H.r. 933 a.k.a. 'the Monsanto Rider' a.k.a. 'Monsanto Protection Act'. What the hell does it actually mean?

So. Big news. There's no way to get around this if you happen to be even remotely active on any social network. After the ludicrous accusation that Monsanto was 'copyrighting tomatoes' earlier this year, the big foodstuff trading, researching and engineering company finds itself once more in the cross-hairs of social network activists.

Lets have a look at how justified this action really is.

This time around, Monsanto is facing accusations of playing the U.S. senate like a puppet master, nestling laws into budget appropriation bills that allow it to continue it's evil research and the sale of poisonous foods without limits. The controversy reached nothing short of an 'explosive' status after the signing of H.R. 933. The consolidated and further continuing appropriations act of 2013 is a (nearly unreadable) document dealing mostly with defense and veteran budget allocations, so what is in there that gets people to start flipping their shit?

Section 735 seems to be the bringer of bad news. Nestled within the 120.000 word document, a little clause pops up that forces the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation to traders, producers and retailers of food during a time when their products are undergoing tests to see if they conform with another document: the plant protection act. If you're in the mood for wading through the trenches of U.S. documentation, this is the section in question.

"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." -source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr933/text

So what the hell did you just read? Something about 'non-regulated' status right? That must mean that this IS indeed the law protecting Monsanto right? Well, the actual meaning of this tidbit of text is something quite different.

The articles of the plant protection act referenced (411a and 412c) refer to the 'movement' of plant pests and noxious weeds. That means any form of trading, transporting, planting, growing, cultivating etc. etc. etc. of plants that could potentially be considered detrimental to the health of those who consume them. Here's what sec. 735 actually says about non-regulated status under those acts:

• non regulated status is given to plants that are considered healthy after testing (and thus do not gain the status of noxious weeds or plant pests)
• Whenever the test results of a crop are questioned and submitted for re-evaluation farmers, growers, farm operators or producers of that crop gain temporary immunity until the re-evaluation is complete.
• Farmers, growers, farm operators or producers are allowed to keep transporting, planting, cultivating, trading and doing other activities as if the non-regulated status was still in place.
• This immunity is removed as soon as the re-evaluation of the crop is complete. If the re-evaluation comes back negative, all the crops will be destroyed. If re-evaluation is positive, no harm was done to the farmers, growers, farm operators or producers in possession of the crop.
• In all cases compliance to other laws regarding food, health and environmental protection are still in effect and must be taken into consideration, even when acting under temporary immunity.

So where the hell is Monsanto involved in this story? Exactly. Nowhere. This act simply states that people in possesion of a crop that is being questioned for it's health effects are not going to be screwed over by having all their crops pre-preemptively destroyed. Say farmer Bob has acquired a new FDA approved strain of tomato seeds that he plans to sow next month. As it turns out, the FDA research was not carried out properly and the seeds have to undergo re-evaluation. Bob now has a silo full of seeds that have essentially lost their approval. Before sec. 735, he would be forced to destroy all of them immediately. Now, Bob is free to at least sow his seeds and cultivate them without losing his investment, until the research is completed. If it turns out that the seeds shouldn't have been approved, Bob will still have to destroy everything. If it turns out their approval was justified, Bob hasn't lost any valuable time and can go on doing what it is he was doing in the first place.

Also, Benjamin Franklin said you shouldn't take my word for it either.
Go read sec 735 and do some research yourself people!

Nowhere in this act is there a reference to GMO's, GE crops and the companies producing them. Nowhere does it say that a company like Monsanto could distribute (potentially) lethal crops without being questioned by the law. It only states that crops which have ALREADY BEEN APPROVED UNDER THE PLANT PROTECTION ACT BEFORE, can still be distributed temporarily when those crops are being re-evaluated. I don't have the slightest clue where this rumor came from in the first place, but all the news sources reporting on it clearly haven't read a single word of sec. 735. So is this the rumor mill, milling away as usual? Yes. Yes it is.

Sec. 735 for all intents and purposes, is still a rider. A law nestled away into a document that would have most likely been approved for the rest of it's contents. Laws and regulations coming into effect through such means are, in my opinion, still a deplorable thing and in direct opposition to any and all integrity standards of the trias politica. Even though this might not actually be the 'Monsanto protection act' it was made out to be, I would still very much stand against it for those reasons.