Monsanto is the Antichrist.

Yes it is.

Does anyone have an even remotely objective article about this? I can't find anything that doesn't link back to a website depicting Obama as the devil-incarnate.

I believe this was part of a bigger bill., if I recall HR 933.

I read some on it before, bcause anything involving Monsanto scares me, and makes me perk up quickly.

However, obama should have probalby put the VETO to this POS based on anything protecting GMO companies from lawsuits based on (insert reason>

Abge, there is a huge thread on this on Democratic Underground, and even they are not too happy with obam on it, so there must be some truth to this.

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into"

This is the part of the bill everyone is upset.

Well, from what I can gather, it seems like HR 933 is a large and important bill. I can understand Obama's hesitation to Veto it.

Of course, this is just the normal bullshit bill process where a bill has to contain a mountain of shit from a bunch of congressmen for it to get passed.

Abge, teh bill itself I dont have the problem with, which is why I think bills need to be limited to 30 pages or less, but this is howthey hide bullshit on us.

however, protecting Monsanto does not shock me though, as obama and Bush both put Monsanto Presidents as headof the FDA, which is pure insanity.

If all the gay people formed a corporation, they'd have their rights by now.

you guys probably dont know about it, but there was a similar thing about mercury in vaccines. the drug companies knew there was a problem, and knew that it could be proven to have caused injury in a court, so they passed a law making it impossible for them to be sued for damages caused by mercury in vaccines.

now they know that gmo is not safe so they pressure lawmakers to pass a law making it impossible to sue for damages caused by gmos.

think about it, if there was no danger, why would they need a law to make it impossible to sue them? in order to stick up for this law you need to think that you shouldnt have any right to sue after a company causes you injury. if it didnt cause injury then this law wouldnt apply because you wouldnt be able to prove anything in court. this only really matters when it can be proven in court, and in that case, you now cant do anything about it.

bo sox, I know what you were trying to do there, but you missed by a lot

@blankflag .. GMOs are dangerous and immoral unless you're an economically minded person - which most here probably are and most in Congress definitely are - and then they become a very useful thing.

@Stressed .. yes, I did, but it gets the point across.

bo socks, you are showing your ignorance yet again. this year corn crops are having record setting failures due to... can you guess? gmos. in fact all that bs they said were the benefits of gmos were completely untrue and they have caused massive economic damage to the us economy.

we went through this back in January. GMOs are good, that said the government shouldn't be giving any company special protection rights.

oh yes, you all discussed it with opinions ranging from fox news to cnn to msnbc to the bbc and with all the propaganda power of the us and britain you concluded that gmos were good. you are all brainwashed from the same source so your debates have little merit.

anyway the people here who say they want a free market, under the ideal free market costs are priced in. if somebody commits fraud by claiming something is safe when their internal tests prove it unsafe, but hide that and sell it to you, then you have the right to sue them when you are injured. in fact, even if they were just negligent as to the risks, you can still sue and win. if you are taking away this basic right then you are distorting the incentives in the free market, and it makes it unnaturally economical to disregard any risks and lie to people. i personally would prefer a real free market where the ideal distribution of goods is at least in theory possible.

"this year corn crops are having record setting failures due to"

This year's corn crop hasn't even been planted yet. Most of the midwest is still has snow on the ground in places, and more freezing weather on the way early next week (source: Mark Hostetler, one of the nation's leading dairy goat farmers and gmo skeptic, interestingly enough). I suppose they're planting in Texas and southern California, but most of the cornbelt won't have high enough ground temperatures for weeks.

Last year's corn crop was hit hard by drought, but overall the yield was decent, thanks in large part to....wait for it.....gmo's. (Source: David Schumann, Iowa grain farmer - 1500 acres - and, interestingly, Monsanto-hater).

Since both MSNBC and Fox have been against GMOs in the past, I would be very surprised if peoples opinions on GMOs were based on that.

In anycase here are my sources:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/20/monsantos-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-rats-real-scientists-deeply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/

this is what they do. they take someone and claim he is against X and then have him prove something that benefits X. but really he is just a covert agent. but having this strawman makes people think "wow even their own people are saying it!".

i have heard it before, like those 9/11 truthers who admit they were wrong or the global warming deniers that realize now that the truth of global warming is undeniable or liberals who are totally against war admitting that saddam must have wmds and the invasion is necessary... or anything else they want to prove.

the drought had something to do with it. but the non-gmo strains are far more drought-resistant causing widespread failure. your monsanto secret agent man can suck it.

and i would not even say that msnbc or fox were against gmos at all. this is another trick. they make people think they are against something when they arent. its like how fox was supposedly against global warming, but people who would watch fox news would somehow get the opinion that global warming was real and a serious threat even when they were supposedly against it. if you claim you are against something but only present the weakest arguments and in a retarded way then you can convince people of the opposite of what you are claiming to argue.

"your monsanto secret agent man can suck it"

Because you obviously know much more about farming than actual farmers do. That makes total sense! I have seen the light! All hail the great blankflag! Let his wisdom be heeded and his views be embraced!

Seriously though. Why can't a guy say "I don't like Monsanto's business practices and I wouldn't eat the corn that comes out of my own field, but gmo's yield an extra 30 bushels an acres, so financially I have to use them"?

30 bushels/acre x $8 per bushel x 1500 acres = $360,000 a year. Not exactly chump change for a family farmer.

they dont have higher yields at all. do you still believe that the flu shots prevented the flu? that was also proven to not be true. if you looked at the evidence and research at all you would see that the yields are, in fact, lower.

Blankflag is a troll, I'm more and more convinced of it every day. The way he speaks and voices his opinions is the same way that I did back when I was a troll.

FlemGem, I know quite a bit about farming, and yes, GMO seeds do produce more, but also, in some cases, you can not sell non GMO crops.

The GMO companies have gotother interesting laws on the books to prevent farmers from selling non GMO crops.

Now, that being said, we dont have many 1500 acre farms in Tennessee, and we grow 'field corn' usually, but I am sure they are all GMO.

I have seen some non GMO crosp of 10-20 acres, and the yield is lower, BUT the price they get per bushel is generally higher.

blank, generally speaking, under exact same conditions, GMO will produce more. There is no exact %, but 30 bushels seems higher than I have heard, but the price/bushel for Organic/non-GMO is almost certaily always higher also, so I am not sure what the cash difference is after its all said and done.

So my life-long farmer neighbors and friends - guys who were smart enough and disciplined enough to make it through the farm crises of the 80's, guys whose livelihoods and families' futures depend on their business choices, guys who live and breath and eat and drink farming, guys who have been to top agricultural schools (lest you think that farmers are uneducated rubes) - these guys all know less about farming than blankfag! Will wonders never cease?

Flu shots - I don't get them myself. They work - against one strain of the flu. Too bad there's lots of strains of flu.

@Fasces - yes, blankflag is a troll, but for some strange reason I feel that he's an earnest sort of troll, so I enjoy jousting with him from time to time. Being a farmbelt dweller I'm amused by his silly combination of arrogance and ignorance.

from the evidence i have seen the yields are not higher. just because some farmers think the yields are higher does not mean they are. look at how many people took the flu shot thinking it helped them. people will believe what the media tells them to believe. the gmo crops are failing far more than traditional crops.

And that is why the government shouldn't regulate it. The farmers who think they can make more money selling non-gmo should. The farmers who think they can make more money selling gmo should.

LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE!

@Stressed - of course you're right. Prices, input costs, soil types, etc. vary, and different farmers make different decisions based on all those variables. I was throwing out 30 bushels as a rough figure, but I think it's ballpark. Per acre yields are probably higher here than in Tennessee, so if the % is similar than the total extra yield would be higher. The farmer I referenced was getting 170 bushels/acre after the drought last year.

"from the evidence i have seen the yields are not higher. just because some farmers think the yields are higher does not mean they are"

Well then we can be thankful that the average farmer knows more than you do.

And the analogy of flu shots is a poor comparison. The average farmer has a college degree in agriculture and is running a multi-million dollar business. He's spending WAY more time researching what seed to plant than a person who thinks, "hmm, I don't like to puke, I'll get a flu shot and maybe that will help" and runs down to the family doctor to pay his $5 co-pay. I bet that if your flu shot cost as much as a combine you'd spend more time researching it's effectiveness, wouldn't you say?

"bo socks, you are showing your ignorance yet again."

I know I'm not a raging extreme leftist like you, but there is a point when you should realize that I am agreeing with you while also stating a counterargument that you need to recognize, not ignore.

Felm, I never said any such thing, or maybe that was not directed at me.

Are you the only person who knows farmers (just so you know, I do own a small farm in a very rural area of Tennessee, but do not grow crops)?

If you in any way want to sell to a Government agency, it MUST be a GMO crop. That is an actual law.

Flem, I am not sure where you live, so I cant say, but Tennessee is really different depending on the area...

Western Tennessee is flat, and grows a lot more crops than Eastern, where I live.

We have more sheep/cattle here, anda lot of field corn,. and i think our yield is notwhere close to themidwest #s.

Heck, we dont even grow wheat here at all, because we dont get enough snow in the winter to allow for it.

Soy beans, yes. Cotton in the west is a big crop also, and I see a lot of tobacco also.

@Stressed - the only thing I directed at you was the post that started with "@Stressed". I know you farm - sheep raised for meat, right? Sorry if any confusion made you feel like I was aiming at you. I'm only blasting blankflag in this thread. I'm in southeastern Iowa, grains are mostly corn and soybeans. The Amish grow some wheat and oats, mostly for local use. Vineyards are making a big comeback, but they're still mostly pretty small. Hogs are the big livestock, but there's a lot of turkey and chicken production too, and smaller scale cattle operations. Dairy goats are becoming more popular, there are lots of advantages to goat milk - less allergies etc. Too bad goat milk tastes like goat, ha ha. Lots of smaller farms are getting into organic, grass-fed stuff. The higher prices organic commands makes up for the small scale.