Ancient Astronaught wrote:
I have no direct evidence on them controlling peer reviewed publications, but there is no contest anymore that they have control over every bit of digital information if they so desire. They can block or delete anything that doesn't fit their agenda, and it doesn't matter who is in control of the White House or senate. They all do it and for their contributors as well. Which Monsanto is one of the largest. My main concern is Monsantos GMO modified food (not everyone's) did not have to be FDA tested, they are the only known agricultural business that is self regulating and self researching. And with the Monsanto Protection Act (while it was effective) it was basically illegal to double check their researc, even for the FDA which had to just take their word that it was safe.
Sure, they can be that iron-fisted, does not mean they are actively doing that.
Concerning the MPA, from wiki
"The Farmer Assurance Provision (known as Monsanto Protection Act by critics) was part of a bill to provide continued funding to the federal government in the ongoing US budget stalemate, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013.[295] It expires at the end of the federal fiscal year, on September 20, 2013.[296] NPR stated that "the provision authorizes the USDA to grant "temporary" permission for GMO crops to be planted, even if a judge has ruled that such crops were not properly approved, only while the necessary environmental reviews are completed. That's an authority that the USDA has, in fact, already exercised in the past."[297] It was originally included as Section 733 in the June 2012 initial draft of the FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill.[298]:86–87[296] Politico reported that Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) authored the provision, and "said he worked with the company (Monsanto) and had a valuable partner in the late chairman, Inouye, who was sympathetic given Monsanto’s large seed operations in Hawaii."[299] The bill's sole dissenter, Senator John Tester (D-MT), proposed an amendment to remove it from the bill, but it never went to a vote.[297] Before the provision was passed, supporters said that "opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science‐based regulation of such products... Activist groups have made it clear they will continue to use the court system to challenge regulatory approvals of corn, soybean and other biotechnology‐derived crops, and have openly stated their intention to use litigation as a way to impede the availability of new technology to growers and consumers....If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. Moreover, the language would apply only to products that have already satisfactorily completed the U.S. regulatory review process and does not remove or restrict anyone’s right to challenge USDA once a determination of no plant pest risk has been made.[300] Opponents described it as" hidden backroom deal"[301] and after it passed the Senate, more than 250,000 petitioners signed a petition for President Obama to veto the bill on the premise that it "effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified... seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future".[296] In September 2013, the controversial provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill.[302]"
So that existed from March to Sept 2013. Not currently in effect. But either way, still just Monsanto business. It is not an indictment against GMOs.
