Connection between use of ROUNDUP on US crops and disease.

[MisterBeale]

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.

So, I suppose, if a Secretary of Agriculture had a mind to allow legal procedure to continue based upon science, then in that instance, I grant you, you are correct.

Otherwise, you are wrong.

This sets a bad precedent. Especially if they choose to pass this sort of legislation in regards to the EPA regulating energy, carbon emissions and green house gases. It would be a victory for the AGW cultists, irrespective of what the science actually is.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im curious to see Old Rocks opinion if he stops in on this one...........

But tell you what..........everybody loosely throws around "mental case" in this forum, but shit, check out Mamooths post top of page 2. This guy is fucked in the head.......guys like that.........think they have EVERYTHING figured out. Just fucked...........

 

[Old Rocks]

GMO labeling in Oregon Measure 92 turns state into battleground for food culture OregonLive.com

Forces for and against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods sold in Oregon agree on almost nothing.

Proponents say labeling is akin to a Freedom of Information Act when it comes to food choices. How, they ask, can the relatively inexpensive labeling of important food choices be bad for consumers and society?

Opponents see the issue in starkly different terms. Not only will the measure burden farmers, manufacturers and consumers with far higher costs, they say, but it will stigmatize all Oregon agricultural products by creating a standard no other state must meet.
.................................................................................................
The opposition comes from large food and grocery manufacturers and chemical companies such as Monsanto. A new, $2.5 million contribution from the company, reported Thursday morning, put the No on 92 Coalition past the $10 million mark in total money raised.

Supporters, drawn from organic food producers, food-safety nonprofits and small independent contributors, have contributed more than $5.4 million to the Yes on 92 campaign.

I voted for the labeling. We should know as much as possible about the food we eat. It is a choice that affects our whole life. Also, Monsanto's careless actions have endangered our wheat farmes exports to Asia.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oregon Measure 92 likely headed for recount

PORTLAND, Ore. – A recount appears likely for Oregon's Measure 92, which would require labels on many food products made with genetically modified ingredients.

In the days following the November 4 election it looked as if the measure had failed. Several media outlets, including KGW via our news partner The Oregonian, called the measure going down.

But in recent days the margin between the "yes" and "no" votes has continued to shrink as the last ballots get counted.

On Friday evening the Oregon Secretary State's office showed the measure failing by just 1,076 votes. That's well within the threshold of about 3,000 votes that triggers an automatic recount.

"We have never lost our optimism," said Paige Richardson, the campaign director for Oregon Right to Know, which supports Measure 92.

Many of the outstanding votes were in Multnomah County, which bodes well for the "yes" campaign.

We shall see.

A county spokesman said as of Thursday afternoon there were about 7,300 ballots left to be counted. Those were expected to be all counted by Friday and could potentially put the "yes" campaign over the top.

 

[Old Rocks]

Monsanto s Genetically Engineered Wheat Scandal Is No Surprise - Forbes

Last week, genetically engineered wheat developed by Monsanto MON +1.08% but never approved for use was found growing unintended on a farm in Oregon, and the company is under siege.

Although Monsanto dropped its development of genetically modified wheat in 2004, in response to concerns from American farmers that it would endanger exports to countries that ban such products, and although the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said the wheat posed no threat to human health, the reaction to last week’s find has been hard hitting to say the least.

Japan and South Korea suspended some imports of American wheat, the European Union urged its 27 nations to increase testing, investors drove down the price of Monsanto shares by 4% on Friday, and the price on the Chicago Board of Trade of wheat for July delivery fell 8.25 cents to $6.945 a bushel. Social media advocacy sites have also been all over this issue. On Buycott, whose app lets consumers align spending with causes that they care for and oppose those they don’t, tens of thousands of people have joined a “Say No to Monsanto” campaign.

At issue is the question of whether the seeds, which were engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits, and improve crop yields to increase the global food supply, also cause serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been a contentious issue. Health advocates want mandatory labeling of genetically modified products, even as the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.

Now I don't know whether that wheat is bad or good. However, if the Asian market refuses the wheat farmers wheat, Monsanto should be forced to pay them the market price for that wheat. Another example of a 'failsafe' technology that failed. And the damage done is to people who had no part in the technology.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

So, I suppose, if a Secretary of Agriculture had a mind to allow legal procedure to continue based upon science, then in that instance, I grant you, you are correct.

Otherwise, you are wrong.

This sets a bad precedent. Especially if they choose to pass this sort of legislation in regards to the EPA regulating energy, carbon emissions and green house gases. It would be a victory for the AGW cultists, irrespective of what the science actually is.

The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future.

What the act does is prevent a liberal lawyer from getting a liberal judge to grant an injunction in the middle of growing season which forces farmers to destroy their crop or prevents them from selling their crop, based on their feeling that the crop is bad.

It does not allow the sale and planting of seeds that have been determined to be dangerous.
Thanks for proving my point, and disproving your own, by actually quoting the act.

This sets a bad precedent.

I disagree. Anything that allows business to operate with fewer emotion based, instead of science based, restrictions is a good thing.

 

[Pogo]

GMO labeling in Oregon Measure 92 turns state into battleground for food culture OregonLive.com

Forces for and against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods sold in Oregon agree on almost nothing.

Proponents say labeling is akin to a Freedom of Information Act when it comes to food choices. How, they ask, can the relatively inexpensive labeling of important food choices be bad for consumers and society?

Opponents see the issue in starkly different terms. Not only will the measure burden farmers, manufacturers and consumers with far higher costs, they say, but it will stigmatize all Oregon agricultural products by creating a standard no other state must meet. <snip>

That's not true either. Millions of baked goods have been packaged with the notation "Reg. Penna Dept Agr" (registered with Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture), a state law that dates back to 1933. The food companies simply ensure that their product meets that state standard, and then proceed to sell it everywhere.