Obama Signs the Monsanto Protection Act

[Pogo]

i look at it this way, everyone saying GMOs are safe have degrees in science, everyone saying they are dangerous have degrees in acting.

The fact that it's you looking at it gives us our first clue. Anyone who actually bothered to read the background, some already linked here, can see "everyone saying GMOs are safe" are products of the revolving door that thinks the people we select to run USDA should be execs of Monsanto and the like, because that way we know there can be no conflict of interest, ever. Just as those running the economy should come from Goldman Sachs; those running energy policy should come from Exxon, etc. What could possibly go wrong with that? Duh. And those saying they are dangerous are citing scientific studies, also some of which were linked here, which have led to the extreme caution also linked here everywhere in the world but here. Those selectively ignoring all this have degrees in ignorance.

Then there's the label laws. And there ain't no way around that.

But go on witcher bad self, corporate sycophant. Everybody else in the world is wrong and our sterling corporats are right. We're not paranoid; they really are all out to get us.

None so blind...

I did not say that everyone says that GMOs are safe, I pointed out that no one who says that they are not safe are actual scientists who understand the issues. Since you did not bother to cite any actual scientists I have to assume you agree with me, even if all you can do is blather about other things.

Those documents are everywhere including in this thread including in my posts. I can only lead the horse to water; your insistence that the water is not there isn't my concern. That's exactly why I ended the previous post with the words "none so blind". Think about it.

 

[Pogo]

Not to mention the obvious red-herrings:

pesticides? agent orange? Roundup?


None of these has anything to do with GMO..

Umm... it has everything to do with Monsanto (the topic as advertised) Roundup IS a pesticide, and a Monsanto product; it's directly tied to GMO, as that was the impetus for "Roundup-ready" GM seeds that would be immune to it. Without the Roundup, the Roundup-ready GMO does not exist.

Have you read any of this background at all?

GMOs would still exist without Roundup, and nothing you posted about Roundup has anything to do with GMOs.

Is Roundup dangerous? It is a fracking poison, of course it is dangerous, which is why there are strict guidelines for how it is used.

"Roundup-ready" seed ---which is a GMO and a Monsanto product--- is directly tied to Roundup. They make both. DUH!!

 

[MikeK]

If the things being reported about the hazardous effects of eating GMO foods are true it is difficult to imagine what reason other than some form of bribery the legislators and the President who imparted immunity to Monsanto might have for doing so. Therefore I would perceive this enabling legislation as being a textbook example of capitalism feeding on itself -- which laissez-faire capitalism is blindly and predictably inclined to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that it's you looking at it gives us our first clue. Anyone who actually bothered to read the background, some already linked here, can see "everyone saying GMOs are safe" are products of the revolving door that thinks the people we select to run USDA should be execs of Monsanto and the like, because that way we know there can be no conflict of interest, ever. Just as those running the economy should come from Goldman Sachs; those running energy policy should come from Exxon, etc. What could possibly go wrong with that? Duh. And those saying they are dangerous are citing scientific studies, also some of which were linked here, which have led to the extreme caution also linked here everywhere in the world but here. Those selectively ignoring all this have degrees in ignorance.

Then there's the label laws. And there ain't no way around that.

But go on witcher bad self, corporate sycophant. Everybody else in the world is wrong and our sterling corporats are right. We're not paranoid; they really are all out to get us.

None so blind...

I did not say that everyone says that GMOs are safe, I pointed out that no one who says that they are not safe are actual scientists who understand the issues. Since you did not bother to cite any actual scientists I have to assume you agree with me, even if all you can do is blather about other things.

Those documents are everywhere including in this thread including in my posts. I can only lead the horse to water; your insistence that the water is not there isn't my concern. That's exactly why I ended the previous post with the words "none so blind". Think about it.

Your posts are all about how Monsato wrote the law that supposedly exempts them from the law, even though they did not write it, and it does not exempt them. If that makes me blind then I chose to be blind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm... it has everything to do with Monsanto (the topic as advertised) Roundup IS a pesticide, and a Monsanto product; it's directly tied to GMO, as that was the impetus for "Roundup-ready" GM seeds that would be immune to it. Without the Roundup, the Roundup-ready GMO does not exist.

Have you read any of this background at all?

GMOs would still exist without Roundup, and nothing you posted about Roundup has anything to do with GMOs.

Is Roundup dangerous? It is a fracking poison, of course it is dangerous, which is why there are strict guidelines for how it is used.

"Roundup-ready" seed ---which is a GMO and a Monsanto product--- is directly tied to Roundup. They make both. DUH!!

Which explains why you made all those posts about the fact that Roundup is a poison, because you can't tell the difference between a poising designed to kill plants and plants designed to resist poison.

 

[Pogo]

GMOs would still exist without Roundup, and nothing you posted about Roundup has anything to do with GMOs.

Is Roundup dangerous? It is a fracking poison, of course it is dangerous, which is why there are strict guidelines for how it is used.

"Roundup-ready" seed ---which is a GMO and a Monsanto product--- is directly tied to Roundup. They make both. DUH!!

Which explains why you made all those posts about the fact that Roundup is a poison, because you can't tell the difference between a poising designed to kill plants and plants designed to resist poison.

I said no such thing, lying asshole.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Do you have a portion of the bill you can show that makes Monsanto free from responsibility? I haven't seen it yet, although many people are saying that is the case.

You mean you expect me to read the complete legislative act and provide you with my findings..sheesh.. would you settle for a cherry picked article that tends to prove my point like this one?

------------------------------

On March 26, Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act. It’s the Farmer Assurance Provision rider in HR 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.

It permits circumventing judicial decisions. If courts rule GMOs unsafe, Monsanto’s free to ignore them. So is the Secretary of Agriculture.

Legislation permits “continued cultivation, commercialization, and other specifically enumerated activities.” Safety’s a non-issue. The bill’s language is hard to understand. Section 735 states:

“In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of 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 412c 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 time 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 is this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under sections 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.”

In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture is free to ignore food safety. He can let court ruled hazardous GMOs enter the food chain.

Green Light to Genetic Engineering: The Monsanto Protection Act | Global Research

Here's what I've gotten from this so far. My understanding may, of course, be in error.

A GMO food passes the necessary testing to be unregulated. After this occurs, if a judge makes a ruling that the food should be restricted, this bill allows a period of continued unregulated use while a determination about the merits of the case against the food are determined.

I don't know if there are any time limits to how long the determination takes.

I don't know if there are any mechanisms in place to immediately halt the use of a previously deregulated GMO if strong enough evidence warrants it, other than the Secretary of Agriculture making that call right away.

There may be potential for abuse the way the bill is written. If there are no limits in place as to how long the Secretary's determination takes, he/she could conceivably string that out indefinitely.

Other than that possibility, I don't see how this provides anyone, Monsanto or otherwise, a free pass. It is more of a temporary stay.

Feel free to point out how I've misread this or missed something. Legislation is always written poorly, IMO, and is too easily misinterpreted.

ahhhh, I clearly got my butt kicked... I'm shutting up, temporarily...

 

[Montrovant]

You mean you expect me to read the complete legislative act and provide you with my findings..sheesh.. would you settle for a cherry picked article that tends to prove my point like this one?

------------------------------

On March 26, Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act. It’s the Farmer Assurance Provision rider in HR 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.

It permits circumventing judicial decisions. If courts rule GMOs unsafe, Monsanto’s free to ignore them. So is the Secretary of Agriculture.

Legislation permits “continued cultivation, commercialization, and other specifically enumerated activities.” Safety’s a non-issue. The bill’s language is hard to understand. Section 735 states:

“In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of 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 412c 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 time 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 is this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under sections 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.”

In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture is free to ignore food safety. He can let court ruled hazardous GMOs enter the food chain.

Green Light to Genetic Engineering: The Monsanto Protection Act | Global Research

Here's what I've gotten from this so far. My understanding may, of course, be in error.

A GMO food passes the necessary testing to be unregulated. After this occurs, if a judge makes a ruling that the food should be restricted, this bill allows a period of continued unregulated use while a determination about the merits of the case against the food are determined.

I don't know if there are any time limits to how long the determination takes.

I don't know if there are any mechanisms in place to immediately halt the use of a previously deregulated GMO if strong enough evidence warrants it, other than the Secretary of Agriculture making that call right away.

There may be potential for abuse the way the bill is written. If there are no limits in place as to how long the Secretary's determination takes, he/she could conceivably string that out indefinitely.

Other than that possibility, I don't see how this provides anyone, Monsanto or otherwise, a free pass. It is more of a temporary stay.

Feel free to point out how I've misread this or missed something. Legislation is always written poorly, IMO, and is too easily misinterpreted.

ahhhh, I clearly got my butt kicked... I'm shutting up, temporarily...

There's no butt kicking!

This is just how I've interpreted what I've read on the subject so far. I could be totally wrong about it. I'm certainly no expert on explaining the content of legislation!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Here's what I've gotten from this so far. My understanding may, of course, be in error.

A GMO food passes the necessary testing to be unregulated. After this occurs, if a judge makes a ruling that the food should be restricted, this bill allows a period of continued unregulated use while a determination about the merits of the case against the food are determined.

I don't know if there are any time limits to how long the determination takes.

I don't know if there are any mechanisms in place to immediately halt the use of a previously deregulated GMO if strong enough evidence warrants it, other than the Secretary of Agriculture making that call right away.

There may be potential for abuse the way the bill is written. If there are no limits in place as to how long the Secretary's determination takes, he/she could conceivably string that out indefinitely.

Other than that possibility, I don't see how this provides anyone, Monsanto or otherwise, a free pass. It is more of a temporary stay.

Feel free to point out how I've misread this or missed something. Legislation is always written poorly, IMO, and is too easily misinterpreted.

ahhhh, I clearly got my butt kicked... I'm shutting up, temporarily...

There's no butt kicking!

This is just how I've interpreted what I've read on the subject so far. I could be totally wrong about it. I'm certainly no expert on explaining the content of legislation!

I should have done more research before spouting off, my fault not yours.

I think you nailed it..

 

[Pogo]

Daily Show on Monsanto immunity​

from last night​

News report: "The law passed without most of Congress even knowing about it"--

Stewart: "so Congress is now operating with the same level of self-awareness as a flatulent Grandpa".
..."it turns out members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments".

 

[Montrovant]

Daily Show on Monsanto immunity​

from last night​

News report: "The law passed without most of Congress even knowing about it"--

Stewart: "so Congress is now operating with the same level of self-awareness as a flatulent Grandpa".
..."it turns out members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments".

And however bad the particular bill we've been discussing is, I think ^^^this is what needs to be fixed.

 

[Pogo]

Daily Show on Monsanto immunity​

from last night​

News report: "The law passed without most of Congress even knowing about it"--

Stewart: "so Congress is now operating with the same level of self-awareness as a flatulent Grandpa".
..."it turns out members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments".

And however bad the particular bill we've been discussing is, I think ^^^this is what needs to be fixed.

A-men to that.

By the way, it got buried but I addressed the label question yesterday in post 297 if you're interested.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

i look at it this way, everyone saying GMOs are safe have degrees in science, everyone saying they are dangerous have degrees in acting.

News Flash: easily refutable

What about the science of Climate Change and Global Warming?

Neither of those has anything to do with GMOs, what about them?

Science deniers like you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

like I said.

has anyone not stuck one one partisan side of this issue tried making sense out of all the claims being made?

i look at it this way, everyone saying GMOs are safe have degrees in science, everyone saying they are dangerous have degrees in acting.

Hydraulic fracturing comes to mind when I read this.

Science deniers like QW

 

[Montrovant]

Daily Show on Monsanto immunity​

from last night​

News report: "The law passed without most of Congress even knowing about it"--

Stewart: "so Congress is now operating with the same level of self-awareness as a flatulent Grandpa".
..."it turns out members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments".

And however bad the particular bill we've been discussing is, I think ^^^this is what needs to be fixed.

A-men to that.

By the way, it got buried but I addressed the label question yesterday in post 297 if you're interested.

Let me start by saying I'm not opposed to labeling food as GMO, I just don't know how it would be done on a practical level.

In your first point, I think you make a bit of a false analogy. It would be more like sugar makers wanting to label all types of sugar the same, without the need to specify type. In the case of GMO foods, it is not (in general, as far as I'm aware) an entirely new food, but rather a variation of an already existing one. So, putting 'corn' as an ingredient is accurate for a genetically altered corn or a completely 'natural' corn.

For the second point, I can understand this. I could even accept a temporary ban on GMOs while the vetting process was overhauled. I simply do not accept the idea that man is incapable of producing a safe genetically altered food. So I'm probably not all that far off from you here.

The third point is where we diverge most strongly. I don't look at altering foods as playing god. I don't believe in a god anyway. But even if one exists, you could say we've been playing god by cross-breeding for a LONG time before the current technologies for genetic alterations existed. This is, in many ways, just the next step in how we mold the environment to suit our needs and desires as a species.
That said, I don't think anyone should have to eat things they don't want to. As I said earlier, GMO food labeling for me is a matter of practicality rather than ethics. If a good system for doing it is proposed, I'd probably agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Daily Show on Monsanto immunity​

from last night​

News report: "The law passed without most of Congress even knowing about it"--

Stewart: "so Congress is now operating with the same level of self-awareness as a flatulent Grandpa".
..."it turns out members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments".

And however bad the particular bill we've been discussing is, I think ^^^this is what needs to be fixed.

I agree 100%.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

News Flash: easily refutable

What about the science of Climate Change and Global Warming?

Neither of those has anything to do with GMOs, what about them?

Science deniers like you

Is that because I said that climate change is real, and that humans are contributing to it?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sooo...why is everyone so surprised?
We are living under an oligarchical government. Period.
An Oligarchy is a government where a very small set of the population (by class or wealth) have special influence and laws made for their benefit more than the general populace.
CLEARLY THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE.

You don't like it? Then change how you buy products and services. Your vote doesn't have near the effect of the power of your purchase choices.

 

[Pogo]

And however bad the particular bill we've been discussing is, I think ^^^this is what needs to be fixed.

A-men to that.

By the way, it got buried but I addressed the label question yesterday in post 297 if you're interested.

Let me start by saying I'm not opposed to labeling food as GMO, I just don't know how it would be done on a practical level.

In your first point, I think you make a bit of a false analogy. It would be more like sugar makers wanting to label all types of sugar the same, without the need to specify type. In the case of GMO foods, it is not (in general, as far as I'm aware) an entirely new food, but rather a variation of an already existing one. So, putting 'corn' as an ingredient is accurate for a genetically altered corn or a completely 'natural' corn.

For the second point, I can understand this. I could even accept a temporary ban on GMOs while the vetting process was overhauled. I simply do not accept the idea that man is incapable of producing a safe genetically altered food. So I'm probably not all that far off from you here.

The third point is where we diverge most strongly. I don't look at altering foods as playing god. I don't believe in a god anyway. But even if one exists, you could say we've been playing god by cross-breeding for a LONG time before the current technologies for genetic alterations existed. This is, in many ways, just the next step in how we mold the environment to suit our needs and desires as a species.
That said, I don't think anyone should have to eat things they don't want to. As I said earlier, GMO food labeling for me is a matter of practicality rather than ethics. If a good system for doing it is proposed, I'd probably agree.

OK, to clarify: on Point One I think you're getting lost in details. Sugar was just a ready example of what is included in ingredient labels for consumer info. THe makeup of sugars, compared to GMOs, is irrelevant; I could have said MSG or cottonseed oil or "enriched" flour; the point is we have the info on those elements but suddenly disallow this one. Doesn't quite pass the smell test. Especially when such labeling is prevented from appearing even voluntarily.

And Point Three, you don't have to believe in a traditional concept of "God" (nor do I) to get the concept of "playing God". And no, crossbreeding is hardly the same thing; that's just nudging Nature in a direction She was capable of going anyway. We've cross-bred dogs and cats to select certain traits for centuries. We subconsciously select our biological mates for their genes. I cross pollinate my own blueberry plants so they'll bear fruit. All of these are occurrences that would have happened naturally anyway; we just direct them to the time and quantity we want. All natural.

But a stalk of corn mating with a fish is pretty much impossible. That's what I mean by that. Whatever our concept of the Life Force, we still don't understand it and prolly never will, so it's baldly hubristic to jump in and go "OK, we got this" and start tinkering with directions in Nature, sending them places they never would have evolved, when we can't even explain how the individual parts evolved into what they are. There's a reason they didn't evolve that way and it's mind-bogglingly arrogant to dismiss that as a triviality and thus ignore it. It's impossible to quantify this because it's an ethical question; but ultimately my main concern is not that such lab experiments happen; rather it's that they get released into the biosphere and start cross-pollinating to a point where we can't avoid it even if we choose to. <<There is the problem with this. I don't think any corporation has the right to take Nature away from us. And releasing these frankenfoods into the food chain does exactly that.

This is why this issue is different from others: Again the analogy: if you release Thalidomide on the public because you haven't done proper safety studies, then you may ruin the lives of those who took Thalidomide, but at least that bottle of Thalidomide hasn't cross-pollinated with your bottles of Advil and Pepto-Bismol. It can be contained. This cannot.

That alone should raise all kinds of red flags for everybody.