Obama Signs the Monsanto Protection Act

[Mad Scientist]

It also amazes me that at least one government fool thought it was a good idea to exempt a corporation from any legal action in the future for a potentially deadly crop.

Your Government is owned a run by Bankers and Corporations, has been for a long time. Get used to it.

Now go back to watching March Madness or the Jodie Arias trial.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Big God? What the hell are you talking about?

By the way, when I mentioned Reid it was simply to point out that, under Senate rules, nothing ends up in a bill unless he approves it. He has absolute power to block any amendment he does not like, so it was meant to counter the particular idiot that was trying to make this into a partisan issue.

So the OP posts a partisan article from the rightwing Examiner, trying to pin this whole business on Obama, and when it's pointed out that a Republican Senator put the rider in, which was conveniently omitted from the hack article in the OP,

I'm the partisan???

Hey, asswipe, I defended the law. Which means, in the context of your ******* point, I defended Obama. Want to tell me how pointing out that Reid, another Democrat, allowed the thing I am defending to get into the law, makes me the ******* PARTISAN here?

So the 'particular idiot' you were referring to above is Meister, the OP?

lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the OP posts a partisan article from the rightwing Examiner, trying to pin this whole business on Obama, and when it's pointed out that a Republican Senator put the rider in, which was conveniently omitted from the hack article in the OP,

I'm the partisan???

Hey, asswipe, I defended the law. Which means, in the context of your ******* point, I defended Obama. Want to tell me how pointing out that Reid, another Democrat, allowed the thing I am defending to get into the law, makes me the ******* PARTISAN here?

So the 'particular idiot' you were referring to above is Meister, the OP?

lol

No, I was referring to the particular idiot that I was referring to.

 

[Pogo]

In other words, if GMOs are banned, you are just trying to stop the symptoms without affecting the disease, government/corporate corruption. So, GMOs are banned. Either corporations with different products will move in and take the place of the Monsanto's, or the biotech companies will find a new product or different way to push what they have.

As far as your thoughts on labeling, I can think of at least one very good reason not to want to put GMO on food labels; this thread is a perfect example. There are many people who are adamant that all GMO foods are bad. That doesn't actually make them so. However, a company would certainly want to do whatever it could to sell its products, so if labeling foods as GMO would mean less sales, even if they are perfectly safe, of course they wouldn't want to do that. It doesn't have to be some nefarious scheme, even if it may be in some cases.

Your argument sounds too much like 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the police search you?'. I realize that's an inexact analogy, but it has that ring to it. If the food is safe, why wouldn't you want it in the label? That only holds true if everyone actually accepts the food is safe.

So again, while I can accept and maybe get behind better, more stringent testing of GMO foods before they are accepted, the idea that GMO foods are inherently bad is just reactionary IMO. So banning GMO foods, especially if you don't have evidence they are all bad, is going after the symptoms rather than the disease.

You can't possibly compare a police search to an ingredient label search. Ingredients are not citizens, while OTOH citizens absolutely do have a right to be protected from industrial excesses. There can be no question about that. What your argument then boils down to is essentially they might want the labeling to be banned because it would be bad for profits.

Yeah, no shit. See the point directly above about protecting the consumer. Profits don't trump public safety. That's not something anyone can argue. So when I ask for a reason to oppose such labeling, I meant a legitimate reason. We all know the ulterior one.

I don't know why this point shouldn't be arrow-through-the-brain obvious-- this is what's being satirized in this skit:

Mr. Hilton: Oh, we use only the finest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish Ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with lark's vomit.

Inspector: LARK'S VOMIT?!?!?

Mr. Hilton: Correct.

Inspector: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!

Mr. Hilton: Ah, it does, on the bottom of the box, after 'monosodium glutamate'.

Inspector: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it's be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label: 'WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!'

Mr. Hilton: Our sales would plummet!

-- and this was a case of not enough labeling, where what we have here is a failure to label at all. WtF? Sorry, this idea that the corporate profit must be defended at all costs and the public be damned is an absolute non starter.


And for the record, I don't avoid GMO foods because they're "bad". I avoid them because they're unknown. And the corrupt revolving door is fixated on keeping them that way. That's what government is supposed to be doing -- requiring proof of public safety before marketing. Like the aforementioned Frances Oldham Kelsey did with Thalidomide. How many lives were spared here because she stood up to the march of what Windbag would call "science"?

Since government isn't doing that, we the consumer are left to sift through the grocery shelves and the corn fields for the increasingly elusive unpolluted source that continues to get pollinated and polluted while the government stands by with a wink and a wad of campaign cash. No thanks.

That's one thing that sets this issue apart: if we had allowed Thalidomide, it would have affected only those who took Thalidomide-- it wouldn't be creeping into every bottle of Tylenol.

Nomsayin'??

You missed my point entirely.

If a company sells a GMO food that is entirely safe, do you think they might lose profits by labeling it as a GMO food? That is what I was saying; even if the food is completely safe, the anti-GMO sentiment would be a problem for them.

The comparison to searches was in the assumption of guilt. You assume that profits are tied to lack of safety in the case of GMO products. I contend that even if perfectly safe, labeling as GMO would likely lose a company money. Maybe that's reasonable, but that doesn't mean that wanting to avoid GMO labels must necessarily be indicative of attempting to foist unsafe foods on an unsuspecting public.

You asked for a reason other than hiding unsafe products, I attempted to provide one.

No, I didn't miss your point at all - that's exactly what I thought you meant. And it's positively insane.

And if we have an ingredient law that requires the food company to note that lark's vomit is in there, and it affects their sales, then they can stop putting lark's vomit in there. Ain't rocket surgery.

If people don't want their product because they're selling lark's vomit, then on what basis should the government be facilitating their ability to do so by hiding it?? Isn't that the same thing as the government declaring you can't buy a supersize soda, in reverse? How is it we can force stuff on the public but don't we dare force stuff on the corporation? Whence cometh that double standard?

Should we have been forced to buy Edsels too?

If the company still wants to convince us that lark's vomit is a good thing to ingest, then let them sell the idea. Isn't that how free enterprise works??

I'm sorry but this kind of thinking is damn alarming.

 

[Harry Dresden]

C'mon Harry, the video is just comic relief. The mention of Ho Foods reminded me of it; not really relevant to any point here, except maybe a satirical overtone of elitism at the Ho.

Trader Joe's for their part limits itself to I think about 4000 items on the shelves rather than the 10,000 that the average grocery carries. That's an integral part of how they keep prices down-- when you carry 54 different kinds of pasta sauce and 45 of them don't sell, that's a cost drag. When you carry five and two don't sell -- not so much.

its just there are people who believe these videos.....but as far as how many things on the shelves.....it is kinda nice when you have more than one brand to choose from...and there are alot of things that Joe sells that are just his brand.....but dont get me wrong....i go to Joes about once a week....i think they are a good store.....they have some frozen Italian Pasta that not even the Italian store carries.....

Yes it's nice for the consumer but it's an added cost for the merchant, and there goes your food bill. Now if TJ's made selections for its limited stock that were mundane, it would be a drawback, but fortunately they are very very good at that, and it keeps their costs down, and we benefit from that (and they do too from our repeat business). Another thing they do is buy direct from suppliers without a middleman, which also helps and which is the source of all those self-branded products.

To walk this back to the topic, I'm just noting that Trader Joe's says all their stuff is non-GMO, and you won't pay through the nose as you will at HoFoods for the same item. They have a far better business model.

i go to whole foods once in a while.....they have stuff that one else has around here.....its the only place i can get Bison Ribeye for one....and the different kinds of Bacon....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't possibly compare a police search to an ingredient label search. Ingredients are not citizens, while OTOH citizens absolutely do have a right to be protected from industrial excesses. There can be no question about that. What your argument then boils down to is essentially they might want the labeling to be banned because it would be bad for profits.

Yeah, no shit. See the point directly above about protecting the consumer. Profits don't trump public safety. That's not something anyone can argue. So when I ask for a reason to oppose such labeling, I meant a legitimate reason. We all know the ulterior one.

I don't know why this point shouldn't be arrow-through-the-brain obvious-- this is what's being satirized in this skit:


-- and this was a case of not enough labeling, where what we have here is a failure to label at all. WtF? Sorry, this idea that the corporate profit must be defended at all costs and the public be damned is an absolute non starter.


And for the record, I don't avoid GMO foods because they're "bad". I avoid them because they're unknown. And the corrupt revolving door is fixated on keeping them that way. That's what government is supposed to be doing -- requiring proof of public safety before marketing. Like the aforementioned Frances Oldham Kelsey did with Thalidomide. How many lives were spared here because she stood up to the march of what Windbag would call "science"?

Since government isn't doing that, we the consumer are left to sift through the grocery shelves and the corn fields for the increasingly elusive unpolluted source that continues to get pollinated and polluted while the government stands by with a wink and a wad of campaign cash. No thanks.

That's one thing that sets this issue apart: if we had allowed Thalidomide, it would have affected only those who took Thalidomide-- it wouldn't be creeping into every bottle of Tylenol.

Nomsayin'??

You missed my point entirely.

If a company sells a GMO food that is entirely safe, do you think they might lose profits by labeling it as a GMO food? That is what I was saying; even if the food is completely safe, the anti-GMO sentiment would be a problem for them.

The comparison to searches was in the assumption of guilt. You assume that profits are tied to lack of safety in the case of GMO products. I contend that even if perfectly safe, labeling as GMO would likely lose a company money. Maybe that's reasonable, but that doesn't mean that wanting to avoid GMO labels must necessarily be indicative of attempting to foist unsafe foods on an unsuspecting public.

You asked for a reason other than hiding unsafe products, I attempted to provide one.

No, I didn't miss your point at all - that's exactly what I thought you meant. And it's positively insane.

And if we have an ingredient law that requires the food company to note that lark's vomit is in there, and it affects their sales, then they can stop putting lark's vomit in there. Ain't rocket surgery.

If people don't want their product because they're selling lark's vomit, then on what basis should the government be facilitating their ability to do so by hiding it?? Isn't that the same thing as the government declaring you can't buy a supersize soda, in reverse? How is it we can force stuff on the public but don't we dare force stuff on the corporation? Whence cometh that double standard?

Should we have been forced to buy Edsels too?

If the company still wants to convince us that lark's vomit is a good thing to ingest, then let them sell the idea. Isn't that how free enterprise works??

I'm sorry but this kind of thinking is damn alarming.

Except that isn't what actually happens, is it?

What happens in the real world is that, in order to avoid getting sued over the lark vomit, companies print a generic label that says "Warning: May contain lark vomit."

You really don't think all those things that contain warnings about peanuts really have peanuts in them, do you?

 

[Montrovant]

You can't possibly compare a police search to an ingredient label search. Ingredients are not citizens, while OTOH citizens absolutely do have a right to be protected from industrial excesses. There can be no question about that. What your argument then boils down to is essentially they might want the labeling to be banned because it would be bad for profits.

Yeah, no shit. See the point directly above about protecting the consumer. Profits don't trump public safety. That's not something anyone can argue. So when I ask for a reason to oppose such labeling, I meant a legitimate reason. We all know the ulterior one.

I don't know why this point shouldn't be arrow-through-the-brain obvious-- this is what's being satirized in this skit:


-- and this was a case of not enough labeling, where what we have here is a failure to label at all. WtF? Sorry, this idea that the corporate profit must be defended at all costs and the public be damned is an absolute non starter.


And for the record, I don't avoid GMO foods because they're "bad". I avoid them because they're unknown. And the corrupt revolving door is fixated on keeping them that way. That's what government is supposed to be doing -- requiring proof of public safety before marketing. Like the aforementioned Frances Oldham Kelsey did with Thalidomide. How many lives were spared here because she stood up to the march of what Windbag would call "science"?

Since government isn't doing that, we the consumer are left to sift through the grocery shelves and the corn fields for the increasingly elusive unpolluted source that continues to get pollinated and polluted while the government stands by with a wink and a wad of campaign cash. No thanks.

That's one thing that sets this issue apart: if we had allowed Thalidomide, it would have affected only those who took Thalidomide-- it wouldn't be creeping into every bottle of Tylenol.

Nomsayin'??

You missed my point entirely.

If a company sells a GMO food that is entirely safe, do you think they might lose profits by labeling it as a GMO food? That is what I was saying; even if the food is completely safe, the anti-GMO sentiment would be a problem for them.

The comparison to searches was in the assumption of guilt. You assume that profits are tied to lack of safety in the case of GMO products. I contend that even if perfectly safe, labeling as GMO would likely lose a company money. Maybe that's reasonable, but that doesn't mean that wanting to avoid GMO labels must necessarily be indicative of attempting to foist unsafe foods on an unsuspecting public.

You asked for a reason other than hiding unsafe products, I attempted to provide one.

No, I didn't miss your point at all - that's exactly what I thought you meant. And it's positively insane.

And if we have an ingredient law that requires the food company to note that lark's vomit is in there, and it affects their sales, then they can stop putting lark's vomit in there. Ain't rocket surgery.

If people don't want their product because they're selling lark's vomit, then on what basis should the government be facilitating their ability to do so by hiding it?? Isn't that the same thing as the government declaring you can't buy a supersize soda, in reverse? How is it we can force stuff on the public but don't we dare force stuff on the corporation? Whence cometh that double standard?

Should we have been forced to buy Edsels too?

If the company still wants to convince us that lark's vomit is a good thing to ingest, then let them sell the idea. Isn't that how free enterprise works??

I'm sorry but this kind of thinking is damn alarming.

Clearly you DID miss my point, based on this little rant.

I'm not defending the idea that GMOs don't need to be labeled. What I'm doing is giving you a reason companies might not want to label their products as GMOs which doesn't involve them trying to sell something unsafe. How you go from that to the government forcing people to buy products I'm not sure, but it makes you seem less than rational about the whole topic.

Look, you're the one who asked why a company would want to hide the fact their products contain GMO ingredients if they are safe. I've answered that question. You either don't accept that or cannot help but read more into my answer than is there. Whichever is the case, I don't think this particular conversational thread is going anywhere.

 

[lynn63]

If a company stands behind their GMO product as safe and reliable then they should have no reason to hesitate in labeling their product. The fact that they don't want to label it should create concern from the public.

 

[Samson]

It also amazes me that at least one government fool thought it was a good idea to exempt a corporation from any legal action in the future for a potentially deadly crop.

Your Government is owned a run by Bankers and Corporations, has been for a long time. Get used to it.

Now go back to watching March Madness or the Jodie Arias trial.

I am used to it: US companies have made the USA one of the greatest places on earth to live, with the highest standard of living.




Even for you.

 

[Montrovant]

If a company stands behind their GMO product as safe and reliable then they should have no reason to hesitate in labeling their product. The fact that they don't want to label it should create concern from the public.

As I said before : that is only true if the public believes the product is safe. Image is everything.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Look studies on rats that consumed GMO for more than 9 months.

 

[Pogo]

You missed my point entirely.

If a company sells a GMO food that is entirely safe, do you think they might lose profits by labeling it as a GMO food? That is what I was saying; even if the food is completely safe, the anti-GMO sentiment would be a problem for them.

The comparison to searches was in the assumption of guilt. You assume that profits are tied to lack of safety in the case of GMO products. I contend that even if perfectly safe, labeling as GMO would likely lose a company money. Maybe that's reasonable, but that doesn't mean that wanting to avoid GMO labels must necessarily be indicative of attempting to foist unsafe foods on an unsuspecting public.

You asked for a reason other than hiding unsafe products, I attempted to provide one.

No, I didn't miss your point at all - that's exactly what I thought you meant. And it's positively insane.

And if we have an ingredient law that requires the food company to note that lark's vomit is in there, and it affects their sales, then they can stop putting lark's vomit in there. Ain't rocket surgery.

If people don't want their product because they're selling lark's vomit, then on what basis should the government be facilitating their ability to do so by hiding it?? Isn't that the same thing as the government declaring you can't buy a supersize soda, in reverse? How is it we can force stuff on the public but don't we dare force stuff on the corporation? Whence cometh that double standard?

Should we have been forced to buy Edsels too?

If the company still wants to convince us that lark's vomit is a good thing to ingest, then let them sell the idea. Isn't that how free enterprise works??

I'm sorry but this kind of thinking is damn alarming.

Clearly you DID miss my point, based on this little rant.

I'm not defending the idea that GMOs don't need to be labeled. What I'm doing is giving you a reason companies might not want to label their products as GMOs which doesn't involve them trying to sell something unsafe. How you go from that to the government forcing people to buy products I'm not sure, but it makes you seem less than rational about the whole topic.

Look, you're the one who asked why a company would want to hide the fact their products contain GMO ingredients if they are safe. I've answered that question. You either don't accept that or cannot help but read more into my answer than is there. Whichever is the case, I don't think this particular conversational thread is going anywhere.

I asked how they could legitimately withhold that info. What their ulterior motives are is obvious. The question is how the withholding of that info from the public can be justified.
And it can't. It's part of the problems they have been shown to have known about. Much like the tobacco companies knew theirs.

What Lynn63 said.

 

[Pogo]

If a company stands behind their GMO product as safe and reliable then they should have no reason to hesitate in labeling their product. The fact that they don't want to label it should create concern from the public.

As I said before : that is only true if the public believes the product is safe. Image is everything.

Image is everything. And it's the manufacturer's job to hone that image -- not the government's.
But there is is no basis for withholding that info just because the public knowing there's a safety concern might adversely affect sales. Of course it might adversely affect sales. Who the hell wants unsafe food? Should we stop labeling cigarettes that they can cause cancer, because R.J. Reynolds might not make as much money?

I can't grasp how anybody could support that. And yet -- that's what our sterling government's doing.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Government is just a mafia. If you don't pay yours taxes to protected by the gov, they will persecute you.

 

[Montrovant]

If a company stands behind their GMO product as safe and reliable then they should have no reason to hesitate in labeling their product. The fact that they don't want to label it should create concern from the public.

As I said before : that is only true if the public believes the product is safe. Image is everything.

Image is everything. And it's the manufacturer's job to hone that image -- not the government's.
But there is is no basis for withholding that info just because the public knowing there's a safety concern might adversely affect sales. Of course it might adversely affect sales. Who the hell wants unsafe food? Should we stop labeling cigarettes that they can cause cancer, because R.J. Reynolds might not make as much money?

I can't grasp how anybody could support that. And yet -- that's what our sterling government's doing.

Is there a safety concern with consuming all GMO foods? Or do you have just certain examples and are extrapolating to all GMO foods based on those?

I'll try this one more time. It's not just that a safety concern adversely affects sales. It's also that the perception of a safety concern will do the same.

If a company has a totally safe and healthy GMO product, there is still a vocal portion of the population who will declare it unsafe and possibly evil.

I also wonder what labeling you think should be done. Do companies need to show the particular type of each ingredient used? In other words, 'hydrogenated corn oil made from corn strain 294' or something to that effect? I'm not sure how the mechanics of it would work, what would fall under the category GMO, etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I didn't miss your point at all - that's exactly what I thought you meant. And it's positively insane.

