House passes bill to prevent mandatory GMO labeling

[G_j]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-bill-would-prevent-mandatory-gmo-labeling/

WASHINGTON -- States could no longer require labels on genetically modified foods under legislation the House is considering.

The legislation scheduled for a vote Thursday in the House is backed by the food industry, which has fought state labeling efforts around the country. So far, Vermont is the only state set to require the labels.

The country's largest food companies say genetically modified foods are safe and that labels would be misleading. They say a patchwork of laws around the country would make things expensive for companies and confusing for consumers.

"The reality is, biotechnology has time and time again proved safe," the bill's sponsor, Kansas Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, said as debate began. "We should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful of activists."

Advocates for the labels say people have a right to know what is in their food and criticize House Republicans for trying to take away states' ability to require the labels.

Five things to know about the House bill:

IT WOULD DERAIL VERMONT'S LAW....

...More...

..there are some here who agree with the house trolls/Republicans.. have at it..

[tymorial]

1. That would be me.

Believe in anti-gmo pseudoscience ranks right up there with placing crystals on the body for healing purposes and anti-vaccine wing nuttery.

[immoderate]

2. Yeah. Those pesticides are THAT GOOD!

--imm

[tymorial]

4. Would you care to explain how your statement

Is even remotely related to this subject?

[immoderate]

11. Sure. The purpose of GMOs is to promote pesticide proliferation.

That's why the corporations that manufacture GMOs are also (co-incidentally?) manufacturers of the pesticides their organisms are resistant to.


--imm

[Jim Beard]

25. Are they the same ones that ate the DDT in the 1950's?

[Bradical79]

40. So you have an herbicide/pesticide problem

Non-GMO crops don't prevent toxic pesticides from being used. I thought that was the purpose of the "organic" label.

[immoderate]

43. They prevent the rotation of pesticides.

The crops are locked in to a specific, broad brush, pesticide. Superweeds and superpests evolve. Then what? By rotating pesticides, resistant organisms don't develop.

Crop rotation, and application of more specific remedies, are not precluded from, but certainly not promoted by, GMO use.

--imm

[G_j]

6. So you would deny Vermont residents

the ability to pass their own labeling guidelines?

[tymorial]

7. You would deny Indiana the right to allow business owners to

deny service to whomever they chose based upon religious beliefs?

[G_j]

14. WTF does that mean?

that was spectacularly lame..

[tymorial]

21. Is it?

Do you believe in science or faith?

[G_j]

24. that has zero relation to my question

which you didn't answer... FAIL

[tymorial]

28. No actually it is entirely related

Belief in Anti-GMO is faith because it is not based in science. Belief that homosexuality is a sin is faith and not based in science. Engaging in Anti-GMO rhetoric is fear mongering and its based on nothing but emotion oh yeah, and faith.

[G_j]

34. just answer my damn question!

is that so hard?

what kind of scientist answers a question with a question?

[immoderate]

45. Good luck.

--imm

[BurfBrainiac]

50. MIT Researcher's peer-reviewed study trashes GMO alleged "safety" & alleged "scientific method"

http://www.integrativesystems.org/systems-biology-of-gmos/

“... are we following the scientific method to ensure the safety of our food supply? Right now, the answer is ‘no.’

We need to, and we can if we engage in open, transparent and collaborative scientific discourse, based on a systems approach.”

CONGRESS, INC. & GMO, INC. & BIG CHEM, INC. are the antithesis of transparent. Now with the DARK act, they are about to make sure the whole principle of transparency is flushed down the Corporate Crapper.

[Jim Beard]

27. Its not a matter of restriction as you claim

its a matter of allowing a CHOICE of the consumer.

[mindem]

39. What a monumentally stupid response

[PowerToThePeople]

8. Monsanto thanks you for your service. n/t

[tymorial]

12. Ahh yes the typical redirection

I refuse to accept your pseudoscience as baseless and that means I must be a Monsanto stooge. You're absolutely right. I setup my account over a year ago knowing that this day might just happen and I wanted to be here to rain on everyone's anti-science parade.

For the record, I do not support Monsanto for their predatory business practices and how they go after local farmers. I do not buy into anti-gmo hysteria. I know it may be hard for you to grasp being so black and white in your thinking but there IS actually a difference.

[PowerToThePeople]

20. I do not really care.

I want to know what is in my food. I want to know where my money is going. Are you against country of origin labels?

I am actually for more labelling, I would like to know exactly where my money goes for everything I buy. The more information, the better. Maybe put the info online and let you scan the product with your phone, get a complete list of every part and where it came from.

[Jim Beard]

29. We are not talking about science but about choice.

I know its hard to understand the difference but there is a distinction.

[Dont call me Shirley]

44. The only pseudo-science is that which is coming out of the gmo producing corporations.

Lie-Hide-Deny-Cheat-Steal-poison-Kill that's the way they live their lives, those who promote poison.

[Archae]

3. If these same republicans and democrats passed a pro-creationism labeling bill...

You know say, "evolution is only a theory" and stuff like that, just about all of those here at DU would oppose this bill absolutely.

BUT...

A bill that ends this SAME anti-science hysteria and pro-organic sales propaganda, "We gotta stop that!"

[tymorial]

5. SPEAK IT!

[Archae]

9. I have been, for a few years now.

I challenged astrology, got slammed.

Challenged chiropractic, got slammed.

Challenged all sorts of other woo, got slammed.

Even using the word "woo" got me slammed.

[immoderate]

16. That is called a "false equivalence."

There is no scientific document that shows that GMOs are safe.

--imm

[tymorial]

19. Just stop.

http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods

Many studies have been performed. Go here and read and learn.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-gmo-safe/

[immoderate]

42. Nutritionally equivalent is not the same as safe. And I know what a data dump is.

These links presume I am a Luddite. And I'm not. So we already know they have a margin for error.

The long term effects of consuming GMOs are unknown. You cannot present a long term epidemiological study of the effects on humans. (Hint: Who finances these "independent" studies?) These types of studies have been performed for vaccines.

The effects of GMO use on the environment and the economy is more apparent. It is unsustainable. And it is irreversible.

This reminds me of the so-called "climate skeptics" who refer to me as an "alarmist" or a "warmist." Would the oil companies lie to us?

--imm

[tymorial]

17. Pseudoscience is logical infestation

It ranks right up there with anti-vaccine hysteria, paleo-diet nonsense, placing of crystals on the body to magically heal disease etc etc etc etc. Like you I have been slammed. Today I am a Monsanto Stooge, a republican, not a liberal etc etc. It is the product of identity politics and its pathetic.

[Rex]

36. You are funny trying desperately to make this about illogical actions and not open transparency.

But then again, you knew that already!

[tymorial]

38. I'm not desperate at all.

I am finding these arguments tremendously amusing. The level of ignorance and belief in the non existent is fascinating. So many of you want to claim this is about transparency but it isn't. It is intellectual dishonesty. The Anti-GMO crowd want labels because they believe that GMOs are the boogie man. It is as scientifically unfounded as creationism. The anti-gmo myth is right up there the apple, the snake and the man and women with a fig leaf on their genitals. People can claim they want to "know what is in their food." A Genetically modified papaya designed to resist Papaya Ringspot Virus is still... wait for it...... keep waiting.....

A PAPAYA. Or would you like to know the chemical breakdown of the fruit? Considering all the belief in pseudoscience, I don't know what anyone would do with that information.

[Dont call me Shirley]

46. Have a good life on your gmo diet. Good luck with your health.

[PowerToThePeople]

10. Monsanto thanks you for your service. n/t

[tymorial]

22. I think you forgot a few people who might be Monsanto

plants.

[Jim Beard]

32. They haven't proved to me there was a real Jesus.

All of the writings about him were many years after his supposed death.

[Rex]

13. LOL! Yeah blame it on those darn consumers for wanting to know what is in their food!

It is pathetically sad and tragically wrong watching corporations decide on societies laws, without any oversight or worry.

"because it would cost more"...famous last words.

[tymorial]

23. You do realize that if something is GMO

And its an Apple then what is in the food is um apple.

[Rex]

30. You do realize that there is a list of ingredients on most products sold in grocery stores?

Too much to ask for a little transparency...got it loud and clear as did everyone else.

[Dont call me Shirley]

47. An apple with a multitude of spliced genes from other organisms is not a REAL APPLE.

It might look like a real apple, feel like a real apple, smell like a real apple but a real apple a gmo apple is not. Maybe a crapple would be an appropriate name for a gmo apple.

[closeupready]

15. The public supports GMO labeling by a VERY wide margin.

If Congress passes this, then make sure voters know who voted in favor of Monsanto's bill.

[Rex]

31. Shhhhh! Don't ruin this for them!

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Some here would let us eat coal if it made them a buck or two.

[lpbk2713]

18. "Trust us. Have we ever lied to you?"

Much?


A match Satan would envy. Big Ag and the US politicos.

[Bradical79]

26. I'm not seeing a downside here. -nt

[rsexaminer]

33. I don't understand...

why anyone would not want to know what is in there food.

[deathrind]

35. Republican motto:

States Rights....except when it inconviences business.


Setting aside the science aspect of this argument the more relavent question to ask here is why does business not want to label GMO foods as such? History has shown time and again that when a business does not want to reveal certain aspects of their product in either method of origin or production it is not to the benefit of the customer...so why hide it? As for this particular issue knowing if the food you are eating has been modified to self destruct or be super resistant to chemical pesticides...personally that is something I would like to know.

[Jim Beard]

37. It is very easy to keep the grains seperate

Crops are produced in such large bulk today that it is easy to seperate. Most of the food processed today is by a packer used by many different brands. They all have to stop and clean up before moving to another specified batch for another customer. Like corn chips, a truckload is run and them equipment is cleaned and different containers are placed at the end of the line.

[Dont call me Shirley]

48. It's so easy to keep the mutant gmo seed from floating to other farms...

[deathrind]

51. /\ This

Is so true and has put many farmers out of business.

[Jim Beard]

52. Like we have done for the last century

we have always had to maintain pure lines because over time, there is as you say, contanination. The safe and known pure seed are called breeders seed. Those are increased in isolation and are called foundation seed. These foundation seeds are increased in as much isolation as possible. The Foundation seed is sold to the better producers and that seed saved is called registered seed. All of these crops are closely monitored for purity. The harvested seed from the registered is certified to be seed of that variety.

Farmers can save the seed if it is non patented seed and continue to plant it until it becomes contaninated and not completely pure. It is then sold off and replaced with pure seed again. As long as pure seed are maintained, they can be increased on an ongoing basis to maintain purity. Corn is a one shot process, no matter the producer. Once the hybrid is planted, the seed is no longer used. Seedsmen use freshly produced certified seed.

If a farmer saves his own seed, he should tie small cotton bags to a select group soybean buds before they produce the pod to prevent foreign pollen from reaching the soybean blooms. Soybeans are mostly self pollinated as with wheat. There can be crossing but not much. To be safe, put pollen bags over wheat heads that are in yhr middle of the field.

It takes work but not all is lost unless people don't work at it.

[Dont call me Shirley]

53. Organic growers will soon need to grow in large greenhouses to avoid gmo contamination.

Monsanto, etal can go to hell and stop creating their hell on this earth.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Buy local. Buy Certified Organic.

Know the farmer. Problem solved.

[Dont call me Shirley]

49. +1,000,000

[Pastiche423]

54. Or buy from Co-ops around the country

Like the one I do. Azure Standard drop-ships to a number states. They only sell non-gmo or organics.

As more people become aware, our two grocery stores are losing more and more customers.

Hey, they won't demand labeling, I won't buy from them and I am not alone.