From Alex on Sat, March 28, 2009

Hi there,

I wanted to make you aware of an online petition to stop HR 875, the so called ?Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009? that could effectively obliterate local small scale farming and gardening for profit in America. It would crush our small local food producers by imposing heavy government regulation that only large corporations could adhere to.

Please check out:  http://www.LeaveMyFoodAlone.org 

Spread the word!

From Jerusha on Sat, March 28, 2009

Hi there Alex,

As we mentioned in the post, we are encouraging our members to resist scare-mongering words like “obliterate local small scale farming.”

Thanks,
Blog Editor

From Tracey on Sun, March 29, 2009

HR 875 and S425 will make Organic gardeners Felons.
The proposed passage of HR 875 and S425 (National Animal Identification System Legislation) will effectively make everyone using heirloom seeds a felon. We’re not exaggerating: 5-10 yrs in a federal penitentiary if one is using methods deemed against the law. This is prime time to bring to the Obama’s (future felons if they persist in their organic, White House garden IF these bills should pass).  These bills are both CURRENTLY/NOW on the floor in both the House and the Senate!! The powers that be are working VERY hard to get this one under the wire without you knowing about it.

Blessings to the Obamas for implementing an organic kitchen garden on the White House Lawn. Now, let’s keep our President (and all organic farmers) out of prison.

WE MUST ACT NOW.

TELL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES TO…

VOTE NO on HR 875 AND S425

YOUR…VOICE…DOES…COUNT!!

Here?s a link to contact your congressman:

http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html

Here?s the link to find and contact your senator (s):

http://www.senate.gov

(Click on ?Find your senator? at the top right hand side of the page.)

FYI: YOU WILL NEED TO KNOW YOUR ZIP CODE PLUS THE FOUR DIGIT EXTENSION ZIP CODE (i.e., zip plus 4).

From BT on Mon, March 30, 2009

I would suggest doing research:

http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/bills/?bill=12878051

http://www.ccof.org/foodsafety.php

From Alex Tiller on Mon, March 30, 2009

Hello

I don?t consider it ?scare-mongering.?  This petition is designed to put pressure on the bill?s authors to tighten up the existing language or kill the bill.  We hope to make them recognize how many Americans are concerned with this issue and why.  A massive show of interest from consumers and producers should make them think hard and long before adding additional unnecessary levels of bureaucracy into the lives of American ag producers.  I know there is a lot of miss-information and fear mongering going around.  The claims of outlawing organic farming and food production are completely untrue.  However, this bill could still put Uncle Sam in our organic gardens and on small farms .  It opens the doors for future regulation and sets a standard of interference.  Small farms and organic gardens should be able to plant, pick and sell without the potential of the FDA saying that we have to do it their way.  Knowing your farmer or grower is the key to food safety, not legislation, red tape, and new laws.  There are a lot of people now saying HR875 is good just because they have proven that the original emails circulating on the are untrue.  It is unfortunate that people are so quick to just roll over and accept the bill just because some misrepresentations were unveiled.  Read the bill.  Think about the consequences.  I have written more on this topic at: http://blog.alextiller.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=2729&PostID=58102

From Jerry Friedman on Thu, April 02, 2009

Here’s a letter I wrote to my Congressman.  I look forward to comments on what I got right or wrong.

Dear Representative Lujan,

As someone who eats organic food and food grown here in New Mexico, I’m concerned about HR 875.  Please vote against this bill, or if it contains valuable safety advances, please vote for it only if it’s amended to allay the fears of small and organic growers.  Since we have seen disastrously bad regulators in the past, we can’t count on future regulators to be reasonable, so these amendments have to be in the law.  I’m going to make some suggestions.

The bill should equalize regulatory burdens by reducing them on small farmers and food producers while increasing them on large ones.  Thus the frequency of inspections and reports should be proportional to the amount of food produced.  This would put effort where it will maximize the safety of the most people and avoid putting small farms out of business.  Where this kind of proportionality isn’t possible, the bill should exempt small operations from burdensome regulations and the presumption on interstate commerce.  Small operations are repositories of tradition and diversity and sources of innovation.

