Monsanto Protection Act passed

[preacherman76]

I did not know that Obama held a majority in Congress, how did that happen?

I wasnt aware of that either. I also wasnt aware that you werent aware that it couldnt become a law without him signing it.

[Kowalski]

I wasnt aware of that either. I also wasnt aware that you werent aware that it couldnt become a law without him signing it.

[bmk1245]

Nice to see everyone sticks to what RT (with credibility next to that of Pravda) says without finding out what bill in question says. Can I see actual text of this bill from anti-GMOists?

[Kowalski]

For anyone interested, there is a petition going on for Obama to veto the Monsanto Protection Act. Check out: http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_the_monsanto_protection_act_seize_congress/?akid=778.39103.Di7p9e&rd=1&t=9

Nice to see everyone sticks to what RT (with credibility next to that of Pravda) says without finding out what bill in question says. Can I see actual text of this bill from anti-GMOists?

The story is on many different news sites, including Yahoo and MSN.

http://news.yahoo.com/monsanto-protection-act-sneaks-spending-bill-180416331.html

http://news.msn.com/us/monsanto-protection-act-called-outrageous-dangerous?ocid=ansnews11

Link to the Bill: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20130318/BILLS-113hr933eas.pdf

[preacherman76]

He already signed it. He isnt vetoing anything.

[Kowalski]

He already signed it. He isnt vetoing anything.

Okay, I didn't know that. Here is there campaign to label GMO foods:

http://action.foodde..._to_label_gmos/

Did you know? 62 other countries around the world already label GMO foods including Europe, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Kowalski

[preacherman76]

Yea, 0bama campaigned that people have the right to know whats in thier food. Then turned full swing and protected them from killing us. I never play pin the tail on the anti christ, nor am I saying he is it at all, but he sure does fit the part where everything outta his mouth is a damn lie, and is still worshiped on top of it.

[bmk1245]

[...]

Link to the Bill: http://docs.house.go...113hr933eas.pdf

Thats the start (what must had been in OP)!

How is the bill (section 735) is pertinent to Monsanto solely? I see it as fearmongers reading between the lines. Kinda similar to UFO nuts' logic: "Government(s) have secrets, thus alien visitation is a fact."

[preacherman76]

Thats the start (what must had been in OP)!

How is the bill (section 735) is pertinent to Monsanto solely? I see it as fearmongers reading between the lines. Kinda similar to UFO nuts' logic: "Government(s) have secrets, thus alien visitation is a fact."

It isnt. I cant for the life of me understand how you think that makes it ok. The point is folks from monsanto have the most to gain, along with a small handful of other corupted GMO companies. UFO's? You are seriously trying to end this conversation by saying people are crazy for plannly seeing what is in black and white? You havent refuted the claims what so ever. Yea we are fear mongers cause we think people who make food should be held responcible for damage they cause. Especialy by geneticaly modified food where we have no idea the consequences it will have on humans and the enviorment as a whole. My goodness.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Thats the start (what must had been in OP)!

How is the bill (section 735) is pertinent to Monsanto solely? I see it as fearmongers reading between the lines. Kinda similar to UFO nuts' logic: "Government(s) have secrets, thus alien visitation is a fact."

It's not pertinent to Monsanto SOLELY but they benefit from it the most.

[bmk1245]

It isnt. I cant for the life of me understand how you think that makes it ok. The point is folks from monsanto have the most to gain, along with a small handful of other corupted GMO companies. UFO's? You are seriously trying to end this conversation by saying people are crazy for plannly seeing what is in black and white? You havent refuted the claims what so ever. Yea we are fear mongers cause we think people who make food should be held responcible for damage they cause. Especialy by geneticaly modified food where we have no idea the consequences it will have on humans and the enviorment as a whole. My goodness.

Yeah, so viciously evil, even cancer got scared (since introduction of GM foods, cancer incidence rates going down).

And I never heard any peep from anti-GMO crowd about necessity of long term testing of plants that are produced by "traditional" breeding, which makes all battery of genetic changes, and those changes may induce "production" of "bad chemicals" that are bad for you. Do you think resistance of plants to illnesses/pests comes from some magic energy? No, it comes from "bad chemicals" plants are producing in order to protect themselves against illnesses/pests.

[bmk1245]

It's not pertinent to Monsanto SOLELY but they benefit from it the most.

And "traditional" breeding companies won't benefit from it?

Can anyone post excerpt from the bill (in question), where it is said that only Monsanto (and other "corrupt" GM companies) will benefit the most?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

And "traditional" breeding companies won't benefit from it?

Can anyone post excerpt from the bill (in question), where it is said that only Monsanto (and other "corrupt" GM companies) will benefit the most?

you tell me how a proven to be less-then-entirely-moral corporation might not abuse a ruling that says "sell first, check safety later".

[bmk1245]

you tell me how a proven to be less-then-entirely-moral corporation might not abuse a ruling that says "sell first, check safety later".

Again, how it excludes any other "traditional" breeding company? Have you seen long time research of, say, plants developed by exposure to gamma/X-rays/chemicals (available since 1930)? Do you think, for example, salt resistant non-GM crops were developed by praying/chanting kumbaya?

When Monsanto follows standard test procedures - its bad, but when new breed (by any other method) is introduced following the same procedures - it good...

[questionmark]

Again, how it excludes any other "traditional" breeding company? Have you seen long time research of, say, plants developed by exposure to gamma/X-rays/chemicals (available since 1930)? Do you think, for example, salt resistant non-GM crops were developed by praying/chanting kumbaya?

When Monsanto follows standard test procedures - its bad, but when new breed (by any other method) is introduced following the same procedures - it good...

The slight difference is that by traditional breeding methods you cannot introduce previously not existing traits into biological entities, all you can do is make recessive traits active... and certainly is not the bone to pick with Monsanto, but that their products are unstable and prone to cross species transmission causing the traits of their modified plants to pass on to natural plants, and the results thereof is certainly not tested. Besides that, certain modified species blight out all nutrient of the soils, being just a matter of time before leaving an ecological desert behind. Last not least, Roundup also kill all useful insect species that come into contact with it, not last, honeybees urgently needed to fertilize non-maize crops.

And all that is the reason why they needed a law indemnifying them from all damages they cause.

[Kowalski]

Check this video out:

On the campaign trail in 2007, Obama said "American's should know what is in their food."

Liar, Liar pants on fire!!

[bmk1245]

The slight difference is that by traditional breeding methods you cannot introduce previously not existing traits into biological entities, all you can do is make recessive traits active... [...]

If that doesn't produce harmful metabolites, where is the problem?

[...] but that their products are unstable and prone to cross species transmission causing the traits of their modified plants to pass on to natural plants, and the results thereof is certainly not tested.[...]

Same do applies to any other breed ("traditional"). Breed A ("traditional") will cross pollinate with "traditional" breed B, bringing unexpected results in the end (may ruin yield of A, for example).

BTW, what is native wild plant on US territory corn "evolved" from?

And no worries, GM corn and potatoes won't produce corntatoes.

[...]. Besides that, certain modified species blight out all nutrient of the soils, being just a matter of time before leaving an ecological desert behind. [...]

Prairies, once full of biodiversity, nowadays corn/wheat/potatoes fields... Isn't that ecological desert?

[...] Last not least, Roundup also kill all useful insect species that come into contact with it, not last, honeybees urgently needed to fertilize non-maize crops.

[...]

Thats not only Roundups problem. That issue touches organic farming too. Is copper sulfate, or any other "organic" insecticides/herbicides/fungicides are safe for honeybees?

[...]

And all that is the reason why they needed a law indemnifying them from all damages they cause.

I'd say ridiculous laws describing organic should be changed, and all probs with "damages" will be solved.

[questionmark]

If that doesn't produce harmful metabolites, where is the problem?

Same do applies to any other breed ("traditional"). Breed A ("traditional") will cross pollinate with "traditional" breed B, bringing unexpected results in the end (may ruin yield of A, for example).

BTW, what is native wild plant on US territory corn "evolved" from?

And no worries, GM corn and potatoes won't produce corntatoes.

Prairies, once full of biodiversity, nowadays corn/wheat/potatoes fields... Isn't that ecological desert?

Thats not only Roundups problem. That issue touches organic farming too. Is copper sulfate, or any other "organic" insecticides/herbicides/fungicides are safe for honeybees?

I'd say ridiculous laws describing organic should be changed, and all probs with "damages" will be solved.

Organic, funnily, does not need a bill to protect it from damages, Montsanto does. And that is the theme here.

Besides, we know that there are other poisons that affect honeybees, just that, until Roundup appeared it did not look like they were capable of exterminating the whole species. And that Roundup is most probably one of the larger causants is easily demonstrated by the fact that SCCD only happens in large scale there where the use of Roundup is prevalent, i.e. mostly in the good old US of A. And there where absolutely no Roundup is used within 100 miles(like on the island I live on in Greece) there is no Sudden Colony Collapse Disorder. And yes, all other common insecticides are used here and we have cell phone masts. So they are not causing the problem.

And, a nice try to obfuscate the trans species spread of GM traits. We are not worried about corntatoes but about the fact that wild leguminous plants are acquiring the insect poison making abilities of GM modified canola (just to pick one example) and that we don't know what these plants will evolve naturally with the new acquired trait. Just because some people considering themselves above all natural laws are changing things they hardly understand does not mean that the natural evolution was decommissioned. And that will inevitably lead to some results we never intended nor are capable of controlling.

And those are the themes here. And that is why those considering themselves above the laws of nature need human laws to protect them from the damage they are causing.

Edited April 2, 2013 by questionmark

[AsteroidX]

The original Constitution was written as such:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

I find it interesting the united to be in a small u but yet we refer to the USA. Its a misnomer to begin with. The act of 1871 incorporated America and thats why we see the the government protecting corporations over its people it is no longer a Congress for the People. I promise.

IMO when a POTUS campaigns on set of ideas and presents those as his platform and if said President then does actions the are in complete contrast to that. ie closing Guantanamo prison camp, This food issue IMO that is impeachable because he lied to the people to get elected. I cannot think of one promise he made that has come to fruition including affordable health care. The Monsanto Protection Act is just another example where his actions come in complete contradiction with his campaign and policy promises. He could of vetoed that portion of the Bill as he most certainly was aware of it as the commoners of this country were aware of it before it was passed by Congress. It could have easily been stricken from the farm Act Bill or whatever it was slipped through on. At any level of the process. But when you have a revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA I guess these kinds of things can happen.

Id say its impeachable to break or sign Bills that completely contradict what you told the people before being voted into office without extraordinary events happening like 9/11. Its called lying.

[Ashotep]

He already signed it. He isnt vetoing anything.

Oh great.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Again, how it excludes any other "traditional" breeding company? Have you seen long time research of, say, plants developed by exposure to gamma/X-rays/chemicals (available since 1930)? Do you think, for example, salt resistant non-GM crops were developed by praying/chanting kumbaya?

When Monsanto follows standard test procedures - its bad, but when new breed (by any other method) is introduced following the same procedures - it good...

I'm not excluding traditional companies.

I'm saying that a company that has PROVEN to be less-then-moral will exploit this law. Hell, it probably bankrolled it.

Monsanto following the law? Good.

Everyone else following the law? Good.

Someone else breaking the law? Bad.

Monstanto breaking the law? Business as usual.

[questionmark]

Oh great.

Mostly so he could keep on the USDA Food safety section from a partial shutdown, you know the lack of a line item veto, as already bemoaned by Reagan, make Congress include all kinds of niceties in important bills that the Prezz has no choice but to sign.

[Ashotep]

You know they will take advantage of this law. It's like putting the fox in charge of the chicken house.

[Kowalski]

Obama could have vetoed this.

If the US the President vetoes a bill, he returns it, together with his objections, to the House of Congress (i.e., the House of Representatives or the Senate) where the bill originated. If that house votes by a 2/3 majority to override the veto, then the bill is sent to the other house. If that house also overrides by a 2/3 majority, then the bill becomes law without the President's signature. If either house fails to override by a 2/3 majority, the bill does not become law. This was one of his campaign "promises". He SHOULD have vetoed it, and after that, if the bill DID pass, (I seriously doubt if he had vetoed it, over the same concerns we have, it would not receive the necessary two/thirds votes) he can say, "Well, I kept my campaign promise, and I vetoed the bill. Everything else was out of hands." But, he DID NOT do this.

Please also see this:

[Ashotep]

Yes he should of vetoed it. I don't understand him. Do only corporations and banks count for anything anymore and the rest of us are only their slaves. What about peoples rights.