Of course it doesn’t mention particular companies.
It essentially deregulates genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by allowing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to override judicial rulings and grant temporary permits for conventional farmers to plant and grow genetically modified crops while pending review. Previously, a court could suspend the planting and selling of genetically engineered crops if presented with a potential health or environmental risk or if not properly approved by the USDA. However, as legal battles persist, the “biotech rider” protects the ability of large biotech companies including Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, to continue business as usual with the USDA’s blessing.
Monsanto has been fighting this for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Geertson_Seed_Farms
And one of Obama’s recent ‘appointees...a former Monsanto employee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html
Here is the Plant Protection Act that section 735 voids.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/PlantProtAct2000.pdf
Good luck with finding GMO or genetically modified in that too.
Other than increasing the EPA’s powers, the bill itself does almost the opposite of what is claimed on these blogs. It eliminates regulations that are what hurt smaller farmers. It would do nothing for big agribusiness that always find ways around the system. At that, Monsanto’s presence grew after the Plant Protection act and more and more small farmers were pushed out, so eliminating it hopefully will mitigate that.
No biotech event is commercialized until it is tested and approved. Once it is approved, farmers and downstream purchasers need to be able to rely on the determination. Suppose Farmer Bob has planted an approved event. The corn is up, or in the bin, or on a boat to China. An anti-biotech advocacy group goes judge shopping and finds a left wing tool willing to overturn the event approval based on Luddite fantasies and fear mongering press releases. Suddenly everyone in the supply chain has tons of unapproved product, which has very likely been commingled with other varieties, and you’ve now got a major trade disruption. All this legislation does is allow USDA to throw a circuit breaker and buy time for a rational review. Remember that this is with regard to reconsideration of previously approved events that have now entered the supply chain.
Political risk is a growing problem in our brave new world, and a lot of it is judge driven. If an activity is regulated and you have the relevant permits, licenses, or approvals, you should be able to proceed in good faith without gunslinging activist judges changing the rules retroactively.
As to GMOs, most U.S. corn and soybeans have been GM for 15 years. The technology is also spreading rapidly around the world. Activist groups hate it not because it is unsafe (it’s not), but because it’s big corporate agriscience and is best adapted to modern hi tech farming. Those who are nostalgic for endless lines of peasants toiling in the fields hate modern agriculture. The rest of the world, however, is not obligated to remain poor in order to provide photo ops for vacationing westerners.
For its part, Europe doesn’t like biotech because Europe doesn’t want to compete with modern producers in the U.S., Argentina, and Brazil. Partly as a result, Europeans pay twice to three times what we do for food, measured as a percentage of disposable income. Sane people in Europe understand perfectly well that they’ve created a mythological bogeyman as a smokescreen for naked protectionism, but the politics have taken over and reform will be difficult.
Some here seem not to like biotech because they’ve bought in to some of the hobgoblin stories put about by the usual Luddite suspects. If you are one of these folks, the good news is that you have a perfectly simple solution. Buy organic. You will pay a stiff premium and incur the higher health risks attendant on premodern production methods, but that is your call to make.