House Votes To Ban States From Labeling GMO Foods

turzovka

Gold Member
Nov 20, 2012
5,195
1,039
265
One issue that is not partisan. But once again the federal govt takes states' rights away from them. Is there no due process?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

House Votes To Ban States From Labeling GMO Foods

"Regardless of what consumers want, they won’t be told,” said one opponent.
001a00b86794.jpg

Michael McAuliffSenior Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/23/2015 | Edited: 07/23/2015 04:11 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Do you want to know whether your food has genetically modified organisms in it? The House of Representatives voted to make that harder on Thursday by banning states from passing their own laws requiring GMO labels.


Instead, the House passed a bill called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act that would set up a voluntary program for companies that want to disclose genetically modified ingredients. Firms that want to claim their food is GMO-free would have to submit to a certification process overseen by the Department of Agriculture.


But the measure would ban states such as Vermont, Maine and Connecticut, which have passed GMO-labeling laws, from putting them into practice. It would also allow the Food and Drug Administration to define the label “natural” to include genetically engineered material.


Supporters of the bill said it was a matter of keep the rules simple across the country and not unnecessarily frightening consumers.


“The fact is, the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered products is utterly overwhelming. Precisely zero pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety,” said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), the bill’s sponsor.


“Given this fact, it is not the place of government, government at any level, to arbitrarily step in and mandate that one plant product should be labeled based solely on how it was bred, while another identical product is free of government warning labels because the producer chose a different breeding technology,” he said.


Pompeo added that efforts to label products' GMO content were a “naked attempt to impose the preferences of a small segment of the populace on the rest of us and make the constituents that I serve in Kansas pay more for their food.”


A substantial portion of House Democrats agreed with Pompeo, and the measure passed 275 to 150.


But Democratic opponents pointed to surveys, including a recent poll by the Mellman Group, that found 90 percent of the country does want to know what's in the food.


“What this legislation is suggesting is that regardless of what consumers want, they won’t be told,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “This is not about a small group of activists. This is states like Vermont, like Maine and like Connecticut, with massive bipartisan votes, Republicans and Democrats, saying that they wanted to have the right to have these products labeled.”


“We strip from the states the right to do what they believe is in the interests of their citizens and don’t substitute any serious label that would apply across the board,” Welch added.


"This legislation, which should be called the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, or the DARK Act, represents a major threat to consumer information," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). "States should have the right to determine their own local laws relating to GMO labeling, and the federal government shouldn’t interfere."


“Americans have a right to know what is in their food and how it is grown,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.). “Instead of undermining this progress, Congress should require mandatory GMO labeling at the federal level.”


A counter measure offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), which would require GMO labels similar to those in 64 other countries, failed 123 to 303.


The bill that passed also requires companies that create new GMO foods to submit all their research showing the product is safe to the FDA for review.


DeFazio and others were especially perplexed by the suggestion that the FDA should define "natural" to include genetically engineered plants.


"I'm not quite sure when the last time was when a flounder mated with a tomato plant, but we now have tomatoes that have injected into them flounder genes," DeFazio said.


While the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act passed the House, an equivalent measure has yet to be produced in the Senate.


Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

MORE: GMOs, genetically modified organisms, GMO food, GMO labeling, GMO labels, Peter DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer, Mike Pompeo, Peter Welch, Jared Polis

House Votes To Ban States From Labeling GMO Foods
 
Last edited:
If there isn't already a term for "political irony,"
we need such a term for situations like this,
when groups take turns making the same arguments, but on opposite sides, flipping with the topic.

For legalization of marijuana, one side argues there is "no proof of harm, risks or dangers"
while the opposition yells and screams about the dangers, with or without studies to back it up.
Now here, we see the opposite!

So the liberal environmentalist go to extremes wanting to protect the public and nature
from what is seen as "genetic alterations and risk of harm"
but shoot similar arguments DOWN when it comes to marijuana.

And the conservatives who oppose pushing drugs for the risks and harm they pose,
don't seem to mind the risk of genetically engineered food as long as it means greater capitalist profits?

Again, it's back to the conflict between one group that wants to ban sugary drinks but legalize marijuana,
where diabetes and obesity are seen as greater risks than smoking pot;
while the other group that CLAIMS to want limited govt and accountability
is the same one letting corporate interests run amok, abusing "individual freedom" personhood, and deregulation to bypass accountability to the public, while CLAIMING its the liberals who want rights without responsibilities,
yelling about social welfare as handouts at public expense while doing nothing to check against corporate welfare that runs much higher in the cost to taxpayers.

Both sides look irresponsible to the other, where they care more for political agenda than for effects on the public.
 
Of course they're banning the labeling of GMO foods. Monsanto is a jewish owned corporation.

Can't let the goyim know which foods will poison them and which won't. That would be ....wait for it,....anti-semitic.

With the country of origin food labeling no longer required, we will no longer have any assurances of food quality. Unless,of course, you are a strict adherent to consuming Kosher foods only. As well, many GMO products are not receiving the Kosher label. So to eat healthier and to create a bit of havoc as well, what if "everyone" decided to frequent the kosher marketplaces. You can imagine the pandemonium if the products were no longer available to the regular customers. It might be the best way to bring the fight to TPTB.

Go to the Kosher stores and buy them out, All big cities have huge Jewish districts, GO THERE AND BUY THEM OUT, there is no reason to eat the crap they are forcing on the animals, THEY HAVE A SAFE FOOD SUPPLY SET UP ALREADY, and one would be a FOOL to not exploit it when possible.
 
If there isn't already a term for "political irony,"
we need such a term for situations like this,
when groups take turns making the same arguments, but on opposite sides, flipping with the topic.

For legalization of marijuana, one side argues there is "no proof of harm, risks or dangers"
while the opposition yells and screams about the dangers, with or without studies to back it up.
Now here, we see the opposite!

So the liberal environmentalist go to extremes wanting to protect the public and nature
from what is seen as "genetic alterations and risk of harm"
but shoot similar arguments DOWN when it comes to marijuana.

And the conservatives who oppose pushing drugs for the risks and harm they pose,
don't seem to mind the risk of genetically engineered food as long as it means greater capitalist profits?

Again, it's back to the conflict between one group that wants to ban sugary drinks but legalize marijuana,
where diabetes and obesity are seen as greater risks than smoking pot;
while the other group that CLAIMS to want limited govt and accountability
is the same one letting corporate interests run amok, abusing "individual freedom" personhood, and deregulation to bypass accountability to the public, while CLAIMING its the liberals who want rights without responsibilities,
yelling about social welfare as handouts at public expense while doing nothing to check against corporate welfare that runs much higher in the cost to taxpayers.

Both sides look irresponsible to the other, where they care more for political agenda than for effects on the public.
6622da4ae16269dd07c28451aaa4a8c4.gif
 
One issue that is not partisan. But once again the federal govt takes states' rights away from them. Is there no due process?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

House Votes To Ban States From Labeling GMO Foods

"Regardless of what consumers want, they won’t be told,” said one opponent.
001a00b86794.jpg

Michael McAuliffSenior Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/23/2015 | Edited: 07/23/2015 04:11 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Do you want to know whether your food has genetically modified organisms in it? The House of Representatives voted to make that harder on Thursday by banning states from passing their own laws requiring GMO labels.


Instead, the House passed a bill called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act that would set up a voluntary program for companies that want to disclose genetically modified ingredients. Firms that want to claim their food is GMO-free would have to submit to a certification process overseen by the Department of Agriculture.


But the measure would ban states such as Vermont, Maine and Connecticut, which have passed GMO-labeling laws, from putting them into practice. It would also allow the Food and Drug Administration to define the label “natural” to include genetically engineered material.


Supporters of the bill said it was a matter of keep the rules simple across the country and not unnecessarily frightening consumers.


“The fact is, the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered products is utterly overwhelming. Precisely zero pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety,” said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), the bill’s sponsor.


“Given this fact, it is not the place of government, government at any level, to arbitrarily step in and mandate that one plant product should be labeled based solely on how it was bred, while another identical product is free of government warning labels because the producer chose a different breeding technology,” he said.


Pompeo added that efforts to label products' GMO content were a “naked attempt to impose the preferences of a small segment of the populace on the rest of us and make the constituents that I serve in Kansas pay more for their food.”


A substantial portion of House Democrats agreed with Pompeo, and the measure passed 275 to 150.


But Democratic opponents pointed to surveys, including a recent poll by the Mellman Group, that found 90 percent of the country does want to know what's in the food.


“What this legislation is suggesting is that regardless of what consumers want, they won’t be told,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “This is not about a small group of activists. This is states like Vermont, like Maine and like Connecticut, with massive bipartisan votes, Republicans and Democrats, saying that they wanted to have the right to have these products labeled.”


“We strip from the states the right to do what they believe is in the interests of their citizens and don’t substitute any serious label that would apply across the board,” Welch added.


"This legislation, which should be called the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, or the DARK Act, represents a major threat to consumer information," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). "States should have the right to determine their own local laws relating to GMO labeling, and the federal government shouldn’t interfere."


“Americans have a right to know what is in their food and how it is grown,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.). “Instead of undermining this progress, Congress should require mandatory GMO labeling at the federal level.”


A counter measure offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), which would require GMO labels similar to those in 64 other countries, failed 123 to 303.


The bill that passed also requires companies that create new GMO foods to submit all their research showing the product is safe to the FDA for review.


DeFazio and others were especially perplexed by the suggestion that the FDA should define "natural" to include genetically engineered plants.


"I'm not quite sure when the last time was when a flounder mated with a tomato plant, but we now have tomatoes that have injected into them flounder genes," DeFazio said.


While the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act passed the House, an equivalent measure has yet to be produced in the Senate.


Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

MORE: GMOs, genetically modified organisms, GMO food, GMO labeling, GMO labels, Peter DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer, Mike Pompeo, Peter Welch, Jared Polis

House Votes To Ban States From Labeling GMO Foods
In other words, if it doesn't say GMO free it may be GMO-ed.
 
No, there are no states' rights. The Supreme Court sealed it with the same-sex marriage decision.
Oh for fucks sake. :fu:
I'm glad you agree. :slap:
I don't agree with pussies
slap.gif
'Nuf sed, BlackFag.
Better go clean your festering labia little puss
The BlackFag has spoken. :bowdown:

You may now continue licking my toilet clean, buss boy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top