Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Not to mention the obvious red-herrings:
pesticides? agent orange? Roundup?
None of these has anything to do with GMO.
However, I would be willing to bet that Eating causes Obesity that causes Diabetes.
No shit, Sherlock.
Obama Signs the Monsanto Protection Act
- Thread starter Meister
- Start date
Not to mention the obvious red-herrings:
pesticides? agent orange? Roundup?
None of these has anything to do with GMO.
However, I would be willing to bet that Eating causes Obesity that causes Diabetes.
No shit, Sherlock.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Yes and No
--------------------------
Main articles: Genetic Engineering and Genetically modified organism
Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup and are tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants are generated by the biolistic method (particle gun) or by Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation.
Once satisfactory plants are produced, sufficient seeds are gathered, and the companies producing the seed need to apply for regulatory approval to field-test the seeds. If these field tests are successful, the company must seek regulatory approval for the crop to be marketed (see Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms). Once that approval is obtained, the seeds are mass-produced, and sold to farmers. The farmers produce genetically modified crops, which also contain the inserted gene and its protein product. The farmers then sell their crops as commodities into the food supply market, in countries where such sales are permitted.
Genetically modified food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, I know how it works.
The essence of the legislation as far as I can understand is that Monsanto is not held responsible for what they release onto the public, they become untouchable legally..sweeeeet deal I'd say..
There was a time it seemed that individuals (corporations), bankers and politicians were held responsible for what they imposed on the American people, or, at least they weren't so blatant about shoving their power in our faces.
The essence of your understanding is wrong. Todd actually posted a link to what the damn law says, go read it.
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,861
- 18,792
- 2,330
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. Its 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, Monsantos free to ignore them. So is the Secretary of Agriculture.
Legislation permits continued cultivation, commercialization, and other specifically enumerated activities. Safetys a non-issue. The bills 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 Secretarys 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 Secretarys 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
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Yes and No
--------------------------
Main articles: Genetic Engineering and Genetically modified organism
Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup and are tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants are generated by the biolistic method (particle gun) or by Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation.
Once satisfactory plants are produced, sufficient seeds are gathered, and the companies producing the seed need to apply for regulatory approval to field-test the seeds. If these field tests are successful, the company must seek regulatory approval for the crop to be marketed (see Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms). Once that approval is obtained, the seeds are mass-produced, and sold to farmers. The farmers produce genetically modified crops, which also contain the inserted gene and its protein product. The farmers then sell their crops as commodities into the food supply market, in countries where such sales are permitted.
Genetically modified food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, I know how it works.
The essence of the legislation as far as I can understand is that Monsanto is not held responsible for what they release onto the public, they become untouchable legally..sweeeeet deal I'd say..
There was a time it seemed that individuals (corporations), bankers and politicians were held responsible for what they imposed on the American people, or, at least they weren't so blatant about shoving their power in our faces.
The essence of the legislation as far as I can understand is that Monsanto is not held responsible for what they release onto the public, they become untouchable legally..sweeeeet deal I'd say..
As far as I can understand, your understanding is wrong.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
It permits circumventing judicial decisions. If courts rule GMOs unsafe
You mean if liberal judges rule them unsafe.
The law says they have to be proven, with actual proof, not just a feeling that they're unsafe. Until then, the liberal judge can't halt world trade.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
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.
Dante
I have always been here
like I said.
has anyone not stuck one one partisan side of this issue tried making sense out of all the claims being made?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
i look at it this way, everyone saying GMOs are safe have degrees in science, everyone saying they are dangerous have degrees in acting.
Dante
I have always been here
News Flash: easily refutable
What about the science of Climate Change and Global Warming?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
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?
Mr. H.
Diamond Member
Hydraulic fracturing comes to mind when I read this.
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...
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?
Hadn't thought of it that way but I wouldn't put it past them considering their (lack of) ethics. At the very least it's another in a series of steps to control the dialogue about the science that points to the dangers.*
Hope to God they're not reading this thread...
* as was this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ZpcPQP3yg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ZpcPQP3yg[/ame]
(Foxpologists: note that the villain here is not so much Fox News but Monsanto who put the pressure on them... although Fox for its part caved like a mudslide)
Last edited:
007
Charter Member
It all depends on whether or not they've bought him.
007
Charter Member
Incredible... you know it goes on, but it's still shocking to hear about it right from the horses mouth.
Sorry to delay the response-- it's Spring and there's a lot to do this time of year determining which seeds I can find that aren't already polluted with frankenfoods I don't want anywhere near me, as if I should have a freaking choice...
You've sharpened the focus of the label question onto the concept of labeling GMOs as a group, rather than specific GMOs. I'll give you several reasons.
1) Sugar is not a food ingredient whose action is unknown or mysterious, yet sugars are labeled in the food ingredient list (often under many pseudonyms to try to slip by unnoticed). Consumers like myself scan for these sugars in order to select against them. That's consumer information that --what a concept-- helps the public make a choice. What would you say if the sugar industry passed a law that vaporized sugar from the ingredient list? What if the FDA actually banned those sugars from appearing at all, even voluntarily? (see below)
2) To the point of labeling GMOs globally (rather than individually): as the many links have shown, the entire process of GMO testing has been tainted by corruption, conflicts of interest and legalistic strongarming. Therefore the suspicion behind wanting to know which is GMO is not that "this one may cause cancer, that one may not", but much more basic: that by definition it hasn't been properly tested. We already get dairy products with disclaimer labels that while this milk may be free of rBST, "no significant difference has been found", which is fine, because an informed consumer can see through that bullshit and make his/her own choice. We just want a label to admit, "this product contains ingredients that, instead of passing the usual safety standards, has been rubber-stamped by a gaggle of corporate pirates who bought their way into government so they could profiteer and create a biomonopoly". They can re-word that however they want, so long as I know what it means.
3) is the ethical question, i.e. "playing God". I want to know that the foods I consume were contrived by Nature in her infinite wisdom, and not by some lab technician in St. Louis devising ways to hitch a ******* parking meter to the biosphere. I don't believe for one nanosecond that lab tech is qualified to create new life forms --or ever will be. If you don't mind that human hubris, then have at it, but explain to me why we should all have to go with your choice, just because some congresscritter gets paid off to shill for Monsanto.
So you, if you like, can (1) select foods laden with sugars or other ingredients of shaky fame; (2) believe the USDA is clean and untainted as the driven snow about its regulation; or (3) believe some lab tech is the equivalent of God. Just tell me why the rest of us should be forced to accept any of those.
(1(a)) >> If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.’s [sic]— genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s. Now, however, even that may not work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol, and sugar beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last — may not be far behind.
It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.” (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that’s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them. Nearly an entire continent — it’s called Europe — is so wary that G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that policy is in danger).
...Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown, since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, U.S.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could you at least pretend to be consistent?) <<--- Why Aren't GMO Foods Labeled?
(1(b)) >> That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.
In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”
... "Extra labeling only confuses the consumer," said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices." <<--- FDA Won't Allow GMO-free Labels
"Extra labeling only confuses the consumer". I love that line. As if we're all little children to be told what to do by Daddy Corporat. Shut up and sit in the corner, we'll handle this. Trust us.
Methinks it's time for more than a little teenage rebellion.
Last edited:
I don't think we've had a POTUS (or a Congress collectively) who was not a corporate shill for at least three decades, if not ten.
The illusion that Republicans and Democrats are somehow differentiated in this regard is just that -- illusion. Political theatre to keep the masses distracted.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
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.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Ah, someone else happily ignoring my point, and thereby making it for me!
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.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Israeli officials says Trump is lying about gas field bombing- Started by JLW
- Replies: 3
-
A-10s Now Hunting Iranian Fast Attack Craft in the Strait of Hormuz- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 6
-
