U.S. Senate Votes Yes on National GMO Labeling Bill, but Food Activists Call It Flawed
The party of fewer regulations adds some more.
The nation's first state law mandating labels on foods containing genetically modified ingredients went into effect in Vermont on July 1. But less than a week later, the U.S. Senate moved to overrule the state law.
On July 7, Senators passed a bill in a 63-30 vote that would override state laws by creating a national standard for GMO labeling. Food activists and political insiders have speculated about a bill ever since another measure was defeated in March, but the sudden presentation of the new proposal took organizations on both sides of the issue by surprise.
The sponsors, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas (R), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), hail the bill as a compromise for both sides, and, more important, a way to prevent a "patchwork" system of individual state laws, which food industry members argue would prove costly and confusing.
How do the rules differ?
Vermont's law requires most food products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which means an ingredient was produced by scientists altering its DNA, to state "partially produced by genetic engineering." Because 90 percent of soy and corn grown in the U.S. has been genetically modified and 90 percent of cheese has been produced with genetically engineered rennet, a majority of processed foods would probably bear the label. (Vermont does include several notable exceptions, however—cheese gets a pass, as do many meat products.)
Food industry executives, who fought hard to stop Vermont from passing the law, have said it is too cost prohibitive to develop special labels just for Vermont. They are opting to either label all their products containing GMOs or to simply stop shipping to Vermont stores. Coca-Cola and Pepsi recently announced they will do the latter. But with other state governments considering similar laws, companies may no longer have a choice.
The Senate bill would require all food manufacturers to disclose genetically modified ingredients on products sold in grocery stores, but the disclosure can be in the form of a text statement, a symbol or a QR code that consumers could scan with their phones to access more information. Smaller companies could instead list a website or phone number for further information.
-more-
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/Senate-Votes-Yes-on-GMO-Bill?utm_medium=email&utm_source=HealthEletter071316B&utm_campaign=HealthEletter071316
= new reply since forum marked as read
No difference between lab-created organisms and naturally evolved, with or without human "assistance." Okaaaay.
But way to ignore my point. You've got nothing, nothing, nothing, about corporate ownership of the food supply?
Ones opinion should be informed.
Just saying.
YMMV.
But when the objection is based upon politics and economics, "one's" opinion should be inclusive of that objection.
Again, ones opinion should align with the evidence. That's what it means to have an informed opinion.
My best to you.
"Natural mutations" are not the only way that plants, or any other species evolve. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but there are four general mechanisms that drive evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, and migration.
Migration involves organisms either leaving or entering a population, thereby changing the genetic variation of a population. Mutation adds to genetic variation. Sexual selection means exactly what it sounds like: females choosing which males to mate with. If you're strong, fast, smart, and courageous, but you are so ugly that no one finds you attractive, your genes don't make it to the next generation. Natural selection is often characterized as survival of the fittest, but I prefer to characterize it as non-survival of the least fit. Essentially, the genetic variation of a particular population means that some organisms have the ability to survive a particular environment and pass on their genes, and some don't.
Darwin elucidated the mechanism of natural selection, and the reason why he called it natural selection was to differentiate it from artificial selection, in which humans select specific individuals to breed, based on traits that they find desirable.
What I'm saying is that artificial selection is not considered to be evolution. A chihuahua is not the result of evolution. Nor are cultivars. They are the result of artificial selection.
Genetically modified organisms are also the result of artificial selection. The difference is that the changes are more precise, faster, and can involve genes from other species. Transcription and translation occur in the same fashion in all eukaryotes (basically all organisms other than bacteria and archaebacteria). If you put a gene sequence from one organism into another, the second organism will produce the same amino acid sequence, and the protein will fold in the same fashion - thereby carrying out the same function. This is how you can take, for instance, a protein called green fluorescent protein from a jellyfish and if you insert it into a kitten embryo's genome early enough, the resulting kitten's cells will produce GFP and glow green under UV light, like so:
GFP is a good example demonstrating that exogenous proteins are quite faithfully reproduced, with correct folding. If the GFP in the kitten folded improperly it would most likely lose the ability to fluoresce. You can do the same thing transferring GFP to plants:
That plant is accurately producing a jellyfish protein. So basically, if a particular gene product in one plant is transferred to another, then the second plant will faithfully reproduce the protein with exactly the same structure as the first plant. For example, if you transfer the gene for beta-carotene (the precursor to vitamin A) into rice, which does not produce beta-carotene, then the beta-carotene that the GMO rice produces will have a structure identical to the beta-carotene produced naturally in carrots, will be just as good for you, and will not be one bit more toxic. It's also the reason why blanket condemnation of GMO's is ignorant and stupid.
Really?
