First Draft - Friday, September 18, 2009
I am getting tired of the stalemate in Congress and the Senate over healthcare or health insurance reform. To me it so simple.
When I was buying a car last month, the salesman told me to budget 13% of my gross income, no more, no less.
We want to argue over what healthcare should cost. Why not just agree that we budget 13% of a working person’s gross income goes to making the car payment, which is a reasonable amount for budgeting for healthcare or health insurance. Thirteen percent for a car. Thirteen percent for healthcare.
Who should collect it?
Who do we have collecting taxes in this country?
Who will take it out of your pay check every month? That person should make the deductions and send it to the U.S. Treasury.
If you make $13 a hour, you should be paying $1.70 for healthcare ($304 per month). If you are making $7 a hour, you should be paying 91 cents for healthcare per hour ($168 per month) If you make $50 a hour, you should be paying $6.50 for healthcare per hour ($1,170 per month).
If that does not sound fare to you then, we play with tax credits.
Go back to the car payment analogy. Let’s decide that to provide for reasonable healthcare we need to max out the amount each month.
One person, making $33,000 a year, could make a car payment of $4290 a year or $357 a month. Same amount as a car payment. What that will pay for needs to be determined, but I am going to set that as the budget amount.
If you are single, that is what you pay for health insurance.
If you are a couple of people, both earning an income, the amount goes up by double - $715.
If you have a child or a dependent, or just a partner that is NOT working, it gets tricky. Healthcare services for ONE person are the same regardless of the age or size of the person. One person is one person, and they are going to use the minimum $357 of services for healthcare. Solution? Ask the taxman.
If you are a couple, married, not married, working or not working, does not matter. The government matches the working person’s income for ONE healthcare payment of $357 per month. If there is one person work, that is TWO units.
Where does that money for the EXTRA unit come from?
TAXES, that other thing that comes out of your paycheck each month. That guy making $33,000 a month still pays taxes to the tune of 23% a month, or $7590 a year or $632.50 a month. The existing tax pocket pays for the missing amount each month, if needed, if not needed, you get a tax credit at the end of the year.
You are a couple with only one person working in the household. No problem. Your existing taxes pay for that person. Your aging parent is living with you: their social security pays $357 for their medical needs.
You have one or two children, with just one income earner. No problem, we hit the tax pocket for the extra health units. More than two? Ask the taxman.
Someone needs to go to work, maybe. Don’t expect a tax refund.
That guy is making $33,000 and paying in for healthcare and taxes ($4290 plus $7790) or $12,080 a year or $1,006 per month for medical coverage of himself/herself and his/her partner and their two dependents. Might not be paying for the national defense or the interstate highway system, but at least that person is paying for healthcare for the whole family.
What does that buy?
That needs to be determined yet, but that car payment of $357 is the SAME amount he pays for every person in the family to a maximum of $1,006 per month.
Who collects this money?
The same person that collects your taxes will collect your healthcare payment (lets not call it a tax…).
Who pays for the healthcare insurance package?
The same person that pays your grandmother each month: Social Security.
Social Security will now collect for your so called retirement benefit and for your healthcare benefit.
Who pays the insurance company?
Social Security pays them for the standard U.S. Healthcare Policy the amount of $357 a month per person per month.
What does the working citizen or working non-citizen get for that amount per month?
That minimum package of care is yet to be determined by a bill in Congress.
Non-citizen worker?
IF you are paying into the Social Security fund, you get health benefits from Social Security. If not you have to go some where else, but if you show up at a county hospital, they are going to sell you the U.S. Healthcare Policy and contact your employer. We might need to ADD a group of IRS collection agents to enforce the collection of Social Security and Tax funds.
How does this affect my employer ?
They don’t have to offer health insurance. They get out of the health insurance business and leave it to the government and insurance companies. They simply do what they are doing now: collect the revenue for the IRS to pay social security. If they are NOT doing that much now, then the IRS will investigate why they are not collecting wage taxes and healthcare and Social Security funds.
Who pays my medical bills at the doctor’s office?
That remains to be determined by a bill in Congress.
Doctors seem to work it to be a single payer so they can eliminate all those staffers working the insurance paperwork (43% administrative cost by some estimates) and that would be Social Security.
What about Medicare and Medicaid?
They would not exist anymore. Might save some tax money there. Might not. It would roll into Social Security and not fall on the States and Counties. You would not be taxes locally for healthcare benefits for the elderly , retired, infirmed, disable or kids without health insurance.
Won’t this destroy our healthcare system as we know it today?
No.
Your employer will save money and do nothing new with existing staff.
Your employer will not be paying you in health care benefits, they could pay you MORE money or hire MORE people or INVEST more. Your employer will stop trying to eliminate older workers, because it increases their health insurance rates. Your employer will be MORE COMPETITIVE in the world market, with healthier, more productive workers.
Your doctor will save money and do nothing new with reduced staff.
Your hospital will save money and do nothing new with reduced staff.
You will still be REQUIRED to pay for healthcare, social security, and taxes.
You might get paid more. You might not. IF you did not have healthcare before the bill in Congress passes, you will have it now. You will have to pay for it, so you might see that come out of your paycheck each month. You will have to work harder to pay for it. There is no free lunch.
Why will I be required to pay for it?
At one level, it is the same reason you are supposed to be paying taxes and social security benefit payments now.
At another level, it broads the base of insured people for insurance companies to get paid by and to spread out the benefits and risks over.
As a group of people, there is only one percent ( fact check) chance that someone will die of cancer and heart disease. It goes up or down for a specific person. If everyone is insured, the total costs of healthcare for a single individual goes down.
And, your health insurance companies will still be around getting rich.
It is still to be determined by a bill in Congress, but why wouldn’t they.
They will still be getting $357 per month per working person.
NOW, they will be paid for ALL working persons.
The payment will be guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury through the Social Security Service. The market for insurance will be bigger. The risks of payment will be reduced.
The risk of insuring an individual will be spread over the entire working population.
Using that car payment analogy once again, my Rich Uncle never pays for a NEW car.
Why? you ask.
He told me the other day that if I were to SAVE and INVEST that car payment of $357 per month in something that earned a compounded, interest rate of 5% (good luck with that one!) for 30 years, I would have $1.2 million dollars. Your health insurance company is going to make money and still pay all the medical bills, that is their job and role in life. God bless America.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The State of Medical Care in America TODAY. Let's Change it TODAY.
Change the American Healthcare System today...The State of Medical Care in America
The State of Medical Care in America...:
"EddieWasSnubbed"
I believe the American
medical system needs to be fixed.
It is very broken and as a whole, I feel that the average American pays WAY too much into the medical system. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, the insurance industry is the biggest fraud of an industry in the country. In my opinion, an even bigger fraud than all these people we're bailing out. Sadly, I feel that it's the insurance industry that is the reason why it is so hard to change our system.
I say all this as a health-care worker. I see sick people every day: People with acute injuries, such as your typical senior citizen with a broken hip down to chronic problems (one case that particularly had me thinking, was a guy I saw that had a malignant neoplasm of his kidney). Make no doubt about it, if you asked anyone I worked with, they would say that I give great patient care, but I feel like I would gain more out of my profession if I worked in a better system.
I can't help but add up the cost of just about every person I deal with's stay in the hospital. It's quite depressing. Insurance or no insurance, you usually run the risk of breaking your bank account when you have to stay an extended period of time in a hospital.
I absolutely love my job and what I do, don't get me wrong. But like I said, if our system was better off, I would be much happier.
Take into account my recent experience...Like I said, I work at a hospital, so you'd think I would have a great insurance plan. Wrong. I went into my primary care physician (who, by the way, is connected to the place that I work) to have some plantar's warts treated. After three acid treatments, I got a bill for 315 dollars. That is something I could have done for 15 dollars myself, at home. This was after a 20 dollar copay each time. And I have a 250 dollar deductible.
A lady I work with had both her parents get into a car accident this past year. Her dad stayed in the hospital for a month before he died, and her mom was in an ICU for a month before she was released. Both were insured. My co-worker is now in debt of over 150K from these hospital stays alone. That's a broken system, in my opinion.
I don't really know the ins and outs of the tax system, so I can't give an accurate plan to fix things, but I think Obama had somewhat the right idea. I say that you take all the tax money that we, as Americans pay into the system to support medicare and medicaid programs, and you reward us Americans by expanding that program, thus more than likely removing the negative connotation associated with the program. It makes no sense to me, as a taxpayer, that I should be paying taxes to pay for someone else's medical bills (medicaid bills usually come as no cost to the people on medicaid...and quite honestly, I have been on it before) when I can't even afford my own.
So, I pay God-knows how much tax money for someone who doesn't work (therefore, probably doesn't pay into medicaid) to go to the ER for a shoulder that they hurt 20 years ago(I have literally seen this happen before...at 3AM), and then I turn around and pay for my own insurance, and after that, have to pay for whatever bills my insurance doesn't cover, which right now, is just about everything.
I say that you have to expand the medicaid program and make it more accessible to everyone, leaving insurance companies to compete. The reason I feel this won't ever happen is (a) money (you'd have to raise taxes to supplement this) and (b) it would bring about bankruptcy for most insurance companies.
It's just so unfortunate, that, in the United States of America, the supposed greatest country on Earth, we have a medical system that is worse than quite a few third-rate countries.
Have you seen any infant mortality rates(in which we rank just behind Brunei, Cyprus, and New Caledonia), or life expectancy (in which we rank just behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, Puerto Rico, and Jordan)....it's just bad.
Sorry for the rant...
The State of Medical Care in America...
: "EddieWasSnubbed"
BUT PUT YOUR RANT ON YOUR CONGRESSMAN!
Follow the BARKING DOG.... send it to your Senators and Congressman, today!
__________________
Let's redefine what it means to heal...
The State of Medical Care in America...:
"EddieWasSnubbed"
I believe the American
medical system needs to be fixed.
It is very broken and as a whole, I feel that the average American pays WAY too much into the medical system. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, the insurance industry is the biggest fraud of an industry in the country. In my opinion, an even bigger fraud than all these people we're bailing out. Sadly, I feel that it's the insurance industry that is the reason why it is so hard to change our system.
I say all this as a health-care worker. I see sick people every day: People with acute injuries, such as your typical senior citizen with a broken hip down to chronic problems (one case that particularly had me thinking, was a guy I saw that had a malignant neoplasm of his kidney). Make no doubt about it, if you asked anyone I worked with, they would say that I give great patient care, but I feel like I would gain more out of my profession if I worked in a better system.
I can't help but add up the cost of just about every person I deal with's stay in the hospital. It's quite depressing. Insurance or no insurance, you usually run the risk of breaking your bank account when you have to stay an extended period of time in a hospital.
I absolutely love my job and what I do, don't get me wrong. But like I said, if our system was better off, I would be much happier.
Take into account my recent experience...Like I said, I work at a hospital, so you'd think I would have a great insurance plan. Wrong. I went into my primary care physician (who, by the way, is connected to the place that I work) to have some plantar's warts treated. After three acid treatments, I got a bill for 315 dollars. That is something I could have done for 15 dollars myself, at home. This was after a 20 dollar copay each time. And I have a 250 dollar deductible.
A lady I work with had both her parents get into a car accident this past year. Her dad stayed in the hospital for a month before he died, and her mom was in an ICU for a month before she was released. Both were insured. My co-worker is now in debt of over 150K from these hospital stays alone. That's a broken system, in my opinion.
I don't really know the ins and outs of the tax system, so I can't give an accurate plan to fix things, but I think Obama had somewhat the right idea. I say that you take all the tax money that we, as Americans pay into the system to support medicare and medicaid programs, and you reward us Americans by expanding that program, thus more than likely removing the negative connotation associated with the program. It makes no sense to me, as a taxpayer, that I should be paying taxes to pay for someone else's medical bills (medicaid bills usually come as no cost to the people on medicaid...and quite honestly, I have been on it before) when I can't even afford my own.
So, I pay God-knows how much tax money for someone who doesn't work (therefore, probably doesn't pay into medicaid) to go to the ER for a shoulder that they hurt 20 years ago(I have literally seen this happen before...at 3AM), and then I turn around and pay for my own insurance, and after that, have to pay for whatever bills my insurance doesn't cover, which right now, is just about everything.
I say that you have to expand the medicaid program and make it more accessible to everyone, leaving insurance companies to compete. The reason I feel this won't ever happen is (a) money (you'd have to raise taxes to supplement this) and (b) it would bring about bankruptcy for most insurance companies.
It's just so unfortunate, that, in the United States of America, the supposed greatest country on Earth, we have a medical system that is worse than quite a few third-rate countries.
Have you seen any infant mortality rates(in which we rank just behind Brunei, Cyprus, and New Caledonia), or life expectancy (in which we rank just behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, Puerto Rico, and Jordan)....it's just bad.
Sorry for the rant...
The State of Medical Care in America...
: "EddieWasSnubbed"
BUT PUT YOUR RANT ON YOUR CONGRESSMAN!
Follow the BARKING DOG.... send it to your Senators and Congressman, today!
__________________
Let's redefine what it means to heal...
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Does Toxic Chinese Drywall Signal the Need for U.S. Trade Law Changes?
http://www.manufacturethis.org/2009/06/26/does-toxic-chinese-drywall-signal-the-need-for-us-trade-law-changes/
Toxic drywall imported from China and into homes primarily in coastal areas has been causing rancid odors, rotting wood and wiring, and serious health problems for homeowners.
The multiple class action lawsuits initiated by homeowners and contactors against the importers of the defective drywall as well as its Chinese manufacturers lead to a large drywall litigation conference held in Orlando in early June. Additionally, the federal judicial panel that assigns multi-district lawsuits to specific courts has aggregated the lawsuits and assigned them to be tried in New Orleans, a city that has had significant problems with the deadly drywall after shortages due in part to repairs made necessary by Hurricane Katrina decreased the availability of safe U.S.-made product. Observers expect these proceedings to be long and complex, as hundreds of suits have already been filed. However, that figure is nowhere near the number of homeowner complaints as Florida alone is investigating nearly 500 claims, and a dozen other states are dealing with reports of problems. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently launched a Drywall Information Center web site to assist homeowners and track data. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Disease Control are also actively addressing the toxic drywall crisis. State agencies and legislators in affected states are investigating the problem, and the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are aggressively pursuing answers and remedies for affected homeowners. Florida Congressman Robert Wexler calls the toxic drywall problem “an acute and growing crisis” and along with other Congressmen and Senators, he is calling for an immediate ban of Chinese drywall and stricter safety regulations for future imports of building materials. Federal legislators are also calling on the IRS to allow homeowners to take a full tax credit under casualty loss provisions in the tax code to help them afford toxic drywall repairs. All levels of government are clearly taking his problem very seriously and looking for swift and innovative ways to provide relief. However, the extent to which homeowners must go – stripping walls down to studs in most cases – promises a long and expensive process, and the long term prognosis for people who have become ill from the drywall is yet unknown. Poisoned dog food, tainted toothpaste, contaminated toys, exploding tires and toxic drywall – what will it take for U.S. trade and commerce agencies to enact policies that put a burden on China’s manufacturers to prove that their products are safe before their widgets even step foot on our shores?
##
http://www.manufacturethis.org/2009/06/26/does-toxic-chinese-drywall-signal-the-need-for-us-trade-law-changes/
Toxic drywall imported from China and into homes primarily in coastal areas has been causing rancid odors, rotting wood and wiring, and serious health problems for homeowners.
The multiple class action lawsuits initiated by homeowners and contactors against the importers of the defective drywall as well as its Chinese manufacturers lead to a large drywall litigation conference held in Orlando in early June. Additionally, the federal judicial panel that assigns multi-district lawsuits to specific courts has aggregated the lawsuits and assigned them to be tried in New Orleans, a city that has had significant problems with the deadly drywall after shortages due in part to repairs made necessary by Hurricane Katrina decreased the availability of safe U.S.-made product. Observers expect these proceedings to be long and complex, as hundreds of suits have already been filed. However, that figure is nowhere near the number of homeowner complaints as Florida alone is investigating nearly 500 claims, and a dozen other states are dealing with reports of problems. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently launched a Drywall Information Center web site to assist homeowners and track data. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Disease Control are also actively addressing the toxic drywall crisis. State agencies and legislators in affected states are investigating the problem, and the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are aggressively pursuing answers and remedies for affected homeowners. Florida Congressman Robert Wexler calls the toxic drywall problem “an acute and growing crisis” and along with other Congressmen and Senators, he is calling for an immediate ban of Chinese drywall and stricter safety regulations for future imports of building materials. Federal legislators are also calling on the IRS to allow homeowners to take a full tax credit under casualty loss provisions in the tax code to help them afford toxic drywall repairs. All levels of government are clearly taking his problem very seriously and looking for swift and innovative ways to provide relief. However, the extent to which homeowners must go – stripping walls down to studs in most cases – promises a long and expensive process, and the long term prognosis for people who have become ill from the drywall is yet unknown. Poisoned dog food, tainted toothpaste, contaminated toys, exploding tires and toxic drywall – what will it take for U.S. trade and commerce agencies to enact policies that put a burden on China’s manufacturers to prove that their products are safe before their widgets even step foot on our shores?
##
Blame the BUSH and CLINTON Years of Neglect of CPSC
Don't Blame Chinese Imported Products!
by William A. Ruskin
by William A. Ruskin
In his recent article, "Made in China: Consumer Product Lawsuits Imported to the United States", Seattle defense lawyer and IADC member Gregory Shelton offers American importers several good suggestions for avoiding potential liability from imported products. These include: (1) requiring the exporter to comply with all applicable U.S. product quality standards and product safety regulations; (2) obtaining legal counsel in the exporter's home jurisdiction; (3) requiring the exporter to obtain appropriate insurance coverage from an American or international insurer that will protect the importer in the event of a recall or lawsuit; and (4) retaining good legal counsel early. I would add to Greg's checklist: (5) having an independent U.S. consultant available to test, if necessary, the components of imported products, particularly if an American consumer reports a complaint to the company or to the CPSC. Early independent product evaluation can be critical for an importer in planning its next steps, such as whether to perform a recall or halt future shipments until an issue can be addressed. There are many good consultant firms to chose from. One excellent consultant up-to-speed on the new CPSC requirements is Exponent.
However, we disagree with Mr. Shelton when he argues that Chinese imports are more likely to result in lawsuits or recalls than imports from other countries. There is simply no empirical evidence to support this assertion. To the contrary, China has made enormous progress, particularly over the last year, to police its domestic suppliers. To blame China for the spate of recalls over the last couple of years is to ignore the past lack of adequate funding for the CPSC, the agency that provides regulatory oversight of consumer products. Moreover, blaming China results in Americans turning a blind eye to problems in our domestic product supply chain.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Another Reason to BoyCott China - Freedom of Speech!
China Squeezes PC Makers to install on all PCs a Government Required Web Filter That Would Censor 'Harmful' Internet Siteshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124440211524192081.html
By LORETTA CHAO
BEIJING -- China plans to require that all personal computers sold in the country as of July 1 be shipped with software that blocks access to certain Web sites, a move that could give government censors unprecedented control over how Chinese users access the Internet.The government, which has told global PC makers of the requirement but has yet to announce it to the public, says the effort is aimed at protecting young people from "harmful" content. The primary target is pornography, says the main developer of the software, a company that has ties to China's security ministry and military. China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology didn't respond to requests for comment. REST OF THE STORY IS ON THE LINK ABOVE
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Tilting at Wind Mills in Texas - What can you do to make it happen?
http://agoodfit.blogspot.com/2009/06/wind-turbine-blades-are-huge.html
Interesting that most of T. Boone's Wind Turbines are from a Danish Company, built in Vietnam and imported through Portland USA: Spain is also a major player in Wind Mill Turbines!
http://freddallas.blogspot.com/2009/03/green-it-is-had-to-be-really-green.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4028
http://earth2tech.com/2008/04/14/t-boone-pickens-kicking-off-the-worlds-largest-wind-farm/
http://freddallas.blogspot.com/2009/05/bbcs-ethical-man-in-amerika-he-dropped.html
OK June 4 to July 4 - Don't buy anything made in China!
Let's do it one better... I got this email from my ex-father in law, his point was very simple.
To celebrate July 4 this year, stop buying anything made in China from June 4 to July 4.
A Boycott of Chinese Made Products for one month.
No Flags. No Heroes on the Battle field.
Just the simple act of putting back on the shelf
or the table or the floor if it was made in China when you are in any store.
Just don't buy it for ONE month.
If it has printed on it "Assembled or Made in China",
Check your ink cartridges... this might be a real sacrifice for you!
Fred
To celebrate July 4 this year, stop buying anything made in China from June 4 to July 4.
A Boycott of Chinese Made Products for one month.
No Flags. No Heroes on the Battle field.
Just the simple act of putting back on the shelf
or the table or the floor if it was made in China when you are in any store.
Just don't buy it for ONE month.
If it has printed on it "Assembled or Made in China",
Check your ink cartridges... this might be a real sacrifice for you!
Fred
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
GM Food is a good place to start a blog about Fence Sitting
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
I've been a big fan of the idea of GMO's (genetically modified organisms)
I'm reading Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply right now, which is offering up a generous helping of the cons of GMO's. I wanted to start getting a better picture of what both sides of the argument are saying so I can develop a better-informed opinion, so I started doing some research.
Here are some of the articles I ran across with outlining the pros and cons of genetically modified food.
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
GM Crops: The arguments pro and con
The Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: A Multidisciplinary Perspective
Genetic engineering: The controversy
BBC: Food under the microscope
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
Pros and cons of genetic engineering
The pros and cons of GM food
GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Weighing Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Crops in Africa
Pros, cons of modified food
The pros and cons of GE food
Pro-GM
GM benefits outweigh risks
Study finds benefits in GM crops
A report on genetically engineered crops
Monsanto video gallery
The Alliance for Better Foods
The benefits of GM crops
Anti-GM
Who benefits from GM crops?
Genetically engineered food
Genetically engineered (GE) food - safety problems
Bio-technology myths
Statements on the dangers of GM by scientists
Debunking the myths of genetic engineering in food crops
The risks of genetic engineering
Myths spread by the pro-GM, anti-organic movement
--
The Objections
Should we be modifying genes at all?
It's "playing God" or unnatural.
It's wrong to mix genes from radically different organisms.
Religious and vegetarian groups would object to genes from some species.
Do we really know what we're doing?
Have we evaluated the risks sufficiently?
Is it really necessary?
Do we need genetically modified food?
It is just going to provide luxuries for rich, and won't feed the Third World.
Agriculture is already too technological. This will only make it worse.
There better ways to improve resistance and reduce chemicals on the land.
Do we have a real say in what's going on?
Labelling measures are inadequate, and unjust towards those who object.
Big business is imposing on our freedom under the guise of free trade.
Government committees do not represent ordinary people enough.
Supermarkets act as enough of a voice.
This report analyzes the way in which genetically modified (GM)
crops have been introduced into our environment between 1996
and 2005. It describes how the rapid penetration of GM crops in
a limited number of countries has largely been the result of the
aggressive strategies of the biotech industry, particularly pushed
by top GM crop leader Monsanto, rather than the consequence
of the benefits derived from the use of this technology.
The hype about the advantages that GM crops provide to the
environment, consumers, and farmers is also predominantly the
result of propaganda by the biotech industry and industrysponsored
organizations including the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISAAA’s
annual reports, published at the beginning of every year since the
late 1990s, have misrepresented the performance of GM crops.
They have lauded the benefits that have accompanied the
introduction of GM crops everywhere, and have ignored the
negative impacts and other problems. In fact, as this report shows,
the reality of GM crops has been strikingly different from
Monsanto and ISAAA’s claims.
This report illustrates how Monsanto, a multinational
corporation and the world’s leading producer of GM crops, has
managed to attain an unacceptable level of influence over
national and international agricultural and food policies in
many countries around the world. It describes how Monsanto
was in the driver’s seat when the United States, Brazil and other
governments developed legislation relating to GMOs, resulting
in industry-friendly policies. Monsanto has used other improper
strategies as well: bribing officials in Indonesia in order to
obtain regulatory approval, and running misleading promotion
strategies in India and other countries. Monsanto’s products
have also been found in areas where they were forbidden,
including Brazil, Paraguay, and India, paving the way for
eventual legal authorization.
Monsanto’s influence over governments is so large thatmany of
them, as well as United Nations bodies such as the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), have adopted the company’s
claims that GM products are good for the environment and will
contribute to the alleviation of poverty and hunger.
In addition, Monsanto is in the midst of a huge push to
introduce new intellectual property rights regimes over its GM
seeds in order to enhance its domination over the global seed
and food supply.
This report shows that Monsanto’s pesticide reduction claims
are unfounded, and that in fact GM soy has dramatically
increased pesticide use. Claims that GM crops will contribute to
poverty reduction have also thus far been unfounded, as have
claims that consumers benefit from GM products. Ultimately, it
is Monsanto and other GM companies that profit the most from
the aggressive promotion of their GM products.
It is time for governments to take responsibility for the
unethical behavior of the proponents of GM seeds and food,
putting the interests of people and the environment first.
Governments must stop giving unacceptable privileges to
companies like Monsanto, and stop endorsing the misleading
claims of organizations like ISAAA.
This publication is based on numerous reports from scientifictechnical
bodies, industry, government, and civil society, and is
illustrated by fully-referenced national and regional case studies
from every continent.
The Case in Favour
We shouldn't be afraid of biotechnology
Why draw the line here, not elsewhere?
We have many safeguards in place.
Changing one or two genes does not make a foodstuff unacceptable.
We are more than just our genes.
Look at the opportunities for good
Better resistance to weeds, pests, disease.
Better texture, flavour, nutritional value.
Longer shelf life, easier shipment.
Better yield, more efficient use of land.
Less herbicides and other chemicals.
Essential if we are to feed the world.
The Economic and Employment Case
Opportunities for Scottish innovation to benefit the people of Scotland.
If we pull out, jobs and wealth we might have created will go abroad instead.
The Democratic Case
With labelling, adequate protection can be given for those who object.
Several ethics and safety advisory committees represent public concerns.
There has never been a time when improvement in agricultural performance has been needed so much. As the world’s population increases, we need to produce more food reliably, with greater empathy for the environment and with more nutritious products. Every person on Earth should have the right to enough food, but it should be good food - as good as we can make it.
Biological research has been transformed by technologies which allow us to comprehend the workings of genes, providing a new understanding of how plants function in their environments and of the molecular and cellular bases of their development. These are areas critical to crop performance and food production.
Understanding genes and their role in crop performance has been important for our cotton industry. The industry has used chemical insecticides recklessly to protect crops from insects which can reduce yields to zero. But the insects soon became resistant to the pesticides. The new technology modifies the crop’s biological software so that it can protect itself against its worst pest. It has enabled the plant to produce specific molecules in its leaves and bolls which kill the major pest, moth larvae. Another gene construct has provided protection against the best “weedicide”, revolutionising weed control in the cotton farming system.
These transgenic cottons put important management constraints on farmers - to preserve the value of the impacts of the new technologies. Yield, quality and profits have gone up, and chemical usage has gone down drastically. The environment has benefited enormously and farmers and farm workers have a better quality of life.
This is not the end of needed improvements, though. There are severe challenges from pathogens, and although our breeders have given us a wonderful quality of fibre, we need to further differentiate our products from those of other countries’.
In a non-drought year, new technologies support a $1.7 billion Australian cotton industry, which exports 98 per cent of products and has a planting seed industry within Australia worth $175 million. Australian varieties of seed make up 30 per cent of the planting seed in the US and the seeds are becoming a significant component of the cotton industry in southern Europe and South America.
Canola is the next crop being considered for transgenic technologies in Australia, but faces state-based moratoria against its introduction. Currently, the advantages being offered through transgenic varieties relate to herbicide resistance and the introduction of high-yielding hybrids. Canadian canola growers have had plentiful yield using transgenic hybrids when compared with Australian canola farmers’ output.
Canola growers and marketers should unite as an industry to get behind transgenic varieties and model their actions on the introduction of transgenic cotton in Australia. The industry, through the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association, played a major role in interacting with the researchers and government regulatory bodies. The transgenic crop was introduced gradually with strict controls of management. Regulatory bodies made decisions based on recommendations from industry committees who examined the performance of transgenics in relation to conventional varieties. These were crucial factors in the successful adoption of the transgenic crop.
There are three major markets for our canola and at least two of these countries have cleared the way for the use of transgenic canola. Other oft-cited dangers of super-weed production have been dispelled by careful research studies. The industry should easily be able to organise itself with necessary segregation procedures.
Breeders of cereal crops, wheat and barley, have enormous challenges ahead of them. In many cases, the germplasm is not available to meet the challenges of disease and environmental stresses. New technologies may be able to significantly increase breeders’ capabilities, but that doesn’t mean we have to move to transgenic crops. What it means is that we can define the ways forward, either in asking for better input traits or in developing new quality features for these grains.
One area where transgenic technology will be critical in the near future is in matters related to public health. The diseases of western societies are largely a consequence of lifestyle changes, including diet. Many diet-related diseases, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and colonic cancer, result in large part from the way we live. Diabetes is the epidemic of the 21st century. This is as true in developing countries as it is in western countries like Australia.
Modified staple foods will help guard against the onset of these diseases and will reduce the enormous expenditure of therapeutic medicine. If the starch component of wheat, rice and maize had a low glycemic index, for example, we would be close to reducing the incidence and severity of diabetes. As well as starch, proteins, fatty acids and antioxidants can all be adjusted to better fit human nutrition requirements.
A good example is barley, where changing a single genetic letter in the starch biosynthetic pathway makes it a low glycemic index food. This barley is so close to barley changed by mutagenesis and conventional breeding that it could be introduced to the market right now. In fact, we are likely to see it soon in breads and breakfast cereals.
We can now teach plants to make long-chain omega 3 fatty acids, oils that we currently get through the consumption of fish, which in turn feed on microscopic algae that produce it. Researchers have taken these algae’s genes and infused our crop plants with it so that they too can make long-chain omega 3 oils, so important for cardiovascular and other body systems.
Our food will be an important component in our preventative health system.
Are genetically modified crops safe? Our regulatory bodies say that there is no reason to suspect that genetically modified crops will be any less safe than the food we consume at present. There are 80 million hectares of GM (genetically modified) crops around the world and the area is increasing rapidly - 5 per cent of agricultural production in the world is a convincing safety recommendation, particularly since there have been no substantiated negative effects on human or environmental health. Thirty million farmers are growing GM crops: we should see this as a wake-up call.
Australian agribusiness faces the challenge of cheaper imports. Consumer preference and acceptance for Australian agricultural products will be hard to achieve because most people are urban dwellers and do not know where their food comes from. A product grown with 86 per cent less chemical insecticides means little to the consumer. It is not until we have direct health benefits at fair prices that we can expect real acceptance and preference for our agricultural products - transgenic or conventional.
The same applies to our export markets. If we want to be assured of markets for our products, we have to make sure that the whole business chain for any crop and its products has an integrated drive for export performance. Consumer countries need to be persuaded, as we have done in the past, that Australian products are superior quality products.
Where we have a market opportunity we need to make sure we do not make any mistakes. While transgenic cotton was a big success, it was dependent not only on the new genetics, but on farmers who adopted appropriate management protocols. It is the genetics and the management together that will make a lasting success.
Biotechnology’s contributions to future agribusiness has already seen some major successes and we can expect many more. Biotechnology is like any other business -the opportunities and objectives need to be carefully defined in the early stages. We need to develop a realistic business plan, extending from basic research to intellectual property claims, to the cost of adhering to regulatory requirements and finally to forming partnerships that will be needed along the business chain.
Finally, I want to emphasise the need for effective communication at all levels of the community and of business, and extending to decision makers. It is important for parliamentary representatives to fully understand what is being proposed so they can assess the benefits and risks based on factual evidence. In Australia, we have a number of regulatory bodies to examine the safety, performance and environmental impacts of GM crops and all food products. Their recommendations deserve to be recognised. It is sometimes easier for a politician to say no to any proposition, for example to a new technology, than to have the courage to say yes, even though to say no may ultimately have untoward and serious negative consequences to business, to the environment and to human health.
I've been a big fan of the idea of GMO's (genetically modified organisms)
I'm reading Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply right now, which is offering up a generous helping of the cons of GMO's. I wanted to start getting a better picture of what both sides of the argument are saying so I can develop a better-informed opinion, so I started doing some research.
Here are some of the articles I ran across with outlining the pros and cons of genetically modified food.
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
GM Crops: The arguments pro and con
The Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: A Multidisciplinary Perspective
Genetic engineering: The controversy
BBC: Food under the microscope
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
Pros and cons of genetic engineering
The pros and cons of GM food
GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Weighing Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Crops in Africa
Pros, cons of modified food
The pros and cons of GE food
Pro-GM
GM benefits outweigh risks
Study finds benefits in GM crops
A report on genetically engineered crops
Monsanto video gallery
The Alliance for Better Foods
The benefits of GM crops
Anti-GM
Who benefits from GM crops?
Genetically engineered food
Genetically engineered (GE) food - safety problems
Bio-technology myths
Statements on the dangers of GM by scientists
Debunking the myths of genetic engineering in food crops
The risks of genetic engineering
Myths spread by the pro-GM, anti-organic movement
--
The Objections
Should we be modifying genes at all?
It's "playing God" or unnatural.
It's wrong to mix genes from radically different organisms.
Religious and vegetarian groups would object to genes from some species.
Do we really know what we're doing?
Have we evaluated the risks sufficiently?
Is it really necessary?
Do we need genetically modified food?
It is just going to provide luxuries for rich, and won't feed the Third World.
Agriculture is already too technological. This will only make it worse.
There better ways to improve resistance and reduce chemicals on the land.
Do we have a real say in what's going on?
Labelling measures are inadequate, and unjust towards those who object.
Big business is imposing on our freedom under the guise of free trade.
Government committees do not represent ordinary people enough.
Supermarkets act as enough of a voice.
This report analyzes the way in which genetically modified (GM)
crops have been introduced into our environment between 1996
and 2005. It describes how the rapid penetration of GM crops in
a limited number of countries has largely been the result of the
aggressive strategies of the biotech industry, particularly pushed
by top GM crop leader Monsanto, rather than the consequence
of the benefits derived from the use of this technology.
The hype about the advantages that GM crops provide to the
environment, consumers, and farmers is also predominantly the
result of propaganda by the biotech industry and industrysponsored
organizations including the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISAAA’s
annual reports, published at the beginning of every year since the
late 1990s, have misrepresented the performance of GM crops.
They have lauded the benefits that have accompanied the
introduction of GM crops everywhere, and have ignored the
negative impacts and other problems. In fact, as this report shows,
the reality of GM crops has been strikingly different from
Monsanto and ISAAA’s claims.
This report illustrates how Monsanto, a multinational
corporation and the world’s leading producer of GM crops, has
managed to attain an unacceptable level of influence over
national and international agricultural and food policies in
many countries around the world. It describes how Monsanto
was in the driver’s seat when the United States, Brazil and other
governments developed legislation relating to GMOs, resulting
in industry-friendly policies. Monsanto has used other improper
strategies as well: bribing officials in Indonesia in order to
obtain regulatory approval, and running misleading promotion
strategies in India and other countries. Monsanto’s products
have also been found in areas where they were forbidden,
including Brazil, Paraguay, and India, paving the way for
eventual legal authorization.
Monsanto’s influence over governments is so large thatmany of
them, as well as United Nations bodies such as the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), have adopted the company’s
claims that GM products are good for the environment and will
contribute to the alleviation of poverty and hunger.
In addition, Monsanto is in the midst of a huge push to
introduce new intellectual property rights regimes over its GM
seeds in order to enhance its domination over the global seed
and food supply.
This report shows that Monsanto’s pesticide reduction claims
are unfounded, and that in fact GM soy has dramatically
increased pesticide use. Claims that GM crops will contribute to
poverty reduction have also thus far been unfounded, as have
claims that consumers benefit from GM products. Ultimately, it
is Monsanto and other GM companies that profit the most from
the aggressive promotion of their GM products.
It is time for governments to take responsibility for the
unethical behavior of the proponents of GM seeds and food,
putting the interests of people and the environment first.
Governments must stop giving unacceptable privileges to
companies like Monsanto, and stop endorsing the misleading
claims of organizations like ISAAA.
This publication is based on numerous reports from scientifictechnical
bodies, industry, government, and civil society, and is
illustrated by fully-referenced national and regional case studies
from every continent.
The Case in Favour
We shouldn't be afraid of biotechnology
Why draw the line here, not elsewhere?
We have many safeguards in place.
Changing one or two genes does not make a foodstuff unacceptable.
We are more than just our genes.
Look at the opportunities for good
Better resistance to weeds, pests, disease.
Better texture, flavour, nutritional value.
Longer shelf life, easier shipment.
Better yield, more efficient use of land.
Less herbicides and other chemicals.
Essential if we are to feed the world.
The Economic and Employment Case
Opportunities for Scottish innovation to benefit the people of Scotland.
If we pull out, jobs and wealth we might have created will go abroad instead.
The Democratic Case
With labelling, adequate protection can be given for those who object.
Several ethics and safety advisory committees represent public concerns.
There has never been a time when improvement in agricultural performance has been needed so much. As the world’s population increases, we need to produce more food reliably, with greater empathy for the environment and with more nutritious products. Every person on Earth should have the right to enough food, but it should be good food - as good as we can make it.
Biological research has been transformed by technologies which allow us to comprehend the workings of genes, providing a new understanding of how plants function in their environments and of the molecular and cellular bases of their development. These are areas critical to crop performance and food production.
Understanding genes and their role in crop performance has been important for our cotton industry. The industry has used chemical insecticides recklessly to protect crops from insects which can reduce yields to zero. But the insects soon became resistant to the pesticides. The new technology modifies the crop’s biological software so that it can protect itself against its worst pest. It has enabled the plant to produce specific molecules in its leaves and bolls which kill the major pest, moth larvae. Another gene construct has provided protection against the best “weedicide”, revolutionising weed control in the cotton farming system.
These transgenic cottons put important management constraints on farmers - to preserve the value of the impacts of the new technologies. Yield, quality and profits have gone up, and chemical usage has gone down drastically. The environment has benefited enormously and farmers and farm workers have a better quality of life.
This is not the end of needed improvements, though. There are severe challenges from pathogens, and although our breeders have given us a wonderful quality of fibre, we need to further differentiate our products from those of other countries’.
In a non-drought year, new technologies support a $1.7 billion Australian cotton industry, which exports 98 per cent of products and has a planting seed industry within Australia worth $175 million. Australian varieties of seed make up 30 per cent of the planting seed in the US and the seeds are becoming a significant component of the cotton industry in southern Europe and South America.
Canola is the next crop being considered for transgenic technologies in Australia, but faces state-based moratoria against its introduction. Currently, the advantages being offered through transgenic varieties relate to herbicide resistance and the introduction of high-yielding hybrids. Canadian canola growers have had plentiful yield using transgenic hybrids when compared with Australian canola farmers’ output.
Canola growers and marketers should unite as an industry to get behind transgenic varieties and model their actions on the introduction of transgenic cotton in Australia. The industry, through the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association, played a major role in interacting with the researchers and government regulatory bodies. The transgenic crop was introduced gradually with strict controls of management. Regulatory bodies made decisions based on recommendations from industry committees who examined the performance of transgenics in relation to conventional varieties. These were crucial factors in the successful adoption of the transgenic crop.
There are three major markets for our canola and at least two of these countries have cleared the way for the use of transgenic canola. Other oft-cited dangers of super-weed production have been dispelled by careful research studies. The industry should easily be able to organise itself with necessary segregation procedures.
Breeders of cereal crops, wheat and barley, have enormous challenges ahead of them. In many cases, the germplasm is not available to meet the challenges of disease and environmental stresses. New technologies may be able to significantly increase breeders’ capabilities, but that doesn’t mean we have to move to transgenic crops. What it means is that we can define the ways forward, either in asking for better input traits or in developing new quality features for these grains.
One area where transgenic technology will be critical in the near future is in matters related to public health. The diseases of western societies are largely a consequence of lifestyle changes, including diet. Many diet-related diseases, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and colonic cancer, result in large part from the way we live. Diabetes is the epidemic of the 21st century. This is as true in developing countries as it is in western countries like Australia.
Modified staple foods will help guard against the onset of these diseases and will reduce the enormous expenditure of therapeutic medicine. If the starch component of wheat, rice and maize had a low glycemic index, for example, we would be close to reducing the incidence and severity of diabetes. As well as starch, proteins, fatty acids and antioxidants can all be adjusted to better fit human nutrition requirements.
A good example is barley, where changing a single genetic letter in the starch biosynthetic pathway makes it a low glycemic index food. This barley is so close to barley changed by mutagenesis and conventional breeding that it could be introduced to the market right now. In fact, we are likely to see it soon in breads and breakfast cereals.
We can now teach plants to make long-chain omega 3 fatty acids, oils that we currently get through the consumption of fish, which in turn feed on microscopic algae that produce it. Researchers have taken these algae’s genes and infused our crop plants with it so that they too can make long-chain omega 3 oils, so important for cardiovascular and other body systems.
Our food will be an important component in our preventative health system.
Are genetically modified crops safe? Our regulatory bodies say that there is no reason to suspect that genetically modified crops will be any less safe than the food we consume at present. There are 80 million hectares of GM (genetically modified) crops around the world and the area is increasing rapidly - 5 per cent of agricultural production in the world is a convincing safety recommendation, particularly since there have been no substantiated negative effects on human or environmental health. Thirty million farmers are growing GM crops: we should see this as a wake-up call.
Australian agribusiness faces the challenge of cheaper imports. Consumer preference and acceptance for Australian agricultural products will be hard to achieve because most people are urban dwellers and do not know where their food comes from. A product grown with 86 per cent less chemical insecticides means little to the consumer. It is not until we have direct health benefits at fair prices that we can expect real acceptance and preference for our agricultural products - transgenic or conventional.
The same applies to our export markets. If we want to be assured of markets for our products, we have to make sure that the whole business chain for any crop and its products has an integrated drive for export performance. Consumer countries need to be persuaded, as we have done in the past, that Australian products are superior quality products.
Where we have a market opportunity we need to make sure we do not make any mistakes. While transgenic cotton was a big success, it was dependent not only on the new genetics, but on farmers who adopted appropriate management protocols. It is the genetics and the management together that will make a lasting success.
Biotechnology’s contributions to future agribusiness has already seen some major successes and we can expect many more. Biotechnology is like any other business -the opportunities and objectives need to be carefully defined in the early stages. We need to develop a realistic business plan, extending from basic research to intellectual property claims, to the cost of adhering to regulatory requirements and finally to forming partnerships that will be needed along the business chain.
Finally, I want to emphasise the need for effective communication at all levels of the community and of business, and extending to decision makers. It is important for parliamentary representatives to fully understand what is being proposed so they can assess the benefits and risks based on factual evidence. In Australia, we have a number of regulatory bodies to examine the safety, performance and environmental impacts of GM crops and all food products. Their recommendations deserve to be recognised. It is sometimes easier for a politician to say no to any proposition, for example to a new technology, than to have the courage to say yes, even though to say no may ultimately have untoward and serious negative consequences to business, to the environment and to human health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
