Thread: Vote for HR 1599 Monsanto Labeling Act TOMORROW

here is YOUR Government at WORK. The fist 9 minutes are Scripts prepared by the Corporations, the @ 09:20 you FIND OUT what the Bill IS. "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015"



Contact YOUR CONGRESSMAN - http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

TELL THEM NO TO H.R. 1599 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015114th Congress

This Rep SAYS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW -

House Committee Passes Bill to Ban State GMO-labeling Laws

July 21. 2015

Raven Clabough

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee has approved a bill that could ban all mandatory GMO labeling in the United States. H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 would not require food companies to disclose their use of genetically modified ingredients. Under the bill, companies that want to indicate that a product is “GMO-free” may still do so.
The Star Tribune reports, “The bill represents a major victory for the food and chemical industries, which fought and failed in court to stop mandatory GMO labeling.”

The bill has found predictable support among trade associations and big food companies such as Land O’Lakes, Cargill, Hormel, and General Mills. “A state-by-state patchwork of [GMO] labeling requirements would be confusing to consumers, create supply disruptions, and increase food prices,” Cargill officials argued. “Cargill also supports the creation of a voluntary USDA-administrated certification and labeling program for non-GMO food products.”

The use of genetically modified organisms has been the subject of fierce controversy, compelling 64 countries across the world to adopt GMO-labeling rules, while 26 others have issued full or partial bans on GMO use, including France, India, and Mexico.

To create GMOs, the DNA from one or more species is added to the DNA of a particular crop in order for it to gain certain desirable traits, such as the ability to tolerate pesticides. Monsanto is the largest producer of genetically modified seeds in the world and is the leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the Roundup brand.
The Argentinian Federation of Health Professionals labeled glyphosate a carcinogen, explaining, “Glyphosate not only causes cancer. It is also associated with increased spontaneous abortions, birth defects, skin diseases, and respiratory and neurological disease."

Likewise, the World Health Organization has called glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen.”

Despite these health concerns, however, GMO usage continues to expand. According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which opposes GMO labeling, as much as 80 percent of foods in grocery stores contain GMO ingredients.

GMO-labeling laws have already passed in Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont, while campaigns for similar laws are underway in a number of other states. But opponents of the labeling contend that GMOs are safe and do not require precautionary warnings. “A GMO labeling mandate will stigmatize GMO products, driving down demand for GMO crops,” declared Land O’Lakes CEO Chris Policinski during March testimony before the agriculture committee.

“Stigmatizing safe, proven biotechnology through patchwork state labeling mandates or even mandatory federal labeling jeopardizes innovation and threatens future development and use of technology in agriculture,” *Policinski added. “That’s dangerous for everyone.”
Land O’Lakes contends that H.R. 1599 is critical because “all types of agriculture are needed to meet the soaring demand for food, including proven, safe biotechnologies such as GM crops.”

But Representative Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) a member of the House Agriculture Committee who opposed the bill, notes that the debate is not about whether GMOs are healthy or unsafe, but about the simple right to know what is in the food consumers purchase for themselves and their families.

Similarly, Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which opposes H.R. 1599, contends that lawmakers should be standing up for Americans’ right to know. “Americans have the right to know what’s in food and how it was grown — the same as citizens of 64 other nations that require GMO labeling,” said Faber, EWG’s vice president of government affairs. “It’s time for lawmakers to recognize that right and stand for GMO labeling.”

Some lawmakers are also vocal in their advocacy for GMO labeling laws. Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.) — noting the recent research that showed pesticides commonly used in growing GMO crops may contain cancer-causing agents — points out that though 64 other countries have mandatory GMO labeling laws “the sky hasn’t fallen in.”

But GMO supporters on the House Agriculture Committee claim that H.R.1599 is a sufficient compromise between both supporters and opponents of GMO labeling. “Consumers increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from and how it is produced,” said Representative Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee. “I think H.R. 1599 satisfies that demand while also recognizing what we know about the safety of the foods that our farmers produce. The bill is a workable solution that will alleviate the potential mess of 50 states with 50 different labeling schemes,” he said.
Yet the bill does more than that. If enacted, the new law would allow some GMO products to be called “natural.”

Consumer and environmental groups such as Just Label It and the Center for Food Safety, as well as members of Congress from Vermont and Maine, opine that the bill is merely an effort to keep people from knowing what they are eating. They claim H.R. 1599 is an attempt to control information in such a way that it serves big businesses rather than the American people. “There is an enormous self-interest on the part of the chemical and food industries,” declared Representative Peter Welch (D-Vt.), noting that it's “bizarre” for industry groups to call GMOs safe, and yet fight so hard to conceal their presence.

