Snopes has already tackled the "Monsanto Protection Act" claim.

[JaneyVee]

Snopes doesn't let me copy & paste so here's the link to the claim: The Monsanto Protection Act creates a "precedent setting limitation on judicial review of genetically-engineered crops".

Snopes gives it a rating of: Mixture

Link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp
________________________________________________

Then there's this:

“Monsanto Protection Act” is a bullshit, made-up term. There is no such thing.

Link: http://badskeptic.com/?p=123

[elleng]

1. Thanks. 'Provisions in effect for 6 months,

until the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30, 2013.'

[TM99]

2. Kind of like the Bush Tax Cuts

which were going to expire in a set time frame?

Given the corporate buy-out of American politics on both the right and the left, we will likely have to wait in see in six months whether that provision does end or gets magically extended or made permanent in another spending bill.

[freshwest]

3. The Bush tax cuts were extended due to defeatists staying home in 2010 allow the baggers control.

[TM99]

4. Seriously?

You do not believe Obama had a damned thing to do with that?

Wow, the love of fearless leader is as strong with Democrats as it is with Republicans. No wonder the corporatists are winning.

[freshwest]

7. I think you must have missed a lot since 2008. The Tea Party was formed to stop PBO's

budget he campaigned on which depended on the sunset of the Bush tax cuts on the last day of 2010. There is no reason why he would want to let the Bush tax cuts continue.

So those who wanted to keep them going engineered a media blitz full of bigotry and disinformation to get a radical GOP majority into office in time to stop the sunset that was written into the law. They had already tried to block all that Obama was doing to stimulate the economy, the auto bailouts and alternative energy projects.

In January of 2009, as reported here at DU several times, Ryan, McConnell and Boehner met with others on their goal to make sure Obama failed and was a one term President. This is well documented.

Those who followed elections closely and how the majorities fell in 2008 and forward with several Democratic Senators being denied their seats to cast votes watched this unfold. The Tea Party kept on raising hell, threatening to shut down the government by not raising debt ceiling again and again until they got the Sequester.

Obama was able to keep Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid safe from their cuts, and negotiated until the last minute of 2012 to keep things going that those programs do not cover. If you want to call names, I've heard them all from Republicans and Ron Paul supporters, so I'm unimpressed by sneers.

[TM99]

9. Condescension always works well in a discussion.

The Tea Party is so powerful that Obama is helpless in the face of them.

Yes, the ACA is such a win for the insurance companies...oh, wait, I mean the people.

The big three are totally safe from cuts...oh, wait, chained CPI and the grand bargain are still being fought for by... President Obama.

Come on, we are more intelligent than that. Of course, the Republican party has been obstructionists and most recognize that. However, Obama still tends to side with the corporate sponsors over the people. Just look at the cabinet posts including the current FDA guy who has past ties with Monsanto as PufPuf23 factually presented down-thread.

I will believe it is temporary, like the damned Bush tax cuts, when I see the Protection Act NOT present in the next fiscal year's budget.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022581804#post1

I won't be holding my breath.

[sheshe2]

14. Then there's this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

Please read!

[TM99]

15. This will be good news

only if all states accept it won't it?!

[dsc]

16. actually he did want to keep a large part of them

all the rate cuts affecting those under 250k he wanted to keep, he campaigned on keeping them.

[Bonobo]

5. LOL.

That was fucking brilliant satire, dude!

You NAILED IT!!! Bravo!!!

Wait...what? You... you were SERIOUS?

[freshwest]

8. Sure, the Tea Party had nothing to do with it...

Nor does Grover Nordquist exist.

[frylock]

10. not this shit again..

the "defeatists" were younger people disenfranchised by the lack of HOPE and CHANGE, as well as minority voters. progressives fucking voted like they always fucking vote; they voted for democrats despite being shat upon time and again.

[freshwest]

11. Thanks for bumping Janey Vee's thread. It's inspired a number of others, including Will Pitt.

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

The same defeatists who didn't vote in 2010 will not vote in 2014 out of media generated outrage. Conservatives owned media played people from the beginning of Obama's term and have not stopped playing the left and right to destroy any unity moving forward.

Those who are in daily political life know better than to commit suicide because they don't get what they want quickly. Their age is not a factor, and Obama had no honeymoon when he got in, if you remember the high stakes extortion played at the time which is still ongoing.

The country is not managed on a daily basis from the White House. It's the grassroots that elects Congress. We either get involved to make the changes wanted or enjoy fussing online with an attitude of helplessness.

The 'I voted' but only once every four years game has been over for many years. It's why the GOP has taken over state houses, governors' mansions and the HoR.

They play the ground game and their media pushes their agenda daily. We don't have the advantage of feel good media to bolster us and make us feel hopeful. Action will win over hate, fear and apathy.

[sheshe2]

13. Agreed!

That's why the White House is "Organizing for Action".

Time to put our money where our mouth is to make Change happen. The fussing get's us nowhere. It never will promote change.

[raouldukelives]

21. 1000%

If we want change to come, we have to be it. If we want to have a greater voice than corporate lobbyists, we have to stop funding them. If we want to address climate change, if we want to stop profiting when a child is beaten to make shoes, if we want a free press to return in our lifetimes we have to stop putting our money in the hands of Wall St and start putting it where our mouth is.
If we want to stand against Monsanto, not standing with it is a good start.

[sheshe2]

12. No, we do not have to sit and wait,

That is why this White House has set up, "Organizing for Action". To educate ourselves and to become active participants of change. No one person can do this alone.

We can not sit back and wait 6 months, nor can we throw up our hands and say we will lose in 2014.


As per JaneyVee's OP:“Monsanto Protection Act” it's a bullshit made up term.

As Reddit user Hexaploit explained on an “Explain like I’m five” thread. (Or as Galaxy Quest villain Roth’h'ar Sarris might say, “Explain him as you would a child!”)

Genetically engineered crops are regulated. Once they get approved, farmers can grow them. However, if someone screws something up (like the environmental assessment), the approval can be revoked. This means farmers might be in the position of having crops that were legal when the planted them but illegal now. The thing everyone is up in arms about right now allows farmers to request that the USDA, if they deem it fit, to allow the planted crops to be grown as normal that season and not be destroyed until the GE crop in question can be officially cleared for cultivation again.
td;dr This thing isn't to protect Monsanto, that's just sensationalist nonsense, it is to protect farmers.

Sure we could sit and wait. I won't and many others here will not! Change comes when we all take action, not just say the words.

[TM99]

19. If change was that easy,

then we wouldn't be getting deeper and deeper into this economic mess.

Sadly, you and I have very little if any individual control over what riders are slipped into budget bills. Corporations through their lobbyists are getting what they want all the time these days.

You may think this is defeatist. It is realism. You may believe you can take action and make change. I observe this constant need to defend how ok it really is when it really isn't as bright-siding.

Sometimes things do just suck. This constant damned Kabuki theater being played out by Obama and the Democrats in the Senate and the Republicans in the House is a tragedy. For years now, budgets are being held hostage by one party and the other party including Obama allow themselves to be blackmailed again and again.

So, believe what you will. In six months, we will see if this 'sensationalist nonsense' is that nonsensical and whether it gets tacked on again to yet another 'budget crisis' manufactured for our amusement by both parties.

[PufPuf23]

6. POTUS Obama could have vetoed the spending spill (oops Bill)

and waited for a clean bill without extraneous and over-reaching bull shit legislation as rider.

Regulatory capture is a issue of more overall import is greater to those that marriage equality (like inheritance, job benefits, kids, etc -- the real - for a non-traditional marriage based on love or convenience) as the impact is huge and across most people and less mitigated case by case as marriage inequality. Regulatory capture is heavy duty and realistic poop. The "experts" usually are selected ideologues rather than the mathematically and empathetic intuitive with like experience and education.

We need to clean up the Democratic Party. The GOP is a nightmare on its own trajectory.


DU, oasis that it is, does not have the intestinal fortitude to clean our own Party.
A major blind spot at DU is that "we", the Democratic Party, have the most control over our own Party.

Because of this constructive and accurrately descriptive of the current actions, ommissions, and stances of our political tribe is the individual' most effective and natural role once joining a Party is not popular; specifically, to criticize the policies, appointments, and acclaimed political "wins" under a Democratic Party administration makes one a minority, sometimes mocked, at DU. Democratic Party malacontents are the canaries in Party politics and, if one looks at DU, often tend to those with some age, experience, and less vested interest.

Montsanto example:

Michael R. Taylor

snip

Michael R. Taylor is the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

snip

He received a B.A. degree in political science from Davidson College and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1976, after passing the bar examination, Taylor became a staff attorney for the FDA, where he was executive assistant to the Commissioner.

