Late last night President Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act. Here are a few things to know.
While activists and conscientious consumers everywhere feel disappointed, let it be known that this isn’t the first time our President has stood down and kept quiet as Monsanto and similar organizations had their way. His words from 2007 simply haven’t matched up to his actions on this issue over the years:
So what is a GMO? And is it really so bad that 80% of processed foods in America contain them? Yes, it is. Especially when you consider that the term “processed food” does not simply refer to the bags of potato chips or the racks of candy bars at the checkout counter, take these foods for instance: corn, beets, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, rice, soybean, oils, salmon. If you consistently eat any foods from that list (even if you grew them yourself) there’s a chance you’ve ingested GMOs. Check out this video:
Reuters put it this way:
“The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week – including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.”
What this means is that even in the face of science-based evidence highlighting the dangers of such foods to both animals and humans, Monsanto, a monstrous group that brought Agent Orange to Vietnam and labels itself “A Sustainable Agriculture Company” is essentially protected from litigation. But that’s not all. The bill, for at least the next 6 months, also shuts down the government’s ability to halt the planting and selling of GMO seed crop even if additional science-based health risks are made evident. Which they will be.
How did this happen? Well, as many Americans were caught up fighting against or fighting for human equality, the provision was slipped into HR 933, a short-term funding bill to help avoid a government shutdown. Many state senators weren’t even aware that this provision was part of the bill they were voting on.
The Washington Post article titled, Frankenveggies: Monsanto Protection Act passes Senate, shows one likely reason of many as to why this all happened:
“Many view the passing of this provision as the result of effective lobbying by Monsanto and Political Action Groups (PACs) that support genetically engineered crops. According to MapLight, since January 1, 2009, PACs that support genetically engineered crops have donated $7.5 million to the campaigns of current members of Congress and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.”
Here’s a more in-depth (10-minute) video about GMOs and their impact on animal and human health:
Read more in Social Justice.
Wellokaythen, please do some research on the difference between genetic modification and selective breeding. They are very, very different, and this is a common misconception which makes people feel okay with GMOs. Also, there are studies that have shown both positive and negative effects of GMOs, neither of which are conclusive and some are questionable based on who has funded them. I choose to avoid GMOs, and therefore I would like labeling so that I can make that choice for myself, but I can work around that by choosing organic. This issue here that causes the most distress is the… Read more »
below ive linked an article by an environmental biologist on why they think the current debate misses the larger point.
i am not morally opposed to GMOs, however, i am concerned that a handful of corporations are fiddling with things and have no external oversight at all.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/biohackers/why-gmo-debate-misses-point?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=3&con=why-the-gmo-debate-misses-the-point
We’re talking about a question of degree, not a simple distinction between non-GMO and GMO crops. Or if we’re going to make such a distinction, then it’s based on a highly subjective, even arbitrary, definition of what counts as natural and what counts as modified. Ultimately, it’s someone saying one kind of artificial impact is “natural” and another kind of artificial impact is “unnatural.” Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals on purpose since the earliest days of horticulture thousands and thousands of years ago. Millennia before Monsanto existed, the corn that was “native” to the Americas was the… Read more »
I was going to say that this article would have been better if, rather than labeling Monsanto as monstrous, you had included some arguments from Mosanto arguing the benefits of GMOs. It would have given the article more credibility and made the arguments against GMOs sound more credible. Instead the article makes the detractors of GMOs sound like a pack of Luddites I was going to suggest that you did not include the pro side of the debate because you were afraid that you might be called a “GMO apologist.” But it seems they have found another reason to attack… Read more »
“What this means is that even in the face of science-based evidence highlighting the dangers of such foods to both animals and humans [citation needed]”
Pseudoscience-based, to be more accurate. Every bit as scientific and compelling as the “science based proof” that vaccination “causes” autism.
Yes, can you please cite the studies that show any harm from GMO? Because to the best of my knowledge, there really isn’t any.
The EU (and it’s predecessors) has been looking into GMOs since the 1980s and they haven’t found squat to suggest that they are “dangers”. Millions of dollars, no significant result. There are legitimate concerns at this stage but you also have to look at KNOWN BENEFITS. 1. Drought resistant crops – food security, food availability, nutritional security 2. Monsanto and other multinational food corporations donating seeds to developing nations 3. Golden rice – GMO, made Vitamin A accessible to large parts of the world, drastically reducing the instances of deficiency (blindness, being the most dangerous symptom. This article needs balance…… Read more »
Dear Nick and Todd, My article does not blame gay people. Are other sites pushing such a message? Any such reading into my piece here, in my opinion, is deeply flawed. I merely meant that another hugely important issue was likely pulling the public’s attention away from this one. The public only has so much time and, as I was glued to international news stations/sources here in Thailand, nearly every story that covered the US had to do with gay marriage. Further, I think a closer reading will see my wording reflects where I stand on the gay marriage debate:… Read more »
I have to wholeheartedly agree with Nick. If you’re going to lay blame, lay it where it belongs – on the desk of the man that signed a bill he could have just as easily vetoed, into law.
But no, instead it’s easier to blame the gays, and their fed-up supporters, as usual.
It isn’t multi-tasking. It’s hiding behind something else more exciting.
To suggest the gay marriage debate let this happen is pretty socially irresponsible. Lawmakers can multi-task, they’re big boys and girls.