Saturday 30 March 2013

Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act'

Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' written by Monsanto-sponsored senator
United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation


RT,
29 March, 2013


On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.
In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
But Obama ignored [the petition],” IB Times’ Connor Sheets writes, “instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

James Brumley, a reporter for Investor Place, explains a little more thoroughly just how dangerous the rider is now that biotech companies are allowed to bypass judicial scrutiny. Up until it was signed, he writes, “the USDA [US Department of Agriculture] oversaw and approved (or denied) the testing of genetically modified seeds, while the federal courts retained the authority to halt the testing or sale of these plants if it felt that public health was being jeopardized. With HR 933 now a law, however, the court system no longer has the right to step in and protect the consumer.”

If the president’s signature isn’t all that surprising, though, consider the genesis of the bill itself. According to an article published Monday in the New York Daily News, US Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) “worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill.”


Sen. Blunt defended his bill to the News, shrugging off suggestions that it set a startling precedent that will affect all US agriculture by firing back, “What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it. But it is only a one-year protection in that bill.”
One year could be all it takes to cause catastrophic damage to the environment by allowing laboratory-produced organisms to be planted into the earth without oversight. Under the Monsanto Protection Act, health concerns that arise in the immediate future involving the planting of GMO crops won’t be able to be heard by a judge. Blunt, a junior senator that has held elected office since the late ‘90s, has good reason to whitewash the very bill he helped craft. The Center for Responsive Politics notes that Sen. Blunt received $64,250 from Monsanto to go towards his campaign committee between 2008 and 2012. The Money Monocle website adds that Blunt has been the largest Republican Party recipient of Monsanto funding as of late.

On the lawmaker’s official website, a statement explains a little more as to why he favored HR 933 and the rider within it.

As the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Senator Blunt played a vital role in writing the fiscal year 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This legislation maintained vital support for research and extension at land grant universities, capacity building grants for non-land grant colleges of agriculture, and competitive funding under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The bill also included funding for conservation activities, housing and business loan programs for rural communities, domestic and international nutrition programs.”
Nowhere does the senator’s site mention the Monsanto Protection Act by name, although it claims Blunt“supports continued investments in agricultural research and engineering.”
Did Blunt not realize that Monsanto would stand to gain significantly if section 735 survived and HR 933 was signed into law?” asks Brumley. “Not likely,”
There’s no way of getting around the fact this is an abusive conflict of interest,” he says.
Clearly isn’t Brumley the only one that feels that way either: Blunt’s Wikipedia page was vandalized this week to read in the first paragraph, “His Senate seat was previously held by Republican Kit Bond, until Bond's retirement, and will be sold by Blunt to Monsanto Corporation upon his retirement.”









NPR violates FCC rules, 

promotes interests of 

its sponsorship donor 

Monsanto


29 March, 2013





Many NaturalNews readers may be shocked to learn that, for years, biotechnology giant Monsanto sponsored the popular show Marketplace that airs on National Public Radio (NPR). According to a recent report by the Bohemian, the show had received funding from Monsanto for several years, and the views presented on the show have (surprise!) mirrored those of the biotech behemoth, despite the fact that US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibit sponsors from being directly promoted on the network.


The report explains that a recent episode of Marketplace featured the one-sided views of Pedro Sanchez from Columbia University, which just so happens to be the exact same views held by Monsanto. Genetically-modified (GM) crops, increased pesticide and fertilizer use, and expansion of large agribusiness techniques were all presented as the scientific solution to the world's hunger crisis, even though many other recent reports and studies show that this strategy is ultimately a failure 


Outraged by this blatant bias, many listeners called out the network for this abuse of public radio. When questioned about Monsanto's ties to the program and to the network, American Public Media (APM) spokesman Bill Gray told the Bohemian that Monsanto stopped sponsoring Marketplace back in April of 2010. But this cease-funding appears to have done little to sway the show's preference for industrial agriculture, which has been made clearly evident.

In 2009, environmental expert Heidi Siegelbaum wrote a concerning post on the Marketplace website about Monsanto's infiltration of NPR with its corporate agenda. The network had already been in violation of FCC rules by routinely airing sponsorship ads for Monsanto that touted its technology as promoting "sustainable agriculture" and "crop yield[s]," while also "conserv[ing] natural resources."

FCC rules state that NPR sponsors' products and services cannot be promoted on the network. However, for years NPR gave undue credence to Monsanto by repeating its unsubstantiated talking points and marketing claims in its voice-over blips about sponsors.

Sources for this story include:






No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.