HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SFO Gate: GMO foods subje...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:42 PM

SFO Gate: GMO foods subject of bill in U.S. Senate

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27420.cfm

GMO Foods Subject of Bill in U.S. Senate
By Stacy Finz
San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 2013


Straight to the Source: http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Boxer-offers-new-bill-on-GMO-labeling-4460967.php

On the heels of last year's defeat on the issue in California, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., have introduced a bill to order the Food and Drug Administration to mandate the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

The legislation, which would require food manufacturers and stores to tag items made with genetically modified ingredients or grown from genetically engineered seeds, has support from both sides of the aisle, including more than 20 co-sponsors combined in the Senate and House of Representatives.

It has been hailed by food labeling advocates as a boon for consumers who have repeatedly tried to get such laws passed. California's Proposition 37, a referendum on requiring genetically engineered food labeling last year, failed to pass. Boxer tried to pass a similar bill, without success, in 2000. But activists say that Boxer and DeFazio's proposed legislation shows that demand for a genetically engineered labeling law has reached critical mass.

"This is big because for the first time in 13 years the U.S. Senate has recognized consumers' right to know," said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, of the federal proposal. "Labeling has become a nonpartisan issue. It's no longer an issue of if, but when."

Unlike Prop. 37, criticized for giving exemptions to products such as beef and most dairy, the federal bill would include all food items under the FDA's purview. Foods such as beef and poultry, which are overseen by the Department of Agriculture, would also follow the labeling law, O'Neil said.

<>

13 replies, 2484 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply SFO Gate: GMO foods subject of bill in U.S. Senate (Original post)
proverbialwisdom Apr 2013 OP
bunnies Apr 2013 #1
spanone Apr 2013 #2
proverbialwisdom Apr 2013 #3
proverbialwisdom Apr 2013 #4
byeya Apr 2013 #5
Cha Apr 2013 #6
proverbialwisdom Apr 2013 #7
MineralMan Apr 2013 #8
Overseas Apr 2013 #9
proverbialwisdom May 2013 #10
proverbialwisdom May 2013 #11
Berlum May 2013 #12
proverbialwisdom May 2013 #13

Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

1. Excellent.

 

If that "food" is as safe as they claim then theres no reason not to label it. Hope this passes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:51 PM

2. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:54 PM

3. Bipartisan Seattle coalition supported by Senators Patty Murray & Maria Cantwell opposes gmo salmon.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27429.cfm

Council Opposes Genetically Engineered Salmon
Seattle City Council, April 22, 2013


Straight to the Source: http://council.seattle.gov/2013/04/22/city-opposes-genetically-engineered-salmon/

Seattle -- Seattle City Council adopted a resolution today opposing the commercial production of genetically engineered (GE) salmon. A proposal is currently before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would allow GE salmon commercial production. The Mayor concurred with the resolution.

The City's action supports a bipartisan coalition, supported by Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, which is seeking to ban the genetically engineered fish or require it to be labeled as transgenic. More than 400,000 fishermen, environmentalists, food safety advocates and others have written to the FDA with concerns about the FDA's preliminary finding that this project should be allowed to proceed.

"This is a threat to the livelihood of Northwest and Alaska fishermen," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, sponsor of the resolution. "I'm also deeply concerned about potential health concerns related to consuming genetically engineered salmon. That's why we felt the need to act."

AquaBounty Technologies Inc., is seeking permission from the FDA to alter Atlantic salmon with genes taken from the Pacific Chinook salmon and the eel-like Ocean Pout. Adding these growth genes from other species causes fish to produce growth hormones continuously, allowing them to grow larger and faster than natural salmon.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:28 PM

4. Reuters: "U.S. GMO food labeling drive has biotech industry biting back."



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/usa-gmo-labeling-idUSL2N0CZ14O20130425

U.S. GMO food labeling drive has biotech industry biting back
Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:39pm EDT
By Carey Gillam


CHICAGO April 25 (Reuters) - New efforts to force labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops, including a bill introduced by U.S. lawmakers Wednesday, have struck a nerve with biotech crop developers who say they are rushing to roll out a broad strategy to combat consumer concerns about their products.

