“Monsanto Protection Act” is a bulls***, made-up term. There is no such thing.
and from a farmers perspective: Why Food Democracy isn’t really about Democracy.
Read my blog and be skeptical not susceptible
Yes, obviously that is not the actual name of the bill. I doubt anyone truly believes that?
But the person who wrote most of that section was Roy Blunt who worked with Monsanto to create the final draft of the bill. They have the word 'farmers' in there but guess what? Monsanto practically owns farmers..and that second link you provided proves it. lol at his 'Round up ready corn' mmmmm i want some of that!
Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people or the environment.
This means crops that were approved and later found to damage the environment or the public will be immune from government action. So what could happen is, one million studies could find that Monsanto’s latest creation was causing a massive cancer wave and under this law Monsanto could continue to peddle the crop to the public. It's about government control and Monsanto is quickly gaining more and more..
So it may benefit individual farmers but also hugely benefits Monsanto..and that's the catch.
The article goes on to explain why,
What does the biotech rider actually state and what is it designed to address?
To date, no court has ever held that a biotechnology crop presents a risk to health, safety or the environment. But make no mistake: it’s not because the courts or the government approval process is lax. Just the opposite. Getting approval for any transgenic crop or food is like running a torturous gauntlet, both arduous and bureaucratic. Companies are required to provide years of internal and independent data, which are carefully reviewed by various government agencies.
Beyond that, the USDA cannot approve a new seed variety until it conducts an Environmental Assessment. This is the point where the process gets even messier—and where anti-biotech activists and lawyers do their best to gum up the works in hopes of generating a critical mass of negative public opinion.
By law, the EA must consider any and all factors relating to the “human environment,” which is very ambiguously defined, leaving all kinds of legal openings for hostile groups to target. If an anti-science group such as the Center for Food Safety or the Institute of Responsible Technology or the Union of Concerned Scientists challenges the EA for not considering one issue or another, the assessment can be deemed insufficient and a new one must be ordered.
In fact, this has happened twice in recent years, with alfalfa and sugar beets. Alfalfa hay, a nutritious, easily digestible livestock feed and $8 billion a year business, is the country’s fourth-most-valuable crop. Monsanto makes GM alfalfa seeds, as part of the company’s Roundup Ready line. They are genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate, an herbicide that is commercially known as Roundup. When farmers use Roundup, which is considered a mild herbicide, instead of other harsher chemicals to kill weeds, they actually cut down on overall toxic chemical use.
After an exhaustive review, the USDA gave Roundup Ready Alfalfa the green light in 2005. But the Center for Food Safety contended that the government hadn’t adequately evaluated the potential environmental consequences, although the agency believed it had. In 2007, in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, a federal court agreed with CFS, prohibiting Monsanto from selling Roundup Ready Alfalfa pending yet another assessment.
This was incredibly disruptive to thousands of farmers who had planted alfalfa, which is a perennial crop so does not have to be reseeded each year. The legal status of a field of GM alfalfa planted legally after the USDA had deregulated GE alfalfa was suddenly changed under the court ruling. Farmers were being told that they had to follow a new set of rules in handling their crop. For more than four years, they didn’t know if the technology was going to be available for their use. The confusion and patchwork of conflicting regulations, court decisions and labeling requirements dealt a sizable economic blow to one of the country’s most important export crops. The ongoing chaos was exactly the kind of commercial uncertainty that anti-GMO forces were hoping to manufacture.
The alfalfa case standoff eventually made it to the Supreme Court. The evidence in support of the safety and public benefits of GM alfalfa was so strong that in 2009, the Obama Administration had Solicitor General Elena Kagan file a brief on the biotechnology company’s behalf, even though the government was not a defendant in the appeal. To no scientist’s surprise, in June 2010 SCOTUS overturned the lower court’s injunction that had prohibited Monsanto from selling pesticide-resistant alfalfa seeds.
“An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 7-1 majority, concluding that the US District Court in San Francisco had “abused its discretion.”
The temporary injunction, by then determined to be abusive, proved a financial disaster for the farm industry and many individual farmers who had suspended planting alfalfa pending a final resolution. The almost identical disaster scenario has played out over sugar beets. 95% of which is from GE seeds. In 2010, the Center for Food Safety and some organic farmers who stood to gain by attacking conventional and GM crops convinced a court on procedural grounds—there was no finding of environmental or health dangers—to void the five-year-old approval of transgenic sugar beet seeds. Despite no evidence of any potential harm, that November, a federal judge ordered the GE sugar beet seedlings—all but 5% of the nation’s crop— pulled from the ground, as required by law. If that decision had stood, it could have destroyed as much as half of America’s granulated sugar production on purely technical grounds. The saga only ended in July of last year when the USDA ruled once and for all to allow unrestricted planting of Monsanto’s GMO sugar beets.
It was a victory for science, but the professional “antis” considered it a victory as well. After all, they had caused billions of dollars in unrecoverable damage to the American farm economy and rattled the cages at the corporations they considered “evil”. That’s certainly something to crow about.
The rider was specifically designed to prevent such egregious abuse of the court system and regulatory process. The legislation does not, as critics allege, allow farmers or Monsanto to sell seeds proven to be harmful. Rather, it provides legal consistency so farmers and businesses do not get yanked one way or the other based on the temporary findings of competing court systems as activist challenges make their way up the legal food chain. Going forward, the provision will protect farmers who buy GM seeds and plant them under the belief that it is legal to do because the seeds have been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny and approval.
The so-called Monsanto Protection Act has nothing to do with consumer safety or limiting biotech’s liability for making “dangerous” products, as even mainstream news outlets, like Salon, have claimed. That’s just bad reporting. In the two cases heralded by campaigners—alflafa and sugar beets—only technical concerns about the evaluation process were raised; consumer safety and the environment was never the issue.
Read my blog and be skeptical not susceptible