A Constitutional Argument Against the So-Called "Monsanto Protection Act"*

How awful is a new GMO law amendment you’ve probably heard about?

How awful is a new GMO law amendment you’ve probably heard derided as the Monsanto Protection Act?

To answer that question, I’ve turned to page 199 of my dog-eared 2001 copy of Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law by William F. Funk and Richard H. Seamon. There, the section on the availability of judicial review of federal agency actions begins with a quote from Marbury v. Madison (1803), America’s most important Supreme Court decision.

“[W]hat is there in the exalted station of [an executive] officer,” writes Chief Justice John Marshall, “which shall bar a citizen from asserting, in a court of justice, his legal rights, or shall forbid a court to listen to the claim…?”

Claudio.Ar / photo on flickrClaudio.Ar / photo on flickrFunk and Seamon rightly conclude this portion of Marbury v. Madison stands for the proposition that “the substantive statutory limitations on an agency’s authority found in its statutory mandate would count for little if the threat of judicial review was lacking.”

If a federal agency has the power to bar a court from overturning or halting the actions of that agency—an administrative rulemaking body to which Congress delegates far too much power already—then that body may (and will) act with impunity. The power of such an agency would, in fact, exceed that of Congress itself.

Such a law would be worse than almost any that preceded it in this country. Under no theory of agency with which I'm familiar can one delegate more power than one has. And yet this new amendment to the GMO law appears to place some USDA powers almost entirely outside the scope of judicial review.

In effect, this amendment gives the USDA the power to ignore a federal judge’s ruling in some cases. It would take the power of judicial review out of the hand of judges, crumple it up, toss it on the ground, step on it, and set it ablaze.

The law states that in the event a federal court invalidates USDA approval of a particular GMO crop, the USDA must still “ensur[e] that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities” for an “interim period” of entirely unspecified duration.

"In the event that a seed is approved by the USDA but that approval is challenged by a court ruling, the seed can still be used and sold until the USDA says otherwise, according to that new law," writes ABC News.

While the law itself sunsets in six months, some previous enumerated USDA “interim” periods have lasted for at least two years. Unenumerated ones? The sky could be the limit.

Though it’s difficult in this case, please ignore if you will the deafening bluster from detractors and supporters of GMOs alike. I’m neither, and I find this background noise distracts from the real issue of judicial review.

(For the smartest, most balanced piece I’ve read on the GMO law, read Dustin Siggins’s excellent post over at the Tea Party Patriots blog. Thanks to Michele Simon, who’s quoted in the post, for pointing out Siggins's post to me.)

Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who I often agree with, gets it wrong when he claims the GMO law “does not give USDA any new authority” and that the agency is merely implementing rules that reflect the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2010 case of Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms—in effect “codify[ing] existing case law and agency practice.”

The Court in that case, which is very much on point here, actually held just the opposite.

“First, if and when” a USDA action “arguably runs afoul of” the regulations at issue in the case, the Court held in Geertson, a plaintiff “may file a new suit challenging such action and seeking appropriate preliminary relief…. Accordingly, a permanent injunction is not now needed to guard against any present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Me today, you tomorrow.

  • alice846||

    If you think Christopher`s story is astonishing, Earn 10 to 50$/hr working from home with Google! I work two shifts 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids I follow this great link Read More

  • John||

  • RBS||

    Damn, that dude must really love sucking cock.

  • mr lizard||

    Closet republican- check
    Gun grabber recklessly waving around a gun - check
    Irrelevance of town location - check

  • John||

    If people were armed, it would be a lot harder to pull a gun and force them to let you suck their cocks.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wasn't this an episode of the Sopranos?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Or The Shield?

  • RBS||

    Great article. It's nice to have someone explain the real reason this law sucks instead of all "OMG GMOs ARE EVIL" bullshit I've been reading all week.

    The people who hate GMOs because they are scary or "unatural" are terrible. Millions of people actually die from starvation in places not named America, yet these compassionate people are worried about their organic baby greens from Whole Foods. Seriously, shut the fuck up already and adopt another fucking rescue dog and pat yourself on the back for being so caring.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    'It's nice to have someone explain the real reason this law sucks instead of all "OMG GMOs ARE EVIL" '

    To a Progressive, that is the entirety of the thought process. "Something is bad. Thus, Government MUST be given whatever power and money is needed to protect us from it. No need to worry about what precedent is set, or what else could be done with this power - this is power to PROTECT us, how could that be misused? If you oppose giving the government this power, it can only be because you are EVIL and want the bad thing to continue.'

    The old term was 'knee jerk liberal'. They keep rebranding the package, but inside is the same old crap.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It's nice to have someone explain the real reason this law sucks instead of all "OMG GMOs ARE EVIL" bullshit I've been reading all week."

    What do you mean?

    Corporations are evil!

    Once it's clear that it benefits a corporation somehow, what else do you need to know?

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Did you know that 90% of the KKKorporations in the Fortune 500 have made a PROFIT! in at least one of the last three years? Profit that was STOLEN from the workers, and then paid out to the evil, greedy, rich people who own the company?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Corporations aren't people.

    I mean...I've been an employee, a manager, even an owner of a corporation--and I swear I felt like a "people" the whole time...

    But corporations aren't people, and the government shouldn't allow them to...do what they do!

  • Kenny||

    Get rid of the limited liability that is granted by the government, and then I agree with you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why should investors be liable for what managers do?

  • SKR||

    you don't have any idea what limited liability is do you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not sure who that's aimed at, but just in case you're talkin' to me?

    I understand why investors' liability would be limited to the amount of their investment. I don't understand why their liability for management behavior would extend beyond that.

    I also understand that corporations carry all sorts of insurance, and I understand that the people who contract with them are taking the corporations' liability into consideration whenever they contract.

    I understand that management is subject to the laws of the land--just like everyone else is. ...and if there's any question about that, just ask Jeffrey Skilling, Michael Milken, Sam Waksal or any one of the thousands and thousands of other managers who've been thrown in jail over the years for what they did as managers.

    If you weren't talking to me, then maybe Kenny can use this to understand my question better. Why is it, Kenny, that an investor's liability for management decisions should extend beyond the value of his or her investment?

  • Rrabbit||

    Corporations do under a large variety of circumstances not carry sufficient insurance. Say, TEPCO in Japan did not have sufficient insurance nor funds to fully cover the perhaps 250 billion dollars of damage for which they clearly are liable. This usually is intentional; paying insurance premiums that would cover such huge amounts of damage is prohibitively expensive.

    This is an unacceptable socialization of risks. It leads to the tax payers and the innocent victims of the disaster footing the bill, while the investors get to keep their profits they pulled out of such companies in the years or even decades before the disaster happened.
    It is also anti-competitive and damaging the market when companies do not have to carry the whole cost of the risk they create.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Total cost of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster is estimated at $100 billion.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....government

    TEPCO couldn't have purchased insurance to cover the damages, because the scenario under which they happened was practically inconceivable. Insurance companies will now obviously re-examine the event, and develop actuarials for massive earthquake/tsunami events.

  • Rrabbit||

    There were even bigger tsunamis in that region before. The record is the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake, which caused tsunamis waves of up to 125 ft. The scenario under which the Fukijima disaster happened was quite foreseeable because it had already happened in that region. Several times during the previous 200 years. Not taking that into account when constructing these nuclear power plants is criminal negligence of epic proportions. It saved TEPCO a significant amount of money for a couple of decades, though, and Japanese law did not require them to do more than they did. So they just gambled and took the risk.

    There exist other examples of problems of such magnitude. Say, the lung cancer deaths caused by smoking. Back in the early 20th century, smoking was considered healthy. Then we found out that was wrong, but the producers all over the world continued to sell cigarettes with the same deadly long term effects because it was profitable.

  • Sevo||

    "There exist other examples of problems of such magnitude. Say, the lung cancer deaths caused by smoking. Back in the early 20th century, smoking was considered healthy. Then we found out that was wrong, but the producers all over the world continued to sell cigarettes with the same deadly long term effects because it was profitable"

    What an idiot.
    The dangers of smoking have been known to smokers and the tobacco industry since roughly the same time.
    Go peddle you're victimhood crap elsewhere.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Somebody needs to read The Black Swan (by Nassim Nicholas Taleb)

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Corporations do under a large variety of circumstances not carry sufficient insurance."

    Bankruptcy isn't a privilege afforded to corporations exclusively for being corporations. The fact is that individuals can and do also file for bankruptcy when they can't cover their liabilities.

    "This is an unacceptable socialization of risks."

    There are certain risks that people seem to foist on other unwilling parties, and nuclear power at Fukushima could be an example of people doing that unjustly--but I wouldn't concede the point universally. ...that no one should be able to do anything unless they can cover all the risks.

    The fact is that the fear of bankruptcy is more than sufficient to deter a lot of risky behavior, but more to the point, if people were only allowed to take risks so long as they had the means to cover all the damage they might cause, then we would have a much less free society.

    Imagine if poor people weren't allowed to drive on the freeway because they might hit a car worth more than they could possibly pay for. They might accidentally kill a bus full of children! But even if they can't afford to cover all those losses, shouldn't they still be allowed to drive?

    That logic scales. Why wouldn't it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't have a problem with people using government, sometimes, to keep some corporation (or individual) from foisting risks on them that they don't want. Sometimes our freedoms and rights overlap and contradict each other--and sorting those conflicts out is one of the few legitimate functions of government.

    But if making investors liable--beyond the value of their investment--for what managers do were a solution to that, it would cause a lot more problems than it solved.

    You want to talk about foisting risks on people unwillingly? Making investors liable for management (or employee) behavior, the way you're talking about, would do to our economy what that Daichi plant did to the city of Fukushima.

  • Rrabbit||

    I am not saying that investors should have unlimited liability. That has its own problem. But investors should not be allowed to keep any profits from bad management or employee behavior if the company itself cannot put the victims whole.

    I like the clawback approach taken in the Madoff scandal - investors who had cashed out more than what they put into the Ponzi scheme should have to give back some of their profits as the profits were based upon fraud.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But investors should not be allowed to keep any profits from bad management or employee behavior if the company itself cannot put the victims whole."

    When does this happen?

    You mean--when the government steps in and circumvents the bankruptcy process, like it did with the take over of AIG and Fannie Mae?

    In the bankruptcy process, everybody that needs to be compensated usually is to the extent they can be. If the government circumvents that process by taking a company over rather than letting it go through the bankruptcy process, then the solution isn't to extend investors' liabilities beyond the scope of their investment. The solution is for the rest of the government to stop intervening in the bankruptcy process.

    Hell, I believe Dow Corning had its majority stock taken over in bankruptcy court by the "victims" of breast implants. A similar thing happened in the tobacco industry. And shall we talk about asbestos claims? There are whole companies and industries that have been taken over by their own victims in bankruptcy court!

    Yeah, sorting out the claims is a nasty business--can't imagine a better place for that than bankruptcy court. And if you want more compensation for the victims of corporate misbehavior, then what you want is a reform of the bankruptcy laws.

    ...not to make investors' liability extend beyond the size of their investments.

  • Rrabbit||

    "When does this happen?"

    Hollywood accounting methods.

  • yonemoto||

    you do understand that LLCs have no "investors" and still have limited liability?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They have investors.

    They may not have outside investors, but they have investors.

    They certainly have an owner.

  • Rrabbit||

    LLCs do have investors. I think it should be outright illegal to construct a set of corporations where one or several corporations hold the assets and get the profits, whereas one or more corporations (such as some LLCs) are set up mainly to shield these assets and profits from the inherent risks of running the business. Would probably be impossible to enforce, though.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If that were to happen, why would an electrician ever hire a trainee?

    If the insurance your electrician carries is insufficient, then the solution is to go to another electrician with better insurance.

    The solution is not to write your Congressman and tell him to fuck with corporate structures and entrepreneur's ability to raise investment funds.

  • Rrabbit||

    With respect to the example of poor people driving, I do indeed believe that if your car does not have insurance that covers such accidents up to at least a few hundred K in damages, you should not be allowed to drive. There exist quite a few countries where by law cars must have extensive insurance coverage for damage caused to others, and that approach seems to work fine there.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There exist quite a few countries where by law cars must have extensive insurance coverage for damage caused to others, and that approach seems to work fine there."

    You mean it works well for wealthy people who drive around in expensive cars and use the government to force poor people to insure their cars for them?

    That may work on some level for the privileged, but how does that work for poor people? I say, if you want to drive around in an expensive car--which is an inherently risky activity--then you should insure yourself against the loss of your own expensive car...and leave poor people out of it entirely.

    We have laws like that here in the U.S., and I would say it work horribly. Ever noticed, when you buy a new car, the bank requires you to insure the car against uninsured motorists anyway? That's not working well. That's the insurance industry forcing poor people to buy insurance they don't need.

    It's kind of funny that you see the nuclear industry forcing poor people to accept risks they don't want so clearly, but when the government is forcing poor people to accept risks that are only willingly taken on by middle class and rich people--all of a sudden the same logic doesn't apply?

    Sounds to me like you just don't like corporations. Otherwise, I don't understand why you would apply such a double-standard.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's wrong for a nuclear energy corporation to force risks onto poor people, who never accepted those risks voluntarily!

    But it's okay to force poor people to insure themselves against hitting an expensive car, why? Insure your own car against the uninsured.

    Poor people aren't here for your benefit.

  • Rrabbit||

    And if you burn down a rich man's house, you'll be liable for way more than if you burn down a shack. I consider that fair.

    Actually, the difference in damage is not as big as you think it is. If an expensive, heavy car and a small car crash into each other, chances are that the damage on the small car is more significant.

    The likelihood that a driver who drives cautiously causes an expensive accident for which he is liable is pretty low. Drive safely, and your insurance premium will likely be low.

    Overall, the drivers of the certain expensive car brands are more likely to drive recklessly and thus cause accidents.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Point is that using the government to force poor people to insure themselves against the cost of rich people's cars is wrong--when rich people are perfectly capable of insuring their own cars against uninsured drivers.

    These laws came about, state by state, as a way for the auto insurance industry to use the government to force poor people to buy insurance they don't need and wouldn't buy otherwise.

    Meanwhile, every sane person with a nice car has to insure it against uninsured drivers anyway--thanks government! I'm sure the insurance industry really appreciates the government effectively padding their bottom line.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    The objections to limited liability are not bound by, or even much concerned with those that contract with the corporation. Those can, obviously, be contracted away. The concerns are for non-contractual torts, such as oil spills and other large scale damages to property.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And I thought I answered that. I was serious when I wrote:

    "I don't have a problem with people using government, sometimes, to keep some corporation (or individual) from foisting risks on them that they don't want. Sometimes our freedoms and rights overlap and contradict each other--and sorting those conflicts out is one of the few legitimate functions of government."

    That's Adam Smith 101. I'm not an anarchist. I believe the legitimate function of government is protecting our rights, and part of that legitimate function is protecting our rights from each other. Our rights often overlap and contradict each others' rights, and sorting that out is part of what the government is for.

    We have a process to do that called bankruptcy court--when a firm's liabilities exceed its assets--and in a world of no good choices, it often makes for the best possible outcome.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    Ken Shultz| 4.6.13 @ 9:18AM |#

    I mean...I've been an employee, a manager, even an owner of a corporation--and I swear I felt like a "people" the whole time...

    so you've owned a corporation and a corporation is a person? nice to see some libertarians actually admitting to slavery, times are changing.

  • ||

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    lol i know he walked right into that one.

  • ||

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So you've owned a corporation and a corporation is a person? nice to see some libertarians actually admitting to slavery, times are changing."

    Are you suggesting that the owners, managers, employees, et. al--aren't people?

    Can you find me a corporation that doesn't have any people?

  • Irish||

    He's clearly an idiot, Ken. Just leave it be.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Are you suggesting that the owners, managers, employees, et. al--aren't people?"

    Nope. You believe a corporation is a person, and then said you owned a corporation. Get it?

  • Irish||

    Which of course isn't what he said.

    I mean...I've been an employee, a manager, even an owner of a corporation--and I swear I felt like a "people" the whole time...

    Notice the use of the word 'I.' Meaning, the corporation is made up of people and controlled by people. It is a collection of people, and therefore should have the same rights as any other collection of people, be it a political party or whatever.

    Just because you apparently don't know how pronouns work doesn't mean you have to accuse Ken of slavery.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    Irish, I was teasing Ken because he claimed to have owned a corporation, which you just said is a collection of people. This implies that Ken owned a collection of people aka slavery. Pull the stick out of your ass and have a laugh at his goof.

  • Virginian||

    Except it isn't a goof. Lying about someone said and then making fun of the lie isn't funny.

    Like, I could make fun of you for molesting collies, but you didn't actually say you molested collies...so the joke wouldn't be funny.

  • Irish||

    Wait, that was a joke? I assumed you were a standard left-wing jackass because the joke was terrible and didn't make any sense.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "but you didn't actually say you molested collies." right, but ken did say he owned a corporation and does believe a corporation is a person or group of persons.

    so where is the lie?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the meme that "corporations aren't people".

    Typically, this argument is made to suggest that the government should be free to do whatever it wants to the owners and management of a corporation--because corporations aren't people.

    And that's a joke.

    It's pretty amazing if anybody gets emotional about such a ridiculous meme. Maybe it's one you parrot yourself? Do you imagine that the people who own a corporation, manage a corporation, and work for a corporation shouldn't be allowed to say what they want during an election--becasue they aren't people?

    Is that a position you feel very passionately about?

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "It's pretty amazing if anybody gets emotional about such a ridiculous meme. Maybe it's one you parrot yourself?"

    what emotion? i was laughing because you inadvertently admitted to being a slaver in your little parody.

    "Do you imagine that the people who own a corporation, manage a corporation, and work for a corporation shouldn't be allowed to say what they want during an election--becasue they aren't people?"

    Let em say what they want, I don't care. I didn't even mention any of that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I didn't even mention any of that."

    No, of course not. You're way too smart to go around saying that "Corporations aren't people" and meaning something like that!

    Because you really can't forcibly violate a corporate entity's freedom without in some way affecting the rights of owners, managers, employees, or some kind of "people", right?

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    Alright, you seem to think I'm making some sort of political commentary here. All I did was point out that you believe corporations are people and that you owned a corporation. That is called slavery. I found it amusing that you didn't make the connection there. That is all. This is not and was not a CU debate.

  • ||

    Because Karl Marx said so!
    And Adam Smith invented the Labor Theory of Value, therefore it must be true!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Profit that was STOLEN from the workers, and then paid out to the evil, greedy, rich people who own the company? "

    Greedy, thieving bastards! THAT MONEY RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT!

  • KPres||

    Not a rescue dog, a free dog.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7aVCIUT24

  • RBS||

    I knew it was Bill Burr before I clicked. He's my favorite comedian right now. He gets to hilariously rant about most of the same things I would but he's actually funny.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • Jerryskids||

    It's not just the USDA asserting sovereign powers - the DoJ and the EPA just recently have had cases arguing that their decisions are not subject to what most people would consider normal judicial review and due process.

    Unfortunately, in the case of national security and the WoT, the courts are accepting the argument that in some instances the Constitution can be bent, if not broken. In the recent case involving the EPA and the enviromentalists vs. the logging companies, only Scalia dissented, noting that allowing agencies to legislate, execute, and interpret the law might not be such a good thing.

    With the Congress and the President at loggerheads, little is getting done in Washington and the bureaucracy is only too happy to step in and 'get things done' by usurping authority. Of course, the politicians are quite happy to allow the agencies to do so since this protects them from any political fallout.

    And I would suggest that seeing how the last several administrations have increasingly over-stepped their bounds with virtually no pushback has emboldened the bureaucrats. If nobody is going to stand up or fight back on principle, why not simply execute a slow-motion coup d'etat?

  • Jerryskids||

  • Raven Nation||

    Minister: "we need open government"

    Permanent Undersecretary (Smiling condescendingly): "Minister, you can be open or you can have government, but you can't have both."

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen, I agree! There is NO real evidence that GMOs are evil... And I resent even so much as people DEMANDING their "right to know" if their food has GMOs in it, or not. I demand to know, I MUST know, has my food been looked at by a Statist Liberal, or not? I do NOT want to pollute my precious bodily fluids by eating food that has been looked at, by a Statist!

  • jili5||

    GMOs are making starvation far worse. You're falling for advertisements and propaganda right out of Monsanto's PR department. You need to look into this more and read about or talk to actual farmers. When swithcing to GMO sources yields rise for the for year or two, then they fall substantially as the soil gets depleted of naturally nitrogen producing organism from the heavy use of pesticides. The issues with GMOs go far beyond that but I hate to see people blindly assuming a PR release statement is true when any farmer knows it's far from it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In the event that a seed is approved by the USDA but that approval is challenged by a court ruling, the seed can still be used and sold until the USDA says otherwise, according to that new law"

    It's amazing how progressives don't seem to care about these things unless it's sold to them as somehow benefiting a corporation somewhere, in which case opposing it suddenly becomes a moral imperative.

    In other words, they don't care until you call it the Monsanto Protection Act. If someone sold the First Amendment as the Exxon Enrichment Act, a lot of progressives would probably oppose it.

  • SweatingGin||

    Just call it the Citizen's United Enabling Act, they'll scream for repeal.

  • ||

    I think a lot of progressives already oppose it named as it is.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Of course if the FDA didn't have the authority to cripple a seed merchant's business based on the bullish*t alarmism of a bunch of scientific illiterates, this whole question simply wouldn't arise.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Do you want to see people LITERALLY DYING IN THE STREETS!!? You must, because there is no middle ground between supporting the FDA's regulatory powers and WANTING TO KILL PEOPLE.

    Man, being a Liberal is fun. All that time I used to waste actually thinking through an issue can instead be spent more productively by sitting back and congratulating myself on my moral superiority for demanding that the Government step in and do something.

  • ||

    Exactly. The way I see it, this law moves things in the direction of freedom. No NIMBY fucking anti-GMO retards can stop you planting a crop of GMOs on your land until AFTER they prove that those GMOs are dangerous (good luck with that).

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Perhaps, but what is really needed it the repeal of the law that made it the business of the FDA to decide what seeds could be sold in the first place.

  • mr lizard||

    Maaannnnnn y'all just leave that fine gentleman up DC alone already. First you want more dead children, and now you want to keep him from putting food on your table. What's next, unicorn hunting?

  • John||

    I understand the separation of powers issues here. And it sucks. But we might not have this issue if liberals hadn't use the courts for the last 50 years to stop anything and everything they didn't like. It is totally predictable that eventually the Congress after decades of judicial obstructionism would say "fine, go fuck yourself courts" like they are doing here. If liberals hate this, they have only themselves to blame.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's just a shame that the rest of us have to pay the price for their mistakes.

    Someday, I might need that justice system they seem to be trying to cripple.

  • Sevo||

    "Someday, I might need that justice system they seem to be trying to cripple."

    We did need it, and the asshole called it a "tax".

  • Matrix||

    Progs don't believe people they should be held responsible for their own mistakes. That's why they force us all to pay for them. Welfare is one of the best examples of this.

  • ||

    What? Welfare is how our sins of racism are corrected.

    Those people aren't responsible for their condition, all non-POC's are.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Liberals don't make mistakes. Ever. YOU just didn't believe in fairies enough, and now Tinkerbell's DEAD!

  • Hollywood||

  • John||

    These people always come for your children in the end.

  • Hollywood||

    Soon we'll just have kids and they will be taken straight from the maternity ward to the government care center to begin indoctrination. Parents will be allowed to visit on federal holidays.

  • John Galt||

    Sort of a Greeksy Sovietsy Nazi..shish kinda thing.

  • SQRLSY One||

    No, we just drop our kids off at the Government Almighty Care-Bears Center, and walk away like sea turtles dropping their eggs in the sand, and we are done with it, just walk away and forget 'em, ain't Guv Compassion GREAT!?!?! WHY would anyone want to visit on federal holidays, anyway?!!?!

  • Hollywood||

    And here I thought they belonged to the monocle factory. Silly me!

  • John||

    And notice how mindlessly stupid she is. If children belong to the community, then I guess the community can tell a woman if and when she is to have an abortion? Right?

