This bit of good news was shared by Mr. W.M., and it concerns the U.S. Senate's rejection of a bill that has been dubbed the "Denying Americans the Right to Know Act," which would have created a federal law rejecting state GMO labelling law requirements:
The bill, authored (not surprisingly) by Kansas US Senator Pat Roberts, has been rejected. But there is a cautionary tale (or perhaps, cautionary tail) here:
Another common message from many Senators was the need to continue negotiating about the contents of this bill. But more compromise will not fix the problem at the core of Sen. Roberts’ approach: Blocking state laws that require GMO labeling will strip away the ability of states to protect the public’s right to know what is in its food. Any version of this bill that would result in anything less than mandatory on-package labeling is unacceptable.
People want to know if the food they buy contains GMO ingredients. It’s time for Congress to create a mandatory on-package labeling requirement so people can decide for themselves whether they want to eat a food that has been produced using genetic engineering.
The tale is simply the presumption of federal senators, or any federal body, being able to restrict what is already happening in the marketplace, as more and more people seek out organic food suppliers and grocers, and reject the processed foods alternatives. Even the soda companies are jumping on the bandwagon, reissuing their soda products made from regular sugar, and not corn syrup. Ok, it's only marginally better, but it's a reflection of what is happening in the markets: left to their own choices, people would naturally rather eat genuine nutricious food, rather than geneitcally engineered and processed "food products" as they are euphemistically called, soaked in glyphosphate.
And it's information like this that is causing the shift(this important article shared by Mr. P.J.):
The abstract of this article should give anyone pause, especially women and even more especially, pregnant women:
AbstractGlyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the planet, and its increasing use over time in the UnitedStates aligns well with the increasing rates of autism determined by the Centers for Disease Control. Based on the known mechanism of glyphosate toxicity, we hypothesize that a pregnant woman’s exposure at mid-pregnancy to glyphosate-formulated herbicides (GFH) may produce, in her unborn child’s brain, anatomic alterations of cortical neuron layering remarkably similar to those found in the brains of humans with autism. Glyphosate’s known ability to chelate manganese ions combined with evidence of severely depleted serum manganese in cows exposed to glyphosate makes it likely that glyphosate would induce manganesedeficiency in humans, interfering with the function of manganese-dependent enzymes. In particular, this would affect the maternal pituitary’s manganese-dependent Protein Phosphatase 1 (PP1) enzyme, resulting in a significant reduction in maternal serum levels of Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone (TSH). A study of mid-pregnancy maternal TSH serum levels in human mothers has found a statistical correlation of reduced TSH to increased risk of autism in offspring. Since insufficient thyroid stimulation by TSH or by iodine deficiency would both induce hypothyroidism, effects of iodine deficiency can be expected to emulate effects of TSH deficiency. Cortical neuron disarrangements have been produced in the brains of offspring of rat dams fed an iodine-deficient diet, and such foci of disordered cortical neurons are characteristically found in human autistic brains. While the research literature on glyphosate’s endocrine disrupting effects is limited, diverse evidence from animal studies reveals effects that suggest impaired thyroid function. Ifour hypothesis can be substantiated by a focused research effort, it would provide further justification for reducing or, ideally, eliminating glyphosate-formulated herbicide exposures in pregnant women. (Emphasis added)