The “Monsanto Protection Act,” and why you were duped

monsanto-1

Cartoon via http://www.claybennett.com/

I recently posted a link on my page “Whiskey and the Morning After” from another page called “The Skeptical Libertarian” that addressed the recent Monsanto hysteria, and promptly received a volley of criticism for it. Some people said I clearly didn’t know anything about Monsanto, but the fact is, I know BS when I see it.

Monsanto is the Darth Vader of evil companies to people from both the far left to the far right, and with good reason. There’s nothing good about any individual or corporation that seeks to crush competition and impose a monopoly on anything, especially something as crucial as the world’s food supply. What I am going to say should NOT be construed as any kind of endorsement of Monsanto or their practices. Are their products deadly? No. Do they have too much lobbying power in government? Of course, but so do many other major companies that use the legislative branch to further their financial interests.

However, the recent hysteria and outrage coming from the anti-GMO crowd in regards to the “Monsanto Protection Act” is not something to be taken seriously. It is nothing more than a strawman, that has been latched onto by the fringes of that movement, then furthered by some bloggers who realized they could get some money and exposure by pushing the conspiracy theory.


Let’s be clear, this was a rider attached to a 6 month budget extension bill and it passed with a veto-proof majority. Even if President Obama had struck down Section 735, which allows farmers to keep previously approved crops in the field during an appeal of a new USDA ruling, his veto would have been overridden–the equivalent of political suicide. If this had been a permanent grant of immunity to a multi-national corporation and not a six month extension of an existing rule that protects farmers, the level of outrage we’ve seen would actually be justified.

I think there’s even more to it though. I recently suggested in an article “Poisoning the tree of progressive activism” that there is an effort to dumb down, divide and destroy the progressive movement. This “Monsanto Protection Act” is nothing more than Section 735 of the budget bill HR 933 but the uninformed response to it is proof to me that my suspicions are correct. This issue was only covered by hack sites like Natural News but rushed to prominence by a number of social media sites as if it was the gospel truth. There are things to be concerned about with Monsanto but repeating false stories and exaggerations does not further the anti-GMO cause. If you want to educate the public, who happens to be almost completely unaware of what Monsanto is about, you need to present facts, not fiction.

It’s a really simple, dirty and ingenious trick if you think about it. Create a fake outrage and blow it up, get the easily spooked to believe it and spread the misinformation. Convince your opponent’s supporters that their leader sold them out and your work is done, with minimal cost or effort on your part. Once that support is eroded, you can ram through legislation that actually gives real and dangerous protections to bad companies like Monsanto and others.

Just because we won in November 2012 doesn’t mean entities like A.L.E.C., the Heritage Foundation and shadow groups funded by the Koch brothers aren’t already working on 2014 and beyond. They’ve learned that their message sucks and no matter how much money they give a candidate, it doesn’t necessarily translate into votes.


So how do they cope with the fact that the demographic that supports them the most is dying off and they can’t convince the younger generation to support them? The strategy is to erode the base on the other side and that’s exactly what they’re doing right now. They’re doing everything to convince us that Obama sold us out and that the change we voted for turned out to be more of the same.  They’d even have you believe that the President slipped section 735 in there himself. If you’re bright enough to put the pieces together, it’s pretty easy to see.

If you can’t get people to vote for you, the next best thing is to get the other side not to turn out. That’s their strategy, and that’s what this “Monsanto Protection Act” outrage is all about.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Brianne Williams

    I’d LOVE to hear your defense of his appointment to the FDA then.

    • Jim

      A conspiracy theory countered by a conspiracy theory. Interesting logic indeed.

  • Denise

    Glad I read this article! I have been so disappointed that Obama signed that bill, however, it seems like it could be a precursor to a very sinister law that gives Monsanto the power to F*** with God and should that happen, we are all F***ed.

  • Denise

    Glad I read this article! I have been so disappointed that Obama signed that bill, however, it seems like it could be a precursor to a very sinister law that gives Monsanto the power to F*** with God and should that happen, we are all F***ed.

  • Linda

    The outrage over the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” — the rider attached to the temporary appropriations bill — was not out of place. Blaming Obama for it definitely was out of place. Letting Senate Democrats off the hook for passing this piece of legislation is also out of place. This rider was also attached to the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Mother Jones (not a “fringe” news source in the least). See: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/07/gmo-industry-flexes-its-muscles-capitol-hill

    This time, Harry Reid and the Sen. Dem leadership prevented efforts to stop the rider. Reid decided to limit debate on the larger bill and did not allow Jon Tester’s (D-MT) amendment to strip this provision from the larger bill to come to the floor for debate and a vote. The Democrats did NOT want to be put on record for supporting this measure.

    The “Monsanto Protection Act” is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it’s a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

    Read more on GMO Inside: http://gmoinside.org/news/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-to-know-about-the-hr-933-provision/

    You can be sure there will be continuing efforts to attach this same rider to other pieces of legislation. People need to be aware of it and to hold their Congresspeople and Senators responsible. Don’t let them tell you they didn’t know it was there. They are lying if they do.

  • Susan Hecht

    I don’t agree with the people who pin this exclusively on President Obama– I place more of the blame with Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, who actually put the language into the bill– but I forcefully disagree that progressives fell for a straw man here. We SHOULD be outraged that Monsanto enjoys such protection in the halls of Congress, and it doesn’t matter that it’s technically “temporary”– the Bush tax cuts were “temporary,” too. It’s always a good time to get the word out about the monopoly power that Monsanto has and put pressure on our elected officials to stop favoring their takeover of the food supply.

  • CJ McGee

    The Teapublicans are so good at inciting fear and outrage to their favor. If you didn’t do your research you would’ve believed POTUS sold us out.

  • Kim Wilson

    Is Monsanto evil? Is Capitalism evil? Different people have different views. Do Monsanto chemicals increase production? Most certainly. More produce and stronger less disease resistant produce. Will it cause us problems down the line? Wait and see. Their product may be killing the bees and butterflys however. If they kill the bees we could have a world food shortage in as few as 5 to 10 years. See if you can live on nothing but corn. Also, Monsanto wants to be the seed central for the world. This leads to monoculture which eventually leads to some sort of blight which will wipe out the monoculture line of produce. If they are responsible for 80 % of the corn or soybeans, then 80% of the corn or soybeans could be gone. So forget eating corn…try eating dirt. The do it in many countries, to little avail however.

    • Angela M. Garcia-Johnson

      Really who cares who is at fault…lets get to fixing the mess of Monsanto.

  • Peter Principle

    Thanks for this post. It’s frustrating to see so many well intentioned progressives spreading such self defeating FUD. They’re doing exactly what they laugh at the wingnuts for doing. I’d like to add a few points, as well. There is no line item veto. Obama had 2 choices. Sign the bill or veto it. Had he vetoed the bill…

    1. The federal government would have shut down.
    2. The Violence Against Women Act, included in the same bill, would have been killed.
    3. Funding for SNAP would have stopped, killing food stamp programs all over the country.
    4. Funding for various vital agencies and services would have dried up.
    5. The entire emergency budget process would have to begin again from scratch, meaning the government would remain shut down for weeks, at least.

    IOW, Obama had no choice and it’s stupid to claim otherwise. Please, fellow progressives, stop jerking those knees, pull your craniums out of your rectums and leave the wild-ass poutrage over nothing to the wingnuts. Don’t do the GOP’s dirty work for them. Thanks in advance…

    • ChicagoRob

      Thanks for posting this reply. This, it seems, qualifies as a “…don’t let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good’.”

  • Angela M. Garcia-Johnson

    This isn’t about politics…the people that are in government, both parties, have a lot to do with a long history of listening to lobbyists for large companies without looking at proper research studies done by unbiased sources. And more importantly, the “outrage” is about the unheard voice of the educated and the informed public who take the time to scrutinize products and practices that are destroying the earth for the future. You can call them hysteria prone or whatever you want but the real deal is the earth is documented as heading for irreversible damage, and irreparable pollution in our lifetime. “unaware of what Monsanto is about”, voting strategy, “political suicide”…Really? If you political minded folks really think that this is what the outrage against GMO foods, and Monsanto is about then clearly you deserve the barren planet that we ultimately will leave for the future. The masses must wake up.

  • Angela M. Garcia-Johnson

    Irregardless of what this guy is saying bringing all the politics into it…that the mass hysteria surrounding GMO/Monsanto are “duped” folks. Really? Maybe some have been “duped” regarding governmental processes and are uninformed of the idiotic ways bills are passed/policy is made, but…Whatever we do as citizens, we need to petition to stop poisoning our food in the name of “production”, creating food supply monopolies and force the government to listen to the people who don’t give a plug nickel about the politics and political party bullshit, but mostly want to STOP destroying the earth. Food productivity for profit and quantity miss the mark; healthy food supply and healthy choices and good nutrition while preserving a planet for the future is what counts. It won’t matter how many people can be fed cheaply if the earth dies. And feeding the masses is a challenge, but it matters if they all get sick and die horrible deaths in the end. Maybe this dude is a doomsdayer who is waitin for that meteor to slam. I don’t have all the answers, but what Monsanto is doing and has done is NOT the answer either.

    • snappymcfisty

      As soon as u used the word “irregardless” – I stopped reading.

      • notyourhoneybunny

        Snappy, me too! I thought, “Wow, using a word that’s not actually a word as your opener is not a good way to inspire me to read the rest of your message.” Bummer.

      • BigWhiteDog

        Oh look it’s the word police. Like it or not, it’s a word now and in wide use. Get over it.

    • Mary Ellen

      For anyone to condescendingly comment about a single misuse of a word, and use that as an excuse to reject the communication of another human being makes them the ignorant one. Don’t be so pompous. It’s sad, unappealing, and makes you sound like a very insecure person. Only insecure people need to feed their egos and flaunt their vocabulary (or anything else) over others.

  • Bob Wills

    Angela……… I enjoyed your post. And YES it’s all about money when a company pays a lobbiest to get their favors from a government agentcy that could turn them a dollar. And chemical companies shouldn’t be preferred above the rights of people, and we do have a right to know what dangers there are in chemicals manufactured to our bodies and to the ground where food is grown and elsewhere that humans or animals might come in contact w/ contamination. My thoughts are w/your statement ; “You can call them hysteria prone or whatever you want but the real deal is the earth is documented as heading for irreversible damage, and irreparable pollution in our lifetime. “unaware of what Monsanto is about.” There are people from the same mind set as yourself that warn and cry out…”that the ozone layers are deteriating , and the sun will burn everyone up; we’re ALL gonna die and then winter comes and EPA says we gotta do something or we’ll all feeze to death so… the government needs to tax the only people that work for a living so as to get enough money to “fix” the earth back to where it was in the beginning..and for sure to hire more people to do nothing but dream up ways to justify their ‘police work’ & existence to make sure that the EPA exists so that you have a job and …just for you.” It just goes on and on and on..about irreversible damage and there is NO VALIDITY to your reasoning. It’s all a lie,…and that’s been proven. The last time the world was gonna come to an end,…my daughter came home from school with such a worried look on her face but said nothing and it appeared that she wanted to talk to me. I asked her if she wanted to talk and she told me that, talk was going around and on the news… that the world was gonna come to an end because there was proof that the sun was gonna burn out and by next Friday we’d all be frozen to death. Me..”sit down sweetheart, I wanta show you something. I grab a Bible, opened to Genesis ch. 8 v.21-22 ..”.And the lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the grd any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite anymore every living thing, as I have done. (the flood). v.22 While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest,and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” She was tremdously relieved. And what about you Angela? By the way–were you one of those that came to Texas from California to stop the construction of a pipeline that employed almost a thousand workers because EPA was looking for a certain named lizard on the right of way and didn’t find it? So EPA wanted to shut construction workers down till they could determine where that lizard went. Last recorded known siting was…almost 20 yrs ago. Texans ran them outa there…never lost a days pay because of the EPA. I rest my case!

    • susan

      Bob, what case? Does your rant contain any data other than a reference to the Bible, which isn’t data?

      http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/oct/HQ_11-357_Ozonehole_2011.html

      Fact: there are no ozone LAYERS, only a layer. It is deteriorating, over both the Arctic and Antarctica, not deteriating.

      Climate scientists worldwide have been studying climate change for years, and the evidence is VERY CLEAR that human activities are causing the bulk of it. Instead of listening to ridiculous media reports about these subjects, it would behoove you to turn to experts like the AGU (American Geophysical Union), NASA, NOAA, and scientific institutions around the world. It is not a “mindset”; it is real data. The most ridiculous statement here is, “the government needs to tax the only people that work for a living so as to get enough money to “fix” the earth back to where it was in the beginning..and for sure to hire more people to do nothing but dream up ways to justify their ‘police work’ & existence to make sure that the EPA exists so that you have a job and …just for you.” Nobody is attempting to or can “fix” the Earth. If we’re lucky, we can dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in order to lessen the impacts. Unfortunately, people of a similar “mindset” to you and those with deep pockets who continue to promulgate and fund disinformation campaigns.

      Let me add that the Endangered Species Act is intended to not only protect individual species but also habitat and ecosystem services. Ecosystems are essential to human life, providing us with innumerable and invaluable services. These Ecosystem services are the goods and services derived
      from natural and managed ecosystems upon which human welfare depends, and include everything from clean air and water to food and fuel. In addition, by 2050, the amount of per capita
      arable land in the US will have decreased from ~1.6 to 0.7 acres per person while simultaneously, the US population is projected to increase 25%. Your “mindset” is what is putting future generations at risk!

      I am sorry if I sound rude, but I am so tired of the lack of scientific understanding and the continued misinformation that is put forth for greed and short-term gain.

  • Diane

    Monsanto’s track record isn’t exactly sterling and that is probably what upsets most about their involvement in GMO crops. in 1901, Monsanto developed saccharine, proclaiming it to be the greatest thing since bread, we NOW know what a huge risk and carcinogen that artificial sweetener now is. They developed DDT and in the late 60’s they along with Dow produced Agent Orange. Not a health inspiring record from this company. And now they are making Genetically Modified Organisms, why should we the public take their word that it is safe? Because they have the money to be throwing at the government? No, we want labeling because people with nut allergies have the right to know that Brazil nut proteins are used to genetically modify some soybean crops and could inadvertently find their way into our body and cause an unknown allergic reaction. (Citation 1)
    Currently, the FDA does not require biotech companies to do pre-market testing, it is only recommended, and there is some question as to whether or not the antibiotics resistant genes can be passed to bacteria in the digestive tract possibly leading to the creation of worse antibiotic resistant bacteria than MRSA or VRE. These are all valid concerns being expressed by the medical profession. (citation-2)
    Labeling of GMOs should not be a point of political polarization, labeling is something that Monsanto and others should be doing voluntarily given their record to convince the public (their consumers) that they have nothing to worry about. (citation-1 http://growingourownnaturally.info/pdfs/NEJMtransgenicsoybeansandallergens.pdf ) (citation-2 http://www.science20.com/genetic_maize/blog/gmos_could_render_important_antibiotics_worthless_1 )

  • Jenel

    I get WHY Obama signed the bill and thank goodness it is only for 6 months.
    MONSANTO is Evil. GMOs and pesticide laced seeds should not be our future.
    It is past time for the fight to start.

    • Tilghman Lesher

      Monsanto is not evil. Yes, they are certainly doing some things that could be bad in the long run. I prefer the term “misguided”, because they, as a business, are motivated by short term profit, and they externalize a lot of their costs. But situations are not black-and-white, and if your demand is that Monsanto be destroyed, well, you’re going to be disappointed with any likely resolution. It is important that we cease to vilify our opponents in anything but fundraising letters; when it comes to public discourse, actions can be wrong, but entities should never be considered evil. All that it does, ultimately, is make the path to an acceptable compromise more difficult.

      • Kat Wolfdancer

        I must respectfully disagree. Monsanto exemplifies the Vulture Capitalistic Evil that run-amuck supply siders and Libertarians think should be our Future.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        That sounds extremely idealistic. Remember that Monsanto employs quite a lot of people, with families, people who depend upon them. Are you willing and able to provide for those people when you force a company out of existence? Are all of those people evil, because they depend upon what you term an Evil? If you force an end to Monsanto, and they end up in poverty, are you willing to shoulder that burden?

        Now let’s consider the alternative, that Monsanto is not Evil, but merely misguided, a company whose efforts can be directed differently. Yes, it would still be a large corporation, but it continues to contribute to society. Isn’t that a better outcome than forcing millions of people into poverty, because you refuse to help reform the company?