Likewise the maximum fine should be a percentage of the violator’s revenue rather than a fixed amount (a million dollars).  This would create a real deterrent for big businesses while preventing the destruction of small businesses for minor violations.  The FDA should set up an objective fine schedule (as a percentage of the maximum) to apply the highest penalties in cases of the worst harm done, or potential averted by the inspection, and in cases of malice or blatant negligence.

Because of the good record of organic farming over thousands of years, the FDA should consider current widespread organic practices and levels of “contamination” to be safe.  When I buy organic apples or corn at a farmer’s market, I don’t mind an occasional worm—that proves it was grown without pesticides, the way I want it.  People like me should still be free to buy organic produce, so harmless insects, organic-fertilizer residues, and the like shouldn’t be considered contamination.

The subsection on “minimum standards relating to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene,” etc., should be clarified to say that in regard to fertilizers and biocides, especially non-organic ones, these standards will be _maximum_ levels of use of these chemicals and their presence in food.

Measures to prevent animal encroachment should take into account that wild rabbits or birds in fields don’t pose any health threat.  In the case of livestock, they should take into account the danger posed by those particular livestock—for instance, vegetarian-fed cows are less likely to carry certain diseases than cows that have been fed animal byproducts.

As a matter of Federal policy (though maybe this bill isn’t the right place), food safety should include the safety of farm workers and their families and people who may be exposed to agricultural chemicals by accident, including people with allergies or other unusual sensitivities.  A reduction in the risk of insect “contamination” is not worth a serious increase in the risk of exposure to insecticides.

In addition to exempting small farmers and food processors, such as people contributing to a bake sale, the bill should exempt (or allow state and local laws to exempt) traditional practices, such as those of the Amish and of Native tribes, as well as specialty items.  If some item such as raw milk should prove as dangerous as alcohol during pregnancy or as cigarettes (which I doubt), maybe the FDA should have the power to require a warning label.

Present widespread standards for seed storage should be accepted.  If serious danger is found at a seed bank, the FDA should take corrective measures that keep a maximum diversity of seed varieties available, in particular the option of genetically unmodified produce for those who prefer it.  This includes keeping diverse and unmodified seed stocks out of the control of companies that sell large quantities of a few varieties, especially genetically modified varieties.  This part of the bill should be written so these agribusinesses can’t take advantage of it by disguising themselves as preservers of diversity.

There’s time to consider this bill thoroughly and come up with a version that prevents nationwide food-poisoning outbreaks and provides accountability while explicitly protecting home gardeners and cooks, small farmers, and specialty operations with little potential to harm public health.

Your constituent and supporter,
Jerry Friedman

From Mrs. Sabo on Mon, April 06, 2009

When one writes a bill with such sweeping language that does not specifically exclude small farmers, roadside veggies stands, and home gardens it causes confusion and apprehension.

So here is the question:

Wouldn’t this entire mess just be cleared up if simple language, you know the Keep It Simple Silly principle, was applied?

How about:

“No foodstuffs produced by American Citizens on their own property for their own consumption, sharing with neighbors or to supplement other hungry individuals during these Economically Challenging times shall be covered by HR 875.”

I mean - we expect results - let us tell the legislators what we want.

Maybe that is too simple - but look at the situation we are in now by writing thousand page Bills.

From Diana on Wed, April 08, 2009

Hi, as someone who follows (but is not an expert) on the sustainable food movement, I’m wondering if there are any other more accessible articles written on this topic?

I think part of why the “scare-mongering” tactics work so well is because they’re written in layperson terms.  I got an email that said: “No more organic farming in California!”  To be honest, that made a heck of a lot more sense to me than “safety solutions must be based on actual risk assessments for different products and scales of farms, not assumptions based on an industrial food model.”

No offense, but most of us aren’t immersed in the science and the politics of it all.  We’re consumers who kind of have an idea of the issues and rely on orgs like Slow Food to help us make the best sense of things.

