40 words in Farm Bill remove state's rights - You better make your voice heard on this one

Folks,

Of late things in Washington have been moving fast, too fast for a Congress that does not read the bills they pass. Certain people want certain outcomes in the Farm Bill, like making NAIS mandatory while requiring Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and other legislation. Those certain people seem to be the ones who have so much power that there is no official oversight to their doings. Read this and see what I mean. [I've added my emphasis]

Provision would strip States of Control

The House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry passed on the full committee on Thursday a briefly-worded provision that could have huge ramifications for the abilities of state and local governments to effectively oversee anything involving agriculture.

[This takes away states rights to make decisions regarding agriculture - anything USDA wants USDA is going to get]

Under the heading Miscellaneous Provisions, Sec. 123 USDA Inspection and Determination of Non-Regulated Status, the subcommittee approved a provision that would ban a state or locality from "prohibiting an article the Secretary of Agriculture [ Mike Johanns] has inspected and passed, or an article the Secretary has determined to be of non-regulated status."

The provision passed on to the full committee without discussion.[Without discussion?]

It's a brief statement that, based on the interpretation, could prevent a state from establishing rules tighter than USDA or protecting the interests of local producers. It would seem as well the tiny provision would also tell states they don't have any right adopt food-safety or recall standards.

This proposed restriction on the rights of states is being offered at the same time dozens of lawmakers are pushing to allow state-inspected meat to be sold across the country. So on one hand, Congress is trying to clamp down on they way a state can regulate and on the other hand, Congress wants to give states more authority over meat inspections. [A la Hydra the many headed serpent]

The Center for Food Safety was about the only group to challenge the intent of this proposal. The center stated in a news alert that the provision appears to be aimed at enacted state laws that restrict the planting of genetically engineered crops. Further, the provision could prohibit states from taking action when food contamination cases occur, the center pointed out.

This biotech battle in a variety of states. Some, such as Iowa, Nebraska and others have passed legislation making sure local counties cannot adopt their own biotech planting bans. Voters in at least four California counties passed such measures, leading biotech seed and chemical companies to go into action and get lawmakers to make sure such bans could not occur in major biotech crop states.

Still, states in recent years have had to take action to protect the interests of markets, even when USDA has approved a product. Rice, in particular, comes to mind. Lawmakers in Arkansas, Missouri and California have created legislation against biotech rice because USDA approved a product that, if grown, would have caused major international or domestic commodity buyers to stop buying rice from those states. In other situations, USDA regulators didn't do enough to ensure companies prevented the spread of an unapproved product into the general crop planting. Arkansas, not exactly a bastion of liberal, locally-grown, organic consumerism, had to take action because two of its best varieties of long-grain rice were contaminated. European countries have continued to kick back shipments because of that.

It's not known at this point why this provision was added or ended up in the purview of a subcommittee on livestock, poultry or dairy. But if such a law is needed and would effectively strip authority from states and counties to follow the wishes of voters or the needs of their farmers, then shouldn't such a proposal demand a hearing, open debate and discussion before Congress offers a new, broad power to the Secretary of Agriculture with fewer than 40 words in the farm bill? [Can't you just read the headline? "Agriculture Czar Johanns said today...".

#####

Can you sense the duplicity in Washington, DC? Who is keeping your best interests at heart? Sadly the answer is NO ONE. The Farm Bill is being decided by revolving door, business to government agency bureaucrats. Iraq is just a distraction while those in Congress are taking away your rights. They just took away state's rights to decide on agriculture issues for their counties and towns, Who gets to set policy for states if the Farm Bill passes? The USDA's Secretary of Agriculture. Mike Johanns.

They call it cooked frog syndrome. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog never realizes the water is getting hotter to kill him.

Oh, right, why should you care about this? This means no state or locality can ban risky products when the federal government has failed to act to protect our health or the environment. The primary intent of this passage is to deny local or state rights to regulate
genetically engineered crops or food.

