Have you read what the Monsanto protect grantee says?

Please define “unnatural things”, then explain how they “slow the metabolism”.

Have you read the text of the law that was signed? Despite the breathless rhetoric expressed in your link, the law is nowhere near so anti-consumer. Read the law and then come back with words of your own about it.

Here is the header and summary (the TinyURL is for http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.933:)
and here is the text of the legislation.

Whole foods are natural they come out of the ground or do not have chemical additives.
When humans eat substances that our metabolism does not recognize it slows down.
I eat fresh food not progressed garbage.

@CWOTUS
You can choose to believe what you like.
I stated the facts
I have better things to do that argue with someone who wishes to distort the facts.

Apparently, however, you’re the one who chooses to believe what you like. Since you obviously don’t want to read the text of the law, here is Section 735, which your link was so hyperbolic about:

SEC. 735. 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© 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.
SEC. 736. …

Yep, I guess we’re all gonna die now.

Whether or not you like eating GM food, the thing about which to be angry is the corporate influence on law.

Actually, @dabbler, speaking not as a defender of Monsanto here or any other corporation specifically, if it weren’t for the lobbyists who inform the lawmakers of the workings of various industries, the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President would be completely unworkable, unfeasible, unenforceable and by and large disastrous – even more than they already are.

Since the Congress is made up overwhelmingly of lawyers, they have very little technical knowledge of how other industries, even “business in general”, is conducted. Lobbyists at least tell Congress “we can do this, but with the technology available and the markets we serve, we can’t do that”.

Personally, I think that when Congress needs experts to tell it how to craft law, they’re probably making law for things that they shouldn’t, anyway.

@dabbler
Your correct.
In plan English not legal language the Monsanto Grantee says this.
The “Monsanto Protection Act” is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it’s a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

REUTERS
A maize seedling is seen in the corn greenhouse at the Monsanto Research facility in Chesterfield, Missouri October 9, 2009.

Sponsored Link
TD Ameritrade IRA. Get started today.
President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.

There’s a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision—Section 735 of the spending bill—to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:

1.) The “Monsanto Protection Act” effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds—which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company—and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto’s profits.

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.

2.) The provision’s language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It’s just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it’s one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the “Monsanto Protection Act” even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California’s Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn’t mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the “Monsanto Protection Act.” In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.

5.) It sets a terrible precedent. Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.

“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Seattle attorney Bill Marler—who has represented victims of foodborne illness in successful lawsuits against corporations—told the New York Daily News.

@dabbler
I am not a lawyer but, it is clear that both parties work for the lobbyist, corporations and campaign contributors. They are all corrupt and immoral.
They all disgust me.
I am sure Monsanto lawyers and supporters will lie, twist the facts and fool ignorant people or those too lazy to do research and read.
Above are the facts.
Congress and Obama care about Monsanto not the health of American’s.

It is all or nothing. If you ban GM foods due to its affect on health, then you have to ban everything else that is bad for your health, like red meat, cigarettes, soda, etc.

This is exactly why Bloomberg was shut down by the judge in New York. Banning one thing (large soda) is meaningless when it can be circumvented by an ample amount of other products.

Besides, this is all nonsense anyway. My friends, my family, and myself, eat red meat, smoke cigarettes, cigars, drink, etc. and yet not of us are feeling the health affects of what was found in the studies. The answer is moderation, nothing in excess. My grandfather just turned 99, and he’s been smoking and eating steaks since he was a kid.

If you don’t like something, don’t eat it. If you can’t stand to look at something, don’t look. If you’re eating something without understand what you’re eating, don’t eat it or it’s your own problem. You don’t have to ruin it for someone else because you’re weak or bitter about it. In-other-words, mind your own business.

Man, I hate it when someone tells me what to think. And then proceeds with a rather one-sided and unbalanced description of things.

You are in no way discussing this in a fair and honest way. You are trying to persuade people to take a decision based on your emotions.

I disagree with you on the dangers of GM food, on your telling of the situation, and on the proper role for the courts to take.

@avaeve That’s a naive way to look at what’s happening with Monsanto. “If you don’t like something, don’t eat it.”
What if you have no to tell what the food is made of?
Monsanto has consistently suppressed labelling of GM foods, and as with the recent proposition in California, where labelling looks like it might be required they have distorted it (in that case “genetically modified” was defined to include any plant that had been cross-bred by classical pollination techniques).

People should have the choice to not eat something they don’t like. But that first requires good information available about the food.

Then why would you put something in your mouth if you don’t know what its made of? Now that is naivete – assuming everything you put in your mouth is good for you.

The point is we all deserve to have the information.
When just about everything at the grocery store potentially includes GM ingredients, and has no labelling about that aspect of the contents, then what are you going to do stop eating?

A lack of information does not equate to not being allowed to acquire information. No one is stopping you from calling up the company and asking them about their product and if you say every grocery store potentially includes GM, then there is no purpose in labeling it. That would be redundant. Buy organic. Buy from farm markets.

@dabbler
Your correct we have the right to know exactly what we are eating.
No company should be above the law. This legislation places Monsanto above the law. If their Frankenstein (GM) makes people ill they can not sew.
This clearly tells me that Congress is corrupt. They will say they had to pass the finance bill which the Monsanto bill was attached to. They should not have allowed it to be attached.
Senator blunt and Monsanto had it attached. The Democrats did nothing to stop Blunt. Obama did not veto it.
This is inexcusable.