Thanks,
D

From Tristan Benz on Thu, April 09, 2009

Great post.  However, I would add that politics aren’t pretty and that there is a middle ground between sticking to the facts and scare-mongering.  Inspiring folks to get involved is critical to a process that [should] rely on the voice / will of the people.  To understand the problem, you have to look at the root and ask, are our politicians actually listening?

It is alarming what has happened in my industry with CPSIA legislation.  If you don’t know about this, start with overlawyered.com and there are many of us writing all the time, as it unfolds.  It’s a nightmare, to say the least.  It has totally ruined my business - a business, ironically, born out of a desire to improve products.  And it is a law that fails to make our children more safe.  Come August, you’re really going to see the fallout on our economy of a “well intended” but poorly executed law where broad language and failure to look at the facts and base the law on the three items you list above was the name of the day.  Just go take a look at the rally held in Washington April 1 at http://www.amendthecpsia.com and you’ll see this point glare!

Anyway - HR875 and NAIS are same horse, different color legislation.  If you get educated on CPSIA, then I suggest you take note that the same committee that sweepingly passed CPSIA (with all but I think four that either didn’t vote or voted no) and sweepingly is refusing to hear us (the rally was arranged by citizens / businesses post three cancelled hearings by Waxman & committee…) is reviewing HR875.

I can tell you from experience, our legislators aren’t really listening.  Unless and until they DO actually hear from a broad range of people (and shaking people loose from their complacency is another challenge in itself - I contend it isn’t going to happen without finding that middle ground of which I speak here) and it’s made perfectly clear what our will is, I can only caution you that it may prove more challenging that you anticipate. 

Ultimately, I caution everyone to get educated on the history of CPSIA and see what parallels exist - not just in the law but in the attitude on the part of those on the committees responsible for passing these. 

Ugh!  Let it NOT happen to other industries, what has shamefully taken place in ours.  Our children are going to suffer if we cannot pass laws that are well-written and based exactly on the things you list.  The trouble lies in the collision between what’s happening politically vs. what we the people actually want to have happen.  If our leaders can’t be nonpartisan, I sure hope we can prove that WE can!

Great post.

Kind Regards,
Tristan Benz
Maiden America

From Glenn Grossman on Fri, April 10, 2009

Despite the fact that there are many “reliable” and “well-spoken” blogs & web sites that are trying to put a happier face on HR 875 and the related S 425, HR 759, and HR 814 let us all remember that the politicrats who drafted this legislation and are on the committee that is reviewing and debating this legislation are of the same ilk as the folks who brought us NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, crappy Farm Bill after crappy Farm Bill, etc. 

There may be many folks out there who are screaming bloody murder from an extreme point of view, but it always takes the radicals to stir up enough controversy about an issue for that issue to get the sort of attention and interest that it deserves.  The legislation as written is insufficient and ambiguous.  People should be suspicious and upset about this legislation as it is currently written. 

It would be unfortunate if no one paid any attention to the potentially dangerous and destructive wording of SR 725, HR 758, HR 814, and HR 875.  And once those bills worked their way through the legislative process they stand a fine chance of being twisted into tools for the taxpayer subsidized, petroleum-fueled, industrial, agribusiness corporations.

The fact that Rep. DeLauro is “shocked” that people have taken notice of her piece of ambiguous and questionable legislation should be a wake up for our nation that our politicrats are expecting us to continue being sheep. There is nothing wrong with the American public demanding greater transparency and a much more well-defined bill to be set on Obama’s desk once the legislative process is complete.  When politician’s don’t hear from anyone but corporate lobbyists, lawyers, and special interest groups is when the legislative process goes awry.  Kudos to the radicals and the misinformed public for asking questions and demanding clarification…if even they are “inflammatory”, “hysterical”, or “misguided”. 

It is critical that we all stay engaged in the democratic process and this is part of it.  Let this outcry serve as our notice to our elected officials that we are watching them and we will hold them accountable for doing a poor job and will praise them for a job well done.  So far HR 875 and it’s relatives deserve little praise.

Oh yes.  Here’s an interesting aspect of HR 875 not mentioned by the brain trusts that are calling for more orderly conduct. 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seeds—How-to-criminalize-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090319-579.html

From Tristan Benz on Sat, April 11, 2009

Glenn - what a SUPERIOR commentary!!!

