Monsanto Protection Act is Now Law

If people remember, before Obama became President he said he would get GMO’s labeled…Ha! Instead, in the standard American corporate government method, he just gave the go ahead for massive expansion of GMO crops. While other nations are firmly constraining and refusing these aberrations, we get more of them here. Almost makes on want to move to a non-GMO country. Even China is refusing to accept shipments of this garbage.

More ‘Corporate Welfare’: Obama Signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Into Law
Just signed provision prevents federal courts from stopping the planting of genetically engineered crops, despite health, environmental consequences

– Andrea Germanos, staff writer

“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” said Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety. (Photo: Peter Blanchard/flickr)
President Obama signed what has been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” on Tuesday, legislation critics say amounts to “corporate welfare” for biotechnology corporations like Monsanto, and puts farmers and the environment in jeopardy.

Summing up the provision in H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, Eric Darier, a senior campaigner on sustainable agriculture at Greenpeace International explains that it

will effectively bar US federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops even if they failed to be approved by the government’s own weak approval process and no matter what the health or environmental consequences might be.
The rider from H.R. 933 reads:


Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, writes that the rider presents a “threat to farmers and the environment,” and that while the rider’s language indicates that steps will be taken “…to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects…,” historical evidence shows that there are indeed risks. In 2006, for example,

unapproved GE rice owned by Bayer, probably originating from a small, short-term controlled field trial in Arkansas, was found to have contaminated the U.S. rice supply. That little incident resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost rice exports and farmer lawsuits that continued for years. […]

A similar threat exists to the environment in the form of gene flow—the transfer of genes from one organism to another—from crops to wild cousins, or from poorly domesticated cultivated plants like forest trees or grasses grown for lumber, pulp, or biofuel.

In fact, gene flow of glyphosate herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass has already occurred…twice. This also happened from temporary field trials that were conducted in Central Oregon and nearby Idaho specifically to prevent gene flow! USDA mandated an isolation zone of 900 feet around the trial, but gene flow occurred up to 13 miles from the Oregon site.
There could be “long-lasting and serious consequences” from the rider, writes Appetite for Profit author Michele Simon. “This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically-engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it.”

The Center for Food Safety writes that it was Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (D-MD), who allowed the legislation to move forward without hearings and without bringing it in front of the Agriculture or Judiciary Committees.

“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement.

This is the kind of deal biotechnology corporations have been hoping for, according to Food Democracy Now!, a group that has been campaigning against the GE rider. “Since losing a court case in 2010 to Center for Food Safety for the unlawful planting of GMO sugar beets, Monsanto and other biotech companies have been desperate to find a way around court mandated environmental impact statements required as a result of a U.S. district court’s ruling,” the group writes.

Gurian-Sherman writes that the rider has biotechnology corporations’ fingerprints all over it:

It was introduced anonymously, without accountability. But let me stick my neck out and say that it is highly likely that the biotech industry influenced the introduction and passing of this rider. Monsanto spends more money influencing our government than any other agriculture company. It spent millions, more than any other firm, to defeat the efforts in California to label engineered foods.
In her post titled “Monsanto Teams up with Congress to Shred the Constitution,” Simon adds that this is “such a big deal” because

The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry’s pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA’s approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.
So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead…
Darier concludes that the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ ultimately shows the power corporations wield at the expense of democracy:

This should also be a reminder to all of us across the world of the ability of some corporations like Monsanto to influence policymakers to adopt measures that are against sustainable agriculture, farmers, consumers and the environment. And let’s add now to this list: independent judicial review! A very sad day for democracy and the future of our food.



Concentration in Agriculture Continues to Rise

This is a great article that helps to illustrate issues that truly affect family farmers. The USDA fails to enforce the anti-trust acts on the books that are supposed to protect the most vital part of our economy from control in the hands of a few. Now people might argue that it is against capitalism to protect the economy from concentration, but the truth is that it is impossible to have a healthy economy with excessive consolidation.

When access to market, seeds to plant, fertilizer to use, and prices received are all controlled, there IS no free market. Such is the case in the vast majority of agriculture. This scenario leads to the proliferation of biotech as they are the ones with the most money in their pockets and, as evidenced by the Monsanto Protection Act insertion into the Ag appropriations extension and Blunt admitting he “did it for Monsanto”, it should be clear that this topic is extremely important for our health and well being.

The “Missouri Monsanto Protection Act” will lead to even more concentration in this State. Representative Jason Smith, the sponsor of HJR 11 and 7, is insisting that the bill will save farmers from undo regulation at the hands of HSUS. However, the group that evidently pushed him to sponsor this tripe has some pretty obvious issues with their listed members. That group is Missouri Farmers Care. Not all of their members are in the column of the nasty and nefarious, but enough of them are that it certainly implicates the group as being a shill for the biotech industry while running under a deceptive title pretending they “care” about small family farms. Just have a look at their membership page.

Currently, Monsatan (Monsanto) owns the lion’s share of the global seed market. In the US, it is even more concentrated than in other nations. The question for the Missouri legislators (and Montana, Delaware, Indiana and Oklahoma, by the way) is who do they represent? Are they wholly owned subsidiaries of Monsanto, or do they represent the people? Their vote on this purported “Right to Farm” act will tell.

Without further adieu, here’s a look at the reality of concentration in the agricultural arena from the Daily Yonder:

With the rising concentration of companies that provide “inputs” for farmers — seeds, farm machinery, fertilizer — the prices for these goods have been rising faster than the cost of what farmers produce. Monsanto has a near monopoly on some kinds of seeds

Editor’s Note: One of the primary concerns of The Daily Yonder over the past six years has been the increasing concentration of businesses in the business of agriculture. Simply, fewer firms are providing us everything from fertilizer to groceries. 

Big business is getting bigger when it comes to growing our food.

Below is a summary of a recent report that looks at what this increasing concentration means for ag research and development. It was written by researchers at the Economic Research Service, an invaluable part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

To see the full report, go here

Since the 1990s, global market concentration (the share of global industry sales earned by the largest firms) has increased in the crop seed/biotechnology, agricultural chemical, animal health, animal breeding, and farm machinery industries – all of which invest heavily in agricultural research.

By 2009, the largest four firms in each of these industries accounted for at least 50 percent of global market sales. Market concentration was particularly high in animal genetics and breeding, where the four-firm concentration ratio reached 56 percent in 2006/07 (the latest year for which data are available).

Growth in global market concentration over 1994-2009 was most rapid in the crop seed industry, where the market share of the four largest firms more than doubled from 21 to 54 percent. The top eight firms in all five input sectors had between a 61 and 75 percent share of global market sales by 2009.

Firms increase their market share either by expanding their sales faster than the industry average or by acquiring or merging with other firms in the industry. Firms can expand their sales faster than others in the industry by offering better products or services (often an outgrowth of larger R&D investments), improving their marketing ability, or offering lower prices (often through economies of scale). The leading input firms in 2010 had faster sales growth than the industry average, but a significant amount of that growth came from acquisitions of other firms.

Reasons for Concentration

Reasons for mergers and acquisitions vary by industry and firm circumstances but include market forces and the emergence of new technologies. Government policies can also affect the ability of firms to compete in markets and their incentives to merge with or acquire other firms.

In the crop seed and animal breeding sectors, the emergence of biotechnology was a major driver of consolidation. Companies sought to acquire relevant technological capacities and serve larger markets to share the large fixed costs associated with meeting regulatory approval for new biotechnology innovations.

In the animal breeding sector, vertical integration in the poultry and livestock industries enabled some large firms to acquire capacity in animal breeding as part of their integrated structure.

In the farm machinery industry, many of the major mergers and acquisitions can be traced to large financial losses sustained by some leading firms during periods when the farm sector was in prolonged recession, which substantially reduced demand for farm machinery as farmers delayed major capital purchases. Firms experiencing large financial losses are often vulnerable to acquisition.

The agricultural chemical sector has been heavily affected by changes in government regulations governing the health, safety, and environmental impacts of new and existing pesticide formulations: larger firms appear better able to address these stricter regulatory requirements.

Consolidation in the animal health sector appears to be largely a byproduct of mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry, as most of the leading animal health companies are subsidiaries of large pharmaceutical companies.(full article here)

Wake Up Wednesday!!! Missouri’s Monsanto Protection Act

Wednesday Wake Up Call!

Missouri’s Monsanto Protection Act is on the Fast Track to Pass the Legislature!

 In Missouri, we have about 6 weeks of the State legislative session left to endure. There are numerous good bills and a few horrific bills that we have to pay attention to and communicate with our legislators about in a timely and concerted fashion.

Our proposal is that those of us who love freedom and support accountability in our elected officials all join together on various issues over the course of the rest of the session and call our own State Representative and Senator as well as those who are supporting legislation we are activating for or against and get thousands of calls into the State Capitol every Wednesday so they know that “We’re the People, and we are watching.”

Each issue we choose to act on will include a short redux of the bill and an explanation of what needs to be communicated to our representatives about the bill.

The first item for action is HJR 11 and 7 and SJR 22. These are the same pieces of legislation that propose a Constitutional Amendment to our Missouri Constitution that will forever protect “agricultural technology” and “modern and traditional” farming practices” in Missouri. There are no definitions provided in the language of the bill, and agricultural technology usually means the biotech industry, including genetically modified plants and animals. Yes, spider goats, eel salmon, cow humans, mouse pigs and whatever else they come up with in the future as “forever” is a very, very long time.

Here is the text of the language that will come to the Senate floor fairly quickly. Please note that it already passed the House and is on the fast track:

“Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2014, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No state law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern and traditional livestock production and ranching practices, unless enacted by the General Assembly.

Section B. Pursuant to Chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in Section A shall be as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure:

      •  That the right of Missouri citizens to employ modern farming and ranching practices and equipment shall not be infringed”.”

Bill tracking page for this legislation:

Alternate verbiage that would truly protect family farms was offered to Smith as a possible substitute for this verbiage, but no response to the suggestion was received from Smith or his office. Here is the language that was offered as a substitute:

Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in direct trade with consumers [modern farming and ranching practices] shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural [technology and modern livestock production and ranching] practices that secure independent family farm’s ability to save seed, preserve livestock bloodlines, or impede their access to market.

Section B. Pursuant to Chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the 3 submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in Section A shall be as follows: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure: 

• That the right of Missouri citizens to employ modern farming and ranching practices and equipment that insure the continuance of diversified small farms shall not be infringed”.

The Missouri Senate needs to hear from you!

Please call your Senator and also the Speaker (Dempsey) and the Floor Leader (Richard) and let them know that while Monsanto may be headquartered in Saint Louis, the entire State does NOT belong to them, and this bill needs to either die or be changed to truly protect the health, economic viability and freedom of Citizens of Missouri!

(For some reason, the formatting will not work properly-Please call the switch board at 573-751-2000 if you cannot find your Senator’s number below)

Party/ Capitol
Senator District Office

Capitol Phone

Dan Brown R-16 419

(573) 751-5713

Maria Chappelle-Nadal D-14 330

(573) 751-4106

Mike Cunningham R-33 331

(573) 751-1882

S. Kiki Curls D-9 434

(573) 751-3158

Tom Dempsey R-23 326

(573) 751-1141

Bob Dixon R-30 332

(573) 751-2583

Ed Emery R-31 431

(573) 751-2108

Jason Holsman D-7 329

(573) 751-6607

Jolie Justus D-10 333

(573) 751-2788

Joseph Keaveny D-4 428

(573) 751-3599

Mike Kehoe R-6 220

(573) 751-2076

Will Kraus R-8 418

(573) 751-1464

Brad Lager R-12 422

(573) 751-1415

John T. Lamping R-24 426

(573) 751-2514

Paul LeVota D-11 421

(573) 751-3074

Doug Libla R-25 226

(573) 751-4843

Ryan McKenna D-22 219

(573) 751-1492

Brian Munzlinger R-18 331A

(573) 751-7985

Jamilah Nasheed D-5 328

(573) 751-4415

Brian Nieves R-26 423

(573) 751-3678

Mike Parson R-28 420

(573) 751-8793

David Pearce R-21 227

(573) 751-2272

Ron Richard R-32 321

(573) 751-2173

Gary Romine R-3 334

(573) 751-4008

Scott Rupp R-2 416

(573) 751-1282

David Sater R-29 433

(573) 751-1480

Rob Schaaf R-34 319

(573) 751-2183

Kurt Schaefer R-19 221

(573) 751-3931

Eric Schmitt R-15 320

(573) 751-2853

Scott Sifton D-1 425

(573) 751-0220

Ryan Silvey R-17 429

(573) 751-5282

Wayne Wallingford R-27 225

(573) 751-2459

Gina Walsh D-13 427

(573) 751-2420

Jay Wasson R-20 323

(573) 751-1503

For more information on this very important issue please visit the following links:



Monsanto Protection Act Awaits Obama’s Signature

The continuing appropriations act to fund essential programs is now waiting on the desk of Obama. An odd thing about our GoviCorp is that they often put in addendums and amendments that have nothing to do with the “purpose” for the legislation they claim as so necessary.

As I said in my previous post on this topic, what we have is one hand washing the other. They “save” the USDA meat inspectors from furlough and the resultant shut down of 6,000 processing plants and all the workers that would be affected by such a shut down are happy. In the same legislation, they hand Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer a free pass to contaminate the nation without doing proper impact analyses of their frankenfoods.

The American Diet

This is the section that is so offensive to people who would like to see GMO’s at the very least labeled as such on food stuffs:

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 commerce and carry out other authorized

activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions

shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the

Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related

to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That

nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s

authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection


Sections 411 and 412 are about plant pest and noxious weeds, and the Secretary’s prescribed method for dealing with those in imports and commerce. Section 414 deals with the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to order the destruction of noxious weeds that are new or unknown.

If we could ever have a Secretary of Agriculture that wasn’t owned and operated by the biotech industries, Sec. 414 might give us a chance at controlling the proliferation of genetically modified plants, but Vilsack has proven himself to be more than a friend of Monsanto et al, so there isn’t hope for help in that quarter.

The Federal GoviCorp and their multi-national corporate friends have once again shown whom they represent. As has often been said, we have the best government money can buy. Too bad we don’t have real money any longer either.