GMO Food

Taking Exception to Vermont's Proposed GMO Labeling Rules

Defending an unconstitutional law may prove as costly as it is foolhardy.

|

Cheese
Cheese

Earlier this week, Vermont released a draft of the regulations it proposes to adopt in order to enforce the state's mandatory GMO-labeling law.

"The nine pages of rules released Wednesday lay out everything from definitions of 'food' and 'genetic engineering' to the required disclosures on packaging that will read 'Produced with Genetic Engineering,'" notes an Associated Press piece on the proposed regulations.

The proposed rules themselves are interesting enough—but then so are the numerous exceptions built into them.

Unsurprisingly, many of them appear to have Vermont farmers and dairy interests in mind.

Take the exception for foods that contain genetically modified "processing aids or enzymes." While it's not stated explicitly what these aids and enzymes are, it doesn't take much to figure out why the state has proposed this exception to the law.

"Beer, wine and cheese will also need special consideration, since the use of genetically modified enzymes is fairly common when making these products," noted a Whole Foods blog post last year.

How's that? In the case of cheese, it comes down to a genetically modified enzyme, FPC, that's used to make ninety percent of cheeses. It's expensive to make cheese without FPC.

Vermont, of course, is known for its cheese. And beer. Not surprisingly, the regulations also exempt alcohol beverages.

Cherry-picked exceptions like these—which often appear to favor or protect local interests—are common.

"Manufacturers would have to label GMO bread, but not GMO cheese," reads a recent report on Colorado's proposed GMO-labeling law. "Soda, but not beer. Candy, but not gum."

And, as I noted earlier this year, a Hawaii county GMO ban exempts GMO papayas, which (coincidentally!) are grown in the county.

Four national associations, headed by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, sued earlier this year to prevent the Vermont law from taking effect.

They argue, among other things, that the state's GMO-labeling law is unconstitutional. They're right. That's true of every state GMO-labeling law I've seen. And Vermont's is no exception.

Like the California egg law I wrote about last week, GMO-labeling laws restrict interstate commerce. That's the primary reason why I opposed proposed laws in Washington state and California, both of which were rejected by voters.

Defending an unconstitutional law may prove as costly as it is foolhardy.

Reports indicate the state may have to revert to bake sales to fund its defense of its labeling law, which is expected to cost upwards of $8 million. In August, the state announced it had raised just over two percent of the money it expects to need to defend the law in court. Since that time, reports indicate that donations had swollen to less than four percent.

But the real costs might be borne by Vermont's farmers. The requirements in the proposed rules that sellers affirm that any products sold without a GMO label are free from GMOs via a sworn statement may prove daunting.

"I don't want to say our cheese is non-GMO if I can't prove it," said Angela Miller of Vermont's Consider Bardwell Farm, a small, sustainable producer, in comments to the Guardian earlier this year.

With a $1,000 fine proposed for each violation, who could blame her?

Earlier this year, someone asked Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin what he thought of the state's GMO labeling law.

"I'm not going to think too much about that," said Shumlin. "I usually don't have time to read what I'm eating."

If it hadn't happened already, I'd predict that sort of carelessness was enough to get his state sued.

NEXT: Tea Party: Not Actually to Blame for Midwest Deindustrialization, Sad Personal Stories

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.

  1. Earlier this year, someone asked Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin what he thought of the state’s GMO labeling law.

    “I’m not going to think too much about that,” said Shumlin. “I usually don’t have time to read what I’m eating.”

    And that’s how to be an asshole.

  2. Subliminal Shumlin: “We have to eat the food to see what’s in it.”

  3. But GMO’s will blow you your dick off!Seriously,they need to put a sign in the vegetable section stating ALL these products are GMO,including the ‘organic’

    1. woops that’s gluten,my bad,I’m sure it’s GMO also

      1. I don’t know about the dick blasting – but pretty much all the vegetables in the produce section are GMO’s.

        That corn? If its *edible* then its the product of several centuries of genetic modification.

      1. the Koch are behind them both I’ll bet.You think they only have one dick blower in their arsenal?

        1. All hail The Koch

  4. Interstate commerce to bite them in the ass? Dare I hope?

    1. There are already mandatory labeling laws for certain consumer products at the state level. You’ve probably seen “California warning: this product contains lead” and similar. And of course there are full-blown bans on some products (fireworks, hollow point bullets).

      I’m not sure if the jurisprudence is that health and safety concerns trump the dormant commerce clause, or if this has just never been tested.

    2. Oddly, it never crossed my mind to invoke the CC for what it was actually created for.

      When California dictates a specification of cars to be sold in the state, they are actually dictating that specification to the entire country as car manufacturers are not going to design a car for CA and another for everywhere else.

      One could argue that car manufacturers aren’t required to sell their wares in CA. But, wasn’t the CC put in the Constitution to ensure free trade between the states?

      I need to think about this.

      1. wasn’t the CC put in the Constitution to ensure free trade between the states?

        Yes. Though, I believe it is more along the lines of preventing one State from putting a tariff on imports from another.

        1. Or forcing another state to pay for emissions standards they don’t want? Kinda like a tariff, no?

          But as I said, “forcing” implies the manufacturer has no choice. They could always choose not to sell to CA, but it would cost them a market. Is that force?

          1. No, bring it down to an individual level on the question of force, and you’ll see why.

            As far as interstate commerce, still no, I don’t see how this would violate the Constitution at all. Companies still be free to sell different products to different states. That they set up their business as one size fits all is their own problem to deal with.

            1. However, there is a big question of equality under the law in these cases when they make certain companies immune from the legislation.

          2. Well if there are only a few large manufacturer’s a large market like CA can force it’s standards on the rest of the States. It’s why I like Rat Rods, and 3D printing. Eventually, with 3D printing there will be a lot more small scale car manufacturer’s fabricating their own parts. Then the rest of the country can tell CA, and Big Auto to go screw.

  5. Government response to Ebola is incompetent, Obama hardest hit –

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10…..-news&_r=0

  6. Stop the presses, we have some late-breaking news!

    “Conservatives fear [Chief Justice]Roberts going soft”

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..12000.html

    1. He’s just growing in office (with the help of some NSA derived pix of him and a goat).

      1. “The goat who gave us the penaltax”

        1. “The goat who gave us the penaltax and saved Spring Break”

  7. Do the regulations also require non-GMO foods to bear the label “Produced with Random Mutation”?

    I thought this was about informing consumers, the right to know how what you’re eating was produced, etc.

  8. “Vermont, of course, is known for its cheese. And beer. Not surprisingly, the regulations also exempt alcohol beverages.”

    We may suspect there may be some GMO going on in here somewhere but what the heck. They’re exempt because interests!

    The utter arbitrary of designing and applying such laws are bound to be UNFAIR. It’s sickening. Alas, GMO labeling isn’t unique. We see this across North America where politicians jump on an issue and create laws to pacify one group while favoring others by exempting them.

    All for something we’ve been doing as a species for thousands of years. Food is all GMO for the most part isn’t it?

    Even notice when you press people on the labels they read they end up sounding more like Naomi Klein than anything?

    1. “The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese.”

    2. Not surprisingly, the regulations also exempt alcohol beverages.

      Bootleggers and Baptists.

      1. That’s not applicable here.

        1. It isn’t meant to be taken literally, all of the time.

          I was just having fun with that element of the story.

          1. It’s not a matter of it being taken literally or not.

            Rufus is talking about taking a supposedly necessary regulation and modifying it to bow to politically powerful special interests.

            “Baptists and bootleggers” refers to the fact that prohibition, by nature, benefits those who peddle the prohibited good on the black market. There is no carve out, and while the bootleggers sometimes are politically influential, it doesn’t matter.

            Plus, if we exempt beer from the legislation, there are no bootleggers.

            So, no, “baptists and bootleggers” does not apply here.

            1. Of course, if you were saying “I wasn’t saying this is literally a ‘baptists and bootleggers’ situation, just mentioning a similar situation”, which I suppose is likely, I just wasted my time responding.

    3. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

    4. It basically comes down to: If you want to know what you’re eating, buy from a company who tells you.

      But if a company doesn’t tell you, and it could be harmful, that would obviously be fraud.

      Or if a company claims it is healthy, when it is not, etc.

      Which is why we should have private companies doing this sort of stuff rather than the FDA. They’d do it better. And cheaper.

      When I point out to proggies that there is a market for all these things they think the FDA needs to do, they just give the thousand yard stare.

      1. If you’re that worried about how your food was produced, don’t buy from companies that refuse to tell you. Fact is, though, GMO is not harmful.

  9. All this time, money, resources, court and lawyer time, interests, bureaucracy, media grandstanding for something that’s never been proven harmful.

    I’m stunned (/sarc).

    1. all they had to do was show a picture of a guy in a hazmat suit spraying crops and the luddites come out of the woodwork.

    1. I’m guessing Dan Gentile gets the sweats after eating paprika. The reason that there are different hot sauces is not because they are “hot” in a different way (though one can be hotter than the other), but because they taste different. I don’t use Matouk’s when my wife makes yum talay just as she doesn’t use Sriracha when I make goat roti.

      1. When’s dinner?

      2. Huh, goat roti rhymes with my favorite wine.

        Anyway, ditto what you said. You need the right hot sauce for the dish. That’s why we have 12 kinds of chile sauces/pastes of various sorts in our refrigerator, aside from our extensive stock of dried and roasted/frozen chiles.

        But I have to admit that sriracha is as close to the Universal Donor as you’re going to find.

  10. Here’s an example of where being a politician gets sticky.

    What happens when your constituents lobby for a law, in this case GMO labeling, you know to be irrational do you try and lead and knock sense into people or do you just go along because they put you in power? After, a politician is supposed to lead the people, no? So if people believe in GMO labeling does he go along with it even if he may disagree?

    A little naive this question I know and there are many nuances in it but overall I gather this is the gist of what politicians face when it comes to dealing with people/voters.

    It just feels as though rationalism rarely prevails.

    1. In theory, I’d say “lay out your stance to the voters, and if they don’t like it, they can choose someone else.” But I realize the difficulty when you gotta nerve yourself up to take that attitude. This is why it’s best to have a wealthy politician or someone with a real job to fall back on if he’s thrown out of office.

      Sometimes, the voters may appreciate a bold politician who openly disagrees with them on principle.

      1. Hey, look at Abe Lincoln – he was an antiwar Congressman, and the voters threw him out after one term because of his dovishness. Didn’t stop him from coming back to Washington for another war.

        1. Lincoln absolutely did not want war in 1861. He supported a constitutional amendment that would have forbidden constitutional amendments restricting slavery.

          I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

          1. I was kind of being silly, throwing the Lincoln-bashers a bone.

          2. Yet he was more than willing to go to war.

            Its funny how many ‘great men’ opposed the wars they joined in anyway.

          3. So Lincoln was an unprincipled piece of shit.

            Yep, we knew that.

      2. This is why it’s best to have a wealthy politician or someone with a real job to fall back on if he’s thrown out of office.

        Legislators and members of Congress have fat pensions. They’re not going to starve by getting voted out.

        They fight like hell to stay in office because they like power and influence, nothing more.

        1. Legislators and members of Congress have fat pensions.

          Not really.

      3. This is why it’s best to have a wealthy politician or someone with a real job to fall back on if he’s thrown out of office.

        You mean like Bloomberg?

        Seriously: Politicians are power junkies and will do anything to keep getting their fix.

        1. Yeah, Bloomy had the courage of his convictions, he simply happened to be wrong. Outside of NY, I hope the voters would give him the shellacking he deserves.

          But alas

          The best lack all conviction, and the worst
          Are full of passionate intensity

    2. Well, there’s tension there. Ideally, politicians are supposed to REPRESENT the people, not lead them. But to some extent they also are supposed to act as a brake against rash actions that the populace temporarily supports.

      1. I think it’s the voters’ responsibility to decide whose views best correspond to theirs, and the politicians’ responsibility to be brutally candid about what their stances actually are.

        1. But not every possible issue will come up during the campaign. I doubt anyone was discussing what to do with the Taliban during the 2000 elections, for instance.

        2. No, I think vice versa in this day & age. A politician should profess no opinion at all, but promise to poll constituents on every issue, and then to follow those polls. It’s feasible now.

          1. That would just be direct democracy, which has its own set of problems. Direct democracy would have meant assault weapons and magazine bans back in December 2012.

    3. You could also deliberately sabotage the law and make it so unpalatable that it won’t pass.

      How do you think the Affordable Care Act was made?

      Oh wait.

    4. After, a politician is supposed to lead the people, no?

      A representative of any kind is supposed to follow the wish of whoever hired hir. Otherwise, in what sense are they representative?

  11. you know to be irrational do you try and lead and knock sense into people or do you just go along because they put you in power?

    If you believe losing an election is a fate worse than death, then you pander, according to the calculus of the next election.

  12. “I don’t want to say our cheese is non-GMO if I can’t prove it,” said Angela Miller of Vermont’s Consider Bardwell Farm

    “We are proud to say that our cheese has not been proven to be GMO.”

  13. Dizzying

    “The swiftly evolving conversation about defining sexual assault signaled to us that we needed to reframe our name as something more positive,” said Allison Korman, the group’s executive director. “And it’s even possible that ‘No means no’ will be an outdated or irrelevant concept in 10 years. Students may not have even heard of the phrase by then.”

    That’s because at a growing number of colleges, “No means no” is out, and “Yes means yes” is in. And it’s more than just revising an old slogan ? from coast to coast, colleges are rethinking how they define consent on their campuses.

    This makes me want to do a run of WANNA FUCK? shirts and hand them out at the Montana – Montana State game. Except I’d probably wind up in jail.

    1. The “No means no” phrase was of course in response to guys who thought that a woman saying “no” was just playing hard to get, and part of standard procedure leading up to sex.

      I still don’t understand how the phrase “Yes means yes” supports their position. Was there someone who was not interpreting “yes” as meaning yes?

      1. Some people do have that reput’n.

      2. Hopefully we’ll get around to “No means yes” someday.

        1. I think we’re already pretty far down the “Yes means No” road.

    2. ” “Yes means yes” is in.”

      I still don’t understand how this is supposed to be better.

      Do they really mean one yes is all it takes? Awesome.

      1. +1 mindless catch phrase that means the opposite of what the leftists think it does.

      2. “Yes means it’s in”

        1. You beat me to that.

        2. What does, ” Don’t stop”, mean ?

          Don’t! stop!

          Don’t stop !

          DON’T STOP !

          Don’t ! Stop !

          DON’T ! STOP !

          And a confused college boy lives life as a sexual predator.

  14. Earlier this month, the State University of New York system adopted that same uniform definition at all of its 64 campuses. The California State University System adopted its new definition months ago. Every Ivy League institution except Harvard University has adopted some form of affirmative consent. According to the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, more than 800 colleges and universities now use some type of affirmative consent

    “There’s quite a surge in support of a ‘Yes means yes’ formula,” said Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education. “It’s certainly an ongoing movement, and is likely to be a generally positive thing. At the same time, it’s not easy to develop a good definition of affirmative consent. We wouldn’t want a one-size-fits-all approach for a variety of institutions.”

    No mention of Dept of Education arm-twisting, oddly enough.

    1. At the same time, it’s not easy to develop a good definition of affirmative consent. We wouldn’t want a one-size-fits-all approach for a variety of institutions.

      Whoa whoa whoa. So she’s saying that something that’s rape at U Cal Berkeley isn’t rape at SUNY Stony Brook, or vice versa?

      1. That is a rather odd statement concerning the topic, yes.

  15. Freshly crowned Ebola Czar misses the first Ebola strategy meeting at the White House. It was a nice golf day, so I can’t really blame him.

    1. It’s OK, Patrick. We’ve been told that Klain’s forte is cutting through bureaucracy, so he doesn’t need any of these BS meetings.

  16. Isn’t there a market-based thing called the GMO Project?
    Haven’t I seen it everywhere, on an increasing number of foods?
    Are people unable to think with their brain?

    1. Yes, and FDA also allows companies to claim GMO-free (GMO Project is not FDA-regulated, but they allow). The objective isn’t, and has never been “knowing” – but about “anti-” (Big Ag, capitalism, food freedom, etc.) and fear-mongering.

  17. GMO’s alter human DNA. Why anyone would not want to know if a substance they are ingesting will change the very unique fabric of what makes them human is beyond understanding. Get informed and write, call, visit your elected officials. Your children’s children’s chromosomes will thank you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFVF3MJNOHg

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    1. I had to read this a few times to make sure my sarc meter wasn’t off. Are you SERIOUSLY under the impression that the term “Genetically Modified Organism” LITERALLY means you are ingesting some type of chromosome-altering life form or substance?

      Please take the misinformation to Huff Post where it belongs…

      1. GMO’s alter human DNA.

        Well, if the organism is human, then the statement is tautologically true.

        1. Soylent GMO is people!

        2. GMO is right up there with “irradiation” and most unfortunate technical term…

      2. Are you SERIOUSLY under the impression that the term “Genetically Modified Organism” LITERALLY means you are ingesting some type of chromosome-altering life form or substance?

        Are you fucking retarded? Of course it does! It’s been proven in this documentary.

        Act like you know.

        1. Wow – thanks for scaring me straight – I think I better eat some kale…

          1. Scare you? I don’t know about you, but if I could eat something today and wake up with an adamantium skeleton tomorrow, it’d be on like Donkey Kong!

            1. Transhumanism FTW!

        2. Sorry, have to call Bulls**t on that.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo…..eal-study/

          1. This is why you need to click on people’s links in people’s posts before responding.

            You just called bullshit on the X-Men animated series opening intro.

            1. Did I mention that these posts were made by people, and the links were too? I feel like I didn’t use the word people enough in that post.

    2. That DOES explain the extra penis I have now.

      Thank you, GMO!

    3. rocknwroll is full of genetically modified poo.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo…..eal-study/

  18. GMO’s alter human DNA.

    Of course they do.

