Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

page: 2
43
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sean
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


In my opinion anything Monsanto pushes through should be ignored.


What was pushed through? Do you even know? Or are you blindly following what others tell you to follow? That is the major premise behind my being here in this thread. I am not defending the practices of Monsanto or others, but so far, no one has been able to point out the following:

-- The amendment that supposedly negates Federal jurisdiction
-- Monsanto et.al given free reign

I gave you the information. What in Section 735 of subdivision A is scary?




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I like your idea. Burning down the crop fields would be useful and of course cheap to implement. How is Monsanto banned in other countries, yet completely safe in the United States is strange.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Yes the Secretary of Agriculture is bound by section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act so he cannot go out and freely murder, steal or commit a host of other crimes. But with anything related to the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities in the specified act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall notwithstand any other provision of law.

If he has to kill to get the goods to market on time he can, if he has to steal to get the crops in the ground he can, if he has to let GMO through despite it's risks he can. As a judge in any proceedings that may come before the Secretary of Agriculture and his actions, I may not like it but if it relates to Agriculture the Secretary is out side of the law.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

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.
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Only lawyers could write such a long run on sentence. I challenge anyone to write that so that a non-lawyer could understand it. I know there will be scores of intellectual elites here who will profess to understand every single word of it. But anyone who truly does should be able to explain the entire sentence in layman's terms. IMHO if you cannot explain it simply, then you simply do not understand it.

Whoever wrote that would get an F- in high school English composition class.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Why does it have to be found in 735 subsection A? Why are you pointing to that at the exclusion of the rest?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Obama signed it today, I knew he would.


Ultimately what the 'Monsanto Protection Act' is an attachment to another bill that denies legal recourse when dealing with biotech plants and crops. It used to be that there was legal recourse to stopping the planting of unapproved GMO plants. The provision also allows Biotech companies to evade regulatory and scientific review. I believe that might also lend some immunity to companies being held responsible for ill effects, not too sure about that though.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by sean
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


In my opinion anything Monsanto pushes through should be ignored.


What was pushed through? Do you even know? Or are you blindly following what others tell you to follow? That is the major premise behind my being here in this thread. I am not defending the practices of Monsanto or others, but so far, no one has been able to point out the following:

-- The amendment that supposedly negates Federal jurisdiction
-- Monsanto et.al given free reign

I gave you the information. What in Section 735 of subdivision A is scary?


Sorry teacher, I don't know the answer, can I please get a hint?

Jesus what is this, an exam? Do you get a kick out of knowing things that others don't and then rubbing it in their faces, challenging them to find it themselves?

What most people who share their disgust most likely mean (I think), like user Sean etc, is that what Monsanto and friends do in general is more than disgusting on it's own, I don't need to read the bill to know that nothing about Monsanto & co is positive, and I still share that opinion. My mother language is not English and though I enjoy and understand English literature, this legal mumbo jumbo is total jibberish to me, so why don't you just go ahead and tell us what truely IS bad about this bill?

No, instead all you do is call out people on how they are barking about the wrong issue



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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.


When I first read it, that's what I said. Jumping to conclusions like this are what give left wingers a bad name, and there's no reason it shouldn't.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Abstruse
I like your idea. Burning down the crop fields would be useful and of course cheap to implement. How is Monsanto banned in other countries, yet completely safe in the United States is strange.


They would probably then create fire resistant GMO crops



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   


SEC. 735. 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.


Translation:

If someone finds out that Monsanto's seed products are adversely affecting consumer health, and that forces that seed product into being federally regulated as a potentially dangerous food, then the Secretary of Agriculture will, if Monsanto requests it, grant a temporary condition where Monsanto and Monsanto farmers can still employ the seed and products in business as usual, as if it were not regulated at all.

This is only for an indefinite interim period, to give the Secretary sufficient time to complete required analyses to determine the scientifically correct course of action on that seed product.

- My shot


edit on 27-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
If someone finds out that Monsanto's seed products are adversely affecting consumer health, and that forces that seed product into being federally regulated as a potentially dangerous food, then the Secretary of Agriculture will, if Monsanto requests it, grant a temporary condition where Monsanto and Monsanto farmers can still employ the seed and products in business as usual, as if it were not regulated at all.

This is only for an indefinite interim period, to give the Secretary sufficient time to complete required analyses to determine the scientifically correct course of action on that seed product.


So in my take, and this is just me, the OP is correct. And we all KNOW what 'skeptics' can do to thwart a "required analyses" (the techniques of scientific obfuscation to protect institutions are a particular study focus of mine) - such that the seed and product in question will never enter a regulated status.

I see lots of "Penn & Teller" videos in our future.


In effect, yes the OP is correct, this is appropriately titled the Monsanto Protection Act.

edit on 27-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


If someone finds out that Monsanto's seed products are negatively affecting consumer health, if that forces the seed product into being federally regulated as being potentially dangerous, then the Secretary of Agriculture will, if Monsanto requests it, grant a temporary condition where Monsanto and Monsanto farmers can still employ the seed and products in business as usual, as if it were not regulated at all.

Nope. Section 411 concerns plant pests.

SEC. 411. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.


What is a plant pest?

(14) PLANT PEST
.—The term ‘‘plant pest’’ means 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.

www.aphis.usda.gov...
edit on 3/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Nope. Section 411 concerns plant pests.

SEC. 411. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.


What is a plant pest?

(14) PLANT PEST
.—The term ‘‘plant pest’’ means 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.

edit on 3/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yes. You are contending that this is requesting a temporary injunction at the secretary level to protect the trade, cultivation, sale, distribution of a Plant Pest, at the request of farmers??

That is ridiculous. The regulation said "notwithstanding" not "constrained to the domain of." Gotta do better than that.


edit on 27-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: Had to stop laughing first



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


You are contending that this is requesting a temporary injunction at the secretary level to protect the trade, cultivation, sale, distribution of a Plant Pest, at the request of farmers??
No. What it says is that if something has been given non regulated status (there is a procedure for doing so) and if that status is removed there will be a grace period under which farmers will not be affected by the change in status. Say they've been able to freely grow and transport plants with a certain fungus which was not thought to be a problem. Now that fungus, which was not regulated, now is. Without the ability for the Secretary to allow the interim period, those farmers crops would be lost.



That is ridiculous. Gotta do better than that.
Better than what? That is what the law says and it has nothing to do with Monsanto or lawsuits.

edit on 3/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Actually what it says would require an attorney to properly articulate, and not just any attorney, but one who understands political jargon.

We all know what 'exact' means, but in the "Hatch-Waxman Act" [Public Law 98-417], it means something completely different than Webster's definition.

The gov't can say as they please, and it doesn't matter really.. they speak their own language and our understanding means nothing to them.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 


Actually what it says would require an attorney to properly articulate, and not just any attorney, but one who understands political jargon.


Correction. Attorneys do not articulate. They argue. That's their job.
And it's up to a judge to determine which one argues better. That's their job.

This is false:

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 section has nothing to do with consumer health, it concerns the powers of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture has no authority in that regard.
edit on 3/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Sorry, you have not read the entire legislation.


One cannot simply read the 1950's definitions and call it good. There are later new technology modifications to the definition of what is regulated as a Plant Pest. This is why it would seem odd to provide legislation to continue cultivating and selling something which was only harmful - Items A - G do not fit the definition of something which would need to be protected. The old definitions make the new law look silly - no sense at all.

However, the new legislation only makes sense when applied as read in Section 412, Subsections (a) and (c) which MODIFY the definition of what is considered a Plant Pest.


Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
SEC. 735. 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

ie. a paragraph (H) agent (Any article similar to or allied with any of the
articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs) is a danger to food plants


, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, ...subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act,

in which in Section 412 Subsection (a) and (c) en modificare, designates through implementation legislation, any "biological control organism" to fall in the regulated management of Section 411, [Plant Pests]


which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization 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:

Which means they can continue to plant and sell for food as they had in the past


only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status

For as long as Monsanto can challenge the science behind the Section 412, Subsection (c) en modificare designation of a their "biological control organism" as being regulated as a "Plant Pest" danger.

Revised Translation:

If someone finds out that Monsanto's seed products are adversely affecting consumer health, and that forces that seed product into being federally regulated as a potential danger to food plants, then the Secretary of Agriculture will, if Monsanto requests it, grant a temporary condition where Monsanto and Monsanto farmers can still employ those '{Plant Pest Section 412(c)} biological control organism' seed and products in business as usual, as if it were not regulated at all.

This is only for an indefinite interim period, of a duration sustainable as long as Monsanto can challenge the science behind the designation of a their "biological control organism" as being regulated as a "Plant Pest" danger.


Still applies.... and remember, we are not talking about FDA actions here - only Secretary of Agriculture actions, don't confuse the two. This is the farm to market side of the Value Chain only.

Sorry
Still the Monsanto Protection Act

edit on 28-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


If someone finds out that Monsanto's seed products are adversely affecting consumer health
Section 735 specifies the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in regard to plant pests. There is no authority granted regarding the granting of a waiver in regard to food safety or consumer health. If GM plants were to be determined to have adverse health effects 735 would not apply.


and that forces that seed product into being federally regulated as a potential dangerous to food plants, then the Secretary of Agriculture will, if Monsanto requests it, grant a temporary condition where Monsanto
Monsanto is not "a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer."


The definitions are old and out of date and the 412 modifications were implemented to address "biological control items" which did not exist when section 411 was written originally.

PUBLIC LAW 106–224—JUNE 20, 2000.
Want to review when GM plants were put on the market?
edit on 3/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhageSection 735 specifies the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in regard to plant pests. There is no authority granted regarding the granting of a waiver in regard to food safety or consumer health. If GM plants were to be determined to have adverse health effects 735 would not apply.


A non-food plant which can harmfully modify a food plant, is now a Plant Pest, under 412 (c). Cattle feed plants are regulated similarly. The battle inside the FDA is a separate battlefield, this is on the farms only, but protects them all the way into commercialization.


Monsanto is not "a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer."


I work with them on international food trade agreements with China and South American nations. They are a grower. This is incorrect. Besides, they have agreements with farms who will make this request on their behalf.



PUBLIC LAW 106–224—JUNE 20, 2000.
Want to review when GM plants were put on the market?


This is a republishing of the legislation which is modified older legislation. Of course GMO crops existed in June 2000, but that is not when this verbiage was originally crafted.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobinB022
Actually what it says would require an attorney to properly articulate, and not just any attorney, but one who understands political jargon.

The gov't can say as they please, and it doesn't matter really.. they speak their own language and our understanding means nothing to them.


Yeah I hate that we have to do it like this, but it is necessary. Imagine attempting to negotiate an entire nation, stepping into beginning to trade 112 soft wheat varietals with the US, who did NOT want Monsanto Hybrid Hard Wheat or GMO Corn contaminants or trade - or the entire deal was off the table. The trade strategy became a nightmare for me, not only hammering out the myriad intricacies of US Law and the trading partner laws, but the differing languages as well. That, along with a healthy mistrust of Americans over food issues to begin with.

While the agreement is in place, not one shipment has been made to date, and the country is facing a looming famine.

Right or wrong, it is an unfortunate legacy we have created.








new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join