Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on why we need to stop the TPP (July 7th 2016) (Original Post) think Jul 2016 OP
K&R CentralMass Jul 2016 #1
If it passes, say goodbye to any chance of GMO labeling nt spud_demon Jul 2016 #2
House Democrat Peter DeFazio Blasts ‘Monsanto Provision’ in Fast Track Legislation think Jul 2016 #3
I believe you Elizabeth Warren Equinox Moon Jul 2016 #4
I'm Confused! I Just Don't Understand... panfluteman Jul 2016 #5
 

think

(11,641 posts)
3. House Democrat Peter DeFazio Blasts ‘Monsanto Provision’ in Fast Track Legislation
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:24 AM
Jul 2016
DeFazio Blasts ‘Monsanto Provision’ in Fast Track Legislation

Apr 29, 2015 Press Release

Trade bill could facilitate attacks on labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) today spoke out against a provision buried in trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation that could help a government or multinational corporation attack state or national laws that require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. TPA, also known as “fast track” would give President Obama the authority to push through major trade deals with little to no input from Congress. The Obama administration is asking Congress for fast track authority in order to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a free trade agreement with the European Union.

“Call it the smoking gun,” said DeFazio. “Proof that fast track and massive free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are written by and for multinational corporations such as agriculture giant Monsanto. Instead of using trade deals as an opportunity to protect and strengthen consumer rights by joining the countries which require genetically engineered food to be labeled, this administration wants to benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of the public.”

The provision, included in Section 2, Trade Negotiating Objectives, requires that U.S. negotiators fight for rules in trade agreements that eliminate so-called “barriers” to markets such as the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Currently 64countries require genetically engineered food to be labeled including some of our largest trading partners like Japan, China, Brazil, and the countries of the European Union.

Several consumer groups joined DeFazio in criticizing the fast track bill:....

Source:
https://defazio.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/defazio-blasts-monsanto-provision-in-fast-track-legislation

Equinox Moon

(6,344 posts)
4. I believe you Elizabeth Warren
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:01 AM
Jul 2016

The TPP sounds awful! I have heard from various sources the details of this "deal". What really confuses me is that President Obama is pushing for it to go through.

Why President Obama? Why are you selling us out? Very distressing!

panfluteman

(2,065 posts)
5. I'm Confused! I Just Don't Understand...
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:01 PM
Jul 2016

Sure, Elizabeth Warren is right on in this video about fighting the TPP, but wasn't she just on the campaign trail fighting for Hillary Clinton? And wasn't Hillary Clinton Obama's right hand woman as Secretary of State helping to craft this hideous monster of a trade deal? And didn't Hillary and the DNC strike down Bernie's plank in the Democratic platform that was against the TPP - effectively showing exactly where Hillary, the presumptive nominee, stands on the TPP - that is, for it? I believe I'm right - it's not too hard to connect the dots here, and also to imply possible guilt by association. Is Elizabeth Warren guilty of playing both sides of the political fence here? Doesn't that make her also guilty by association, and not truly loyal to the progressive cause? Or do the delicate political circumstances that the American ship of state faces in these troubled waters give her no choice but to do a delicate tap dance around things as they are, and to deftly play both sides of the fence?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Sen. Elizabeth Warren on ...