Dusty Dan GMO Labeling

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Vermont has passed a genetically engineered (GMO) labeling act, and the Governor intends to sign it.

On Thursday May 8th at 2:30 Governor Shumlin plans to sign H.112 (Vermont’s GMO labeling bill) in to law on the steps of the State House.

http://www.vtrighttoknowgmos.org/celebrate-us-state-house/

Good news! This means that a portion of roughly 2% of the GMOs that are grown will most likely be labeled. Hopefully. Just make sure to read between the lines for those oh, so pesky exemptions.

Vermont labeling bill:

§ 4094. EXEMPTIONS
The following foods shall not be subject to the labeling requirements of section 4093 of this title:

(1) Food consisting entirely of or derived entirely from an animal which has not itself been produced with genetic engineering, regardless of whether the animal has been fed or injected with any food or drug produced with genetic engineering.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/intro/H-112.pdf

Since most genetically engineered crops are grown for livestock consumption and fuel, tell me again how labeling will prevent the spread of GMOs.

Mountains of documents have been produced by scientists who have graphically detailed the dangers of GMOs and Glyphosate, and people are being sickened daily by genetically engineered, pesticide-soaked, USDA and FDA approved crop mutations just so the chemical industry can make a buck. We are eating animals that are pumped full of GMOs and Glyphosate and dumped into our food supply, but not to worry, some of this mess just might actually get labeled. Just not the GMO and Glyphosate-filled, sickened animals. Yippee!!!

Okay, how exactly did we get to this point?

Hmmmm… Let’s see… Take good people, inform them of the dangers of GMOs, then purposely lead them down the path of labeling, not banning as the solution, then include exemptions that leave out one of the most prolific GMO sectors – animal feed, then laugh all the way to the bank because you know that this will be a long, hard fight, and even if you win, GMOs will still be around, so you will still have a job fighting them tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that…

Sounds like a tactic straight out of the Monsanto Play Book, but who am I to point out that inconvenient little detail? So, for now, let’s all hold hands and rejoice that for a limited time only, we will be allowed to actually eat GMO-free if are aware enough to read between the lines on the label. That is, until the other 98% of GMO crops contaminates the rest of our natural crops and the definition of GMO-free has to be changed, once again, to allow for just a bit more of a percentage of GMO contamination. But not to worry, because maybe, just maybe, 2% of that might just get labeled. Maybe…

Until then, we can simply hide our heads in the sand and pretend that we are eating healthier because the label tells us so. And don’t forget to plan a party celebrating the victory!

Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts…

©2014 Barbara H. Peterson

Print Friendly
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “GMOs – Labeling the 2%”

  1. Michael Doll says:

    One has to wonder how long the paradigm of food and nutrition has been in development. If, (as has been suggested) corn, alfalfa, rapeseed, soy (and now wheat gluten) are not food, who established these as food and for what purpose? Who gains from a society that is sick and not operating at a high level. I shudder at the implications.

  2. Goldbug36 says:

    The big problem is that farmers are hopelessly tied up in the lies, promises and agreements they have signed, and the local Farm Bureaus are actively promoting GMOs and deadly chemicals. If you tell any of these folks that GMOs should be banned, they equate that with a loss of farm and livelihood. Strange, isn’t it, that they have no problem with poisoning their own families, friends and neighbors?

  3. molecule says:

    @ george and barb

    I totally agree. GMOs need to be banned, period.

    And then I started to look deeper.

    The economics of REAL farming are such that NONE of the crops which have been GMO’d are needed either. I now believe that Michio Kushi was right — the corn itself is the poison, even without GMO.

    The same goes for cotton, soy, rape, and maybe even the alfalfa. Greg Judy is right — after millions of years, the microbes in a healthy soil already have within themselves and their environment, all of the seeds, for all of the grasses that are native to that soil, in that location, in that environment. (see youtube of Greg Judy at VABF — where he spoke at a Virginia Biological Farmers conference.)

    Corn makes animals sick, there are better and cheaper grains to feed them. Cotton is not necessary, and should be replaced with hemp. Soy has lots of better alternatives as well. There are lots of oils more profitable for the farmer and better for animals and man than canola (rape).

    It’s crazy — right from the start, everything that Monsanto decided to GMO was actually bad economics for the farmer and bad health for animals, soil and humanity. That’s part of the story that needs to be developed and shared.

    Ban the GMOs and the products that are now already contaminated beyond repair with “stray GMO” as well.

  4. george says:

    We’ve simply got to BAN GMO’s from our crops… ALL crops. Labeling does virtually nothing to rid ourselves of this scourge. There is ample evidence that ingesting GMO’s along with glyphosate and other herbicides is causing disease, premature aging, and sterility.

  5. Abe says:

    Barb,
    I’m sure that’s true. I would fall into that class. I think this goes hand in hand with those secret meetings Monsatan, the GMA, and the usual suspects held. TRANSPARENCY. BS!
    BTW your opinion carries more weight to me than anything all the presstitutes, or pollitical whores in DC would think.

  6. I think that there are some very honest and genuine people involved in the “Right to Know” campaign who are being led astray by a corrupt to the bone leadership. But that’s only my opinion ;)

  7. Abe says:

    Your right Barb! I think the “Right to Know” group is controlled opposition against the “GMO Free” groups. I’ve given the right to know in my state tonnes of peer reviewed papers to put on there web site. To date, a big fat NADA!
    I know when I talk about it, it’s not just foods. It’s drugs, vaccines, vitamins & supplements, animal feed, and cotton products. Some fodder is at (by the gooberment glyphosate standards) 400PPM. This is 800 times the amount known to be an endocrine disrupter. Don’t need to be a mathamatician to see the obvious here!
    The elephant hasn’t left the room dispite what the cheerleaders say.

  8. molecule says:

    Excellent research Barb.

    I’m coming to think that Greg Judy and Ian Mitchell may have it right. (Search Greg Judy VABF on youtube.) Their idea of pleomorphism and pasture development are too radical to mention.

    I’m wondering if we should be avoiding all foods like corn, that are unable to (a) strengthen a soil while at the same time (b) reproduce themselves au naturel. As I understand maize, it is not able to reproduce itself, by itself, without shucking and planting by man. In other words, left entirely to itself, with no intervention of any kind whatsoever, the pleomorphic or evolutionary intelligence within the microbes of the soil will resist reproduction of corn. All societies and cultures which have adopted corn as a mainstay of their diet have been reduced to slavery, or have become voluntarily extinct, primarily due to obesity and loss of ability to reproduce. That’s the exact description of corn in the plant world.

    In other words, if poisoning power was measured on a pH scale, +7 would be maximally nutritious, 0 neutral, and -7 would be maximally poisonous. In that case, GMO corn might be a -4, but organic corn might be even MORE poisonous, to our soil and to our guts, i.e. a -6 or something. It’s the corn itself, organic or not, that destroys soil and culture.

    Soy was also never used as a food. It was treated only as a weed fertilizer to be plowed back in. (Unless fermented, whereupon aspargillus microbes are trained for 2 years to eat the poison in the soy, so that when injested, they remove the same poisons from the gut.)