I finally agree - Obama sucks

[Reddy]

While the whole nation is putting pink and red bands on their facebook pages, things like this happen while no one is paying attention. Obama's done some great things and some really questionable things, but if you think the timing of this is accidental, well... go watch The West Wing. The White House doesn't want liberals to notice that they're hiking organic produce costs and protecting GMO-supporting corporations from ANY liability should their products some day be proven to cause ill effects. Keep in mind, GMOs don't get tested before hitting the market.

 

Food for thought.

 

http://on.rt.com/m83efw

 

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

 

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

 

In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

[BigSqwert]

Maybe his family will all get cancer from eating all of that frankenfood.

[Jake]

There was a discussion about this tucked into the Financial News thread

 

This happened when you weren't looking, btw.

 

 

I keep reading that it "protects Monsanto from litigation" without seeing how it protects them. I'd want to see that before getting worked up.

 

 

as soon as I saw that Snopes had a piece on it, i figured that aws a better explanation than anything I could find elsewhere.

 

 

Still pretty vague sounding. It's not like it prevents constitutional challenges to this act, though.

 

 

Yeah, I have no problem with it. The consequences of stopping the use of these seeds with little notice would be tremendous. It doesn't prevent the legal challenge, just prevents the court from banning its use during the proceedings. IMO, we will never find a decent shred of evidence against GMO farming.

 

There are still some concerns about how Monsanto conducts business, but I fully believe that genetically modifying crops is not something that will come back and bite us and very well may actually be something that saves/extends the life of humanity.

 

[Reddy]

There was a discussion about this tucked into the Financial News thread

 

should i respond here or there? because methinks you don't have a great understanding of nutrition if you're not worried about the longterm effects of GMOs

[Jake]

should i respond here or there? because methinks you don't have a great understanding of nutrition if you're not worried about the longterm effects of GMOs

 

Everything has been genetically modified for a century plus -- so what specifically has you concerned?

[Reddy]

Everything has been genetically modified for a century plus -- so what specifically has you concerned?

 

are you talking about genetically engineered? ie: hybridization and cross-breeding? because THAT has been done for a century plus.

 

Genetically MODIFYING organisms has only been done in the last few decades

 

EDIT: more than that, though - the point isn't whether or not we think GMOs will be harmful, the point is that this law offers protection against liability if it someday turns out they ARE harmful. that's a REALLY bad precedent to be setting.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Reddy

[farmteam]

I thought the issue was that whatever this product that could be litigated over is used by some absurd portion of agribusiness. So if there were an injunction that would prevent the product's use, that would seriously screw up the nation's food supply. At least that's how I took the way the GMO supporters argued it. If that's the case, then that is a legitimate problem that needs to be considered.

[Jake]

I thought the issue was that whatever this product that could be litigated over is used by some absurd portion of agribusiness. So if there were an injunction that would prevent the product's use, that would seriously screw up the nation's food supply. At least that's how I took the way the GMO supporters argued it. If that's the case, then that is a legitimate problem that needs to be considered.

 

Indeed. The law doesn't stop inquiry or legal challenge, but it does prevent the courts from halting the entire farming industry while those things happen.

[Reddy]

Indeed. The law doesn't stop inquiry or legal challenge, but it does prevent the courts from halting while those things happen.

Haha well yeah that's the one way to look at it. Lol

 

The other way is that it allows them to keep producing and selling GMO foods even if a lawsuit regarding their safety is brought to the table. How well would that fare in the pharamcuetical world?

 

Here, just read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

 

That'll clear up why this is no bueno. Takes away the courts power which is a slippery slope and a bad precedent.

[mr_genius]

they must have paid a lot of bribe money to Obama to get that one through.

[farmteam]

Haha well yeah that's the one way to look at it. Lol

 

The other way is that it allows them to keep producing and selling GMO foods even if a lawsuit regarding their safety is brought to the table. How well would that fare in the pharamcuetical world?

 

Here, just read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

 

That'll clear up why this is no bueno. Takes away the courts power which is a slippery slope and a bad precedent.

But in this instance, crops and pharmaceuticals aren't remotely analogous....

 

I'm not saying it's awesome or necessary that this law was inserted in there at the last second. Just that, if this is a real problem (an absurd portion of producers using the same product all of a sudden having to stop using that product), then it's something that needs to be addressed. Probably not the best way to do it, but let's see what all of the options are before going off on it.

Edited March 31, 2013 by farmteam

[witesoxfan]

Haha well yeah that's the one way to look at it. Lol

 

The other way is that it allows them to keep producing and selling GMO foods even if a lawsuit regarding their safety is brought to the table. How well would that fare in the pharamcuetical world?

 

Here, just read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

 

That'll clear up why this is no bueno. Takes away the courts power which is a slippery slope and a bad precedent.

 

Worked just fine for big tobacco