3,100,000 Vs 0: GMOs Win
    By Hank Campbell | May 8th 2014 09:05 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    Vermont is still milking the slavery thing.

    Yes, yes, you were first to ban it. It's easy to ban something you never had in the first place. That does not mean you are right in everything you ban and, let's face it, comparing GMOs to slavery is a little weird, even for Vermont.

    Nonetheless, “We’re first again,” gushes organic farmer Will Allen in The Economist, which makes the rest of the country wonder if it is the organic farming or the Vermont air that makes people goofy.

    Vermont has just over 600,000 people so what they do in their state is basically irrelevant, in its bubble, just like states that restrict abortions to such a degree it is basically a ban aren't preventing abortions. If Vermont wants to be hypocrites and label GMOs but then exempt restaurants and booze and every deli counter and let cows eat GM feed but not have a label on their milk so it can be sold as organic, well, fine, that is what hypocrisy is.

    But it isn't so simple. In order for GMOs to reach their potential in feeding the poor nations, they first have to be widespread enough among the rich ones that companies can afford to sell it cheaply or even give it away. That's just realty.

    But by declaring science Frankenfood - ummmm, if you knew any science, you would know Frankenstein was not a GMO, he was a hybrid - activists are preventing widespread acceptance and dooming poor people. Even today, GMOs are the great equalizer. Let Europe be weird and protectionist and pretend it is about science, we know it is about not letting their former colonies compete in Europe. And then there's the kids.

    The Economist puts it into a simple graphic:

    Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists and all the rest; when will you love kids more than you hate science?

    Vermont Vs Science - The Economist

    H/T Calestous Juma


    Love the blog. Your take down of the Hayes BS was stellar.

    Just a nit pic here, though. Milk from cows fed GM can be sold unlabeled under VT law now, but it cannot be sold as Organic by NOP regs.

    Sure, I understand, and I didn't want to spend a lot of time on the Vermont law in a blog post, but it insists that the fed is not strict enough on GMOs (by not labeling them) and then immediately exempts the milk that will be used by the guy behind the Just Label It movement in his organic yogurt. Gary Hirshberg made sure his $300 million company is exempt from the rules he wants for everyone else.

    Maybe he uses no Vermont milk, I have no idea. It's amazing to me that he is able to convince people his powdered milk from New Zealand is 'natural' but wheat that has been milled is not.

    Yes, I understand the exemptions and the hypocritical stance they create, as well as the collusion between Organic marketers and these laws (I wrote the WA I522 analysis for and these bills are all the same in this and many other regards). I am just trying to be clear that while any food products produced from GM fed animals are exempted from the "May Contain GM" label, those same products can not legally be labeled as Organic, as you are implying. Gary Hirshberg was already exempt from the law by the USDA definition of organic. He and other Organic marketers stand to gain from fear mongering and increased market share, not this exemption. While bill supporters will claim that this and other exemptions are in place to avoid conflict with Federal regulations, the truth is that they are present to avoid political conflict with the powerful lobbies of Beef, Pork, Chicken, Dairy, and alcohol producers, not to mention the entire restaurant industry. Without the exemptions, the ink of these bills would never even hit paper.