It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Senate voted overwhelmingly -- 71 to 27 -- against an amendment to the sweeping farm bill, squashing a measure that would not have required labeling of genetically modified organisms
"The concept we're talking about today is a fairly commonsense and non-radical idea," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the sponsor of the amendment, said shortly before the vote.
the chair of the Agriculture Committee, argued that the measure "is not germane to the farm bill" in the first place. She also said the labels run counter to science and the public interest in healthy food.
"We see wonderful work being done by foundations like the Gates Foundation and others, that are using new techniques to be able to feed hungry people," she said
"I believe we must rely on the FDA's science-based examination before we make conclusions about food ingredients derived from genetically modified foods,
They currently do not require special labeling because they've determined that food content of these ingredients does not materially differ from their conventional counterparts."
Interesting point of view. Usually what we hear from the mandatory labeling side is "it's only a label, what's the problem?"
The GMO label would only slow Monsanto's sales, the GMO-free law puts expense of testing and the danger of cross contamination and being sued upon their competition.
The strange thing is, people are willing to pay more for organic foods. And the reason that organic foods cost more is because it is more expensive to produce organic foods.
The strange thing here is people are willing to pay more for the non-gmo foods yet the farmers are being manipulated into growing Monsanto seed for crop insurance reasons and others.
Farmers grow GM crops for one reason. They are more cost effective.
I don't see anything about coercion there. I see a case of a seed supplier illegally selling patented seed and a farmer knowingly replanting it. Replanting is contrary to the contract. Reselling seed is contrary to the contract. If farmers don't like the contract they don't have to buy the seed. If they don't want GM seed they don't have to buy it. But you know that it isn't just GM plants that are patented, right? Many hybrids are also patented and the owners of the patents also do not allow replanting.
That's not entirely true. As a cotton and onion farmer, we and many of the farms around me have been coerced into planting Monsanto GM seeds.
Sure, but how does a label which says "may contain GM material", whether or not it does, help? In the US, someone who is concerned about GM should be quite aware that any soy product probably contains GM material, 94% of the soy grown in the US is GM. Any corn product probably contains GM material, 88% of the corn grown in the US is GM.
Everyone has the explicit right to know what is in the food they eat and how it was produced. No Exceptions!!!
If I am wrong so be it as I am no scientist but I am going to keep buying locally grown organic foods as much as possible and if enough people follow suit then no one will plant GMO's.
People should not base their diet on what is normal and people should not violate other people's basic right to the freedom of speech either.
reply to post by wayforward
The problem with the non GMO labeling is that it put's into the minds of the consuming public that GMO is the norm and that directly undermines non GMO's original and proper placement as the norm.
It doesn't only potentially poison the food but also our minds!