Repeal the Monsanto Protection Act (Farmer Assurance Provision Section 735 of HR 933)

Monsanto’s Mon 810 corn is genetically engineered to produce a synthetic pesticide that has been proven to destroy bees and has been banned in Poland.   Monsanto’s GMO’s are no longer welcome in Europe, and, as a result, the company no longer markets them there. But don't expect the US to ban the bee killing plants anytime soon.

The Farmer Assurance Provision, section 735 of HR 933, was slipped into the bill at the Senate level, without debate or a vote, into the emergency Continuing Resolution signed into law in March, to fund the U.S. government through Sept. 30.

The Plant Protection Act, passed in 2000 authorizes the Dept of Agriculture to prevent the introduction of “plant pests” into the U.S. food supply.   Regulations classify genetically engineered plants as “plant pests.”   Persons wishing to plant such genetically engineered plants are prohibited from doing so unless granted non-regulated status by the Animal and Plant Inspection Service.   In order to grant the non-regulated status, a detailed environmental impact statement must be prepared by the federal agencies responsible.

The Monsanto Protection Act renders any court reversal of non-regulated status or a court injunction against growing plants that have been proven to be dangerous ineffectual, at the request of any grower or seed producer.  Hence the term “Monsanto Protection Act, because it is the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds in the world.  

There is already a huge grass roots movement to repeal the provision, but an attempt by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon has already failed, because the U.S. Congress is bought and paid for by special interests such as Monsanto. 

Recently, in the State of Oregon, non--approved Monsanto wheat contaminated wheat fields, nine years after and 500 miles away from Monsanto field trials), is proposing to introduce an amendment to repeal the provision.    Contamination of natural plant life by genetically engineered crops, which are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, occurs naturally by the process of pollination.   The wheat crisis is being minimized by the government, despite the fact that it could affect wheat exports, which are mostly to countries who will not accept the genetically engineered wheat.   The U.S. is the largest exporter of wheat in the world.

Bypassing courts by custom designed legislation is illegal.  Does our constitution protect our environment from destruction and guarantee us the right not to be poisoned in our own backyard?   “A law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.”   City of Mobile, Alabama v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1979).  If the right to an environment free from destruction is a fundamental right, then perhaps the Monsanto Protection Act is unconstitutional.

The prevention of the destruction of our environment has been recognized internationally as a fundamental human right, and it is a violation of international law to subject individuals to scientific experimentation without their consent.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that "no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation." ICCPR,. 7. “This is legally binding on the more than 160 States-Parties that have ratified the convention without reservation to the provision. By its terms, this prohibition is not limited to state actors; rather, it guarantees individuals the right to be free from nonconsensual medical experimentation by any entity — state actors, private actors, or state and private actors behaving in concert.”   See Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2nd^nd Cir. 2009).

The  9th Circuit has upheld the prosecution of human rights violations in other countries under the Alien Torts Statute for actions which result in the destruction of the environment.   Sarei v. Tinto, PLC, 671 F. 3d 736 (9th^th Cir. 2011).   It stands to reason that the citizens of our own country should also have the same human rights.   
To allow the executive branch to exempt persons affected by a court order or judgment from the effect of that order or judgment is a violation of the  constitutional separation of powers.   The separation of powers into the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government is fundamental to its survival and the preservation of liberty.   These distinctions are designed to act as checks and balances against each other and the lines between them should not be blurred at the request of one individual or, in this case, one company, at the expense of the protection of our food supply and our very survival.

 

Congress cannot vest review of the decisions of Article III courts in officials of the eExecutive bBranch.   Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995).   Interference by the executive branch, with orders of the judicial branch violates the separation of powers.   See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).   

 

In this case, not only is the legislative branch interfering with the powers of Article III courts, but the interference also allows the executive branch (the USDA) to set aside and invalidate the enforcement of a court judgment, order or injunction.   We must protect our courts from this interference.