Remember the good ol' says when we were going to be rescued from that secretive Bush guy and his "war on science" by the guy who pledged the most transparent, science friendly administration ever?

Obama vowed to change “the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.”

In 2009 he issued a memorandum stating “political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions" and charged John Holdren of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to enforce it. As it turns out, the White House has been blocking the release of an FDA study on Frankenfish.

Quote:

---

Questions are emerging about the breakdown of the federal government’s science integrity process in the wake of the Food & Drug Administration’s long-delayed release of its approval of the first genetically modified animal for human consumption.

The AquAdvantage salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies of Massachusetts—an Atlantic salmon modified with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon so it grows to maturity faster—had been winding its way through the federal approval process for 17 years. 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.

The OSTP had overseen an inter-agency review process that was completed by early spring. According to sources, Holdren stood by as the White House openly meddled.

---

I know, you'll just say it's a fishing expedition.

You actually think the FDA practices good science? I don't. If I were prez I'd throw out the whole agency and start over.

Can't wait to eat some gmo salmon. Bet it's a whole lot safer to eat than a McRibb.

Quote:

---

Rene Arend came up with the idea and design of the McRib, but it's a professor from the University of Nebraska named Richard Mandigo who developed the "restructured meat product" that the McRib is actually made of.

According to an article from Chicago magazine, which cites a 1995 article by Mandigo, "restructured meat product" contains a mixture of tripe, heart, and scalded stomach, which is then mixed with salt and water to extract proteins from the muscle. The proteins bind all the pork trimmings together so that it can be re-molded into any specific shape — in this case, a fake slab of ribs.

---

11 Amazing Facts about the McDonald's McRib - Yahoo! Finance

Who cares about the GM fish, why is this admin playing politics with science all you science lovers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Who cares about the GM fish, why is this admin playing politics with science all you science lovers?

---

An excellent question that is not asked often enough.

The short answer is that science is knowledge and knowledge can ultimately be turned into power. Science is unique in that it has the ability to push forward the boundaries of knowledge so quickly that administrations are offten caught off guard.

They are often caught 'off guard' because scientific discoveries will invariably contain moral, social, political and economic implications. It is for this reasons that administrations will often have to carefully evaluate social political, economic outcomes before they make a decision. The reason for stalling on most scientific issues is because of the political implications. In other words, the science might challenge their power base or, worse still, the power bases of their powerful constituents.

The answer to your question is almost as simple as that.


Tut

This is more like the science did not conform to their preconceived perception .Had the FDA found a danger in the salmon ,you can be sure the Obots would've been quick to act accordingly .The FDA prepared a report, after a 17 year process,that there was no danger in breeding these salmon; and the White House then sat on the report, and probably would be sitting on it still were it not for an article in Slate .

No one has questioned if the salmon are safe to eat... they are . The concern is about whether these salmon, bred in captivity in fish farms ,could get out and change the wild Atlantic salmon genome. Since the fish raised would be sterile females ,the risk is very minimal even if one or more get released into the Atlantic .

Now there is probably very good reasons for challenging the FDA report. God knows I am often a critic of the agency. It's quite another issue that the report was being suppressed. The FDA is saying sterile animals raised inland was unlike to escape and breed with wild animals .That seems to be a reasonable conclusion . The FDA is also saying that even if the technology was banned ;that the transfer of the technology to other countries would occur and their ban would not prevent the introduction of the salmon in the world market place. Their concern then is and should be if the salmon are safe to consume by the US populace.
I find it amusing that conservatives are accused of having 18th century thinking by libs... but when it comes to issues like GMO ;it's the libs that are Luddites .

GMO salmon that must be what I have being eating, doesn't taste good

I read too much into the article?

"Genetically modified plants and animals can be controversial amongst the president's political base"

"Lisa Murkowski, well funded by Alaska fishing organizations, has repeatedly organizations, has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape"

Sounds a bit like both sides are unsure, or don't like the implications.

Political timing works both ways. I would find it easy to believe (after all their years) that the FDA top level people are heavily greased.

Sure anti-GMO is a liberal cause. Too bad it isn't just a cause. I couldn't care less what I eat but make way for those who do. The FDA declared years ago that GM corn had zero impact on the environment, yet monarch butterflies avoid it like the plague, unlike regular corn, and still no one knows why. GM wheat (that we all eat now) is now linked to obesity, and it's not clear why. No one can tell me that the FDA knows what they are doing, even without the politics. Science isn't some Final Word - look at all the damages done: Thalidomide, flurocarbons, you name it. And for all the 'good' science done in a bloated agency, there's higher ups who squash their findings. So how do we know if O chose to suppress this for political reasons or for reasons of science? How do we know the FDA didn't choose last April for it's political timing?

Quote:

---

I would find it easy to believe (after all their years) that the FDA top level people are heavily greased

---

I can give ancedotal evidence to affirm that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

Political timing works both ways. I would find it easy to believe (after all their years) that the FDA top level people are heavily greased.

Sure anti-GMO is a liberal cause. Too bad it isn't just a cause. I could care less what I eat but make way for those who do. The FDA declared years ago that GM corn had zero impact on the environment, yet monarch butterflies avoid it like the plague, unlike regular corn, and still no one knows why. GM wheat (that we all eat now) is now linked to obesity, and it's not clear why. No one can tell me that the FDA knows what they are doing, even without the politics. Science isn't some Final Word - look at all the damages done: Thalidomide, flurocarbons, you name it. And for all the 'good' science done in a bloated agency, there's higher ups who squash their findings. So how do we know if O chose to suppress this for political reasons or for reasons of science? How do we know the FDA didn't choose last April for it's political timing?

---

Hi joy,

Unfortunately in these matters science becomes close to the final word. The scientific word becomes the political word. In exactly the same was as bureaucrats, bankers, technocrats have the final word. Politicians are the courtiers to these type of interest groups. Why?

Because we have a very unhealthy tendency to put out faith in these types of specialists. As I said in the beginning in a specialist society knowledge is power.

It is these special interest groups that set the agenda. Politics is now molded in the image of the corporatist body, not the other way around. When you vote for any major party you are voting for a number of special interest groups, not of your choice.

'Specialist society' is a good way to put it. Astronomer priests held their knowledge secret for power. Doctors took away midwifery and herbalism. The tobacco lobby with their science/politics kept the FDA's science/politcs at bay until 1996.

'Politics is now molded in the image of the corporatist body' - I like that too. It seems to me that it's more insidious and huge than most of us can imagine. It's so pervasive that I for one can't really grok it. And in relation to what, that we had before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

'Specialist society' is a good way to put it. Astronomer priests held their knowledge secret for power. Doctors took away midwifery and herbalism. The tobacco lobby with their science/politics kept the FDA's science/politcs at bay til 1996.

'Politics is now molded in the image of the corporatist body' - I like that too. It seems to me that it's more insidious and huge than most of us can imagine. It's so pervasive that I for one can't really grok it. And in relation to what, that we had before?

---

"Astronomer priests", I like that term, it sort of conjures up images of high priests. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

Using that analogy we can say that in society we have an unhealthy admiration for the high priests of economics, business, science and the like. And what better way for these elites to perpetuate their power and influence then to form into some sort of corporate body. For example, who amongst us is willing to commit blasphemy by questioning the wisdom of global economics?

It is not the Leviathan state that is the problem it is the corporatist leviathan that is the problem. We are slowly slipping towards what can be seen as a modern version of a feudalism. Yes, knowledge is power and money is the mechanism whereby power is guaranteed using the political processes.

Like all good feudal systems there are those at the top with all the power and at the bottom are the overwhelming majority of the powerless. Politics is big business and big business is politics and there is little difference when it comes to the two. We vote every four years to exchange one set of ruling elites for another.

Except for the select few, we are the "bitter courtiers" regardless of the way we vote. All we can hope for is a few favours might come our way. Seems anti- democratic to me.

Tut when the corporate leviathan has the power to make life and death decisions over the state as the state has on the corporation (aka deciding which is too big to fail and which is OK to take over and divest it's assets ) then get back to me on that theory. The fact is that it's the huge Leviathan state is making the call on who the feudal masters are... not the other way around.

You want Constitutional government Tom, once the undeveloped world used to be ruled by corporations, trading empires with royal charters, where did that get us. I suspect it got us into the situation which ultimately created your country. Do you want to return to those days?

We still live with the legacies of those days. You lament that constitutional government has the power to decide which corporations exist. I certainly don't want a world ruled by Taco Bell, McDonald's and KFC

I don't lament it .I was pointing out that there is no way corporations have the power that the state has. Can't you read ?

Following you train of thought is like trying to decide where a bucking mule is going. Some corporations are bigger than nation states and exercise considerable power in the undeveloped world, someone has to be able to control them

We can't follow the trail of corporate power into those creepy PAC on-the-side not for profits disguised as do-gooders. They calculate with precision. They get tons of legally hidden donations. They get hapless Congresspeople ousted in key areas where there isn't enough money to fight back. They lobby, and they anti-lobby with veiled threats (notice how no one talks about global warning lately?). They exist to maintain their corporate hold. They never see the light of day, at least not in the news, and their names are practically unknown. Except for the PACs that run them.

This is America, where the powerless mostly don't mind as long as they have a job. Co-opted. Benevolence, just enough. It's scary to me but I do nothing either. I want the next generation to do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut when the corporate leviathan has the power to make life and death decisions over the state as the state has on the corporation (aka deciding which is too big to fail and which is ok to take over and divest it's assets ) then get back to me on that theory. The fact is that it's the huge Leviathan state is making the call on who the feudal masters are ...not the other way around.

---

Tom, the only suggestion I can make is to take your web browser off right wing think tanks.

You don't want to know about this theory because people such as John Saul put forward theories that don't fit in with you idealized interpretation of the world.
Instead you want to put forward out dated theories from the past centuries.

We hear ad nauseam from these think tanks that democracy is still tied very closely to the Industrial Revolution and out of this revolution developed a sense of individualism. You will probably recite the rest of this story for me.

What did people such as Smith and de Tocqueville know about global economics and modern corporatism?

Saul and others can get back to you with the answer to your question. I can explain it, but you would not be interested, so I would be wasting my time.

I'll get back to you with the theory if you decided to do some wider reading.

"...there is no way corporations have the power that the state has."

I am pretty sure I used the world "corporatist", not "corporation". I'll go back and check over my posts, because there is an important difference.

Maybe in a couple centuries the musings of John Ralston Saul will be wide read and quoted . More likely he won't be a blip on the radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Maybe in a couple centuries the musings of John Ralston Saul will be wide read and quoted . More likely he won't be a blip on the radar.

---

Exactly.

He will only be of historical interest.



.

Whereas Locke ,Adam Smith ,Tocqueville will be studied for centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

"...there is no way corporations have the power that the state has."

I am pretty sure I used the world "corporatist", not "corporation". I'll go back and check over my posts, because there is an important difference.

---

Under the theory of corporatism ,isn't society organized into corporate entities subordinate to the state ?

That's the theory not the reality

Oh really ? So when the government decides one corporation deserves to live because it's too big to fail ;and another one ,the government decides should be taken over by the government and broken up... that is proof that the corporate entities have to power ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Under the theory of corporatism ,isn't society organized into corporate entities subordinate to the state ?

---

Just so there is no confusion here. I am not saying that one two or twenty two corporations have the ability to control government. This is NOT what I said. This is why is used the distinction.

In answer to your question. Yes, this is has largely been true for a long time. It is sometimes better known as pluralism.Corporatism presents the opportunity to evolve into some quite different. For example, corporatism was evident in the dictatorship of Mussolini. One would normally expect in a pluralist system the competing interests of individuals are represented through various organizations such as, chambers of commerce, trade unions and the like.

The problem arises when there exists the potential to somehow make these vast and varied interest groups realize the same ideology. In other words, the realization that their interests are not varied but are actually the same.

Surely such a situation cannot possibly arise in the 21 century whereby a government becomes the facilitator Can it?

If it has happened in the past ,then of course it could happen in the future. Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such .

Quote:

---

Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such

---

Well it's the US version of capitalism which is at fault. You can't expect your elected officials to receive unlimited amounts of funds from corporations, special interest groups, and lobbyists and not expect their votes to go that way. You need some serious reform in that area. The problem is independent of who is in office; it has been going on for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

if it has happened in the past ,then of course it could happen in the future. Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such .

---

If you are talking about modern capitalism then I would say it embraces the corporatist ideology just like everyone else. But again, I think it depends on the definition of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.

'Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.'

Please elaborate? I've had this feeling but can't put my finger on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

'Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.'

Please elaborate? I've had this feeling but can't put my finger on it.

---

Very hard to sum up in a few paragraphs, but I'll give it a go.

Again, it depends on what we mean by the term, 'capitalism'. But if we are talking classical capitalism of people such as Smith and Hume then they would roll over in their graves if they saw how their ideas are being portrayed by certain sections of society in an attempt to justify modern capitalism. They would see modern capitalism as an anathema.

Modern capitalism sometimes uses the words of these men to show how they support the ideologies of the day. Smith understood capitalism as a mixed market place whereby the role of the self-directed individual is of prime importance. Today,we have hierarchical bureaucracies that exist within and outside corporate organizations that exist for the pursuit of profit by employing specialized knowledge provided by the, 'high priests' ( if that rings a bell).

Basically,Smith was interested in what the individual could achieve through his/her efforts in the market place. Within today's environment individualism is frowned upon in favor of towing the corporate line and leaving things up to the experts. There is no balance. Balance is something I am sure Smith and Hume would be still stressing if they were alive today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

If you are talking about modern capitalism then I would say it embraces the corporatist ideology just like everyone else. But again, I think it depends on the definition of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.

---

That's because anti-capitalists have been allowed to define it . Let's start by what it isn't... it isn't statism, socialism, communism, fascism, or corporatism.Those are all collective systems and capitalism is not . Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievement .
Is the US a capitalist economic system? It may have been at one point ;but the statists increasingly control the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That's because anti-capitalists have been allowed to define it . Let's start by what it isn't .....it isn't statism, socialism, communism, fascism, or corporatism.Those are all collective systems and capitalism is not . Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievement .
Is the US a capitalist economic system? It may have been at one point ;but the statists increasingly control the nation.

---

I'm not defining it. I am saying what it does. It uses the same methodology as everyone else It embraces the same ideology.

"Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievements"

Yes, perhaps once in the past, but not now. Corporatism is modern capitalism. It discourages individualism. See my above post.

See what I mean ? You define capitalism in anti-capitalist terms . Corporatism indeed discourages individualism.. capitalism does not. We are close to that 'Humpty Dumpty ' discussion again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

see what I mean ? you define capitalism in anti-capitalist terms . corporatism indeed discourages individualism ..capitalism does not. We are close to that 'Humpty Dumpty ' discussion again.

---

Tom, you are not trying to tell me that modern capitalism (of the type we have been discussing) is of the same type that Smith envisaged. Please tell me you are not.

Then we sort of agree that the US is not longer based on capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Then we sort of agree that the US is not longer based on capitalism.

---

Yep ,hasn't been for a century .;maybe longer.

Hello:

I know what capitalism WAS and what it is NOW. No, I'm not full of theory.. I don't know who Locke is. I'm just a businessman. In fact, you could call me libertarian type of capitalist.. What I mean by that, is that I believe, WITHOUT any help from anybody, capitalism DOES serve the needs of society... Company's competing with each other on a LEVEL playing field WORKS for the benefit of EVERYBODY. Good company's THRIVE, and bad ones FAIL.

That's the way it's supposed to be.

But, THEN, some businessman wanted to TILT the playing field in his favor, because he was LOSING in the marketplace... So, he went to his congressman and asked if he couldn't make a rule or a law or something... And, the congressman, eyeballing his reelection campaign, DID it. So, of course, his competitor needed to visit HIS congressman, and we were off to the races..

Businessmen who curry favor with government, don't have to compete in the market place... They don't have to treat their employees well. They don't have to do ANY of the things a company that depends on the marketplace has to do. All they NEED to do is CONTRIBUTE...

That's called CRONY capitalism. That's what we've got today. It's not a matter of the product or service you produce. It's a matter of WHO you know, and HOW much you pay..

That isn't the way it's supposed to be.

excon

Quote:

---

yep ,hasn't been for a century .;maybe longer.

---

So why don't you guys attempt to make some governmental reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom, you are not trying to tell me that modern capitalism (of the type we have been discussing) is of the same type that Smith envisaged. Please tell me you are not.

---

When distorted, the word capitalism is a processes where statism is used to coercively create avenues of monopoly and political privilege. But you know and I know that is not what capitalism is about.