CR leaves out ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
October 18, 2013 | 12:10 AM
The continuing resolution to fund the government through January 15 covers everything in the 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill — except the provision that has become known as the Monsanto Protection Act, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., announced Thursday.
The provision, which was included in the 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill that was part of a larger funding bill that passed Congress in March, directed the Agriculture Department to ignore any judicial ruling that blocked the planting of genetically-modified crops, Tester said.
Tester fought against it at that time, but he failed because it had been made part of a House-Senate agreement and stripping it out was considered too difficult in the midst of the attempt to fund the government.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., an advocate of labeling foods with biotech ingredients, said she was sorry it was included.
The Center for Food Safety noted on September 26 that groups had sent Mikulski and other Senate leaders a letter opposing the continuation of the biotech rider and that she had added an amendment to the Senate continuing resolution eliminating it.
In the meantime, the provision garnered a lot of negative publicity, and this time Tester prevailed. The exclusion of the provision was not immediately apparent, however. The continuing resolution passed Wednesday by both houses of Congress said that the bill continued all programs in the 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill “except section 735,” but did not explain what that was.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
“Stripping out the Monsanto Protection Act is a victory for American consumers and family farm agriculture,” Tester said in a news release. “I’m pleased that Congress stood up for accountability and transparency and against special interests. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to make sure that this damaging provision never again makes it into law.”
The measure would have been kept in place only until the continuing resolution expires on January 15.
In a floor speech in March, Tester noted that supporters of the provision called it “farmer assurance” because it would assure farmers that they could continue to grow a crop while USDA reexamined it.
But Tester argued, “All it really assures is a lack of corporate liability.”
“The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, the department must re-approve the crop and allow it to continue to be planted — regardless of what the judge says,” Tester said.
“The United States Congress is telling the Agriculture Department ‘Even if a court tells you that you failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you MUST disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crops to be planted anyway,’ ” he said. “Not only does this ignore the Constitution’s idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically-modified crops take hold across the country — even when a judge finds it violates the law.”
A Monsanto spokesman did not comment on yesterday’s action, but referred The Hagstrom Report to a blog Monsanto posted on September 26, just before the provision was about to expire.
“The FAP [Farmer Assurance Provision] was needed to offset the impact of a small well-funded group of special interest activist groups using the legal system to try and block growers from having access to biotechnology, period,” Monsanto said in the post.
“Years after those suits were filed, no harm has ever been alleged or shown, and higher courts ruled that these cases were without merit. But in the meantime, growers lost income and productivity as new products were unavailable to farmers.
“This discussion shows the need to address the larger problem — abuse of the legal process by activists and returning the regulatory system to one based on real science, operating in a timely and data-driven manner to deliver choices to farmers and the economy they support,” Monsanto continued.
“We will be working to support the efforts of the USDA and US EPA to make the regulatory system work to provide timely, science-based decisions on new products designed to help our farmers produce food and fiber as efficiently and sustainably as possible.”
Tester's announcement came as Robert Fraley, Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer, Marc Van Montagu, founder and chairman of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology Outreach at Ghent University in Belgium, and Mary-Dell Chilton, of Syngenta, were honored in Des Moines with the World Food Prize for their pioneering work in biotechnology.
The provision, which was included in the 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill that was part of a larger funding bill that passed Congress in March, directed the Agriculture Department to ignore any judicial ruling that blocked the planting of genetically-modified crops, Tester said.
Tester fought against it at that time, but he failed because it had been made part of a House-Senate agreement and stripping it out was considered too difficult in the midst of the attempt to fund the government.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., an advocate of labeling foods with biotech ingredients, said she was sorry it was included.
The Center for Food Safety noted on September 26 that groups had sent Mikulski and other Senate leaders a letter opposing the continuation of the biotech rider and that she had added an amendment to the Senate continuing resolution eliminating it.
In the meantime, the provision garnered a lot of negative publicity, and this time Tester prevailed. The exclusion of the provision was not immediately apparent, however. The continuing resolution passed Wednesday by both houses of Congress said that the bill continued all programs in the 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill “except section 735,” but did not explain what that was.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
“Stripping out the Monsanto Protection Act is a victory for American consumers and family farm agriculture,” Tester said in a news release. “I’m pleased that Congress stood up for accountability and transparency and against special interests. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to make sure that this damaging provision never again makes it into law.”
The measure would have been kept in place only until the continuing resolution expires on January 15.
In a floor speech in March, Tester noted that supporters of the provision called it “farmer assurance” because it would assure farmers that they could continue to grow a crop while USDA reexamined it.
But Tester argued, “All it really assures is a lack of corporate liability.”
“The provision says that when a judge finds that the USDA approved a crop illegally, the department must re-approve the crop and allow it to continue to be planted — regardless of what the judge says,” Tester said.
“The United States Congress is telling the Agriculture Department ‘Even if a court tells you that you failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you MUST disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crops to be planted anyway,’ ” he said. “Not only does this ignore the Constitution’s idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically-modified crops take hold across the country — even when a judge finds it violates the law.”
A Monsanto spokesman did not comment on yesterday’s action, but referred The Hagstrom Report to a blog Monsanto posted on September 26, just before the provision was about to expire.
“The FAP [Farmer Assurance Provision] was needed to offset the impact of a small well-funded group of special interest activist groups using the legal system to try and block growers from having access to biotechnology, period,” Monsanto said in the post.
“Years after those suits were filed, no harm has ever been alleged or shown, and higher courts ruled that these cases were without merit. But in the meantime, growers lost income and productivity as new products were unavailable to farmers.
“This discussion shows the need to address the larger problem — abuse of the legal process by activists and returning the regulatory system to one based on real science, operating in a timely and data-driven manner to deliver choices to farmers and the economy they support,” Monsanto continued.
“We will be working to support the efforts of the USDA and US EPA to make the regulatory system work to provide timely, science-based decisions on new products designed to help our farmers produce food and fiber as efficiently and sustainably as possible.”
Tester's announcement came as Robert Fraley, Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer, Marc Van Montagu, founder and chairman of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology Outreach at Ghent University in Belgium, and Mary-Dell Chilton, of Syngenta, were honored in Des Moines with the World Food Prize for their pioneering work in biotechnology.
