Yesterday I made a glorious #AgNerd discovery; I can watch CSPAN live on my computer, which means I was able to listen in on much of yesterday’s Senate Farm Bill debates. While I never knew there was so much controversy about catfish, 
I will save that for another post. Now I will admit I was somewhat tuning in and out of the floor speeches as I went about my work day, but one particular amendment caught my attention.
Senator Sanders from Vermont introduced an amendment that would require the labeling of all food products that contain genetically engineered organisms (GMOs). The amendment, which is being co-sponsored by Senator Boxer from California, was described by Senator Sanders as “not a terribly radical idea.” (Although I differ in that opinion.)
Not surprisingly, the senator was quick to point the finger at Monsanto, at least 6 times within his 15-minute speech (yes, I counted). He attacked Monsanto for their financial successes and record returns, but failed to recognize that Monsanto is a business just like any other. We encourage businesses, and society in general for that matter, to strive to put their best foot forward. We don’t strike down athletes that win a race, we reward them, and the same can be said in business. A successful business, like Monsanto, is nothing more than an athlete that has learned how to stay ahead in the race we call the world of agri-business.
As for the amendment, I will admit that as of right now I don’t support it. While Senator Sanders preaches that the American consumers “deserve to know what they are eating,” I fear that this will only fuel the fire of our already “label-happy” society. The senator acknowledges that the FDA already requires the labeling of approximately 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes in food products. However, GMOs are not going to make you fat like trans-fats or trigger allergic reactions like peanuts. These products have been used in the American food supply for decades, and I believe they should continue as such without this unnecessary labeling.
While you know where I stand on the issue of GMO labeling, I would like to know your opinion and encourage you to fill out the poll below.
- To watch Senator Sanders speech on the Senate floor, click HERE and scroll to 1:29
I think we need moe support and encouragement of the GMO free labels that already exist. These labels, like the Non-GMO project label are working hard to reach the segment of our society that wishes to have non-organic, GMO free foods. However it’s a tough task as Americans are not willing to pay the extra premium other countries are pay that allow farmers to affordablh it grow GMO free crops. That said I am confused as to why we want to force every food company to spend resources on an Identity preservation program of their engridients so they know if they can label them as GMO free or not when the majority of Americans are not supporting the voluntary programs that are already in existence.
Not knowing what I’m paying MY MONEY to buy and eat!? That is the most self-serving position I’ve heard of yet. There are hundreds of Peer-Reviewed Studies tying GMO Foods with a variety of maladies, birth defects, and genetic dysfunctions. If YOU want to blithely ignore all that, it’s your CHOICE.
As an American, who would rather NOT “roll those dice”, I EXPECT to be advised of the presence of GMO’s in the food I’m expected to pay for.
If you were giving it away for free, you might have an argument. You’re not, so crazy me, I REQUIRE foreknowledge about what my money buys.
As a former Mortgage Originator, I was required by law to Pre-Disclose and Mortgages don’t normally come with health hazards.
As to the costs-really? How much does it really cost to print “May contain GM ingredients” on the label, and if Farmers are concerned they might lose Market-share if folks knew what they were being sold, that’s a thought they should have had at planting time-n’est pas?
So color me “Label Happy”.
The last time I checked, this was America-NOT North Korea…we do “CHOICE’ around here. Folks have given their lives to make it so. So, we’ll not have a bunch of profiteering Ag-Corp gangsters attempting to marginalize that sacrifice in the name of profits.
Hi Dr. Rex,
I am curious why you think you don’t have a choice, there are several non gmo labels out there as well as organic labels that do not contain GMO’s. I have not read any peer reviewed studies that had a convincing argument tht GMO’s are bad for one’s health, but understand why you would still want to avoid them, thus support all the voluntary labels tht are available and wish there were more companies selling them, and there will be if and when companies feel there is enough of a demand to support the cost of the identity preservation steps to ensure their label is accurate. That said I assume any food I buy contains GMO’s unless labeled otherwise, and am completely fine with that and would be a little perturbed if the cost went up just because a few people felt differently and forced companies to track and test all their ingredients to ensure they were labeling all their products correctly.
Thanks Mike! I couldn’t have said it better.
I’m NOT fine with that.
To deny me the truth about ingredients WAS originally covered by the FDA’s “Truth In Labeling Act”, which was not expended to cover GMO’s.
As for “Peer-Reviewed Studies”, I’d be happy to supply them, but generally in the past, when I have done so, the folks who read them denied their validity. A great place to start, if you REALLY want to search, is the work of Dr Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Purdue University, who tracked down issues with Glyphosate over a decade ago, as well as prognosticated the Rootworm Plague currently attacking Bt Corn in Illinois and Iowa.
As I mentioned, laws governing most Professional Practices, and Ms. Thompson, as an Attorney, should more than know this, requires disclosure, particularly when monies are being exchanged. When I pay for something, it is lawful and appropriate to disclose the nature, character and substance of what I’m paying for. It is a simple covenant transaction, and as such, should also be covered by precedents in transactional law.
To do less is exactly WHY the FDA is conducting armed raids on sellers of Nutritional Substances. Even though the sellable containers contain the ingredients, along with the Federally mandated FDA disclaimer, the FDA has decided to raid the purveyors and to confiscate and destroy all stock seized none-the-less.
Simply put, you don’t get to have it both ways. Pick one and stand up for it, or prepare for a lot of labeling.
Here’s yet another well-conceived and reasonable article in favor of labeling-you won’t read it, likely, but it IS reasonable, and now you have the opportunity: http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html
Does anyone read the labels from the start? Furthermore, if you are that concerned about what you are eating, shouldn’t you be eating foods that don’t have labels? FWIW – I read the labels – mostly to ascertain calorie counts (the frau needs to lose weight and I am the gatekeeper) and indeed, 70% of what we eat doesn’t come with labels, and the other 30% says milk, chicken, cheese, etc..
Yep…I read them. I like to get the most, the best-all for the least. Blame my Choctaw Grandmother.
I don’t know if GMO foods are a problem or not, but I do think that the public has a right to make an informed decision.
However, that’s not even my biggest problem with the failure of this amendment. The amendment WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED labeling. It only ALLOWS STATES to require it. How does the Federal Government have the right to prohibit states from enacting a labeling requirement?
If, and I’ll leave them unnamed at this point, contribute enough grease to the right squeaky wheels-they won’t squeak…for now. Even the St Louis Paper is increasingly openly reporting the cascading bad news. It’s all a house of cards and it’s starting to fall.
“I will bring to ruin those ruining the earth…” Yah’weh said it-you can count on it.