Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 25, 2014, 02:16:57 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: GMO from the beginning......  (Read 2051 times)
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« on: February 18, 2012, 06:34:58 PM »

This video is long. But well worth watching it.

In others discussions, some have pointed out:

1) The systematic approach to squash any opposition to GMO.

2) The using of public relations firms and bloggers to cast doubt and combat anything on the web seen as denigrating to GMO.

3) The increase use of chemicals (bad for bees), and lower productivity of GMO crops.

4) The quiet and purposeful spread of GMO crops without farmers knowing it. First they said GMO would not spread, until it was proved to taint all crops. Now the official position is that GMO and non-GMO crops can coexist. Tell that to the small farmers being sued.

5) The governments involvement in passing biotech products without proper testing. (Remember the chemical we now know to kill bees that was never tested by the EPA)

6) The systematic control of the food industry of the world, while most are sleeping.

For those not up on GMO concerns with bees, or in regards to the biotech control of the university research, the buying of politicians, and why some oppose the GMO industry, PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO!

GMO Exposed - Scientists Under Attack FULL Documentary MUST WATCH


Do not skip anything. This video is a good starting point.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 07:25:13 PM by BjornBee » Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
backyard warrior
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 475

Location: NE PA


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2012, 08:13:06 PM »

Very interesting video.  Food supply is one thing that we shouldnt be messing with as the scientist claimed in this movie.  It all comes down to production and money not the safety of the people.  We are the guinea pigs. Gmo's need to go.   
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2012, 11:44:12 PM »

Of the 6 points mentioned at the beginning of this thread, the first two are personal opinions so I will not attempt to refute them with facts.  To do so would be like boasting that my god can beat up your god.  I will only briefly comment on these first two points, but the last four points plead for rebuttal.

...
1) The systematic approach to squash... opposition to GMO.
2) ...public relations firms and bloggers to cast doubt on anything ...seen as denigrating to GMO.
3) The increase use of chemicals (bad for bees), and lower productivity of GMO crops.
4) The quiet... spread of GMO crops without farmer knowing it.... tell that to the small farmers being sued.
5) The governments involvement in ...biotech products without testing.
6) The ...control of the food industry... while most are sleeping...


(1)  If there are any "systematic" approaches about squashing anything, it is on the part of the anti GMO crowd who wish to squash GMO.  Besides there is not ONE and I repeat not ONE piece of creditable SCIENTIFIC evidence that GMOs have ever harmed any organism on the face of the Earth other than the insects or other pests organisms that they were originally designed to harm.  Even the monarch butterfly is doing quire well today even in the face of Bt corn pollen thank you.

(2)  If this part of this post is not an attempt to cast doubt on or to denigrate GMOs especially GMOs by using the WWW then what the heck is it?

(3)  The exact opposite is the case.  Insecticide use has dropped overall since the emergence of many GMO technologies like Bt corn, cotton, and others.  Please include scientific evidence of any GMO crop that did not improve yields, provide a higher return on the farmer’s investment or benefit the environment.
By (A) reducing the amounts of pesticides dumped on food, forage, and fiber crops each and every year.
By (B) reducing the trips a farmer makes across his fields while burning expensive Diesel fuel.
By (C) lessening the tonnage of top soil washed or blown into our rivers and streams year after year from plowing or from the physical cultivation of the soil for weed control. 
By (D) reducing the number of and or the severity of fish kills each and every year caused by chemical pesticide runoff. 
By (E) reducing the exposure of consumers as well as the exposure of farm workers and their family’s to dangerous chemical pesticides.  The list goes on and on. 
It is not always a greedy CEO out for more filthy lucre with which to buy a second vacation home in Aspen who provides the impetus for GMOs.  Sometimes it is people looking to solve problems.  On the other hand no one can point to anyone or to any thing that was ever harmed or point to anyone who can point to anyone who can point to any person or thing that was killed or harmed by exposure to or from eating GMOs, isn’t that right?

(4)  If you are referring to the Canadian farmer that Monsanto sued because he saved and planted PURE Round Up ready canola seeds, I suggest that you or anyone else interested in this case research the facts as presented in a court of law.

Below is the short version.
(A) The canola in question tested 95-98% pure for the Round Up Ready gene.  This rate of purity is as good as it gets even if the seeds were GMO canola seeds purchased directly from a company selling Monsanto licensed Round Up Ready canola seeds.  This BTW occurred the second year after the farmer in question a Mr. Schmeiser, claimed that he found Round Up Ready canola growing by accident on his property.  University research shows that the gene drift between GMO canola and non GMO canola is on the order of .01% per year or in other words one seed out of every thousand seeds, unless the two canola varieties are intermingled at planting time.  Regardless if you believe Schmeiser or not, Schmeiser’s own farm workers testified under oath that Schmeiser ordered them to spray Round Up on the field were he found Round Up tolerant canola growing.  He did this to burn down all the non GMO canola that Schmeiser ‘found’ growing on one small part of his farm.  Then Schmeiser ordered his farm workers to harvest and save the canola seed from the canola plants that survived the Round Up burn down.  Then Schmeiser ordered his farm workers to plant the following year’s canola crop using these very same Round Up tolerant canola seeds that Smeiser had taken several extraordinary steps to identify, isolate, and purify.  Millions of dollars were raised to help Schmeiser with his legal bills, most of which were provided pro-bono.  Schmeiser however did received between 300 and 500 thousand Canadian dollars to help him pay a court judgment in favor of Monsanto that amounted to less than 15 grand Canadian.  Pretty good work if you can get it.

(5)  Good try.  The government requires that all GMOs be extensively tested for years and years either by the EPA, the USDA, the FDA or by all three looking for all the possible side or negative effects on the environment and on consumers.  I won’t commit further on this.  I will let others do my talking for me.  Check out the three links below.  I am sorry if you find these links a little long.  Together they total 30 minutes.  However, if you wish to cut straight to the chase, watch only video number 3.  A.K.A. the short version
Penn & Teller BS: Eat This! pt 1/3

Penn & Teller BS: Eat This! pt 2/3

Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller: BS

(6)  Do you feel like we have been on a circular reasoning tour.  I don’t because every point I made can stand alone.  Furthermore….
(A) Monsanto has never sold a single seed of any type, to anyone, anywhere, at anytime, for any reason or for any purpose.  Monsanto is in the business of selling or licensing  its patented GMO technology to other seed companies who grow, produce, bag, ship, distribute, warehouse, license and sell GMO seeds to farmers.  Fortunately for these seed producers but unfortunately for Monsanto, it is hard to raise very much cane or even to raise very much cash by running around the country side screaming about Funks G Hybrids, Pioneer Seeds, Agrigold or which ever other seed company that urban hippies have never heard about.
(B) In closing, if Monsanto’s goal was to control the food supply, why on Earth did Monsanto give up their paten on Round Up herbicide and especially why on Earth is Monsanto not trying to extend their paten or Round Up Ready soybeans.  When this GMO paten expires in 2014 Round Up Ready soybeans will be in the public domain and starting with the 2015 crop year every Tom, Dick, and Harry can keep, save, sell, plant, or grow all the Round Up Ready soybeans or Round Up Ready soybean seeds that his or her little old heart desires.  This ‘news’ is 3 years old, but I bet you didn’t know it because the anti GMO crowd only wants to beat the dead GMO horse.  Starting in 2015 there will be free GMO Round Up Ready soybean seeds for the masses, Hallelujah, thank you Monsanto!!!
That last line is called sarcasm, Y’all
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html

Logged
splitrock
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 173

Location: Eastern South Dakota


« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2012, 07:13:22 AM »

"Starting in 2015 there will be free GMO Round Up Ready soybean seeds for the masses, Hallelujah, thank you Monsanto!!!"

Free?

"That last line is called sarcasm, Y’all"

The free part? the thank you? or was the whole last line sarcasm? Lets see if you got all of your silly facts right in your last line.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2012, 08:30:06 AM »

 lau

So this is the best you can come up with?

Norman Borlag, used as an example of spreading new seeds around in the 50's and 60's, and this equates to the same GMO seed distribution 40 years later? What a stretch. He won the Nobel Peace prize in 1970, for feeding folks in countries that did not have the means prior. His efforts were far different than the GMO of today. They almost conveniently make it sound that he was using roundup ready, neonicotionoid GMO crops to save those billion folks. But we know that was not true.

But I do like the part filmed with what could probably be described as some pot smoking hippy wannabe teenagers who are on the search of who they are. This is the example and opposition that is to be discredited? Wow!  And that shows strength in your position? Very funny indeed.

Of course, most of the Penn & Teller video can be easily discredited. Their statement that all food and chemicals are safe after always being fully testing by the USDA, FDA, and the EPA, is a farce at best. We know just in the past year of at least one chemical associated with GMO crops that was given rubber stamp approval. Why? I can only assume, as pointed out in the first original video of this thread, that just perhaps, some rather large companies have the ability to buy their products into the market. Does anyone really think that money and influence does not affect this stuff. Get real!

I can hardly believe that Penn & Teller is the authority on GMO crops. perhaps a paid spokeman, or a paid consultant for Monsanto and biotech firms? They do pay for many of them.

But it does beg to question.....if Borlag "saved" a billion people in the 50' and 60's, with seed not anywhere near the GMO seeds of today, why 40 years later is it a "all or nothing" proposition with Africa? They offer the scenario that if they can not use GMO patented crops, that the alternative is millions of starving folks. Didn't borlag save a billion without GMO technology seeds of today? Why is feeding folk any different today, and now a matter of organic or GMO? Seems to me that a large section of commonsense in the middle has been left out for some reason.  rolleyes

I could nitpick many of the Penn & Teller video. We all know (if you are paying attention at all) that GMO and neonicotinoid systemic pesticides are harmful to the bees and environment. We know that stuff is rubber stamped through the EPA, USDA, and FDA all the time as money buys influence. We know farms are being contaminated with pollen from seeds crops planted elsewhere. We know that there have been studies, like the one out of Purdue, that shows the long lasting affects of chemicals used with biotech crops.

How anyone can deny it all, with a Penn & Teller tape showing some "eat only raw veggie" types as the alternative solution, is hard to understand. Great entertainment, but not much beyond that.

Why would a company fear and need to produce a video attacking "Eat only raw" groupies? Why would a multi-billion company need to discedit such a small number of folks, while suppressing research as noted in the first video? You mean the long ago use of "Franken-food" as campaign (I have not seen that in years) was so effective that folks all around the world are growing in numbers against GMO?

 

Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
jtow
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 29

Location: Tulsa, OK


« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2012, 08:15:28 PM »

Bjorn thank you for pointing out that not all people are gullible enough to believe that the government is will to put our well being ahead of corporate dollars and the jobs waiting fro them after they retire from the USDA, FDA, EPA, ad nauseum.
This is from an article I was reading that shows how well our FDA protects us from the major drug companies:  "In 2000, researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles did an analysis of 1,473 major adverse medical events involving the use of Viagra. There were 522 deaths, most involving cardiovascular causes developing within 4-5 hours of taking a 50 mg dose of Viagra. The majority of deaths occurred in patients who were less than 65 years of age and had no reported cardiac risk factors." Vaigra had been on sale at that time for only 2 years, yet remember a few years ago when Ephedra was banned for causing 6 or so deaths due to people overdosing on it? Yet turns out most were using the synthetic ingredient of Ephedirine whcih is in Ephedra, and amped up to several hundred times the dosage in Ephedra. However, I seem to see that Viagra is still sold.
If GMO was so good, why is Roundup use going way up as weeds are developing resisitance to it, they are being called Super Weeds now. Why do most European countris ban GMO crops? Thank you for the video.
Logged
cbinstrasburg
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22

Location: Strasburg CO...east of Denver


« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2012, 08:57:32 PM »

sorry...so I can maybe get interested in this thread could someone tell me what GMO means...I'm a dummy

Carl
Logged
marktrl
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 125

Location: Chuluota, Florida USA


« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2012, 09:20:29 PM »

sorry...so I can maybe get interested in this thread could someone tell me what GMO means...I'm a dummy

Carl

Genetically Modified Organism

Also it has been reported that the Bt cotton has failed and now the bugs are more resistant to pesticides.
Logged
windfall
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 355

Location: huntington,vt


« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2012, 09:32:01 PM »

"Besides there is not ONE and I repeat not ONE piece of creditable SCIENTIFIC evidence that GMOs have ever harmed any organism on the face of the Earth other than the insects or other pests organisms that they were originally designed to harm. ", Kingbee


http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

If you don't want to digest the whole thing, Footnotes: 1-26 studies to the contrary. The rest of your claims are also addressed in this document along with source citation and notation of peer review....something you have yet to supply in your numerous posts. Facts are a nice thing.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2012, 09:45:54 PM »

sorry...so I can maybe get interested in this thread could someone tell me what GMO means...I'm a dummy

Carl



I had spent some time this afternoon building a page on our website. (It has errors and is in the building stage....which is pure chaos until the final version is posted.)

Where this page goes, I am not sure. Half of me wants to go with it, and half says not too. I want to highlight some information not to condemn farmers, or solely promote organic. Just a place where the average guy can see some of the concerns, some of the issues, and see a collection of links to expand ones knowledge.

It seems, as with usual matters, lines are drawn on the extreme opposing corners. Is there a happy medium? Or is it a "nothing but GMO" or a "Nothing but organic" argument?

So we will play around, discuss, and see where this goes from a web page standpoint. 

But for now, this may help answer some of the questions: http://www.bjornapiaries.com/gmoneonicotinoids.html

Hope this helps.

Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2012, 11:58:48 PM »

..."Starting in 2015 there will be free GMO Round Up Ready soybean seeds for the masses, Hallelujah, thank you Monsanto!!!...

To quote an award winning expert on the environment:
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day
Plenty of sunshine headin' my way
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay

Mister Bluebird's on my shoulder
It's the truth, it's actual...

Yes, Round Up Ready Soybeans will be in the public domain starting in late 2014.  Any farmer who wishes to save Round Up ready soybean seeds after that date and replant them on his farm the following year is free to do so at no charge to him, and he may plant and replant his own Round Up Ready soybean seeds every year after that to the end of time, or until scientific evidence emerges that Round Up Ready soybeans are dangerous, which ever comes first.  The smart money is betting on the end of time!
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2012, 12:10:28 AM »

...
Your link isn't working, please re-post it.  However, given the name of your source, I doubt that it provides either CREDIABLE or RELIABLE evidence.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2012, 07:16:57 AM »

"Besides there is not ONE and I repeat not ONE piece of creditable SCIENTIFIC evidence that GMOs have ever harmed any organism on the face of the Earth other than the insects or other pests organisms that they were originally designed to harm. ", Kingbee


http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

If you don't want to digest the whole thing, Footnotes: 1-26 studies to the contrary. The rest of your claims are also addressed in this document along with source citation and notation of peer review....something you have yet to supply in your numerous posts. Facts are a nice thing.


windfall,
Thank you.
I'll be adding this to the page I have been building. Nice collection of resources and readings on the topic. Great for anyone who wants to read up on the subject.

Your link is about what I wanted to do, or felt the need for. Seems any information or discussions on this topic is fragmented and a reader never fully has much beyond one detail at a time. This bundles it all together very nicely.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2012, 07:53:25 AM »

...
Your link isn't working, please re-post it.  However, given the name of your source, I doubt that it provides either CREDIABLE or RELIABLE evidence.

Ah...Yes. That shows some insight.  rolleyes
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
windfall
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 355

Location: huntington,vt


« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2012, 08:01:48 AM »

KingBee, Link works fine for me....sorry if you don't like the source of the studies, they are numerous and peer reviewed, that is generally the scientific basis for credible. Not necessarily conclusive, but credible. I think I am all done rising to your bait.

Glad to provide the link Bjorn, I have been frustrated by the many unsupported claims by both sides, it just muddies the waters for those trying to understand the issues. Claims without reference to source don't count as much more than statements of opinion. This was the first compilation of the arguments (against GMO) that I could find that was well organized and extensively referenced.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2012, 09:16:06 AM »

I agree.

In normal everyday discussions, many points are made without footnoted material. I know I base much of my comments on "remembered" stuff, collected over time. If I (or anyone else) had to footnote or reference every point ever made, we might as well close up shop. 

I added your link and asked folks to read it first prior to watching any video or other material offered. It is what I was looking for.

I am caught somewhere in the middle on many issues. It's like saying "I'm not against farming. I am against some farming practices." But both sides are so extreme, that the debate pulls from the fringes. Am I convinced that eating any amount of GMO is bad? Not sold on that. Do I feel that GMO practices and certain aspects of production are bad for honey bees? You bet! But that does not mean I will become a "eat only organic" follower. But that is the box that supporters of GMO want you think is the only alternative. It is not.

Thanks again for adding the link. I think having the material for all to read, and make their own opinions on the matter, is best. As beekeepers, and with an issue that many feel is impacting beekeeping, it is also an area most beekeepers are not knowledgeable.....regardless of the individuals position.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2012, 09:46:51 PM »

... KingBee, Link works fine for me....

Windfall, still didn't work for me @ 8:37 PM CST 02-22-2012 But I do receive a mysterious blank white screen, then warnings dialogue from both my MaAfee and Microsoft Anti-Virus software that is running it on 2 separate computers.  Please advise.

Since you stated that facts are a nice thing, nows about some?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 11:10:33 PM by kingbee » Logged
BoBn
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 195

Location: USA


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2012, 11:26:56 PM »

I thought this is a general beekeeping forum
Seems to be off topic.  Is'n't there somewhere for non-beekeeping stuff?
Typical Beemaster forum Sad
Logged

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
--Thomas Jefferson
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2012, 07:08:57 AM »

Maybe they have a firewall of some type designed to stop Monsanto and other biotech licensed computors from gaining entry into the system......  I dunno
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Stromnessbees
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 48

Location: Scotland


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2013, 08:12:28 AM »

Some new developments on the GMO front:


Quote

'Monsanto Protection Act' called 'outrageous,' dangerous

'Monsanto Protection Act': Activists have claimed Monsanto's GMO crops are harmful.


 In this 2012 photo, activists protest GMOs outside a Monsanto facility.

A short-term spending bill has sparked intense debate about America’s food supply.

HR 933 passed the Senate last week; President Barack Obama signed it into law Tuesday. The bill helped the government avoid a March 27 shutdown. All of which sounds like standard procedure.

But activists are enraged over section 735 of the bill, the "Farmer Assurance Provision," which they're calling the "Monsanto Protection Act" and claiming could harm America’s food supply.

Monsanto is an agricultural biotechnology company that produces genetically engineered seeds. Opponents claim genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be harmful to human health and environmental biodiversity.


"It's outrageous," said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now.

"This is an ATM machine for Monsanto,"
Murphy said. Monsanto "basically opened a new line of credit when they got this thing passed."

Usually, any new GMO crops need to be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and legal challenges can be filed to stop a seed from being planted until it undergoes a more vigorous review. But opponents of section 735, the "Monsanto Protection Act," claim the bill eliminates regulatory checks and judicial review.

"It's basically a corporate handout to Monsanto," Murphy claimed. "It hurts every farmer. … Every consumer is at risk."

In a statement to MSN News, a USDA spokesperson said, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack "has asked the Office of General Council to review this provision as it appears to preempt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable."


MONSANTO RESPONDS

In an e-mail to MSN, Kelly Clauss of Monsanto's Public Affairs office said the Farmer Assurance Provision has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress since June 2012.

"As we understand it, the point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a careful balance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews," Clauss wrote.

She said not only Monsanto, but other major grower groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Seed Trade Association, the American Soybean Association and the National Corn Growers Association supported the provision.

Clauss also provided a June 2012 letter to the House Committee on Appropriations signed by the groups cited as supporters.

"Opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits .... in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products," the letter claims. It says the litigation has impeded the availability of new technology to growers and consumers.

The letter calls the provision a "positive step" that assures growers "the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA."


PROTEST

But that did not calm the worries of more than 250,000 people who signed a petition expressing their outrage at the passage of what they call the "Monsanto Protection Act."

The petition alleges that the provision "forced USDA to immediately approve any permits for continued planting at the industry’s request, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a 'back door approval' mechanism."

Section 735 says the Secretary of Agriculture should "immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation" upon request from a farmer, grower, farm operator or producer.

Murphy said there was a protest at the White House March 27 that included a small group of local citizens.

"We gave Obama all the political cover he would need and he still caved," he said.


http://news.msn.com/us/monsanto-protection-act-called-outrageous-dangerous?ocid=ansnews11
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.42 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page July 22, 2014, 09:04:01 PM