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.

 

Senate rejects bid to label genetically modified food

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Senate rejects bid to label genetically modified food


www.rawstory.com

The Senate on Thursday rejected an amendment to the farm bill that would have given states the power to require labels on genetically modified food.

“This is the very first time a bill on labeling genetically engineered food has been brought before the Senate,” said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), who introduced the proposal. “It was opposed by virtually every major food corporation in the country. While we wish we could have gotten more votes, this is a good step forward and something we
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.vpr.net

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France's Ban on Monsanto's GMO Maize
The GMO Labeling Initiative WILL Be on the Ballot in California!
GM Foods NOT Served in Monsanto Cafeteria




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Opposed by almost ALL major food corporations.. Really?! Thats a shocker! They woud never want to have them labelled because soo many people would not purchase them!

And check this out,

When the Vermont Legislature considered a bill that would have required genetically modified food to be labelled, the agricultural giant Monsanto threatened to sue the state. Despite public support, the legislation failed to pass.


Of course Monsanto would sue! They hate that a lot of people know about them right now.. They wouldn't be able to stand if the American people (and for that matter, the rest of the globe!) found out what they were REALLY eating!

It should be pointed out, that the bid was to allow individual States the legal protection to allow GMO labelling within the state, it was not going to be mandatory for them to do so.
The article also states that there was much public support, yet it didn't go through. Another example of something the people are asking for, and it gets voted away.. in this case 26-73


From another article,
www.vpr.net...

"This is a very conservative amendment," he said. "It says that the American people should have the right to know what is in the food that they and their children are eating and if that food contains genetically engineered products," said Sanders

Its true! They (and the rest of the world!!!) should be told and have the choice of what they are eating, instead of being deceived by no labels... It should be mandatory everywhere!

This is a weird statement from a Michigan Democrat who was opposed to the labelling:


Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow is the chair of the Senate Agriculture committee. She opposed the plan because she was concerned that it would interfere with the development of drought resistant crops


Um.. What? Why would labelling food interfere with the development of drought resistant crops?! Oh because it contains BT toxins? Oh, it's allowing pests to mutate to overcome the toxins genetically modified into the seed?! OH, Americans WON'T buy the product, therefore the R&D and expenses going into new GMO's might be threatened?! OH, because Monsanto WILL be exposed for the evil corp that it is?!

Thoughts?!

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 6/22/2012 by Nspekta because: spelling

edit on 6/22/2012 by Nspekta because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/22/2012 by Nspekta because: afterthough



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I am appalled by this decision, but not surprised. Monsanto has been leading the charge against the requirement to inform consumers. The other major food companies are on board because they predominately rely on GMO food in their products. At this point, I think that daily mass boycotts of particular brands is the only way we're going to be able to create a change in policy. In the meantime, I'll stick with locally grown organic foods. The politicians who opposed this legislation should be ashamed of themselves and, more appropriately, removed from office. It's obvious that their allegiance is with the corporate lobbyists and not with their constituents.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
As long as the effects of toxins and gmo's take years to affect the health of people, you will never see legislation to protect people from such things. Legislation is very knee jerk. They only react.

It's a perfect world for poisoning people. GMO foods, containing toxins like aspartame in BPA lined cans.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Great Website regarding the labelling of GMO foods:

Just Label It

and from a recently released (this month), 123 page report titled

"GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops" By Antoniou, Robinson and Fagan


•Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
•Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
•Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
•Do not increase yield potential
•Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
•Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
•Have mixed economic effects
•Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
•Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
•Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
•Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on


View the report here.. (link to PDF at bottom of the page) GMO Myths and TruthsI havent read it through yet, but I am going to download if to have a paper copy



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
this quote from the article:


Senate Agriculture Committee chair Debbie Stabenow opposed the amendment, claiming it could interfere with the development of drought resistant crops.




How does a label requirement interfere with the development of drought resistant crops ?????

Sounds like that Senator is definitely under some kind of bribery


How obvious can they get



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The absolute disreguard for the will and well-being of the people the Senate SHOULD represent is so blatant and it makes me furious. I need to look up how Diane Fienstien voted from my state. If she voted against this I will let her know how ANGRY it makes me.

What do these people eat? I would love to know that, do these Senators and Monsanto executives eat GM foods?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Oh why am I not surprised?

*gasp* a socialist (in your terms only) bothers to introduce something that the people actually want!

Since when has anyone ever listened to the Feds anyway?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta
They woud never want to have them labelled because soo many people would not purchase them!


As far as their people are concerned, we are their experiment. They have invested a lot of money into this experiment, and it will be a waste if the subjects choose not to eat the products.
edit on 22/6/12 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


I do wonder how much of an effect it would have on product consumption. I watched a program today and said that something like 85% or more of the stuff we eat contains GMO food. If suddenly there was a label on that 85% people may not like it, but they will not have much choice and not likely to give up what they are used to having. If it isn't killing people over as they eat the meal, most won't care. It's not like cancer warning on cigarette packaging is what gets people to stop smoking.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
In the meantime, I'll stick with locally grown organic foods.



Myth three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides

--snip--

The difference is that "organic" pesticides are so dangerous that they have been "grandfathered" with current regulations and do not have to pass stringent modern safety tests.

For example, organic farmers can treat fungal diseases with copper solutions. Unlike modern, biodegradable, pesticides copper stays toxic in the soil for ever. The organic insecticide rotenone (in derris) is highly neurotoxic to humans – exposure can cause Parkinson's disease. But none of these "natural" chemicals is a reason not to buy organic food; nor are the man-made chemicals used in conventional farming.


www.independent.co.uk...

I'll stick with my non-local, or local, GMO food thank you very much.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Stick with the sheep.

After all, easiest path to cancer.

Nice use of disinfo there.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I have a friend who grows a massive organic garden... he doesn't use a boat load of pesticides to protect his garden, in fact he uses hardly any at all, and the produce is 100x better than any GMO crap. Contrary to popular belief organic fruit and vegetables can grow quite will without a tonne of chemicals. The problem is that the odd disease and bug plague can kill large amounts of crops. However, they would rather have GMO crops which virtually never get attacked by diseases or bugs because it saves them money. And the reason they never get attacked is because they are packed full of genetically added chemicals and they have virtually no nutritional value left in them... even the bugs don't want to touch the crap we eat.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by boncho
 


Stick with the sheep.

After all, easiest path to cancer.

Nice use of disinfo there.


It's not disinfo. There is wealth of material on organic pesticides out there. So called "natural" pesticides.

Arsenic also could be considered natural. Not planning on eating it. Organic companies have nearly all been bought out by the larger food groups anyhow. Your local guys will use anything to keep the name "organic" but it really doesn't mean they have your best interest at heart either.

Skyfloating did a thread on organic, where the two of us presented enough evidence and sourced material that anyone eating should at minimum, educate themselves at least to the point where they don't feel like they are thwarting evil GMO buy eating a undersized apple.

My favorite post in that thread.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Technically they are full of genetically added material that produces chemicals. But regular plants produce chemicals. Regular plants produce enzymes. Some have made these over millennia through evolution for certain issues that the plant has with nature.

Genetic engineering is in a sense, intelligently designing our food supply. While there are some negatives associated with this, there are also a number of negatives associated with "natural" plants as well.

I've grown organic before. Bug infestations were terrible. Used insane amounts of "natural" pesticides. Never really wanted to eat it after.




The problem is that the odd disease and bug plague can kill large amounts of crops.


Bug plague = See: Pesticide use.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by draco49
In the meantime, I'll stick with locally grown organic foods.



Myth three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides

--snip--

The difference is that "organic" pesticides are so dangerous that they have been "grandfathered" with current regulations and do not have to pass stringent modern safety tests.

