Now, what originally impressed me was the fact that it had references listed as to what bill exactly Shoemyer was making claims such as that he "pushed for legislation to allow farmers to save their genetically modified seeds for future use." He directly cited Senate Bill 68 to argue that point and to say that his opponent didn't want the good ol' farmers of Missouri to save their genetically modified seeds.
When I first saw that he referenced a bill I thought, "Well, hey! This should make verifying the facts a lot easier!" and I expected to just verify that he was telling the truth, since he did in fact list the actual bill for reference. I guess he didn't expect people to actually look at the bill?
For this example, it's a bill that Shoemyer himself put forth that actually advocates for farmers to have to pay a fee to keep their genetically modified seeds. Now, maybe that's a step up from the current legislation, but we can't seem to find anything that says that previous legislation wouldn't allow farmers to keep their seeds before this regulation. It was obviously not the best reference bill Shoemyer could have used if that was the case anyway.
Anyone else know of the previous GMO (genetically modified organisms) legislation?
Also, for everyone's enjoyment, in a couple hours it's my birthday! Yayyyy! (-Samantha)
I believe Shoemyer was probably referring to the Monsanto company. They do not allow their users to reuse their seeds, they are forced to purchase them new every year.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Genetically_modified_organisms
I realize Wikipedia is not an entirely reliable source but it might give you an idea.
It says that they use specific technology to prevent the seeds from being used after the initial planting period. The new legislation doesn't prevent them from using that technology when they sell them the seeds though. So why does having them pay to keep the seeds help the farmers?
ReplyDelete