Victory! Vermont Passes Landmark GMO Labeling Law

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Common Dreams

Published on Thursday, May 8, 2014 by Common Dreams

Victory! Vermont Passes Landmark GMO Labeling Law

"This movement is here to stay."

- Andrea Germanos

Vermont made history on Thursday by becoming the first state to require the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients following passage of a no "trigger clause" bill.
The measure passed both bodies of the state legislature last month, and officially became law Thursday afternoon with Governor Peter Shumlin's signature.

In addition to the mandated labeling to take effect July 2016, the law prevents GMO foods from being labeled with "natural" or with any other similarly misleading statement.

While two other New England states — Connecticut and Maine — have passed GMO labeling laws, theirs require a certain number of other states to also enact GMO legislation. Vermont's law, in contrast, has no such trigger clause.

"Vermont sent a clear message that it has sided with the 93 percent of Americans who support mandatory labeling, and not the chemical companies who want to keep us in the dark," Ken Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group (EWG), said in a statement. "Americans, regardless of whether they live in Vermont or any other state, want and deserve the right to know more about their food."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/08-6

Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/08-6

[Tumbulu]

1. Thank you Vermont!

and shame on all the creeps who funded the campaigns against labeling in other states.

[billhicks76]

26. Oregon and CA Next!!!

Monsanto is scum. I hope they all pay.

[7962]

29. If CA does it, products are likely to be labeled everywhere because of the size of the pop.

It'd make no sense to have two labels anymore. And it should be a law that we are able to see whats in our food or whats not in it!

[trublu992]

2. Thanks Vermont for geting the ball rolling now 48 to go!

[Archae]

3. The hysteria just keeps spreading...

"Science iz BAD!"

[alittlelark]

4. Are u serious?.........

.....really? Do you understand the science behind this?

[Archae]

5. Yes. *REAL* science, not bullshit.

And all the peer-reviewed *ACTUAL* science (not just hysterical accusations,) say GMO's are safe.

But sure thing! Make the food manufacturers label food as GMO or non-GMO!

Like the "organic" stuff in the stores, the non-GMO food will be much higher in price, because "natural is better!"

And don't even bother posting the usual shit from organic pushers, or anti-science hysterics.

Just *TRY* reading this, which is *NOT* from "Big Ag" or Monsanto.

http://www.skepdic.com/gmo.html

[alittlelark]

6. You are replying to a Horticulturalist....

Do you really want to compare your 'facts' to peer reviewed studies that are NOT paid for by the industry that stands to benefit from the 'RESULTS'....

We have been fighting this $$$$ for years now.

[Archae]

7. So why are the peer-reviewed studies all saying GMO's are safe?

If you're a horticulturist, then I'm Obama's son.

(BTW, I'm older than Barack Obama.)

You want to stick to your pet beliefs that have as much credibility as creationism, fine.

[951-Riverside]

8. Do you work for Monsanto or perhaps received incentives from Monsanto to post here?

I'm not making any accusations and I don't mean any harm, I'm just curious and I'll leave it at that.

[Archae]

9. No.

I'm a realist.

[951-Riverside]

10. Thank You. I apologize, I was just curious. n/t

[yellowcanine]

45. "I'm not making any accusations..." But you are when you ask a question like that.

Why do you make the assumption that someone who points to the science which says GMOs are safe might be working for Monsanto? The FDA position is that GMO food is not "materially different from non-GMO food.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html

How does pointing that out cast suspicion on me as a Monsanto spokesperson? When did making a factual statement become a reason for suspecting someone's motives on DU?

[alittlelark]

11. $$$$ buys 'credibility' ...learned that well........

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-foods-produce-tumors-and-organ-damage-animals-per-new-long-term-study

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-says-genetically-modified-corn-causes-tumors-but-other-scientists-skeptical-about-research/

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/gmos-linked-to-organ-disruption-in-19-studies/


I have no idea why you are touting GMO's.... I find it disturbing. If you doubt I am a Horticulturalist please IM me and I will give you the #'s of at least 3 of my professors. I already called one and he is looking at this post/site (he is not political).

[BrotherIvan]

15. Thank you for this info.

Bookmarking for future reference.

I too am shocked and dismayed when I see pro-GMO = Science! trotted out. It's not just the health ramifications, which are far too important to just risk. It is also the scientific proof that GMOs do not increase yields, are less resistant to drought and disease, and flood the soil and food supply with glycophosphates which is poisoning the ecosystem and creating resistant weeds. Not only that, the seeds are patented and not allowed to be planted the following year or shared by farmers, leading to huge debt and bankruptcies. Thousands of farmers in India were fooled by the corps to plant the seeds with promises of increases in yield. But the truth was just the opposite, and when they learned they had to keep purchasing the seed every year, they lost everything and many commited suicide.

There are so many reasons why GMOs should be rejected. And yet we have a few dedicated posters who call us all Luddites for opposing them. Strange days indeed.

[alittlelark]

16. I will call them out whenever I see them...

Lottta $$$$$$$ being spread out to attempt to preserve their WW2 toxins and GMO"s... same companies.

[BrotherIvan]

18. Sad part is, I don't think the defenders here are getting paid

You see some low count posters, like the one below, jump in on these threads. But the main ones just have made up their minds that GMOs are worth fighting for--and in amazing twist of irony on the Science! argument--all facts and Science! to the contrary be damned.

If GMOs are so great, label them! That means I won't eat them and so there will be more for the shills!

[yellowcanine]

44. "If GMOs are so great, label them! Problem with that is that nearly all processed foods would have

to be labeled as "GMO". And there would be incentive for retailers to slap labels saying "non GMO" on everything else, even though nearly all fresh fruits and vegetables ARE non-GMO. Ultimately, little useful information for the consumer would be conveyed and the consumer would pay higher prices to cover the costs of labeling everything.

It is easy to pigeon-hole people based on what they say on this, but it is not particularly helpful in terms of informed discussion. Just because someone disagrees with you on an issue does not mean they are a "shill." They might in fact have more knowledge of the issue than you do. According to the FDA, GMO foods are not "materially different" from non-GMO foods. If you have solid evidence otherwise, maybe you can post it instead of attacking personally those who disagree with you.

[BrotherIvan]

48. Your argument for costs rising are the same misinformation used to defeat labeling bills

That was used here in California and it is absolutely not true. All food, with the exception of fresh foods are required to have nutritional information. Labeling did not increase the cost of goods one bit. Fruits and vegetables also have labels, whether it's upc codes for scanning or logos of the farm or country of origin. Adding whether something is GMO or non-GMO is a matter of changing the layout. In California, when they started labeling "No rBST" it started with dairies using it as an incentive to buy. They were more than happy to let people know they did not use hormones. I see product labels all the time, often misleading, claiming something is natural or healthy because that is what consumers WANT. And yes, Monsato tried to get rid of the labeling for rBST saying it was "misleading". Because Monsato never wants anyone to know what's in their food.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may07/misleading_rBST-free_labeling.php

Read post #11 by alittlelark above. There are links to studies that contradict the industry-funded ones that say GMOs are "safe." Anyone who trusts the wholly corrupted FDA is a fool. You do know that agency has been saturated by Big Ag and Big Pharma people? You do remember when people were up in arms that Obama appointed a former Monsato lobbyist as the Food Safety Czar in a serious betrayal of his campaign promises? These Monsato plants (no pun intended) suppressed all the evidence that shows that GMOs are in fact NOT SAFE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

We saw how powerful the push for GMOs were with the leaked documents from the State Department showing how they are in effect lobbying for Monsato and trying to stem the tide of banning in the EU. If that does not show how infected government agencies are with these people, proving how little the FDA seal of approval means.

http://rt.com/usa/wikileaks-monsanto-cables-report-273/

And lastly, this false meme being pushed that "science agrees that GMOs are safe" is just more industry sponsored bullshit. There has never been consensus that GMOs are safe. There still isn't now. Doesn't that set off at least some alarm bells?

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

A quote from the above linked HuffPo article shows that not all scientists agree that GMOs are safe. This is just one of many, many scientists who firmly disagrees.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

Why do we need GMOs at all except for profits? They have been proven to be less drought and disease resistant. They are doused in Round Up--which has its own problems for human health when ingested as it is an endocrine disruptor among other things--which poisons the soil as well. It also creates super weeds that are already resistant to glyphosphates. Wait till there are new diseases that could wipe out an entire crop. By abandoning proper farming practices such as crop diversity and crop rotation in favor of monoculture (which we mostly have already) we are creating a very dangerous situation that could starve the world overnight. All so some company can make obscene profits off of its patented seeds?

Do you truly believe that mega profits for a few companies are worth the risk to human and animal health as well as the threat or our eco-system? If one only gets their information from the so-called "skeptic" sites, which are pushing the same misinformation that GMOs are proven safe and anyone critical of GMOs is a tree-hugging flower child who just wants a pony, then you are missing the whole story by a mile and totally ignoring Science!. There's plenty of evidence that says that GMOs are not safe for human or animal consumption, nor are they safe for the environment. Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, do you think it's worth the risk? Look around, disease is exploding all around us. Don't you think we should put health above profits? Don't you want conclusive, long-term, unbiased studies that show that GMOs have no effect whatsoever? I know I do.

[yellowcanine]

51. The FDA policy on GMOs was in place long before Obama's food czar. Lots of misinformation here.

You make lots of claims based not on science but on rumor and opinion.

"Labeling did not increase the cost of goods one bit." I am sure you can provide a citation then to back up that claim.

"Anyone who trusts the wholly corrupted FDA is a fool." Seriously? Please present citations of proof of the "wholly corrupted FDA." No rumors, no opinion - convictions of corruption by juries only, please. And note, the State Department is not the same as the FDA.

"There's plenty of evidence that says that GMOs are not safe for human or animal consumption." Please present that evidence - peer reviewed scientific journal articles which have held up over time only, please.

Note, Second hand "appeals to authority" like this do not cut it.

"In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases."

If Dr. P.M.Bhargava has indeed reviewed 600 scientific journals (?) then he ought to be willing to publish said review in a peer reviewed journal instead of talking to his friends about it. By the way, one reviews journal articles, not journals. The statement makes no sense.

[alittlelark]

86. responded to wrong post.....

....feelin' like a moran....

[OrwellwasRight]

132. Let consumers decide what information is useful.

Or do you want to start deciding which citizens are eligible to vote as well?

Wanting info on GMOs is no different than wanting information on whether a garment is produced in a sweatshop. We should be able to choose what we buy, how it is made, if it was sourced in a sustainable manner (which roundup ready soybeans are not), etc.

Who are you to say that companies should have the right to hide any information related to the production of the products just because the FDA says they are safe for human consumption. A) Human safety is not the only issue; and B) the FDA also approved Vioxx, DDT, and thalidomide, so people should feel free not to trust it.

[psiman]

22. Your "studies" are garbage

Clinking three at random I find that:

1) two are links to claims that Roundup causes cancer, which has exactly zero to do with GMOs being bad for us. Herbicides are an issue, but let's deal with issue rather than trying to conflate it with something else.

2) one is a link to the Seralini study which is notorious for being utter, soundly debunked garbage. Those scary pictures of rats with ugly, disfiguring tumors? That's because all rats are prone to developing tumors and Seralini deliberately chose a strain that is bred specifically to develop big tumors for use in cancer research.

So I can stop here, confident that all the other links are to the same discredited nonsense that you anti-science propagandists have been pushing.

The stupid, frustrating thing is that there are real problems with the way American industrial agriculture is organized and we seriously need to deal with this, but we won't because stupid and ignorant people - like you, mister horticulturalist - are pushing dishonest feel-good non-solutions like GMO bans that do exactly nothing to address the real problems.

The GMO ban is a great big useless distraction, a waste of time that leaves us farther than we were at the start from any real solutions to any real problems, and the persistent use of false and discredited arguments reflects poorly on everyone on the Left: it makes us all look like liars who can not be trusted.

[7962]

30. If its safe, then there should be no opposition to labeling the foods. MAke it my choice.

If you dont care, then you can buy it. If I do care, I wont. This is like the fight from milk producers who didnt want others to be allowed to say their milk DIDNT contain hormones, etc. Why should it be illegal to tell us whats in or not in a food?

[HuckleB]

38. Here's why.

This is a very thoughtful piece. Give it a chance.

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/

[7962]

47. I get what he's trying to say, although those religious aspects would be "need" to those people

Dont Jews think they've sinned or something major if they eat non-kosher? And I also could see where you wouldnt be allowed to label your product as "Contains NO horseshit"; because it may imply that your competitors product DOES.
I've done zero research on the GMO foods, I will admit. However, when it comes to hormones it seems as though there is a lot out there showing that it can affect our bodies. Maybe thats one reason girls of 13 today look nothing like girls did when I was 13, 40 yrs ago. Not to mention use of antibiotics in animals. We are having problems with 'superbugs' resistant to drugs. We're seeing them in fish because it ends up in our water (sewage treatment wont remove antibiotics from wastewater)
I'm willing to err on the side of caution, while at the same time not allowing over-the-top claims to be made by some.
I know I should read up on the whole GMO deal. My opinion is based more on labeling and not an indictment of GMO foods, because I wont just follow the crowd on that without learning more.

[HuckleB]

50. You are getting to the heart of it, I think.

If we're going to discuss what should be on a label, then we should talk about things like antibiotic use, hormone use, and pesticide/herbicide use of all kinds. (Just because an organic farm uses organic products doesn't mean those products are necessarily safer, and, as of now, the amount of product used is much less regulated for organic farming than others, for example.)

If you're on Facebook, the author has very interesting group called Food and Farm Discussion. All viewpoints are welcome, but a lot of the posters are into the science and policy in detail. It might be an interesting group to check out.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/

Cheers!

[7962]

53. Thanks!

[alittlelark]

62. Enjoy your time here...a great source of information...

...and I hope you get paid fully for this post!

[HuckleB]

63. The shill gambit is not a legitimate response.

Please offer something besides ugly attacks. Thank you.

[alittlelark]

65. If it walks like a duck, and it it quacks like a duck....

.....it's likely a duck. Occams Razor thinking.

[HuckleB]

68. Occams Razor is not applicable.

These posters are actually trying to bring science to the issue. That does not make them shills. It makes them thoughtful. The hyperbole of the anti-GMO movement ought to make anyone pause, especially since the science does not support their stands. What is applicable is the fact that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs, and the anti-GMO movement has no proofs to support its claims. In fact, the reality is so far the other way, that the phenomenon is a very curious incident of human mob behavior, if anything.

[alittlelark]

84. Your 'woo' is Big Ag propaganda and '$$$$studies'...

Go out into the fields if you really want to know what's going on.

[HuckleB]

88. I'm sorry that the science disagrees with your preconceived notions.

There are hundreds of independent studies showing GMOs to be safe.

Next.

[alittlelark]

94. You are not making any sense....

Do you even KNOW what info- hands on the ground info is out there??

-albeit non $$$$$$ 'Independant Studies'?

You are supporting Corporate Agri-buisiness... WHY????

Are you sucked in by the ads or what?

Seriously... what is your stake in this devastating GAME?

[HuckleB]

99. Your response makes no sense.

Why do you ignore the science of the matter? The shill gambit won't save you.

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[OrwellwasRight]

133. Do you even understand science?

Roundup Ready soy beans increase the use of Roundup. If Roundup causes cancer, the use of Roundup Ready soybeans will increase the incidence of cancer because it increases the use of roundup. That in itself is enough reason to support the labeling of GMO foods so we can choose to promote production that does not maximize the use of Roundup.

e.g.,
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22714-how-extreme-levels-of-monsantos-herbicide-roundup-in-food-became-the-industry-norm

[HuckleB]

41. A Gish Gallop doesn't really show much.

At least one of your links -- I'm not wasting my time on all of these -- but one is defending one of Seralin's crap and debunked studies. That really doesn't bode well for anything else you plan to claim.

Also, using the argument from authority, as well as the shill gambit, is not helpful. In fact, it's quite unethical.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. All peer-reviewed studies are saying GMOs are safe? Really?

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet

Abstract

A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been approved to enter human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing several GM genes 'stacked' into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs (N=168) either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet (N=84) in a long- term toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed intake, weight gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights and pathology were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=977

[psiman]

23. Just another stupid, widely debunked, poorly constructed and dishonestly reported study

Even the ultra lefties over at the Daily Kos were able to tear this one to shreds:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/16/1216674/-Study-Finds-GM-Grain-Fed-Pigs-To-Have-Health-Problems

Read down into the comments: the authors of your study clearly do not understand the statistics that they sling around as if they meant something.

Other debunkings are thick on the internet, if you would just take the trouble to look for them.

To sum it all up, one of the most dangerous mistakes that people make is to buy into an argument just because it flatters what you want to believe. That is why quote mining, such as you did above, is such a disreputable technique.

[Art_from_Ark]

25. So a critique by eXtina in DailyKos is a peer review???

I am not the one here who is practicing a disreputable technique

[nenagh]

27. "Pigs fed a combination of genetically modified soy and corn..

suffer more frequent severe stomach inflammation and enlargement of the uterus than those who eat a non-GM diet according to a new peer reviewed long-term feeding study published Tuesday in the Organic Systems Journal".


and Monsanto questioned why the study focussed on uterine size and stomach inflammation rather than "body weight and feed conversion." Those factors , it said, are "routinely used as endpoints in health assessments" and have "been measured in hundreds of studies where GM crops have been fed to poultry and livestock with no negative effects."

In other words, Monsanto measures pig or chicken weight gain on the GM feed as the metric of health assessment?

Very interesting DailyKos post... I think you will enjoy reading it..

[sendero]

28. How can you be taken seriously...

.. when you say cancer/Roundup is not relevant? The whole point of many of these GMO crops is that they can be drenched in Roundup and survive. How is that NOT going to lead to higher Roundup residues in food?

You know what, I've been a science nerd since I was 8 years old. "Proving" that GMO foods are benign to human health would take DECADES and as far as I know only very short term studies have been done. Just because people don't DROP DEAD after eating GMO does not mean it is ok.

The "benefits" of GMO foods to anyone but Monsanto are minimal at best. They do not justify the risk of eating them. People have a right to decide what they want to eat and there IS SIMPLY NO RATIONAL, LOGICAL, OR MORAL OBJECTION TO LABELING, PERIOD, END OF STORY.

[HuckleB]

35. If you're a science nerd, I tell you what.

Challenge your preconceptions. Discuss the matter on a scientific basis. Here's a great forum for doing just that:

http://www.skeptiforum.org/

The bottom line that continues to be ignored is that no other form of hybridization has anywhere near the amount of research done to show that it is safe. This is what makes the whole focus on GMOs very odd. Well, that's only one thing that makes it odd, but...

[sendero]

43. It doesn't make any fucking difference.

.... if it is "safe" or not. People have a right to decide what they want to put in their bodies and no amount of hand waving and misdirection will fix that.

And one more thing and then this conversation is over. I used to be more or less for GMO foods. I believed that increased yields and other factors would decrease world hunger. What a naive asshole I was. Once I understood Monsanto's business practices and that the third world would most definitely not benefit from these products, I decided I don't like them.

It has nothing to do with "safe". I maintain, no matter how many links you post, that true safety cannot be established in the timeframe we've had, so any "scientist" declaring them safe is full of shit. Many cancers take decades to develop. How to you prove "safe" with a two year study?

Even if I believed they were safe, (and I am not saying they aren't, I'm saying we don't know) I would support labeling.

[HuckleB]

46. It does make a difference.

The labeling bit began with some companies trying to foment fear in order to get people their products. It's corporation vs. corporation, and the science does not indicate that there is any reason to label the type of hybrid.

Why I Think Mandatory Labels for GMO’s is Bad Policy and Why I Think It Might Be Good Strategy and Why I Still Can’t Support It
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/

[Sunlei]

36. The only thing important to todays 'big-ag' is that *meat* passes processing & sells.

If Big-Ag' could get away with it they would- cut off the legs, sew the mouth shut of piglets. stack them on shelves & hose them off with chemicals. sink a tube into their stomachs and pump in feed.

They would do it if they could get away with it.

[HuckleB]

39. Do you realize how many studies show them to be safe?

Thousands. Here's a link to just few hundred independently funded studies:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[alittlelark]

21. Glad to hear Obama has a son!

His girls are the epitome of CLASS... can't wait for what the son will bring to the table! ...... sigh........

[alittlelark]

66. You never IMed me concerning my status as a horticulturalist...

...I now have 2 of my past professors looking at this post.

Please IM me... they are interested, and would love to chat w/you.

[mathematic]

12. Which industry? Supplements? Organics? Self-promotion?

I guarantee you Seralini (of the infamous discredited and retracted rat study) has made more money as a book-selling anti-GMO self promoter than any scientist ever made running studies on any Big Seed payroll.

[alittlelark]

13. Hope you get the $$$ due to you for this post.

[HuckleB]

110. So you love the shill gambit.

That much is clear.

Do you have anything but fiction-based cliches to offer?

[HuckleB]

40. So you haven't seen the hundreds of independent studies that GMOs to be safe?

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[alittlelark]

64. Bookmarking that!

[alittlelark]

67. ....uh, yeah....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277286/-About-Those-Industry-Funded-GMO-Studies

http://dailyemerald.com/2014/03/31/osprig-gmo-labeling-campaign-the-scientific-community-speaks-out/

hmmm.... Biofortified.org is in the 1st 15 google results - never seen that before. ALL results are w/ their address..... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[cprise]

17. Organic farmers have to forgo most synthetic inputs

And they have to maintain the soil above a certain measure of health (instead of depleting it). That's the main reason why its more expensive: It has fewer externalities. At this stage, organic also has less economy of scale... and it must fight intellectual property battles with GMO monopolists who are quite happy to sue farmers into oblivion if their crops have cross-pollinated.

On the whole, there's no evidence that GMOs reduce prices. They have become dominant, but also less and less effective at warding off pests and disease. The industry has shunned genetic diversity in favor of monoculture, making them about as scientific as Dr. Lysenko... they know enough to be dangerous.

[BrotherIvan]

19. Very good point

Big Ag wants their few strains to dominate the industry. They are already creating super weeds, but just imagine a blight or some other disease. The world would literally starve. It's so obviously, dangerously stupid, I just can't see how anyone could support it.

[alittlelark]

20. Nice to see another IPM here.

[psiman]

24. All of which is true, except that it has nothing to do with GMOs

Organic farming is good (Very Good), with and without GMOs.

Monoculture is evil, with and without GMOs.

Monsanto engages in destructive business practices, with and without GMOs.

Monarch butterflies are being wiped out by habitat loss, with and without GMOs.

All of these issues demand solutions, but banning GMOs does precisely nothing to advance the cause.

The GMO ban is a useless, feel good distraction from the problems that need to be fixed. It is a waste of time and money and enthusiasm and organizational talent that could be put to good use, but instead is squandered on this useless project. And this, in a microcosm, is why the Left has little influence and why America as a country can not have nice things.

[Sunlei]

33. you're right. The USA does need food regulations that benefit the humans instead of the Corp$$

Like all the other first world countries enjoy.

[Nihil]

37. All of which is true except for the strawman about "banning GMOs"

If you read the OP, it is about enforcing accurate labelling and prohibiting misleading labelling
and nothing about "banning GMOs".

(But you knew that already didn't you?)

[OrwellwasRight]

134. Labeling is not the same as banning.

Nice straw man though. Thanks for the exaggeration. It totally builds your cred.

[HuckleB]

42. You're really pushing the debunked claim about farmers getting sued for cross pollination?

Umm. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

[Overseas]

70. You mean about Monsanto pursuing them in court?

The article discussed the doubt about the most famous case, but not about the fact of the giant corporation with a huge legal staff, pursuing farmers who can't afford an equal defense team of attorneys.

from the article you referenced:

So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.

[HuckleB]

72. If I use something that a company is selling without paying for it, that's called stealing.

You are convoluting the matter, and it's not helping your case at all.

[JackRiddler]

81. Pay me for the sunshine. Now.

I just started selling sunshine and you are in violation of my patent. You may not use anything that my company is selling without paying for it. You are therefore stealing.

I have a large staff of lawyers, an equally large army of lobbyists in Washington and at the statehouses. My former executives are appointed to run the regulatory agencies. My bundling efforts deliver millions in legal bribes to election campaigns. My friends and business partners are judges, officials in the parties, executives at the media corps and the banks. I command enormous budgets for advertising and PR. Just for the lulz, I even put a fraction of that into deploying some cheap labor to dispense talking-points on Internet forums.

So surrender Dorothy! Pay me what you owe me for all the sunshine you have already absorbed, plus damages for stealing it from me, or I will squash you. You will pay, and so will those fucking peasants in India that I'm saving from blindness or whatever other lies I'm telling this week.

That's my business plan. Why do people think it's evil? Because they've been brainwashed by communists and science-haters, obviously.

[HuckleB]

89. You used a lot of words to say nothing at all.

[JackRiddler]

116. No one ever says "nothing," actually...

For example, you just used very few words to concede that you have no answer for the fact that Monsanto is a predator organization with an essentially criminal (if legalized) business model, and when it and its ilk develop GMO, they only do so with its potential for profit in mind, and without regard for human beings.

Also, to show that you are compelled to give some kind of answer, always. Even when "nothing at all" has been said, or so you claim. This indicates a sense of duty to the defense of organizations like this one. Where does this come from? Is it blind fanaticism, some kind of personal interest, or an unrelenting need to feel right even when you're wrong, to never back down?

[HuckleB]

119. You keep making massive claims, but you support them with zero evidence.

Until you can support your claims, cut the crap.

[JackRiddler]

123. Pay me for the sunshine. Now.

I just started selling sunshine and you are in violation of my patent. You may not use anything that my company is selling without paying for it. You are therefore stealing.

I have a large staff of lawyers, an equally large army of lobbyists in Washington and at the statehouses. My former executives are appointed to run the regulatory agencies. My bundling efforts deliver millions in legal bribes to election campaigns. My friends and business partners are judges, officials in the parties, executives at the media corps and the banks. I command enormous budgets for advertising and PR. Just for the lulz, I even put a fraction of that into deploying some cheap labor to dispense talking-points on Internet forums.

So surrender Dorothy! Pay me what you owe me for all the sunshine you have already absorbed, plus damages for stealing it from me, or I will squash you. You will pay, and so will those fucking peasants in India that I'm saving from blindness or whatever other lies I'm telling this week.

That's my business plan. Why do people think it's evil? Because they've been brainwashed by communists and science-haters, obviously.

[HuckleB]

125. And more goofiness. Boring.

[alittlelark]

85. You do not seem to understand the issue....

Cornfield A is organic corn, and has been for years. Cornfield B is Monsanto GMO corn. They are 1/2 mile apart. Bees pollinate the corn, and are not selective about making sure they separate the pollen from the fields. Cornfield A now has GMO pollen in it. Cornfield A's farmer saves seeds every year and plants them the next. Cornfield A now has GMO dna in it the next year.

Monsanto enters Cornfield A's property, takes the corn, tests it and screams (w/lawyers) that 22% of the dna is patented and therefore stolen.............. Blame the bees - They'll be around for a few more years at least.

I cannot understand how you are so massively missing the point....

[HuckleB]

90. I understand that you're pushing a fictional issue.

That has not happened, which is one more reason why the anti-GMO is not viable. It lies.

[mother earth]

31. Then you should support labeling more than anyone for their safety & economical value.

Consumers can make better informed choices for themselves. Or should labels be discarded across the country?

"Peer reviews" are always questionable, as you know, money sways all arguments.

You, however, must be very happy with big pharma, insurance co's and all agricultural and energy companies, as is.
They all have their "peer reviews" to support their views.

I wonder why you are here at DU? Studies, afterall, like "peer reviews" are strictly adhering to truth and science.
Nothing to see here.

Monsanto and other entities never factor in acceptable risk or fines into the profit equation, everything is done ethically, not for the profit incentive.

[TBF]

59. If GMOs are safe what is the problem with labeling? nt

[HuckleB]

61. This is a good piece on the issue.

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/

Why label the technology that led to the plant? We're not labeling other form hybridization, after all. It makes no logical sense. It's one set of companies trying to foment fear in customers that is not based in evidence. They are working to be able to charge higher prices for products that are not actually superior. It amounts to using the government as part of a marketing campaign.

[Overseas]

71. I'm not a horticulturalist but I think plant hybridization is different from genetic engineering

Plant hybridization is plant to plant. GMOs include genes from entirely different species.

[HuckleB]

73. Sometimes, but that's actually not the norm.

It's just one technology vs. another, and GMOs are far more specific and predictable. All hybridization ends up happening at the genetic level, of course.

[alittlelark]

87. You just blatantly lied... GMO's are diff SPECIES

You know what's going on, and are on one side.... I'm on the other.

[HuckleB]

91. No, I actually understand genetics.

Calling me liar because you don't is pretty lame.

[alittlelark]

96. I called you a liar because you lied....

....pretty simple actually.

[HuckleB]

97. Prove it, with an actual consensus of the science.

We both know you can't, which means your claims make you, well, a liar.

[alittlelark]

105. How about a DEFINITION...

"genetically modified organisms" This experimental technology merges DNA from different species, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.....

IT IS WHAT IT IS


....btw I have NEVER been called a liar.

[HuckleB]

109. Creating your own definition by pulling it out of your butt...

... does not make it a viable definition.

Try learning how science works. And then get back to me.

[LTX]

138. Is it your position that interspecies hybridization does not occur in nature?

If so, you are advocating creationism. A flat denial that horizontal gene transfer occurs, coupled with a rejection of speciation.

[OrwellwasRight]

131. "Science" also says that corn syrup and saccharine are safe.

I still have a right to know that they are in my food. Should we really only have a right to know some of the ingredients (e.g., those you deem dangerous)? How is that the perfect information that is required for a free market to run properly?

[HuckleB]

34. Yup.

And to think about all the time and energy spent fighting for something that just makes no sense when one looks at the science of the matter is rather depressing. So many actual community needs could have been met with that energy and those resources.

And ...

Studies With Independent Funding
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[alittlelark]

74. Take an IPM class... I guarantee your eyes will open.

[HuckleB]

75. Follow the science. I guarantee your eyes will open.

There's plenty of woo in college, too.

[alittlelark]

83. Not much woo in the greenhouse or in the field...

GMO monoculture is FAILING. We cannot beat Mother Nature, she will win every time. The parasites become more resistant (as do the weeds) and more and more toxins are needed.

The problem is that we, the ones in the greenhouses and fields, cannot afford lobbyists and 'independent' studies and advertising propaganda.` We just see what's HAPPENING.

[HuckleB]

92. Monoculture issues are not just about GMOs.

Are you capable of looking at the issues by looking at the full picture?

It appears that you don't understand any of the factors in play. You're just repeating mantras without understanding.

[alittlelark]

95. Find me a field of GMO that is not monoculture........

....then we can chat.

[HuckleB]

98. Find me a red herring, oh, you just posted one.

You have offered nothing but bad cliches. You do realize that, right?

[alittlelark]

100. Are u getting paid for this?

...seriously... are you?

[HuckleB]

101. And yet another shill gambit!

Why do you hate science?

[alittlelark]

103. I do not believe you understand science...

...at least in the Horticultural arena. You are embarrassing yourself.

[HuckleB]

104. Show me how I'm embarrassing myself.

Prove your claims for once. Thanks.

[alittlelark]

106. Look in a mirror.

[HuckleB]

108. So you have nothing, as usual.

Goodbye.

[alittlelark]

111. My guess is that many DUers have seen u for what u are

.... this thread brought many out to confront you. You may try to crawl back under a rock for a few weeks and hopefully have your screeds forgotten, but the truth will come out.

[HuckleB]

113. If some DUers choose to go with your hyperbole over the science...

... nothing I do can change their minds. That's the problem. Fear wins over facts, and you're pushing fear over facts.

[alittlelark]

102. You have yet to IM me for my Horticulture Background

I have 2 ex- professors on 'standby' watching this ... neither are political.

[HuckleB]

107. You keep pushing this nonsensical meme.

And oddly, you can't provide the science to support your claims.

Should we play "name that logical fallacy?"

[alittlelark]

112. You have proven yourself a joke.....

....and a bad one at that.

[HuckleB]

114. And the personal attacks continue.

Meanwhile: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[LanternWaste]

49. Almost as bad as accurate labeling...

"Science iz BAD!"

Almost as bad as accurate labeling...

[yellowcanine]

52. Except that it would not be accurate in many cases. Nearly all processed foods could contain GMO.

Nearly all processed foods contain either some soybean product and/or some corn product. Commodity corn and commodity soybeans are not separated - GMO/non-GMO. in this country and not likely to be any time soon. Therefore food processors would have to slap a "may contain GMO" label on just about everything they produce.

[bvar22]

54. So what?

It would be MY choice,
that is one of the big reasons I supported THIS Guy in 2008:

"...because American have a RIGHT to know what they are buying."

Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a good President.

Are YOU going to argue that we do NOT have a right to know what we are buying?

[yellowcanine]

56. My point is you still would not in many cases. This is feel good legislation.

Pretty much meaningless. I believe in real change, not symbolism.

[HuckleB]

57. +1,000,000 ... 000

[Marrah_G]

77. People should be able to have information on what they eat

People may or may not choose to eat the GMO foods. Some might think it will have effects in the future, some might not choose to support what companies like Monsanto are doing by creating and then patenting these seeds.

I'm thrilled that farmers market season is starting. I like being able to know just where my food comes from and meet the people growing it

[HuckleB]

78. Knowing the type of technology that created the hybrid gives you no actual information.

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/

[Marrah_G]

79. People should be able to know what their food is

They need to be able to make choices. Most people won't care, but some people do.

[HuckleB]

80. Again, the technology that created the hybrid is not the food.

It gives no information whatsoever about the food.

Oddly, many of the same people arguing for a label that does not actually give any helpful information also argue against labels for supplements that would actually give the people needed information:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/

[Marrah_G]

82. Why is keeping people in the dark about what they eat so important?

Put the information out there and let the people decide.

[HuckleB]

93. You keep repeating yourself.

Yet, you refuse to accept the fact that what you're pushing is not about information. It doesn't seem like you actually care about information, since you reject all information that does not meet your preconceived notions.

[Marrah_G]

117. I feel like we are talking in circles

I do care about information. You are making assumptions about me that are incorrect. I'm going to leave this coversation before it gets any more insulting.

[HuckleB]

118. Your claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You want meaningless information, not valuable information.

That's the problem with the anti-GMO movement. Well, it's one of them.

[alittlelark]

120. How much $$$ per post?

..You are racking up the big bucks in this thread....

[HuckleB]

121. You keep claiming to have some magical knowledge that you never support.

Meanwhile, the shill gambit is all you can offer as a defense for your preconceived notions.

That's, well, odd.

[alittlelark]

122. 95% of other posters are agreeing w/ me.....

....who is the 'magical thinker' here?

[HuckleB]

126. Name that logical fallacy!

The scientific evidence does not support you. Why do you think "popularity" is better than the actual evidence base?

[alittlelark]

127. GO AWAY.

We see you for what you are.... no more $$ to be made here if the marketers you work for are smart.

[HuckleB]

128. I'm pro science.

Why are you anti-science? Why can't you support your claims with anything but personal attacks?

[alittlelark]

129. ...........

[HuckleB]

130. I like how continue to confess that you have nothing to support any of your stances.

[villager]

115. Well, someone's hysteria certainly does

n/t

[Sunlei]

32. very cool Vermont places their state citizens first /w foods. Even with 'Obamacare'ACA their....

their state citizens can use any Doctor or hospital they want.

[JackRiddler]

55. The fundamentalists are here again.

You know, the ones who think "science" and "skepticism" are slogans to exploit for the multi-death corporations.

[DeSwiss]

58. K&R!

[TBF]

60. This is a good thing -

I do not like woo at all and I know many of these GMOs are considered safe. And that is fine with me. But I don't see why it's a problem to label them appropriately so folks know what is in their food. Then they can make choices based on what they would prefer to eat.

EU has had very strong laws on labeling for 10 years now - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

I can see it would be a problem if people would demand no sale of GMO's, but what is the problem with labeling appropriately?

[Overseas]

69. K&R. Glad to hear it.

[riqster]

76. Fantastic news. Consumers deserve to know what they are buying.

[Nye Bevan]

124. How many people have been killed by GMO foods?

Anyone got the number?

[OrwellwasRight]

135. How many people were killed by putting Shell Oil from aparthied-era South Africa in their cars?

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 04:01 AM - Edit history (1)

None. However:

Didn't they have the right to know what they were buying so they could boycott it? Yes.

Didn't the boycott of Shell and other big investors in South Africa have an impact on eventually ending apartheid? Yes.

What are you afraid of? That consumers will impose their will? Why is that scary to you?

[alittlelark]

136. ^^^^THIS^^^^^^

[Judi Lynn]

137. Court Battle Looms Over Vermont’s GMO Food Labeling Law

Court Battle Looms Over Vermont’s GMO Food Labeling Law
Posted by News Editor in Food, Latest News, RSS on May 23, 2014 7:10 pm

MONTPELIER, Vermont, May 23, 2014 (ENS) – Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin has signed a first-in-the-nation law requiring the labeling of food produced by genetic engineering. “I am proud that we’re leading the way in the United States to require labeling of genetically engineered food,” said the governor. “More than 60 countries have already restricted or labeled these foods, and now one state, Vermont, will also ensure that we know what’s in the food we buy and serve our families.”

“Vermonters take our food and how it is produced seriously, and we believe we have a right to know what’s in the food we buy,” Governor Shumlin told the crowd gathered on the State House lawn for the signing event May 8. “As you know, we’re in the middle of an agricultural renaissance in Vermont because more and more Vermonters care about where their food comes from, what’s in it, and who grew it,” said the governor. “It makes sense that we are again leading the nation in this important step forward.”

Under the new law, HB 112, food for human consumption offered for retail sale in Vermont that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering must be labeled to indicate this fact, as of July 1, 2016. Violators face penalties and further action by the Attorney General’s Office.

The bill creates a fund to support the implementation and administration of the state labeling law, including costs and fees associated with expected challenge in court by food producers who do not want to disclose this information to consumers.

“The constitutionality of the GMO labelling law will undoubtedly be challenged,” said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. “I can make no predictions or promises about how the courts will ultimately rule, but I can promise that my office will mount a vigorous and zealous defense of the law that has so much support from Vermont consumers.”

More:
http://ens-newswire.com/2014/05/23/court-battle-looms-over-vermonts-gmo-food-labeling-law/