And claims that GMOs are safe have been contested by reputable organizations, which point out that GMOs have not been properly studied by the Food and Drug Administration.
According to the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), new types of food substances must typically undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies, when they are introduced, unless they are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). In order to be deemed as such, the substance must undergo substantial peer-reviewed published studies and there must be an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community.
However, in 1992 IRT reported that the FDA declared that genetically modified crops are GRAS as long as the producers say they are, adding, “A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.”

Decades ago, the editor of the medical journal The Lancet observed, “It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992.… This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.... Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”

Writing about allergies and transgenic foods in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marion Nestle stated that FDA's lax regulations "appear to favor industry over consumer protection."

And while biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, in the absence of FDA studies or commissions, companies can submit whatever information they choose. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, observed, “It is clear that FDA’s current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE [genetically engineered] crops.”

According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, the very agency tasked with protecting the health of the food supply has also been tasked with promoting biotech products, representing a “clear conflict.”

Suzanne Wuerthele, a U.S. EPA toxicologist, stated, “This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.”

It appears that these biotech companies still enjoy the full support of the federal government. H.R. 1599 will move on to a full vote on the House floor, where it is expected to pass.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-labeling-laws

Response from Senator Tillis

• From the Office of Senator Thom Tillis
• Today at 11:21 AM

To

	Dear Mr. : Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. I understand your interests in requiring food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically modified foods and products, and I am aware of numerous proposals being discussed in the Senate that would address some of your concerns. In the course of considering these proposals, it will be my goal to balance consumer protection with the need to avoid stifling American business owners with more unworkable regulations. At least one of those proposals calls for giving additional responsibilities and mandates to the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that reports it is already in need of additional resources to carry out its existing mission and statutory obligations. At base, this does not seem like a wise course of action.(in other word "I will vote FOR LABELS NOT TO INCLUDE GMO INFORMATION") If this issue comes before the Senate, I will carefully consider everything you have said in making a decision on what is best for North Carolina and our country. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. It is important to hear from citizens themselves on issues that affect the state and the nation. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again about other important issues. Sincerely,
	Thom Tillis U.S. Senator

YOUR GOVERNMENT "DOESN'T EVEN KNOW" HOW MUCH THEY LOVE YOU.(just in case - They only rely on Monsanto's RESEARCH for INFO on what it IS DOING TO YOU. Monsanto IS THE CORP. THAT PRODUCES GMOs)
Congressman and Agricultural Subcommittee Chairman: “Nearly 80 Percent of the Food Produced In the United States Contains Some Kind of GM [Genetically Modified] Product”



Topics
Data
Publications
Newsroom
Calendar

• About ERS|
• Careers|
• FAQs|
• Contact Us

• Site Map|
• A-Z Index|
• Advanced Search|
• Search Tips

You are here: Home / Data Products / Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. / Recent Trends in GE Adoption

Stay Connected







Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.

• Overview
• Recent Trends in GE Adoption
• Documentation

Related Topics

• Agricultural Coexistence
• Agricultural Productivity
• Agricultural Science Policy
• Biotechnology
• Cotton & Wool
• Crop & Livestock Practices
• Land Use, Land Value & Tenure

Recent Trends in GE Adoption

Chart data

Download higher resolution chart (2085 pixels by 1667 pixels, 300 dpi)

Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, developed to survive application of specific herbicides that previously would have destroyed the crop along with the targeted weeds, provide farmers with a broader variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, HT soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 and 94 percent in 2014 and in 2015. Plantings of HT cotton expanded from about 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001, 91 percent in 2014, but declined to 89 percent in 2015. The adoption of HT corn, which had been slower in previous years, has accelerated, reaching 89 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2014 and in 2015.
Insect-resistant crops containing the gene from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) have been available for corn and cotton since 1996. These bacteria produce a protein that is toxic to specific insects, protecting the plant over its entire life. Plantings of Bt corn grew from about 8 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 1997 to 19 percent in 2000 and 2001, before climbing to 29 percent in 2003 and 81 percent in 2015. The increases in acreage share in recent years may be largely due to the commercial introduction of new Bt corn varieties resistant to the corn rootworm and the corn earworm, in addition to the European corn borer, which was previously the only pest targeted by Bt corn. Plantings of Bt cotton also expanded rapidly, from 15 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 1997 to 37 percent in 2001 and 84 percent in 2014 and in 2015.
Use of Bt corn will likely continue to fluctuate over time, based on expected infestation levels of European corn borer (ECB), and the corn rootworm which are the main pests targeted by Bt corn. Similarly, adoption of Bt cotton depends on the expected infestation of Bt target pests, such as the tobacco budworm, the bollworm, and the pink bollworm. Adoption appears to have reached a plateau, as adoption has already occurred on acreage where Bt protection is needed most. Insect-resistant varieties have not been developed for soybeans.
These figures include adoption of "stacked" varieties of cotton and corn, which have both HT and Bt traits. Adoption of stacked varieties has accelerated in recent years. Stacked cotton reached 79 percent of cotton plantings in 2015. Plantings of stacked corn made up 77 percent of corn acres in 2015.
Adoption of all GE cotton, taking into account the acreage with either or both HT and Bt traits, reached 94 percent of cotton acreage in 2015. GE soybean adoption rates reached 94 percent in 2015 (soybeans have only HT varieties). Adoption of all GE corn accounted for 92 percent of corn acreage in 2015.

Chart data

Download higher resolution chart (2085 pixels by 1667 pixels, 300 dpi)

Chart data

Download higher resolution chart (2085 pixels by 1667 pixels, 300 dpi)

Here is my other State "Representative" who is on TEAM U.S. Corp. He states that LABELING WILL COST FOOD MANUFACTURER MONEY and Corp. PAID 85% of SCIENTISTS SAY GMO IS GOOD. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM EATING!!! "Plausible Deniability"(LOOK IT UP!) OUR REPS WILL SAY "The Scientists WE HIRED, who also work for the Corps. THAT PRODUCE THE GMOs, SAID GMOs WERE HEALTHY"

• gressman Patrick McHenry
• Today at 10:47 AM

To

• Mr. Mark Walker

PATRICK T. McHENRY Member of Congress 10th District, North Carolina 224 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225- 2576 Fax: (202) 225- 0316 www.mchenry.house.gov COMMITTEES: FINANCIAL SERVICES OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DISTRICT OFFICES: 87 Fourth Street, NW Suite A P.O. Box 1830 Hickory,NC 28603 (82 327-6100 Fax: (82 327-8311 ____________ Spruce Pine Town Hall P.O. Box 715 Spruce Pine, NC 28777 (82 765--2729 Fax: (82 765-2701 ____________ 311 Marion STreet P.O. Box 732 Shelby, NC 28151 (704) 481-0578 Fax: (704) 481-0757 ____________ Toll Free in NC (800) 477-2576 July 31, 2015 Mr. Mark Walker 214 Martin St Apt 2 Shelby, NC 28150-5254 Dear Mr. (Name Witheld): Thank you for contacting my office to express your opinion regarding H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts. On March 25, 2015, Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced H.R. 1599 to both clarify and standardize the labeling of food products containing "genetically modified organisms" (GMOs). Introduction of this legislation was prompted by a Vermont state law on food labeling which threatened to generate a patchwork of conflicting state and local labeling requirements. If implemented, this lack of consistency would result in unnecessary confusion and increased costs for farmers, food manufacturers, and consumers without achieving the ultimate goal of improving public health. H.R. 1599 works to eliminate this potential confusion through several important provisions. First, H.R. 1599 explicitly defines "genetic engineering," curtailing attempts by manufacturers to falsify claims about the content of their products. Second, the bill reaffirms the existing authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in ensuring the safe use of GMOs in food products. This testing has largely proven that the use of GMOs in food manufacturing is safe for consumers. According to a survey of the American Association for the Advancement of Science conducted by Pew Research Center, GMOs are considered safe by an overwhelming majority - 88 percent - of scientists.(WE HIRED!!!) Third, H.R. 1599 creates uniform national standards for labeling food products containing genetically engineered plants or ingredients. On July 23, 2015, I helped pass this legislation by a vote of 275-150. H.R. 1599 has been referred to the Senate where it awaits action. While we may not agree on this issue, I hope we can find common ground in the future. Thank you again for contacting my office. It is an honor to serve as your United States Congressman. Your suggestions are always welcome, and if ever I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Patrick T. McHenry Member of Congress

GMO Labeling Won't Cost You Anything





"Telling Consumers that GMO Labeling will cost them more IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE"