Scientifically Illiterate Connecticut Legislators Overwhelmingly Pass Biotech Crop Labeling Law

Killer TomatoCredit: Attack of the Killer TomatoesYesterday, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed 134 to 3 legislation requiring that foods containing ingredients derived from modern biotech crops be labeled. The state Senate had earlier approved the legislation unanimously. Let's say it again: Every independent scientific body that has ever looked at biotech crops have found them to be as safe to eat and as safe for the environment as conventional crops. The Food and Drug Administration only requires labels when health or nutrition issues are involved, which is manifestly not the case here.

For example, with regard to the safety of biotech crops even the chief scientific advisor of the notoriously timid European Commission, Anne Glover, recently declared:

“There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food,” Glover told EurActiv, saying the precautionary principle no longer applies as a result...

...she said that scientific evidence needed to play a stronger role in policymaking, firing a warning shot at countries that have banned GMOs. “I think we could really get somewhere in Europe if when evidence is used partially, there were an obligation on people to say why they have rejected evidence,” she said.

Last year, the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the country, issued a resolution affirming the extensive scientific evidence for the safety of biotech crops and opposing mandatory labeling:

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containin products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe...

...contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent.

It is the long-standing policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that special labeling of a food is required if the absence of the information provided poses a special health or environmental risk. The FDA does not require labeling of a food based on the specific genetic modification procedure used in the development of its input crops. Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.

There is one silver lining to this fiasco. The legislators were sufficiently fearful that their stupid new mandate would harm Connecticut commerce that it will only come into effect if other states with populations totaling 20 million (one of which must border the Nutmeg State) also adopt a similar requirement.

Shame on the Connecticut lawmakers for succumbing to anti-science disinformation!

For more scientific illiteracy, see Reason TV's report on the 'March Against Monsanto' Anti-GMO Protest in Los Angeles below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Someone please explain how this is any different than people demanding science classes tell kids the world might be 6000 years old? In fact it is probably worse since these labels might get people to actually do harmful things.

  • Sevo||

    "Someone please explain how this is any different than people demanding science classes tell kids the world might be 6000 years old?"

    I'm an atheist, and I don't care if someone thinks dinos walked the earth with Adam and Eve; no one with those bleefs, ever caused me one bit of harm.
    This, OTOH, stands a good chance of raising my food prices, not to mention adding to the worlds' starvation rate.
    So, yes, there is a difference; this is far worse.

  • John||

    It is much worse. I really can't figure out how someone's view of evolution actually affects my life. But their view of how I should get my food? That affects me a whole lot.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    It is much worse. I really can't figure out how someone's view of evolution actually affects my life.

    When you call one person a Neanderthal and another a Troglodyte, you want them to know the difference?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    A big part of the anti-GMO attitude derives from the fact that most Leftists understand absolutely pigshit about Evolution, they just insist they "believe" in it because they know it pisses the Religious Righties off.

  • Killazontherun||

    ^this.

  • Killazontherun||

    And I say that as one of the original Chuck D.s biggest fans.

  • Jon Lester||

    I hope that means you live in a state where young-Earth creationists aren't a substantial voting bloc.

  • Sevo||

    Jon Lester| 6.4.13 @ 2:06PM |#
    "I hope that means you live in a state where young-Earth creationists aren't a substantial voting bloc."

    OK, now that we've got the straw man out of the way, what harm has this voting bloc caused?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    OK, now that we've got the straw man out of the way, what harm has this voting bloc caused?

    Plenty.

    It's just that nothing of harm has come as a result of their believing stupid shit in regards to evolution. It's a nonissue politically.

    Trying to railroad GMOs based off of a faulty belief system is harmful in a whole host of ways.

  • Sevo||

    "It's just that nothing of harm has come as a result of their believing stupid shit in regards to evolution. It's a nonissue politically."

    That's my point to Jon Lester. That 'voting block' has pretty much lost its ability to cause harm.
    The anti-GMO block, OTOH, can cause some real damage.

