By Environmental Working Group
While the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of genetically engineered food will continue for a long time, you have a right to know what you are eating now.
Stand with EWG and the Just Label It campaign today and sign our petition to the FDA demanding that genetically engineered foods are labeled. SIGN PETITION HERE.
Add your comments to this letter:
As a supporter of Environmental Working Group and the Just Label It campaign, I want to know when I am eating genetically modified food. Most of the processed foods available in American grocery stores likely contain some genetically engineered ingredients. While the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of genetically modified crops will continue for a long time, I want to make informed choices for myself.
In late September, a legal petition spearheaded by the Center for Food Safety was submitted to the federal Food and Drug Administration on behalf of Environmental Working Group and other organizations calling for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. We urge the FDA to grant this petition.
Food Freedom 
I am on-board, it is great to see that this is at long last finally happening. It will be a lot like the Berlin Wall coming down.
Doc Blake
Here in the United States of America, it is unconscionable to keep consumers from knowing the extent to which GMO products are present in our food chain.
The Just Label It campaign is indicative of our right to know what we are eating! FDA: Label genetically engineered foods NOW!
Thank you for this. I am linking to this post in my own blog; I feel it is THAT important to spread the word.
Judy Jeute
Royal Ranch
Manager/Co-owner
If this falls through, turn the tide and label all non-Genetically Modified food(s). It would be more work for a smaller producer, but it would also silently get the word out for people to check into GM foods (when they keep seeing a non-GM label).
Big Ag and government (and their supporters) would throw a fit. I’m thinking it’s already been tried and currently illegal to label food as such (non-GM) now, unless it’s certified Organic.
Genetically engineered foods MUST be labeled as such – consumers have a basic right to choose what they put in their own mouths and in their bodies.
House Bill 446 2011-2012 Session Labeling Requirements/GMFs & rBGH in Food.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO REQUIRE LABELING OF FOOD AND MILK
PRODUCTS SOLD IN THIS STATE THAT ARE OR THAT CONTAIN GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOOD AND OR MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS FROM ANIMALS THAT HAVE
RECEIVED RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE (RBGH).
http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H446
Click to access H446v0.pdf
Click to access H446v1.pdf
House Bill 446
2011-2012 Session
Labeling Requirements/GMFs & rBGH in Food.
–
Status: Ref To Com On Agriculture on 03/24/2011
Sponsors
Primary: Bradley;
Co: Faison; Harrison;
Attributes: Public;
History
Date Chamber Action
03/23/2011 House Filed
03/24/2011 House Passed 1st Reading
03/24/2011 House Ref To Com On Agriculture
Note: a bill listed on this website is not law until passed by the
House and the Senate, ratified, and, if required, signed by the
Governor.
http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H446
Filed
Click to access H446v0.pdf
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2011
H D
HOUSE DRH11106-MD-51 (02/28)
Short Title: Labeling Requirements/GMOs & rBGH in Food. (Public)
Sponsors: Representative Bradley.
Referred to:
*DRH11106-MD-51*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1
AN ACT TO REQUIRE LABELING OF FOOD AND MILK PRODUCTS SOLD IN THIS 2
STATE THAT ARE OR THAT CONTAIN GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND 3 OR MILK
AND MILK PRODUCTS FROM ANIMALS THAT HAVE RECEIVED 4 RECOMBINANT BOVINE
GROWTH HORMONE (RBGH). 5
Whereas, there is insufficient longitudinal data about the long-term
consequences to 6 human and animal health of ingesting genetically
modified food; and 7
Whereas, there is insufficient longitudinal data about the long-term
consequences to 8 human and animal health of ingesting milk or milk
products from animals that have received 9 recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rBGH), despite the fact that the FDA has determined that 10
there is no significant difference between milk from cows treated with
recombinant bovine 11 growth hormone (rBGH) and milk from cows that
have not been so treated; and 12
Whereas, a federal government agency’s conclusion regarding a
product’s safety, 13 reached after limited study, is not a guarantee
of that safety and does not invalidate public 14 concern for unknown
side effects; and 15
Whereas, the General Assembly and citizens of North Carolina have
legitimate 16 concerns about the long-term health consequences of
ingesting food that has been manipulated 17 through genetic
engineering; and 18
Whereas, the General Assembly and citizens of North Carolina have
legitimate 19 concerns about the impact on human and animal health of
genetically modified food and milk 20 and milk products from animals
that have received recombinant bovine growth hormone 21 (rBGH); and 22
Whereas, these concerns give rise to a substantial governmental
interest in requiring 23 the labeling of food and milk sold in this
State that are or that contain genetically modified food 24 and of
milk or milk products sold in this State from animals that have
received recombinant 25 bovine growth hormone (rBGH); Now, therefore,
26
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 27
SECTION 1. G.S. 106-121 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 28
“(8b) The term ‘genetically modified food’ means food the genetic
structure of 29 which has been modified by direct human manipulation
in a manner that 30 does not occur under natural conditions, including
through any of the 31 following genetic engineering methods:
recombinant DNA and RNA 32 techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or
doubling, introduction of exogenous 33 genetic material, alteration of
the position of a gene, or similar procedure. 34
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2011
Page 2 H446 [Filed]
The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or
genetic line of 1 an animal or plant described in the preceding
sentence.” 2
SECTION 2. G.S. 106-130 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 3
Ҥ 106-130. Foods deemed misbranded. 4
A food shall be deemed to be misbranded: 5
… 6
(16) If it is a genetically modified food, unless the food bears a
conspicuous label 7 identifying it as a genetically modified food in a
font at least as large as the 8 font of a label required by
subdivision (9) of this section.” 9
SECTION 3. G.S. 106-268(c) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 10
“(c) The term “misbranded” means: 11
… 12
(4) If it contains milk from an animal that has been injected with, or
otherwise 13 received, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH),
unless it bears a 14 prominent label containing a statement that the
product contains milk from 15 an animal that received recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH).” 16
SECTION 4. This act becomes effective October 1, 2011.
Edition 1
Click to access H446v1.pdf
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2011
H 1
HOUSE BILL 446
Short Title: Labeling Requirements/GMFs & rBGH in Food. (Public)
Sponsors: Representative Bradley (Primary Sponsor).
For a complete list of Sponsors, see Bill Information on the NCGA Web Site.
Referred to: Agriculture.
March 24, 2011
*H446-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1
AN ACT TO REQUIRE LABELING OF FOOD AND MILK PRODUCTS SOLD IN THIS 2
STATE THAT ARE OR THAT CONTAIN GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND 3 OR MILK
AND MILK PRODUCTS FROM ANIMALS THAT HAVE RECEIVED 4 RECOMBINANT BOVINE
GROWTH HORMONE (RBGH). 5
Whereas, there is insufficient longitudinal data about the long-term
consequences to 6 human and animal health of ingesting genetically
modified food; and 7
Whereas, there is insufficient longitudinal data about the long-term
consequences to 8 human and animal health of ingesting milk or milk
products from animals that have received 9 recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rBGH), despite the fact that the FDA has determined that 10
there is no significant difference between milk from cows treated with
recombinant bovine 11 growth hormone (rBGH) and milk from cows that
have not been so treated; and 12
Whereas, a federal government agency’s conclusion regarding a
product’s safety, 13 reached after limited study, is not a guarantee
of that safety and does not invalidate public 14 concern for unknown
side effects; and 15
Whereas, the General Assembly and citizens of North Carolina have
legitimate 16 concerns about the long-term health consequences of
ingesting food that has been manipulated 17 through genetic
engineering; and 18
Whereas, the General Assembly and citizens of North Carolina have
legitimate 19 concerns about the impact on human and animal health of
genetically modified food and milk 20 and milk products from animals
that have received recombinant bovine growth hormone 21 (rBGH); and 22
Whereas, these concerns give rise to a substantial governmental
interest in requiring 23 the labeling of food and milk sold in this
State that are or that contain genetically modified food 24 and of
milk or milk products sold in this State from animals that have
received recombinant 25 bovine growth hormone (rBGH); Now, therefore,
26
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 27
SECTION 1. G.S. 106-121 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 28
“(8b) The term ‘genetically modified food’ means food the genetic
structure of 29 which has been modified by direct human manipulation
in a manner that 30 does not occur under natural conditions, including
through any of the 31 following genetic engineering methods:
recombinant DNA and RNA 32 techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or
doubling, introduction of exogenous 33 genetic material, alteration of
the position of a gene, or similar procedure. 34
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2011
Page 2 House Bill 446-First Edition
The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or
genetic line of 1 an animal or plant described in the preceding
sentence.” 2
SECTION 2. G.S. 106-130 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 3
Ҥ 106-130. Foods deemed misbranded. 4
A food shall be deemed to be misbranded: 5
… 6
(16) If it is a genetically modified food, unless the food bears a
conspicuous label 7 identifying it as a genetically modified food in a
font at least as large as the 8 font of a label required by
subdivision (9) of this section.” 9
SECTION 3. G.S. 106-268(c) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 10
“(c) The term “misbranded” means: 11
… 12
(4) If it contains milk from an animal that has been injected with, or
otherwise 13 received, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH),
unless it bears a 14 prominent label containing a statement that the
product contains milk from 15 an animal that received recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH).” 16
SECTION 4. This act becomes effective October 1, 2011.
YEAH!
Just do me a favor and keep writing such tercnanht analyses, OK?
Row2Kk qqeabcyspjnc
It is imperative to know what you are consuming so we are working hard to help America get back on the same page. Registrar Corp helps companies comply with U.S. FDA’s extensive food labeling requirements by cross referencing your food labeling against thousands of pages within the Code of Federal Regulations as well as the Federal Register, EAFUS Database, GRAS Notices, Guidance Documents, Labeling Guides, and Warning Letters issued by U.S. FDA.