  • Hollywood||

    Dammit John, stop waging your war on women!!!!!!!!
    /sarc

    Seriously, this is really creepy. I know Matt Welch frequents her show, maybe he can bring this up. Oh and tell her to go DIAF.

  • mr lizard||

    So when does my community get to put in a claim for her breedlings? I'm sure I've got some branch space around here somewhere

  • Hollywood||

    Top (Wo)Men are obviously excepted.

  • RBS||

    the Tulane professor laments that we in America "haven't had a very collective notion that these are our children."

    Um, isn't that why the Campaigner in Chief is out there lying about gun control?

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're absolutely right, RBS. It's the same thing.

    If Obama can get a critical mass of people to believe what he wants them to believe about guns, then he can do whatever he wants with them.

    ...just like this lady is all about trying to control what people believe about their children.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Totalitarianism is a state of mind.

    That's the definition of totalitarianism. Authoritarians want to control what you do--but totalitarians want to control what you think. The ability of the government to control what people think, that's what makes North Korea the way it is.

    Melissa Harris-Perry is right!

    If she can get people to stop thinking of their children as their own and start thinking of them as belonging to the community, then the government really will be able to do whatever it wants with them.

  • grey||

    This is the most important point I've yet read about her promo and true on so many other topics.

  • John||

    Maybe I just don't remember or the lack of the internet allowed this stuff to be hidden better, but wow it seems that leftists have gotten much more overtly totalitarian in the last 10 years. They just don't give a shit anymore and are quite honest about their ambitions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They're defining themselves against freedom the way some of us on the right used to define ourselves against communism.

    I've never seen so many people question the very existence of individual rights--as I do now coming from the left.

  • John||

    It is madness. The same kind of madness that infected people in 1920s Germany or revolutionary France.

  • Hollywood||

    What concerns me are how commentary like this portend the possible political reactions to continued/renewed economic contraction and how this will exacerbate the drive to eliminate individual liberty.

  • SweatingGin||

    The other one I've seen a bit of is denying the idea of free will. You don't really have free will, you just do what the chemicals say, so you're not responsible for your actions and won't miss choices anyway.

  • John Galt||

    If there's one thing those who call themselves "Liberals" simply will not tolerate it's personal liberty. They do, however, believe in complete liberty to do only as the state dictates so long as they are the state.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The way to deal with them is to start talking about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

    Ask them if Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus--no matter what the government said.

    They have no response to that. They can't side with the government and, by extension, the segregationists, so they have to either admit that individuals (like Rosa Parks) have rights no matter what the government says--or they have to shut up.

    They usually just shut up.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. Liberals and progressives aren't used to having people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King used against them--mostly because those aren't the examples people on the right typically use.

    ...which means, we should start citing examples like that at them--all the freaking time. The left is pretty much defenseless against them, so let's hit 'em where they're vulnerable.

  • grey||

    I've been doing this lately, they barrage back with ad hominem and unrelated points. They put on blinders to the conflict. I suppose its easy if you have no principles.

  • ||

    They can't side with the government and, by extension, the segregationists, so they have to either admit that individuals (like Rosa Parks) have rights no matter what the government says--or they have to shut up.

    Unfortunately, the reason they shut up is that the entire concept goes completely over their head. The prog has no ability to reason and attempting to argue logically with them is an exercise in futility.

    FEEEEELINGS!

  • John||

    That is just it, they shut up but they don't learn a thing

  • Ken Shultz||

    They might learn not to try to dismiss our rights so easily.

    Especially if you crush them in public.

    Make sure you smile while you're crushing them, too. You want to come across as the nice guy--just you, your smile, and Rosa Parks...against the progs, the liberals and the world.

  • Hollywood||

    This would be the prog auto-reaction to Ken's argument:
    *feels twinge of cognitive dissonance*...hears tea bagger guy talking about a black person...must disagree...RACIST!!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "They usually just shut up."

    Pfft. As if. This is the part where they change the subject and fishtail the argument into circular nonsense about how the government wouldn't have been doing evil things in the first place if it werent for all the KKKORPORATIONZ!11

  • ||

    I've never seen so many people question the very existence of individual rights--as I do now coming from the left.

    This could be a good thing. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative used to be a loose description of libertarianism. Now the left is starting to slide to the bottom of the Nolan chart, taking positions that are not only against fiscal liberty, but also against social liberty. IOW, statist.

    The Republicans seem to be, ever so slowly, moving towards the top, by accepting more individual (social) rights. (gay rights, immigration...)

    It would be a libertarian's wet dream for such a trend to continue and end up with one party dedicated to expansion of the state and the other devoted completely to liberty.

  • Sevo||

    "The Republicans seem to be, ever so slowly, moving towards the top, by accepting more individual (social) rights. (gay rights, immigration...)"

    The calibration on your measuring equipment is finer than mine.

  • ||

    The calibration on your measuring equipment is finer than mine.

    Oh come on. I realize being a cynic is a badge of honor for the majority of us, but you have to see a little light at the end of the tunnel.

    Ron Paul
    Rand Paul
    Republicans loosening their stance on MJ, gays, immigration...
    Fucking Limbaugh and Hannity calling Rand Paul a serious contender in 2016.
    McCain and Graham getting skewered for denouncing Paul's filibuster...

    Not saying we are going to live in Libertopia any time soon, but there is a rise in libertarian positions coming from the right.

  • John||

    The difference is that the Republican rank and file are standing up to their dirtbag establishment. They are no longer going to tolerate shit for the sake of the team winning. That is what is producing the changes. People and voters are changing. We focus too much on politicians who in the end just do whatever they think will allow them to survive. It is up to the voters in mass to change things.

  • ||

    Ron Paul couldn't have said it better John. All it takes is a few honest to shit leaders who can articulate why libertarianism is the correct path. If one puts a premium on freedom, there is absolutely no question that this is an absolute fact. But the key is to convince the population of it.

    People are fucking sheep. 98% of them have never had a critical thought in their lives. They believe what they are told to believe by their political masters without question. They don't really care if MJ is legal or not. They only care that the party says it's baaaaad and they want their team to win. As long as you don't pour cold water on their current beliefs all at once, you can change their minds by slowly and gently explaining why the notion of X is not in the interest of liberty. Rand appears to be good at this. Change the mind of the voter, and the party will accommodate.

