Monsanto bill 933

Opponents of genetically modified organisms in food, or GMOs, rail against provision that would limit the courts’ ability to stop food producer Monsanto from growing crops later deemed potentially hazardous
The Farmer Assurance Provision, a rider slipped into spending bill HR 933, is being blasted as the 'Monsanto Protection Act.' Although it would remain in effect for only six months, activists fear the precedent it sets.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack testifies on Capitol Hill on March 5. Activists are upset that the department would be required to ignore court rulings under the provision.



Who’s more powerful, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified crops or the U.S. government?

Last week, Congress passed HR 933, a short-term resolution to avoid a government shutdown. Tucked away in the bill, however, was a rider that had little to do with the fiscal challenges facing the country.

Dubbed the Farmer Assurance Provision, section 735 of the resolution would seem to place the commercial concerns of Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified crops and seeds, above the authority of U.S. judicial system.

In effect, the provision, which opponents call the Monsanto Protection Act, would limit the ability of judges to stop Monsanto or the farmers it sells genetically modified seeds from growing or harvesting those crops even if courts find evidence of potential health risks.

“This dangerous provision, the Monsanto Protection Act, strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer and farmer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, citizens and the environment,” the group Food Democracy Now said on its website.

Food Democracy Now and several other groups are now petitioning President Obama, demanding that he not sign HR 933 into law.

Public health lawyer Michele Simon, another opponent of genetically modified organisms, also decried the provision.

CRISTIAN BAITG/GETTY IMAGES
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.”

“Without any hearings on the matter, the Senate included language that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to essentially ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops,” Simon wrote on her blog.

One of the rider’s biggest supporters was Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill.

“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it,” Blunt told Politico. “But it is only a one-year protection in that bill.”

Opposing the inclusion of the rider was Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.), who told Politico that the deal worked out with Monsanto was simply bad policy.

“These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country,” Tester said.

The bill now awaits Obama’s signature. If passed, the rider will only remain in effect for six months, but the precedent it sets is what has many food safety experts worried.

Seattle attorney Bill Marler, who has successfully sued corporations on behalf of the victims of foodborne illness, sees the purported upending of constitutional principles as the biggest problem with the rider.

“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Marler told the Daily News.