Would Your Congress Member Vote to Wipe Out States’ Rights to Label GMOs?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Well, it looks like Monsanto is really digging in this time!

It seems that some states are voting on the right for people to know what they are eating and Monsanto is rigging a bill to take away States rights!


The Vermont House has passed a state law requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms. Maine just passed a similar law out of the House Agricultural Committee. Washington State’s I-522, a citizens’ initiative to label GMOs, seems certain to pass in November. Almost equally certain, the big junk food manufacturers aren’t likely to spend millions to defeat I-522, as they did last year to defeat California’s GMO labeling initiative, Prop 37.

So what’s Monsanto to do? The buzz around Washington D.C. is that the biotech bully will try to slip a rider or amendment into the 2013 Farm Bill that would preempt or nullify any state GMO labeling law. The first such amendment, the King Amendment, has already been inserted into the House version of the Farm Bill. Surely Congress won't let corporations wipe out our 225-year old right to enact state laws. Right?


Source

This article lists the good guys and the BAD GUYS whom feel that voting on this bill is a good thing! Give it a look and see how your elected officials feel about your right to know what you are feeding your family!

If you live in PA BOTH Senator Casey(D) AND Senator Toomey (R) believe that we DO NOT have a right to know what we are eating!!




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Well, I guess I have some posting and emails to write. MI has two bad guys, (not surprised at who they are!!!) and only one good guy so far. This is just getting ridiculous! So why doesn't the president of Monsatan just go ahead and run for presidency? They are taking over everything else!!!!
And of course all this is going on, with the big protest coming up on the 25th.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
sigh. another leap into taking away our basic rights to choose based on whatever we like to base our choice on!

"but GM stuff is proven to be fine, its safe"

I dont care mr mansanto. When i buy a grapefuit i get to choose weather its pink inside or yellow, both is safe, both are almost identical and its my right to know and to choose.

So take your GM stuff, put a damned label on it saying that it is GM and shove it up your....



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


Yea, I hear ya! My messages already sent..Not that they mean anything to them, but at least I know I did what I could lawfully anyhow..



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
If the Federal Government overrules the State right to legislate this area, doesn't that require a constitutional amendment? (I ain't no scholar of the Constitution... I just... Isn't it clear what liberties the Federal government can take, and equally clear that everything else is up to the state?)

Is there any reason the state government couldn't outright deny entry to products from manufacturers using such GM foods? That might change minds right quick.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Kind of irrelevant as the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue in Hunt v. Washington State.

For those that don't know this case it revolved around apples grown in Washington which were far higher than FDA standards.

North Carolina tried to require that the washington apples be labled according to FDA standards and not indicate they were of a higher grade, to help North Carolina growers.

The Court ruled that a State cannot put limitations on labeling done by other states. Since Monsanto products travel across State lines it is covered under the commerce clause which falls directly under the authority of Congress.

Per the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution, and subsequently the Supreme Court ruling in the washington case, States will have absolutely no authority to determine labeling laws for products.

I'm surprised Monsanto doesn't have lawyers who know this.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



Kind of irrelevant as the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue in Hunt v. Washington State.

For those that don't know this case it revolved around apples grown in Washington which were far higher than FDA standards.

North Carolina tried to require that the washington apples be labled according to FDA standards and not indicate they were of a higher grade, to help North Carolina growers.

The Court ruled that a State cannot put limitations on labeling done by other states. Since Monsanto products travel across State lines it is covered under the commerce clause which falls directly under the authority of Congress.

Per the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution, and subsequently the Supreme Court ruling in the washington case, States will have absolutely no authority to determine labeling laws for products.

I'm surprised Monsanto doesn't have lawyers who know this.


Simple question for you!!! "Was there a health issue involved with this case OR was it just a monetary issue to protect the growers of that state!

I see how you protect Monsanto at every turn on these boards and quite frankly I could give a damn less if you choose to eat their product or not!!! There are many of us whom choose NOT to eat GMO foods and it shouldn't be a big deal, "IF IN FACT" The food is as safe as Monsanto claims it to be! Why the strong arm tactics and dishonest studies by Monsanto if they are peddling a wholesome food product????

