GMO Activists Disappointed in House Action

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Activists pushing for a law mandating that food with genetically modified ingredients carry labels expressed disappointment in the House of Representatives.

\”With the opportunity to send to the Governor’s desk a strong GMO labeling bill to protect Connecticut consumers, the House instead complacently accepted an amendment from Governor Malloy and Speaker Brendan Sharkey, despite strong protest from the advocates, that weakened the bill and makes it’s future enactment uncertain,\’\’ wrote Tara Cook-Littman of Westport, who founded GMO Free Connecticut.

\”In the middle of the night, the House passed and sent a bill back to the Senate that would allow Connecticut citizens the right to know what is in their food, only after 25 million other Americans earn that right with the requirement that those 25 million be from five other states with two of those states being either New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island. If you’re confused by all of this, we understand,\’\’ Littman-Cook wrote.

\” This is not leadership, but an abdication of responsibility,\’\’ she wrote.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

4 thoughts on “GMO Activists Disappointed in House Action

  1. Charlene

    How about legislators have to listen to more than one side and then make a decision – I’m sure Ms Cook-Littman is more accustomed to preaching about than discussing this issue?

    Farmers and people across Connecticut who grow, produce,distribute, sell and eat food — and feed it to their children — are also against this bill as it was originally written.

  2. Nancy Bowden

    People should be free to feed their children whatever they feel is healthy for them. Many do not wish to feed their children OR themselves a bunch of chemicals – aspartame, pink slime, or GMOs are among the things we should all be able to avoid but we have to know where they are!!

    Both the Governor and the Speaker need to wear badges that say “Stopped Being Revolutionary”. Just another good suggestion for labeling, so we can all know by whom we are being “led”.

  3. Anne

    First of all, Malloy was acting either manipulatively or ignorantly or both. He CAN’T sign a bill mandating full disclosure. The Farm Bill and it’s Amendment rejection: (http://news.yahoo.com/farm-bill-senate-rejects-gmo-labeling-amendment-152521609.html)
    took away his ability to do so.

    So….either he didn’t do his homework?? (Dumb), Or, he played everyone by acting like he was going to be the hero Governor to sign this Bill, only to do a whitewashed version in the end (which will probably get challenged now).

    What a guy.

  4. Jayne Paradis

    What costs? Why should it cost American consumers more when it cost Europeans consumers nothing to have the label changes (since 1997)?

    “Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that label changes will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers.

    In a recent study on the economic impact of (CA) Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.”

    In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, “it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”

    Do people realize that even baby food is made with pesticide injected seeds? Don’t/Shouldn’t people want to know what they are feeding their family? How is it American companies can label their packaging appropriately for sales in the 60+ countries without a direct increase in price yet they cannot do it for American citizens.

Comments are closed.