Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#16 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:09 PM

How is this legal/ constitutional? Would this even hold up in court if some GMOs are shown to hurt health?

I'm not particularly worried about the health effects of GMOs, but this seems like this preempts the entire purpose of the FDA

#17 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:27 PM

Basically if it holds up which it might not because of that provision in it (Doubtful that it doesn't stand), it would allow dupont, monsanto and other GMO seed producing companies to plant new types of seeds no matter the effects to human life or the environment and the government can not intervene to stop them or prosecute them, no matter the consequences. Nor can the USDA ban the new seed if it is in fact found to be harmful to humans or the environment.

So in theory if Monsanto or dupont could plant a test seed outside a small farming town that makes the town sick and even cause death and nothing could be done about it by anyone in the government. Monsanto and other GMO seed companies would be untouchable and above law basically.


I dont think that would be allowed by this law. From this Baltimore Sun article-

The language, tucked into appropriations legislation to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, would strip courts of the power to halt the planting of such crops if a judge felt a review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's approval was warranted over health or environmental concerns


So I believe FDA approval would still be required before it could be used for human consumption, you just cant sue or even stop them if anything happens after that.

nice to have genetic modification of fruits and veggies with the test subjects being the general public...now not even a fund for out of court settlements..


There are actually very few GM fruits and veggies, outside of the papaya. Profit margins are just too low I guess

#18 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,796 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:31 PM

How is this legal/ constitutional? Would this even hold up in court if some GMOs are shown to hurt health?

I'm not particularly worried about the health effects of GMOs, but this seems like this preempts the entire purpose of the FDA


If you have Netflix watch this doc if avail on streaming..have to search. "Burzynski"

If not the FDA is shown for what it is here..it all ties together...(no tinfoil hat here just Corp greed and the Gov frenching in front of us.) more Cancer treatment vs Pharma and the same approach to medicine.


If not the whole movie is here


#19 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:33 PM

There are actually very few GM fruits and veggies, outside of the papaya. Profit margins are just too low I guess



corn, soy, and potatoes are largely GMO. if you eat packaged food, it's going to have at least one of these ingredients in it.

#20 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,796 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:36 PM

The GMO products are sold to Kellogs, Mcdonalds, Wendys or any 99 cent menu(burgers bee 99cents since 93?! With beef prices going up 400% since then.)

Sold as feed to farm animals and so cheap that feed ing a cow corn and using antbiotics to keep it from dying is cheaper than feeding a cow grass.

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!



#21 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:51 PM

Nothing inherently wrong with GM food. One could argue that almost everything we eat has been genetically modified through artificial selection- look at how much more milk a cow will produce today compared to 200 years ago

#22 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 14,765 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:13 PM

If you have Netflix watch this doc if avail on streaming..have to search. "Burzynski"

If not the FDA is shown for what it is here..it all ties together...(no tinfoil hat here just Corp greed and the Gov frenching in front of us.) more Cancer treatment vs Pharma and the same approach to medicine.


If not the whole movie is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zBBfN5mQa8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

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.

#23 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,796 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 29 March 2013 - 10:21 PM

Yep hi dosage vitamin C-Nacian therapy = no profit.

It may kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unaffected..but you cant pay hot former pagent contestants $70, 000.00 for getting doctor' signatures pushing nutrition n vitamin C.

Its no conspiracy when its in public view and corporations gaining absolute power.

#24 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 11:57 PM

Way too quite in here compared to other threads on the tinder. More people should be upset about this and afraid of the ramifications for the general populous.


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.

#25 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,353 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:32 AM

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.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.


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.counterpu...way-in-ag-bill/

#26 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,059 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:18 AM

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

http://blog.skeptica...r-deregulation/

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

#27 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,796 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 30 March 2013 - 10:42 AM

What part of this is from inforwars lol?



#28 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:47 AM

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.



[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]










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.

#29 d-run

d-run

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:04 PM

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...
https://www.youtube....h?v=Y3x-Uj4yAMY

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?

#30 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:30 PM

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. ;)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.