Bloody GMOs & pink hippos

GMO= genetically modified organisms. For more info on GMOs , see the video link below or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z73U-xzpQ54&feature=watch_response_rev P.S: This vid is dark I know but then again the subject matter of GMOs is not exactly strawberry cream cake - unless, of course, we are talking GM strawberry cream cake. Music by: frostfuzzproductions: http://www.youtube.com/user/frostfuzz?blend=1&ob=5#p/search/0/8cFxCTsn64g Monsanto was not originally an agricultural biotech company. Their primary focus was on chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The mass-production of Rubber-processing chemicals, sulfuric acid and polychlorinated biphenyl marked the company's early commercial success. Laundry detergents, DDT, herbicides and pesticides would follow. Their mixture of herbicide/acid known as "Agent Orange" was widely used as part of the US chemical warfare program in Vietnam, and it caused the death of over 300,000 people and birth defects in half a million newborns. When Monsanto began producing their genetically engineered seeds during the 1980s, their efforts focused on making the crops resistant to their herbicides. The business would require farmers to licence the patented seeds and to buy the necessary chemicals to grow them. Their most profitable seed/herbicide combo is the RoundUp-ready series. These products allow monsanto to sell an average of 200,000 pounds of RoundUp a year, and represent 50% of the company's business. GMO seeds do produce larger yields, but their long-term effects on humans are still being debated, while the effects of the industrial use of herbicides/pesticides is unquestionably harmful for the environment (and thus, for humans). On top of that, the conglomeration of the biotech industry, as represented by Monsanto, generates the prevalence of monocultures which has proven to be a detrimental practice, not only for the environment, but for competing farmers. To call section 735 of HR933 "The Farmer's Assurance Provision" and declaring it's meant to protect farmers is ludicrous. Yes, it does protect some farmers, mainly those trapped in GMO licensing deals with Monsanto. Basically it protects Monsanto's clients from opposing organizations such as the National Farmers Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumers Union and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. It offers no protection to struggling small and organic farmers from the perils of cross-pollination and environmental contamination, being caused by Monsanto. Sure, the provision grants immunity only "while claims are being investigated." Its just too bad these investigations can last years, even decades, and are often deemed inconclusive. So, while GMOs are not inherently evil, their current commercial applications and regulatory standards should be of grave concern for everyone. As with many other highly consolidated industries --media and banking come to mind-- the real problem is not with science/technology but with its application, commercialization and regulation. This is why extending the "Monsanto Protection Act" is a terrible mistake. The way it was passed as a "ghost rider" exposes serious flaws in the legislative system, while its implementation means further deregulation of an industry that's already poorly regulated.