Richard’s Response:

Dear Mr. Hayes:

Thank you for contacting me regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns.

Proponents of GMOs argue that these products have the potential to increase the nutritional benefits of agricultural products while reducing the amount of environmentally harmful pesticides applied to the crop. Many farmers support the use of GMOs because they increase the per acreage yield for crops such as corn and soybeans and reduce the costs of farming by reducing the amount of pesticide used. Others are concerned about the increasing use of GMOs because of the possibility that they may pose a dangerous and unknown long-term threat to public health and the environment.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates foods and food ingredients developed by genetic engineering using the same rules it applies to other food products. As the number of genetically modified foods increases, additional steps may be warranted to ensure that these products are regulated properly.

I recently introduced the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. My bill would provide the FDA with the authority and resources the agency needs to prevent, detect, and respond to food-borne illness. The legislation also would require that all high-risk foods imported into the United States be certified as meeting U.S. food safety standards. These improvements will protect public health and increase consumer confidence in our food supply.

Food safety is a high priority and should include steps to address any uncertainties surrounding genetically modified foods. I will continue to support efforts designed to modernize our food safety system and ensure our foods meet the highest safety standards.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/th

From what Richard mentioned, I do not think he got the point of the letter I sent him. It appears as though he didn’t read what I wrote him, as he did not respond directly to any of my concerns. The response he did write suggest that Monsanto is in his pocket. Actually it not only sounds like it, I found PROOF that Richard J. Durbin has accepted financial contributions from Monsanto. Not as much as I would have expected, but still a conflict of interest if you ask me.

I like how Illinois corporations, including Monsanto, address my senator as “Honorable“, maybe I would get more attention if I did the same.

Fortunately, The Honorable Richard Durbin has introduced the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The supports of the bill included associates that Monsanto is not on, from the four I could check (Grocery Manufacturers Association, American Frozen Food Institute, United Fresh Produce Association [board, could not access all members], and National Fisheries Institute). BUT that bill is mostly about food recalls NOT GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Why create a new bill instead of support one that already exists (Kevin’s Law)?

Most of my concerns relate to Monsanto and its ties to the FDA. Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto Lawyer, is very involved in the FDA. Why is Obama continuing this conflict of interest?

Please see my post on The World According to Monsanto.

The problem with health costs is that the majority of consumers do not directly bare any of the financial burden of their health care.

Initially health insurance was designed to be used for HUGE, 1/100, expenses like getting hit by a car. But now it is used for EVERYTHING including Tylenol pills at the hospital. Since the consumer rarely sees the cost o their health care, nor do they pay for it, they have no reason to shop around or even care how much something costs. So hospitals can essentially charge whatever they want, and usually get a way with it. Patients can easily get charged $20 for generic Tylenol, or acetaminophen pill.

The consumer has no reason to think of or care how much something costs, because “they are not paying”. So you get to the point where not only do people make poor decisions on their health care, they make poor lifestyle decisions which impacts their health.

Example: smokers; when they get sick because of their cancerous habits, insurance will be paying more for the smoker’s health care than the smoker ever put into the system. Therefor, that extra money must be paid by other people, usually the “healthy” insurance company customers. So essentially, the healthy are subsidizing the habits of the sick.

These examples and thoughts prove the cost problems of single payer health care systems. Normally only socialized medicine or government run health care systems are thought of as “single payer” heal care systems. But the argument can be made that the current Unites States system is also a single payer system where the majority of the costs are payed by a minority of companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana, and even the Government.

In fact Medicare and Medicaid are both “socialized” or “single payer systems”. Many people support only “private” systems. Those same people will also frequently support Medicare for their retirement. I believe these people are hypocrites. You cannot say you only support private systems while also supporting medicare.

It is all just a mess right now. The ideal solution would be a combination of many things, but the consumer needs to take a larger role in their health care decisions. They need to take more of the financial responsibility so that their habits change.

Then there are people who abuse the system like going into the ER with a fever and no insurance. That is a very expensive visit to treat a fever. Most doctors wouldn’t accept that visit since the patient couldn’t pay, nore would CVS give out medication for the fever. But the ER is required to by law. I don’t know if the government covers that or the hospital eats the costs, but either way, the consumer (you and me) end up paying. Either from the hospital passing on higher prices to insurance companies which cause higher insurance premiums, or the GVT raises taxes.

Medicare Part D is also a huge problem. Seniors expect Medicare to pay for all their fancy drugs. Medicare was never intended to pay for drugs. In fact all these fancy drugs came on the market after the program started, actually, they started to come after Medicare Part D was passed in 2003. Why should I (the tax payer) be paying for their $100+ a day pills? I am not saying they should die, I am saying humans have a life span, with these drugs we are pushing that life span well beyond what it used to be.

The holly grail is the question “do we deserve health care or not”. We all die. Should a wealthy person get better care because they are wealthier? People argue they shouldn’t. But if they really want to argue that, than they also need to agree that the middle and lower class should be entitled to the same lavish housing and food that the higher class has come to enjoy. And they should agree that the taxpayers should pay for that. Food and shelter is just as needed for survival as health care, if not more.

Message:
Food safety is incredibly important to me and my family.

I am writing you to request your support of “Kevin’s Law” (Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act: H.R. 3160 [109th]).

I am also writing you to introduce/support legislation on increasing the quality and quantity on food labeling and safety.  I would like to see the following required labels on food, drink, and other ingestible products:

• City/State of
  • Origin
  • Processor
  • Packager
  • Distributor
• GMO Identification  (Genetically Modified Organism)
• Cloning Identification
• Livestock Feed Type (what did the cow/swine/chicken eat?)
  • Corn
  • ⁃Soy
  • Free range grass
• All involved companies in the supply chain
  • Seed manufacturer
  • Farmer
  • Processor
  • Slaughterer
  • Transporter
  • Contractor
  • Packager
  • Distributor
  • Retailer
  • Etc.
• All involved chemicals
  • Pesticides
  • Fertilizers
  • Antibiotics
  • Hormones

Most of these labels would not be inherently incriminating, but all are involved in a products safety, quality, and environmental impact.

If a manufacturer knows consumers will hesitate to buy something based on the labeling, that is all the more reason to require it.  Drug companies are required to list “bad” side effects of drugs.  And tobacco companies are required to print surgeon general warnings on their products.  People have not stopped buying those products.

Food manufacturers should not get a free pass just because of political connections.

Many corporations will say “we don’t want these labels on our products because consumers are not educated enough to know what they mean.”  I have three responses to that:

1. All of these labels would ADD to the consumer education.  I want to be educated on how my food is created, processed, stored, and transported.
2. As a consumer, if I do not understand something I educate my self about it.  If I  saw a label that said this food is from GMO crops, I would look up what GMO meant and read information on the pros and cons of GMOs.
3. If companies don’t think consumers are educated, nor will educate themselves, then it is the companies responsibility to educate the consumer.  That is what marketing budgets are for.  If they think Cloned animals are safe, they should tell us why.  A good example: the corn industry had a huge marketing campaign to increase the positive attitude towards corn syrup.

Please pass legislation to increase food safety and quality. Support H.R. 3160 [109th].  And introduce/support new legislation requiring better food labeling.  My safety and the environment is important to me, I hope they are important to you as well.

Thank you
Edward Hayes

Why is the administration saying, flat out, that they will not increase the gas tax?  It makes the most sense to me; the people who use the roads will pay for it. Trucks wear them down more; they pay more based on their lower fuel economy.  People with light cars pay less.  It makes complete sense.

It would also make sense that health care costs associated with smoking be paid from the cigarette taxes, but that is a whole other topic for another day.

The US Government has embarked upon a mission to convert all US TV broadcast from analog to digital. For more information on the history and details on the conversion go to Wikipedia or to the Government DTV site. Here is my analysis.

The DTV conversion is a very interesting occurrence that the government, broadcasters, media companies, and consumers are all handling incorrectly. The government is offering coupons for one time use obsolete technology, broadcasters are incorrectly educating consumers, media companies like Comcast are taking advantage of consumers to convince them to subscribe to their services, and consumers are not educating themselves about the transition to the extend they should.

First, the government is subsidizing obsolete technology. To allow consumers to use their old, outdated, obsolete technology, the government is providing $40 coupons for converter boxes to convert DTV signals into Analog signals. I would argue that the $40 coupons should also be applicable to digital TVs. The coupons would still be used for a solution to the transition when used for buying a DTV, but in this case buying a new TV would be a permanent solution and not a bandage. Providing coupons only for converter boxes is a waste of money and resources.

Does it make sense to engineer, produce, and transport devices that will only have one use: to convert DTV signals to an obsolete signal? When older TVs break, they will be replaced by newer TVs that accept DTV signals. That will make the converter box useless. Did mobile phone operators distribute digital to analog mobile phone converters? No! That would be stupid! Furthermore, the type of consumer that still has not bought a DTV would most likely have a difficult time integrating their converter box into their home entertainment setup. It would be much easier to buy a just the new TV and connect it to an antenna just like the previous TV was set up. A replacement TV would cost $200, $160 after coupon. Still a lot of money, but at least nothing is going to waste.

Broadcasters have only recently begun bombarding consumers with ads that DTV is coming, and Analog TV will not work in mid February. I believe it is too late to start this advertising blitz. Case in point, converter box coupons are all used up! You must now get on a waiting list in order to receive your coupon! Furthermore, many retailers have sold out of converter boxes! This goes back to my previous point, where the coupons should be applicable to any DTV device; a converter box or new TV set.

The method broadcasters are using to communicate the details of the transition are also very poor. TV ads are pointing consumers to DTVanswers.com and a phone hotline that is automated. Consumers that have not yet transitioned are most likely, of all demographics, not to be Internet savvy or have a connection to the internet. Second, the hotline is fully automated. So if a consumer has a question about the transition, there is no way to have their questions answered.

Media companies like Comcast and RCN Cable are also taking advantage of this situation to convince consumers to overpay for their services. Comcast is advertising thet if you pay for their services, you do not have to do anything. Which is true, however, their ads try to convince consumers they should be signing up for Comcast service rather than get a converter box or new DTV set.

RCN is taking a different rout. They are telling their CURRENT customers they are required to have a new cable box that they must RENT! That’s right, RCN is informing consumers that they need this box as part of the DTV transition, which is NOT THE TRUETH! The transition is only applicable to over-the-air programming. It is obvious that RCN is ripping off their customers since Comcast is advertising that there is no need to get a box. Unbelievable!

The misleading ads that these media companies are pushing prove that consumers will believe anything they see on TV. Unfortunately these messages conflict one another. What consumers need to do is RESEARCH! They need to ask friends and family that are familiar with the transition what is going on, and what they need to do. Everyone has a geek in their network; it could be a son, daughter, friend of the family, someone.

Trusting media companies, retailers, or broadcasters every word will not only cause confusion, it will lead to the consumer buying unneeded devices or services.

A funny thing that an industry writer (John C. Dvorak) has been harping on is that many consumers think they already have a digital TV tuner, when they in fact, do not. What they have is an analog tuner that displays the channel number on a digital looking display. Do you think your VCR is a digital tuner? It has a digital clock looking display right? WRONG!

February 17th is bound to be a disaster; I cannot wait to see all the confusion that occurs. We have the government and poorly educated media providers combining forces and misinforming and confuse the public.

One good thing a local broadcaster is doing is running an ad only on analog signals that will tell the consumer they are not prepared. Unfortunately it is a bit too late, as coupons have run out and converter boxes are all backordered.

The best solution would have had this analog only advertisement visible many months ago, consistently, 24/7, as a lower third or throbber/icon that informs the consumer how much longer they have till the analog signal vanishes. This would be simple, it would prove they HAVE NOT UPGREADED YET, and