Sanders Opposes Bill to Block GMO Labeling

[n2doc]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders issued the following statement ahead of the Senate agriculture committee’s hearing on legislation introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) that would block Vermont and other states from requiring labels on genetically modified foods:

“All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the food they eat and the food they serve their kids. When parents go to the store and purchase food for their children, they have a right to know what they are feeding them.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling. We cannot allow the interests of Monsanto and other multi-national food industry corporations to prevail.

“I am very proud that Vermont took the lead nationally to make sure people know what is in the food they eat. Vermont and other states must be allowed to label GMOs.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-opposes-bill-to-block-gmo-labeling?utm_content=bufferadaf4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Skwmom]

1. It's insane that they want to tell Americans we have no right to know.

[jwirr]

8. Down right UnAmerican.

[Herman4747]

11. Exactly. n/t

[Fast Walker 52]

18. damn straight!

[Orange Butterfly]

9. Its because noone would buy GMO food!

[AlbertCat]

23. It's insane that they want to tell Americans we have no right to know.

Indeed.

GMO doesn't scare me. Monsanto, however, is a dreadful company.

There's simply no reason NOT to label food....except they think they will lose money.

[alp227]

32. the problem is the labels don't as much inform as scare.

Thanks to the widespread GMO phobic junk science. It's like biology textbooks carrying an "evolution is disputed by creationists" label.

[Skwmom]

46. Junk science. I suggest you do a little more research. That is the untold scandal of the century

and when it becomes well known the public will be out with their pitchforks.

[ag_dude]

48. What specific peer reviewed science are you basing that opinion on?

[ag_dude]

41. Not really.

Companies already have the freedom to label GMOs if they wish.

If they're dangerous, ban them.

The reason there's a fight over forced labeling is the anti-GMO crowd realizes there just isn't science that suggests banning GMO's is in any way rational so they choose to take the fight elsewhere, away from science, where they can play on emotions and the scientific ignorance of the general public.

[jillan]

2. As you can see from my sig line this is one of

The reasons I support him.

[Art_from_Ark]

3. I despise politicians and others

who try to prevent Joe and Jane Public from knowing what kind of food they are eating.

If I said out loud when I was a kid, what I am thinking now about the "Gentleman from Kansas", my mom would have washed my mouth out with soap for a week.

[floriduck]

4. The WA State Attorney General has filed a lawsuit

against the Grocer's Assoc. (National or American- not sure which) for illegal campaigning against a recently defeated GMO labeling bill. I hope more pressure is put on these money grubbing, Montsano loving organizations.

[phantom power]

5. Funny how fast "states rights" gets thrown under the bus...

when conservatives disagree with what a state wants to do.

[Android3.14]

6. Hillary Clinton opposes GMO labelling

Look at about 29:00
According to Time, she made $335,500 in a speaking fee (bribe).

[Enthusiast]

7. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[fbc]

10. I'd eat it, but I still think it should be labeled.

[Fearless]

12. So how are they going to spin this one in the Hillary camp?

Bernie looks to destroy economy or something?

[n2doc]

14. She supposedly also supports labeling

But of course takes $$$ from Monsanto.

So I don't think they will care, or else the pro-GMO folks will come in calling Sanders a luddite and 'anti-science'...

[AlbertCat]

24. the pro-GMO folks

GMO is nothing to be afraid of.... but Monsanto is dreadful!

This is just about labeling, not about whether GMO is dangerous or not. Most of the "pro-GMO folks" are smart enough to know this.

[TBF]

13. Thank you Bernie! K&R nt

[Deadshot]

15. There is nothing wrong with GMOs.

The science behind it is sound. Most scientists, including NdGT, Bill Nye, and others all say they're safe to eat. And they are. I can understand the hatred of Monsanto and ConAgra. I hate them. But they don't own GMOs. The hatred of those two corporations clouds everyone's judgement about GMOs.

[bbgrunt]

17. sorry if I don't want to be told how safe they are. I don't want to eat them.

[A Simple Game]

19. None of it makes sense. If as you say there is nothing wrong with GMOs and

they are safe why wouldn't the companies that manufacture them want to brag about them? They claim they are needed to be able to feed the world, they are safe, etc., so why not brag about it and improve their reputations at the same time?

I smell something rotten and it's not just the genetically modified salmon, it's all of it.

And isn't there something about trying to get legislation passed to not allow any lawsuits for liability against GMO manufacturers?

[mac56]

21. ^ THIS ^

[AlbertCat]

25. why wouldn't the companies that manufacture them want to brag about them?

Because... since there is a woo movement to make GMO seem scary.... they are afraid they might lose money.

[katsy]

30. I boycott Walmart and Koch products.

Does govt get the power to make me change my purchasing habits? Maybe unlabeled Koch products? Repackage Walmart ROFL

I don't care spit what today's science shows about gmos. Science doesn't make me boycott companies I want obliterated from the planet. ok that was gratuitous drama. Maybe.

I demand to know what's in my food and I'll decide who to support as a consumer. I'll take science under advisement and carry on with MY right to choose. Gmos are in my kids vaccines. I took the science under advisement and my kids have all their vaccines. No exception this is a community health issue. What I feed my family is not up for a vote nor is it anyone's business but mine. I want labels so I make my own choices. Period.

I don't care about them or their lost profits. Too fucking bad for them. I want more knowledge and more power to choose.

[Deadshot]

36. Yep.

There's too much woo about GMOs.

[jg10003]

22. The point is people have a right to know what they are eating.

You're right about many scientists saying that GMOs are safe. However prohibiting the labeling of GMOs prevents people from making a choice. This bill is yet another example of a law designed to help corporations rather than consumers.

[alp227]

33. A choice based on ignorance, not real information.

GMO labels are similar to Hillary Clinton's anti-Bernie smears or the accusations of Obama being a Muslim: fear mongering, instead of valuable information.

Scientific American editorial in 2013: [Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea)

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health [see “The Truth about Genetically Modified Food”]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not. (The GMO-fearing can seek out “100 Percent Organic” products, indicating that a food contains no genetically modified ingredients, among other requirements.)

It sucks how the left and right are similarly anti science.

[Deadshot]

38. ^^This^^

[Deadshot]

37. It's a choice that doesn't need to be made.

It's akin to putting labels on water bottles telling everyone that water is safe to drink.

[TIME TO PANIC]

16. K & R! Fuck Monsanto!

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[proverbialwisdom]

26. And on another related front...

http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/12/califf-senate-vote-fda/

Califf wins Senate panel vote, but faces trouble on food labeling
By SHEILA KAPLAN
JANUARY 12, 2016

WASHINGTON — Dr. Robert Califf won approval from a key Senate committee on Tuesday to become the next Food and Drug Administration commissioner, but one senator says she’ll block his path to a full Senate vote because of a dispute over genetically modified fish.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee approved Califf’s nomination by voice vote, with no senators voting against him. Normally, that would be a sign that the Duke University cardiologist can expect an easy confirmation by the full Senate.

But Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, said she will place a “hold” on his nomination to prevent a Senate vote, saying she’s angry about her treatment by Califf and the FDA when she raised concerns about the agency’s plans for the labeling of genetically modified fish.

Murkowski, who wants mandatory labeling, says she talked to Califf about the issue after the committee’s confirmation hearing in November, and that he promised to listen to her concerns. But shortly after the hearing, the FDA issued guidelines that called for voluntary labeling of genetically modified foods, not mandatory labeling.

Murkowski is convinced that voluntary labeling won’t work because not enough companies will comply — and she told reporters that Califf was “not straightforward” with her about what he knew about the FDA’s plans. She also said a Department of Health and Human Services official who was supposed to discuss the issue with her merely called her office after hours and left a message.

<>

[NJCher]

34. sounds like she needs to get the "hurt feelings" e-mail

Also, what lame reasoning. Not enough companies will comply. Like we haven't got provisions for that?



Cher

[proverbialwisdom]

40. Sarcasm? Anyway, she must've changed her mind, unfortunately. It's a done deal. (nt)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141358209

[yellerpup]

27. That's Bernie!

A never-fail compass to do the right thing.

[NJCher]

35. It seems so, doesn't it!

It amazes me how I never find anything to be disappointed about with him.


Cher

[yellerpup]

39. He's real!

He can beat Trump or any other Republican.

[blackspade]

28. There is no reason to prohibit labeling.

Except for the cash payout after the vote.

[ag_dude]

43. Labeling isn't prohibited and this bill would do nothing to that

This bill would prevent states from REQUIRING labeling.

[blackspade]

44. The effect is the same.

If the state cannot REQUIRE it, labeling won't happen.

[ag_dude]

47. That's not true.

There are plenty of foods labeled as GMO free. Right now you have the right to decide whether to label or not.

[blackspade]

49. It is true, because there is no uniformity to labeling, nor standards.

The word "natural" is a good example.
This law would prevent states from establishing meaningful standards that would allow for informed choices in food consumption.

[ag_dude]

50. That's a false comparison, there's no law requiring labeling "natural" or "synthetic"

Companies are still able to label whether foods contain GMOs or not, even if this law passes.

If GMOs are dangerous, they should be outlawed.

The reason the debate is over labeling is the anti-GMO crowd knows there isn't any science to support their point of view so they'd prefer to keep it in the realm of woo and play on the emotions and scientific ignorance of the general public.

[blackspade]

52. I was wondering what angle you were working.

So you are anti-choice. Got it.

[ag_dude]

53. What an absolutely absurd thing to say.

Anti-choice? WTF? The exact opposite.

The law in question would give companies the choice to label or not.

Nobody is saying consumers shouldn't have a choice at all.

[blackspade]

54. Way to turn that on its head.

your position is anti-choice, as in anti-consumer choice.
I don't want companies to have the choice.
I want it mandatory so I can choose what I put in my fucking body.
Not what the companies want to put in my body.

How tone def can you be on this issue?

[ag_dude]

55. You CAN choose, I want both to have that choice.

There are plenty of companies that sell products with "GMO free" labeling.

You have the choice to buy their products.

My position is choice for both, the idea that giving everyone the choice of what to do is somehow "anti-choice" is preposterous.

I'm not against anybody having a choice, you are.

[blackspade]

56. Damn right I'm against companies having that choice.

They are not people, not "anybodies", they are businesses.
And they need to be regulated as such.

I am for food choice by people not by the companies that sell the products.

[ag_dude]

57. I'm for food choice by people too.

Glad we agree on that.

I'm just not anti-choice for the people that produce the products, like you are.

[dr60omg]

29. I am not concerned about GMO's so much as I think we need to know exactly what we eat

I am not concerned so much about GMO's particularly given crops that would resist climate change etc ... what I am concerned about is that food needs to be labelled to tell people EXACTLY what is inside of what they are eating and not do it in some obscurantist fashion.
So, I am so glad this was introduced. It is important legislation!

[azmom]

31. k&R

[ag_dude]

42. A summary of the GMO labeling issue..

[img][/img]

[bvar22]

45. Remember THIS guy?

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

[berniepdx420]

51. Where does Mrs. Weather-vane come down on this issue ??