Executives from Monsanto Co., DuPont, and Dow Chemical, among the world's largest developers of biotech crops and the chemicals used to help produce them, told Reuters this week they are putting together a campaign aimed at turning the tide on what they acknowledge is a growing public sentiment against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used as ingredients in the nation's food supply.

Last year, the industry spent $40 million to defeat a labeling measure in California. But similar initiatives are underway now in more than 20 states, and the move by the big biotech firms is designed to thwart the spread of such initiatives, which the companies say would confuse consumers and roil the food manufacturing industry.

"Even when we prevail, we lose," said Cathy Enright, executive vice president for food and agriculture for the global Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO,) which includes Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical as members.

"To try to oppose this state by state, that is unsustainable," she said.

The big biotech firms are still working out details of their plan, but it will likely have a large social media component, the company executives said. The group will focus on conveying what it says are the many benefits of biotech crops. Participants have not yet set a budget for the campaign, Enright said.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:39 PM

5. This is one bill I would love to be passed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:43 PM

6. Good Luck!

thanks pw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:31 AM

7. You're welcome. The pushback is global, although underreported in US media.

I haven't read these links myself yet.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14778:china-wants-non-gm-soy-and-brazil-will-supply-it


China wants non-GM soy and Brazil will supply it

Sunday, 21 April 2013 21:19


NOTE: An interesting report has just been published by Glauber Silveira, the president of Aprosoja, the Brazilian soy producers association, regarding his and Brazilian Senator Blairo Maggi's recent visit to China to meet with the Chinese government. The topic of discussion was China's large and ever-increasing need for soy imports.

Silveira reports that the Chinese government expressed a preference for non-GM soybeans to supply a significant proportion of the population, "even if they have to pay more."

<>

China is by far the biggest buyer of soy from Brazil, so China's view of GMOs will dictate what proportion of GM to non-GM soy Brazil plants. It seems China is not keen on GM, perhaps because of strong public pressure and partly due to the fact that China has investigative journalists who look into the issue and uncover alarming facts.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14715
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14716

It's also worth noting that China has not approved Monsanto's Intacta RR2 soy for import -- though Europe has. Brazilian producers have been warned not to plant RR2 until China approves it.
http://www.agriculture.com/news/business/brazil-soy-group-warns-farmers-against_5-ar26172?print

<>



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:33 AM

8. That seems like a good idea to me.

Labeling would let people who care avoid GMO foods. I don't see any reason why the labeling should not be required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 12:15 PM

9. K&R. Yes please!

We rushed GMO seeds into the world food supply too quickly.

I hope the labeling can slow things down.

The GMOs contaminate seed lines that have evolved over thousands of years.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 01:44 PM

10. ARTICLE: Will NY be the first state in the nation to require the labeling of food containing gmos?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/29/the-fight-for-gmo-free-food/

April 29, 2013

Why Labeling is a Minimum Demand

The Fight for GMO-Free Food

by KARL GROSSMAN



Will New York State be the first state in the nation to require the labeling of food containing what has become known as GMO—genetically modified organisms?

More than 60 countries have enacted laws banning the use of GMO in producing food or requiring the labeling of food with ingredients that have utilized genetic modification or genetic engineering. But because of heavy pressure by the biotechnology industry, there are no such laws or regulations in the United States.

There was an attempt in California in November to pass a referendum—Proposition 37—requiring labeling of GMO food. But despite initial strong public support, it failed after an advertising blitz led by biotech giant Monsanto.

“There was a very well-funded misinformation campaign,” said Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute. “Forty-six million”—the amount of dollars industry poured into the campaign against the proposition, five times as much as labeling supporters—“buys an awful lot of confusion and misunderstanding,” he commented.

Now political action on a state level for labeling genetically modified food has come to New York with a bill before its State Legislature requiring it.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:05 PM

11. General Mills' Powell Maintains Opposition to Labeling GMOs.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27449.cfm

General Mills' Powell Maintains Opposition to Labeling GMOs
By Sam Black

The Business Journal, April 30, 2013


Straight to the Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2013/04/30/general-mills-powell-against-gmo-labels.html


Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills Inc., restated his opposition to mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms, commonly called GMOs, at a conference in California Tuesday.

The conference, called Brainstorm Green (see http://www.fortuneconferences.com/brainstorm-green-2013/ ), was put on by Fortune. In an unedited transcript posted by the magazine (see http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/30/kendall-powell-general-mills/ ), Powell said GMOs are safe and they're part of a solution to feeding the world's growing population.

Powell said he didn't have a problem with specialty retailer Whole Foods' recent announcement it would require GMO information on labels.

He said he's not opposed to Whole Foods' policy because General Mills' organic brands -- such as Muir Glenn, Cascadian Farms, Larabar and Food Should Taste Good -- that it sells to Whole Foods are GMO free.

Powell said virtually every product in the grocery store contains GMOs, and he doesn't think it's a good idea to label those as having GMOs.

General Mills spent about $1 million lobbying with other food manufacturers to defeat a measure in California that would have required GMOs to be disclosed on food labels, according to the story.

If such a rule was implemented on a state-by-state basis, it would cost consumers more because manufactures would have change how they manage their supply chains, Powell said.

He added that there wouldn't be room to include GMO information on product labels.

<>


Here's to health, oops, $$!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:07 PM

12. We have a right to know what's in our food

Freaking dark side Republican "values" corporate-style OCCULTISM with food is as stanky as it gets.

k and r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2013, 03:49 PM

13. Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, commended the Vermont House for labeling bill

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27499.cfm

CU Hails Historic Vermont House Vote on Labeling GE Food
By Naomi Starkman
May 10, 2013


Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, commended the Vermont House of Representatives for today's historic vote passing H-112, requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered (GE) food sold in that state, by an overwhelming margin of 99 to 42. The bill now moves to the Vermont Senate, which will take it up when the legislature returns January 2014. If the Senate passes the bill, Vermont will be the first in the nation to mandate GE labeling.

"Vermont's historic vote today is a major victory for consumer demand for the labeling of genetically engineered food," said Michael Hansen, PhD, a biologist and Senior Scientist at Consumers Union. "We commend the members of the Vermont House who voted for this bill, despite an onslaught of industry lobbying against it."

The Vermont House is the first state legislative body to pass a bill to label GE food, although the state of Alaska passed legislation requiring labeling of GE fish. GE food is required to be labeled in 62 foreign countries, including all of the European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, and India.

The Vermont bill will go into effect when two other states have passed similar legislation, or within two years from the date of signing. Labeling bills are also pending in Maine, Connecticut, and several other states. "All these states will be hard fought," said Hansen.

<>

Consumers Union has long supported labeling of GE food and stricter regulatory oversight of GE crops.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/2013/05/09/house-approves-gmo-labeling-bill/Y4Kde8VhN7PdBlUkGZJA8N/story.html

Vt. House approves GMO labeling bill
AP / May 9, 2013


MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The Vermont House has approved legislation calling for labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms.

Thursday’s vote came after the House spent most of the day debating a measure that will not see final action this year because the Senate lacks time to take it up.

The 107-37 vote came after supporters raised concerns about human health and the ecosystem from the use of genetic engineering.

Opponents of the legislation raised a range of arguments, from fears that Vermont will be sued by the biotech or food industries to federal government findings that there is no difference between genetically modified and traditional food.

The bill would exempt food from animals, including meat and dairy products.


Links from: http://organicconsumers.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread