Dear Congresswoman,
This letter is in response to a single sentence in your letter of October 28, 2013. You said,
“I believe that sound policy should be based on sound science,
and to date, there are no peer reviewed scientific studies that confirm that
GMO crops that are approved for use are unsafe for human consumption.” (from your emailed letter of October 28, 2013)
I know as a professional politician you are, by requirement,
an entertainer first and foremost and that you must, therefore, continuously
spout politically correct epithets like the one above, but if you had any idea
of the toll GMO production, consumption, and digestion is having on the health
of this planet, on the health of the human species, and of the health to you,
your family and loved ones, you would apologize in deep and profound shame for
your ignorance and for the shroud of denial with which you choose to cloak
yourself.
Let me explain what I find objectionable in the above
statement.
1. “Sound science.” Unfortunately, I have no idea how you
choose to define your concept of “sound science.” Probably in a way in which
keeps your pockets well-lined and your corporate re-election sponsors happy. To
my understanding, neither the FDA, USDA, or Department of Agriculture are
allowed to study GMOs and no one, by laws that your myopic group made, no one
is allowed to speak up or out against the corporatocracy who support our
current “conventional” food system (see Veggie Libels laws, Monsanto Protection
Act, Farm Bill, etc.). And I know for a fact that GMO products have not been
around long enough to have enabled scientists to do studies which might be able
to determine what long term effects GMOs in our food systems might have on a
person or society—that is, if they were legally or economically allowed to do
such studies—which I think they are not.
2. “GMO crops that are approved.” Again, do you have any
idea of the process (or, rather, lack of process) GMO crops have had to go
through in order to get “approved”? (Do you care?) Do you care that the raising
of GMO crops renders the soil of the grow-area of that crop lifeless, dead,
desertified, that after that crop is done no other crop will grow in that soil
(unless it is another GMO crop)? You must have noticed while driving around
your home state this summer the acres upon acres of gray, lifeless farmland
that stood dead because our wet June did not allow GMO corn to be planted on
time.
Are you at all aware of how “conventional” GMO farming economically
enslaves a farmer/grower to a seed company and its subsidiary chemical
providers—as well as to a debt-heavy system of multi-million dollar machine
‘ownership’--probably for the rest of their lives? Are you at all aware that
GMO companies have paid their way to get
their way in any and all aspects of “science,” legislation and law? Are you at
all aware of the tremendous pressures our corporate-ruled government has placed
upon farmers to A) grow “conventionally” and B) to be big?
3. “…unsafe for human consumption.” ‘Consumption.’ An economic
term. Perhaps if you had used a term like “health” or “digestion” or “metabolization”
or “conversion to either quick-use or stored energy” or “biological health” or
“nutrition” or some term more human, not economic, I would have been able to
empathize with your meaning, but, as is, there is nothing in that term remotely
related to living, thinking, feeling human beings; it is a term for masses of
faceless, numbered automatons—whom you would call “consumers.”
There may not be any health hazards to humans from the act of consuming
(i.e. buying and/or ingesting) GMO-laced foods, but then there are also people
that manage to live while consuming only juice, water, raw foods, fungi,
bacteria, algae, metals, glass, or plastics. The debate becomes more
contentious when one considers what the product consumed does when the body,
individual, community, and/or society tries to digest and convert those
substances into glucose/glucogen and/or stored energy like fats and eliminate the
by- and waste products. This is where ‘safety’ comes into question.
Then there is the question of what kind of safety are we talking about.
Economic safety? (Is cheaper food truly cheaper for the system as a whole if
and when it is contributing to the health problems and diseases like diabetes,
obesity, allergies, fatigue, ADD, ADHD, that are sucking us into the high cost
health care industry?) Physical safety? Environmental safety? (Can a human live
off of the land GMO’s have been used to grow on after the GMOs have moved on?)
Emotional safety? (Can a health-compromised, obese, diabetic with heart
disease, hormone instability, and allergies actually feel ‘safe’ much less
happy?) Socioeconomic safety? (Can a person burdened with ever increasing
medical and insurance costs feel safe in his or her socioeconomic status/stability?)
Mental safety? (Where is the security in knowing that the contents and health
value of your store-bought food is concealed from you—and that you are at risk
of legal action should you voice your experiences, complaints or concerns?)
Spiritual safety? (Where is the morality in corporate capitalism when these
‘persons’ have no body, can have a different nationality every day of the week,
are untouchable under the law, and only care about growth of profits?)
If GMO products are so “safe” then why won’t the corporations creating,
backing, producing, disseminating, mechanizing, and condoning them tell us
exactly what is so great about them, chemically, nutritionally, and
environmentally. Or, as a challenge to reveal the truth, why don’t we get the
GMO industrialists to come out and publish their studies and lists of all of
the amazing benefits GMOs provide to individual human health and to biological
ecosystems? And while they’re at it, why don’t they publish all the rags-to-riches
stories from the agricultural world of economic self-sufficience and
independence--all of the stories of farmers making it to the levels of the
ultra-rich. “The most noble profession,” as Jefferson, Adams, and Washington
referred to farming, has been destroyed by the feudal corporate control that
has industrialized and militarized the agriculture since World War II.
I do not agree that bigger is better. I do not agree that
more is the most desirous goal, that sustained economic growth is necessary. I
do not believe that capitalism is compatible with democracy. I do no believe
that democracy, freedom, or human rights for the masses have ever been the goal
of the elite ultra-rich. I believe that the terrorism perpetrated by the
multi-national corporations and their puppet governments is more real and more
dangerous to the world than anything any third world organization could ever
muster. And I do not believe
Christianity bears any resemblance or foundation in anything Christ ever said
or believed.
You are an American politician, therefore, it is your sworn duty to
protect the businesses and economic system of “free-market” capitalism at all
costs. There is no such thing as democracy—we, the people of this beautiful
planet have no rights in the face of corporate power and profit, there is, in
your work, no concern for the health, welfare and/or well-being of “We, The
People”, there is only unquestioning automatonic protection of economic
principles that are built on lies and corporate-serving (and corporate-funded)
propaganda. “Business as usual” should read the Constitution’s Bill of Rights,
for the people’s “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were not
remembered nor were they protected when the businessmen in Philadelphia and
Washington wrote and amended that document. I question whether you could really
be so naïve as to believe you were going to get elected to go to Washington to
actually try to help your “constituents,” and I question whether it be possible
for anyone once in the system to survive, thrive, and win with that kind of
naivete.
Wake up and get out of the system that feeds and serves only
its own. And stop eating GMO-based foods—for your own health and well-being.
