To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall inside the offices of the top lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
So close to the July 1 deadline for complying with Vermont's GMO labeling law, and still no court ruling to overturn Vermont's law. Still no federal legislation to preempt Vermont's law.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent to keep labels off GMO ingredients. Lawsuits, dirty tricks, shady schemes--all, so far, for naught. Meanwhile, food corporations are labeling, or announcing plans to label, and preparing to implement those plans. Others, including Dannon, will remove GMO ingredients from their products.
Is victory really within our grasp this time?
The closer we get to July 1, the closer we are to winning the battle of all labeling battles. Which is all the more reason to keep up the pressure, on all fronts.
Can U.S. Senate put together a deal before July 1?
So far, efforts by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to pass a federal law which would preempt Vermont's mandatory labeling law have failed.
But we haven't heard the end of the DARK--Deny Americans the Right to Know--Act. At least not yet.
Politico reports that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) on April 26, told a gathering of the North American Agricultural Journalists, "There could be a deal" before July 1. According to Politico, Stabenow said: "We've offered some very specific language and there is a lot of support for it."
Stabenow didn't divulge what that "very specific language" was, or who among those who have so far voted against the DARK Act might go for this new language. But our sources tell us Stabenow is pushing for the same old QR code and/or 1-800 telephone numbers that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has proposed--but with one difference. Stabenow wants those QR codes to be mandatory, not voluntary.
Will Roberts, who so far has adamantly opposed any option that actually requires labels, cave? If Stabenow's version also includes a plan that would delay implementation of Vermont's law?
Stabenow is in a tight spot. Nine out of 10 of her constituents want labels on GMOs, and they've been relentlessly vocal about that. But she's under tremendous pressure from industry--including Michigan's GMO sugar beet growers who fear food companies will switch to sugar cane rather than label--to stop Vermont's law in its tracks.
The clock is ticking. But it hasn't run out. The worst thing we can do now is be silent. It's more critical than ever that we keep the pressure on.
What happens in Vermont doesn't stay in Vermont
Meanwhile, back in Vermont, things heated up last week as the food industry looked for ways to stall and weaken Vermont's Act 120.
In a nutshell, here's what happened, as explained by Nancy Remsen in this April 25 report. The Vermont Retail & Grocers Association wanted to tweak the Vermont law, to the advantage of food companies (not consumers, of course). Specifically, the industry group wanted: 1) to prevent consumers from suing if they find non-labeled products on store shelves during the 18 months immediately after the law takes effect on July 1; and 2) to exempt food prepared in stores (think potato salad, sandwiches and baked goods).
How did industry plan to make changes to a law passed two years ago, and set to take effect in two months? By attaching them to the state's budget bill--a bill lawmakers want wrapped up and passed by May 6, when the legislative session is due to end.
OCA and other groups called on our networks to let Vermont lawmakers know we expect them to stand strong against any attempts to weaken or delay Vermont's law. We generated more than 500 calls to the Vermont State House because the future of the GMO labeling movement now comes down to upholding Vermont's Act 120--a bill the national movement fought for and helped pass.
In the end, the Vermont Senate's appropriations bill included a provision to delay the possibility of consumer lawsuits, by one year (January 1, 2018) instead of the 18 months industry requested. (The states' attorney general retains the power to enforce the law beginning January 1, 2017, as specified in Act 120, and has said he will do so). Because the House version of the budget didn't include the provision delaying consumer lawsuits, the final decision will have to be made when the House and Senate meet to negotiate a final bill.
Monsanto still fiercely protecting its right to deceive
While Big Food has been tinkering with the Vermont law, the state's attorney general has been trying to pry incriminating evidence out of the hands of Monsanto and other biotech and food corporations. And that move may just work to the benefit of consumers who want labels.
According to Food Dive, Attorney General William Sorrell wants "major seed and food companies" to hand over internal research on GMO crops. The request comes as part of the GMA's lawsuit, filed nearly two years ago.
Food Dive reports:
Requested research includes those related to "potential health or environmental impacts" of GMO crops and the pesticides used on them (from Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta). It also includes "consumer survey research" from the past decade about GMO foods and the use of the term "natural" on their product labels (from ConAgra, Kellogg, and Frito-Lay North America).
We think it's a safe bet that the GMA and Monsanto probably realize that they are better off labeling their products in compliance with Vermont's law, than risking the public release of their own potentially incriminating research on the health impacts of GMO crops and the pesticides used to grow them.
It's one thing for the World Health Organization to come out with the determination that glyphosate and Monsanto's Roundup are probably carcinogenic. It's quite another if word gets out that Monsanto has known this all along--but kept the information to itself. The latter is clear grounds for legal action.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall inside the offices of the top lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
So close to the July 1 deadline for complying with Vermont's GMO labeling law, and still no court ruling to overturn Vermont's law. Still no federal legislation to preempt Vermont's law.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent to keep labels off GMO ingredients. Lawsuits, dirty tricks, shady schemes--all, so far, for naught. Meanwhile, food corporations are labeling, or announcing plans to label, and preparing to implement those plans. Others, including Dannon, will remove GMO ingredients from their products.
Is victory really within our grasp this time?
The closer we get to July 1, the closer we are to winning the battle of all labeling battles. Which is all the more reason to keep up the pressure, on all fronts.
Can U.S. Senate put together a deal before July 1?
So far, efforts by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to pass a federal law which would preempt Vermont's mandatory labeling law have failed.
But we haven't heard the end of the DARK--Deny Americans the Right to Know--Act. At least not yet.
Politico reports that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) on April 26, told a gathering of the North American Agricultural Journalists, "There could be a deal" before July 1. According to Politico, Stabenow said: "We've offered some very specific language and there is a lot of support for it."
Stabenow didn't divulge what that "very specific language" was, or who among those who have so far voted against the DARK Act might go for this new language. But our sources tell us Stabenow is pushing for the same old QR code and/or 1-800 telephone numbers that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has proposed--but with one difference. Stabenow wants those QR codes to be mandatory, not voluntary.
Will Roberts, who so far has adamantly opposed any option that actually requires labels, cave? If Stabenow's version also includes a plan that would delay implementation of Vermont's law?
Stabenow is in a tight spot. Nine out of 10 of her constituents want labels on GMOs, and they've been relentlessly vocal about that. But she's under tremendous pressure from industry--including Michigan's GMO sugar beet growers who fear food companies will switch to sugar cane rather than label--to stop Vermont's law in its tracks.
The clock is ticking. But it hasn't run out. The worst thing we can do now is be silent. It's more critical than ever that we keep the pressure on.
What happens in Vermont doesn't stay in Vermont
Meanwhile, back in Vermont, things heated up last week as the food industry looked for ways to stall and weaken Vermont's Act 120.
In a nutshell, here's what happened, as explained by Nancy Remsen in this April 25 report. The Vermont Retail & Grocers Association wanted to tweak the Vermont law, to the advantage of food companies (not consumers, of course). Specifically, the industry group wanted: 1) to prevent consumers from suing if they find non-labeled products on store shelves during the 18 months immediately after the law takes effect on July 1; and 2) to exempt food prepared in stores (think potato salad, sandwiches and baked goods).
How did industry plan to make changes to a law passed two years ago, and set to take effect in two months? By attaching them to the state's budget bill--a bill lawmakers want wrapped up and passed by May 6, when the legislative session is due to end.
OCA and other groups called on our networks to let Vermont lawmakers know we expect them to stand strong against any attempts to weaken or delay Vermont's law. We generated more than 500 calls to the Vermont State House because the future of the GMO labeling movement now comes down to upholding Vermont's Act 120--a bill the national movement fought for and helped pass.
In the end, the Vermont Senate's appropriations bill included a provision to delay the possibility of consumer lawsuits, by one year (January 1, 2018) instead of the 18 months industry requested. (The states' attorney general retains the power to enforce the law beginning January 1, 2017, as specified in Act 120, and has said he will do so). Because the House version of the budget didn't include the provision delaying consumer lawsuits, the final decision will have to be made when the House and Senate meet to negotiate a final bill.
Monsanto still fiercely protecting its right to deceive
While Big Food has been tinkering with the Vermont law, the state's attorney general has been trying to pry incriminating evidence out of the hands of Monsanto and other biotech and food corporations. And that move may just work to the benefit of consumers who want labels.
According to Food Dive, Attorney General William Sorrell wants "major seed and food companies" to hand over internal research on GMO crops. The request comes as part of the GMA's lawsuit, filed nearly two years ago.
Food Dive reports:
Requested research includes those related to "potential health or environmental impacts" of GMO crops and the pesticides used on them (from Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta). It also includes "consumer survey research" from the past decade about GMO foods and the use of the term "natural" on their product labels (from ConAgra, Kellogg, and Frito-Lay North America).
We think it's a safe bet that the GMA and Monsanto probably realize that they are better off labeling their products in compliance with Vermont's law, than risking the public release of their own potentially incriminating research on the health impacts of GMO crops and the pesticides used to grow them.
It's one thing for the World Health Organization to come out with the determination that glyphosate and Monsanto's Roundup are probably carcinogenic. It's quite another if word gets out that Monsanto has known this all along--but kept the information to itself. The latter is clear grounds for legal action.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall inside the offices of the top lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
So close to the July 1 deadline for complying with Vermont's GMO labeling law, and still no court ruling to overturn Vermont's law. Still no federal legislation to preempt Vermont's law.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent to keep labels off GMO ingredients. Lawsuits, dirty tricks, shady schemes--all, so far, for naught. Meanwhile, food corporations are labeling, or announcing plans to label, and preparing to implement those plans. Others, including Dannon, will remove GMO ingredients from their products.
Is victory really within our grasp this time?
The closer we get to July 1, the closer we are to winning the battle of all labeling battles. Which is all the more reason to keep up the pressure, on all fronts.
Can U.S. Senate put together a deal before July 1?
So far, efforts by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to pass a federal law which would preempt Vermont's mandatory labeling law have failed.
But we haven't heard the end of the DARK--Deny Americans the Right to Know--Act. At least not yet.
Politico reports that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) on April 26, told a gathering of the North American Agricultural Journalists, "There could be a deal" before July 1. According to Politico, Stabenow said: "We've offered some very specific language and there is a lot of support for it."
Stabenow didn't divulge what that "very specific language" was, or who among those who have so far voted against the DARK Act might go for this new language. But our sources tell us Stabenow is pushing for the same old QR code and/or 1-800 telephone numbers that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has proposed--but with one difference. Stabenow wants those QR codes to be mandatory, not voluntary.
Will Roberts, who so far has adamantly opposed any option that actually requires labels, cave? If Stabenow's version also includes a plan that would delay implementation of Vermont's law?
Stabenow is in a tight spot. Nine out of 10 of her constituents want labels on GMOs, and they've been relentlessly vocal about that. But she's under tremendous pressure from industry--including Michigan's GMO sugar beet growers who fear food companies will switch to sugar cane rather than label--to stop Vermont's law in its tracks.
The clock is ticking. But it hasn't run out. The worst thing we can do now is be silent. It's more critical than ever that we keep the pressure on.
What happens in Vermont doesn't stay in Vermont
Meanwhile, back in Vermont, things heated up last week as the food industry looked for ways to stall and weaken Vermont's Act 120.
In a nutshell, here's what happened, as explained by Nancy Remsen in this April 25 report. The Vermont Retail & Grocers Association wanted to tweak the Vermont law, to the advantage of food companies (not consumers, of course). Specifically, the industry group wanted: 1) to prevent consumers from suing if they find non-labeled products on store shelves during the 18 months immediately after the law takes effect on July 1; and 2) to exempt food prepared in stores (think potato salad, sandwiches and baked goods).
How did industry plan to make changes to a law passed two years ago, and set to take effect in two months? By attaching them to the state's budget bill--a bill lawmakers want wrapped up and passed by May 6, when the legislative session is due to end.
OCA and other groups called on our networks to let Vermont lawmakers know we expect them to stand strong against any attempts to weaken or delay Vermont's law. We generated more than 500 calls to the Vermont State House because the future of the GMO labeling movement now comes down to upholding Vermont's Act 120--a bill the national movement fought for and helped pass.
In the end, the Vermont Senate's appropriations bill included a provision to delay the possibility of consumer lawsuits, by one year (January 1, 2018) instead of the 18 months industry requested. (The states' attorney general retains the power to enforce the law beginning January 1, 2017, as specified in Act 120, and has said he will do so). Because the House version of the budget didn't include the provision delaying consumer lawsuits, the final decision will have to be made when the House and Senate meet to negotiate a final bill.
Monsanto still fiercely protecting its right to deceive
While Big Food has been tinkering with the Vermont law, the state's attorney general has been trying to pry incriminating evidence out of the hands of Monsanto and other biotech and food corporations. And that move may just work to the benefit of consumers who want labels.
According to Food Dive, Attorney General William Sorrell wants "major seed and food companies" to hand over internal research on GMO crops. The request comes as part of the GMA's lawsuit, filed nearly two years ago.
Food Dive reports:
Requested research includes those related to "potential health or environmental impacts" of GMO crops and the pesticides used on them (from Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta). It also includes "consumer survey research" from the past decade about GMO foods and the use of the term "natural" on their product labels (from ConAgra, Kellogg, and Frito-Lay North America).
We think it's a safe bet that the GMA and Monsanto probably realize that they are better off labeling their products in compliance with Vermont's law, than risking the public release of their own potentially incriminating research on the health impacts of GMO crops and the pesticides used to grow them.
It's one thing for the World Health Organization to come out with the determination that glyphosate and Monsanto's Roundup are probably carcinogenic. It's quite another if word gets out that Monsanto has known this all along--but kept the information to itself. The latter is clear grounds for legal action.
