It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
April 2, 2013
Full Text of the just-passed Monsanto Protection Act
April 2, 2013. Washington. Typically, when a law is passed in secrecy and signed by the President in the middle of the night, there is a sinister reason. In the case of the Monsanto Protection Act passed and signed into law last week, that was again the scenario. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans and countless grassroots groups have condemned the new law. But have any of you seen or read it? Neither did we, until now. Here is the full text of the Monsanto Protection Act.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is accused of taking $60,000 from Monsanto and secretly sneaking the Monsanto Protection Act 'rider' into a just-passed emergency spending law. Image courtesy of Politico.
One week ago, President Obama signed HR 933 into Law. Titled the, ‘Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013’, the new legislation is a temporary, six-month spending law that appropriates just enough money for government agencies to avoid a federal shut-down. But quietly slipped into the emergency spending Bill at the last minute was a vaguely worded section that seemingly gives the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws.
gives the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws.
“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”
My problem is that this claim is a lie:
What is your problem?
Can you show me where it does so? The law referred to existing laws about plant pests. It had nothing, nothing to do with food safety laws. It had nothing, nothing to do with granting any sort of "immunity" to Monsanto.
gives the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws.
No, I didn't call you a liar. But your source is. Don't you care that your source lies to you?
The fact is, you been pissing in many of my threads trying your very best to call me as a lair.
I don't know what you mean by cherry picking. I posted the entire section and the reference to the law to which it referred. No. I don't hate you. I don't think ignorance calls for hate. I think it calls for education.
I read your Rant, and the cherry picking you have done. You may hate me, and for what reason, I don't care. Grow up.
If by "against the product" you mean a plant being ruled a pest according to Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act, you are correct. If you mean anything having to do with food safety, you are incorrect.
From what I understood, the bill would allow production and sales of goods to continue if there was a ruling against the product to allow time for disputes.
No immunity. What the law provided for was for farmers to continue to raise and market (for a given period of time) a plant which they had been raising and marketing if the status of that plant (as a plant pest) were to be called into question. It protected farmers from having to tear up their crops.
I agree that it does give Monsanto a certain degree of immunity since thier money coffers are possibly much more plentiful than any effort to stop them can pull together.
I agree that it does give Monsanto a certain degree of immunity since thier money coffers are possibly much more plentiful than any effort to stop them can pull together.
Please provide citations to those laws.
So far they have grown so big, now they can buy members of Congress and can sit down with Congress to write laws to protect themselves against most account abilities.
Please provide citations to those laws.
No, there aren't. You posted a source which has the full text of it, remember?
I really don't have to, there are thousands of pages in the protection act alone.
While the full law titled the, ‘Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013’ is quite extensive, the portion being singled out as the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ is found under the inconspicuously titled section, ‘Title VII – General Provisions’. Under Section 735, the text reads:
You may be right. Try me. Provide citations to just a few of their many protection laws.
I am not a lawyer, and I am sure I wouldn't understand some of contexts Monsanto has in many of their protections Laws.
If a biotech crop had already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reversed that approval, the provision directed the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops would still be underway.[
No, I don't know of any laws which do that. And that's the point. That law was, quite specifically, about plant pests. It had nothing to do with anything else. It had nothing to do with food safety. It had nothing to do with immunity from lawsuits.
Does this law stop at anything other than a "plant pest" from being called into question?
Well, if you read the post I linked to earlier you would understand. The law was about a situation in which a crop which had been and was being grown may have been declared a pest. The law gave farmers protection from being forced to stop cultivating that crop until the matter had been settled in court.
That is obviously not script from the bill but it says "biocrop" not "pest" is why I am asking about what you meant.
I am not interested in your pissing contest, go find someone else to play with.
You're not interested in supporting your claims? Ok.
But I'm not going anywhere.
Actually, I would tend to agree that mega-ag is not really a good thing. However, I do not think that spreading lies is an appropriate approach.
You and I do not see eye to eye on this topic, and I have no problems with that. It's your snide remarks I will not stand for.
However, I do not think that spreading lies is an appropriate approach.
No. It is a fact that the law in question had nothing to do with giving "the Monsanto Corporation immunity from food safety laws." Since you were not aware that it is a lie I informed you of the fact.
That's a matter of "opinion" and nothing more.
Then, again, please do alert the staff.
You need to stop calling Members out on ATS, you already violated ATS TC under violations of Manners.
I would rather be factual than appealing.
I have tried being cordial toward you, however I find your smug remarks, and name calling unappealing.