mick silver
2nd March 2016, 06:41 AM
nothing shady here : Monsanto Given Legal Shield in a Chemical Safety BillSource: Ny Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/business/monsanto-could-benefit-from-a-chemical-safety-bill.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)
Facing hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits, the giant biotechnology companyMonsanto (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/monsanto_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org) last year received a legislative gift from the House of Representatives, a one-paragraph addition to a sweeping chemical safety bill that could help shield it from legal liability for a toxic chemical only it made.
Monsanto insists it did not ask for the addition. House aides deny it is a gift at all. But the provision would benefitthe only manufacturer in the United States of now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known as PCBs (http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/pcbs.aspx), a mainstay of Monsanto sales for decades. The PCB provision is one of several sticking points that negotiators must finesse before Congress can pass a law to revamp the way thousands of chemicals are regulated in the United States.
“Call me a dreamer, but I wish for a Congress that would help cities with their homeless crises instead of protecting multinational corporations that poison our environment,” said Pete Holmes, the city attorney for Seattle, one of six cities suing Monsanto (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/seattle-sues-monsanto-seeking-millions-to-clean-up-pcbs-from-duwamish/) to help cover the costs of reducing PCB discharge from their sewers.
The House and the Senate last year both passed versions of legislation to replace the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act), a law that theEnvironmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) acknowledged had become so unworkable that as many as 1,000 hazardous chemicals still on sale today needed to be evaluated to see if they should (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg90983/html/CHRG-113hhrg90983.htm)be banned or restricted. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg90983/html/CHRG-113hhrg90983.htm)
Read More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/business/monsanto-could-benefit-from-a-chemical-safety-bill.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)
Share This Article...
Facing hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits, the giant biotechnology companyMonsanto (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/monsanto_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org) last year received a legislative gift from the House of Representatives, a one-paragraph addition to a sweeping chemical safety bill that could help shield it from legal liability for a toxic chemical only it made.
Monsanto insists it did not ask for the addition. House aides deny it is a gift at all. But the provision would benefitthe only manufacturer in the United States of now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known as PCBs (http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/pcbs.aspx), a mainstay of Monsanto sales for decades. The PCB provision is one of several sticking points that negotiators must finesse before Congress can pass a law to revamp the way thousands of chemicals are regulated in the United States.
“Call me a dreamer, but I wish for a Congress that would help cities with their homeless crises instead of protecting multinational corporations that poison our environment,” said Pete Holmes, the city attorney for Seattle, one of six cities suing Monsanto (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/seattle-sues-monsanto-seeking-millions-to-clean-up-pcbs-from-duwamish/) to help cover the costs of reducing PCB discharge from their sewers.
The House and the Senate last year both passed versions of legislation to replace the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act), a law that theEnvironmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) acknowledged had become so unworkable that as many as 1,000 hazardous chemicals still on sale today needed to be evaluated to see if they should (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg90983/html/CHRG-113hhrg90983.htm)be banned or restricted. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg90983/html/CHRG-113hhrg90983.htm)
Read More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/business/monsanto-could-benefit-from-a-chemical-safety-bill.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)
Share This Article...