Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Monsanto can basically do whatever it wants with no legal ramifications...

40 posts in this topic

Posted

Monsanto is a favorite target of the conspiracy theorist, so almost by reflex, I take anything that is said about it here in the tinderbox with a grain of salt. And if I had a dollar for every thread over the last several years discussing the next great world ending piece of legislation recently passed by congress, well I would have a nice down payment on a new vehicle. Perhaps I am jaded, but it comes from watching the vast majority of these bills turning out to mean something different than what the hyperbolic crowd thinks that they mean.

That being said, if you have a link to some reputable scholar discussing the implications of this particular piece of legislation I will be glad to read it. Meanwhile, here is a pretty good article/opinion piece about Monsanto.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/jun/29/house_language_monsanto_protection_act/

That's the problem, no one is really talking about this section of the this bill. I had to search on MSN news to find an article from a news source on it.

Sec. 733. 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© 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.

According to legal advocates at the Center for Food Safety, this provision “would create a precedent-setting limitation on judicial review” and is a “dangerous assault on fundamental federal and judicial safeguards”.

The bill has passed so, I changed the context of how this section reads because it has in fact passed.

the Monsanto Protection Act:

  • Violates the constitutional precedent of separation of powers by interfering with the process of judicial review.
  • Eliminates federal agency oversight to protect farmers, consumers and the environment from potential harms caused by unapproved biotech crops.
  • Allows Monsanto and biotech seed and chemical companies to profit by overriding the rule of law and plant their untested GMO crops despite no proof of their safety for the public and environment.

Here's more on the riders.

The only assurance it provides is that Monsanto and the rest of the agriculture biotech industry will have carte blanche to force the government to allow the planting of their biotech seeds.

In addition, the House Agriculture Committee’s 2012 farm bill draft includes three riders – Sections 1011, 10013 and 10014. These amendments would essentially destroy any oversight of new Genetically Engineered (GE) crops by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Essentially, the riders would prevent the federal courts from restricting, in any way, the planting of a GE crop, regardless of environmental, health or economic concerns. USDA’s mandated review process would be, like court-ordered restrictions, meaningless. A request to USDA to allow planting of a GE crop awaiting approval would have to be granted.

Not only will the riders eviscerate the power of USDA and the authority of the courts, but it will also permanently dismiss any input from other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Fish and Wildlife Service or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Now I know people will see that a GE seed will have to be granted seeding approval, yet that approval process is limited and only delays a seed getting approved, approval is guaranteed. The article calls it a cakewalk.

The approval process for new GE crops is not without its perceived delays. As limited as it may be, review takes time but getting new GE crops approved is a cakewalk.

Examples of bad seeds that passed, that wouldn't ever get pulled now with this bill.

StarLink corn and Liberty Link rice slipped through the approval process only to have major contamination and health issues after commercialization. Once a crop is in the USDA pipeline, approval is a near certainty.

Now the approval is guaranteed or extremely easy to obtain and once it's approved there's no legislation or checks of any kind to get the seed pulled if it's contaminated or dangerous.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/14/monsanto-gets-its-way-in-ag-bill/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

some dude who calls himself the skeptical libertarian makes a more convincing case than the silly infowars-level bullshit permeating this thread

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/03/28/monsanto-protection-act-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

there are plenty of reasons to hate monsanto but idk if this is one of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What part of this is from inforwars lol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://www.fooddemoc...protection_act/

That's the problem, no one is really talking about this section of the this bill. I had to search on MSN news to find an article from a news source on it.

The bill has passed so, I changed the context of how this section reads because it has in fact passed.

the Monsanto Protection Act:

  • Violates the constitutional precedent of separation of powers by interfering with the process of judicial review.
  • Eliminates federal agency oversight to protect farmers, consumers and the environment from potential harms caused by unapproved biotech crops.
  • Allows Monsanto and biotech seed and chemical companies to profit by overriding the rule of law and plant their untested GMO crops despite no proof of their safety for the public and environment.

