labels // Current TV

California state legislature passes bill to require labels on genetically engineered salmon

Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, late yesterday the California Assembly Health Committee approved a bill which would require that all GE fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling. The bill, AB 88, was introduced by Assemblymember Jared Huffman. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds the Health Committee for protecting the public’s right to know how their food is produced.

“The FDA has indicated that it will not require these GE fish to be labeled once they are approved,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. “As such, it is incumbent on the California State legislature, starting with the Health Committee, to let the people of California make informed choices about the food they eat by requiring the labeling of GE fish sold in California.”

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling. Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered. Consumers sent nearly 400,000 public comments to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

The Center for Food Safety recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unapproved transgenic salmon. CFS led a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, religious and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs in demanding the FDA deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish is approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.

“Until FDA completes an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families,” said Spector. “California has always been a leader in environmental and food safety laws, and AB 88 continues this tradition by protecting the public from a potentially harmful food technology. More importantly, it gives consumers the right to know what they are eating and gives them a choice in the marketplace.”

Read CFS’s testimony presented at the Health Committee hearing at the link.Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current review... more

JanforGore
added this
9 months ago
|
43 comments

Apples to Oranges

I am getting fed up with the lack of intelligent discourse in this country and the... more

joeeddy
added this
10 months ago
|
0 comments

Patriotic Labels!

The Sacred Homeland is now safe! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ipepC0wek

Progresshiv
added this
1 year ago
|
19 comments

New nutrition labels coming to the front of food packages

Grocery shoppers will soon see the amount of calories, salt, sugar and saturated fat... more

suzane
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

The Other Side of Labels

I have trouble labeling myself. Is that a photo of a fat person? I’m... more

AwakenedAesthetic
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Like & Dislike Stickers For Real Life

Like & Dislike stamps and stickers you can put any where. Let everyone know how... more

digitalfever
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

The history&philosophy of Netlabels + documentary video

During the early to mid-1980’s, a collective of primarily teenage boys... more

worrg
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

"Round Table For Responsible Soya" labels greenwashing effects of GM soy condemned by 230 groups

watch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/12270-230-groups-condemn-rtrs-greenwash The... more

JanforGore
added this
1 year ago
|
5 comments

Jello Biafra&Ice T on The Oprah Winfrey Show + Dead Kennedys Bay Area Music Awards incident + 12 DK free CDs

This is a transcript of the segment of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" where Jello... more

worrg
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

3 minute Video: "You didn't label me - thank you so much!"

April 28, 2010 — From the AMES HERITAGE ROOM READING SERIES - echopoetico,... more

PepsiJuror
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Ohio Governor Strickland's rbGH (rbST) labeling restrictions threaten consumer rights nationwide

Ohio’s anti-consumer labeling restrictions threaten to eliminate the rbGH-free labels now placed on many dairy brands nationwide. Milk from cows injected with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) has higher levels of pus, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor-1—linked to higher rates of cancer and fraternal twins.

The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association sued the state of Ohio and LOST. Their case is now in appeal. Demand that Ohio abandon its deadly labeling requirements NOW, before a possible loss in the appeals court forces dairies nationwide to change their labels or give up rBGH-free labeling altogether.

What does Ohio’s law require?

The Ohio law makes specific terms, like “rbGH-free” or “rbST-free” illegal. It forces companies to spell out their claims, such as “The product is not from cows treated with bovine growth hormone.” If a company makes that claim, they are forced to include an even longer disclaimer, such as, “According to the FDA, there is no significant difference between the milk from cows supplemented with rbST, and those not supplemented.”

Furthermore, that disclaimer has to be in the same font size (and at least 7 pt font) as the original claim above, AND it has to be written on the same side of the carton as the claim. Some dairies have already said they are considering abandoning their rbGH-free claims altogether, rather than redesign their package with this nonsense.

Just to be clear, the FDA does NOT require this disclaimer. It was written by Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, who was put in charge of FDA policy while Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone was being reviewed by the agency. He “suggested,” not required, dairies to use this disclaimer if they made rbGH-free claims. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president, and now he’s back at the FDA as the US food safety czar. Yikes! A few other states have also decided to require the disclaimer, and we will fight them too. But Ohio’s goes much farther with its placement and size requirements, that will discourage use of the rBGH-free claim altogether.Ohio’s anti-consumer labeling restrictions threaten to eliminate the rbGH-free... more

JanforGore
added this
1 year ago
|
5 comments

Clean Smarter 101: About toxic chemicals in your home

Clip-and-save Article for Home Safe Cleaning

zigandme
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

Music stars 'still need labels'?

After reading the article, do artists need record label in the digital age? BBC... more

Mcellie
added this
1 year ago
|
2 comments

Eco-Friendly Labels and Stickers

Highlights: - Acid free - No toxic agents - Vegetable based ink - Made out of... more

EcoBold
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

B(o)(o)bies; The Importance of Defining Terms

Urban Dictionary is Wise http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boobies... more

remanns
added this
2 years ago
|
3 comments

NEW DOCUMENTARY "inGREEDIENTS" is about food and could save your life!

Turns out we have been fed "media health" , not scientific data! This movie... more

thewallisgirl
added this
2 years ago
|
0 comments

Shoppers Guide to Avoiding GE Foods

The Non-GMO Shopping Guide was compiled because you have the right to know what's... more

Cozyd
added this
2 years ago
|
7 comments

You Know You’re Rich When You Can Afford A Louis Vuitton Electric Chair (Such Sleek Shackles!)

jrn
added this
2 years ago
|
0 comments

ALERT: Dennis Wolff being considered for Sec of Agriculture

Please e-mail President-Elect Obama NOW (You...) may remember this name: Dennis... more

JanforGore
added this
3 years ago
|
29 comments

New US law requires labels on meat-country of origin labels now required

WASHINGTON - In a few weeks, American shoppers will be able to look at a cut of meat or a pound of hamburger and see something they've never seen before-a label that says where the meat came from.

Starting Sept. 30, food manufacturers and grocery stores have to comply with a new federal law that requires "Country of Origin Labeling," or COOL, on beef, pork, chicken and lamb.

The new labels will tell consumers whether their food came from animals raised in the U.S. or another country. The law also covers perishable items, such as fruits and vegetables and a variety of nuts. Some say this will enable consumers to avoid food that, for example, comes from countries that they have heard have food safety problems. It also will allow consumers to stick to American-grown food, if that is their preference.

Because of the complexities of the livestock industry, some product labels may list multiple countries. That's especially true of ground beef, because some meat processors combine cuts from a number of countries to make ground meat and hamburger patties.

Food safety groups have hailed COOL as a necessary step toward broader consumer education and buying choices. But now they complain that the Department of Agriculture has defined it as narrowly as possible.

For example, they say, the agency has defined a host of foods as "processed," such as mixed frozen vegetables, which exempts them from the new law.

"When they finalized this rule, they bent over backward to make as few things be covered as possible," said Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist with Consumers Union. "There are giant, giant loopholes in the law."

Many in the meat industry, these advocates say, have fought the new labeling law because they don't want consumers to know that they're buying imported hamburger and beef cuts. The USDA also stood against COOL, according to Lloyd Day, head of the agency's Agricultural Marketing Service, because of its projected impact on consumers and its estimated cost to the food industry: $2.5 billion in the first year.

But Congress has decreed that COOL will take effect on Sept. 30, so the debate over its merits is largely over. Now the industry is bracing for COOL's impact.

"We don't know exactly how it's all going to work," said Colin Woodall, the executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "And we won't know until it's fully up and running."
__________________

I'm sure there are loopholes to this especially where $$$ are concerned, but at least there is a law calling for country of origin labels on meat. I personally don't eat meat any longer, but for those who do, look for it on your labels starting Sept. 30th. Now we have to keep fighting to get the source of the food noted on labels as in genetically modified versus conventional. Then we will be making progress in full disclosure to consumers.WASHINGTON - In a few weeks, American shoppers will be able to look at a cut of meat... more

JanforGore
added this
3 years ago
|
52 comments

select your country

Community Spotlight

TAGS

tagged w/ labels

top videos

find current on tv

find current online

recent comments

© 2012 Current TV, LLC All Rights Reserved

the basics

follow us online

tools

stay in touch

© 2012 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved