Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Judge Rules that Really Stupid Vermont Law May Be Able to Force GMO-Labels on Food Companies
Source:
Reason Magazine
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/28/j ... es-that-vermont-may-be-able-to
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Ronald Bailey
Post Date: 2015-04-29 04:03:28 by A Pole
Keywords: GMO, food, Monsanto
Views: 26204
Comments: 115
In 2013, the idiots, uh, distinguished solons of the Vermont legislature passed a law requiring food companies to label their products containing ingredients derived from modern biotech crops. The "findings" used to justify the legislation is simply the litany of scientific disinformation that has been peddled by anti-biotechnology extremists for years now. [...] The food manufacturers oppose the legislation arguing, among other things, that it violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to engage in speech. In point of fact, the anti-biotech activists are not consumer advocates at all. What they are really aiming at is to confuse consumers so that they will misunderstand and treat labels identifying products as containing ingredients from biotech crops as warning labels. [...] As I pointed out in my article, The Top 5 Lies About Biotech Crops, every independent scientific body that has evaluated biotech crops has found them safe for people and the environment. ... As I have already shown above, the real purpose of GMO-labels is to deceive consumers. ... Is picking and choosing between producers really what you want your government to do? ... Finally, folks seeking kosher and halal foods are already well accomodated in the market, but I suppose some folks treat organic foods as a kind of sacrament. Of course, consumers who are bamboozled by the activist disinformation campaign against biotech crops have the perfect way to avoid foods of which they disapprove: Buy anything labeled organic. [...] However, the fight is not over. The case will now go to trial, where, let us hope, scientific evidence not activist lies will prevail. Or better yet, as the Washington Post editorial board has suggested, why not adopt the bill introduced in the House of Representatives that would establish a voluntary labeling system and prevent states and localities from going any further to indulge the GM labeling crowd.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: misterwhite (#50)
Let's just forget labeling food altogether. How does that sound? Allergies? Too bad, Mr. misterwhite doesn't care. You're lugging around 2 tons of BS in a one ton sack along with that bridge. I won't be eating Monsanto's freak corn crossed with glowing eels or whatever they are peddling next. NO SALE- NO WAY.
Truth cuts like a knife. Any idea who's going to fix the infrastructure that has been let go so the New Kings can continue their wars? Just the other day a chunk of concrete fell off a bridge in WA and squashed some poor useless eater. It's falling apart in front of you. Keep looking towards Ukraine though- we're told that's important.
No they're not. I used an analogy. Placing a label on a jar of peanut butter saying that it contains 330 insect parts -- which are not harmful -- would result in fewer peanut butter sales. Placing a label on food saying that it has been genetically modified -- which is not harmful -- would also result in fewer sales. See the analogy? I do, but you missed the point. You care what would result in fewer sales. I care what people eat. You put corporate profits before people's lives. Do you have vested interests in this or is it simply a severe case limbaughitis and rush syndrome?
Like 330 insect parts in a jar of Skippy peanut butter? We have a right to know what you put in our food. Speaking about wishes as opposed to rights - I want to know if GMO is served on my plate, but I do not want to know how many remain of smaller living creatures are in it (bigger living creature is the centerpiece). I want to be warned how much arsenic is in my hotdog, but I do not want to know what body parts are in it.
By the public I mean the general public. They have the right to know what is in the food offered for sale. They have a right to know if it contains pink slime, they have a right to know if it contains GMO, and they have right to be provided enough information to make an informed choice about what they choose to purchase and consume. The public has a right to know if smoking tobacco may endanger their health. They then have the right to smoke 'em if they've got 'em. Those opposed to GMO food have a right to know if the food offered to their purchase contains GMO. They have a right to choose whether to purchase it. Congress has the power to pass laws requiring such labeling of food for sale to the public, and to enforce the law with criminal statutes.
You missed the point again. GMO label will work impartially - It will reduce sales to the health freaks and INCREASE sales to the sober business minded people like you who love progress, inventions and modern things. People who love the bomb, bikinis, hula hoop and Thalidomide.
The ignorant health freaks are already shopping in the natural foods section of the market. You simply want to scare people into your way of thinking since you couldn't do it scientifically.
