Russia labels GMOs, while America’s government sells out to the biotech poisoners and propagandists

Monday, March 25, 2019 by: Vicki Batts

(Natural News) GMO labeling laws have been a source of controversy in the United States for quite some time. Consumer advocates have called upon the federal government to protect Americans’ right to freedom of choice and to encourage transparency in the food industry, but officials seem to be more interested in defending corporate interests. Industry leaders are afraid proper GMO labeling will interfere with their bottom lines — that alone should be a huge red flag. But while federal officials in the United States are twiddling their thumbs over GMOs, nations around the world are beginning to take action. Russia, for example, just introduced clear GMO labeling on all foods.

While GMO labeling laws have been passed in the United States, the proposed implementation of such laws leaves much to be desired. Critics say GMO labeling practices enacted here in America function more like propaganda for the biotech industry. Brightly colored smiley-face stickers that don’t even bear the letters “GMO” are hardly a clear identifier, after all. Heaven forbid Americans actually make informed decisions about the food they eat– the entire industry would collapse overnight if people knew what they were really getting.

Clear GMO labeling comes to Russia

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which includes Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Belarus, introduced their new, clear GMO labeling practices at the start of the new year. All food and supplements containing genetically modified ingredients will bear a “GMO” label on the packaging.

As Sustainable Pulse reports:

According to the new regulations, the basic size of the GMO label must not be less than 5 mm. The technical regulations also require that the GMO label be applied in a manner that provides easy readability and visibility throughout the shelf life of food and supplement products.

Across the board, the EAEU is taking a firm stance on GMOs. In 2016, Russia’s State Duma voted on a bill which would ban the cultivation of GMO crops and animals in Russia entirely, except for scientific purposes. And in 2018, the Kyrgyzstan government announced that it would be the second country in the world to adopt organic-only farming practices.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is a world away from reaching any kind of transparency on GMOs.

GMO labeling in the U.S. is lackluster

Congress passed a law to label GMO products in the U.S. back in 2016. Since that time, federal officials have been struggling to come up with the specifics of labeling such items. The USDA recently revealed a few of the “options” they’ve come up with. As NPR reports, all options are brightly colored, friendly looking labels that bear the letters “B.E” instead of “GMO.” Some show a smiling sun, or a circle of growing plants, too.

“B.E” is apparently supposed to stand for “bioengineered,” and this little change is clearly an attempt at placating Big Biotech and Big Ag. As critics have stated, replacing the well-known and easily recognizable term “GMO” arbitrarily with some new term will only confuse consumers. The average person may not be aware of the fact that “B.E” actually means “GMO.”

This is a blatant attempt to obscure truth and feign transparency, and it should not be tolerated. The federal government is literally conspiring to fool the American people, to protect corporate interests. Who are these federal agencies supposed to serve and protect, again?

George Kimbrell, the legal director for the Center for Food Safety, criticized the USDA’s iteration of GMO labeling. “They’re very pro-biotech, cartoonishly so, and to that extent are, you know, not just imparting information but instead are essentially propaganda for the industry,” he told NPR.

The failure to come up with a clear and easily understood label for GMO products is an affront to American freedom. Regardless of one’s view on GMOs, the simple fact remains that people have the right to choose what they put in their bodies. Ingredient labels exist for a reason — and GMO labels should, too. (Click to Source)

Learn about GMO labeling and more at GMO.news.

Sources for this article include:

SustainablePulse.com

NPR.org

MONSANTO AND BIG AG COLONIZING AFRICA, CRIMINALIZING TRADITIONAL SEED EXCHANGES

africa-seeds-banned

Of the many concerns surrounding the dominance of agrichemicals companies and GMO foods, the most frightening dimension is that corporate manufactured seed is wiping out global biodiversity in food crops and creating a punitive legal framework for our total dependence on these companies for food.

Monsanto, Syngenta and other majors in agribusiness are presently colonizing Africa with the help of international aid programs which force nations into agreements requiring dependence on patented seeds, thereby prohibiting traditional seed exchanges.

Reporting on the situation in Tanzania, Ebe Daems of Mondiaal Nieuws informs us of recent legislation which puts local farmers under the threat of heavy fines of up to €205,300 and even prison terms of up to 12 years for violating the intellectual property rights of agrichemicals companies if individuals sell or trade in non-patented seed.

“If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights. If you save seeds from your first harvest, you can use them only on your own piece of land for non-commercial purposes. You’re not allowed to share them with your neighbors or with your sister-in-law in a different village, and you cannot sell them for sure. But that’s the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa,” ~Michael Farrelly of TOAM, an organic farming movement in Tanzania.

This is highly disturbing, yet the laws are part of the umbrella of G8 agreements which require intellectual property rights to be enforced as part of an exchange for development aid. This type of agreement is shockingly similar to the methods described by economic hitman John Perkins, who, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, explained how aid and development agencies conquer sovereign nations by offering at in exchange for natural resources.

“Tanzania applied the legislation concerning intellectual property rights on seeds as a condition for receiving development assistance through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN). The NAFSN was launched in 2012 by the G8 with the goal to help 50 million people out of poverty and hunger in the ten African partner countries through a public-private partnership. The initiative receives the support of the EU, the US, the UK, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

Companies that invest in the NAFSN are expected to pay attention to small-scale farmers and women in their projects, but sometimes little of that is noticed. As a result, the NAFSN receives a lot of criticism from NGOs and civil-society movements. Even the European Parliament issued a very critical report in May this year to urge the European Commission to take action.” [Source] (Click to Article)