'Monsanto Protection Act'

[waggy]

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the_monsanto_protection_act_snuck_into_law/

Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that’s a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday

/snip

whoa. that's insane.

ok i think this ranks up there with the CPSIA was a shitty law this is almost if not worse.

wtf.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I have a couple of questions

How many pages was this bill?
Why wasn't this jewel caught by either party?

 

[ivwshane]

Do we know who put it in?

 

[nehalem256]

So what does the bill actually say. Not just what anti-GMO activists are implying it means.

Maybe it just protects Monsanto from irrational anti-GMO activists who want to sue Monsanto for health "risks" they cannot show any credible evidence for?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yet another example of how our government cares not for your well being. Only interests are corporate interests. The people are a distant second. Yet no matter how many times things like this happen we still have believers out there who think there's someone in politics who actually cares. They don't and this is just another example that statement. Either they didn't read it and it shouldn't have been passed or they knew about it and waived it through. Either way they are culpable but no one will hold them accountable because we're too indoctrinated in the left vs right soap opera. When will people ever wake up?

 

[lotus503]

So what does the bill actually say. Not just what anti-GMO activists are implying it means.

Maybe it just protects Monsanto from irrational anti-GMO activists who want to sue Monsanto for health "risks" they cannot show any credible evidence for?

could be however cases where no credible evidence exists are dismissed anyway no need to lobby for special protections.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So what does the bill actually say. Not just what anti-GMO activists are implying it means.

Maybe it just protects Monsanto from irrational anti-GMO activists who want to sue Monsanto for health "risks" they cannot show any credible evidence for?

If there's no evidence then there's nothing to be worried about. Corporate immunity is a huge red flag. No corporation should wield that sort of power and I find it unthinkable for anyone to support such legislation.

 

[Genx87]

This has been in the bill since at least June of last year.

Section 733

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5973/text

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/jun/29/house_language_monsanto_protection_act/

What this says to me is our representatives yet again not reading what they are voting on.

 

[nehalem256]

If there's no evidence then there's nothing to be worried about.

Sure there is

Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice” with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...m_vitamin_a_deficiency.html?wpisrc=most_viral

I think having your product launch delay by 12 years by activists is something to be worried about

Corporate immunity is a huge red flag. No corporation should wield that sort of power and I find it unthinkable for anyone to support such legislation.

The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation

The article says protects. Not immunity. Significant difference, especially when we are likely reading a biased summary of what the bill says.

 

[crownjules]

What this says to me is our representatives yet again not reading what they are voting on.

I think the far more likely scenario is that they're being paid to pass it.

 

[Theb]

the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed

Holy shitballs they should not be able to add riders anonymously.

 

[Genx87]

I think the far more likely scenario is that they're being paid to pass it.

I am sure the person who put it into the bill is. But as a whole I bet most in congress didnt even know about it until brought to their attention. We have a real problem with the size and scope of entire bills.

 

[soundforbjt]

I think the far more likely scenario is that they're being paid to pass it.

As they are with most bills they pass, in one way or another.

 

[waggy]

I read a report that many of Monsento ceo's etc get jobs in the government.

http://www.sallyhomemaker.com/journal/corrupt-the-governments-revolving-door-with-monsanto/ granted not the best site.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread778572/pg1

 

[soulcougher73]

Revolving door between corp execs and Washington DC.

 

[soundforbjt]

Revolving door between corp execs and Washington DC.

Don't forget the upper tier military as well.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Sure there is


http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...m_vitamin_a_deficiency.html?wpisrc=most_viral

I think having your product launch delay by 12 years by activists is something to be worried about

Safety first budro. If it takes 12 yrs so be it. Yet I'm sure you'll come back and cry about those that died because of some deficiency. While this may be true it is also a possibility that these GMO's could have a devastating effect by the selves. To know this it takes time.

The article says protects. Not immunity. Significant difference, especially when we are likely reading a biased summary of what the bill says.

Protects may be the word used. So how does it "protect" without adding immunity? Extra hoops and hurdles? Why does this coporation get rights that normal people do not get? What extra "protection" does anyone get? Answer: none. Laws are written in favor of corporations not people.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I read a report that many of Monsento ceo's etc get jobs in the government.

http://www.sallyhomemaker.com/journal/corrupt-the-governments-revolving-door-with-monsanto/ granted not the best site.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread778572/pg1

Nothing new to the Beltway bandits. People need to wake up to this shit and realize its not about us anymore, it's about greed and corporate protection.

 

[thraashman]

Snopes has already gotten on this if anyone is curious. It's not near as bad as the freak out articles make it out to be.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

 

[mect]

Snopes seems to give a more honest assessment.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp
In other words, this provision is not new, it was also present in a bill passed in 2012, and it doesn't appear to protect Monsanto from litigation. What it does is allow farmers growing GMOs to continue to do so while litigation is pending. In other words, this bill protects farmers from having to lose all their GMO crops every time someone tries to sue Monsanto (at least as I read it). Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[mect]

Snopes has already gotten on this if anyone is curious. It's not near as bad as the freak out articles make it out to be.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

Ah, beat me by a minute.

 

[PokerGuy]

Another example showing clearly that the representatives are either a) crooked , or b) incompetent, or both. I tend to think it's the third option, they are both crooked and incompetent, otherwise stuff like this would not get signed into law.

 

[nehalem256]

Snopes seems to give a more honest assessment.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp
In other words, this provision is not new, it was also present in a bill passed in 2012, and it doesn't appear to protect Monsanto from litigation. What it does is allow farmers growing GMOs to continue to do so while litigation is pending. In other words, this bill protects farmers from having to lose all their GMO crops every time someone tries to sue Monsanto (at least as I read it). Sounds reasonable to me.

So what does the bill actually say. Not just what anti-GMO activists are implying it means.

Maybe it just protects Monsanto from irrational anti-GMO activists who want to sue Monsanto for health "risks" they cannot show any credible evidence for?

Called it. This is nothing more than anti-GMO fearmongering.

 

[MrColin]

So what does the bill actually say. Not just what anti-GMO activists are implying it means.

Maybe it just protects Monsanto from irrational anti-GMO activists who want to sue Monsanto for health "risks" they cannot show any credible evidence for?

I'm not sure yet but I'll bet they didn't end any sentences with prepositions.

Its good to know that if I want to crossbreed basil and poison ivy and sell it as edible to folks I don't like, I will be protected by this new law from civil litigation. Also, I will not be required to disclose the fact that I tampered with the plants' genetic structure. Additionally, if someone else's basil gets accidently pollinated by my new patented poison basil and they try to use the seed, I can sue them into the ground.

 

[lotus503]

I'm not sure yet but I'll bet they didn't end any sentences with prepositions.

Its good to know that if I want to crossbreed basil and poison ivy and sell it as edible to folks I don't like, I will be protected by this new law from civil litigation. Also, I will not be required to disclose the fact that I tampered with the plants' genetic structure. Additionally, if someone else's basil gets accidently pollinated by my new patented poison basil and they try to use the seed, I can sue them into the ground.

Exactly, existing Law already deals with lawsuits with no evidence. why the need for this?