5 ms·

> the provision strips the rights of federal courts to halt the sale and planting of genetically engineered crops during the legal appeals process. Guilty unti

> the provision strips the rights of federal courts to halt the sale and planting of genetically engineered crops during the legal appeals process. Guilty until proven innocent? > This dangerous new House provision, which we're calling the Monsanto Protection Act, Ooh, editorializing. > would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment. I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. > Once again, Monsanto and the biotech industry are working behind closed doors to undermine your basic rights. Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN.

danboarder 14y ago
In general I agree. What would be more interesting is an in-depth look at past cases that have lead to the creation of this legislation.
icambron 14y ago
I'm certainly no enemy of GM foods and I generally find Food Democracy Now to be so, so lame, but I'm going to push back a bit here: > I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. That's almost the point. There are a bunch of laws that regulate the treatment consumers and the environment which judges are expected to apply in court. The snippet is complaining that judges will, under this act, have limited power to enforce those laws on Monsanto's products were they to be found guilty of breaking them. That's not an unreasonable complaint.
toddh 14y ago
> Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN. Excellent example of irony. Thank you.
- thatswrong0 14y ago
  Ironic how? If you're going to accuse an entire industry of trying to undermine the rights of people, you have to provide evidence and facts, not just a bunch of scary words. My response to said sensationalized accusation is obviously not subject to the same requirements. Or are you just being deliberately dense?

danboarder 14y ago

In general I agree. What would be more interesting is an in-depth look at past cases that have lead to the creation of this legislation.

icambron 14y ago

I'm certainly no enemy of GM foods and I generally find Food Democracy Now to be so, so lame, but I'm going to push back a bit here: > I'm pretty sure the point of judges is to uphold the law, not to do what they think is protecting consumer rights or the environment. That's almost the point. There are a bunch of laws that regulate the treatment consumers and the environment which judges are expected to apply in court. The snippet is complaining that judges will, under this act, have limited power to enforce those laws on Monsanto's products were they to be found guilty of breaking them. That's not an unreasonable complaint.

toddh 14y ago

> Okay, I'll cut the crap. This is paranoid, fear-mongering drivel. Give me facts, not opinions and emotion. This does not belong on HN. Excellent example of irony. Thank you.

thatswrong0 14y ago
Ironic how? If you're going to accuse an entire industry of trying to undermine the rights of people, you have to provide evidence and facts, not just a bunch of scary words. My response to said sensationalized accusation is obviously not subject to the same requirements. Or are you just being deliberately dense?