Monsanto Hysteria

[Timshel]

The so called Monsanto Protection Act only says that a farmer can request that regulators allow his out of regulation crop to go to harvest before destroying it. It protects farmers giving them a recourse and due process rights against the regulatory authorities.


http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...cy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/
http://badskeptic.com/?p=123


As for the bees, where is the proof that they were taken by Monsanto. From the source provided...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/illino...santos-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/5336210


The bees could have been destroyed, or they could have been turned over to Monsanto to ascertain why some of his bees are resistant to Roundup. Without the bees as evidence, Ingram simply cannot defend against the phony charges of foulbrood.
...


Or Obama could have had them seized and given to Al Quaida? Or the government could be weaponizing them to create real drones? While there's may seem slightly more plausible is there any proof of it?

 

[signalmankenneth]

Protesters march against Monsanto in 250 cities

http://news.msn.com/us/protesters-march-against-monsanto-in-250-cities

 

[Timshel]

Right, that's just the sort of hysteria I am talking about.

The two stories are contradictory in the logic used by anti science left wing nuts. In one you have them claiming that allowing a farmer have due process against regulators benefits Monsanto. In the other they claim that regulatory authorities deny due process to beekeepers to benefit Monsanto. Obviously, the answer is more regulations and to blame any unintended consequences on Monsanto. Even the fact that you are fat can now be conveniently blamed on Monsanto. It is complete bullshit based on little more than naturalistic fallacies. While regulatory capture and over zealous regulatory actions are both legitimate concerns all this hysteria confuses the issues with a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense.

 

[Sierra]

Right, that's just the sort of hysteria I am talking about.

The two stories are contradictory in the logic used by anti science left wing nuts.

What if there is even a remote chance we are right? Is it worth it to you? To fuck up the world's food supply? For what?

I live very close to the central valley of California, one of the breadbaskets of the country. A fucking 50% of our honeybee population died off just last year. That is almost half for those of you weak in math. Fifty fucking percent. This is going to start affecting the economy, you crass, heartless cretins. I can only assume you have no children.

“The report warns that even with intensive research to understand the cause of honeybee colony losses in the United States, losses continue to be high and could pose a serious threat to meeting the pollination demands for some commercial crops. Growers in California have had trouble pollinating almond trees in the winter, for example, and blueberry farmers in Maine face similar pressures.

“We’re on the brink. I don’t know that we’ve crossed that threshold yet, but we’re certainly getting there very fast,” said Idaho-based beekeeper Zach Browning, who joined USDA and EPA officials in announcing the report.

His 2012 colony losses were double what they were in 2011, said Browning, who co-owns one of the country’s largest honey producers. The producer lost bees to drought, pesticides and hives that didn’t have enough to eat, he said.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/05/02/3283342/study-suggests-honeybee-collapse.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Timshel]

What if there is even a remote chance we are right? Is it worth it to you? To fuck up the world's food supply? For what?

I live very close to the central valley of California, one of the breadbaskets of the country. A fucking 50% of our honeybee population died off just last year. That is almost half for those of you weak in math. Fifty fucking percent. This is going to start affecting the economy, you crass, heartless cretins. I can only assume you have no children.

So now we are supposed to be guided by remote chance and restrain progress and innovation based on fallacious thinking and fear?

But, right about what? There is no chance you are right about the so called Monsanto Protection Act. As for this guy having his bees seized for Monsanto it is possible but you have no proof.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Full Text of Monsanto Protection Act​

While the full law titled the, ‘Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013’ is quite extensive, the portion being singled out as the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ is found under the inconspicuously titled section, ‘Title VII – General Provisions’. Under Section 735, the text reads:

‘SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non

4 regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the

5 Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated,

6 the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any

7 other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower,

8 farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary

9 permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to

10 necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with sec

11 tion 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which

12 interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduce

13 tion, continued cultivation, commercialization and other

14 specifically enumerated activities and requirements, in

15 cluding measures designed to mitigate or minimize poten

16 tial adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the

17 Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated

18 status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able

19 to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and

20 carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner:

21 Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only

22 for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to com

23 plete any required analyses or consultations related to the

24 petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That

25 nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the

1 Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of

2 the Plant Protection Act.’

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22013/full-text-of-the-just-passed-monsanto-protection-act/

Looking at the actual text, there is indeed need for concern - insofar as it gives the SOA the power to temporarily remove all regulation on a firm.

 

[I'm Watermark]

So now we are supposed to be guided by remote chance and restrain progress and innovation based on fallacious thinking and fear?

But, right about what? There is no chance you are right about the so called Monsanto Protection Act. As for this guy having his bees seized for Monsanto it is possible but you have no proof.

Hunh. I didn't realize health/environmental regulation was such a threat to innovation.

Honestly, do your really think we should risk the lives of consumers to make food production cheaper? Something that doesn't directly influence price to consumers?

 

[Timshel]

Monsanto has many faults. They have used regulators/courts to attack their competition and turn farmers into captive buyers of their seeds. They're also a heavy polluter. But the anti-science antediluvian forces should be left to join their right wing cohorts amongst Alex Jones' audience.

 

[Timshel]

Hunh. I didn't realize health/environmental regulation was such a threat to innovation.

Honestly, do your really think we should risk the lives of consumers to make food production cheaper? Something that doesn't directly influence price to consumers?

The guys bees were seized in the name of protecting health and the environment.

You need to prove some risk to the lives of consumers. All you have is fear.

 

[I'm Watermark]

The guys bees were seized in the name of protecting health and the environment.

You need to prove some risk to the lives of consumers. All you have is fear.

Here's a good article:

A recent Cornell research project concluded that pollution deserves a place alongside heart disease and cancer on the list of leading causes of death worldwide. Contamination of water, air and soil leads to 40 percent of the planet’s death toll, according to a study conducted by Prof. David Pimentel, ecology and evolutionary Biology.

“In the United States alone, 76,000 people are in the hospital each year, with 5,000 deaths, just due to pollution of air, food or water. Cancers are increasing in the U.S., and AIDS is on the rise,” Pimentel said.

The project focuses on how deteriorating environmental conditions and population growth are affecting the spread of diseases. According to the results, 62 million deaths each year are due to organic or chemical pollutants. Pimentel said that diseases like malaria, E. coli, salmonella, AIDS and tuberculosis are escalating due to the increased environment.

“Mosquitoes are much happier in polluted water. They spread a lot of serious diseases, like West Nile Virus and malaria,” Pimentel said.

“With livestock farming becoming more centralized in the U.S., different pockets of rural areas are being exposed to new diseases that weren’t a problem in past,” said Julia O’Hern ’05 a graduate student at Texas A&M, who worked on the study as a senior undergraduate at Cornell. She focused on how large livestock farms lead to food contamination and consequent diseases.

“It was really difficult to find sources with relevant studies; there’s a lot of political and industry influence in the farm business. They don’t want you to find the health problems,” O’Hern said. Eventually, she went to the Department of Health and contacted other federal and state agencies conducting research. As one of the 11 students who took Pimentel’s Environmental Policy class in 2004, O’Hern chose a specific aspect of the class’s topic to research for the final group paper. Each year Pimentel picks a specific environmental issue to study and produces an annual paper for publication in scientific journals.

“I hope the study can be used to bring greater attention to the problems of water and air pollution and the worldwide malnutrition problem, especially in developing countries. We ought to know what we’re doing to ourselves,” Pimentel said.

http://cornellsun.com/node/23801

All I have is fear, and justification behind that fear.

 

[Timshel]

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22013/full-text-of-the-just-passed-monsanto-protection-act/

Looking at the actual text, there is indeed need for concern - insofar as it gives the SOA the power to temporarily remove all regulation on a firm.

It gives a farmer the right to request a delay in destruction of their crops if they are found to be out of regulation. If it is believed that the crops are dangerous the SOA can deny the request and it only grants them temporary relief. The SOA already has power in the petition for non regulated status. This does not grant the power.

 

[I'm Watermark]

It gives a farmer the right to request a delay in destruction of their crops if they are found to be out of regulation. If it is believed that the crops are dangerous the SOA can deny the request and it only grants them temporary relief. The SOA already has power in the petition for non regulated status. This does not grant the power.

We're reading the same text, right?

 

[Timshel]

We're reading the same text, right?

Yes, but apparently you are unclear on the word temporary and/or interim. What do you think it means?

 

[I'm Watermark]

Yes, but apparently you are unclear on the word temporary and/or interim. What do you think it means?

I'm very aware that the deregulated status doesn't last indefinitely. Does that make the period of time in which the firm is deregulated any more necessary, or safe?

 

[Timshel]

I'm very aware that the deregulated status doesn't last indefinitely. Does that make the period of time in which the firm is deregulated any more necessary, or safe?

It's not the firm that is deregulated but the crop. I have no idea what you are talking about but it has nothing to do with this act.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...cy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

In August 2010, the Center for Food Safety and some organic farmers who may stand to gain by injuring their competition managed to convince a court to void the five-year-old approval of GE sugar beet seeds. This decision, in effect, reverted the sugar beets to “pest” status. In November 2010, a federal judge ordered the sugar beet seedlings pulled from the ground, as required by law. But by this point, nearly 95 percent of domestic sugar beet production was from GE seeds. In other words, if the decision had stood, it could have destroyed as much as half of America’s granulated sugar production on purely procedural grounds.
The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” actually does nothing to protect Monsanto. Rather, it protects the farmers that bought Monsanto seeds and planted them under the belief that it was legal to do so by granting them temporary permits for their existing crops and seeds, which have already been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny. It does not allow them to keep planting where there are proven health risks or to keep planting at all in fact. In other words, it has nothing to do with “consumer health concerns” or “stripping federal courts of the authority to halt the planting or sale of GMO seed crop” as the RT story claims. In fact, the sale of GE seeds would still be prohibited after a court finding.http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...cy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

 

[I'm Watermark]

The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-pro...ng-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

If allowed to pass, the Monsanto Protection Act would:

• Violate the constitutional precedent of separation of powers by interfering with the process of judicial review.

• Eliminate federal agency oversight to protect farmers, consumers and the environment from potential harms caused by unapproved biotech crops.

• Allow Monsanto and biotech seed and chemical companies to profit by overriding the rule of law and plant their untested GMO crops despite no proof of their safety for the public and environment.

• Will not just allow, but require the secretary of agriculture to grant permits for planting or cultivating GM crops – even if a federal court has given an injunction against it.

• Would open up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment."

Here is the full text of the Monsanto Protection Act:

H.R. 5973: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (The "Farmer Assurance Provision" AKA Monsanto Protection Act)

Sec. 733. 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.

http://www.abcplus.biz/Categories.aspx?Id=GMO_2-8-13_Farm_Bill_Monsanto_Protection

There you go. That's what the text says - I even broke it down for you. So do you really still believe what you read on that oh-so-biased blog?

 

[Timshel]

It does not do any of those things. Your source is biased and has a financial interest in promoting naturalistic fallacies.

The USDA has no statutory authority to regulate the crops in the first place. It seized the power deciding that all biotech crops were "pests." But you go ahead and spread lies about how the law deregulates firms.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Monsanto has bought enough politicians to get what they want. And that is NOT in our best interest.

In many countries GMOs are banned. In this country we cannot even get a requirement to label them as such. That is a HUGE issue in my mind. There is research showing many of the GMO crops are flat out dangerous. Is it in your cereal? You don't even know.

 

[I'm Watermark]

It does not do any of those things. Your source is biased and has a financial interest in promoting naturalistic fallacies.

The USDA has no statutory authority to regulate the crops in the first place. It seized the power deciding that all biotech crops were "pests." But you go ahead and spread lies about how the law deregulates firms.

I gave you the text of the act - it's your choice whiter to believe what's actually written, or some Austrian blog.

As for whiter they have the authority, that's another matter. I'm no legal expert, so I can't say either way. But I can say that they do - and that this act states that, upon request, the SOA must provide temporary, partial deregulated status to agricultural firms. You're free to use the text to prove that assertion wrong, but I think that'll be difficult.

 

[Timshel]

I gave you the text of the relevant section of the act with links in my first post. You don't know what it means and you were talking about how it deregulates firms. Now you are simply parroting bullshit posted on a site that seeks to make money by selling people crap marketed with naturalistic fallacies.

It clearly says that that if the non regulated status of a crop is invalidated or vacated then a farmer can petition for a temporary delay until the non regulated status is reviewed. This does not allow for crops to come to market unchecked. They had already been tested and studied for safety in initial review granting them a non regulated status. The judge voided the non regulated status of the beets and they were to be destroyed according to law. This does not remove the power of judicial review or violate the separation of powers since the crops would have been destroyed according to legislation previously passed by congress. The courts are not stopped from voiding the non regulated status. All this does is change the law that would have required destruction of the crops and give the farmers a chance to seek due process through the SOA and a review of the non regulated status before crops they planted in compliance with the laws and regulations are destroyed.

You are pitching a bunch of woo and conspiratorial bullshit.