It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Passes GMO Labeling Bill, Obama Set To Sign

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure aimed at creating a federal standard for labeling genetically engineered or modified foods.

Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion that is used for animal feed.

Source

Related: 1/2

I should be happy that the government is finally getting serious about GMO labeling. We have a right to know what we’re buying and even more important, the right to decide what goes into our bodies. With that said, this attempt to bring awareness to the consumer is going to leave many scratching their heads.


Only days after the U.S. Senate passed their version of the bill, the U.S. House passed the bill  with a 306 to 117.

The bills would put the U.S. Department of Agriculture in charge of establishing “a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered.”

Critics of a federal standard worry about the USDA being pressured by biotechnology companies that have a close relationship to U.S. regulatory agencies.

The proposal would also require companies producing foods with GE ingredients to post a label, including text on package, a symbol, or a link to a website via a QR code or similar technology.

The bill will also prevent states and localities from passing their own labeling measures.

Manufactures are looking to hide such data behind QR codes, similar to a bar-code that you can scan with your cellphone to bring up relevant information about the product. If this is going to be the new norm, the time it takes me to food shop just doubled. I'm better off getting into a routine with products that I've learned to trust and know are safe.

The QR code isn't necessarily a bad idea, except that many elderly or low income populations will be left at a disadvantage when making informed decisions about what they purchase. It should be noted that the use of a QR code was specifically ordered by Big Industry to be listed as an option, which doesn’t exactly scream transparency to me.


Both the Senate and House versions of the bill are extremely similar to the controversial Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which passed the House in June 2015 but ultimately failed amid heavy opposition.

To critics, the bill was known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act because the law was also aimed at nullifying GMO labeling measures, such as the bill passed in Vermont.

GMO corn may also be excluded from labeling, as well as soy and beets, which ironically are among the most genetically modified crops at the moment. These are also highly prized and protected corporate assets that companies are not willing to lose.

The sugar and oil derived from genetically-engineered crops contain little to no genetic material by the time they are processed, bypassing regulatory labeling. Keep that in mind when taking into consideration just how prevalent these crops and their byproducts are in the food you may eat.


As with the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, the new bills could indeed lead to Americans being kept in the dark about what exactly is in their food. When it comes to food policy, more Americans are questioning the influence of biotechnology giants like Monsanto.

Recently, Common Dreams reported, in data revealed by OpenSecrets.org and the Organic Consumers Association, that Senators who had voted on a procedural vote in favor of the Senate bill received more than twice as much in contributions from the agriculture lobby than those who voted “No” ($867,518 for the supporters vs. $350,877 for opponents).

Link

Obama is expected to sign the bill without question. What appears as a victory for the American people has once again been disguised to satisfy our concerns and reduce the power of local government. The lobbyists won and the money shows it.

edit on 25-7-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I am so tired of the Government and media trying to hide the damn truth from the people. We as consumers have a right to know what we are putting in our bodies. These people in Congress are all a bunch of crooks.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Finally they will label the gosh darn seedless watermelon !!

IMHO gmos are bad mostly due to the exenomoc/agricultural effects.. I'm not saying they are good for you but I don't know if I buy the fear on that one...

The fact that farmers are basically enslaved to a company just because it's forced to use their seed/pesticide brand it's pretty crappy, though.

I did notice the phrase or notion about letting people pick what goes on their bodies... Drug war anyone?

Anywho I agree , there's always a catch 22 with these people... Kinda good , but mostly bad.

a reply to: eisegesis




posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Finally, nice.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
S&F.

Sad about the corn and soy avoidance.

I didn't realize they were modifying beets...



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
GMOs have never been proven harmful.

This is something that the "organic" industry has been pushing for years. Lie as much as possible about GMOs, up to and including falsifying studies, and then get legislation passed to corner the market on food production and sales.

If you care at all about science read this:

www.geneticliteracyproject.org...
e dit on 25 7 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
About time and as it should be. Labels over codes do seem more informing and a time saver. Overall best for the consumer to be aware of the brands they chose.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Thanks for the post very informative.




The bill will also prevent states and localities from passing their own labeling measures.


I think this is their biggest personal success here.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
GMOs have never been proven harmful.

