How the Monsanto Protection Act was Crushed - Zaca

How the Monsanto Protection Act was Crushed

1 Comment

Fotolia_55628520_XSDespite the overwhelming public support for GMO labeling legislation, the Monsanto Protection Act threatened to let biotechnology and agribusiness giants like Dow Chemical and Monsanto to continue to enjoy immunity from lawsuits regarding GMOs. Fortunately, the act didn't survive-- but what crushed the Monsanto Protection Act? The act itself originally slipped through quietly because it was attached to another piece of legislation. In the beginning of this September, House Republicans released a continuing resolution that included an extension of the act. If it had passed, it would have allowed GMOs to be freely cultivated and sold despite their potential risks to public health, the environment, and adjacent farms that grew non-GMO crops. That means that even if evidence is found inextricably linking GMOs to chronic health problems, or environmental or economic damages, the USDA would be forced to allow them to continue to be planted, sold, and used. If that sounds scary, it should. Fortunately, the measure met with enough opposition that it was axed from the Senate spending bill. Opponents of the act, like Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, led online petitions to give a voice to the members of the public that similarly opposed the bill. While initial attempts to kill the Monsanto Protection Act were unsuccessful, legislators have chosen to ensure that it will finally expire at the end of the month. Arguments against the act indicate that there is evidence that the transgenic proteins in GMOs have been found in human blood cells (including the cells of pregnant women and their fetuses), and they may be responsible for allergies, organ damage, and other health problems. Other arguments implicate GMO crops in things like bee die-offs and the growth of "superweeds." Therefore, they feel that GMOs should not be given carte blanche to be grown and sold. Arguments in favor of GMOs claim that there is not enough evidence that GMOs cause harm, and legislation limiting their use is "antiscience." Regardless of whether GMOs are harmful, it's never good to give someone immunity from the law. Hopefully, this push to limit Monsanto's immunity will herald success for things like GMO labeling legislation, and increased research into the long-term harm to humans and the environment from transgenic proteins.  

1 Response


December 12, 2015

From a grateful but depely concerned heart: Grateful for your strong and good voice, as well as your point about the term natural , yet I am depely concerned with your definition of GMOs and the lack of knowledge it implies. Before I explain my apparent criticism, I want to say that it seems we all have a different combination of pieces of the puzzle, and somehow we have to get together and get it together if we want the human species, and perhaps all life on earth to survive.My concern is that you wrote that, 1. Proposition 37 will require all foods that have GMOs in them (that is, genetically modified organisms that are engineered to withstand extra applications of chemical herbicides and pesticides) TO BE LABELED. but this definition is not at all a true umbrella of meaning, and does not even refer to the other primary type of GMO which is probably most likely to evoke a more immediate and emotional understanding in the reader. The other primary GMO type is the Bt toxin type that usurps the life of the plant turning every cell into an insecticide-producing factory. Until the plant is processed or cooked, the cells in the Bt organism will CONTINUE to produce fresh insecticide. This means that the fresh, raw corn-on-the-cob-look-a-like being offered through Walmart is actively and continuously producing insecticide as it lies there right next to conventional produce. Apparently, that will continue until it runs out of a sustaining medium.In the film Genetic Roulette a young mother is forced to emotionally re-experience the near-death of her young son after he ate raw corn! Even after being cooked, there may be 19 times more pesticide in the GMO, than would even be used in conventional pesticide application Just the tip of the iceberg

Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.