Well, the Monsantos Protection Act snuck its way into a spending bill this week.
http://www.ibtimes.com/furor-growing-against-obama-over-monsanto-protection-act-1156459# (http://www.ibtimes.com/furor-growing-against-obama-over-monsanto-protection-act-1156459#)
Odd that Hillary has strong ties to the group. To their credit, Monsantos is working with the Gates Foundation to develop wheat they can grow in starving nations.
That said, have you tried to eliminate GMO's from your food, its tough, real tough. May just be me, but the idea of a corn that pesticides can't kill does worry me a little.
The philosophical idea that GMOs are part of the human food chain bothers me little. All of our major agricultural crops are the product of genetic modification. The process of genetically altering organisms, or organism patterns, to suit human food needs is at least in the 10's of thousands years along, and probably longer.
However, this stance does not exonerate Monsanto. My main beef (HeHeHe..) with their business practices has to do with their heavy handed use of patent law and their insistence on the chemical model for food production.
The GMO science that is currently focused on creating chemically resistant crops should instead be focused on disease and pest resistant crops. But this is a slow and old fashioned process, and one that comes with real human dilemmas (anticipated by the promise to feed the masses by Monsanto no doubt).
But it is hard to notice the impasse elephant lurking in the room; especially in a more eco-centric atmosphere: Save ourselves or save the organisms that feed on our food.
Monsanto is the devil
The notion that all new seed must be purchased annually is an inappropriate strangelhold on traditional farming.
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 29, 2013, 01:37:52 PM
The notion that all new seed must be purchased annually is an inappropriate strangelhold on traditional farming.
I want to agree with this part, but I don't have a problem with it. They spent millions of dollars developing a product and wrote the rules for purchasing it and its reuse which farmers know going in. The way around this is to farm with traditional seed rather than a GMO seed and stop furthering the poison Monsanto produces.
My problem is the GMO's. Look at wheat, were were fine eating it for thousands of years, not there are all kind of wheat/gluten intolerance. Why, production of high gluten wheat. We actually grow a wheat that is banned in many European nations, corn that in raw for cannot be consumed by human beings with the sole purpose of turning it into modified food additives.
first, the title of this thread sucks.
the gay marriage issue is not some conjured up distraction created by obama to sneakily sign this bill to help out his good buddies at monsanto.
the gay marriage issue is the last battle for civil rights in this country.
its very important, and we should be grateful it appears its time has finally come.
second. yes it sucks this provision was in this bill.
it's capitalism at its worst.
did obama have a choice but to sign this bill at this time?
i'm not sure he did.
third, it is only valid for the next six months.
if you feel strongly about this make sure to write your reps and the white house to let them know you wont stand for it anymore.
don't, however, discredit the gay marriage movement sweeping over the country right now because you are upset with a provision in this bill.
Quote from: Guyute on March 29, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 29, 2013, 01:37:52 PM
The notion that all new seed must be purchased annually is an inappropriate strangelhold on traditional farming.
I want to agree with this part, but I don't have a problem with it. They spent millions of dollars developing a product and wrote the rules for purchasing it and its reuse which farmers know going in. The way around this is to farm with traditional seed rather than a GMO seed and stop furthering the poison Monsanto produces.
My problem is the GMO's. Look at wheat, were were fine eating it for thousands of years, not there are all kind of wheat/gluten intolerance. Why, production of high gluten wheat. We actually grow a wheat that is banned in many European nations, corn that in raw for cannot be consumed by human beings with the sole purpose of turning it into modified food additives.
the problem is the wind.
Let's say I buy seeds from Monsanto and plant my crops. You live in the next farm over, and being the hippy Phish fan that you are want to be all natural, organic, and hate all things GMO.
Pollen from my wheat is carried by the wind, travels and pollinates your wheat. You can't re-use your seeds that have DNA from Monsanto, even though if you had your way you wouldn't have farmed with a GMO seed. Monsanto has spent a ton of money on court cases protecting their "copywrite" and will prevent you from saving seeds. You, being a hippy farmer, don't have the resources to fight it in court, and even if you did, the courts have protected Monsanto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P1CJ7IEt0c
Quote from: mbw on March 29, 2013, 06:27:30 PM
first, the title of this thread sucks.
the gay marriage issue is not some conjured up distraction created by obama to sneakily sign this bill to help out his good buddies at monsanto.
the gay marriage issue is the last battle for civil rights in this country.
its very important, and we should be grateful it appears its time has finally come.
second. yes it sucks this provision was in this bill.
it's capitalism at its worst.
did obama have a choice but to sign this bill at this time?
i'm not sure he did.
third, it is only valid for the next six months.
if you feel strongly about this make sure to write your reps and the white house to let them know you wont stand for it anymore.
don't, however, discredit the gay marriage movement sweeping over the country right now because you are upset with a provision in this bill.
Seriously? Chill out, it was a joke. I would never try to do something to diminish the gay marriage movement. It was meant to be a joke because Obama signed it while everyone was fired up about another issue. It could have been any number of issues.
I was fortunate enough to work for and be friends with someone who was helping lead the charge that got Civil Unions in Vermont which was the first form of gay marriage in the country. I got to see first hand the hatred and the venom towards him at that time when all he wanted was to be able to walk into a hospital when his partner was sick and not have to call his partners father, who hadn't spoken to his son in over a decade, to get permission for treatment. They already owned a house together, had buried friends together, and were standing by each others side while 1 was getting very ill.
I do feel strongly and have written. This has been extended for 6 months multiple times. Obama has ties to Monsanto, Hillary is or was on the board, the whole thing stinks. Obama is just showing he has his cronies, they are just agriculture, not oil.
ya seriously. its not as if you are the first person on the internet to phrase it that way (https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=monsanto+gay+marriage+distraction), many of whom believe just that, and i'm tired of reading about it.
but yeah. so how do we go about getting corporate money out of our law making?
and get our law making all the fuck up in some corporations, balls deep?
Quote from: mbw on March 29, 2013, 10:42:10 PM
ya seriously. its not as if you are the first person on the internet to phrase it that way (https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=monsanto+gay+marriage+distraction), many of whom believe just that, and i'm tired of reading about it.
but yeah. so how do we go about getting corporate money out of our law making?
and get our law making all the fuck up in some corporations, balls deep?
The short answer is never. Sorry.
Quote from: mbw on March 29, 2013, 10:42:10 PM
ya seriously. its not as if you are the first person on the internet to phrase it that way (https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=monsanto+gay+marriage+distraction), many of whom believe just that, and i'm tired of reading about it.
but yeah. so how do we go about getting corporate money out of our law making?
and get our law making all the fuck up in some corporations, balls deep?
Sorry, it was meant to be taken directly from the headlines, not be original. I just reread my response and it sounded more snarky than intended.
A few quick changes I see to get started are:
1. Politicians are allowed to take corporate donations. Corps can donate more than most individuals and become a majority shareholder to the politician. Eliminate corporate donations to politicians, I know, lot of loopholes to close on this one.
2. Politicians sit on the boards of these companies, enough said. This must be eliminated.
3. Eliminate PACs. Many are just fronts for companies and rich doners.
3.
Quote from: slslbs on March 29, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Guyute on March 29, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 29, 2013, 01:37:52 PM
The notion that all new seed must be purchased annually is an inappropriate strangelhold on traditional farming.
I want to agree with this part, but I don't have a problem with it. They spent millions of dollars developing a product and wrote the rules for purchasing it and its reuse which farmers know going in. The way around this is to farm with traditional seed rather than a GMO seed and stop furthering the poison Monsanto produces.
My problem is the GMO's. Look at wheat, were were fine eating it for thousands of years, not there are all kind of wheat/gluten intolerance. Why, production of high gluten wheat. We actually grow a wheat that is banned in many European nations, corn that in raw for cannot be consumed by human beings with the sole purpose of turning it into modified food additives.
the problem is the wind.
Let's say I buy seeds from Monsanto and plant my crops. You live in the next farm over, and being the hippy Phish fan that you are want to be all natural, organic, and hate all things GMO.
Pollen from my wheat is carried by the wind, travels and pollinates your wheat. You can't re-use your seeds that have DNA from Monsanto, even though if you had your way you wouldn't have farmed with a GMO seed. Monsanto has spent a ton of money on court cases protecting their "copywrite" and will prevent you from saving seeds. You, being a hippy farmer, don't have the resources to fight it in court, and even if you did, the courts have protected Monsanto
That to me is the real evil part of it, and I can't believe courts have let this stand. It would be akin to the music industry forcing you to pay them because your neighbors like to listen to records with the windows open and you can hear it at your place.
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:
Quote"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.
I don't have a problem with the GMO aspect of it, but the cronyism blows donkeys.
Quote from: mbw on March 29, 2013, 06:27:30 PM
it's capitalism at its worst.
LOL, not capitalism.
Quote from: McGrupp on March 30, 2013, 10:40:48 AM
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 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/food-oversight-curbs-spending-bill-outrage-article-1.1298967). 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.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 30, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
I don't have a problem with the GMO aspect of it, but the cronyism blows donkeys.
Quote from: mbw on March 29, 2013, 06:27:30 PM
it's capitalism at its worst.
LOL, not capitalism.
Quote from: McGrupp on March 30, 2013, 10:40:48 AM
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 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/food-oversight-curbs-spending-bill-outrage-article-1.1298967). 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.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 30, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
I don't have a problem with the GMO aspect of it, but the cronyism blows donkeys.
Quote from: mbw on March 29, 2013, 06:27:30 PM
it's capitalism at its worst.
LOL, not capitalism.
Quote from: McGrupp on March 30, 2013, 10:40:48 AM
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 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/food-oversight-curbs-spending-bill-outrage-article-1.1298967). 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.
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.
Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.
Quote from: mbw on March 31, 2013, 08:00:09 AM
Silly nab, this has nothing to do with capitalism.
Troof
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 01, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on April 01, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 31, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: mbw on March 31, 2013, 08:00:09 AM
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.....
Quote from: nab on March 31, 2013, 02:08:03 AM
crony capitalism
or perhaps...
Quote from: mbw on March 30, 2013, 11:24:04 AM
it's capitalism at its worst.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 01, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on April 01, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 31, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: mbw on March 31, 2013, 08:00:09 AM
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
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.
Quote from: McGrupp on March 30, 2013, 10:40:48 AM
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: Quote"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?
Quote from: rowjimmy on April 02, 2013, 07:47:11 AM
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.