Fooddemocracynow: "Obama betrays America" / Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act

boooooo on monsanto

I'll bet that Obama and quite a few others have some nice fat bank deposits being made to some offshore bank account for them, for helping to get this treasonous stuff legalized... Look at all the conflicts of interest in these people Obama has appointed to different government agencies, it is outrageous!

Especially the guy that was Monsanto's lawyer becoming FDA policy advisor.. This is unnacceptable.

America is going to need about a million vigilantes to correct the corruption happening...

May God reward them their Just deserts.

reply to post by woodsmom


Why do you think they have that HUGE Seed Vault ?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I see it in a different way.

The language in the bill specifically protects Monsanto from legislation, resulting from GMO crops and their potential dangers/environmental impacts.

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,

Please be patient with me while I walk through it. It deals with the situation where the Secretary of Agriculture says that "We don't have a plant pest problem with this," and a court says "We don't accept your judgment." If the FARMER (not Monsanto) wants to plant anyway, the Sec of Ag. will give him a TEMPORARY permit, with conditions, while they run the necessary tests. Monsanto is NOT protected from any legislation. It is NOT protected from any fines or punishments.

Please forgive me for shouting, I apologize sincerely. I didn't know how else to provide the necessary emphasis.

This is the same language that was in last year's spending bill and can be found, appropriately, in the Department of Agriculture section. I don't remember an uproar last year.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by something wicked

 

The language in the bill specifically protects Monsanto from legislation, resulting from GMO crops and their potential dangers/environmental impacts.

The title is perhaps misleading, the information is not.

~Tenth

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Tenth, I beg to differ in that you say it 'specifically protects Monsanto' - could you call out that section please where Monsanto is given specific (i.e. limited to that company) protection please?

reply to post by something wicked


Monsanto does not need to be named.

Considering they are the premier company who provide GMO crops, it protects them, not the farmers in the long run from any problems with those synthetic seeds.

Of course they aren't going to call them by name, that would be a clear violation of the law, but the way in which it's worded provides this benefit to them.

reply to post by charles1952


I understand where you are coming from. However farmers would not need this provision if Monsanto allowed them to re-use their own seeds, and not caught up in this contracts that severely limit the ability of the farmer to be self sustainable.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

However farmers would not need this provision if Monsanto allowed them to re-use their own seeds, and not caught up in this contracts that severely limit the ability of the farmer to be self sustainable.

False, it has nothing to do with re-using seeds. You completely misunderstand the act.

Section 735 gives farmers and option to bring existing crops to market should the regulated status of a plant pest change. For example, an invasive weed becomes regulated through 411(f). Now, suppose a farmer has had this weed in his fields for a few years. Since the weed is now regulated, according to the Plant Protection Act, the farmer cannot transport produce harvested from those fields. Suddenly his entire crop is worthless.

The thing is, the Plant Protection Act already includes provisions for permitting that transport. The Secretary may issue a permit. Section 735, in addressing a change in regulated status, says that in such a case, the Secretary must allow (through a temporary permit or temporary deregulation) a farmer to raise, transport, and sell his crop "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."

As has been pointed out. Monsanto is not mentioned. In fact, only the following may request the action; "farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer". Monsanto is none of those.

Originally posted by Phage
As has been pointed out. Monsanto is not mentioned. In fact, only the following may request the action; "farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer". Monsanto is none of those.

Not so fast Phage..

Monsanto is a producer...and they do have their own farms.
In fact, they have been the subject of several lawsuits over deaths,
teenagers electrocuted while detasseling corn.

Seed companies, such as Monsanto, hire people to detassle corn so it produces pure stands of hybrid seed. To produce cross-bred hybrids, the companies remove tassels from “female” rows of corn. Interplanted “male” rows then pollinate the female plants to produce a hybrid. The jobs typically go to high school and college students looking to earn summer cash.

www.insurancejournal.com...

reply to post by burntheships

Yes. In the regard of producing seed, Monsanto is a producer. I sidetracked myself in thinking only of produce for consumption.

So if Monsanto produces seed for a plant which becomes regulated after they are in production, the Secretary is bound to provide a permit while reviewing the regulated status. At the same time, the Secretary can use the provisions of 412c (assuming the regulation would be as a "noxious weed") which are already in place in order comply with the Plant Protection Act.

(c) 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.

www.aphis.usda.gov...

From 735:

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 burntheships

I don't think anyone should be going fast on this one. I have a few questions for you.

I suppose you're mentioning the girl's death to show that they have farms? Certainly electrocution isn't the subject of this bill.

Now we're getting into word meanings, important, but not obvious. Was the death on a farm, or on a research facility? There's no indication that the corn was to be sold, just used in research.

"Producer" is an interesting word. Does anyone have any evidence as to it's legal meaning here? If so, you've done some very good digging, it's certainly not obvious. Let's look at context. I'm not going to requote the entire Act, but this is interesting:

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:

Monsanto isn't a grower, is it an "other user?" I don't think so. Monsanto doesn't use the seed, it just sells it.

I'm afraid I have to go with Phage on this one.

reply to post by charles1952


In this sense, Monsanto plants and grows corn, and they are a producer.
They cant even plant this corn without permission from the USDA.

"or other users" ....the exact language.

So....then how is this proving Monsanto not a grower?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Yes. In the regard of producing seed, Monsanto is a producer.

And, they must have approval from the USDA for the GMO seed that they plant.
So the bill does apply to them, and directly benefits them.

reply to post by burntheships

Dear burntheships,

Thanks for highlighting the problem. I can't prove anything, that's why I was saying the definition was going to be tricky to find. The best I can do is to try to get a feel for what the Act might be meaning.

Now you know why the country is full of lawyers, and the ones in Washington are rolling in money. You also know one reason I wish we had fewer laws coming out of that town.

I interpret the "or other users" to mean something similar to "growers," or the people who "move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities." Those all sound like the routine things that farmers do to get their crops to market, not so much like a research facility that fiddles with crops to get GMO seeds.

Maybe the seeds themselves are the problem? I can accept that, but in that case why pass a law two years running? The Secretary looks at GMO seeds, looks at the rest of the world, runs some tests, and issues approval or not. Then it goes to the courts. The only thing that makes sense is if the secretary found the seed safe years ago, everybody geared up production, and it got tangled in courts. Congress then passed a bill saying "This is silly. Secretary, do another test or two. In the meantime let's get back to business."

I don't like that very much, but what's the alternative analysis?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I can appreciate your desire to understand the issue of the bill, and the language.
As you have noted, the seed is the problem.

Hopefully you have heard that many of the officials that head the USDA
were lawyers, assisting GMO companies such as Monsanto in gaining approval
for the GMO seeds. We would be naive to think that just because The Secretary
reccomends approval for a GMO seed it is safe. Au contraire.

They way it stands, GMO corporations such as Monsanto are not allowed to plant
GMO seed without approval. Though, they have been caught doing just that.

In any case, Monsanto has farms for all of these GMO crops, they are farms,
and not just research facilities. "Research" facility is a nice idea, it gives a
false picture, one of a walled off compound. The reality is GMO, even when grown
for seed is grown on a farm, and then it mingles with non GMO crops via the pollen,
nothing to constrain the Monsanto farms full of corn away from the rest of the world.

Which is one of the main reasons farmers call foul on Monsanto, as they then
face several dilemmas; contamination, and lawsuits from Monsanto following
the contamination as Monsanto claims infringement.

Hopefully, this helps.

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by AuranVector

 

...
At the same time though, mentioning the seperation between an elite class and the rest of the population - With the rest of population living under harsher conditions, their bodies and minds forces to maintain under literally lethal conditions.. After enough time, would the elites have eventually bred a species worth fearing?

It depends on whether or not the technology of the Elites holds up. If their technology collapses for any reason, then the Elites would be torn apart by the more numerous slaves.

What I see is an Elite (2000 of the most powerful families in the world, as someone suggested) small enough that current energy sources (and other natural resources) could last them a very long time. They don't need a large slave population to support their Elite "Utopia." Much work would be done by increasingly sophisticated machines, robots and androids.

The Elite Utopia won't be achieved for another century or two. It's going to be messy to kill off the majority (six & a half billion "useless eaters").

I'm wondering how all of this is going to happen. Of course, it's pretty obvious that the control of major banks, governments, mega corporations, resources (energy, food, water), and military power is already in the hands of a small Global Elite.

Will the Chinese be destroyed by war?

Will the US be destroyed by economic collapse (nations are already leaving the USD as Reserve currency)?

It will be a long, complicated fight, but the Elites will win in the end, because they hold almost every card. The game is rigged in their favor from the outset..

It would take an "act of God" or something completely unexpected to overturn the Elite agenda.

Originally posted by daryllyn
In protest, I will be planting an all heirloom/organic garden this year.

I should step up the gardening and teach myself to can this year, I have the acreage to grow enough food for my family, and the livestock.

At least that way they would get less of my money.

Do it! My wife and I decided to do the same last year..We put in two Large raised beds in our backyard and had a great harvest...which progressed into learning to can most of it as well (pickles mostly). BUT This year we are adding another Large bed and we just purchased a 21.5 Quart all American pressure canner.. So once you begin your Journey you will find Solace "frustration" sometimes BUT Mostly the assurance that you can and WILL be prepared and be a VALUABLE resource in the area you live in if ever trouble did begin in the US..If you can grow food AND be able to preserve it ..you will be of Value ..Baker creek seed co. Deals ONLY w/ heirlooms of Any variety of seed you could ever need .I highly recommend them based on my own use and friend use as well. Good luck to ya I hope you follow the path of self sufficient learning and see the BEAUTY our grand parents got to experience !

OHHH boooo hoooo!!!!!
people need to stop being so lazy and acting vociferous about such thing and just do it themselves.
why can't people grow their own goods?
because their lethargic, mc chicken eating, monsanto grown couch potatoes!!!

how about this...

become less dependent on the system for less than 100 dollars

the government knows it can do as it pleases to. instead of trying to fix the existing problem, which, we all know wont go in our favor....
find an independent solution and be less dependent on these greedy F*S.

GEEZ, it's easy.

meibe this will go in style like skinny jeans.

I want everyone to notice that GAY MARRIAGE is no longer all over mainstream media.

Distraction.

reply to post by RobinB022

Hi RobinBO22, Thanx and I wish more could be said on this issue but folks are already screaming for an end to the topic. Is unfortunate. The legal stuff is the least of it...all told, GMOs and Monsanto...what a crock. Years ago, fruits and vegetables tasted wonderful, nice and juicy and sweet. You'd bite into apples, strawberries, peaches, tomatoes and the juice would run down your chin. All had different and wonderful tastes. Now, it is all dry and pethy and all tastes the same, like cardboard.

Alls I know is I trust my gut on this stuff...instincts and tummy "gut". Most crops just don't taste right or have the same consistancy they used to.

There is a farm in Kansas now that is mixing human liver genes with rice...yum. For what earthly purpose? Tomatoes are picked early and often get their red color from gas pumped into the storage area...yum. Tomatoes are mixed with fish genes? Those cute lil baby carrots are actually bad carrots that have been shaped/shaved down to look good and dipped in chlorine to give them back that nice orange color...yum.

Cattle are not only fed grain now but a mixture of grain and cattle "parts"...Mad Cow on the uprise...hmmm.

If Monsanto is so Lily White, why are they trying to take over our water supply as well? All about controlling everything we ingest. It is all for profit, not to feed the hungary by higher crop yields. Still seeing those tv adds with starving kids aren't we...hmmm. Too many folks in govt. with conflict of interest and involved in what we eat and the Corps that want to own/control same.
Thanx for responding. Appreciate it.