Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act while Gay Marriage has us distracted

¯

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Superstar
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
6,307
Reputation
101
Daps
15,248
:snoop: Close Thread Please

The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” has been removed from a Senate spending bill to the delight of those opposed to the controversial provision.

The provision would have stayed on the books under a continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives last week, but U.S. Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., led a successful charge to have the language removed from the Senate version of the bill.

“One week ago, I asked, ‘Who pulls more weight on Capitol Hill? The agrichemical companies like Dow and Monsanto, or the food movement?'” Elizabeth Kucinich, policy director for the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of Senator Barbara Mikulski we now know the answer: the food movement.”

Mikulski introduced an amendment to have the language of the bill changed to remove the “Monsanto Protection Act” removed. The amendment was approved earlier this week, and the provision will expire at the end of this month.

A massive groundswell of public opposition to the “Monsanto Protection Act” began in March, when news of its existence hit the mainstream.

The provision, officially Section 735 of the HR 933 continuing resolution passed in March, came under fire because food safety advocates warn that it strips federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and propagation of genetically modified seeds and crops if safety tests reveal concerns about their safety.

The legislation was written by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., in collaboration withMonsanto Company -- which has become the public face of the virulent debate over GMOs.

The furor over the “Monsanto Protection Act” and GMOs reached fever pitch in May, when hundreds of thousands of people participated in a global protest known as the March Against Monsanto. The company was even named 2013’s “most evil corporation” in a June poll, which was likely in large part a response to the controversy over the provision.

Mikulski’s amendment was not the first one aimed at repealing the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced a similar amendment near the height of the controversy in May, but it was not adopted.

Interestingly, the Center for Food Safety blamed Mikulski for allowing the provision to make it into continuing resolution via a “hidden backroom deal” back in March.

“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, wrote in a statement at the time. “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.”

Outrage at the existence of the “Monsanto Protection Act” was intense even before the bill containing it was passed. In the days leading up to its being signed by President Barack Obama, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition asking him to veto the bill, and Food Democracy Now protesters organized by the Food Democracy Now advocacy group demonstrated against it in front of the White House.

Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of the Food Democracy Now advocacy group, lauded the Senate's move to remove the controversial provision.

“This is a major victory for the food movement and all those who care about openness and transparency in their government,” Murphy wrote in a statement. “And a sign that our voices can make the difference when we are effectively organized.”

Monsanto did not respond immediately to a request seeking comment on the new developments surrounding the “Monsanto Protection Act,” but Kelly J. Clauss, a spokeswoman for the company, sent a statement on the provision to IBTimes back in March.

“A broad bipartisan group of legislators in both the House and Senate have supported the provision dating back to June 2012, and it passed with broad bipartisan support,” Clauss explained at the time. “As we understand it, the point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a careful balance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews.”

This article will be updated if and when Monsanto responds to the request for comment.

UPDATE: In lieu of commenting, a Monsanto spokesman referred International Business Times to the company's blog post on the provision expiring. You can read that blog post here.
Click to expand...
 
Kritic

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
JUSE_HEDD said:
:snoop: Close Thread Please
Click to expand...
what's the hurry to close threads? :what:
Oct 4, 2013

This week, Oregon passed SB 633, known by many as the Monsanto Protection Act, in a special legislative session.

The act would prevent local governments from enacting or enforcing any measures which regulate agricultural, flower, nursery and vegetable seeds or their products. Essentially, it would prevent counties and municipalities from banning GMO crops. The Oregon Farm Bureau claims that this is because it does not want local governments to be able to elevate some farming practices over others.

The effect of the bill, however, is the elevation of GMO farming over regular farming and organic farming. Cross pollination of GMO crops to organic crops can lead to contamination of both produce and seeds, leading to massive monetary losses for organic companies and family farms, as well as unreliable organic produce for consumers. Oregon is the country’s fifth highest organic producer, and is home to some of the country’s main organic seed companies.



Local governments should be able to protect their constituents from this economic impact, product contamination and, as many believe, health risk. The Monsanto Protection Act would infringe on the rights of local governments and their constituents. GMO crops shouldn’t be banned nationally, or even on the state level, but food activists believe that an organic community seeking to prevent Monsanto or another biotech company from moving in and damaging their crops should have this right.

This is made even more important in light of an appeals court ruling last June. Monsanto had filed 144 patent infringement lawsuits against organic farmers between 1997 and 2010. It claimed that the farmers had used its seed without paying the required royalties, while the farmers said that their fields were inadvertently contaminated without their knowledge. Monsanto should probably have paid damages to those farmers, but instead, it sued them for patent infringement and won.

The farmers appealed their case to the Supreme Court in September. Also in September, the federal “Farmer Assurance Provision,” also referred to as a “Monsanto Protection Act,” expired and was not renewed. The provision – attached to the March 28 emergency spending bill – prevented the government from halting the sale and planting of GMO seeds while the USDA was in the process of reviewing their safety. It also, however, offered Monsanto immunity from federal courts with regards to those very experimental crops.

Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act is not only the latest example of government protection of biotech corporations at the expense of small-scale farmers and individuals. It also connects with other legal issues and legislation to take away the ability of organic farmers to oppose the company.

The issue of Monsanto is not an illustration of the problems with free markets, it’s an illustration of the problems which arise when corporations and government are too closely connected.

Ben Swann questioned this close connection last week stating, “Monsanto’s influence over food supply is troubling. Their ability to seemingly prevent GMO labeling is also troubling. Their connections with people like Mike Taylor who have the ability to control what does and does not show up on our families’ tables, sure smells like crony capitalism.” See article here.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/oregon-passes-monsanto-protection-act/#xbTZAGVOxG8PMMJ6.99
Click to expand...
@DEAD7
 
Last edited:
Kritic

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
Monsanto announces high profits and major expansion across Latin America
Biotech titan Monsanto saw its shares surge by more than 2 percent on Wednesday morning after announcing better-than-expected first quarter earnings earlier that day.


The company said that for the quarter ending November 30, 2013 it earned $368 million, or 69 cents per share. One year earlier, the company earned only $339 million during that period, the Associated Press reported.

In all, the AP added, Monsanto’s total revenue rose 7 percent last quarter to $3.1 billion. Analysts at FactSet had predicted earnings of only 64 cents per share, or $3.069 billion in revenue, for that span.
Click to expand...

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-first-quarter-earnings-322/



why do you hate capitalism? :stopitslime:
 
Thegospel

Thegospel

Superstar
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
22,870
Reputation
-6,748
Daps
47,002
Reppin
NULL
Peter Vecsey said:
People don't even get it....

Food has just been patented ladies & gentlemen...

Them collard greens and tomatoes your grandma used to plant in her backyard will get her 3 years fed time now.....
Click to expand...

Where did it say people couldn't grow their own food and consequences were jail time?
 
Kritic

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
500
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
stilltheguru said:
Where did it say people couldn't grow their own food and consequences were jail time?
Click to expand...
have a seat. dont move too fast. we'll get there. do you know it's illegal to wash a car in your own driveway and you can get ticketed for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top