I also think there would be no need for such a law if people weren't so easy to panic about imagined dangers.
What does the following list have in common?
Haliburton Koch Monsanto NRA Christians
Affordable Care Act
Any questions?
I like raw milk and I can see where I buy it from.
Grocery store items I can not see where it comes from.
While I think the bill has no real merit the biggest problem I have with it is the fact it takes away states rights....
"This bill preempts state and local restrictions on GMOs or GMO food and labeling requirements for GMOs, GMO food, non-GMO food, or “natural” food."
I need to add - the regulation of interstate commerce is one of the most abused powers of the feds.
SUSTAINABLE POLICIES = Seig heil socialism
Why not just good food? This looks like a "decoy" org. to me.
Why don't non-GMO just label themselves non-GMO and use that marketing to claim that market share?
Problem solved. Folks who don't care aren't going to read labels or inspections/certifications. Only adds to the cost of already expensive food items. Want organic, non-GMO.... YOU pay for organic or non-GMO.
Honestly... I don't need anyone looking out for or caring about it for me. If they want to... knock yourselves out. Everybody needs a hobby...
"GMOs have been an important part of our nation’s food supply for the past 20 years, and 70-80 percent of the foods people eat in the United States contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered."
As long as we have the population we have with the skill sets we have, GMOs and industrial husbandry will be required.
That stated, there is so much 1/2 truth in the food labeling now, the consumer must expect the worst unless thoroughly vetted.
I have no problem with a national GMO labeling law. Having 50 different state standards would serve to allow on the big producers to survive. The little guy would have no shot with his startup barbecue sauce business, for example.
Further, given congress has approval ratings in the single digits, anything that hits he floor should be subject to an endoscopic level of scrutiny.
As for cost, Spike is 100% correct. Current HC regulations make me fiscally liable for everyone else's nutritional negligence and misgivings.
Spike does live on the political fringe and he does expose himself accordingly but I don't see this subject as gratuitous at all.
If biofuels, solar, and wind are such a good idea, let those pushing them pay the full price instead of forcing the rest of us to pay for it.
The federal government has no constitutional ability to make me pay for the words that inform me.
I don't think it should have to be a government program, but how is "organic" measured and assured for consumers? It probably requires a system to be in place for measuring and assuring the food meets the criteria.
HA/KS's Link
I am of like mind with Spike. I differ regarding the legislation in the OP but I am blood kin to his perspective.
If you trust Monsanto, eat the unlabeled stuff that has extra pesticide/herbicide levels in it "naturally" due to genetic modification. It's your liver and your dime.
I search out the labels now to find such info as carbohydrate levels and serving sizes, and country of origin. I will take the extra time to also seek out the "GMO Free" label if I think there's sufficient reason to do so.
I can't bring myself to trust the government with the responsibility of guaranteeing my food safety to any greater extent than I already do. Based on past performance, I'll trust the market forces further than either the government OR Monsanto.
I am so mixed on this subject. Corn was a small weed thousands of years ago and store bought tomatoes taste like crap.
.5 grams of edible plastic per serving in our food isn't required to be labeled currently and I don't trust politicians not to bow to donors.
So let's not get personal over watchdogs on either side when it comes to our food supply. We already know that Congress critters don't read bills before they vote.
That is what I was hoping this thread would offer some insight.
Back in the day bad milk was commonplace from farmers around cities and led to pasteurization becoming law.
We also already have food labels we are paying for.
Same problem with MJ being illegal we don't know whats in it...;^)
Great points being made, and as others said I am conflicted. Consumers should have relevant information regarding a purchase, but at what costs? Multiple and possibly conflicting state regulations can present a significant financial burden as well as confusion. A single federal regulatory framework would leave me at least uneasy about outside influence.
Not sure where I stand as of yet. See both points, but with the additional news regarding glyphosate recently, I am wondering more about the safety of our food. Everyone in our family, doctors, PA and nurses are very particular about food selection and spend more time than I am willing to researching information. I am at least leaning towards consumers should have access in some fashion to information regarding safety, nutrional value etc.
I don't know if it is weather related or not, we have had well above average rainfall in my area, but crop dusting is big business again. One brand new plane in our area. My observations the several times I have seen it is over corn. The stuff they are spraying is not for weed control I would think as I was told by the farmer they only put down 4 ounces per acre.
My brother is a pilot in GA and said just this weekend that crop dusting is really making a come back in his area.
Obviously diseases mutate and there will always be new challenges, but one does have to give some pause to possible links to cancer. I sprayed last week over 400 gallons, some of it was Gly, but other was for serecia. Always feel a little mist occasionally with a boom sprayer and open air tractor. Sure makes me uneasy the more I read,