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels? The answer is that it's NOT dangerous, so you can't go that route. Your only hope is to scare the public into thinking it's dangerous by putting a label on food similar to that found on cigarettes. "Gosh", the public would say, "If it's safe, why are they labeling it?" I've had it with you fearmongers and your "scare of the week" -- be it red meat, egg yolks, alar, fluoride, arsenic in water, chlorine, carcinogenic bacon, hot dogs, or well-done hamburgers on the grill. Go ahead. Keep crying "wolf".
Oh really? So tell what GMO is scientifically about? I will not hold by breath, bwahaha.
Only because you know the FDA has determined the food safe. But you won't accept the FDA approval of GMO foods as safe. I'd ask you to explain your f**ked up logic, but I don't want your head to explode.
We are not for the prohibition. If you want to eat GMO and hormones, do not restrain yourself. Labels will help you to pick your favored crap.
Only because you know the FDA has determined the food safe. I do not eat hotdogs, unless the content is listed and acceptable.
Right - fed.gov says it is safe so by golly it must be. The Revolving Door: FDA and the Monsanto Company Monsanto Controls both the White House and the US Congress Studies, testing, and trials showed it to be safe. Where are your studies, testing, and trials showing that it's not? Don't bother looking. There aren't any.
Best man for the job? A better question is why is Obama running the country?
Plenty of studies have shown the dangers associated with GMO foods. 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health Are they safe? The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) Myth: Independent studies confirm that GM foods and crops are safe A review of scientific studies on the health risks of GM crops and foods that did investigate funding sources found that either financial or professional conflict of interest (author affiliation to industry) was strongly associated with study outcomes that cast GM products in a favourable light. Conclusions of safety were also found to be associated with studies in which source of funding was not declared. Furthermore, there was a strong connection between undeclared funding and author affiliation to industry.2 Genuinely independent studies on GM foods and crops are rare, for two reasons: because independent research on GM crop risks is not supported financially; and because industry uses its patent-based control of GM crops to restrict independent research. Research that has been suppressed includes assessments of health and environmental safety and agronomic performance of GM crops. Permission to study GM crops is withheld or made so difficult to obtain that research is effectively blocked. For example, researchers are often denied access to commercialized GM seed and the non-GM isogenic seed.3,4 Even if permission to carry out research is given, GM companies typically retain the right to block publication.3,4An editorial in Scientific American reported, “Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.”5 So your claims of GMOs being "safe" is a bunch of typical misterwhite bullshit.
Best man for the job? Nah - no conflict of interest there, right whitey?
Get back to me when you change that question mark to an exclamation point ... with proof.
Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary.
Good god man - how much more proof do you need? Of course there is a conflict of interest there you simple-minded prick. How much is Monsanto paying you?
Yet we are supposed to believe that any FDA studies are unbiased according to whitey?
Let's just look at the first "scientific study" -- Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood. A) The authors of the study claim to have detected the Cry1Ab protein in the blood of pregnant and nonpregnant Canadian women, and in umbilical cord blood of fetuses. B) The Cry1Ab protein is produced by some Bt corn (e.g., MON810). C) Therefore, GM food is bad. HOWEVER, "no information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.” Secondly, "the authors do not consider that the origin of Cry1Ab could be food from organic farming (which sprays Cry1Ab, or bacteria producing it, on fruit or vegetable crops) or from its use in gardening (CryA1b is part of available “natural insecticide” formulations). Third, given that the level of Cry1Ab in Bt corn is so low, the women would have to eat 10 pounds of Bt corn every day to arrive at the blood concentration levels shown in the study. I see no need to go any farther. Buncha bullshit "scientific" studies.
And the FDA is the fountain of truth and has no conflict of interest concerning Monsanto. Fucking shill. You bet. And you can thank Occupy Sonoma County for it. "Occupy Sonoma County embraces the egalitarian, deep democracy principles of the Occupy Movement with a regional strategy for effectively organizing county-wide social justice campaigns that are globally relevant." You going to the rally?
You bet. And you can thank Occupy Sonoma County for it. Gosh, you mean none of the FACTS presented on the chart were true? Give me a frigging break!
Like you, I consider the source. And this source has a big, fat hard-on for Monsanto. Which make YOU the simple-minded prick and a shill for the Occupy movement. F**king retard.
Got it - fuck the facts, right? Concern for human health is not a partisan issue.
"A scientific journal has formally retracted a controversial study linking genetically modified corn to tumor growth and death risk in rats." "The study had appeared in the Sept. 19, 2012 issue of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and made headlines around the world with its stark images of rats who purportedly were more likely to develop large tumors and die early after eating Monsanto’s genetically modified maize, whether or not it was treated with a weed killer." "But now the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, says the study led by biologist Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France is being retracted due to concerns with the research methodology." You're an idiot. An absolute, f**king idiot. Stop wasting my time.
You got some? I haven't seen any.
Hey sport, I don't give a rat's as what you eat. You have done nothing here but shill for the FDA, Monsanto and the assholes who don't want GMO products labeled. Typical day for you.
I'm done with you on this thread. You got nothin' but lies and innuendo. Your "scientific studies" are garbage. You can't support any of your claims. The best you can do is hurl insults, and you're real good at that. Screw that and screw you.
If GMO food is dangerous, it should be taken off the market. Agreed. Labels should continue so the public can decide for itself what it chooses to eat. Pink slime in ground beef may be safe. People may choose not to accept it. GMO may, or may not, be safe. People should not be forced to eat it by making its presence undetectable. Not all people will choose to accept the misterwhite standard of blindly accepting corporate sponsored studies declaring something safe. Let the market decide. Let the people choose.
Well, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this despite the fact that I have FDA studies saying it's safe and you have diddley-squat. Let's try a different tack. Is GMO safer than the alternative (ie., pre-GMO)? Before GMO, farmers used significantly more insecticides and more toxic (and less effective) herbicides. This is like the old DDT argument. Get rid of that nasty DDT in Africa because of "health risks". But doing so resulted in tens of thousands of deaths from malaria. (Note: They're using DDT again.)
Tobacco was safe to smoke until it wasn't. Thalidomide was safe until it wasn't. This list could go on and on. It matters not whether the product is food, smokes, or drugs, the public has a right to know what something is before they put it in their body. A declaration by some agency that is safe so the public has no need to know is not sufficient. Whether some agency pronounces GMO more safe or as safe as natural or organic food does not negate the public's right to know what they are being sold for the purpose of putting into their body. You may choose to ingest products based on blind acceptance. This does not negate the public's right to use their own judgment in whether to put something in their body. I would not advise eating the old DDT. It is still under a worldwide ban except for limited use as a disease vector control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle (the national bird of the United States) and the peregrine falcon from near-extirpation in the contiguous United States. http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx Status on Ratifications of the Stockholm Convention Text:
Some, not all, smokers got lung cancer, so a warning was put on the cigarettes. If GMO foods caused cancer in some people, yeah, I'd want a similar label. Does it? "Thalidomide was safe until it wasn't." Thalidomide IS safe and is still being prescribed today for treating cancer. It is not safe for pregnant women. The FDA did not approve it when it came out (although some doctors did pass out samples). "Whether some agency pronounces GMO more safe or as safe as natural or organic food does not negate the public's right to know what they are being sold for the purpose of putting into their body." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where were you when the Cry1Ab protein was (and still is) being sprayed on fruit or vegetable crops as a “natural insecticide” and transferred to humans? But when Cry1Ab is claimed to be transferred to humans via GM foods, all of a sudden it's important? I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me. You want a label? What would it say? "This food may cause _______?" "Studies have shown this food ________ ?" No. You don't know. You just want a big, fat red label reading "GMO FOOD! EAT IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
Monsanto and Others Caught Paying Internet ‘Trolls’ to Attack Activists
Through the decades when the public was assured that cigarettes were safe, were they safe or not? - - - - - - Used as prescribed, thalidomide caused birth defects. You consider that safe? Considering where your head is stuck, that's not an agenda you smell. I want a label that tells the consumer whether a product contains GMO. If people want to eat it, that is their choice. You want to deprive the people of a right to know what is in the product they buy.
What agenda that could be, sir?
Comments (91 - 115) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest It has nothing to do with the buying public's right to know and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell.
#52. To: misterwhite (#44)
Vinny Eastwood can ESAD.
#53. To: misterwhite (#43)
"Either way, bugs are not GMO"
#54. To: misterwhite (#48)
"The public has a right to know what is in the food being sold to them."
#55. To: misterwhite (#50)
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food.
#56. To: misterwhite (#50)
(Edited)
By "the public" you mean those opposed to GMO food.
#57. To: A Pole (#56)
"It will reduce sales to the health freaks"
#58. To: nolu chan (#55)
(Edited)
"They have the right to know what is in the food offered for sale."
#59. To: misterwhite (#57)
(Edited)
You simply want to scare people into your way of thinking since you couldn't do it scientifically.
#60. To: A Pole (#54)
"but I do not want to know what body parts are in it."
#61. To: misterwhite (#58)
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels?
#62. To: misterwhite (#60)
(Edited)
"but I do not want to know what body parts are in it."
#63. To: misterwhite (#58)
The answer is that it's NOT dangerous, so you can't go that route.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#64. To: misterwhite, A Pole, Operation 40, nolu chan, GrandIsland, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#60)
But you won't accept the FDA approval of GMO foods as safe.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#65. To: Deckard (#63)
"Right - fed.gov says it is safe so by golly it must be."
#66. To: Deckard (#64)
"Why Is A Former Monsanto Vice President Running the FDA?"
#67. To: misterwhite (#65)
Where are your studies, testing, and trials showing that it's not?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#68. To: misterwhite (#66)
"Why Is A Former Monsanto Vice President Running the FDA?"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#69. To: Deckard (#68)
"Nah - no conflict of interest there, right whitey?"
#70. To: Deckard (#63)
#71. To: misterwhite (#69)
(Edited)
Get back to me when you change that question mark to an exclamation point ... with proof.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#72. To: TooConservative (#70)
Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#73. To: Deckard (#67)
"Plenty of studies have shown the dangers associated with GMO foods."
"10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health"
#74. To: misterwhite (#73)
(Edited)
Buncha bullshit "scientific" studies.
The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GMO food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading fast, with even the mainstream media in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors; tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GMO maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication.
It reported, "Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."
The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GMO foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors."
It goes on to say: "The animals on the GMO diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."The Study
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs.
You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GMO corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.Findings From The Study
Here are some of the shocking findings from the study: “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#75. To: TooConservative (#70)
"Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary."
#76. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#75)
"Great chart on how Monsanto has taken over the FDA as a private subsidiary."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#77. To: Deckard (#76)
(Edited)
"Gosh, you mean none of the FACTS presented on the chart were true?"
#78. To: misterwhite (#77)
(Edited)
Like you, I consider the source.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#79. To: Deckard (#74)
#80. To: Deckard (#78)
"Got it - fuck the facts, right?"
#81. To: misterwhite (#80)
(Edited)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#82. To: Deckard (#81)
#83. To: A Pole (#0)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#84. To: misterwhite (#58)
If GMO food is dangerous it should be taken off the market. Do you agree? Why f**k around with labels?
#85. To: nolu chan (#84)
"GMO may, or may not, be safe."
#86. To: misterwhite (#85)
Well, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this despite the fact that I have FDA studies saying it's safe and you have diddley-squat.
Let's try a different tack. Is GMO safer than the alternative (ie., pre-GMO)? Before GMO, farmers used significantly more insecticides and more toxic (and less effective) herbicides.
This is like the old DDT argument. Get rid of that nasty DDT in Africa because of "health risks". But doing so resulted in tens of thousands of deaths from malaria.
A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalized under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day and remains controversial, because of its effectiveness in reducing deaths due to malaria, countered by environmental and health concerns.
#87. To: nolu chan (#86)
"Tobacco was safe to smoke until it wasn't."
#88. To: misterwhite, A Pole, Operation 40, nolu chan, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#87)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#89. To: misterwhite (#87)
Some, not all, smokers got lung cancer, so a warning was put on the cigarettes.
Thalidomide IS safe and is still being prescribed today for treating cancer.
I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me.
#90. To: misterwhite (#87)
I smell an agenda, sir, and you are being dishonest with me.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]