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
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.