Bi Partisan Cooperation To Poison You

[SD Realtor]

Awesome!

Some chrony repub senator (Blunt, from Missouri) wrote a bill WITH Monsanto, that has a wonderful rider in it. The rider

“effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

Awesome!

Obama signed it into law.

Who says bipartisanship is dead? Who says Obama is anti business?

Read it and eat your corn (or whatever it is that got planted in the ground)

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/

What I really like is how Monsanto actually co-authored the bill.

[no_such_reality]

Um, I check House.gov and I see H.R. 993 as a one page item for conveying some forest land in Utah land to a small town in Utah

[livinincali]

The bill referenced is 933 not 993.

H.R.933 — Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Print – PP)

[all]

[quote=no_such_reality]Um, I check House.gov and I see H.R. 993 as a one page item for conveying some forest land in Utah land to a small town in Utah[/quote]

It’s #2 Weekly Top Five on THOMAS

[SD Realtor]

More links if you like.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-blunt-s-monsanto-protection-act-undermines-legislative-process/article_9ebdf98a-950c-5e84-a1b4-ab9462b32db4.html

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

[CA renter]

In most cases that I’m aware of, the self-interested parties/lobbyists write most of the legislation. We have a government by the corporations, for the corporations. It sucks.

Thanks for bringing this up, SDR.

[no_such_reality]

It helps when you don’t transpose the numbers.

Okay, where’s the rider? I still don’t see it and I don’t anything that looks like what is said in the Agriculture/FDA section.

Mixed urban legend http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

[SD Realtor]

Not really mixed urban legend at all.

Look for section 735.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]Awesome!

“effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”
[/quote]

1. the bill expires September 30, 2013

2. that text highlighted isn’t present and is blatantly false.

i.e that claim is false and gross exaggeration.

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.

Not that Monsanto isn’t glorified evil when it comes to crops but this provision while sleasey allows research to continue until an actual finding occurs.

[SD Realtor]

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?

[no_such_reality]

personally, I think GMOs are an evil godsend. On one hand we have much great crop production because of things like roundup ready genes on the other we have HFCS in everything because of GMO genes.

[quote]
Let me ask this? Why was this provision needed at all?
[/quote]

Because GMOs are political, big business and a green religion for the heritage food movement.

Basically the bill says if it isn’t currently a regulated item, then the Ag Sec *SHALL* treat it as a non-regulated item until that time they determine it needs regulation

as oppose to Ag Sec can be as capricious as they want until the non-regulated status is determined.

or more shortly: it is non-regulated until we determine it is regulated versus it is regulated until we determine it is non-regulated.

GMO and cross breeding have the same results, just different methods to get the genes desired. The downside of the GMO is it’s possible to get genes in the DNA stream that otherwise are not possible and the impacts of those are not known.

[SD Realtor]

I am not a huge anti GMO but it just seems like it is a provision that serves no good to the general public. It is simply a benefit for the author and other like corporates. Why have the clause at all?

Pretty much because it safeguards Monsanto from something like what happened with the Alfalfa case many years back.

The thing that is kind of a drag is what you eluded to, “it is non regulated it needs regulation”. Now from my posts you could determine I am very much an anti govt, anti regulation type. Which is true. However in this particular case, it kind of seems to me that we are kind of going, well go ahead plant it, and if it is fcked up then the SofAG can regulate it. However if someone files a lawsuit because they found it was fcked up, then no dice.

It just seems… like if you can get the SoAG on board, then you can do whatever you like.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]
GMO and cross breeding have the same results, just different methods to get the genes desired. The downside of the GMO is it’s possible to get genes in the DNA stream that otherwise are not possible and the impacts of those are not known.[/quote]

That’s a pretty important idea there that a lot of anti-science/anti-GMO rhetoric skips. There’s a perception that all GMOs are both harmful and willfully dangerous. Though there really hasn’t been much study, the vast majority of GMO products are probably benign at worst. And the really bad ones, if there are any, probably aren’t much worse than that.

Edited to add….

This is not an endorsement of the law or the process. Big business OWNS congress. That sucks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]I am not a huge anti GMO but it just seems like it is a provision that serves no good to the general public. It is simply a benefit for the author and other like corporates. Why have the clause at all?
[/quote]

Because that’s how we’ve institutionalized corruption and political favoritism, two human traits as old as civilization itself.

We don’t call corruption.
We don’t call bribes.
We don’t call it baksheesh
We call it a campaign contribution.

We then put a nice face of attaching pork to everything and cheerlead our politicians for bringing home the bacon.

[Author]

Posts