The Monsanto Protection Act

7/28/2019 The Monsanto Protection Act

1/9

The Monsanto Protection Act? A Debate on Controversial New Measure OverGenetically Modified Crops

Guests

Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the PublicInterest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that addresses food and nutrition issues.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. She recently wrote a book calledFoodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America. On Wednesday, theorganization is releasing a major new report called "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile." Hautersfamily runs an organic farm that provides produce to hundreds of families as part of the growingnationwide community-supported agriculture movement.

President Obama outraged food activists last week when he signed into law a spending bill witha controversial rider that critics have dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act." The rider says thegovernment must allow the planting of genetically modified crops even if courts rule they posehealth risks. The measure has galvanized the U.S. food justice movement, which is nowpreparing for its next fight when the provision expires in six months. We host a discussion on the"Monsanto Protection Act" and the safety of genetically modified foods with two guests:Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the PublicInterest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that addresses food and nutrition issues;and Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch and author of the book,"Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America." On Wednesday,Hauters group is releasing a major new report called "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile."

AARON MAT: President Obama outraged food activists last week when he signed into law aspending bill with a controversial rider attached. Critics have dubbed the rider the "MonsantoProtection Act." Thats because it effectively says the government must allow the planting ofgenetically modified crops even if courts rule they pose health risks. The provision calls on theU.S. Department of Agriculture, the USDA, to, quote, "grant temporary permit(s) or temporaryderegulation," unquote, to the crop growers until an environmental review is completed. In otherwords, plant the GE crop first and assess the impact later.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the biggest supporters of the provision was Republican Senator RoyBlunt of Missouri, Monsantos home state. Blunt reportedly crafted the bills language with

Monsatos help.On the other side was the lone member of the Senate whos also an active farmer, Democrat Jon

Tester of Montana. Senator Tester tried to remove the rider when the budget bill made its waythrough Congress last month. Speaking on the Senate floor, Tester said the provision wouldundermine judicial oversight and hurt family farmers.

SEN. JON TESTER: The United States Congress is telling the Agricultural Department thateven if a court tells you that youve failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over,you must disregard the courts ruling and allow the crop to be planted anyway. Not only does

this ignore the constitutional idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically modified
http://www.democracynow.org/appearances/gregory_jaffehttp://www.democracynow.org/appearances/gregory_jaffehttp://www.democracynow.org/appearances/wenonah_hauterhttp://www.democracynow.org/appearances/wenonah_hauterhttp://www.democracynow.org/appearances/wenonah_hauterhttp://www.democracynow.org/appearances/gregory_jaffe


2/9

crops take hold across this country, even when a judge finds it violates the lawonce again,agribusiness multinational corporations putting farmers as serfs. Its a dangerous precedent. Mr.

President, it will paralyze the USDA, putting the department in the middle of a battle betweenCongress and the courts. And the ultimate loser will be our family farmers going about theirbusiness and feeding America in the right way.

AARON MAT:Well, Senator Testers effort failed, and the rider was included in last monthslegislation that avoided a government shutdown.

Now that President Obama has signed the spending bill into law, some uncertainty remains overwhether it introduces a new policy or whether it codifies existing government practice. Butregardless, its galvanized the food justice movement here in the U.S., renewing calls for greateroversight of genetically modified foods and of corporate control of the food chain. And althoughthey may have lost the first round, food activists are gearing up for another fight later this year:Because it was passed as a rider and not as its own legislation, the provision will expire in sixmonths, when it will surely come up again.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, to discuss the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" and the issue ofgenetically modified foods, were joined now by two guests.

Gregory Jaffe is director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the PublicInterest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that addresses food and nutrition issues. Hehas expressed cautious support for genetically engineered foods.

Were also joined by Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch. On

Wednesday, her group is releasing a major newreportcalled "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile."Hauters family runs an organic farm that supplies produce to hundreds of families as part of the

growing nationwide community-supported agriculture, or CSA, movement. And shes author ofthe bookFoodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America.

We invited Monsanto also to join this, but they declined to come on the program.

Why dont we start with Wenonah Hauter? Can you describe what this rider is and how youbelieve it got into the spending bill that was passed?

WENONAH HAUTER: Well, this rider is unprecedented and really outrageous interferencewith our courts and the separation of powers. Now, the biotech industry has been working to geta rider like this into federal legislation since early last spring, when they attempted to attach it to

the farm bill, which actually never passed. Now, what happened is, in all of the pressure to pass aspending bill that would allow government agencies to continue operating, the rider was attached,and it went through Senator Barbara Mikulskis Appropriations Committee. And she left thisrider in the bill, and we hold her responsible. Now, part of the problem with these large spendingbills that have to pass very quickly is theres a lot of room for this kind of mischief. And thesespending bills are a response to the dysfunction in Congress when we cant have a normalbudgeting process.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/


3/9

And what this rider actually does is it prevents the courts from stepping in under our mostimportant environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, which gives citizens theright to sue: If they believe that the government is about to make a very large and importantdecision that will have many impacts, they can sue for judicial review. And this rider willprevent that in the case of genetically engineered crops being planted after a court says that there

hasnt been a proper environmental assessment. Were very concerned about this, because thereare a number of crops in the pipeline, like 2,4-D corn, which could actually be impacted by thisrider.

Now, because this is a budget bill and the budget bill will run out at the end of this fiscal year,which is September 31st, this bill or this rider will no longer be in effect. However, we should beconcerned. Because of the dysfunction in Congress, its possible that the spending bill that wasjust passed could just be reauthorized for the coming months until a new budget could be debatedand passed. So, activists are organizing around the country to put pressure on elected officials tomake sure that this doesnt happen.

AARON MAT:And, Greg Jaffe, youre with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.Your response to this bill? And does it represent something new here?

GREGORY JAFFE:So, I mean, let me first say that I dont support this rider in the bill, but IalsoIm surprised. Im not sureI dont see why it was necessary by the people who thoughtit needed to be put into law, nor do I think that it changes the current powers or legal authoritythat the USDA already had or the relationship of the courts and the executive branch.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about why you feel that this bill, Gregory Jaffe, or the rider on the billdoesnt change things.

GREGORY JAFFE: OK, so, you have to go back a few years. And the way that USDAregulates genetically engineered crops is they regulate them under the Plant Protection Act, andthey ensure that these plants dont have any plant pest characteristics or harm agricultural

interests. And so they regulate them, and at some point they decide to deregulate them, to decidethat they dont have any of these risks associated with them, and they can be planted freely by

farmers. That is a major federal action, and at the same time they need to comply with theNational Environmental Policy Act, as Wenonah mentioned, and that requires them doing anassessment of the potential environmental impacts of theirof their action. And thats requiredby all federal agencies when they do any major action that might impact the environment.

Several of these decisions by USDA have been challenged in court. The genetically engineeredalfalfa was challenged in court. The genetic-engineered sugar beets was challenged in court. Andin both of those cases, the court said that while USDA didnt violate the Plant Protection Act,didnt make a wrong decision regarding whether the genetically engineered crop was a plant pest,they didnt follow the right procedures, and they didnt do the proper assessment under theNational Environmental Policy Act. And so, the courts, to a large extent, slapped the hand ofthethe wrist of the USDA and said, "You have to go back and do that, and until you do that,your decision on the merits on whether the genetically engineered crops harm agriculture needsto be vacated." And so they went back, and they did that. Now, in the case of the sugar beets,


4/9

while they were doing that environmental assessment, they issued temporary permits, which theyare allowed to do, or temporary deregulation, under the current Plant Protection Act. So theyfigured out a way to allow farmers to grow that crop inwith conditions imposed, so that theywouldnt impact the environment in any way, so that there wouldnt be any potential

environmental impact while they carried out the National Environmental [Policy] Acts

environmental assessment.

So, I think thats what this provision says. It says that if a court vacates or turns back a decision

by the secretary about a genetically engineered crop, that the secretary can go ahead and issue atemporary permit or partially deregulate that crop, with conditionsthe language specificallytalks about with conditionsthat ensure that theres no environmental impact, while they goahead and comply with the courts order.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Wenonah Hauter

GREGORY JAFFE: So, to me

AMY GOODMAN:what is the problem here, then, if there has been no change?

WENONAH HAUTER: Well, thereone of the changes is that it has delayed these cropsgetting into the food system. But I dont think we want to get caught up in the technical details ofhow these crops are laxly approved. What we have here is Monsanto flexing its political muscle,because its not only trying to pass riders like the current one on judicial review, its been trying

to get riders on these big spending bills or the farm bill that would actually prohibit any reviewand would be a rubber stamp of these crops. I think we have to look at the enormous amount ofpower, political power, that Monsanto has, that it can actually get this kind of precedent-changing rider that could have effects in other areas, because we dont like to see this kind of

precedent that really prohibits judicial review.

And I think we have to look at how much money that the biotech industry has spent on lobbying.I mean, over the last 10 years, the biotech industry has spent $272 million on lobbying andcampaign contributions. They have a hundred lobby shops in Washington. Theyve hired 13former members of Congress. Theyve hired 300 former staffers for the White House and for

Congress. And Monsanto alone has spent $63 million over the last 12 years on lobbying andcampaign contributions. This is about political muscle and forcing their will on the Americanpeople. And if we dont put a stop to it here, were going to see many, many more serious

violations.

AMY GOODMAN:Were going to go to break and come back to this discussion. Were talkingto Wenonah Hauter, who is author ofFoodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food andFarming in America, and Greg Jaffe, who is with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.Were talking about Monsanto, which is the worlds largest producer of genetically modifiedseeds. We invited them on; they declined to come on. Well be back in a minute.


5/9

AMY GOODMAN: Our guests today are Greg Jaffehes with the Center for Science in thePublic Interestand Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch. Her book is calledFoodopoly:The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America.

I want to read from Monsantos statement regarding what they call the "Farmer Assurance

Provision." They said, quote, "The point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a carefulbalance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriateenvironmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews."

But I want to go to the core of really what youre both concerned about, and that is the issue ofgenetically engineered foods. Greg Jaffe, youre not as concerned as Wenonah Hauter. Talk

about what genetically engineered foods are and what your thoughts are on them.

GREGORY JAFFE: So, farmers have been growing genetically engineered crops for about 15years now in the United States. And those varieties of corn and soybeans and cotton and canolawere engineered in the laboratory by scientists, where they add a gene from a different organism

that imparts a specific trait, a beneficial trait, into that crop, and then that crop is grown, and thenfood is made from that crop. So we have some crops that have a built-in pesticide, for example,so that we dont need to spray a chemical pesticide over the top of those crops. And so, if thats agenetically engineered corn, that corn might end up in our food in terms of high-fructose cornsyrup or cornstarch or corn flakes, and something along those lines.

The evidence to date on the current crops that are grown in the United States is that those aresafe to eat. I think there is a strong international consensus about that. And so, you know, atCSPI, were comfortable in telling people that if youre going to be eating food made from thosecrops that are currently out there, there is not a food safety risk associated with those crops.

Thats different than the regulatory system, and I think maybe thats at the core of some of this.And I think that thewhether were talking about the USDA, the Department of Agriculture orthe Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency, clearly the U.S.regulatory system and oversight of these crops has not been ideal. And so, at the center, wevebeen working for a number of years to try to improve that regulatory system, to give the agenciesthe authority to make sure, before these crops get out there, that they are safe to eat and they aresafe for the environment. So while we can say theyre safe, current ones, for the future ones, wewould like the agencies to take a little closer look at them.

AARON MAT:Well, lets get a response from Wenonah Hauter. Your thoughts on this issue,the argument here being that the science so far shows that its safe, but regulation needs toimprove?

WENONAH HAUTER: Well, first of all, I would disagree that theres any internationalagreement that genetically engineered crops are safe. And, in fact, theyre banned in some

countries. And theres a lot of concern in places like Europe, where we have the precautionary

principle, about genetically engineered foods. And there actually is a body of research that showsthat genetically engineered soy and corn have health effects. These studies are feeding studies onanimals, which is how this research is generally done. They show liver and kidney impairment


6/9

there are a number of studies showing this. Rat pups whose mothers ate genetically engineeredsoy had high mortality rates. And the genetically engineered hormone thats used toits

actually injected into cows so that they produce more milk. Italian research has found that thosetransgenes actually survivethey survive pasteurization, and they end up in the milk.

So, part of the problem is also that there isnt enough research. We have a very lax regulatorysystem. The technology licensing agreements that Monsanto and other companies have for thebiotech products that they develop mean that researchers cant legally get a hold of these seeds or

grow the crops to actually do testing. And theres also not money for the kind of long-term healthimpact studies that there should be when youre doing such a major change in our food system.So I think there are a lot of reasons to be concerned.

And were also talking about the immense control over seeds that, well, one companyI mean,we basically have three companies that dominate seeds in the world. So, if youre saying thattheres no problem with genetically engineered seeds, youre very narrowly looking at what the

impacts could be on the developing world, even farmers here, where Monsanto regularly

investigates 500 farmers, approximately, every year and sues them if they dont adhere to theircontract. Monsanto is very aggressive with farmers. And its very clear that this is simply a wayto control seeds and profit from them, and from their co-branded chemicals, their herbicides likeRoundup Ready, that are applied along with the genetically engineered crops that are sowed inthe fields.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Greg Jaffe?

GREGORY JAFFE:Im not here to defend Monsanto or the industry. I would agree that theyhave practices that may not be the best practices out there. Theyre clearly out to make money.

Theres no question about that. But I think we have to separate the company from the merit of

these individual crops themselves. And so, when I talk about the safety of the crops, Im talkingabout a case-by-case basis. I cant say that the future cropswhether a future crop is going to besafe or not going to be safe. We can only look at what we have today and look at the bestscientific evidence out there and say, "Is this genetically engineered corn, this variety that has abuilt-in pesticide, and is it safe to eat? Is it safe for the environment?" And I do think that the

AMY GOODMAN:And do you feel its been adequately studied and that the corporateinfluence over the science hasnt prevented that or contaminated the results?

GREGORY JAFFE: I think that, you know, the Food and Drug Administration, the EuropeanFood Safety Agency, the WHOthe World Health Organizationthe Royal Academy ofSciences, the National Academy of Sciences, a lot of these international scientific bodies havetaken a look, as independent scientists, at not just the information that Monsanto or the biotechdeveloper has provided, but all of the research out there. And I think thatin fact, I think theEuropean Food Safety Agency spent millions of dollars giving independent researchers to do riskassessment work around these genetically engineered crops. And to date, the consensus hasbeenagain, for the current crops that are out therethat those crops are safe to eat and thatthey have some environmental benefits and that any environmental risks that they have can bemitigatedkeeping in mind, obviously, that the agriculture has a huge environmental footprint.


7/9

AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel the science is as established as Greg Jaffe is saying, WenonahHauter?

WENONAH HAUTER:No, I dont think that the science is as established. And I think youhave to look at the enormous power that these companies have on our regulatory agencies here

and increasingly in Europe. We at Food & Water Watch have a Brussels office, and one of ourmain jobs there is trying to document the footprint that our U.S. biotech industry is having inEurope, trying to influence their Food Safety Agency and the different governments thatsomeof which have bans on genetically engineered food.

I think that this is a political issue. This is not about the safety of these crops, because therereally has never been long-term research on what the impact is, both on the diet and on theenvironment. And Im concerned when I see that the immense amount of money that Monsanto

and other companies are spending on trying to greenwash themselves, when they are able topersuade well-meaning advocates that theyve done a good job.

I mean, I think we have to look at Monsanto. They have spent, just over a two-year period, $279million on advertising, talking about how they want to feed the world and that theyre reallydoing this for the benefit of humankind, not to make money. But when you look at what theyreactually doing, they are making an enormous profit on seeds. Seeds are becoming increasinglyexpensive. And there are a lot of broader issues besides the few health impact and environmentstudies that have been done. I mean, we have to look at this in the broadest context of what itmeans to give one, two, three companies this much control over how seeds are sold and producedand food is produced.

AARON MAT:Lets talk about the movement to label products containing the ingredientsmade by these companies. While on the campaign trail in 2007, presidential candidate Barack

Obama promised to label GMO foods, if elected.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA:Heres what Ill do aspresident. Ill immediately implementcountry-of-origin labeling, because Americans should know where their food comes from. Welllet folks know whether their food has been genetically modified, because Americans shouldknow what theyre buying.

AARON MAT:Thats President Obama speaking in 2007, before he was elected president.Greg Jaffe, do you support the labeling of GMO foods?

GREGORY JAFFE: We support the fact that consumers should have the right to know andshould be able to get information about their foods, whether their foods are geneticallyengineered, whether their foods came from plants that were irradiated or were produced throughchemical mutagenesis. So, we do think consumers who want to know about how their foods wereproduced and where they came from should have a right to do that.

We arent supportive of a mandatory labelputting on mandatory label, at this point, on whethera food was genetically engineered or not. And that is in part because we dont want information

out there thats misleading to the consumer, and also because we want to ensure that the most


8/9


9/9

We shouldnt use labeling as a surrogate for safety. We shouldnt allow a food that is an allergen,

that has a new allergen, onto the food supply and label it and let people choose. If theres any

food safety risk in that food, it shouldnt be allowed, which is why we at CSPI advocate for amandatory premarket approval process of these genetically engineered crops and analysisbeforehand, because if theres any question of safety, they shouldnt go on the market. We dont

believe we should allow them on the market but, because theyre an allergen, label them and letpeople choose. So, I just wanted to clarify that.

The genetically engineered salmon, I think thatI think theres been a lot of misunderstandingout there about this genetically engineered salmon thats in front of FDA for approval. In mymind, its really just a proof of concept application. The company has requested that this salmon

be grown in one facility in Panama for inland tanks, and its only going to produce a smallamount of this salmon. Less than 1 percent of the salmon that we would import would be thisgenetically engineered salmon. So, although Im still waiting to see whether FDA does approve

that and whether its safe to eat and safe for the environment, assuming that they do that, I think

that its going to be a long time before we might see this as a dominant part of the salmon market.

AMY GOODMAN:Were going to break, and then were going to continue with WenonahHauter on her new book,Foodopoly. Greg Jaffe, I want to thank you so much for being with us,director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and alsoWenonah Hauter with Food & Water Watch. Well come back with Wenonah in a minute.

GREGORY JAFFE: Thank you very much.

The Monsanto Protection Act

Documents

Transcript of The Monsanto Protection Act