New Missouri Pro-GMO bill, act now!!!

[JereGettle]

BioDemocracy Under Attack in Missouri! Please act today.

The Organic Consumers Association and allies have learned that a “Monsanto” bill has been
introduced in the Missouri legislature. This “preemption” bill would strip away the power of counties,
cities and towns in Missouri to regulate genetically engineered (GE) seeds and takes away
Missouri’s ability to enact anything more stringent than existing Federal regulations. Current Federal
plant, seed, and food regulations, as you know, are notoriously weak and designed with the “Biotech
Bullies” best interests in mind.

This latest attack in Missouri is part of a larger assault by Monsanto and the Farm Bureau on
local BioDemocracy. In the last year, 14 U.S. states, prodded by Monsanto and the Farm Bureau, have
made it illegal for local communities to ban GE crops. Another 5 states have preemption bills
introduced in their state legislatures. The time is now to turn back the tide of the Biotech Bullies
and promote BioDemocracy!

Click here to send a letter to the Missouri Senate Agriculture, Conservation, Parks & Natural
Resources Committee.
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2560

We believe this is the most crucial moment in the ten-year history of the pro-organic, anti-GE
foods movement. Please make an online donation today to help us stop Monsanto and the Farm Bureau
from suppressing our democratic rights.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/donations.htm

Sincerely,

Organic Consumers Association

[tashak]

Do you know what the fourteen "illegal" states are?
Hope mine isn't one.
Thanks.

[JereGettle]

Hi,
Not off hand, but I doubt yours would be one.
Jere

[JereGettle]

Please contact your reps. now if possible as we are about out of time!

[PhilosopherStorm]

Do you have the number of the bill or any link to the actual bill so that others can read what it really says?

Does it really prevent each of us as consumers from going to farmer's markets and small farms and getting our produce?

After the blatant misrepresentation in the previous thread about a labeling bill, I am naturally skeptical (as are all reasonable individuals) as to the claims of those pretending to speak for "choice" while acting so as to run the small farms and producers out of business.

Certainly "Organicconsumers" has completely discredited itself by lying about the nature of the bill (See Ronnie's article in the previous thread, followed by the ACTUAL BILL which states the OPPOSITE of what Ronnie claims it says).

Wonder where their financing really comes from. What percentage interest does Monsanto have in the group?

[PhilosopherStorm]

Yet again casting extreme doubt on the credibility of "Oganic CONsumer" org, they actually complained about Budweiser refusing to buy rice which was grown OVER 120 miles from the nearest suspected GMO site. So Budweiser, a huge company, takes an anti-gmo stand, and instead of celebrating and embracing what is clearly a formidible ally, they ATTACK Bud for taking an anti-gmo stand..

Again, makes one really question who is behind OC.. Certainly they do not have the interest of those interested in organics at heart. Seems that they simply have an anti-business and anti-honesty position to go along with their pro-GMO agenda..

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/ventria051105.cfm

[JereGettle]

Storm, you are getting way out there man, thanks fore posting the link!

CHECK IT OUT PEOPLE, and learn what really happened!

BTW our site is in Full Support of Organic Consumers, and all the farmers and people that are growing safter food!

[JereGettle]

Also Storm , on the 2nd point this was simply a news article, ----not written by the Organic Consumers,---- just posted on their web site, but written by ANOTHER MAGAZINE!

Here is the article from Storm's link:


Report on the Battle Over Biopharm Rice in Missouri


>From The Progressive Populist May 15, 2005
http://www.populist.com/05.9.mcmillen.html

Rural Routes/Margot Ford McMillen

FARMERS, CONSUMERS BALK at PHARMA RICE

Missourians are accustomed to being near the bottom on policy issues that
require wisdom and foresight. We're 48th or 49th of the 50 states in
spending on things like clean water, education, health care. Luckily,
there's always Arkansas or Mississippi to keep us out of last place.

So it was a shock to learn a few weeks ago that Missouri spending was number
one when our state ponied up $30 million to bring a future-changing
technology to farmers in the boot heel. We reportedly outspent California,
Arkansas and Louisiana. But, unlike spending on clean water, education or
health care, this technology has no benefits, no usefulness and no allies
except for a few venture capitalists backing Ventria Biosciences, a firm
that wants to raise GMO rice.

Well, there is one other ally. The president of Northwest Missouri State
University, Dean L. Hubbard, who joined Ventria's Board of Directors in
January 2005.

And, right on the heels of spending for Ventria, our state cancelled the fledgling organics program, which cost less than $100,000 per year and which consumers and farmers did want and supported! On the lookout for outrage?
Top that!

The Missouri boot heel is a steamy, swampy ecosystem perfect for rice
production. Ventria proposes to plant 120 acres of pharmaceutical rice in
the midst of it. If the pharma-rice gets into the human food system,
Starlink-style, it could be the end of that industry.

Plant-made-pharmaceuticals, or PMPS, are the new faces in genetic
engineering. Promoters claim that they have found ways by tinkering with the
DNA to transform plants into "bio-factories" that turn out products like
human blood thinner or insulin. Ventria wants to tinker with three PMPs. One
is a gene found in human breast milk, another a gene found in human saliva,
and the third, an artificial blood protein. Sound useful? So far, nobody has
spoken up to buy these products, if indeed the products are ever really
created.

And, to make things more troublesome, these rice plants will be grown near
regular food crops where they can pollinate plants that are purchased by
Riceland or Anheuser-Busch or exported and used for food.

While we don't know a lot about the side effects of genetically engineered
(GE) crops, there are scientific data dating back to 1996 confirming that
allergens can be transferred in genetically-modified crops. In 1999, Arpad
Pusztai of Rowett Laboratories in Aberdeen, Scotland, discovered that
genetically modified potatoes severely damage the immune system and organs
of rats. In a 2001 laboratory experiment in St. Louis, unexpected liver
tumors in mice brought one genetic engineering experiment to an early end.

And those are just the health problems we know about. Since nobody has
completed long-term feeding trials or other experiments, we don't know very
much.

Environmentally, GE crops (also called "transgenic" or "GMO") have been a
disaster. Roundup-Ready (R-R) canola, which carries the trait of resistance
to the planet's most potent and dangerous herbicide, has crossed with
regular canola, creating a super weed. The R-R gene has infected other
plants as well, creating Roundup-Resistant weeds like R-R ragweed.

Bt crops have been genetically modified by adding a gene from a bacteria to
the DNA so that every cell of the plant carries a lethal pesticide. Bt crops
are supposed to kill specific pests, like corn root worm, but Bt crops are
being blamed for poisoning fields and killing monarch butterfly caterpillars
and other harmless creatures.

When Missouri boot heel farmers learned about the plans of Ventria, they
were furious. There are almost 200,000 Missouri acres in rice and most
export partners have refused to buy GMO products because their consumers
don't want them. One producer, who processes rice in his own mill and ships
it overseas in 44,000-pound containers, says the invasion of pharma-rice
into food supplies can come from many directions: human error; seeds carried
by wind, birds or flooding water; or pollination of normal crops by wind.
There has already been contamination of all types in the GE corn and soybean
crops already common in US fields.

During the USDA comment period, which ended March 25, many activists worked
to bring attention to this problem. Kurt Kiebler of Kansas City Food Circle
was the first on my radar screen; he unraveled the snaky relationship
between the swampy boot heel, where rice-growing conditions are excellent,
and Northwest Missouri State University, where it's dry and windy.

As the story developed, Bill Freese of Friends of the Earth came to Columbia
and began conversations with friends and allies. Through his efforts, the
University of Missouri-Columbia law school sponsored a forum with farmers
and experts. By March, Riceland had expressed grave doubts about buying
Missouri rice if the biopharm plan went through. On April 13, Anheuser-Busch
announced that they would not buy rice from states that grow GM rice. The
next day, their stock rose 60 cents.

When I heard the Budweiser announcement, I thought they were reacting to the
April 10 news from the EU that Bt-10 maize (corn) had mistakenly gotten into
European food supplies and the Europeans were angry. Bt-10 maize has been
blamed for contributing to antibiotic-resistance in human diseases and has
not been approved by the EU for import. Probably, I thought, the King of
Beers had heard this, wants to boost its exports and decided to go GMO-free.

