Senate Passes Monsanto Protection Act

[Mark]

Senate Passes Monsanto Protection Act

In the typical slippery nature of Monsanto’s legislation-based actions, the biotech giant is now virtually guaranteed the ability to recklessly plant experimental GM crops without having to worry about the United States government and its subsequent courts. The Monsanto Protection Act buried deep within the budget resolution has passed the Senate, and now nothing short of a presidential veto will put an end to the ruling.

In case you’re not familiar, the Monsanto Protection Act is the name given to what’s known as a legislative rider that was inserted into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill. Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Sec. 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto the immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous. Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GM crops that are thought even by the US government to be a danger to health or the environment.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/senate-passes-monsanto-protection-act/#ixzz2OfNrLWpR

[Kilika]

Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GM crops that are thought even by the US government to be a danger to health or the environment.

Need an objective view on what it legally means, because as stated, I don't see how they can pass such legislation. It's scientifically insane to act that way. I don't know how any bonafide scientist would support such a policy.

[Mark]

'Monsanto Protection Act': 5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision

The "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.

There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:

1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.

2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.

5.) It sets a terrible precedent. Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.

“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Seattle attorney Bill Marler -- who has represented victims of foodborne illness in successful lawsuits against corporations -- told the New York Daily News.

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079?utm

[Psalm 51:17]

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

And this isn't the first time they just let something like this slip right under their noses, unaware, into these bills. This all but proves that Congress doesn't care about serving the people.

[Psalm 51:17]

New Law Spurs Controversy, Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops
http://news.yahoo.com/law-spurs-controversy-debate-over-genetically-modified-crops-054500634--abc-news-politics.html
4/1/13
An uproar has erupted on social media platforms in the days following President Obama's signing into law legislation opponents are deriding as the Monsanto Protection Act - but groups disagree about what the real consequences of the bill will be.

The derogatory name for the bill refers to the biotech company, Monsanto, which opponents say lucked out with the measure's passage. Critics see it as a win for peddlers of genetically-modified foods and a danger to farmers and consumers alike.

It passed as part of the continuing resolution whisked through Congress earlier this month to avoid a government shutdown slated for March 27. Obama signed that bill on Tuesday, while many in Washington were preoccupied with the debate over same-sex marriage.

The section of the CR that groups are objecting to - section 735 - dealt with how questionable crops can be regulated. In the event that a seed is approved by the USDA but that approval is challenged by a court ruling, the seed can still be used and sold until the USDA says otherwise, according to that new law.

more

[Kilika]

In the event that a seed is approved by the USDA but that approval is challenged by a court ruling, the seed can still be used and sold until the USDA says otherwise, according to that new law.

Since when does the USDA trump a court ruling? You can't have federal agencies ignoring a court ruling. That's legally absurd, and completely unconstitutional.

So if somebody challenges in court Monsanto over their GMO seeds, and the court rules against Monsanto's seeds, the seeds can still be used so long as the USDA says so, even if the court says otherwise? That's just unbelievable.

And some people wonder why the US is falling apart, even though the corruption, thievery, and deceit is right in front of them.

[Kilika]

Monsanto wins again...

Indiana Farmer Loses Battle Against Monsanto

By Ariane de Vogue | ABC News – 5 hours ago

The Supreme Court ruled today against a 76-year-old Indiana farmer who had taken on Monsanto in a patent dispute over a genetically modified soybean seed.

"The question in this case," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court, "is whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. We hold that he may not."

Monsanto developed the seed that is resistant to a powerful weed killer called Roundup.

READ MORE: Why Indiana Seed Farmer Took on Behemoth

Farmers pay a premium price for the seeds and enter into the contract with the company promising to buy new seeds for subsequent planting seasons. Monsanto makes the requirement in order to protect the company's investment and its patented technology. The seed is now used for more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States.

Vernon Bowman has purchased the seed for years for his first crop and abided by the technology agreement. But for a more risky, second-crop planting later in the season, Bowman didn't want to invest in the expensive soy bean.

Second plantings are susceptible to the dangers of a short growing time and the threat of drought. He decided to take a risk and buy a mix of unlabeled seed from the local grain elevator hoping that most of it would be Roundup resistant. After harvesting that crop, he would save the progeny and replant it in the late 1990s.

Lawyers for Bowman argued in court that Monsanto's patent was exhausted after the first sale.

Monsanto sued the farmer in 2007. (cont.)

http://gma.yahoo.com/indiana-farmer-loses-battle-against-monsanto-160751858--abc-news-politics.html

[Psalm 51:17]

The USSC decision was UNANIMOUS?

Wow...well so much for "conservatives" like Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia being pro-life, pro-family, etc. Thank you "religious right"/"moral majority"!

[Kilika]

Are you really surprised? I mean after all, we know from prophecy how this will ultimately play out. There may be small "victories" here and there, but overall, Monsanto and such will win the judgements against the public, and government/Supreme Court will continue to rule against the people.

It's all rigged, so we should expect it to favor tyranny. It has to for the world to get to the point of the mark and the Antichrist.

[Mark]

U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Sanders’ proposal to label GMO foods

The Vermont House of Representatives was the first legislative body in the nation to move ahead with a proposal requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered foods this spring, and a number of other states are considering labeling legislation, but it looks like a congressional mandate could be a long way off.
 
Monsanto, a company that has been in the forefront of genetic modification of food, has threatened to sue Vermont over the legislation.
 
The U.S. Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last week that would have put a similar requirement in place nationwide. The vote was 27-71.

“Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should,” Sanders said in a statement.

David Rogers of Politico reported that the Democratic leadership in the Senate is more sympathetic to labeling. A year ago both Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Chuck Schumer, D-NY, voted against a similar proposal. This time they both changed their votes in support of Sanders’ amendment.

According to Maplight, a national nonpartisan research website, found that companies that support the use of genetically engineered crops donated $1.2 million to Senate Political Action Committees from 2009 through March of this year.
 
Fifty-four countries require labeling, according to Sanders. France, Peru, Ireland, Japan and Egypt have banned the import and export of genetically modified food.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/27/u-s-senate-overwhelmingly-rejected-sanders-proposal-to-label-gmo-foods/

[Psalm 51:17]

Talk about a country being taken over from within - I read yesterday that the USSC ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood on a certain case. And yes, the same USSC that has a majority GOP appointed justices.

[Kilika]

companies that support the use of genetically engineered crops donated $1.2 million to Senate Political Action Committees

THAT has got to stop, but I have no doubt it won't. The love of money among the unbelieving is strong.

All that money is a racket, no question, used to buy influence.

I suspect if they changed the law where all donations go into one general, anonymous, pool of money to be sorted out as needed, the cash would dry up.

[Mark]

‘Monsanto Protection Act’ quietly extended by Congress

A budget provision protecting genetically-modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks was extended for three months in an approved US House of Representatives’ spending bill on Tuesday evening.

 Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by opponents, the budget rider shields biotech behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal courts from intervening to force an end to the sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism) even if the genetically-engineered product causes damaging health effects.

The biotech rider first made news in March when it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

The current three-month extension is part of the short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending bill.

The Center for Food Safety, a vocal opponent of the rider, released a statement expressing dismay that the measure once again avoided proper legislative process while usurping the power to challenge GMO products in court.

“The rider represents an unprecedented attack on US judicial review, which is an essential element of US law and provides a critical check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods,”  they wrote. “This also raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Agriculture and Judiciary Committees that merited hearings by the Committees before its consideration.”

Following the original vote in March, President Barack Obama signed the provision into law as part of larger legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May protesting the clandestine effort to protect the powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public and our justice system.”

Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

The biotech rider “could override any court-mandated caution and could instead allow continued planting.  Further, it forces USDA to approve permits for such continued planting immediately, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’ mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-protection-extended-house-741/