Connecticut Approves Labeling Genetically Modified Foods

[proverbialwisdom]

Source: By Stephanie Strom, New York Times

Connecticut on Monday became the first state to pass a bill that would require food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients — but only after other conditions are met.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said he would sign the bill into law, after reaching an agreement with the legislature to include a provision that the law would not take effect unless four other states, at least one of which shares a border with Connecticut, passed similar regulations.

The Connecticut bill also hinges on those states including Northeastern states with a total population of at least 20 million.

<>

The legislature passed the bill on Monday, 134 to 3.

More than 20 other states are considering labeling laws, including New York, Maine and Vermont. Early polling suggests widespread support for a ballot initiative that would require labeling in Washington, as concern spread about the impact of genetically engineered salmon and apples on two of the state’s marquee businesses.

In 2005, Alaska passed a law requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered fish and shellfish, but Connecticut would become the first state to adopt labeling broadly.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/business/connecticut-approves-qualified-genetic-labeling.html

[Berlum]

1. Thank you Connecticut for supporting basic human freedom

Americans have a right to know what is in their food, despite Big Ag Corporate Totalitarianism, Inc.

[ReRe]

5. Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[classykaren]

2. Thank God

[silvershadow]

3. Thank God indeed. Hopefully the tide is turning.

[Jennicut]

4. I'm happy my Gov will sign this into law

but we have to wait on some other states to act. Hopefully, some other state legislatures will be brave and act.

[ReRe]

6. Well, good on CT!

... I don't think it will take very long to get a few other surrounding states to go along with that challenge.

[thesquanderer]

7. The most important and unfortunate part of the article...

...was at the end.

on Monday, the New York labeling bill was defeated in committee after members, including several who were co-sponsors of the legislation, were lobbied intensely by a representative from the Council for Biotechnology Information, a trade group whose members are BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroScience, DuPont Monsanto and Syngenta — all major makers of genetically modified seeds and pesticides that work with them.

Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, Democrat of Manhattan, said there were more than 40 co-sponsors when it went into the committee. “We had the votes lined up to pass this, and then the lobbyist for Monsanto and the other big seed companies showed up and was speaking to members and calling them and visiting their offices,” she said.

[proverbialwisdom]

8. Similar headed-for-defeat story in CT until the public stepped up.

See detailed local reporting here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=123083

via gmwatch.org news.

[freshwest]

9. My state legislature is working on this, it has great support, but is opposed by lobbyists who claim

to support science. They are waving the word 'science' about as if it was religion.



We'll keep supporting those who support labeling. Most here expect it and generally get labeling that reflects the COO, if it's GMO, Organic or BGH free.

Also many things are labeled as contained gluten, peanuts, etc. Alternatives to wheat and corn which are believed to often be GMO are also offered.

The loss of exported wheat sales in Oregon will help give this movement a boost. I know some farmers in Oregon who have always been organic and grow heirloom seeds and do well. They have not been able to talk everyone into it, mainly beet growers who want that GMO, Round-up ready crop.

Californians unfortunately did not pass their GMO labeling bill and that didn't help matters. As different states pass labeling laws we will get closer to having a national policy. Or we won't need one, as people will vote with their purchasing power and producers will lobby for it for their own interests, supposedly.

[marions ghost]

10. Thank God!

was the first thing I thought seeing this headline, and I see from this thread that's not an uncommon sentiment.
I want this to be a national policy.

HOW can we avoid these foods without labeling? It's only fair and just, to give us the option. I intend to eradicate GMOs completely from my diet--not gonna be easy even if they give us labeling, but it would go a long way to being the right thing to do. The really right thing to do would be to ban GMO foods, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, though I could imagine it one day as the dangers of these food substances become more widely known and the effects studied. The horse is out of the barn, but one day that horse is going to keel over dead. And then we all know about how Monsanto seeks to control seed production/distribution around the world, the snow job on farmers. So it's not only for health reasons but to oppose Big Agra in general that I want NO part of GMO. Consumer beware, I say.
-------------------

Also check out "Zemea Propanediol"--a humectant product (introduced 2008) from Dupont Monsanto from corn that is now being used in so many many cosmetics. To replace propylene glycol from petroleum (which was even used in all your "natural" cosmetics & body products).

Hot debate about GMOs in Zemea:

Controversy 1- because Propanediol is from corn it is claimed to be natural. Chemically speaking this molecule is not natural and human technology manipulated bacteria and genetically modified corn to make a synthetic structure. To me this is like plastic grass, it looks natural but its essence is not.

2- because propanediol is from a renewable source it is claimed to be sustainable. How can an ingredient made from genetically modified corn be sustainable? The concept behind sustainability is to work with nature without depleting and respecting it. GMO is a dangerous game and in my opinion it does not respect nature because it can cause a lot of environmental damage. It is a time bomb.

3-because Ecocert and NPA approve propanediol you can find natural and organic products on the market with a "natural" propylene glycol without consumers realising they are actually applying a Proplylene Glycol on their skin

Implications:

1- consumers are confused. (And I am confused myself on top of feeling shocked).

2- Can consumers simply rely on organic certifications for their peace of mind?

3- What is natural?

4- how did Zemea INCI name come about? Was it intended to mislead the consumers?

Personally I am not against Propanediol or Zemea as such, what I m worried about is its misleading name and contradictive claims. Besides it has the potential to promote and boost the GMO industry. My passion is for natural, safe and effective beauty products respecting the environment and working with it authentically, by putting my ethos into action (and in fact Forest Secrets Skincare is the embodiment of my passion). GMO is scary and it will present a huge environmental bill, I personally do not want to support or feed that... I am a chemist and I know propanediol is from GMO and so on therefore I can avoid it. But what about the most of the people who want to use truly natural beauty products and who care about the planet? Do they know propanediol is propylene glycol and do they know it is GMO? Do they have a real choice?

http://organatural.typepad.com/organatural_the_blog/2010/09/id-of-the-most-controversial-ingredient-in-natural-and-organic-beauty-products.html

[WovenGems]

13. Locavore

Easy to be one in the summer, for the most part.

[marions ghost]

14. I'm with that

Farmers market near me.

[proverbialwisdom]

11. Maine House Overwhelmingly Supports GMO Labeling

Please see: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/06/11/politics/maine-house-overwhelmingly-supports-gmo-labeling-requirement/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/maine-legislature-easily-passes-gmo-labeling-bill-article-1.1370871

Maine Legislature easily passes GMO food labeling bill, a blow to Monsanto
The state’s Senate unanimously approved a similar version of the bill on Wednesday, after House of Representatives approved LD 718 on Tuesday by a vote of 141 to 4. The final bill will eventually head to Gov. Paul LeFarge.
BY DAVID KNOWLES / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013, 6:01 PM

Handing genetically engineered seed giant Monsanto Co. another legislative defeat, the Maine Legislature has passed a bill requiring the labeling of foods made from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

After the state’s House of Representatives approved LD 718 on Tuesday by a vote of 141 to 4, the Senate unanimously approved a similar version of the bill on Wednesday. Once differences are ironed out between the two measures, the final bill will head to Gov. Paul LeFarge’s desk.

<>

Monsanto argues that no valid, peer-reviewed studies have shown any ill health effects related to consuming genetically engineered foods.

“We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks,” the company says on its website. “Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

Nationwide, similar legislation has been introduced in 28 states this year, the Stamford Times reported ( http://www.thehour.com/stamford_times/news/on-gmo-labeling-conn-needs-other-states-to-act/article_b8a2187e-d2cf-11e2-9e63-0019bb30f31a.html ).

http://www.agri-pulse.com/Maine-GMO-labeling-bill-passes-state-House-06122013.asp

Maine GMO labeling bill passes state House
By Agri-Pulse staff

WASHINGTON, June 12, 2013 - A GMO labeling bill overwhelmingly passed through Maine’s House of Representatives yesterday, signaling a possible sea change in the labeling laws of Northeastern states.

<>

The Maine law shares a “trigger clause” nearly parallel to Connecticut’s - if passed, it would only take effect should four Northeastern states pass their own GMO labeling laws.

If Vermont is successful in passing a GE labeling law, the entire Northeast could be closer to a labeling law. Vermont’s House of Representatives became the first American legislative body to pass GMO labeling legislation when it voted 99-42 in favor of a bill in May. And some producers complain that printing different labels for different regions of the country would prove too costly - meaning as the Northeast goes, so could go the country.

The Maine Grocers Association has publicly renounced the law, calling mandatory labeling “unnecessary public policy, expensive for Maine farmers, processers and manufactures, grocers and retailers, and the state to implement and enforce,’’ according to Shelley Doak, the group’s executive director, who spoke at a hearing in April.

[proverbialwisdom]

12. Transparent double bind.

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/maine-legislature-easily-passes-gmo-labeling-bill-article-1.1370871

Monsanto argues that no valid, peer-reviewed studies have shown any ill health effects related to consuming genetically engineered foods.

“We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks,” the company says on its website. “Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=148883

June 2012

The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society have both introduced resolutions to the American Medical Association supporting Federal legislation and/or regulations to require labeling of food with genetically engineered ingredients...

Dear Doctors and Delegates of the American Medical Association,

I am writing to urge the American Medical Association House of Delegates to Adopt Resolution 509-A-11 in lieu of the Council Report on GMO labeling. Medical doctors have a vital role to play in guaranteeing that the rights and health of their patients are taken seriously and by passing a resolution to label GMOs, the AMA would be taking that important step.

A simple label on foods could help doctors keep track of important data related to the rise of food allergies and the novel proteins found in genetically engineered foods. Without labeling, there is no way to track potential adverse consequences of eating genetically engineered food.

Americans have a basic right to know what's in their food and how it's produced. Already nearly 50 countries recognize their citizens' basic right to label genetically engineered foods in order to give them vital information about the food they are eating. While the long-term health effects of consuming genetically engineered food are unknown, there is global agreement that genetically engineered foods are different from traditionally bred crops.

In 2011, the United Nations food safety standards organization adopted guidelines recommending all genetically engineered foods go through a safety assessment prior to approval, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require health studies before the products are approved for human consumption.

In an effort to join growing international consensus regarding the potential for GMOs to introduce increased toxins and allergies in our food supply, I urge the American Medical Association to support GMO labeling to better inform consumers about the food they are buying and feeding their families.

Sincerely,