This is something that the "organic" industry has been pushing for years. Lie as much as possible about GMOs, up to and including falsifying studies, and then get legislation passed to corner the market on food production and sales.

If you care at all about science read this:

www.geneticliteracyproject.org...
< br />
You sort of have the entire thing backwards. Monsanto has a lot more pull than any 'organic industry'. They publish studies too.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

The vast majority of these are independent studies.

Using the Monsanto argument to ignore solid scientific evidence is the same as plugging your ears and yelling LA LA LA LA LA! In order to keep the info out.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

We diverge on this one.


In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and
religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all
genetically engineered foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v.
Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to
emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically
unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how
well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies
of these files--totalling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.



The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and
(2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the
same as natural ones.


Source
Other source.

This is an old conspiracy with some validity.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I hope they label the foods that were created using radiation as well!

We have a right to know!



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

There is zero validity in it. The reason I say this is because if you eat a drought resistant Apple it will be the same as a so-called organic apple.

With new technologies like CRISPR individual genes can now be isolated instead of using plant hybridization (which has been in use for thousands of years and it is, in fact, deliberate genetic engineering), or other methods which are more accurate, but still difficult to do. CRISPR isolates genes allowing them to be individually manipulated without external DNA to make the changes.

GMOs have been in widespread use for the entire history of human agriculture.


edit on 26 7 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

No doubt. That said, if you read what I linked it isn't about whether they are bad or not, but whether or not there should be a different testing standard for engineered foods.

I agree 100% with hybridization, fairly natural process. I'm honestly more worried about a virus getting mutated from the modified dna in GMOs. Not necessarily the food itself.

Make sense?



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   


The bills would put the U.S. Department of Agriculture in charge of establishing “a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered.”

Gonna be just a con job to appease the people. Nothing of real significance. Why do you think Obama is going to sign without question ? Didnt he do the same with Pelosi Care ?

It has to be the best thing since sliced bread though , right ? After all, a Republican led Congress passed it , and a Democratic President will sign it into law . Wrong , so wrong.....

edit on 7/26/16 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SteamyJeans

The fact that farmers are basically enslaved to a company just because it's forced to use their seed/pesticide brand it's pretty crappy, though.
No. Farmers are not forced to use any seed/pesticide brand. The patent on glyphosate expired a while back so anyone can make and sell it. There are any number of seed suppliers, for GM plants as well as hybrids.



I did notice the phrase or notion about letting people pick what goes on their bodies... Drug war anyone?
You can buy organic produce (if you want to pay more). You can buy "non-GM" labeled products. In fact, if your corn tortillas don't say "non-GM", you can pretty much expect them to be GM. It seems to me that voluntary "non-GM" labeling goes farther toward helping a concerned consumer make their choice than mandatory "may contain GM" labels.

A label which says "non-GM" tells you a lot more than one that says "may contain GM material", don't you think?
www.nongmoproject.org...

edit on 7/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

The reason it was rejected is because the hundreds of studies that had been completed by that time proved that such special treatment wasn't necessary.

There are products out there that have the label "Tested non-GMO".

Do you now what that means? It means nothing. Unless you're mapping the DNA of every fruit that comes into your distribution facility(which is actually a long process), there's no way to test whether something has been genetically modified.

The problem I have with anti-GMO rhetoric is that none of it is based on the actual science of GMOs and all of it is based on either lies or deliberate misinformation.

Monsanto doesn't even come close to having enough market clout to tip the scales on the science of GMOs. How do we know this? By inference: The oil companies are orders of magnitude larger than all of the biotech industry combined and they haven't been able to buy consensus on climate change.

Between climate change denial, anti-GMOs, anti-vaxxers(read pro-disease), and every other psedoscientific garbage that has made it to mainstream life is like the Dark Ages when science was punishable by death if it contradicted the dogma of the church.

Scientific denial has real consequences.
edit on 26 7 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
GMO controversies - science vs. public fear: Borut Bohanec at TEDxLjubljana




posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I lost hope when the USDA took over the "organic" labeling for food products.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Well f.

So the potential for a virus mutating from genes introduced into GMOs is pretty nil.

Officially converted.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join