PDA

View Full Version : More Monsanto



Ian McColgin
07-20-2012, 06:47 AM
[I looked about for a straight news story on this issue but could only find advocacy-call-to-action bits floating about in the nutritional press. To the extent that Iíve been able to track it, the facts are dead on - Monsanto really has itís congressional minions making the regulatory world safe for GM biochem industry.]

(NaturalNews) While millions of Americans were busy celebrating freedom from tyranny during the recent Independence Day festivities, Monsanto was actively trying to thwart that freedom with new attacks on health freedom. It turns out that the most evil corporation in the world has quietly attached riders to both the 2012 Farm Bill and the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would essentially force the federal government to approve GMOs at the request of biotechnology companies, and prohibit all safety reviews of GMOs from having any real impact on the GMO approval process.

The Alliance for Natural Health - USA (ANH-USA), the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), and several other health freedom advocacy groups have been actively drawing attention to these stealth attacks in recent days, and urging Americans to rise up and oppose them now before it is too late. If we fail to act now as a single, unified community devoted to health freedom, in other words, America's agricultural future could literally end up being controlled entirely by the biotech industry, which will have full immunity from the law.

You can fight back now against these threats to food freedom by visiting:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm

Full exemption from the law for the biotech industry
Authored by Congressmen and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill rider, known as the "farmer assurance provision" (Section 733), specifically outlines that the Secretary of Agriculture will be required, upon request, to "immediately" grant temporary approval or deregulation of a GM crop, even if that crop's safety is in question or under review.

In other words, if the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is strong-armed into approving a new GM crop that is later legally challenged in court (which is basically what happened for GM sugar beets and GM alfalfa), the Secretary of Agriculture, under the provisions of the Kingston rider, will be required to approve the cultivation and sale of that crop anyway, even if a higher court has already ordered a moratorium on that crop.

"A so-called 'Monsanto rider,' quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, would require -- not just allow, but require -- the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed," wrote Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins in a recent piece for AlterNet.

"All the farmer or the biotech producer has to do is ask, and the questionable crops could be released into the environment where they could potentially contaminate conventional or organic crops and, ultimately, the nation's food supply."

You can read the rider for yourself, which begins on page 86, Sec. 733 of the following document:
http://appropriations.house.gov

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Or.) introduces amendment to kill 'Monsanto Protection Act'
According to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations website, the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, with the Kingston rider, was already approved by the committee on June 19. (http://appropriations.house.gov) But it will move next to the House floor, where debate and further amendment proposals will take place -- this means there is still time to fight it.

One amendment being proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Or.) seeks to altogether eliminate the Kingston rider, which has now been dubbed by the health freedom community as the Monsanto Protection Act, from the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. You can urge your Congressmen to support Rep. DeFazio's amendment to kill the Monsanto Protection Act by emailing (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm) or calling (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25778.cfm) them.

Committee Farm Bill riders would destroy safeguards that protect farmers, environment from untested GMOs
Another serious food freedom threat exists in the House Agriculture Committee's discussion draft of the contentious 2012 Farm Bill, where Monsanto et al. have inserted key language, via corrupt legislators of course, that will dismantle existing federal law as it pertains to regulating GM crops, and replace it with a free-for-all system where biotech giants are basically free to grow and market whatever GMOs they please without resistance or legal challenge.

"Deliberately buried in the House Agriculture Committee's voluminous discussion draft of the 2012 Farm Bill, these significant changes to the Plant Protection Act (PPA) -- one of the few statutes that regulate GE crops -- will counter the gains that have been made to protect our food supply and the farmers who grow it," writes Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety (CFS), one of the key groups fighting back against this Monsanto sneak attack.

"The provisions (Sections 10011, 10013 and 10014) would force the rushed commercialization of GE crops, create a backdoor approval for Dow's 'Agent Orange' corn and eliminate any meaningful review of the impacts of these novel crops" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com).

These provisions would explicitly outlaw any review of the environmental or human impacts of GM crops under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or any other environmental laws as well. Only the USDA would be allowed to review the safety of GM crops, and this review process would be so severely neutered that the USDA would essentially operate as a formal "rubber stamp" for approving the biotech industry's offerings.

Both sets of riders threaten to eliminate every remaining semblance of regulatory power that "We the People" have over our own food system. If passed, these riders will abolish virtually all remaining protections over the American food supply, and allow Monsanto and the rest of Big Ag to completely control what is grown, and how it is grown.

There is still time to fight back against these heinous threats to food freedom, but swift action is necessary to stop Congress from hammering the last few nails into the coffin of American food freedom.

Be sure to contact your Congressmen right now and demand their support for Rep. Peter DeFazio's amendment to eliminate the Monsanto rider from the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, as well as their opposition to Sections 10011, 10013 and 10014 of the 2012 Farm Bill:
(http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036477_Monsanto_immunity_GM_crops.html#ixzz219slnC fB

Paul Pless
07-20-2012, 06:52 AM
I think its too late, we've already screwed the pooch on reigning in Monsanto. May god have mercy on us.

skuthorp
07-20-2012, 07:03 AM
You know it will be like antibiotics loosing their potency as agents infection evolve. Eventually the effective ones become fewer and fewer. Staph infections are out of control in hospitals as it is.
I reckon a similar situation will occur with pesticide reliant and 'suicide gene' infected crops.
I am minded of the T. S. Elliott quote, "Not with a bang but with a whimper" re food production.

Garret
07-20-2012, 07:03 AM
SignOn.org has a petition going on this: http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-monsanto-rider?source=mo&id=46338-4160306-VGq%3DdPx

Monsanto really is something, isn't it? It surprises me how blissfully unaware most seem to be about what it's up to....

seanz
07-20-2012, 07:11 AM
I like you guys, I really do but isn't it time to admit that you're living in a plutocracy that holds a Punch & Judy show every four years?

Paul Pless
07-20-2012, 07:14 AM
that holds a Punch & Judy show every four years?really sorry for foisting that on you for the last three years. . .

Garret
07-20-2012, 07:17 AM
I like you guys, I really do but isn't it time to admit that you're living in a plutocracy that holds a Punch & Judy show every four years?

Yeah but the show lasts at least several years....

seanz
07-20-2012, 07:20 AM
really sorry for foisting that on you for the last three years. . .

For the last eleven years I've been watching the POTUS on TV and thinking "They're kidding, right?" but for the last three years I've been thinking that in a good way.

Paul Pless
07-20-2012, 07:24 AM
This may come as a shock to you Sean, but in the last eleven years, I don't think I've seen a single New Zealand politician on TV, not once. . .

seanz
07-20-2012, 07:27 AM
I am shocked, I thought you were a Letterman fan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTYkSuqY1ZY

seanz
07-20-2012, 07:30 AM
A thought of a questioning nature just sprang/sprung/sprong into my head........how many politicians do you see on TV from Canada or Mexico on TV?

Paul Pless
07-20-2012, 07:37 AM
A thought of a questioning nature just sprang/sprung/sprong into my head........how many politicians do you see on TV from Canada or Mexico on TV?

If its not Obama or some Republican taking a shot at him we get mostly David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and Asif ali Zardari. We used to get a bit of Sarchozy, but not so much the new Frenchy - I think it because his wife is not as hot as Carla Bruni.


Of course we also get a lot of nightly news on whichever Middle Eastern Despot it is we are angriest at, at the moment. That part of the news is all very feel good and populist for us. . .

seanz
07-20-2012, 07:42 AM
So, not a lot of "local" (North American) political news? Interesting.

Anyway, enough of this acrimonious nationalist ranting, I'm off to bed.

Nighty night.

:D


Oh, and Monsanto sucks.

Garret
07-20-2012, 07:52 AM
G'night!

However - you have to understand that to most Americans, the world beyond the US border is a very fuzzy sort of place. There are a few spots they've heard of - mostly if we are fighting or recently fought a war there, but that's about it. Oh, we'll get a few seconds on the Mexican elections or cartel violence here & there & every other week 15 seconds on Canada - but that's about it.

We're so damn important that the rest of the world just doesn't matter, dontchaknow....

George Jung
07-20-2012, 10:18 AM
Nah, that's not it - we're just distracted. That's what happens with Cable TV News, with soundbites repeated every 15 minutes. Spoonfed, anyone?

B_B
07-20-2012, 11:00 AM
Nah, that's not it - we're just distracted. That's what happens with Cable TV News, with soundbites repeated every 15 minutes. Spoonfed, anyone?
It blows my mind every time John Stewart does a round-up of all the talking heads using the exact same phraseology. So much time so little said.

Gerarddm
07-20-2012, 11:25 AM
Monsanto is evil. Break 'em, I say.

EVIL.

peterAustralia
07-20-2012, 11:33 AM
I am probably not going to make myself popular, but here goes. I dont think GM food is all bad.

My understanding is that GM foods give higher yields with less pesticide. Nothing to do with antibiotics.
We have 7 billion people on the planet, it is going up, maybe it will stabilise below 9 billion, maybe not. I can recall when we hit 4 billion.
Added to that loss of topsoil, global warming, plus the use of good arable land for housing, building etc.

Has one person's health ever been adversly affected by eating GM food?

