Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would have FDA decide on labeling genetically modified food
McClatchyDC.com ^ | April 9, 2014 | Chris Adams

Posted on 04/10/2014 12:52:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Edited on 04/10/2014 12:58:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is pushing a bill in Congress that would shift responsibility for any labeling of genetically modified foods to the hands of the federal government, potentially stopping the efforts underway in many states to mandate labels on such foods.


(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: agriculture; cancer; food; gmo; health; mikepompeo; monsanto; nannystate; nutrition; roundup

1 posted on 04/10/2014 12:52:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Eric Blair 2084; -YYZ-; 31R1O; 383rr; AFreeBird; AGreatPer; Alamo-Girl; Alia; altura; ...

GMO Nanny State PING!


2 posted on 04/10/2014 12:53:12 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The PASSING LANE is for PASSING, not DAWDLING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Is that going to apply to GM fart-free cows as well?


3 posted on 04/10/2014 12:53:41 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Yeah? When are we going to get Country Of Origin Labeling?


4 posted on 04/10/2014 12:55:11 PM PDT by null and void (The British declared war on the Tea Party. The Tea Party won! (Thanks mom!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

so just label it.

they used to say x-rays were 100% safe too. Even put them in shoe stores.

used to say lead paint was safe.

coal dust in oreo cookies...


5 posted on 04/10/2014 12:57:50 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

In other words, establish a convenient one-stop shopping center for bribery and corruption.


6 posted on 04/10/2014 12:57:53 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Good. Any state that wants to force it’s own labeling system is going to find that they have fewer choices that cost more on their store shelves.


7 posted on 04/10/2014 1:06:07 PM PDT by Valpal1 (If the police can t solve a problem with violence, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
FDA rulings go to the highest bidder.

Ain't that right, Monsanto?

8 posted on 04/10/2014 1:06:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In other words give _more_ authority to the bureaucrats who already have too much. We're is my USG representation in all of this?

For food: GMO should be labeled, country of origin should be labeled. Congress should require it, not had it to agencies. There are too many agencies and agents creating rules with the effect of law.

9 posted on 04/10/2014 1:08:23 PM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If, CA, NY or TX passes a law requiring labeling, you can bet the whole country will have labeled food.

As we should.

Folks need to be able to choose based on the origin of their food.

10 posted on 04/10/2014 1:23:04 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

No, instead of giving the FDA a choice, they should mandate all GMO foods to be labeled.


11 posted on 04/10/2014 1:25:23 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Bill O’Reilly, or some other Bill?


12 posted on 04/10/2014 1:35:09 PM PDT by WayneS (Help Control Politician Overpopulation - Spay or Neuter Your Senator or Congressman Today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Just put the truth on labels. Consumers can sort it out.

Where grown.
Whether GMO or not.

Some people will care. Some will not. Give them the info.


13 posted on 04/10/2014 1:41:45 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This is about nonsense. The biggest health problem we're facing with respect to "modified" foods is with the modern strains of dwarf wheat - which contain many problematic proteins (largely responsible for the huge increase in celiac disease and other inflammatory autoimmune diseases), and which were created with processes that are not categorized as "genetic modification".

Seems to me that the states should be free to require GMO labeling, if they so choose. Most European nations do so, or ban GMO entirely, and they seem to be managing. The Feds should butt out.

But the underlying premise - that if it's not GMO, then it's not a "frankenfood", is false. Knowing that it's not GMO doesn't tell you that it's healthy.

14 posted on 04/10/2014 1:45:58 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veracious
No. We should label things that involve a demonstrated risk above a reasonable threshold. That, of course, can get tricky.

Organic foods, for example, arguably should be labelled as hazardous because they are approximately 100 times more likely to send you to the hospital than conventionally grown foods, mainly because of higher incidence of fecal material, e coli, insect parts, etc., but the incidence of risk is still de minimus, so unless you have an animus against organics, live and let live is a reasonable policy.

Conventional foods are orders of magnitude safer, so there is no reason to label them.

15 posted on 04/10/2014 2:10:26 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Just put the truth on labels. Consumers can sort it out.

Inferentially, you raise a very important point. Whether and how much to label are BIG issues. The fact is, we do not require too much labelling because consumers won't be bothered to read it and are easily confused by too much detail. Remember, this is a country in which a majority voted for BO. Morons. And you want to confuse them with detailed labelling?

So ... the choice of what and how much to label is not easy. The core principle is that labels should be simple, clear, and based on clearly demonstrated hazards. Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods, there is no justification for labelling. The anti-GMO radicals want labelling precisely because they want to create an imputation of risk, as people assume that labels do, in fact, relate to tangible regulatory findings. In other words, the radicals deliberately want the labels to mislead. That is what the fuss is about.

To call the garbage that the radicals pass around junk science is an insult to junk everywhere. The science on this is clear, and overwhelming. A science based system will label a thousand other things long before it will label GMOs.

16 posted on 04/10/2014 2:19:37 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Meanwhile scientists are working on gene splicing for babies with 3 or more birth parents’ genetic history.

Can we tattoo the GMO babies as well?

Or is that sacred because homosexuals want “offspring”?


17 posted on 04/10/2014 2:21:13 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The new witchhunt: "Do you NOW, . . . or have you EVER , . . supported traditional marriage?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

“And you want to confuse them with detailed labelling?”

My bride reads labels to get us good stuff. I don’t want to eat apples from China or any other country that allows toxic stuff on fruit.

“So ... the choice of what and how much to label is not easy.”

Sure it is. Country of origin. Genetically modified or not. Tiny label.

“and based on clearly demonstrated hazards. Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods, there is no justification for labelling.”

Heck I doubt it has even been tested. Certainly, it has not been around enough to do a longitudinal study on human health. I can tell you I heard that an Amish guy dumped GMO corn out and even the deer around here won’t eat it...

“The anti-GMO radicals”

Pejorative language.

“want labelling precisely because they want to create an imputation of risk, as people assume that labels do, in fact, relate to tangible regulatory findings. In other words, the radicals deliberately want the labels to mislead. That is what the fuss is about.”

You are being a great mind-reader in this statement, except you do not know their motives.

Free markets let consumers make choices. Let them choose. Don’t be afraid. Markets respond to consumer choice. If not many consumers want Chinese apples sprayed with lead, not many will sell. I you want them, go ahead and eat them.

The problem occurs when you withhold information because YOU know what is best for everyone. That is not conservative. That is not free choice. That is not free market.


18 posted on 04/10/2014 2:25:51 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods
There's never been a serious study of adverse health effects from long-term use of GM foods. It takes decades for the problems that dwarf wheat causes to appear, if there are problems with GM foods, it could take just as long.
19 posted on 04/10/2014 2:33:01 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

An Amish crew put the addition on our house last year. They were impressed by my garden, and became even more so when I told them I only plant heirlooms. They told us they won’t use gmo seeds, and even commented on the squirrels and deer not eating it.


20 posted on 04/10/2014 3:15:31 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

It’s just a bill, it’s only a bill, and it’s sitting there on Capitol Hill.


21 posted on 04/10/2014 5:14:46 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The PASSING LANE is for PASSING, not DAWDLING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The labeling requirement is not neutral or purely informational — it is part of an agenda that promotes the view that there is something wrong with GMO foods.


22 posted on 04/10/2014 5:37:54 PM PDT by Socon-Econ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

“They told us they won’t use gmo seeds, and even commented on the squirrels and deer not eating it.”

I keep hearing this. If deer and squirrels instinctually know not to eat GMO foods, it doesn’t seem people should either.

A label would allow consumers to make their own decisions.


23 posted on 04/10/2014 5:48:23 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I recall reading some study recently that the herbicide Glyphosate (or some such) accumulates in the tissues of animals that eat the grain/corn that was modified to withstand it.


24 posted on 04/10/2014 6:44:17 PM PDT by Conflict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Cows not exposed to GMOs through their feed had significantly lower levels of glyphosate in their urine than cows fed GMO-containing feed. In the latter group, high concentrations of glyphosate and its metabolites were also found in the cows’ intestines, livers, muscles, spleens and kidneys, demonstrating how the chemical progressively accumulates throughout the body.
Similar findings were observed in the hares, rabbits and humans exposed to GMOs. Conventional feeding protocols were found to produce much higher levels of glyphosate poisoning in humans than non-GM and organic feeding protocols.


25 posted on 04/10/2014 6:44:17 PM PDT by Conflict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


26 posted on 04/10/2014 8:15:55 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson