GMO NIGHTMARE ... THE MONSANTO PROTECTION ACT

So Monsanto got a U.S. Senator to insert an amendment into a bill that provides it with legal cover if their products are determined by a court of law to be dangerous to the public's health. But don't be surprised by this development. Monsanto wants (needs?) legal protections and exemptions for their genetically engineered products because at least 88% of all corn, cotton, and soybean seeds planted in the United States in 2009 were from genetically modified seeds. 

Over the past 20 years the jump in the use of genetically engineered (or GMO, for genetically modified) seeds has been phenomenal. This is especially the case for corn farmers since 1997 ... 

Because GMO products have become such an integral part of America's agriculture and food markets (soy, cotton, corn, etc.) the real issue for companies like Monsanto is that profits could be hurt significantly if a court ordered farmers to stop using GMO products because of public health concerns. We're talking big bucks here. 

This helps explain why Monsanto pushed U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) to add a last minute amendment to H.R. 933, which was a spending bill designed to, once again, avert a government shutdown. 

The amendment was written with the help of Monsanto and effectively says that Monsanto doesn't have to pay attention to federal court orders that halt the sale or planting of GMO seeds deemed to pose a public health threat. By temporarily (6 months) erasing the separation of powers between congress and the courts H.R. 933 sets a terrible precedent for democracy in America.

Part of what's driving this issue is the tension between those who believe that genetically engineered foods (often called "frankenfoods") are always harmful (they're not) and an industry that claims GMOs are "environmentally sustainable" (they're not). Further clouding the issue are cases where corn farmers who don't use GMO seeds benefit from farming neighbors who use pesticide-resistant GMO corn seed (the free rider effect). But this reality is more than off-set by the sudden death spiral of the monarch buttefly and bee colonies, which is increasingly linked to the cumulative effect of using products from the GMO-chemical industry. 

In any case, because of Blunt's amendment the GMO-chemical industry is increasingly viewed as a favored commercial bully that is above the law. This is something that U.S. Senator Jon Tester, a farmer from Montana, picked up on while discussing Blunt's Monsanto amendment, which has derisively become known as the "Monsanto Protection Act"  ...

____________________________________

SEN. JON TESTER: Mr. President, Montana is home to thousands of working families that make a living off the land. Like my wife and I, they’re family farmers and ranchers. The House of Representatives is prepared to toss those working families aside in favor of the nation’s large meatpacking corporations.

The House inserted a provision in the bill that gives enormous marketing power to America’s three largest meatpacking corporations, while stiffing family farmers and ranchers. Family-run production agriculture faces tremendous market manipulation. Chicken farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers all struggle to get a fair price from the meatpackers, and if they fight back, they risk angering corporate representatives and being shut out of the market. Thanks to this provision, the Agricultural Department will not be able to ensure a fair, open market that put the brakes on the worst abuses by the meatpacking industry. What’s worse is that the USDA took congressionally mandated steps to protect ranchers from market manipulation over the last few years. That’s what we told them to do in the 2008 farm bill. And this provision will actually overturn rules that the USDA has already put into place. But apparently, intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying won out in the House of Representatives, and now we’re back to square one with the big meatpackers calling the shots. 

The second provision sent over from the House tells the USDA to ignore any judicial ruling regarding the planting of genetically modified crops. Its supporters are calling it "Farmer Assurance Provision." But all it really assures is a lack of corporate liability. 

The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, the department must re-approve the crop and allow it to continue to be planted, regardless of what the judge says. Now let’s think about that. The United States Congress is telling the Agricultural Department that even if a court tells you that you’ve failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you must disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crop to be planted anyway. Not only does this ignore the constitutional idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically modified crops take hold across this country, even when a judge finds it violates the law—once again, agribusiness multinational corporations putting farmers as serfs. It’s a dangerous precedent. Mr. President, it will paralyze the USDA, putting the department in the middle of a battle between Congress and the courts. And the ultimate loser will be our family farmers going about their business and feeding America in the right way.

Sunshine Week shouldn’t be a show-and-tell, Mr. President. And slipping corporate giveaways into a bill at the same time that we call for more open government is doubling down on the same policies that created the need for Sunshine Week in the first place. That’s why I’ve introduced two amendments to remove these corporate welfare provisions from the bill. Montana has elected me to go to the Senate to do away with the shady backroom deals, to get rid of handouts to big corporations and to make government work better.

 ____________________________________

For those unfamiliar with GMO products they are, in very general terms, seeds and other food products that have been modified to increase resistance to pests or increase yields and product growth (in both plants and animals), among other producer benefits. If you're looking for an analogy GMOs are essentially like steroids athletes take to improve performance. While the comparison may be unfair (and overstated), think of Barry Bonds as corn ...

The big difference here is that while we're banning the use of steroids in professional and collegiate sports, we're now granting legal exemptions to companies that produce the GMO products used in our food system. 

Let that one sink in for a moment.

- Mark

NOTE I: I want to emphasize that the Monsanto Protection Act is really an amendment attached to House Resolution 933, which focused on spending. Like the Affordable Care Act which is now called "Obamacare" H.R. 933 is now referred to what the political and media talking heads now labels the Monsanto Protection Act.

NOTE II: This video - The World According to Monsanto - shows how Monsanto has bulldozed and steamrolled its way over science and necessary review processes to get its way. It's almost two hours long, but the section starting at 33:45 through 40:00 minutes provides a snapshot of how Monsanto does business.

NOTE III: One interpretation of how Monsanto gets a legal pass from H.R. 933 can be found here.