Here's more on the riders.

Now I know people will see that a GE seed will have to be granted seeding approval, yet that approval process is limited and only delays a seed getting approved, approval is guaranteed. The article calls it a cakewalk.

Examples of bad seeds that passed, that wouldn't ever get pulled now with this bill.

Now the approval is guaranteed or extremely easy to obtain and once it's approved there's no legislation or checks of any kind to get the seed pulled if it's contaminated or dangerous.

http://www.counterpu...way-in-ag-bill/

But if it is really a violation of the constitution, then the courts will likely strike down that portion of the law. Also, if it is indeed true (and I am not convinced that it is) that a farmer or company can plant seeds without the courts stopping them, that doesn't mean its easy. Sometimes, it easier to get court approval that agriculture department approval.

Eliminates federal agency oversight to protect farmers, consumers and the environment from potential harms caused by unapproved biotech crops

The article you quoted specifically says they need the permission of the sec of agriculture, so how did it eliminate federal oversight? IMO, it didn't eliminate federal oversight, just modified the conditions of that oversight. But I think one would have to be a lawyer, and a pretty well read one at that, to truly understand the impact of the legislation.

Fwiw, if Monsanto or any other company screws up and does something harmful, they are going to get sued, and I doubt anything in this legislation will prevent that from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not to derail this into conspiracy fest, but that reminded me of something... I was actually just listening to this ad last night from that crappy newsmax site, but the doctor was legit... He was selling a monthly newsletter, but the stuff he presented in it was legit. He mentioned how doctors are not trained to prevent anything, nor are they really educated on nutrition. They are trained to diagnose and treat with pharmaceuticals, but not necessarily cure. He was saying cancer can be prevented altogether by making sure your nutrition and hormones are balanced, which is generally achieved through a good diet. Duh, I know right.

It reminded me of a video/report I saw a while back...

I read an article on the studies they've done with DCA in Canada and it is shown to literally KILL tumors and cancer. It obliterates them. The video talks about what it does... PROBLEM IS, because of big pharma, no way DCA will be administered and most likely will be blackballed as a treatment in the U.S. because it is a generic, cheap drug and pharma companies can't make money off of it. Secondly, the system set up here in the U.S. isn't designed to kill cancer, it's designed to kill people - use ineffective treatments in order to generate more profits over the long-haul.

It's a filthy, dirty world we live in.

But yeah, I think it's all tied in together with what they're trying to do with food. It's not coincidence. Everyone can see what's happening here on the surface, but I believe (tinfoil hat activated) that they are putting things in the food and medicines to kill off the "overpopulation" portion of society, namely, the lower classes.

Statements like this are really frustrating to me. There are many negative side effects that occur because of the pharmaceutical industry, but to suggest that the entire purpose is to suppress the identification of disease curing agents is laughable and disingenuous. There isn't one big pharmaceutical company, there are hundreds and anyone that found an actual cure to cancer or HIV would automatically become some o the richest people in the world. Also,a lot of diseases have been basically "cured" through vaccines if we can continue to get people to keep using them and not take medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.

There are tens of thousands of scientist and doctors that have dedicated their entire lives to helping others in the pharmaceutical industry and to think they are all in on some grand conspiracy to kill people off is almost offensive. Why are people all over the world dying from cancer still if DCA is so great at curing it? Why is cancer still the number 1 cause of death in Canada? Do you think that all the oncologist out there that meet new patients everyday are not giving them the best treatment out there because of some kickback from the pharmaceutical industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fortunately, Jenny Mccarthy is hot, or at least she use to be, so most guys are to busy staring at her rack to pay any attention to what she says. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Statements like this are really frustrating to me. There are many negative side effects that occur because of the pharmaceutical industry, but to suggest that the entire purpose is to suppress the identification of disease curing agents is laughable and disingenuous. There isn't one big pharmaceutical company, there are hundreds and anyone that found an actual cure to cancer or HIV would automatically become some o the richest people in the world. Also,a lot of diseases have been basically "cured" through vaccines if we can continue to get people to keep using them and not take medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.

