Yes that does expire 6 months from inception. As much as you feel this is all about nothing, I think it is particularly worrisome from several different aspects.
The prime beneficiary of the bill is also the author of the bill, unless you believe Senator Blunt spent lots of time crafting it on his own. Noth withstanding Monsanto is a regular contributor to Blunts campaign.
What seems to also be somewhat vague, is that nobody seems to be able to recollect who came up with Section 735.
Let’s look at the text.
Sec. 735. 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.
Now you said
“The text also provides the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to put in place provisions to insure the safety, but prevents the court from blocking research because someone is alleging health consequences until the health consequences are determined.”
Note that I capitalized the SHALL. This doesn’t say can, this doesn’t say may, this says SHALL.
Let me ask this? Why was this provision needed at all?
Really there is not any fundamental need for the provision other then to benefit large scale producers. I also do not see how the above text was blatantly false. In fact, there is nothing that any courts can do to prevent growing or transporting crops while this provision is in effect.
What am I missing? How can the courts do anything?
