Articles Comments

New Mexico Telegram » Environment, Featured, New Mexico Senate, Roundhouse » GMO labeling bill dead after committee report not adopted (updated)

GMO labeling bill dead after committee report not adopted (updated)

A bill that would require labeling of genetically modified organisms is dead for the year after the Senate failed to adopt the committee report of its passage from that committee.

The Senate voted to move the bill to another committee but it was a moot point. A majority of the Senate voted to not adopt the committee report and afterwards to move the bill to Senate Corporations and Transportation instead of the Senate Judiciary Committee as it was originally scheduled.

But the initial vote to not adopt the committee report resulted in the bill being “deemed lost,” which means it is for the year.

The bill’s sponsor Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, announced the news on Twitter Thursday morning.


Senate rule 11-20-2 states:

If the committee report is favorable and the senate does not adopt the committee report, the bill, resolution or memorial is deemed lost.

Update 1:26 pm:

Wirth tweets:

Written by

Matthew Reichbach has blogged about New Mexico politics since 2006. Matthew was a co-founder of New Mexico FBIHOP with his brother and part of the original hirings at the groundbreaking website the New Mexico Independent. Matthew has covered events such as the Democratic National Convention and Netroots Nation. In addition to politics, Matthew is an avid sports fan, especially of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and TV fan.

Filed under: Environment, Featured, New Mexico Senate, Roundhouse · Tags: , ,

10 Responses to "GMO labeling bill dead after committee report not adopted (updated)"

  1. Neal Thielke says:

    If we are prevented from knowing what poisons in what foods, can we know who all killed Peter’s Bill?

    1. Robert Wager says:

      Except there is no poison associated with GM foods.

      Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

      http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

  2. syd says:

    Here is a list of Senators who voted against to kill SB18, which confusingly are the folks who voted yes:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=563259643686853&set=a.474355542577264.111941.467293969950088&type=1

  3. Ella Baker says:

    The discussion for GMO labelling will continue until there is a final conclusion.

    1. Robert Wager says:

      Would you consider this 25 years of EU-funded GMO research definitive?

      “The main conclusion
      to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
      projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,
      and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is
      that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se
      more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

      and

      “Now, after 25 years of field trials without evidence of harm,
      fears continue to trigger the Precautionary Principle. But
      Europeans need to abandon this knowingly one-sided stance
      and strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages
      of the technology on the basis of scientifically sound
      risk assessment analysis.”

      from A Decade of EU-Funded GMO research 2001-2010

      1. Diana Reeves says:

        How about some independent research? LIke the research you are doing on my body. Your information is biased and is provided by companies that have a vested financial interest in the outcome. My body begs to differ. Every time I touch a newspaper printed with GMO soy ink, my face erupts in a blistery rash. Every time a towel, or other item that has been washed with a detergent that contains GMO soy touches my body, my entire body becomes covered in a lovely red rash from head to toe. Now that’s what I call research. GMOs have not been subjected to independent, long term, peer reviewed testing. They are engineered to tolerate heavy dousing with toxic herbicides. Many produce their own toxic pesticides (Bt toxins… they don’t call them toxins for nothing.) FOOD SHOULDN’T KILL. While 62 countries around the world require labeling, Americans have been kept in the dark about what they are eating. Americans are waking up and demanding the right to know what’s in our food. It’s only a matter of time until we will have the freedom to chose what we put in, or on, our bodies. As it should have been from the start.

  4. Scott Reil says:

    Robert, perhaps Dr. Don Huber’s 20 year studies of Round-Up and now the RR gene which makes up such a huge portion of working GMOs is enough reason alone to warrant GMO labeling. His warning to Sec. Vilsack may have been ignored, but this is a well respected researcher who is making his data public, and an undescribed scientific organism causing abortion in Order Mammalia, found in Round-Up treated soils at twice normal levels and higher yet in RR gene plants seems reason enough to me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nHCw36wIhs

  5. @Robert Wagner–lots of material here you may be unaware of.
    http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/genetic-roulette-free-screening-vote-today/
    One of dozens/hundreds of documentaries on the hazards of biotechnology in it’s relationship to our foods. This film is free for the viewing through tomorrow.