Vermont Senate votes 26-2 for GMO labeling

[G_j]

Source: Burlington Free Press

Vermont Senate votes 26-2 for GMO labeling
Vermont one step closer to becoming first state to enact such a law

Apr. 15, 2014 4:13 PM
Written by
TERRI HALLENBECK
Free Press Staff Writer

MONTPELIER — The Senate gave a decisive 26-2 vote Tuesday for a bill that would require labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, a strong indication that Vermont could become the first state in the nation to enact such a law.

�We are saying people have a right to know what�s in their food,� said Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell, D-Windsor.

Campbell and other supporters argued that they believe they have written a bill that is legally defensible. They nonetheless created a fund in the legislation to help pay the state�s legal bills, as many assume that food manufacturers will sue.

The bill would require food sold in Vermont stores that contain genetically modified ingredients to be labeled starting July 2016. The legislation is up for another vote in the Senate Wednesday before it goes back to the House, which passed a slightly different version last year. Gov. Peter Shumlin has indicated he�s likely to sign the bill.

Two other states � Connecticut and Maine � have passed labeling laws, but both delayed implementation until neighboring states join them, a strategy designed to insulate them from being sued. Voters in Washington and California defeated labeling measures there.

Read more: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20140415/NEWS03/304150009/-1/rss?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&nclick_check=1

[WhiteTara]

1. Thanks for that! Woo Hoo!

That is wonderful news.

[HuckleB]

8. Well, you got the "Woo" part right.

[closeupready]

18. Oh, I get it. You're just going to kick back and snipe, at will?

Kind of lazy. (Consistent with the Huckleberry thing, I suppose.)

[HuckleB]

21. Lazy?

Lazy is going with fear-based propaganda instead of looking at the science of the matter. That's what anti-GMO folks have done.

Try again.

[GoneFishin]

28. People have a right to know what they are eating and feeding to their kids. Simple.

How much sugar, fat, protein, peanuts, melamine, animal products, lactose, high-frustose corn syrup, whatever is in their food, should be disclosed.

After you read the label, if you still want to scarf that stuff down, then have it. It won't limit your rights at all.

[HuckleB]

31. Hmm.

Oddly, those things don't correlate to whether or not something is GMO. You might want to think about that before you respond.

[GoneFishin]

41. Yeah. Peanuts don't correlate to lactose either. But they are all possible inclusions in food.

And people have a right to know what they are eating.

You might want to think up a relevant comment before you respond.

[HuckleB]

42. Nice logical fallacy.

If you want to discuss the issue, then, come on, be intellectually honest.

PS: http://magazine.ucr.edu/155

[GoneFishin]

51. Nice meaningless buzzword deflection attempt.

Intellectually honest is letting people know what is in the food they are eating.

Trying to keep them in the dark, to trick them into eating food they do not want in their body is intellectually and outright dishonest.

[HuckleB]

53. FFS!!!!

No one is tricking anyone. You are buying into anti-science fear. Pretending that what I posted was meaningless buzzwords, while you buy into the anti-GMO marketing schtick is just silliness.

[GoneFishin]

57. Wrong on all counts. Nothing you said above is true. Cut your losses.

[HuckleB]

58. EVERYTHING I've said is true.

If you can prove me wrong with legitimate, peer-reviewed sources then do so. If not, then don't make false accusations.

[Perseus]

61. All you have to do is go to youtube and

watch some of the videos posted there by the French Scientific community where they have done extensive test with GMO, and then make up your mind if you want to continue eating it.

But, it is simple, regardless of you believing that GMOs are ok for human consumption, it is the right of people to know what is in the food they are buying, if you don't believe science and are fine with GMO, then buy it, eat it, but I for one do want to know what I eat, and it is my choice not to buy GMOs, or corn starch, corn sugar, etc.

It is so simple, and it was so simply explained to you before that I am not sure if you are just trying to make an argument for the sake of making an argument.

[HuckleB]

63. Wow!

Youtube? I asked for peer review.

Thanks for confessing that you're out of your league.

WOW!

[arikara]

86. There's plenty of science that proves GMO's are dangerous

lots of disregarded and buried work, many scientists fired. If the industry is so righteous, why do they persist in covering up facts and why do they spend so much money trying to deny people the right to know what is in their food. If industry knows their food is so wonderful you'd think they'd want to advertise it right on the box.

To save you from demanding links, here's a good resource book for you. It is likely available from your library, your neighborhood book store or amazon.

Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Smith, Jeffrey

Dont forget that the prime reason for these organisms is to make them resistant to herbicide and pesticide and since they've been introduced the amount of chemicals sprayed around has been insane.

Try reading it.

[mindem]

34. It's my friggin money

and my friggin life and I have the right to know what is in the food I am buying. If that GMO shit is so good for you why are they fighting so hard to keep it off label. You sure seem happy to ram it down everyones throats.

[HuckleB]

35. Umm. I think I've made it very clear why labeling GMOs is nonsensical.

The whole GMO labeling thing is keeping progressives from working on things that actually matter. And it's making us look foolish.

[WhiteTara]

37. And what is it that actually matters?

Or do you not think we can multi task?

[HuckleB]

38. I've made that clear, too.

Can you please not ask me to repeat myself?

Thank you.

[WhiteTara]

60. This is my first encounter with you.

I have no idea what you have said, much less made clear.

[HuckleB]

71. And yet you ignore what I've posted on this very thread.

[WhiteTara]

75. and in all the ones in the future. nt

[arikara]

87. LOL

Swatting mosquito's are you?

[WhiteTara]

94. ...

sort of like using a bug zapper!

[roody]

47. Monsanto shills wasted no time!

[HuckleB]

49. And the SHILL GAMBIT appears!!!! Rock and roll!

[darkangel218]

81. If GMO was so safez why you care if it gets labeled???

[darkangel218]

80. No kidding!!

[Raksha]

91. "Woo" is the ultimate cheap shot,

and I make a point of writing off any poster who uses it on general principles.

[marble falls]

2. We have the right to know if we're eating GMOs and we have the right to reuse to buy GMOs

[HuckleB]

4. I love Vermont, but I do so because it's usually smart.

Unfortunately, the whole GMO fear campaign is equivalent to the right wing "let's ignore climate change" campaign.

As far as labels go, this is the ethics explained: http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

[KamaAina]

6. How is it different from this?

[HuckleB]

7. It appears that you did not read the link offered. It explains that.

Those items help me know if I'm getting enough of the nutrients I need, or too much of certain nutrients. GMO labeling does, uh, uh, well, pretty much nothing. It's a marketing gimmick pushed by some corporations (against some other corporations) who are looking to cause fear in the public in order to increase their profits. It's actually really disingenuous, and something that DU would fight against if DU would settle down and think through the matter.

[GoneFishin]

39. People have a right to know what they are eating. If that becomes a marketing pressure on the

companies who sell GMO products, then that is the free market. The GMO compnaies are free to produce non-GMO products if they choose.

If you sell something people want then they buy it. If you sell something people don't want then they don't buy.

My dog makes fresh turds everyday. If I could find a viable market for them I could maybe quit my job. But so far I haven't been able to convince anybody of just how beneficial it would be for them to buy dog turds from me.

I guess I'll have to try to sell something that people are willing to pay money for.

[HuckleB]

40. So, logic is not your thing.

Got it.

PS: http://magazine.ucr.edu/155

[GoneFishin]

46. You think it's ok to trick people into eating food that they don't want, but logic isn't my

thing?

[HuckleB]

48. Umm.

"Tricking people." Science is your friend. Fear is not your friend. Stop believing the bad hyperbole. It doesn't mesh with the real world. Challenge your preconceived notions! That's a progressive thing to do!

[darkangel218]

82. There are no long term studies done on GMOs.

We don't know what GMO food does to the human body in the long term. Thus, many people stir away from it.

Why do you even care??

[KamaAina]

74. Those labels also let you know if you're getting something you're allergic to,

or could cause grave illness (Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine), or do not wish to consume for religious reasons (e.g. pork for observant Jews and Muslims), or for general dietary ones (any meat products for vegans). This last is the category under which GMO labeling would fall.

[closeupready]

3. If knowledge is power, then no one who supports democracy will oppose this.

Or at least, setting aside the specifics in this particular bill, the concept of giving more information about commercial products to its consumers. K&R

[HuckleB]

5. How does knowing if something is GMO or not give you knowledge that gives you power?

http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

[closeupready]

9. Is that a rhetorical question? If not, isn't the answer self-evident?

Democracy fails where ignorance spreads.

Seriously, for someone who's all 'woo' this, and 'woo' that, as you are, your post is puzzling.

[HuckleB]

11. My post is logical, as is the explanation at the link.

Thus, I'm not sure why you're response is what it is...

[closeupready]

14. 1) he states he's libertarian and opposes government; 2) he objects

to specifics of the Oregon bill, but not the principle that people have a right to know what is in their food; 3) he implies that regulating food in this manner is a waste of time.

Are you libertarian? Do you object to government regulation? Do you believe people do not have a right to know what is in their food? Do you believe this is a waste of time?

And finally, I've never heard of him before - he's some guy with a blog, so what.

[HuckleB]

19. Marc Brazeau? No, he didn't. Please stop now.

Wow! He's no libertarian. You have to have no shame to say that.

Secondly, he's very well educated on these matters, and he discusses them openly in public. You'd have a hard time finding a more open guy. Look him up. Question him. But don't put labels that are complete crap on the guy.

WOW!

Here's who he is... http://www.skeptiforum.org/marc-brazeaus-500-words-when-the-food-movement-does-not-move/

[closeupready]

23. Quote: "Is it because I’m some sort of libertarian? Well, sort of."

"I do have a libertarian streak running through my hatred of bureaucracy and regulation. I get really tired of the impulse to legislate everything."'

[HuckleB]

27. So, you're admitting that he offers up all of who he is as a person...

... and ignoring the full picture. Umm. Yeah, so, you're attacking dishonestly, and you know that. Sheesh.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Bt-resistant rootworm, RoundUp resistant weeds ...

these are two GMOs that I'd like removed from the environment.

[HuckleB]

15. Great.

Organic farmers use Bt, too.

[FarPoint]

10. I just left Montpelier Vt. yesterday returning to Ohio....

Amazing town...GMO labeling campaign was in full force. I love Vermont.

[HuckleB]

12. Fighting windmills is cool!

[FarPoint]

16. Are you trying to antagonize posters?

You feel intrusive to me. Please don't continue such behavior.

[closeupready]

17. I would second this question.

He does this every time a GMO thread pops up.

[HuckleB]

20. Progressives should be pro science, not pro fear.

I'm sorry that questioning the GMO fear campaign bothers you.

It's really sad the anti-GMO nonsense is the climate change denialism of DU.

[G_j]

22. why don't you want us to know

if food is GMO?

[HuckleB]

29. Well, it's not hard to know if GMO is in your food, as it is.

Knowing whether it is or not offers no information of value. The whole campaign is backed by corporations using fear to improve their profits. Progressives should be on the frontline of calling BS on those corporations.

[G_j]

32. if people want to know, they should be able to know ...period

you have a curious sense of science..

[HuckleB]

36. I have a sense of science that is logical.

The GMO labeling movement is not logical. It's based on unjustified fear. Are we not against unjustified fear?

PS: http://magazine.ucr.edu/155

[WhiteTara]

62. "corporations using fear to improve their profits"

you mean Monsanto?

[HuckleB]

65. Nice confession!

Monsanto is one corporation, and it's not that big.

[WhiteTara]

66. ?

what? That doesn't even make sense. Who's confessing what?

[HuckleB]

70. Thanks for admitting your lack of knowledge.

[Pastiche423]

24. You have no clue what you are talking about

It isn't fear, it's eating nutritionally.

If you do not care what goes in your body, then fine, don't worry.

But there are many people that do and I am one of them. My body prefers nutrition, not chemicals.

Once I became aware of GMOs and deleted them from my diet, I became healthy, energetic and lost sixty + pounds.

I am working w/people now to get a labeling law in my state of Oregon.

[HuckleB]

30. Actually, I do.

You're post makes no sense, if you understand the science of the matter.

[G_j]

33. you know what?

I don't believe you

[Pastiche423]

43. I don't believe him/her either

W/so many studies already done on what GMOs are doing to our health, it does not make sense to be anti-labeling.

Maybe he/her works for Monsanto?

[HuckleB]

45. Umm.

Yeah, see, umm, no. The scientific consensus does not support your claims.

[HuckleB]

44. Of course, you don't.

Fear is a strong emotional substance, and it is the basis of all anti-GMO rants. It's one of the more obvious examples of fear taking over in this era. Still, you have the ability to challenge yourself. To go to science-based sources instead of the fear-based sources. To explore the matter. The question is whether you will do so, or whether you'll take the easy road.

[GoneFishin]

50. More importantly, I don't believe his stated motives. His behavior is not consistent

with someone who simply thinks GMO labels are silly and uninformative.

[Pastiche423]

52. His behavior is strange, eh?

Why is there such passion about labeling? How would labeling hurt anyone?

[HuckleB]

55. I've posted a link the shows why labeling is pointless. Read it.

Stop playing games.

[GoneFishin]

56. Yep. An objective interest in science is incompatible with convincing people to eat food

that they don't want to eat. It's odd.

GMO labels would mostly hurt big agribusiness.

[Pastiche423]

59. The only hurt to big agri is...

to their pocketbook, because most aware people will choose not to purchase anything w/GMO in it.

That's the kind of hurt that makes me smile.

[HuckleB]

54. How is my behavior not consistent?

Thanks!

[Ed Suspicious]

68. I don't care if shit-on-a-stick is proven to cure baldness, and been found to taste like rainbows

, if I don't want to eat it, I don't want to eat it. Why are you against the dissemination of information? Clearly you have a dog in the fight.

[HuckleB]

69. So you base your decisions on emotions, and not on fact.

That's exactly why this should not be enshrined in law.

[Ed Suspicious]

72. I base my decisions on a whole host of criteria up to and including because fucking feel like it.

How about we mandate the labeling and I won't bug you if you decide to eat it.

[GoneFishin]

84. +1000.

[GoneFishin]

85. +1000. Clearly.

[marions ghost]

89. He's got nuthin

--he just likes to obstruct any meaningful dialogue.

[closeupready]

93. Yup. I wouldn't be surprised to see cries of 'rape culture!' from him in

response to criticisms about those who wish to block such legislation. He'd probably cry 'Abracadabra!' and do a rain dance, if it had a chance of working to his advantage.

[warrprayer]

25. recommended

good news for a change!

[clg311]

26. If you can't trust Monsanto...

who can you trust?

[darkangel218]

83. Lmao!!!!!

[City Lights]

64. Excellent!

I Vermont!

[Democracyinkind]

67. Yeah for transparency!

It hurts no one but those whose business model relies on being intransparent.

[Cha]

73. Good ol Vermont!

[TRoN33]

76. That's my home!

Proud to be a Vermonter!!! I knew we voted for a right guy!

[flamingdem]

77. Yay Vermont leads the way

again

[trublu992]

78. Finger crossed this actually makes it into law we need a start.

[redruddyred]

79. have spoken with one of the women who helped draft this bill.

crossing my fingers that she'll be able to do as much for us here in NH!

[arikara]

88. This is great news

sometimes big money doesn't get its way.

The NDP is proposing a bill for Canada, Canadians can sign a petition here:

http://petition.ndp.ca/the-food-you-eat

[marions ghost]

90. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[marions ghost]

92. And you know why they oppose labelling

because they'd have to label just about every product they make.

GMOs are in 80% of American food products.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/gmos-and-your-family/