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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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,
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.
Originally posted by Starchild23
Why does it matter if food is genetically engineered? That just means we narrowed the range of possible genetic guidelines (meaning, the blueprints of nature itself) down to the results we want.
Now, if chemicals are introduced, that's a whole different equation...
But if my steak was GENETICALLY engineered to be thick and juicy, then I'm all for it.edit on CTuesdaypm232309f09America/Chicago07 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)
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).