After some digging and treading through the linked blogs I cannot fathom how people are up in arms because some "blog" told them to be. Has anyone
read the bills? Seen what they say? Can point me to them so I can make a decision based on the language rather than what the "other" lobbyist want?
By that I mean, they are battling for your attention just as much as Monsanto is battling for Congress'.
I keep reading "Senate continuing resolution" but refers to a house bill.
Searching for H.R. 5973, came up with nothing. There is S.10 for the Senate; which is an appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, but
there is no "sec. 735"; unless of course we are talking about last year....which was a different Congress, which means....nothing at this point until
it is reintroduced.
For a crowd that lives by the "deny ignorance" creed, it sure seems to seep in quite often when they hear something they agree with.
Here is Sec. 735, from H.R. 5973 (which went no where in Congress) -- Infowars link refers to it.....
Sec. 735. Of the unobligated balance of funds available to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of broadband loans under the heading
‘Rural Development Programs--Rural Utilities Service--Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program’ in prior appropriation Acts,
$26,126,000 is rescinded.
Other sites linked actually got the section right and here it is in whole:
Sec. 733. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been
invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm
operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions
consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued
cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize
potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring
that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner:
Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or
consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the
Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
Please mods, leave the large quoted text in place because it is pertinent to this discussion.
This section also refers to Sec. 411 of the Plant Protection Act.
SEC. 411. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS. (a)
PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS .
(PDF File) The section is quite large. Here is the link to the Public Law and you will
have to go to the section to see it and read it. In effect though, the above doesn't grant anything to Monsanto; note the "notwithstanding any
other provision of law
I am not seeing anything adverse here as the blogs are claiming. Anyone care to point out what is or where is this law giving Monsanto power over the
Furthermore: You have all bought into that this bill is going to hand over some power to Monsanto, so answer the supposed powers it would have
If allowed to pass, the Monsanto Protection Act would:
How would this section "violate the constitutional precedent of separation of powers by interfering with the process of judicial review."
In what way would it "eliminate federal agency oversight to protect farmers, consumers and the environment from potential harms caused by unapproved
What language "allow(s) Monsanto and biotech seed and chemical companies to profit by overriding the rule of law and plant their untested GMO crops
despite no proof of their safety for the public and environment."
All statements presented by one of the blogs posted here....
edit on 15-3-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)