Less than a week later, Anheuser-Busch changed their brave stand and said
they'd buy rice if it was grown more than 120 miles from the Ventria site.

What toads.

SayNoToGmos.org has called for a boycott and a phone-in to 1-800-DIAL BUD,
the official Budweiser consumer line.

With those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer just around the corner,
consumers can make the King change its tune.

Margot Ford McMillen farms and teaches English at a college in Fulton, Mo.
Email Margotfulton@aol.com.


Copyright © 2005 The Progressive Populist

[AndrewK]

Do you have the number of the bill or any link to the actual bill so that others can read what it really says?

If you had bothered to give the Organic Consumers article even a cursory glance, you should have seen that it's SB1009. A quick Google search yields a summary of the bill from the horse's mouth: http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=83701
Unfortunately, I'm unable to find the full bill text available anywhere.

Does it really prevent each of us as consumers from going to farmer's markets and small farms and getting our produce?

How does a county retaining its right to govern itself as it sees fit prevent us from making a free-market choice? It would seem to me that it is better if local government is able to pre-empt state and federal government wherever possible, except regarding the Constitution. Democracy is SUPPOSED to provide the people with choice and self-government, to a certain extent. Any law which pre-empts a local government's right to laws and regulation takes us a step further from this, making it harder for the individual's voice to be heard.

After the blatant misrepresentation in the previous thread about a labeling bill, I am naturally skeptical (as are all reasonable individuals) as to the claims of those pretending to speak for "choice" while acting so as to run the small farms and producers out of business.

That discussion was closed for a reason; It's done with, it shall not be mentioned again. Let's step forward, not back.

Certainly "Organicconsumers" has completely discredited itself by lying about the nature of the bill

Since I can't find the full text of this bill, I'm going to have to go on the state's summary of it. In fact, their description of the bill reads like a slight rewording of the state's summary, with no change of focus that I can see. They then expound on bills in other parts of the country that would be rendered useless if this pre-emption held legal sway in their jurisdiction, but as a discerning citizen you are capable of cherry-picking the information that is relevant to the issue at hand, right? :)

Wonder where their financing really comes from. What percentage interest does Monsanto have in the group?

I'm having a hard time finding good funding information for OCA, but they claim 75% of their funding comes from consumers. I fail to see where Monsanto would want a stake in a group that only gets them negative publicity, and plenty of it. They appear to be straight-hitting enough that I'm not too worried about their intent and who's behind it; If I'm evaluating every issue for myself as it comes along, I have no reason to.

[PhilosopherStorm]

How does a county retaining its right to govern itself as it sees fit prevent us from making a free-market choice?

What a fine example of a red herring. Distract from the facts by introducing irrelevancies, in this case you make it a double fallacy by introducing a false dichotomy. Why not simply engage in the discussion honestly and reasonably?

The claims made by those advocating increased regulation are that this bill (and others) prevent the consumer from having the option to purchase organic and heirloom vegetables. Therefore I asked if this bill in fact does prevent this as they claim and for a citation from the bill of this claim. No need for the red herring, unless of course there is no honest answer..

As to your comments about demoncracy, you have two glaring errors. 1. The US is NOT a demoncracy. It is a representative REPUBLIC.

2. Demoncracy is as the founders noted "mob rule" which HINDERS the individual, rather than helping him.

I suppose we could put a third in there since you are arguing that INCREASED legislation, INCREASED taxation, and INCREASED oppression on the individual lead to freedom... How is that supposed to work again?

That discussion was closed for a reason;

Indeed..(reasons which are necessarily dubious, as the timing prevented the refutation of the false claims and accusations)

However, as this bill is being touted as identical to the other bill, and since clearly this intent is the same here, with the same completely disreputable sources being cited, referring to the pattern of deception is of course quite relevent. Why would we want to promote this deception by refraining from noting the same deception in a nearly identical situation?

Since I can't find the full text of this bill, I'm going to have to go on the state's summary of it. In fact, their description of the bill reads like a slight rewording of the state's summary, with no change of focus that I can see. They then expound on bills in other parts of the country that would be rendered useless if this pre-emption held legal sway in their jurisdiction, but as a discerning citizen you are capable of cherry-picking the information that is relevant to the issue at hand, right?

Instead of making snide implied insults, perhaps you could read the bill to which I referred. Return to the previous thread on the subject and you will find clear and irrefutable evidence that the characterization by organic consumers is completely fraudulent and dishonest in the extreme. This is not "cherry picking" as you so dishonestly characterize it, rather this is simply referring to the available evidence. That the facts do not match the ideology and the anti-choice, anti-consumer spin you wish to put upon it, does not make the facts cease to exist, nor does it make them "cherry picking."

Why the opposition to honest civil reasoned discussion?

If I'm evaluating every issue for myself as it comes along, I have no reason to.

Certainly, but then since this deceptive organization which clearly acts AGAINST the choices for consumers (as conclusively proved in the previous thread), has been misleading its membership, and any who read their mischaracterizations, the reasonable individual questions the motivations. What better cover for a pro-GMO group than a pretense of opposition, all the while counting on the membership to not be bothered to read the actual bills, thus getting them to vote against their own interests. Actually it is quite brilliant, if dishonest.

Jere,

BTW our site is in Full Support of Organic Consumers, and all the farmers and people that are growing safter food!

The two are inherently contradictory. Since the organization which deceptively calls itself "Organic Consumers" is actively deceiving its members into voting AGAINST their own interests, and is clearly and demonstrably dishonest in its characterization of the bills it supports and opposes (as has been proved conclusively by OBJECTIVE standards), it does not support small farmers and the people growing safer food.

In so much as you have come out in direct opposition of the freedom of choice for the consumer, as well as opposed to the existence of small scale producers in favor of the larger agri-business, I contend that your words are in direct contradiction with your stated positions.

Explain again how increasing the burdens upon small family farms, increasing the levels of taxation, increasing the regulations under which small producers must operate INCREASES the number of small organic and heirloom producers? You have been avoiding this question (in fact all of the questions, including why you consider insults to be entertainment) throughout the discussion of these bills which you oppose because they the could possible prevent running more small family farms, small organic and heirloom producers out of business.

As for checking it out and what really happened, I of course encourage it. Recall in the last thread you completely avoided reading the bill, or even acknowledging that you were misrepresenting it even when the bill was quoted back to you, as well as linked, demonstrating that your claims, and those of Ronnie were complete fabrications. I mention this only as counter to your implication that I was not in fact bothering to find out "what really happned." Why do you continue to introduce personal issues into the threads?

Where again is the link to the actual bill? You simply linked to a known disreputable source which has a record of lying to its members and in its "reporting" so as to garner support for major chemical companies and agri-business. Why not refer to the facts? Why work so hard, including employing insults and personal attacks, to avoid the facts?

Speaking of which, you imply that there is something else going on by quoting the article I cited noting Organic Consumers continued practice of deception and hypocrisy, but you seemed to have missed the crucial element of it. Let me quote it here in hopes that you will read it:

Less than a week later, Anheuser-Busch changed their brave stand and said
they'd buy rice if it was grown more than 120 miles from the Ventria site.

What toads.

Notice that he calls them toads FOR AVOIDING Genetically modified foods!

Another clear example of Organic Consumers acting on behalf of the chemical companies and major agri-business.. and this is what you are touting as GOOD???

You consider actively using GMO food a desirable thing? After all this is the only possible conclusion to be drawn from your claims and this article...

I will continue to oppose dishonesty, refrain from buying or using GMO foods (no matter how "safe and healthy" you think that they are Jere..), encourage the small producers who provide me with organic and heirloom vegetables, and discourage statists and control freaks from trying to run those small family farms and small producers out of business. I realize that each of these puts me at odds with you Jere, but I am not one to be so easily fooled, nor to abandon principle (or my health!).

[JereGettle]

"What toads!"

I am going RED HERRING Fishing!

LOL!

Jere

[AndrewK]

What a fine example of a red herring. Distract from the facts by introducing irrelevancies, in this case you make it a double fallacy by introducing a false dichotomy. Why not simply engage in the discussion honestly and reasonably?

My intent was not to distract, but to question the logic behind your original question. To get back to that: No, the bill does not directly prevent a consumer from going to farmer's markets and small farms to get their produce. I don't see where anyone claims it does. The main effect I see is on the farmers and the growers; What recourse do they have if they're unable to keep their crops pure, thanks to GM pollution? Good luck doing anything at the state level, but at a county level is certainly feasible. Oh, and remember that the other bill we were discussing adds a clause for exemptions? Assuming this bill also has the same clause, that's just unnecessary bureaucracy eating up tax dollars. It also significantly reduces the farmer's chances of getting justice.

The claims made by those advocating increased regulation are that this bill (and others) prevent the consumer from having the option to purchase organic and heirloom vegetables. Therefore I asked if this bill in fact does prevent this as they claim and for a citation from the bill of this claim. No need for the red herring, unless of course there is no honest answer..
<snip>
I suppose we could put a third in there since you are arguing that INCREASED legislation, INCREASED taxation, and INCREASED oppression on the individual lead to freedom... How is that supposed to work again?

How does stopping this bill from passing mean increased legislation, taxation, and oppression? As I understand it, this bill can also be used to prevent local governments from dodging state and federal-mandated programs, which could effectively mean more taxation and legislation (although at a state and federal level, rather than county). The only instance where stopping the bill can indeed mean more local legislation and taxation is where it was approved by the "mob rule", in exchance for the perceived benefits it provides... Which gets closer to self-government than relying on what's pushed down from a state or federal level.

However, as this bill is being touted as identical to the other bill, and since clearly this intent is the same here, with the same completely disreputable sources being cited, referring to the pattern of deception is of course quite relevent. Why would we want to promote this deception by refraining from noting the same deception in a nearly identical situation?

Disreputable sources? I'm content to use the state's summary of the bill as the source for this discussion, seeing as the full text appears unavailable.


Instead of making snide implied insults, perhaps you could read the bill to which I referred. Return to the previous thread on the subject and you will find clear and irrefutable evidence that the characterization by organic consumers is completely fraudulent and dishonest in the extreme. This is not "cherry picking" as you so dishonestly characterize it, rather this is simply referring to the available evidence. That the facts do not match the ideology and the anti-choice, anti-consumer spin you wish to put upon it, does not make the facts cease to exist, nor does it make them "cherry picking."

You originally said this: "Certainly "Organicconsumers" has completely discredited itself by lying about the nature of the bill (See Ronnie's article in the previous thread, followed by the ACTUAL BILL which states the OPPOSITE of what Ronnie claims it says)."

When you say "the bill", you are referring to this Missouri bill in question, right? I'm trying to leave the other bill out of this discussion, since I felt you were only referring to the previous bill within the parenthesis.

In reference to the current bill, my point on "cherry picking" was to illustrate how easily the facts are distinguished from "spin" in Organic Consumer's blurb. In my eyes, the bill summary itself does more for the anti-consumer angle than any of their "spin" does.

What better cover for a pro-GMO group than a pretense of opposition, all the while counting on the membership to not be bothered to read the actual bills, thus getting them to vote against their own interests. Actually it is quite brilliant, if dishonest.

Actually, they normally provide a direct link to the bill's full text, only it's unavailable in this case. They provide ample opportunity for the reader to figure it out for themselves.

Notice that he calls them toads FOR AVOIDING Genetically modified foods!

Another clear example of Organic Consumers acting on behalf of the chemical companies and major agri-business.. and this is what you are touting as GOOD???

To be fair, he's calling them toads for loosening their standards on what rice they'll buy. They had initially decided to not buy rice from a whole STATE if GE rice was grown there. Within a week, AB decided they'd buy rice as long as it was grown at least 120 miles away from the Ventria site. He's calling them toads for not sticking to their original decision.

As Jere pointed out, though, that's kind of irrelevant--OCA may or may not support the viewpoint that they're toads for making a smaller step in the right direction than they'd originally planned. OCA is merely re-printing the article from another source.

I will continue to oppose dishonesty, refrain from buying or using GMO foods (no matter how "safe and healthy" you think that they are Jere..)

Sorry, but this is cracking me up... I'm trying to picture Jere arguing the pro-GMO angle at a press conference, but I guess my mental powers just aren't strong enough to conjur up that image!

Cheers!

[PhilosopherStorm]

Sorry, but this is cracking me up... I'm trying to picture Jere arguing the pro-GMO angle at a press conference, but I guess my mental powers just aren't strong enough to conjur up that image!

I cannot speak to what he may or may not say at a conference, but he has been quite consistent in arguing for situations which benefit the pro-GMO folks at the expense of the consumer and the small producer of organic and heirloom produce. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. I do not know him as a person, so all I can go by are his words here.. they are clear..


As to the bill to which I referred when I pointed out that Organic Consumers has already been discredited, was the bill from the previous thread as should have been perfectly clear from the context in which I clearly indicate the previous thread, after all it had to be the bill upon which Ronnie was commenting...


As to the similarity of claims, again I refer you to the previous thread, then to this one. Are you aware of any difference in claims? I see none...

As for claiming that the bill eliminates choice for the consumer, see any of Jere's posts...

As to the "reprint" are you suggesting that OC actually opposes the stance taken in the article and that is why they reprinted it? Upon what would such an assumption be based? Why would we not believe that in fact they are promoting the article because they agree with it? And why this red herring anyway? This article was simply more icing on the cake with regard to the discrediting of OC, the previous one suffices nicely for demonstrating the practice of trying to deceive the membership as well as any others who get ahold of their blatant mischaracterization.

Consider the appeal that MORE legislation, more regulation is needed as the primary argument against this bill (as an extension of the previous bill). Just how many times has "local control" etc. been offered up as the excuse for killing the bill? What is this other than an appeal for increased regulation?

What I find terribly sad is that this is one of the most inocuous bills I have ever read, and I have read hundreds, if not thousands. It is also a rarity in legislation in that it reduces the layers of regulation and restriction.

So how again does increased legislation, increased taxation, increased regulation increase choice and increase the number of producers of organic and heirloom vegetables? How is it that small time producers who venture into this market are supposed to be immune from the economic and time penalties which increased regulation places upon them?

The only instance where stopping the bill can indeed mean more local legislation and taxation is where it was approved by the "mob rule", in exchance for the perceived benefits it provides... Which gets closer to self-government than relying on what's pushed down from a state or federal level.

Oh so you have no problem at all with Monsanto coming into an area and just as OC has done, deceiving a population convincing them that X regulation is in their interest?

Also, I have to point out that your situation ignores the fact that most regulation occurs without public knowledge. It is not approved by votes, contrary to what your example says.. You also seem to overlook that those who suffer from the regulation are seldom the same people that wished for it.. Group X votes for regulation Z, but Group Y suffers... People are far too often willing to give away another's freedom, to regulate the peaceful activities of others..

Again we get back to the central point: if you want choice, buy from those producers you prefer. Buy the type of food you wish to buy. If this means that you cannot simply run down to the local quickie mart to get it, but rather have to plan ahead because you have a particular type of product you prefer so be it. There is no right to control the rest of the world to make it revolve around your own desires.

I say this as someone who goes out of his way to get particular produce I prefer, without any complaint that Wal-Mart is not forced to carry it.. Be responsible for yourself, make responsible decisions, don't legislate your choices upon others, or complain that your power to control the peaceful lives of your neighbors is being denied to you..

Why not just support the local producers of organic and heirloom produce? Why feel the need to be able to regulate them out of business?

[PhilosopherStorm]

Having just reviewed several different "reports" by several opponent, including one by the attorney general of California (who merely engaged in insults, such as deriding the intelligence of the Michigan representative), and none of these contained even a single quote, excerpt, or citation from the bill itself.. unsurpisingly those who want to shut down small businesses, hinder the growth of the organic and heirloom market by opposing this bill, are woefully short on facts so they just make up whatever they want to scare people into taking the side that they want..

Truly sad as well as clearly dishonest.