Vermont passes bill to require warning labels for genetically modified foods

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Guardian

Vermont lawmakers have passed the country's first state bill to require the labeling of genetically modified foods, underscoring a division between powerful lobbyists for the US food industry and an American public that overwhelmingly says it approves of the idea.

The Vermont House approved the measure Wednesday evening, about a week after the state Senate, and Governor Peter Shumlin said he plans to sign it. The requirements would take effect July 1, 2016, giving food producers time to comply.

Shumlin praised the vote. "I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food," he said in a statement.

>

Twenty-nine other states have proposed bills this year and last to require genetically modified organism — or GMO — labeling, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Two other New England states have passed laws to require GMO labeling, but the legislation takes effect only when neighboring states also approve the requirement. They are Maine and Connecticut; neither neighbor Vermont.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/24/vermont-bill-gm-food-health-labels

[newfie11]

1. Congrats Vermont

[Sunlei]

13. Vermont is cool!! with their, 'Obamacare' insurance people can go to any hospital/Doctor they want.

wonder if a couple hundred years from now our 'United States' will look like a map of post WW2 Europe.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I guess I'll be buying Vermont-made products more often from here on out.

Since I doubt Ohio is going to pass a similar law any time soon.

[msanthrope]

3. Good. Knowledge is power. I may not agree with all the woo against GMOs, but I see no

reason why labeling is bad.

[bananas]

5. Risk Expert Nassim Taleb: GMOs Could Destroy the Global Ecosystem

Calling the GMO approach “scientific” betrays a very poor—indeed warped—understanding of probabilistic payoffs and risk management.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101689073

[msanthrope]

6. Look--I really prefer to get my science from peer-reviewed studies, not the Black Swan guy....who is

an entertaining read, nonetheless.

[stonecutter357]

4. K&R

[djean111]

7. The TPP will address things like this, I believe.

Monsanto can claim that GMO labeling affects their profits, and that's the one holy and sacred thing now - profits at any cost.

[Sunlei]

14. a shame that monsanto is allowed to get away with dishonest labeling.

[ctsnowman]

8. The last line is wrong.

"Connecticut is the first state to enact such legislation, but the rules will take effect only after at least four other states enact similar laws. The bill also requires that any combination of Northeast states where together reside at least 20 million must adopt similar laws in order for the Connecticut regulations to take effect."

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Malloy-signs-state-GMO-labeling-law-in-Fairfield-5056120.php

[oldandhappy]

9. Thank you , Vermont

Yes!

[closeupready]

10. Excellent.

K&R

[alp227]

11. I'd make this the label:

I understand a "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" label on gangsta rap CD's.

I understand a surgeon general's warning on alcoholic beverages.

But this bill is anti-science, similar to putting "warning: evolution is in doubt" labels on biology textbooks (which actually happened).

[BrotherIvan]

15. Nope

It's allowing people to make a CHOICE if they want to eat GMO foods. Plus, for those who believe everyone who doesn't wish to consume GMO foods is a Luddite, these labels will make sure there is more on the shelves! Unlimited GMOs for you!!!!!

[alp227]

16. They can make a choice. It just has to be a properly informed one.

If people want to avoid GMO's, well good luck trying to find any food in the modern world that has not been genetically modified at some point in time. How is a "GMO" defined in the state's view?

So should vaccines carry a "may cause autism" label so people can "choose"?

Should cannabis carry a "may cause violent behavior" label so people can "choose"?

[wisechoice]

17. I see no connection

Between labeling GMOs to
"So should vaccines carry a "may cause autism" label so people can "choose"?"
What they are demanding is labeling food as GMOs - just like box of cereals containing ingredient list, so that people can choose.

[alp227]

19. Choose what? First of all, establish a scientifically sound definition of what a GMO **IS**.

All of our crops, everyone’s crops, are heavily modified genetically. Wild strawberries are tiny little things. Corn is a hybrid monster shaped by centuries of selection, twisted from a seedy little grass into this weird elaborate conglomeration. Wheat and barley and rye are the product of thousands of years of genetic reshuffling and selection. Walk into the produce section of your grocery store — do you really think all those fruits and vegetables are unshaped by human hands?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/03/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-gmo/

[roody]

24. If you are a scientist, you know the difference.

[BrotherIvan]

18. I actually clicked the link you posted

Some dude with a blog that resembles geocities railing about countries that care about the health of their citizens (unlike the US) being scared and misinformed by not wholly embracing GMOs? Quelle horreur!

All your pro-GMO statements in the graphic do nothing to prove they are safe long term. Perhaps we should take a cautious approach to human health instead of jumping in with both feet so some company can make mega profits. We do that already with quickie drug approvals and it's not working out too well for the people/guinea pigs who die before unsafe drugs are pulled from the market.

Here's my opinion on GMOs: WE DON'T KNOW. They are not necessary and their risks could far outweigh any benefit. Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no long term risks whatsoever, they should not be used.

WHAT WE DO KNOW: GMOs are all about profit. They do not increase yield, they are not more resistant to drought or disease, they are not more nutritious and the seeds cannot be reused. They will lead to a decrease of biodiversity. They do add to the overuse of Round Up poisons which poison the soil and kill off the ecosystem. But because they can be patented they make big bucks for big ag.

So the question becomes, for those who defend the profits of big ag, why aren't you getting paid to do so?

[alp227]

20. That "some dude" is a biologist. That site is NOT comparable to Geocities haha.

And the author acknowledges that corporates do abuse GMO's. You do have valid points there, too.

OK, this Daily Kos article debunks all the myths you've heard about GMO's. Better than the "Geocities lite" site I previously linked to?

also, regarding:

Here's my opinion on GMOs: WE DON'T KNOW. They are not necessary and their risks could far outweigh any benefit. Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no long term risks whatsoever, they should not be used.

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

[MisterP]

22. or mentioning the Enola Gay's connection to Hiroshima

[roody]

23. I was wondering when the Monsanto folks

would show up.

[alp227]

25. It's not Monsanto, it's scientific FACT.

Even the American Medical Assn has repeatedly said so, most recently: "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education." Face it.

[roody]

26. Full disclosed please

[alp227]

27. Full disclosure...of what? nt

[roody]

28. Your economic relationship to GMOs

[Sunlei]

12. I want to know the names of Corporations who refuse to label our foods honestly.

Probably safest to eat local fresh foods if you can. Buy organic, pesticide, antibiotic, hormone free meat, grains, fruit & veggies.

[awoke_in_2003]

21. I wish I could live in Vermont...

I have always loved that state- a combination of beauty and brains.