Kucinich introduces comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs

Auto Date Saturday, September 6th, 2008

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced three bills designed to protect consumers, defend farmers’ rights, and increase food safety. The bills collectively create a comprehensive framework to regulate GMOs. Kucinich said:

We have a responsibility to put the public health and the environment before profits.  These bills spell out common sense precautions.

•H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act, would require mandatory labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with GM material. • H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would require that GE foods follow a food safety review process to prevent contamination of food supplies by pharmaceutical and industrial crops. This Act would also require that the FDA screen all GE foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption. • H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act, places liability from the impacts of GM crops on the biotechnology companies that created the GMOs, and protects farmers from lawsuits by biotechnology companies.

Source: September 2008 The Organic & Non-GMO Report

www.TheTruthAboutGMOs.com
Beth Harrison, author of award-winning Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm and is filed under advocacy, non-gmo, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Kucinich introduces comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs”

  1. Joe Naftel Says:
    September 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Thank-you Mr Kuhinich!

  2. Debbie Cole Says:
    September 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Thank you Mr. Kucinich!

  3. Dex Conaway Says:
    September 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

    While not that substantial, it is a start…

    I don’t want to be pessimistic here, but given the three bill criteria, the only two to get a hearing on the floor will likely be the mandatory labeling and farmer protection legislation.

    The other bill puts far too much responsibility and accountability on the back of the FDA then they could possibly handle. Besides, the FDA has continually supported GE foods and the enforcement potential would be questionable if not an outright sham…

  4. Michelle Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Thank you, Dennis, for thinking of issues when everyone else is talking about whether “lipstick on a pig” is a sexist term.
    Why 3 separate bills? The House doesn’t have a single subject rule that I’m aware of.