Monsanto Protection Act

[Kairos]

Just found out from a couple of sources that Obama signed a bill protecting Monsanto from courts. Basically they don't have to label anything that's in the GMO food.

https://www.examiner.com/article/obama-sells-out-u-s-citizen s-by-signing-monsanto-protection-act-into-law

[Camarohusky]

Looked at the text of the bill.

There is no section 735. So could someone please show me the actual text of this hipster scare tactic?

[Warforger]

I don't understand why people think GMO's are going to be harmful to humans; that's not really much of a possibility as the opposite tends to be true i.e. they're less likely to carry diseases. That's if you don't include the overuse of pesticides. The real harm is when Monsanto patents them, this essentially gives them control over farmers, the real harm is when livestock are fed a constant surplus of corn (which isn't something they're built to eat) consequently making them more susceptible to diseases such as the Mad Cow Virus. That stuff is downright horrible and that is where most of the food poisoning cases arise.

But GMO's on their own are fine, they're awesome especially when they're made to yield more so that people can actually eat. They're why only East Africa suffers a world crisis whereas countries like India don't suffer any crisis.

[Kairos]

At 3/27/13 11:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't understand why people think GMO's are going to be harmful to humans; that's not really much of a possibility as the opposite tends to be true i.e. they're less likely to carry diseases. That's if you don't include the overuse of pesticides. The real harm is when Monsanto patents them, this essentially gives them control over farmers, the real harm is when livestock are fed a constant surplus of corn (which isn't something they're built to eat) consequently making them more susceptible to diseases such as the Mad Cow Virus. That stuff is downright horrible and that is where most of the food poisoning cases arise.

But GMO's on their own are fine, they're awesome especially when they're made to yield more so that people can actually eat. They're why only East Africa suffers a world crisis whereas countries like India don't suffer any crisis.

GMO's are harmful to humans. There is plenty of well-researched info to proof this. I could put a link up here, but I feel like it would be shot down no matter how well-researched is because it sounds like you have your mind made up on this.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/28/13 12:19 AM, Kairos wrote: GMO's are harmful to humans. There is plenty of well-researched info to proof this. I could put a link up here, but I feel like it would be shot down no matter how well-researched is because it sounds like you have your mind made up on this.

UGH. Why do people get into this argument? "You won't believe me so I'm not going to try" Is NOT a response to criticism. Post a source. Yes we will question it, so make it a GOOD source, but you still have to post it. All logic and common sense points to GMOs being VASTLY healthier than organic foods. Prove common sense and logic wrong.

Provide proof that GMOs are harmful.

Also, I did find the relevant language and it seems likeit's nothing but a defense against social groups who would use the scary sounding effects of GMOs to shut down every GMO farm they could find. It defends farmers from being drowned by TROs, as TROs are fairly easy to get a hold of in many cases.

[Kairos]

UGH. Why do people get into this argument? "You won't believe me so I'm not going to try" Is NOT a response to criticism. Post a source. Yes we will question it, so make it a GOOD source, but you still have to post it. All logic and common sense points to GMOs being VASTLY healthier than organic foods. Prove common sense and logic wrong.

Provide proof that GMOs are harmful.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038792_GMO_toxicity_digestion_can cer.html

[Camarohusky]

At 3/28/13 12:43 AM, Kairos wrote: http://www.naturalnews.com/038792_GMO_toxicity_digestion_can cer.html

Not exactly an unbiased source, now is it?

Even then, the WORST your source could show is that we get some extra bacteria in our colons (which are loaded with bacteria ANYWAY) and some extra bacteria in the water. Doesn't sound noticeably unhealthier than organic.

[Kairos]

Not exactly an unbiased source, now is it?

Even then, the WORST your source could show is that we get some extra bacteria in our colons (which are loaded with bacteria ANYWAY) and some extra bacteria in the water. Doesn't sound noticeably unhealthier than organic.

Except for the part about cancer and several other concerns you fail to see as harmful.
Have fun arguing with people all night in an endless quest to show how much smarter you are than everyone else...and how your arguments are more valid. Goodnight.

[Warforger]

At 3/28/13 01:04 AM, Kairos wrote: Except for the part about cancer and several other concerns you fail to see as harmful.

The link you posted didn't say they caused cancer in humans but rather in rats. Humans have not been shown to exhibit this kind of effect, we'd know because actual diseases in the food production causes outbreaks which get on the news constantly and Monsanto has a hard time keeping that down. The causation they cite is that the GMO's kill the bacteria which kill the disease normally, but again this is in rats. The links your links links cite an increase in allergies, which seems to have more grounding in reality but no link to cancer.

Have fun arguing with people all night in an endless quest to show how much smarter you are than everyone else...and how your arguments are more valid. Goodnight.

What? You're not even arguing at all you just straight gave up at the first sign of disagreement. The sources you cited talk in the same way Illuminatti conspirators talk "Obviously this is true but we can't prove it because the rich corporations have covered it up" . While it is true that Monsanto has alot of suasion and power, it does not mean that they have so much power as to actually keep people from knowing that their food has harmful effects or people to speak out against them. You also replied by saying "oh you don't agree with me therefore you're wrong and it's not worth it to explain my position". So sorry if people aren't taking what you say at face value, especially someone who's implying that Camarohusky's arguments are not valid.

[Memorize]

At 3/28/13 10:33 PM, Warforger wrote:

The link you posted didn't say they caused cancer in humans but rather in rats. Humans have not been shown to exhibit this kind of effect,

It also didn't mention the fact that the species of rats used were just as likely to develop cancer/tumors from food that wasn't genetically modified.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/27/13 11:59 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't understand why people think GMO's are going to be harmful to humans; that's not really much of a possibility as the opposite tends to be true

;;;
I love it whent he stupid put the misinformation up as truth !

To start with take a look at Wheat.
A group of people came up with a commendable idea.
To get a greater yeild from the wheat plant, up the output gronw on the same amount of acreage by genetically modifyit it to grow bigger seed heads , shorter plant & GIVE THIS TO THE WORLD FOR FREE so the world could better feed its people.
Then do over 1000 genetic chnages 7 tests to finally come up with a plant that fit the bill
They did no testing,they had no idea if it could harm anyone, & they started the 80's trend EAT LESS UNHEALTHY FATS...EAT MORE WHOLEGRAINS & WHEAT WHEAT WHEAT WHEAT !

& what do we have to show in North America from this 30 + year experiment.
HEart disease way up
Obesity way , way up
Diabete's from 6% of the population moving to almost 25% of the population ! ! ! ! !

Chrone's disease no longer rare, digestive disorders up reight across the board
Because geneticly modified food is good for us

Nutritionists are warning us (those of us who bother to go meet withthem) that the Government 'safe levels' of sodium are over 3 times what we actually need to be healthy (& it used to be even higher)

Go meet with a couple of nutritionists, go to ones not even affiliated with each other or the same organization aka a hospital one & a university or private practice one .... & they all say the same thing , Government has been bought by the big business interests & instead of publishing what people really should be doing to be healthy ...they are putting forward what won't kill you right away, just quicker ...so you can work as long as possible, to buy that crap & so you won't be drawing a pension for as long ...if at all !

[Memorize]

At 3/29/13 11:21 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

& what do we have to show in North America from this 30 + year experiment.
HEart disease way up
Obesity way , way up
Diabete's from 6% of the population moving to almost 25% of the population ! ! ! ! !

And yet life expectancy is up...

How horrible.

[Warforger]

At 3/29/13 11:21 AM, morefngdbs wrote: They did no testing,they had no idea if it could harm anyone, & they started the 80's trend EAT LESS UNHEALTHY FATS...EAT MORE WHOLEGRAINS & WHEAT WHEAT WHEAT WHEAT !

& what do we have to show in North America from this 30 + year experiment.
HEart disease way up
Obesity way , way up
Diabete's from 6% of the population moving to almost 25% of the population ! ! ! ! !

Correlation =/= Causation. You forget that there are many things that happened at the same time, in particular the boom of the fast food industry. Now that is related to GMO's but not in the way you're thinking. What happened was that corn production skyrocketed and under the US subsidies corn was cheap. When the meat industry began to become what some would call "Industrialized" they started feeding corn to the cattle. It isn't good for them but it makes them build up fat and makes them grow faster. This allowed for meat production to skyrocket as well as well as how cheap fast food became. Now this in itself causes problems, the corn weakens the digestive tract and the immune system of the animals, and so they often get things like Salmonella or Mad Cow Disease and humans consequently get it.

Nutritionists are warning us (those of us who bother to go meet withthem) that the Government 'safe levels' of sodium are over 3 times what we actually need to be healthy (& it used to be even higher)

Go meet with a couple of nutritionists, go to ones not even affiliated with each other or the same organization aka a hospital one & a university or private practice one .... & they all say the same thing ,

Source?

Government has been bought by the big business interests & instead of publishing what people really should be doing to be healthy ...they are putting forward what won't kill you right away, just quicker ...so you can work as long as possible, to buy that crap & so you won't be drawing a pension for as long ...if at all !

So essentially this is some cast conspiracy to kill people so that social services don't have to pay as much. Wow that's a bit of a leap don't you think?

Although overall I wasn't talking about the US, GMO's helped prevent India from going into massive famine by increasing yields.

[HibiscusMallow]

GMOs are potentially harmful and there should always be high standards of food safety but GM is not necessarily harmful. So someone GMs a tomato to produce more vitamin C, for some reason because it is GM that means it is insidiously evil even though nothing is physically different apart from a higher concentration of vitamin C? Do people have some kind of difficulty understanding this concept?? hahahahahaha

At least monsanto are not snake oil salesmen trying to sell "organic vegan wholefood holistic medicine" and other bullpoop to desperate people suffering from serious illnesses like Steve Jobs.

[Warforger]

At 3/29/13 10:17 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: I'm actually going to side with Obama here.

GMOs have saved many millions of people from famine, and are going to save many millions more in the foreseeable future. And that's not even counting the conceivable applications in fuel production, environmental preservation, human augmentation, and pretty much anything else you can imagine.

By all means, deregulate them.

The problem here is the part where Libertarians go "told you so" because Monsanto has its hands deep within the workings of the government. The head of the FDA is a former Vice President of Monsanto Corp., Justice Clarence Thomas who decided on court cases on GMO's was an attorney for Monsanto, multiple lawyers from Monsanto have also served on agriculture boards in government. In particular Monsanto has a strong control of farmers because they've patented certain strands of seeds and effectively control what a farmer can do with each seed and essentially it allows Monsanto to control farmers. So no, the problem is that these are new regulations helping Monsanto, not de-regulating it which needs to happen.

As for boosting food production, it does this in the short run sure, but we're actually seeing side effects from it. The seeds are usually genetically modified to stand pesticides and this often prompts farmers to overuse chemicals. On top of this the rapid use of crops takes all the nutrients from the soil, the chemicals on top of that pollute the soil, on top of this it also causes farmers to be reliant on fertilizer and seeds from foreign companies, in particular fertilizer requires petroleum in its production thus causing the cost of fertilizer to rise with oil prices. The problem of course is that we still need to make new methods of producing more food because we need another green revolution to produce more food. GMO's are good for the short run, but the long run effects it's not too sustainable.

[HibiscusMallow]

At 3/29/13 11:20 PM, Warforger wrote: GMO's are good for the short run, but the long run effects it's not too sustainable.

Its perfectly possible to GM an organism to be better at growing without fertilizer or pesticides and without depleting soil nutrients. So wouldn't that mean after the apocalypse GM will be more important than ever?

[Camarohusky]

At 3/30/13 04:45 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: I can see how that would be a pretty awful thing.

It's not harmful at all. Monsanto has a huge level of competition in the form of organic farming. If a farmer feels trapped by contractual or other limitations using Monsanto products, they can easily switch to organic where there isn't such control. (Now all we need is to rip the yuppies and the hipsters off of organic so it doesn't cost 20 to 100% more for negligble difference in product)

"Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Section 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous."
To me, that sounds like Monsanto is being given immunity from anti-GMO regulations (basically deregulating them), not like it's giving them (further) control over the farmers that produce them.

Don't listen to the article. It's 100% propoganda, Goebels style. What Section 735 actually says is that the government is directed to ignore any TROs issued by a court while the government vets the compliant. Any TROs regarding farming prudtcs that are harmful to the environment or safety.

In other words it does nothing but keep a farmer (whether they be Monsanto, or Auntie Em a mud farmer from Kansas) from being injunctioned to death while they wait for the notoriously slow government to vet the complaint. TRO's aren't too easy to get, but they're easy enough where, in some cases, there mere use of the term "GMO" may be enough to grant it.

Does it have to do with other GMO corporations not being granted similar immunities, or is it something I missed altogether? Because the measure stated here isn't really anything to oppose.

It's not just GMO corporations recieving the reprieve (it's not an immunity as f the complaint is proven true Section 735 no longer applies and the ivil case can proceed like normal), it's EVERY farmer in the country, even organic farmers. And yes, there are organic practices that pollute like no one's business. Cow manure fertilizer being one of them.

[Ceratisa]

I've said this over and over. IT must be nice to be in a situation where you can choose what kind of food you eat, you know instead of starving.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/30/13 04:09 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: This is something I can definitely get behind. Stop the hippies from hamstringing business with constant injunctions that go absolutely nowhere.

I can understand why they're worried though. While this is intended to stop a TRO from killing a business before the complaint has been verified, it could pose problems for actual complaints. A complaint that is an honest attempt to stop a truly concerning problem will be stopped while the issue is investigated, thus allowing the harm to continue unabated until the investigation is over. This continuing harm is precisely what a TRO (temporary restraining order) is designed to protect against.

The response is that if it is an emergency the investigation will be short and the reprieve very limited. However, both sides have very different definitions of what an emergency is. The GMO industry will place an emergency near the Bhopal India level (a little hyerbole) while the naturalnews people will place an emergency whenever any combination of three letters has G, M, and O in it (again, a little hyperbole, but point stands). Truth is the real definition is very much in the middle, but slightly closer to the former than the latter. And in such cases where an actual emergency exists, I am damn sure there are other laws that would very much override section 735 of this bill.

It's little other than intentional hysteria in order to make a point.

[Warforger]

At 3/30/13 09:04 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote:

At 3/29/13 11:20 PM, Warforger wrote: GMO's are good for the short run, but the long run effects it's not too sustainable.

Its perfectly possible to GM an organism to be better at growing without fertilizer or pesticides and without depleting soil nutrients. So wouldn't that mean after the apocalypse GM will be more important than ever?

Yah that's evolving into a new species. The way GM works is by cut and pasting genes from other organisms with a similar genome. It's relatively simple on paper, sort of like coding a game and then copying and pasting code from other projects. That said we don't understand it well enough to have as much freedom as you said because you still need nutrients for pretty much any plant. There's no vegetation for example in the middle of the Saudi Arabian deserts outside of the Oasis mostly because the soil is not suitable for any plant life.

But the original GM was just taking one plant which exhibited better charastiics than the rest and replanting that one. For example if there's one strand of the crop that survived drought then a farmer would take that plant, burn the other strands down and plant the seeds of the drought resistant crop thereby growing a master race of plants. This is why carrots are orange, in the wild they're mainly purple and red but Dutch farmers decided to plant exclusively Orange carrots in tribute to their monarch.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Obama showing his true colors: he is no better than any other damn politician.

my question is where s all that hope and change you voted for?

[Ceratisa]

At 3/31/13 01:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama showing his true colors: he is no better than any other damn politician.

my question is where s all that hope and change you voted for?

Hope for a better future while he's president and change for every dollar you earn.

[Warforger]

At 3/31/13 01:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama showing his true colors: he is no better than any other damn politician.

my question is where s all that hope and change you voted for?

The Hope and Change meant being better than a Republican. Hell ever since he was elected President positive opinions of the USA by foreign countries has risen pretty much just because he's not a Republican. Now that's not saying much, considering when Mitt Romney was campaigning for President he already made a couple of huge major foreign policy mistakes before he could even be elected!

[Camarohusky]

At 3/31/13 01:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama showing his true colors: he is no better than any other damn politician.

my question is where s all that hope and change you voted for?

What, you expect him to veto the ENTIRE bill because of this damn near innocuous section? Less than .1% of the entire bill?

Someone's digging the bottom of the barrel and doesn't even realize it. If you don't like this, blame Congress for putting it in and the Supreme Court for declaring the line item veto unconstitutional.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 3/31/13 03:54 PM, Warforger wrote: The Hope and Change meant being better than a Republican. Hell ever since he was elected President positive opinions of the USA by foreign countries has risen pretty much just because he's not a Republican. Now that's not saying much, considering when Mitt Romney was campaigning for President he already made a couple of huge major foreign policy mistakes before he could even be elected!

its hardly any different than a republican: Operation Fast and Furious then trying to pass the blame on legal gun owners, Drone Strikes on INNOCENT US CITIZENS in Green zones, he says he would get rid of CIA Black sites when there were automatically loopholes in place to keep them going The Salt Pit and Dark Prison are still going and instead of those they have been using US Navy ships as interrigation centers or closing down Guantanamo Bay.

Then there's him doubling the current Deficit when Bush left office or letting the Sequester happening

[HibiscusMallow]

At 3/30/13 07:17 PM, Warforger wrote: But the original GM was just taking one plant which exhibited better charastiics than the rest and replanting that one. For example if there's one strand of the crop that survived drought then a farmer would take that plant, burn the other strands down and plant the seeds of the drought resistant crop thereby growing a master race of plants. This is why carrots are orange, in the wild they're mainly purple and red but Dutch farmers decided to plant exclusively Orange carrots in tribute to their monarch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

There is nothing to stop biologists doing both. For instance guinea pigs cannot produce vitamin C in their bodies like cows can. They could reactivate the genes needed to produce vitamin C, then they could selectively breed the guinea pigs until any adverse health effects resulting from the alterations leave the gene pool through natural selection. Then they could introduce the superpigs into the wild and let them multiply uncontrollably.

[Warforger]

At 3/31/13 05:28 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its hardly any different than a republican: Operation Fast and Furious then trying to pass the blame on legal gun owners,

That was the ATF's doing and it was done without the advice or the command of the President. It also started under Bush.

Drone Strikes on INNOCENT US CITIZENS in Green zones,

Yah bullshit. It was controversial when he killed a US citizen....who had sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who was in Yemen. The hotbed of Al-Qaeda activity is definitely not a "Green zone".

he says he would get rid of CIA Black sites when there were automatically loopholes in place to keep them going The Salt Pit and Dark Prison are still going and instead of those they have been using US Navy ships as interrigation centers or closing down Guantanamo Bay.

That's not his fault, that's the fault of the American public. As soon as he started to try to move enemy combatants to be tried in the United States there was a huge uproar to keep them from getting in US soil. So it's quite obvious that this is the only choice he has.

Then there's him doubling the current Deficit when Bush left office

He didn't, in fact he lowered it.

or letting the Sequester happening

He didn't; Congress did.

[Memorize]

At 3/31/13 11:11 PM, Warforger wrote:

That was the ATF's doing and it was done without the advice or the command of the President. It also started under Bush.

The operation that begun under Bush wasn't Fast And Furious.

Also, unlike F&F, it was done in conjunction with the Mexican Government.

Yah bullshit. It was controversial when he killed a US citizen....who had sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who was in Yemen. The hotbed of Al-Qaeda activity is definitely not a "Green zone".

1) Not every part of Yemen is a war zone.
2) We could've easily captured him as we had people following him for an extended period of time.
3) You can't assassinate someone because of their opinions.
4) We also assassinated his underage son, where upon the excuse given was "He picked the wrong father."

That's not his fault, that's the fault of the American public. As soon as he started to try to move enemy combatants to be tried in the United States there was a huge uproar to keep them from getting in US soil. So it's quite obvious that this is the only choice he has.

I'm just wondering... how does Obama's seamen taste?

He didn't, in fact he lowered it.

Bullshit

He didn't; Congress did.

Even though several of his staff indicated that it originated from the whitehouse and that Obama was on board... after all, he's still the one who signed it.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 3/31/13 11:11 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/31/13 05:28 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its hardly any different than a republican: Operation Fast and Furious then trying to pass the blame on legal gun owners,

That was the ATF's doing and it was done without the advice or the command of the President. It also started under Bush.

Gun Walker was in conjunction with the MExican government and when it looked like it was going to cause collateral they pulled the plug, the F&F happened under Obama and the consequences they feared would happen under Gunwalker Happened. 30,000 firearms go missing and are used against Mexican Officials and they're family

then Eric Holder has the balls to try to blame the shift on legal citizens and Second Amendment activists. while Obama covers for Holder by using Executive Order to seal a large incriminating part of the F&F files.

Yah bullshit. It was controversial when he killed a US citizen....who had sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who was in Yemen. The hotbed of Al-Qaeda activity is definitely not a "Green zone".

Yemen is not a fucking "hotzone" and the fact they used a drone strike in a civilian zone (Green zone) killing a guy who just made websites and videos while also killing his American born son WHO WAS A MINOR. yeah totally not a violation.

Obama's butt buddy Eric Holder: Drone Strikes legal on US Soil and Citizens

could have gone in with a strike team.

That's not his fault, that's the fault of the American public. As soon as he started to try to move enemy combatants to be tried in the United States there was a huge uproar to keep them from getting in US soil. So it's quite obvious that this is the only choice he has.

my god how does Obama's dick taste? it was about Human Rights and legal bullshit that they "were wrong" because they were holding terrorists and interrogating them before sending them to Gitmo (where the trials are being held)

He didn't, in fact he lowered it.

As of 08 when obama was in Office the debt of the US was $9T as of 2012 its $15.5T

He didn't; Congress did.

The Senate did they kept drafting bills and wouldn't let there be compromise.

[Warforger]

At 4/1/13 07:31 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Gun Walker was in conjunction with the MExican government and when it looked like it was going to cause collateral they pulled the plug, the F&F happened under Obama and the consequences they feared would happen under Gunwalker Happened. 30,000 firearms go missing and are used against Mexican Officials and they're family

.....Right so it was started under Bush.

then Eric Holder has the balls to try to blame the shift on legal citizens and Second Amendment activists. while Obama covers for Holder by using Executive Order to seal a large incriminating part of the F&F files.

Eric Holder was cleared of all charges and he had no connection to it.

Yemen is not a fucking "hotzone"

The country which rivals Somalia in its support for Al-Qaeda is definitely a hot zone, especially one where the US withdrew its embassy due to fears of security.

and the fact they used a drone strike in a civilian zone (Green zone) killing a guy who just made websites and videos while also killing his American born son WHO WAS A MINOR. yeah totally not a violation.

Obama's butt buddy Eric Holder: Drone Strikes legal on US Soil and Citizens

could have gone in with a strike team.

So you contradict yourself here. You say it's wrong that he killed him and then say he should've instead sent in a strike team. Keep in mind the strike team idea is even worse because they're more likely to kill a civilian than a drone strike is and on top of that you risk a deep humiliation by losing an elite team of operatives to terrorists as what just happened with the French in Somalia. Again Drone strikes are horrible, but better than the alternative.

my god how does Obama's dick taste?

If sucking Obama's dick makes me not full of shit then great.

it was about Human Rights and legal bullshit that they "were wrong" because they were holding terrorists and interrogating them before sending them to Gitmo (where the trials are being held)

Um what? You can interrogated people before a trial, the police do it all the time. It's standard due process is that wrong?

As of 08 when obama was in Office the debt of the US was $9T as of 2012 its $15.5T

You said deficit you didn't say debt. Yes the debt almost doubled, but the DEFICIT has been lowered. I know those two are used interchangeably but they're not the same thing.

The Senate did they kept drafting bills and wouldn't let there be compromise.

It's alot more complicated than that.....