  • Crazy Hector

    Something tells me that if it was Romney that passed this, a lot of you people would be singing a completely different tune. #partyloyalty #sweethypcorisy

  • Terrenace Johnson

    What this conversation needs is more bacon. Try it. Put bacon on it and it will be much easier to digest. Bacon goes with every thing. Even bacon.

  • Susan

    I wholeheartedly disagree with some of this article, as it is far to soon to know what health impacts GMOs will have on the human body and that of animals that are consuming it. Since there is no independent research (and in fact, seed companies’ agreements forbid the use of seeds for independent research), nobody can say with any degree of certainty that GMOs are safe. And so it is not surprising that there are unresolved questions concerning the potential alteration in human genome, allergenicity of introduced genes and high toxin production in plants and animals that may lead to long-term health effects.

    What’s more is that certain GMOs may also have the potential to further lower the effectiveness of antibiotics in the population. Amflora, the GM potato, for example, that was recently approved in the European Union for industrial uses, has a gene for antibiotic resistance.

    Furthermore, from a policy standpoint, since the safety assessment of GMOs at the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has been based on the idea of “substantial equivalence” such that “if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food,” FDA gives its stamp of approval. Interestingly this substantial equivalence determination is made by the biotech company and not FDA.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg on this issue., as I haven’t even discussed animal health concerns, environmental concerns, moral and ethical concerns, and socioeconomic concerns.

    • Tilghman Lesher

      nobody can say with any degree of certainty that GMOs are safe.

      Actually, we can. It’s not absolute certainty, but given that companies are averse to liability, we can be reasonably sure that a company motivated by profit will not seek to put a product on the market which increases their consumer liability, tobacco companies notwithstanding. FDA’s stamp of approval is merely approval for the company to market it, not a recommendation that people consume it.

      If there’s a significant issue with the products, then the population will demand an alternative, and farmers will find a way to provide it. In fact, the market already exists: you can buy organic vegetables, fruits, and grains at nearly any grocery nowadays. Ten years ago, that wasn’t true, but the market demanded, and so farmers (and groceries) provided. I don’t necessarily think that the market can fix all problems; there are certainly well-known market failures, but this isn’t one of them.

      • Susan

        Are you kidding? “We can be reasonably sure that a company motivated by profit will not seek to put a product on the market which increases their consumer liability..”

        Every year, 34 million people are injured or killed as a result of product-related accidents. These injuries are the major cause of death for people between the ages of 1 and 36, outnumbering deaths from cancer or heart disease. The estimated cost of these injuries is $12 billion annually.

        Unfortunately, as long as profits are at stake, there will also always be some companies which are willing to forego certain safety advances in favor of fattening their corporate profits. Fen Phen anyone?

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Okay, there’s a critical word missing in there. Companies will not INTENTIONALLY increase their liability in order to put a product on the market. Yes, it does sometimes happen, and people are hurt by those incidents. And while any capitalist puts profit as their foremost concern, part of profit is assessing liability.

  • Brian W

    You’re criticizing the bill’s critics for floating a conspiracy theory? Excuse me, but the entire second half of your article is a conspiracy theory. What evidence do you have that this whole thing is a right wing plot to undermine the progressive movement?

  • Carol

    Other than offering reasons for political posturing in order to merge corporations with government( fascism), no substantive facts are offered about the actual bill or its effects on the public, good or bad. The readers of this article have been duped.

  • susan

    I still disagree, although in a perfect world, companies would be more responsible. Some determine that they will make enough money to address any claims against them. There are companies that knowingly release unsafe products. Here are a few examples, but there are plenty.

    http://www.drugwatch.com/granuflo-naturalyte/lawsuit/
    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.html

    There are entire law firms that specialize in product misrepresentation and the FTC has an entire database of companies that have been investigated for false advertising, defective products or other trade issues.

  • Rebecca Gavin

    My goodness. This is one of those times when I am embarrassed to be a Liberal. Maybe this isn’t a right wing conspiracy. Maybe it’s just Liberals demonstrating that anti-science hysteria can be on the left or the right. If you want facts, read section 735 for yourselves. In no way does it grant immunity to Monsanto, or anybody else. Anybody can file a lawsuit. If farmers have invested thousands of dollars in planting a crop that was legal when they put it in the ground, why on earth should they have to rip it out while a lawsuit, that may end up being dismissed eventually, makes it’s way through court?

  • Linda

    http://www.alternet.org/food/watch-jon-stewart-scolds-congress-monsanto-protection-act

    The Senate was aware this provision was contained in the act and chose to ignore it. Obama didn’t get the opportunity to share his views.

  • D.A. Ward

    You use the term “the anti-GMO crowd” like GMO’s are proven harmless and anyone who says otherwise is a wingnut but that’s just not true. There is every reason to be suspect of GMOs and agra giants like Monsanto. Any latitude they get within the system, in my opinion, is too much. The only end suitable for Monsanto is one that sees their dubious practices ended or their doors shuttered.

    • Tilghman Lesher

      There’s reason to be skeptical about the publically announced motives of any for-profit or political organization. Why you’re limiting it to the GMO crowd is beyond me. They are not anything special or worse than any other for-profit.

      Now, as far as the provision cited, it’s merely to protect farmers from having to pull their crops out of the ground while they’re being sued by Monsanto or other business giants. How is that pro-Monsanto?

      • Falula

        It’s protecting them from any legal liablity if it is proven that they are poisoning our food system.

        Which actually doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that they are.

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Why? How does that benefit them? You seem to be of the mind that they’re not eating the same food that they’re helping to produce. Why would they intentionally produce poison that they’re consuming themselves?

        We have an expression in the computer industry of “eating your own dog food”, which means to use the stuff that you produce, so you ensure that it works for your customers. Monsanto executives do the same thing. They’re not intentionally poisoning anybody.

      • Linda

        Tilghman, You mean like the tobacco industry, I assume? Need I name others?

      • Tilghman Lesher

        Linda, yes, you do need to name others. I’ve mentioned the tobacco industry before, and at the outset, tobacco industry executives did consume their own products, and they did NOT believe that it was harmful at the time. As time went on, it became less and less clear that they could stick to that position, though they tried to branch out as much as possible into other fields, as it became clear that position was untenable.

        I personally eat everything I cook, which is why I don’t cook pork or beef. If your chef is willing to eat the same recipes that he cooks, isn’t it likely that your chef doesn’t believe that the food is terribly harmful, saturated animal fats notwithstanding? Why are business executives any different in your opinion?

  • Falula

    Once you realize there are no sides, the government is owned by corporations like Monsanto and you actually have no voice through “voting” then you will realize you are the one who has been duped. But go ahead, continue to believe that President Obama actually cares about you or anyone else when he has proven time and time again that he is just another corporate suit.

    Continue to say whatever he does is aces. Drone strikes? It’s okay because Obama’s approving them. Protecting corporations from any legal liability? It’s okay, Obama signed it and he’s a liberal?

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wake up. He plays for the same team as the rest of them. Bushes and all.

    Forward progressives my butt.

  • Rebecca Gavin

    Anyone who claims that section 735 gives anyone immunity from any lawsuit over harm caused by their product, obviously hasn’t read it.

  • Nathan Buchanan

    I appreciate the fact based opinions on this site. While I do not know as many details about the Monsanto Protection Act as the author, I figured it wasn’t as dire as many make it out to be.

    That being said I spent several hours of my Saturday in protest against Monsanto and GMOs. The act itself was not what prompted me. I understand the possible and unknown effects of tampering with DNA and want as little of that going into my body as possible. Just because the most current act isn’t as bad as it could possibly be, I still do not want Monsanto to get any more favors or freedoms than they already have whether it be 6 months or 6 years or longer.

    I do not blame Obama or any person by themselves but, want to vote for those who will afford Monsanto the fewest amount of concessions. In a perfect world Monsanto would not be around, but focusing n the what if des no one any good.

    I would only suggest that no matter who you vote for whether you are as far to the left or as far to the right as possible, that you do research on GMOs and effects on non plant organisms. The poisons that we potentially be putting into our bodies do not care if you vote blue or red.

  • Grain Trader

    FINALLY someone puts this into perspective! I’m still waiting for some bright bulb to speculate that maybe all the Monsanto hysteria has been fomented by DuPont or Bayer Crop Science or Dow AgroScience or EvoGene or Syngenta or BASF…

  • Allison Moss-Fritch

    Absolutely correct and true. What Democracy thrives on is an uninhibited or impeded press that will hungrily go after FACTS (not hype)…so that people can be informed. This press MUST be willing to root out inaccuracies wherever found.