labeling gmos

2

GMOs aren’t scary — pesticides are

  • Americans who care about food and health have wrung their hands worrying about genetically modified organisms in recent years.
  • GMO labeling dominated conversations in 2016, when Obama signed a GMO label law that will allow companies to use a QR code to disclose products with GMOs.
  • But worrying about GMOs, which most scientists deem to be safe for consumption, shouldn’t be keeping you up at night in 2017.
  • The scarier threat to public health? Pesticides.
  • Farmers use chemicals to kill organisms that feast on their crops, but these chemicals stay in soil and groundwater for decades — potentially endangering us and generations to come. Read more

follow @the-future-now

People give me so much trouble for having glofish simply because they are labelled as GMOs.
Would I have picked them for a tank? No. In fact, when my mom bought these fish for my nephew i begged her to get something I actually liked because i knew i would inevitably end up with these damn fish. Things could be worse I guess.
I dont hate them by any means.

No matter on which side of the debate you stand there is something inherently wrong with a few multi-national corporations trying to buy control of our worlds seed supply. When saving your own seed from plants you grew makes you a lawbreaker I say that is the line in the sand.

They are engineering their seed to promote the industry wide use of chemical pesticides on the commercial farms under the guise of “helping” the farmer but this too is backfiring. Mother Nature can not be controlled. The very bugs they seek to control are evolving into new threats. What do I think when I see GMO? I see a red flag that says this ingredient/ vegetable has been drenched in chemicals from seed stage through growing and some (potatoes) during harvest. I see a product that is contributing to colony collapse disorder. If the bees go so do we.

Monsanto shareholders were given the opportunity at the latest annual meeting to vote on getting behind the GMO labeling effort. A mere 4% voted for the proposal.

I grow using organic methods and I do my best to use heirloom seed which I save for the next year. Does this mean I don’t grow a few hybrids? No, I do once in awhile. Hybrid does not mean GMO. You can be sure though when I do I buy only varieties not owned, patented or distributed by Monsanto, Seminis, et al supplied retailers. Those old time varieties your grandparents grew for years and years you buy from the big box stores Big Boy, Better Boy,etc. have been bought out and added to a corporate stable. No they are not GMO but why do a few companies feel the need to own it all?

Control the food supply
Control the world

PS: yes, I am aware potatoes are not GMO as of yet but conventionally grown commercial potatoes receive three doses of chemicals during their growing season. Once at planting, once during growth and again at harvest.
2

October 18, 2016

Ask yourself this most important question!

Why were GMOs very quietly but deliberately unleashed onto America’s grocery shelves in the mid 1990’s without OUR knowledge and consent?

I have yet to find a legitimate answer to this question, no matter how much I get trolled by Monsanto’s minions on social media.

It is no coincidence that big biotech, major food corporations, and government agencies like the FDA, USDA and EPA are no longer trusted by a majority of Americans. Would you rely on people that have intentionally poisoned you for decades? Why would anyone blindly put their trust in corporations and governments who have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are paid liars like the media that sells those lies to you every second of every day?

Where are the most basic questions about GMO health and environmental safety that any rational individual can ask? I can tell you that the answers are NOT found in any 90 day, short-term rat health study that big biotech like Monsanto passes off to the FDA for rubberstamp approval! Why were these GMOs so quickly approved by a government agency that is supposed to protect us?

What about our Congress? The DARK Act was passed by both the senate and house. Then, the backstabbing of consumers (that’s all of us) was given a final jab at the hearts of all Americans when our Traitor-in-Chief signed the DARK Act that our elected leaders passed, despite the fact that about 90% of Americans wanted and still want transparent GMO labeling. You will hear the same old, tired excuses from food companies that it costs too much to change a label, but they do it whenever they ship their GMO, poison-laden food products overseas. They have to; otherwise, their GMO junk will never make it further than a Boston tea party.

Why don’t the corporations that ship food and beverages to foreign countries every day at least label these genetically modified products that are made in the U.S.A.? Doesn’t it seem a bit suspicious to you that these same major corporations, like Coca Cola and Kraft, funneled millions of dollars to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, or GMA, to defeat GMO labeling laws in Colorado, Washington State, Oregon and California (twice)? In the meantime, biotech brat Monsanto stole Vermont’s GMO labeling law, and turned it into a weak federal labeling law (the DARK Act) that has the same eight, glaring loopholes in it that Vermont’s state GMO labeling bill had before our elected leaders and president deserted us, again, by signing this sinister act of American betrayal.

I am sure you are wondering at this point how much of what I stated is true. Where are the facts? They have been in front of you the entire time. I repeatedly point them out in my articles and social media posts. Other basic human rights activists have been doing the same for years. For big biotech, big Ag and big food, this is all just a money game. The losers in the end are the confused consumers who willingly keep shoving “glyphotoxic” (glyphosate and genotoxic) crap down their throats and also into the mouths of their children and grandchildren.

So, ask yourself all of the questions that I asked again, starting with the first one. Can you come up with any simple answers?

Or, maybe you already have that bitter taste of betrayal that consumes America’s barely beating heart.

John Loeffler
-Calling Out Corruption

It annoys me when people don’t support GMO labeling simply because they believe GMOs have no harm on you. Like it doesn’t fucking matter. Vitamin A has no harm on you and that’s on the label. Organic is on the label. Artificial is on the label. I have the right to know what I am consuming!! Like congrats you’re okay with eating altered food. Not everyone is?? Even if it ends up not harming us in the long run I still want to know. And if it has no harm why is everyone so afraid to label it?? Produce should even be label with exactly what pesticide it was sprayed with. I have a right to know exactly what I’m getting whether YOU think those things are detrimental or not.

anonymous asked:

Hey Emily, do you try to buy non gmo foods? I know corn and soy are the most common crops which are gmo but how do you know if it's gmo or not when shopping? I usually buy corn at Woolworths so would these be gmo?? Thanks x

In Australia I am fairly certain it is illegal to sell fresh produce that has been genetically modified, so any fresh corn you’re buying is not GMO. Packaged foods will have a label saying non-GMO if it is not genetically modified x

GMO Labeling - Yes or No?

In previous posts, we talked about the good and bad research and defined what exactly GMOs are. We’ve talked about some of the flawed research that showed possible human health issues with GMO consumption, and the volumes of research that shows none. From the research that I’ve done while writing these articles, one thing is clear: though current scientific consensus shows the safety of GMO crops, there will always be a need for further research and long term studies. Until the research is unequivocally one-sided, there will always be great debate among the public on whether or not the production and consumption of GMOs is a net positive or net negative. However, there remains another issue with GMOs that is hotly debated— the issue of whether or not GMO products should be labeled. Like anything, there are positives and negatives to GMO labeling.


For the majority of their history, products containing GMO ingredients were not required to be labeled. Products with and without GMOs were unmistakably similar. In the last 5 years, there have been several legislative actions taken to require GMO labeling at the state or federal level. In 2013, Connecticut became the first state to require labeling— Vermont and Maine soon followed suit. Still, labeling laws have faced great opposition from multiple sources, including the food industry giants themselves. In July 2016, Obama signed into law a federal bill which requires products containing GMOs to be labeled. The USDA has yet to finalize the rules of the bill, but food companies that use GMOs will be required to either label their product by text, a symbol, or an electronic code.


Labeling GMOs seems like common sense; after all consumers should be able to know what they are consuming, right? Labeling allows consumers to make informed choices. However, GMO labeling does not come without consequences. First of all, the argument that GMO labeling is the only way for consumers to make informed choices is inherently flawed. There are already options for those who wish to eat GMO free. Organic foods are prohibited to use GMO ingredients, so consumers have the option to buy organic foods already. Also, though the information may not be convenient, it is not difficult to research foods that contain GMOs.


Perhaps the greatest unintended consequence of GMO labeling is the possibility of scaring consumers away from GMOs, and thus genetic engineering in general. There is already a very popular negative public stigma with GMOs; consumers may equate labels as warning labels, even though there is no proof of safety issues with GMO consumption. GMO labeling would essentially steer some consumers away, even though the products are nutritionally equivalent, or sometimes even superior, to their natural counterparts.


Would people view GMO labels as warnings?


Another unintended consequence of GMO labeling is its effect on prices. When Vermont first passed their law requiring labeling, food prices rose. This was due to companies swapping out ingredients in order to avoid labeling. Using non GMO ingredients rose prices significantly, and thus raised the amount of money families spent on groceries— the amount wasn’t great, but any raise in prices can pose as a challenge for low income families.


There are several other negatives to GMO labeling besides those mentioned. However, the greatest consequence is unmistakably the fact that labeling enhances the negative stigma on a very beneficial technology. Though consumers deserve the right to make informed choices, is GMO labeling worth the above mentioned consequences, especially with the fact that there is already an option for eating GMO free? If we are to label GMOs, one thing is certain: there must be a greater effort to educate the public about the facts of GMOs, so the stigma can be lessened or removed.

Say hello to ‘Glass Gem’ a real heritage (non-GMO) corn variety! One of the most beautiful you’ll ever grow, if you ever manage to get your hands on some seeds. :)

2

There are finally answers to your questions about genetically modified organism foods

President Barack Obama signed a bill Friday requiring labeling of genetically modified organism foods. The bill requires companies to be transparent about GMOs through one of two ways. They can present the information on the product label, or share GMO disclosures behind QR codes — but this is not quite what Americans want.

Follow @the-future-now