Christmas comes early for GMO food labelers !

[GreatGazoo]

Surveys show that 93% of American consumers want GMO foods labelled. A bill slipped through the House earlier this year to try and stop Vermont, CT, maine and other states from delivering this information to consumers. With yet another GOP shutdown looming it was feared that they would try to attach "the Dark Bill" to spending bills that are required to keep the government from shutting down but the approved Federal spending bill

1. Will NOT stop states from proceeding with voter-mandated GMO food labeling, and

2. REQUIRE labeling of GE Salmon

Three states, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont, have passed such laws, with Vermont's slated be to be the first to go into effect in July 2016. All three democratically passed laws would have been nullified, while any future state GE labeling legislation would have been preempted. Over 30 states have introduced bills to labeling GE foods in just the past few years.

"We are very pleased that Congress has apparently decided not to undermine Americans' right to know about the food the purchase and feed their families," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. "Adding a rider to the budget bill that would nullify state laws requiring labeling and even forbidden federal agencies from mandating labeling would have been profoundly undemocratic and nothing short of legislative malfeasance. We will remain vigilant over the coming days and into the next legislative session to ensure our right to know is protected."

http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=17895

[pnwmom]

1. Good. Thanks!

[Buzz Clik]

2. The GMO time bomb is ready to explode.

The first GMO foods hit the shelves in 1994, and the resulting death and destruction are gonna happen any second now.

I figure we'll be paying the consequences of the GMO salmon between 2040 and 2050, give or take...

[LanternWaste]

3. As labeling is far too common sense, reductio ad absurdum

As labeling is far too common sense, reductio ad absurdum and other fallacies may conveniently takes its place in an irrational mind.

I figure we've been paying for the consequence of the irrational and the fallacious since the dawn of humanity, give or take...

[mythology]

4. What exactly do you want to label?

There is no food that hasn't been modified. Farmers started modifying food centuries ago. Is it food that has been modified in a lab? If so, what's the difference?

[immoderate]

28. Modified is the "M" in GMO. The "G" part is different.

But then again, corporations are people, right?

--imm

[Buzz Clik]

6. No problem with labeling in the abstract, but I don't see a need for it.

But, we all have dragons to slay and windmills to defeat.

[darkangel218]

5. 3..2..1..until the pro-GMO few show up

Screaming that we don't need labeling.

[Buzz Clik]

7. That would be me, and I was in before the countdown.

I certainly am not ashamed that I embrace the science and medical evidence that says that GMOs are safe.

[darkangel218]

8. ...

[Buzz Clik]

9. Yeah, I get similar reactions from climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, and the like.

I'll tell you what I tell them: the science has moved on and left you behind.

[closeupready]

11. When did you receive your biotech Nobel?

[Buzz Clik]

12. I can read. Nobels aren't awarded for being well-informed.

And they sure as hell are given to the ignorant.

[closeupready]

15. But you can't read labels. Because an informed consumer is the LAST thing we want!

[Buzz Clik]

18. Jesus Christ. I already said I don't object to labels. WTF do you want?

Read the thread.

[closeupready]

19. If you're the only one allowed to rib others, I'm done here.

Thanks.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Yeah. It always turns into "just kidding!" when it's realized ...

... that they had no idea what they were arguing against.

See ya.

[bvar22]

16. This guy makes more sense than you do:

[Buzz Clik]

17. Obama hater? I'm not surprised.

Maybe the president got up to speed on the science.

Shit happens. Sorry.

[bvar22]

20. Charistically Wrong Again.

No Obama Hater here.
I merely demand the best from our Democrats.
As an active Democrat who has never missed an election, and participated in numerous campaigns, GOTV, petitions for ballot inclusion, phone banking, canvassing, not to mention over 50 years of donations....
I have EARNED to right to criticize our house.

I also have numerous posts praising Obama for some of the good things he has done.
I can only wish that I could post more positives about his administration.....but facts are facts,
and Moderate Republican Policy IS Moderate Republican Policy.
I fought hard and spent money on the Democrats in the 80s because I strongly disagreed with "Moderate Republican Policy".
Why should I embrace it now?

[Buzz Clik]

23. Hm. "Moderate Republican Policy"

Just talking science here.

Does that make me a Republican?

[restorefreedom]

34. its not just the safety

but the right of the purchaser to know what they are buying and to make decisions about what they buy. you may want to consume gmo food but many of us do not, and all of us have the right to know so we can choose.

[Buzz Clik]

43. I have no problem with labeling, as I have said repeatedly in this thread.

It's totally unnecessary for me, but I just don't care about it.

[restorefreedom]

46. the food producers, who stand to make or lose money,

have resisted. what i don't get is if its safe and great and all, why try and hide it?

[Buzz Clik]

47. The negative connotations.

There has been a huge negative campaign against GMOs. If they start labeling food as containing GMOs, those who fear GMOs will advise everyone who will listen to avoid GMOs at all costs.

[restorefreedom]

48. then the free market is working as it should

they can't have it both ways...if they want capitalism, then they have to live with it, like when people know what is in their food and buy something else.

or, a radical concept...produce non franken food that people actually want!

i agree with you that gmo has a bad rep. but i also believe it is earned

[closeupready]

10. or that the truth is a 'scare tactic', lol.

When even GMO-shills admit that the truth about GMO's is scary, then you KNOW they've lost it all.

[GreatGazoo]

13. And telling us that "pesticide" means only insecticide

and that you 'can't conflate RoundUp Ready crops with the use of RoundUp' etc.

[msongs]

14. soon enough the TPP will put an end to such nonsense, as well as food origins nt

[l.o.o.s.e.e-2]

24. The recent WTO ruling earlier this month against the US is shocking

[center]WTO approves more than $1B in retaliatory tariffs[/center]


Dec 7, 2015

The World Trade Organization on Monday approved more than $1 billion in tariffs to Canada and Mexico in retaliation against U.S. country-of-origin labeling rules for meat and poultry.

In May, the U.S. lost its final appeal on a WTO ruling that determined U.S. COOL rules are discriminatory to Canada and Mexico.

Annual tariffs approved Monday would total $1.05 billion (Canadian), or $780.4 million (U.S.), for Canada and $227.8 million for Mexico.

http://supermarketnews.com/meat/wto-approves-more-1b-retaliatory-tariffs-over-cool

[Archae]

21. Saw more "no GMO" nuttiness this afternoon...

"No GMO" chocolate.

THREE TIMES the price of "regular" chocolate.

Besides, who the hell is making "GMO chocolate?"

Like I said, "No GMO" is a marketing scam.

SCAM.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. A scam would imply that the label is saying something false. If I see a label on a salt shaker that

says gluten free, well, It might be stupid, but I don't see who that's hurting. Nobody is telling you to make a purchasing decision based upon it, but for those who want to make a purchasing decision, well, they're the informed consumer. They can take that info and do what they want as long as nobody is passing along false information.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Just buy the regular, unlabeled chocolate. No harm no foul.

[Denzil_DC]

33. Chocolate bars usually contain ingredients other than cacao, which may be GM:

soy (93% of the US crop) derivatives and corn (88% of the US crop) syrup, for instance. See here: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf

[GreatGazoo]

42. sounds like Theo

a top rated Fair trade, vegan chocolate, around $3 per bar.

Great reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Theo-Classic-Organic-Chocolate-3-Ounce/product-reviews/B002HFWQR6/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Available plain or with nuttiness.

[marmar]

45. We know, we know. Candy bar woo, right?

[OhDemMom]

25. GMO

Thank God,

So many of us have been working for this. Now if I can see the result of years against fracking resolve also.

[bananas]

29. Yay! I'm gonna celebrate with some GMO-free eggnog!

[NightWatcher]

30. What's the prob w/ labeling gmo food?

If you're in favor of it, you'll know where to get it.

If you're against it, you can avoid it.

Regardless of your stance on it, you can see it and make your decision.


Why would anyone be against knowing?

Where's the harm in labeling?

[cpwm17]

35. If there is a market for non GMO foods

then companies can label their products as such. Governments shouldn't be in the business of promoting the "organic foods" industry at the expense of cheaper, and perfectly safe foods. This is fear mongering and a scam.

[NightWatcher]

36. Dog meat is just as safe as cow meat, but we demand to know what we're getting

They have to label all the ingredients in food, why not another line on the label that says gmo or not.

[cpwm17]

37. GMO isn't an ingredient.

There is zero evidence or any legitimate reason to believe it is unsafe. DNA is DNA.

There is nothing magical about changes made to the DNA through genetic engineering. Almost everything we eat has been genetically modified by man in some way, and everything has been change by nature countless times.

[NightWatcher]

38. Where is the harm in labeling?

people will pay more for non gmo just like they do for organic.

[cpwm17]

39. A label gives the government's stamp of approval that GMO foods are potentially dangerous

which is not at all supported by science and the evidence.

The whole point of GMO warning labels is to imply that GMO's are dangerous. That is what any potential consumer will believe, unless the consumer is educated otherwise.

[Denzil_DC]

41. Why would a label necessarily do that? People are asking for INFORMATION labels.

The fact you're referring to them as "warning labels" is odd.

We label all sorts of products. Foods I buy prepackaged always have ingredients listed on their packaging. Loose-bought fruit and vegetables will usually tell me where they're grown on a shelf label where they're displayed. Some labels will go into quite a lot of detail about many aspects of their constituents, production, etc., down to whether they're fair trade, where and how they're grown, and the conditions of the workers that produce them. Whether a food is GM or not is just another aspect of that. Why hide it?

If GM foods have so many advantages, why not make them a selling point? Label them.

Otherwise your argument seems to boil down to a claim that people are too ignorant to be trusted with information about what they're buying and ingesting.

[roody]

44. That's just stupid.

The current label tells me how much fat is in the food. Who does that scare? You are calling it a "warning" label. We call it a label.

[immoderate]

40. There actually is evidence which should give us cause.

There are very few long term animal studies (no human ones) on the effects of GMOs and some of them do evince some alarm.

Things we eat that are selected or cross bred are different from things that are genetically engineered. It's like saying money is speech or corporations are people. Things that are changed by nature are subject to adaptation. Mass producing genetic modification doesn't give organisms the same options.

Have you ever heard of pleiotropy?

--imm

[Dont call me Shirley]

31. YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BeanMusical]

32. Kick and R