The world's most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.

Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont's Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.

The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.

Instead, they're calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.

What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont's "right to know" bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a "low appetite" for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to "go it alone" against Monsanto in court.

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation.

Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto's minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge's decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment "right" to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH - even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.

Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitals. The company's stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens' Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as "natural."

All of Monsanto's fear mongering and intimidation tactics were blatantly on display in the House Agriculture Committee hearings March 15-16.

During the hearings the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill - more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000. The legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses such as Dr. Michael Hansen, an expert on genetic engineering from the Consumers Union, who shredded industry claims that GMO's are safe and that consumers don't need to know if their food is contaminated with them.

On the other side of the fence, Monsanto's lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece, 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.

Laggis lied when she said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had done exhaustive feeding tests on genetically modified foods. Hansen corrected her, testifying that all of the GMO feeding tests submitted to the FDA were conducted by Monsanto and other GMO corporations and that the FDA had not done any GMO testing of its own.

Laggis lied again when she claimed that a recent Canadian study showing that more than 90% pregnant women had high levels of a genetically modified bacterial pesticide in their blood resulted from them "eating too much organic food" during pregnancy. Again, Hansen refuted this nonsense by pointing out that the Bacillus thuingensis (Bt) bacterium spray used by organic growers is chemically and materially different from the GMO Bt bacterium which showed up in the pregnant women's blood and the umbilical cords of their fetuses. Hanson pointed that the high levels of Monsanto's mutant Bt in the women's blood was due to the widespread cultivation of GMO corn, cotton, soy, and canola.

The committee heard testimony that European Union studies have been conducted which showed that even short-term feeding studies of GMO crops caused 43.5% of male test animals to suffer kidney abnormalities, and 30.8% of female test animals to suffer liver abnormalities. Studies also have shown that the intestinal lining of animals fed GMO food was thickened compared to the control animals. All of these short-term results could become chronic, and thus precursors to cancer.

Studies like these have prompted 50 nations around the world to pass laws requiring mandatory labels on GMO right foods.

In the end, none of the scientific testimony mattered. Monsanto operatives simply reverted to their usual tactics: They openly threatened to sue the state.

Unfortunately in the US, industry and the government continue to side with Monsanto rather than the 90% of consumers who support labeling. Monsanto's biotech bullying is a classic example of how the 1% control the rest of us, even in Vermont, generally acknowledged as the most progressive state in the nation.

Vermont activists are organizing a protest at the state capital on April 12 to coincide with the next round of hearings on H-722, and are asking residents to write letters, make calls, and e-mail their legislators and the Governor. For more information, please go to the website http://www.vtrighttoknow.org or the Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/vtrighttoknow of the Vermont Right to Know Campaign.

I think Monsanto is the single most evil corporation in the world today... and this is from someone who otherwise supports GMO.

I'm surprise some of those so called "eco terrorists" haven't killed the president and CEO of Monsanto yet, or have attempted to.

If dumb *** mother ****ers would vote against the incumbents things would change, but apathy and ignorance always wins. We deserve whatever we get in this country.

i agree... monsanto seems to be at the forefront of troublemakers around the world.

I've had roommates and travelling companions who were among the most extreme of the 'eco terrorists' that we read about. None of them would ever dream of killing someone. Many of them are actually very sweet and kind people - they just don't recognize corporate ownership of nature, and don't feel the need to respect 'property' that is used for (from their point of view) for destructive purposes. So yeah they'll blithely destroy millions of dollars worth of, say, loggin machinery if they can, but they are still compassionate people with their own sense of virtue.

Well, there really is no practical reason to label food in this way. It really would only serve the purpose of fear mongering.

I am not a supporter of monsantos tactics, but I agree with them on labeling.

That's pretty funny! I was about to post almost the exact same thing.


Monsanto's evil goes WAY beyond this thread. They now own much of the patents on natural DNA they had nothing to do with including seed stock for much of the world's edible food supply. These are natural plants, not genetically modified.

Some have different ideas, they are not all like your roommates and traveling companions.

All GMO foodstuffs should be so labeled. Anything we eat, we have the right to know what it is and where it came from. We have the right to choose not to purchase it too.

You got that right! In fact GMO "food" should be sold separately from regular food.

Addedly. Any meats should be labeled with any types of hormones they are fed.

I worked with a rancher who never dosed his animals.

Everyone who was at the auctions knew they were getting well cared for, clean animals.

We need to get the government off the backs of big business. People can choose for themselves what to eat and what not to eat. I wont have the government tell me what I can put in my own body its MY choice.


(Just kidding)

You are right, but I have cause to believe that they are representative of the so called "eco terrorist" subculture...at least in the 90s. I'm talking about people who organized major actions that the mainstream media would term "eco terrorist" actions.

You are right that there fringe individuals (and insane individuals) who would also be called 'eco terrorists', but they generally don't have the support of the community. If an eco-terrorists did murder a ceo like they, they'd likely be doing it alone.

I know you are kidding, but I feel compelled to respond to the line of reasoning you jokingly present:

Requiring honesty and transparency in labeling increases the ability of the individual freely make informed choices - it doesn't adversely effect their liberty.

Monsanto has convinced the courts that accidental cross pollination by GMO plants is the fault of the farmer who has had the wind bring the unwanted pollen to his fields. The farmer is then guilty of patent infringement and must pay Monsanto for their loss of income.

Monsanto is suing Mexican corn growers who have been growing old varieties of corn for thousands of years as Monsanto now infects their crops with new GMO strains. Monsanto has won suits across the US and Canada and put many farmers out of business.

What is being done to the food industry is evil beyond compare. People should watch some of the investigative films such as "Food Inc" to get an idea of what is happening.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

Storyline

The current method of raw food production is largely a response to the growth of the fast food industry since the 1950s. The production of food overall has more drastically changed since that time than the several thousand years prior. Controlled primarily by a handful of multinational corporations, the global food production business - with an emphasis on the business - has as its unwritten goals production of large quantities of food at low direct inputs (most often subsidized) resulting in enormous profits, which in turn results in greater control of the global supply of food sources within these few companies. Health and safety (of the food itself, of the animals produced themselves, of the workers on the assembly lines, and of the consumers actually eating the food) are often overlooked by the companies, and are often overlooked by government in an effort to provide cheap food regardless of these negative consequences..

Yea, except that all food is GMO if the standard is gene modification and not technique.

Selective breeding, IS gene modification.

So from my perspective this particular labeling scheme has exactly zero meaning.

We do need to stop monsanto however. In fact I think THEY should be sued each time there product cross pollinates someones field.

We should sue them out of business.

Apparently, "Food Inc." is available on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgWI2BtYgXU&feature=related

It is a eye opening experience if you have not been following the changes in the food industry in recent times.

Why do people allways look to the government for help? If you want good food that is healthy grow a garden or hunt! We need to get the government off the backs of the farmers!

(just kidding)