There may be risks, it is a remote risk that there could be a tiny, tiny harm, but I cant see from where.
I am a believer in logic, I don't see these GM foods as all bad, I can see them doing a lot of good, feeding a lot more people whilst using a lot less pesticide.

just my 2 cents worth

George Jung
07-20-2012, 11:36 AM
I believe you may be correct. But the real question is - why this legislation? Why pursue the elimination of checks and balances? Therein lies the evil.

Dave Gray
07-20-2012, 11:41 AM
I am probably not going to make myself popular, but here goes. I dont think GM food is all bad.

My understanding is that GM foods give higher yields with less pesticide. Nothing to do with antibiotics.
We have 7 billion people on the planet, it is going up, maybe it will stabilise below 9 billion, maybe not. I can recall when we hit 4 billion.
Added to that loss of topsoil, global warming, plus the use of good arable land for housing, building etc.

Has one person's health ever been adversly affected by eating GM food?

There may be risks, it is a remote risk that there could be a tiny, tiny harm, but I cant see from where.
I am a believer in logic, I don't see these GM foods as all bad, I can see them doing a lot of good, feeding a lot more people whilst using a lot less pesticide.

just my 2 cents worth

I somewhat agree, however, picture a gene modified organism suddenly growing rampant, taking over miles of land. Like the himalayan blackberry. Now picture that the only means of effective eradication is through purchasing some product from Monsanto. There was no real review of the organism to begin with, no way to control its introduction, and now the agribusiness has no responsibility for getting rid of the problem. Good business model.

Ian McColgin
07-20-2012, 11:44 AM
There's no reason genetically modified plants and animals can't be of help, except for the reason of human greed and insanity.

For example, Monsanto patents their stuff. Then when some of their GM corn, for example, cross pollinates the field of a farmer not using the Monsanto product, they use the DNA as proof of patent infringement. It's also to be noted that to improve their control over the product line, most Monsanto products cannot be bought and then propagated beyond the original purchase year. They build in various forms of sterility coupled with draconian contracts to prevent farmers from maintaining seed stock. And that's going to be true with Monsanto even if they make products that won't escape and cause massive environmental disaster.

As with medicines, pestacides and fertilizers, GM products should be subject to a long and objective - not done by the company - product safety and environmental review. Beyond that, we allow too many patents. We really ought to start by simply outlawing the patenting of life forms. But that's another set of issues.

George Jung
07-20-2012, 11:57 AM
As with medicines, pestacides and fertilizers, GM products should be subject to a long and objective - not done by the company - product safety and environmental review. Beyond that, we allow too many patents. We really ought to start by simply outlawing the patenting of life forms. But that's another set of issues.<br><br>Bears repeating.&nbsp; Unfortunately we can't count on our 'bought and paid for' congresscritters to 'do the right thing'.&nbsp; Very loud, public outcry, is probably our only recourse.&nbsp; Contact yours today.&nbsp; Write a letter to the editor of your local papers.

Garret
07-20-2012, 12:35 PM
I am probably not going to make myself popular, but here goes. I dont think GM food is all bad.

My understanding is that GM foods give higher yields with less pesticide. Nothing to do with antibiotics.
We have 7 billion people on the planet, it is going up, maybe it will stabilise below 9 billion, maybe not. I can recall when we hit 4 billion.
Added to that loss of topsoil, global warming, plus the use of good arable land for housing, building etc.

Has one person's health ever been adversly affected by eating GM food?

There may be risks, it is a remote risk that there could be a tiny, tiny harm, but I cant see from where.
I am a believer in logic, I don't see these GM foods as all bad, I can see them doing a lot of good, feeding a lot more people whilst using a lot less pesticide.

just my 2 cents worth

I think many here will agree - after all, natural gene modification (by grafting, cross-breeding, etc.) is done every day. What's at issue here is not GM crops, but allowing new ones with no testing by a 3rd party. As has been mentioned, Monsanto has a reptilian record (apologies to snakes) of suing farmers for accidental cross-breeding, producing crops that have built in "self-destructs" and all kinds of other stuff purely designed to protect their profits - at the expense of the farmer's.

Just think where we'd be if Monsanto had control of all apples. We'd be eating giant grannies that had to be replanted every year.

So - it's not GM crops as much as it is Monsanto & how they've shown that they need to be controlled. This reeks of the Cheney move to protect Haliburton against fracking suits.

Ian McColgin
07-20-2012, 12:56 PM
This is a family site. Don't use obscenities like "fracking suits".

[Couldn't resist.]

Old Dryfoot
07-20-2012, 12:56 PM
Just like Frankenstein, Monsanto will inevitably create it's own monster.

Garret
07-20-2012, 12:57 PM
This is a family site. Don't use obscenities like "fracking suits".

[Couldn't resist.]

Can't blame you there! I wouldn't have either....

Garret
07-20-2012, 01:01 PM
Just like Frankenstein, Monsanto will inevitably create it's own monster.

But theirs will get the whole world, not just Switzerland.

Durnik
07-20-2012, 04:33 PM
I am probably not going to make myself popular, but here goes. I dont think GM food is all bad.

My understanding is that GM foods give higher yields with less pesticide. Nothing to do with antibiotics.
We have 7 billion people on the planet, it is going up, maybe it will stabilise below 9 billion, maybe not. I can recall when we hit 4 billion.
Added to that loss of topsoil, global warming, plus the use of good arable land for housing, building etc.

Has one person's health ever been adversly affected by eating GM food?

There may be risks, it is a remote risk that there could be a tiny, tiny harm, but I cant see from where.
I am a believer in logic, I don't see these GM foods as all bad, I can see them doing a lot of good, feeding a lot more people whilst using a lot less pesticide.

just my 2 cents worth

When all you have is a hammer..

Harm is not always direct, as in "who has been made ill by GMO's?". One of Monsanto's ads went along the lines of "when you compare it to your children hand picking worms off the corn plants or spraying the 100 acres of corn, GMO corn looks good". The problem there is a belief that chemical spray is a necessity. It's not. Organic farmers with hundreds of bat homes around their fields are growing fantastic corn.. with _no_ pesticides, pesticides which, regardless of the assurances of their marketers, harm much more than the target species. The difference is one of "work with nature" or "battle against nature" - Nature will always win - growing resistance to herbicides/pesticides anyone?, while bats still eat bugs.. The really bad news here is that the indiscriminate use of herbicides/pesticides is having a deleterious effect on the fauna which traditionally supports the flora.. bats & bees immediately come to mind.

Staying with corn, Monsanto's 'drought resistant' corn produces only slightly better (in drought conditions) than their regular corn.. & no better than native american 'drought tolerant' open pollinated strains, some of which will only produce in near drought conditions - and all of which are more nutritious.

As for greater yields from GMO varieties - Huston, we have a problem. The licensing requirements of Monsanto et al (mirrored by B.G. & Microsoft) prohibit testing of (& reporting on) competing non-GMO varieties in real world cases.. meaning we have only their word (completely honest & unbiased, they assure us! ;-)) for 'improvements'.. Any half way decent organic/naturally grown farmer can out produce Monsanto crops, $ for $ - while creating no externalized costs to be passed on to our grand children. Monsanto et al will not be our saviors.. but keeping in mind that we are also part of life on this planet, they will likely be our destroyers.

A further problem is loss of variety.. How many here remember Country Gentleman corn?? Mmm, mmm, good! ;-) Instead, we have 'sweet' this & 'sugar' that.. Yuk! tho Peaches & Cream was an acceptable hybrid.. ;-)

As for GMO's being safe to eat.. I would think the record of damage caused by non-naturally occuring chemicals in food would speak for itself. The industry (Monsanto has it's fingers in far more pots than just GMO's) has a horrible track record. Agent Orange, anyone?

The patenting of life forms (as with pharmaceuticals & software) is another problem that needs be addressed.. but as long as Monsanto et al control, perhaps better said _are_, the government, that a ain't gonna happen!

just another 2 centavos.. YMMV, IMHO..

enjoy
bobby

Old Dryfoot
07-20-2012, 04:36 PM
But theirs will get the whole world, not just Switzerland.

Nor will they pay a price for the deed... Bhopal anyone?

seanz
07-20-2012, 06:58 PM
I believe you may be correct. But the real question is - why this legislation? Why pursue the elimination of checks and balances? Therein lies the evil.

Here's a slightly broader view from a distant "local" viewpoint........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Controversy _over_Intellectual_Property_.28IP.29_provisions

Include a number of features that would lock-in as a global norm many controversial features of U.S. law, such as endless copyright terms.

And just possibly, make any country in the treaty do Monsanto's bidding, no matter what.

Chip-skiff
07-20-2012, 08:47 PM
Quite a few of Monsanto's patented strains are not intended to reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides, but to allow greater use of chemicals without killing the cash crop.

Greed never sleeps.

Lew Barrett
07-20-2012, 09:07 PM
Thanks so much Ian. I agree, Monsanto should be broken of their nasty ways.

"Blissfully unaware." No kidding.

Garret
07-20-2012, 10:19 PM
Just to be clear - grafting in no way modifies the genes of either the stock or the scion. The purpose of grafting is to produce a plant (or branch, etc.) genetically identical to its parent.

True - bad example. My point was that genetics aren't necessarily the issue - public control over what's being done with them is.

PeterSibley
07-20-2012, 10:20 PM
True - bad example. My point was that genetics aren't necessarily the issue - public control over what's being done with them is.

Agreed .