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
Rep. Jared Polis (D) offered to rename the pro-GMO bill the "Deny Americans the Right To Know" Act.
The dark act bill, HR 1599, has passed in the US House of Reps and is moving on to the Senate next. Here is what an Ag trade says about today's (7/23/15) vote:
Sponsor of the bill, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., said it works to vacate state GMO labeling laws that could ultimately create confusing standards for GMO labeling across the U.S. It favors instead a policy that requires developers of GMOs intended as food to submit a notification to the U.S. FDA before the product goes to market, and allows the FDA to require a label should the product represent a material difference from a comparable non-GMO food.
The bill also calls on FDA to allow, but not require, GMO food to be labeled as GMO, and regulates the use of the term "natural." Further, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service may establish a program to certify non-GMO food under the bill.
In an unusual move, a procedural amendment following the passage of the bill was offered by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., to rename the bill the "Deny Americans the Right To Know" Act. It was voted down.
That moniker is favored by bill opponents and the consumer group Center for Food Safety, which says H.R. 1599 will deny voters the right to pass state bills to label GM food. Opponents also say the bill will withhold information from consumers by not requiring affirmative GMO labels.
The bill also calls on FDA to allow, but not require, GMO food to be labeled as GMO, and regulates the use of the term "natural." Further, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service may establish a program to certify non-GMO food under the bill.
In an unusual move, a procedural amendment following the passage of the bill was offered by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., to rename the bill the "Deny Americans the Right To Know" Act. It was voted down.
That moniker is favored by bill opponents and the consumer group Center for Food Safety, which says H.R. 1599 will deny voters the right to pass state bills to label GM food. Opponents also say the bill will withhold information from consumers by not requiring affirmative GMO labels.
http://farmfutures.com/story-house-approves-voluntary-gmo-labeling-bill-hr-1599-0-130222
93% of the American public wants our food labelled and this thing went 275 to 150 to prevent labelling laws.
The tracker on this, yet to be updated for today's move:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
That's just further evidence that profit-driven GMO corporations and their faith-based advocates are deeply, mystically under the thrall of corporate-funded "science" and the steady onslaught of corporate-funded PR, while disdaining the real stuff -- real science conducted by an MIT researcher and published in a rigorous peer-reviewed journal.
Despite sneers, any intelligent, sensible person will trust the Journal "Agricultural Sciences" any day over "The Anals of GMO-Glyphosate-Petroleum Profiteering."
I mean, really.
They don't seem interested in any real discussion of the technology, its limits and its risks. So what's being advocated by some is not "science" but simply marketing. Bill Gates is a big investor in GMO now and just like with Microsoft, the attitude is "if the customer doesn't want our product then the customer is stupid."
Without discussing their science or debate, their position is very much like a religion. They even name their companies with religious terms like "my saint" in French ("Mon Santo"
.
...make decisions to inform their citizens.
(But then we already knew that "states right'er" were phonies.)
GMO labeling makes absolutely no sense.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/10/mandatory-gmo-food-label-not-backed-by-science/
The push for mandatory labeling leaves open the question of exactly what is genetic modification. Should grafting be considered a form of genetic engineering or hybridization or cross breeding of fruit? What about mutagenesis which is the dirty secret of organic farming. This is a process in plant breeding where random mutations are induced in plant DNA using chemicals or radiation. Scientists have been doing this in the laboratories since the 1930s. We now regularly eat more than 2,000 mutagenically created foods, including such organic favorites as Ruby Red grapefruits and versions of wheat used to make organic Italian pasta–all developed over years of laboratory research.
According to an article in Bloomberg Business Week, entitled “The Scariest Veggies of them all”:
No doubt many in the organic farming community would strongly object to GMO labeling if it included mutagenesis as many organic seeds are derived from such a process. In an article for the Boston Review, the noted plant geneticist Pamela Ronald wrote that “some varieties of California-certified organic rice were developed through radiation mutagenesis” Organic and non-organic varieties of wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum have also been developed through a process of mutagenesis.
To be fair, even though mutagenesis results in the creation of thousands of unknown mutations, versus one or two via precision engineering, there is no evidence that even thousands of random mutations pose genuine health hazards. What’s important though is the hypocrisy factor: thousands of chemical and radiation lab-created mutations are given a free pass by those opposed to GMOs but they go hysterical when just one or two genes are altered, mapped, and tested for allergenicity. That makes no logical sense.
According to an article in Bloomberg Business Week, entitled “The Scariest Veggies of them all”:
Reports from the National Academy of Sciences, representing the consensus of experts in the field, say the risk of creating unintended health effects is greater from mutagenesis than any other technique, including genetic modification. Mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly, spawning mutations that are less precise than GMOs. The academy has warned that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified.
No doubt many in the organic farming community would strongly object to GMO labeling if it included mutagenesis as many organic seeds are derived from such a process. In an article for the Boston Review, the noted plant geneticist Pamela Ronald wrote that “some varieties of California-certified organic rice were developed through radiation mutagenesis” Organic and non-organic varieties of wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum have also been developed through a process of mutagenesis.
To be fair, even though mutagenesis results in the creation of thousands of unknown mutations, versus one or two via precision engineering, there is no evidence that even thousands of random mutations pose genuine health hazards. What’s important though is the hypocrisy factor: thousands of chemical and radiation lab-created mutations are given a free pass by those opposed to GMOs but they go hysterical when just one or two genes are altered, mapped, and tested for allergenicity. That makes no logical sense.
Almost all of the food we eat has been changed by man, much of it in major ways. Minor genetic changes in GMO's are not magically worse than all of the other genetic changes that have taken place since evolution began.
Blind faith in GMO food: 7%. Anti-vaxxers: 7%
You get your GMO info from an actor with an undergrad degree in Mech Engineering? Bill Nye said "one gene controls eye color" so he has not demonstrated even the most basic understanding of genetics. Genetics and Biology aren't Mechanical Engineering and they aren't about reading cue cards.
This is Marketing (not science, not ethics):
