Vermont Becomes First to Have Mandatory GMO Labeling
After months of consumer and activist comments, picketing at the Attorney General’s Office, and winning a lawsuit against Monsanto who tried to overturn the original law, Vermont has just become the first state to have mandatory GMO labeling.
Vermont became the first state to become GMO-labeled (a step toward becoming GMO-Free) in 2014, but Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and other biotech interests decided that consumers had no rights at the state level to determine what they wanted to eat. Vermont was brave enough to uphold the voted-upon law anyhow, and even put money aside for the legal fight they knew would ensue when the new legislation passed.
On Friday, the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules formally filed with the Secretary of State’s Office to uphold the new GMO labeling rule, which will become effective July 1, 2016.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell said that the formal adoption of the GMO labeling law gives ample time to food manufacturers to change their products or lose an entire state’s business.
I’m proud of Vermont for standing strong against biotech, and we need to do the same now as members of Congress will vote this week on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). If this ‘Nafta-on-steroids” bill wins the vote, then it would take away state’s rights to ban or label GMOs, and all the effort Vermont has put into cleaning up its food supply will have been for naught.
Make sure you call or email Congress today and tell them not to allow the TPP.
Additional Sources:
Photo credit: AFP Photo / Robyn Beck
Vermont became the first state to become GMO-labeled (a step toward becoming GMO-Free)
Well at least the intentions are being acknowledged. I have long thought that mandatory GMO labeling was less about consumer choice and more about working towards banning GMOs.
Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and other biotech interests decided that consumers had no rights at the state level to determine what they wanted to eat
Just to play devil’s advocate, couldn’t the same thing be said about anti-GMO groups seeking to eliminate GMOs? What if I actually want the option to purchase Arctic Apples?
If they label them, they won’t have to ban them because nobody would eat that filth by choice.
“Well at least the intentions are being acknowledged. I have long thought
that mandatory GMO labeling was less about consumer choice and more
about working towards banning GMOs.”
Well of course you would since Monsanto pays your bills. and of course you still think you can dictate to the consumer how they will buy food- that is because of your fascist beliefs. Better go back to your ivory tower.
Give up the consumer will ultimately keep on pressing until they get what they ask for.
“Just to play devil’s advocate, couldn’t the same thing be said about
anti-GMO groups seeking to eliminate GMOs? What if I actually want the
option to purchase Arctic Apples?”
That would be a terrible shame if you had to buy an apple and it turned brown as it normally aged. What a fate worse than death! LOL
Always the same fallacious argument John. Even I worked for the Devil himself, your argument would still be a logical fallacy.
You do work for him= Monsanto. All your conclusions are based on bias research- so all your statements are complete fallacies but also criminal.
I work for Monsanto? Huh. I didn’t know that. Can you please demonstrate that and then tell me where to get my paycheck?
I don’t need to demonstrate that- you do that yourself every time you post.
Good bye John
Your post is probably the most lame shill accusation ever!
Congrats, I guess…
Congrats to Vermont. Let’s hope that all states will follow with the same law. This is the first step in the right direction, but we should force our government to BAN these poisons altogether.
Let’s hope and pray that Americans are smart enough to not elect any politician who advocates for GMO’s!
Love it!
Go back to Hell where you came from Monsanto ! Take those Chem trails too.
As a molecular biologist, I saw plenty of gaps in data concerning GMO safety. Those gaps have been filled in as far as data. So now I’m wondering how this is still a big deal to anyone except for a small set of issues that I believe merit further investigation– I can’t comment on glyphosphate because I’m not a chemist and my knowledge of toxicology is limited, but this does make me curious.
So my first concern was the genetic material itself– can it interact with human systems? Beyond the fact that plant and animal kingdoms are that separate, DNA/RNA and all variants degrade in the low pH of the stomach. So there went my idea that it was possible for gut microflora to uptake genetic material pertaining to whatever genetic material is placed into a genome.
I think one thing that should be investigated further is sustainability of soils. There are likely tons of possibilities when people bother funding mycology research in context of soil restoration or symbiotic relationships with products. So I hope this is the next step– taking care of the earth below produce that inherently demands more nutrients, energy, and water.
A lot of people want to blast Monsanto constantly. They’re a business. Don’t take the tech of GMO out on a corporation that has been called out on shady business practices anyway, that’s the fault of people working there who generate bad PR in a variety of ways (like shutting up foodbabe financially because it’s easier to give her money than legitimately educate the public). And I don’t believe researchers work there for the sole purpose of generating profit… that’s some pretty hard work to say the least that always has some benefit towards humanity in mind, or else why would someone toss money into a laboratory? Especially a company? Especially when that money could be placed in someone’s pocket?
My last point pertains to data interpretation. It’s possible to correlate (purely as an example of bad data) sales of organic produce to autism just as easily as it is to correlate other health issues to GMO consumption. Learn how your data were derived and you can then apply meaning to it. This is so important since anyone who knows statistics well can mislead anyone into believing anything.
Advances in agriculture have been happening for thousands of years, even blending genomes that would create an actual genetic modification. This is just another one of those advances, and since it is new tech, it must be evaluated to the fullest extent possible. The data are all out there. At this point it is safe to say that all produce is in some sense, GMO!
Believe it or not though, I totally get VT local pride and the fact that food tastes better here. Even after all that. I just don’t think the labeling was as necessary as educating the public using research that has been going on for decades.
“A lot of people want to blast Monsanto constantly.”They’re a business. Don’t take the tech of GMO out on a corporation that has been called out on shady business practices anyway, that’s the fault of people working there who generate bad PR in a variety of ways (like shutting up foodbabe financially because it’s easier to give her money than legitimately educate the public).”
So a business is above the law and beyond the consumer’s reach? This is the lie down and forget about it attitude.”` And this is not just about shady practices- this is about shady business practices from a company who doesn’t care whether they are poisoning the environment and humans.
“And I don’t believe researchers work there for the sole purpose of generating profit…”
If researchers work there then they have no conscience and anyway it’s not the researchers who care about profits- it’s management. Researchers just do what they are told and are sworn to secrecy.
“This is so important since anyone who knows statistics well can mislead anyone into believing anything.”
This is why the FDA falls for all of Monsanto’s research results.
” This is just another one of those advances”
No totally wrong and spoken like an obedient Monsanto troll.
New Apples and Potatoes Could Damage Human Health
The non-browning apple and potato both employ a relatively new technology in which the genes
inserted into the crops produce a double stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecule. The sequence in the
RNA enables it to silence the gene that causes browning when the apple or potato is sliced. The
apple will look fresh for 15-18 days, and the potato will similarly dry out before it ever discolors
to reveal its age.
Numerous scientists are concerned that if we consume dsRNA in GMOs such as the apple and
potato, they might inadvertently silence or alter our genes as well. Studies on bees,2 mice,3 and
other species have verified this danger. According to a seminal 2013 paper published in
Environment International,4 safety assessments must find out if the dsRNA produced in the
genetically engineered food causes an effect on humans, preferably using human cell assays, animal
tests and possibly “clinical trials on human volunteers.” Unfortunately, there is no indication that
the dsRNA used in the apples and potatoes have gone through any of these tests.
In addition, the very process of inserting the new gene into apple and potato cells and then
cloning them into GMO plants can cause massive collateral damage in their genomes.5 This
same process produced new or higher levels of allergens and toxins in other GMOs, but again,
there’s no indication that these potential side effects were ever evaluated either.
Wow, you copied and pasted from Jeffy Smith’s one man Institute, didn’t you?
Congrat to Vermont. Thank you for standing tall. Everyone has a right to real, fresh food. Just like Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, India, Peru, etc. Americans have a right to know if their food GMO. Until this transparency reaches all the states… continue to buy #biodynamic or #organic.
Increased Pesticides
Monsanto-Mahyco’s primary promise was that Bt cotton would reduce the amount of chemicals needed to control pests. Over the past 10 years, however, government data show that pesticide
usage has stayed the same or increased across the cotton belt. This is due to two factors:
Insects have developed resistance to Bt cotton: The cotton bollworm, Bt’s target pest, developed resistance to the Cry toxin produced by Bt cotton, pushing farmers to use more pesticides to control the pest. To combat this problem, in 2006, Monsanto released a second generation of Bt
cotton called Bollgard-II, which has two Bt genes instead of the original single gene in Bollgard-I.
Secondary pests are becoming a problem: Because of the initial reduction in bollworm populations in Bt cotton fields, pests that did not previously pose a significant threat to cotton crops, such as mealy
bug, aphids and thrips, have become more prevalent.[xiii] Farmers are now using highly toxic pesticides to manage these new pest problems.
Increased Costs
Btseed, which farmers have to buy from seed companies every year, is anywhere from 3 to 8 times more expensive than conventional hybrid seed, and several times more costly than the local seed farmers could buy in the market two decades ago. The seeds can cost anywhere between 700
($13) to 2,000 rupees ($38) per packet. Cotton farmers in India are also spending significantly more on pesticides and other farm inputs. In 2002, farmers spent Rs 5.97-billionon pesticides and in 2010 this number rose to Rs 8.80-billion as farmers tried to combat pest resistance and the emergence of secondary pests. Bt cotton also requires higher levels of irrigation and fertilizer to yield well, further
pushing up farmers’ costs.
You’re a regular genius pasting the same post multiple times!