Everyone look at gay marriage while I sign this.....

[mbw]

it's capitalism at its worst.

LOL, not capitalism.

LOLERSKATES.

[Guyute]

I don't have a problem with the GMO aspect of it, but the cronyism blows donkeys.

it's capitalism at its worst.

LOL, not capitalism.

This is all bullshit. there's no such things as the "Monsanto Protection Act". The President signed the "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act", a budgetary-continuing resolution that lets the government keep operating through September 2013 (it was also debated and passed the House and Senate over a course of weeks, so regardless of it's content, it didn't 'sneak by').

This provision, submitted anonymously at the last minute, was unknown to most lawmakers at the time of passage. There was debate on the law, but not this section. It is the very definition of "sneaking by."

But to me, the larger issues are:

1. Roy Blunt (R-MO) worked directly with Monsanto to craft the language. That's troubling regardless of how long this particular provision stays in place.

2. You now have the situation where the legislators are giving the authority to the executive to interfere with the judicial branch. This effectively prevents the courts from performing their constitutionally granted duty. That has more far-reaching consequences than what this specific provision may or may not accomplish.

I don't have a problem with the GMO aspect of it, but the cronyism blows donkeys.

it's capitalism at its worst.

LOL, not capitalism.

This is all bullshit. there's no such things as the "Monsanto Protection Act". The President signed the "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act", a budgetary-continuing resolution that lets the government keep operating through September 2013 (it was also debated and passed the House and Senate over a course of weeks, so regardless of it's content, it didn't 'sneak by').

This provision, submitted anonymously at the last minute, was unknown to most lawmakers at the time of passage. There was debate on the law, but not this section. It is the very definition of "sneaking by."

But to me, the larger issues are:

1. Roy Blunt (R-MO) worked directly with Monsanto to craft the language. That's troubling regardless of how long this particular provision stays in place.

2. You now have the situation where the legislators are giving the authority to the executive to interfere with the judicial branch. This effectively prevents the courts from performing their constitutionally granted duty. That has more far-reaching consequences than what this specific provision may or may not accomplish.

You nailed it.  It bars the courts from halting the sale of the crops no matter what the health issue is which is found and puts the power in the hands of the FDA.  Who runs the FDA?    Now might be a good time to meet their special advisor on these matters, Michael R. Taylor.  Yes, the man behind getting the use of rBGH passed who has spent ten years as the head of lobbying in Washington for Monsanto.  He helped get passed the mandate that GMO's were not to be labeled.

Also, it protects them from the time the seeds are sold.  Meaning once sold they can be planted, even if shown to be unsafe until the FDA determines to halt the sales.  It is all the linkages why it is being called the Monsanto Protection Act.

Look I believe there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there on all kinds of stuff and wackos who take it to the extreme (9/11, Vaccines, Newtown).  The problem is that the more you learn about the U.S. food supply, the scarier it is.  Our food is full of stuff banned in other countries.   Pick up a product in the US and the same one in Europe and look at the difference in the ingredients and what is not present in the European versions.  And now in light of this a bill is passed that prevents the courts involvements.  Strikes me as a bit unconstitutional, even while the intent, prevent anyone from suing and crushing a farmer, seems like the right thing to do.  For the farmers I might agree, for the seed producers who aren't being monitored by the FDA in  meaningful way I don't.

[nab]

LOL

We had a chance to agree that Monsanto and crony capitalism are a bag of dicks and instead wasted the conversation on wonk and circumstance. 

[mbw]

Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.

[runawayjimbo]

Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.

Troof

[rowjimmy]

Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.

Troof

Your dictionary must be fucked.

[sunrisevt]

 :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

[runawayjimbo]

Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.

Troof

Your dictionary must be fucked.

Cronyism ≠ capitalism

[mbw]

Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.

Troof

Your dictionary must be fucked.

Cronyism ≠ capitalism

maybe not, but it sure doesn't hurt!
perhaps we could call it.....hmmmmm.....

crony capitalism

or perhaps...

it's capitalism at its worst.

[sls.stormyrider]

Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.

Troof

Your dictionary must be fucked.

Cronyism ≠ capitalism

Unfortunately, this is the real world.
Politicians are for sale. They are a marketable commodity, like anything else

[rowjimmy]

Power and influence are the ultimate commodities and their purchase goes to the buyer with the largest stack of cash.
That's just another ugly side of capitalism.

[sophist]

This is all bullshit. there's no such things as the "Monsanto Protection Act". The President signed the "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act", a budgetary-continuing resolution that lets the government keep operating through September 2013 (it was also debated and passed the House and Senate over a course of weeks, so regardless of it's content, it didn't 'sneak by').

The part of it that relates to agriculture is a rider that states, in dense legislative language:

"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"

All of that^, and correct me if I'm wrong, translates to, if a GMO crop comes under review during the middle of a growing season, the grower is allowed to keep growing it while the review process is underway. Prior to this, I believe, the grower was required to immediately cease growing. So, if a crop came under review, but was then cleared as safe, the grower would still have to sacrifice an entire growing season, and depending on the size of the grower, it could result in financial destitution (meaning this helps smaller farms). also, its not instantly allowed to keep growing when its crop comes under review, it is granted a temporary permit by the Secretary of Agriculture on an individual grower-by-grower basis.

all of that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

The real issue here, ^this.  Coherent, intelligent, and well thought out statement?  From dirty?  Are you off the grease? 

[runawayjimbo]

Power and influence are the ultimate commodities and their purchase goes to the buyer with the largest stack of cash.
That's just another ugly side of capitalism.

Those are consequences only of economic systems where gov't and business become too interdependent. If gov't couldn't dole out favors like candy, there would be no incentive for business to "invest" in them. Likewise, instead of being protected by their political henchmen, businesses that ran afoul of criminal or civil law would be held accountable.

But like I said, that is not capitalism.