US Lawmaker Slams Monsanto Provision in Fast Track Bill for TPP

[cali]

Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio denounced a provision discretely hidden in pending trade legislation that would allow governments or corporations to sue countries or states over laws that mandate the labelling of genetically modified foods.

If approved by Congress, the legislation called Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track,” would not allow Congress to amend or filibuster free trade agreements negotiated by the president and would require and up or down vote within 90 days. “Call it the smoking gun,” said Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio. “Proof that fast track and massive free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are written by and for multinational corporations such as agriculture giant Monsanto. Instead of using trade deals as an opportunity to protect and strengthen consumer rights by joining the countries which require genetically engineered food to be labeled, this administration wants to benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of the public.”

<snip>

The “Monsanto provision” included in the bill requires that U.S. negotiators fight for rules in trade agreements that eliminate so-called “barriers” to markets, such as the labeling of GMOs. Biotechnology companies consider that such information is unnecessary for the consumers and would have a deterrent effect on their profits, because of the numerous concerns over health and/or environment risks that people believe genetically engineered crops and foods. Currently 64 countries require genetically engineered food to be labeled, including Japan, China, Brazil, and the countries of the European Union.

<snip>

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Lawmaker-Slams-Monsanto-Provision-in-Fast-Track-Bill-for-TPP-20150429-0030.html. If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english

[djean111]

1. What a fucking surprise. Fast track? No wonder Obama wants Fast Track.

[ibegurpard]

2. I remember when I lived in Oregon

And Wyden was running in the primary against DeFazio for his first senate term.
Unfortunately I supported the wrong guy.

[neverforget]

3. Trusting this Republican Congress on Fast Track has me

seriously perplexed. Give away the store for a promise that this trade agreement will different.

[cali]

4. Everyone should find this troubling- even those who think concern of GMOs

is bullshit.

[Segami]

18. +1 - Troubling is an understatement.

[cali]

31. yes, I know. I'm trying to engage with people who

are pro-tpp in some kind of meaningful way. I've not been terribly successful

[randr]

5. If Obama wants this failure to be his legacy he can keep on arguing for it

I hope he chooses the high road and invites critics to an open discussion of issues in a public format.

[Hoyt]

6. I'm for food labeling too, but there is nothing in the TPA related to food labeling

as described in the OP.

Some more groups fabricating things to increase membership.

[cali]

8. for fuck's sake, hoyt. this is about a provision in the tpa which GOVERNS

many aspects of all future trade agreements.

[Hoyt]

36. Cite it. The TPA is not classified, and you should know it.

[cali]

42. read the bolded paragraph- and yes, obviously I know the tpa is not classified, dearie

thus my several posts in this very fucking thread, hoyty, explaining that. duh.

However, I am not having any luck finding the TPA on THOMAS.

now goodbye, hoyt.

[Hoyt]

46. But, you won't admit the OP and you are wrong, deary

All you know is what a bunch of organizations and sites trying to increase membership and readership tell gullible readers.

Keep looking. Find it or admit you are wrong abot this too.

[They_Live]

9. Do you have a link?

to the text?

[gregcrawford]

19. The text is classified

The few members of Congress "qualified" to read it must read it under supervision in an undisclosed location. No joke. They cannot make copies, or even take notes. They are forbidden to discuss the contents with anyone. The Obama administration is trying VERY hard to track down whoever leaked what little info is available. The business about suing sovereign nations is dead-nuts accurate.

[They_Live]

29. Yes, I know, thanks gregcrawford.

Just wanted Hoyt to corroborate his post, which I knew that he would be unable to do.

[Hoyt]

35. The TPA is NOT classified. These people are lying to you.

[Thespian2]

33. When did you read the TPP?

Just wondering...

[Hoyt]

38. I know the difference between TPA and TPP, and the TPA is not "secret."

The TPP isn't either if you take some time and look.

[Thespian2]

41. Answer the question

[Hoyt]

45. After you cite the so-called "Monsanto Amendment," that doesn't exist.

I've read every bit of the negotiating documents, goals on the USTR site, Obama's cooments, Duval Patrick, etc. What have you read other than unsubstantiated crud like the OP?

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trans-pacific-partnership-promises-more-than-prosperity/

[Thespian2]

55. Did you read the TPP?

I thought not...

I have a hard time listening to Obama, but I do read what he says...

I read AJ, Guardian UK...among other outlets who have exposed the horrors of TPP...
but to you, they would only print "crud"...

Why would I read the Seattle Times? Especially the opinion pages...

[Hoyt]

59. I've read everything that is done to date, and so far no one has produced a Monsanto Amendment

from the TPA. They spread a lot of junk, but no citations.

[pa28]

63. It's right in the bill in black and white. Page 9 Section 2.

(ii) unjustified trade restrictions or
commercial requirements, such as labeling,
that affect new technologies, including
bio-technology;

[Hoyt]

65. At least you produced some language, but I think it's a giant stretch to interpret it as the OP.

(3) TRADE IN AGRICULTURE.—The principal negotiating objective of the United States with re-spect to agriculture is to obtain competitive opportunities for United States exports of agricultural commodities in foreign markets substantially equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in United States markets and to achieve fairer and more open conditions of trade in bulk, specialty crop, and value added commodities by—

. . . . . .(I) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules to eliminate practices that unfairly decrease United States market access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the detriment of the United States, and ensuring that such rules are subject to efficient, timely, and effective dispute settlement, including—

. . . . . . . . . . .(i) unfair or trade distorting activities of state trading enterprises and other administrative mechanisms, with emphasis on requiring price transparency in the operation of state trading enterprises and such other mechanisms in order to end cross subsidization, price discrimination, and price undercutting;

. . . . . . . . . . .(ii) unjustified trade restrictions or commercial requirements, such as labeling, that affect new technologies, including bio-technology;

. . . . . . .. . . . (iii) unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions, including restrictions not based on scientific principles
in contravention of obligations in the Uruguay Round Agreements or bilateral or regional trade agreements;

. . . . . . . . . .(iv) other unjustified technical barriers to trade; and

. . . . . . . . . .(v) restrictive rules in the administration of tariff rate quotas;. . . . . . .

http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TPA%20bill%20text.pdf

____________

And remember, all these TPA "negotiating objectives" mean -- even if you interpret that clause as in the OP -- is that if the objectives aren't met in the actual TPP, Congress could withdraw Fast-Track Authority.

[pa28]

67. At the beginning of this subthread you claimed there was no labeling provision in the TPA.

Could you please just read the bill next time before asserting a false argument like that? It's fairly short.

[Hoyt]

68. The OP says that the TPA includes language allowing companies to sue states for requiring GMO

labeling. It does not.

Actually, the language you cited goes back a few years where some countries require weird country of origin labeling. But, in any case, the TPA does not include any language allowing a company to sue over GMO labeling. Of course, anyone can attempt a suit even if there is no trade agreement.

As an aside, while GMOs don't concern me, I see no problem with requiring labeling.

[Novara]

7. New Hazards in GMOs from Synonymous Mutations

New Hazards in GMOs from Synonymous Mutations

<snip>

Single nucleotide mutations form the majority of genetic polymorphisms (single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) in populations. When found in gene protein coding regions, SNPs can be synonymous, i.e., causing no change in the amino acid encoded, or non-synonymous, when the amino acid is altered. Until the current decade, synonymous mutations were assumed to be neutral, with no effect on the protein or any other functions of the organism. Sequencing a vast array of genomes has revealed surprisingly, that many synonymous mutations were causing dysfunctions and illnesses in plants and animals. Synonymous mutations may lead to changes in protein folding related to translation pausing, RNA splicing, and alterations in enzyme specificity [1].

They are NOT harmless (especially not to the environment) and rushing headlong into allowing Monsanto to dominate our food supply more than they already do - and make that worldwide - would be a grave mistake.

[LWolf]

10. DeFazio.

[jwirr]

11. Thank you Cali. Another reason to be against TPP.

[Enthusiast]

12. I trust Peter DeFazio far more than I trust the President.

[Faryn Balyncd]

13. When the framers wrote the 10th Amendment, did they have the Monsanto Provision in mind?

That is, when they wrote, in the Bill of Rights:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment

... did they really mean to say:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF "TRADE" DEALS, in which case not only will all federal laws (including health, safety, labor, environmental, and labeling) previously passed by Congress that now conflicts with the trade deal will be overridden by the terms of the "trade" deal, but any law or regulation by any state, local government, or previously legal action by the people, which conflicts with the "trade" deal will be immediately overridden by the terms of the "trade" deal.

Moreover, if the "trade" deal is submitted to the Congress of these United States under "Fast Track", then the members of Congress shall vote on the entire "trade" bill, including provisions which effect patent law, copyright law, labor law, environmental law, health law, safety law, and product labeling, up or down, without amendment, and without delay."


? ? ?

Is that what Madison had in mind?


Did the framers envision a Monsanto Provision invalidating state and local laws, including food safety and food labeling, on the basis of a "trade" deal arranged by negotiators who viewed state and local food safety and/or food labeling laws a "trade" barrier?

[Thespian2]

34. K & R !!!

wonderful...there you go, presenting FACTS and stuff like that...

[appal_jack]

71. Excellent questions Faryn! k&r, nt.

[hollysmom]

14. sn't DeFazio in trouble now, I thought that the legislators were not allowed to discuss the details

of the proposed agreements.

and if you hate the monsanto agreement, corporations wrote the rules, I believe there is a lot more in there like that.
Corporations are not just people, they are people how have the power over us.

edited to correct typos.

[cali]

15. no. he is referencing the tpa (fast track)

not the tpp. There is nothing secretive about the tpa.

[hollysmom]

16. oh, thanks, thought they were connected somehow

[cali]

24. you're right, they are connected

I suggest going to wiki for an overview and typing in trade promotion authority and subsequently typing trans-pacific partnership

[True Blue Door]

17. TPA is problematic, but there's no scientific reason to label GMOs.

[Bradical79]

20. I don't think that's terribly relevant

Scientific study may not have found anything terribly wrong with GMO's yet, but that doesn't mean the bill should require our government to fight against anti-gmo opinions and regulations on behalf of these corporations.

[gratuitous]

21. There's also no reason not to label GMOs

If consumers don't want GMO foods - for whatever reason some people may deem cockamamie - they should have that information available to them so they can make an informed choice. Lots of people buy gluten-free foods even though they don't have celiac disease. There's no reason GMO foods shouldn't be similarly labeled.

[True Blue Door]

27. It's using government to indulge anti-scientific superstitions.

Even if by itself it's not really a big deal, it's dangerous in the long term to indulge such movements.

[cali]

30. yeah, like the so-called superstitions about DDT.

my concerns are more environmental: damage to small (particularly organic) farms, insect life, etc. some gmos may be great, others damaging. they are not all the same.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-environmental-impact-of-gmos/

[True Blue Door]

32. Opposition to DDT was based on science. The anti-GMO movement is based on distrust of science.

There are rational concerns about specific applications of GMO technology, but nothing that rationally justifies labeling anything that utilizes the technology at all.

[cali]

39. `um, not quite correct. It wasn't until the late 1940s

that scientists started speaking out on the hazards of DDT. It wasn't until after the publication of Silent Spring that they reached a consensus.

[True Blue Door]

56. Right, consensus. But there's not even a *basis* for general opposition to GMO.

It's a form of puritanism, not wanting "holy nature" to be "despoiled" by technological artifices.

[cali]

44. you seem to believe that all gmos are the same. they are not.

funny how you have the habit of only addressing the things you think you have a ready answer for.

[True Blue Door]

47. I know they're not the same. That's my point.

Forcing companies to label them as GMO provides no meaningful information. It would be like forcing them to say what astrological sign was in the ascendent when the fruit was picked.

[progressoid]

70. +1

[sulphurdunn]

21. Whether or not there is a scientific

reason to label GMOs is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the matter is best left to sovereign states without concern for punishment should they decide to label them.

[gregcrawford]

23. There are a few hundred scientists and more than a dozen countries that will disagree with you.

There are volumes of peer-reviewed papers documenting the exact opposite of your misinformed assertion.

[progressoid]

69. 88% of AAAS scientists say genetically modified foods are safe to eat

http://pewrsr.ch/1z3OaaR

Also:

Over the years, as peer-reviewed scientific studies on GMOs have piled up, scientific organizations ranging from the National Academy of Sciences to the World Health Organization have analyzed them and reached similar conclusions: GMOs on the market today are no riskier for your health than their non-GMO equivalents.

[cali]

25. whether there is or isn't, over 70 countries do label those products

should foreign (to those nations) corporations be allowed to bring against against those nations?

[Big Blue Marble]

26. Freedom of choice does not have to be scientific in basis.

If there is nothing wrong with GMO's why not let consumers decide what they put in their bodies?
The reason Monsanto and other food producers are fighting against what the majority of consumers
want is not based on science; it is motivated by profits.

[cantbeserious]

28. What Happened To This Obama - Promoted The Modification (Scrapping) Of NAFTA - So Confused

[Thespian2]

37. I think corporate millions

may have something to do with him not fulfilling much that we expected of him...

His signature "Obamacare" is nothing more than a sop to insurance companies...who still control American health care...

[Hoyt]

40. Since Canada and Mexico are part of TPP, he is renegotiating NAFTA.

[cantbeserious]

43. See The Monsanto Provision - He Is Negotiating For The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

eom

[Hoyt]

48. How's about you take a stab at citing the Monsanto Amendment in the TPA. No one else has found it.

[cantbeserious]

49. Complete DU Thread At The Following Link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6650692

[Hoyt]

53. I'm not looking for an article by another prevaricator. I'm looking for the amendment

Come on people, produce it or admit you are gullible.

[cantbeserious]

57. Since The TPP Is Secret - All We Have Is Leaked Information

What You Are Looking For Does Not Exist - All We Have Is Lies And Innuendo From Administration Corporate Apologists.

[Hoyt]

61. Again, we are talking about the TPA, that even a fool can't call "secret."

Seriously, you should learn the difference before posting.

[cantbeserious]

62. Without The TPA There Is No TPP - You Should Learn The Difference Before Posting

eon

[Hoyt]

66. The TPA is not secretive, though. And, only thing secret about the TPP is that it is not finished.

[glinda]

50. Kick!

[CharlotteVale]

51. K&R

[glinda]

52. It is more than that also. Any Corporation can sue to get at any environmental resource it wants.

[Hoyt]

54. Any corporation can sue now. Doesn't mean they'll win, most don't.

If the ISDS is so bad, why is just about every country in the world well ng to accept it?

[ibegurpard]

58. Because of corporate dominance over the traditional nation state.

[Hoyt]

60. They can sue now in the "Nation State's" courts or use the tribunals that the Nation State agreed to

These tribunals have been around since 1959, and Nation States have signed over 2500 trade agreements with the provision.

[pa28]

64. Obama says TPP won't put pressure on laws made in the public interest. What a pantload. n/t