Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Article

WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 — Last week, the U.S. Senate approved HR 933, a short term funding measure designed to avoid a March 27 government shutdown. Hidden within HR 933 is section 735, the “Farmer Assurance Provision.”

Called the “Monsanto Protection Act” by critics, this section gives the USDA the power to allow the planting, harvest and sale of genetically engineered crops, even if a court rules that they were not properly approved. Short of a Presidential veto, the provision is a certain victory for genetically engineered foods.

In the past, if a court ruled that a genetically engineered crop was not properly approved by USDA and could pose a risk to health or the environment, the court could halt its planting and sale, pending a review of the approval. This so-called “biotech rider” effectively strips courts of this power and allows the production and commercialization of the crop during the appeals process.

The provision was slipped in anonymously while the resolution was in the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). The rider should have been brought in front of the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees, but was not. Senator John Tester (D-MT) proposed an amendment to strip section 735 from the bill, but the amendment never came up for a vote. According to the Center for Food Safety, there were no hearings on this provision and most Democrats did not know it was part of the larger bill.

It is always nice when courts are not allowed to broach the subject at all, and legislation is passed quietly and anonymously.

We have the finest government money can buy.

Huh... most of those bio-engineered seeds has already been patented and approved. I wonder which one they're talking about. (I'm from St. Louis where Monsanto's headquarters resides... so, we hear about them quite a bit).

Well, that sucks but in all honesty the agriculture industry needs better laws especially in regard to the environment and animal protection.

 whembly wrote:
Huh... most of those bio-engineered seeds has already been patented and approved. I wonder which one they're talking about. (I'm from St. Louis where Monsanto's headquarters resides... so, we hear about them quite a bit).

I think, just from reading the article, that it's about a successful court appeal against a crop that had been approved. Before this rider, on that finding the court would previously have been able to rule the product can't be planted and harvested while any appeals are processed. Now the company can continue to use the product while the matter drags through appeals.

Now, whether that's good law or bad I don't know. I think there probably ought to be some notion of not jerking companies around - they got USDA approval, and while one court ruling went against the appeals may not. On the other hand, people's health is serious business, so maybe every protection possible should be in place, regardless of how a company might get jerked around.

I don't know. But I do know that something like shouldn't be resolved with a rider to other legislation. That's just, well, Fraz summed it up nicely - it's crooked.

As a general rule of thumb, I tend to think that anything Monsanto thinks is a good idea is likely to be terrible for the consumer and human beings in general.

I remember when the Monsanto issue came to common public knowledge a few years back. Won't say that they are flat out bad but some of how they got their products approved seemed a bit shady.

The biggest issue as I remember was,

That during the first big push to genetically modify certain crops Monsanto hired a bunch of genetic experts to develop and research the new modified plant strains.

Once the projects were completed they let most of the top researchers go and then flooded the FDA with their new products.

In order to meet the increased demand the FDA started hiring the best researchers that they could get......which just happened to be the recently laid off Monsanto scientists.

Apparently, in some cases, the scientists ended up approving their own research. This seems like a conflict of interest that should have never happened, but according to groups fighting Monsanto this occurred.

Some of these groups also assert that the genetically modified vegetables & fruits could be playing a role in the exponential increase in food allergies.

All in all, it sounds like a mess.


Btw, If any of the above is in error, please correct me. This was all based off of a cursory look at the complaints when they made the news.

 azazel the cat wrote:

As a general rule of thumb, I tend to think that anything Monsanto thinks is a good idea is likely to be terrible for the consumer and human beings in general.

Why?... they're a huge company with a storied past. Many companies are like that... it isn't like the current crop of employees had anything to do with the saccharin, the atomic bomb or Agent Orange stuff. They've practically divested themselves away the chemical industry and switch gears to the agriculture industry.

For as hard as they try, there's no credible evidence that finds genetically engineered products harmful. In fact, the main reason why these engineered crops is a good idea is the massive reduction of herbicides/pesticides used on these crops. That's a GOOD thing.

 whembly wrote:
Why?... they're a huge company with a storied past. Many companies are like that...

That is like saying all movies are the same because they are all movies. Different companies have different history's, practices, management, and reputations.

 whembly wrote:
For as hard as they try, there's no credible evidence that finds genetically engineered products harmful.

There isn't any evidence of the long term effects are positive either, so that doesn't mean much, and also was never the point. The question isn't whether genetically modified food is harmful, but of the (continuing) shady and ethically dubious practices the company is known for.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why?... they're a huge company with a storied past. Many companies are like that...

That is like saying all movies are the same because they are all movies. Different companies have different history's, practices, management, and reputations.

Uh... not quite... old companies may have had a bad past... that's all.

 whembly wrote:
For as hard as they try, there's no credible evidence that finds genetically engineered products harmful.

There isn't any evidence of the long term effects are positive either, so that doesn't mean much, and also was never the point. The question isn't whether genetically modified food is harmful, but of the (continuing) shady and ethically dubious practices the company is known for.

What "shady and ethically dubious practices" are they currently doing now? Are you sure that their past transgression isn't poisoning your perception now?

Gotta admit, Im not really seeing an issue here. This is referring to GMO plants that have already gotten FDA approval, and not having to burn your crops if a court somewhere doesnt like the FDA's decision. As much as I am suspicious of both Monsanto and the FDA, the fact os we do not force other industries to C&D all operations of an approved product while we 'double check'. Should this have been a quiet rider? Probably not, but those stupid things happen all the time. Singling out this particular one as somehow 'evil Monsanto at work' seems somewhat petty in a 'im standing in gak but you're the one that smells" sort of way.

As to GMOs in general, I sort of have to laugh at how this has suddenly become the new scare. Unless you have been eating heirloom veggies or wild game your whole life, you have been eating cultured and crossbred foods. I also like to point out that GMO grain is responsible for people all over Africa being able to eat almost at all.

whembly wrote:For as hard as they try, there's no credible evidence that finds genetically engineered products harmful. In fact, the main reason why these engineered crops is a good idea is the massive reduction of herbicides/pesticides used on these crops. That's a GOOD thing.

...

What "shady and ethically dubious practices" are they currently doing now? Are you sure that their past transgression isn't poisoning your perception now?

First off, your argument about "past transgressions" is a whole new level of stupid. Is your perception of Charles Manson poisoned by his past transgressions? Think about your foolish rhetoric for a change. All current perceptions are informed by past actions. THAT'S HOW EXPERIENCE WORKS. If a man kicks a puppy, you're going to call him unpleasant names and judge him to be such, because of his past transgression. With regard to Monsanto, their laundry-list of heinous actions is pretty long. I'm not sure which part I consider worse: that they're still performing most of those same actions, just with different tools (Roundup instead of DDT) or that they're not even sorry they performed those bad actions in the first place (Agent Orange). Here's just a few things Monsanto currently does:

First off, this very thread is about Monsanto attempting to circumvent safety regulations, claiming they should be allowed to feth with your food with impunity until someone can prove that it's not safe.

To start with, there's the part where Monsanto uses the legal system to shake down farmers, operating on the fact that the cost to fight Monsanto in court is less than the cost of simply paying Monsanto off; even when the farmer has made no infringements.

Then there's the fact that Monsanto routinely attempts to make an argument which is the equivalent to saying that if they patent a micro-brew beer and then dump that beer into the ocean, they then own the ocean.

Let's not forget the fact that Monsanto routinely attempts to gain access to private records and information related to even the neighbours of their customers, whom have no business dealings with Monsanto at all.

Well, then there's the part where Monsanto injected cows with a knowingly-carcinogenic BGH; which was actually investigated in Canada and rejected (in fact, almost laughed out of the office because of how weak and one-sided the internal research was that Monsanto provided):



This is a lovely document that carefully goes through the entire GMO issue with Monsanto in the US. Please take note of pages 14 and 20; the two points together are effectively this: If you use Monsanto-patented seeds, we will sue you and put you out of business unless you sign a contract with us. And we are well aware that our seeds were created with a dominant gene, and can easily be spread through cross-pollination.

Think about that... if you walked into a restaurant, and a waiter dumped a bottle of win on your jacket, would you ever expect to pay for that wine?

