The controversial rider known as the "Monsanto Protection Act" has been included in a House appropriations bill that would fund the government through December.
The Center for Food Safety contends the provision would deprive courts of the authority to stop the sale and planting of potentially hazardous, genetically engineered crops and force the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to permit the continued planting of such crops upon request.
"Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of 'Monsanto Protection Act' this past spring," said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety, in a statement. "Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public."
Others have maintained the rider is much less radical. In a phone interview in April with Food Product Design, Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization interpreted the provision as giving USDA authority to issue temporary permits to farmers to continue to plant or sell a genetically modified crop in spite of a court injunction—so long as the agency found the crop is safe for the environment and health.
A USDA spokeswoman was not available late today to comment on the agency's interpretation of the rider. USDA stated earlier this year it was interpreting the provision to determine whether it was enforceable.
The provision—contained in President Obama's fiscal budget signed in March—was nicknamed the Monsanto Protection Act, referring to the biotechnology seed company that is said to have lobbied for it. Monsanto did not immediately respond today to a request for comment on the Center for Food Safety's statement.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, told The Huffington Post he plans to oppose the reenactment of the provision. "I will fight the House's efforts to extend this special interest loophole that nullifies court orders that are protecting farmers, the environment, and public health," the senator was quoted as saying.
The current appropriations law through which the rider was first attached expires on Sept. 30. Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday introduced a $986.3 billion bill to fund the government through Dec. 15.
In recent years, USDA's decisions to deregulate genetically engineered crops have been challenged on procedural grounds under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The law requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts before taking a major federal action.
Some people who have studied the issue maintain such crops pose no health or safety concerns.
"To date, no court has ever held that a biotechnology crop presents a risk to health, safety or the environment," Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, wrote in an April 2 article for Forbes.
"Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of 'Monsanto Protection Act' this past spring," said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety, in a statement. "Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public."
Others have maintained the rider is much less radical. In a phone interview in April with Food Product Design, Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization interpreted the provision as giving USDA authority to issue temporary permits to farmers to continue to plant or sell a genetically modified crop in spite of a court injunction—so long as the agency found the crop is safe for the environment and health.
A USDA spokeswoman was not available late today to comment on the agency's interpretation of the rider. USDA stated earlier this year it was interpreting the provision to determine whether it was enforceable.
The provision—contained in President Obama's fiscal budget signed in March—was nicknamed the Monsanto Protection Act, referring to the biotechnology seed company that is said to have lobbied for it. Monsanto did not immediately respond today to a request for comment on the Center for Food Safety's statement.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, told The Huffington Post he plans to oppose the reenactment of the provision. "I will fight the House's efforts to extend this special interest loophole that nullifies court orders that are protecting farmers, the environment, and public health," the senator was quoted as saying.
The current appropriations law through which the rider was first attached expires on Sept. 30. Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday introduced a $986.3 billion bill to fund the government through Dec. 15.
In recent years, USDA's decisions to deregulate genetically engineered crops have been challenged on procedural grounds under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The law requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts before taking a major federal action.
Some people who have studied the issue maintain such crops pose no health or safety concerns.
"To date, no court has ever held that a biotechnology crop presents a risk to health, safety or the environment," Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, wrote in an April 2 article for Forbes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment