Despite controversy regarding the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill, signed by President Barack Obama in March, Monsanto Company saw a quarterly increase in profits for the second consecutive year, according to profit reports released last Wednesday.

Monsanto’s second quarter gross profit increased from $2,705 in 2012 to $3,070 even though a section of the new legislature, titled the Farmer Assurance Provision and coined the term “Monsanto Protection Act,” has sparked debate. The section was not reviewed by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The act protects large, sustainable agriculture companies, like Monsanto Company, from lawsuits concerning its genetically modified seeds.

“You can basically take a gene from another organism — from anything — and put it into another plant or animal,” said Jack Juvik, professor in ACES and specialist in plant genetics. “In the case of the seeds that are commonly used now for GMOs (genetically modified organisms) like corn and soybean seeds, usually what they’ll put in is a gene that will confer insect resistance or resistance to herbicides.”

Under the law, in the case of a lawsuit against genetically modified crops, farmers are allowed to plant and cultivate these crops that have been approved by the USDA while they are being challenged in the courts. Andrew Flach, spokesman for Rep. Rodney Davis, said the USDA had already been practicing this law regarding GMOs, but the law provides a clearer course of action. 

If the genetically modified seeds are being discussed in court because of consumers’ health risks, large companies like Monsanto will still have the ability to sell the modified seeds to be planted, and federal courts will be unable to halt production. After Obama signed the bill into law, the USDA became able to override a federal court ruling meant to stop the planting of a genetically modified crop.

Despite the avid controversy, according to Monsanto’s profit reports, the company continues to experience rapid growth, much of which the company attributed to its global corn business.

According a Monsanto press release, “the point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a careful balance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews.”

Opponents of this section of legislature have argued that it was hidden within the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which was expected to be approved.

“This was a broader piece of legislation that legislators voted for to keep the government operating,” said Tracy Sulkin, political science professor. “It is possible for members of the committees and subcommittees who work on a bill or resolution to make changes during ‘mark up’ that add provisions, sometimes anonymously. That’s what happened in this case.”

Flach said he agreed that Congress should strive to utilize a more regular committee process. 

“It’s disappointing when provisions like this are attached to blanket appropriations bills,” he said. “(We hope) that in the future, Congress can return to regular order and allow bills to go through the committee process to be given an up or down vote on the individual merits of each proposal.”

Food Democracy Now is one national organization leading the battle against the Monsanto Protection Act. The group had a petition with more than 250,000 signatures of citizens urging the president to veto the bill.

However, not everyone disagrees with the passing of this legislature. Juvik said there were many different tests that needed to be passed, such as guaranteeing the GMOs would not harm animals or humans, and it cost nearly $1 billion to run these tests before the government first approved of their production.

“I think there’s a fairly high level of reassurance that (the genetically modified crops) are going to be safe,” he said. “The problem is that the companies are making a lot of money off of this, and it’s perceived by many people who don’t understand the processes and who don’t understand that it is pretty safe that the companies are acting like God, almost.”

Juvik said he believes people find Monsanto’s moves controversial because it is a new, alien concept of food.

“Many of the questions are moral issues: is it right for us to monkey around with the DNA of other organisms?”

Brittany can be reached at [email protected].