Which is it? State’s Rights is important or not?

Eons ago, when I was in high school, there was a chance that my dad’s work would send him to England for 6 months. I was eager with anticipation that I would be able to attend school there. I knew the next year we would be studying American History and I naively assumed they would be also. I anticipated lively discussions when it came to the American Revolution.

Silly me. As it turned out, the work assignment changed and the trip never happened.

But less than a decade later I found myself living in the South. I had moved to Nashville and as I got to know people I began to hear a very different history about what we Yankees called the Civil War and they called either The War Between The States, or, if they were holding on to some level of gentility, The Late Unpleasantness.

The story of that conflict depends on the teller. There is no one story line. Ever. About anything.

But if we hold the Southerners to their point that it was about State’s Rights, then where is all the righteous indignation about the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015”? Passed by the House of Representatives yesterday as H.R. Bill 1599 it now heads to the Senate.

The title, like so many others recently, is really the opposite of what it proposes to do. By bending to big money backers, like Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, this bill, if enacted into law, will eliminate all possibility for people ever seeing the words “contains Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)” or “Genetically Engineered (GE) foods”on any label. So, accuracy of the food will never be included in food labels if they get their way.

More than that, it will eliminate any and all labeling requirement laws that have been passed by a number of states and counties, as determined by local citizens.

In other words, huge corporations are taking away State’s Rights.

This time, about food labeling. Next time……?????????????

It’s time to contact your Senator and let him or her know how you feel about this. Click on the link and whip out an email NOW!

Advertisement

Choosing Your Words

When I worked at the Vanderbilt Laser Sight Center in the 1990s we were told not to use the word “surgery” but to explain to patients that they would be having a “procedure.”  The word choice supposedly diminished the seriousness of the activity and people, eager for clear vision without glasses or contact lenses, lined up. (Me too. I was first in line in fact.)

The concept of word selection to entice people has long been a part of marketing. Getting people to accept a concept starts with overcoming emotional hurdles with words that reduce the concern.

So, now a days surveys have indicated that over 96% of the American public approve of labeling on food packages to inform consumers about GMO content. The fight to label in California lost 49% to 51% and the loss last November in Washington was even narrower. This November the people of Oregon will have a chance to vote on a referendum for labeling.

You can vote in favor for labeling even if you personally do not think GMOs are of concern. There are many people who believe there is no reason to worry. Even so, most agree a label should be able to be provided so others, who are concerned, can have information to make choices for their own eating.

The industry fighting the labeling are those that believe labeling will raise a concern where none should exist. They believe that many people who really don’t know much about food being genetically modified for the past 20 years might think something is wrong. And not buy their food. And they will lose profits.

They use arguments like “it will cost to change the packaging and that cost will result in higher food costs to the consumer” which is bogus, since they change packaging all the time. They want to scare you about something that is meaningless so you don’t get scared by something important. That is keeping your right to know for you.

So we now have leadership joining in. The concept of choosing the words came up June 25 at a BIO international convention in San Diego. “….How do you create a different vocabulary to talk about GMOs……” Hillary Clinton mentioned in her talk and then suggested that explaining the technology would help plants improve drought resistance would convince more people that it was a great improvement over nature.

Yes, it can resist drought better. It also does not get affected when sprayed with heavy doses of weed killer. It also kills insects that bite into the plant. The technology works but sometimes not to the success hoped for. That is not the issue.

One issue is we are tired of people with power trying to dupe us.  The issue is that we, many of the people who have eaten genetically engineered foods, are uncomfortable with the potential effects that are unproven.  We don’t want to be a science experiment any more. We want to know through labeling.  We are intelligent enough to understand the issue and we want to be able to chose.

I wonder what Hillary chooses to eat.