The curious collection of a slightly mad scientist
Please take action today!
The biotech industry has again inserted a dangerous provision into the Continuing Resolution (“CR”) that is about to be voted on by the U.S. Senate. We asked you take action on this “Monsanto rider” last year, and won the initial round — the rider was taken out of the CR. But now it’s back!
Though cloaked in “farmer-friendly” language, this “farmer assurance provision” is simply a biotech industry ploy to continue to plant genetically modified (GMO) crops even when a court of law has found they were approved illegally. The provision undermines USDA’s oversight of GMO crops and interferes with the U.S. judicial review process. It is also completely unnecessary and offers “assurance” only to biotech companies like Monsanto, not farmers.
Please take action today! The Senate is expected to vote on the bill on Thursday, so time is of the essence.
Contact both of your U.S. Senators, and urge them to oppose the Monsanto rider.
If you don’t know who represents you, you can find out online at www.senate.gov or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
Message: My name is ___, and I am a constituent. I am calling to ask that Senator ____ to opppose the biotech rider, section 735, which is currently included in the Senate Continuing Resolution. Please support any amendment that moves to strike this dangerous and unnecessary rider.
If Congress wants to truly protect farmers, it needs to protect the few safeguards we have in palce for genetically engineered crops, not eliminate them to appease a handful of
Though wrapped in a “farmer-friendly” package, the biotech rider (section 735) is simply
an industry ploy to continue to plant GMO crops even when a court of law has found they were approved illegally.
The provision is intended to force USDA to grant temporary permits and deregulations of GMO crops even if a Federal court rules that USDA hadn’t adequately considered the environmental or economic risks to farmers. This would negate any meaningful judicial review of USDA’s decisions to allow commercialization of GMO crops.
If a GMO crop approval was shown to violate the law and require further analysis of its harmful impacts (as several courts have concluded in recent years, for example with GMO alfalfa and GMO sugar beets) this provision would override any court-mandated caution and allow continued planting and commercialization while further review takes
The provision is completely unnecessary. No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed following such a court ruling. Every court to decide these issues has carefully weighed the interests of farmers, as is already required by law. …