by Christina Sarich
A document composed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) containing purposefully misleading information and politically charged language is meant to sway lawmakers into rejecting GMO labeling laws at the state level. While both Maine and Connecticut have passed GMO labeling laws, they are contingent on four other surrounding states adopting similar laws before they can be put into action.
Monsanto and other food manufacturers who use GMOs in their products are starting yet another propaganda campaign to keep labeling laws at bay and to try to convince the general public that GMO labeling is unconstitutional – all while they trying to sway the FDA and federal courts to make them impervious to GMO lawsuits themselves. They are even threatening states now.
The document refuses to accept that GMO cross-contamination happens all the time, and lists a bunch of regulatory agencies who are essentially their cohorts in promoting GMO as reliable sources for GMO safety:
According to the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association leaked document:
“The World Health Organization, The American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
They dare make this statement with independent research proving GMO and RoundUp, the herbicide often used in conjunction with suicide seeds, is causing the death of human fetal tissue, cancer, gastrointestinal disease, and reproductive failure. It’s absolutely insane.
Furthermore, while GMO consists of a large majority of the foods we are eating, since they are in soy, corn, wheat, and other major food crops used in much of our convenience foods including Cheerios, Pepsi, Coke, and even Nestle chocolate, they are not in heirloom, organic foods which many of us would prefer to eat anyhow. But the Association claims GMOs are in 80%of our food supply.
The document is also eager to point out that “California’s Proposition 37 in 2012 requiring GMO labeling was defeated and Washington’s Initiative 522 in 2013 requiring GMO labeling was defeated.” A hint to other states thinking of trying to beat this behemoth that contributes money illegally to slush funds promoting GMO? The document goes on to state:
“VII. WHAT IS THE RISK TO YOUR STATE OF ADOPTING A GMO LABELING LAW?
• The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy.
• Litigation in this area could be long, costly and will probably be decided by the Supreme Court.
• Your state would proceed with almost no regulatory or scientific basis for a new unique labeling requirement.
• Your state would proceed despite not being a part of the “trigger” mechanism required in the Maine and Connecticut legislation.
WHY SHOULD YOUR STATE BE THE FIRST TO ADOPT A LABELING REQUIREMENT THAT HAS NO HEALTH BASIS OR REASON?
Currently, the FDA “only requires labeling of genetically modified foods if the food’s composition is materially altered (e.g. the food is modified to include an allergen such as peanut proteins that consumers would not expect to be present).” While this is true – the food is altered – drastically.
Biotech says labeling is unconstitutional and unnecessary. This is getting simply bughouse (no pun intended), bonkers, insane! Since when can biotech tell us what is or isn’t constitutional. They have no concept of that phrase. Will anyone stop them? We sure are trying.