'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

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.

Yes. Your claim was about seed products which are "adversely affecting consumer health." Section 735 has no jurisdiction in such a case. If GMO products are shown to have adverse effects on consumer health section 735 is not relevant and offers no "protection".
You seem be working toward the "noxious weed" part of the Plant Protection Act. That is something which may apply but GMOs would first have to be classified as such before they could be regulated. That has not been done though attempts (in at least one case, Kentucky Bluegrass) have been made. Since corn really can't be considered a weed, I don't see how it could ever fall into that category.

I work with them on international food trade agreements with China and South American nations. They are a grower.

Not exactly relevant to this case. Unless those products are imported to the US in such form as might constitute being a plant pest. In which case I would ask for evidence.

Besides, they have agreements with farms who will make this request on their behalf.

I would submit that those requests would be on behalf of the farmers themselves. A single waiver would not cover all farms.

This is a republishing of the legislation which is modified older legislation.

Citation? Why would "modified" legislation not include current practices?

reply to post by stdscf12



Have you actually looked and read what is said in this act or have you just latched on to what has been said elsewhere

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


What about this part.

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—

(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in
interstate commerce;

(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by appro-
priate officials of the country or State from which the plant,
plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article,
or means of conveyance is to be moved;

(3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary deter-
mines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant pests
or noxious weeds; and

(4) with respect to plants or biological control organisms,
be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions
by or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes
of determining whether the plant or biological control organism
may be infested with plant pests or may be a plant pest
or noxious weed.

That must give some control over what can and can't be done

reply to post by stdscf12


Once again, Monsanto keeps it's identity as the model for "evil corporation."

The cabal of monied interests who've taken over western democracy go unopposed. The media devotes how much time bringing this to people's awareness?

People spend how much time to be aware of these dealings?

It's the perfect storm of greed and sloth... and it'll take people like the OP and the readers and posters to bring greater awareness and that horribly ridiculed word of late... "change."

I should amend that to change for the better. Change can go either way.

Originally posted by Phage Since corn really can't be considered a weed, I don't see how it could ever fall into that category.

I work with them on international food trade agreements with China and South American nations. They are a grower.

Not exactly relevant to this case. Unless those products are imported to the US in such form as might constitute being a plant pest. In which case I would ask for evidence.

Besides, they have agreements with farms who will make this request on their behalf.

I would submit that those requests would be on behalf of the farmers themselves. A single waiver would not cover all farms.

This is a republishing of the legislation which is modified older legislation.

Citation? Why would "modified" legislation not include current practices?

edit on 3/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

1. Corn which is a food/feed danger is no longer food/feed. It can interbreed with food corn, so by 412 (a) and (c) and 411 (H) it is a Plant Pest.
2. Aside from the fact that they are listed in the trade documentation as a 'grower'; please tell me how exactly you genetically hybridize a crop without being a grower?
3. And the legislation decided to give jurisdiction to genetically controlled plants, but not define it. Again this is non-sensical.

This is a series of trivial, red herring and pseudo-correctness arguments, protecting a premise which is non-sensical in the first place. I have laid out a cogent and well documented version of the legislation and the danger it presents to the ability of the American People to protect their food supply. This is the parsimonious case.

I think that rather than just arguing banality to enjoy the art of arguing, you need to take the ethical professional step of outlining and defending your version of the legislation and its intent.

Who knows, perhaps we will get lucky and a judge will interpret it your way? But for me, I would rather the rights of the American People with respect to their food supply be made VERY CLEAR, in its legislative crafting.

But that is just me apparently.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

1. Corn which is a food/feed danger is no longer food/feed. It can interbreed with food corn, so by 412 (a) and (c) and 411 (H) it is a Plant Pest.

So can any hybrid. Are all hybrids therefore plant pests? How is corn a food/feed danger?

2. Aside from the fact that they are listed in the trade documentation as a 'grower'; please tell me how exactly you genetically hybridize a crop without being a grower?

(p) Grower means any person who raises produce for marketing.

www.law.cornell.edu...
Does Monsanto market produce in the US?

