Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Senators Who Voted Against Bernie Sanders Amendment to Allow States To Require GMO Labels

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
The foods that don't use GMOs already have labels that lets you know that, 9 times out of 10!


I wish I lived on your planet!


You can buy organic/natural food that costs 50% to 100% more.
edit on 26/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


So then tell me, what good will come out of forcing a company to slap a label on it??

Also I want your opinion, do you know WHY GMOs are bad? A lot of people just get scared by acronyms.


I consider GMOs as added risk. Eating them for a prolonged time might have serious consequences down the road. It is uncharted territory and thus carries a risk factor. Eating GMOs occasionaly is probably no big deal, much like smoking half a pack of cigs or drinking 2 glasses of whine, but do it too often it most likely becomes dangerous.

I try to limit my risk factor as much as humanely possible. Of course with so many natural disasters like BP oil spill and Fukishima meltdown in japan, and underground nuclear tests, and pollution of lead, mercury, etc......I see GMO as just one more factor.

You say why label and I ask why NOT label? But I am not in the pocket of monsato, so my answer differs from yours.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Look I agree that GMOs are bad, but that's why I read the frickin labels, and try to do my part as a consumer to research what is out there. Sure, you can't always beat GMOs and you are bound to have probably one thing in your grocery basket that is modified, but for the most part GMOs aren't hard to avoid. And the article you gave me is actually mostly fear mongering. Again, I agree with most of it, but there was no objective evidence in that article--only assumtions (with the exception of probably number 8) in terms of how it affects the consumer. GMO study takes a lot broader of a look than just a simplified article without any basis of fact. Truth be told, most of the reasons I don't like genetically modified items has to do with the economy and how it screws over poor countries, the health aspect isn't always as dangerous as people assume. Sure pesticides and such are harmful, and GMOs can have ill health affects, but so can natual foods as well if they aren't handled properly.

Again, I assert, I agree that GMOs are bad, but it is up to the consumer, not the government to decide what you read at the supermarket. I am all for urging companies to change and be better product providers, but this is not the answer. We all knows what happens when you start labeling bad things with bad names. Remember when the government never used the term genocide? It got people angry that we did not recognize genocide and forced people to educate themselves and take action on behalf of genocide. Now the government thros the term in the wind, ever since Clinton, and it has desensitized the public into not caring. Labing GMOs may have the same effect.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 


If the government does not force business to label stuff then how the heck will anyone know if the food contains GMO or not? Should people just assume it contains if it is not organic/natural and overpriced or what?

You are engaging in double speak!



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 



Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
Look I agree that GMOs are bad, but that's why I read the frickin labels,




You do know that this amendment was to let states put GMO LABELS on foods, right?



Sure pesticides and such are harmful, and GMOs can have ill health affects, but so can natual foods as well if they aren't handled properly.


Again...


Does this statement make sense? >> "Sure, asbestos is armful, but so is Kool-aid, if you drink enough..."



Again, I assert, I agree that GMOs are bad, but it is up to the consumer, not the government to decide what you read at the supermarket.


Agreed! The government doesn't get to decide what I read. If I want to read the label, that's my choice. But what good will reading labels do if the information isn't THERE???

Are you serious?



We all knows what happens when you start labeling bad things with bad names.


Yeah. When we were warned about asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, Thalidomide, etc., we stopped using them and companies had to make something else that wouldn't kill us! Is that bad?

edit on 5/26/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Flatfish
And... Where are all the "State's Rights" activist now?


I was wondering the same thing... Looks like Democrats were split down the center, but the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against state's rights... Can you say "lip service"?


I am not at all surprised. Republicans = big business and big government.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Here is an article in (The Seattle Times) from February of last year about Bill Gates support of GM crops to feed Africa.

Link: seattletimes.com...

Also...Bill Gates owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock.

Link: www.infowars.com...

Here is an article about his investment of $25 million in a GM crop center in Mexico.

Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...

The reason I am bringing up Mr. Gates in all of this is because his money and influence (plus other very wealthy people) may have been a big factor in the way those Senators voted.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RickyD
 


It is crazy that a state can't require GMO food to be listed. I don't understand how the Feds can even interfere with a state's ability to help it's citizens. We are called the United States, not Washington DC's slave. The Fed's should not have the power to restrict a state from requiring this labeling. A state usually has more power that the feds on some things.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
star and flag

Monsanto: "You are what you eat. Soon we will own you too."

evil hiding behind politicians skirts

keep up the good work kali


xploder



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I'm not sure either. Maybe not listing gmo on things is a form of freedom of speech?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
But here is what I am thinking. If someone would suggest that we should put a label on everything that has gmos, ok maybe our emotions would make us say "let's do it!" So let's take it down a notch and say we force every food that has gluten in it to put a label on it notifying its consumers there is gluten in it... well I am sure there is apprehension on that one... Ok how about this, let's put a label on every food that was handled in a factory where one of the worker's last name was 'Smith'. Then what? No one would want of course!! Truth is, should we really be forcing companies to do anything, ridiculous or not? No! We should be preventing laws being made to regulate business in ways that can't easily be remedied with education. I do not need to know if a company uses GMO's in their food, I need to be able to read and be aware of the products I as a consumer are purchasing. The foods that don't use GMOs already have labels that lets you know that, 9 times out of 10!

Be a smart consumer, don't leave it up to the FDA to make labels.


Currently law states any of the top eight food allergens must be labeled on packaging. Wheat is gluten (though not the only type) and it is labeled.

Requiring a company to label their ingredients would only cost them a line of ink, right under their food allergen warning, next to the ingredient list.

Companies are always adding ink to their packages, especially when there's a new diet fad. They can afford to label GMO's. They already do it with allergens.

A lot of companies label non-gmo on their packages, but not all. These food products are usually pricier.

Although you're comfortable not knowing if you're eating GMO's, I would like to know.
Most GMO's are made to create poison or made to resist poison (bt corn and roundup ready soy). I'd like to avoid having my family ingest any poisons.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


In Washington, there's a push for I-522, which is an act that will require GMO labeling. Even the farmers want GMO's labeled so they can ship their wheat to non-gmo markets.

If this act is on the ballot this year and it passes, does this senator vote mean Washington's act will mean nothing?

I hope not.

Info on I-522



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That's what I mean how is it the federal gov. or any fed agency can tell a state no you can't do that. We fought a civil war over that. If a state wants to draft legislation to mandate this I see no way it could be stopped. Please if anyone can point me to some reason they can't I'd love to read it. What we should be doing is to write and lobby our state govs for this...I think you might get better results on that level. Unless of coarse your of the likes of Bill Gates lol.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I'm sure someone else has said this already, but this is a states' rights issue, not a federal one.The feds have no business giving 'permission' to states about whether to require transparency on the part of food providers.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by collietta
 

From the OP’s source;

To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

The way I understand this it would have given States permission to label GMO products. Now that the amendment has failed it does not mean that this same act of labeling is forbidden. I don’t think this failure is a big deal since it would not have required GMO labeling nor does it forbid it.

Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray from Washington State voted Yea on this amendment so I hope that means they both support Washington’s labeling initiative (I-522).

I am in support of I-522 and have been surprised at the number of reasonably intelligent people that are ignorant to GMO products and the implications present in this controversy. Washington’s grain export is affected by GMOs simply because they are not labeled and many countries do not import GMO products.

The arguments against this initiative have been that there is no evidence that these products are harmful to consumers yet in the same breath they discount evidence from the studies that have reported harmful results. These studies either have been done or they have not, it’s dishonest to claim in the negative both ways.

There is also the claim that labeling already exists yet this is not accurate. Organic labeling, although regulated, does not focus on GMOs. Furthermore, farms that are organic often unintentionally have a percentage of their crops cross pollinated by GM crops from neighboring farms yet if the farmer is unaware that this is happening he can still legally claim his produce to be organic. How can one prove that planted organic seeds have not become GM crops through cross pollination? USDA Certified Organic labeling claims that 95% of these products must be organic leaving 5% for possible contamination. Source
The problem here is with cross pollination and the inability to positively identify GM produce.

Organic farming in Washington State is the fastest growing industry here and it is at risk from GMO contamination.
Washington’s multimillion dollar grain export industry is also at risk due to the ambiguity of GMO crop contamination. Many countries will not import grain that does contain, or might contain, GMO.
Washington’s heath concerns are ignored when there is no requirement for labeling. How are we to know for sure that our organic food is 100% GMO free without a required label?

There is also a claim by GMO labeling opponents that the corporation’s right to free speech is violated by required labeling. This claim really bothers me!
Do corporations even have such rights?
Is there even a free speech right to choose to not disclose a truth?
Why fight so hard to hide the truth if GMOs are safe?
What about my rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Are they less important than Monsanto’s?
How am I to make an informed decision regarding my health without proper information?

The fight for GMO labeling is up to each induvidual state since the Federal Government appears to not want to get involved. If you want labeling then it is up to each of us to get involved and be informed.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The FDA should require all business to label GMO produce on a national level, not on a state level.

Why should it be at the state level???



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The FDA should require all business to label GMO produce on a national level, not on a state level.

Why should it be at the state level???



i agree


the proposal got stalled out because there would need to be 50 different labels on produce sold in 50 different states...UN-doable to my reasoning


a single authority such as the FDA sould be the sole decider for all 50 states (after due diligence and without the everpresent battery of lawyers/ and paid lobbysts)



 



the only other way to get GMO products labeled as such wold involve a NGO such as the private agency that oversees 'Kosher' food stuffs...
by not passing the 'Kosher" test... all GMO Products would by 'default' be known as being genetically modified...

i point out the Kosher food labeler because.... according to Biblical sources... food stuffs along with every other plant/animal are created ~kind-after-kind~ so if science introduces shrimp protiens into corn that would affect Hebrew Dietary laws

the rest of the consumer population needs to wake up as to the ways things can be accomplished outside of the Matrix the NWO/Technocrats has created to subdue the masses !
edit on 28-5-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The FDA should require all business to label GMO produce on a national level, not on a state level.

Why should it be at the state level???


i agree

the proposal got stalled out because there would need to be 50 different labels on produce sold in 50 different states...UN-doable to my reasoning


Why 50 different labels on produce?

Either produce contains GMO or it does not contain GMO!

When you buy cigarretes you see the same surgeon general warning about various diseases it can cause.

When you buy meat you see what grade it is.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The FDA should require all business to label GMO produce on a national level, not on a state level.

Why should it be at the state level???
I agree that it should be a federal law but that isn’t happening and some people are tired of waiting. Maybe if enough States pass GMO labeling laws the Federal Government will follow. We have to start somewhere.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


S/F for thee..







top topics



 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join