    Unfortunately, probably not in my lifetime.

  • Robert||

    People are fucking sheep.


    Film at 11.

  • Sevo||

    "Not saying we are going to live in Libertopia any time soon, but there is a rise in libertarian positions coming from the right."

    You're seeing 'positions'; I'm seeing some sane statements from a very few GOPers.
    When even one translates into results, I'll re-check my calibration.

  • Robert||

    Libertarian's wet dream, huh? Don't be so sure -- http://users.bestweb.net/~robg.....y_win.html . We may be lucky the authoritarians are divided, even if the libertarians are divided as well.

  • ||

    I'm afraid the authoritarian party would pretty well wipe the floor with the libertarian party.

    Um, respectfully, who the fuck is Robert Goodman? And he bases that on a 25 year old survey, which I can find little reference to?

    Bullshit!

    Moving to more libertarian positions is better than the status quo.

  • ||

    They're defining themselves against freedom the way some of us on the right used to define ourselves against communism.

    And that is what will destroy them.

  • grey||

    HOLY COW. I've been in a libtard snake pit of a blog and they will fight you tooth and nail that the bill of rights isn't. It just isn't, the constitution was to grant federal powers. I was beginning to feel a little crazy, I should stay out of those places.

  • Hollywood||

    You know who else thought the youth of the nation belonged to the state?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Mumbly" Joe Biden?

  • SIV||

    Kkklarence Thomas?

  • ||

  • Hollywood||


    Harris-Perry holds,"[t]he cost to raise a child [is] $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year," and if children should be viewed as collectively "owned" by "society," then taken to its logical extension, a woman's choices about having a child should be informed by the economic considerations of the "community," would it not?

    What an iron-clad logical statement! She must be right. If we just use enough "if" statements we can prove anything!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In a sane and just world, Melissa Harris-Perry would be led to a gully by the Khmer Rouge and hacked to death by farming implements in the "Killing Fields".

  • Ken Shultz||

    In a sane and just world, there wouldn't be any Khmer Rouge, and no one would be hacked to death.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nope, some folks will always need a hackin'.

  • ||

    -1 limb

  • Entropy Void||

    Chuckie Schumer

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Disparaging the Social Contract is considered a crime against humanity. The drones are on their way.

  • John Galt||

    There's no way I'm reading the full 500 billion word text of H.R. 933, not today. Anyone care to break it on down to a sentence or two for me?

  • sloopyinca||

    Sure.

    "Fuck you, that's why.

    -FDA"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    OT

    Up With Chris Hayes has some food activist talking with Chris about how many people are hungry in America today. And they both agree that SNAP needs to be massively increased, despite record high usage already.

  • John||

    Poor people are hungry on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and obese on Tuesdays, Thursdays and the weekends.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, God forbid these welfare mommas waddle down to the community garden and grow their own fresh fruits and vegetables. Nothing must interfere with their sacred duty of watching the Jeremy Kyle Show while eating government cheese and smoking menthols.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Racist!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    White people smoke menthols too.

    See?

  • ||

    It would take the power of judicial review out of the hand of judges, crumple it up, toss it on the ground, step on it, and set it ablaze.

    Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that.

  • Robert||

    Happens all the time at punk affairs.

  • SIV||

    How awful is a new GMO law amendment you’ve probably heard derided as the Monsanto Protection Act?

    First I heard of it was right here. I took this statement as a cue to log in to facebook for the first time in 6+ weeks just to "like" Monsanto. Didn't waste any time to see who might be blaming Republicans and Kkkorpurashuns for forcing Obama to sign the bill.

  • ||

    Why should my right to plant and crop a crop of my choice be subjewct to judicial review in the first place?

    Why do we have a USDA telling people what crops they can plant in the first place?

    If we had no USDA at all, the anti-GMO people would have to prove harm in a civil court before they could stop anyone from planting anything.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think that's an excellent point.

    But if we're going to have a USDA, I'd rather it were subject to judicial review.

    I want the world the way it should be, too. ...but until we get there, we have to live in the world the way it is now.

  • ||

    The only thing that should be subject to judicial review is when the USDA DENIES approval.

    The bias should be in favor of letting people plant what they want until harm is proven.

    The anti-GMO crowd wants to implement a backdoor "precautionary principle" by tying new seed strains up in judicial review. The same way they use public hearings and lawsuits to stop nuclear power and development projects.

  • Sevo||

    Could be apocryphal, but I've read it several times.
    When Khrushchev visited the US, his ag assistant asked one of the US officials which agency made sure enough food got to NYC.
    HM, if the USDA didn't approve the seeds, how would a farmer know what to plant?

  • Virginian||

    Well I've had a leftist assert to me that there is a person in the NYC government who's job it is to make sure enough food gets to Manhattan every day.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure the lefty meant someone whose job is to keep certain foods OUT of NYC.

  • Virginian||

    No I questioned him about it. He honestly thought there was a guy who....well, I guess called up every grocery store and resturant in Manhattan and made sure their deliveries went through.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He honestly thought there was a guy who....well, I guess called up every grocery store and resturant in Manhattan and made sure their deliveries went through.

    Is he six-years-old or does he have Down's Syndrome? Those are the only two scenarios in which I can imagine someone believing that.

  • Sevo||

    "He honestly thought there was a guy who....well, I guess called up every grocery store and resturant in Manhattan and made sure their deliveries went through."
    Now, there is a twit worthy of derisive laughter!

  • Brett L||

    My understanding of the law, which is admittedly amateur and incomplete, was that the effect would be to stop anti-GMO groups from getting an injunction against crops already in the ground. Imagine you've got your whole wheat crop coming up and the judge says you can't harvest it until some future date. Wheat can't wait beyond a certain point. This particular intent I'm okay with. I am 100% unsurprised that the Congress fucked up the writing of it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, one of the issues here is that anti-GMO groups can create a lot of mischief for the farmers by strategically timing their lawsuits to make crops planted worthless or a liability. Such actions will discourage the use of GMOs just by uncertainty without the anti-GMO people even winning a case.

  • ||

    Under no theory of agency with which I'm familiar can one delegate more power than one has. And yet this new amendment to the GMO law appears to place some USDA powers almost entirely outside the scope of judicial review.

    This only makes sense if you see the USDA's powers as the power to "approve" people's right to sell seeds and plant crops. What it actually is is the power to DENY some people the right to sell certain seeds and plant certain crops. The default state is (or should be) that people have the right to sell the seeds. The power is the power to prohibit. So by making NOT DENYING not subject to judicial review, what they are actually doing is LIMITING the USDA's power to deny the right, or more precisely, this is better seen as a *constraint* on the ability of the USDA judicial review process to be used to preemptively deny certain rights to farmers and seed sellers before any harm has been proven. The courts should not be used as a means for some individuals to preemptively constrain the liberty of others.

  • Ted S.||

    Under no theory of agency with which I'm familiar can one delegate more power than one has.

    Ah, but everybody in the government has unlimited power!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, Linnekin is effectively defending the abuse of the judicial review process as a backdoor method of controlling the actions of farmers.

  • ||

    Consumers, farmers, and others who have a justiciable claim that a farm or food product has caused them harm must have judicial recourse.

    Yes. After the harm has actually happened. Not before the new seed strain is even approved.

  • Chet Manley||

    The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming

  • ||

    I kept waiting for her to discuss what happened to crop yields during this period.

  • Chet Manley||

    Tom Philpott highlights a USDA-funded study [PDF] by University of Wisconsin scientists who found that several types of GMO seeds (including Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready varieties) actually produce a lower yield than conventional seeds.
    the more one meddles with plant genes, the worse yields get; when you change multiple genes at once, yields drop even further. This should give pause to those who see GMO seeds as the means to address more complex problems like drought tolerance, nutritional value, or plant productivity.
  • mr simple||

    the more one meddles with plant genes, the worse yields get; when you change multiple genes at once, yields drop even further.

    [citation needed]

  • Chet Manley||

    It's in the study linked in the article.

  • mr simple||

    No, it's not. It does contain a bullshit generalization of some findings by some ideological groups. The part I quoted is risibly farcical on its face. You can't blanketly say that any time you change the genetic structure of a plant it will produce less yield. That would go against all history of agriculture. Any type of hybridization would be to the detriment of society as the offspring would produce less than either of the parents. I think we can say it's general knowledge that this is not true. I'm sure there are some genetic changes you could make that would make the plant worse off, but it's not true in every case. More food is produced using less land than at any point in history. Also, let me ask you: if farmers got less yield from seeds that were more expensive than what was previously used, why would they continue to use them?

  • ||

    Good god, Chet's silence is deafening.

  • Ted S.||

    Government-funded study concludes we need to give government more control.

    Tell me again why government-funded science is supposedly more pure?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Then why is anyone buying these seeds? You are arguing that farmers are buying crop breeds with lesser utility for them. Why would they do such a thing?

  • Sevo||

    That pig has more red herrings than kilos.

  • ||

    Pure quackery.

  • ||

    A friend of mine was discussing this a few weeks back. Said the same thing about an attempt to control the seed market through patent and IP rights. If true, that should infuriate many here.

    The article was, however, inflammatory and without citation, which makes it suspect.

  • Sevo||

    Chet Manley| 4.6.13 @ 12:21PM |#
    "The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming"

    In her own words:
    "Hunger and malnutrition are man-made. They are hardwired in the design of the industrial, chemical model of agriculture. But just as hunger is created by design, healthy and nutritious food for all can also be designed, through food democracy."

    That's what she said: http://consciouslifenews.com/d.....s/1136135/

  • Entropy Void||

    "This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply" WTF???

  • The Late P Brooks||

    More eviler:

    Melissa Harris Perry or Monsanto?

  • Entropy Void||

    There is NOTHING more eviler than a self-righteous libtard.

  • Hollywood||

    MHP is the fucking antichrist.

  • ||

    Evilist: Monsanto Harris Perry.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    When Khrushchev visited the US, his ag assistant asked one of the US officials which agency made sure enough food got to NYC.

    Obviously, the same agency which made sure Washington got fed first.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming

    I thought this guy destroyed farming.

  • Sevo||

    The guy missed a GREAT marketing opportunity; he coulda' named the company "GRIMM".

  • Chet Manley||

  • ||

  • Sevo||

    Yep.
    Most every one a benefit to mankind. Thanks, Chet!

  • Irish||

    Hahahaha. Half of those aren't even Monsanto's fault. How is it Monsanto's fault that they created a pesticide that the government then decided to drop on Vietnam? Wouldn't that be the government's fault?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The law states that in the event a federal court invalidates USDA approval of a particular GMO crop, the USDA must still “ensur[e] that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities” for an “interim period” of entirely unspecified duration."

    Linnekin does realize that the law has more to do with whether farmers who bought the seeds in good faith before a lawsuit was won will be able to lose their crops? The issue here is whether anti-GMO groups can make GMOs economically unviable by making it too uncertain that a farmer can plant a crop in good faith but be forced to destroy it before it can be sold. I think that gives way too much unchecked power to the judiciary and activist lawyers willing to abuse the system with nuisance suits.

  • ||

    Exactly. It's not giving the USDA more power to say that a USDA approved crop can continue to be grown and sold while a court case is pending. It's giving the courts less power to stop an individual from planting or selling seeds until someone proves there's something wrong with them.

  • Sevo||

    "It's giving the courts less power to stop an individual from planting or selling seeds until someone proves there's something wrong with them."

    And more power to an agency for an "indefinite" time.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That may be a concern, but there is very little acknowledgement by Linnekin that there is a problem with the way courts are handling these matters which have a profound effect on private individuals. Instead we get a fetishizing of the wisdom of the courts which effectively cements a policy that everything not expressly approved is forbidden as the proper order of things.

  • ||

    How is it giving the USDA "more" power to say that after the USDA has STOPPED DENYING people the right to plant something, that the court can't step in and stop people from planting it?

    It's giving more power to individuals. Which is who should have the power in the first place.

  • Sevo||

    HazelMeade| 4.7.13 @ 2:30PM |#
    "How is it giving the USDA "more" power to say that after the USDA has STOPPED DENYING people the right to plant something, that the court can't step in and stop people from planting it?"

