The GMO Backstory

Companies that sell Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) have academic researchers on their payroll who say that GMO food is safe, and there is therefore no need to label. Organic and natural food companies have their own paid experts who say there are unresolved questions about GMO safety and labels make sense. The driving force for both sides is making money.  GMO sellers know such labeling is a stigma that can cause them to lose customers. Organic food companies who can already voluntarily label as ‘non-GMO’ to marketing advantage want to keep the battle going because GMO seller resistance to labeling further fuels the public’s lack of trust.  How does a situation like this happen anyway?

The biotechnologies that led to the development of GMO were emerging in the 1980s, and many of those who had business interests and investments in this emerging technology wanted to see it commercialized as quickly as possible to start generating the all-important return on investment.  This emergence came on the coattails of the deregulation frenzy that started in the 1980's, and then Vice President George Bush Sr. at the behest of biotechnology business interests like Monsanto assisted in establishing the “substantial equivalence principle” in order to keep the US  biotech interests at the forefront of the biotech industry.  This substantial equivalence principle was and continues to be highly criticized for its lack of credibility for a number of reasons:

• The author of this Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that is so favorable to the Monsanto’s interests was one of Monsanto’s primary lawyers at the time.
• Monsanto is also known for stacking regulatory agencies like FDA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with their own personnel and hiring personnel from these agencies with very attractive compensation packages in what has come to be known as the “revolving door” process.
• Since these newly created organisms are genetically modified (i.e. their DNA significantly altered) they are not substantially equivalent.  These genetic modifications resulted in quantifiable differences in their metabolism, biochemistry, and chemical composition as indicated by several studies. 

    The problems with the substantial equivalence principal are well-documented, but it is still in effect decades after it was controversially introduced into regulation.  This approach to streamline the commercialization of GMOs appears to be politically driven rather than based on sound science and more focused on the profit objectives of the GMO producers than responsive to the well-being of the consuming public (“GMO Regulations in the US and the European Union”).

The substantial equivalence principle greatly simplified the commercialization of GMOs because any safety testing of the resulting organism once a substantial equivalence was established by the producer (something fairly easy to do), the producer had carte blanche to market the product with the option to safety test (or not).  Most chose not to test.  The end result is that large numbers of GMOs were developed and marketed without any safety testing.  So when GMO producers say their products are safe today, they generally don’t have any studies or data to attest to their product’s safety.  They only have the notion that decades ago a group of bias inclined biotech lawyers and scientist modified regulation to say what they have done is ok.

Curiously, the biotechnology companies were able to assume two seemingly opposite views of their GMO creation.  On the one hand, they claimed their GMO’s are substantial equivalent to their unmodified source organism that were modified to create them.  This shortcut enabled them to take advantage of the substantial equivalence principle so the GMOs can quickly be offered for sale without regulator obstruction.  On the other hand, they claimed their GMO’s are substantially different from these same unmodified organisms to support their applications for patent protection for these same GMO intellectual properties.  They were able to do both without even being questioned making it appear to some that the government organizations intended to be unbiased, fair, and in the public interest were actually rigged to favor the industry.

The Critical Failure of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was created to be a buffer between the general voting population and the selection of a President. The founding fathers wanted the government to be selected by the people, but they were afraid direct election to the Presidency might someday be a problem. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote about the role of the Electoral College in the Federalist Papers as follows:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers

The founders believed that the Electoral College would insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They feared that some one might be able to manipulate the citizen voters. They did not trust the population to make the right choice, and believed the Electoral College was less likely to be manipulated by foreign governments or charismatic con men.

In 2016, this stated mission for the Electoral College is called to task with the election of Donald Trump for the office of President.  The Trump campaign was based on an unprecedented collection of rancorous, dishonest, and even lascivious discourse that was considered by most to be disrespectful to the office of the Presidency.  In parallel with this unprecedented campaign rhetoric, a foreign government appears to have injected information stolen from private and personal communications networks into the electoral process that was favorable to the Trump campaign.

Trump's win is further clouded by fact that Trump did not actually win the popular vote.  He received approximately 2.5 million (i.e. ~2% of the total electorate) fewer votes than Clinton.  The irony here is that he won the Presidency by virtue of the other reason the Electoral College was created which was to give extra power in the Presidential election to the smaller (i.e. less populated) states.  His substantial loss in the popular vote was eclipsed by this intentional slant to a commanding lead in the Electoral College.

Even after his election victory, Trump has continued to show no aptitude for the office with a rogues gallery of Cabinet appointees, breaches of decades old protocol (e.g. contact with Taiwan President), and his continued childish use of the electronic communication tool, Twitter, to engage in casual banter with his supporters and more importantly his perceived enemies.  He appears to have not interest in intelligence briefs and fully intends to bully his way into and through his Presidency.

The time has come for the Electoral College to demonstrate its value by denying Trump the Presidency per the founding fathers original intention. When the Electoral College convenes on 19 December to make the election of the new President official, The members of this esteemed body need to man up and deliver this 'effectual security against this mischief' that Hamilton believed it should.

If the Electoral College fails in this mission, we the people should be taking actions immediately to completely eliminate the Electoral College from the election of the President.