I’ve been fighting CPSIA and I have noted an interesting tapestry of egos, views, etc.  It is EXACTLY as you say - if we think that having a calm, well-behaved, articulate argument is going to save the day, we are wrong.  We don’t have to be wackos, but we do need incorporate the colorful elements - to ask questions that are unsettling, even disturbing - into the mix, in order to get the issue the attention it DOES deserve.

And you are SPOT ON about the fact that our legislators hear from lobbyists and special interests and most folks go along like sheep, trusting the government will work in our best interests.  If WE Fail to communicate - if WE fail to get involved and insist on well-written legislation from the standpoint of our being the most well-informed as to what’s best of us, then we have only ourselves to blame.

I heard an interesting thought today - that most conservatives aren’t used to “organizing” or getting out in public to do the “protesting bit” - yet, this is what has to happen, in order to get what we want.  We must cause those who “represent” us to remember just who put them there and what their job really entails.  If we aren’t talking, we’re as much to blame for their not listening.  I say, re-connect or un-elect!

I simply LOVE your comment.  Super, super well put!

Kind Regards,
Tristan Benz
Maiden America

From Ralph Averill on Sun, April 12, 2009

Below is Congressman Chris Murphy’s (Dem, Ct) response to my inquiries re HR 875.

The recent spate of food-borne illness scares, from peanut butter to tomatoes, jalapenos, and spinach, have highlighted the inadequacy and fragmentation of our food safety system, and H.R. 875 is decades-overdue legislation to fix many of the glaring flaws in that system. Right now, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) - the federal agency charged with food safety - can’t even issue food recalls, and has limited powers to trace, inspect, and punish the distribution of tainted food products. There’s near universal agreement that needs to change, and H.R 875 would do just that.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of rumors floating around about H.R. 875, and all of them are either untrue or totally misleading. Some have alleged that the legislation’s sponsor, Connecticut’s own Representative Rosa DeLauro, is somehow pushing the bill to benefit corporations like Monsanto, which they claim her husband lobbies for. Mrs. DeLauro’s husband is simply not a lobbyist for Monsanto, and it’s also important to note that H.R. 875 has been endorsed by all the major food safety and consumer protection groups, including the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Pew Charitable Trusts, to name but a few. This is a bill being pushed for by responsible members of Congress and backed by bipartisan, nonprofit watchdog groups.

Some also claim that H.R. 875 would destroy the organic food industry and harm small farmers. In fact, H.R. 875 would require stronger inspections of imported food, strengthening the market competiveness of homegrown organic foods and the farmers’ markets that sell them. Additionally, o rganic food is regulated by the USDA - H.R. 875 deals with the FDA, not the USDA, and doesn’t touch farming practices. H.R. 875 wouldn’t regulate or “shut down” farmers’ markets or backyard growers - if anything, it’ll improve their market share. This is strong, responsible legislation that makes our food and our families healthier and safer.

Thank you again for contacting me about this matter. I appreciate hearing from you and assure you that I will always do my best to represent the views of my constituents in Congress. In the future, please do not hesitate to call at (202) 225-4476 or contact me through my website at http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov where, you can sign up to receive updates through MurphMail, my electronic newsletter.

Every Best Wish,

Christopher S. Murphy
Member of Congress

From pete on Sun, April 12, 2009

The ‘scare mongers’ are a lot closer to the truth than those trying to calm the masses. When a bill gives the government the authority to regulate every detail of crop and livestock production how do you expect us to react? Monsanto, Cargill, et. al. have influence over the regulators and that will not change. And we all know the lengths Monsanto has gone to to drive out farmers who don’t buy from them.

The clear lesson of past federal regulation is if you regulate it you kill it. This is why there are very few small butchers or dairymen left.

Bottom line, any food safety bill needs to clearly exempt small producers, intrastate sellers, and farmers selling direct to customers. Centralized processors are the problem, not small farmers and local food systems.

From Jerry Friedman on Sun, April 12, 2009

Just pointing out that the letter Ralph Averill quoted from Rep. Chris Murphy contains a false statement.

