Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act'

UnderMiSensi
UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited March 2013 in The Social Lounge
United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

“But Obama ignored [the petition],” IB Times’ Connor Sheets writes, “instead choosing to sign a bill that 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.”

James Brumley, a reporter for Investor Place, explains a little more thoroughly just how dangerous the rider is now that biotech companies are allowed to bypass judicial scrutiny. Up until it was signed, he writes, “the USDA [US Department of Agriculture] oversaw and approved (or denied) the testing of genetically modified seeds, while the federal courts retained the authority to halt the testing or sale of these plants if it felt that public health was being jeopardized. With HR 933 now a law, however, the court system no longer has the right to step in and protect the consumer.”

If the president’s signature isn’t all that surprising, though, consider the genesis of the bill itself. According to an article published Monday in the New York Daily News, US Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) “worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill.”

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8WveF8YjYEE

Comments

  • StoneColdMikey
    StoneColdMikey Members, Moderators Posts: 33,543 Regulator
    supposedly a lot of the dem senators didn't know about it smh.
  • playmaker88
    playmaker88 Members Posts: 67,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No one.. No entity.company.. should be above reproach
  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    No one.. No entity.company.. should be above reproach

    But they are, I don't remember any colonist getting tried for crimes against humanity when native americans were killed, former slavemasters didn't get life in prison for their despicable act of human subjugation and their assets didn't get transferred to the slaves either, hell even ? went on to live a normal life after the atrocities they committed against German "Jews". This ? is nothing new
  • Valentinez A. Kaiser
    Valentinez A. Kaiser Members Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭✭✭
    obama-monsanto-gulity.jpg


    Who remembers when Michelle Obama first came out promoting organic produce, only for it not to fit in with "the agenda" and then switched it up to just promoting health?

    white-house-organic-garden.jpg
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Monsanto wins....


    Wack as ? ...


    But corporations don't have power
  • earth two superman
    earth two superman Members Posts: 17,149 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Republicans put this into the bill to prevent the government shutdown. Obama doesnt have line veto power, so he couldnt stop this w/o the government shutting down.

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    obama-monsanto-gulity.jpg


    Who remembers when Michelle Obama first came out promoting organic produce, only for it not to fit in with "the agenda" and then switched it up to just promoting health?

    white-house-organic-garden.jpg

    Surprise surprise......Obama doing what his corporate masters tell him to do. No shocker here
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Republicans put this into the bill to prevent the government shutdown. Obama doesnt have line veto power, so he couldnt stop this w/o the government shutting down.
    which we know because Obama spoke out loudly about it.

    wait

  • StillFaggyAF
    StillFaggyAF Members Posts: 40,358 ✭✭✭✭✭
    this is why the line-item veto should come back. this is just like the NDAA Act
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is why I don't trust that ? . Umbrella Corp got him in their pocket. Gmo's got ya body.
  • twatgetta
    twatgetta Members Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bascially giving Monsanto full license to ? us thru the food. this housenigga never ceases to amaze me. make sad for all you fools that voted for this Kenyan CIA plant.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LMFAO and I was the ? who didn't VOTE for this MAN!!!! HA! You ? just got what you got coming to ya'll!!!!
  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2013
    And people look at me crazy when I say I won't marry and American woman or raise kids in the US.

    Toxins implanted into GM food crops to ? pests are reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies, alarming research has revealed.

    A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals.
    Millions of acres in North and South America are planted with GM corn containing the toxins, which is fed in vast quantities to farm livestock around the world – including Britain.

    However, it is now clear the toxins designed to ? crop pests are reaching humans and babies in the ? – apparently through food.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html

  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is why I don't today that ? .
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    LMFAO and I was the ? who didn't VOTE for this MAN!!!! HA! You ? just got what you got coming to ya'll!!!!
    Nah, you just a ?
  • EK5K
    EK5K Members Posts: 31
    I love you muhfuckas. Where have I been? Imma' ingest more of this site and get my bearings before I say ? . Much respect on the real.
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    LMFAO and I was the ? who didn't VOTE for this MAN!!!! HA! You ? just got what you got coming to ya'll!!!!

    im confused as to what this ? is so excited about
  • High Revolutionary
    High Revolutionary Members Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2013
    This is why I don't trust that ? . Umbrella Corp got him in their pocket. Gmo's got ya body.

    Shoutouts to Albert Wesker:

    alberwesker_311x264.jpg

  • Rock_Well
    Rock_Well Members Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I read Whole Foods market is down with this too so I read
    http://worldtruth.tv/usda-forces-whole-foods-to-accept-monsanto/
  • Mohzzy
    Mohzzy Members Posts: 7
    Article I found on PolitiFact, for what its worth
    A new law "requires the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled against the crop as being dangerous to public safety or the environment."
    Facebook posts on Friday, March 29th, 2013 in a Facebook post

    Group says Monsanto law skirts courts, requires approval of genetically engineered seeds

    Share this story:



    This Facebook post made dire warnings about Monsanto products.

    Have you heard of the Monsanto Protection Act?

    That’s the name critics have assigned to a section of the continuing resolution which Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed on March 20, 2013, that keeps the federal government operating through the end of the fiscal year.

    Tucked into Section 735 of the law is a provision relating to the regulation of genetically engineered crops that has food safety activists up in arms.

    We’ve seen a number of claims about this legislation, on Facebook in particular. This one, from the group Grow Food, Not Lawns, caught our eye:

    The law "requires the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled against the crop as being dangerous to public safety or the environment."

    That’s a hefty statement about a hot issue. We decided to look further.

    Sugar beets and the regulatory process

    Missouri-based Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of genetically engineered seeds, which are regulated by the USDA. The agency is required, under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, to study them for environmental impacts, such as their effect on other crops and their risk of becoming a pest plant. (The USDA does not assess the seeds in terms of food safety -- that’s the job of the FDA and is not addressed in this law.)

    This process landed in court in 2009, when Monsanto petitioned for approval of a sugar beet genetically engineered to be resistant to a Monsanto brand of pesticide. The USDA conducted a preliminary environmental study that found that the beet’s introduction into agriculture would have no significant impact on the environment and gave its approval. The Center for Food Safety sued USDA, saying it had not completed an adequate NEPA review, and the courts agreed, sending USDA back to complete the study.

    It’s important to note that the court ruling didn’t say the beets were unsafe; it simply said that an adequate environmental review hadn’t been done.

    "It took USDA more than a year to do the analysis, but farmers were growing these sugar beets," said Greg Jaffe with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "USDA issued temporary permits while they continued the analysis, with conditions to ensure it didn’t impact the environment. They had the discretion to do that."

    Ultimately, Jaffe said, USDA finished its study and approved the crop.

    So, what’s new?

    The attachment in the budget bill, known as a "rider," essentially puts into law the practice described in the sugar beet case.

    "The language in Section 735 codifies existing USDA authority and elements of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that lower courts should not automatically prohibit the planting of biotech crop varieties, or the harvest and sale of biotech crops already planted, if/when their commercial use is temporarily banned because of a lawsuit," said Karen Batra, spokeswoman for the Biotech Industry Organization. "This applies to products that have ALREADY gone through the approval process and already been deregulated by FDA and therefore deemed to be safe for human health and the environment. If the secretary believes that the crop at issue poses a risk in any way, he can forbid its use."

    Jaffe added, "I don’t think it provides USDA with any new legal authority that they didn’t already have, although clearly it’s Congress telling USDA that they should use that authority wherever possible."

    The text of the law says "In the event that a determination of nonregulated 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..."

    The words -- "shall immediately grant" -- are alarming activists who are already suspicious of genetically modified products dominating the food supply.

    "It goes a step beyond by forcing the agency to approve those permits or partial deregulation," said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs at the Center for Food Safety, the group that filed suit in the sugar beet case. "There’s an urgency written into the law that is going to stifle sound science and science-based regulation."

    "It kind of takes the courts out of the game," added Patty Lovera of the group Food and Water Watch.

    Jaffe, however, noted that the USDA would still have to adhere to existing guidelines in the approval process, such as ensuring that products comply with the Plant Protection Act.

    When we contacted the USDA about this claim, a spokesman sent us this statement:

    "(Agriculture) Secretary (Tom) Vilsack has asked the Office of General Counsel to review this provision as it appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action, which may make the provision unenforceable."

    Our ruling

    The group Grow Food, Not Lawns claimed that the budget bill "requires the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled against the crop as being dangerous to public safety or the environment."

    We learned from experts that the USDA issuing temporary permits for products in litigation is not new with this law. That was already the agency’s practice. And in the sugar beet case that went to court, the dispute was not over the safety of the food but the environmental review procedure.

    However, the language in the law saying the USDA "shall" issue permits escalates that policy, with one expert telling us it "compels" the agency to allow the use of disputed products while litigation proceeds. And now the USDA itself is now questioning whether that provision is enforceable.

    The Facebook claim rightly describes the effect of the new provision, but lacks some important context. We rate it Half True.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/05/facebook-posts/group-says-monsanto-law-skirts-courts-requires-app/
  • aladdin1978
    aladdin1978 Members Posts: 4,609 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And this is the ? most of yall campaigned soooo hard to get into office. Cheers
  • UnderMiSensi
    UnderMiSensi Members Posts: 955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K4pfiYK2IQ

    ^
    John Stewart summing out how this bill got "anonymously" pushed through. After watching this video, you'll see why I look at people who say "look to the government to solve problems" as naive, mentally challenged, bias idiots. Gov and Corps are in bed with each other and the People allow it, because they are equally full of ? .
  • ImTheKangRoundHere
    ImTheKangRoundHere Members Posts: 4,649 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    LMFAO and I was the ? who didn't VOTE for this MAN!!!! HA! You ? just got what you got coming to ya'll!!!!

    Was Romney really any better? He wanted a flat tax for crying out loud
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    RodrigueZz wrote: »
    Was Romney really any better? He wanted a flat tax for crying out loud
    this might be a good time for that Malcolm X analogy about the difference between a fox and a wolf is that while neither of them gives a ? about you, at least you know where you stand with the wolf.