As Vermont’s monumental GMO labeling victory is fully realized by legislatures around the nation, it reminds us that it is within our reach to enact GMO labeling laws throughout the entirety of the 50 states. And even internationally.
In an underdog victory, Vermont was finally successful in requiring the mandatory labeling of GMOs within the state — an addition to their previously accepted GMO labeling laws that had some exceptions for manufacturers and were considered quite relaxed. This is after months and months of protest and legal battles with Monsanto, who even fought tooth and nail to repeal the original ‘relaxed’ GMO labeling law in the first place.
It was a major victory, and it reminds us of the coming states who may soon see similar legislation put into place. Here are the 3 states that may be next to require labeling of GMOs in the wake of Vermont’s precedent-setting ruling:
My personal choice for the next GMO labeling champion and an initiative that could ignite a legislation wave around the world, Minnesota is the most unlikely staging grounds for an all out legal assault on Monsanto and GMOs at large. But after the introduction of SB 335 back in April of 2014, locals went wild. The support for this bill is huge, and the Minnesota news papers can’t believe it. In a report on how citizens were protesting around the courthouse to show their support for the bill and GMO labeling at large, we see how even independent grocery stores are being pushed to start labeling:
“In the past six months, I’ve received numerous written and verbal requests to label GMO (Genetically-modified organisms) containing ingredients in our stores or discontinue a possibly GMO containing product,” said Liz McMann, consumer affairs manager at Mississippi Market in St. Paul. “My response is always the same. My hands are tied. Without mandatory labeling, it’s impossible to know if a non-organic product contains genetically modified organisms or not.”
As businesses move to Texas in what could be called an ‘intellectual exodus’ towards cities like Austin, there’s no question that the state could in fact be next on the list to enact GMO labeling laws that would help improve the lives of independent farmers and citizens alike. Farmers that have been fighting Monsanto’s GMOs for quite some time amid financial ruin. With HB 3499 and the support of farmers and activists alike, they may just get their wish.
Because after all, even Monsanto shareholders know that no one will buy their GMOs if they’re labeled! That’s why 96% of them admit they would vote against GMO labeling.
In Massachusetts, Bill H.3242 has been the subject of much support and concern – support by the general public, and concern for Monsanto. Common Wealth Magazine reports:
“[in 2015], 154 of Massachusetts’s 200 legislators, including big majorities of both the Senate and the House, of Democrats and Republicans, joined together to cosponsor The Genetic Engineering Transparency Food Labeling Act. Yet, despite the support of more than 75 percent of the Legislature, the bill, H. 4156, is far from guaranteed even a vote by the Legislature. That’s a major problem for anyone who wants labeling of GMO ingredients, because despite calls for a new federal law, Congress is not coming to the rescue anytime soon.”
Now Is The Time For Labeling
With the latest news on the agricultural battlefield from Vermont, now is a better time than ever for these states to rally their bill supporters and launch them into law. Monsanto will undoubtedly attempt to infiltrate these and other states with legal threats and continuous propaganda campaigns, but ultimately the goal of GMO labeling can be accomplished: we just have to decide we are going to achieve it.
53 thoughts on “Top 3 States That May Be Next to Require GMO Labeling”
Yes let all these states pass them!! The quicker they do the quicker the federal government will be forced into action and put an end to all this silliness once and for all.
Holy cow, here comes the big one. I can actually agree with you on this one Roberts. I’ve been working on the MN labeling law for 5 years on both sides of the aisle. Last convention I changed from labeling to an all out ban. Although it’s still not in the bill yet, but I’ve been pushing Gmo drugs and cotton products as well. I think one of the neighbor kids had a weird form of TSS from tampons. Something to think hard about people.
You are a tampon Abe. When the Feds step in all labeling will be voluntary as it should be.
OK Bobo, I want to dedicate this song about you, to you. Ewe pus*y ewe!
Well Bobo, I was being nice, and my last response was censored. Oh well. I guess I wasn’t very nice. I’ll just say I called you a natural body function.
You not nice? I guess when you are losing an argument you must lose your cool and get censored.
I’m undecided about labeling laws, primarily because of the inevitable loopholes that will follow, ultimately rendering the laws rather useless. For example, new genome editing technology allows the deletion of a few very exact nucleotides of choice, and leaves no genomic signature. This means it’s impossible to distinguish a plant that is the result of genome editing from one that is the result of natural mutations. Regulatory bodies are already beginning to signal that such plants will not be considered transgenic, and thus won’t be subject to any mandatory labeling laws.
Identification will be simpler then you realize with volume testing. Natural mutation is very rare.
You are already on record as opposing labeling. That is due to your strong connection with Monsanto and the fact that you believe consumers to be basically stupid.
Volume testing? I don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t think you do either. How can you prove a deletion mutation is cause but genome editing and is not natural by volume testing (whatever that is)?
Natural mutation is very rare.
Nope, it is very common. Almost half of all apples are natural mutants.
The fidelity of DNA polymerase is what, 1 error in 10 million base pairs? The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs. This means that if you took only errors that occur from replication (there are many other kinds of mutation) you would get about 300 mutations every time one of your cells replicates. If you want to call that rare go ahead, I don’t think I would call that rare.
Holy crap, I am barely me anymore…
No kidding. I found out just how powerful the food and beverage lobby is. I do think this will come back to haunt them though. Call it the curse of the red headed clown.
Maybe you would know, why does a bushel of GM corn weigh 3 pounds less than real corn?
Maybe you would know, why does a bushel of GM corn weigh 3 pounds less than real corn?
If you can tell me where you got this from, maybe I can help you.
The former GM scientist Dr. Vrain mentioned it in this video.Dr. Vrain mentioned it in this video.
Engineered food and your health: the nutritional status of GMOs
It’s the added weight of all the corn borers! Hah
But seriously I doubt that’s a verifiable claim.
Actually I was wrong, it’s 2 lbs. less due to the lack of minerals. Dr. Vrain talks about that at 12 minutes into the video. Why should you believe him? Well before he started lecturing on the dangers of GM foods, he made GM foods. He quit and blew the whistle!
Engineered food and your health: the nutritional status of GMOs
Dr. Vrain is an Organic farmer from Canada, hardly a credible source.
And what he says about Roundup is total 100% bull sh!t. He makes his living on the Anti-GMO lecture circuit plus sells Organic food on the side.
“Maybe you would know, why does a bushel of GM corn weigh 3 pounds less than real corn?”
Sorry, but that’s complete and utter nonsense. By USDA definition, a bushel of corn weighs 56 lbs. exactly. But no one buys corn by the bushel, it’s bought and sold by weight, not volume. Like your breakfast cereal.
At a grain elevator, corn is bought and sold by weight. Corn buyers base their purchase price on a moisture content of 15%.
When I pull in to an elevator, I roll back the tarp on my trailer while I’m waiting in line. Once I’m getting close to unloading, the operator inserts a tube into my trailer and vacuums up a sample. They do a rapid test for mycotoxins like aflatoxin and also do a rapid moisture test.
Pay basis is 15% moisture. If I bring in a load that’s wetter than 15%, I get docked, because the elevator is going to have to run my corn through their dryers, and they’re going to use propane or natural gas to dry, plus their labor to re-route the grain. That’s because to store corn, it has to be low moisture to prevent spoilage.
Every buyer, whether it’s my local co-op, or a big company like ADM or Cargill publishes their dockage fees. So if my corn is too wet, I can dry it myself, or pay their dockage fee.
Same deal with soybeans, except it’s 13% moisture, not 15% like corn.
And that whole grain moisture thing becomes a big deal at harvest time. I can have corn in the field that’s at 23% moisture because of unfavorable weather. But the ears might be about to drop or the stalks are lodging (about to lean over to the ground). In that case I have to harvest so I don’t have big harvest losses in the field – you can’t pick up ears that are on the ground with a combine. So in years like that, I’m going to have to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars drying.
Similar situation with soybeans. We want to harvest soybeans when they’re 13% moisture. But a couple of more days in the field can dry them down too much, and below about 11% we get bad shatter loss. That’s when the soybean pods fracture before the combine head can gather them up and the beans drop to the ground.
Anyone that thinks what I do is simple doesn’t have a clue..
Nothing says fall like the like the hum of the dryers in the distant. I do know about moisture content.
Then why would you make a false claim that GMO corn weighs less than “real corn”, whatever that is?
Because it’s true, and you didn’t watch the video even when I told yo where to go on it so you wouldn’t waste your time. One Bushel of GM corn at say 15% moisture content weighs 2 lbs. less than real corn at the same moisture content due to the lack of minerals that the round up kept from going into the kernel of corn. This is the biggest reason as to the claim of being the same is false.
Complete and utter nonsense.
Abe, I find it curious that you are not asking Joe questions, instead of doubling down on your false information.
So funny…. Like really, think about it? Even if it was true that glyphosate bound to minerals in the plant, wouldnt it make the corn weigh more?
After All Glyphosate plus mineral would weigh more than just mineral, right?
OK zombie your right
your making the false claim!!
It’s up to you to support you false claim that GMO corn weighs less than “real corn”.
So, put up or pipe down, bub!
Thanks for the details Joe. Interesting to know a bit more about how it all works on the farmers’ end.
Is that like the question” why does a pound of feathers weigh less than a pound of brick?”
Corn, soy, canola, wheat, barley and most other crops are based on weight, then converted to bu. Here in Canada we base yield on tonnes per hectare, at a certain moisture content, them convert it back to Bu/Ac for the oldtimers.
The man that answers that very clearly is Dr Thierry Vrain in his lecture on ” Engineered Food and your Health ” Look it up on Youtube and watch it. You will discover harms that Roundup does to you that you never suspected.
In short…. I will tell you, but watch it because he does a much better job….. Glyphosate is a chelation agent… it locks up metal atoms. It was originally developed to clean the deposits out of boilers because it locked on so well to calcium, magnesium etc. When it is used on food, it also locks up those nutrients, so that corn, grown with Roundup cannot uptake as much nutrient, and weighs less than non GMO corn because ot it. It has less nutrient….!!!!
This is technically true but vastly overstated. There are occasional times where a temporary magnesium deficiency can be measured in borderline plants. (meaning plants that are already slightly magnesium deficient).
This is not an issue in practical agriculture.
certainly is an issue when I am forced to unwittingly eat it.
The only part of your statement that was technically true was the part about glyphosate tying up with free mineral ions.
The part about the different weights and nutrition are myths and totally incorrect. .
I doubt Terry Vrain claims this.
well then, put your doubts at ease, and watch the video…
Total bull shit, Glyphosate was developed as a herbicide, after some scientists at Monsanto discovered that some water softener chemicals had herbicidal properties. Glyphosate is a horrible water softener and a very poor chelation chemical, or it would be used as a water softener and chelating agent.
Dr Thrierry Vrain is a Organic farmer from Vancouver Island in Canada, he is married to a Professional Woo pedaler, she sells herbal meds and all kinds of “Natural” remedies. They are both total nutbars.
The issue is whether the facts he presents in his lecture are true or not… whether he lives in Vancouver, or is a nutbar, though it might be true, is irrelevant. Consider that he might have chosen the organic route after he discovered the harm that chemical agriculture is doing. Listening to his lecture, one is convinced that he is an intelligent, careful and methodical person.
His information corraborates what I have heard from other sources. His professional credentials are very impressive. He points out that Glyphosate was originally developed to descale boilers… which checks out. Anything that is powerful enough to grab on to scale in water pipes has got to be a strong chelating agent.
It has now been established ( contrary to Monsanto’s original assertion that Glyphosate is quickly eliminated from the body ) that it is retained, as there are measurable levels in fluids and organs of people. I am very concerned that such a strong chemical is in my body, latching on to nutrients that I am trying very hard to get enough of. Glyphosate has also recently been designated by the WHO as a likely carcinogen as well, which matches the research by Seralini where he found it produced tumours in rats.
Your attempt at dismissal of his contribution is basically a primitive personal attack and not really a valid criticism of the issues we are discussing.
Actually, Seralini tried to claim that the gmo feed caused the tumors. His data actually showed that the rats fed the highest dose of glyphosate lived the longest.
You say this de scaling boilers claim “checks out”. Do you have the source?
You know what else is a chelator? Your red blood cells.
This is activist nonsense. Plants use chelated forms of metals. I routinely spread chelated iron on my oak trees to prevent yellowing. People also use chelated forms of minerals, which is why chelation is used to produce over the counter mineral supplements.
Claiming that these things are “locked up” as a result of chelation is totally false.
And claiming that gmo corn weighs less than non-gmo is totall B.S. Yield is weight. Do you honestly believe that all of Americas corn farmers would willing pay more for soemthing that yields less??
How about Michigan? When will they start GMO labelling?
I sure hope that it is soon!
In June 2013, Representative Sarah Roberts introduced House Resolution 193. The bill has 15 additional co-sponsors. According to the text, the resolution is to “urge the Food and Drug Administration to require that genetically modified foods be labeled as such and to allow non-genetically modified foods to be labeled as GMO-free.”
IF ANY ONE WANTS TO KNOW WHERE THERE STATE IS AT YOU CAN CHECK IT OUT HERE.
The state of Oregon had a ballot for GMO labeling last November. It was so close but with less than 1K against labeling, it failed. This was due to double speak tactics under the guise of ‘professionals’ informing the uneducated about how it would raise the cost of food, etc. You can bet that with a vote so close, Oregon will also be on this list next time we go to polls.
There’s a story doing the rounds again,
about how Monsanto, one of the world’s largest profiteers of
genetically engineered (GE) food, banned GE food from its own corporate
Everyone by now has to no the game is rigged? Even the challenged. Still wonder why the lamestream media is dying? Check out this story that was never aired by Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for FOX News back in 1997. NEWS state the truth! NEWS was/is no different than other TV shows/reality shows??????
Monsanto & Cancer Milk: FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES Reporters.
FOX NEWS Reporters (Reporters Steve Wilson & Jane Akre uncover that most of the Milk in the USA and across some parts of the world is unfit to drink due to Monsanto Corporation’s POSILAC®, which has been proven to be a cancer-causing growth hormone.(known in short as “BGH” “BST” or “rBGH” ), but they were fired for attempting to inform people of the truth.
(Important note: After a long court battle, the Court dismissed the whistle blowers protection for the reporters because the Court stated that there was no law to force that the NEWS state the truth. NEWS was/is no different than other TV shows/reality shows.)
This is type of deceitful corruption is not just FOX news but includes almost all MSM (Main Stream Media).
Self researched, alternative news and information (from multiple sources) is one of the best methods to stay well informed.
Never trust or follow MSM/mega corporations such as Monsanto.
The corrupt FDA has once again turned it’s back on the American public and has actually assisted in suppressing the dangers of this issue.
If you consumed or fed regular milk to your family today (8/21/08), there is more than a 90% chance that it was from a cow injected with BGH.
(Bovine somatotropin developed by using recombinant DNA technology).
You could be killing or harming your child every time you pour them a glass of milk, the same as pouring them a glass of slow acting poison.
Please take action to ensure our children’s safety, for they can not protect themselves. Remember too, that pus (exudate, infection discharge) is almost always present cow’s milk… think about this fact the next time you feed your child this supposedly healthy product.
Non-GMO product sales
Retail sales of products verified by the Non-GMO Project, the top U.S. certification organization.
2011 — $1.2 billion
2012 — $2.7 billion
2013 — $5 billion
2014 — $8.5 billion
Source: Non-GMO Project
So you are saying that Non GMO sucks. GMO sales went from 0 to 90 plus percent in under 15 years.
I’m not saying your a queef But your’;queef!
Abe, your information sources are bogus. In a dairy, each ingredient is independently tested. We know nutritional differences between forage and grain products that no other consumer requires.
There is absolutely zero nutritional difference between GMO and non GMO corn because of the GMO trait. Anyone who claims different should be avoided as an information source.
Hey, good to see ya back. How seeding going?
Everything doing fine. I read some really off base replies on the milk thread, but the comments were closed before I could reply.
It is absurd that anyone would continue arguing we give antibiotics to lactating cows without taking just a few seconds to confirm the facts.
It is simply amazing some of the crazy stuff that is believed.
Dr Vrain did not quit, he retired from the Canadian Federal Government. He was a mid level bureaucrat, working for the Feds.
He is now a Organic farmer and makes huge coin form giving anti-GMO lectures, talk about a conflict of interest.
If you’ll give me the Minute:second, I’ll take a look.