The biotech industry and big agribusiness have been trying to push similar bills in dozens of states across the country, and also at the Federal level with last year's so-called "Food Uniformity" bill. Now they want to sneak it into a committee hearing and hide it in the Farm Bill.
Like Paul Revere, I sound a warning. An urgent warning...Your government is being stolen by Democrats and Republicans alike who do not remember why they are in office and, certainly, can't recall their oaths of office.

People, everywhere, government is taking a serious turn. We have just got to wake everyone up.

Those of you who read this, please, please, please, reflect and ask God to bless you with insight, with clarity, with eyes to see, eats to hear, hearts to understand and act on in His will for you in this fight to keep our country.

Take Action Now! You can make a difference. You must help us make a difference. Email me and I will provide you with contact information for the subcommittee.

It's not for you and me that I work against these issues. No. It is for your children's children. The world is going to be lost for them if we don't get things straightened out now.

DOES GENETIC ENGINEERING HAVE GOD'S ENDORSEMENT?

Take note of this excellent article. Many of us have known that genetically modifying anything goes against God's word. Nothing good can come from it. This article says it all. Be afraid of God's wrath. Things are starting to heat up.



http://www.newswithviews.com/Ciola/greg4.htm

By Greg Ciola

March 28, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Stories about genetic engineering have been making headline news recently. For instance, rice grown with human genes has been given the green light for commercial production by the USDA. Meat from cloned animals is now okay for human consumption thanks to the FDA. The University of Nevada-Reno has created sheep that are 15 percent human at the cellular level in hopes of using these animals as human organ producing factories in the future. In scientific terms it’s referred to as xenotransplantation. On farms across North America farmers intend to plant record acreage of GM crops in 2007.

Since genetic engineering and biotechnology are now impacting our lives in so many ways, isn’t it time that it were examined from a biblical perspective? There is ample evidence from both the Bible and extra-biblical books that shows strong disapproval of genetic engineering.

The author of all life is God and according to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, He created every species to reproduce after its own kind. Thus, there is no room in God’s creation for man to step in and start modifying DNA by cross transplanting the genes from one organism or species into the DNA of another. In essence, man is now creating species variants that God never intended to exist. Such alteration of species specificity is a serious violation of God’s natural order, and I believe it to be a corruption of life and an abomination unto the LORD.

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:11-12)

Unfortunately, the biotech industry has upstaged God’s role in creation by attempting to modify every aspect of life through their dark science. The genetic codes of each species’ DNA are God’s doing. They were not put there by some random act of evolution, as most scientists would like us to believe. In effect, what they are doing is mocking God by declaring that nearly everything He made is defective and can be improved upon.

In the Old Testament books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy there are clear instructions on how the Israelites were to farm their land and grow their food.

“Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” (Leviticus 19:19)

“Thou shall not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou has sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” (Deuteronomy 22:9-11)

Notice that if a field was plowed with an ox and an ass it was a violation of God’s law. If a field was planted with various mixed seeds, it too was a defilement and violation of God’s law. Therefore, since God is adamant about not mixing – whether it be in plowing, planting or in the clothes we wear – what do you think His thoughts would be on gene mixing? Let me assure you that when DNA genes are taken from one organism and inserted into another, it too is a defilement of the land and a violation of God’s law!

Anyone who can see this biotech time bomb with spiritual eyes will understand that genetically modified foods and genetic engineering are not about improving crops and providing better alternatives to the world. They’re about playing God and polluting His whole creation. God’s law doesn’t sanction genetic engineering and it never will, despite the best efforts of the biotech industry to try and present these altered organisms as something beneficial to the human race. It may very well be genetically modified foods and genetic engineering that finally bring the wrath of God down upon us. I personally believe that this gene altering technology is one of the most critical issues the world is now facing.

The world was already destroyed once at the time of Noah because of what the ancient Book of Jasher seems to clearly indicate was a form of genetic engineering. If scientists insist on playing God, it may not be long before such a divine destruction happens again.

While the Book of Jasher is not actually in Holy Scripture, it is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. The fact that the Bible cites it twice validates that there was such a book by this name in the early history of the nation of Israel. The book of Jasher is basically a parallel narrative of the first five books of Moses with the exception that it goes into much more detail. With regards to the story of Noah and the flood, Jasher sheds new light on some of the key events that were taking place before God destroyed the world. In light of our current discussion, one of these passages is very pertinent.

“And the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” (Jasher 4:18)

It’s also rather interesting to note that when Jesus’ apostles asked Him what it would be like before His return He said it would be like the time of Noah. Might He have been referring to events similar to those cited in the Book of Jasher? Is modern genetic research simply a replay of ancient history? The evidence is certainly enough to make one stop and think.

Notice how God describes the destruction He was about to bring to the world during Noah’s time in the book of Genesis.

“And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:7)

No doubt there were many reasons why it repented the LORD that He made man, but one of the most significant ones appears to deal with genetic modification. It is obvious from both Genesis and Jasher that the whole world had become altered because of the genetic technology that was taking place.

“The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth.” (Genesis 6:11-12)

After much deliberation and research, it is my belief that genetically modified foods and genetic engineering as a whole may be leading up to a final battle between good and evil. The biotech companies have drawn a line in the sand and are determined to fight with all of their resources to implement this technology on a global scale. Despite past protests against GM foods in Europe and a growing juggernaut here in America, genetic engineering plods relentlessly forward – apparently unstoppable! Yet if God’s word can be trusted – and it can – then it’s just a matter of time before He steps in to put a halt to this outrage. These huge multinational biotech companies may in fact be getting into a battle that’s more than they bargained for.

If you don’t think food is a critical issue in the eyes of God, let me remind you that it was the consumption of a forbidden food in the Garden of Eden that led to the fall of man. Adam and Eve broke God’s very first commandment and ate the food from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Do you really think Satan would forego a strategy that worked so well for him back in the beginning? Might he now also have the whole world breaking God’s food laws and eating the wrong food in the form of GMOs? And just remember one very important thing, Satan doesn’t care whether you know it or not. As long as he can stand before our Heavenly Father and accuse us to Him, that’s all that matters. (See Revelation 12:10)

If you are still not convinced that genetic engineering violates God’s law, there is yet another powerful Bible reference that seems to speak directly to the issue of genetically modified foods. It comes from the Book of Matthew in the New Testament. Jesus relates a parable that, to me, is very applicable to the subject.

“And another parable put he forth unto them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, did not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy has done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let them both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

For those of you who don’t know what tares are, they are the next best comparison to a genetically engineered version of wheat. Tares are a counterfeit form of wheat. They look exactly like wheat and when they are growing side by side next to good wheat there is no way to tell the difference until they reach harvest time. When tares reach their peak they turn black on the top, the grain is not edible, and the seeds from them in many cases cannot be replanted just like Terminator seeds.

Doesn’t this parable fit our genetic engineering story to a T? God created the world and sowed good seed (with His DNA blueprint) in the earth. But while we were all sleeping, an enemy came and sowed counterfeit crops (GMOs) in our fields. They may look just like the real deal, even when growing side by side with God’s food. (Doesn’t genetically modified corn look exactly like regular corn?) But they’re not the same – no more than the wheat and the tares are the same. Genetically modified crops are counterfeit crops sown and grown by God’s enemies.

Jesus went on to explain the interpretation of this parable.

“He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 13:37-43)

Do you see now how pertinent this parable really is? I think it proves rather convincingly that biotechnology is satanically inspired. In my estimation, the multinational biotech companies are playing with fire and they may very well get burned. Through their DNA modification research, these corporations have now crossed over into the realm of the supernatural. Our world will never be the same again as a result of the alterations they are making to nature. Regrettably, GMOs have now been released into the environment and there is no turning back.

Even if the biotech industry stopped growing genetically modified food tomorrow, it would be impossible to totally purge their long-lasting side effects from the earth. The hard, plain truth is that all of the farms in America and around the world growing crops that contain GMOs are already defiled in God’s eyes. Planting crops free of GMOs on the same land that once grew them would also defile and corrupt the new crops. To be purified, the land must be made to rest for a considerable period of time – a highly unlikely scenario when you consider the financial impact such an action would have. Yet, only such a long rest of the land will make the ground once again acceptable to God. There appears to be no easy way out of the crisis we have created. In light of the seriousness of the situation, might the following quote from Habakkuk have anticipated the coming genetic engineering apocalypse?

“Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; though the flock be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls – Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” (Habakkuk 3:17-18)

The following passage from the New Testament should serve as the final warning to the biotech industry as they plod forward proliferating gene-spliced crops:

“Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” (Matthew 15:13)

© 2007 Greg Ciola - All Rights Reserved

Blogger, oh blogger

Blogger has been acting up the last few days and it has been impossible to post. Very frustrating. especially when you realize they don't care a bit.

So much is going on, Big Brother encroaches. And it seems that things are happening faster.

• In Texas they are going to mandate a vaccine for little girls that supposedly protects from cervical cancer. Follow the money trail between FDA and Merck. Ironically, there is an "opt-out" procedure...shouldn't it have been "opt-in" as in choice? I wonder if Governor Perry has little daughters or grand-daughters. Will he let them get the shot first or will he be like Tommy Thompson who promised to be first in line to get an RFID chip but then never got around to it.

• 34 States are rebelling against Real ID, including Vermont. "It's about the privacy." "This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are." Not "almost". It is a full frontal assault on our freedoms.
  

• Representative Koch (R) of Barre Town (VT) has introduced H.0126 titled Distracted Driving. H.0126 proposes to prohibit some activities that contribute to distracted driving. These high-risk activities are things you have to use your hands for instead of driving like "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, smoking, consuming any food or nonalcoholic beverage, playing a musical instrument, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo" and cell phones. The penalty would be less than $300.00 but not more than $600.00.

  These sorts of legislation drive me to distraction. Mr. Koch, the government cannot legislate common sense. It is these attempts to force on people what they may not already possess – common sense - that causes everyday citizens like me to flirt with becoming a criminal which I will become because I do not intend to give up smoking in my car. What are people who have to practically eat every meal in their cars because of their life commitments - jobs, kids, soccer, music lessons, church, etc. - to do?

  Here's an idea! Add a new component to the driver's test called multitasking ability. Have the person taking the test drive and talk on a cell phone or eat lunch or drink a soft drink, etc. and be scored on that performance. Then have that result indicated on their license like they do for people who have to wear glasses. Of course, Representative Koch isn't interested in real solutions, so I doubt a common sense approach to driving while being distracted would interest him.

• NY wants all dogs to be microchipped. I just can't get over the idea that mere MAN thinks he can control all in his domain.
  
• In California they are going to ban trans-fats in restaurant food. Hasn't that been done in another state or two? The funny thing is that they are going to replace trans-fat oils with vegetable oils that are made from GMO corn or soy or canola. Absolutely an example of the Emperors New Clothes. You just end up consuming a different poison. Eat locally grown food and then you don't have to even worry about it.
  

Will there be no more "natural" anything?

Why is it that MAN thinks he can outsmart God and nature? Not everything in nature lives because if everything lived the earth would become over populated.

Cattle engineered to lack BSE-causing proteins
By Tom Johnston on 1/2/2007 for Meatingplace.com

An international team of researchers from the United States and Japan has genetically engineered several cattle to be free from prions, the proteins associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The findings, published in the online journal Nature Biotechnology, are leading to speculation that it may be possible to make animals immune to the disease.

In a post-mortem study, research results showed that after scientists "knocked out" the gene responsible for making prions, animals did not succumb to BSE when exposed to the bad prions associated with the disease. However, it may be a few years before other animals in the study demonstrate similar immunity to BSE.

"This could have some promising applications," Joe Schuele, spokesman for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told Meatingplace.com today. "However, the safeguards we have in place in the United States have eliminated BSE as a human health risk, and should have us on track to completely eradicate BSE well before this technology will be approved for any widespread practical use."

Paul Clayton, senior vice president of export services at the U.S. Meat Export Federation, told Meatingplace.com today that it's too early to tell how the study would affect access to foreign markets, since any commercial applications of the research presumably lie in the distant future.

