With no debate and only a voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture on Tuesday passed out of committee H.R. 1599, a bill to preempt states’ rights to label GMOs. Within hours, it was announced that the bill will go straight to the House floor, as early as next week, with no vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The link in the article to Pope Francis speaking out against GMOs is not correct, here is the article.
Well heck the link to the Organic Consumers Association campaign is also incorrect, here's that one.
OK nearly all the links in this article are not working! i'll stop searching them out. i e-mailed the webmaster and hopefully Common Dreams will fix these links...
Thank you, Ms. Paul for laying out the many ways that GMO "foods" do harm while those touting these insults-to-Mother-Nature insist they are perfectly safe... so safe, they oppose labeling them. The only thing missing is using the term FREE or FREEDOM in naming the bill that works as this latest incursion against human rights and civil liberties.
Bills like this are part of a new world order's legalized infrastructure. Items like this will become further enshrined into law via TPP and TIPP and treaties of that ilk. The operation is about limiting not just citizens' rights, but also the legal venues in which they'd typically be able to challenge what is odious, dangerous, or deleterious to their health... along with the health (and longevity) of ecosystems.
If and when the scales of justice swing back so that real people's interests once again factor into the equations of power and policy, I would suggest that all of the political operators who made these horrors legal be publicly humiliated. Torture is optional.
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Alexis De Tocqueville
If “voluntary food safety consultation process” actually functioned for the public good
- the corporations would not need to be fractionalizing the monetary system in order to
- extend the dark money to constantly rewrite laws by ALEC boilerplate,
- lobby to buy representatives that are supposed to represent the demos and
- spend billions on advertising for market control in order to sell their products, and
- have secret "trade" deals in which domestic law is placed at the mercy of failed marketeers.
This is a VERY ugly profile if you ask me.
"I would suggest that all of the political operators who made these horrors legal be publicly humiliated. Torture is optional."
Wow! Publicly promoting violence! Just like all the rest of the patriarchal white males! You know damned well violence is just what the "Mars Rules" Deep State wants. Who's paying your salary, soldier boy?
Hey it's been fun but i gotta run to work. Back in nine hours or so.
With this law I'm able to find out more about what I feed my dogs than I can legally find about what I feed my grand kids.
Frankenfood Conquers the Congress
Lets have a referendum on food labeling.
All these free-market fanatics are all for consumer choice until it actually comes down to giving consumers a choice.
If the market works what is the need for government protection from being responsible for what you are selling by telling the consumer so he can use his money vote when purchasing. The government is anti-market and anti- capitalism. They are only for them when they line their owners pockets and they can lick up the tinkle down. I mean trickle down.
My family now has begin developing their own gardening. Not enough to fill near all food needs but that hopefully will increase with time.
The USA runs on regulatory law giving the state and federal government the power to allow corporations to poison, spilling and pollute. Regulatory law allows the limits of toxic substances to be set by the industry that profits by spreading the toxic by product of their profit over what ever they wish.
Obama created a bureau for food safety and appointed Roger Beachy its first head. Roger invented GMOs and his corporation is across the street from Monsantos main office and the source of his profit. Obama appointed Henry Taylor Monsanto's lead lawyer to design the enforcement of the food safety and modernization act.
As we they people have to put up with the regulation of law there is no reason and it is within our power to just say "No" state by state town by town. Stand and act or eat shit.
There is no point begging the perpetrators to protect Us, their victims. Why wait for or depend on Monsanto's employees in Congress to serve our needs ? We need to take responsibility ourselves. We must go out to every store selling this poison, and LABEL IT OURSELVES. En masse, thousands of us, day and night, all over the country, labelling every GMO product in every place we find them. What will Monsanto do ? Arrest us all ? And that would bring even more pressure to bear on them. Please, let's act on this ourselves, for the sake of our kids and grandkids, and let's do it now. Thanks.
There is a principled case against mandatory GMO labels. The market already caters to consumer choice in the form of voluntary negative labeling by the Non-GMO Project and USDA Organic labels. This is similar to how Kosher and Halal servicemarks provide those religious consumers with choice, while not burdening secular consumers with costs of certification for information that is irrelevant to them.
If manufacturers choose to forgo mandatory GMO ingredient labels and instead reformulate their products, there are higher costs associated with procuring the non-GMO certified ingredients, as described in this story at NPR:
Allen Williams, who grows grain for Lynn Clarkson, says the choice to grow non-GMO grain simply comes down to money. "You're just trying to improve your profit," he says. "There's not a lot of ways to do that, if you're growing commodities. This is one way to do that." He'll sell his non-GMO grain for 10 percent or 15 percent more than the standard market price. But there are complications. Some of the extra income gets eaten up by extra costs. He'll spend more money on pesticides, for instance, for his non-GMO soybean fields. He also has to make sure the grain he sends to Clarkson Grain doesn't contain any traces of his GMO crops. So when he finishes harvesting one of his GMO fields, he has to spend hours cleaning out his combine.
The argument that changing labels is costless is disingenuous. If the end result is to force reformulation with non-GMO ingredients, there will definitely be other costs. In fact this is an explicit goal of many anti-GMO campaigners:
By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
- Jeffrey Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85% of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.
- Joseph Mercola
With labeling it (GMOs) will become 0%... For you the label issues is vital, if you get labeling then GMOs are dead-end.
- Vandana Shiva
If we don't have GMOS what will we feed all the refugees we create from our wars? How can we look like the good guys in Africa, the MENA and Bangladesh, et al if we don't give them food crops which kill them in 3 decades or less? How will Big Pharma treat all the future diabetics without first feeding them garbage? How can we sell them bottled water if we don't poison their water supplies with herbicides? What do we do with our " better living through chemicals " advertising program if we don't have poison to sell? " Are you sure the rats won't eat it, Agent Orange? " Positive , Gen. Mills ". " What does The Frito Bandito and Captain Crunch think, Colonel Sanders? ", " Well, sir. They feel the same as we all do in the South and Midwest; Give us our Freedom Fries, Give us our Sugar Daddies, Give us Pepsi and Coke or Give us Death! " " What a rousing battle cry, Col. Sanders.." " Well, thank you Gen. Mills "
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Voluntary labeling?!! Voluntary labeling is irrelevant and useless to me if I'm standing in the supermarket and want to totally avoid GMO foods because I've read some worrisome research about the effects of GMOs and GMO farming methods on living things.
As for the higher-yield claims, in fact, longer term research from Cornell has shown higher initial yields from GMOs crops, but steady decline after that, with year 4 being the "it's a wash" point, and by year 7, GMO farmers were spraying their fields 20x again. Other GMO crops such as Bt cotton have also failed pretty spectacularly in India. Furthermore, GMO crops appear to create broader negative ripple effects for the environment, from contamination of surrounding fields to poisoning people living near the fields.
We simply have to stop poisoning the air we breather, water we drink, and earth we we grow the foods we eat. It's that simple, and until very long-term environmental and animal studies have been conducted, it's irresponsible to unleash this crude gene-tinkering agriculture on even a single field.
We were also confidently told by industry that asbestos was safe, that smoking was safe, that DDT was safe, that Agent Orange was safe, that dioxins were safe, that BPA was safe, that mercury was safe, that teflon was safe, that triclosan was safe, that rBST was safe (and some of those false claims involved Monsanto, the biggest force behind GMOs).
Why on earth would anyone trust industry or trust the FDA-industry-revolving-door-complex with an objective assessment of whether GMOs are safe?
Consumers deserve MANDATORY labeling if industry is putting in foods things whose long-term health and environmental effects are quite suspicious ... as is the case with GMOs.
Siouxrose11 is right about the "trade" deals TPP, TTIP and TiSA.
Provisions in these treaties allow a corporation to challenge any national or local regulation if it feels it cuts into its profits. Under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, the case is heard by a (rigged) corporate tribunal, and there is no appeal. If the corporation wins (and it invariably will), the regulation must be overturned or taxpayers will be on the hook to compensate the corporation--sometimes to the tune of millions or billions of dollars. Scary stuff--and most people have never heard of it.