It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:47 AM
Something else to consider in this debate, for those who brought up free speech or just for knowledge in general... an article in the Washington Post that appeared in September 2010 about genetically modified Salmon points out that not only is the public demand for GMO labelling denied, it's also incredibly difficult for food companies that don't use anything genetically modified to promote their food products as GMO free.

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don't use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:10 AM
You'd think that a couple of liberal Dems like Levin and Stabenow would vote for it, but no! And I totally knew before I looked they would be nays.

I would think that the conservative Reps would be nays, as they would be for big corporations like Monsanto and the liberal Dems would be the yeas as they would be for the health and safety of the environment and the people.

It shows that there is little difference between the parties, they are all about the money not the mindset.

I don't like either senator, esp. Debbie Stabenow and I always vote against her.

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

I don't know how many times I will have to post this to get the point across, but Monsanto has thrown in with groups who are part of the new Sustainable Development program and so unwary people may believe that Monsanto is really "Sustainable".

Aside from the numerous controversies surrounding genetically engineered food and Monsanto in particular, the whole concept of “sustainability” has also attracted a firestorm of criticism and outrage. Still, key members of the so-called global “establishment” — the UN, Big Business, taxpayer-funded “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs), the Obama administration, the mega-wealthy, among other powerful forces — have been promoting what they misleadingly tout as “sustainable development” for decades.

It's all part of the UN Agenda 21 program and it's not really about fixing the environment.
edit on 29-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by Devino

How many food distributers put ingredient labeling on their packaging that changes from State to State? I wonder how states will figure out what foods to allow in their state, and can you imagine the cost involved in making sure trucking routes comply with new regulations?
You know one of the problems which bankrupted Hostess was that unions demanded that different products be put on different trucks so that more union members would have to be employed to distribute the product.

I can see this happening now on a broad scale if such a thing were implemented.

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

The change in labeling isn’t complicated. It’s either, “This product does/does not contain GMO” or nothing. Once products are labeled they can always been sold in States that don’t require GMO labeling. Labels are easy to change. Coca Cola sells pop in the US that contains ‘high fructose corn syrup’ and Mexico that contains ‘sugar’ and they have two different labels.

As for trucking route regulations…? I have no idea what you mean. Are you insinuating that there is currently some kind of trucking route regulation pertaining to labels?

The tobacco industry did not go bankrupt after they were required to put a warning on their cigarettes.
Companies have not gone bankrupt after they were required to label ingredients and nutritional facts on their products.
We have labels warning people of nut allergies.
We have labels on alcohol warning pregnant women not to drink.
There are warnings on paint cans of potential child drowning hazard yet all of these companies are doing just fine. Labels are not that difficult of a thing to do.

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

but Monsanto has thrown in with groups who are part of the new Sustainable Development program

Actually what they did throw in with was the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

The WBCSD’s cornerstone Vision 2050 report calls for a new agenda for business laying out a pathway to a world in which nine billion people can live well, and within the planet’s resources, by mid-century. The report is a consensus piece that was compiled by 29 leading global companies from 14 industries and is the result of an 18 month long combined effort between CEOs and experts, and dialogues with more than 200 companies and external stakeholders in some 20 countries.

The report features a set of agreed must haves. They represent vital developments that the report’s stakeholders hope organizations will consider putting in place within the next decade, to help ensure a steady course towards global sustainability is set. Ultimately, they are intended to provide a springboard for dialogue and debate.

Must haves include:

Incorporating the costs of externalities, starting with carbon, ecosystem services and water, into the structure of the marketplace;

Doubling agricultural output without increasing the amount of land or water used;

Halting deforestation and increasing yields from planted forests;

Halving carbon emissions worldwide (based on 2005 levels) by 2050 through a shift to low-carbon energy systems;

Improved demand-side energy efficiency, and providing universal access to low-carbon mobility.
Vision 2050, with its best-case scenario for sustainability and pathways for reaching it, is a tool for thought leadership and a platform for beginning the dialogue that must take place to navigate the challenging years to come.

Which sounds really pretty, but I suspect has more to do with businesses learning to project a caring image while enjoying tax breaks for being SDI (sustainable development indicator) compliant. While it's certainly better than doing nothing (maybe), no where on their site did I see any discussion or acknowledgement of the absolute overhaul required of private business in order to have a hand in any actual positive impact on the planet. It's just candy, tastes good and feels good but no substance, no value... and if you eat enough of it, it makes you sick.

UN Agenda 21 program

A manufactured conspiracy that practically programs people to react negatively to the word sustainable so that anyone using the word is automatically cast in a negative light and any group or person that uses it in their messages or goals is either knowingly or unknowingly part of some nefarious plot by the UN to take over the USA.

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 10:27 AM
Kali, was this amendment passed?

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 passed the Senate and is on it's way to the House. Sans of course the amendment.

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:27 PM
I ask because another member informed me of this bill, which allows Connecticut to label it's GMO foods if surrounding states also do (I guess they need a certain amount of votes). I wonder if the Farm Bill will void their new law ...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in