Ag Policy Blog

Details and Clarification on CR Biotech Rider

Chris Clayton
By  Chris Clayton , DTN Ag Policy Editor
Connect with Chris:

I made a mistake in Wednesday's blog on the Continuing Resolution in the Senate and the biotech policy rider language added to it.

The language in the bill would come into effect when there is litigation on a biotech crop and an attempt by the courts to either remove crops from the field or stop a harvest of the crops. That was a situation a few years ago when an environmental group had sued USDA over Roundup Ready sugarbeets.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The CR would effectively allow USDA to sign a temporary permit for the crop rather than putting those decisions in the hands of a judge

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period

necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.


The language had been included in the FY 2012 budget resolution but was later removed.

The provision in the CR is not the same as thebiotech-approval provision that was in the House farm bill. That provision would have accelerated the biotech crop review and approval process by USDA.

I can be found on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN.

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Ric Ohge
4/4/2013 | 10:26 AM CDT
And for the FINAL "Clarification: http://naturalsociety.com/top-senator-apologizes-for-monsanto-protection-act/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=d327f57bc9-Email+129%3A+4%2F4%2F2013&utm_medium=email. In summary from this(one of many in the last 36 hours)article: Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland has released a public statement apologizing to the public for the passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, stating that the legislation was buried deep within a government spending bill that was required to â?˜prevent a government shutdownâ?™. Mikulski is the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman, one who was ultimately responsible for passing the bill that contained the notorious Monsanto Protection Act â?” a legislative â?˜riderâ?™ that grants biotech juggernaut Monsanto immunity from federal courts when it comes to their GMO crops. Although â?˜writtenâ?™ by Senator Roy Blunt, who actually gave Monsanto the ability to write their own Monsanto Protection Act and has received over $60,000 from Monsanto, Mikulski has taken serious flak for the passing of the rider.
Ric Ohge
3/25/2013 | 10:08 AM CDT
While nicely dressed in very "We're Just Protecting The Farmer" language, the Biotech rider puts Monsanto and other Biotech Companies in a position to deploy whatever they want without recourse from the Administrative, Legislative or judicial Branch of Government. The issue is NOT about the pros and cons of the Technology, nor is it Pro-Farmer or Anti-Farmer as it's being spun, it's about a huge group of Companies having no direct Government oversight. Well...we saw how well that worked with LIMITED oversight with Wall Street, the 'Banksters' and the now totally chaotic Derivatives Market. NO Company should be above the Government...period.
Ric Ohge
3/21/2013 | 10:07 AM CDT
Let's simplify the language in a way everyone can understand. Example: There are far more 'experimental' products than are currently in the field, including, but not limited to: Fast-Growing Salmon, Rice with human proteins, Tomatoes with frog genes, and don't forget the wheat with the Carbohydrate Uptake Disruptor Gene in it. None of these have ever had human trials-nor, for that fact have whats in the field, as the Michael Taylor controlled FDA has long ruled there's no difference between Standard and GM Seeds. Right.