Connecticut Governor signs GMO labeling law

[Atman]

Look what happens when you finally get a Democratic Governor working with a Democratic legislature...

Malloy signs state GMO labeling law in Fairfield

<snip>

...it was fitting that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy came to the local raw-foods cafe Wednesday for a ceremonial bill signing of new legislation requiring that certain foods intended for human consumption, which are entirely or partially genetically engineered, be labeled to reflect that content.

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.

"This is a beginning, and I want to be clear what it is a beginning of," Malloy said, before putting pen to paper. "It is a national movement that will requiring (food) labeling."

Malloy said residents must speak up when they go food stores and are unable to find detailed labeling of food ingredients. "This is the time," he said. "You better get ready; people are coming and this is not a movement you are going to stop."

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

<snip>

[BelgianMadCow]

1. Happy good news 5th rec

Now, for other states to join, so that his thing can get rrrealy started.

[Nye Bevan]

2. I'm guessing this will become like "may contain traces of nuts".

"This product may contain ingredients that are partially or fully GMO". Placed on basically every product made.

[Brother Buzz]

14. That's one way for the food giants to dilute the message

[eqfan592]

25. What message is that? nt

[Coyotl]

3. K&R .... and thanks for posting this.

[Berlum]

4. Hooray. We have a right to know what's in our food.

This is so important. Thank you Nutmeggers!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. We need to fight against this.

We should not be giving in to the anti-science lobby.

It should no more be mandatory to label food with GM ingredients than it should be to reveal the race of the workers who made it - both are things some people would like to know about their food; neither has any relevant to anything; and neither are things we should be pandering on.

GM food is the best chance of feeding the planet as the population grows. We need to be developing more and better GM food, not undercutting it.

[Vashta Nerada]

7. I'm torn on this.

On one hand, I agree with you. The anti-GMO crowd are anti-science people who don't see the benefit of GMO foods to the world.

However, I don't I would ever trust Monsato et al. to take care of the food and make sure it's safe to eat.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I think there are other concerns about Monsanto, but not that.

I don't trust them not to screw over anyone it's not to their economic advantage not to screw over, but I think they will go to considerable lengths to ensure that their products are safe to buy, because not doing so would be poor business.

[DemocraticWing]

9. This.

Picking and choosing which scientific facts to believe in is a Republican value, not something we need to waste time with.

[ljm2002]

11. "It should no more be mandatory to label food with GM ingredients"...

..."than it should be to reveal the race of the workers who made it"

Now that there is an awesome analogy. Because, you know, the race of the people who grow and/or process our food has so much to do with what's actually IN the food, just like GMOs ... oh, wait... Er, how about, because GMOs have nothing to do with what's actually IN the food, just like the race of... hm, wait, ... garble garble garble

IOW you are FOS.

And the canard about GMOs being required to feed the planet is another crock of horse shit, fed to you by the giant corporations who want to control the planet's food supply.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Yes, that's it exactly.

Like the race of the people who grow it, GMOs don't actually have anything meaningful to do with what's in the food.

As far as I can tell, a lot of the concerns about genetic modification are based on subconscious memories of DDT, and the way that behaves - there seems to be a vague impression that it's accomplished by injecting crops with little things called jee-yems, that remain in the food, can build up in you if you eat things containing them, and may cause you to mutate if you eat too much of them.

But, actually, there's no more difference to a human who eats it between flour made from disease-resistant and non-disease-resistant wheat than there is between flour made by black and white workers.

[ljm2002]

19. So you believe that plants...

...that have been genetically modified to produce their own pesticides, are simply no different from plants that have evolved normally or been interbred to bring out desired (already existing) traits.

Well good for you. I believe differently. And for the record, I am neither anti-science nor anti-GM research. I'm not even against introducing GM foods, AFTER sufficient research has been done, and that research must include systems research that explores the effects on not only humans and livestock that are fed the foods, but the ecosystem as well.

Labeling them is a very, very minimal step we can take. BTW, if they're so damned good for us, why the hysteria about labeling them? Just curious.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. They only hysteria is from the people demanding that they be labelled.

I have no objection to people who want to use the fact that their food is GM-free as a selling point labelling it as such - I think that they are preying on the credulity of fools, but that's between them and their customers, and in general I don't think the law should protect people from themselves.

But demanding that all GM foods be labelled as such is a fairly strong implicit endorsement of the position that there are good grounds to want to know whether the ingredients your food is made from were genetically modified or not, and the state should not be endorsing that false position.

[ljm2002]

22. Labeling does not imply endorsement...

...one way or the other. However, it is clear that many consumers want to know whether the foods they buy contain GMOs or not.

Again: why the hysteria? Oh yeah, because it might eat into profits.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Well I guess biodiversity is not necessary

given that GM seed is not storable from year to year since it does not sprout on it's own. Yes, a real problem.

We used to call it seed for planting, now call Monstanto.

But hey, I know plants will evolve their way back to reproduction after we go away.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I think you're confused.

Yes, one of the many uses genetic modification has been put to is the developement of terminator seeds.

But most GM props do not have that property.

I'm not sure where biodiversity comes into it. Terminator seeds are one thing that clearly *don't* threaten it, because they can't spread; that's what they're for. Agriculture in general *does*, to some extent, but if anything GM crops will alleviate, not aggravate, that problem, because you need less land to cultivate the same amount of food on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Tell that to the judge

[Mariana]

24. So the pollen from plants with terminator seeds

can never, ever pollinate nearby crops, thereby introducing that property into another population of plants? I'm seriously asking.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Think about what would happen if it *did* pollinate.

Invasive species are a problem because they spread. The initial populations of cane toad, prickly pear cactus, rabbits, rats and so on in the places they've become problems were all tiny and would have done no harm at all if they hadn't bred.

There are some properties - disease resistance, for example, which, if cross-pollination happened, might spread and have a long-term effect on the ecosystem.

But surely it's obvious why infertility is the one thing that can't, ever, do that?

[Berlum]

23. Actually, we need to applaud this heartily

You can choose to remain ignorant about what's in your food. But most people employ common sense in this matter, not corporate talking points.

We have a right to know what's in our food. No Totalitarian Corporate Megalopoly should be empowered to take that basic right away.

If you want the GMO mutant crudola, you are welcome to it. But you -- and the megacorp forces pimping this stuff -- must cease occultly stuffing the crud down our gullets against our knowledge and our free will.

[1000words]

6. This is great news!

More states need to do the same.

[bermudat]

8. California had a Dem Gov and legislature and the bill still failed.

Funny, everyone thinks California is so liberal. Cali voters failed to pass bill for equality in marriage (Prop 8), failed to pass legalization of pot and failed to pass GMO bill. Wuzzup with that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. State initiative, not Bill

[El_Johns]

15. Good.

[xulamaude]

16. YAY! nt