  • Jon Lester||

    Here in Georgia, it's contributed more than a little to a GOP supermajority in state government that manages to fail at governing with any appreciable degree of competence.

  • C. Anacreon||

    And, of course, the same people that scream that anyone who is a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming is "anti-science", are also the strongest advocates against GMOs.

  • sarcasmic||

    Human activity must harm the planet because it must. That's why AGW is true and GMOs are bad. They represent human activity that is harming the planet. How do we know it is harming the planet? Well, that's are premise. And our conclusion. Question begging is fun!

  • Killazontherun||

    On the margins, the weight of evidence shows that we do have an effect on the environment of which we are a part. However, the policies that treat this as a bad thing overwhelmingly cost more than the 'harm' (I prefer 'effect' than 'harm' because the planet doesn't care whether it's as bleak as Mars or a New Eden, only sentient species could appreciate those things, it is still a fully functioning planet either way), and this is important, have already overwhelmingly cost more, than the 'problem' those policies allegedly seek to address.

  • Zeb||

    Someone please explain how this is any different than people demanding science classes tell kids the world might be 6000 years old?

    Well, it is actually demonstrably factually true, for one thing. Some foods do contain GMOs. So it is different. I agree that it is stupid to require it. But I don't think it is worse than requiring schools to misinform or propagandize to kids, whether it be on evolution/creationism or the secular religion of environmentalism.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't see why anyone is surprised by this.

    These are the same people that thought you could raise the dead by banning boxes with springs in them.

  • Aresen||

    In and of itself, GMO labelling is meaningless. I realize there are hysterics out there who believe every anti-GMO myth that is propagated, so really this should do nothing.

    In practice, however, it is using the "Scarlet Letter" technique. The next step will be organizing boycotts of stores that carry products containing GMOs. (I think this part has already started, but I am too lazy to google to confirm.)

  • Invisible Finger||

    The real goal is to sue the pants off anyone caught mis-labeling.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's usually the underlying motive that the useful idiots don't understand. The anti-vaccine movement was mostly centered around a lawyer trying to make money. Not science.

  • Sigivald||

    Only if the statute allows for such suits; otherwise you're stuck with trying to convince a jury that the evil GMOs really hurt you.

    Which will be hard when they bring in actual science.

    (For the far less harmful desire to "be able to get GMO-free crops if you want them", well, that's what a voluntary "certified GMO-free" mark is for, ala the Koshering systems.

    Anyone using the mark without permission can and will get sued for Trademark violation, which the courts really frown upon.

    And of course, to use it with permission, you'd have to satisfy the owner that you met its requirements...)

  • Sevo||

    "Which will be hard when they bring in actual science."

    Dow-Corning wishes this were so.

  • Sigivald||

    Exactly.

    They say "I'm scared of 'em so they must be labeled! Choice! Free information!"

    Which is fine, except for the next part: "This is labeled by law? IT MUST BE DANGEROUS! They don't label things unless they're bad!"

    Which leads back to step 1, in a vicious cycle...

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Since they are such a small market, I wonder if companies will just not bother with the labeling and not send anything to CT stores...Balance the cost of compliance with a tiny market share?

  • John||

    So it becomes a way to ban GM foods doesn't it?

  • ||

    True, but then Nutmeggers won't get stuff they currently like. Then they will be unhappy, and that is worth it. Serves 'em right for electing idiots.

  • AlexInCT||

    Some of us are not happy that the idiots keep getting elected, but then again, being here in this lefty shit hole makes us the bigger idiot.

  • ||

    I live in NY. I know lefty shit hole living. Part of the fun for me is when the assholes here elect trans fat banners and then complain their favorite bakery can't make their favorite treat. I take great joy in pointing out they did this to themselves.

  • ||

    There are 3.5 million people in CT. It's not a small market.

  • John||

    About the same as Oklahoma. In a country of 300+ million. Sounds small to me. a bit more than 1%.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The hell it isn't.

    Don't get all defensive. Little people matter, too.

