Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Calls for Real Food Transparency for American Consumers

[nationalize the fed]

Rep. Gabbard has co-sponsored H.R.913 - Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act

A BILL
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that genetically engineered food and foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients be labeled accordingly. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/913/text

Published on Jul 14, 2016: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Calls for Real Food Transparency for American Consumers

Refreshingly consistent: July 2015-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard calls for labeling of GMO food on the House Floor

Published on Jul 23, 2015: Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) calls for common-sense labeling of GMO foods and urges colleagues to vote against the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, also known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which would roll back years of progress in ensuring that food with genetically engineered ingredients is properly labeled.

"The DARK Act actually stands in direct contradiction to the wishes of almost 90% of Americans across the country. This legislation makes a mockery of transparency and leaves U.S. consumers in the dark."

More Videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/tulsipress/videos
Official House Page: http://gabbard.house.gov/
#Tulsi2020

[merrily]

1. Transparency is the very least I should be able to expect from someone

who wants my money in return for something I am supposed to ingest.

What also would be nice: charging me no more for a product with no additives at all than they charge for a product with a lot of additives, but I'll settle for transparency.

[PatSeg]

10. I hate the idea

that I am not qualified to know what is in my food. What I don't know won't hurt me. I can just imagine the arguments against food labeling decades ago. Change does not come easily or without a lot of resistance.

I want to know what is in my food.

[merrily]

21. Ever since internet deities made google, you have been eminently qualified to know

Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)

what's in your food.

Of course, the idea that you are not qualified to know is a makeweight excuse. Food manufacturers (other than Mother Nature) don't want you to see a list of unpronounceable ingredients that give Twinkies the half life of dinosaur bones. And, if you google, you will see that most of them are known carcinogens, but considered by the FDA to be "safe" in the quantities found in food. Excuse me, but I'd rather play it really, really safe and ingest as few carcinogens as reasonably possible.

[PatSeg]

22. And you know

As I get older, it is no longer a theoretical issue. This becomes life and death. I do not intend to trust food manufacturers to make the best decisions for my health. I've been on the medical merry-go-round and in order to survive, I had to take charge of my health and lifestyle choices.

It often takes decades to determine if certain fertilizers, pesticides/herbicides, additives, pharmaceuticals, etc are carcinogens. I'd rather not take that chance.

[merrily]

24. I agree! Why have your liver working overtime to get rid of poisons in your costly food?

Plus, disclosure is the very LEAST government can require. I really have to wonder why any consumer would fight disclosure.

[PatSeg]

26. Well

It appears that the vast majority of consumers want transparent labeling. The few we encounter here appear to have an agenda. Some doth protest too much.

[merrily]

27. Ya think? Fortunately, it so subtle!

[PatSeg]

29. Oh very, very subtle

and for the betterment of the ignorant and misinformed masses!

[pipoman]

2. Who doesn't get that EVERY food item you purchase is genetically engineered? No exceptions...

save a few wild fish. How about country of origin? Who's fighting for that?

[nationalize the fed]

3. Here's a PhD that "doesn't get" it

I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

I believe that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks.

Jonathan Latham, PhD / CounterPunch September 2, 2015

By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

Gradually, however, it became clear that certain companies thought differently. Some of my older colleagues shared their skepticism with me that commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge. I listened carefully and I didn’t disagree. Today, over twenty years later, GMO crops, especially soybeans, corn, papaya, canola and cotton, are commercially grown in numerous parts of the world.

Depending on which country you live in, GMOs may be unlabeled and therefore unknowingly abundant in your diet. Processed foods (e.g. chips, breakfast cereals, sodas) are likely to contain ingredients from GMO crops, because they are often made from corn or soy. Most agricultural crops, however, are still non-GMO, including rice, wheat, barley, oats, tomatoes, grapes and beans...snip

The True Purpose of GMOs

Science is not the only grounds on which GMOs should be judged. The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness. snip
Read More: http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

[pipoman]

4. I have been around the ag seed industry for 50 years

And yes, ALL crop seed has been genetically modified without exception since the 1970's. Plant geneticists have been on staff at every seed producer for decades. Seed is engineered for climate, yield, region, application, insect and disease resistance, etc etc....we can talk about animal genetic engineering which has gone on for decades too...

No, everything you eat from a grocery store is a gmo...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. Truth.

Wild bananas and wild corn are completely inedible. But through genetic modification, we now have bananas and corn everywhere.

Everything has been modified. The fact that it is being done at the molecular level now instead of years of cross breading or forced (radiated) mutation means it happens quicker than before.

[PatSeg]

8. Genetic engineering

and hybridization are two difference processes. "Genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms that will produce a variety of desired traits. For example, genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable. Hybridization is the fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination."

http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/genetically-modified-foods/

There are many concerns about GMOs, the companies that develop and sell them, and the herbicides used on them. And no, NOT everything you eat from a grocery store is a gmo based on the standard definition of genetically modified organisms, "A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."

[PatSeg]

9. Thank you

Very interesting and informative article. I think it is important to recognize the "True purpose of GMOs" when we discuss them.

[merrily]

25. If true, then, disclosure should be no big deal. None at all.

[Igel]

6. 85% of Americans in one survey wanted GMO food labeled to say it's GMO.

80% of Americans also wanted food containing DNA to be labeled to say that it contains DNA.

Americans will be truly shocked when they discover how much of their food has DNA in it!

Truly, inorganic food will be all the rage, but that might mean "not organic" and will confuse somebody. Some clever marketing term will be found for it. Perhaps "pre-biotic." Mineralans will promptly appear, arguing that we should all adopt a pre-biotic diet. A few months later there will be no such movement: all adherents will be dead or realize they were idiots; the trendy word for them will be "ibiots".



It's like the packaging for gluten-free water. You just shake your head.

[NuclearDem]

12. Not to mention how much of your food has dihydrogen monoxide in it.

A key component in acid rain, industrial solvents, and is known to cause death when ingested in high amounts.

But the corrupt medical establishment still tells us it's essential to human life.

[PatSeg]

15. Seriously?

You are going to compare herbicides and genetic engineering to the "Dihydrogen monoxide" hoax?

[NuclearDem]

16. As far as the complete stupidity and gullibility of the general public goes, yes.

People falling for the DNA/DHMO jokes perfectly illustrates how they can't make informed decisions about issues relating to science. I'll go with the vast majority of the scientific community over some moron who trusts Dr. Oz anytime.

[PatSeg]

17. That's pretty sad

I really don't think one finds a lot of gullible and stupid people at Democratic Underground, but I guess it is all a matter of perspective. I can't say I've heard anyone mention Dr. Oz in any of these discussions and I certainly haven't encountered any "morons".

[NuclearDem]

18. As far as issues related to science are concerned, yes, there are.

I can't say I've heard anyone mention Dr. Oz in any of these discussions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026550737

Plenty of people here fell for that charlatan's nonsense when he used a strawman about GMO labeling to deflect from the fact that he was selling snake oil on his show.

[PatSeg]

20. That is a bit of an overstatement I think

I am no fan of Dr. Oz, but that doesn't mean that I don't want my food labeled for GMOs just because he does. I'll bet he brushes his teeth and eats carrots too.

David Koch supports PBS, but that doesn't mean I won't watch it.

[PatSeg]

23. I just want to add

that I read most of the comments on that thread. I didn't find any so-called "morons", but I sure found some really nasty, rude posters. Condescension and ridicule don't tend to persuade people. Are you actually condoning that kind of discourse?

[coco77]

7. K&R...

[NYC Liberal]

11. So we're going to put a label on almost every food product.

And that is supposed to be helpful? Ok.

[PatSeg]

14. We already have labels on almost

every food product. Why can't that label indicate whether there are GMOs in the ingredients?

I have a box of crackers that tells me the basic nutritional facts and ingredients. It also tells me it is "Whole Grain", "Gluten-Free", "Non GMO verified", "Organic", etc. It also tells me that the carton is made from 100% recycled paperboard! I think it is helpful.

[NuclearDem]

19. Then just buy the foods labeled non-GMO.

How hard is that?

[Orrex]

13. I demand video documentation of all food sold in the US

From seed to point-of-sale, I demand to know exactly what happens to the food I purchase, so that I can be sure that it's not adulterated or mistreated in any way. I also need complete profiles of all persons who come into contact with that food along the way.

Who could possibly object to such common-sense transparency?

[msanthrope]

28. For you...

&app=desktop