'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

page: 1
43
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+17 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The Monsanto Protection Act passed!! and quietly too!!! This was obviously a "back room" deal as


companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.


I want to know who voted for this!!! Something must be done!

rt.com...



The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks. The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns. The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown. Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote. As the US legal system functions today, and largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the USDA is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute. The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless. Previously discovered pathogens in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soy are suspected of causing infertility in livestock and to impact the health of plants. So, just how much of a victory is this for biotech companies like Monsanto? Critics are thus far alarmed by the very way in which the provision made it through Congress -- the rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, groups like the Center for Food Safety are holding Senator Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of that committee, to task and lobbing accusations of a “backroom deal” with the biotech industry. As the Washington Times points out, the provision’s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It remains unclear whether the bill’s six-month expiration means that the provision will be short-lived. Regardless, Food Democracy Now has begun a campaign calling on US President Barack Obama to veto the Continuing Resolution spending bill, which seems unlikely as HR 933 includes a sweeping amount of government funding.




posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stdscf12
 


Well if this isn't enough news to make you want to puke!!

Anyone have info on who voted yes and "quietly" passed this by......?

I want to scream at crap like this keeping Monsanto not liable for health risks with their GMO crap!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by stdscf12
 


Well if this isn't enough news to make you want to puke!!

Anyone have info on who voted yes and "quietly" passed this by......?

I want to scream at crap like this keeping Monsanto not liable for health risks with their GMO crap!!!


It gets even better, in a thread I made about it, it was reported in the linked material this gives monsanto the authority to over ride all levles of civilian checks and safe guards, up to and including power over the courts. Basically making it impossible to sue them for any wrong doing or damages incurred by their products.

Disgusting
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-3-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stdscf12
 


Yeah, I can understand getting mad at this issue. But we can't act like we'd expect anything less than poor decision making by government. Hasn't the writing been on the wall for years now? Bickering about all these issues that government decides has at least two severe affects: one affect being that it indicates we actually need to rely on a government to decide for us. The other affect being that all we will ever do is bicker about the issues, and not take back the country from our government.

These are serious issues in history, and at a crucial time to decide them folks. We The People need to hit the rewind button and take care of ourselves first. We must stop participating in the madness of our government. We already know that their decision making is extremely slow and behind the times... and often unfit to serve the actual needs of the people... right?

GMO's for instance... we need to grow our own food. The skills of learning to feed ourselves should be a top priority right now. I'd prefer to barter my fruits, veggies, and meats with like minded people than worry about how government plans to feed us. We'd be healthier and smarter if we did it on our own... it's a win/win scenario for the People. Let those who need to rely on government get poisoned by the very foods that are issued to them... that's a win/win scenario for government.

Change in this Country starts with taking care of ourselves, and putting a halt to governments relevance in our lives. Decide for yourself which paths to venture on.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
So basically all of the evidence and studies to educate people about the dangers of GMO's is garbage? I mean sure, it will still hopefully educate a few who can make a conscious decision to boycott those products but even if they were to fall ill, there is nothing that can be done about it? Will they even conduct anymore studies on it or is it even worth the time and finances at this point to the scientists?

This is just sick



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Wow... I am absolutely stunned. So they can sell GMO foods and cause damage but then they can't be held liable? What kind of BS is that? Is there any other corporation on Earth which can harm people and then get away with it scott free? If I could choose one company to have this power my last choice would be a GMO company. This is absolutely insane and people need to do something about this. Very strong action needs to be taken... this is one step too far.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stdscf12
 

These Special Interests and their "influence" (vis a vis "the will of {and for the good of} the people") are primarily what is wrong with our system of government.
edit on 26-3-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
well thanks to all the gay marriage crap that seems to be posted every where on line , the chances of mass crop burnings have more than likely been reduced . and the feds can not seem to figure out why there are so many "extremists" that would like to see their demise.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Well, obviously they know GMOs cause some type of long term health issues.

Sad the government is focused on protecting those who are deliberately harming it's people.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stdscf12
 


The bill wasn't hard to find; you have the most powerful research tool mankind has ever been bestowed with; use it. For bills, the Library of Congress is a great place to start. RT gives you the bill number.

The continuing resolution for the Department of Agriculture is found in H.R. 933.

Bill text, as engrossed (passed by both the House and the Senate) is found here: PDF File

GovTrack provides an excellent resource to votes, amendments, etc. Here is their page on H.R. 933. That will give you a break down of who voted for the whole of the bill.

