H.R. 933 Section 735 Monsanto Rider | Writing | FoodNewsie

. . . . .

H.R. 933 Section 735 Monsanto Rider

Tags

, ,
H.R. 933 Section 735 Monsanto Rider

In a bill full of defense and homeland security sections, it appears special interests have tucked in a shelter for themselves to continue selling licensed seeds to farmers though it’s coming to light these seeds were illegally USDA approved. Is it a case of retro-active ass-covering? H.R.933 is 120 THOUSAND words, read it at your leisure. The part we’re most interested in is Section 735

The text of H.R.933 is available quite openly and a search in your browser for 735 will point you to the section in the above screenshot. FoodDemocracyNow.com has a petition to withdraw the Section from the bill. Sites are lit up with the plea to sign – what are you signing?

To, “Eat Hard,” as we suggest, means to know what’s going mouthward to your face. It all starts with farmers and in the case of food and farmers, smaller is sometimes better. The jargon in Section 735 references the Plant Protection Act from 2000 and sections 411, 412 and 414 which is all way over the head of laymen affecting smaller farmers while continuing to provide steady business for larger companies. You can find a PDF of those sections in the Plant Protection Act here.

We needed a transaltion. According to Dave Murphy, Founder and Executive Director of FoodDemocracyNow.com, the twisted language of Section 735, “authorizes the Secretary to basically allow plantings of new GMO at anytime when a court case is taking place.” That protection for the seller was slipped in to H.R.933 and referred to as The Monsanto “Rider” where their interests were nestled in a bill pertaining mostly to defense and homeland security. The watchdog group in this case has called foul on the rider from day one citing that the permission granted, “undercuts the concept of judicial review,” and is a clear violation of the separation of powers. They constantly communicate with Senators on these matters and when a rider slips through, the people have to speak.

H.R. 933 Section 735 Monsanto Rider

Find out if your Senator voted to allow new GMO crops to be planted even when a court case about the validity of those seeds is ongoing. If they did, sign the petition and keep Monsanto on the run and keep learning more about your food!

It’s not uncommon for lobby groups to work this way and Mr. Murphy and others at Food Democracy Now have effectively kept such a rider out of the Farm Bill and at least one other bill. In the past 20 hours, 80,000 petitioners have signed this online petition demanding the Section be removed. Dave remarks that the number is a credit to just how important this is and how much smarter Americans are becoming about where their food comes from. Above picture source.

FYI – Expect U.S. Senator Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas to have a tough run in 2014.

14 Responses to "H.R. 933 Section 735 Monsanto Rider"

Michael W. Therrien says:

Who exactly slipped this “Monstanto Rider” into H.R. 933? I have a great deal of reservation about this. this little poison pill, is attached to a very large appropriations bill. That affects a lot more than just farmers. they attached it to our security and our veterans. I want to know exactly who attached this “SO I CAN SEND HIS OPPONENT MONEY in the next election”

Barry Solywoda says:

Riders are a traversty. Designed to expediate needed changes, but used by lobbyists to pass unacceptable bills.

Bryan says:

Mr. Therrien, the “who exactly” answer is vaporous at best BUT Dave assured me that every ‘Yea’ vote knew the rider was present meaning if your state voted YEA in the graphic above, you can still act your conscience. After HUNDREDS of revisions (literally), one more to remove the rider wouldn’t have needed much effort. @Mr. Solywoda, agreed. They’re dirty tricks; sneak attacks in this case.

lee tilson says:

Was there a separate vote on the rider?

Bryan says:

No, Lee – that was the “sneaky” part that left so many feeling betrayed. It was ONE vote for a bill with 39 Titles in 6 Divisions. That jibberish means ONE yes/no answer has to apply universally to 39 different ideas, some with smaller requests/permissions tucked away in Sections. The Section in question, 735, is an itty bitty fraction that COULD have been edited out. Although it’s just a paragraph, it references larger laws and allows grand freedoms that are deeply opposed. It had one more step to become law, Presidential approval, and it got it, March 26th 2013.

Morgan Mghee says:

There is a petition going at Whitehousegov asking the president to remove section 735 from HR 933. It needs 4000 signatures per day by April 20th to qualify for a response. Please sign the petition and pass this link around.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-section-735-aka-monsanto-protection-act-hr-933/T8QYzYZg

Steve Laurette says:

I can already tell you the response from the White House: the President has no Constitutional power to remove a section from a bill. It’s either sign or veto the whole bill. If he had vetoed it, the military funding would have been vetoed as well. The petition is late and misdirected. It should have been sent to Congressmen and Senators before they passed it.

Jennifer says:

Michael, two Democrats are to thank for this rider. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/03/23/deadbeat-senator-barbara-mikulski-snuck-deadly-monsanto-rider-in-2013-budget-resolution-an-illegal-act-in-congress/

Jeff Lewis says:

My plate is full enough, fighting waste and seeking reform at FAA (my former employer). But, when I read about this, well, it’s just outrageous!!

Is there any way to produce any accountability for the insertion of section 735? Clearly, somebody wrote it and there has to be at least a time history in a Congressional Record or something, that shows how/when/by-whom it was inserted. Can you help identify the source, or at least offer some citizen-investigative tips?

If there is no such accountability, this goes to the heart of why this is so absolutely outrageous.

PS: thanks greatly for posting the content and links, to help us learn the details on this.

Dan Viola says:

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill, defended it. “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.”

So Sen. Blunt is pretty much your culprit to start with…

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/food-oversight-curbs-spending-bill-outrage-article-1.1298967#ixzz2OuR6Q1J2

Jeff L. says:

What about the protection it extends to growers of heritage crops? GMO farms and corporations have been shutting down legitimate growing for years by tangling the farmers up in ridiculous lawsuits, claiming patented seed were stolen (which were blown in by the wind) for the most part, but they’ll latch on to anything to hurt their competition.
This section may provide protection for GMO’s (and says nothing about harvesting, only that farmers can continue to farm while involved in disputes, but upon resolution will be forced to comply with the ruling) but it also gives protection to regular farmers. Even if it continues past September of this year, it means that real farmers, with nothing to hide, will get some protection, and GMO farmers will have a time limit.
I’ll take what I can get for the real farmers, thank you.

Gregg Anderson says:

The article link provided by Dan Viola is from the New York Daily News, which is owned by Mortimer Zuckerman. Mr. Zuckerman has made political donations to the Democratic and Independent parties, with most going to the Democratic party. He has not made any contributions to the Republican party. In addition, Mr. Zuckerman is a frequent guest on MSNBC, which pretty much tells you which side of the political aisle he is on. I don’t think you will get information that is free of political bias from the New York Daily News.

To support this, the New York Daily News article points the finger at Roy Blunt, Republican Missouri Senator, due to campaign contributions received from Monsanto. What the article conveniently fails to inform you is that Claire McCaskill, Democratic Missouri Senator, also received campaign money from Monsanto in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027694&type=I

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&type=I&cid=N00027694&newMem=N&recs=20

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&type=I&cid=N00027694&newMem=N&recs=20

Furthermore, considering Claire McCaskill is on the same side of the aisle as Obama, and given the fact that Obama appointed Monsanto Michael Taylor to the Food Safety Division of the FDA back in 2009, and has other former Monsanto Reps as part of his administration…………I’ll leave it up to you to do the math on that one.

Liberals like to post this article by the New York Daily News over and over again (I see it everywhere on facebook) and it amazes me how these people stubbornly tow their party line even when they know their party is blatantly wrong. It makes these people look foolish.

The bottom line: Both parties are corporate shills. I personally reject the two party system for this reason, and will always vote 3rd party candidate.

Sonny Rosenthal says:

Can someone please explain how HR 933 §735 is about GMOs? The relevant sections of the Plant Protection Act (7 USC 7711) appear to be designed to restrict the spread of plant pests and noxious weeds, and say nothing explicitly about GMOs:

§411 prohibits the interstate movement of regulated plant pests. Plant pests may include “a protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the [previous] articles.” The public may petition the Secretary of Agriculture to add or remove pests from regulation, and the final determination will be based on science. (Note, petitions tend to be in the form of lawsuits.)

§412 regulates the interstate movement of plants, plant products, biological control organisms, and noxious weeds that might otherwise introduce or disseminate “a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.” Movement of any of these articles will require permitting an inspection.

§414 defines how the Secretary may enforce §411 and §412.

Regarding §411, there appears to be no link to GMOs.

Regarding §412: Yes, GMOs may be defined as plants, plant products, or biological control organisms, but the aim of the §412 is to regulate the transportation of such articles to the extent that they may help spread plant pests or noxious weeds. Aren’t GMOs usually designed to combat pests and out-compete weeds? I would think that GMOs are generally less encumbered by §412 than are non-GMOs.

Jay says:

Sonny, I agree with you. This “translation” they provided hardly does the language of the act justice.

Leave a reply

Textile help

Copyright © 2014 FoodNewsie. Adapted for Textpattern (currently v4.5.2). Managed by Coret ^..^ HTML5 Powered with CSS3 / Styling, Semantics, and Offline & Storage Valid CSS!