Skip to main content

View Diary: Their Crimes Continue (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um, not quite. (0+ / 0-)

    As per this Letter signed by the ACLU, et al:

    Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks:
    The undersigned thirty-eight food businesses and retailers, consumer, family farm, environmental and public interest groups, representing hundreds of thousands of members across the United States, are writing to express our opposition to the so-called “farmer assurance provision” (Sec. 733) in the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The provision represents a serious assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system and would negatively impact farmers, the environment and public health across America.


    One past example of severe market loss is the StarLink corn contamination episode. First commercialized in the U.S. in 1998, StarLink approval was limited to animal feed and industrial uses due to concerns of leading allergists that StarLink might cause food allergies in humans. Despite restrictions, StarLink massively contaminated the U.S. food supply. By the year 2000, half of Iowa’s corn crop showed traces of contamination, although StarLink had been planted on only 1% of Iowa’s cornfields.i


    In 2006, Bayer CropScience’s unapproved GE rice varieties, LibertyLink 601 and 604, contaminated the U.S. long grain rice supplies, massively disrupted U.S. rice exports and caused economic damages of over $1 billion.iii


    The “farmer assurance provision” has very little to do with farmers and everything to do with the developers of GE crops. It would strip the Judiciary of its authority to fully adjudicate violations of law by USDA and compel USDA to take actions that might harm farmers and the environment – all to “assure” the profits of a handful of biotech companies, including Monsanto, Dow and Bayer CropScience.

    This isn't about some slick attorneys trying to make a few bucks here. If anything, it's pure "legal abuse".  Despite any court orders, they could plant their unproven crops.

    And by "unproven" I'm referencing the effects on biodiversity and the health of all plants and animal life that might come into contact with it, including humans.

    As it stands, they've lost most all cases and continue to contaminate this planet and when they couldn't win in court they got our Congress Critters to exempt them from the reach of the courts, making them above the law.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:29:34 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is why I haven't donated money to the (0+ / 0-)

      ACLU for a long time - IMHO it is * way * outside of their historical purview to get involved in biotech patent disputes (a rather nasty and clouded area).

      •  That's too bad really, if you read the letter (0+ / 0-)

        you'll understand their position.  For them it's not about biotech disputes, it's about Petitioning For Redress, as per the 1st A.

        We are no longer allowed to do so against the criminals at Monsanto, et al.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:12:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If that is really what they are pecking (0+ / 0-)

          away at, they should have selected a less prickly case to make their point with.

          To me this is essentially corporate America fighting for the best deal they can get from the courts - which when one stops to think about it, is a huge reason why this country has courts in the first place (not that I like that, but that's reality).

          Also, the inflammatory rhetoric is off-putting - are Monsanto criminals?  Yes, maybe in some vague generic sense.  But no, not anymore than those that run any other sector of corporate America.  

          Again, this is just a strange place for the ACLU to draw a line in the sand - and combined with their ongoing litigation for several years now in the biotech arena, it seems a lot more to be that they have a bug up their ass about this particular economic sector (as compared to really being concerned about the broader issues you raise)

          •  Please read the letter. (0+ / 0-)

            Their actions caused a complete contamination of the crops in Iowa, costing billions, not once but twice, by two different "biotech" companies.

            "Getting the best deal from the courts" is not what happened here.  They are now above the law.

            A huge difference that goes against the very principles I hold dearly, equity under law is no more.

            It establishes our status as a Banana Republic. Where if you pay enough there is no law.  And yes, I do know that is sadly how it generally works here, "he with the most money wins", but to have it written into law is a crime unto itself.

            If their products were actually safe there would be no need for these kinds of criminal protections, period.

            And that's the problem, they know their products do harm to relentless millions worldwide.  The FDA's own 44,000+ documents that finally got released shows this.


            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:28:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site