ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

OK JoyV, I've read the executive order. https://www.whitehouse.gov/p**********l-actions/executive-order-modernizing-regulatory-framework-agricultural-biotechnology-products/?fbclid=IwAR31DCuSujgF7nlDsL1jWo9xMJnBOGrx34ERq4E8n6JyHyXWTfTSvs67H8k

This sounds like it was written by lawyers, for lawyers, and can mean anything that a lawyer wants to spin it to say. The EO by itself does not establish policy and guidelines which are promulgated by the various agencies charged with those responsibilities, so the specifics have yet to be determined. However, I don't get a very warm and fuzzy feeling after reading the following sections of this EO:

- Sec. 7. Domestic Engagement Strategy. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, the Commissioner, and any other Administration officials that the Secretary deems appropriate, shall develop an action plan to facilitate engagement with consumers in order to build public confidence in, and acceptance of, the use of safe biotechnology in agriculture and the food system.

- Sec. 8. International Outreach. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary and the Secretary of State (collectively, the “Secretaries”), in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, the Administrator, the Commissioner, and any other Administration officials that the Secretaries deem appropriate, shall develop an international communications and outreach strategy to facilitate engagement abroad with policymakers, consumers, industry, and other stakeholders. The goal of the strategy shall be to increase international acceptance of products of agricultural biotechnology in order to open and maintain markets for United States agricultural exports abroad.

i.e. "The goal of the strategy shall be to increase international acceptance of products of agricultural biotechnology in order to open and maintain markets for United States agricultural exports abroad."

JoyV

You are correct that it isn't very specific. But it certainly isn't what the initial article, and others; have written. This is not a free rein to Monsanto or GMOs. It is more about how the regulations will be structured than what will be specifically in or out of the regulations.

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

All I know is my Iowa Farmer friend whom I've ridden with during spring planting on his bat wing tractor , on his leased farm properties , is that he has proven to me that the monsanto corn police exist...That bein said...

I only buy Natural NON GMO wheat grass, oats, lemon grass, parsley, beets, potatoes, amish corn etc.

There's a YUGE Market for Non GMO product, so anyone who still wants to buy monsanto's glyphosate covered cheeeezy corn puffs is a fool...The free market will sort this out and monsanto is on the losing end of this battle

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

"The free market will sort this out and monsanto is on the losing end of this battle"

You are correct. Which is why it was not possible to get Congress to pass good common sense GMO labeling requirements. Recall the GMO labeling bill actually passed by congress?

"Under this compromise, food companies will have to reveal whether products contain GMO ingredients, but they won't have to print it on the package label. Instead, they can make that information available through a QR code. Shoppers would have to scan it with their smartphones. Small food companies also have the option of printing a website URL or a phone number that customers can call for more information.

The proposal opened up sharp divisions among groups that had previously presented a united front in favor of GMO labeling. Some critics condemned the compromise as a "betrayal," a "sham" and "inexcusable." https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/14/486060866/congress-just-passed-a-gmo-labeling-bill-nobodys-super-happy-about-it

JoyV

I am not refuting that Monsato has unscrupulous policies, nor have I said anything in favor of GMOs. What I AM disputing is that Trump's EO favors Monsanto or GMOs. It is simply a restructuring of how the regulations will be handled to use modern technology. In fact, leaving the writing of regulations to be made according to 20th century technology could be argued to help Monsanto. Maybe they are behind this spreading this scare story. Upgrading regulations to take into account modern technology could not benefit Monsanto. But doing so could potentially be a hindrance to them.

JoyV

I don't recall anything about labeling in the June EO Trump wrote. Please enlighten me by quoting the wording from the EO or at least revealing what paragraph it is in.

Rose42

Written by lawyers for lawyers....

Having read it I still don't see how this is a positive. Its too vague and it looks more like a feel good EO to me. Given Monsanto's history and powerful lobby they will have no problem continuing to do what they do and be unethical.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

JoyV, my comment was in response to Crayons statement, ""The free market will sort this out and monsanto is on the losing end of this battle".

Congress did not make it easy for the free market to easily determine if a food product contains GMO ingredients when they passed their "a*********n" of a labeling requirement in 2016. Requiring shoppers to scan a QR code with their smartphones vs. a simple statement on the label was a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for the consumer to avoid GMO's should they chose to do so. I made no implication that Trump's EO addressed the issue of labeling.