We Know Who You Are: 71 Senators Reject States’ Right to Label GMOs
By Katherine Paul
On the eve of a worldwide protest against Monsanto, 71 U.S. Senators—listed below—voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the 2013 Farm Bill that would have guaranteed states the right to enact mandatory genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling laws.
Seventy-one Senators—including 28 so-called liberal Democrats and 43 Republican so-called defenders of states’ rights—voted against your state’s Constitutional Tenth Amendment right to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and local businesses.
We know who those Senators are. And we plan to make certain that everyone who cares about food safety and food sovereignty knows who they are, too.
We’ll make sure that every consumer, citizen and voter knows that last year Monsanto donated almost $6 million, more than any other company, to the agriculture lobby. And that almost $1 million of that money went directly to political candidates, including some of the 71 Senators who voted against states’ rights to label GMOs.
And we will make sure that every one of those Senators knows that if they support any amendment or rider to the Farm Bill that would preempt state labeling laws, that if they fight labeling laws in any of their home states, we’ll support efforts to recall them where possible, or oppose them if recall isn’t an option.
The Sanders Amendment: What and Why
The Sanders amendment (S.AMDT.965) was introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the amendment was intended to definitively establish that states have the right to require labeling of GE ingredients.
In fact, states already have the right to enact mandatory GE labeling laws, just as they’ve passed nearly 200 other state laws governing food safety and agriculture. State GE labeling and other food safety and food labeling laws are guaranteed under the Constitution. Federal law, upheld for decades by federal court legal decisions, allows states to pass laws relating to food safety or food labels when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no prior regulations or prohibitions in place. There is currently no federal law or FDA regulation on GE labeling, except for a guidance statement on voluntary labeling, nor is there any federal prohibition on state GE or other food safety labeling laws.
But with so many states, including Washington, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and others threatening to actually pass GE labeling laws, the biotech industry is fighting back. Realizing that they can’t fight GE labeling laws in every state, they’re coming after states’ rights.
In Sen. Sanders’ home state, the GE labeling law, H. 112, passed the Vermont House May 13. The Vermont Senate will take up the bill in in January 2014. If the legislation is signed into law next year, Sen. Sanders anticipates a fight—one that his amendment might have averted.
Last year, when Vermont legislators signaled they might pass a GE labeling law, Monsanto threatened to sue the state, causing the Governor to back down. That’s when Sen. Sanders first introduced his amendment, to the Senate version of the 2012 Farm Bill, where it was quashed by a vote of 26 to 73, with this year’s vote as 27 to 71. The 2012 Farm Bill stalled before it could be finalized, while Congress was distracted by the national elections.
The Corporate Takeover of Local Decision-Making
Arguing against the Sanders Amendment, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the chair of the Agriculture Committee, said that the amendment “would interfere with the FDA’s science-based process to determine what food labeling is necessary for consumers.” Stabenow’s statement shows either her ignorance of, or dismissal of, the existing scientific evidence that GE food has been linked to everything from allergies to kidney failure to cancer.
But Sen. Stabenow’s real argument was one of efficiency.
Let’s forget for a moment that Sen. Stabenow took in $739,926 in campaign contributions from Big Ag in 2012. Or that Bill Gates is a Monsanto shareholder. Or that there’s plenty of evidence refuting the claim that GE crops can solve world hunger, improve nutrition or survive drought. The focus on efficiency over health and safety, when we’re talking about our food, should be enough to set off alarm bells. Claiming efficiency, whether it’s a valid claim or not, as a reason to trample states’ rights to make their own decisions regarding food and agriculture, should have us thinking “slippery slope.”
In their book, Slow Democracy, Susan Clark and Woden Teachout write:
When 71 Senators ignore 90 percent of their constituents, we are losing out. When 71 Senators ignore the science that says, at the least, GE food should be adequately tested and labeled and at the most, it should be banned, we are losing out. When 71 Senators are willing to trample on the Constitution that guarantees states’ rights to protect the health and safety of their citizens, we are losing out.
It’s time for the 71 Senators who voted against the Sanders Amendment to start voting with the citizens who pay their salaries, not the lobbyists who fill their campaign coffers. If they don’t? It’s time for us to demand that they leave. And either vote or throw them out if they refuse.
The 71 Senators Who Voted Against Your Right to Know
Visit EcoWatch’s GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS page for more related news on this topic.
By Andy Rowell
"Disruption" is one of the buzzwords of the energy market right now as plummeting costs of renewables is changing the way we heat our homes and drive our automobiles.
Some of the biggest names in the energy business spoke Wednesday on that very topic in London at the Financial Times' Energy Transition Strategies Summit, at the panel Rethinking Energy in a Time of Disruption.
The Center for Biological Diversity filed four public records requests Wednesday to state and federal agencies demanding disclosure of environmental compliance documents relating to the Rover Pipeline in Ohio. The natural gas pipeline is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline.
People who deny that humans are wreaking havoc on the planet's life-support systems astound me. When confronted with the obvious damage we're doing to the biosphere—from climate change to water and air pollution to swirling plastic patches in the oceans—some dismiss the reality or employ logical fallacies to discredit the messengers.
The federal government is providing extensive support for fossil fuel production on public lands and waters offshore, through a combination of direct subsidies, enforcement loopholes, lax royalty collection, stagnant lease rates and other advantages to the industry, a report released Wednesday found.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) said Wednesday in its 2017 annual review that the solar industry alone provides more than three million jobs worldwide, and projected that the renewable industry could employ 24 million people by 2030.
By Elgie Holstein
The federal budget that the president proposes annually and Congress votes on is more than a collection of numbers. It tells us who the president is, what he stands for and what he cares about.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget will still be slashed by nearly a third, from $8.2 billion to $5.65 billion, under President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget proposal released Tuesday.
The EPA, which has long been targeted by the Trump administration, is the hardest hit federal agency under the new plan. Opponents say it "endangers Americans" and cripples an institution charged with protecting their health and safety.
Frustrated by non-experts taking to the internet to dispute the science behind human-made climate change, North Carolina meteorologist Greg Fishel issued a challenge to climate deniers, urging them to "put up or shut up" and "submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you."