Home | About | Donate

Food Advocates Race to Stop Destructive GMO Labeling "Compromise"


Food Advocates Race to Stop Destructive GMO Labeling "Compromise"

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The "compromise" food-labeling bill announced Thursday by leaders of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee is nothing less than a "rollback of democracy at the behest of the world's largest agribusiness and biotech corporations," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter.


If Hillary gets in power, this will get worst because she is a big supporter of GMOs. Her solution to people's grave concern about GMO ingredients is for the companies like Monsanto to 'put the people at ease' AKA -- Lie to them using propaganda.


Clinton did admonish attendees to "put a new spin on GMOs to get young voters to embrace them" in her speech to a GMO cartel convention in San Diego in June 2014. Not sure how much she was paid to deliver that speech.

She has backed off since then, knowing that TPP and TTIP will eliminate all GMO labeling and with any luck (for her) eliminate all food labeling.


Go to h t t p : / / responsibletechnology . org and look up "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs" ... scroll down to reason 3.
"3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer."

Unless you know of some great new technology to remove pesticide residue from grains before milling, I think you have your answer, right there.


As all the research continues to mount indicating the importance of the enteric nervous system and its symbiotic relationship to intestinal flora, implication of the role glyphosate interaction has upon intestinal bacteria, and thus immune response, is becoming more and more obvious. Understand, glyphosate when applied to crops translocates through the tissues of the entire plant and can therefore be present in the seeds we eventually consume. Excellent research from MIT is on-going.


No label needed

This smells to high heaven


Here, read this:
from above:
"Evidence has accumulated over the past two decades, especially, that several vertebrate pathways are likely targets of action, including hepatorenal damage, effects on nutrient balance through glyphosate chelating action and endocrine disruption. Other early assumptions about glyphosate, for example that it is not persistent in the environment, have also been called into question, depending upon soil type. In addition, the prediction that glyphosate would never be present widely in surface water, rainfall, or groundwater has also been shown to be inaccurate.

Existing data, while not systematic, indicate GBHs and metabolites are widely present in the global soybean system and that human exposures to GBHs are clearly rising. Tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the U.S. and Germany are based upon outdated science.

Taken together, these conclusions all indicate that a fresh and independent examination of GBH toxicity should be undertaken, and that this re-examination be accompanied by systematic efforts by relevant agencies to monitor GBH levels in people and in the food supply, none of which are occurring today. The U.S. National Toxicology Program should prioritize a thorough toxicological assessment of the multiple pathways now identified as potentially vulnerable to GBHs. The urgency of such work was reinforced in March 2015 when the IARC concluded glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

We are aware of current limits on, and demands for, public funding for research. In the absence of government funds to support essential GBH research, we recommend that a system be put in place through which manufacturers of GBHs provide funds to the appropriate regulatory body as part of routine registration actions and fees. Such funds should then be transferred to appropriate government research institutes, or to an agency experienced in the award of competitive grants. In either case, funds would be made available to independent scientists to conduct the appropriate long-term (minimum 2 years) safety studies in recognized animal model systems. A thorough and modern assessment of GBH toxicity will encompass potential endocrine disruption, impacts on the gut microbiome, carcinogenicity, and multigenerational effects looking at reproductive capability and frequency of birth defects."


For your additional reading pleasure, this:


Might as well add this one, too:
from above:
"Glyphosate and disease
The connection between glyphosate and chronic disease has been outlined in a recent review paper by Samsel & Seneff (2013a). The authors show how glyphosate disrupts the metabolic process by interfering with the Cytochrome P450 (CYP) pathways. The CYP is known as a super-family of
enzymes that are present in most tissues of the body. They are responsible for around 75% of the reactions involved in drug metabolism and the oxidation of organic molecules. According to the authors, “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the 'textbook example' of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins” (p. 1416).
SĂ©ralini et al. (2011) reviewed 19 studies "


Another piece of bipartisan shite!


Just put QR scanners in the store so whoever cares for that kind of stuff can go check it out. Alternatively, if you're a company that prides itself in providing "GMO free" products just label them as such and whoever cares about stuff like that will buy your products. Not sure why this has to be so complicated.


All domestic species of plants and animals are genetically-modified organisms. The domestic dog is a genetically-modified wolf. Diabetics use humulin: human insulin produced by genetically-modified bacteria (the gene for human insulin is introduced into bacteria that then produce human insulin that can be collected and used to treat diabetics).

The issue of using herbicides is unrelated to GMO's. Farmers were using herbicides long before Monsanto produced roundup-resistant crop species. It is true that using synthetic herbicides results in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds (genetically-modified organisms), but we already know that overuse of antibiotics like penicillin has produced genetically-modified antibiotic-resistant germs. MERSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is a huge problem for hospitals.

If you want to label genetically-modded organisms, then you will have to label all the food we eat (unless you hunt wild game and collect wild species of plants and animals). You will even have to label fido because fido is a genetically-modified wolf.


Please get your facts straight. Glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) may be harmful to the environment. If this is true, then it shouldn't be used for the same reason we stopped using freon as a refrigerant (the CFC's in freon destroy ozone in the atmosphere that protects us from UV radiation). But this is a separate question than whether for not GMO's are harmful. Farmers used Roundup long before scientists discovered how to use molecular biology to make roundup-resistant plant species. It was invented in 1974 when research on producing GMO's by introducing foreign genes into species was actually on hold because scientists voluntarily had a moratorium of the research unit they discovered the research wouldn't produce a Frankenstein's monster. The first roundup-resistant crop species were available in 1996.

The law of supply and demand motivates farmers to kill weeds. Since Roundup is an effective herbicide, farmers use Roundup to kill weeds. If you can use Roundup and plant crops that are resistant to Roundup, then you will make even more money. I don't have to use herbicides in my small garden because I can remove weeds by hand. But this is not the case for farmers who are farming hundreds of acres. So, people who make a living by planting crops will use herbicides.


You are ignorant of biology. All domestic plant and animal species are genetically-modified organisms. Agriculture was only possible after humans discovered they could use selective breeding to produce plants that could be cultivated and animals that could be herded. Before the invention of agriculture, humans survived by hunting wild game (non-genetically-modified animal species) and gathering wild fruits, nuts and berries (non-genetically-modified plant species).

If you eliminate genetically-modified organisms, the first thing that would happen is that the human population of the earth would crash (you can't feed 7 billion people without genetically-modified plants and animals).

Herbicides are used because if you kill the weeds in your fields, there will be less competition with your crop species and your yields will be higher. The issue of herbicides causing the evolution of herbicide-resistant plant species is certainly real. We already have produced antibiotic-resistant germs because of the overuse of antibiotics like penicillin. But this problem resulted from the ignorance of physicians concerning evolutionary biology. Doctors today are smarter and don't indiscriminately prescribe antibiotics.

Telling me I am an ignorant fool is simply an ad hominem attack. Try presenting some reasoned arguments that GMO's are harmful. But should you be able to do this, then everything we eat is harmful because everything we eat is genetically-modified. Even the pet dog is a genetically-modified wolf and I refuse to give up my dog simply because the lunatic left doesn't know squat about science.


This "has to be so complicated" ON PURPOSE by the corporations who wrote and lobbied for this bill. Funny how they insisted that simply adding GMO to the food label would be so expensive. But now they prefer an even more complicated label instead.

It is only complicated because they DO NOT WANT simplicity. "Just include GMO on the food label." There you go lamonte7, no need for any complication, QR codes, 1-800 numbers, clear and easy.

If you took a moment to honestly assess the situation, you would see that, and you would easily answer your own question. But you'd rather make fun of people for giving a shit about their food.


Look up the definition of genetically modified organism.


I don't understand why you seem to think there has to be some form of harm involved in order for a person to have a right to know what they are buying. The better question would be why do you have objection to the peoples right to know what they are buying? Because your having this objection makes you sound extremely crazy.


Umm, the label itself would not be expensive but the consequences of not having it. Just last year one of the chain restaurants (forget which one) was priding itself for serving GMO free food. Well, some shyster did some research and it turned out the meat came from animals that ate GMO maize, so voila, law suit.

Anyway, i do grocery shopping too, and i never see a huge crowd in the "all natural" isle. My guess is most people do not really care.

Just slap on a QR code and put scanners in store, if somebody wants to read the history of the product they can feel free to research it.


Why is no one calling out the racism inherit in this scheme...those in higher income brackets simply have more access to smart phones or simply buy at whole foods...just like Flint Debbie Sabotage should be ashamed....


Sure the corporate way bury it in the fine print........the reason this is critical is that as one industry insider noted.."If we label it we should just put a skull and crossbones on it"