"Also, since this is biotechnology, we may encounter other access concerns," he said.

"These cattle can help in the exploration and improved understanding of how prions function and cause disease, especially with relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy," Edward B. Knipling, administrator of USDA's Agricultural Research Service, indicated in a press release. "In particular, cattle lacking the gene that produces prions can help scientists test the resistance to prion propagation, not only in the laboratory, but in live animals as well."

Cloned animals is a dead end to evolution

Here's something else to think about in regard to cloned animals. My friend wrote to me and said, " ...one other thing on the cloned food issue. The health is an unknown, and since it isn't necessary I simply would personally avoid it. But there is another issue. As a farmer and breeder I have no interest cloned animals. They are evolutionarily dead ends. They are not perfect and they will show no improvement. We are constantly looking to improve our livestock generation to generation. We want to adapt it to our local climate, improve the meat, improve the feed efficiency, temperment, play with the color, etc.

Cloned Cow Owner’s Fiscal Plight Unchanged By FDA Decision

HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP)--The financially strapped owner of two cloned dairy cows said Thursday he’s still in a bind, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s decision Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

Williamsport farmer Gregory C. Wiles said the slow pace of federal rule-making will prevent him from benefiting in a timely fashion from the policy change.

The FDA will take several months to gather public comments on its proposal to allow sales of milk and meat from cloned livestock without special labeling. Meanwhile, the food industry’s voluntary ban on such products remains in effect.

Wiles, who faces eviction in a family business dispute, said that if he can’t find a new home for his cloned cows and their offspring within weeks, he’ll probably sell them for use in the human food chain despite the informal ban. For nearly four years, Wiles has poured milk from his cloned cows, Genesis and Cyagra, down the drain in compliance with the voluntary ban.

“My goal is to hopefully find a facility where we can continue to milk the cows and keep these animals out of the food chain, but nobody’s found a solution yet other than to continue down the path whereby these animals will be put into the slaughterhouse,“ Wiles said.

He said he expects to get an eviction notice Jan. 9 that would give him 30 days to remove the animals from the 200-acre farm owned by his father, Charles. Wiles runs the farm but hasn’t paid rent in several months. Wiles has gotten offers to have the cows placed in an animal sanctuary, and his father has said they should be killed and buried.

But Wiles said the cows are part of the collateral for a farm loan and therefore have monetary value that should be realized -- as either milk or hamburger. Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Association, which favors using cloned livestock primarily for breeding instead of meat, said Wednesday that Wiles should respect the voluntary ban. “We support what he’s done up ’til now. He’ll have to continue to withhold food (made) from these animals,“ Glenn said.

Let Andy try it first

Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner of the FDA, that is. He should have to eat cloned meat for 10 years, at every meal and with GMO veggies on the side. He's got the job permanently, so he can be a captive cloned meat tester.

FDA: Cloned livestock is safe to eat
[My comments are added.]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government declared Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

After more than five years of study, the Food and Drug Administration concluded that cloned livestock is "virtually indistinguishable" from conventional livestock. [There's that word "virtually" which seems to mean something other than what it used to mean.]

FDA believes "that meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones is as safe to eat as the food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Officials said they don't think special labels are needed, although a decision on labeling is pending. [Well, that should come as no surprise. They aren't labeling GMOs or irradiated foods. Why should clones be any different?}

Because scientists concluded there is no difference between food from clones and food from other animals, "it would be unlikely that FDA would require labeling in those cases," Sundlof said. [Which scientists? I am going to research who they are. Can't believe they are scientists who have no financial arrangements with industry.]

Final approval is still months away; the agency will accept comments from the public for the next three months. [FDA is seeking comments from the public on the three documents for the next 90 days. To submit electronic comments on the three documents, visit http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm?AGENCY=FDA. Written comments may be sent to: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD, 20852. Comments must be received by Apr. 2, 2007 and should include the docket number 2003N-0573.]

Critics of cloning say the verdict is still out on the safety of food from cloned animals. [How about the ethics?]

"Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies. [Of course they are ignoring the results. They don't care about results, they only care about making more money for their corporate buddies. It is just the same in USDA/NIAA. Wake up!]

