New Vermont GMO Labeling Policy Officially Introduced, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times
Topic started on 7-2-2012 @ 02:05 PM by kn0wh0w

New Vermont GMO Labeling Policy Officially Introduced


blogs.mercola.com
A bill has been introduced in the Vermont state legislature that would require that food be labeled as genetically engineered if it is entirely or partially produced with genetically engineering. If passed, the bill would take effect in 2014.

The bill would also forbid any such food from using advertising or promotional material that states or implies that the food is “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” or any words of similar import.

According to the language of the bill, it would require:

“... in the case of a raw agricultural commodity,
(visit the link for the full news article)



reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 02:15 PM by kn0wh0w
reply to post by Starchild23



here's my problem with it.

there introducing foreign genes into foods, crops and animals without knowing what the consequences are.


The long-term dangers of Genetically Modified Foods are uncertain, but we have already seen severe short-term reactions


In 1989, a Japanese company paid out a $2 billion dollar settlement to several thousand American citizens who became ill from a genetically modified version of L-Tryptophan³. Several dozen Americans died from ingesting L-Tryptophan before it was taken off the market. Today, some health practitioners are returning to non-GMO L-Tryptophan for use in treating sleep disorders.


In 1996, animal tests, conducted after the danger was inflicted on humans, proved that there was a severe danger from genes spliced from Brazil nuts and soybeans. The danger: allergic reactions so severe that the individuals could suffer anaphylactic shock, possibly leading to death4.


In 2006, Japan suspended long grain rice imports from the US after tests revealed that the rice contained trace amounts of GMO that were not approved for human consumption. In the US, we still accept variations of the banned genetic modification to the rice5.



just some examples.


reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 02:44 PM by Eidolon23
Eff yeah, Vermont.

I'm so lucky to live here, even with all the stupid hats and the weird secular Puritanism.

We've been in the agricultural trenches since the way back. Here's another sweet piece of legislation we passed in
2003.

Vermont Senate passes GMO seed labeling and registration

The title of the bill now passed by the full Senate is "An Act Relating to identifying living modified organisms intended for intentional introduction into the environment" (S 182). This bill essentially does four things: (1) defines "living modified organisms" (i.e., GE seeds), based on language from the Biosafety Protocol (for legal protection from industry lawsuits, such as the one that derailed VT's rBGH labeling law in 1995); (2) requires that GE seeds be clearly labeled as such (the Ag. Commissioner gets to decide what is clear); (3) requires that manufacturers or processors who distribute GE seed in the state report on sales to the Commissioner of Ag. on how many seeds were sold (happens once/year); and (4) establishes a Legislative Committee on Genetic Engineering to "study the consequences from, and possible regulation of, use in Vermont of GE seeds and plant parts for agricultural and any other purpose"...this committee is intended to meet over the summer. (This final provision was stricken from the bill that passed today and, as required, moved into the omnibus bill covering summer study committees.)

The second bill is S164, "An act relating to liability for Genetic Engineering". This bill does four things: (1) says that anyone (including companies or seed dealers) who misrepresents or omits information about GE "characteristics, the safety, the adverse effects, or directions for use of seed or plant parts" is liable for any damages resulting from the incorrect use; (2) says any language that says the companies are not liable is unenforceable (like contracts which try to put liability on farmers); (3) says anyone who follows the directions (dealers, farmers) is not liable for damages resulting from use of GE seeds; and (4) a person who is found to have GE crops but has not intetionally planted or obtained GE seeds is not liable for copyright or patent infringement (the Percy Schmeiser scenario).



reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 02:52 PM by BBalazs
reply to post by Starchild23



Your thinking is correct, BUT, we need to examine the implications of such genetic engineering for at least a few decades.
It seems that genetically modified foos is not as resilient and as healthy as was supposed.
The whole dumping to market is unsafe. Humans should not be test subject.
Plus a large part of research was to make the crops pesticide resistance, so YOU CAN BE SURE CHEMICALS WERE ADDED:


This SHOULD and WILL SNOWBALL.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if monstanto gets a stay, mark my words!


reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 02:55 PM by Eidolon23
reply to post by BBalazs



And if they don't get their way by lobbying, they now have their own private army. Although, I gather the Blackwater division only comes into play when pressuring subsistence farmers in developing nations.


reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 03:36 PM by kn0wh0w
reply to post by BBalazs



This is a short list of the genetically modified food crops that are grown in the US today:
Corn
Soy bean
Sugar cane
Tomatoes
Potatoes
Sweet peppers
Bananas
Strawberries
Zucchini
Pineapples
Cocoa beans
Yellow squash


it´s everywhere.

source
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Iranian sailors chase off pirates attacking U.S. ship
  Posted 5 days ago with 95 member flags
BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
  Posted 1 days ago with 74 member flags
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
  Posted 9 days ago with 73 member flags
Man Loses $22,000 In New \'Policing For Profit\' Case
  Posted 7 days ago with 63 member flags
Bin Laden died of natural causes: Former CIA agent
  Posted 9 days ago with 58 member flags