And if we have an ingredient law that requires the food company to note that lark's vomit is in there, and it affects their sales, then they can stop putting lark's vomit in there. Ain't rocket surgery.

If people don't want their product because they're selling lark's vomit, then on what basis should the government be facilitating their ability to do so by hiding it?? Isn't that the same thing as the government declaring you can't buy a supersize soda, in reverse? How is it we can force stuff on the public but don't we dare force stuff on the corporation? Whence cometh that double standard?

Should we have been forced to buy Edsels too?

If the company still wants to convince us that lark's vomit is a good thing to ingest, then let them sell the idea. Isn't that how free enterprise works??

I'm sorry but this kind of thinking is damn alarming.

Clearly you DID miss my point, based on this little rant.

I'm not defending the idea that GMOs don't need to be labeled. What I'm doing is giving you a reason companies might not want to label their products as GMOs which doesn't involve them trying to sell something unsafe. How you go from that to the government forcing people to buy products I'm not sure, but it makes you seem less than rational about the whole topic.

Look, you're the one who asked why a company would want to hide the fact their products contain GMO ingredients if they are safe. I've answered that question. You either don't accept that or cannot help but read more into my answer than is there. Whichever is the case, I don't think this particular conversational thread is going anywhere.

I asked how they could legitimately withhold that info. What their ulterior motives are is obvious. The question is how the withholding of that info from the public can be justified.
And it can't. It's part of the problems they have been shown to have known about. Much like the tobacco companies knew theirs.

What Lynn63 said.

They can legitimately withhold that information for the same reason that non GMO products can withhold the information that their products contain arsenic, it is irrelevant to anyone but the nutcases.

 

[Pogo]

How the Monsanto Protection Act Snuck Into Law- Salon​

>> Since the act’s passing, more than 250,000 people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

The Food Democracy Now and the Center for Food are directing blame at the Senate Appropriations Committee and its chairman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the “Monsanto Protection Act” even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted in order to avert a government shutdown.

“It sets a terrible precedent,” noted the International Business Times. “Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.” >>

Disclaimer for Windbag and other 'emerging' readers of English: I did not write this; it's a quote. Emphasis added.

 

[longknife]

Top Senator Apologizes for Monsanto Protection Act

Anthony Gucciardi Prison Planet.com April 2, 2013

Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland has released a public statement apologizing to the public for the passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, stating that the legislation was buried deep within a government spending bill that was required to ‘prevent a government shutdown’.

Read more @ Prison Planet.com » Top Senator Apologizes for Monsanto Protection Act

Well, while I don't agree with the furor, it'll be interesting to see if anything gets done.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

A righty let Monsanto itself literally WRITE this bill - a corporation he admitted WROTE LEGISLATION SOLELY FOR ITS BENEFIT. I am PISSED!!! . This is the most disgusting, unconstitutional law passed since Citizens united. We (250K people) even signed a petition at the white house. Very dangerous legislation protecting a truly EVIL corporation (set of corporations).

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

The asshole congressman from MO (Rep of course) was the one that got the most moolah from Monsatan... interesting, no? Legalized bribery is all we have now for a "voice". This country's government "for the people" is a dying shame. How is this legal?

 

[Dante]

Obama sells out U.S. citizens by signing Monsanto Protection Act into law

For those that are new to this situation, the Monsanto Protection Act is the name given to what's known as a legislative rider that was inserted into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill.
Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Section 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous.
Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GMO crops that are thought -- even by the US government -- to be a danger to human health or our cherised environment
Obama sells out U.S. citizens by signing Monsanto Protection Act into law - Dallas healthy living | Examiner.com


It amazes me that this was placed in the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill.
It also amazes me that at least one government fool thought it was a good idea to exempt a corporation from any legal action in the future for a potentially deadly crop.

Welcome to Corporate Capitalism. This kind of thing is nothing new. Look at Google, Microsoft, Disney, ..............................

Look at Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

So now Meister joins the left wing fringe on this issue?

Cool!