Maui GMO Legal Analysis
Dr. Horowitz’s Opinion on the Temporary Defeat of the Maui GMO Legal Battle
My name is Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz. I live on the Big Island and am a big fan of Margaret Wille and activists’ efforts to block the poisonous injustice advancing in the name of “science” and genetics.
The ruling in this Maui GMO legal case, in my opinion, provides the leverage needed to gain our momentum and moratoriums. But we need to exclusively tailor our ordinance(s) to comply with C.F.R. § 340.0.
Here is my legal and scientific argument, from federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway‘s relevant quotes:
“The regulations implementing the Plant Protection Act prohibit persons from introducing any regulated article unless 567(1) the Administrator receives notification as required by 78 C.F.R. § 340.3, that the introduction is permitted in accordance with 7 C.F.R. § 340.4, or is conditionally exempt; and (2) the introduction of the regulated article conforms with all other requirements of part 340. 7 C.F.R. § 340.0. . . .”
“The ban on GE organisms, some of which are plant pests, causes the Ordinance to run afoul of the Plant Protection Act’s purpose of setting a national standard governing the movement of plant pests and noxious weeds in interstate commerce based on sound science. See 7 U.S.C. § 7701. . . .” at page 37. . . .
“Excluded are recipient microorganisms which are not plant pests and which have resulted from the addition of genetic material from a donor organism where the material is well characterized and contains only non-coding regulatory regions. . . .” 7 C.F.R. § 340.1
Material Facts in Dispute:
1) The use of the term, “sound science,” what is that? Any reasonable person would consider this an ambiguous term by reason of conflicting interests, procedural biases, and even scientific fraud and evidence tampering. (There are many examples in the world of Monsanto and its parent corporation Pfizer to assert this position.)
2) “Well characterized” . . . What is the definition of “well characterized?” You do not need to look deep into the scientific literature to realize the weakness here.
Wikipedia, “The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding, while 20% of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function for the organism, as theoretically predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has often been referred to as “junk DNA”, a term that has elicited strong responses over the years.”
In other words, let’s take 98% of you to the dump as “junk”–God made a huge mistake with creating the human species. Otherwise, atheists have the impossible task of explaining why “evolution of the species” and “survival of the fittest” has, over millennia, formed you 98% defective (or otherwise genetically moot).
“Strong responses” characterize this matter before the public and the courts, and for good neglected causes. . . .
Neglecting religious considerations for the moment (at a time in history wherein the “Gods of science” have a clear and convincing agenda to disparage all the world’s religions, including the Ten Commandments that substantively form the foundation of Western Law). In fact, the “non-coding” portions of the DNA play a large vital role in biological function, “cellular up-regulation” that is mediated by light and sound signaling, intercellular communications, clearly impacting the entire organism–tissues, organs, growth and development.
3) who is the “Administrator” in 567(1) that shall govern this pivotal decision? The Administrator must decide on ” the introduction of the regulated article” and see to it that it conforms with all other requirements of part 340. 7 C.F.R. § 340.0, and is a “plant pest” –meaning (pursuant to 7 U.S.C § 7702(14)):
“any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: ( A) A protozoan. (B) A nonhuman animal. (C) A parasitic plant. (D) A bacterium. (E) A fungus. (F) A virus or viroid. (G) An infectious agent or other pathogen. (H) Any article similar to or allied with any of the articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs.”
Now we look at available statutory “Exceptions” (quoting the Mollway decision):
(A) Regulations consistent with Federal regulations. . . . A State or a political subdivision of a State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or plant products that are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or orders issued by the Secretary. (B) Special need A State or political subdivision of a State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds that are in addition to the prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the Secretary, if the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.”
Thus, as I read this, the Secretary plays a pivotal role as an Administrator governing GMO commerce and scientific decisions that certainly pose risks, sail uncharted waters, and deprive people of their religious rights. Example, Gov. Jerry Brown (who actor Jim Carey just correctly called “fascist”) just signed into Law California’s unconstitutional mandatory vaccination bill; injecting GMOs into school children’s bloodstreams in violation of Leviticus 19:19. Does the Administrator find this First Amendment violation and medical malpractice kosher?
This genocide, after all, is acknowledged to be based on the “old theory” of “junk DNA?”
Assuming the Administrator is unbiased, and finds this “standard of care” in the world of science acceptable, does the Administrator’s decision comply with statute that demands “sound scientific data?” What about the required thorough “risk assessment” compelling an exclusion on behalf of citizens who have voted to assert their rights to life, including religious freedom in “One Nation Under God.”
Hawaii voters have demanded to be protected by their governments from known and unknown risks, posed by historically untrustworthy multinational chemical and pharmaceutical companies that have demonstrated a pattern of destroying species and environments. (And was it not the “God’s of science” that loosed the diurnal mongoose in Hawaii to seek and destroy nocturnal rodents . . . . Daahhh?)
The Administrator has not, and cannot demonstrate, long term risk assessment, nor “sound scientific data” on all the biological systems impacted by altered genetic functions from coding or non-coding regions of the genome.
Thus, therein lies the strength of activism, and I think these are matters for the Supreme Court to decide.
I conclude that our county ordinances simply need to be refined to comport with federal statutes that gives our counties the “exceptions” we need to lawfully enforce GMO moratorium(s).
Not only does the emperor have no clothes to dress in the world of science, but the First Amendment secures religious freedom as the Gods of GMO politics celebrate a limited temporary Oki Mollway victory.