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

Grocery Manufacturers Association sues the state of Washington over GMO labeling fight: GMA more evil than Monsanto

(NaturalNews) Monsanto has for years now been referred to as the most evil and hated company on the planet to those in the know. But before Monsanto, junk food companies were already peddling their wares to Americans and influencing the American diet. Junk food companies are represented by a single entity called the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA represents leading junk food producers such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Kellogg’s, General Mills, Nestle and Monsanto. As you might guess from seeing this list of Big Ag names, the GMA is loyal to its members and cares little about human health and human rights issues. After GMO labeling ballot measure I-522 failed to pass in Washington State by a narrow margin, a list of the companies paying to defeat the measure was released. And as you might be able to guess, these same companies were on that list.

GMA’s long-term plans to combat GMO labeling: label GMO food ingredients as “natural”

The GMA’s primary objective is really to keep consumers as uninformed about GMOs as possible. A key aspect of the GMA’s plan for fighting GMO labeling efforts in the US is the pursuit of statutory federal preemption. This preemption, once passed, would prevent a labeling requirement.

According to documents released through the Attorney General, the GMA has made long-term plans to quench GMO transparency issues in order to keep consumers uninformed about what’s in their food. Another section in the documents revealed details about the Association’s “Industry Image Efforts” which are related to the GMA’s plan for dealing with “attackers,” i.e., organizations and people working toward food ingredient transparency.

On December 5, 2013, the GMA sent a letter to the Chief Counsel of the FDA, Elizabeth Dickinsin. The letter informed her that the “GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks the FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled ‘natural.'” The GMA also wants to shut down any potential state lawsuits regarding the the legal interpretation of the “natural” label. 65 class action suits have previously been filed against food manufacturers who use GMOs in “natural” products.

GMA sues the State of Washington

On January 13, 2013, the GMA sued the state of Washington. The Association sued for the right to hide corporate campaign fund sources. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson declared that the GMA broke Washington State’s campaign finance disclosure laws. As a counterpunch move, the GMA sought to have the campaign finance laws declared unconsitutional! The Attorney General stated after this that he “looked forward to defending transparency in Washington elections.”

Having an answer to everything, the GMA has laid out a clear strategy for dealing with any state in the union that implements a GMO labeling law: They will sue. The GMA states, “The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy.” The GMA use threats of costly litigation and bully anyone in their way to protect its interests and agenda, the agenda to keep consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs and heavily processed junk foods by any means possible. However, as consumers become more aware, the GMA’s attempts at passing unpopular bills will likely meet with increasingly greater and more expensive public resistance.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

www.news-beacon-ireland.info

www.politico.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Click to http://www.naturalnews.com/043937_Grocery_Manufacturers_Association_GMO_labeling_Washington_State.html

TeshuvahRoad

The Next GMO Battlegrounds: New York State & Maryland

Public hearings are about to be held in two major cities of the US, just within earshot of mainstream media and the politicians on Biotech’s payroll. Albany, New York and Annapolis, Maryland are hosting these important debates in order to sway Congress into making a choice about labeling GMOs.

While the heavily and illegally funded Grocery Manufacturer’s Association carried out the chess move of relocating the GMO battle to Washington, D.C., enlisting more than 28 food and Big Ag organizations to help do its bidding in Congress, it did so because the last major state-battles were won at a heavy cost. If a federal mandate were passed, they cold stop funneling illegal millions into state-by-state campaigns.

A GMA-led coalition may have won battles in California and Washington, but many GMO labeling advocates are disdainful of their tactics.

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said the new coalition was organized to “steal away consumer choice in Congress.”

Of course, there are vocal detractors in the GMA – Leah Wilkinson, a director of ingredients, pet food, and state affairs for the American Feed Industry Association says that, “GMO labeling should be a federal solution.” Note the word ‘solution,’ – the carefully chosen method of propaganda evident in this very statement. A solution for who? The billion-dollar biotech and food manufacturing industries? It certainly wouldn’t be a solution for the many millions who want to know what is in their food before they buy it.

They aren’t that bright, though, if you look at the next statement coming from Wilkinson’s double-tipped tongue:

“If a labeling solution is not agreed upon and even a few of the pending state initiatives are successful, the feed industry’s costs of doing business goes up, on-farm production costs go up, and ultimately the consumer pays the price, with no important information in hand.”

Correction: the cost of doing business the corrupt way goes up. Companies like Costco and others that are selling non-GMO, organic products are actually doing quite well. Their stock is up. Within this simple admission is the evident fear of biotech. They are trying to project on us their own nervous projections of losing important Agri-business. In the meantime, GMO-labeling advocates aren’t just demanding to know what’s in their food, they are starting to come up with their own methods – like growing their own.

The pro-labeling side got there first with federal legislation sponsored by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) to mandate national labeling of GMO foods.

At this point, the GMA-led group does not have specific legislation, but there is a list of elements that members want to see in their “solution.” These include:

  • No “patchwork” of 50 state GMO safety and labeling laws, translates to this: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will continue as the nation’s authority, not individual states where people make their own choices about what goes in their food supply.
  • Labeling should advance food safety and require safety, health and nutritional reasons for any mandated GMO labeling. What exactly is nutritious about Bt toxins that kill human embryo cells?
  • Standards should exist for voluntary labeling to inform consumers whether GE processing was or was not used. Voluntary is the key word here. Meaning, biotech has the option of telling you if something is safe – we’ve seen just how effective that has been thus far.
  • FDA will define “natural” so that the term is used consistently. Do we really trust the FDA, purveyor of thousands of toxic drugs and genetically modified organisms deciding what ‘natural’ is?

As reported by FoodSafetyNews:

“Last year, a GMO bill died late in the session in Albany. GMO bills are back in both the Empire State Senate and the Assembly. Bipartisan sponsorship by Democrat Linda Rosenthal in the Assembly and Republican Ken LaValle in the Senate on a bill that requires all GMO food sold in the state to be labeled will get hearings in both chambers, probably in late March.

Furthermore, Maryland’s House Bill 1191, which is cross-filed as Senate Bill 0776, has been scheduled for a hearing before the Health and Government Operations Committee on March 11 at 1 p.m. The House/Senate measures require specified raw foods and packaged foods that are entirely or partially produced with GMO ingredients to be labeled.”

If you live in one of these states, or can get to them, please actively participate in the public hearings. Your voice counts. It can help protect state’s rights to choose before it is swallowed up into the federal-Monsanto-Dupont-Dow-biotech black hole forever.

Click to http://naturalsociety.com/next-gmo-battlegrounds-new-york-state-maryland/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=442448ca38-Email+381%3A+2%2F18%2F2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f20e6f9c84-442448ca38-323146273

TeshuvahRoad

Grocery Manufacturer’s Association Overtakes Monsanto as “Most Evil Corporation on the Planet”

By Dr. Mercola

The addictive and health-harming nature of sugar and processed food has been repeatedly confirmed through the years, and genetically engineered foods rank equally high on the list when it comes to foods that do more harm than good.

Monsanto, as most of you may already know, has long been referred to by those in the know as “the most evil company on the planet.” But it has stiff competition. Before there was Monsanto, junk food companies were already hard at work influencing American politics to further their own agenda.

The processed food industry has a lot to answer for when it comes to the general health of Americans, who spend upwards of 90 percent of all their food dollars on processed convenience foods.

The latest developments in the fight for GMO labeling actually makes a strong case for giving the title of “Most Evil Organization on the Planet” to the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association of America (GMA), which represents the processed food leaders, including Pepsi, Coke, Kraft, Kellogg’s, and General Mills.

The Grocery Manufacturer’s Association also lists Monsanto as a member, so it would make sense that the sum would be greater than the parts.

This organization is no stranger to stooping way down low to protect their members’ interests—your health and human rights be damned. And that is, in my opinion, evil.

GMA Caught in Money Laundering Scheme

But before I get into the latest developments, let me backtrack for a moment. During last year’s I-522 ballot campaign to label GMOs in Washington State, the GMA came up with an ingenious, and illegal, money laundering scheme to protect the identity of members who donated funds to the opposing campaign.1

Several major food companies experienced massive backlash and consumer boycotts once their contributions to the anti-labeling campaign in California (Prop. 37) in 2012 became widely known. This was a fate they all wanted to avoid, no doubt, and to prevent you from knowing which companies funded the anti-labeling campaign in Washington State, the GMA create a “brand defense” account, which paid for the campaign’s propaganda without disclosing where the money came from.

This illegal move helped them defeat I-522 by a mere one percent margin. The scheme fell apart however, and the GMA was sued by Attorney General Bob Ferguson,2 who accused them of intentional money laundering and violating state campaign disclosure laws.

As a result, the identities of the companies paying to defeat I-522 were released.3Not surprisingly it contained the usual suspects: Pepsi, Coke, General Mills, and Nestle – all primary purveyors of chronic disease.

Documents Unearthed in GMA Money Laundering Scandal Reveal Long-Term Plans to Combat GMO Labeling

Lawbreakers or not, the GMA’s work continues unabated, and job number one is to keep you as uninformed about GMOs as possible. This was clearly evidenced in heavily redacted documents4 released through the Attorney General’s investigation of the GMA money laundering scheme.

A previous Politico report5 revealed that a key aspect of the GMA’s plan for combating GMO labeling efforts across the US included the pursuit of statutory federal preemption—a law that prevents a labeling requirement.

This is one part of a detailed, five-pronged strategic plan to keep its members from having to reveal what their foods are made of. The documents6 released through the Attorney General also reveal quite a bit about the GMA’s strategic plan by what they hide. Large sections of the documents are redacted, including:

  • A portion under the heading “Industry Image Efforts,” which appears to be related to the GMA’s plan for addressing “attackers,” i.e. people and organizations working toward letting you know what’s in your food
  • Under the subhead “Industry Image Campaign,” it is revealed that a PR firm, the name of which is redacted, “has been retained to help develop a comprehensive program for execution in 2014.” The details relating to this plan are redacted
  • A section redacted in its entirety is titled, “Examining Options for Conveying Information to Consumers”
  • Also redacted is the name of an entity that “understands the need for continued opposition to efforts at the state level to impose mandatory labels and has directed GMA staff to continue to oppose such efforts.” I for one am curious as to who this mysterious entity is that has “directed” the GMA to oppose labeling in the face of public demand for disclosure and transparency…
  • Also redacted are several pages-worth relating to the Association’s long-term plans to quench GMO transparency issues

GMA Now Pushing for Industry-Friendly GMO Labeling

As reported in the featured article7 and elsewhere,8 the GMA’s preemptive attempts are now in full swing. As stated earlier, a major part of the GMA’s plan is to prevent states from creating their own labeling laws by pushing for an industry-friendly, voluntary labeling law at the federal level.

“The push for a softer national standard on GMO labeling comes as consumer interest in biotech foods has blown up into an intense national conversation, and the food industry is clearly trying to get out ahead of a strong, vocal movement pushing strict labeling requirements in multiple states around the country,” Politico writes.“GMA’s proposal is aimed at protecting its members from having to fight a series of state labeling efforts as several states…”

On December 5, 2013, the GMA sent a letter 10 to Elizabeth Dickinson, Chief Counsel of the FDA, informing her that “GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled “natural.”

According to the letter, 26 state legislatures are currently considering whether GMOs should be permitted in products bearing a “natural” label, and some 65 class action lawsuits have been filed against food manufacturers who use GMO ingredients in their “natural” products. The GMA essentially wants the FDA to settle the dispute and close the door on future lawsuits. The letter reads, in part:

“Consumers and the food industry would all benefit from uniform legal requirements and the consistent outcomes that result from federal regulations, rather than state-by-state dictates… As such, federal rulemaking is needed here so that the issue of whether foods that contain ingredients derived from biotechnology can be labeled “natural” is removed from judicial or state interpretation…”

The Center for Food Safety has previously urged the FDA to reject such petitions.11 Clearly, genetically engineered foods are far from natural. It is the very epitome of unnatural.

GMA Sues Washington State for Right to Hide Corporate Funding!

But the GMA has more dirty tricks up its sleeve. On January 13, the Washington State Office of the Attorney General announced that the GMA has countersued the state, challenging its campaign finance laws.12 Essentially, the Association is suing for the right to hide corporate campaign funds—a move that threatens the transparency of the state’s elections on every issue! What’s more, the GMA has also filed a civil rights complaint against the Attorney General himself, claiming that he acted unconstitutionally when he enforced the state’s laws! According to the press release:

In its counterclaim and civil rights suit, the GMA claims the following are unconstitutional as they have been applied in this case:

  • Washington’s law requiring the GMA to file a political committee before collecting funds from its members for specific political activity in Washington;
  • Washington’s law requiring the GMA to disclose the organizations who contributed to its special political fund and how much they donated; and
  • Washington’s law requiring the GMA to secure $10 in donations from 10 separate registered Washington voters as part of its political committee before donating to another political committee”

It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. This is bullying at its finest. The GMA wants to send a message to any individual who thinks he has the power to stand in its way, and to any state who tries to protect the rights of its people, that it’s going to cost you. Fortunately, Attorney General Ferguson is no wuss, boldly declaring:

“After breaking our state’s campaign finance disclosure laws, the GMA now seeks to have them declared unconstitutional. I look forward to defending transparency in Washington elections.”

A GMA document also lays out a clear-cut strategy for addressing any state that successfully implements a GMO labeling law, stating that, The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy.” Costly litigation is clearly part of the GMA’s overall master plan to protect industry profits in the face of growing consumer awareness about the many problems inherent with genetically engineered and grossly adulterated, processed foods….

GMA Litigation Conference

The GMA also holds an annual Litigation Conference,13 where its members are taught to push for more mandatory vaccines to circumvent lawsuits against tainted CAFO products, and how to squash consumer groups seeking to rid the industry of hazardous ingredients . Here are just a couple of the presentations scheduled for the 2014 event:

  • Preventing Foodborne Illness through Vaccinations. Vaccinations and inoculations can be an effective tool for preventing foodborne illness outbreaks, however employment and labor laws create a significant hurdle to this approach. For example, Hepatitis A is the cause of numerous outbreaks every year. A simple vaccination for food service employees would greatly reduce this risk, however current labor laws prevent employers from forcing the vaccination on employees. This session will explore this and other methods for preventing foodborne illness outbreaks, and how these approaches are impacted by employment and labor laws.
  • Trans Fats and Beyond: Anticipating the Next Generation of Industry Risks. The FDA’s recent decision regarding GRAS status for partially-hydrogenated oils (PHO) containing trans fats may be just the tip of the iceberg if consumer groups and plaintiff’s attorneys have their way.  This presentation will discuss the litigation and regulatory implications of FDA’s PHO decision, the increasing power and tactics of CSPI and other consumer groups, and the next generation of risks to face the food industry, such as the Pew Food Additives Project, challenges to GRAS self-affirmation, nanotechnology, pesticide residues, and involvement by state attorneys general in false labeling cases.

Junk Food Industry Has Had Full Control Over Federal Food Policy for More Than 60 Years

Pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers have been allowed to create terrifyingly ignorant policies for health, in exchange for a rather lucrative business model that benefits their own bottom lines.

The GMA has not only resorted to illegal means to further the agenda of its junk food-producing members—some 300 of them in all—the organization is also trying to muscle its way out of its legal conundrums by filing countersuits at the expense of state governments.

An article written in 1950, titled “The Battlefront for Better Nutrition,”14 clearly shows just how little has changed in the past 60 years, and how the junk food industry has had full control of our federal food policy this entire time. As you can see by the following excerpt, the corruption was already well-recognized 60 years ago, yet has been allowed to continue to flourish and grow with each passing year.

“… [T]here is a battle going on between those who are trying to promote better nutrition, and the food manufacturers who insist on making products ‘worse so that they can be sold for less,’ thereby eliminating the competition of more honest and self-respecting producers who would prefer to apply in business the Golden Rule…

These commercial interests have the United States Government on their side, ever since they ousted Dr. Harvey W. Wiley from his job as head of the Food & Drug Administration in 1912. The present head of the Food & Drug Division of Nutrition, Dr. Elmer M. Nelson in a special Constitutional Court in Washington… testified that: ‘It is wholly unscientific to state that a well fed body is more able to resist disease than a less well-fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove dietary deficiencies make one more susceptible to disease.’ (Washington Post,October 26, 1949.)