There are tens of thousands of scientist and doctors that have dedicated their entire lives to helping others in the pharmaceutical industry and to think they are all in on some grand conspiracy to kill people off is almost offensive. Why are people all over the world dying from cancer still if DCA is so great at curing it? Why is cancer still the number 1 cause of death in Canada? Do you think that all the oncologist out there that meet new patients everyday are not giving them the best treatment out there because of some kickback from the pharmaceutical industry?

Which is more profitable, to give a person a one-time dosage of a curing agent, or to keep them alive for an extended period on a regimen of "treatment" drugs that keep them alive but don't cure their condition? The people making the "treatment" drugs to prolong lives are already among the richest in the world, they don't need to make a cure.

I don't have all the answers about DCA but there is no doubt in my mind that pharmaceutical companies have something to do with the lack of progress in its widespread usage. It's generic, so it would be awfully hard for one company to patent it and make money off of it.

Name me one disease that is among the world's leading killers that has been CURED in the last 20 years. The medical/medical research field is much different now than the one that developed cures and/or vaccines for polio, hepatitis, and the like long ago. People can pretend like these people are still out there trying to develop a cure, but most ARE NOT.

DCA is PROVEN to kill cancer, even the American Cancer Society acknowledged it has shown promise IIRC... Look up the Snopes article on it. But in the same statement regarding its promise, the ACS wanted to "caution" people to not view it as a "magic bullet" aka OPTION.

And all of this isn't derived from some infowars crap, I actually first gained interest in the pharma industrial complex from articles we had to read my first semester in college.

Money makes the world go round, that's the bottom line. I could be wrong, but odds are, I'm closer to the truth than not. All of these things are NOT coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which is more profitable, to give a person a one-time dosage of a curing agent, or to keep them alive for an extended period on a regimen of "treatment" drugs that keep them alive but don't cure their condition? The people making the "treatment" drugs to prolong lives are already among the richest in the world, they don't need to make a cure.

I don't have all the answers about DCA but there is no doubt in my mind that pharmaceutical companies have something to do with the lack of progress in its widespread usage. It's generic, so it would be awfully hard for one company to patent it and make money off of it.

Name me one disease that is among the world's leading killers that has been CURED in the last 20 years. The medical/medical research field is much different now than the one that developed cures and/or vaccines for polio, hepatitis, and the like long ago. People can pretend like these people are still out there trying to develop a cure, but most ARE NOT.

DCA is PROVEN to kill cancer, even the American Cancer Society acknowledged it has shown promise IIRC... Look up the Snopes article on it. But in the same statement regarding its promise, the ACS wanted to "caution" people to not view it as a "magic bullet" aka OPTION.

And all of this isn't derived from some infowars crap, I actually first gained interest in the pharma industrial complex from articles we had to read my first semester in college.

Money makes the world go round, that's the bottom line. I could be wrong, but odds are, I'm closer to the truth than not. All of these things are NOT coincidence.

I actually went back and did some research on DCA and it does look to be promising, but please understand a study done on human cells in a petri dish does not constitute a proven cure. I did a pubmed search and actually found a case study (basically a paper written by a doctor about a medically interesting patient/case that there isn't a bunch of info on). The patient had cancer and did a traditional chemo regimen. It got rid of all his cancer, but it came back. The second time around he didn't feel like doing chemo again, so he just told his doctor to fug off and took DCA. After 4 months, the doctor couldn't find the cancer anymore. I find that case way more interesting than the study the snopes article was written about (although it is basically anecdotal evidence).

You are right in the sense that only things that will make the pharmaceutical industry money are funded for trials. However, you are mistaken that you can't make money on generics as many drugs that are generic are re-released under a patented name brand as an ER formulation or in combination with another medication for example. Also, the federal government gives billions of public money for drug studies (as does the canadian gov and many other countries) that isn't tied to profit potential. As far as organizations such as the ACS, there are plenty of organizational practice guidelines that stress using low cost generics as first line treatment (aspirin and warfarin are two off the top of my head.)

The only thing I am trying to get across to you is the statement I bolded isn't true and even by your own logic doesn't make much sense. Sure it is more profitable to make a drug that is used as a life long treatment vs one time cure doses, but this is an open market. If company A,B and C have a corner on the cancer treatment market, and company D thinks that there is a drug that could be used to completely cure cancer, they would find a way to market that drug and deliver it to the masses. It would shift the entire market share to them, make them and their shareholders lots of money and make them an iconic company for all of time.

Sorry for the rant, but I can tell you I know many doctors and scientists personally that would give their own life to find a cure for cancer and to say there aren't people out there doing it is a little insulting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I actually went back and did some research on DCA and it does look to be promising, but please understand a study done on human cells in a petri dish does not constitute a proven cure. I did a pubmed search and actually found a case study (basically a paper written by a doctor about a medically interesting patient/case that there isn't a bunch of info on). The patient had cancer and did a traditional chemo regimen. It got rid of all his cancer, but it came back. The second time around he didn't feel like doing chemo again, so he just told his doctor to fug off and took DCA. After 4 months, the doctor couldn't find the cancer anymore. I find that case way more interesting than the study the snopes article was written about (although it is basically anecdotal evidence).

You are right in the sense that only things that will make the pharmaceutical industry money are funded for trials. However, you are mistaken that you can't make money on generics as many drugs that are generic are re-released under a patented name brand as an ER formulation or in combination with another medication for example. Also, the federal government gives billions of public money for drug studies (as does the canadian gov and many other countries) that isn't tied to profit potential. As far as organizations such as the ACS, there are plenty of organizational practice guidelines that stress using low cost generics as first line treatment (aspirin and warfarin are two off the top of my head.)

The only thing I am trying to get across to you is the statement I bolded isn't true and even by your own logic doesn't make much sense. Sure it is more profitable to make a drug that is used as a life long treatment vs one time cure doses, but this is an open market. If company A,B and C have a corner on the cancer treatment market, and company D thinks that there is a drug that could be used to completely cure cancer, they would find a way to market that drug and deliver it to the masses. It would shift the entire market share to them, make them and their shareholders lots of money and make them an iconic company for all of time.

Sorry for the rant, but I can tell you I know many doctors and scientists personally that would give their own life to find a cure for cancer and to say there aren't people out there doing it is a little insulting

My fault d-run, when I said, "most" aren't trying to find a cure or don't care, I'm meaning more towards the pharma-funded research. I know there are doctors out there and researchers at different levels who definitely want to find cures, I was just making the point that big companies don't find that to be in their best interest and will do what makes them the most money.

I'm not the most nuanced on the ins-and-outs of all the in-between crap that goes on between funding, developing a drug, and making money off of it. But, as you pointed out in the case study you found, DCA is LEGIT. How legit? Well, who knows, it may be effective in some patients and not in others. But, from the studies I have read, it KILLED human-cancers in lab mice/rats indiscriminately, and had no side effects.

There is no reason that DCA shouldn't be all over the news or that it shouldn't be the most "studied" drug out there in cancer research. Which brings me back to big pharma... The other problem that DCA presents for them is that it was a pre-existing chemical compound from my understanding. It's very easily producible, re-producible, and very cheap at that. So, even if companies decided to develop it as generics, it's dirt cheap. I imagine even if they made profit by selling it in huge numbers, it wouldn't be as much as they are making currently and would make all of their other drugs, the expensive ones, null and void. Additionally, what's stopping non-pharmaceuticals, or start up pharma companies from undercutting them by making it even cheaper? Because again, it can easily be derived and doesn't necessarily need to be made by a pharma company.

And if DCA comes out from some fledgling company first, don't you think generations of people affected by cancer would grow to distrust those old pharma companies and not buy their products?

And what about funding for all those useless studies they may be doing on frying people with new radioactive drugs if DCA works? UH OH, more money lost. Smaller paychecks and a lot of people out of jobs, huge hits on university and local economies, etc.

That's why I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies as is. They can go f*** themselves. Same for monsanto and all those other shady corporations that choose profits over their fellow man's well-being. How often have you heard or seen stories on DCA in the U.S. on mainstream news? I've never seen it aside from the internet. It's like it's to be swept under the rug and to be forgotten.

That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying doctors and researchers aren't searching for a cure, I'm saying they often are taught so that they aren't searching for the right one, unknowingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My fault d-run, when I said, "most" aren't trying to find a cure or don't care, I'm meaning more towards the pharma-funded research. I know there are doctors out there and researchers at different levels who definitely want to find cures, I was just making the point that big companies don't find that to be in their best interest and will do what makes them the most money.

I'm not the most nuanced on the ins-and-outs of all the in-between crap that goes on between funding, developing a drug, and making money off of it. But, as you pointed out in the case study you found, DCA is LEGIT. How legit? Well, who knows, it may be effective in some patients and not in others. But, from the studies I have read, it KILLED human-cancers in lab mice/rats indiscriminately, and had no side effects.

There is no reason that DCA shouldn't be all over the news or that it shouldn't be the most "studied" drug out there in cancer research. Which brings me back to big pharma... The other problem that DCA presents for them is that it was a pre-existing chemical compound from my understanding. It's very easily producible, re-producible, and very cheap at that. So, even if companies decided to develop it as generics, it's dirt cheap. I imagine even if they made profit by selling it in huge numbers, it wouldn't be as much as they are making currently and would make all of their other drugs, the expensive ones, null and void. Additionally, what's stopping non-pharmaceuticals, or start up pharma companies from undercutting them by making it even cheaper? Because again, it can easily be derived and doesn't necessarily need to be made by a pharma company.

And if DCA comes out from some fledgling company first, don't you think generations of people affected by cancer would grow to distrust those old pharma companies and not buy their products?

And what about funding for all those useless studies they may be doing on frying people with new radioactive drugs if DCA works? UH OH, more money lost. Smaller paychecks and a lot of people out of jobs, huge hits on university and local economies, etc.

That's why I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies as is. They can go f*** themselves. Same for monsanto and all those other shady corporations that choose profits over their fellow man's well-being. How often have you heard or seen stories on DCA in the U.S. on mainstream news? I've never seen it aside from the internet. It's like it's to be swept under the rug and to be forgotten.

That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying doctors and researchers aren't searching for a cure, I'm saying they often are taught so that they aren't searching for the right one, unknowingly.

There seems to be a bunch of new "out of the box" potential treatments or even cures coming out every couple weeks now for a bunch of diseases which is probably one of the reasons the media isn't all over this. It is actually a very exciting time for people in the medical field. If you are more interested in potential cures or studies the "science" subreddit on Reddit is a great place to catch wind of this kind of thing and the comments usually foster a decent discussion on individual trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There seems to be a bunch of new "out of the box" potential treatments or even cures coming out every couple weeks now for a bunch of diseases which is probably one of the reasons the media isn't all over this. It is actually a very exciting time for people in the medical field. If you are more interested in potential cures or studies the "science" subreddit on Reddit is a great place to catch wind of this kind of thing and the comments usually foster a decent discussion on individual trials.

I'll have to check it out man, but I'm actually intimidated by reddit, so I haven't been there much unless someone has posted a link here, lol. It's format just looked funky. I'll check it out though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What part of this is from inforwars lol?

i said "infowars-level"

anything else i need to repeat? how about that link again? http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/03/28/monsanto-protection-act-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theorists-lose-it-over-minor-deregulation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites