U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 09-23-2013, 07:45 AM
26,182 posts, read 18,890,991 times
Reputation: 14037


Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
Actually, it was not snuck in. That's just more activist lies, per their SOP. The correctly named Farmer Assurance Provision was part of the draft Farm Bill all the way back at the beginning in June 2012, and it was clearly no secret, because the American Soybean Association publicly expressed support for the measure in 2012.

And here's all it does... it protects a farmer who plants seeds that are approved and fully permitted from having to later rip up his growing crop and destroy it purely due to procedural issues that are raised as challenges. Activists had been successful in getting courts to overrule legal permissions for crops to be grown based merely on procedural, rather than scientific grounds. Then, without proving any danger at all, they got court restraining orders issued to destroy the crops while the case was being adjudicated. And because of those rulings, farmers lost their investment in that specific crop, even if the case was later won by their side, or even if the case was later dropped by their opposition. That's not the way most restraining orders work, which merely delay something until a matter is decided, because you can't delay plants that are already growing.

It was an abuse of the court system to misuse restraining orders in this way, and was financially ruinous to farmers who were early adopters of new plant technology, and this measure was simply designed to eliminate that possibility. Opponents can go to court to fight the legal permissions to grow transgenetic foods in the first place, or they can ask for harvested food to be sequestered after the fact and not sold, but they can no longer force a farmer to rip up his crop if he planted legally in the first place.
seems pretty simple. it's disturbing how wildly this legislation was twisted by some to mean something completely different. for example:

Originally Posted by liars at Center for Food Safety
the Monsanto-driven rider remains simply a biotech industry ploy to continue to plant GE crops even when a court of law has found they were approved illegally.

Old 09-23-2013, 02:08 PM
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,611,330 times
Reputation: 3358
Mod Review Consensus: THREAD CLOSED PERMANENTLY. The thread has devolved into repetitive rehashing of personal arguments with very little new information of value shared or discussed.

General GMO arguments are not a Green Living issue, any subsequent threads /posts on the topic will be reviewed and moved to an appropriate forum , deleted or closed if they do not specifically discuss GMO in terms of Green Living (i.e. sustainability, environmental stewardship, etc).

Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 10-02-2013 at 10:45 PM..
Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top