We Know Who You Are: 71 Senators Reject States’ Rights to Label GMOs

[limpyhobbler]

On the eve (May 24, 2013) of a worldwide protest against Monsanto, 71 U.S. senators (listed below) voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the 2013 Farm Bill that would have guaranteed states the right to enact mandatory GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling laws.

Seventy-one Senators voted against you, the 90 percent of consumers who have said that you want labels on foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

Seventy-one Senators – including 28 so-called liberal Democrats and 43 Republican so-called defenders of states’ rights - voted against your state’s Constitutional Tenth Amendment right to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and local businesses.

We know who those Senators are. And we plan to make certain that everyone who cares about food safety and food sovereignty knows who they are, too.
...

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27635.cfm

[Mojorabbit]

1. I will donate to help fund campaign commercials getting this info out. nt

[WillyT]

2. HUGE K & R !!!

[stillwaiting]

3. Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown are among the 71. I'm shocked and pissed at the both of them.nt

[blaze]

4. Warren's response

UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren Supports GMO-Labeling

Her Press Secretary, Lacey Rose gave me this statement after the vote yesterday: "The Senator supports labeling and supports the rights of states to set labeling standards based on health and safety. She supports the purpose of the Sanders amendment but voted no because the proposal would have eliminated the ability of the FDA to force states to comply with a more pro-consumer standard in the future."

from here: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/05/gmo-no-one-is-perfect-not-even.html


Don't know anything about the source.... just fyi

[canoeist52]

5. I had an e-mail from Elizabeth Warren that said...

“The Senator supports labeling and supports the rights of states to set labeling standards based on health and safety. She supports the purpose of the Sanders amendment but voted no because the proposal would have eliminated the ability of the FDA to force states to comply with a more pro-consumer standard in the future.”

[zeemike]

7. What other "pro consumer" standards?

Is it that if you enact one consumer standard....labeling what is in your food, that it negates further standards?

That sounds like gobbledygook to me...and that is disappointing because I had great hope for her...thinking she was on our side.

But fuck it....we can't really tell what is an image we are being fed or the truth.
And the truth is probably Monsanto had a nice campaign donation for her and she could nor resist...or they got to here in other ways.

[KoKo]

8. She's a new Senator and was probably told that...but why would the Sanders'

Amendment over-ride the FDA to comply with a more pro-consumer standard in the future?

FDA can do what they want but what if a Repug comes in for 2016 and refuses to act?

New Senators get told lots of stuff. I remember watching Sherrod Brown, Al Franken and others be told stuff like this as an excuse. Maybe there really is a good reason...but, too often it was something that some Lobbyist told the Committee Chair was a bad idea and freshmen Senators don't have a say. It's called "learning the ropes." After awhile they all get caught up in this.

Still I have hope for Warren bringing some fresh air in and perhaps putting some gumption back into the ones we hoped would be so liberal but who were taught the "system" and ended up trying to get progressive legislation through, only to have it watered down beyond the ability for it to get passed to make a difference.

Good for her for replying to you, though.

[rhett o rick]

9. Sounds like double-talk to me. nm

[whathehell]

11. Quite a few dems voted against it, including my Senator Durbin -- Not Good. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

24. I was sad to see so many "friends" vote against this

Sherrod Brown was the first thing I looked for in the list. It's pretty disappointing. States should be allowed to label food.

[Berlum]

6. The Mutant 71 support Multinational Corporations over Americans

plainly.

Time to clean the House and Senate of the Corporate Plutocrat Loyalists.

[blackspade]

10. Well, we know which of the 100 take money from Monsanto.....

[mountain grammy]

12. Ok, I've got Bennet, voting for and Udall against. I admit to not knowing and will find out.

[marble falls]

13. Pretty funny how these Teapublican states righters don't want to recognize states rights....

that interfere with corporate interests.

[AzDar]

14. Unconscionable.

[defacto7]

15. Major K&R n/t

[Lifelong Protester]

16. Tammy Baldwin? Why would she vote for it?

I can see RoJo, he's a corporate tool.

But Baldwin? I want some more facts, this seems too weird. If anyone has more information to share on why Baldwin, Franken, and Klobuchar voted against the labeling, I'd be happy to read.

[Poll_Blind]

17. Hey, this is a "We're fucked" moment if there ever was one. Look at Elizabeth Warren's shitty...

...response upthread if you need any further confirmation that many of the people you think are firebrands are just as bought and sold as most of the rest of them.

PB

[limpyhobbler]

25. Well I suppose she's earned the right to explain herself.

Nobody's perfect and there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. But yeah it seems like a pretty lame excuse.

[allan01]

18. re:We Know Who You Are: 71 Senators Reject States’ Rights to Label GMOs

time to throw them all out.
i would love to see a iclandic style revolt as both the democratic and repbulicans dont represent "we the people ".

[SCVDem]

19. I have had quite enough.

We in California have a large enough economy and population that we should not have to obey any bullshit from flyover states restricting common sense.

From the enviroment to our health, equal rights and even legalization of hemp and recreational use of pot.

United States my ass.

I am sure we can make it without the other 49 milstones.

We are big enough to be our own country and I think it's time to put it on the ballot.

We simply do not need the right wing crap we are saddled with.

[tblue]

22. I'm with you on that.

The rest of the states are a ball and chain keeping us from moving forward.

At least our Senators didn't join that crew.

[lunasun]

23. i noticed that-no CA senators

[ReRe]

20. Damn! Damn! Damn!

Do they know not what they do???? Here's are the ones who voted against it that I can't believe!

Warren, MA; Harkin, IA; Baldwin, WI; Franken, MN; Durbin, IL; Brown, OH; Casey, PA; Stabenau, MI; Shaheen, NH; Gillibrand, NY; Udall, CO; Coons, MD

Those twelve could have made it possible for states to require labeling of GMO foods. Those twelve! Why did they do it? Why? That's all I want to know. What was their reasoning for voting against this? The majority of The People want labeling of these foods so they can make up their own minds about what they and their families consume.

So is a law needed for companies who produce non-GMO foods to label their foods as non-GMO? If Monsato owns Congress and will never be required to label their frankenfoods, why not go the opposite direction? Label the NON-GMO foods? How does Congress have a right to control what we eat? Why is that?

Is the roadblock against our knowing what we put in our mouths placed there because We The People would be shocked to know how much of our food supply is GMO????

[CoffeeCat]

21. I don't get it...

I thought states could pass laws on their own. Why do they need the approval of the Federal government to do so?

How can a Federal law ban states from passing laws?

I don't get how this can be legal?

I'm in Iowa. If we want to pass a law saying that on Saturday, we all have to wear blue, plaid skirts--can the Federal government really intrude on something that we, as a state, have passed into law?

Anyone?

[Viking12]

27. Article VI, Section 2

The Supremacy Clause

[forestpath]

26. A lot of Dems have just shown their true colors, if there was any doubt.

[Babel_17]

28. I responded to my Senator, Gillibrand

The Sanders amendment (S.AMDT.965) failed to get your vote and I'm disappointed by that. Please tell me your thinking on the issue of labeling food that has been genetically modified.

You represent NY state. And in NY there are many voters who are dismayed by your stand.

Please reply with something meaningful.

Thank you.

http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

[Babel_17]

29. If a liberal Senator thought there could be a problem with the bill's language:

I'm sure Sanders would have listened to any constructive criticism. But was any made to him?

I think at least my Senator decided to placate a well funded group of interests.

[bvar22]

30. It is much worse than you think.

This will explain the "inexplicable" votes.

Democrats are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

"The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity;

the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General;

then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion;

then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists;

and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

How much Leadership did THIS guy show before the vote?

[ancianita]

31. You are absolutely, positively right. It's been going on since BHO's first term. I saw it then.

These 'rotated villains' need to meet certain Democratic vote criteria, and we here should decide on what those are. Any additions to my list below are welcome.

I think that our voting in Real Democrats should always be predicated on their PUBLICLY SIGNED PLEDGE OF UNITY behind the stances and votes listed below, and that there will be No Deals and No Exceptions on the following:

1. "An imperfect bill passed today is better than a perfect bill failing on a technicality tomorrow."
2. They will NOT accept any Monsanto money
3. ... NOT accept fossil fuel money
4. They will vote no all cuts to social safety nets
5. ...vote no on all denials of current rights settled by law
6. ...vote no on all future funding of the military until a thorough independent audit has been published for the public
7. They will nominate only attorney generals who will prosecute crimes of previous administrations
8. ...pass a constitutional amendment that ends Citizens United and penalizes all corporate money in any form in all state and federal elections
9. ...make public education a constitutional right by constitutional amendment
10. ...pass single payer health care as a constitutional amendment.

[gejohnston]

32. messed up doesn't begin to describe it.

is there a law that prevents states from requiring their own labeling? Could a state challenge the law on 10A grounds?