Monsanto Protection Act Sneaks Through Senate

"When the Senate passed a budget resolution last Wednesday that appears to prevent some of the potential damage from sequestration, the Continuing Resolution included several food- and agriculture-related earmarks.
But one inclusion in particular is especially controversial. The “biotech rider” would require the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled the environmental studies on the crop were inadequate. This aspect of the bill infuriated many sustainable food and agriculture groups, who nicknamed the bill the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
here’s what the Monsanto Protection Act would do: It will allow farmers to plant, harvest and sell genetically engineered plants even if the crops have been ruled upon unfavorably in court. A Center for Food Safety statement called the rider “an unprecedented attack on U.S. judicial review of agency actions” and “ a major violation of the separation of powers.”
"President Obama signed the appropriations bill containing the measure dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act"—H.R. 933— into law on March 26, 2013."


http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03/22/monsanto-protection-act-sneaks-through-spending-bill


a little further down the road to extinction............

 

fuckin A, man.

 

jaredfelix / gonjbob - have you been able to find Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr933/text

My eyes have gone a bit funny... : /

 

I have to admit the wording makes it a little hard to understand, but to me sounds like secretary of state has total authority and I believe John Kerry accepts donations from Monsanto by a trickle down method to cover up the tracks it takes until it gets to his pocket

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...5-aka-monsanto-protection-act-hr-933/T8QYzYZg

 

Thanks.

Yeah, it is. Especially: 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. I'm sure the devil is in the detail.

 

Was unable to find the source of this.

 

Who performed those analyses? What methods were used? Where was this published? Some of those numbers seem really quite unlikely.

 

The Nutritional Analysis chart is apparently the result of farm feed that was analyzed by a group for a farmer. It's not clear who the farmer was and which group analyzed the feed.

The chart is seen as part of a flyer on a company website that hold teleconferences about farming issues.

 

The company that does the teleconferences is:

http://www.profitproag.com/

The audio of the particular conference that discussed the results shown in the chart is:

http://www.profitproag.com/tel_audio/4094w.wma

The discussion about the chart starts around 38 minutes into the teleconference and ends at about 50 minutes.

 

http://manuremaster.com/Previous_Teleconferences.htm

The name of the previous teleconference that discusses the chart was: A Year of Success and the ManurePlus™ Program was Developed and Implemented

Audio file (same as what was posted in previous post):

A Year of Success and the ManurePlus™ Program was Developed and Implemented

 

PDF of the flyer for the teleconference that discusses the chart. The chart is seen in this flyer.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpdf.profitproag.com%2FDatabase%2FInformational%2520Material_Manure1.pdf&ei=lEVZUcnYFKv9iQK6mYCwBg&usg=AFQjCNExUA8-JmpJR5y43Mr3YFpmUU_x9A&bvm=bv.44442042,d.cGE

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...kYCgCQ&usg=AFQjCNHxNjm5T7pgIRexBUu7hrdLC8X4xw

 

Ah, that explains it. It's advertising. Veracity is then very questionable and suspect.

 

Here is a document that explains how GM foods are currently evaluated for health safety. The full text is here. I'm kind of interested to see how the metabolic profiling thing pans out.

An important thing to keep in mind (as is noted in the first paragraph) is that most foods we eat are not subject to the same kind of rigorous testing that GM foods are and many of these "natural" foods can contain allergens, toxins and compounds that inhibit absorption of nutrients.

...

...

It's an interesting read that outlines how GM foods are tested and what kind of health risks they are likely to pose, if any. Advertising and political propaganda doesn't do this. It just makes authoritative statements that support its product or position without much (or frequently, any) evidence to support them. For this reason, I'm skeptical about the claims of either the agri-biotech companies or the political groups who oppose them.

 

JoanofSnarc,

A Google search on this subject brings me to Hip Forums. Can you point me in the direction of the studies which show the effects of GMO corn on mammals?

 

Here's a recent one for starters.

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review

ETA: There may be an open source copy somewhere or you might find and copy the pages from your local university library or something. You'd have to be really interested to pay the 30 bucks for the pdf. It pisses me off to no end that scientific articles are pay-per-view or require expensive subscriptions to view them...and we wonder why the general public has such a piss poor understanding of science.

 

Here is a study found in the International Journal of Biological Sciences. It is Titled: A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Here is their conclusion:

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
　
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

It seems there is a conflict between authorities here . . .

 

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."