'Monsanto Protection Act' Stripped from Senate Bill

www.commondreams.org...

An amendment dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act," which currently allows large agriculture and biotech corporations to ignore court orders involving the safety of genetically modified seeds, has been stripped from Senate's spending bill that could be voted on as early as Wednesday afternoon.

A bit of background from the article:

The Monsanto Protection Act, otherwise known as the Farmer Assurance Provision rider, was wedged into a stop-gap budget bill that passed earlier this year and signed into law by President Obama in March.

The rider was the source of outrage by many and quickly dubbed a form of "corporate welfare" that benefited large biotechnology corporations firms such as Monsanto and Syngenta as it barred US federal courts from being able to prevent the sale or planting of GMO crops even if they failed to meet federal safety standards or were discovered to be harmful to humans or the environment.

A little bit of good news,

I really am tired of these 'add-ons' to major legislation that have absolutly nothing to do with the subject of the legislation. It's appaling that this kind of thing can be done.

Anyway - looks like good news on one tiny front.

Well this is something I can agree with. Corporations shouldn't have so much power. It should have never been in the bill to begin with.

Good.

Next we need to get the idiots who thought it was a good idea to put that in there in the first place and give them a serious b***h slapping. Then we begin tearing down Monsanto.

reply to post by FyreByrd


What good news, F&S for the finder. Best news all month when common sense wins for a change. Some of this stuff is getting into the genome without even a hint of interaction with non-GMO being researched-- other than it takes over.
Maybe farmers who never needed GMO (for their documented lesser crop yields anyway) will get some much needed legal protection.

Yes!! good riddance!! but sadly I think placed like prisons and the military will still be serving GMO food to the denizens that it inhabits, too bad because I think Defac food is good, especially Soul food Thursday.
This is a good and positive win for the people. Do I sense a shift in focus here? mmmmmmm

reply to post by Auricom


That would be this guy:

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today called for Republican Sen. Roy Blunt to resign immediately. Sen. Blunt has admitted working with Monsanto lobbyists to write the Farmer Assurance Provision, dubbed the Monsanto Protection Act,

www.organicconsumers.org...

reply to post by FyreByrd

The rider was the source of outrage by many and quickly dubbed a form of "corporate welfare" that benefited large biotechnology corporations firms such as Monsanto and Syngenta as it barred US federal courts from being able to prevent the sale or planting of GMO crops even if they failed to meet federal safety standards or were discovered to be harmful to humans or the environment.

www.commondreams.org...


And, once again, it needs to be pointed out that the law had nothing to do with "meeting federal standards" or being "discovered to be harmful to humans or the environment." Such claims are outright lies about the law. Section 735 refers to section 411 of The Plant Protection Act. The Plant Protection Act does not govern food safety. It governs "plant pests."
Here is section 735:

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated us 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.

thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.933:

Here is section 411

SEC. 411. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.

What is a plant pest?

(14) PLANT PEST
.—The term ‘‘plant pest’’ means any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product:
(A) A protozoan.
(B) A nonhuman animal.
(C) A parasitic plant.
(D) A bacterium.
(E) A fungus.
(F) A virus or viroid.
(G) An infectious agent or other pathogen.
(H) Any article similar to or allied with any of the
articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs.

www.aphis.usda.gov...

Nothing about health effects. The law did not affect the power of the courts in cases of food safety nor environmental hazards.

Excellent news. S&F

reply to post by FyreByrd


I have been following this bill for quite a while, it means to take the power of the states local courts over the rights of corporations to do what they want even if it means that what they are doing can kill no only animals but people, by the time the higher courts get to fight back on behave of the states already the GMO companies would have infected with their crap the states that has been fighting to the end to stop them from contaminating their crops.

The bill is deceiving and actually unconstitutional when it comes to superseding state courts, what could be next forcing people to buy their crap by mandate while superseding the Supreme court.

reply to post by Tardacus


Well this may explain some of his positions.

Corruption allegations Blunt was a member of the "CREW's Most Corrupt", a publication distributed by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, in 2005[11] and 2006.[12] CREW accused Blunt of benefiting firms who had hired his then-girlfriend (later wife) Abigail Perlman and son Andrew Blunt, as well as close connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who had been convicted upon multiple counts of fraud. Blunt denies both accusations.

wikipedia

Hmmm have they been investigated?

I don't see him on the current list her is the current list of CREWS most corrupt.

Has this actually been passed and signed ?

Or is this just an 'amendment' that will somehow be excluded later after the heat dies down ?

We need some genuine verification.

reply to post by xuenchen

It was a rider which was included in last year's budget. It was a law which is, and will be in effect until midnight on September 30.

The rider is not currently in the Senate's new budget.

reply to post by Tardacus


Good to know, I've warmed up both my b***h slapping hands in anticipation with this jokers face. But seriously, what can we do? I'd like to know. One thing I'll personally be doing is emailing (and calling) my friends and family to let them know who is trying to sell our health out to corporations.

Other than that, I'm at a loss. I do want him to meet my b***h slapping hands though. But I guess I must refrain from such actions lest I want a bunk mate named "Bubba".

reply to post by Phage


Lest we forget

In a Tuesday afternoon press release, the FDA announced that Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive, had joined the agency as “senior advisor to the commissioner.” If the title is vague, the portfolio (pasted from the press release) is substantial–a kind of food czar of the Food and Drug Administration:

Taylor’s new position isn’t his first in government. He’s a veteran apparatchik who has made an art of the role-swapping dance between the food industry and the agencies that regulate it. (The FDA’s press release highlights his government service while delicately omitting his Monsanto daliances.) In her 2002 book Food Politics, the nutritionist and food-industry critic Marion Nestle describes him like this (quote courtesy of La Vida Locavore):

So you really think we are going to get truth from this agency. There are many reports where legitimate negative research has been ignored.

reply to post by liveandlearn

I don't know.
But what does that have to do with the lies about Section 735?
It in no way limits the powers of the court in cases of human health or environmental risks.

Let's get real shall we? Monsanto is going to do what ever they want to do, law or no law.
What legal entity could touch a monster like Monsanto. Both parties are in the bag for Monsanto.
Just look who's on the Board of Directors, the CEO etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

Control how food is grown, processed and distributed like Monsanto does and " Houston we have a problem "

Phage
reply to post by liveandlearn

 

I don't know.
But what does that have to do with the lies about Section 735?
It in no way limits the powers of the court in cases of human health or environmental risks.

And I don't know specifically about section 735. I will agree, not being knowledgeable of legalize the post does seem to misrepresent. I do know that by the time the courts get to it that it will be far to late to mitigate the damage that has been done. And the FDA carries much more weight than a common organic farmer. And they (the FDA) are known for relying on false information to support their agenda, as are most gov. agencies.

reply to post by liveandlearn

Section 735 has nothing to do with the FDA.

marg6043
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

[...]

The bill is deceiving and actually unconstitutional when it comes to superseding state courts, what could be next forcing people to buy their crap by mandate while superseding the Supreme court.

Why not? Obamacare has now set a precedent for forcing us to buy whether we want to or not. From this point on, I presume we will be forced to buy whatever the corporations determine that they want us to buy. I sure as hell don't see the government or the courts standing in the way....

Auricom
Next we need to get the idiots who thought it was a good idea to put that in there in the first place

Yup, you can blame the corps for this and that, but gettign any where CLOSE to having this passed in any way, is completely stupid.

Could you imagine something similar with guns that jam all the time, bombs that dont explode, planes that crash, ships that sink, subs that leak? Oh no, thats serious isnt it? war? better throw tonnes of money at it and make sure it works. But when it comes to feeding your citizens...... yeah just throw any new nasty, poisonous and unhealthy crops at them ::while strangling any and all alternatives::

*le sigh*