About these ads

Food: Fierce battle expected over Colorado GMO labeling ballot initiative

The best breakfast was this plate of biscuits and gravy at the pet-friendly Fountain Inn motel in Newcastle, Wyoming.

What’s in your food?

National consumer advocacy group joins fray

Staff Report

FRISCO — Coloradans this November will have a chance to decide whether they want to know if their food includes genetically manipulated foods via a ballot initiative (Proposition 105) that would require GMO labeling.

Giant agribusinesses like Monsanto, who don’t want to see their products stigmatized, oppose the measure, but proponents of the initiative will get some help from the national level, as the Organic Consumers Association pledged $50,000 to support the ballot measure.

“The hard-working activists at Colorado Right to Know have succeeded in getting this critical initiative on the ballot in November,” said Ronnie Cummins,international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate Via Organica.  “This is great news for the GMO labeling movement—and bad news for Monsanto and Big Food, which will now have to battle consumers in two states in November—Colorado and Oregon.”

Oregon Right to Know succeeded earlier this summer in getting Ballot Measure 92 on the November ballot, prompting an influx of money from the biotech and processed food industries which have vowed to oppose GMO labeling laws in all states, and at the federal level.

Earlier this year, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced a bill in Congress that would not only preempt state GMO labeling laws, but also legalize the use of the word “natural” on genetically engineered food products.

In May, Vermont passed a mandatory GMO labeling law. Industry, backed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the International Dairy Foods Association, has filed suit to overturn Vermont’s law. Maine and Connecticut passed similar laws in 2013, but those laws contain “trigger” clauses which prevent the laws from being enacted unless neighboring states also pass mandatory labeling laws.

 

 

About these ads

2 Responses

  1. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. – Wiki
    After all, all plants have been genetically modified over time, one way or the other. Another waste of time and money IMO.

  2. The primary trait that they are looking to impose on GMO crops are herbicidal tolerances “round up ready”, not larger, better corn or soy beans. all around a bad idea not only does more of the herbicide makes its way into our food supply “after absorption the plant never excretes the chemicals” it makes its way into our water ways and into our oceans killing as it spreads.. so they can see themself selling more chemicals which eventually the farmers will switch to other chemical means when the pests and weeds grow tolerant to those chemicals(futility at its best). Eating a GMO raised organically i would think is relatively safe. but that is not the idea behind the GMOs the Grain belt’s producing. This will not improve our food supply and will not add resilience to our very fragile food supply, so why are we doing it….

    be careful using Wikipedia, its a public forum monsanto is probably the one publishing that. They have a lot to gain from these deals.

    http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,634 other followers

%d bloggers like this: