8
Comments:

Filter Questions

Reset Filter

No questions match....

  • There have been no discussions since the expert answer was published.

  • Community Manager's picture
    Community Manager
    09.09.2013
    This question is currently under review by one of our experts. The comments section will reopen once a response is posted.
  • Community Manager's picture
    Community Manager
    08.16.2013
    Yes we are reviewing your question. We will prioritize questions based on the number of votes they receive. We are doing our best to answer every question, however the format and response time will differ from question to question. In the meantime, the Monsanto Protection Act response - available here: http://gmoanswers.com/ask/what-%E2%80%9Cmonsanto-protection-act%E2%80%9D-1 - provides relevant information on the topic addressed in your question.Thank you for your patience and participation in the Q/A process.
  • DoYourResearch's picture
    DoYourResearch
    08.07.2013
    Hi, I read the post you linked to, but could not find any sort of answer to my question. Perhaps you could read my question again.
  • Rickinreallife's picture
    Rickinreallife
    08.01.2013
    Do your research -- fair enuff
  • DoYourResearch's picture
    DoYourResearch
    08.01.2013
    If the manner in which it showed up in an appropriations bill is in fact usual procedure, I think this indicates an extremely dangerous and reckless regard for American tax payers safety and well being who trust their govt appointed officials to look out for them and their families, no?

    "According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the “Monsanto Protection Act” even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted in order to avert a government shutdown."

    If this is true they were in fact tricked into voting for it in order to keep the govt from being de-funded. Is there any way to hold the responsible party accountable for what appears to be a clear case of deception? Because if this is the way the govt works, I think there may be an argument made for de-funding it long enough to remedy such monumental flaws before elected officials are allowed to take another penny of tax payers money.
  • Rickinreallife's picture
    Rickinreallife
    08.01.2013
    The article I provided the link to does address that aspect. The provisions were actually introduced as a bill and had been on the radar screen for some time before it was added to the appropriations bill. However, it does appear that its eventual inclusion in the appropriations bill came as a surprise to many, which seems to be par for the course for Congress. I cannot tell you whether the manner in which is was added was unusual procedurally. I'll leave it to others to defend how it was added, but I do agree with why it was added.
  • DoYourResearch's picture
    DoYourResearch
    08.01.2013
    Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure you answered the question though. The question was directed at the manner in which it ended up in an "unrelated" bill. I'm just here trying to learn.
  • Rickinreallife's picture
    Rickinreallife
    08.01.2013
    Probably because the source of your information has so little respect for your intellect that they felt they could blatantly misrepresent what the provision is and does, and its origins and you would buy it. Here is an article that presents a very different picture: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/04/01/monsanto-protection-act-separating-the-facts-from-the-fury/

    What is blatantly false is the claim by Food Democracy Now and others that the so-called Monsanto Protection Act bars lawsuits against Monsanto and prevents USDA from regulating GMO's that have been found to be harmful, and that it ties the hands of the courts. The provision does nothing of the sort. The issue is what is the process is if a court revokes a deregulated status for a GMO crop variety due to a procedural defect found in the NEPA review. In no case where groups have legally challenged a deregulation, have groups proven or even alleged actual environmental harm. They simply allege that NEPA review was incomplete. Nothing prevents anyone from continuing to challenge USDA deregulatory decisions or the courts from ruling in their favor. And in no case to date has a court decision to revoke a deregulated status and remand the application back to USDA for further consideration been decided on a known or even alleged threat to public health and safety or environmental harm.

    The regulatory relevance of a court decision revoking a deregulated status is the crop reverts back to regulated status, meaning that its planting and disposition is once again subject to USDA regulation. The question that the provision answers is what happens to farmers and crops already planted and in the commercial chain during the period the crop was deregulated. Anti-GMO groups want the courts in every case to enjoin its planting and harvesting, and to even order destruction of crops in the field. Part of the reason for this is to intentionally create an uncertainty for producers and impose actual economic hardships on producers to scare producers away. What the biotech rider says is to expressly authorize USDA to impose restrictions on the planting and use of a crop, i.e. to regulate the crop again, if a court ruling revokes a previously deregulated status. USDA already arguably has this authority. Furthermore, this reregulation remedy, rather than automatic injunction and court ordered destruction is precisely what the Supreme Court itself ordered in 2007 in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, overturning a lower court's imposition of an injunction. “An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 7-1 majority, concluding that the US District Court in San Francisco had “abused its discretion.” It hardly seems accurate reprentations that the Monsanto Protection Act strips courts of power, when the Supreme Court itself, in a 7-1 decision [Thats 7 to 1] told the USDA to do exactly what the biotech rider provision only makes explicit that they have the power to do. Also, the biotech rider does not, and cannot, impair the Courts authority to order injunction and even destruction of crops already planted in the event that revocation of deregulated status is based upon a finding of actual or imminent harm.