, scientific, CIH and government professionals.

"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY"
"Low-Level Chemical Exposures:
A Challenge for Science and Policy"
by NICHOLAS A. ASHFORD &
CLAUDIA S. MILLER
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/98/nov/low.html

"Individuals exposed below "safe" thresholds to multiple xenobiotics simultaneously, as in a sick building, are affected as a result of chemical exposures."

"Chem-Tox.com"
http://www.chem-tox.com
Site contains an index which provides links to research findings health disorders, asthma, allergies, infertility, miscarriage, and child behavior disorders.
Information compiled by:
Wayne Sinclair, M.D., Allergy, Asthma & Immunology - Vero Beach, FL Richard Pressinger, M.Ed., Tampa, FL "ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY" is a publication of the American Chemical Society

The whole debate about genetically engineered foods reminds me of the debate about the safety of nuclear energy in the 50's and 60's. The industry said "These power plants cannot possible explode" while they simultaneously built in safety features to deal with a meltdown. This is the reason that Three Mile Island was less deadly than Chenobal.

The same thing is happening in the Biotech industry. They are claiming it is safe, and just an extension of current breading practices. Yet the companies are lobbying congress to drop testing and safety standards, and also to give them a legal limitation on their liability. The nuclear industry responded to criticism by making their plants safer. The biotech industry is responding to criticism by changing the law to see that the bill for any foul ups goes to the consumer and not to them. They are also getting the safety regulations removed by the FDA.

Could there be problems??? ABSOLUTELY- there already have been. Members on this list probably remember the tryptophan problem a few years ago. What the government never told anyone was that the tryptophan that killed 37 people from the health food stores was the first genetically engineered product to hit the American store shelves. The "bad batch" of tryptophan came from a Japanese company that took a product that had been used in traditional medicine for centuries and genetically engineered it.

There are other examples. Pioneer crossed soy beans with Brazil nuts to try and produce a complete protein. They tested the result on individuals who were allergic to nuts, and it is lucky that they had doctors standing by- because the allergic reactions that occurred were very sever. These companies are playing games with our food supply- and they want the right to refuse to allow us to say no. They are trying to mix the good with the bad- by demanding that no labeling occurs.

If there is a problems with Monsanto's bug killing corn- it will be in almost every product on almost every American store shelf by the time the problem is discovered. This stuff is being randomly mixed into the food supply. I resent being a guinea pig- and I resent the fact that the government refuses to allow me the right to chose. Simon wrote:

I think the real threat is less to do with the safety of genetically engineered foods and more to do with the eventual control of supply of all foodstuffs . I find it outrageous that plants are being genetically engineered to produce infertile seeds! This ensures that a new supply must be bought each time further supplies are required. Meanwhile the arguement of the safety of these food is a handy smokescreen to the real intent to ultimately control world food supplies. If anything is against nature this is, but more than that it is the height of immorality in a world where starvation still exists.