RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "Ever since the largest offshore oil spill in history spewed into the Gulf of Mexico last year, independent public health experts have questioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to effectively protect Americans from consuming contaminated seafood. Now a recent study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood 'safe levels' allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe."

Gulf Coast shrimp moves along a production line at Lafitte Frozen Seafood Corporation. During a tour of the plant, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said it was important for consumers to know that Gulf Coast shrimp is safe to eat and that testing has not shown any adverse effects caused by the massive oil spill brought on by the Deepwater Horizon disaster, August 15, 2010. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images North America)
Gulf Coast shrimp moves along a production line at Lafitte Frozen Seafood Corporation. During a tour of the plant, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said it was important for consumers to know that Gulf Coast shrimp is safe to eat and that testing has not shown any adverse effects caused by the massive oil spill brought on by the Deepwater Horizon disaster, August 15, 2010. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images North America)





FDA OK's High Levels of Dangerous Carcinogens in Seafood

By Brad Jacobson, Alternet

20 December 11

ver since the largest offshore oil spill in history spewed into the Gulf of Mexico last year, independent public health experts have questioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to effectively protect Americans from consuming contaminated seafood.

Now a recent study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood "safe levels" allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe. The overarching issue the report addresses is the failure of the FDA's risk assessment to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, such as young children, pregnant women and high-consumption seafood eaters.

In an effort to pinpoint how the FDA decided to set its acceptable levels for PAH contaminants in Gulf seafood, researchers at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which performed the study - published in the leading peer-reviewed environmental health journal Environmental Health Perspectives- also scoured documents wrested from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act.

These include internal emails and unreleased assessments that suggest the FDA not only downplayed the risk of contamination but also that the EPA, and even members of FDA staff, had proposed higher levels of contamination protection, which in the end were ignored.

In vehemently denying the NRDC study's findings, the FDA argues that its chemical risk assessments are inherently biased "on the side of safety" and that setting higher protective health measures for PAHs in Gulf seafood would actually "do more harm than good."

Robert Dickey, director of the FDA's Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, who's taken the lead for the agency in responding to the NRDC report, elaborated in an email to AlterNet, "Overly conservative estimates would lead you [to] remove a great deal of food from our refrigerators and pantries than is needed."

In an interview with AlterNet, the study's lead researcher, NRDC staff scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, said that such a response from the FDA "begs the question of whether or not it was a political versus a scientific decision" because the agency "does not provide scientific evidence" for the claim that being more health protective somehow carries an increased risk of doing harm.

She added, "PAHs in food have been evaluated and standards set in the European Union without jeopardizing anyone's nutrition."

AlterNet confirmed that the FDA indeed has provided no scientific evidence to back up this claim in either its formal response to the NRDC report or in addressing AlterNet's questions.

More broadly, the FDA declined to directly explain the email correspondence the study's researchers obtained in the FOIA request. They reveal that the Environmental Protection Agency, and even members of the FDA's own staff, questioned the FDA's seafood safety risk assessment criteria for protecting the most vulnerable populations, particularly Gulf residents.

Other documents received via the FOIA request show that the FDA considered multiple other potential calculations and criteria where more health protective risk assessments were considered but never followed.

Asked if these documents, along with the NRDC study's findings, belie the FDA's chief claim that their risk assessments are biased "on the side of safety," Dickey responded, "The seafood safety risk assessment was developed in extensive and open collaboration between FDA, EPA, CDC, NOAA, and public health experts and toxicologists from all five Gulf states impacted by the oil spill."

He added, "During that process many factors and calculations were considered before the final version was agreed on by all participants."

Dickey also claims that the FDA has "built into our assessments, a more than 100-fold safety factor that gives us confidence that sensitive populations are protected."

Yet Rotkin-Ellman countered that this conclusion is based on "outdated science" in which FDA calculations relied on the average lifetime weight of a 176-pound person.

"FDA continues to ignore the best scientific evidence on early-life vulnerability to chemical contaminants, which has shown that it is not sufficient to rely on life-time assessments," she said.

"The National Academy of Sciences and EPA guidelines emphasize that additional steps must be taken to specifically assess early-life stages," Rotkin-Ellman continued, "which includes calculating exposure based on age-specific bodyweights and adjusting to account for increased susceptibility."

The NRDC study found, for example, that the risk of cancer associated with eating Gulf shellfish contaminated at levels the FDA has deemed safe could be as high as 20,000 in a million. In other words, if 1,000 pregnant women consumed Gulf seafood at these levels, 20 of the children they give birth to would be at significant risk of cancer from the contamination.

The report also concluded that based on available testing data on PAH levels in shellfish after the spill, up to 53 percent of the shrimp tested had PAH levels exceeding the NRDC researchers' revised levels of concern for pregnant women who are high consumers of Gulf shellfish.

In the interview with Rotkin-Ellman, she highlighted many other central weaknesses in the FDA's protective criteria for PAHs in Gulf seafood about which she and her NRDC study co-author and UCSF clinical professor of health sciences, Gina Solomon, have long been concerned. These include underestimating the amount of seafood Gulf residents consume, ignoring cancer risk from naphthalene contamination (one of the most prevalent PAHs in petroleum) and projecting the contamination will only last five years.

Another key finding the NRDC report confirmed is that the FDA has no set levels of acceptable PAHs in seafood, but rather creates them on a case-by-case basis after each oil spill.

For example, the FDA made PAH "safe levels" less stringent after the BP oil spill than they had been following the Exxon-Valdez spill.

Asked to explain this practice, Dickey replied, "Each oil spill can involve different kinds of crude oils or refined oil products in different types of environments, so the responses are different to account for the physical environment and the compounds of concern that must be tested for."

He added, "Also, over time scientific knowledge of the toxicity of the many hundreds to thousands of compounds in oil and refined oil products increases, which directly affects the analysis of risks involved."

But Rotkin-Ellman noted his answer simply evades the underlying question.

"There are core PAHs of public health concern that are present in most petroleum products that FDA could set standards for regardless of the specifics of an oil spill," she said. "If analyses prove that those PAHs are not present in the next oil spill then those standards will not be applicable."

But this variability, she went on to say, does not preclude FDA from evaluating health threats from PAHs now.

"The ad-hoc risk assessment performed by FDA without public or outside expert review," Rotkin-Ellman added, "have jeopardized FDA's credibility and they have lost public confidence."

Currently, the FDA has no plans to begin setting standard levels of concern for PAHs in U.S. seafood, as Europe does to protect its citizens. The NRDC recently filed a petition with the FDA to change this practice but has yet to receive a response.

Gulf seafood continues to be tested on a limited basis. On the FDA's Web site, the agency contends that seafood from the Gulf "is as safe to eat as it was before the oil spill."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+65 # Sean de Waal 2010-12-20 19:53
Outraged? But what would you DO? Citizens are outraged all the time but the politicians and conglomerates understand how easily the masses simply slide back into apathy.

Actions speak louder...and all of that
 
 
+20 # jlthome 2010-12-21 07:12
When agencies propose new regulations it is up to the interested parties (citizens) to "comment" on the regs. This is the level of government most open to citizens for making their wishes known. Sen. Franken is alerting you to pay attention to the FCC actions and to make your wishes known, either pro or con, as "public comment". It is not a legislative issue up for vote. It is up to citizens to contact the agency and state their position. Corporations with their vested interest will make their position known to the FCC during the "comment period". Individuals or, organizations supporting individual's position need to also make their position known. I believe that's how the rule making power works.
 
 
+26 # RCWalters 2010-12-21 07:44
Bravo. Outraged frustration has become the norm for many of us, me included, but doing somethin about it, or at least finding out HOW to do something is what is the necessary step toward correcting abuses.
 
 
+24 # Louise Glynn Barr 2010-12-21 14:24
I am 80 years old and haven't enough money to donate to anything , . . .but I am indeed outraged to see my beloved country slipping steadily into the hands of uncaring rich people and idiotic "toadies. My grandparents came from France. I keep thinking of the French Revolution against the excesses of the "aristocrats" in the face of the sufferings of the poor!
 
 
+8 # Bill Murray 2010-12-23 06:54
If things continue as they have been heading there may be revolt and justifiably so.
 
 
-1 # Jack Schlatter 2010-12-30 19:20
You seem to have forgotten that the French Revolution led to the Time of Terror...This is just another attempt by the Left to CONTROL...about giving dissenting views held by captive union members a voice...
 
 
+9 # genierae 2010-12-22 12:33
Employed at a job where the workload increased regularly, while the wages stayed pretty much the same, I was outraged. We had regular meetings where we vented our anger, and everyone thought they had accomplished something. Sure. Once every couple of months we were "allowed" to vent, while nothing whatsoever changed for the better. That is exactly what is happening now in our government. Our input is welcomed, then the powers that be do whatever they choose, without any thought for what we the people want. What a con! The American people are irrelevant to their own government. Whether its led by Dems or Repubs, and no matter what our majority says in the polls, we get ignored. I see no solution to this.
 
 
+1 # carioca 2010-12-26 02:44
If you advocate anything stronger than mere online petitions, internet banter, and email campaigns, well then, you could be charged with treason.

They'll try throwing the treason book at anyone, even non-Americans.
 
 
+42 # JUDY WAGNER 2010-12-20 21:35
THANX AL.
NET NEUTRALITY IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. THEY TAKE OVER ONE STEP AT A TIME, CHIPPING AWAY AT OUR FREEDOMS. PLEASE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
 
 
+20 # Esam Nader 2010-12-21 00:32
Whatgood works?1 Talk, talk, Talk... Where is the action! Where is Congressional oversight!!!!
 
 
+46 # Mar�a Eugenia S�ez 2010-12-20 22:43
Please generate a letter we can sign in support of your proposal
 
 
+22 # Lee Black 2010-12-21 08:05
Petition not needed - this site gives you an address for writing to the chairman or members:

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
 
 
+8 # bg 2010-12-21 12:50
Your right Lee. I just sent an e-mail to the chairman. We should all do it! For what it is worth. Let our voices be heard.
 
 
+9 # Hors-D-whores 2010-12-21 15:50
Thank you Lee, I just wrote to the chairman. Maybe we should send this article to our friends, and give them the link to write as well.

Al Franken has certainly turned out to be a very good Senator.
Love him.
 
 
+17 # HAL 2010-12-20 23:04
Hey, the internet is a great system as we all know, so why shouldn't the greedy corporations make a run at controlling it? They have done likewise with tv broadcasting and radio and so much print material. Now, like sharks, they are circling a new tidbit to eat! This is a new test of whether congress represents us, or these corporate greedheads. So now is the time to make some bets on who will come out ahead! With regrets, I'm betting on the fat cats.
 
 
+21 # kmcfadden@yahoo.com 2010-12-20 23:55
so what is happening to free speech and access to information. Is it another thing tossed to the dollar sign. Forget the Truth.
 
 
+38 # C.P. 2010-12-20 23:55
Apparently, Mr. Obama had no idea that his appointee had this plan in mind. The obvious solution is to remove the appointee ASAP.
 
 
+16 # Esam Nader 2010-12-21 00:27
Obama has been a disaster. The wars are continued and expanded, policies initiated under Bush is continuing, Health care so called reform is a sham, He sold us out!
 
 
+20 # Cabbagehead 2010-12-21 00:12
Al Franken, good to hear from you again. Have not seen a single Internet item with your name since you were elected. Am I living in a different world, or have you been boycotted by even the liberal media? Al, there are few Dems who give us any hope. Press on.
 
 
+17 # Mark S. Dymally 2010-12-21 00:19
This is really dangerous stuff here. I certainly do not want COMCAST or any of their competitors controlling access to free commumication on the "net" or in any other form--dangerous , dangerous stuff!! I really don't want COMCAST controlling anything they're a horrible company that needs tight regulation. NO COMCAST!!
 
 
+17 # John Spence 2010-12-21 00:19
So ... what can we do? Most of us have given up on the standard. Write all the letters you want. Appeal to your congressman or -woman. Nobody is listening or perhaps the cacophony is so great that nobody can hear any message so they do what they damn well please, driven by what seems best (for them). Go get 'em, Al ... if you can. If you need help, tell us how to be effective in a society that can simply black out the Hedges et al war protest a few days ago. Nobody who matters is listening. I hope you don't tire of the game.
 
 
+14 # Mark S. Dymally 2010-12-21 00:26
I certainly do not want COMCAST to have any more control over the communications network than they now have. They, COMCAST are a horrible, mercenary company and have no business intruding over or on the internet. This is wrong, wrong and more wrong!
 
 
+6 # Regina 2010-12-22 00:12
And they're about to acquire NBC. Isn't that a jolly prospect!
 
 
+14 # cordleycoit 2010-12-21 00:53
This is it the big boys going to attempt to walk over us while Obama plays lap dog to big big money. Nothing new there. It's all a control issue. We have the best government money can buy. The Internet will soon look like network television if these guys get to buy their way with our rights.
 
 
+16 # giraffe 2010-12-21 01:08
Don't ask the United States Supreme Court RULE on this issue -- they will give more of our liberty to the BIG corporations - just as they have handed our elections to BIG (maybe even foreign) corporations.

They screw with my "internet" access and I'll start (join) the march on wherever it goes -- screaming with the crow (led by Al and Jon Stewart etc) -- ENOUGH --

Actually -- I think the biggest corruption in our governing persons are the RIGHT side of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT --- (DON'T FORGET THEY PUT "W" IN THE W.H. IN 2000)
 
 
+8 # tomas Belsky 2010-12-21 03:47
what if the pres knew where whatshisnamesky
stood on the issue?? Make a big noise Senator, someone has got to tell it like it is. the people will take it from there. this is a war where nerds are the heavy artillery. Corporate capitalism is killing us and not so slowly.
 
 
+11 # tomas belsky 2010-12-21 03:59
This is a very intelligent pres, and to think he did not know where whateverhisname sky stood on such an important issue is naive and unbelievable.
Make a big noise Senator, a very big noise.
the people will take it from there. the battle is for the frontline nerds. Our national heroes. Corporate capitalism is killing us and not so softly as the song suggests.
 
 
+10 # Steven Boyer 2010-12-21 06:14
We the people have one enormously powerful tool - as boring as it sounds it is the boycott. We have the ability to bring offending corporations to their knees simply by exercising basic rules of economics. It would not be painless for us as individuals but the message to corporations would be priceless.
 
 
+9 # oracorf 2010-12-21 06:34
One way to fight is by flooding the FCC and the White House with e-mails
 
 
+15 # eldoryder 2010-12-21 06:36
I'm still convinced that the massive bandwidth giveaway to Corporations in the Communications Act of 1996 should result in the Corporations having to "pay back" some of the BILLIONS of dollars worth of OUR property in the form of FREE TV TIME for qualified candidates as part of a whole "Clean Elections" strategy.

If they get their foot in the door through this latest mechanism, then they'll be NO stopping future thievery, and NO chance that we can ever see CLEAN ELECTION properties return the political process back to the PEOPLE and not the CORPORATIONS.
 
 
+12 # Wolfchen 2010-12-21 09:12
Without public financing and free media time for political elections, we'll never have citizen control of our government. We are increasingly under the control of Corporatism (Mussolini's term for Fascism). Further, we'll never have a Supreme Court tamper proof form of public financing of elections without a strong majority of the electorate demanding an enabling constitutional amendment to this end.
 
 
+6 # SOF 2010-12-21 14:56
Agree. Media made $$$$ from elections without any factcheck or equal time.... Debates are Stupid and Unfair since election commission took over from League of Women Voters.
Many places still have Diebolt voting machines with no paper trail and easily hacked. Perhaps the WikiLeaks fallout will convince people of potential to hack our votes. I believe they did/do.
The Clean Election system is also under fire -even from McCain! Media outlets and unscrupulous lobbyists and congresspeople are invested in VERY expensive elections that can be bought by big money.
Corporate media is a huge problem. Progressives know about the spin and omiission of news. Republicans WILL try to defund Public Media. Reagan to Bush people tried to subvert it. It is the ONLY non-corporate News (with investigative and foreign journalists) respected and nonnpartisan, that is readily available (unless you're rural where PBS is bundled with the egghead, science, weather channels or there's no reception with our new-fangled digital scam system) This Supreme Ct decision is ruinous -corporate news manipulation, the end of PBS and net neutrality will finish off our frail democracy.
 
 
+9 # greg 2010-12-21 06:57
We've been had in every other imaginable way, I'm sure we'll be had this way also. Anyone who thinks that the government represents the people have been asleep for a long time. The will and needs of the People have been ignored for a long time. "Taxation without representation is Tyranny!". That's where we are
 
 
+12 # The Saint 2010-12-21 07:01
Vandana Shiva rightly points out how corporations "enclose the commons" whether seeds, water, air, land. Now they want to privatize the Internet commons. There should be no surprise at this--or at the lackey "regulators" who serve them.(Think of Banks) They must be opposed by all of us but especially political figures like Franken and Sanders. Wish Obama would step up.
 
 
+4 # Jawbone Grouch 2010-12-21 07:02
C.P.
I wouldn't be to sure about that!
The President is obviously a detail man and no detail is lightly considered; at least from past history of two years.

But then, I could be wrong.
 
 
+12 # Wolfchen 2010-12-21 08:06
 
 
+3 # tomo 2010-12-23 20:43
Wolfchen--I agree with the whole comment you've put here--except for the word "snookered." I don't think Obama is being snookered on anything. I listened to him both in 2004 and then extensively throughout 2008. The guy's intelligent. I endorse rather the imputation of your "comes as no surprise." Obama has not been snookered; the pattern is too systematic for that to be the case. WE have been snookered. Obama has carried off the smoothest bait-and-switch trick I have ever seen.
 
 
+4 # propsguy 2010-12-21 08:39
frankly, i think our government's attempt to prosecute julian assange and bradley manning is the most important freedom of speech issue of our time but it seems everything is a crisis these days
 
 
+7 # Colin Cote 2010-12-21 08:58
"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"...Thoma s Jefferson. Time to water the plants!
 
 
+7 # skylark 2010-12-21 09:07
Cripes Al,give us a lead! Like tel.nos to call. Get a petition started. If this info is available, someone please re-submit.
 
 
+7 # lee nason 2010-12-21 09:29
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If Comcast, a company I despise, presents information unfairly, competitors will win their customers and they will go bankrupt, but, oh, I forgot, the competitors can't do that because Markey gave them a "regulated" monopoly.

I am already obliged to purchase services from Comcast precisely because of regulatory rules. Get rid of those government sponsored monopolies first and let's see how many of us move to smaller, nimbler, most cost effective, and perhaps more fair alternatives.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+5 # Robert Griffin 2010-12-21 14:31
It warn't broke, but some companies were fixin' to break it.
I do agree about getting rid of government sponsored monopolies.
 
 
+11 # Gussie 2010-12-21 09:51
For those who protest they do not protest
because they fo not know how: pick up a
Black Wide Sharpie, apply your words of
protest to a t-shirt. sash, scarf, sweatshirt,
banner, pennant, balloon -- wear, hang, wave,
carry, tie on car or dog -- in public where
many people are gathered like malls, grocery
stores, churches, football games.
It's fun, some people join you and many give you
a hands up, if you gather more than ten
people phone your local tv stations and they
will bring cameras.
How can anyone call themselves a citizen
without getting out of your home or room or tent
and expressing your thoughts publically?
Nothing less has ever worked to change
anything for the better.
 
 
+9 # Gere 2010-12-21 10:01
Senator Franklin please write a petition for all of us to sign. We were not effective stopping the repeal of Glass-Steagall before our government allowed financial institutions to fly our country into the ground. That pain might just be comparable to the pain we feel when RSN and free Internet speech is blocked.
 
 
+9 # DLC 2010-12-21 10:39
It seems like I've been outraged since Obama was elected. Outrage didn't stop the wars, or dismantling oversight in every aspect of our country from mining to drugs and food to financial institutions. Congress just opened the door to closing down Social Security. I'm tired of outrage. I want action, or it doesn't matter who's elected - in any party.
 
 
+12 # Sally 2010-12-21 11:44
Wouldn't you like to have more power than an email to a deaf/blind congressman?
People who "take to the streets" are arrested and branded as irrational radicals.
Please, Lord, let the people's rights prevail. This senior, with a broken back (literally) desires peace, yet, is ready to rebell those who have sold us out to corporate interests.
 
 
-15 # Alexis Marsters 2010-12-21 15:16
I am literally "sick" of these so-called politicians who claim to be representing the American people. They do NOT represent what the will of the people is!! Listen to Glenn Beck sometime and find out just what's happening in our country!! It'll make your blood boil! Our Constitution is the law of the land, but the progressives in Washington want to get rid of it to further their agenda. Look out America; the internet is just the beginning of a Goliath yet to come! I absolutely oppose this draft bill!!!
 
 
-4 # Curlylocks 2010-12-22 09:59
What's with the -5?? Don't you agree that this country is going down the tubes??
 
 
+8 # ultimus gimp 2010-12-22 12:38
yes and glenn beck is one of the corporate shills helping it along
 
 
+2 # Suzy 2010-12-25 10:05
Sorry Alexis but Glenn Beck is just another Sleaze bag out there convincing folks of all sorts of nutty theories. The only place to get neutral opinions (in my mind anyways) is NPR (of course Mr Beck thinks it's a leftist organization, of course he does, he is the definition of a Paranoid). I wouldn't believe one work that idiot says with out checking it out at snopes!

Besides he is probably all for the take over of large corporations, where do you think his grossly over the top salary comes from. Please inform your self! He is a carnival barker.
 
 
+5 # robhood 2010-12-21 15:27
They did it, and they did it with Obama's blessing! FCC has announced its new rules creating a 2-tiered, subjectively censored internet. This could well be the beginning of the end of unfettered mass-communicat ion by "we the people". We need to fight this thing now, before it is too late. If anyone has ideas, i'd like to help. I've "tweeted" it, facebooked it, and i've called family and friends, written my political reps and the editor of my local paper.
 
 
+7 # Wolfchen 2010-12-21 16:52
 
 
+5 # Hors-D-whores 2010-12-21 17:47
Nice of you to look at the bright side, and I hope that is true, but often when bills are passed, a lot of damage is done before it is changed, (such as DADT) before it is correct.
On the rest of your comment, well said. We are certainly seeing the nuttier side of people, thanks for the lack of proper journalism being done by most "news" organizations, at least those that most people watch.
 
 
+6 # Wolfchen 2010-12-21 18:41
Point well taken...much damage through thoughtless entrenchment is often the child of bills ill conceived.
Even so, this partial victory may be worth the chance-taking. Eventually wireless broadband speeds will be greatly increased, whereby limitations on downloads may not be significant impediments to a free internet via wireless delivery. Also n more open wired internet will partially serve to limit unacceptable limitations on the wired version.

Another reference to ill conceive bills is the current health bill that was recently passed. It shamefully locks in increased business for the insurance industry. Real universal health care reform would have taken on the features of a Universal Health Care-Single Payer system that eliminates insurance companies from the equation. Such a single payer plan would be much more economical as well as being truly universal in coverage. Perhaps a state like California will have to show the way for such reform. It would have such a system already in place if the legislation had not been vetoed by Schwarzenegger, who will be replaced by Governor Brown in January, 2011.
 
 
-11 # Curlylocks 2010-12-22 10:03
It would seem that the health care bill is only another way for government to take over yet another institution they can bankrupt like the post office, social security, the COUNTRY??!!!! And just because you don't want to hear the truth, does not make Glenn Beck someone who is here to bury compassion and sanity!!
 
 
+9 # genierae 2010-12-23 07:57
Curlylocks: Right-wing ignorance is a thick husk that insulates you from reality. You need to watch Maddow, Schultz, and Olbermann for a month or so, they will tell you the truth. A constant diet of Beck propaganda will eat away your brain. Wake up!
 
 
+2 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-24 02:41
Curlylocks...wh at a load of crock. I won't even try to persuade you to the truth. I'll just say it and you can take it any way you want. The health care bill is a corporate gift that Obama has bestowed. Any health insurer not in a position to be making a killing off of it is fundamentally incompetent and should be allowed to go out of business without a doubt. The new health care bill does not save the consumer one dime. With this bill the insurance industry, WHICH SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS ONCE AND FOR ALL, will thrive. The post office doesn't cost me nearly as much as private mail and delivery service does...not even close. Maybe the problem with the post office is that they aren't charging enough. Social Security isn't even close to going bankrupt and never was but thanks to the Rethugliecons and complicity by Obama on their behalf, funding for it will be reduced and benefits will be negatively affected...exac tly what the Rethugliecons are after and they will destroy it if they get the chance. That won't take more than two to six years to do. The country is going bankrupt because the wealthy are vastly undertaxed compared to other first world nations. Beck's truth? WTF!
 
 
+3 # Wm. Hibbard 2010-12-21 22:07
Outrage, not enough... Apathy too much!
There must be the leader we need somewhere in this country. Al, is it you? Jon Stewart? Steven Colbert, you'd easily have much of the Right from the start you speak Republicanese so well.
Now Michael Moore you dark horse you, we'ed have to tweak your look some but I trust you all because, you care, you speak the truth to power and I'm pretty sure you all would take action. PS what happened to the 'bank-run' of a week or 2 ago?
 
 
+1 # LawrenceEfana 2010-12-22 09:11
A worthy cause to be aggitated. Very often we ignorantly and by greed abort the progress we make and later cry over our failures. There must be a moderate way to balance interests with responsible exercise of democratic values.
 
 
+3 # instantmitch 2010-12-23 07:10
The answer isn't 4 comment after comment to whine about there isn't anything we can do or someone else should do something. The answer is to step onto the court. Ratification of New Start is an ex. Married to someone who spent yrs on loose nukes & seeing elected offic. give their all, (Lugar/Nunn) results happen. Apathy & complacency are the enemy. Action is the solution. 'They' (Comcast etc.) are testing the waters. You have the choice, let them know they have clear sailing by inaction or let them know there are 'sharks in the water' and we arn't pushovers. This isn't a complex issue difficult to get your head around. Let's not wait till our individual carrier thinks we are a danger and our internet service for some 'odd' reason won't let us use our computers to get the word out. How about urging Franken to help, calling AND writing our individual officals, AND getting others involved by sharing your concerns in a factual and expedient way. This issue should not be a Repub/Demo/rich /poor issue, it's a freedom of speech issue. Inaction will let the rich errode things further. While in action, also think about the latest changes to campaign spending. Shocking. We waited quietly too long.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN