Section 735 -- strips federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and propagation of genetically modified seeds and crops if concerns about health risks arise during safety tests. [video=youtube;fioAgH1aa24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fioAgH1aa24[/video] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-monsanto-results-idUSBRE9320IO20130403
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/w...what-where-now----the-monsanto-protection-act 1:30 Hell in a handbasket this country
Why are GMO more of a threat than foods genetically altered through cross-polination or cross-breeding?
It seems like the laws determining that it's illegal should be made by legislative bodies, rather than courts. It is a bit odd the way this was passed, but I would bet that many pieces of legislation are passed that way, for better or worse. Ed O.
We don't know the impact. We do know the impact of natural crossing. That's the point. And other points: GMO foods include, for example, "roundup ready" so roundup and other herbicides won't kill them. But the herbicides still harm ground, water, beneficial insects, domestic animals, and BTW people. So instead of finding a long term solution, managed pest control, it's a short term fix that in the long run makes things worse; we are already seeing "super weeds" that evolved resistance to roundup, just as widespread use of DDT favored evolution of DDT-resistant insects. Next point: GMO seeds are pricing out small farmers, especially in the developing world. For example, in Iraq the "redevelopment" funds from the U.S. specifically prohibit farmers from saving seed for the next year's planting, forcing them to purchase expensive GMO seeds from major corporations. Next point: They are reducing biodiversity. That means an infection, insect invasion, disease, wreaks havoc because all the plants (or animals) are identical. In normal farming, some plants or animals get wiped out but others survive. Species require biodiversity to maintain themselves. Next point: No one is even proposing banning these items, just labeling them. If corporations have free speech, don't the rest of us?
We don't know the impact of natural crossing. It may take decades to see the effect on people. Like a shortened lifespan result. At least with GMO, they're doing the crossing with a deliberate outcome in mind. The roundup issue seems to be the heavy use of roundup over the years has led natural selection to leave resistant weeds around.
Genetically modified food is cheaper to produce and requires less land. I think people can determine for themselves what they want to buy, big brother.
Pretty sure Monsanto's headquarters is in the heart of a volcano that lights up the eyes of a skull-shaped island.
Allowing corporations to patent life was one of the single biggest mistakes this country has ever made. People need to wake the fuck up and stop thinking it's Republicans vs Democrats. The corporations don't care who is in office, they will buy control regardless. Monsanto is an evil company that has successfully done a hostile takeover of agriculture in this country, and we've let them do it. We are asleep at the wheel right now. These companies are putting their own people in key positions at the highest levels of government. It's a conflict of interest, it's corrupt, and we need to stop allowing soft money and political contributions from these corporations. They are not "people". Two things would end this: 1) Term limits for congress and the senate. 2) Outlaw political contributions from organizations. And give me a break, the former President of Monsanto can't run the FDA. That's fucking ridiculous. These guys leave their corporate gigs to take government jobs, they pass some bullshit that favors their former company, and then they resign and go back to making millions with that company. How is that not illegal? They aren't looking out for our best interest. They aren't trying to protect the public. They're making money, and they are serving these companies, not the American people. The framers couldn't possibly predict or comprehend the idea of a corporation like Monsanto or Haliburton when they wrote the constitution or outlined the checks and balances. Something must be done and the only way it will is if the people wake up and stop buying these shit and stop voting for the assholes that are taking the money.
You don't agree that some corporations have an unhealthy influence on government in this country? I'm all for capitalism, but when corporations and government start to mix there are problems. The people who are supposed to be regulating and watching over the people should not be in bed with the very organizations they are supposed to be monitoring and regulating. It's a major conflict of interest.
Because lobbying of Monsanto and others they don't have to list GMOs, so people can't make an educated choice.
What makes you think government has a healthy influence on corporations? Corporations as we know them are products of government.
Indeed, corporations are government entities and given "limited liability" by the state. In a real market, liability would be determined on a case-by-case basis instead. Further the FDA blows. ;]
Im glad this issue got some play here. Its been a hot topic in our house for awhile. Personally I don't believe they have that bad of an effect on the the consumer, but we don't know for sure and till we do I would like to opt out of that test until we get more data. Problem is now we cant opt out, GMO's are everywhere. One tip for all of you is that labeled organic food needs to bee GMO free as well as organic grown. Also given Monsanto's track record of predatory litigation and corporate interference, I think its safe to say that they don't have our best interests as their primary concern.
Nope. If you're going to favor a government run by committees of unelected experts, why isn't a former Monsanto VP an actual expert?
Well, let's see, because they get into power and enact legislation and policy that favors their former employers, and then when they are done with public office they go back to work for Monsanto and make millions. That seems pretty fucked up to me. We should not be able to patent life. Period.
Why would they favor their former employers? Why, anymore, than some academic type from Harvard getting appointed and favoring Harvard (or other higher education institutions)?
why not? worked for Goldman Sachs..... Its an obvious conflict of interest, but DC brings up a good point. Who else then, and by what standards in regards of their expertise and experience, and at what point does their experience become a conflict of interest?
