Connecticut State Senate approves GMO labeling

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I didn't even know CT had this on their table but I think it's great GMO labeling has been approved! CT is doing what Californians failed to do! I mean, who doesn't love more options, especially when we're talking about fruits/veggies that contains animal DNA and other nasty things?

Congrats on a job well done CT, so far! The fat lady hasn't sung yet and if we know Monsanto and their politician whores GMO labeling may never see the light of day.

www.ctpost.com...


HARTFORD -- The state Senate on Tuesday night approved controversial legislation that would require food products to include labels telling consumers of any genetically modified organisms.

But the bill's future in the House is in doubt, amid criticism from majority Democrats who are concerned that the legislation would require the action of surrounding states.

The Connecticut Food Association warned that labeling could become an unacceptable expense for grocers and supermarkets. And advocates for the chemical industry said that science has not proven that GMOs are harmful.





The Senate voted 35-1 to approve the legislation, with the only dissenting vote coming from state Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, whose 32nd District includes Seymour and Oxford.



There's always at least one.
Robby




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


I assume Monsanto has already surrendered this battle, public opinion is pretty much in favor of labeling. They are probably making it an issue so people focus on that instead of the product itself.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 





And advocates for the chemical industry said that science has not proven that GMOs are harmful.


Must be me. I always thought it should be the war around. The Chemical Industry has never proven GMO to be safe.

The problem I have is in the build up of the unknowns. Eat some corn you may be fine. Eat some pork where for its whole life the pig was fed on GMO Corn and you have to wonder.

Science lost its way long ago. DDT, Tobacco, Thalidomide, there is a very large list!

P



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Why would Monsanto surrender? They haven't lost any battle yet, right? From what I've read every farmer that takes them to court loses and every time Monsanto takes a farmer to court they win. Californians stupidly voted NO to GMO labeling, mind blowing I know. What has Monsanto lost and what pressure are they succumbing too?

Monsanto is far from giving up, in my opinion.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


I agree, and an advocate for GMO labeling in CT said it best....


"Those who oppose labeling don't want to be truthful or honest, nor do they want us to be enlightened" said Tara Cook-Littman of GMO Free Connecticut, who led the rally. "If the bio-tech and food industry is so convinced that GMOs are safe, let's just agree to label them and let the public make their own decisions."


If GMO is safe and there's nothing to worry about why not label your food proudly, just like nutritional facts and Kosher?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Why would Monsanto surrender? They haven't lost any battle yet, right? From what I've read every farmer that takes them to court loses and every time Monsanto takes a farmer to court they win. Californians stupidly voted NO to GMO labeling, mind blowing I know. What has Monsanto lost and what pressure are they succumbing too?

Monsanto is far from giving up, in my opinion.


If I were advising Monsanto I would say that public opinion is turning against them so take the issue of labeling and make a big show of it because people would focus on that, and consider it a huge win, while forgetting about the other issues.

Its a bait and switch type of deal and used very often in politics. They may have plenty of wins under their belt but that is beginning to change. We now see more and more people in Congress starting to talk about taking action so they would be wise to try and head that off.

Better to have people focusing on the labeling issue rather than any possible health threats or the unfairness to farmers.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Good I'm glad this happened. Maybe more states will follow suit.

Star and flag.

-SAP-
edit on 21-5-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I hear what you're saying but I really don't think Monsanto cares what the public thinks about them, which is of course just my opinion based on no facts



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
It bothers me when groups say the labels will cost food prices to rise or will be a burden on companies.

I don't see how it's a burden or how it will cost more. It's just like when a company labels something "Now fat-free" or "zero-calorie." It's also the equivalent of adding a line in the back in nutrition facts. If they label for food allergies or diet fads, they should have no problems spending the money to label GMO's.

Unless they feel their product isn't safe so they need to hide it.

The longer this takes, the more likely people will not buy GMO products once they are labeled because there is a lack of trust and more and more personal research.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I hear what you're saying but I really don't think Monsanto cares what the public thinks about them, which is of course just my opinion based on no facts


Any large corporation would never last with that attitude, of course public opinion matters. They may not care if the public likes them but they could not afford to have the public hate them.

People would start demanding their representatives do something and the single most important thing for a politician is to ensure they get re-elected again. That trumps any allegiance to a corporation. You often see big oil companies running all types of ads saying how much they care after they screw up and sometimes even when they don't.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
That's still another victory for the evil Monsanto.

What that senate SHOULD have done is ban that company from ever setting foot in that state again- and to prohibit the sale or growing of any GMO foods or seeds. That would have been a true victory for the people. But no. No no no. This country has no backbone anymore. Just special interests bribing other special interests. Monsanto shot for the stars, and ended up on Jupiter- much further than the moon.

Kinda like they raise the price of gas to 4.25 from 1.75, then six months later lower it to 3.50, and claim the gas is cheap again. :shk:



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
That's still another victory for the evil Monsanto.

What that senate SHOULD have done is ban that company from ever setting foot in that state again- and to prohibit the sale or growing of any GMO foods or seeds. That would have been a true victory for the people. But no. No no no. This country has no backbone anymore. Just special interests bribing other special interests. Monsanto shot for the stars, and ended up on Jupiter- much further than the moon.

Kinda like they raise the price of gas to 4.25 from 1.75, then six months later lower it to 3.50, and claim the gas is cheap again. :shk:


There is a lot not to like about how Monsanto operates but the research into GMO foods is extremely important and needs to continue. The ability to grow any type of food in any climate would solve so many of the worlds problems that to dismiss that is extremely foolish.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
From sea to shining sea...from west coast to east coast...around the globe...gmo gotta go!!!
additional source
LOVE



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by awake1234
 

the necessity or benefit of growing foods in climates they are not acclimated to is mute as the issue of food production and distribution is always at a loss unless we are discussing the gross misuse and abuse of land and livestock to feed the greed of the savory need - otherwise, the grain and water would feed those with real need...
or-
the gross inequality rampant in global societies whose economic structures are founded upon such, functioning upon such, as such and such, delivering a disproportioned view of supply and demand...always demanding more and supplying less to those with real need...

the need for scientific understandings of the constitution of our food is great, though the application of it is less than such, when by an academia that is funded by funds for profits results are skewed and statistics become numbers games!!!
we need some trustworthy scientists in some trustworthy organizations in some trustworthy nations...

LOVE



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by awake1234
 


Of course you can argue the distribution part of it but the need for space colonization and GMO foods go hand in hand.

That is just one example.

You also do not want to turn it over to the government since private companies, who are ensuring their profit, are likely to get the desired results much quicker.

This particular research may lead to breakthroughs in other areas of genetics also. In my opinion, it is some of the most vital research being conducted today.
edit on 21-5-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by awake1234
 


Of course you can argue the distribution part of it but the need for space colonization and GMO foods go hand in hand.


When I become an astronaut and colonize Mars I might have a change of heart about GMO's.


You also do not want to turn it over to the government since private companies, who are ensuring their profit, are likely to get the desired results much quicker.


In this case they are ensuring their profits by doing their field testing on us. I question what might be considered their desired result. Their employees don't eat the stuff and won't allow GMO's in their own cafeteria. Perhaps if they paid us for being their test subjects....

Label them.

edit on 22-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Monsanto is poisoning you people. How can you trust a company that wants to hide it's patented-world-feeding concoctions? If what you're doing is altruistic and truly bears no actual health risks why stifle it's nutritional/ingredients labeling? Wouldn't you be like, "Hey, I made this!" and be proud of your invention? I know I would. You have the complete opposite in Monsanto. Is it really that hard to notice?

I'd say this thread has a better chance of impacting the world when it comes to ending world hunger. I recommend that everyone at least take a glance at it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


This is great news! Now we have to get the rest of the country on board!

The biggest problem I've been facing is the complete and utter ignorance of nearly EVERYONE regarding GMO's and Monsanto.

What one may argue is, well I've eaten thousands of GMO meals and I'm perfectly fine, your being paranoid. However, you can smoke a pack of cigarettes and probably be just fine, but if you continue to smoke over the course of 30 plus years there's a good chance your going to get sick. But that was always your CHOICE.
Right now in this country EVERY single person alive and EATING FOOD is not given a CHOICE. This is not acceptable.

Monsanto needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


those point sound agreeable though there is no 'need' for space colonization - only earth correction...
we have the 'space' here and the means for every person to be provided for if balance actually existed in its powerful form on the Earth...
although breakthroughs relevant to other fields may pertain to genetic modification of foods, (which is why my argument isnt directed at experimentation, but the record of the experimenters and their products) its curent provisions has only one direction - monopoly and control...
which is why no matter where we go or what were doing, unless its in accord with some primary principles of harmony with our mother planet (think how the animals do it...and we used too...and still could at current numbers of population not rates of production)!

LOVE



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 

This statement gets me.

Paul Pescatello, a board member of Connecticut United for Research Excellence, an industry-supported group, said not enough of the science has been absorbed by those critical of GMOs.

"I think there's a lot of emotion surrounding this bill right now," said Pescatello, who also said the bill could violate constitutional rights for free commercial speech.

For one, what science?... Not enough science has been absorbed by critics? Was that some sort of Roundup pun? Is there scientific evidence that would prove GMO's safe or are they claiming that the lack of science proving harm is evidence of its safety?

Besides, as pheonix358 correctly put it, the onus is on the company to prove to us that their products are safe not the other way around!

The last part of that statement I find offensive. Since corporations have constitutional rights just like citizens now they get to make odd claims like this one. Violation of free speech by being forced to disclose their product’s contents?! This claim has been used on this issue before.

Washington State has an Initiative (I-522) that had a hearing recently and this was one of the anti-labeling GMO comments. The company’s right to free speech would potentially be violated by the act of mandatory labeling. What about my right to choose. In order to make an informed decision I need information so whose rights are being violated now. Are a corporation's rights to hide information to protect their interests above my right to choose to protect my health?





new topics
top topics
 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join