Obama signs "Monsanto Protection Act" into law despite protests

[lavenderviolet]

If anyone was starting to doubt that big corporations essentially own the US government…

Anger is growing against President Barack Obama the day after he signed into law a spending bill that included a provision opponents have dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

That bill, the HR 933 continuing resolution, was mainly aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills for the next six months.

But food and public safety advocates and independent farmers are furious that Obama signed it despite its inclusion of language that they consider to be a gift to Monsanto Company and other firms that produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops.

And protesters have spent the past couple of days demonstrating in front of the White House, first calling on Obama to veto the bill, and now criticizing him for his failure to do so.

The protests come on the heels of a massive petition campaign organized by the advocacy group Food Democracy Now, which gathered the signatures of more than 200,000 people who wanted Obama to veto HR 933 in order to stop Section 735 — the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” — from being codified into law.

But Obama ignored it, instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.

Farmers and food safety advocates lead Monsanto backlash

[John_Mace]

You mean to tell me that Obama went against the will of 200,000 people? Why that’s almost 0.1% of the adult population of the US!!

BTW, a little more backstory on exactly what this law is would help. Otherwise, looks like just another “Frankenfood” scare.

[cckerberos]

I can’t find any neutral coverage of this at all.

I was able to find the actual text of the objectionable “act”, though:

Sec. 735. 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.

Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act deals with “plant pests”, which are illegal to export, import, move across state lines, etc. So if I’m understanding the above language correctly, if someone asks the Department of Agriculture to consider designating a particular plant a pest, the grower can ask for and get a temporary permit to continue growing/selling it while Agriculture determines whether it should be designated a pest? That doesn’t seem particularly bad to me.

[Nametag]

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.

Not seeing the outrage, except that some folks have gotten used to using the courts like a light switch.

[smiling_bandit]

If I’m reading this correctly, all that it actually does is allow the Sec Ag to let people use something which might be harmful while it’s under some kind of official review, provided he deems it a fair request and one unlikely to cause a problem. Given the time taken for a formal review or internal status change, it’s not an unreasonable statement.

[Smapti]

That bill, the HR 933 continuing resolution, was mainly aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills for the next six months.

And vetoing this would have been a good idea because…?

[Jackmannii]

@cckerberos

I can’t find any neutral coverage of this at all.

I was able to find the actual text of the objectionable “act”, though:

If that is the actual Terrifying Monsanto Protection Act, where is the language prohibiting any judicial review in the federal courts?

[XT]

:eek: My god! This is terrible! It’s on par with Bush taking us to war, despite protest (there have got to have been at least 200k anti-war protesters…hell, most of this board was protesting, as recent threads have clearly shown)! When should we start the impeachment trials??

:mad::mad:

If anyone was starting to doubt that big corporations essentially own the US government…

Preach it brother!

[newcomer]

How does this little law that deals with agriculture gets included in an unrelated law about spending?

Sounds like “sign this or else” …

Just read the significant part:

The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks

at http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the_monsanto_protection_act_snuck_into_law/

Beautiful.

Yeah, eff you consumer. And your 250K signed protesters. And Elizabeth Warren too - lol

[don_t_ask]

As with any rumor Snopes has it covered.

[Little_Nemo]

I think Monsanto is engaged in all kinds of shenanigans and should be the subject of increased regulation. But I don’t see the need to get overly worked up over this relatively mild law. I probably wouldn’t have voted for it on its own but I would have voted for it as part of the package deal on the budget.

[Little_Nemo]

@cckerberos

So if I’m understanding the above language correctly, if someone asks the Department of Agriculture to consider designating a particular plant a pest, the grower can ask for and get a temporary permit to continue growing/selling it while Agriculture determines whether it should be designated a pest? That doesn’t seem particularly bad to me.

My understanding is that these plants were subject to USDA review and were approved. But people might dispute the USDA approval and appeal the decision. This law doesn’t prohibit people from appealing the USDA approval but it says that courts cannot order temporary injunctions against the use of the plants during the appeal process.

And this law is only in effect for the period that the budget deal covers - April to September 2013.

[Magiver]

@cckerberos

I can’t find any neutral coverage of this at all.

I was able to find the actual text of the objectionable “act”, though:

Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act deals with “plant pests”, which are illegal to export, import, move across state lines, etc. So if I’m understanding the above language correctly, if someone asks the Department of Agriculture to consider designating a particular plant a pest, the grower can ask for and get a temporary permit to continue growing/selling it while Agriculture determines whether it should be designated a pest? That doesn’t seem particularly bad to me.

Sounds like growers of unmodified seeds can’t complain when farmers nearby plant something that cross contaminates it with genetically made seeds. If I understand the problem correctly,Monsanto can sue farmers of non-modified seeds for theft if their fields are cross bread and they use the seeds. It’s damn near impossible to grow seeds without cross contamination.

[Duckster]

The “Monsanto Protection Act” (section 735) was attached (anonymously) as a rider to a short term spending bill (HR 933). President Obama signed it into law on March 26th.

http://www.politicususa.com/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html

If you read the rest of HR 933 (the spending bill that keeps the government operating) it also covered the Violence Against Women Act, SNAP and other critical legislation.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

If I understand all the responses correctly, this law prohibits lawsuits that prevent approval of GM crops…sounds like a win and yet another in a long line of reasons I am glad I voted for Obama.

Two things I hope will someday come to an end: 1) wasteful litigation against gm food developers and 2) wasteful litigation against nuclear power generation.

[Magiver]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

If I understand all the responses correctly, this law prohibits lawsuits that prevent approval of GM crops…sounds like a win and yet another in a long line of reasons I am glad I voted for Obama.

Two things I hope will someday come to an end: 1) wasteful litigation against gm food developers and 2) wasteful litigation against nuclear power generation.

And Monsanto can go on suing farmers when their seeds contaminate the farmer’s crop thus forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seeds and the matching weed killer.

[Horatius]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

If I understand all the responses correctly, this law prohibits lawsuits that prevent approval of GM crops…

It actually doesn’t even do that.

“Monsanto Protection Act”: Anti-GMO Conspiracy Theorists Lose It Over Minor...

In August 2010, the Center for Food Safety and some organic farmers who 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 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 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 the existing crops in the ground, which have already been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny. It does not allow them to keep planting even if 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.

So, if you’ve planted a previously-approved GMO crop, a newly filed objection to the approval won’t require you to tear up those existing crops. But it will stop you from planting that particular crop again, until the issue is resolved.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Magiver

And Monsanto can go on suing farmers when their seeds contaminate the farmer’s crop thus forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seeds and the matching weed killer.

How many farmers have they sued for growing Monsanto-contaminated crops?

[YogSothoth]

Ugh, people have to get over the GM foods. They are perfectly fine

[Magiver]

@Inner_Stickler

How many farmers have they sued for growing Monsanto-contaminated crops?

not sure. They’ve sued hundreds of farmersbut many of those suits are for farmers using the seeds again next year against the contractual agreement which is a different issue.