For example, organic farmers can treat fungal diseases with copper solutions. Unlike modern, biodegradable, pesticides copper stays toxic in the soil for ever. The organic insecticide rotenone (in derris) is highly neurotoxic to humans – exposure can cause Parkinson's disease. But none of these "natural" chemicals is a reason not to buy organic food; nor are the man-made chemicals used in conventional farming.


www.independent.co.uk...

I'll stick with my non-local, or local, GMO food thank you very much.



I never said anything about pesticide use. If people are not smart enough to wash their produce before consuming it, they deserve the ensuing consequences. The fact is that GMO crops are bankrupting farmers at an alarming rate, have been shown to be a direct cause of catastrophic honey-bee colony collapse, produce internal pesticides, an do not contain the same nutritional content as natural crops. So, why would you support GMO products?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
This does not come as a surprise !

Why would the senate bite the hand that feeds them ?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



Technically they are full of genetically added material that produces chemicals. But regular plants produce chemicals. Regular plants produce enzymes. Some have made these over millennia through evolution for certain issues that the plant has with nature.

Yes, regular plants also produce chemicals, but no where near the same amount or toxicity as in GMO plants, which are designed to be highly toxic for many different bugs.


Genetic engineering is in a sense, intelligently designing our food supply. While there are some negatives associated with this, there are also a number of negatives associated with "natural" plants as well.

It's hardly "intelligent design", it's more like trial and error and haphazard guess work. The result of their modifications often ruins the nutritional value of the plant and can have adverse health effects for those who eat GMO foods for long periods of time.


I've grown organic before. Bug infestations were terrible. Used insane amounts of "natural" pesticides. Never really wanted to eat it after.

If you used an insane amount of pesticides then there shouldn't have been a terrible amount of bug infestations... I've grown several small organic vegetable gardens myself and it's very easy to grow them using virtually no pesticides at all, I certainly didn't need anything extremely toxic. Not to mention the chemicals can be washed off the plants, unlike GMO plants which internally produce the chemical compounds.
edit on 22/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 


If you support organic blindly you are supporting the same damn thing:


A relatively new organic lobby group called the Cornucopia Institute bills itself as the promoter of “Economic Justice for Family Scale Farming.” It’s headed by Mark Kastel, a guy who used to work for multi-million dollar “agribusiness giants” before making the “paradigm shift to sustainable farming.”

It wasn’t a huge shift mind you because he now works for a multi-million dollar organo-activist company called Organic Valley Family of Farms Brand, referred to as Organic Valley for short.

Confused? Well, you see, it’s perfectly simple really; Organic Valley isn’t an evil agribusiness giant because it has the words “organic” and “family” in its name. That means it’s friendly and sustainable, not evil and profit-driven. Okay?




Seriously though, Kastel rails against large corporations doing business in the organic sector for no other reason except that they’re large. And he pretends to no longer be on Organic Valley’s payroll even though they’re the single largest contributor to his Cornucopia Institute. Never hurts to have a rich benefactor nowadays, does it? He also fails to explain that the CEO of Organic Valley, a groovy millionaire by the name of George Siemon, “was instrumental in creating the USDA rules, and is working to see that they remain intact.” That’s right Siemon --- who has a vested interest in the multi-billion-dollar organic industry, who literally wrote his own federal code, and who now assumes control of that code while big brother watches over pretending to look out for the little people.


www.isitorganic.ca...

edit on 22-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



If you support organic blindly

Wow... you really, just need to get to grips with reality man. Humans have been surviving on organic foods since we started walking on the face of this Earth... it's not exactly "blind support" when it's been tried and tested for 1000's of years before you were even born. What is not extremely tested and not extremely well understood is the mechanisms and impacts of genetic modification and the health risks involved. Seriously all you ever do is seem to support the god damn status quo with blind faith, so shut your mouth hypocrite... these GMO companies are evil insidious organizations that wont even let us know what we are putting into our bodies because they are scared our access to freely choose between organic and GMO will cause them a loss in profits... that's completely unethical and your support of such entities shows how corrupt your soul is.
edit on 22/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join