  • PapayaSF||

    From the point of view of Campbell's, no. From the point of view of some smaller company, yes, it might be cheaper to just end CN distribution than to redo all your labels.

  • Killazontherun||

    I can see that. My company avoids markets of similar size that have insane laws effecting our industry.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, I suppose if you're a company that specializes in marketing to Yale students, it's a substantial market.

  • Drake||

    Connecticut - the place I drive through on the way to New Hampshire without ever stopping, particularly for the incredibly expensive gas.

  • AlexInCT||

    Highest state gas tax, after CA, and cost incured due to additives mandated by law. If we had a week where people wouldn't need to pay state & fed gas taxes gas could potentially be selling at 50c a gallon less.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    CT in 2nd place. They are 4th. According to this chart, there are 3 states with higher gas taxes than the $.644 per gallon tax in CT (which includes all state gas and excise taxes + federal taxes). The top 3 are NY at $.696, CA at $.69, and HI at $.68. And this is before any city or county level taxes are added in.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    I'm sure the Connecticlowns get their panties all twisted up over global warming when not freaking out over tomatoes that taste too good and last too long. Remember, this is the crowd that croons about science. Pathetic.

  • ||

    Ahem. Connecticunts.

  • AlexInCT||

    Most fo thema re even to stupid to understand what was done to them.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I hear that many of them are too stupid to type properly.

  • AlexInCT||

    Your mama was sucking me off and I hit the spacebar early. sorry.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    So what was she doing that caused you to misspell "of" and "too"?

  • Sevo||

    AlexInCT| 6.4.13 @ 3:20PM |#
    "Your mama was sucking me off and I hit the spacebar early. sorry."

    Is this a standard riposte taught in 1st-grade web-use classes?
    Godwin should have included this in his rules.

  • sarcasmic||

    Laws based upon ignorance and emotion? Well, I never!

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Wow, at least they don't do that with gun laws or healthcare. That would be terrible.

  • nipplemancer||

    I got into an argument with a friend last week over this. He's pretty libertarian on almost all issues, but with GMOs he goes full statist. I really wanted to smack him for being so retarded. It doesn't help that his wife insists on everything they eat being organic.

  • RBS||

    You too? I've noticed several of my "friends" have gone full retard over GMO's in the past several months. It always leads to them going full "organic."

  • Killazontherun||

    I never trust anyone who isn't willing to inject man derived chemicals in their bodies. Cocaine. It is what separates us from the savages.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've noticed several of my "friends" have gone full retard over GMO's in the past several months. It always leads to them going full "organic."

    How do they think that large organic farms fertilize their crops?

    Well it's manure, and you know what you need to get manure? Large grazing animals that need miles of land to graze upon. That they think "organic" is "sustainable", especially for large populations, is not even smart enough to be wrong. Unless they're anti-human population control fantasies are more than a joke we make among ourselves. Which is scary.

    But a single factory that can produce enough fertilizer, literally from thin air, to use on modified crops to cheaply feed billions of people is evil, and corporation-y. You'd think the people with these sorts of ideas would have been bred out of the gene pool a million years ago. Could you imagine a pre-stone age person not wanting to eat the food their tribe produced because they felt it was made unethically?

  • Killazontherun||

    For that type of person, they are just signifying their social status which boils every matter down to aesthetics. Whom to vote for, how you feel about gun control, gay marriage, science as policy, none of it is about having a coherent political philosophy or relying on valid information, but instead, 'will my peers think this (expressed opinion) make me look fat?'

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'd like to see one of these anti-GMO freaks tell starving Africans they should eat the corn that is literally right in front of them because it was made by Monsanto.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    It surprises me how many libertarians throw logic and reason to the wind when it comes to GMO. A libertarian FB group posed a question about GMO labelling/banning. I clicked on the comments, expecting to see people mocking the question or laughing at it. The overwhelming majority were to the effect of either "they should all be banned" to "they should at least be labeled so people know"

  • nipplemancer||

    What really got me was when he said:
    its freakin labeling man. Regardless of why a person may or may not chose to eat a GMO shouldnt even be in the discussion. Enough people want them labeled, label them and let the free market vet it all out.