When will you get it thru your head, that some of us WANT TO KNOW what we eat???? Hmmmm, honestly, I think that is a very basic concept of freedom that what we consume is made known to us BEFORE we eat it!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


It was a money issue but it is irrelevant as far as the Statute goes. The ruling would still apply.

And I am all for labeling of GMO foods, I'm not defending them whatsoever.

I was simply stating the legal aspect of it. Anything a State passes will be declared unconstitutional under the supremecy clause.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Kind of irrelevant as the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue in Hunt v. Washington State.

For those that don't know this case it revolved around apples grown in Washington which were far higher than FDA standards.

North Carolina tried to require that the washington apples be labled according to FDA standards and not indicate they were of a higher grade, to help North Carolina growers.

The Court ruled that a State cannot put limitations on labeling done by other states. Since Monsanto products travel across State lines it is covered under the commerce clause which falls directly under the authority of Congress.

Per the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution, and subsequently the Supreme Court ruling in the washington case, States will have absolutely no authority to determine labeling laws for products.

I'm surprised Monsanto doesn't have lawyers who know this.


Ok, let me see if I have this right. A state cannot put limitations on other states packages, but it can put limitations on its own? But even then, the congress auto retains the right of commerce.

edit on 17-5-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim

Originally posted by Hopechest
Kind of irrelevant as the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue in Hunt v. Washington State.

For those that don't know this case it revolved around apples grown in Washington which were far higher than FDA standards.

North Carolina tried to require that the washington apples be labled according to FDA standards and not indicate they were of a higher grade, to help North Carolina growers.

The Court ruled that a State cannot put limitations on labeling done by other states. Since Monsanto products travel across State lines it is covered under the commerce clause which falls directly under the authority of Congress.

Per the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution, and subsequently the Supreme Court ruling in the washington case, States will have absolutely no authority to determine labeling laws for products.

I'm surprised Monsanto doesn't have lawyers who know this.


Ok, let me see if I have this right. A state cannot put limitations on other states packages, but it can put limitations on its own? But even then, the congress auto retains the right of commerce.

So then, basically only congress can decide what goes into and out of a state anyway and how its labeled. Am i understanding that right?


Correct. If a product falls under the commerce clause, some do not, then Congress has the final say in it if they choose. There are many times when Congress delegates their power to the States simply because its easier and in that situation a State could pass anything they wanted in regards to labeling.

However, Congress retains the right to have the final say in it. Items that do not fall under the commerce clause are a States power according to the 10th amendment and Congress has no say in it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that, and I disagree with this, that the commerce clause can also include intrastate commerce. Basically this means that if Congress declares it to be under their jurisdiction that the Court will not argue with them.

Kind of raping the states of their rights but that is the decision.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
See thats where its get confusing for me.

Right, If congress gets its authority from the people, and the people are saying to label this way or that.. how do the states and the people not have this authority?
edit on 17-5-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim
See thats where its get confusing for me.

Right, If congress gets its authority from the people, and the people are saying to label this way or that.. how do the states and the people not have this authority?
edit on 17-5-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


Because its a representative democracy with the theory being that each state will elect members to Congress who share their views and vote according to the people's wishes.

Doesn't always work out that way.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



It was a money issue but it is irrelevant as far as the Statute goes. The ruling would still apply.

And I am all for labeling of GMO foods, I'm not defending them whatsoever.

I was simply stating the legal aspect of it. Anything a State passes will be declared unconstitutional under the supremecy clause.


As I thought......how can it be a money issue, but yet when being addressed as a health issue be construed as the same thing??

I really hope you would be FOR labeling of GMO foods!!! Yet, you say that and then in some odd way try to defend Monsanto?????

I really don't get it Hopechest???? I am trying to be a kinder, gentler Seeker as a way of bettering myself, but sometimes you really challenge my temper..........






top topics
 
6

log in

join