    You may be right; too many dependent clauses here.

  • Fluffy||

    So basically Linnekin is worried that the courts might be denied the ability to exercise a power they don't legitimately possess (the power to stop someone from developing and planting a GMO seed).

    Oh well.

  • ||

    That's that sums it up pretty well.

  • barisax||

    It's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, the governments regulatory power over GMO's should be reduced and market forces be allowed to play out, and if this was the case, there would be no need for this legislation. The following article explains how it came about:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....iel-foster
    Basically, anti GMO groups sued to cancel the license for Monsanto's sugar beets and won. The federal judge ruled that all existing crops be destroyed, in accordance with the law. This decision came long after the crops had already been planted. In short, about half of America's granulated sugar production was subject to destruction by the whims of the court over purely procedural issues. Those farmers, through no fault of their own, would be in violation of the law, and those who would refuse to comply would be open to all kinds of lawsuits. Kafka anyone?

    Yes, the creation of the "Monsanto" law isn't ideal, but when faced with a broken corrupt system, what else can you hope for?

  • ||

    Right and then you geting to even more complicated issues of whether the farmers should be compensated for having to destroy their sugar beet crop, and whether they have been given due process by the courts, since the sugar better farmers weren't a party to the original lawsuit.

  • juliusaugustus||

    The constitution doesn't matter. Legally it is no longer in effect. So whether something is constitutional or not is a moot point. The Lieber code suspended the constitution and put us in a state martial law. The lieber code was never repealed. The lieber code is what enables executive orders and what enables the president to act like a dictator. In 1871 the constitution was fully suspended and replaced with a corporate constitution under the DC organic act.

  • susandaved||

    my friend's half-sister makes $89 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired for six months but last month her payment was $12418 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here and go to home tab for more detail .. http://www.big76.com

  • BMFPitt||

    Seems like that provision would just get thrown out by a judge as unconstitutional as soon as it comes up. It'll just buy a few weeks worth of paperwork.

  • Jan S.||

    It really doesn't matter that GMOs haven’t been directly linked to detrimental health issues. You have a right to buy and eat GMO crops – shouldn’t I have the right to not to?

    For those of you who label the "anti-GMO factions" as "libtards" your first mistake is to assume that if one is interested in sustainable agriculture they are "green" and therefore politically liberal and anti-free market; the second is to assume that technology is good for its own sake.

    GMO Harm? Can you not imagine that a libertine or even a radical right winger wouldn’t be offended by the implication of crop contamination that led to the Canadian trial of Monsanto Canada vs. Shcmeider where an independent farmer’s crops were contaminated by an industrial trans- species crop for which Monsanto then demanded he pay a ransom for? No free market thinker in the world would consider that reasonable. I once said that GMOs hamstring the small farmer, but in reality, that's pretty naive; they are being pushed out by big spending and collusion between the government and "Big Ag." You really can’t argue against this as long as there are commodity crop subsidies that overwhelmingly support mono-crop agriculture and GMO corporations. Let them compete on an equal footing and level field with my local farmer.

    You really ought to read "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal" by Joel Salatin.

  • Sevo||

    "Can you not imagine that a libertine or even a radical right winger wouldn’t be offended by the implication of crop contamination that led to the Canadian trial of Monsanto Canada vs. Shcmeider where an independent farmer’s crops were contaminated by an industrial trans- species crop for which Monsanto then demanded he pay a ransom for?"

    Ya know, repeating blatant lies really doesn't help your argument.
    Percy Schmeiser stole those seeds. Go away.

  • Jan S.||

    And you can prove this? Or do you simply believe cross-contamination between GM crops and non-GM crops simply can't happen?

  • Sevo||

    "And you can prove this? Or do you simply believe cross-contamination between GM crops and non-GM crops simply can't happen?"
    Depends on the seeds. In his case, no. And, no, the seeds did not 'blow off a truck' and plane themselves in neat rows.

    As regards the rest of your 'argument', try making one. You're wandering all over the map.
    Should ag subsidies be cut? Yes, but that isn't going to help your 'small farmer; he's an anachronism.
    Should you be able to avoid GMO foods? Dunno. Should I be able to avoid food packed by people with blue eyes?
    What is your point other than posting luddite "concerns"?

  • Jan S.||

    And you're also blatantly dismissing the rest of my argument.

  • jili5||

    Monsanto claims everyone steals there seeds even though pollen cross contaminates everything now! Why would a farmer steal GMO seeds when they are trying to grow an organic crop? Why does Monsanto sue people for having a single GMO corn plant growing in a field of cotton? They do this to steal their land and they've done it many times. No farmers if purposely stealing a single seed and planting that one single plant alongside other crops. These seeds blow off trucks, get in the wind, cross contamination happens with wild species, etc. You're blindly believing Monsanto press releases. Do you think OJ didn't do it either?

  • Justblaze24||

    Better idea, let's actually get serious about limiting the FDA's authority and take away their power to decide what seeds, drugs, foods, and cosmetics can be sold on the open market. Judicial review is well and good. But when you're talking about injunctions that could be potentially devastating to contract and property rights, the judiciary could be as dangerous as the agency. If regulatory capture is the problem, let's get rid of the regulatory mechanism. Then we can let the courts settle issues like this between the proper parties rather than between environmental and industry groups.

  • mayajan67||

    my classmate's sister-in-law makes $89/hr on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her payment was $20366 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site
    HTTP://BIG76.COM

  • jili5||

    Isn't the whole basis for Monsanto's current business plan illegal since the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 does not in anyway state that someone can patent life or own your life or another's life. That clause had little to not historical relevance at the time, in fact "The House of Lords had decided in 1774 that copyright was not a common-law right, and invention patents had always been granted as a matter of crown or parliamentary discretion". If the government is going to put a gun to a farmers head for saving seeds from a plant they grew then they can put a gun to a parent's head for making a child that has genetic material that has also been patented. The main point is that patent law was a form of force used by tyrants to promote protectionism and stifle competition. Nowhere does our Constitution give the government the right to trespass on your land and use force against you because you save a seed from a plant you grew on your land!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement