Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act

Page 1 of 5 [ 72 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 8 May 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

30 May 2014, 1:00 am

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-p ... aw/5329388

Yes, the guys who crated agent orange are getting even more special protection from the government. Not only does this fascists corporatist group have members of their own company in government witting their own regulations, people such as Hillary Clinton, they are getting protection from federal prosecution thanks to Pres. Obama and the rest of your criminal government. Some of the more extreme measures that would have protected Monsanto from from the law have been removed but the bill was signed.

This is not what Obama was elected to, but then again, most of what he has done wasnt and the things he was elected to do havent been done.

If you want the office of the president to be owned by Monsanto again in the next election, vote for Hillary.
^^^
http://readersupportednews.org/news-sec ... government

drh1138
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 498

30 May 2014, 3:08 am

Text of the Farmer's Assurance Provision (because that's what it's called, and I'm not a brainwashed, propagandized, anti-science, anti-GMO yahoo, and I refuse to be swept up in the emotional, irrational, agenda-driven hype):

Quote:

In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary?s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

All that this does in English, is to give farmers an outlet to appeal against crop destruction if that crops' safety status is being challenged, for the duration of the challenge process, which protects them against financial risk and encourages innovation in agriculture and biotech.

RunningFox
Snowy Owl

Joined: 8 May 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

30 May 2014, 6:56 am

drh1138 wrote:

Interesting. So tell me then, if its safe why do they want to prevent people from labeling foods that have GMOs in it? Doesnt that seem od to you? yes its so hipster to poo poo the anti GMO people but you cant deny that they have run the government up the flag poll by the nuts and that not even remotely a good thing. You have to be brain dead to not see that what they are doing is criminal. I am not really sure what the emotional agenda against GMOs would be exactly either. Its clear you just want to sound more educated that you likely are.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,836
Location: London

30 May 2014, 7:20 am

RunningFox wrote:

drh1138 wrote:

Interesting. So tell me then, if its safe why do they want to prevent people from labeling foods that have GMOs in it?

Because a lot of people think, despite all the evidence, that GMOs are not safe. If the foods were labelled, it would hurt profits.

Quote:

I am not really sure what the emotional agenda against GMOs would be exactly either

There is a lot of hysteria about GMOs being "unnatural", and therefore bad. It's solely an emotional argument.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

30 May 2014, 7:24 am

The_Walrus wrote:

RunningFox wrote:

drh1138 wrote:

Interesting. So tell me then, if its safe why do they want to prevent people from labeling foods that have GMOs in it?

Because a lot of people think, despite all the evidence, that GMOs are not safe. If the foods were labelled, it would hurt profits.

Quote:

I am not really sure what the emotional agenda against GMOs would be exactly either

There is a lot of hysteria about GMOs being "unnatural", and therefore bad. It's solely an emotional argument.

Who cares about their profits? Kind of odd coming from your ilk. People should have a right to know, if it hurts their profits then you mark it cheaper than non-GMO. Simple as that.

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

30 May 2014, 8:07 am

Shame on Obama for signing this.
Bugs are now becoming resistant to GMO crops.
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/growing_num ... rops/3866/

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,836
Location: London

30 May 2014, 9:02 am

Jacoby wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

RunningFox wrote:

drh1138 wrote:

Interesting. So tell me then, if its safe why do they want to prevent people from labeling foods that have GMOs in it?

Because a lot of people think, despite all the evidence, that GMOs are not safe. If the foods were labelled, it would hurt profits.

Quote:

I am not really sure what the emotional agenda against GMOs would be exactly either

There is a lot of hysteria about GMOs being "unnatural", and therefore bad. It's solely an emotional argument.

Who cares about their profits? Kind of odd coming from your ilk. People should have a right to know, if it hurts their profits then you mark it cheaper than non-GMO. Simple as that.

What on Earth does "my ilk" mean?

For what it is worth, notice that I did not say "we must ban GMO labelling because it would hurt profits", I said "the reason farmers do not want GM foods labelled is because it would hurt their profits".

Why should people "have a right to know"? I mean, we don't currently know whether food is grown in a glass house, or the race of the farmer, or whether a cow was born due to artificial insemination. Adding unnecessary red tape is a bad idea.

If a farmer want to woo the anti-GM crowd, they could label their foods as "GM-free" and charge a bit more. Sensible people will laugh at them, but it would serve the same purpose without adding ridiculous red tape which would harm businesses.

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

30 May 2014, 9:26 am

Just for the record, Monsanto gets more support from the Repubs than then Dems.

But they definitely have hired DC guns on both sides of the aisle, as do most large corporations in the US (and abroad).

_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche

drh1138
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 498

30 May 2014, 9:31 am

RunningFox wrote:

I am not really sure what the emotional agenda against GMOs would be exactly either. Its clear you just want to sound more educated that you likely are.

No, I just ask for evidence of claims rather than fear-mongering and vague conspiracism. I have no emotional investment in the causes of internet activists.

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

30 May 2014, 9:40 am

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2106 ... -gmo-seeds

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

30 May 2014, 9:51 am

People don't trust the word of a corporation that gave thousands of people cancer without really caring? How can this be!?

drh1138
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 498

30 May 2014, 12:56 pm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/28/4013694.htm

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

30 May 2014, 2:21 pm

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10 ... Avoid-GMOs

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,836
Location: London

30 May 2014, 4:19 pm

TheGoggles wrote:

People don't trust the word of a corporation that gave thousands of people cancer without really caring? How can this be!?

But you don't need to trust the word of Monsanto. You just need to trust plant scientists.

Put simply, if you think GMOs are necessarily dangerous, then you forfeit the right to laugh at the idiots who deny AGW.

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

30 May 2014, 4:26 pm

It should at least be labeled,I don't want to eat it.

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,836
Location: London

30 May 2014, 4:45 pm

If we start applying unnecessary labels to items, then it will become harder for people to find the relevant information.

Page 1 of 5 [ 72 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act Post Reply New Topic

Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act