Who is going to defend the current administration and congress on this issue?
how many more pockets will we allow to be lined by surrendering our own health and liberty?
http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsa … _GMOs.html
Lots of spin, lots of gross exaggeration, lots of what I suspect are outright lies in that link.
No information of real value, just claims of malfeasance with proof. Even the link to the bill supposedly making Monsanto more powerful than the government does not show specifics.
Can you provide something that shows the part of HR933, a budget bill, that even comes close to giving Monsanto the kind of power the article insinuates is being done?
...wow, you really don't have a clue on this situation...genetically modified...I leave it up to you to get informed...
I do agree with the use of "hype" to get attention in the article...but that does not make it untrue
I tried. I went through the link you gave, but while it said Monsanto was to have the power to ignore laws that was not supported by the bill itself.
How about you? Are you educated on HR933 - can you tell me where to become "educated" on this new budget that says Monsanto is above government laws?
I read the rider being discussed. Did you?
My rule is, if i can look at the primary source myself, I do. I don't just let someone else tell me what to think about it.
GMO foods are the way of the future in an era where we need hardier crops to feed the third world and other arid regions.
As for the bill it can be withdrawn or altered just like any other law it's an attempt to end the constant blocking of foods that may save millions of lives by pseudo scientists and religious nuts who claim they are "playing god".
But GM crops will do nothing to feed third world countries and everything to starve them!
How? GM seed has a marker gene which shows it is the patent of the producing company. Everybody growing that marked seed will be liable to pay royalties to the producing company.
The marker gene transfers itself to any seed pollinated by that marked seed so that if you grow your none GM crop in the vicinity of a marked crop your crop will then carry that marker and you will be liable for royalties to the company that owns that marker. This will impact heavily on farmers who normally save a part of their crop for seed - they will no longer have free seed even though they have produced it themselves.
It has already impacted on organic farmers in the UK, crops bearing that marker are not considered to be organic.
Yeah I agree the copyright crop issues suck, that doesn't change the importance of developing those crops however and creating a climate where that is possible.
But where is the need for such crops outside the shareholders pockets?
Just about every region in the world has its native food crops. It is only when the west desires areas to grow none indigenous crops for the west's benefit that heavily modified seed is needed.
The world produces more than enough food for everybody at the moment. It is political will or lack of it that starves people.
What that rider actually says is that the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to allow farming of plants suspected, but not proven, of being noxious weeds. Noxious weeks under the relevant law are plants that harm agriculture (plants and livestock).
I can only assume all the people creating the beat up, and all the people falling for it, either did not read the rider in question or were incapable of comprehending it.
And for the record I oppose vertical integration of farming and feel the should be a legal barrier to farms and processors being owned by the same company. So I don't like Monsanto at all. But the facts is the facts.
you can get summaries of bills up, or read the whole thing, plus a lot of other good information at this link
in my short time learning about these matters, I have found that "spin" is always a factor. to know the ins and outs of the law and a long list of other pertinent information is always needed to understand a bill written. I do depend on factors from as many sides a possible to understand what is going on with a particular bill...it is no small endeavor, so, no, I am not up on everything about this one particular bill.
if you look at the page from the above link today, you will see that HR 933 is at the top of the list of "weekly top five" being dealt with
here are just two of the recent sources about this situation...seems pretty clear it was a back room deal
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 … m-federal/
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protect … 33-1158789
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/farmers … h_partner/
Have you read the rider yet? I don't see any other sensible way to know what it says, and decide how good/bad it is, other than to read it.
Is that a no?
I'll make it easier, here it is:
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 under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
One thing these crops can do is grow year round in places no native foods currently do. I know of a system in subSaharan Africa that uses a simple co-cropping scheme between a native legume and a drought resistance GMO corn to provide year round basic nutrition in an area that had faced repeated drought-based famine. I am not a huge fan of GMOs, but in this situation I am 100% absolutely in favor. The two crops protect the soil, prevent further desertification and combined they provide a complete protein.
by Wesman Todd Shaw5 years ago
I think that all of us who are aware of the dangers and intentions behind GMO "foods" well know that the health of the persons eating such "food" is never much the issue. We also know that the...
by sannyasinman3 years ago
Sri Lanka Bans Monsanto Herbicide Citing Deadly Link To Kidney Diseasehttp://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/04/sri … icide.htmlGlyphosate used in Monsanto Roundup found to accumulate in animals and humans, leading to...
by sannyasinman4 years ago
http://www.greenpeace.org/international … o-s-maize/
by Tamar Alexia Fleishman5 days ago
I've been writing for over a year here and recently, I see where I can't post immediately. I didn't violate any TOS. It has gone from 15 minutes to post to it's been more than a day. Also, all of my articles are getting...
by Billie Kelpin2 years ago
So, I understand that the question-answer section is to inspire hubs, BUT it feels a little disingenuous to use the information everyone provided, especially when that information would fit nicely in a list. I...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.