 |
One protest is never going to change the course
of events, but a voice that continues to be aired
does make itself heard over time, so it's
important to keep it going.
Bruce Cockburn
Photography by Juliette Blasor
|
THE RIGHT TO KNOW
If at first you don't succeed, try try again.
Thus, in the wake of last year's unsuccessful effort to get a GMO
labeling law in California, the torch has passed on to other states,
more specifically Washington state where a ballot initiative to
require labeling of GMO products is up for a vote in November.
Some 25 mainland states, and the territory of Puerto Rico, have
considered or are considering legislation to label genetically modified
products, according to a recent article posted at the Mother Jones
website. But it's steep going all the way and the first success to date
is more of a symbolic victory than anything else.
In June, legislators in Connecticut approved a bipartisan GMO
labeling bill, making it the first state in the nation to require food
manufacturers to identify products containing genetically engineered
ingredients. But the law comes with a catch: before it becomes law,
at least four other states must approve a similar law, these states
must have a combined population of at least 20 million people
and at least one must be a neighboring state (either New York,
Massachusetts, or Rhode Island).
According to Mother Jones, "this trigger clause" was meant
to protect Connecticut businesses from being put at a competitive
disadvantage. One cannot but think that this astute political
maneuver let Connecticut legislators gain points with consumers
while giving big business more time to do business as usual.
Something similar occurred in Maine where the state Senate gave its
initial backing to a GMO labeling bill which must now pass muster
in the House and Senate. Following the lead of Connecticut, passage
is conditional on four other states approving similar legislation.
Activists pursuing a GMO labeling law had eyed California because
it has a huge population and this would have probably convinced
food manufacturers to make the practical choice of labeling all
their products for sale nationwide rather than just cater to one state
alone.
As it turned out, not everyone in California seemed keen on knowing
whether GMOs were in their food. Or if they did care, consumers in
that state were willing to forfeit their right to know as long as food
costs held stable. And concern over food prices was precisely the
kind of fear biotech and food companies played up in order to win
at the ballot box.
They did so through $46 million-worth of negative advertising that
warned consumers of the heavy price to pay if the bill was
approved: not only would GMO labeling jack up the cost
of groceries by $400 a year per California family but it would
also boost taxpayers' costs by millions. (An official California
state analysis estimated that the government would have to incur
costs ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to more
than $1 million to regulate the labeling of GE foods.)
Somehow, one gets the feeling that the public in California was
royally bamboozled. Why would identifying a GMO product
on the label make it any more expensive? After all, labels already
provide specific information to consumers so adding extra data
cannot possibly make that much difference especially since the
GMO label requirement can easily be met through an easy to
identify logo using the GMO acronym itself. And as for state costs,
surely a state could find a way to minimize expenses related to
GMO labeling through the mechanisms it already has in place
to oversee businesses in general.
American consumers take pride in their enviable way of life
and all the rights enjoyed in our excellent democracy which we
celebrate today on the fourth of July. But one of our basic rights,
which is the freedom of choice, is being trampled upon daily by
food companies terrified of losing sales if consumers find out the
product is GMO. These companies would prefer to keep
consumers in the dark on the theory that people will not buy GE
products out of fears or misconceptions about this science. Most
foods we currently buy contain genetically modified ingredients
since most of the corn and soy and much of the rice produced in
the U.S. is grown from genetically modified seeds.
There can be no real freedom of choice if consumers are kept
ignorant about the foods they buy. It should be the consumers'
prerogative to decide whether they want to buy a GMO
product, not the company's. As it is, the only way to avoid
GMOs these days is by buying organic products which are
grown from non-GMO seeds.
This state of affairs is wrong and deplorable. Some people
might even consider this conduct on the part of food
manufacturers as a form of cheating. That's because food
companies are making money by depriving consumers of
valuable information. And this is to deceive the American
public.
Is that part of the American way?
Another state moving in the direction of a labeling law is
Vermont whose state house recently voted in favor of a GMO
label. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the measure when it
reconvenes next January.
Meanwhile, the next big effort is in Washington state where
residents will be voting on a GMO labeling measure five months
from now, in November.
 |
Photography by Denise Blasor
Our name will be forgotten in time,
and no one will remember our works;
our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,
and be scattered like mist
that is chased by the rays of the sun
and overcome by its heat.
Wisdom 2.4 |
THE SOCIABLE BODEGA de MENDEZ
La Bodega de Mendez, in the San Juan suburb of Guaynabo,
is known for its wine selection and now there is an added
reason to visit the store: a farmers' market featuring agricultural
and artisanal products to be held on the company's grounds on
the first Saturday of every month.
The first fair will take place
July 6, from 10 am to 6 pm. If you stop
by in the afternoon, there will be a wine tasting beginning at 3 pm.
for which you need to pay a fee: $10 (plus tax) for Bodega
members and $15 (plus tax) for the general public.
Reservations for the tasting can be made by calling 787.277.5880.
Road #20, Km. 2.4 Guaynabo, P.R.
 |
By Denise Blasor
"And I asked myself about the present:
How wide it was, how deep it was,
how much was mine to keep."
Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
☛ EYE on PRODUCTS
A soy drink that is low in sugar but pretty
tasty is organic Vitasoy. It has only 3
grams of sugar per 250 ml serving (1 cup)
and makes a good choice for fruit punches.
Add to it a banana, a mango or papaya,
some yogurt, whip in a blender, sprinkle
some cinnamon on the top and voila,
a delicious and nutritious summery drink!
 |
Photography by Juliette Blasor
I too love everything that flows:
rivers, sewers, lava, semen, blood, bile,
words, sentences.
Henry Miller |
© 2013 Lorraine Blasor all rights reserved
