"A budget provision protecting genetically-
modified seeds from litigation in the face of health
risks was extended for three months in an
approved US House of Representatives’
spending bill on Tuesday evening.
Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by
opponents, the budget rider shields biotech
behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others
from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal
courts from intervening to force an end to the
sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism)
even if the genetically-engineered product causes
damaging health effects.
The biotech rider first made news in March when
it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-
passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for
2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved
to avoid a federal government shutdown.
The current three-month extension is part of the
short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending
bill.
The Center for Food Safety, a vocal opponent of
the rider, released a statement expressing
dismay that the measure once again avoided
proper legislative process while usurping the
power to challenge GMO products in court.
“The rider represents an unprecedented attack
on US judicial review, which is an essential
element of US law and provides a critical check
on government decisions that may negatively
impact human health, the environment or
livelihoods,” they wrote. “This also raises
potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate
Agriculture and Judiciary Committees that
merited hearings by the Committees before its
consideration.”
Following the original vote in March, President
Barack Obama signed the provision into law as
part of larger legislation to avoid a government
shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May
protesting the clandestine effort to protect the
powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.
“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging
‘Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in
the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil,
director of government affairs for Center for Food
Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans
called their elected officials to voice their
frustration and disappointment over the inclusion
of ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its
inclusion is a slap in the face to the American
public and our justice system.”
Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to
complete environmental impact statements (EIS)
to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale
of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to
which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a
source of serious dispute.
The reviews have been the focus of heated
debate between food safety advocacy groups
and the biotech industry in the past. In December
of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now
collected signatures during the EIS commenting
period in a bid to prevent the approval of
Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared
would contaminate organic feed used by dairy
farmers; it was approved regardless.
The biotech rider “could override any court-
mandated caution and could instead allow
continued planting. Further, it forces USDA to
approve permits for such continued planting
immediately, putting industry completely in
charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’
mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said. "
modified seeds from litigation in the face of health
risks was extended for three months in an
approved US House of Representatives’
spending bill on Tuesday evening.
Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by
opponents, the budget rider shields biotech
behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others
from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal
courts from intervening to force an end to the
sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism)
even if the genetically-engineered product causes
damaging health effects.
The biotech rider first made news in March when
it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-
passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for
2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved
to avoid a federal government shutdown.
The current three-month extension is part of the
short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending
bill.
The Center for Food Safety, a vocal opponent of
the rider, released a statement expressing
dismay that the measure once again avoided
proper legislative process while usurping the
power to challenge GMO products in court.
“The rider represents an unprecedented attack
on US judicial review, which is an essential
element of US law and provides a critical check
on government decisions that may negatively
impact human health, the environment or
livelihoods,” they wrote. “This also raises
potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate
Agriculture and Judiciary Committees that
merited hearings by the Committees before its
consideration.”
Following the original vote in March, President
Barack Obama signed the provision into law as
part of larger legislation to avoid a government
shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May
protesting the clandestine effort to protect the
powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.
“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging
‘Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in
the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil,
director of government affairs for Center for Food
Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans
called their elected officials to voice their
frustration and disappointment over the inclusion
of ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its
inclusion is a slap in the face to the American
public and our justice system.”
Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to
complete environmental impact statements (EIS)
to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale
of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to
which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a
source of serious dispute.
The reviews have been the focus of heated
debate between food safety advocacy groups
and the biotech industry in the past. In December
of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now
collected signatures during the EIS commenting
period in a bid to prevent the approval of
Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared
would contaminate organic feed used by dairy
farmers; it was approved regardless.
The biotech rider “could override any court-
mandated caution and could instead allow
continued planting. Further, it forces USDA to
approve permits for such continued planting
immediately, putting industry completely in
charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’
mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said. "