    When I told him that the government forcing the labeling is the exact opposite of the free market he changed the subject.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    When I told him that the government forcing the labeling is the exact opposite of the free market he changed the subject.

    This.

    The only sane, free market approach, if you want the market space to reflect your belief that food should be labeled, is to insist that non-GMO using food producers mark their food voluntarily. Anti-GMO folk are simply trying to force food producers they don't like to pay for the market space they desire.

    If you want it, you should pay for it.

  • ||

    Same here. I'm part of a local libertarian/atheist FB group, and they go apeshit anytime I bring up GMO or post pro-GMO articles. So of course I do it frequently, for teh lulz.

  • ||

    Oh? What is the name of this Facebook page, so I may partake of it's GM wisdom? I'm already set up with The Skeptical Libertarian, as well as a British version called the Logical Libertarian.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    The one I was talking about was "I think therefore I am libertarian"

    The guy who runs it posts random discussion thoughts or questions. Sometimes the results are more surprising than waking up tied to a cot, Warty gleefully grinning at you. Almost as scary, too.

  • KPres||

    "He's pretty libertarian on almost all issues, but with GMOs he goes full statist."

    He's probably one of those Alex Jones "libertarians".

  • ||

    Many libertarians have aligned themselves with 'alternative medicine' and the antivaccination crowd because they believe the medical establishment is part of a government plot to poison us all.

    I've been acquainted with enough of those types to be unsurprised that some are in the anti-GMO crowd.

  • Killazontherun||

    There's a lot to complain about in every industry, but whatever happened to caveat emptor? Among my libertarian associates, it is not just Latin, but a way of life.

  • Tman||

    Ditto. The anti-GMO fad has become a big deal recently to certain friends of mine.

    They will simply change the subject now if I'm around because they know I will call them out on the bullshit. But they won't listen to anything I've told them and continue to believe Monsanto and GMO's are basically poisoning the earth.

    It's just pathetic, and as John mentioned above FAR WORSE than than anti-evolution stupidity.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hmm, inspires a t-shirt. Monsoto: They Feed, You Shit.

  • Robert||

    Heck, I know longtime radical libertarian activists of considerable note in the movement who've thrown in with the anti-GMO crowd and are activists on that score now too.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Too bad these protesters weren't around to stop the Green Revolution, which most credit with saving a billion or more lives.

  • RBS||

  • Sevo||

    It'll be interesting to see how many grocery items end up labeled. I'm guessing it's 'way more than the politicos have in mind, and be prepared for a epidemic of psycho-somatic illnesses when people realize they've been eating GMO stuff for years.

  • RBS||

    be prepared for a epidemic of psycho-somatic illnesses when people realize they've been eating GMO stuff for years.

    There are people in my family that manage to become afflicted with whatever illness happens to be trending at the moment.

  • General Butt Naked||

    True.

    I worked in restaurants for over a decade and never once heard of someone being allergic to wheat gluten, then one day about a fifth of the customers were.

    One lady said she was, then ordered the rice pilaf, I told here that it has pasta in it. She said that it must be a small amount 'cause it never made her ill and ordered it anyways. I wanted to tell her that it didn't make her sick because what makes her sick is the fact that she was a stoopid honky bitch that has more money than brains, and that being a hypochondriac is her way of attaining the coveted victimhood she so desires.

    I didn't but I wanted to.

  • ||

    Oh man. People don't want to be fired, but if you can do it such a wonderful way as what you wanted to do there, it might have been worth it. I wish I had done more "fuck yous" before I was married with kids when it would only affect me.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I have told people who've asked if our food was organic, that yes, it was carbon based. I then act like there is something really pressing that needs taken care of at the other end of the restaurant and quickly dash off before they can respond.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I wish I had done more "fuck yous" before I was married with kids when it would only affect me.

    How can this possibly be true? I have been assured that libertarians only care about themselves and have no regard for anyone else ever.

  • Sigivald||

    I worked in restaurants for over a decade and never once heard of someone being allergic to wheat gluten, then one day about a fifth of the customers were.

    True fact.

    But on the other hand, celiac disease is a real, no-bullshit thing; you can tell becaues people with it react even when they don't know there's wheat in something.

    It's just really uncommon.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    One of the dumbest things about this is that if you go back far enough, pretty much ALL of our food is genetically modified. Either through selective breeding or radiation.

    Yeah, radiation GMO's are just dandy. It's cool to irradiate seeds to get random mutations and see what grows. However, using modern science to get exactly the mutation you want is EEEEEVULLLL!

  • Zeb||

    That's the funniest thing. People have been genetically modifying things randomly with irradiation for many years (and forever just using natural mutations) and using the results. And that is apparently OK. But to deliberately change the genes, in fairly well understood ways to get the effect that you specifically want and no others is terrible.

    I think that most anti-GMO folk don't know about or understand the irradiation thing.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Yeah, I thoroughly stumped one guy I was talking to with the irradiation thing. He first said "well, that must be a fringe thing, because I've never heard of it" When I showed him how common a practice it is, and that there is absolutely no regulation or testing of the results, he changed the subject.

    We, as humans, have been fucking with the genetic makeup of our food since before we knew what genetics was. Hell, before we knew what cells were. We have changed so many plants and animals to suit our needs that they no longer even resemble their wild ancestors except in basic form.

  • ||

    They don't understand basic genetics. I once had someone spout the talking point about GM fields "infesting" non-GM fields. I told him that the GM field could experience the same phenomenon, so it wouldn't make much sense to put them side-by-side; and that there would still be non-GM plants, as cross-fertilization wouldn't automatically produce only GM plants.

    He didn't even understand basic Mendelian inheritance. In his mind GM crops were some primordial ur-poison, that magically blighted and killed everything it touched.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I think that most anti-GMO folk don't know about or understand the irradiation thing.

    You're giving them WAY too much credit. All they know is KKKORPORASHUNS BAD!!!!!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Virtually everything in every grocery store that isn't specifically labeled as organic would have to be labeled as a GMO food.

    And yes, they will suddenly have phantom illnesses rather than realize through experience of eating them for years that they are no harm.

  • Leigh||

    Personally, I don't worry about it too much - except it does rub my libertarian instincts wrong - it would be far better if the FDA/USDA didn't trounce on the first amendment and just allowed genetically clean products to be labeled as such - if they want. What I predict will happen is the same thing that happened when Californians voted for Prop 65 - The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, is that those signs are everywhere - and so it totally defeats any purpose it might of had. All food will end up having those warning labels, so no one will care. Even food that is "genetically clean" will have it for fear of lawsuit - much like the "this food might have been in contact with machinery that processes peanuts" warning labels that no one cares about either - which I've found even on peanut butter jars!

  • PapayaSF||

    Indeed, it'll be like Prop 65. The pro-labeling folks think that there will just be a label on this or that item, but everything with even a smidgen of a GMO spice will need a label.

  • Zeb||

    I think that is the better solution. If people want to market their food to ignorant silly people by marking it "non-GMO" I have no problem with that.

  • ||

    That's what I've always said.

    However I've read (but cannot confirm) that the FDA won't allow "NO GMO" labels on processed food because GMOs are now so widespread that it's almost impossible for a producer to prove that his product does not have them. That said, I still see a lot of them and no just in Whole Foods. :)

    As someone else noted above, laws like this wil end up making it so that just about everything in the store wil have a "this product may contain GMOs". I will at least be able to smile when I see that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You call it corn, we call it genetically modified maize. Yes, that's right, corn isn't what it once was, white man.

  • General Butt Naked||

    As someone else noted above, laws like this wil end up making it so that just about everything in the store wil have a "this product may contain GMOs".

    I'm am going to be sooooo sad when all these idiots starve to death the first winter they try to live off of their canned, homegrown heirloom tomatoes.

    I may even hold a candlelight vigil.

  • PapayaSF||

    Think of it as combatting obesity.

  • Zeb||

    Hey, don't knock homegrown heirloom tomatoes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, I must agree. Home-grown tomatoes rule.

    My brother grows a bunch of different varieties of tomatoes. Many, oddly, are Russian hybrids. Not sure why, but the Russians are into mutating tomatoes.

  • Jon Lester||

    I just got a couple myself. I've also been wanting to try the Siberian varieties that will yield in about 7 weeks.

  • Sevo||

    Jon Lester| 6.4.13 @ 3:10PM |#
    "I've also been wanting to try the Siberian varieties that will yield in about 7 weeks."{

    Which answers why the Russians are so interested in tomato hybrids: Short growing season.

  • Zeb||

    And a lot of the heirloom varieties were bred entirely for flavor and not for transport and taste amazing.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I see "Non-GMO" labels regularly in the grocery store. It's quite common, and very legal.

    And yes, it is the right way of doing it. This is nothing more than anti-GMO freaks wanting the rest of us to subsidize their market preferences. Fuck them. If they want labeling, they can pay for it themselves.

  • PapayaSF||

    Do an image search for "GMO free label": there are many.

  • Jon Lester||

    As it was when I quit drinking carbonated soft drinks, my more recent decisions to eat more wholesome foods were my own consumer choices, not because anyone in authority has compelled me.

  • ||

    Kan. farmer sues Monsanto over GMO wheat discovery

    [...]

    Barnes referred all calls to his attorneys. One of them, Warren Burns, said that the scope of the damage is potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He said the lawsuit seeks to make sure their client is compensated for his losses.

    "These types of suits serve the purpose of helping police the agricultural system we have in place and make sure farmers are protected," Burns said in a phone interview Tuesday from Dallas.

    [...]

    "Tractor-chasing lawyers have prematurely filed suit without any evidence of fault and in advance of the crop's harvest," said David Snively, Monsanto executive vice president and general counsel.

    ----

    That's a good line.

  • PapayaSF||

    And "Snively" is a great last name for a lawyer for Monsanto.

  • ||

    Is there a private, independent food organization that certifies brand foods as being non-GMO? I'd imagine that'd be a pretty good racket to start if it doesn't already exist.

  • Jon Lester||

    I found this company, and if you look under "Investors" and click "share price," you'll see you've more or less guessed correctly.

    http://www.intertek.com/food/t.....nisms-gmo/

  • RBS||

    Hmmm, H&R Certified Organic and Warty Free

  • ||

    Ok, now THAT'S a labeling mandate I could get behind. Wartyful foods are dangerous to health, sanity, and biodegradability. They're still working on understanding that last one.

  • Sigivald||

    Problem would be how they'd even know that they were accurately certifying the foods (and thus making the label not simple false advertising).

    It's not easy to tell if there's some amount of GMO-something in a finished good.

    (I'm not sure, frankly, that it's trivial to even tell if a given vegetable is really GMO free vs. "probably because the seed lot claimed it was non-GMO heirlooms"...

    Genetics is a bitch that way.)

  • ||

    Well American Crystal Sugar supplies about ¼ of the sugar in the U.S. Pepsi and Hersey buy their sugar from them. Crystal Sugar gets their sugar from sugar beet farmers who plant Monsanto’s Roundup ready sugar beets. So good luck staying away from GMO foods.

  • Zeb||

    I didn't realize we used so much beet sugar int eh US.

  • ||

    Yep. Crystal is the largest company. They supply Walmart and Target store brands. And a couple dozen other smaller stores.

  • Sevo||

    OK, folks! Time to invest in label printers!
    There's gonna be a LOT of them.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    OK, folks! Time to invest in label printers!
    There's gonna be a LOT of them.

    Yep. Virtually everything in the grocery store would have to be labeled.

  • Russell||

    Not to be outdone , Mayor Bloomberg has announced a city wide ban on foods from species with more than 12 chromosomes.

  • Sevo||

    Funny!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement