[delmioquartiere]

Originally Posted by looking4home

It's really meaningless, feel-good legislation that doesn't really translate into any tangible benefits for consumers or Vermonters. Those who are already preoccupied with food and what they eat are not likely to buy from sources that may sell GMO products (they already go to co-ops, organics farms, etc.). I bet the labels will be so confusing to read for the average person, they won't know what the heck they say. There's already too much information on them as it is.

Politicians are disingenuous and sign these laws for the photo ops they bring, and the news sound bite that will make them look like progressive, caring individuals. It's like the law passed in VT about a year ago that outlawed fracking - even though there are no appreciable shale deposits in Vermont and not much danger of it ever taking place! But it made the electorate "feel good" for a few minutes - until the gas companies from Canada swooped down and the state basically forced landowners to comply with their plans to run gas lines under their property.

My vote for best post!

[CLees]

Originally Posted by delmioquartiere

I wonder if Connecticut will help with what is sure to be a costly lawsuit against a state that's broke..but we all feel good now.

Lol I believe this type of response shows how bad gmo foods truly are that they need to go to such extremes to cover up

[arctichomesteader]

It isn't a worthless feel good law, it's about letting people know what they're eating.

There was talk years ago of gas exploration in parts of VT. The fracking ban wasn't completely worthless or pointless. There are shale deposits that could theoretically contain some natural gas. What's not viable today for commercial exploitation may be in the future as desperation sets in. There were exploration wells drilled in the past:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...66917471,d.cWc

[looking4home]

I must say I'm a little surprised by your response given your usual libertarian nature.

Look, let's get real here. There is never going to be any fracking in Vermont. The politicians know this, but because it has been big news in NY for the past couple of years, they wanted to cash in by making themselves look like responsible stewards of the land, blah, blah, blah. If they were so worried about cutting up and scaring the land, they would have told the gas companies to take a hike.

As for the GMO's, it seems to me that Vermont, and every other state in the union, has bigger problems to worry about. There is something jaded and narcissistic about the Western world's inordinate preoccupation with food.

[arctichomesteader]

There already was fracking in VT on a small scale. Some of those test wells years ago employed early fracking methods. Given the dangers posed by it to the water supply, it has no place in our world as far as I'm concerned. Water is too valuable.

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to know what they're eating. Moreover, I do not trust big corporations like Monsanto to not create an environmental disaster when their greed goes too far. A "terminator" gene loose in the wild, or a gene that creates pesticides in the plant, is just asking for trouble, and this is what they've been working on.

[FrugalYankee]

I'd be more impressed if the feel-good legislators and their anti-fracking silliness had included a clause to ban any natural gas obtained by fracking. But no, this is just another typical piece of legislation that has ZERO effect (since nobody is fracking in VT anyway) but looks good on a t-shirt.

[looking4home]

I'm from an area of upstate NY that has been targeted for fracking, so this topic is of great interest to me. It seems that even though the pressure from the gas companies and the federal govt. is pretty intense, state legislators in Albany have been dragging their feet on this because they know it is a political landmine for them. There are powerful environmental lobbies in NY, and also a lot of well-connected folks with deep pockets who are trying to prevent it from happening.

[delmioquartiere]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

Have you any articles you might link? I welcome the opportunity to read up on this.

Attorney General William Sorrell says he expects legal costs if the law is challenged to be about $1 million if the state wins, and up to $8 million if the state loses.

Donations made to defend state's GMO labeling law - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

[tone77]

Congrats to Vermont. A rare win for the little guy.

[cwaggy]

Such BAD legislation. It would have been far easier just to label non-GMO foods with a non-GMO label. And the dairy industry is exempt since they rely on GMO grains like alfalfa and corn as well as chymosin, the GMO-derived replacement for rennet which fires up fermentation for cheese. GMOS are harmless; no study ever proved otherwise and the amount of scare-mongering and misinformation that was used to pass this useless law was shameful.