Playing online casino Malaysia through Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia can be a fun and rewarding experience for those who enjoy playing games for fun. trusted online casino malaysia alibaba33Bet on your favourite slots, live, sporting events and win big! If you enjoy sports, slots like Mega888 ewallet Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia has something for you.

Viagra Malaysia treat erectile dysfunction with the original ED treatment that has helped men feel confident in bed for decades. We’ll connect you with a licensed viagra malaysia healthcare provider to evaluate if our prescription ED treatments could be right for you, including super-affordable generic Viagra viagramalaysiaofficial Viagra is an oral ED medication that works by suppressing an enzyme in the body called PDE5.

Tag: Mandatory GMO Labeling - Organic Lifestyle Magazine Tag: Mandatory GMO Labeling - Organic Lifestyle Magazine

GMO Labeling Explained – What You Need to Know About These Confounding, Loophole-Laden Rules

It has been two years since the U.S. Department of Agriculture passed the regulations mandating the labeling of genetically mandated ingredients. The finalized regulations that have recently been released leave much to be desired. Just Label It, a prominent organization devoted to mandatory GMO labeling, released a statement expressing their disappointment.

Specifically, we are deeply disappointed that the final rule does not clearly require the disclosure of all genetically engineered ingredients, including highly refined sugars and oils, and new GMO techniques like CRISPR and RNAi. The rule fails to require that foods be disclosed using terms that consumers understand like ‘genetically engineered’ or ‘GMO.’ And it leaves consumers in the dark if they live in rural places with poor cell service or don’t have smart phones.”

Related: Gluten Intolerance, Wheat Allergies, and Celiac Disease – It’s More Complicated Than You Think

Labeling Options

Companies have until 2022 to implement these regulations. There are a few GMO labeling options.

Companies can use clear wording to state the presence of genetically modified ingredients on their packaging. Instead of “G.M.O.’’ and “genetically engineered,” they can say “bioengineered” or “BE.”

Companies can use an electronic digital link like a QR code that consumers can read with a cell phone app that will inform the consumer of the ingredients. Such a link must be accompanied by the statement “Scan here for more food information,” or equivalent language.

The amended Act requires that the use of an electronic or digital link to disclose BE food must be accompanied by the statement, ‘Scan here for more food information’ or equivalent language’ – deemed too hard for shoppers. Regulated entities that choose this option are required to include a statement on the package that instructs consumers on how to receive a text message.”

Companies can use a friendly-looking symbol (and the symbol can also be black and white):

Additionally, a phone number or a web address to get more information are options for smaller manufacturers or for small packages.

There is also the “text message” option:

The NPRM proposed text message as an additional disclosure option if the Secretary were to determine that shoppers would not have sufficient access to digital or electronic disclosure. Food manufacturers and retailers that commented on this option were generally supportive of this option. Thus, AMS is adopting the text message option in § 66.108. Regulated entities that choose this option are required to include a statement on the package that instructs consumers on how to receive a text message.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

There are companies like Campbell’s, Mars, Danone, Kellogg’s, Coca-Cola, and Unilever that will be labeling GMOs, regardless of the lax new regulations. Many international corporations, especially those that do business in Europe, already provide those labels. But there are many corporations that haven’t made that same commitment.

Confusing Regulations With Loopholes

The new labeling system seems designed to frustrate all but the most bureaucratic-loving individuals. Companies have to sort through a myriad of expensive and time-consuming labeling conditions. Consumers aren’t offered a simple way to identify GMO ingredients. Some ingredients won’t even be labeled, including high fructose corn syrup, refined sugar beets, certain oils (like canola), and other refined products.

According to the labeling guidelines:

Thus, based on the available scientific evidence, refined beet and cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup, degummed refined vegetable oils, and various other refined ingredients are unlikely to require BE food disclosure because the conditions of processing serve effectively to degrade or eliminate the DNA that was initially present in the raw agricultural commodity.”

While that may be true from a scientific standpoint, it only makes the new regulations problematic in the eyes of consumers. When corn is an ingredient it’s almost always a GMO, and informed shoppers will know that. How much faith will they have in non-organic products containing corn that are not marked BE? This also ignores the possibility of customers choosing non-GMO products for environmental reasons. The refined product may not have any engineered DNA left in the final product but the corn (or beets) will still have been grown with the increased pesticides and other environmentally harmful practices associated with genetically modified crops.

And there are other exclusions.

Incidental additives will not require labeling.

Such an item will only trigger disclosure when it is used as an ingredient that is included on the ingredient list, not when used as an incidental additive.”

To-Go foods are exempt.

Salads, soups, and other ready-to-eat items prepared by grocery stores are exempt from the disclosure requirements.”

Meat and dairy from animals fed GMOs are exempt.

The amended Act prohibits a food derived from an animal from being considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered substance.”

Companies will be allowed to use the same equipment on GMO and non-GMO crops.

Gene-edited foods like CRISPR will be exempt.

Businesses with annual sales are less than $2.5m are also exempt.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Foods like cheese or yogurt that are made with bioengineered yeasts or rennet are not exempt.

Nothing New

Sixty-four countries worldwide have managed to implement GMO labeling. But the new GMO labeling for the U.S. does the opposite of what it should do. These regulations are not convenient or clear. If anything they’ll probably make grocery shopping even harder for many people.

Sources:



GMO Labeling Causes Consumers To Trust Bioengineered Foods

For a month before President Obama signed the first federal GMO labeling law in 2016 Vermont’s own labeling law took effect. The labels implemented in Vermont were clear and concise and informed customers of products “produced with genetic engineering” or “partially produced using genetic engineering.” Two years after that program, researchers at the University of Vermont found that those labels made consumers more likely to trust GMOs. Researchers examined more than 7,800 surveys of Vermonters and their attitudes towards GMOs and saw opposition to genetically modified foods dropped 19% after the labeling law took effect. The research doesn’t provide sales numbers, but people reported they were more likely to trust in GMOs. What does this mean, and will we see that same shift in attitudes when the federal labeling law is finalized at the end of July?

Related: Monsanto’s Name To Be Retired – Bayer Aims To Erase Sordid History

Just Gimme A Reason

Why do labels make consumers more likely to feel positively towards GMOs? There isn’t a definitive answer to that question, but the study of from the University of Vermont points to the control that labeling gives consumers.

A choice is important in the modern world, and the staunch opposition to GMO labeling by biotech companies has served to make many people suspicious of their intentions and frustrated with the lack of transparency. The Vermont labeling did nothing to indicate that GMOs are safer, yet allowing people a choice improved attitudes towards GMOs by nearly 20 percent. For today’s consumer, the ability to opt out of a service is crucial.

Related: GMO Rice Approved While Other GMO Grasses Cannot Be Contained

Label Confusion

How will that dynamic play out with the federal labeling law legally required to be finalized by July 29?

To begin with, there are differences in the way labeling will be implemented. Labels in Vermont were simple and concise. In contrast, national labels will be a single sentence, a standardized icon, or a QR code. The labels are likely to look something like this:

Companies are also able to label their products as “bioengineered” as opposed to genetically modified or GMO, an option that could confuse consumers. Plans are not finalized yet, but there is also the possibility that highly refined sugars and oils made from genetically modified corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, will not require the GMO label. What began as a clear indication of food with genetically modified ingredients in a single state has evolved into a tentative nationwide plan that significantly muddies the waters of the GMO issue.

Loopholes proposed by the Trump administration could exempt more than 10,000 – or one out of six – genetically modified foods from a new GMO disclosure law.” – New analysis by EWG.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

So Bored

Confusing labels likely won’t matter much. The world seems to have moved on from the debate over the problems caused by GMOs. Allowing people the choice to opt out of these products has the potential to calm public anxiety more than years campaigning and safety studies from Monsanto ever could. In fact, GMOs are in the best position, politically, they’ve been in years due to the positive press from the step forward in labeling, the disappearance of the Monsanto name, and a public focused on more immediate political issues.

Is this the point where the public expresses approval for GMOs? Or do we say nothing and achieve the same thing?

Sources:



Will the DARK Act Ever Die? What Can We Do?

If we ever wanted to see the end of a piece of legislation, it would be the DARK Act. If you are not familiar with it, this legislation is aimed at taking away our right to know what we are eating. States will not be able to legislate GMO labeling. The DARK Act completely blocks efforts to label genetically modified foods.

What it’s really all about is big business, corruption, and empty biotech promises and lies.

Big Business

This may seem a little off topic, but this fact about big business is really interesting. According to the Small Business Administration, as of 2010, the United States was home to 27.9 million small businesses and only 18,500 large businesses. In this case, a large business is defined as a business employing 500 or more employees. Yes, that’s right; 99.7% of the businesses in the United States are small businesses with 500 or fewer employees. So how and why do these few businesses carry so much weight and influence?

Corruption?

What else could it be other than corruption and payoffs? Why would our elected officials, whose sworn duty is to serve the people they represent, be so hell bent on ignoring the rights and wishes of the American people? Why do they want federal legislation that denies the rights of Americans to know what they are eating and what they are feeding their children?

Do they really think biotech is the answer to world hunger when other countries are seeing through the propaganda and lies and realizing that genetically modified crops are not the panacea they are purported to be. In addition, they are contaminating other crops (heirloom, organic, indigenous) as containment is impossible. (Who can control the wind and the birds?)

According to the Center for Food Safety, here are the results of recent polls of the American people:

When

Who Conducted the Poll?

Pro Mandatory

Labeling

11/23/15

The Mellman Group, Inc.

89%

6/9/2014

Consumer Reports

92%

07/27/13

New York Times

93%

2/25/11

MSNBC

96%

10/10

Reuters and NPR

93%

9/17/10

Washington Post

95%

9/21/10 KSTP – St. Paul/Minneapolis 95%

Biotech

They keep telling us genetically modified foods are safe, that fear of them is unscientific and frankly stupid. We know better.

Common sense tells us that growing and eating a food genetically modified to kill life (insects, infection, microbes), or modified to be able to withstand being drenched in chemicals designed to kill, not to mentiona all of the other agricultural poisons (that we end up eating) is not smart. Add to that the fact that the chemicals used to grow these plants are destroying farmlands, and it is a no brainer.

We don’t even need the studies showing us that GMOs cause cancer and reproductive failure in lab animals to know this is a bad, bad idea. And yes, these studies do exist. And yes, the biotech companies know they exist. That’s why they do short term studies to “prove” their products are safe and pretend the long-term studies that reveal the real and present dangers don’t exist.

What Can We Do?

On March 1, 2016, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry again revived the DARK Act by voting on legislation, which is now headed to the full Senate. The bipartisan vote was 14-6 in favor.

This piece of legislation “…directs the Agriculture Secretary, in coordination with other federal agencies, to engage in a consumer education and outreach effort. Information will be science-based and related to environmental, nutritional, economic, and humanitarian benefits of agricultural biotechnology.”

While vague, its purpose is to strike down any attempts by individual states to require GMO labeling for food sold in their state. It claims biotech foods are safe and that this is simply an expensive marketing issue. (With a clear message that the American people are deranged and uninformed).

Tell your elected officials how you feel. Tell them that you don’t care that the World Health Organization claims GMOs are safe or that the Senate committee thinks they are safe. You still deserve the right to choose. We don’t need to be in the dark. Turn on the light. Label GMOs.

Related Reading:
Sources: