Monsanto Protection Act

[garyrc]

But the issue is why non-GMO foods cannot legally be labeled as such. I am an attorney and can tell you that the first amendment get stretched out vey far, but here it is ILLEGAL for companies to TELL THE TRUTH.

You can eat as much GMO as you like, but I choose not to, but because of the huge clout of Monsanto et. al. it is illegal for me to know what I am eating and putting in my body. An unfortunately, you and Monsanto telling me that everyhting is OK doesn't give me much hope. Even if you think that GMO is the best thing ever, you should be very alarmed that it is against the law to tell the truth.

[Y]

This has to be reversed by the Supreme Court. It seems to me to prohibit a category of truth in advertising is a first amendment violation.

[Fish]

In the daytime I'm MR. Natural ,just as healthy as I can be.........but at night I'm a junk food junkie, good Lord have pity on me.......

[ZAKO]

Truth in advertisement is not a constitutional rite,, I can sell you a house and not tell you there is a dead body under the house.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

It helps to have a wife from asia that isn't afraid to keep eating something different than the american diet. Or one who doesn't want to follow an american diet.

Bruce

True, but the American diet is the lastest rage elsewhere. Fast food everywhere, and it is starting to affect other cultures. They are where we were in the 1980's but are starting out healthier. Really unfortunate.

When I found out that my brother in law was being prescribed heart pills I encouraged him to change. They now eat the same as we do. He lost 10 lbs in two weeks and is getting off of the few meds that he was on. My sister in law is very happy and so are we.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Truth in advertisement is not a constitutional rite,, I can sell you a house and not tell you there is a dead body under the house.

I think that we are done here. We shall have to agree to disagree.

[Boxx]

Truth in advertisement is not a constitutional rite,, I can sell you a house and not tell you there is a dead body under the house.

I think that we are done here. We shall have to agree to disagree.

and furthermore, I don't recommend that you buy a house from Maron, either...

[Ski Bum]

I have a long post that was delayed because of the links, you may have missed it. Top of page 7. Nice list of the effects of GMO. Quite ugly.

I agree regarding the legal/labeling issue, but on the science of GMOs, Jeffrey M. Smith is a highly disreputable source of information.

[garyrc]

Truth in advertisement is not a constitutional rite,, I can sell you a house and not tell you there is a dead body under the house.

I'm not saying that we consumers have a constitutional right to be told the truth -- that's not the point. So the dead body under the house may be in violation of several laws, but not the constitution. []

BUT, the contention I keep hearing is that something about the Monsanto Protection Act -- or some other law -- prohibits advertising that a product is GMO Free. I looked for such a provision of the Monsanto Act online, and failed to find one. Could someone post a link to that part of whatever law deals with that? IF the law does prohibit advertising that something is GMO free, then it is odious indeed. Being permitted to speak the truth in an advertisement, to the degree that it constitutes (pun intended) free speech or press, is a constitutional right. "Congress shall make no laws abridging ... ." The ad men and women have the right to speak and/or write the truth in claiming that a certain product is GMO free. That Congress may have just made a law (temporarily) abridging that right means, to me, that the Supreme Court will strike it down any such law, and should.

[djk]

"but not the constitution."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the Constitution to restrict the Government (and nothing more).

*****************************************************************************************************

But a red line for the industry. It’s worried that consumers will
read the label – and choose an alternative. So Monsanto continued to
assure us through its minions that labeling would be too costly, that it
would kill the cupcake shop down the street, that we don’t need to know
anyway because GMO foods are safe for human consumption, etc. etc.

These assurances bring up echoes from the past. Monsanto’s previous
flagship products included the once harmless DDT, now banned worldwide; a
family of industrial chemicals called PCBs that are now considered
highly toxic; Agent Orange, the defoliant liberally used during the
Vietnam War and promoted as harmless to people, with grave results for
the Vietnamese and US soldiers who came in contact with it. And there
was Aspartame. More
recently, Monsanto reinvented itself and decided to save mankind not
with a DDT successor, but with genetically modified seeds, whether
people wanted them or not.

The hubbub of the “March Against Monsanto” had barely died down when
the USDA confirmed that genetically modified wheat was mysteriously
growing on a farm in Oregon. Something that we’d been assured could
never happen. Numerous impenetrable precautions would prevent that.
Monsanto had developed that strain years ago, but field trials ended in
2004, and the thing had never been approved for sale or consumption. The
reaction was immediate.

Japan would “refrain from buying western white and feed wheat effective today,” a Japanese farm ministry official announced
on Thursday, adding that the ministry is pressing the USDA for details
of its investigation. US wheat imports would be on hold until at least a
test kit is available to identify GMO wheat, he said. South Korea,
which bought about half of its wheat imports from the US last year,
announced that it would suspend imports of US wheat.
The EU’s consumer protection office announced that any shipments that
tested positive for GMO could not be sold in the EU. Other countries
were making similar announcements. And everyone is badgering Washington
for more information.

GMO contaminations have occurred before, most notoriously in 2006,
when much of the US long-grain rice crop had been contaminated by an
experimental strain of genetically modified rice concocted by Bayer
CropScience. Japan and Europe banned imports of American rice, which
caused its price to collapse in the US. The company settled with rice
farmers in 2011 for $750 million. But rice export is small business in
the US, compared to wheat. And this time, it’s Monsanto that is on the
hot seat.

And now Monsanto threw in the towel in Europe where its efforts to
bamboozle people into loving its seeds have had mixed results. “We won’t
lobby any longer for cultivation in Europe,” Brandon Mitchener,
Monsanto’s public affairs lead for Europe, told the Tageszeitung.
They had no plans to apply for the approval of new genetically modified
crops “at this time,” he said, and the company would also forgo new
field trials with GMO seeds.

Monsanto’s largest European competitors – Bayer CropScience, BASF,
and Syngenta – had already pulled out of the GMO crop business in
Germany and many other Member States. “We understand that this doesn’t
have wide acceptance right now,” chimed in Ursula Lüttmer-Ouazane,
Monsanto’s spokeswoman in Germany.

Mitchener blamed it on the lack of interest from farmers. They have
their reasons: in Germany, the cultivation of genetically modified crops
is banned; and GMO foods, broadly rejected by consumers, are
practically unsalable. Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, who’d thrown
her weight around in 2009 to stop the cultivation of MON810 corn in
Germany, explained it this way: “For agriculture in Europe, the promises
of salvation made by the gene-technology industry have so far not been
fulfilled.”

Monsanto’s surrender was only partial, however. In Spain, Portugal,
and Romania, where laws and consumers were less squeamish about GMO
crops, Monsanto would continue to hawk is MON810, Mitchener said. Nor
was Monsanto finished lobbying in the EU: it would still try to get the
EU to allow the import of GMO animal feed. But in terms of cultivation
in Europe, Monsanto would focus on conventional seeds for corn, canola,
and veggies.

Triumphs against multinational lobbying giants are rare. So, even
mini triumphs count. And Monsanto’s admission that it would quit trying
to force GMO crops down people’s throats in Europe, limited as this
admission may be, is now celebrated as one of them.

Meanwhile, hunger is spreading from its strongholds in the global
south to depression-hit Southern Europe. In Greece, reports are growing
of children having to scrounge for food from classmates, while in Spain
city dwellers have become inured to the spectacle of people rummaging in
trash cans for a bite to eat. But there’s a reason. Read.... Starving the World for Power and Profit: The Global Agribusiness Model.

[garyrc]

"but not the constitution."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the Constitution to restrict the Government (and nothing more).

The point of the Constitution is to establish the government, spell out how it should work ("checks and balances," provided by the three branches, etc.), and restrict it from abridiging rights without due process of law. So, while the constitution would not prohibit selling a house with a dead body in the crawl space, if you were prosecuted for breaking other laws (health codes, disclosure laws, etc) for throwing in a body with a house sale, it had better be a prosecution within the bounds of due process. My point in the earlier post was that the government has no right to prevent an advertiser from telling the truth ("our stuff is GMO free"); to tell the truth on the label would be protected by freedom of speech and press (publication).

[ZAKO]

We have lables on our prescription drugs,,,But that does not stop those drugs from killing a percentage of us,,For the good of the whole,,,Or your Peanut breath killing a child allergic to peanuts..

[mungkiman]

We have lables on our prescription drugs,,,But that does not stop those drugs from killing a percentage of us,,For the good of the whole,,,Or your Peanut breath killing a child allergic to peanuts..

Should an individual with a severe nut allergy be "allowed" to comprehend that the snack they're about to ingest was processed with peanuts? I certainly hope so, but that's up to labeling. Any good of "the whole", in my opinion, should always include the truth...

[ZAKO]

The truth is a double edge sword,, Some will ignor it,,and when cut,,blame the maker..

[mungkiman]

Truth should be on the labels, Moran.

And without labels, apparently we can't blame the maker.

This shouldn't be ignored.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

we consumers have a constitutional right to be told the truth -- that's not the point. So the dead body under the house may be in violation of several laws, but not the constitution.

BUT, the contention I keep hearing is that something about the Monsanto Protection Act -- or some other law -- prohibits advertising that a product is GMO Free. I looked for such a provision of the Monsanto Act online, and failed to find one. Could someone post a link to that part of whatever law deals with that? IF the law does prohibit advertising that something is GMO free, then it is odious indeed. Being permitted to speak the truth in an advertisement, to the degree that it constitutes (pun intended) free speech or press, is a constitutional right. "Congress shall make no laws abridging ... ." The ad men and women have the right to speak and/or write the truth in claiming that a certain product is GMO free. That Congress may have just made a law (temporarily) abridging that right means, to me, that the Supreme Court will strike it down any such law, and should.

Here is a summary of the Monsanto Protction Act:

“Essentially, what that Monsanto Protection Act rider said is that even if a court were to determine that a particular product might be harmful to human beings or harmful to the environment, the Department of Agriculture could not stop the production of that product once it is in the ground.” Sanders told CNN. “So you have deregulated the GMO industry from court oversight, which is really not what America is about.”

The inability to label foods as non-GMO come from the FDA. This seems to be lessening as I bought tofu that was labeled as GMO free over the weekend.

Here is an excerpt:

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don't use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. "They are clearly protecting industry and not the public."

[garyrc]

"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. "They are clearly protecting industry and not the public."

Yea, Kucinich! His autobiography is quite interesting, and probably available at your local library.

[JJkizak]

When Dennis latches on to something he never lets go.

JJK

[djk]

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Oh come on DJK, we are much smarter than a bunch of squirrels. What do they know? If the squirrels knew how to read they could go to the Monsanto website and learn how good it is. It is "substantially equivalent."