In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm, one client of which was the biotechnology company Monsanto, where he established and led the firm's food and drug law practice.

snip

On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such. His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods, but he is said to have been a co-author. Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid 1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation. The policy had three tenets: &quot 1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of GM techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."

snip

Between 1994 and 1996 he moved to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), where he was Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service. During that term he implemented a science-based approach ( called Hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP)) to raising safety standards for meat and poultry production over the protests from industry, which has been called by food safety advocates "a truly heroic accomplishment".
snip

Between 1996 and 2000, after briefly returning to King & Spalding, he then returned to Monsanto to become Vice President for Public Policy.

In 1999, a lawsuit (Alliance For Bio-Integrity v. Shalala) and GAO report revealed considerable disagreement within the FDA concerning decisions about biotechnology products made during Taylor's tenure there. The lawsuit and report also revealed that Mr. Taylor had recused himself from matters related to Monsanto’s BGH and had “never sought to influence the thrust or content” of the agency’s policies on Monsanto’s products.


snip

On July 7, 2009, Taylor once again returned to government as Senior Advisor to the FDA Commissioner. And on January 13, 2010, he was appointed to another newly created post at the FDA, this time as Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

How Monsanto outfoxed the Obama administration

The inside story of how the government let one company squash biotech innovation, and dominate an entire industry

By Lina Khan

Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly closed a three-year antitrust investigation into Monsanto, the biotech giant whose genetic traits are embedded in over 90 percent of America’s soybean crop and more than 80 percent of corn. Despite a splash of press coverage when the investigation was initially announced, its termination went mostly unreported. The DOJ released no written public statement. Only a brief press release from Monsanto conveyed the news.

The lack of attention belies the significance of the decision, both for food consumers around the world and for U.S. businesses. Experts who have examined Monsanto’s conduct say the Justice Department’s decision not to act all but officially establishes the firm’s sovereignty over the U.S. seed industry. Many of them also say the decision ratifies aggressive practices Monsanto used to entrench its dominance and deter competition. This includes highly restrictive contractual agreements that excluded rivals, alongside a multibillion-dollar spree to buy up seed companies.

When the administration first launched its investigation, many antitrust and agriculture experts believed it was still possible to imagine an industry characterized by greater competition in the marketplace and greater diversity in seeds. That future may now be foreclosed.

More:


http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/how_did_monsanto

[dsc]

17. and then there would have been no food inspection whatsoever

since it is a government function and the government would be shut down.

[onenote]

18. maybe in some alternate universe but not in the real world

In the real world, the House passed a version of the CR that wasn't supported by a majority of the House Democrats. An amended version was submitted by Mikulski for consideration by the Senate on March 11 that included over 200 additional pages of provisions, including the Monsanto provision. Tester and six other Democrats submitted an amendment to strip that provision, but like the overwhelming majority of amendments submitted, they did not make the cut when the Senate leadership worked out a time agreement for debating the CR. When the bill was voted on in the Senate every Democrat voted for it except Tester. In other words, the six Senators that had joined him in proposing an amendment to strip the Monsanto language still voted for the CR even though that language remained in the bill. The bill then went to the House where, in a turnaround from the vote on the original version, a majority of Democrats supported its passage.

So, in order to get a "clean" CR, the president would have to veto the bill and then hope than enough Democrats would reverse their position and vote to sustain the veto. Yet, that had zero chance of happening. If six out of seven Senators who were on record as opposing the Monsanto language still voted for the bill the first time around, they weren't going to switch and put the funding of the government at risk after a presidential veto. Nor would other Senators. It would make it look like the President and the Democrats were in complete disarray and were putting the funding of the government at risk over something that members had previously voted for.

[SidDithers]

23. Spot on...

Sid

[Honeycombe8]

20. Ah. That explains it. I wasted time trying to find something about labeling in that budget bill

I word searched a bunch of terms and could find nothing at all about food labeling, Monsanto, etc. It's a standard appropriations bill, looks like.

[Overseas]

22. Sorry you didn't recognize the angry humor in the name M. Protection Act

Those of us more familiar with Monsanto and its corporate culture recognized the name as a nickname of some sort right off the bat. The informal name of the bill was sparked by outrage that a rider was attached that would protect the very powerful multinational from challenges in court, at a time when we need the chance to challenge the rush into GMO planting all over the globe.

We are glad it has limited duration, but GMOs can contaminate lots of other crops in six months.