The biggest fear of Big Food materialize. Critical mass of educated consumers, environmental and health activists organized a powerful movement that could bring down trillion-dollar empire manufacturers of unhealthy foods in North America. Savvy and more determined than ever, activists are targeting the Achilles heel of the food industry - labeling.
But while consumers kontakt want more transparency and truth in labeling, not only Big Food, whose empire is vulnerable. Biotech industry that makes billions by charging manufacturers of unhealthy foods evtinni genetically modified (GM) ingredients can lose even more. Monsanto knows that if food manufacturers are forced to labeled GMO th in their food, they will reformulate these products to meet consumer demand - non-GMO alternatives. So companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow, along with Coca-Cola and Pepsi last year spent more than 46 million dollars to protect themselves from the initiative of the California labeling kontakt of GMO ingredients.
Manufacturers of unhealthy foods and biotech industries barely prevailed in California (48.5% - 51.5%), but they know it's a matter of time and other states to join and introduce legislation for mandatory labeling kontakt of GMOs. Lawmakers in more than 30 states are currently discussing labeling of GMOs. And users extend beyond labeling kontakt battle. kontakt Five counties kontakt and two cities in California and Washington have banned the cultivation of GM plants. In addition, given the complete absence of intervention by the Ministry of Food and Drug Administration, 19 states kontakt have adopted laws restricting GMOs.
How biotech industry fights back? By attacking democracy. Experts say that the laws are on the side of users. But without doubt, consumers should protect democracy by an increasingly desperate and aggressive industry, designed to protect high pochelivshiya business based on genetically modified foods.
Monsanto lobbyists kontakt have spread to Washington, Vermont, Connecticut and a dozen other states. They handle the politicians behind the scenes and put misleading press articles. Attack supporters of GMO labeling as anti-technology Luddites. Constantly repeating the propaganda that claims that GM foods and plants are completely safe, therefore do not require labeling that transgenics is not harmful to the environment and climate, and that GM crops are needed kontakt for feeding the world.
One of the main points in Monstanto propaganda designed to discourage lawmakers from passing a law on labeling of GMOs is that labeling of GMOs in individual states is unconstitutional. Monsanto has repeatedly said they would sue any state that afford labeling GMOs. This threat was enough to convince legislators in Vermont and Connecticut in 2012 to abandon the labeling, although there were a significant number of votes and an overwhelming public opinion to pass relevant laws.
These allegations are unfounded. The state labeling of GMOs and other laws on food safety and labeling them Constitutional. Federal kontakt law, supported by decades of legal decisions of the Federal Court allows states to enact laws regarding bezposnostta and labeling of food venue in ministry when no explicit provisions or prohibitions. There is currently no federal law or ministerial order on the GMO labeling but recommended guidelines for voluntary labeling, no federal prohibition of state labeling of GMOs. In fact, at the time there were over 200 laws for labeling of food, including GMO labeling of fish in Alaska laws on labeling of wild rice, maple syrup, dairy products and kosher kontakt laws labeling of dairy products without recombinant bovine hormone growth. There is hardly a federal court to decide what to invalidate 200 existing state laws.
Case law in the United States shows that commercial freedom of speech in some cases allows corporations to remain silent about the ingredients of their products. On the other hand federal courts consistently state that prevailed when the state's kontakt interests - health, kontakt environment, economy - corporations may be forced to disclose the ingredients of their products and methods of production.
When it comes to GMOs, states may establish a case of overriding public interest, says senior eskpert Union consumers Michael Hansen. Hansen says, "... there are overriding national interests on labeling of GMOs and this is due to the potential impact of genetically modified foods on human health and the environment."
Hansen claims that Codex Alimentarius, a collection of internationally recognized standards, best practices, guidelines and other recommendations regarding food,
No comments:
Post a Comment