Fate of Vermont’s Historic GMO-Labeling Law in US Senate’s Hands (Who Are Voting on a Pathetic “Compromise” Bill)

Posted by on July 4, 2016 in Government, Policies with 0 Comments
PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay group began making label changes on a nationwide basis a couple of months in advance of the July 1 deadline. (Photo: Consumerist)

PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay group began making label changes on a nationwide basis a couple of months in advance of the July 1 deadline. (Photo: Consumerist)

By Deirdre Fulton | Common Dreams

As the nation's first GMO labeling law takes effect, food policy experts are warning that its benefits could be “fleeting,” should the U.S. Senate pass a so-called “compromise” bill this week that would nullify Vermont's historic law as well as other state efforts in the works.

Vermont's law (pdf) requiring food manufacturers to clearly state whether a product is “produced with genetic engineering” went into effect Friday.

“Vermont had the courage to say, ‘If it's the right thing to do, what are we waiting for,'” Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin told a rally of about 150 people on the Statehouse steps. He asked supporters of the law to celebrate on social media under the hashtag#WeLabeledGMOS.

“But this victory may be fleeting,” cautioned Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “The Senate will vote next week on a federal bill that would nullify Vermont's law, and other state labeling efforts percolating, thanks to the heavy hand the ag-biotech industry wields over our congressional representatives.”

Republican chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee Pat Roberts, of Kansas, and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow, of Michigan, announced the so-called “compromise”bill—which has less stringent requirements—last month. Food safety advocateshave decried the legislation (pdf) as anti-consumer, inadequate, and “inherently discriminatory.”

As Hauter wrote in an op-ed on Friday:

Advocates of GMO labeling have pushed for clear, on-package language, just like what’s required under the Vermont law. But the Senate bill would allow manufacturers to post “call for more information” phone numbers or even smart phone “QR codes” if they so desire—meaning that if you have a phone with the right app installed, a steady hand and a solid data connection you’ll be able to access a website that will tell you what’s in the food you’re buying.

That’s not a label—that’s a hassle.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) last week called it “bad federal legislation” and vowed to do what he can do defeat the bill, which is expected to come up for a vote this week. He tweeted to that effect on Sunday:

The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes: “If the new bill passes the Senate, it must still pass the House, which earlier voted for a bill that places a national ban on on-package GMO disclosure.”

It's a race against the clock, one industry lobbyist told Capital Press. “If Congress does not pass this bill by the 15th [when it goes on recess until after Labor Day], it won’t get taken up until September, which is much, much, much too late,” said Roger Lowe, executive vice president of strategic communications for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.

Save

Tags: , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to a friend