    MANBEARPIG!

  19. Eating a red seedless grape ( 0.99 $%lb on sale ) the other day , I wondered how many anti-GMO zealots also like these sterile hybrids .

  20. What’s funny is that I imagine eventually manufacturers will voluntarily label their produce as GMO. Once they start making produce that tastes better, has a longer shelf-life, eliminates allergens, is vitamin-enriched, etc., I’ll be searching for that GMO label.

  21. “‘They argue, among other things, that the state’s GMO-labeling law is unconstitutional. They’re right. That’s true of every state GMO-labeling law I’ve seen”

    Clearly, this ONE lawyer knows exactly what is constitutional and what is not! Why, heck, we don’t need the SCOTUS or other courts, let’s just ask him! He Knows!

    One thing you can say about lawyers….they ALL think they are right…

    “Look for – the GMO label – when you are buying your chard, corn and beans. Remember somewhere, a chemist making, a corporation taking….your rights away!”

    I made that up on the spot to the tune of the old union song about clothes sewers….

    Actually, I could care less about GMO’s – except that, without chemistry, life itself would be impossible. I’m a big believer in civilization and most every food we have created is a product of us messing with it….

    1. Are you sure you can handle that? I mean not a single one of those foods was created under strict government scrutiny. They were all done by corporazhuns!!!!! and PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS!!!11!!! with no state oversight.

  22. Vermont. California. New York. They’re all case studies in what not to do.

    Seriously, though. I’m a vegetarian, so most of what I eat is already non-GMO. When I go shopping, I see tons of non-GMO options. Plenty of food items read in big, green letters “non-GMO”.

    Why can’t people just buy those? There’s clearly a market demand for non-GMO stuff. Why not just buy from the brands which already label themselves non-GMO without a government mandate?

    Does it it have to do with the fact that, I don’t know, lots of health food people are hypocritical cheapskates? I mean, they want to pay less, so they want to force companies to pay more so that they can make less. (I’d understand wanting such measures in place if GMO’s were dangerous, but guess what? They. Aren’t.)

    1. As a vegetarian, most of what you eat is GMO.

      Like corn – GMO
      Tofu – GMO
      Potatoes – GMO
      Tomatoes – GMO
      Wheat
      Pretty much every edible fruit

      Its all GMO.

      1. Mistake on my part.

        Either way, I wasn’t being anti-GMO, which is kind of what bothers me about a lot of health food people. Nothing wrong with their eating habits, but their anti-GMO outcries are founded in pseudoscience.

  23. Do any of the rules require non-GMO products to be labeled non-GMO? Why wouldn’t everybody just take the easy way out & label everything as GMO?

    1. I’m not in favor of government mandates, but if there’s going to be one, why not just have GMO-free companies label their stuff GMO-free? The assumption can be that any foods which don’t read “GMO-free” contain GMO’s. That way, it won’t cut into the GMO companies’ profits, and people can know what is GMO-free.

      Of course, I’m not in favor of this route, but it makes more sense than labeling foods which actually contain GMO’s.

      1. Sounds good – until you realize that there would have to be STANDARDS! And STANDARDS! COMMITTEES. And Oversight committees to ensure that the proper waivers to the STANDARDS! are issued.

        Can’t let private certifying organizations handle that – what do you think you are, Jewish?

        1. Hence, why I said that I’m not in favor of it.

    2. No, it is not required for non-GMO food to be labeled as-such; FDA DOES allow them to state non-GMO, also all organic products are non-GMO (per regulations). Bottom line, if you are truly concerned – easy to ensure you are consuming non-GMO.

  24. upto I looked at the bank draft for $8092 , I did not believe that…my… best friend was trully bringing in money in their spare time from there labtop. . there uncle had bean doing this for only twenty one months and a short time ago repaid the dept on there place and bought a top of the range Alfa Romeo . visit this website
    published here… W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  25. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link?

    Try it, you won’t regret it!?… w?w?w.M?o?n?e?y?k?i?n.c?o?m?

    1. Yeah, that’s your story and you’re sticking to it right? Has absolutely no relation to reality, but you’re sticking to it.

  26. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  27. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  28. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  29. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  30. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  31. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week

    Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

  32. Another example of gov’t and special interest groups freaking out. There is no danger from GMOs.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo…..eal-study/

    This article cites the largest, most comprehensive study conducted and published in the Journal of Animal Science on GMOs and if found no difference between non-GMO and GMO. Just as an aside, corn and bananas are genetically modified and they are consumed with great gusto by virtually everybody.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.