Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Please allow me to introduce myself [View all]Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)44. Bio from Wikipedia:
He worked for the FDA before he worked for Monsanto; now back @ FDA. Revolving door guy. Pro-GMO, pro carcinogen.
We're so fucked.
He received a B.A. degree in political science from Davidson College and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1976, after passing the bar examination, Taylor became a staff attorney for the FDA, where he was executive assistant to the Commissioner.[1][2]
In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm, one client of which was the biotechnology company Monsanto,[3] where he established and led the firm's food and drug law practice.[1][2]
In 1988 he published an article entitled "The De Minimis Interpretation of the Delaney Clause: Legal and Policy Rationale "in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology (now called the International Journal of Toxicology), which he had previously presented in December 1986 at a symposium on Topics in Risk Analysis, sponsored by International Life Sciences Institute Risk Science Institute, Society for Risk Analysis, and Brookings Institution.[4] The paper was delivered and published during the midst of a debate and litigation over federal agencies' interpretation of the Delaney clause, a part of federal law written in 1958 that on its face, literally prohibits any chemical from being added, in any amount, to food that is processed, if that agent is carcinogenic. As analytical instrumentation increased in power and more and more agents were found to be carcinogenic at very low levels, the agencies had developed a quantitative risk assessment approach to interpreting the Delaney Clause, which stated that if a carcinogen was present at levels less than 1 in 1,000,000 parts, the risk of that carcinogen was "de minimis" and it could be allowed on the market.[5] In the article, Taylor presented arguments in favor of this approach. Advocates in favor of organic food have criticized Taylor for taking this stance and have attributed the stance not to a good faith effort to reasonably regulate, but to an alleged desire to benefit Monsanto financially.[6]
On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDAs 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid 1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation.[9] The policy had three tenets: "
1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of GM techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."[9]
In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm, one client of which was the biotechnology company Monsanto,[3] where he established and led the firm's food and drug law practice.[1][2]
In 1988 he published an article entitled "The De Minimis Interpretation of the Delaney Clause: Legal and Policy Rationale "in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology (now called the International Journal of Toxicology), which he had previously presented in December 1986 at a symposium on Topics in Risk Analysis, sponsored by International Life Sciences Institute Risk Science Institute, Society for Risk Analysis, and Brookings Institution.[4] The paper was delivered and published during the midst of a debate and litigation over federal agencies' interpretation of the Delaney clause, a part of federal law written in 1958 that on its face, literally prohibits any chemical from being added, in any amount, to food that is processed, if that agent is carcinogenic. As analytical instrumentation increased in power and more and more agents were found to be carcinogenic at very low levels, the agencies had developed a quantitative risk assessment approach to interpreting the Delaney Clause, which stated that if a carcinogen was present at levels less than 1 in 1,000,000 parts, the risk of that carcinogen was "de minimis" and it could be allowed on the market.[5] In the article, Taylor presented arguments in favor of this approach. Advocates in favor of organic food have criticized Taylor for taking this stance and have attributed the stance not to a good faith effort to reasonably regulate, but to an alleged desire to benefit Monsanto financially.[6]
On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDAs 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid 1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation.[9] The policy had three tenets: "
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
158 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I want to know why all these foxes are being asked to guard the hen houses? n/t
woodsprite
Feb 2013
#6
It's something about "keeping your enemies close," or so we've been frequently told.
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#30
We were told it was Obama. But then it appears that he doesn't even have the power to close Gitmo.
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#71
They are there to insure that corporate interests and control are protected and promoted.
Zorra
Feb 2013
#102
Why defending Taylor's appointment by referring to the non-profits unless that was your implication?
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#72
It's better than that. He has recused himself in the past from decisions involving Monsanto
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#18
You're correct. Note the seed planted by the insert of a sneering Obama with a bow-tie in the pic.
freshwest
Feb 2013
#41
Don't confuse people with complexities: all thinking must be black/white and hero/villain
alcibiades_mystery
Feb 2013
#24
Knee-jerk thinking won't work otherwise. Subliminals don't allow for reflection, either.
freshwest
Feb 2013
#43
Working for a "non-profit" only means that he worked for a corp that does not have stockholders.
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#28
Actually, what I wrote was "If you are implying that he held a non-profit intent and only worked for
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#40
You implied exactly what was said above. That's the reason why you took the energy to
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#52
Some attorneys are not evil, but it is reasonable for some people to believe that an attorney who
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#121
I agree. And that's how I know he's done it many, many times - in both terms. n/t
Dawgs
Feb 2013
#60
And there it is. The desperate end to which all such arguments inevitably go. nt
woo me with science
Feb 2013
#142
Obviously, your response at #152 was a "weak comeback!" That's not news.
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#156
Progressives? When his former chief of staff referred to liberals as being "fucking retarded,"
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#31
But, but, dont you see? That was before Pres Obama appointed him. Now he is an angel. Just look
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#58
No, no, no. The revolving door is only bad when it's "them" going through it.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#61
I support Obama in general and on things he's clearly doing the right thing on...
MessiahRp
Feb 2013
#136
He pushed for the law to permit higher levels of carcinogens in food.
Jackpine Radical
Feb 2013
#120
On a positive note, at least Jesse Jackson, Jr. wasn't appointed to the post.
AnotherMcIntosh
Feb 2013
#54
Prove you're not a murderer, Michael, BRING BACK THE FAMILY FARM. I'm sure you know how
patrice
Feb 2013
#53
Relations? They're in the EWG Agricultural Subsidy database, linked below, several times over about
patrice
Feb 2013
#90
I'm glad you asked. I have seen you around and wondered. There are right wingers in my
patrice
Feb 2013
#106