lr.mpmn-digital.com
New recipes

Right to Know Affirmed: Senate Rejects Anti-GMO Labeling Bill

Right to Know Affirmed: Senate Rejects Anti-GMO Labeling Bill


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


The Senate has rejected the highly-contested DARK Act, which would ban states from creating their own GMO labeling laws

Americans will no longer be in the DARK.

A controversial anti-GMO labeling bill nicknamed the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know) has been rejected by the Senate.

The bill, originally proposed by Rep. Butterfield (D-North Carolina) and called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act would deny states the rights to create their own GMO labeling laws, and ban mandatory federal labeling. Instead, it would have created voluntary federal labeling standards that companies would have been free to follow or reject.

The DARK Act needed 60 votes to pass and only received 44 on the Senate floor. The vote follows a petition signed by thousands of chefs who support GMO labeling, led by Tom Colicchio.

Currently only one state — Vermont — is poised to enact mandatory GMO labeling standards, but the rejection of this bill would open the door for more states to follow suit.

"All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the food they eat and the food they serve their kids,” Vermont Senator and presidential nominee Bernie Sanders said. “When parents go to the store and purchase food for their children, they have a right to know what they are feeding them. GMO labeling exists in 64 other countries. There is no reason it can’t exist here.”

There is concern from proponents of the original bill that mandatory labeling would increase food prices and cripple food producers.

“It’s going to have a dramatic impact on the cost of food over time,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina and a member of the Senate Agriculture committee, told The New York Times. “It’s going to be kind of a de facto regressive tax. The poorest people are going to be harmed the most because it is going to drive up the cost of the food supply chain.”


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Editorial: Vermont’s newest export is bad GMO policy

Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.

It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger.

That’s because the U.S. Senate may very well pass a national GMO labeling bill this week to appease the freaked-out food industry, which has legitimate concerns about the cost and confusion of rejiggering its supply chain. A compromise worked out by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), leaders of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, is a watered-down version of Vermont’s mandate that would preempt state labeling laws, including those passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill would require food labels to disclose the presence of GMOs but would allow for different ways of doing it. Manufacturers could meet the requirements with text, a symbol or a QR code linking to a website with more information. The bill would also exempt products that consist mostly of meat or are made by very small manufacturers.

GMO label supporters, misguided though they are, ought to be pleased they’ve managed to parlay a small score in Vermont into a national victory. But some are complaining about what they’ve dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it isn’t as strict as Vermont’s law.

We agree that this bill is troubling, but for a different reason. It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

For all the consternation about “frankenfood,” there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship. You can read more about the board’s mission and its members at the About The Times Editorial Board page.

More From the Los Angeles Times

We need to recognize mental health disabilities. Tournament officials should have made reasonable accommodations for Osaka’s depression and anxiety.

The Supreme Court tells federal prosecutors to stop trying to stretch anti-hacking law to encompass all manner of bad acts done online.

The court has a chance in the Don’te McDaniels case to raise the threshold for juries to impose death sentences. It should throw out the whole process.

New math guidelines for California could make the subject more engaging and help many students succeed — but may hold back those who learn more quickly.

A trove of court documents and inspection reports released last month reveal the extent of the Queen Mary’s disrepair.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Jobs will come back and the state’s economy will recover faster than the nation’s, a UCLA forecast says, led by consumer spending, tech jobs and home-building

Investigators search for answers after attack that left one firefighter dead and another wounded.

Why preserve the faux French exterior of Taix if it means the restaurant inside can’t survive?

California’s legacy of exclusion and incarceration includes the use of the fairgrounds in Pomona as a temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans during World War II.

A Times columnist’s decision to buy a plug-in hybrid instead of a fully electric vehicle doesn’t sit well with some readers.

Fundamental racial inequities are a serious problem 100 years after the 1921 Tulsa massacre. What do those who deny systemic racism have to say?

Police reform as taken hold, yet racial bias in criminal justice and elsewhere persists because of a societal problem, says LAPD Chief Michel Moore.


Watch the video: Εκπομπή ΖΩΗ.. ΓΙΑ ΙΚΑΝΟΥΣ Τα ατομικά δικαιώματα ατόμων με αναπηρίες


Comments:

  1. Mahmoud

    What words... super, a brilliant idea

  2. Kazragore

    I believe that you are making a mistake. Let's discuss this. Email me at PM, we'll talk.



Write a message