Nothing like a nice, unbiased report. I do understand that folks can be legitimately concerned about the food supply. But usually overlooked by 'pure food' activists is the fact that we feed more people more economically than ever, and unless we adopt the policies of those who promote drastically reducing world population and standard of living, we cannot all dine on organically grown produce and free range livestock, and still afford to clothe and house ourselves.

Sorry, TOD, Vermont isn't trying to ban it, only label it. And let's see, if you switched your diet to organic and humane, it might cost, what, an extra $100-200 a month for a family or 2-4? That certainly is an expense some people can't afford, but many people aren't going to have to abandon their homes or closets to do it. A lot of benefits would flow to farmworkers, wildlife, etc, for that investment, too.

Buck, you don't get it. If people knew what it was, they wouldnt touch it. So labeling and banning are about the same thing.

It doesn't matter. When this reaches the SOOTUS, silent Clarence, a former employee of Monsanto, will do his duty and vote the way Monsanto wants him to vote.
The Supremes are no longer a judicial body, but just a supra legislative one.

Allan, unfortunately I think a lot of people would buy it willingly. There are people falling all over themselves to defend and eat Lean Fine Textured Beef, aka pink slime. Certainly, though, labeling is fair and would shift the playing field on GMO vs. conventional seed back to something resembling balance.

We just moved to upper Northern California
and now that I am a registered voter I got to sign my first state wide petition which is to require all GMO foods be labeled as such....I am all for truth in labeling- so I hope thay get enough signatures to get it on the ballot. Hopefully Monsanto doesn't try those dirty tricks here.