3. And the legislation decided to give jurisdiction to genetically controlled plants, but not define it. Again this is non-sensical.

What is a genetically controlled plant? Where is it mentioned in the legislation? Why should it be defined if it is not mentioned?

I think that rather than just arguing banality to enjoy the art of arguing, you need to take the ethical professional step of outlining and defending your version of the legislation and its intent.

The intent is to allow farmers to not immediately lose or be unable to sell their crops should a plant pest which was not formerly regulated become so. The intent is to allow the Secretary to allow waivers, with proper controls, for a period of time so that the farmer can address the situation.

Chill

It will only remain in effect for six months. Plenty of time to let congress know how you really feel.

reply to post by Baddogma


Monsanto........the new axis of evil. When you ingest g.m.o's the immune system is activated indicating a foreign non food material has entered the blood stream.
They feel there are too many people in the world and this is one of many ways to reduce the population slowly.
Once the pollen contaminates ALL PLANTS AND TREES we will have to pay royalties to Monsanto to visit the national parks to see the nature we once owned .
Monsanto's dioxins were spayed on me and my town times beach, mo and it is no longer on the map,gone.
I think we will look back one day and realize this is a type of WARFAIR conducted on us, but we did not have the information to stop it because of intellectual property rights.

Shame on you Obama have you forgotten? your job is to protect the people not sell them out to a greedy company.

reply to post by Phage

The intent is to allow farmers to not immediately lose or be unable to sell their crops should a plant pest which was not formerly regulated become so. The intent is to allow the Secretary to allow waivers, with proper controls, for a period of time so that the farmer can address the situation.

Are you aware why the farmers have been placed into such a position?

Is it because the turn around time for new GM strains is becoming so fast that the regulators cannot keep up, maybe it is part of agenda 21 trying to fully regulate the food chain and still has some catching up to do, or is there some other reason that a determination has not be made on what the farmers are planting?

reply to post by kwakakev

Are you aware why the farmers have been placed into such a position?

Placed in what position?

or is there some other reason that a determination has not be made on what the farmers are planting?

If no determination has been made, what's the point?

GMOs are just a symptom of a much larger problem!
These things are happening because the population is willfully ignorant! In being so we deserve whatever is in the cards! We are lazy when it comes to maintaining our freedoms! When we ignore the power behind the scenes this is what happens! I can only hope in our descendants future when perhaps our children or grandchildren take back their freedoms, they may learn from our arrogance ignorance and lack of paranoia! They should never forget that freedom and equality must be maintained through sacrifice, hard work and diligence!
As for us we may never see any positive changes because of our lack of fortitude! I expect we will have to suffer greatly before the majority becomes aggressive enough to subdue our oppressors! God help us in the coming decades cause we will pay a high price for our foolishness!

Originally posted by groingrinder
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?

Because that is what the blogs against this has identified as the greatest threat. Section 735. That is why it is pointed out; that is where people are creating this "Monsanto Protection Act" title from. So it is natural to discuss the language of that subsection; in which it does nothing like the blogs have said.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kwakakev

 

Are you aware why the farmers have been placed into such a position?

Placed in what position?

Placed in the position of what they though they where planting was a food crop, but ends up turning out to be a pest plant.

or is there some other reason that a determination has not be made on what the farmers are planting?

If no determination has been made, what's the point?

The point is the public has to unknowingly eat this stuff. We know what happened to the economy when the banks dropped their due diligence in terms of loans, the writing is on the wall for what is going to happen as GMO developers drop their due diligence with seed production.

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom


Yes you are correct ,this is just the tip of the iceberg,for example If half of the people in the U.S got sick from G.M.O. tainted food .......THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT WOULD SKYROCKET
The system is rigged for profit and only profit, as more people get sick the doctors make more money,the gov collects more taxes ,the ambulance drivers make more pay, the nurses make more.It is now a UNSTOPABLE MONSTER FEEDING ON US.
It will come crashing down soon if this is allowed to keep feeding.