Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 764

Do State GMO Label Laws Need to be Blocked in Favor of a To Be Determined National Standard?

Argument in favor

National labeling standards would level the playing field for producers by avoiding a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling regulations. This bill also gives consumers more information about their food and could save them over $500 per year.

Sebi's Opinion
···
07/08/2016
GMOs have no proven impact on human health, the idea of science altering food just scares some people
Like (27)
Follow
Share
Steven's Opinion
···
03/15/2016
We have to learn to look at the long game. Not simply back projects that turn an immediate profit. You can't drink eat or breathe money. And all the riches in the world mean nothing if we're all dead because our planet is uninhabitable.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Nick's Opinion
···
03/17/2016
We need consistency in our labels across the states..
Like (10)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Preventing states from keeping or enacting GMO labeling regulations that are stronger than the new federal standards ignores public opinion in places that want strict requirements. People should be able to know what’s in their food.

Melanie's Opinion
···
03/17/2016
93% of Americans want to know what's in their food. This bill is purely supporting the desires and profit lines of Big Food and Big Biotech, not the American people.
Like (61)
Follow
Share
jjennetta8's Opinion
···
03/17/2016
Voting 'Yay' supports the producers unwillingness to disclose crucial information about our food, disregarding the wishes of many Americans. However, without national standards some states may choose to completely blow off their responsibility to label foodstuffs correctly. Thus, amending this bill to have the FDA set minimum standards for GMO labeling while letting states label food even more comprehensively if they so please is a plausible solution to this conundrum.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
Alex's Opinion
···
07/07/2016
This law also called the "Dark Act" would enable only voluntary labelling of food and would overwrite many state laws that require GMO labeling. People have a right to know what's in their food.
Like (17)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • EnactedJuly 29th, 2016
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The house Passed July 14th, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 306 Yea / 117 Nay
      house Committees
      Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
      Committee on Natural Resources
  • The senate Passed July 28th, 2015
    Passed by Voice Vote
      senate Committees
      Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    IntroducedMarch 17th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is Senate Bill S. 764?

Update July 6, 2016: This bill was co-opted through the amendment process from its original form to serve as the legislative vehicle for genetically modified organism (GMOs) labeling standards. Originally, this legislation reauthorized the National Sea Grant College Program through 2021, with funding going to sea grant colleges, sea grant institutes, sea grant programs, and sea grant projects.

Then it served as the Senate version of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would let the FDA to create a nationwide, uniform system for reviewing and labeling genetically engineered foods before they go to market after studying the issue. It was proposed in response to contentious efforts by nearly 30 states to implement their own GMO labeling regulations, this bill would allow the establishment of federal labeling standards that preempt all state and local laws on the matter. The legislation was then replaced another similar GMO labeling proposal crafted by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

In its current form, this bill would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a national GMO labeling standard within two years which would supersede all state or local labeling requirements. All food manufacturers would be required to have a label related to GMO content of some sort was the FDA's standard goes into effect.

The FDA would be responsible for figuring out all aspects of the labeling standard — like when a disclosure is required and how it evaluates claims. Once a GMO product has made it through the federal review process, it would be treated as no more or less safe than an organic product. (Certified organic products would also be able to claim that they're "non-GMO").

The new GMO label could be required to take a number of forms, whether it's text or a symbol of some sort, or a bar code. Businesses would also have alternative ways to comply with the labeling requirement when dealing with small packages. Small food manufacturers would be given an extra year to comply with the eventual standard.

There would be noteworthy exceptions to the eventual national standard — meat and dairy products. Both wouldn't be required to have a GMO label simply because the animal that produced the meat or dairy may have eaten bioengineered feedstock. Restaurants also wouldn't be required to label food that they serve.

The federal government wouldn't have the power to recall products that don't comply with the standard, and this bill wouldn't create federal penalties for violations. It does, however, leave the door open for states creating their own punishments.

Impact

Anyone who eats, advocates for and against GMO labeling; food, agricultural, and other businesses that must comply with the regulations; states or localities that would otherwise enact their own GMO labeling regulations; and the FDA.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 764

$4.00 Million
The CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost a total of about $4 million over the 2016-2020 period. It would also increase both direct spending and revenues by an estimated $1 million each annually, and as a result its net impact on the federal budget would be negligible.

More Information

Of Note: While the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization have all said that GMOs are safe, consumers are still worried about what is going into their food. About 90 percent of the corn, soybeans, and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered — usually to make them more pest resistant or use less water.

After a 2013-14 state legislative period that saw 28 states consider GMO labeling legislation, so far in 2015 there have been 101 state-level bills addressing GMO labeling introduced. 15 of those bills have become law in 13 states. Most of these laws dealt with using scientific research to assess the best methods to regulate GMOs, and assessments of the need to regulate them, while four bills actually adopted food labeling standards.

There are also groups lobbying for state-level initiatives to require GMO labeling in 21 states, and in the 2014 elections groups in Colorado and Oregon managed to get their initiatives on the ballot. The Colorado initiative was rejected by a 66 to 34 percent margin, but Oregon’s ballot measure was defeated by a narrow margin of 50.03 to 49.97 percent — with only 837 voters making up the difference.

A law in Vermont related to GMO labels went into effect in July 2016, prompting the Senate to amend and consider this legislation.

In-Depth: When introducing the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (the predecessor to the current GMO bill) in the House, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) cited positive feedback from both producers and consumers following a December hearing that the bill would “provide clarity and transparency in food labeling, support innovation, and keep food affordable.”

Cosponsor Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) concurred, expressing skepticism about the ability of states to independently regulate food labels: 

“The potential for a 50 state patchwork of varying labeling standards would increase costs for producers and translate into higher prices for consumers to the tune of more than $500 per year for the average family.”

Groups such as Just Label It!, the Environmental Working Group, and the Center for Food Safety have rallied against the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, derisively calling it the “Deny Consumers the Right to Know Act.” The executive director of the Center for Food Safety said that:

“This bill is simply not the solution Americans are looking for. An overwhelming majority of American consumers want to know if their food has been produced using genetic engineering. That is their right and they will not relent until Congress or the FDA heed their call.”

This House version of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was approved by the House Agriculture Committee via voice vote, and currently features 106 cosponsors — including 91 Republicans and 15 Democrats.



Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user quin.anya)

AKA

A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.

Official Title

A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.

    GMOs have no proven impact on human health, the idea of science altering food just scares some people
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    93% of Americans want to know what's in their food. This bill is purely supporting the desires and profit lines of Big Food and Big Biotech, not the American people.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Voting 'Yay' supports the producers unwillingness to disclose crucial information about our food, disregarding the wishes of many Americans. However, without national standards some states may choose to completely blow off their responsibility to label foodstuffs correctly. Thus, amending this bill to have the FDA set minimum standards for GMO labeling while letting states label food even more comprehensively if they so please is a plausible solution to this conundrum.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    We as consumers have the right to know what we are putting into our bodies. To avoid labeling food indicates that their is something in the ingredients that is not healthy for the human body. America needs to be more aware of the dangers of GMO, they need to know what is really in their food.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    This law also called the "Dark Act" would enable only voluntary labelling of food and would overwrite many state laws that require GMO labeling. People have a right to know what's in their food.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    We have to learn to look at the long game. Not simply back projects that turn an immediate profit. You can't drink eat or breathe money. And all the riches in the world mean nothing if we're all dead because our planet is uninhabitable.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Plain and simple: I want to know what is in my food. Period. If my state is the only one that will let me know, that is a start.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    MAKE LABELING OF ALL GMOs MANDATORY - OR BAN THEM ALL!!! ‘Consumed’ — A Film Where Fiction Melds With GMO Facts By Dr. Mercola "Consumed" is a fictional action thriller about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) foods. The lead character is a single mother who is desperately trying to get to the bottom of her young son's mysterious health problems. Her struggle to learn the truth intersects with other storylines, including that of an organic farmer, the CEO of a biotechnology company, two scientists and a former police officer caught in the middle of the unfolding drama. Daryl Wein, who wrote, produced and directed the film, managed to enlist a long line of well-known actors for this film, including Danny Glover, Anthony Edwards, Victor Garber, Taylor Kinney and Kunal Nayyar. In the words of Erin Brockovich: "Entertaining, relatable, suspenseful and informative, and a real eye opener to what is going on. This film has re-inspired and educated me. BRAVO!" Uncommon Ailments Becoming More Common — Do GMOs Have Something to Do With It? The lead character reminds me a bit of Robyn O'Brien, a typical American mom with four kids and a limited food budget who, virtually overnight, became a real food activist when her youngest child suffered an acute allergic reaction following a typical breakfast of Eggo waffles, blue-colored yogurt and scrambled eggs. O'Brien — featured in the TED Talk below — threw herself into researching food allergies, and was shocked by what she found. She'd assumed that if something was sold as food, it was obviously safe and probably, for the most part, healthy. The reality of the situation was a rude awakening. The notion that something is wrong with our food becomes obvious when you look at disease statistics and consider the fact that food is foundational for health. Allergies are a good place to start, as allergic reactions to food occur when your body reacts to a food protein as a foreign invader. This in turn triggers an inflammatory response. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA Our Food Supply Has Been Radically Altered Since the Mid-'90s Between 1997 and 2002 the number of peanut allergies doubled, and the number of hospitalizations related to allergic reactions to food increased by 265 percent. Between 1997 and 2011, food allergies (of all types) among children rose by 50 percent. Today, an estimated 15 million Americans and 17 million Europeans have some form of food allergy. Incidence of celiac disease and other forms of food intolerance have also become more common. So is there something "foreign" in our food today that wasn't there before? Absolutely. There's a whole host of ingredients that could cause problems, including food dyes, artificial flavors, preservatives, various additives and, of course, GMOs. Ever since the mid-1990s, new food proteins have been engineered and steadily introduced into our food supply, yet many are still unaware that a major shift has occurred. One of the first foods to undergo this change was milk, which incidentally is also the No. 1 food allergen in the U.S. A Global Experiment Gone Awry No long-term human trials have ever been done to evaluate the health effects of GE ingredients, and no one knows what the effects of a lifetime's worth of GMO consumption might be. But food is foundational for health, so when people suddenly suffer ill health in great numbers, it makes sense to look at the basics, starting with food. The problem with GMOs is not restricted to novel proteins. GE foods also introduce greater amounts of pesticides into your diet, and such chemicals have also been linked to a long list of health problems, including infertility, birth defects, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders and cancer. More generally: Insecticides primarily produce neurological symptoms Fungicides tend to produce skin-related symptoms Herbicides are associated with digestive and skin problems, including nutritional deficiencies, systemic toxicity and gut dysbiosis What a Difference 20 Years Can Make It's quite astounding how rapidly our food has changed. The first GE food, the Flavr Savr tomato, was approved for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994. The following year, the first pesticide-producing crop was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — the Bt potato. Modified canola, Bt maize, herbicide-resistant cotton, Bt cotton and glyphosate-resistant soybeans followed in rapid succession. In 1997, the European Union (EU) took action to protect the public from what was clearly a mass experiment by requiring mandatory labeling on all GE food products. By 1999, GE food crops equipped with herbicide-resistant genes were already starting to dominate the global market, and today, the vast majority of all soy, corn and cotton grown in the U.S. are GE varieties.6, GMOs Were Fraudulently Presumed GRAS Last year, I interviewed Steven Druker, author of the book "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public," in which he reveals how GMOs managed to infiltrate our food system without appropriate safety testing. In the late 1990s, Druker, who is an attorney, filed a landmark lawsuit challenging the FDA's presumption that GMOs are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), which allows them to circumvent safety testing requirements. The evidence clearly reveals the GRAS presumption was fraudulent when first announced in 1992, and remains so to this day. There's actually a 1958 law requiring that novel food additives must be demonstrated safe. They cannot be presumed safe ahead of time. Each and every one should, by law, undergo stringent safety testing. The FDA broke this law, pretending as if it did not even exist, when it claimed that GE foods are GRAS and don't need to be tested. This dishonest and illegal maneuvering is what allowed inadequately tested GE foods to permeate the American market in the first place. Druker's book also details the irresponsible behavior of eminent scientists and scientific institutions in the earlier decades of the genetic engineering revolution, long before Monsanto's lackey Michael Taylor and the hordes of revolving door cronies came into the picture. The Origins of the GMO Safety Myth Genetic engineering first became a reality back in the early 1970s. At the time, molecular scientists were in charge of these advancements, and it was a breakthrough of truly epic proportions. Even the scientists who were doing it were mindful of how radical it was and how important it was to be careful. Initially, the scientists themselves said there may be dangers associated with this new technology, hence, they had to proceed with extreme prudence. Alas, once they realized that negative feedback from the public could jeopardize the entire field of genetic engineering, potentially blocking its emergence altogether, they quickly changed their tune. Presenting a united front, the molecular biology establishment in favor of pushing genetic engineering forward lobbied for as few regulations as possible. To that end, they also launched a campaign to convince everyone that this technology, while novel, was inherently safe and within their full control, hence stringent regulations were an unnecessary burden. Lax regulations on genetic engineering ultimately set up the framework for the FDA's 1992 GRAS ruling. Had safety regulations for the industry been stricter from the start, it's unlikely the FDA would have been able to pull that off. As noted by Druker: "The biotechnology industry — as irresponsible as they have been by and large — the main guilt lays at the feet of the mainstream molecular biology establishment; the scientists who were doing the research, getting the grants, and wanting to develop this technology. Most of them had altruistic goals. They thought this was going to be used to cure so many ills in the field of medicine ... I think they eventually developed an 'end justifies the means' psychology... [T]he burden of proof that was placed on new technologies and new products, which ordinarily requires the developer to substantiate the safety of the new technology and its products, got shifted. It got shifted because of the subterfuge and the fraud … There were many good scientists who had concerns, but they were all of a sudden put into the position of, 'You've got to prove they're dangerous,' and the burden of proving safety was removed." With GMOs, We Also Got More Pesticides Another book well worth reading is Claire Robinson's "GMO Myths and Truths." It's concise and to-the-point, and provides solid counter arguments to the most commonly reiterated GMO propaganda. The fact of the matter is; genetic engineering is inherently unsafe for a number of reasons. For starters, it has been and still is quite imprecise. This lack of precision carries the risk of producing countless unpredictable side effects, such as the creation of novel and allergenic proteins in a normally non-allergenic food. Secondly, the human understanding of the complexity of life, be it the life of a plant, animal or the human body, is still very limited. We're discovering things we never knew before all the time. Hence the scientists tinkering with plants are incapable of predicting exactly how a modification will affect the plant, let alone those who eat it. And the fact that "they don't know what they don't know" will remain, even if the precision of the technology itself were to be perfected. What we do know is that the creation of foreign proteins is commonplace in genetic engineering of plants — proteins that have toxic or allergenic potential, since they've never been present in the human food supply before. Moreover, most GE plants are engineered to either be herbicide-resistant or to express an internal insecticide. Both scenarios result in more pesticides being present in the food, and many of today's disease epidemics can be traced back to excessive pesticide exposure as well. 'Consumed' — Where Fact and Fiction Merge I hope you enjoy this special limited-time viewing of "Consumed." Also remember to share it with your friends and family on your social networks. Education is key, and while the film may be fictional, the underlying story is all too real. Our food has changed, and dramatically so. The ramifications of these changes can be severe. One take-home message is to really consider whether your, or your children's, ailments may be rooted in the food you eat. Don't just assume or accept that your health problems are inherited, or "in your head" (as suggested by one pediatrician in the film), or caused by some "inevitable" natural factor in your environment. Your problems may well be caused by unnatural foods, in which case there's light at the end of the tunnel. Change your diet; change your health. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh, real foods. If cost makes you hesitant to seek out organic foods, consider the fact that what little you save on conventional and processed foods today, you'll ultimately have to spend on healthcare. And then some. Non-toxic, healthy nutritious food is really the best health insurance you can buy. EatWild.com EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce wholesome raw dairy products as well as grass-fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass-fed products. Weston A. Price Foundation http://www.westonaprice.org/get-involved/find-local-chapter/ Weston A Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter. Grassfed Exchange https://grassfedexchange.com/ The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass-fed meats across the U.S. Local Harvest http://www.localharvest.org/ This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies. Farmers Markets http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets A national listing of farmers markets. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals http://www.eatwellguide.org/ The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) http://www.buylocalfood.org/ CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms. FoodRoutes http://www.foodroutes.org/ The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you. The Cornucopia Institute http://www.cornucopia.org/ The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products, and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO "organic" production from authentic organic practices. RealMilk.com If you're still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund8 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.9 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com. Read more at: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/22/consumed-gmo-foods.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20161022Z1&et_cid=DM122267&et_rid=1721891615 [THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!! Folks, how do you like the idea of you and your family eating Monsanto's WEED KILLER?! Monsanto (which has been bought by BAYER) and our government must be held ACCOUNTABLE for allowing this to happen! This poses a serious threat to our HEALTH, since glyphosate is a known CARCINOGEN!] FDA Finds #Glyphosate in #Honey • Even though the FDA annually examines foods for residues of many pesticides, it has declined to test for glyphosate residues for DECADES. It was only in February of this year that the agency said it would start some limited testing for glyphosate residues. That came after many independent researchers started conducting their own testing on various foods two years ago, finding glyphosate in an array of products, including flour, cereal and oatmeal. • Some of the honey tested by the FDA had glyphosate residues at 107 parts per billion, well more than the 50 parts per billion set as a maximum allowed in the European Union, the documents state. • In addition to honey, the records show government residue experts discussing the prevalence of glyphosate found in soybean samples and the belief that there could be a lot of "violation for glyphosate" residue levels in U.S. crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (#FDA) has found residues of the weed killer glyphosate in samples of U.S. honey, according to documents obtained by the consumer advocacy group U.S. Right to Know through a Freedom of Information Act request. Some samples showed residue levels double the legally allowed limit in the European Union. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FDA1.pdf https://usrtk.org/ There is no legal tolerance level for glyphosate in honey in the U.S., so any amount of detectable glyphosate in honey could technically be considered illegal. Some of the honey tested by the FDA had glyphosate residues at 107 parts per billion, well more than the 50 parts per billion set as a maximum allowed in the European Union, the documents state. https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FDAblankhoney.pdf Records obtained from the FDA, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, by U.S. Right to Know detail a range of revelations about the federal government's efforts to get a handle on rising concerns about glyphosate. In addition to honey, the records show government residue experts discussing the prevalence of glyphosate found in soybean samples and the belief that there could be a lot of "violation for glyphosate" residue levels in U.S. crops. http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-vaccines-1999343362.html Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, is the most widely used herbicide in the world and concerns about glyphosate residues in food increased after the World Health Organization in 2015 said its cancer experts determined glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Other international scientists have raised concerns about how heavy use of glyphosate is impacting human health and the environment. http://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-buys-monsanto-2004657068.html https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf http://www.ecowatch.com/iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-reque-1906676980.html Even though the FDA annually examines foods for residues of many #pesticides, it has declined to test for glyphosate residues for decades. It was only in February of this year that the agency said it would start some limited testing for glyphosate residues. That came after many independent researchers started conducting their own testing on various foods two years ago, finding glyphosate in an array of products, including flour, cereal and oatmeal. http://www.ecowatch.com/fda-to-start-testing-monsantos-glyphosate-in-food-1882175426.html http://www.ecowatch.com/quaker-oats-accused-of-being-deceptive-and-misleading-after-glyphosate-1891128136.html http://www.ecowatch.com/fda-glyphosate-honey-2005556150.html About the Director I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about the director, Daryl Wein, from "Consumed." We sat down with Daryl to know a little more about what goes in to making these films. Thank you to Mr. Wein for sharing with us. What was your inspiration for making this film? Seven years ago, my writing partner and I stumbled onto a subject we knew nothing about: genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It was an engrossing topic, vast in scope, yet undeniably personal. We began the process of trying to understand the true nature of GMOs ourselves; their ramifications on our agriculture, our environment, and potentially our health. From farmers battling BioTech Corporations, to everyday Americans eating new and novel foods unknowingly, we realized there was a deeply interesting and complex web of intriguing subject matter just waiting to be explored in a narrative film. The elements felt part noir, part thriller, and had us on the edge of our seats. Harkening back to some of the great political thrillers of the 1970s, I wanted to revisit a time when filmmakers weren't afraid to blend real world politics with story structure and character development. As a filmmaker, my biggest objective was to make an entertaining film; a film that created a world of characters who were both relatable and emotionally complex, against the iconic backdrop of the American heartland. Whether or not you know anything about the issues, my intention is for the film to stand alone, and to take its audience on a thrilling ride. I saw an opportunity to raise questions around a subject that was impacting us all, but that too few were discussing. I realized only a few documentaries had explored the topic, but there hadn't yet been a narrative film to truly tackle the subject in all its complexities. Rather than the often faceless debate that surrounds the topic of GMOs, we wanted to create a story that explored how real people confront these issues. What it means for the average mother, who doesn't necessarily have access to information, let alone healthy food. We wanted to explore the difficulty of raising a child in this confounding era. In so doing, we honed in on one woman's struggle as the anchor of our story to comprehend this extremely complex subject, in the face of her son's devastating illness. What was your favorite part of making this film? Working with such a great cast of actors, from Danny Glover to Anthony Edwards to Beth Grant, they were such a lovely bunch! Where do the proceeds to your film go? If you buy the film through our website www.consumedthemovie.com, the proceeds go directly to the film and supporting it. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/22/consumed-gmo-foods.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20161022Z1&et_cid=DM122267&et_rid=1721891615
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    We need consistency in our labels across the states..
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    If state laws provide more consumer protection, they shouldn't be overruled by toothless federal laws (like the current one in Congress).
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    This actually seems like a pretty balanced bill to me: don't require labelling unless the FDA has determined, through actual scientific consensus, that labelling is required for public health. In the meantime, prevent states from enacting unscientific and ham-fisted attempts at labelling laws. Meanwhile, establish safety testing and education initiatives. What's not to love? (EDIT: after the July 6th change it's hard for me to tell if I still support this bill. It's unclear to me from the description here if the FDA would still be allowed to label certain GMOs as not a safety risk and allow them to be sold unlabelled. Leaving my comment here for the old version though.)
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Study after study after study have shown that GMOs are not harmful.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    GMOs themselves are very safe. Jumping through different hoops for every state is costly and unnecessary. And if you want to know what's in you're food, take a basic biology course. It's just a few extra nucleotides and amino acids (that's protein) that don't have any negative effects. Because so much of our food is already genetically modified, let's require companies that produce food with absolutely no GMOs to label. If anything it'll be good for their business, a win-win.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I want to know what's in my food. It's that simple. You might say that GMOs have no proven negative effects. Okay cool. You can eat them. I still have a right to choose not to eat them if I want.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    GMO foods can be equally safe in themselves. But there are a great number genetically modified in order to resist herbicides, etc. In those cases, you can pretty much guarantee that those chemicals have been applied to applicable foods. The Big Ag companies have a stranglehold on farmers who would like to save their own seed and those nearby whose non-GMO crops would be unwillingly contaminated by GMO pollen.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Disappointed that the Dark Act passed at 11:00pm July 7,2016 while most people were preoccupied with the Dallas massacre. 63-30 senators in favor thanks to $$$ from Monsanto that bought senators Stebenow, Roberts ( sponsors of the bill) votes. Heidi heitekamp of ND for , Bernie sander's of Vermont spoke against. (See videos). This bill pre-empty Vermont's GMO labeling law that went into effect July 1,2016. It is sure to pass the house. Hopefully Obama will veto it.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The more laws on the books that mandate we be told what is in our food and how it was produced (or created), the better. Kind of like FMLA laws. There should be a federal standard that must be met, but if a state wishes to have even higher standards, then that should be permitted (and applauded). Also, why would the government or the people cover the cost of this? The cost should be on the producers of the food. Don't want to spend he money on labeling? Stop using GMOs in your products - or - stop producing GMOs all together. I know this won't happen in a greedy ass capitalist society wherein millions (perhaps billions?) of dollars are made by big corporations such as Monsanto, who line the pockets of policy makers with some of that money. Our food should be natural, God-given substance. Our lawmakers should be honest and transparent. Our businesses and their leaders shouldn't be so damn greedy. But hey, I'm just dreaming, right?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    While I am in favor of a federal labeling standard for genetically engineered (recombinant DNA) products, I believe states who wish to pass more stringent requirements than the federal government should be granted an exemption waiver to do so. For example, the currently proposed federal labeling standard would allow companies to use a QR code. Almost no one uses QR codes which lends to the weakness of the federal bill. States should be able to require a clearly printed text label if the federal government does not.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    There needs to be extreme restrictions on G. M. O. If companies wish to use them, they should pay federal fines to distribute them through retailers. This income should go into a national research fund to discover the effects of genetically modified foods. Until we are able to figure out if they pose a long-term threat to humanity, there should be an extensive national restriction policy for G. M. O.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Let states have control of what happens within their borders. Plus it is easy to lobby one federal government than 50 state governments
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE