Talk:Farmer Assurance Provision

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Soybean#Soybean politics|American Soybean Association]] The anchor (#Soybean politics) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmpenix. Peer reviewers: Lmpenix.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HR 933

when checking the citation for the information pertaining to president barrack Obama, I saw nothing on the page, just a blank white page telling you how to stay connected via twitter and Facebook. "The Farmer Assurance Provision, also referred to by critics as the “Monsanto Protection Act”, refers to Sec. 735 of US HR 933, a bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013 ^[1]" it is a false citation, leading to a page with nothing on it, so that information is NOT verifiable information from that source, and it may have been put there to mislead Wikipedia users. in fact if you search up HR 933 on the http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=HR+933&sb=Date_desc this site, (Library of Congress) the newest HR 933 is about Veterans(2012-2013), then family protection(2009-2010). So in actuality HR 933: Farmer Assurance Provision doesn't exist and this is a BS Propaganda Page. (with Monsanto leading the Propaganda, and people on the internet giving information about it based on speculation) and if you check here, http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/03/21/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/e351-2/?q=Sec.+735+of+US+HR+933 the only thing relating to HR 933 was a remark on the affordable care act led buy a delegate from Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.53.175 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 March 2013‎ UTC

Correct link fixed now. Petersam (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:hr933

Reliable Sources?

The citation for the language in the article, "and slipped it in last minute, anonymously, giving Monsanto more power than the USDA and the courts," is apparently a letter to the editor. Are newspaper readers' letters to the editor considered reliable sources? The quoted statement is a bold claim, which should either be sufficiently sourced or removed. --Danthe4th (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but more than that, it doesn't seem to be an accurate claim. The provision was included in the bill for a very long time prior to its passing in late March, since at least June of 2012.

A sentence that has been added in the criticism section, "The bill exempts biotech companies from litigation" is not true either. In the same edit that added this sentence, the following sentence was reworded to make the statement that makes biotech companies immune from the courts appear as absolute.

These additions really seem like POV pushing by a single user, User:USchick. This user's contributions to this page are highly opinionated and factually inaccurate and warrant either deletion or heavy revision to adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. ComfyKem (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the sentence "...and slipped it in last minute, anonymously, giving Monsanto more power than the USDA and the courts" is an opinion piece, and since it isn't accurate and the majority of it is a rant about Senator Blunt, I'm deleting it and reverting much of the biased POV content that was added in instead of having this article skewed in favor of a particular ideology. I will check back on this article periodically to see if this occurs again. ComfyKem (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lock this article

As well as all GM articles. And stop allowing people in tin foil hats to be able to edit these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.82 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite in the spirit of Wikipedia is it, to corral all folks with opinions different from yours as the tinfoil hat crowd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.86.151 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March Against Monsanto

As part of the protest against this provision, there was the "March Against Monsanto". If someone could find some reliable sources (ie not coming from websites ideologically/financially motivated to oppose GMOs [Infowars, Natural News, et al]) about the march and include it in the "Criticism" (or "History") section, that would be great. ComfyKem (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March on over to March Against Monsanto and grab some links. None are from POV sources. petrarchan47 t c 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found one and added it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes

Please bring to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As a self-published source, it's doubtful but needs to be determined along with the proposed text. petrarchan47 t c 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. Site is good for saying the truth about urban legends. Snopes addressed the rumors swirling around the MPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#Snopes.com_again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Snopes.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_127#Snopes.com Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farmer Assurance Provision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529213014/http://dyn.politico.com:80/printstory.cfm?uuid=14B6FB84-05E5-4CF0-AEA8-ED22A47CDDA4 to http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=14B6FB84-05E5-4CF0-AEA8-ED22A47CDDA4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links are out of date, such as "Letter to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks" (PDF). June 12, 2012. Retrieved April 30, 2013. , which is no longer a page on Monsanto’s website.Lmpenix (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add Information

It would be helpful to add what the bill does within the first paragraph of the article. This could be done by stating “This bill barred legal action against growers and seed producers while legal challenges to the safety of those crops would still be underway.” Lmpenix (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly opposed this bill

It is clear that those in support of this bill are “agricultural trade and technology organizations” while a mix of both Democrat and Republican sources seem to oppose it; however, if the opposition is non-partisan I am curious how the bill was allowed to be signed into law in the first place. Lmpenix (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Support to match Criticism

There seems to be more sources that oppose the bill than support it. The "Criticism" section of this article is also larger than the "Support" section. It would be helpful to add additional arguments in favor of the bill such as the one brought up by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) stating,

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture called the provision redundant...in the sense that all it did 'was repeat authority that the secretary in a hearing the other day, before the Agri[culture] Approp[riations] committee the other day, said he already had.” “And it didn’t require the secretary to do anything that the secretary thought was the wrong thing to do,” Blunt continued. “Which is one of the reasons I thought it was fine. I checked with USDA, or my staff did, and USDA said, ‘You know, we don’t think you need to do that because we can already do it.’ The other view of that was, well, if you can already do it, then it makes everything come together, it’s OK to restate authority they already had.”

This argument states that the provision essentially repeated the authority that the secretary previously held.

"House Republicans Push To Include Monsanto Protection Act In New Spending Bill". HuffPost. September 11, 2013. Retrieved November 14, 2017. --Lmpenix (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:hr933

[1]