趟浑水，关于转基因GMO和孟山都
- 主题发起人 Jay Wang
- 开始时间
台湾法院判决王金平在上诉期间可以继续暂时担任立法院长，那个判决也是让许多旁观者觉得“太搞了”，特别是从来没有听说过“假处分”的大陆网民们，直呼不可思议。不过，被那个“假处分”法案直接打了一巴掌的马英九只能默默地接受。
不是因为哈佛法学博士奥巴马和马英九这两位民选总统是真正的“脑残”，而是因为他们懂得这样的法案有它的合理性。有时候我们轻易指责别人“脑残”的实际效果，却是显露自己的无知和轻狂。
- 注册
- 2011-09-16
- 消息
- 30,409
- 荣誉分数
- 5,901
- 声望点数
- 273
尊敬的老闹子先生，非常抱歉的通知您，您极力维护的，哈佛法学博士奥巴马总统签署的孟山都保护法，竟然被美国参议院枪毙了。天啊，这是怎么一回事啊？
‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Killed In Senate: Controversial Provision Removed From Spending Bill
http://m.ibtimes.com/monsanto-prote...rsial-provision-removed-spending-bill-1412160
- 注册
- 2011-09-16
- 消息
- 30,409
- 荣誉分数
- 5,901
- 声望点数
- 273
A protester holds up a poster during a March Against Monsanto -- and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs -- in New York in May.Reuters
The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” has been removed from a Senate spending bill to the delight of those opposed to the controversial provision.
The provision would have stayed on the books under a continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives last week, but U.S. Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., led a successful charge to have the language removed from the Senate version of the bill.
“One week ago, I asked, ‘Who pulls more weight on Capitol Hill? The agrichemical companies like Dow and Monsanto, or the food movement?'” Elizabeth Kucinich, policy director for the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of Senator Barbara Mikulski we now know the answer: the food movement.”
Mikulski introduced an amendment to have the language of the bill changed to remove the “Monsanto Protection Act” removed. The amendment was approved earlier this week, and the provision will expire at the end of this month.
A massive groundswell of public opposition to the “Monsanto Protection Act” began in March, when news of its existence hit the mainstream.
The provision, officially Section 735 of the HR 933 continuing resolution passed in March, came under fire because food safety advocates warn that it strips federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and propagation of genetically modified seeds and crops if safety tests reveal concerns about their safety.
The legislation was written by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., in collaboration withMonsanto Company -- which has become the public face of the virulent debate over GMOs.
The furor over the “Monsanto Protection Act” and GMOs reached fever pitch in May, when hundreds of thousands of people participated in a global protest known as the March Against Monsanto.The company was even named 2013’s “most evil corporation” in a June poll, which was likely in large part a response to the controversy over the provision.
Mikulski’s amendment was not the first one aimed at repealing the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,introduced a similar amendment near the height of the controversy in May, but it was not adopted.
Interestingly, the Center for Food Safety blamed Mikulski for allowing the provision to make it into continuing resolution via a “hidden backroom deal” back in March.
“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, wrote in a statement at the time. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”
Outrage at the existence of the “Monsanto Protection Act” was intense even before the bill containing it was passed. In the days leading up to its being signed by President Barack Obama, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition asking him to veto the bill, and Food Democracy Now protesters organized by the Food Democracy Now advocacy group demonstrated against it in front of the White House.
Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of the Food Democracy Now advocacy group, lauded the Senate's move to remove the controversial provision.
“This is a major victory for the food movement and all those who care about openness and transparency in their government,” Murphy wrote in a statement. “And a sign that our voices can make the difference when we are effectively organized.”
Monsanto did not respond immediately to a request seeking comment on the new developments surrounding the “Monsanto Protection Act,” but Kelly J. Clauss, a spokeswoman for the company, sent a statement on the provision to IBTimes back in March.
“A broad bipartisan group of legislators in both the House and Senate have supported the provision dating back to June 2012, and it passed with broad bipartisan support,” Clauss explained at the time. “As we understand it, the point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a careful balance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews.”
This article will be updated if and when Monsanto responds to the request for comment.
UPDATE: In lieu of commenting, a Monsanto spokesman referred International Business Times to the company's blog post on the provision expiring. You can read that blog post here.
- 注册
- 2011-09-16
- 消息
- 30,409
- 荣誉分数
- 5,901
- 声望点数
- 273
- 注册
- 2011-09-16
- 消息
- 30,409
- 荣誉分数
- 5,901
- 声望点数
- 273
政府真气人啊，变化这么快，小老百姓紧赶慢赶都追不上，怎么办啊？
- 注册
- 2011-09-16
- 消息
- 30,409
- 荣誉分数
- 5,901
- 声望点数
- 273
秘密哥，你老闹子附体了？
可爱的飞飞小朋友，
谢谢你的通知。没有什么可抱歉的。奥巴马总统签署的这个法案，本身就是六个月期限，在今年九月底到期。请复习我前面发的后面附的帖子。
读贴不仔细，对信息了解不客观不全面，是小朋友的常见毛病，充分表现在你对这个法案的扭曲理解上。我的那个贴子就是为了纠正你对这个法案的理解错误，谈不上我个人支持还是反对这个法案。其实你应该谢谢我。不过，对小朋友在礼数上的欠缺，我们老一辈从来不计较的。小朋友有进步能开心就好。
美国参众两院跟总统对着干，是民主社会的常态。如果真有奥巴马的什么提案被两院之一拒绝了，这肯定不是第一次，也不会是最后一次。他的提案被通过，不代表他就是天才；他的提案被否决，也不说明他是脑残。面对这些对小朋友们来说不可思议的想象，你实在不必呼天喊地大惊小怪的，以平常心对待好了。
有朋友肯定要惊讶了。说参议院并没有枪毙奥巴马已经签署的那个法案，怎么媒体又是这样报道的呢？对此，留给有兴趣的人自己去做作业吧。不懂的话，也可以问别人。这CFC上愿意帮助别人的人是很多的。
虚心竹有低头叶，傲骨梅无仰面花。这是给我自己的警句。我在这个帖子里对小朋友好像就有点倚老卖老了，是不是？如果是，我下次改正。
此致
敬礼
闹子老，于勿太哗
