Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

www.blacklistednews.com...

It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

Monsanto and the Senator from Missouri demonstrate how things were done on this particular bill.

The passing of this bill into law means that Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).

The whole "gene splicing for a pesticides" works for a short time then the bugs evolve and seem to not be bothered by the pesticide. They are now using the pyramid approach where two pesticide genes are added but, early results show the bugs once again are able to adapt. O.K. WTG bug world!!! However, I have to think we as a species are not bugs and have to wonder what the long term effect will be on us non-bugs?

It has been normal procedure for companies to have a hand in helping to clarify and try and push their own agenda when legislation is being written. However this example, by this company, steps over the line of representative government in my opinion.

It's almost impossible to express what I think about them without breaking ATS rules.

They keep our evil side alive, making us have bad wishes for them. One day all that energy will be channeled towards them.

It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Actually, I don't ask. They did it the same way nearly every interest group authors the wording of bills.

Do you think that they go to a legislator and say ""XYZ" is a good idea, why don't you and your staff take some time to write up a bill on it?" They present the idea and a copy of propoposed legislation to accomplish it. Then the Congressman and his staff consider it, make whatever changes they want, then present it to the Congress where it faces possible amendments and rejections.

The passing of this bill into law means that Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).

That's not my understanding. For this provision to have any effect, first the Secretary of Agriculture has to determine that the plant, seed, or whatever, is deemed not dangerous. Then if a court sets that determination aside (and no the court doesn't make any tests of danger), a temporary permit to use is granted until it's all sorted out. There is no determination that it is dangerous. At the very worst, the court is saying "We don't think your tests jumped through enough hoops."

reply to post by charles1952

That's not my understanding. For this provision to have any effect, first the Secretary of Agriculture has to determine that the plant, seed, or whatever, is deemed not dangerous. Then if a court sets that determination aside (and no the court doesn't make any tests of danger), a temporary permit to use is granted until it's all sorted out. There is no determination that it is dangerous. At the very worst, the court is saying "We don't think your tests jumped through enough hoops."

I suppose you could email the author of the article and point his errors and omissions out to him.

As far as the government using companies to help write legislation I believe I mentioned that as a normal process is my last paragraph of the original post.

reply to post by 727Sky

Dear 727Sky,

Thanks for keeping me straight with my comments. I hate to be misinformed, or misinformed others. In this case, however, I don't think I was. I'm sure you've seen this before but I'll add some emphasis:

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.

The first underlined section seems to say that if the Sec. of Ag. has determined that the product should be non-regulated (safe) and then that decision is set aside (which can only be done by the courts, who have no testing facility of their own), the Secretary shall award a TEMPORARY permit for use.

The second underlined section shows that the permit is only good for the time necessary for the Secretary to come up with the information needed to deal with the court's opinion. In the real world, this usually means that someone complains that the initial finding of "safe" should not be upheld because the Department didn't follow all the steps properly.

As far as reminding me that you said companies usually do this in your OP, you are quite right. And not just companies, any group that wants something from Congress. Unions, environmental groups, anybody.

But if your point was that everybody is doing it all the time, what is the point of the headline? Why discuss(with some passion) that Monsanto authored that section of the bill? We've already got several threads on whether the law is good or not, I assumed this one was different because of the emphasis on authorship.

If I msunderstood, please correct me, I'm here to learn.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks for the reply. My main interest in the article was the Senator who go the bill attached in the first place and the way it was done. Nothing surprises me anymore; guess I am becoming cynical. No Sir was not picking on you or trying to be a smarty pants. Again thanks for the reply and info.

This is a blatant provocation. Allowing Monsanto to have immunity to do whatever the hell they want to do to OUR FOOD is literally a non verbal attack on the population. In case you weren't aware Monsanto participated in the Manhattan Project. Honestly, how much more are TPTB going to get away with before people finally wake up!

As I posted in another thread concerning this issue. Legislation is not law, its courts that decide the legal standing or constitutional fit, of legislation, and so it will be courts that will decide how these clauses and even the entire pseudo, dribble fairs in the long run. There has already been supreme court rulings to the effect that legislation that is not constitutional is not lawful so that you just ignore it.

Originally posted by Unity_99
As I posted in another thread concerning this issue. Legislation is not law, its courts that decide the legal standing or constitutional fit, of legislation, and so it will be courts that will decide how these clauses and even the entire pseudo, dribble fairs in the long run. There has already been supreme court rulings to the effect that legislation that is not constitutional is not lawful so that you just ignore it.

edit on 29-3-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

that is true, but only in theory. the people aren't in a position to punish monsanto or the government without a full scale revolution.

reply to post by mrdeadfolx

This is a blatant provocation. Allowing Monsanto to have immunity to do whatever the hell they want to do to OUR FOOD is literally a non verbal attack on the population.

Just a little reminder, the Act doesn't give Monsanto any immunity. There was a discussion on this point earlier in the thread.

reply to post by 727Sky


I don't know why you're surprised by the revelation that Monsanto wrote it's own legislation, because this is exactly what most all corporations do via their paid lobbyist in Washington. They write the legislation, pass it on to members of congressional staffs who review it, (because God knows our elected officials don't have the time to read things for themselves.) and then advise our legislators whether or not to vote for the Bill.

This is precisely why the first step to regaining a government that is truly representative of it's people is to outlaw all paid corporate lobbying. Until that is done, we don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being heard. A good second step would be for us to start electing legislators who are smart enough and willing enough to read things for themselves instead of delegating that task to their staff. After all, we didn't elect their staff.

It would seem that many of our legislators took Bush to heart when he said that we elect "leaders," not "readers."

I posed a question in another Monsanto thread asking how it was possible that they could legislate their own protection. So, thank you for answering that for me.

I am betting that Monsanto will appreciate my all heirloom/organic garden that I will be planting soon. I figure it is the best thing I can do. One, we will be eating less of their GMO crud, and they will be getting less of my money.

All of this talk is making want to step it up. I am going to expand that garden and teach my self to can.

reply to post by Flatfish


No argument from me: I once, many years ago had to write and recommend the awards and decorations for a military unit. To get a simple award issued when (I first started) was in many cases a 20 page ordeal. You cut and pasted what seemed relevant from other already approved and issued awards and did what ever you could to make the recommendation seem important and LONG! " Aircraft was taking fire yet the crew continued into the L.Z. and were able to extract 4 wounded while suffering numerous rounds that impacted their aircraft; IMO enough said....... Well as luck would have it someone in the halls of the defense department finally figured out if it was worth saying it could be said in two pages max..... I would have bought that person (s) supper and a drink of their choice just for the common sense they displayed........

The government loves paperwork and lawyer speak...the longer the better, therefore our reps along with some of the leaders feel "we need to pass it to see what it says" kind of mentality is destroying the concept of representative government of the people by the people; actually making the whole process a farce IMO. Rather simplified statement but maybe you get my drift?