GMO Food

Vermont GMO Labeling Hits Kosher Foods

The intended consequences of needlessly scaring consumers are bad enough, but now this too.

|

VTRighttoKnow
VTRighttoKnow.org

Kosher foods are disappearing from grocery stores in Vermont due to the fact many small manufacturers and suppliers do not want to bother with complying with the Green Mountain State's new requirement that foods made using ingredients from genetically modified crops (GMOs) be labeled. Vermont's law imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day per genetically modified product that is not labeled. Since the Vermont market is so small, it's just easier to to stop shipping their grocery goods to that scientifically benighted state.

Kobi Afek, VP for sales at the big kosher grocer Osem USA, told the Burlington Free Press that compliance with Vermont's law is just too expensive:

"We're talking here about a major change," [Afek] said. "First of all they have to review the law. That's an expense. They have to make sure their ingredients and statements meet the law's requirements. If not they have to change the label and print packaging. For such a small market, you say, 'Let's just move ahead and forget about Vermont.'"

Naturally, supporters of the labeling law are surprised. The Free Press reports:

Sen. David Zuckerman, P-Chittenden, a strong supporter of the GMO labeling law, learned for the first time this week that kosher foods are being affected by the law.

"This is a new twist that I am learning about," Zuckerman said. "We didn't see this."

A very nice article over at the Genetic Literacy Project makes the exqusite point that Big Food and Big Food Chain can afford to comply with Vermont's nonsensical labeling laws by simply passing along the additional costs to consumers. It's a lot harder for small and mid-sized food companies to switch ingredients or face $1,000 per day fines for inadvertently shipping non-labeled products into the state.

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed legislation would mandate federal GMO labeling and pre-empt state laws like Vermont's. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would have two years in which to work out the implementing regulations. Activists have been pushing for mandatory federal labeling for years now and when they finally get it, they hate it. Why? Because they fear it will not be onerous enough to scare consumers away from foods made with modern biotech crops. The House is expected to pass the Senate's version of the bill, but will President Obama veto it?

NEXT: No, Driving for Uber Is Not a Payday Loan

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. Independent US senators representing the state hardest hit.

  2. Kobi Afek, VP for sales at the big kosher grocer Osem USA…

    If big kosher can’t stop these insane labeling laws, who can?

    1. Apparently (((they))) do not control everything. Damn.

      1. (((You))) say this as if this ISN’T just a plot to horde all the kosher foods from the goyim!!

        1. Hoard, even.

        2. (((We))) answer to a higher authority.

          1. +1 Hebrew National advertisement

            1. Hitler?

          2. Your accountants?

  3. Last week, the U.S. Senate passed legislation would mandate federal GMO labeling and pre-empt state laws like Vermont’s.

    Free market is never an option.

    1. Look, they’re beating them over the head with a GMO-label complaint giant carrot. Isn’t that enough for (((you)))?

      1. I’m suspicious of the origin of the stick.

  4. Meh. Nobody cares about kosher foods being driven out of state.

    Now, point out that halal foods are being driven out of state, and you could whip up some outrage . . . .

    1. You know who else drove kosher foods out of his state?

  5. Speaking of Vermont, but completely off-topic: anyone have experience with fresh water fishing? Not fly fishing. We’re looking for lake trout. Any tips on lake trout fishing in summer? We’re gonna try to catch some in August on Lake Champlain (hence, Vermont).

      1. Not bad. Lake Trout stay pretty deep, especially in the middle of summer. Is there a reason for no fly fishing?

        1. Because we’re not going to be fly fishing – we’ll be on Lake Champlain, trying for some lake trout.

          1. Alright, geez. I was just curious.

          2. Try googling.

    1. Just walk around until your phone buzzes and then throw a pokeball. It’s not always going to be a fish though.

      1. Oh for fuck’s sake – not you too on the fucking Pokemon shit?

    2. I have a lot of experience with fresh water fishing but not with trout. We don’t really have those down here. I can catch the hell out of bass though. Typically you use bait that mimics that fish’s natural diet. It has to do more than just look like it, it has to behave like it also, that is the key to successful fishing. Just dragging a lure through the water is a waste of time.

      I think OneOut is an avid fisherman. He may be more familiar with trout.

      I googled it. They like deeper water where it is cool and their primary diet is smelt. Sounds like there is nothin’ to it.

      1. I thought OneOut just dove into the Gulf and wrestled mollusks.

      2. Worm and bobber.

    3. I assume you’ll be trolling? Lake trout like deep water, especially in the summer; they prefer colder temps than a lot of lake fish. I’ve never fished Champlain, so I can’t give good recommendations on specific lures, but you’ll want to tend towards brighter colors so they can see it. Ask the locals, they’ll know what works best there. If you manage to catch one, stay in the area a while, they tend to cluster.

      1. Reason commenters always troll.

        1. Yeah, I saw that after I hit submit. I was hoping it was to overt for our lot, but I should have known better.

      2. Caput delivers the goods. I haven’t fished for lake trout in a long time, but it was trolling. What they will bite on is very local, so you’ll have to ask the locals.

      3. Troll with down riggers using ford fender and a bait. It’s really meat gathering because after the initial strike and a minute of fighting the fish will give up the ghost once you pull it up and it’s swim bladder fails.

        1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty complicated.

      4. Awesome, dood!

    4. I wonder if my last comment will be regurgitated at some point.

    5. Salmon eggs or night crawlers. Or Velveeta cheese.

  6. Product labeling/printing/press mandated by the state is necessarily a violation of freedom of press.

    For those that may wonder, we have fraud laws already.

  7. I also demand to know if my food is Voodoo, Vodou, Vodun, Vod?, Vud? and/or Santeria-free.

    1. -1 Chicken Head

      1. I lost part of my virginity during a drive-in showing of The Believers and I find it very triggering.

        1. I know i’ll regret asking, but which part?

          1. Well, it’s kind of a long story, but I’ll sum it up…

            The first young lady that graciously shared her flower with me stopped my intrusion upon her person after I got only the tip of my glans into her. After some additional trading of oral pleasures, I ended up finishing by manually manipulating my generative organ and directing the result into her sweet, strawberry of a mouth.

            The second young lady that played kind host to my tumescence was a very unresponsive partner and I could not finish at all. She was not interested in any further activities that night. On second attempt at a later date, the same result occurred and we parted as estranged but friendly.

            1. The second young lady that played kind host to my tumescence was a very unresponsive partner and I could not finish at all.

              I think I may have married her once.

              1. Did she just lay there like a meaty credenza?

                1. By her standards, that would be frenetic activity.

            2. On lady numero dos, you probably should have made your move before she passed out.

              1. Nah, man. She was really, really into it until I slipped her the tubesteak. Then she sort of froze and disassociated. I think there was something from her past going on. I wasn’t the only person that reported this behavior.

            3. Now i feel sick.

        2. That explains so much.

        3. Part of?

          The front or the rear?

              1. Last. SF is built… oddly. I’ll just leave it at that.

  8. OMG! No GMOs, rBGH, or other “bad stuff” but LOADED with Progressive Values!
    Based upon the cost of a pint, Progressive Values are very expensive.

    1. I want my food to be Progressive-Value-free.

  9. “This is a new twist that I am learning about,” Zuckerman said. “We didn’t see this.”

    “I just want to fuck over corporations! Wah!”

    1. Statists think symptoms are reversible to change causes, ie, if you twist a speedometer cable, you change the speed. If you write a law, no matter how poorly it is worded, the intended effect will come true.

      Law by Potter, is what it is, they think, but isn’t, says reality, and this confounds them to no end of hilarity.

  10. “”This is a new twist that I am learning about,” Zuckerman said. “We didn’t see this.””

    But you can’t blame *him* if he failed to work out every little detail in advance before backing a feelgood law.

    1. What are the odds Zuckerman is one of the non-observant Jews referenced in the linked article?

      1. Your official Delta pledge name is: Tommy Two Times.

        1. Make it Eddie Two Times and I’m with you.

  11. “Because they fear it will not be onerous enough to scare consumers away from foods made with modern biotech crops.”

    Anti-GMO people really just need to STFU and learn that genetics doesn’t work the way they think it does. I’ve actually seen a comment by one of these nuts that (in addition to claiming the commenter worked in the field of genetic scientists) made the ridiculous claim that a person could somehow magically acquire the genes of foods that they ate.

    A world with genetics THAT mutable would actually be a fairly interesting idea for a fantasy or sci fi setting, and would give whole new meaning to “you are what you eat”, but unfortunately in the REAL WORLD genes aren’t magical toxic mutagens that turn the people who eat them into mutant monsters.

    1. made the ridiculous claim that a person could somehow magically acquire the genes of foods that they ate.

      That’s why I only eat Soylent Green.

    2. I believe it. I ate a bunch of celery in college and became rigid, bland, and watery. Coincidence?!

    3. “Here we are Cronenberg Morty, a reality where everyone in the world got genetically Cronenberged. We’ll fit right in Cronenberg Morty. It will be like we never even left Cronenberg World.”

      1. Best episode of Rick and Morty ever.

    4. I’ve actually seen a comment by one of these nuts that (in addition to claiming the commenter worked in the field of genetic scientists) made the ridiculous claim that a person could somehow magically acquire the genes of foods that they ate.

      There are people out there who believe that absurd lies are in the public good if they achieve the desire effect.

      A buddy of mine even argued once that even though a lot of “Climate Change” stuff is bullshit, he didn’t care because it achieves the effect of moving the energy systems in the desired direction.

      It was an instructive moment for me. I fed him all the science and showed that X/Y/Z claims made were all ridiculous, and he just nodded and went’ “well, so what?” = the facts dont matter – the outcome is *better* if you believe the lies.

      I still haven’t fully recovered (or he hasn’t) from him saying this. He fell like 10 rungs in my esteem in a split second. but it clarified for me that there are plenty of “smart people” out there who don’t care about “facts” as much as ‘whatever is effective in moving the ball in the desired direction’.

      “Why do they *want* to move the ball in that desired direction if the facts don’t support the underlying argument in the first place!?” i openly wondered. The answer was a mush of “feels” and “balance” – ‘things have gotten ‘too far’ in the Corporate/Fossil Fuels direction, and need to be moved to “the middle”. Whatever that means.

      1. “A buddy of mine even argued once that even though a lot of “Climate Change” stuff is bullshit, he didn’t care because it achieves the effect of moving the energy systems in the desired direction.”

        Yes, it is a deliberate, calculated lie intended to funnel insane amounts of money into the pockets of cronies. They don’t really care as much about oil as they do the amounts of money that they imagine the wrong people are making off of it and they want that money diverted into their pockets.

        1. They don’t really care as much about oil as they do the amounts of money that they imagine the wrong people are making off of it and they want that money diverted into their pockets.

          Sort of. He (my buddy) is less about “wealth redistribution” (even if that is a byproduct) than he is about “injecting more ‘economic variety'” into the energy system.

          When i point out that its inherently wasteful, and may in fact be *worse* for the environment, he shrugs and goes “so be it”. Just as the medical industry is “half government” / “Half private sector” and regulated to hell…. they sort of see that as an “improvement” on the idea of a more-free marketplace.

          And they *don’t care* if its less efficient, or prices rise, or it expands cronyism, or whatever. Its just “better” because its Not as “Unregulated”. (and never mind that what they think of as “unregulated” is actually regulated to shit)

          they have this fuzzy idea of a one-dimensional line between “corporate” and “public-controlled”, and think the whole world is just too far on the wrong side (“corporate” – by which they mean ‘competitive markets’)

          Its instructive because it shows why “libertarian arguments” don’t work with progs. The things we find rationally compelling don’t even interest them. Explaining that the “corporate” bullshit they demonize actually works far better and improves everyone’s lives just gets a glazed look and they zone out. They don’t care.

          1. e.g. = i once asked, “would you be willing to see everyone be made poorer, if you could just reduce the number of rich people in the world”?

            And the answer was an unhesitating “sure”.

            Its not about “wealth redistrubution”. Its about “fairness” and their instinctive dislike of the idea of marketplaces, because some people somewhere get rich off them.

            1. It’s not even about “fairness”, except in the very simplistic “equality = fairness” formulation.

              Libertarianism is in large part about “fairness”. It’s unfair, for instance, if people aren’t treated equally under the law. It’s unfair for people who produce things through their own effort to have those things taken away. It’s unfair for two people to be taxed at different rates just based on occupation, marital status, or sexual orientation.

              There have been studies that show that children grow out of the “equal distribution” norm, typically by the age of 10. They start off as toddlers thinking that everyone should get an equal share, and then learn that people who work harder deserve a greater portion of proceeds.

              So basically, Progressive are people who still havn’t grown out of the toddler concept of fairness.

            2. I have viewed Thanksgiving and Christmas as educational seminars since 2010 when my mom said,”You know who I really like? That Elizabeth Warren”.

              I almost stroked out right there…

              Later that night, I got five 60-70 yr old ladies to all agree that banning “any” drugs is a futile exercise. I pointed out that despite laws, walls, and lots of guys w/ guns, you can get any drug you want in a Max security prison. They all looked shocked at each other, and eventually conceded I was right.

              I think I set myself back last year. The “Trump” thing came up, I said I thought Trump was a retarded idiot whose past positions were much more Dem the Repub, and that I was a Rand Paul supporter for the Repub nom, and would most likely be voting for GJay if he ran, All were well received. Then they asked which other Republican I would support.

              Ted Cruz did not go over well. lol

        2. The funny part is – they accuse *us* of being shills for corporate interests and stupid ones as we don’t receive any benefit from ‘betraying our class’.

          Yet they’re doing the same thing – supporting the funneling of money and power to crony interests that only produce positive benefits for those cronies and those in power and on the backs of these very people.

          1. In many cases, they are the crony interests themselves. Ex. Union labor benefitting from trade protectionism.
            And often they are quite open about advocating voting in one’s self-interest. They can’t understand the concept of voting for a system with universally fair rules.

      2. “…it clarified for me that there are plenty of “smart people” out there who don’t care about “facts” as much as ‘whatever is effective in moving the ball in the desired direction’.”

        Ah, yes, this could have also been posted in the comments to the article on Ruth Bader Ginsburg earlier today.

      3. Did you ask him *why* that was a ‘desired’ direction.

        Because ‘renewable’ energy is desirable (despite the added costs) *because* of climate change. So if there’s no significant AGW then the very reason for pushing energy production towards renewables is moot.

        1. Did you ask him *why* that was a ‘desired’ direction.

          Because its “better when people have a say in the economy they want to live in”

          e.g. – If people want stupid, inefficient energy which may not actually have any real environmental benefit, then they should be able to force the “markets” to do what they want.

          He thinks “more control over the economy” (*by government) is better for its own sake.

    5. Just to be safe, I only eat people.

    6. Even Bill Nye switched teams on GMOs. Geez.

    7. a person could somehow magically acquire the genes of foods that they ate.

      A world with genetics THAT mutable would actually be a fairly interesting idea for a fantasy or sci fi setting, and would give whole new meaning to “you are what you eat”,

      +1 Kirby.

      (Also +1 Final Fantasy Legend)

  12. “Vermont’s law imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day per genetically modified product that is not labeled. ”

    This is everything that’s wrong with America. Right. Here.

    I could go punch a guy in the face and walk away with no fine.

    1. I could go punch a guy in the face and walk away with no fine.

      Are you taking requests? Asking for a friend.

      1. I do some charity work, yes.

        1. Start with Mr. Zuckerman. Either the politician in the article or Mark. Either will do.

    2. GMOs are poison to these people. They should demand a label with a skull and crossbones and the words: not fit for human or animal consumption. Wait nevermind.
      All GMOs should be banned and put in a toxic dump. Wait nevermind.
      GMOs would mutate when placed near nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and we’d all die!
      We’re gonna die!!!!

  13. Seems like it would be fairly cheap to just slap a label on your product and keep on keeping on. Or does the law require you to actually test and pretend that there’s a distinction between GMO and non-GMO?

    1. I’m guessing there has to be sourcing and proof.

      These types of laws are everywhere.

      I just learned my industry is bound by new regulations that I’m not sure ever made it in the news– but we have to prove that our products don’t contain “conflict minerals”. Yes, you read that right, “conflict minerals”. Remember conflict diamonds? yeah, someone named “Schumer” wasn’t satisfied that it only covered diamonds, so they broadened it to “minerals”. We make fucking marker lights for commercial trucks. As a corporation, we have to prove and keep records that all of our global suppliers aren’t putting “conflict” minerals in our supplies. Compliance is hard and expensive. Point being, I’m guessing the GMO content thing is the same.

      In 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection Act into law. Section 1502 of that act addresses the international trade and use of Conflict Minerals. But what are these Minerals and how do they affect our everyday lives? Like the similar issue of Conflict Diamonds or Blood Diamonds, the term Conflict Minerals refers to raw materials that come from a particular part of the world where conflict is occurring and affects the mining and trading of those materials. Our infographic below will help you understand some of the key points surrounding this issue and what it means for consumers and companies in the United States.

      1. I made an idiot of of Shreek on that one. I probably spend 200 hours per year on CF compliance for the one pound (ONE FUCKING POUND) of tin we use annually. I hope we just nuke the Congo so I can get back to doing productive things.

        BTW, we’re indebted to Sam The Retard Brownback for that F-F provision, with no de minimus exceptions.

      2. the term Conflict Minerals refers to raw materials that come from a particular part of the world where conflict is occurring and affects the mining and trading of those materials.

        Wouldn’t that include a whole lot of oil?

        1. Not so much, no. The acronym is 3TG (tungsten, tin, tantalum, gold), and the Congo is the target, so to speak.

    2. You can’t test because in most cases it is literally impossible to tell the difference.

      When you take GMO corn and refine it into corn oil, there isn’t enough DNA left to tell if the corn was genetically modified. Similarly for corn syrup, corn starch, etc.
      So any foods that are made with corn oil, corn starch, or corn syrup cannot be identified by test. You have to actually trace the source origin of the corn back to the farmer that planted it.
      This is problematic because corn is a commodity, which is intermingled in storage and transport. So basically it means that everything would have to be labeled as GMO, or else there would have to be two separate grain silos at every corn storage location, one for GMO, one for non-GMO.

  14. How about a clause by which the company can put this on the label: “We have not tested this product to see if it contains GMOs. Consume at your own risk.”

    1. Excellent. You could even apply the full faith and credit of the FDA to that statement.

      1. There are plenty of products labeled “these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA”. Why can’t they have the equivalent “assume it has GMO”.

        1. Or the ever popular ‘ this product was processed in the same facility that also processes peanut and shell-fish containing foods’.

  15. Kaufman said he doesn’t think the observant Jewish community has any objection to GMO labeling.

    “But as part of the implementation you can’t deprive people of food ? food they can’t get otherwise and rely on,” he said.

    Huh, willya look at that. I’m fresh out of fucks for this guy.

  16. Foods whose seeds have been irradiated with ionizing radiation, randomly corrupting their DNA = not “GMO”
    Foods whose seeds have been edited by inserting specific new genes = “GMO”

    HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

    I ask my technocratic peers what practice is more likely to cause unintended side effects to a piece of software… randomly corrupting the source code or inserting a patch that works in another piece of software. The only reply I get is “that’s totally not the same, maaaaannnnnn!” though no one can ever explain why.

    I swear the entire “GMO” kerfuffle can be summarized as “clueless hippies don’t understand what is involved in ‘conventional’ plant breeding.”

    1. Right? even F1 hybrids are catching some heat as “Frankenfoods” in the GMO demonization.

  17. Sen. David Zuckerman, P-Chittenden, a strong supporter of the GMO labeling law, learned for the first time this week that kosher foods are being affected by the law.

    “This is a new twist that I am learning about,” Zuckerman said. “We didn’t see this.”

    “But I’ll just strongly support another half-assed law to hopefully correct this.”

    1. The cure for a crappy law is more crappy laws. Always. It must work, because nobody ever considers doing anything different. Right?

      1. Those producers just need to be forced to comply and sell their product in Vermont.
        If they run out of money, The People shall seize their factories just like in glorious Venezuela.

  18. “This is a new twist that I am learning about,” Zuckerman said. “We didn’t see this.”

    So, Zuckerman, is there any reason to regret the law due to unforseen and unpredicted consequences?

    I can guess the answer.

  19. Really guys? Seriously?

    You know who else tried to regulate Jewish diets?…

      1. Yahweh?

        SHUT YOUR FILTHY GOY MOUTH!

    1. That camp for fat kids in the Catskills?

    2. Laxative Manufacturers?

      “Traditionally this time of year we see quite a boost in our sales.” Colin Heath, a spokesperson for Phillips’, the maker of Milk of Magnesia, said Thursday. “Matzoh has almost no fiber,” he continued, “and we have always been able to bank on millions of constipated Jews to buoy our third quarter sales.”

      1. You know who else banked on millions of constipated Jews?

        1. The Sewer Authority of Tel-Aviv?

      2. millions of constipated Jews

        Nice band name.

        OTOH, …. may be too close to “10,000 Maniacs”.

  20. You know who else came up with laws that affected the production of kosher food?

    1. Yahweh?

  21. “A very nice article over at the Genetic Literacy Project makes the [exquisite] point that Big Food and Big Food Chain can afford to comply with Vermont’s nonsensical labeling laws by simply passing along the additional costs to consumers.”

    If small companies could maximize their profits by raising prices and selling less product, they’d already do so. A lot of specialty foods can be priced right out of the market that way.

    And if consumers wanted to pay extra for labeling, these companies would already be falling all over themselves to charge extra and provide that labeling. Nothing is more absurd than government telling us that they know what consumers want better than the consumer.

    Also, I wonder, does this law impose labeling on things bought over the internet through mail order?

    That isn’t just a question of whether Vermont food producers can sell their unlabeled products elsewhere; it’s also a question of whether Vermont’s’ consumers can still buy what they want online.

    Socialism is always about screwing the consumer, isn’t it. Forget what Thatcher said about running out of other people’s money to spend; it isn’t possible to implement socialism without screwing the consumer. Socialism depends on screwing the consumer.

    1. Socialism depends on disempowering people, so yeah.

      1. I don’t know about that, but if capitalism (in addition to whatever else it is) is also about private ownership of industry and prices being set by markets, and socialism (in addition to whatever else it is) is also about public “ownership” and prices determined by government, then socialism is necessarily and always also about screwing the consumer.

        Market forces are people making choices.

        Consumers are people making choices in markets.

        Those things must necessarily converge when socialists decide to impose themselves on markets.

        It’s a defining characteristic of socialism. I don’t think you can have socialism without it.

        1. That’s why capitalism is a misnomer ? it isn’t the capitalist in charge but the consumer.

          If capitalists and corporations were as powerful as leftists think they are, New Coke would have been a success.

          1. Consumerism?
            I think I’ve heard that before actually. People say it like it’s a bad thing that we can have lots of stuff if we want to.

        2. You are correct Ken and that is disempowering but it doesnt stop there. They want people poorer, to have less rights over their own property, disarmed, told what they must or cannot say…etc. etc.

          You cant impose top down rule if people have power over their own lives.

  22. It just occurred to me. We have commenters from the UK, Canada, Ukraine, Prague, Costa Rica, Brazil, Australia…just off the top of my head, but I don’t remember ever hearing from someone in Israel. That seems odd.

    1. I believe Jacob Sullum writes from Israel.

      1. Ah, ok.

        1. The Jewish part of Dallas?

          1. There are Jews in Dallas?

            1. Well, there’s Kinky Friedman.

            2. Here’s Kinky Friedman and the Jewboys doing “Proud to be an Asshole from El Paso”.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AH_Owld5UI

              I think it’s supposed to be a response to Merle Haggard’s “Okie From Muskogee”.

              1. “Asshole from El Paso” is unnecessarily redundant.

                1. So is Okie from Muskogee.

        2. Yeah, I’ve read that, too.

          I also remember him writing in a post or two that he was living in Israel.

          Maybe that bio wasn’t updated, but I could be mistaken.

        3. HA: Out of date. Jacob now lives in Israel with his family.

        4. Sullum lives in Dallas

          And where was Sullum on the night the 4 officers were killed?

          1. He was in Israel!

            If disagreeing with Ken is wrong, some of you don’t want to be right.

    2. That’s because they’re busy evilly plotting against the rest of the poor, helpless Middle East /Sheldon Richman

  23. “This is a new twist that I am learning about,” Zuckerman said. “We didn’t see this.”

    Translation: Zuckerman was told that it would and dismissed it as right-wing propaganda.

    1. Zuckerman has no business being in government. He’s openly admitting his own incompetence.

      What they need is representatives who caution against stupid things because no one can foresee the consequences–before they do something stupid.

      You’ll see progressives say same thing about the ObamaCare exchanges–as they continue to implode in slow motion.

      How could we have known this would happen?

      These incompetent boobs have no business making decisions that affect other people’s lives.

      1. Yes, but did you not see he ‘P’ in front of the name of his district? That stands for Progressive Party so everything he says and does is sacrosanct. Move along, nothing to see or comment on here.

    2. You know they’ll just mandate that the companies sell in Vermont and comply, because Commerce-Clause-FYTW.

  24. It’s a lot harder for small and mid-sized food companies to switch ingredients or face $1,000 per day fines for inadvertently shipping non-labeled products into the state.

    Non-GMO corn would be hard to source. A large percentage of US corn is GMO. According to the USDA, “[a]doption of all GE corn accounted for 92 percent of corn acreage in 2015”.

    1. Actually, corn itself is the original GMO. Non-GMO corn would be teosinte, a Central American grass whose kernels are small and whose seeds are barely edible.

      1. We have redefined “GM” to mean “any process invented after Baby Boomers were 9 years old.”

  25. Berkeley banned ATM fees but did not anticipate that amid would stop letting noncustomers use them.

    They had to repeal the law.

    1. This.

  26. Incidentally, what percentage of the United States is Muslim? We’re talking about less than 1% of the U.S. population, right?

    Check the labels on the food in your pantry and refrigerator, and I bet you’ll find something that is certified as halal.

    That isn’t because of the government. That’s because those food producers are more concerned about that 1% of the market–more so than the government. To my knowledge, the government has never passed a law requiring food producers to make common food items halal for Muslims.

    And yet the State of Vermont knows what Vermont’s consumers really want–better than food companies?!

    I’m not buyin’ it.

    1. Incidentally, what percentage of the United States is Muslim? We’re talking about less than 1% of the U.S. population, right?

      Slightly more than that, just about 1%, less than (((us))) at 1.4%.

    2. Also, there are varying degrees of kosher and hallal. I’ll defer to Renegade for the details but my understanding is that for a can of green beans that just means that it contains no pork (or shellfish etc). Things are more complicated for meat products because not only must the animal be kosher, but must have been ritually slaughtered by an approved religious slaughterer. Then there is the whole Glatt kosher and kosher for passover which involve all sorts of extras.

      So, for the can of beans it costs them very little to label the product kosher or hallal, and why risk offending people.

      So, it just occurred to me that sea salt might be non-kosher because it might contain traces of shrimp (etc) that got caught in the evaporating pond. Does kosher salt have to be mineral salt (mined, not evaporated from seawater).

      1. It does indeed get more complicated (and surprise, surprise, full of corruption). As an example, the green bean factory has to be inspected and observed to ensure that no-one has a bacon sandwich anywhere nearby. How rigorous the inspection is, how much leeway is given, and the required monitoring are all a matter of which organization you get to do the certification and the subjective judgment of the rabbi involved.

        1. Nice work if you can get it.

          Thanks for the clarification.

      2. Apparently kosher salt is a redundant term, as all salt is simply kosher.

        Salt is a mineral, and as such, pure salt is always kosher. Some brands of salt have a kosher symbol on the package, and that way you know that a reliable kosher certification agency is checking to make sure that nothing else gets mixed in to the salt and that it’s 100% kosher.

        So, what exactly is “kosher salt”?

        In truth, the name “kosher salt” is misleading. A better term would be “koshering salt.”

        Blood is not kosher. G?d commands us in the Torah:1 “You shall not eat any blood, whether that of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.” After a kosher animal is properly slaughtered, all blood must be removed. This is normally accomplished by salting the meat, as salt draws out blood. Table salt is too thin and will dissolve into the meat without drawing out the blood, and salt that is too coarse will roll off. The salt that is “just right” for koshering meat is called “kosher salt.” Some people prefer to use it in certain recipes because of its consistency.

        1. Thanks.

          But there’s a big unacknowledged problem with sea salt, then. Because unless they filter the seawater used for the production of sea salt down to the level that no microscopic shrimp (of which there are plenty) get in that water then all sea salt is going to contain traces of shrimp ichor.

          1. I’d bet on an unwritten rule that microscopic doesn’t really count. These guidelines have to be practical for desert dwelling, bronze age peoples, after all.

  27. But the proper foods are more important than people’s free will or consumer choices!!1!

  28. Some evil genius should invent a virus that will insert some innocuous gene into every living thing on Earth. Then everything would be GMO and we can stop this idiotic crap.

    1. If I was an evil genius, I would invent a virus that would turn everybody’s skin the same shade of puce. Just to mess with people.

      1. I’d go for the color of these guys from the Omega Man.

    2. Great idea, Zeb. That would also cause a lot of the religious to freak out – not necessarily a bad thing.

    3. I believe nature has been doing just that for millions of years.

      1. Except nature isn’t an intelligent agent and as such has no interest in making things that are useful to people.

        I seem to be a minority around here, but I think it is a reasonable distinction to make, though for very different reasons from the anti-GMO people. People intentionally and deliberately changing organisms so that they will have new, desirable qualities is not the same as millions of years of random mutations and natural selection or even people waiting for desirable traits to come along and then artificially selecting for them.

        We don’t need to convince the anti-GMO weirdos that genetic engineering is the same as conventional breeding, but that it is better.

        1. We don’t need to convince the anti-GMO weirdos that genetic engineering is the same as conventional breeding, but that it is better.

          That’s not going to happen. Their primary motivation is that “natural” = “better”. The especially extreme ones think that it is profane to violate nature by modifying genes. You’re up against something far too irrational for a utilitarian argument to make any difference.

          In fact, such utilitarian considerations will likely repel them further.

          If you want an argument that might work, maybe start with Hindu theology and tell them that the creative force of the God in Man is directing the evolution of the ecosystem.

  29. RE: Vermont GMO Labeling Hits Kosher Foods
    The intended consequences of needlessly scaring consumers are bad enough, but now this too.

    Kosher foods are disappearing from grocery stores in Vermont due to the fact many small manufacturers and suppliers do not want to bother with complying with the Green Mountain State’s new requirement that foods made using ingredients from genetically modified crops (GMOs) be labeled. Vermont’s law imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day per genetically modified product that is not labeled. Since the Vermont market is so small, it’s just easier to to stop shipping their grocery goods to that scientifically benighted state.

    One would think the little people of Vermont would be overjoyed knowing that a repressive and unnecessary bureaucracy is making life a living hell for the vile and nefarious capitalists that infect their state. Don’t these untermenschen realize a clueless government agency is taking food off their shelves? Don’t they realize they will be better off without food? Don’t they know starvation and elimination of choice are key ingredients to any socialist slave state?
    Where’s the gratitude?

    1. It’s a small experiment in what happens when the anti-GMO retards get what they want.
      Let’s see how it unfolds. My eyes are glued.

  30. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

  31. I don’t understand this at all. People who want to eat non-GMO foods easily can; there is a whole non-GMO industry out there that caters especially to people paranoid about eating a genetically-modified apple.

    Also, what exactly is a “genetic modification”? Humans have been splicing/breeding together different strains of their foodstuffs for millennia now.

    1. The real, though unstated, goal is to force GMO products to be labelled as such. Once that labelling is in place it makes it easier to fearmonger about “frankenfoods.” They are hoping that such campaigns will cause people to stop buying GMO foods which in turn will cause people to stop growing them.

      Remember that progressivism is never about individual choice, but always forcing things on all for the benefit of the few.

      1. Yes. Thing is that this exact thing happen to irradiation.
        When the government mandates that ‘irradiated’ meat be labeled as such it resulted in people being afraid to eat it and it being pushed off the market. Dispite the fact that irradiation is a harmless process vthat kills bacteria.
        Everyone interpreted it as “radioactive”.

  32. Since the Vermont market is so small, it’s just easier to to stop shipping their grocery goods to that scientifically benighted state.

    “This just PROVES that we need a federal law, but of course those EVUL RETHUGLIKKKANZ ARE ALL IN MONSANTO’S POCKET!111111!!!!!!!!1” /progtard

  33. Activists have been pushing for mandatory federal labeling for years now and when they finally get it, they hate it. Why? Because they fear it will not be onerous enough to scare consumers away from foods made with modern biotech crops.

    Fuck these fucking scientifically illiterate luddites. Fuck them in their stupid asses.

    1. They can’t be bothered to scan a QR code, it must be printed ON THE PACKAGE.

      This is a dead giveaway that they intend the labels to be interpreted as warnings, and that their true goal is to fearmonger.

      And of course that they are dishonest lying zealots.

  34. Good. This is exactly what is needed to make Vermont repeal the law. The more food producers stop selling in the state, the more consumers will demand that the law be repealed.

    1. Vermont’s progressives will only come back with: The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    2. I mean, what are they going to do, vote for Republicans?

      That guy is from the Progressive Party.

      They needed competition for the Democratic Party and, obviously, they couldn’t vote for the Republicans–so they had to invent the Progressive Party.

      Now Vermonters have a choice–the Progressives or the progressives.

      1. I think you over-estimate even “Progressives” enthusiasm for the anti-GMO cause. It really is only a bunch of fringe wierdos who are really adamant about it. The labelling argument made sense to moderate lkiberals because they thought it would be cost-less. Once they find out it actually has a cost – in the form of reduced choices and foods they like disappearing from shelves their enthusiasm will dwindle.

        Do recall that even NPR and the NYTimes acknowledge the scientific consensus about GMO’s safety.

  35. Why does Vermont hate Jews? Anti-semites.

  36. I remember the yowling about the seeds having the terminators build in, so that they won’t seed after growing. “They’re fixing it so the farmers HAVE to keep buying! Food dominion! Holding the world hostage yarble glarble!!!”

    The thing is, those terminators were added when the very same people were yowling about “Escaping Frankenseeds! They’ll compete everything out of existence! Ecogeddon glarble yarble!!!”

    There IS NO WIN CONDITION with these people. The only winning move is not to play shoot them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.