Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

inanna

(3,547 posts)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 04:40 AM Feb 2016

Food industry looks to Congress as GMO labeling law nears

Source: Associated Press

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The food industry is pressuring Congress to act before the state of Vermont requires food labels for genetically modified ingredients.

At issue is how food companies will deal with Vermont's law. They could make separate food packages just for the state, label all their items with genetically modified ingredients or withdraw from the small Vermont market. The law kicks in by July, but the companies have to start making those decisions now.

The food industry wants Congress to pre-empt Vermont's law and bar mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods before it goes into effect. They argue that GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are safe and a patchwork of state laws isn't practical. Labeling advocates have been fighting state-by-state to enact the labeling, with the eventual goal of a national standard.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack brought the parties together twice this month to see if they could work out a compromise. But agreement won't be easy, as the industry staunchly opposes mandatory labels. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are divided, too, but agree that a compromise needs to be worked out before this summer.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/food-industry-looks-congress-gmo-081424942.html

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Food industry looks to Congress as GMO labeling law nears (Original Post) inanna Feb 2016 OP
they should just label all the items greymattermom Feb 2016 #1
People have a right to know what's in their food. Chef Eric Feb 2016 #2
Exactly! newfie11 Feb 2016 #3
Organic certified means non-GMO. US has sprayed > 2.4 billion lbs of glyphosate in last decade. proverbialwisdom Feb 2016 #6
Yes but my local grocery does not carry any cereal listed as organic newfie11 Feb 2016 #8
Skip the cereal and other processed foods. proverbialwisdom Feb 2016 #9
Thanks, I don't eat it newfie11 Feb 2016 #11
Just an example of what happens under TPP Geronimoe Feb 2016 #4
I notice the "Compromise" in the article. happyslug Feb 2016 #5
How is this whole labeling issue and the rights of the public to know Lodestar Feb 2016 #7
Under TPP gyroscope Feb 2016 #10

greymattermom

(5,754 posts)
1. they should just label all the items
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 05:20 AM
Feb 2016

may contain GMOs. I already see items labeled No GMOs. Why is this a big deal? Food industry items contain all sorts of other things, just read the labels.

Chef Eric

(1,024 posts)
2. People have a right to know what's in their food.
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 07:07 AM
Feb 2016

We all should be able to make informed choices, and have the freedom to choose whether to buy genetically engineered food or not.

According to vrighttoknowgmos.org, studies show that the genetic engineering of food can lead to the production of toxins, allergens and other substances that may pose health-related risks. For example, in 2011, Canadian researchers found that 93 percent of pregnant women’s blood and 80 percent of their fetal cord blood samples contained a toxin found in a genetically engineered corn that produces its own pesticide (Bt corn). Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

Right now, the food industry and the Heritage Foundation are lobbying Congress to pre-empt Vermont's food labeling law.

If the Heritage Foundation wins, then we all lose.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)
3. Exactly!
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 08:46 AM
Feb 2016

I was curious last time at the grocery store.
I stood in front of the cereal section looking at 20 or more boxes of cereal.

No mention of GMO ( free or not) seen on any box.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
6. Organic certified means non-GMO. US has sprayed > 2.4 billion lbs of glyphosate in last decade.
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 01:10 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/gmo-your-right-know

...Organic items must be non-GMO to be certified.

Related: http://www.gmofreeusa.org
http://pollan.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/voting-with-your-fork/

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/02/americans-greater-risk-glyphosate-exposure-europeans

Americans At Greater Risk Of Glyphosate Exposure Than Europeans
By Mary Ellen Kustin, Senior Policy Analyst

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016


Americans are more likely than Europeans to be exposed to Monsanto’s glyphosate weed killer. That’s in large part because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculations to determine allowable levels of glyphosate use are much more lax than the European Union’s.

And American growers spray a lot of glyphosate.

According to a new paper in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, Americans have sprayed more than 2.4 billion pounds of glyphosate in the past decade.

As Dr. Charles Benbrook points out in his paper, Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops made it possible for growers to spray glyphosate more often – and almost up to harvest time. That leaves more of the weed killer’s residues on the crops.

Moreover, ever since genetically engineered crops came on the market and drove up the use of Roundup, the EPA has been ratcheting up the allowable levels of glyphosate residue for certain crops.


According to Benbrook, “[t]o cover such residues, Monsanto and other glyphosate registrants have requested, and generally been granted, substantial increases in glyphosate tolerance levels in several crops, as well as in the animal forages derived from such crops.”

<>

[center][/center]

newfie11

(8,159 posts)
8. Yes but my local grocery does not carry any cereal listed as organic
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 09:59 PM
Feb 2016

I'm in far western SD and we are pretty rural. Maybe in a larger town......

 

Geronimoe

(1,539 posts)
4. Just an example of what happens under TPP
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:56 AM
Feb 2016

Corporations putting profit before the people's right of self governance.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
5. I notice the "Compromise" in the article.
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:21 AM
Feb 2016

That is a stalking horse term, i.e. the food companies want a NATIONAL law of labeling of GMOs that preempts State laws, but they want the National Law to be so weak as to be meaningless. i.e. if 10% of the grain used to make X is non-GMO it can be Labeled " made with GMO free grain", which implies it is 100% non GMO, when it is only saying SOME parts are made from non-GMO grain. The law can even permit labeling of 100% non-GMO, knowing almost none of the food we eat will get that label, but the much weaker "Made with GMO Free grain" would imply 100% non GMO, when it can be as low as 10% (or even 1% if that is what Congress sets it as).

I suspect no "Compromise" could be reached for the people who oppose GMO food refuse to agree to the "Made with Non-GMO Grain" as acceptable labeling (The groups opposing GMO probably insisted on the actual non-GMO amount be listed, something the food companies opposed).

One of the problems with the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) is that is is a "Captive Regulator" i.e. it is under the control of the people it is suppose to regulate. In this case the large grain producers. The USDA appears to have wanted to go with some sort of language that permitted GMO grain to be used in food marked with some sort of language that IMPLIED (but did not actually say) it was GMO free and the people who oppose GMO food rejected that language.

At the same time Congress does NOT want to go on record as supporting GMO food that people do NOT want, thus trying they best to avoid the whole issue by kicking it to the USDA to decide. THE GOP members of Congress know a lot of upper middle class voters, who normally vote GOP, will vote Democratic on this issue alone. One of the side affects of Gerrymandering is the minority paper gets to be more radical for its members are in safe almost 100% their voters districts. The majority party has 60-40 advantages, in all cases where there is no hot issue the majority party wins all of those districts. The down side if they turn off to many of their own party members, the other side wins the district. A lot of voters end up voting against a Candidate not for a Candidate thus politicians are careful NOT to be offend any portion of their base. For the GOP, the GMO labeling hit their base hard. It is one of many issues where GOP voters will vote Democratic if their Congressman makes an open vote that they oppose. These Gerrymandered District rely on party loyalty to maintain victory in those districts, if you have to many defectors over minor issues, gerrymandering no longer helps that party, in fact may hurt that party by opening up to many seats to the other side.

Just a comment why the food companies are trying to get the laws preempted but have failed so far. Congress wants to be able to say it is for labeling, while telling the food companies give up contributions for we made sure the labeling is meaningless. The Anti-GMO forces know this and are counting on it, thus why the USDA has tried to work out a compromise, but failed to do so for the Anti-GMO know they power in those marginal GOP congressional districts. Upper Middle Class voters (who mostly vote GOP) support the concept of labeling and will vote accordingly. That is the fear of GOP Congressmen and why they are avoiding this issue, but it is an issue being forced upon them by the states and the Food Companies.

Lodestar

(2,388 posts)
7. How is this whole labeling issue and the rights of the public to know
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 01:17 PM
Feb 2016

any different than the Flint water issue? People have the right to know
about the contents and conditions of their food/water.....PERIOD!!!!

 

gyroscope

(1,443 posts)
10. Under TPP
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:36 AM
Feb 2016

the state of Vermont (or even the federal government for that matter) could be sued by foreign governments and multinationals like Monsanto. An arbitration panel staffed by corporate lobbyists,executives and/or private corporate attorneys would decide Vemont was in violation of "free trade" rules a decision that is legally binding. The state of Vermont and/or US federal govt would be forced to change its laws accordingly and even pay "damages" and penalties to Monsanto.

Say goodbye to American sovereignty and the democratic process as we know it.
Welcome to a new era of corporate fascism and total corporate domination of the political process.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Food industry looks to Co...