Furor and Confusion over "Monsanto Protection Act"

I must admit when my son-in-law told me about the "Monsanto Protection Act", I had never heard of it!  Somewhat surprising to me, because I thought I was keeping up on what was going on in the GMO food area.  I'm still not convinced that GMO food is dangerous to eat.  I do understand that it could harm the environment, including other plants, insects, animals and birds.  But that is a different problem, and requires a different form of testing and analysis from use of GMO foods as foods!
I have not seen any evidence where GMO food has been shown to be a health hazard when eaten.  I have heard a few anecdotal stories about people claiming to have had reactions to GMO foods, but none of them have been conclusively been shown to have been caused by the GMO food, other than someone possibly having a allergic reaction to a food, or a GMO food.  I believe that everyone is different, so that it is possible that someone in the world might have an allergic reaction to almost every type of food, whether GMO or not.  The key question to determine if food is safe is to determine if more than a few people have a reaction -- as we now do with peanuts.

I learned from Wikipedia article that the provision called "The Farmer Assurance Provision" AKA the Monsanto Protection act was passed as part of the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. The provisions originally were to expire on Sep 30 2013, but were later extended to December 31, 2013.  So, as far as I can tell, the so-called "act" is no longer in force.  Maybe there was some other extension, but I haven't been able to find it.

The way I understand the provision, growers, who in good faith, planted seeds, or manufacturers of seed, in good faith produced seeds that had been reviewed and approved by the FDA, could, if challenged in a court, continue to produce those seeds or grow those crops until the process made it through the court system.  Apparently there were judges and courts who, based upon lawsuits filed by anti-GMO organizations were forcing the seed manufacturers to stop selling FDA-approved seeds that were challenged in the court.  They were also forcing growers to plow under FDA-approved GMO crops that were challenged.

It is clear that the anti-GMO groups, and some publications, including the "International Business Times" (see this article) were opposed to the law, as well as the process by which the law was passed. Snopes also described the situation: Huffington Post has had a lot of articles during that period too

I totally agree with much of the criticism about how the bill got passed, as described in the International Business Times.  I do not like "trailer bills" that are attached to "must pass" legislation, such as annual budgets.  That circumvents all of the appropriate committee hearings and doesn't allow citizens time to write their representatives and senators to support or object to new laws.  I also don't like it when laws are actually written "in the back room" by individuals or companies who may profit from the wording of the law.  It always makes me suspicious.  There isn't much excuse for Congressional Representatives saying that they don't know what is in a bill that they pass.  They do have aids to review the wording of laws, and probably shouldn't vote for something that they haven't read.  However, it is often possible that the sponsors of the bills keep provisions like these hidden in the hopes that their peers might not know what they are voting for. I'm not sure that the criticism of the President is correct, since the provision was a short-term provision, and he was being forced to sign an appropriations bill that had many more, much larger, concerns included.   I also disagree that this law set a dangerous precedent. There have been lots of laws passed, particularly for short-term relief to allow agencies and courts to prevent legal disasters.  What would have happened if the anti-GMO lawsuits were permitted to require farmers to plow up FDA-approved crops?  Who would have reimbursed them if the anti-GMO plaintiffs later lost in court?  Somehow, I would think that if a farmer planted an FDA-approved seed, or a pharmacist sells an FDA-approved drug, they shouldn't be held liable for losses based upon unproven lawsuits.  The approval process for GMO foods and pharmaceuticals is designed to protect the public.  Yes, it may have flaws!  But it works as a carefully balanced trade off between getting needed new drugs or crops to market, and protecting the public. 

Corporate irresponsibility over GMOs - The Washington Post

I've been very concerned about the current popular effort to denigrate "Genetically Modified Organisms" or GMO food.  Genetic modification, in effect, accelerates the process of cross-breeding to achieve specialized hybrids which have helped feed the world.  There have been no proven cases of sickness or disease specifically caused by the genetic modification of foods.  But the mystique seems to continue!

I was very impressed by this op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Union Tribune that was a reprint from the Washington Post Corporate irresponsibility over GMOs - The Washington Post

Michael explained the problem much better than I ever could, and his main point is that now many large, mainstream companies such as Chipotle & Whole Foods are "cashing-in" on the concept and are helping to promote the fear of GMO foods.  Yes, anything to discriminate their business from the others, and be able to extract a premium price over their competitors seems like good business.  Michael points out that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization all conclude that GMOs are safe to eat.  How many leading organizations need to say something is OK to cancel out one bit of "junk science" that says it isn't OK? (see this link)

Yes, there may be other reasons to not want to use GMO food.  For example, it is possible that pollen from a GMO crop could get infused into wild plants.  It could damage habitat and put endangered plants or animals at risk for extinction.  However, it doesn't make sense to avoid all GMO food based upon that rationale.

Should those of us who believe GMO food is safe now boycott businesses such as Chipotle & Whole Foods?  Should we go out of our way to buy GMO foods?  Somehow, I think that very few people would jump on that bandwagon!  At first the anti-GMO crowd were just a few "junk science" believers who came up with clever terms such as "FrankenFood" --but now Anti-GMO has the power of large businesses with huge marketing muscle to help spread even more "fear" among the masses. The movement is going to end up hurting the world!  Gonna be tough to stop!

I'm also ashamed of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. I have been a supporter and subscriber to Consumer Reports continuously since around 1970, and believe in their causes.  In this GMO cause, however, the leadership of CU has lost their way and gone off the deep end!  By insisting on GMO labeling, CU adds credence to the fears that GMO food might be in some way dangerous to eat.  It is clear that CU knows there is no danger, but pushes anyway for disclosure.    There are many dangerous things hiding in our foods that we do need labeling for, or have them removed.  By fighting for GMO labeling, CU loses the political capital needed to push for protecting our food supply against the much more dangerous chemicals, such as pesticides, heavy metals, or even the amount of Neu5GC in our red meat, which UC San Diego has shown to be the cause of many of the cancers as we get older.
CU should refrain from trying to paint all GMO foods with the same brush.  If a specific GMO food or food additive is determined to be harmful, then CU should advocate to have it removed from our food supply or the amount identified on labels.  Meanwhile GMO foods have saved the world from famine and malnutrition.