Vermont on Way to Become the Little State that Could Take on Monsanto and Win

Kate Webb, Councilperson who introduced Vermont mandatory GMO labeling bill H-112, will join us on Smart Health Talk Radio Show,, an NBC affiliate station, to discuss where the bill is now, and hurdles they face as a state if it passes.
By: Smart Health Talk
Kate Webb Vermont Representative
Kate Webb Vermont Representative
REDLANDS, Calif. - March 14, 2013 - PRLog -- When Vermont Councilperson Kate Webb introduced legislation last year (H-722) to require genetically modified foods (GMOs) to be labeled, she and the State of Vermont were then promptly threatened by GMO seed and pesticide corporate giant Monsanto, that they would be seeing each other in court.

Even though there was a pause in the effort of Vermont legislators to pass mandatory GMO labeling in 2012, and California Prop #37 failed the vote after pro GMO crop supporters (No on Prop #37) threw $47 million dollars at the campaign compared to the pro GMO labeling groups mere $7 million dollars, Vermont is moving forward to pass the legislation since the citizens of Vermont have overwhelming said they want to know yes or no if GMOs are in the foods they are eating and feeding their families.

The 2013 Vermont GMO labeling bill, H-112, seems to be stronger than ever passing the Vermont State Agriculture Committee with an 8-3 vote.  Agriculture committee members listened to weeks of testimony before the vote.  Knowing the overwhelming citizen support and worldwide scientific evidence and restrictions, you do wonder what the three that voted “no” missed.  

Kate Webb explains, “We are putting no limits on GMOs coming into the state, just the labeling.  We face issues related to federal preemption related to the right to label; first amendment rights, not requiring them to speak negatively about their product when ill effects have not been proven; and the dormant commerce clause.  There will be no discrimination as to where the products are produced, be it Vermont or California - all will be affected.”

Kate has the perfect vantage point to watch as history unfolds before her as Vermont moves to become the first state in the country to pass a Mandatory GMO labeling bill and will share all of that today on Smart Health Talk Radio Show.

Vermont H-112 now moves on to the House Judiciary Committee where fighting Monsanto in court will most certainly be the center of the discussion.

Our most knowledgeable scientists on GMOs and pesticides like Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumer Reports Magazine have testified before the Vermont House Agriculture Committee of the undeniable health and environmental risks while discounting one Monsanto claim after another.  The past year’s drought losses have made it clear we should be questioning all Monsanto claims.

Dave Rogers, who serves as the policy advisor for the Northeast Organic Farming Association suggested we look at the uncertainty of GMO products as even more reason to label them.

Monsanto had their chance to testify before the Vermont House Agriculture Committee.  

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reported in their article, “Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont Over Labeling Bill,” last April 4th 2012 that, “Monsanto’s lobbyist Margaret Laggis employed inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims to make Monsanto’s case.  She warned during the hearings that if this law were passed, there would not be enough corn, canola, and soybean seed for Vermont farmers to plant, that the FDA had done exhaustive feeding tests to determine safety, and that the Canadian study that reported high levels of pesticides in the blood of over 90% of pregnant women tested was from eating too much organic food.”

The OCA also reported that Margaret Laggis blatantly tried to shift the blame for 90% of pregnant women in Canada testing positive for pesticides in their urine from having come from eating foods with pesticide residues to coming from eating organic foods.  Would not seem statistically possible considering the ratio of organic to conventional foods on the market.

Not Having Enough Food

A longtime favorite threat of Monsanto is that we are all going to starve without them, when the opposite may be the truth.  

Monsanto biotech bullying practices include buying up every seed company they can get their hands on throughout the world.  It would seem a lack of non-GMO seed would fall on Monsanto since they are in control of the world supply.  

Good news is we have farmers like Howard Vlieger that are working to create a new supply of non-GMO seeds for our farmers.  Its obvious Monsanto has the power to limit organic/non GMO seed availability and force farmers into buying GMO seed every year.

FDA Does Not Test Product

Bottom line the FDA does not test products; they just approve Monsanto research done by paid Monsanto scientists only.

The world would have all kinds of scientific test results on GMOs to evaluate if they were legally allowed to study Monsanto genetically modified seeds and pesticides but they ARE NOT ALLOWED TO STUDY THEM.

Monsanto has made sure the laws work in their favor only, not the consumer.  The way the current law is written, the only scientists that can study Monsanto patented GMO seeds and pesticide/herbicide products are those that have been given written permission from Monsanto only.

Guess what.  They always say NO YOU CANNOT STUDY OUR GMO PATENTED PRODUCTS.  Only Monsanto scientists allowed.

The safety of these products all rests on what Monsanto has told us.  That was until the French GMO study published September 2012 and featured on the homepage that demonstrated long term feeding (2 years) of GMO corn and Round Up Ready Pesticide could produce tumors like never seen before.  Monsanto studies are limited to three months only.  

Pesticides Present in 90% of Canadian Pregnant Women

The pesticide that was identified in the urine of the pregnant women is NEVER ALLOWED in organic agriculture.  Only used with Monsanto GMO seeds.

Monsanto has to know this, but are not above testifying before our legislators otherwise.

The Monsanto empty threats are being seen for what they really are, an effort to control everything on our plate and not based on fact.  

Extra Costs to Farmers, Manufacturers, and Consumers

When you examine claims there will be extra costs to the farmer, manufacturer, and consumer you find no basis for the claim.  The cost of the ink to change one ingredient on a label is all that is needed to comply.  

The farmer knows if they are buying expensive GMO seed so no mystery there.  The test to see if GMOs and pesticides are present is widely available.  If you don’t want to do the test you can just add the words “may contain GMOs” to the label and avoid the expense all together.  Companies are always changing their labels for other reasons.

If GMOs are so safe, with no adverse effects to people or the environment as Monsanto claims, then why fight to keep it off the label?

Tune in to to listen or watch live at 4:00 pm PST/7:00 pm EST to hear the latest on the Vermont Farm Bill from Kate Webb herself or go to the website to find the podcast.
Source:Smart Health Talk
Email:*** Email Verified
Tags:Kate Webb, Gmos, Gmo-labeling, Vermont, H-112
Industry:Food, Health
Location:Redlands - California - United States
Account Email Address Verified     Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse