Holy shit. Some facts about the loss in Washington to label GMOs

[cali]

This is a stunning example of how corporate out of state money impacts our elections. Only $550 from state residents was donated to the no labeling side. $22 million came from agribusiness.

<snip>

The No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising, bringing in $22 million in donations according to The Seattle Times. Just $550 came from Washington residents, according to the newspaper. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.

The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30% of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Times reported.

Food industry ads claimed that the initiative would raise food prices. Labels would mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.

<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/washington-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Never mind

Misread post.

[aquart]

2. How much will prices go up to pay for all this electioneering?

[kelliekat44]

72. One thing the consumer can do is to buy only LABELED NGMO foods if possible. nt

[bahrbearian]

3. Last night when the No on 522 comittee had a victory gathering,

only one person was present out side of the news crews. All $$ came from out of state.

[freeplessinseattle]

13. I saw that, too, pretty telling wasn't it? n/t

[NightWatcher]

4. Why would someone NOT want to know about their food?

What were the arguments from the other side?

Labels are for losers?
GMO, SCHmeMO?

[cali]

5. food prices would go up.

[NightWatcher]

6. because they had to put a label on it?

Some damn expensive labels I guess.

Don't most foods already have some kind of label on them?
When I buy organic, non GMO foods, they are usually proud of it and put a label on it.

[cali]

7. I'm just telling you the tactic employed by agribusiness.

I don't think it makes any sense either.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. It's not the labels, it's the testing.

I like the Non-GMO project solution, because they do the testing voluntarily with the FDA and it's already in place.

This would have leveled the playing field for costs on the testing. So yes, costs would go up, but it would make competition fair for the non-gmo stuff you want to eat, rather than their stuff automatically costing more.

I'm bummed this didn't pass, but what can you do without campaign/finance reform with real meat on it.

[Coyotl]

8. The irony. Food prices go up to fight labeling!

[Arugula Latte]

9. I'm in Portland, Oregon and saw a lot of anti-label ads (aimed at the Vancouver, WA market)

They would say things like Washington State would be the only state with its own labeling system, food costs would go up, farmers would be burdened. It's too bad a state like Washington couldn't see through the propaganda.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. I am profoundly disappointed in my home state.

Guess a lot has changed up there since I left.
used to be a pretty liberal place, at least on the West side of the Cascades.
Sigh.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Well, I think it basically is, but they were inundated with political spending from the bad side.

And people get worried about their food costs and therefore are susceptible to persuasion. That's such a basic concern.

[gopiscrap]

76. Not to mention than many democratic voters sat on their ass during this off year election.

[Matariki]

37. The smart side of the state did.

King County, where Seattle is located, voted Yes 55% to 45%. The rest of the state often has a low-info-voter problem.

[Arugula Latte]

45. We have a similar dynamic in Oregon.

Usually, western Oregon including Portland, Eugene and parts of the coast can outvote the eastern and southern parts of the state, but not always.

[Andy823]

50. It was the scare to farmers on the east side that worked

I live on the east side and there were a lot of TV spots where farmers, at least they said they were, were against it. They said it would cause more "regulations" that farmers had to comply with, and they also used the "increase in food costs" meme. Any time "more regulations" come up here on the east side, the republican majority over here gets out to vote. This side of the state has to put up with reps like Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Doc Hastings who is my rep. Both of them are nothing more than puppets for the right wing agenda.

It also doesn't help that the minority of voters who are not republicans tend to, as you said, be low information voters who just don't seem to get out to vote, plus the republican voters tend to simply listen to the right wing talking heads on fox and the radio for all the information, so they are "misinformed voters", or simply "gullible" sheep.

What I would like to see are laws in states like Washington that ban outside money from influencing state issues. There is already to much money influencing the national elections, states should stand and put a stop to it on state and local levels.

[pscot]

75. Four counties passed it

People believed all those ads. In our county, the people around the Air Station out voted the rest of us, as they often do.

[uppityperson]

53. I think these were the arguments

1. It would cost money
2. Restaurants don't have to label their food and it isn't fair
3. All food is genetically modified already and Perfectly Safe
4. Because

[scarletwoman]

69. I would modify your #4...

4. Because FREEDOM!!!11!!

[robbob]

57. Macho men don't care what they eat?

I guess?

[BrotherIvan]

10. Their fear tactics win again

Just like in California. I really thought Washington would be smarter this time around. Shit! I hope someone gets the ball rolling.

They already have to test and label it because other countries won't buy it. So this bs that testing it here is an undue burden is just lies.

Fuck Monsato!

[Scootaloo]

11. I've been pointing out that labeling really isn't helpful

I voted for 522, because it's one of those "better than the alternative" things, but really, it doesn't help

Next time you go to the store, poke through the milk section. See if you can find a carton that makes a point that its cows are not subject to rBGH (Darigold is one such company). Alright, good for them, but wait, you'll see an asterisk next to that claim... and on hte same face of the carton, they'll tell you "oh, but there's nothing wrong with rBGH milk at all." Essentially htye are forced to argue in favor of their competitors.

We would see the same thing with GMO labeling, except a potentially larger problem - that "Genetically modified" can be a very stretchy term. All you have to do is get a lawyer - and as we see, price doesn't seem to be an issue - who can convince a judge that all domesticated organisms are genetically modified (because scientifically this is true, even if it's misleading in regards to what the labeling is about) and there you go - everything that isn't wild food is now forced to be labeled as GMO.

I don't blame people who want to know about their food. Not in the least. However i have no illusions that this drive will actually work the way we want it to, because again, the companies already hiding that information have more resources than the voter, and will certainly have options to get away from labeling mandates.

If you're worried about possibly-dangerous "frankenfoods," then labeling isn't going to help. What you want is to end the patenting of genes. Not all GMO is bad - golden rice comes up as an easy example - but the drive to profit means that sloppiness and hasty application can be an issue. Take away the rush for profit by making genes open-source, and that'll go a long way to helping, not only by reducing the drive to mush them into whatever's around, but also by stripping them of that "proprietary secrets" bullshit, and allowing the scientific community to conduct non-corporate examinations.

[Berlum]

12. Mutant Corporate GMO sucker-puppet propagandists are everywhere on the Net

I'm just sayin...

[chknltl]

36. Well said

nuff said....

[Texano78704]

14. Surely it couldn't be because the bill was flawed ...

Voluntary labeling is still available, isn't it?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

17. No

The measure had a 66% lead in September prior to the advertising blitz.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. Thank you Citizen's United

Guess I missed the part of the Constitution that read "We the Corporations..."

[Vashta Nerada]

18. It makes me wonder why agribusiness is fighting so hard to be against labeling GMOs.

[eqfan592]

20. Probably because the labeling would imply there may be something dangerous about them...

...and to date there has been no scientific data to support that claim.

[Orrex]

21. You're full of baloney

I saw a meme on Facebook with a cute little goat and a scary warning about GMOs killing the planet.

If that's not science, I'd like to know what is.

[Vashta Nerada]

25. This made me giggle.

[eqfan592]

26. Lol, i stand corrected!!! nt

[LanternWaste]

61. What then, do you believe is the reason agribusiness is fighting so vociferously against simple labe

What then, do you believe is the relevant and specific reason agribusiness is fighting so vociferously against simple labeling of their GM food as such?

(Is the baloney you referenced GMO...?)

[Orrex]

66. Because there's no reason for it

There is no evidence that GMOs cause harm to humans who consume them.

There is a great deal of ill-substantiated fear about GMOs.

Labeling foods as GMOs would benefit the companies not at all and would likely cause them significant harm.

Why in the world do you think they should display a pointless, fear-mongering label?

And if you're going to be consistent, you should require nearly all food grown, produced, or manufactured in the past few centuries to be tagged as GMO.

It's as pointless and irrelevant a label as "organic."

[HuckleB]

74. That's been explained many times.

Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea

....

Now, let's also remember that "Organic" doesn't mean safer, itself.

Organic Pesticides
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/06/organic-pesticides.html

[moonbeam23]

34. Google is your friend

There is lots of info out there...go find the pictures of the pigs with the exploded stomachs that had been fed a diet of gmos at some university....yuck!!

We refuse to eat that shit and in a "free market" we should be free to choose and if we want to spend more money on food, that is also our choice! Just fucking tell us what we are buying!

[eqfan592]

39. You do know that study was debunked, right? try using Google yourself.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

One of sites going over this study.

[HuckleB]

40. Exactly.

[HuckleB]

44. The Right to Know What I’m Eating

http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-know-what-im-eating/

"In the debate over the labelling (or non-labelling) of genetically-modified foods, one of the most common refrains is that consumers “have a right to know” what they’re eating. I’ve commented briefly on that here before. (See “Should Companies Label Genetically Modified Foods?”) But it’s an important and complicated topic, so I’m going to say a little more here.

We first need to distinguish legal from moral rights. Legal rights are established through legislation or through precedents set by courts. But when people say they have a “right to know” what they’re eating, they’re not usually referring to a legal right (especially given that, as far as genetic modification goes, there just is no such legal right in the U.S. or Canada). No, when people say they have a right to know what they’re eating, they’re talking about a moral right to that information — they mean that it is ethically obligatory for someone to provide it to them. But simply claiming a right doesn’t cause that right to spring into being. It needs to be justified some way, grounded in some strong ethical argument.

So, when does someone have a moral “right” to some piece of information? The philosophical literature on rights is enormous. I’ll just offer here what I think is a fairly straightforward explanation of the ethical grounding of rights, without going into too much philosophical detail.

Rights are mechanisms for protecting important human interests. In free societies, for example, we have a right to security of person and a right to own property and a right to free speech, because we see these things as crucially important to living a good human life. We may have other interests or needs, but not all of them are protected by rights. Why? Well, it’s worth remembering that when someone has a right to something, this imposes obligations on other people. In some cases (as in the right to free speech) it means an obligation not to interfere. In other cases it means an obligation actually to provide something (for example, if I’ve performed my job as promised, I have a right to be paid and my employer has a positive obligation to provide me with my wages). It’s also important to note that, given that rights impose obligations on other people, we need at least to consider just how burdensome those obligations are, before we assert the correlative right with any certainty. (For example: even if you desperately need a kidney, you don’t have a right to mine while I’m still using it.)

..."

[proverbialwisdom]

56. Check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12312207

[HuckleB]

63. Good idea!!!!!

[eridani]

80. So fucking what?

Have you ever read a label on a can of corn, or a bottle of shampoo? Lots of ingredients listed because this is required by law, most of which are not harmful. I just ended a 40 year relationship with State Farm because they wouldn't quit sponsoring ALEC. And you are trying to tell me I should not have the right to vote against the amoral sociopathic shitstains running Monsanto with my dollars?

[RC]

22. Because products that contain genetically engineered ingredients quite often are

"somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy..." We just do not know. We are in effect Ginny pigs in a for profit experiment being conducted by big business.
They may contain herbicides and/or pesticides in each and every cell of the plant. And that is just an for instance. GMO do not have the genetic variety of "natural" plants.
And regardless of what some people will tell you, Hybrid and GMO are not the same.

The very fact that they are throwing so much money into stopping any labeling should be a clue that something is very wrong here. If GMO is so great, so safe, so much better, they should be proud of that fact and be advertizing why GMO is better than nature. But they are doing the exact opposite, trying to hide the fact their products are GMO. There has to be a reason why they can't prove their GMO products are safe in the long run. Or even the short run.

[Vashta Nerada]

24. Although it wouldn't surprise me if GMO products weren't good for anyone...

I'd like to see the science to back up your claims.

[eqfan592]

29. There have been several studies done, none of which have supported the claim...

...that GMO's are inherently more dangerous than non GMO. Do a search on the topic over at Science Based Medicine. It's a great resource.

[tsuki]

59. So, why do you want to keep it a secret?

[HuckleB]

62. A bit more than several, but...

With 2000+ global studies confirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/#.UnrIBvmkop8

[KurtNYC]

27. We have been eating GMO for 20 years now.

Perhaps the majority of calories in the American diet are coming from GMO sources. All of the soft drinks are GMO based.

There is labeling now is a sense -- if it says: corn, soy or canola then it is most likely GMO. Everything that says HFCS is GMO.

Is there any law preventing non-GMO foods from saying they don't contain GMO sourced food?

[proverbialwisdom]

65. Lawsuits, eg. "VT HOUSE DECIDES GMO LABELING LAWSUIT WORTH THE RISK" by ANDREW STEIN, MAY. 10, 2013

http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/10/house-decides-gmo-labeling-lawsuit-worth-the-risk/

HOUSE DECIDES GMO LABELING LAWSUIT WORTH THE RISK
ANDREW STEIN MAY. 10, 2013 (24 COMMENTS)

The Vermont House this week became the first legislative body in the country to pass a law that would require the labeling of foods derived from genetically modified organisms.

The House voted 99-42 in favor of House bill H.112. The vote came after lawmakers defeated an amendment on Friday that would have cored the bill of its central labeling language and after a lengthy floor debate on Thursday.

Opponents of the bill took issue with the potential lawsuit such legislation would likely bring, and the more than $5 million the Attorney General’s Office estimates such a lawsuit would cost taxpayers.

<>

COMMENTS:

May 14, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Monsanto would sue those companies for labeling their products as non GMO, just like they did to the milk producers when they labeled their milk from coming from cows not taking the bovine growth hormone and the antibiotics required to kill the bacteria in the bgh cow’s infected utters.

[Orrex]

32. All else being equal, you're making a bit of a leap that isn't supported by logic

The very fact that they are throwing so much money into stopping any labeling should be a clue that something is very wrong here.

Why should that be the case? It's entirely possible that they're "throwing so much money into" it because they see GMOs as a huge investment with huge profit potential that could be derailed by unsubtantiated consumer fears.

Largescale investment of capital does not automatically indicate nefarious intent.

And that is just an for instance. GMO do not have the genetic variety of "natural" plants.

This is a legitimate concern, but I have never once heard anyone calling for GMO labeling to warn consumers about the perils of reduced biodiversity. If the fear is that this lack of variety will result in a vulnerable food supply, then let that be the slogan. Chicken-little admonitions about "frankenfoods" are not helpful and, in the absence of supporting data (rather than anecdote), are intellectually dishonest.

[eqfan592]

33. Well said!!!! nt

[RC]

35. Then why is there so much problems in selling GMO to other countries?

Do they know something that we do not?

[Orrex]

38. That's simply not a reasonable objection.

You infer a malign motive from an absence of data, which is to say that you're relying upon argument from ignorance. I don't mean "ignorance" in a derogatory way; I mean it simply it as a lack of information.

Lots of people refuse to vaccinate their children. Does that prove that pharmaceutical companies are knowingly infecting children with autism? Obviously not, but that's exactly the style of reasoning that you're using.


If these other countries have data to support their concerns, then let them share it. Otherwise their concerns are not supported by evidence, and that simply isn't reasonable.

[RC]

43. What is the problem with letting people know what is in their food?

I remember some of the same argument with nutrition/ingredient's labeling by the manufactures. Now try to get rid of it.
They tried a few years ago and failed spectacularly. Maybe because it was tied behind the scenes by the same people wanting to hide GMO in our food.

[Orrex]

46. That's a red herring

If you assert that there is a substantive difference between GMO corn (for instance) and non-GMO corn, then you must demonstrate this difference before you can require companies to label their products in a way that is likely to resonate with consumers' fear.

If there is in fact no substantive difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn, then you must demonstrate why companies should be forced to apply irrelevant labels to their products.

I remember some of the same argument with nutrition/ingredient's labeling by the manufactures. They tried a few years ago and failed spectacularly. Maybe because it was tied behind the scenes by the same people wanting to hide GMO in our food.

This is circular, Orwellian reasoning. You assume that manufacturers must have something to hide because, if they didn't, then why are they hiding it? Reality doesn't work that way.

If a food contains CORN as an ingredient, then it already lists CORN among its ingredients. It doesn't say that the corn was harvested on Tuesday versus Thursday or was irrigated by a guy named Esteban versus a woman named Estelle; these facts are irrelevant, so they aren't included. As I pointed out above, if you're going to insist that the manufacturer reveal GMO CORN because of a sustantive difference between GMO CORN from NON-GMO CORN, then you need to demonstrate this distinction.

Further, as has been noted up-thread, manufacturers of non-GMO foods are entirely free to label their products "NON-GMO" if they wish. Why don't they?

[LanternWaste]

64. Much like makers of bottled water should label it as non-carbonated, non-sugared, non-colored water

"Further, as has been noted up-thread, manufacturers of non-GMO foods are entirely free to label their products "NON-GMO" if they wish. Why don't they?"

Good question. Much like makers of bottled water should label it as non-carbonated, non-sugared, non-colored water so no one confuses it as soda. Why don't they?

[Inkfreak]

68. Funny you say that.

My wife bought a bottle of water the other day that was labeled "sodium free". I couldn't figure out why they would do that. It was clearly labeled as water. I thought it was funny/odd.

[HuckleB]

73. They push any marketing ploy they perceive people will go for...

Go to a health food store and look at how many things that clearly do not contain wheat, and never did, that are labeled "Gluten Free." So many people buy into these things far too easily, and the marketing works. They'll pay more just because of a perception.

[U4ikLefty]

81. Not reasonable?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176863/twenty-six-countries-ban-gmos-why-wont-us#

[Orrex]

85. You make a great point: 170 nations haven't banned GMOs

As stated repeatedly, if someone has scientific evidence of harm caused by GMOs, then let them offer it. Simply banning a product is no guarantee that the product is hazardous.

[HuckleB]

41. You can't bring reality to this discussion!

What do you think you're doing?

[HuckleB]

48. The Pointless GMO Label

http://oregongreen.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/the-pointless-gmo-label/

"...

However I ask, ”What is the purpose of a label and why should we mandate labeling?”

The purpose of a label on food is to inform. To inform about nutritional value, ingredients or allergy warnings. GMOs have nothing to do with any of those. A GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) is a product of biotechnology.

Biotechnology is a method of planting breeding just like hybridization or altering plant genes with radiation. Ever since Gregor Mendel crossbred peas we have been genetically modifying plants just using different methods. Read: Genetic engineering vs. natural breeding: What’s the difference?

Biotechnology itself has been around for 30 years. Thousands of studies have been conducted on the safety consuming products of biotech. The consensus says they are safe. Read: 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable.

..."

[frazzled]

28. I hate to suggest it, but ...

Your best option at this point is to shop at Whole Foods (yeah, I hate them a lot too; except when I like them). I doubt it is at all perfect, but they have gone to great lengths to initiate a GMO labeling process of their own. I've seen labels there, even though the program is still in its infancy. They're claiming it's more rigorous than anything proposed at the state level. More at link:

When Whole Foods Market announced in March that by 2018, all products in our U.S. and Canadian stores must be labeled to indicate whether they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we said we would provide updates of progress and milestones reached along the way. We have made a start and want to share progress with you.

Two methods of non-GMO verification

We believe non-GMO verification needs to be robust, science-based, credible, and based on standards created by multiple stakeholders. Accordingly, we have designated certified organic, which prohibits the intentional use of GMOs, and the Non-GMO Project Verified program as the only two verification methods that we will permit as substantiation that a product can be considered non-GMO within Whole Foods Market. Although not required, some manufacturers and producers have doubly verified their certified organic products with the Non-GMO Project Verified program, a practice our customers have responded to positively.

We will not be developing our own unique non-GMO labeling standard nor acting as an accreditor to evaluate additional non-GMO verification programs. Although other non-GMO verification systems for both organic and non-organic products may arise, certified organic and the Non-GMO Project Verified are the most widely used and recognized.

These two methods to determine labeling are only relevant for products based on or containing ingredients created from crops approved by the U. S. and Canada for GMO production. Those crops currently are: corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets, alfalfa, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow summer crooked neck squash.

...


Getting things moving

The response from our producers to our 2018 GMO labeling transparency announcement in March 2013 has been outstanding! Since March, the Non-GMO Project has received more than 900 inquiries from producers and manufacturers to learn how to start the non-GMO verification process. And, as of June 2013, we now have thousands of products within our stores verified as certified organic and/or Non-GMO Project Verified.

...

Our non-GMO labeling transparency initiative includes all the products we sell, going far beyond what any of the state initiatives and legislation have proposed so far. Products based on or containing ingredients created from government approved GMO crops will need to be labeled by manufacturers. Not only that, our meat, dairy, egg, and farmed seafood vendors also will need to verify whether or not animals were fed GMO corn, soy or alfalfa. In our Whole Body department, the ingredient list of each product will have to be examined for possible GMO-derived items.

As you can see, it’s complicated, and that’s why it will take us five years to work with our more than 100,000 supplier partners to complete the process. To make this happen, we will be rolling out our GMO transparency labeling program by product and category. While overall it will require five years to achieve our goal, we expect the GMO labeling to be completed sooner in some product categories.

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/three-month-update-gmo-labeling

[SleeplessinSoCal]

31. Thanks for the info. Trader Joes has too.

Trader Joe's Products are Sourced from Non-GMO Ingredients



October 1, 2013 (updated)

Genetic Modification is a technique that changes the genetic makeup of cells, producing new combinations of genes and traits that do not occur in nature. Plants and animals that have been altered in this way are called GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, or GE, genetically engineered.

Our efforts began in 2001, when we determined that, given a choice, our customers would prefer to eat foods and beverages made without the use of genetically engineered ingredients. When developing products containing ingredients likely to come from genetically modified sources, we have the supplier of the product perform the necessary research to provide documentation that the suspect ingredients are from non-GMO sources. This documentation is in the form of affidavits, identity-preserved certification of seed stock, and third-party lab results from testing of the ingredients in question. In addition to this work done in developing a given item, we conduct random audits of items with potentially suspect ingredients, using an outside, third-party lab to perform the testing.

Given our position on GMO ingredients in Trader Joe's label products, and the work done in support of that position, it is our expectation that our products test as non-GMO. We're unable to make the same claims for branded products (products not in the Trader Joe's label).

http://www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates-responses.asp?i=4

[cali]

49. It's certainly not my best option

Closed Loop Production: Creating Jobs and Good Food in Hardwick, VT

<snip>

For those of you who haven’t heard of it, Hardwick is one of the blossoming epicenters of agritourism in Vermont. It emerged years ago, powered by some local folk who had a few interesting challenges and that New England sensibility about waste.

High Mowing Organic Seeds, now a global supplier, was growing organic seeds for producers and actually had food as a by-product. The local milk farms had whey from their cheese making industry and not enough pigs to consume it. A local apiarist (beekeeper) had the itch to do something more with his honey. Fortunately, all these people knew each other and began looking for ways to put their “waste” to good use.

And so, in bits and pieces, through personal relationships already established, dozens of locally-rooted businesses have emerged in the Hardwick area that put these agricultural products to good use. In the process, they are also creating solid local jobs and bringing a valuable income to the region. At the heart of it all is the Center for an Agricultural Economy. The Center, as Director Sarah Waring described, works with twenty-seven local businesses, delivers programs to educate other aspiring communities, works as a co-packers for specialty food and value-added farm products, and serves as a local community food production kitchen.

In addition to Vermont Soy, Vermont Natural Coatings, Jasper Hill Cheese, High Mowing Organic Seeds, Caledonia Spirits, Hill Farmstead Brewery, Claire’s Restaurant, and more, the local schools are involved in agriculture. Hardwick’s elementary school is proactive with its school gardens and local purchasing, and students take field trips to local businesses. The high school combines student learning with actual experience in the kitchen chopping and processing vegetables. All of this work is built on the decades of farming which is a part of the Vermont and New England culture—a backbone of strong dairy farms, hardworking food producers, and families who have made a living with the land.

<snip>

http://www.donellameadows.org/closed-loop-production-creating-jobs-and-good-food-in-hardwick-vt/

Positive deviants: local food leaders in Hardwick, VT

A few weeks ago, The Boston Globe reminded us to think about Hardwick. Much has been made of the little town in Vermont's northern kingdom: Emeril Lagasse filmed the farm story, as did Dan Rather; and The New York Times, Eating Well, Gourmet, and The Boston Globe have all reported on The Town that Food Saved (also the title of local Ben Hewitt's book).

But for all the media hullabaloo, Hardwick remains a community of heads-down, sleeves-rolled farmers, purveyors, and food entrepreneurs. As I trolled Whole Foods a few days ago, I overheard a representative of Jasper Hill Farm speak proudly of the cheese cave at Jasper Hill.

Jasper Hill brothers Mateo and Andy Kehler built their cave to age their and neighbors' cheeses. They and Andrew Meyer of Vermont Soy, are three in a gang of food entrepreneurs that live and work in this little slice of the world. When Mateo and Andy proposed their cave, they didn't meet with VCs. They told Pete Johnson of Pete's Greens, Tom Stearns of High Mowing Seeds, and Meyer among others. Hardwick's neighbor entrepreneurs regularly support each other's visions with advice and sometimes capital.

Meyer commented, "It seems obvious that small, struggling neighbor businesses would talk to each other. But when we drove around to other areas, all we found was people struggling by themselves. It doesn't make any sense."

There is a name for this sort of novelty: positive deviance.

<snip>

http://www.examiner.com/article/positive-deviants-local-food-leaders-hardwick-vt


we have a great farmer's market and an excellent co-op, not to mention a country store with tons of local products from cheese to vegetables, a year round grower of vegetables, a great farm stand, a major artisan cheese producer and some lesser known ones. all of these and so much more are within 5 miles of my home. In fact, we are the epicenter and model of the local organic food movement- as has been written about both nationally and internationally. Pretty amazing actually.

http://www.petesgreens.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hardwick-Farmers-Market-VT/131732343506625

http://buffalomountaincoop.org/

https://www.facebook.com/willeys.store

http://www.hazendalefarm.com/farmstand_info/farmstand_info.html

http://www.jasperhillfarm.com/

http://snugvalleyfarm.com/

http://www.vermontsoy.com/

Here's an article by bill McKibben from a couple of years ago:

http://www.yankeemagazine.com/article/features/agriculture

http://www.eatingwell.com/food_news_origins/seasonal_local/good_eats_hard_work_in_hardwick_vermont

and a lot of it is about collaboration and slow money lending:

http://www.hardwickagriculture.org/


some videos:

this one is from yesterday:

http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/eating-local-revives-vermont-town/-/12523032/22810742/-/uwecxfz/-/index.html

dan rather reports:

[frazzled]

52. Not everybody lives in rural Vermont

And not everybody can afford to pay $25 a pound (plus shipping) to get a chunk of Cabot Clothbound Cheddar. (Though I did buy some for a party once.)

I am able to shop for produce from local, organic farms in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois at our local farmer's markets--but only from, at best, late May through late October, the growing season in this part of the world. And of course, it is very expensive. It's an investment well spent for my family of two, especially as we are vegetable lovers. But if I were poor and had five mouths to feed, I'd probably find the suggestions infuriating.

We need to be realistic about the economic, geographic, and cultural constraints on the vast majority of Americans.

[cali]

54. didn't say they did

in any case, Hardwick is an exception. It's also a remarkable story and template. Oh, and buying local cheese doesn't mean it has to be the most expensive they produce.

but there are lots of other choices other than supporting whole foods and the disgusting conservative owners. It's disturbing to see anyone shilling for Whole Foods here. In fact it's as infuriating as seeing someone shill for the Koch Brothers businesses.

I am poor. On food stamps, but by shopping carefully I can avail myself of at least some of the products I refer to.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19053.cfm

[frazzled]

58. Shilling?

Let's get this straight: This OP is about the failure of a GMO labeling bill in Washington State. (As it has failed elsewhere.)

My response was simply to point out that Whole Foods (which I fully acknowledged in my post had its unsavory side) has been taking it on itself to initiate a labeling program. (This has nothing to do with a Whole Foods' owner's personal politics.) This is what the people in this thread are discussing and interested in: GMO labeling, not some ideal little consortium of purveyors in a small town on the other side of the nation.

I don't appreciate being attacked in this way for trying to provide information germane to the topic at hand.

[HuckleB]

60. Alas, it's an all-too-common attack around here.

Heck, you and I appear to disagree on the labeling issue. Yet, some seem to think the world is filled with "shills."

You did nothing wrong. I admit that we don't shop at Whole Foods, but that's because we have choices in Portland: Farmer's Markets year round, New Seasons, Trader Joe's and a couple other local stores. I know we're lucky. Not everyone has those options.

[cali]

67. back at you. I didn't appreciate your

attack:

"But if I were poor and had five mouths to feed, I'd probably find the suggestions infuriating."

and yes, the claim that whole foods is the best option- when that is just as expensive and owned by a right wingnut pushing his agenda, is shilling.

[proverbialwisdom]

30. Yes-on-522 have not conceded, remain "cautiously optimistic," "liberal" King County votes uncounted.

Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2013, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.katu.com/politics/Wash-state-measure-on-labeling-GMO-I-522-foods-failing-230765071.html

Wash. I-522, requiring labeling of GMO foods, failing
By Phuong Le, Associated Press Published: Nov 5, 2013 at 8:34 PM PST Last Updated: Nov 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM PST

SEATTLE (AP) — A Washington state ballot measure requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods is failing in early returns.

Get the latest returns for this initiative: http://elections.katu.com/race.asp?ID=180

The campaign over Initiative 522 has been one of the costliest initiative fights in state history, drawing millions of dollars from out of state.

The measure was failing 45 percent to 55 percent with more than 980,000 ballots counted Tuesday night.

"We're delighted with the vote tonight," said Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for the No on 522 campaign. Voters "gave a clear message. The more they looked at the initiative the less they liked it."

But labeling supporters weren't conceding.

"This is far from over and we have several days of vote counting ahead," said Delana Jones, campaign manager for the Yes on 522 campaign, noting that thousands of ballots in liberal-leaning King County had not yet been counted. "I'm cautiously optimistic."

Voters in Washington, which has a vote-by-mail system, must postmark their ballots by Tuesday so more ballots are left to count.

<>

http://yeson522.com

[img][/img]

TWITTER: https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23YesOn522
Lenny Kravitz - It Ain't Over 'til It's Over

[RosettaStoned77]

42. Series of sci-fi novels

by author Paolo Bacigalupi describe a future where all viable food sources are GMO. Designed to be resistant to all these new forms of molds and other pests, also created by the GMO corporations. Just sayin'. Could they end up owning the patents on all available food sources? Not too far fetched.

[proverbialwisdom]

47. Twitter: "...Hundreds of thousands of votes to be counted. More results around 6pm Pacific today."

https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23YesOn522

Yes On 522 ‏@Yeson522 1h
...Hundreds of thousands of votes to be counted. More results around 6pm Pacific today. Stay tuned. #YesOn522

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html

335,757 ballots on hand to be processed

[MFM008]

51. as a WA voter heres more

+ 522 couldn't keep up with the advertising. 2 to 1 were no. Mailboxes were full the weekend before voting with no on 522 stuff.
That was one big problem that outside money did. Confusing people as well, even my mom got mixed up on how to vote and shes a solid democrat.
It sickens me that people would not take EVERY opportunity to find out whats in the food they are putting in their bodies and the growing bodies of their kids. Blows my mind.

[ManiacJoe]

70. I-522 seems to have been an example of a bad implementation of a good idea.

[cui bono]

71. And... they have an online disinformation campaign I'm sure. They did when CA was trying to pass it.

Right here on DU there was someone who was on a rampage against labeling. Had no real argument against it really, it came down to there was no good reason not to label, but didn't like the reasoning of the campaign for labeling, therefore we should vote against it. Bunch of BS.

[MisterP]

78. "you're all creationists!"

if I'm thinking of who you're thinking of, they often complain of OPs citing corpos and conservatives...

[cui bono]

79. I don't remember who it was and don't recall them using that phrase,

but it was pretty weird since they didn't say the food shouldn't be labeled exactly, but that they thought the argument being used by the pro-labeling side was inaccurate so they were against it. It never made any sense to me.

[LittleBlue]

77. It's total BS

My state was flooded with out-of-state funding for a state issue.

Out-of-state money should be banned. Why the fuck does anyone outside this state get to lobby for anything?

Absolutely fuming at this. Very disappointed our voters fell for this bullshit.

[B Calm]

82. The last thing they want is informed people knowing what is in

their food.

[eridani]

83. Monsanto & Friends Make Biggest Illegal Contribution on Record to Stop GMO Labeling in Washington

http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-friends-make-biggest-illegal-contribution-record-stop-gmo-labeling-washington-1383663508

If you haven’t already heard of the Grocery Manufacturer’s of America and their aims at stopping Initiative 522 from passing in Washington just days from now, you will shortly. With companies like Monsanto taking the lead, millions of dollars have been funneled illegally through a slush fund to try to sway voters against passing the 522 Initiative that would require grocery stores that sell foods containing GMO food to label it as such.

This group of slick corporate greed-mongers only disclosed their ‘donations’ to the fund after state Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit earlier in October. More than $1 million has already been used to try to defend organic and right-to-know activists from getting their labeling bill passed. The companies know that the word is out, and if they don’t spend a king’s ransom on misinformation campaigns and propaganda then the 522 Initiative will be voted down.

“We also continue to seek penalties, attorney’s fees, and other relief for violating the Washington state campaign disclosure laws,” Ferguson said in a statement. “While the [Grocery Manufacturers of America] made the requested disclosures, there must be sanctions for violating the law and the case will move forward as filed.”

[dipsydoodle]

84. Well in fairness the EU has only had this in place since 1997.

Last update here :

The Agency supports consumer choice. We recognise that some people will want to choose not to buy or eat genetically modified (GM) foods, however carefully they have been assessed for safety.

In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label. For GM products sold 'loose', information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is GM.

On 18 April 2004, new rules for GM labelling came into force in all EU Member States.

The GM Food and Feed Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 lays down rules to cover all GM food and animal feed, regardless of the presence of any GM material in the final product.

This means products such as flour, oils and glucose syrups have to be labelled as GM if they are from a GM source.

http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling#.UntqjyfN4TA

Generally speaking GMO stuff is restricted to animal feed stocks anyway.