Senate Food Fight Erupts Over Sham GMO Labeling Bill

[proverbialwisdom]

Source: by Lauren McCauley, staff writer, Common Dreams

Published on Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Sen. Bernie Sanders has vowed to put a hold on the legislation, which could be voted on days after Vermont's law takes effect

The pending "compromise" GMO labeling bill has food safety and consumer advocates both in and out of government scrambling to block the legislation, which they warn will destroy popular efforts to label products made with genetically modified (GMO) ingredients.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has vowed to put a hold on the legislation, which would prevent it from coming up for debate unless proponents can muster 60 votes.

The legislation is seen as a direct threat to a GMO labeling law passed in Sanders' home state of Vermont, which is slated to take effect on Friday. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, also from Vermont, on Tuesday declared his opposition to the legislation.

"Vermont will become the first state in the nation to require GMO labeling," Sanders said in a press statement. "This is a triumph for ordinary Americans over the powerful interests of Monsanto and other multi-national food industry corporations. We cannot allow Vermont’s law to be overturned by bad federal legislation that has just been announced."

Sanders promised to do everything he can to defeat the bi-partisan bill, introduced last week by Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).


Read more: http://commondreams.org/news/2016/06/29/senate-food-fight-erupts-over-sham-gmo-labeling-bill

---

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-to-put-hold-on-gmo-labeling-legislation
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/statement-on-labeling-genetically-engineered-ingredients
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/gmo-labeling-to-senateoppose62916_29341.pdf

[proverbialwisdom]

1. Related.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141498585
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016161495

[forest444]

30. Anything related to Pat Roberts is at the very least - er - fishy.

The old buzzard can't even be trusted to inform the public as to his true place of residence - much less as to what's in our food and what it might do to us.

[woodsprite]

2. As I understand it, with the TPP, Monsanto and others sue over this

And be guaranteed a win over something this because it could lower their profits.

[Recursion]

4. Monsanto's a US company, so they couldn't use ISDS

And ISDS suits historically have almost always been won by the government in question.

[fasttense]

8. Countries lose all the time and they pay out millions and billions to corporations.

"Canada has paid American corporations more than $200 million (approximately €135 million) in the seven cases it has lost and foreign investors are now seeking over $6 billion (approximately
€4 billion) from the Canadian government in new cases. Even defending cases that may not be successful is expensive. Canada has spent over $65 million (approximately €45 million) defending itself from NAFTA challenges to date."

ww.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/23/naftas-isds-why-canada-one-most-sued-countries-world

"Lawmakers said they had no choice but to get rid of the labels after the World Trade Organization repeatedly ruled against them. The WTO recently authorized Canada and Mexico, which had challenged the law, to begin more than $1 billion in economic retaliation against the United States."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-repeals-meat-labeling-law-after-trade-rulings-against-it

This is not the first time Canadian government has been sued by corporations through NAFTA; they have lost seven out of nearly 20 cases, costing them at least $158 million to American companies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/11/1361760/-When-Corporations-Sue-Countries-For-Profit

AND

That's from a few minutes of googling.

[fasttense]

9. But they would merely have to move their headquarters to another country to use the ISDS

it's done all the time, and Corporations win doing it.

[stuffmatters]

14. Stiglitz has warned re: US corp inversions to game ISDS status

And the ISDS extrajudicial, omnipotent global corporate courts...they're the final penultimate product of global ALEC's bill mill and
the corporate profits over people ideology.

[floriduck]

27. Link or source of data please.

[7962]

3. If you're trying SO hard to stop a law telling us whats in our food,

then maybe we SHOULD be concerned about the stuff you're putting in our food?

But at least so far, there's no law against food companies telling us that there are NO GMO foods inside. because I'm seeing those labels already.
So the public will become accustomed to assuming GMOs are in the food unless the label says otherwise

[roody]

5. Do you remember that they tried

that with bovine growth hormone in milk? It still has to say there is no difference.

[7962]

6. Pretty soon you wont be able to say "theres no shit in our hamburger meat"

Because its not fair to the meat that DOES have it in it

[annabanana]

7. Write yr Senators!

(kick)

[roody]

10. Hooray for Vermont's senators.

[bvar22]

11. If you support labeling, you should have voted for this guy:

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

[olddad56]

21. He has made a very good president..

especially when you factor in the shape this county was in after 8 years of being looted by the Bush crime family. Not to mention how difficult the right winged haters in the house and senate has made his life. That doesn't take into account all of the racism and hatred he has had to deal with from the general public.

Perhaps you could have done a better job. At least until you realized what you were up against. Vote for Trump if you think he will make your life better.

I personally am not a huge fan of Hillary, but I think she would be the better option of the two candidates I have to choose from.

I think Barrack Obama has done his best with what he had to work with.

[proverbialwisdom]

12. The Hill: FDA concerned with GMO labeling 'compromise'

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/286133-fda-concerned-with-gmo-labeling-compromise

FDA concerned with GMO labeling 'compromise'

By Lydia Wheeler - 06/30/16 12:59 PM EDT

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expressed concern over a new bipartisan compromise to address the national fight over the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

The agreement, which could get a procedural vote on the Senate floor as early as next week, would require the Agriculture Secretary to create within two years a national mandatory disclosure standard for food that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The bill allows producers to put a telephone number for consumers to dial or a QR code on product labels that can be scanned with a smartphone to find out if the product contains GMOs.

In technical comments submitted to the Senate Agriculture Committee, the agency said the rules that would come from the Agriculture Department could conflict with FDA labeling requirements.

<>

Related: https://consumerist.com/2016/06/27/senators-trying-to-strike-down-vermont-gmo-labeling-law-at-last-minute/

[ZombieHorde]

13. Remember when Georgia put intelligent design stickers

on their biology schoolbooks? That was kind of funny, but also sad.

[proverbialwisdom]

16. Ridiculous comparison. Have a little glyphosate with your lunch, or your child's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016158923

[ZombieHorde]

17. Will we be hearing about mercury in vaccines next?

Like evolution, climate change, etc., you can find studies that say boo, but there's scientific consensus on all these things, and denying scientific consensus on one is little different than denying it for another.

GMOs and vaccines are very beneficial, and we're better off with them than without.

[HERVEPA]

26. Stop making sense!

[proverbialwisdom]

18. 6/29/16: Financial Conflicts Taint Biotechnology Regulation Advisory Panel

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/under-influence-national-research-council-and-gmos

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/sign-on_letter_to_nrcnas_0.pdf

June 29, 2016

Bruce B. Darling
Executive Officer
National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20418

Mr. Darling,

We write today to ask the National Academy of Sciences to take action to address problems with the balance, perspective and independence of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on Future Biotechnology Products and Opportunities to Enhance Capabilities of the Biotechnology Regulatory System (PIN: DELS-BLS-15-16). The one-sidedness of the committee creates enormous potential to introduce bias into the NRC’s very important work on advising federal regulators at the United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration on how to update agricultural biotechnology regulations.

The current committee does not include the diversity of expert perspectives that exist in the mainstream scientific discourse, where there is great disagreement about how to regulate and deploy the products of biotechnology. Missing from the NRC are the viewpoints of scientists who advocate the precautionary principle and representatives from civil society who can speak to social dimensions of biotechnology regulations. Likewise, though a focus of the NRC project is on agricultural biotechnology, no farmers or farmer groups were invited to participate on the committee. Many such experts were nominated, yet NRC selected none as committee members.

By contrast, NRC invited many scientists and experts who work on the development of biotechnology applications to be committee members. NRC notes that two members have financial conflicts of
interest, but many others have undisclosed conflicts, industry ties, or professional histories promoting biotechnology development. The outsized presence of such perspectives is at odds with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires the NRC to form “fairly balanced” committees of scientists where conflicts of interests are avoided or disclosed if deemed absolutely necessary.

The problems we highlight in this letter confirm a troubling trend of one-sidedness at the NRC that jeopardizes public trust in the scientific credibility of the NRC. We invite the NRC to review a sign-on letter it received in 2000 as well as an issue brief published by Food & Water Watch in May 2016 (attached), both of which echo the complaints found in this letter.1

The NRC must live up to its federal obligations under FACA as well as its obligation to the public, which looks to the NRC as a premier, independent scientific institution. We ask that the NRC fully disclose all conflicts of interest among committee members and expand committee membership to include a diversity of expert perspectives. This necessarily includes inviting numerous
critics of industry products and practices to participate at the committee level.

<>

via https://robynobrien.com/financial-conflicts-advisory-panel-future-gmo-regulation/

[ZombieHorde]

19. 6 out of 13 members of the board with financial conflicts

is troubling, but it doesn't erase world-wide, scientific consensus.

[proverbialwisdom]

20. That's not the big picture takeaway, worse, that's not even accurate.

The Academy’s findings will likely shape how food is produced in the future. However, at least six of the 13 committee members chosen have financial conflicts of interests with the biotech industry, four of which are not publicly disclosed. Several other committee members have backgrounds advocating biotechnology development, including a representative of Dow AgroSciences and Richard Johnson of Global Helix LLC. Johnson, according to their report of 2014-2015, is also head of the United States Council for International Business committee on biotechnology.

And the "world-wide, scientific consensus" is hype. Let's agree to disagree.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Are there any large scientific organizations against GMOs?

The organizations that are against them aren't usually scientific in nature.

[proverbialwisdom]

24. Norwegian Environment Agency:“premature” to declare GM safe due to “incomplete” scientific knowledge

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/87-news/archive/2015/16299-no-scientific-evidence-of-gm-food-safety

No scientific evidence of GM food safety
It is “premature” to declare GM safe due to “incomplete” scientific knowledge, finds report commissioned by Norwegian Environment Agency

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/no-scientific-evidence-of-gm-food-safety-a1c814d0f70c

No scientific evidence of GM food safety
by Nafeez Ahmed
Insurge Intelligence, 13 July 2015

* It is “premature” to declare GM safe due to “incomplete” scientific knowledge, finds report commissioned by Norwegian Environment Agency *

A new study commissioned by the Norwegian government, and conducted by a nationally recognised scientific authority on the safety of biotechnologies, concludes that available scientific data on GM crops is inadequate to prove their safety.

The scientific report was commissioned by the Norwegian Environment Agency and completed last year, before being publicly released in June by the Genok Centre for Biosafety, located in the Arctic University of Norway. The Genok Centre is a nationally-designated centre of competence on biosafety issues.

Absence of evidence

The new study analyses a dossier by giant agribusiness conglomerate, Monsanto, submitted to the Brazilian government, and also conducts a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature from other sources.

<>

The report, titled ‘Sustainability Assessment of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops’ concludes that due to major gaps in the scientific literature, it is not possible to give a scientific verdict on their safety. Monsanto’s dossier, the report concludes, demonstrates a range of methodological weaknesses, and highlights the problem of incomplete information and research on GM crops in the available literature.

According to Monsanto, genetically modified organisms do not harm human or animal health, and therefore do not have any adverse effects on crops and the environment.

But according to the new Norwegian study:

“Contrary to this assertion, the literature provides indications of harmful and adverse effects to the environment and to health (both animal and human), as well as to socio-economic conditions, particularly over the medium- and long-term.”

<>

Report: http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/010615_GENOK-HTIntactaBrazil-FINAL_web.pdf

[ZombieHorde]

29. Okay, one says "don't know," while others say "as safe as...."

Is that really a good cause for the alarm we see, in your opinion?

[proverbialwisdom]

25. Look at the actions of all these countries, too.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now-banned-in-36-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/

GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide – Sustainable Pulse Research
Posted on Oct 22 2015

MORE:

http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/06/08/european-parliament-rejects-gmos-in-europe-and-africa/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/23/govt-decides-to-ban-gmo-food-production-in-russia-deputy-pm.html
http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/06/25/russian-parliament-passes-total-ban-on-gmo-crops-and-animals/
http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/03/30/china-rules-out-gmo-grain-and-rice-farming-for-now/

http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/02/26/uzbekistan-president-announces-ban-on-gmos-in-baby-food/

[ZombieHorde]

28. The bans ate based on political reasons, as opposed to scientific reasons. nt

[proverbialwisdom]

15. Podesto Group lobbying firm reps 'organic elite' and BIO (Monsanto, agrichemical industry players)

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17076-at-crucial-moment-for-gmo-labelling-organic-industry-finds-itself-divided

At crucial moment for GMO labelling, organic industry finds itself divided
Published: 30 June 2016

Food, farm, environmental, and consumer groups are outraged by the deal that the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and others signed on to that trades away clear on-package GMO labelling in favour of codes that consumers must decipher by scanning with smart phones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/at-crucial-moment-for-gmo_b_10724758.html

At "crucial moment" for GMO labeling, organic industry finds itself divided
Carey Gillam
Huffington Post, June 29 2016

The blame-game was in full swing this week in the aftermath of the GMO labeling deal announced by U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow as embittered organic, consumer and environmentalist groups who want mandatory labeling struggled for a cohesive strategy to oppose the deal many have dubbed a “dream” for the food and biotech agriculture industries but a disaster for consumers.

<>

The deal has not only divided consumer and environmental groups from leading organic players but it has also blown wide open deep divisions running through the U.S. organic industry itself, spurring calls for some organic players to leave OTA membership. Those involved characterize the organic industry as divided between the “organic elite,” which includes companies owned by conventional corporate food giants, and the independently owned “authentic organic” businesses and groups. Large food conglomerates have increasingly been buying up organic companies in recent years, giving many large players a foot in both pro- and anti-GMO labeling camps.

It was the “organic elite”, and leadership at the OTA, that agreed to the new labeling deal, not the "authentic" side, industry players said this week. They were troubled that OTA has hired a lobbying firm - Podesta Group- that also works for the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), which represents the interests of Monsanto and other agrichemical industry players.

The bitterness runs so deep that some players are now pulling out of a two-day summit scheduled for July that is supposed to build consensus around GMO issues, sources said.

“This is a crucial moment,” said one leading organic company executive who did not want to be named publicly. “Here we are splitting ourselves in two right at the critical moment. Certain key legislators feel like they are getting mixed messages. It is really disconcerting to see what is happening to our community.”

Conflicting press statements issued shortly after the bill’s announcement on June 23 marked the fissure between organizations thought to be working together. A statement issued by OTA celebrated “important provisions that are excellent for organic farmers and food makers - and for the millions of consumers who choose organic every day.”

That contrasted sharply with the press release issued the same day by the Consumers Union, which called the deal “unacceptable to the nine out of ten Americans who support mandatory GMO labeling” and just another way to allow companies to keep consumers in the dark.”

The uproar over the OTA’s support for the bill led OTA leaders to offer an explanation to members on Monday. The organization said during the labeling negotiations it saw a “ratcheting up of attacks on organic from Congress” and OTA sources said those including threatened actions related to organic animal welfare standards, appropriations and other matters.

<>

[progressoid]

23. I want my food labeled to tell me if pixies have handled it.

I want pixie-free food!