Day 9 - 30 Day with Non-GMO Activist Leslie Stoddard

Just got back from Sun Valley, Idaho where I met with Jeffery Smith and watched Genetic Roulette...again :)

Got me a little fired up! And I calling out all you mothers who have not taken the time to educate yourselves about what you are feeding your children. Do something before it's too late!

Moms Across America Founder: Label GMOs Because We Love Our Kids

Sustainable Pulse exclusive interview with Zen Honeycutt, Founder of Moms Across America, on their 4th July march against GMOs in towns across the US, children with allergies, Michelle Obama and much much more…

Why has Moms Across America decided to march to support GMO labeling on July 4^th in towns across the US?

Because we love our kids. And we are using our “Mom Common Sense”. Over 19 animal studies have shown grave health concerns such as tumors akin to breast cancer, infertility, sterility, birth defects, miscarriages, obesity and organ damage, inflamed stomachs and autism-like symptoms. A recent corn study shows alarming differences and toxicity. Thanks to Jeffrey Smith’s “Genetic Roulette” and Robyn O’Brien’s Ted Talk “Patriotism on a Plate” we now know that GMOs not only have a host of health concerns but also cause unpredictable, unforeseeable and uncontrollable mutations in living things. This is unacceptable to us Moms, we have enough to worry about with diapers and tantrums…mutations? Really?

Seriously though, July 4^th is our national day of celebrating our right to freedom. We are one of the only countries in the world that does not have the right to know what is in our food right now and we Moms have something to say about that. Home town parades make sense because everyone in town are there, it’s local, we can share in a fun way and the media cannot ignore us. In Carmichael, CA supporters marched in a 4^th of July parade in big vegetable costumes last year and had a great time. It’s all about connecting with our communities.

After the failure of Prop 37 in California what gives you hope that GMO labeling bills in other states will work?

Prop 37 was a win in many ways. Pamm Larry led the way for over 6 million people to vote yes in just a few months. That’s huge. We know that labelling in other states will work the supporters are committed and because we Moms are not backing down. We buy 85% of the food. And if we don’t buy it, they can’t sell it. So we say “No Label? Not on our Table!” Senators, manufacturers and retailers are beginning to get that we want labels. We have the right to know what we feed our children. Opposition may have a lot of money, but we have the gift of gab. Their wallets are not bigger than the love for our children.

Read More:
Moms Across America Founder: Label GMOs Because We Love Our Kids

WeAreChangeCT: GMO Free Connecticut

We Are Change CT recently got a chance to interview one of the organizers of a film screening of Genetic Roulette:The Gamble of Our Lives about the dangers of GMO's & also what Connecticut residents can do to get involved.

Check out the GMO documentary:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKdYW...

Learn more about GMO Free CT: http://gmofreect.org/ & on
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/GmoFreeCt?fre...

Follow Jeff @ https://twitter.com/Jeffwrcct
Follow Steve @ https://twitter.com/StevenBoutelle

We got this email...Subject: do you know what your saying?

(1) We got this email...Subject: do you know what your saying?

Message Body:
GMO crops have been the biggest breakthrough in production agriculture in nearly 50 years. With the pace that our world population is growing without gmo crops we will not be able to keep up with a sufficient food supply. More people will suffer from starvation if we go away from this technology. Almost 20 years ago a single farmer was able to only feed about 90 people, now a single farmer can feed about 155 people. Without these technologies the weed pressure and insect pressure on the crops will only continue to increase and our food supply chain would never be able to withstand the pressure of such a growing population.

Reply:

GMO Free Idaho Thank you for contacting us XXXX. We appreciate the opportunity to have dialogue with everyone.

I agree that GMO crops are likely the biggest change in our food supply, possibly in human history. The introduction of a foreign species via gene splicing is new technology with many implications. This is why we find it very unusual that no long term human safety studies were completed.

There are many reasons that GMOs are not helping to feed a growing population. GMOs are not engineered to increase yield or nutrition. Most all GMOs on the market are only engineered to express their own pesticide or to withstand the spraying of herbicides.

Our exposure to herbicides in our environment is at an all time high. In fact, the US Geological Survey's test results in Mississippi showed Roundup in the streams, air and rain. This is a concern since Roundup has been shown to cause birth defects and endocrine disruption.

World hunger is related to lack of money and democracy. People who have money and resources get to eat. People who do not, starve. GMOs have done nothing to stop this from being true. As a matter of fact, some of the most hungry nations in Africa and Haiti and elsewhere refuse foods which contain GMOs or seeds which have been modified.

The increase in the amount of crop planted per acre increased prior to GMOs. It is a result of monoculture style farming.

I would ask you, if GMOs prove to be a health risk and the exposure to the herbicide they are resistant to makes us sick, are they still the answer to feeding the world?

There are millions of Americans who wish to avoid eating GMOs. In fact, on election day in California over six million people voted for labeling. GMOs are either banned or labeled for consumer awareness in over 60 countries around the world. Those who wish to avoid eating GMOs should be afforded that right. It should not be up to the industry to decide what information we get to have about our food, especially when we both agree, it is the biggest change in food in history.

Thank you again for contacting us. I would be happy to address more of your questions or concerns.

 

Yes to GMO labels

Yes to GMO labels - Boulder Daily Camera


"We think consumers have a right to know what's in their food, and if such a program were in place, Boulder County farmers could capitalize on that and charge a higher price for their crops," we wrote. With a federal label, those farmers could very well appeal to every food producer who wants to woo customers looking for conventional, non-GMO products. And it could create some new opportunities -- more than 50 countries have bans or other regulations regarding GMOs.

Consumers who aren't inclined to make decisions based on farming practices can ignore labels. They will benefit from the fact that some of the biggest food companies in the country, who drive down the costs of food in America compared with other industrialized countries, won't be spending money fighting a hodgepodge of conflicting labeling rules on a state-by-state basis.

Having a federal GMO labeling law would be a uniform way for all food producers to participate on an even playing field, could open up new markets and opportunities, and would better inform the consumers. 

Idaho group backs mandatory GMO food labeling law | capitalpress.com (Rebuttal)

Read Capital Press Article:
Idaho group backs mandatory GMO food labeling law | capitalpress.com

Excerpt/summary from: GMO Myths & Truths (2012)

Rebuttal By

Dr. Nancy L. Swanson

Abacus Enterprises

http://www.abacus-ent.com

Ban GMOs -- Ask me why!

1. George Gough, who oversees Monsanto's government affairs division, said the safety and effectiveness of Roundup Ready crops has been proven by multiple federal agencies and farmers themselves.

Before new drugs are approved by the FDA they must go through a series of rigorous animal testing.  If adverse effects are not found in the animal tests, they must then proceed to a series of rigorous clinical trials with human beings.  The chemical companies who have developed the GE seeds have made the claim to the FDA that their products do not qualify as a new drug because they are essentially identical to non-GMO crops and therefore do not require the same rigorous testing.  The EPA agreed and as a result, the FDA’s GMO policy is  that Monsanto and others can determine if their own foods are safe. There are no required safety studies. [See excerpts from the FDA Federal Register at the end of this document.]

   
 A genetically modified plant may or may not require FDA approval (depending on whether or not the modification can be considered an “additive.”  If it does require approval, it is up to the producer to perform the tests to insure safety.  The tests that have been performed for FDA approval have all been performed and/or paid for by the petitioner and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review.  Most of these studies were done on rats, none were undertaken for more than 90 days and many were much less; not nearly long enough for adverse effects to show.  There have been no safety studies done by any federal agencies or farmers, as stated.

There have, however, been numerous reports of infertility, death and disease as a result of feeding livestock GMO feed.  “Infertility rates as high as 20% are being seen in cattle and pigs, and spontaneous abortions are occurring at rates of 45% among cattle. This is still early in the Roundup Ready era—and it's clearly unsustainable.” [1] 

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.[2] Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[3]  A pig farmer in Denmark cured his pigs of chronic diarrhoea, birth defects, reproductive problems, reduced appetite, bloating, stomach ulcers, weaker and smaller piglets, and reduced litter sizes by taking them off of GMO feed. [4]

There have also been numerous, peer-reviewed articles showing toxicity, tumors, infertility and a host of ills in laboratory animals. 

[1] http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000455-gmo-crop-dieoffs-infertility-miscarriages.shtml

[2]"Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields-Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh" Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006,
[3] Mae-Wan Ho, "GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines," ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, "Cows Ate GM Maize & Died," ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004

[4] http://farmwars.info/?p=8723 [note: original article is in Danish]

2.  He said 16 million farmers around the world grew 395 million acres of biotech crops in 2011, and producers grow the crops every year because they increase productivity and decrease input costs.

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists  showed that GMO crops actually have less yield than conventional crops.  [5]

“There have been widespread reports of GM crop failures in India. Of course it's only anecdotal...There is almost no research on the subject. Monsanto manages to prevent it by refusing to allow their seeds to be used in studies that might demonstrate the truth.”

[5]  Gurian-Sherman D., “Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009

3.   If you sell them one thing one year that doesn't work, they're not going to come back and use it again," said Gough, who used corn as an example of how biotechnology has resulted in significant production gains.

Do they have a choice?

4. While the average corn yield in this country was 72.4 bushels per acre in 1970, he said, it was 122 bushels per acre in 2012 and Monsanto officials project it will reach 300 bushels by 2030.

Curious that he would  choose 1970 because much of the U.S. corn crop was wiped out by Southern Corn Leaf Blight causing a full-blown crisis in that year. [6]  A lack of biodiversity in the corn varieties was a large part of the problem. [7] 

In fact, a study by Mike Tannura, Scott Irwin, and Darrel Good has shown that the increase in corn yield from 1996-2007 was the same as the increase from 1960-1995 after adjusting for weather effects. [8]  Their study examined data from 1960-2007 for Iowa, Illinois and Indiana comprising nearly half of the U.S. corn production.

“The sensitivity of the results was examined by also fixing the  breakpoint at 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998.  The magnitude of the estimated change in trend yields was not sensitive to the alternative breakpoints.  In sum, the regression models did not indicate that a notable increase in trend yields for corn occurred in the mid-1990s.”  Turns out that corn production is most sensitive to weather.

Increase in corn yield/acre	1960-1995	1996-2007
Illinois:	+1.8 bu./yr.	+2.0 bu./yr.
Indiana:	+1.8 bu./yr.	+1.8 bu./yr.
Iowa:	+1.9 bu./yr.	+2.1 bu./yr.

[6]  Blight in the Corn Belt

[7] The American Corn Blight

[8] Mike Tannura, Scott Irwin, and Darrel Good, “Are Corn Trend Yields Increasing at a Faster Rate?”, February 20, 2008, Marketing and Outlook Briefs, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

5. Gough said similar biotechnology gains among other crops are needed to feed an increasing global population projected to reach 8.4 billion by 2030.

Besides the fact that it is far from clear that GE crops increase yield, Round-up Ready crops result in higher applications of herbicides.  In 2009, Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Purdue University noted for his expertise in plant pathology, co-produced a paper with G.S. Johal, of Purdue's botany and plant pathology department. Entitled, "Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants" [9], it was published in the European Journal of Agronomy. It has, of course, been routinely ignored by the USDA.

Note that glyphosate is the scientific and generic term for Roundup.

The paper stated:

“[The widespread uses of glyphosate] significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use. “

The authors further warned:

“[I]gnoring potential non-target detrimental side effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious. To do otherwise might well compromise not only agricultural sustainability, but also the health and well-being of animals and humans. “

We are to pin our hopes of feeding the world on GE crops?  How is this sustainable?

Roundup Ready seeds were created by Monsanto to leverage glyphosate. The GMO plants are resistant to it. Therefore, farmers can spray glyphosate recklessly in huge quantities. The result is, of course, profits from sales of the seeds, along with hugely inflated profits from sales of glyphosate. Monsanto makes money coming and going.

[9] G.S. Johal and D.N. Huber, “Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants,” European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 31, No. 3, Oct. 2009, pp. 144-152

_______________________________________________________________

Excerpts from the

Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

FDA Federal Register
Volume 57 - 1992
Friday, May 29, 1992

“In most cases, the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification of a plant will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly

found in food,...”

“Finally, the principles discussed in this notice do not apply to "new drugs" as defined by section 201 (p) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(p)), "new animal drugs" as defined by section 201(w) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(w)), or to "pesticide chemicals" as defined by section 201(q) of the act. As discussed in section IX., EPA is responsible for pesticide chemicals, including those produced in plants as a result to genetic modification.”

[note “the act” is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ]

“Any genetic modification technique has the potential to alter the composition of food in a manner relevant to food safety, although, based on experience, the likelihood of a safety hazard is typically very low. The following paragraphs describe some potential changes in composition that may require evaluation to assure food safety.”

“Section 402(a)(1) of the act imposes a legal duty on those who introduce food into the market place, including food derived from new crop varieties, to ensure that the food satisfies the applicable safety standard.”

“In enacting the amendment [food additive amendment, 1958], Congress recognized that many substances intentionally added to food do not require a formal premarket review by FDA to assure their safety, either because their safety had been established by a long history of use in food or because the nature of the substance and the information generally available to scientists about the substance are such that the substance simply does not raise a safety concern worthy of premarket review by FDA. Congress thus adopted a two-step definition of "food additive." The first step broadly includes any substance the intended use of which results in its becoming a component of food. The second step, however, excludes from the definition of food additive substances that are GRAS [generally recognized as safe]. It is on the basis of the GRAS exception of the "food additive" definition that many ingredients derived from natural sources (such as salt, pepper, vinegar, vegetable oil, and thousands of spices and natural flavors), as well as a host of chemical additives (including some sweeteners, preservatives, and artificial flavors), are able to be lawfully marketed today without having been formally reviewed by FDA and without being the subject of a food additive regulation. The judgment of Congress was that subjecting every intentional additive to FDA premarket review was not necessary to protect public health and would impose an insurmountable burden on FDA and the food industry.  It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”

“With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.”

“Section VII. of this notice provides guidance to producers of new foods for conducting safety evaluations. This guidance is intended to assist producers in evaluating the safety of the food that they market, regardless of whether the food requires premarket approval by FDA. This guidance also includes criteria and analytical steps that producers can follow in determining whether their product is a candidate for food additive regulation and whether consultation with FDA should be pursued to determine the regulatory status of the product. Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
_____________________________________________________________________

 

GMO Labeling for CT Media Conference

Legislators and advocates for a bill in Connecticut to label containing GMOs gathered on February 7, 2013, at the State Capital. Rep Phil Miller [D - 36th] introduced speakers:

(Watch Tara's Speech at the Press Conference)
Tara Cook-Littman, Esq., GMO Free CT, Fairfield, CT
(917) 602-0855; taracook.littman@gmail.com; www.GMOFreeCT.org

Bill Duesing, Executive Director, CT Chapter, NE Organic Farming Association, Stevenson, CT. (203) 888-5146; ctnofa@ctnofa.org; www.ctnofa.org

Chris Eddy, Executive Chef, Winvian Restaurant, Morris, CT
860-567-9600 ext. 207; ceddy@winvian.com; www.winvian.com.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch, Washington, DC
c/o Lucy Sedgwick: 860.251.9422; lsedgwick@fwwlocal.org
Websites: foodandwaterwatch.org, facebook.com/FoodWaterWatchCT

Rep. Jonathan Steinberg [D - 136th] http://www.housedems.ct.gov/Steinberg/

Rep. Tony Hwang [R - 134th] http://cthousegop.com/tony-hwang/

Also Present Sen. Cathy Osten {D - 19th]

Vermont Right to Know GMOs - Poster: It's time for Grassroots Action!

Facebook

Leslie Stoddard of GMO Free Idaho: Our Goals Educating Idaho

The purpose of our video blogs...

1. We want to raise awareness. We want you to educate every Idahoan. We would love to have you start a group, just like Kathy. We hope you will start a blog and create a we of information. We want to share ideas. We don't have all the answers but we do have good ideas. So the more that we can connect the more we can advance our cause.

2. We want to teach you how to be GMO free and how to find and eat non-gmo food. We share recipes and ways to help you switch to a clean sustainable low pesticide and herbicide and Genetically Modified Foods.

For Thanksgiving we had a non-gmo meal. It really is not that hard.

3. We want to give news updates about what is happening. We hope you will pass them along.

4. We will be breaking down our presentation so you can learn all about the basics of GMOs and help others.

5. We will be interviewing others that are involved... Like the Raine Saunders interview.

We will also be interviewing farmers. We will be touring Idaho Farms, especially the ones that attended our Food Rally. Idaho farms like Purple Sage Farms, Eden Star Farms, Homestead Naturals and Pleasant View Raw Milk to show how clean and sustainable.

6. We hope other states connect with us. We want to with people in Idaho and in other states, like California and their current Ballot Initiative. I would love it they would document how they are going about this process so we will know exactly what to do here in Idaho to pursue our initiative.

We will be holding our presentation this upcoming Thursday in Star Idaho. Our hour long presentation usually takes a little longer because we always get a lot of questions.

We hope you have a great non-GMO holiday season.

Thanks for helping us raise awareness about Genetically Modified Foods, one Idahoan at a time.

Leslie Stoddard, GMO Free Idaho, Co-founder.

GMO Free Idaho- Are you a lab rat for the FDA? | Chew On This (Radio Interview)

GMO Free Idaho- Are you a lab rat for the FDA? | Chew On This



Jenny Easley and Leslie Ann Stoddard (Photo) of GMO Free Idaho speak to us about the Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs which are prevalent in our food system today. GMO Free Idaho is dedicated to educating consumers about the health and environmental impacts of GMO’s. They promote local, organic, and non-GMO food producers and diligently work on eliminating GMOs from our food supply.

Listen:  GMO Free Idaho Interview
Read:   GMO Free Idaho Website

CT Coalition Calls for GMO Food Labels | Issues. People. Events.

CT Coalition Calls for GMO Food Labels | Issues. People. Events.

Supporters of the “Right to Know GMO CT” coalition gathered at the Legislative Office Building this morning to call on the Connecticut General Assembly to stand up for consumers’ right to know whether or not the food they eat and feed their families has been genetically engineered. Over the past year, the coalition has grown dramatically and in the past few weeks alone 109 businesses and organizations have joined the coalition, 180 residents have attended campaign action meetings, and grass roots leaders have scheduled over 20 GMO educational events around the state, for a listing of events, please see www.gmofreect.org.

 American consumers are in the dark about whether or not their food is genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GMO). The vast majority of processed food in the U.S. contains GE or GMO ingredients, which are largely untested, unlabeled, and potentially unsafe. One of those most basic steps towards a transparent food system is to label GMO and GE foods.

“We have an opportunity to present our case for labeling so we may empower our Connecticut economy as informed citizen consumers,” bill sponsor State Representative Phil Miller addressed the crowd. He stood alongside several leading members of the coalition including Tara Cook-Littman, leader of GMO Free CT, Bill Duesing, Executive Director of CTNOFA, Executive Chef Chris Eddy of Winvian Restaurant, and Food & Water Watch’s Executive Director Wenonah Hauter.

TV News: Lawmakers focus on labeling whole foods

Lawmakers focus on labeling whole foods

HONOLULU - "People are very concerned we have failed to address this issue," said newly-appointed House agriculture chair Rep. Jessica Wooley.

She said her committee finally passed a bill on Thursday that would require all imported GMO whole foods, meaning fresh produce, are labeled.

And long-time GMO labeling advocate Sen. Mike Gabbard said, for the first time, a GMO bill passed out of the Senate Energy & Environment committee.

The Senate version is broader and would require labeling all genetically engineered fish products sold in Hawaii as well as whole foods - most likely meaning papaya and corn.

"I want to be able to tell when I buy my papaya, whether it’s conventional, organic or GMO. Just put a label on it," said Gabbard.

In 2012, the now former chair of the House agriculture committee shot down all bills related to GMOs.
But in 2013, Rep. Clift Tsuji supported two bills to label non-GMOs.

"I thought this was a good alternative that was palatable for those who supported and for those who did not," said Tsuji.

"But that would cost us money for folks for Hawaii's everyday farmers," said Wooley, who deferred Tsuji's bills.

At one of the state's last packing houses on the Big Island, distributors are already labeling GMO papaya headed to Japan.

They said most companies they work with are already paying for some kind of label, and whether it's local farmers paying for it or mainland, the cost is cheap.

GMO seed companies in Hawaii have long opposed broader labeling measures.

Wooley said what happened Thursday represents a big first step.

"If it is controversial, I think we have to address it. At least look at the problem, and how do we solve it," said Wooley.

Op-Ed: Hawaii 1st US state to pass GMO labeling bill, but with amendment

Op-Ed: Hawaii 1st US state to pass GMO labeling bill, but with amendment

Hawaii might have cause to celebrate, as lawmakers have passed a new measure in the House Committee on Agriculture, requiring labeling on genetically modified food. But is the final bill everything it was hoped to be?

Basically supporters of the bill say that they deserve to know whether the food they are buying has been genetically modified. Jessica Mitchell, a parent who is in favor of the bill, was quoted as stating in an AP report that, “I and many mothers deserve the right to know what we are feeding our children.”  

After numerous proponents of the bill testified before the House committee, it was approved on Thursday, but the bill was amended so as to only apply to produce imported from outside Hawaii. There was some conjecture by opponents that labeling would cause a rise in food prices. However, house agriculture committee Chairwoman Jessica Wooley says that as the bill only affects produce brought in from outside Hawaii, it will benefit local farms and won’t cause food prices to rise. 

However, Occupy Monsanto Maui is reporting disappointment with the amendment on their Facebook page. 

They state that the amendment "only covers incoming raw agricultural products, which means that it basically covers very little, except a little crookneck squash, any Monsanto sweet corn brought fresh into the state, or if a non-browning GMO apple is approved." So maybe it is not time to get too excited.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343105#ixzz2KMdHP0wh

GMO Free CT Rally - Minuteman Park, Hartford, CT

On December 12, 2012, the grassroots organization GMO Free CT held a rally in Minuteman Park across from the Connecticut State Legislature in Hartford to build support for legislation to require labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

This legislation would give consumers a choice when deciding what to feed their families. Today, without a labeling law, potentially hazardous GMOs are being introduced into the American food supply.

Over 60 countries around the world have banned GMOs, but in the US, consumers do not currently have the ability to make informed decisions about the food they eat.

Hawaii lawmakers move forward with anti-GMO bill

Hawaii lawmakers move forward with anti-GMO bill - SFGate

HONOLULU (AP) — Advocates of all-natural food in Hawaii scored a partial victory when the House Committee on Agriculture passed a measure to require labeling on genetically modified food.
The committee approved the bill Thursday but amended it so it only applies to produce imported from outside Hawaii.

Opponents of GMOs push for Connecticut food-labeling law; Phil Miller reintroduces bill

Opponents of GMOs push for Connecticut food-labeling law; Phil Miller reintroduces bill - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

HARTFORD — Opponents of genetically modified organisms — or GMOs — signaled a new push for a state food-labeling law with a rallying meeting at the Legislative Office Building Thursday attended by activists, legislators, chefs, farmers and even the sponsor of last year’s bill, newly retired Dick Roy of Milford.

Last year’s bill failed to make it to a vote, with legislative lawyers reportedly balking at “liabilities” that could be exploited by GMO seed maker Monsanto. Republican State Rep. Tony Hwang of Trumbull praised Roy for reaching across the aisle on the bill and helping legislators get educated on the issue. “This is a basic… right of a person to know what they’re eating,” he said.

This year’s versions of the bill will be introduced by Rep. Phil Miller, D-Essex, and Diana Urban, D- North Stonington, in separate committees.

“So we’re preparing it right now to leave them with as little to do to fix it,” said Miller, “and our bill very closely resembles the ones going forth in Maine, Vermont and New Jersey.”

Genetically engineered or modified organisms are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and sometimes to produce their own insecticide.

Monsanto has told the Register that GMOs are safe, based on studies done in other countries, and said the GM seeds increase yields, withstand drought and are so widely used – in the likes of corn, soybeans, canola, cottonseed and sugar beets -- that it would be costly and impractical to do labeling.

Opponents dispute many of those claims and say what may have begun with good intentions is now companies just protecting their investment.