GMO Labeling Mandates

Dear Californian organic food enthusiasts:

I, too, prefer to know which food is genetically modified and which isn’t. So what I do to accomplish this objective is to inform myself via a medium commonly known as “the internet”.

I believe that if we give heavily armed people the power to restrict food supply if a producer didn’t receive their stamp of approval, then in the end you will not have the healthiest and most passionate food suppliers dominating the market, but those who spend the bulk of their time greasing politicians in Sacramento to attain oligopoly if not monopoly powers.

Isn’t the example of the FDA on the federal level proof enough that this is always the course things take?

As a matter of fact, did you know that the FDA actively restricts producers from highlighting the fact that their food is non-GMO?

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don’t use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

Why is it that so few healthy food advocates and environmentalists ever throw all their support behind abolishing all those dumb-ass government programs that are at the root of the problems they claim to be concerned with? Why is it that most of them spend the bulk of their time to advocate slapping on more government regulations, more power to the state?

In my opinion it’s because deep down they’re not concerned about those problems, but rather about expanding state powers under the guise of supporting a popular cause, or just in general being part of a seemingly simple and quick solution to manage their own anxiety about a problem rather than the actual problem itself. “Give the guys with guns and prisons more powers and they’ll fix it somehow. DONE. NEXT.”

At least I haven’t recently seen many environmentalists advocate the abandonment of taxi cab regulations, of the forced funding of roads via taxation, of “free” (=tax-funded) water supply, or of the implicit subsidization of fossil fuels via troops in the middle east; all things that would actually attack the root causes the things they claim to be oh so concerned with.

No, all they can ever think of is to give the very people who are screwing up the environment most even more powers to supposedly fix what they’re breaking.

California Prop 37 is yet another manifestation of this mode of “thinking”.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Global Warming Alarmism – Are the Polar Ice Caps Melting?

My favorite part in an interesting article titled Are the Polar Ice Caps Melting?:

Perhaps the most significant factor to consider is the following report (excerpted) from the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) American consul at Norway, George Ifft:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole – ed.] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.

Ifft’s report appeared in NOAA’s Monthly Weather Review of November 1922. Whatever caused the “favorable conditions” in 1922, it is certain man-made greenhouse gases had nothing to do with it, and the rest of the world went on with the political and cultural revolutions of the 1920s without noticing any catastrophic climate change.

Related Posts:

Examining the Theory of Catastrophic & Man-Made Global Warming

In honor of the recent Gore-fest …

Climate Skeptic is a great source for logic and evidence in the field of climate change. Kudos to Warren!

Related Posts:

R.I.P – Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange Dies a Well Deserved Death!

Some good news on the global warming fanaticism front:

Global warming-inspired cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies of the past 15 years. But it is dying a quiet death. In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading — the only purpose for which it was founded — this year.

Although the trading in carbon emissions credits was voluntary, the CCX was intended to be the hub of the mandatory carbon trading established by a cap-and-trade law, like the Waxman-Markey scheme passed by the House in June 2009.

At its founding in November 2000, it was estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion. That estimate ballooned over the years to $10 trillion.

Al Capone tried to use Prohibition to muscle in on a piece of all the action in Chicago. The CCX’s backers wanted to use a new prohibition on carbon emissions to muscle in on a piece of, quite literally, all the action in the world.

The CCX was the brainchild of Northwestern University business professor Richard Sandor, who used $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based left-wing Joyce Foundation to launch the CCX. For his efforts, Time named Sandor as one of its Heroes of the Planet in 2002 and one of its Heroes of the Environment in 2007.

The CCX seemed to have a lock on success. Not only was a young Barack Obama a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX, but over the years it attracted such big name climate investors as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management.


Despite this good news, opponents of carbon regulation will need to remain vigilant. While radical greens and the rent-seeking “clean energy” industry are down, they are not out.

Though they will never again dare utter the term “cap and trade,” they will reformulate and rebrand carbon regulation in the form of a national “renewable electricity standard” (RES), a “carbon tax,” or perhaps something even more innocent and cuddly — like “free cotton candy for everyone (FCCE).”

The global warming mob will be back, with their old agenda and new deceit, in 2011. Given that Republican politicians have a long history of squishiness on environmental issues, the rest of us will need to be prepared to continue the battle against Marxist/socialist and economy-killing energy rationing and taxes.

See also Cap and Trade – Lobbyism Gone Wild With Your Tax Dollars

Well, I certainly wouldn’t have expected to see this fanatical global warming religion experience such a setback in such a short period of time.

It looks to me like the tides turned at the very latest back when the global warming hoax was exposed in a manner so obvious that was simply no longer defensible, no matter how fanatical one’s views.

Then, most recently, Hal Lews wrote a thoroughly damning resignation letter to the American Physical Society that might have opened one or the other more person’s eyes, and that will not go unremembered for a long time, in my opinion.

The mob will either be back with more global warming hysteria, or they’ll just come up with a new scare. In case they do, let me do them a favor and list those never-materializing overblown frenzies that I can think of that other people have already called dibs on to exploit or subjugate taxpayers one way or another …

  • Killer Bees
  • Acid Rain
  • Axis of Evil
  • Iraqi WMDs
  • Nuclear War
  • Global Cooling
  • Live Threatening Pollution
  • Terrorism
  • Communism
  • Overpopulation
  • Ozone Holes
  • SARS
  • Bird Flu
  • Swine Flu
  • Mad Cow Disease
  • Foreigners Taking Your Jobs
  • Anthrax

… and so on and so forth. We’ve been there before. We’ll be there again.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

The Global Warming Information Extravaganza

I thought I’d just compile all the interesting clips that I have seen about global warming and environmental scares & policies in general into one post. Most of these clips use strong reference to scientific facts, that’s why I appreciate their content so much and I hope you will as well :)

Catastrophe Denied: The Science of the Skeptics Position (studio version) from Warren Meyer on Vimeo.

I’ll add to this as I find more …

Related Posts: