Republican Congressman from Kansas Sponsors Bill to Block Mandatory GMO Food Labeling by States
"I'll bet the GOP stands to lose a lot of lobbyist bribe money if they can't prevent the labelling from becoming law. Of course, whenever anything Monsanto does is taken to the Supreme Court, it helps that they've got a former employee serving on the bench. Isn't that right Clarence?" - Half-Evil D, Yahoo!
For those who don't know: when you buy fruits and veggies, there are numbers on them... for GMO, it'll be a number normally starting with a 4 and will be like 4102 and such, and normally always 4 digits; for organic, it'll be a number starting always with a 9 and will be like 91803 and such, and normally always 5 digits.
Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements so why shouldn't GMOs? In the US, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations establishing the National Organic Program (NOP). The final rule was published in the Federal Register in 2000. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply).
U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states
The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such. Headline should read "Congressman from Kansas gets big paycheck from food industry to keep you from knowing what you are eating."April 9, 2014
Reuters - A Republican congressman from Kansas
introduced legislation on Wednesday that would nullify efforts in
multiple states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.
The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted
by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills
in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with
genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.
"We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods," said Pompeo. "That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren't really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard."
Consumer groups have been arguing for labeling because of questions
they have both about the safety for human health and the environmental
impacts of genetically modified foods, also called GMOs.
Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state
narrowly lost after GMO crop developers, including Monsanto Co., and
members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) poured millions
into campaigns to defeat the measures.
The companies say the crops are safe and cite many scientific studies
back those claims. Pompeo on Wednesday reiterated those claims, stating
GMOS are safe and "equally healthy" and no labeling is needed.
"It has to date made food safer and more abundant," said Pompeo. "It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity."
But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and
animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related
to GMO crops.
Notably,
millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to
heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand
dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and the subsequent heavy use
of Roundup.
Pompei said he
expects hearings on the bill sometime this summer. The measure would
amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. One provision would make
it mandatory for biotech crop developers to notify the Food and Drug
Administration before it brings a new biotech seed to market and
receives no objection from the FDA.
Currently, companies typically do notify the FDA and consult with the
agency, but it is not mandatory for them to do so if the ingredients
have been strictly separated from biotech crops, and if the company does
not imply that its product is safer than foods containing GMOs, the
bill states.
The measure
requires the FDA to promulgate regulations that specify a maximum
permissible level of inadvertent GMO presence that is allowed in foods
bearing such non-GMO labeling.
Backers of mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified
crops said that the bill is a sign that the GMA and biotech seed
developers fear growing consumer distrust of GMO foods.
"They know that the food movement's power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when." said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit group that supports mandatory GMO labeling. They are afraid of state action and now they're trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress."
A great many independent scientists and
scientific groups composed of hundreds of members have catgorically
called GMOs biological warfare and a danger greater than nuclear bombs.
It has been proven to cause a great many human health risk and its'
negative impact on the environment are well documented, as in the lose
of 90% of the bee population which is essential for natural pollination.
The Monarch butterfly migration has been reduced over 80% due to the
lose of milkweed, due to the use of Roundup and a myriad of other
herbicides and insectcides used in the production of GMO crops, which is
their primary diet during migrations which pass through heavily
contaminated GMO crop areas. Huge amounts of bird deaths can be
attributed to these products and their production methods.
Currently 52 countries have outright banned or heavily limited experimentation of GMOs and those based upon both scientific studies and the wishes of the populous.
No valid study has shown improved crop production via GMOs and, in fact, in some cases, just the opposite. The simple fact of the matter is that biotech industries are seeking to control the worlds' primary food staples via sales of non-reproductive seed strains so that they are insured annual sales of the seed stocks. They have absolutely no concern for the impacts which their products have upon the human or other life forms, other than seemly trying to destroy them as they contribute to the natural food sources which are the competition. As such it is in fact biological warfare and in all wars the innocents (in this case against all species) suffer the most.
The GMO industries are a ticking time bomb that is and will affect this generation and many coming ones with its unnaturally modified organisms. The health of the planet, including our human species, is at serious risk by corporations with no moral scruples and an insidious drive for power.
Of course they do not wish that products containing ingredients which they produce be labeled so that the people are knowledgeable as to what they are consuming and its affects upon humanity and the natural world. Yet, as I pick up any packaged products, they all list their ingredients, from vitamin and mineral contents to artificial ingredients used in their production.
Why should not the people also know when GMO ingredients are included!!!??? It is our health, the health of our children and theirs. Indeed the health of the natural balances within nature that all life is dependent upon and which is essential for the existence of all species upon our home planet for millions-billions of years to come.
What are the biotech industries so afraid of? After all, it is nothing more than other products whose ingredients must be listed on packaged foods, medicines and beverages made for human and animal consumption. Why should they be above and outside of the consumer protection laws, rules and regulations? Why should we allow the mad scientists of the biotech industries to dictate what we should know and what we shouldn't? Why should humanity allow a close and closed circle to usurp the world's food supplies and dictate our diets and what we must consume.
Of course
Hitler and crew would love it, but we have sacrificed greatly to
prevent such inhumanities from occurring and insist on our freedoms for
that is what America was conceived to do since its founding.
When it comes to a Public Enemy List, the Biotechs should be placed high up on that list, if not at the very top. They are guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. And obviously they do not want the public to know.
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed
mandatory labeling of genetically modified food because they said there
is no scientific evidence of harm. The AMA believes that even voluntary
labeling is misleading unless accompanied by focused consumer education.
The AAAS stated that mandatory labeling "can only serve to mislead and
falsely alarm consumers".
[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.
However, the American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The European Commission believes mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, preclude potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment occur. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:
"lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food"
A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products contained genetically modified ingredients. Businesses stopped carrying products with ingredients that had been genetically modified. The study also found that costs were higher in food-exporting than in food-importing countries. Food exporters like the United States, Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, while importers have generally adopted mandatory labeling.
[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.
However, the American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The European Commission believes mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, preclude potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment occur. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:
"lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food"
A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products contained genetically modified ingredients. Businesses stopped carrying products with ingredients that had been genetically modified. The study also found that costs were higher in food-exporting than in food-importing countries. Food exporters like the United States, Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, while importers have generally adopted mandatory labeling.