And I haven't even touched the SEC and anti-trust investigations yet.

I strongly suggest you watch a lovely documentary titled The World According to Monsanto. It's very one-sided (although reasonably so, in this case) but it's excellent for its coverage of Monsanto's less-than-ethical practices overseas, which get absolutely no press in the US.

How are we going to have super humans if you take away our super foods!?!

Another victory for the private mega corporations that actually run the country.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Spoiler:

whembly wrote:For as hard as they try, there's no credible evidence that finds genetically engineered products harmful. In fact, the main reason why these engineered crops is a good idea is the massive reduction of herbicides/pesticides used on these crops. That's a GOOD thing.

...

What "shady and ethically dubious practices" are they currently doing now? Are you sure that their past transgression isn't poisoning your perception now?

First off, your argument about "past transgressions" is a whole new level of stupid. Is your perception of Charles Manson poisoned by his past transgressions? Think about your foolish rhetoric for a change. All current perceptions are informed by past actions. THAT'S HOW EXPERIENCE WORKS. If a man kicks a puppy, you're going to call him unpleasant names and judge him to be such, because of his past transgression. With regard to Monsanto, their laundry-list of heinous actions is pretty long. I'm not sure which part I consider worse: that they're still performing most of those same actions, just with different tools (Roundup instead of DDT) or that they're not even sorry they performed those bad actions in the first place (Agent Orange). Here's just a few things Monsanto currently does:

First off, this very thread is about Monsanto attempting to circumvent safety regulations, claiming they should be allowed to feth with your food with impunity until someone can prove that it's not safe.

To start with, there's the part where Monsanto uses the legal system to shake down farmers, operating on the fact that the cost to fight Monsanto in court is less than the cost of simply paying Monsanto off; even when the farmer has made no infringements.

Then there's the fact that Monsanto routinely attempts to make an argument which is the equivalent to saying that if they patent a micro-brew beer and then dump that beer into the ocean, they then own the ocean.

Let's not forget the fact that Monsanto routinely attempts to gain access to private records and information related to even the neighbours of their customers, whom have no business dealings with Monsanto at all.

Well, then there's the part where Monsanto injected cows with a knowingly-carcinogenic BGH; which was actually investigated in Canada and rejected (in fact, almost laughed out of the office because of how weak and one-sided the internal research was that Monsanto provided):



This is a lovely document that carefully goes through the entire GMO issue with Monsanto in the US. Please take note of pages 14 and 20; the two points together are effectively this: If you use Monsanto-patented seeds, we will sue you and put you out of business unless you sign a contract with us. And we are well aware that our seeds were created with a dominant gene, and can easily be spread through cross-pollination.

Think about that... if you walked into a restaurant, and a waiter dumped a bottle of win on your jacket, would you ever expect to pay for that wine?

And I haven't even touched the SEC and anti-trust investigations yet.

I strongly suggest you watch a lovely documentary titled The World According to Monsanto. It's very one-sided (although reasonably so, in this case) but it's excellent for its coverage of Monsanto's less-than-ethical practices overseas, which get absolutely no press in the US

.

Meh... I just can't get to worked up about this...

Do you hold the same acrimony as Monsanto towards Nike or Apple? Just wondering...

The thing is, no one is forcing these companies to license with Monsanto, no one is forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seeds. They make good products, thus they cost more, and consumers/farmers/companies are willing to pay the premium. That’s how the world works.

And yes, Monsanto defends its intellectual property with an iron fist using very aggressive legal tactic (and with a large purse). Any successful industry would do that.

While it does have a checkered past... are you also willing to ignore any good things they have done?

EDIT: Is it that far of a stretch to compare Monsanto to the Record Label group going after illegal download activities?

EDIT #2: Don't get me wrong... from the CR(HR 933) side... inserting these kinds of laws w/o appropriate review is all kinds of wrong.

if you re-read Azazel's post, I think he adequately explains his concerns and I feel like you glossed over them. If you're going to do that, i don't think there's any point in explaining those concerns (again). Whether or not other large global corporations do other crappy things is totally irrelevant to this discussion about this specific corporation.

 Ouze wrote:
if you re-read Azazel's post, I think he adequately explains his concerns and I feel like you glossed over them. If you're going to do that, i don't think there's any point in explaining those concerns (again). Whether or not other large global corporations do other crappy things is totally irrelevant to this discussion about this specific corporation.

What do you want me to do... fisk it (the art of chopping it in itty-bitty pieces and replying)? I'm not Seb.

You're right, what other mega-evil corporations do has no bearings.

So, in this case, I do have a problem with the way the bill is passed to circumvent the court. Even then, if challenged, I'd say it gets tossed out. Courts don't like to be told "no", if you get my drift.

kronk wrote:How are we going to have super humans if you take away our super foods!?!

Lymphoma is not a super-power.

whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
if you re-read Azazel's post, I think he adequately explains his concerns and I feel like you glossed over them. If you're going to do that, i don't think there's any point in explaining those concerns (again). Whether or not other large global corporations do other crappy things is totally irrelevant to this discussion about this specific corporation.

What do you want me to do... fisk it (the art of chopping it in itty-bitty pieces and replying)? I'm not Seb.

I've stated my case. You can engage with it or not.

 azazel the cat wrote:

kronk wrote:How are we going to have super humans if you take away our super foods!?!

Lymphoma is not a super-power.

We talking about Agent Orange here?

whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
if you re-read Azazel's post, I think he adequately explains his concerns and I feel like you glossed over them. If you're going to do that, i don't think there's any point in explaining those concerns (again). Whether or not other large global corporations do other crappy things is totally irrelevant to this discussion about this specific corporation.

What do you want me to do... fisk it (the art of chopping it in itty-bitty pieces and replying)? I'm not Seb.

I've stated my case. You can engage with it or not.

Yes you did. Not sure if I wanna get suckered into this even more ,even though I agree with your probably 95% here.

Doesn't Monsanto sue farmers for seed saving or something?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't Monsanto sue farmers for seed saving or something?

Yep. For breach of contract.

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't Monsanto sue farmers for seed saving or something?

Yep. For breach of contract.

But doesn't seed saving allow farmers to regrow crops and be self sufficient?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't Monsanto sue farmers for seed saving or something?

Yep. For breach of contract.

But doesn't seed saving allow farmers to regrow crops and be self sufficient?

They're not ALLOWED to:

In agriculture plants and seeds with enhanced traits or genetics may be patent protected. This is true in the U.S. for plant varieties as well as biotech innovations. Monsanto is one of many seed companies that patent their innovations. Growers who purchase our patented seeds sign a Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement — an agreement that specifically addresses the obligations of both the grower and Monsanto and governs the use of the harvested crop. The agreement specifically states that the grower will not save or sell the seeds from their harvest for further planting, breeding or cultivation.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't Monsanto sue farmers for seed saving or something?

They have also sued farmers who have nothing to do with them when some of the pollen from a contacted farmer blows into their fields and pollinates their crops, among other dubious legal proceedings. Azazel summed this up pretty well. Monsanto is shady as hell is the bottom line.

So if a farmer uses Monsanto seeds, to grow say spinach. The farmer sells that spinach and it ends up being a source of a national E.Coli epedemic. Is Monsanto responsible?

No, because the seeds weren't the source of e.coli - it was the mishandling/improper sanitation of the plants that infected them.

Well, infected is the wrong word. Contaminated?

Those bastards.

 whembly wrote:
What "shady and ethically dubious practices" are they currently doing now? Are you sure that their past transgression isn't poisoning your perception now?

Monsanto's efforts to sue farmers for harvesting Monsanto crop that had simply spread from neighbouring fields was outrageous. They eventually dropped those suits, but that was straight evil corp bs they were trying.

I mean, I'm in favour of GM food crops, but Monsanto has done some seriously dubious stuff.

Agreed I have no problem with GM crops either, but I quite dislike Monsanto's legal practices.

I'm good with GM crops that have been studied long-term by researchers not affiliated with the producers and inspected by government agencies.

Except for Monsanto. feth those guys. Solving world hunger for free is the only way I'd consider their ethical scales balanced at this point.