This is nothing new for Dr. Nelson. Ten years ago he, with his group of experts, testified in a similar court, that neither degenerative disease, infectious disease, nor functional disease could result from any nutritional deficiency. For all these years, he has battled for the maker of devitalized foods, tried to stem the tide of public opinion against the use of white flour, refined sugar, pasteurized milk and imitation butter by vigorous prosecution of any maker of any dietary supplement designed to abate the consequences of using such devitalized food, basing his arguments on the thesis that there were no such things as deficiency diseases.

Truly, as Dr. Wiley sadly remarked in his book The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law (1930) the makers of unfit foods have taken possession of Food & Drug enforcement, and have reversed the effect of the law, protecting the criminals that adulterate foods, instead of protecting the public health.”

Take Control of Your Diet and Your Health

It’s time we started to make real change, and we need to take that upon ourselves first and foremost.

You don’t have to be a victim of corrupted food and health policy. Your diet is foundational for optimal health, and healthy eating is actually less complicated than most people think. Here’s a quick and dirty summary. For a comprehensive, step-by-step program, please see my free optimized nutrition plan. If you’re new to healthful living, these four basic steps alone can put you on the right path toward vastly improved health, regardless of how corrupted our government is:

  • Focus on raw, fresh foods, and avoid as many processed foods as possible (for those who still have trouble understanding what “processed food” is: if it comes in a can, bottle, or package, and has a list of ingredients, it’s processed)
  • Avoid foods that contain fructose (check the label for ingredients like corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup.) Not only is excessive fructose consumption responsible for obesity and chronic disease, most processed fructose is made from genetically engineered corn
  • Limit or eliminate grain carbohydrates, and replace them with healthful fats, such as avocados, butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk, grass-fed meats and organic pastured eggs, coconuts and coconut oil, and raw nuts such as macadamia
  • Replace sodas and other sweetened beverages (whether diet or regular) with clean, pure water

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can send a message right back to the GMA and its members who tried to deceive you by illegally hiding their campaign contributions by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I also encourage you to continue educating yourself about our agriculture and food policies, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends.

Click to http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/01/28/gma-evil-corporation.aspx?e_cid=20140128Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140128Z1&et_cid=66915186&et_rid=411466765

Breaking: Vermont House Passes GMO Labeling Bill

In a legislative blow against GMO giant Monsanto and major food corporations who wish to keep you in the dark over what you’re eating on a daily basis, the Vermont House has passed a significant new GMO labeling bill known as H. 112 by a count of 99-42.

I will be covering more news on this as it develops, but the great voter turnout means that representatives are either waking up to the reality of GMOs or at least being forced by voters to go ahead and take action on the GMO labeling issue. And as we’ve seen in other states like New Mexico, it comes down to a grassroots campaign demanding that action be taken while spreading awareness on a national level.

Unfortunately the New Mexico initiative, as you may be aware, was ultimately shot down by massive lobbying (as may have been expected with the recent passing of incognito legislation like the Monsanto Protection Act).

But despite the mass lobbying and mountains of cash that go into squashing labeling, around 90 plus percent (or more on average depending on the polling institute) of the public is in favor of GMO labeling — and an increasingly large number of this percentage are turning into hardcore activists who are sick of Monsanto’s food monopoly.

gmo invisible danger

Activism Can Trump Lobbyists

What’s also interesting to note about this legislation, which is similar to Prop 37, is that it’s really the farthest in the legal system that any such bill has gotten. Prop 37 ultimately came down to a vote in California, and we know there was extreme foul play there with the Monsanto-backed organizations who sought to sabotage the entire GMO labeling initiative due to profit incentives, but the Vermont bill here can quite simply be passed by the Senate and be on its way to implementation.

I am very hopeful about this bill, and I think if we gather enough activism on this front we can send a message to the Vermont Senate that effectively reads: We will not tolerate Senators who betray the health of the public for profits and lobbyist relationships. I encourage everyone, whether you live in Vermont or not, to generate awareness over this issue. Share this article far and wide, and start demanding that GMO labeling be taken seriously.

Click to article

Teshuvah Road is the Road on which Addiction ENDS!