On the recordJuly 14, 2016
A little background on this bill. This started in Vermont, where there was a strong citizen movement to have the right to know what was in their food. It was not a battle about the science of GMOs or about whether it was healthy or not. It was really based on the proposition that for a consumer who wishes to know what is in their food, whether it is the number of calories or whether it is GMO-produced, they had a right to know. It is as simple as that. The irony here is that the pushback has been from folks who are advocating the benefits of GMOs. If they are so great--and I am not disputing what some of their benefits may be--why not brag about it by putting it on the label? Why hide it? It really doesn't make a lot of sense. In Vermont, we had a bipartisan vote in the Senate 28-2 and a strong, bipartisan vote in the House that was based upon the right of Vermonters who wanted to know whether there were GMOs to have that knowledge. There was a lot of pushback initially by industry, but some of the industry has kind of got it right: if the consumer wants to know, let them know. Kellogg's and Campbell Soup both now have labeling on their products and let the consumers know. What is really the big deal? Now we have a bill from the Senate that, frankly, when you look at it, it is kind of dumb, because what it does is give options on how you ``label.'' You can use English, where right on the label you can read ``GMOs'' or not. That makes sense.…