Final House votes (after amendments from the Senate) are here: H.R. 933 House Votes

Starting on page 34 of the bill text, it deals with this issue. Section 735 is the text in question. The temporary de-regulation must adhere to the Plant Protection Act; specifically sections 411(a) and 412(c). Those read as follow:

Section 411(a):

(a) PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS
.—Except as provided in subsection (c), no person shall import, enter, export, or move in interstate commerce any plant pest, unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is authorized under general or specific permit and is in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may issue to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United States.


Section 412(c):; in-part reads

REGULATIONS
.—The Secretary may issue regulations to implement subsection (a), including regulations requiring that any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported, entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce—


Section 735, again the text in question, still must adhere to the Plant Protection Act and does not grant free reign to companies such as Monsanto via bureaucratic fiat. I am also failing to find the supposed stripping of Federal court jurisdiction as reported.

I also cannot find any reference to the "Farmer Assurance Provision". All this emotional knee-jerk reactions to what is amounting to be people just believing what they want I suppose.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




Is there any other corporation on Earth which can harm people and then get away with it scott free?


The CIA is one group that comes to mind, whoever was behind 9/11 also has the courts backing off. None of the top wall street bankers have had to answer for the GFC. NuclearPaul is right, there is only one reason for this legislation, Monsanto would be burnt without it.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
The CIA is one group that comes to mind, whoever was behind 9/11 also has the courts backing off. None of the top wall street bankers have had to answer for the GFC. NuclearPaul is right, there is only one reason for this legislation, Monsanto would be burnt without it.


And what legislation would that be? Can you point me to the specific section of said legislation that claims to provide cover to companies from Federal jurisdiction as the article claims?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Here is a brief on amendment 29 that was passed:


To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to enforce the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule of the Environmental Protection Agency against farmers.

democrats.senate.gov...

As for if and where this and the larger Monsanto Protection Act is stilling in the larger HR 933 document I am not yet sure.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Here is a brief on amendment 29 that was passed:


To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to enforce the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule of the Environmental Protection Agency against farmers.

democrats.senate.gov...

As for if and where this and the larger Monsanto Protection Act is stilling in the larger HR 933 document I am not yet sure.


Except that isn't what all the fuss is about. That would be a separate issue as pertaining to the the supposed "Monsanto Protection" rider.

Here is the amendment, as entered in H.R. 933:

SEC. 1416. No funds made available under this Act shall be used for a 180-day period beginning on date of enactment of this Act to enforce with respect to any farm (as that term is defined in section 112.2 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations)) the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule, including amendments to that rule, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.


That has nothing to do with Monsanto, genetic seeds, etc. If interested, here Title 40, part 112, in which the above reference for definition:


Farm means a facility on a tract of land devoted to the production of crops or raising of animals, including fish, which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during a year.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Looking into it a bit more, it is section 735 that is raising the concern so here it is in full:


SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated us 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.


I am not a lawyer, but the terms 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' does raise some questions. It also looks like this is setting up an 'at arms length' arrangement in terms of liability as it is at the determination of the Secretary of Agriculture. Similar to what happened with the Banks and Government during the GFC, the banks say we are approved by the government so it is their fault, the government goes yeah, we are incompetent, here have a bail out. I am not certain in how this bill translates in to a get out jail for free card, but it is causing a lot of concern around in cyberspace.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


"notwithstanding any provision of law...subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act"

It still is bound to law though and is still regulated via the Plant Protection Act. While the Secretary can grant temporary deregulation, it still must adhere, as stated above, to certain provisions. Playing with this, how have these blogs derived the notion that companies will be above the law and escape Federal jurisdiction?

These are critical questions that the blogs fail to even recognize and rather spout what they want their viewership to read.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I find it sad how the OP simply copied a news article and takes for granted whatever it says. A little research on his/her part would have been nice, e.g. pointing out exactly which texts or provisions are so damning and unacceptable, and why he/she feels it was slipped silently.

I'm glad ownbestenemy went through the trouble to read the bill and point out how none of the claims and outrage are actually backed up by any of the text. I read large parts of the bill and to be honest, a lot of it is legal gibberish to me, but I can't find anything to back up claims of undermining the law and authority either.

Now, before you start accusing me of all kinds of affiliations with whatever company; no. I don't agree with genetically manipulating food or anything else, for that matter. I just wish people would stop screaming "fire!" when they can't even see smoke yet.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Might as well fire everyone in congress they're just worthless. Gave Monsanto a license to kill with their genetically altered crap.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sean
Might as well fire everyone in congress they're just worthless. Gave Monsanto a license to kill with their genetically altered crap.


What "license" is given? Can you provide the text that does such? Come on people, research and stop believing whatever blog you "identify" with as your source. Be your own reporter, the information is out there.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


In my opinion anything Monsanto pushes through should be ignored.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join