The letter says, “Additionally, o rganic food is regulated by the USDA - H.R. 875 deals with the FDA, not the USDA, and doesn?t touch farming practices. H.R. 875 wouldn?t regulate or ?shut down? farmers? markets or backyard growers - if anything, it?ll improve their market share.”

However, Sec. 206 of HR 875 says (note (3) and (4)),

“(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall—

“(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

“(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

“(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;

“(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal?s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;”

<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875>

This obviously would “touch farming practices” and “regulate [...] farmers? markets or backyard growers”.

From Erock on Tue, April 14, 2009

Please read HR875 SEC. 409. CITIZEN CIVIL ACTIONS and tell me if the following scenario would be possible or not:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:778

Would this scenario be possible given HR875 is passed:
1. I am a farmer and I grow tomatoes.
2. I technically fail to meet one of the multiple regulations put in place by the Burro-crats ( Donkeys in offices ).
3. The CEO of AIG eats one of my tomatoes, gets a stomach ache and misses work.
4. The CEO hires scores of lawyers to punish me for his missed day of work. His lawyers prove to the court that I failed to meet a regulation and prove a connection between this missed regulation and his stomach ache.
5. The CEO sues me for personal and occupational “damages”. As I am a small farmer, bankrupts my family and my farm.
6. The Court has the power to write into law new regulations to further burden my fellow tomato farmers. ( What do judges and lawyers know about farming, BTW ? )

If there is a lawyer in the house, please comment.
Eric

From Pete on Thu, April 16, 2009

Look at the enforcement measures in this bill.  This new government branch can fine up to $1M per “offense” (including, failing to register) and confiscate food stored or produced WITHOUT JUDICIAL CONSENT.  Nice, you can appeal..to the people who just fined you (maybe they will change their mind, LOL).  Or, you can take it to court.. ONLY a Federal Circuit of Appeals court… that’s real accessible for folks.

That’s not a rose garden on the side of your house.. it would be a Class 3 Food Production Facility according to the bill.  Rose petals are edible of course.  What, you didn’t register?

Forget farming issues—can you see how this bill could be used for political persecution?  Again, no judicial oversight.

From Andrew on Wed, April 22, 2009

Sounds a lot like the infamous Slaugherhouse Cases and we all know that resulted in a govt-created monopoly regardless of the original stated purpose. Monsanto has used the govt to create a global monopoly more than anyone since the East India Company, there is serious reason for concern here. That’s not scare-mongering, it’s commonsense.

From Woody on Sat, May 02, 2009

Well… there is the jury method of taking the teeth out of this law. As a juror we can simple vote not guilty and refuse to conviction anyone of these stupid laws. Read your legal history. That’s part of the reason we have a jury - to present the law in front of those who have to live under it so they have a chance to tell their officials what laws they will and will not tolerate. Its called paticapatory government - a government of “We the People” - not “they the government”. Of course the legal profession hates this power of the jury and have spent the last hundred years trying to brain wash us into believing this is not the intent or power of the jury, however, historical governmental writings and judges completely disagree.
I say let them pass whatever they hell they want. We’ll just go to court and vote not guilty. Once the prosecutors figure out they can’t get a conviction, they stop trying to convict. Its called a nullified law and its part of our legal process. Our law books are full of laws that have been nullified by the jury box. It used to be illegal to be gay. Many states still have those laws, but none are ever enforced. Why not? Because they can’t get a conviction - its a waste of their time. And who knows the judge might be a flamer himself. A nullified law is an intentional part of our legal process - so come on jury lets use the power we gave ourselves over 200 years ago! Let those dummy;s pass whatever they want - we’ll just VETO it in the jury box! Oh wait… shhhhhh that’s supposed to be a secret. oops.

From Eric on Sat, May 09, 2009

Woody has great point except, why should one have to pay for a defense to such absurd laws?  Perhaps once the Pols understand that we will no longer tolerate such intrusive government, they will stop passing such stupid laws and try to get their power fix elsewhere.

From John Chase on Mon, August 03, 2009

These bills concern me greatly!
Anytime you pass these bills with broad sweeping definitions, and no exclusionary terms, there is enormous room for corruption of said bill.
And as history has proven each and every time, every time anything is left to interpretation, any time there is the tiniest loophole , it is used for the benefit of greed and power, and to the detriment of the public.
How would you like to be taxed on tomatoes you grow in your own garden?
If someone gives you a few tomatoes, by the law, you are supposed to claim the value of this on your income tax statement.
You were given something of value, and the government wants their cut of the action.
I believe gangs used to strong arm people for their cut, and so did the Maffia. Wasn’t this called extortion?

Perhaps giant food production does need to be watched and tracked. After all, their production is money based first and lastly, nutritionally based. They have no problem getting as close to poisoning us within the law, so long as it brings the beef to market at a higher profit margin. In fact, this is accepted practice, so they do need to be watched, carefully!
Organic or free range protein? Please!
If the chicken has access to a 3’x 3’ plot of ground, it is considered free range, even if it has NEVER been out of it’s cage.
There are some oddities with the term organic as well IIRC
when it comes to BIG food.
If the big guys were the only ones policed, and only their stuff was allowed in the “safe food stores” and those of us who wanted live adventurously could “eat at our own risk”  from the organic food store. Big and small would not cross boundaries, we might have something workable. We would have to live without litigious practices. If you eat a rotten pork chop and feel ill afterward, it actually might be your fault!, I think the cost of true organic and or Slow Food would be the affordable and as it always has been, the healthy option.

From Cathy on Tue, August 04, 2009

Any updates? Is this bill still being discussed? Is it too late to take action?

From john on Tue, August 11, 2009

It is suprising to me that the Slow Food organization would try to convince its members and any readers to go along quietly with a bill written to strengthen the market position of Monsanto ConAgra and Arher Daniels Midland. The Leadership of the Slow Food organization is part of the problem. When it comes to crunch time they are encouraging lovers of fresh, clean,natural(organic) food to roll over. What a joke. It should be clear to every member now who the leadership of the SlowFood movement serves. Sure at the beginning it seemed all good. That was to hook you and make members believe in the goals of the organization and to turn you into a true believer so you would not question their wisdom on issues such as this. And yes the goals at the outset were quite noble. But now take a look. There should be complete outrage on the part of the entire movement that our government would even think of making a bill so draconian that only the most well capitalized conglomerates could afford to comply with the burdensome regulations and testings. I emphasize that small organic famers, backyard growers(farmers market types) and restaurants that grow their own produce will effectively be put out of business. Is this America? Is this freedom? Food safety is that important to the government then they should bad GMOs but they dont. All citizens must get their heads on straight. Also if the government cares about the health of the people why is the only soda available to troops in Iraq sweetened with aspartame. Wake up my fellow citizens.

NOTE: A backyard grower would be considered a producer if you we to try to sell or otherwise distribute your produce to others. Thus you would fall under the jurisdiction of this Bill. You can take that to the bank. Stop buying into these food scares. Your buying into these scares gave them the impetus to come up with the bill. If they try to scare you resist it. Reject their solution no matter what. Remain free.

From gregory kellett on Mon, September 07, 2009

The main concern I have with this bill, is its potential to burden small producers with unbearable costs (IE requirements to purchase barcode scanners, pay misc fees etc.). Small scale farming is already a hand to mouth operation,...and it doesn’t take much to put a small family farm out of business.

I’m also wary that the bills creator, Rosa DeLauro has a husband that works for Stanley Greenburg of Monsanto…as Monsanto is notorious for attempting to dominate seed intellectual property rights and promote herbicide/pesticide use.

It is very surprising that Slow Food Nation is taking such a non-chalant approach to this bill.

Yes, it is important not to be overly alarmist,...but I wouldn’t blow this off as an unimportant issue either.

From food poisoning on Fri, September 11, 2009

Sounds a lot like the infamous Slaugherhouse Cases and we all know that resulted in a govt-created monopoly regardless of the original stated purpose. Monsanto has used the govt to create a global monopoly more than anyone since the East India Company, there is serious reason for concern here. That?s not scare-mongering, it?s commonsense.