Home | About | Donate

DARK Act Compromise Could Preempt Vermont’s GMO Label Law


DARK Act Compromise Could Preempt Vermont’s GMO Label Law

Wenonah Hauter

Thursday it was reported that the Senate’s Agriculture Committee leadership has reached a deal on labeling GMO foods, specifically to block states from requiring clear, on-package labels of GMO foods.

This agreement fails to provide any meaningful federal labeling requirement. This is not a food-labeling bill. This is a rollback of democracy at the behest of the world’s largest agribusiness and biotech corporations.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The anti GMO crowd proving once again that anti science and irrationality are not by any means only the domain of the right.

Why not label?
Well, two reasons to start with...
It will diminish consumer choice and it will cost approx 400$ more a year for the average shopper. (From Scientific American, labels for gmo foods are a bad idea)


Labeling will actually cost US consumers less than $20 per year for the first five years and no more money after that when you consider that a majority of food purveyors are global companies that already label their products (sold abroad) for GMOs.


Thirty-five years of intensive Lobbying in Washington, D.C., Koch Brothers' funded pro-business think tanks, and the purchase of sycophantic politicians ready and eager to do the 1%'s bidding... has led to outcomes that give business (the corporations) ALL advantages and citizens NONE.

Remember the days when the big department stores and name brands GUARANTEED their own products and offered warranties? Now, consumers must pay for those!

As Ralph Nader has painstakingly explained, the fine print on contracts for appliances as well as credit card accounts puts the entire burden onto the buyer.

And so it is with the industrial "food" legions led by Monsanto. Like the gun companies that push for things as insane as assault rifles out on the streets but then shy away from ANY liability for the outcome; the infusion of so much gen-tech "food" into what we eat--unlabeled--IS compromising public health; but by crook, hook, and stealth, entities like Monsanto HIDE from not just accountability. They also work diligently to hide evidence (of what the food contains) from the get-go.

NONE of this should be legal. Yet as can be seen both in U.K's aborting itself from the E.U. and in this nation's "TPP and TIPP" rounds of talks, centralized power is arrogating to itself the right to dictate not just trade, but what people eat and also what constitutes 90% of "food for thought" through elite corporate control of radio, TV, and print media.

The theory is--the less the public knows, the more that cannot be proven and thus the more the corporate criminals can get away with.

Will the reverberations spinning round the globe politically and/or the post-Scalia U.S. Supreme Court shift this calculus?

Living IN Interesting Times is not without its risks!


Go back under the boilerplate think tank rock...


Neither statement is factual correct. Care to cite the source and author .From the http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660#t=article "...Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases — the largest in a generation — are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen”.........In our view, the science and the risk assessment supporting the Enlist Duo decision are flawed. The science consisted solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine-mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law. "....


So is anyone or any group printing out labels like this for us to slap onto all the fruit and veg we are feeling up in the produce aisles?