Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:51 AM Jun 2014

Food processors' lawsuit against Vermont's GMO law admits the extent of GMO in our diet

and seeks to deny voice and choice to voters and consumers. As stated by the food processor in the lawsuit they filed against the voters of Vermont:

In 2013, 93% of the soybeans and 90% of the corn
grown in the U.S. were produced from GE varieties. Cotton, which is used for cottonseed oil, is
88% GE. Roughly 50% of all domestically produced sugar comes from GE sugar beets. Alfalfa,
canola, squash, and Hawaiian papayas also have widely used GE varieties.
...
If a person lives in the United States for any period of time and does not restrict
all of her food purchases to organic food, she is almost certainly consuming ingredients derived from GE plants on a daily basis. The corn starch and soybean oil in common grocery items are
primarily, if not exclusively, derived from GE crops. Numerous other basic starches and oils are
too. The vast majority of foods sold in grocery stores in the United States today contain some
amount of at least one ingredient that is connected to a GE plant.


http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/vpr/files/201406/GMO-lawsuit.pdf

So are they arguing that the consumer should have no choice and no voice?

For those who believe the safety, or lack thereof, of consuming GMOs is an unsettled issue, let me cite 3 other reasons beyond personal safety and allergies, that consumers in Vermont and other states have given for wanting to vote with their dollars for non-GMO foods:

1) The SCOTUS has ruled that money equals speech therefore the consumer has the right to speak against GMOs and their patent holders by buying something else.

2) Consumers may not want to be part of a food system that endangers farm workers. Just as people can seek out certified humanely raised meats, they may choose to buy foods which do not put human beings at risk of contact with excessive amounts of toxins in the farm fields.

and

3) Parents and grandparents may want to leave American agriculture in more sustainable place for their children and grandchildren. GMO crop production relies heavily on petroleum based inputs. Demand for petroleum is outstripping supply and supply is finite. The laws of economics tell us that petroleum prices will spike until the supply runs out altogether. Failing to plan for this eventuality is like building our lifeboat on the deck of the Titanic.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Food processors' lawsuit ...