Despite opposition from consumer advocacy groups, a controversial bill on the labeling of genetically modified (GM or GMO) food passed a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, even as critics warned the legislation is needlessly complicated and bends to the agriculture lobby interests.
Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys
According to The Hill, “the Democrats who voted in support of the bill included Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Chris Coons (Del.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Mark Warner (Va.).”
The so-called “compromise” bill, introduced in June by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), allows food companies to label GMOs by using codes, symbols, or packaging language.
Critics slammed the bill’s sponsors for negotiating the legislation behind closed doors, accusing Stabenow and Roberts, among others, of being in Big Ag’s pocket. According to an analysis of OpenSecrets.org data by the group Organic Consumers Association (OCA), supporters of the bill received more than twice as much money in campaign donations from companies like Monsanto than opponents. Ahead of the vote Wednesday, OCA activists disrupted the Senate session to dump $2,000 on the chamber floor to protest the back-room dealings.
In addition to being confusing, the bill discriminates against certain consumers, including low-income, minority, rural, and elderly populations, by allowing food companies to use QR codes that require being scanned by smartphones, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) said on Wednesday.
“It is deeply disturbing that a majority in the Senate would support a bill that openly discriminates against America’s low income, rural and elderly populations. This denies them their right to know simply because they are not able to afford or have access to smartphones,” said CFS executive director Andrew Kimbrell. “The bill itself is poorly drafted and would exempt many and perhaps most current genetically engineered foods from labeling. It was written behind closed doors between a handful of Senators and the big chemical and food companies. It is a non-labeling bill disguised as a labeling bill, a sham and a legislative embarrassment.”
Opponents also noted that the bill simply goes against public opinion, with recent polls showing that more than 90 percent of Americans want GMO labeling on their food. If the bill passes into law, it will nullify state-level labeling efforts, such as the historic Vermont law that requires companies to use explicit language on their packages.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT