What exactly is in the products we use?

This is a question I often ask myself. As you know, much of the food we eat is either genetically modified, sprayed with a myriad of pesticides, or subject to just plain questionable practices.

I was often told by many of my friends that the Monsanto corporation was the "Great Satan" of agribusiness, because of their unfair practices regarding their operations in developing nations, and their lawsuits over GMO's. According to one particularly incensed friend of mine, a farmer can grow his own crops and mind his own business, but if he is anywhere near a Monsanto grow operation his crops can be pollinated by GMO's. This, of course, results in Monsanto filing a lawsuit and essentially divesting the farmer of his land. Fair business, indeed.

But what really scares me about Monsanto is something I read on reddit after waking up this morning. A website called Chemical Industry Archives (the article I reference here: Dirty Secrets: Anniston in Depth) blows the lid off Monsanto's innocence claims that it had no idea of the horrible toxic effects that their products containing PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) had on the human body.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they are blatantly lying. The compilers of the website have found internal Monsanto memos dating back to the late 1930's that have been detailing the toxic effects PCB's have on organics. The company knew early on their chemical could cause "systemic toxic effects," "liver damage," and a condition known as chloracne. One would think that safety would be a prime concern in the production and application of these chemicals, but surprise surprise, it wasn't really. According to one memo posted on the website, "For a time the Aroclor operators had to bathe on leaving work and a change of work clothing was provided, but this practice was decontinued." These people are criminals for knowingly endangering the health of their workers. Why don't we see any prosecutions about these crimes?

Perhaps the most egregious and disgusting thing posted on this website was that the Navy ran its own toxicity tests on the a product marketed for hydraulics, and found it to be far "too toxic for use on its submarines." Monsanto's reply? "Since the interpretation of toxicity data is quite relative, our interpretation of facts and data would not be sufficient to change their opinions." Since when has toxicity to living beings "relative"? It scares the hell out of me knowing there are people who believe this statement. Does this mean their "interpretation" of the facts are mistruths designed to mislead the average consumer?

All of this begs the bigger question of what exactly is being put in the products we use? As consumers we enjoy warning labels and lists of ingredients in food products and such, but what does it mean when a company isn't as honest about its practices as we'd like it to be? Simple answer: Terrible things can happen. Just ask the workers with cloracne, liver problems, and even the few that died! (I encourage you to read the entire linked article).

There are plenty of examples of institutions that we trust flat out lying to us about things, and they pressure or silence scientists who try to blow the lid off questionable practices. Some prominent ones include: the Bush Administration pressuring scientists about climate change (MSNBC: Bush pressure seen on climate experts), Monsanto pressuring scientists to release more favorable conclusions (above article), the poultry industry in New Zealand hindering research on the use of antibiotics in chickens (Mike the Mad Biologist: Antibiotics and Poultry). The list goes on. Is it right that we are being endangered so that people are allowed to make more money?

Monsanto's questionable practices with PCB's draws one to ask questions about their genetically modified organisms, also known to some as a less endearing term "Frankenfood." If you have been alive in the last 15 years you have probably eaten a GMO. Many of these range from plants that emit pesticides to ward off insects, or food engineered to have more of a certain type of protein. And they're in almost everything we eat!

While much of the modern research says there are little to no risks associated with GM plants, others contend the opposite. Groups like True Food Network (truefoodnow.org) and the Organic Consumers Association (organicconsumers.org) claim that little to no research has been done on the long term effects of GM food. They cite the fact that most of the studies are done by the industry itself, or scientists affiliated with the industry, and thus cannot be trusted to be completely impartial. Does anyone see the connection with this? Monsanto downplayed the toxicity of its PCB's to their consumers in their studies, and now they state their own studies proclaiming genetically modified plants are perfectly safe for human consumption.

Perhaps we need to take a deeper look at what exactly is going on with these plants. As Monsanto has proven in the past, they can't be trusted to be completely honest with their findings. There are too many examples of interests not being completely honest about the effects of their products. Unfortunately for us, research on GM crops is highly restricted due to copyright laws. According to wikipedia, the Food and Drug Administration is sent the data compiled by the producer and then analyzes that. Why can't the FDA conduct their own tests?

But at this point it is anyone's game. Either side could be right. I just think that due to documented cases of companies lying about the effects of their products, more independent research is needed.

EDIT 8:55 PM: GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Just found this on reddit. Yep, independent research is explicitly forbidden on GMO seeds. Therefore, we don't know for sure whether these products have terrible long term effects on living organisms or the environment. All we know is what the corporations tell us. I feel so much safer!

Why are specialized interests in this country fighting to keep our broken health care system as is?

I've had it with all of the misinformation surrounding health care. I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means, but I sure as hell think I know a bit more about it than the average yokel in this country. As I see it, for-profit health insurance is something that can only make money when people are not sick. Thus, it stands to reason that as a for-profit business, it is within many of these companies' interest to cut these costs to maintain profitability. This is exactly what happens in this country.

The cost of health care has steadily risen over the past 8 years while care has not changed at all, or has actually decreased. So we are now paying more for much less. This definitely sounds like the situation the University of California is facing, where fees are rising and quality of education is decreasing! And to the insurance companies, this is exactly how it should be! I read Wendell Potter's testimony to the Senate recently--he is a former health insurance industry executive--and was extremely appalled at what I saw. Instead of their mission being to provide care for those who pay for their service, insurance companies instead sought to drop customers who they saw as a problem--ones with preexisting conditions, or ones who got a serious illness. People who paid for this service saw their rates rise to unaffordable prices, all so they would eventually leave the service, and thus stop filing claims. This results in more money for the insurance companies to line their pockets with.

The problem with our health insurance system in this country is that companies are more concerned with their medical-loss ratio, the money it pays out to clients, than with the overall health of their customers. This goes back to the profit motive. The interesting reason being that, according to Wendell Potter, these companies were concerned with their stock prices. Wall Street firms would lower their stock prices if they did not find a way to maintain their profitability by decreasing their medical loss ratio. Doesn't the fact that Wall Street bankers are essentially controlling the insurance firms through these bullshit incentives scare you at all?

Many people are not scared because they buy into the bullshit lies the insurance companies feed them through advertising. People are told that a public option would be tantamount to the government getting between them and their doctor. People are told that "socialized medicine" in other countries is a disaster and people end up waiting terribly long to get life saving procedures done. The problem with all of this is that it's misinformation! What the insurance companies won't tell you in their advertising is that in the current system the insurance companies get between you and your doctor. Anyone who has had health insurance before knows what I'm talking about. You can only go to certain hospitals, see certain doctors, or else they will not reimburse you at all. And it's somehow better this way? It's better that a private entity accountable to no one can say where you can and can't go for treatment than the government--a publicly accountable entity? This all goes back to the Reagan-era where people were led to believe that government is terrible and ineffective and shouldn't be trusted. Do you ever wonder why this thinking came about? The Reagan tax cuts were specifically designed to cripple the government's ability to do things, thus lending proof to the credo that many conservatives love to spout.

The whole idea that government is ineffective and unable to handle a public health care option is wrong. If this were true, then why is the system of France so effective? France has the widely acknowledged best health care system in the world. The overall cost to the government is $3300, whereas the US pays over $6400 per person for an even WORSE system. The French system, according to NPR (read: NPR: Health Care Lessons from France) is a combination of private and public insurance, much like the original plan that Obama wanted. Instead of this being a disaster, like the American insurance industry would like you to believe, the people of France are very happy with their health care system. And it certainly is not the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy like it is here. I am not saying that the French system is not without flaws--nothing is perfect--however, how is it possible that our system costs nearly double what theirs does and we get significantly less?

The fact is that our system is broken. Insurance companies are lobbying for more of the same, broken, bulky system that allows them to continue siphoning more and more of our incomes away from us. Whether or not the government plan will be effective, there needs to be SOME action taken. If the insurance companies get their way, you and I will continue paying exorbitant amounts for insurance that doesn't even cover everything. If by some miracle politicians actually listen to the people of this country, perhaps we will see some sort of option that is more affordable for everyone. The only people who are satisfied with how health care is are the people who can afford it--the wealthy. Don't get the idea that I'm some wealth-hating communist, but policy in this country seems to be geared toward pleasing the wealthy in this country rather than pleasing everyone else. Why is it that the top 1% in this country account for 1/3 of all pay in the nation? Why is it that these same people are the ones who loudly complain about "socialist" programs like public health care? Isn't it time that we looked at our own finances and began to question the reasoning behind the things we are told?

Call me an idealist, but I believe that in a first world country (forgive the cold war terminology), our government should be responsible for providing some services. That's not to say there is no room for private competition--indeed the private sector is the very essence of capitalism--but what we have now is not a truly free competitive market. Insurance companies are free to raise their fees as much as they please to line their own pockets, leaving millions of Americans unable to pay for the most basic care. Why don't we have an honest debate where we can create a system where private companies exist alongside the public option, so those who can afford it can go for whatever insurance they want, but allow those who cannot afford good health care a chance to receive good quality care. Social equality is one of the basic pillars this country was founded upon. Isn't it about time we brought equality to health care? And to those concerned about the overall cost: $1 trillion to health care over ten years is not okay, but bailing out financial firms to the tune of $1 trillion who knowingly got themselves into a gigantic mess and caused a global crisis within the course of a year is okay? Okay for whom--the people, or the bankers?

I leave you with something I saw on reddit.com recently. I contend both of us support public services. If you support a public police department, a public fire department and public education, then you will understand why I support a public health care option.