The consumer federation will ask food companies and supermarkets to refuse to sell food from clones, she said.

"Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods," Foreman said.

However, FDA scientists said that by the time clones reached 6 to 18 months of age, they are virtually indistinguishable from conventionally bred animals. [Virtually again.]

Labels should only be used if the health characteristics of a food are significantly altered by how it is produced, said Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. [So says a spokesperson for an industry organization. GMOs are proving to have altered health consquenses and yet no labeling is required for them.]

"The bottom line is, we don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," Glenn said. "There is no difference. These foods are as safe as foods from animals that are raised conventionally." [Misinform consumers. It's being done all the time. FDA has a terrible track record of not informing the public with the truth. Look at the Zero grams of Transfats labeling lie. I don't trust the FDA.]

Those in favor of the technology say it would be used primarily for breeding and not for steak or pork tenderloin.

Cloning lets farmers and ranchers make copies of exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.

"It's not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted," Glenn said. "It's simply a genetic twin that we can then use for future matings to improve the overall health and well-being of the herd." [From FDA: An animal clone is a genetic copy of a donor animal, similar to identical twins but born at different times. Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA; cloning does not change the gene sequence.]

Thus, consumers would mostly get food from their offspring and not the clones themselves, Glenn said.

Still, some clones would eventually end up in the food supply. As with conventional livestock, a cloned bull or cow that outlived its usefulness would probably wind up at a hamburger plant, and a cloned dairy cow would be milked during her breeding years. [I wonder if they have to be registered with NAIS tags.]

That's unlikely to happen soon, because FDA officials have asked farmers and cloning companies since 2001 to voluntarily keep clones and their offspring out of the food supply. The informal ban would remain in place for several months while FDA accepts comments from the public.

Approval of cloned livestock has taken five years because of pressure from big food companies nervous that consumers might reject milk and meat from cloned animals. [Who is going to consume anything from cloned animals? Only those forced to do so; prisoners, school children, WIC program families. Keep an eye on this one if your child eats a school lunch.]

To produce a clone, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with the DNA of a cow, pig or other animal. [Wait a minute. What did FDA say cloning didn't involve? "Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA; cloning does not change the gene sequence." DNA is added or it isn't? ] A tiny electric shock coaxes the egg to grow into a copy of the original animal. Cloning companies say it's just another reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination, yet there can be differences between the two because of chance and environmental influences.

Some surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with such food in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonpartisan research group.

==============================
Here's the link for FDA's A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny - DRAFT

USDA says consumers demand to know where there meat protein comes from.

Do you want to know which farm raised your beef or chicken?
Yes, it is important to me.
No, it is not important to me.
I already know where my beef or chicken comes from because I buy locally grown food.
Current results

Do you know how many Genetically Modified Organizisms your are consuming?

I'm a label reader and of late am getting more and more distressed with the ingredients I am seeing in food. Just a couple of weeks ago I realized that there are more GMOs in ordinary food than I realized. Any corn, including high fructose corn syrup, and soy (including soy meal, soy oil) and canola (oil), unless labeled Organic is all GMO. How in the world did it sneak into the food supply without our knowledge. Why don't the companies have to label GMO ingredients?

By they way, did you know that just because a product like potato chips says it has Zero grams of trans fats, they are telling a lie? The FDA approved 2.2 grams of trans fats as Zero grams.

Here is a bigger list of GMOs:

canola, corn, including popcorn and sweet corn but not blue corn, cotton, flax, papaya, potatoes (Atlantic, Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody), red-hearted chicory (radicchio), soybeans, squash (yellow crookneck), sugar beets, tomatoes, including cherry tomatoes

Sugar beets!!!! This is simply unbelievable, but true. For this reason I have switched to pure cane sugar, a bit more expensive but not GMO.

Click here to review a big shopping list of common prepared foods that contain GMOs. Baby food is on the list. Pet foods contain GMOs. Have you ever wondered what animal digest is? Look it up.

Buy and eat local food...it is your only chance to eat healthy.

www.metrologymedic.com