39 Comments

  1. blank Volunteerist says:

    I just wish this wasn’t another thing I which the governement took control over. I would much rather have a third party for profit organization do the testing and put their stamp on it. That way if start deceiving people they can lose trust and go out of business. If the government starts decieving people with this labeling stuff they will just get promoted. That is way government works. Government gets bought off by industry. That is why our system is more like fascism then people realize. Mussolini said it himself, “fascism is the merger of state and corporate powers”. We need to get the government out of everything I they than providing for DOMESTIC defense. I’m sick of all the pansies that want every solution to every crisis be solved by growing state power. I eat organic and only feed that to my kids but the private industry could do a better job with that too. The growing power of state is more dangerous than the maggots over there at Monsanto. That being said, Monsanto could never be the monster that it is today without its ability to buy off an all to powerful government.

    1. blank Jan Hoadley says:

      There already is 3rd party testing for those who can afford it. That is criticized too.

  2. blank Brian Rife says:

    Far be it for me to not trust the government, but the Non-GMO project is independent and our Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, was opposed by the Organic Consumers Association, which outlined in a November 2008 report several reasons why it believed Vilsack would be a poor choice for the position, particularly as energy and environmental reforms were a key point of the Obama campaign. Among those reasons the report cites: Vilsack has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for large industrial farms and genetically modified crops; as Iowa state governor, he originated the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, effectively blocking local communities from regulating where genetically engineered crops would be grown; additionally, Vilsack was the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership, and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, an industry lobbying group.

  3. Anyone here trust a government agency who is quite beholden to Big Ag and Monsanto to label GMO foods correctly?
    Count me as VERY skeptical!

  4. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

    It’s all deductible on their tax return. They don’t lose a penny. They are just concerned because they are starting to realize that their control over illegal toxic poisons is coming to an end. That is why they employ desperate losers like Bobo to try to deceive the readers here.

  5. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

    OCA May, 16
    What do you get when you let the chemical industry write a “chemical safety” bill?

    A bill that protects chemical companies, not consumers.

    Almost 40 years after Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Americans are being exposed to tens of thousands of chemicals that have never been safety tested by the EPA.
    These chemicals, more than 80,000 of them, are in the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the homes we live in.

    It’s time for reform. But unfortunately, the bill before the U.S. Senate right now—S.697—falls far short of accomplishing real reform.

    That could have something to do with the fact that the chemical industry has spent $190 million lobbying for this bill. Democratic Sponsor Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) campaign received $49,050 from the Chemical industry in the 2014 cycle, plus $23,500 from lobbyists employed by the American Chemistry Council. Republican sponsor David Vitter’s (R-La.) campaign received $20,600 in the 2014 cycle, and $14,300 from American Chemistry Council lobbyists.

  6. blank freedomdove says:

    This is NOT a huge victory or a victory of any kind, for that matter. We already have voluntary labeling, which was mentioned in the article. Companies already have the “right” to label when their food is non-GMO and/or organic, and they *already* have to pay fees for those certifications. This “new” ruling is just more of the same that we already have in place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *