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.

 

New Vermont GMO Labeling Policy Officially Introduced

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

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)




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
This has the potential to be big!

imho that is.

New Vermont has introduced a bill that would force companies to label GMO food as such.

this has the potential to be a BIG win.

i hope this has a snowballs effect.

i've included the current status of the bill and the bill itself below.

The Bill Itself

Curren Status Of Bill


edit on 7-2-2012 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This is in direct conflict with Federal law. Looks like more state vs, fed controversy. Personally I think laws should be made by the local people, the state. Imagine having to obey a law made in a far away place by guys who wear funny hats. This causes general rebellion. The fed, with it's money ties to Monsanto at the highest level, needs to back down.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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)

The problem is that your steak will be making chemicals in your stomach because it was genetically engineered to do that. A nice steak is not worth a lifetime of stomach pain.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
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).



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
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!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
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




top topics



 
7

log in

join