July, 23 2015, 03:30pm EDT
Consumers, Health Advocates and Farmers Mobilize Massive Movement in Opposition to Congressional "DARK Act" Aimed at Preempting Labeling and Safety Testing of Genetically Engineered Foods
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, commonly known as the "DARK Act" (Deny Americans the Right to Know), a bill falsely represented by its sponsors as providing "certainty" and "clarity" for controversial genetically engineered foods, In fact, the legislation's intent is to permanently preserve the right of food manufacturers to deceive consumers.
FINLAND, Minn.
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, commonly known as the "DARK Act" (Deny Americans the Right to Know), a bill falsely represented by its sponsors as providing "certainty" and "clarity" for controversial genetically engineered foods, In fact, the legislation's intent is to permanently preserve the right of food manufacturers to deceive consumers.
"We can only presume that the majority of Representatives who voted in favor of this legislation were duped by the multi-million dollar public relations and lobbying campaigns, funded by Monsanto and Big Ag, that falsely frame H.R. 1599 as pro-consumer, and perpetuate the myth that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have been thoroughly safety tested and proven safe," said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association. "How else to explain why Congress would vote against science, against the more than century-old right of states to legislate on matters relating to food safety and labeling, and against the 90-percent of Americans who are in favor of mandatory labeling of GMOs?
"We are committed to stopping this outrageous, anti-consumer, anti-democracy legislation from succeeding," Cummins said. "We will do so by mobilizing a massive opposition movement that transcends political party affiliations, and that unites consumers of all ages with organic farmers and retailers whose livelihoods are threatened by this legislation, and with the medical and scientific experts who are outspoken about the potential health and environmental risks associated with GMO crops and foods."
H.R. 1599, deceptively titled the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," is sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), on behalf of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, of which Monsanto, Dow, Dupont and other chemical companies are members.
The bill would repeal existing state GMO labeling laws, such as Vermont's Act 120, https://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Acts/ACT120.pdf and would preempt any future state or federal laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods or foods containing GMOs. Yesterday, the Campaign for Liberty, founded by Ron Paul, issued a statement opposing H.R. 1599 because it violates the U.S. Constitution.
H.R. 1599 would also codify the Food and Drug Administration's position that genetically modified foods and ingredients don't require labeling because they are as safe as those produced through conventional agriculture, thus ensuring that there will never be independent pre-market safety testing of GMO foods. The American Medical Association has recommended https://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-19/features/chi-gmos-should-... mandatory pre-market safety testing of these controversial gene-spliced foods, rather than the current system that relies on an FDA "voluntary consultation" process based on the industry's own testing.
H.R. 1599 would also establish a voluntary "GMO-Free" labeling program, overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and it would allow foods containing GMOs to be labeled "natural."
H.R. 1599 has been sold to lawmakers on the basis of false claims. Contrary to what proponents of H.R. 1599 say:
1. There is no scientific consensus https://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-conse... the safety of GMOs, according to hundreds of scientists. Moreover, more than 80 percent of GMO crops are genetically engineered to be heavily sprayed with the toxic herbicide, Roundup. Roundup was recently declared a "probable carcinogen" by the World Health Organization.
2. Labeling foods will incur little or no cost https://consumersunion.org/research/cu-response-to-cornell-study-on-cos... to food manufacturers or consumers. Food industry lobbyists have repeatedly used the "increased cost" argument to oppose mandatory nutrition or GMO labeling, basing their argument on a study funded by the Council for Biotech Information. But food manufacturers routinely update labels and numerous independent studies support the fact that labeling GMOs will not increase costs. In fact, many food corporations are preparing to implement a QR bar code system for labeling food ingredients, including GMOs--a system that would incur greater costs than merely adding the words "produced with genetic engineering" to their labels.
3. H.R. 1599 will create, not eliminate confusion for consumers, by allowing foods that contain GMOs, which are artificially created in a laboratory, to be labeled "natural."
4. State GMO labeling laws will not create a "patchwork" of laws that would be cumbersome or costly for food manufacturers. State GMO labeling bills have been written using a single model, all of which would require the same wording: "produced with genetic engineering."
"H.R. 1599 allows big corporations, such as Monsanto and Coca-Cola, to continue to deceive consumers," Cummins said. "This bill not only takes away states' rights to require labeling of GMOs, but also creates a government-run GMO-Free labeling system that places the expense and burden of labeling on organic and non-GMO food producers who do not expose consumers to risk, rather than requiring the perpetrators of the risks associated with cancer-causing chemicals and inadequately tested technologies to truthfully disclose the ingredients in their products. It's no wonder that more than 90 perecent of Americans have lost faith in Congress. It's time to hold every member of Congress accountable. Either they stand with Monsanto and Big Food in support of the DARK Act, or they stand with the overwhelming majority of their constituents for truthful labeling and consumer choice."
In an op-ed published July 13, 2015, in the New York Times, Mark Spitznagel, founder and chief investment officer of Universa Investments, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of "The Black Swan" and professor of risk engineering at New York University School of Engineering, wrote:
The G.M.O. experiment, carried out in real time and with our entire food and ecological system as its laboratory, is perhaps the greatest case of human hubris ever. It creates yet another systemic, "too big too fail" enterprise -- but one for which no bailouts will be possible when it fails.
"To carry out a vast genetic experiment on the American public is outrageous," Cummins said. "To continue to do it covertly, without full disclosure, is criminal. If necessary, we will mount the largest-ever food and food safety campaign in U.S. history to prevent Congress from turning the DARK Act bill into law."
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
LATEST NEWS
'There Will Be Many More': Citing GOP Medicaid Cuts, Rural Nebraska Clinic Announces Closure
"Republicans haven't passed their bill yet, but if you live in Nebraska you can thank them for making you less healthy," wrote Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.).
Jul 03, 2025
The devastating cuts to Medicaid contained in Republicans' budget bill have not yet gone into effect but are already having negative consequences for American healthcare.
Nebraska Public Media reports Thursday that the Curtis Medical Center, a clinic located in a rural Nebraska community with a population of under 1,000 residents, will soon shut down thanks in part to the expected impact the GOP's cuts to Medicaid will have on its finances.
Troy Bruntz, the president and CEO of Curtis Medical Center owner Community Hospital, said in a news release that the coming Medicaid cuts are tipping many financially challenged health clinics into insolvency.
"The current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services, many of which have faced significant financial challenges for years," he explained.
Nebraska Public Media notes that the Curtis clinic is likely just the first domino in the state's rural healthcare system to fall thanks to the Medicaid cuts and it speaks to recent warnings from people like Jed Hansen, executive director for the Nebraska Rural Health Association, about how many other hospitals are in real danger.
"We currently have six hospitals that that we feel are in a critical financial state, three that are in an impending kind of closure or conversion over to the rural emergency hospital model," Hansen said earlier this week during an online forum about the state's crisis. "We would likely see the closures within a year to two years of once [the Medicaid cuts are] fully enacted."
Other experts have sounded similar alarms on the budget bill's impact on rural hospitals. Sharon Parrott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote earlier this week that Senate Republicans' efforts to create a fund of money earmarked for rural hospitals would prove woefully inadequate to the problems these institutions will face in the coming years.
"Senate Republicans know the bill would hurt rural hospitals—that's why they added a face-saving temporary fund, but it won't rescue rural providers when the funding runs dry and the permanent cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage remain," explained Parrott. "This is particularly true because the revised Senate fund gives the Health and Human Services secretary significant discretion in how the funds would be allocated. Rural providers need people in their communities to have health coverage they can count on. Without that, more rural hospitals will close and more people with and without coverage will be cut off from care they need."
In an analysis released last month, the American Hospital Association (AHA) estimated that 1.8 million individuals in rural communities would lose their Medicaid coverage under the Republican Party's plan while rural hospitals would receive $50.4 billion less in Medicaid funds over the next decade, putting many of them at severe risk of shutting down completely.
"The Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would devastate rural hospitals across the country" if the bill became law, warned AHA president and CEO Rick Pollack. "Many rural hospitals would be forced to choose between maintaining services, keeping staff and possibly closing their doors. Patients would be forced to travel hours for basic or emergency care, and communities would suffer."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) cited the story about the Nebraska clinic on X Thursday morning and predicted it was just the beginning of bad things to come for rural hospitals.
"Republicans haven't passed their bill yet, but if you live in... Nebraska you can thank them for making you less healthy," he wrote. "There will be many more."
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the GOP budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would result in more than 10 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Lies About Budget Bill's Tax Cuts as US Public Opposes Giveaway to Rich
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt misleadingly touted tax deductions for overtime and tips—while neglecting to mention the bill's much larger tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
Jul 03, 2025
As the Republican reconciliation bill barrels toward final passage in Congress, the Trump White House is misrepresenting the measure's tax provisions in an attempt to paint the unpopular legislation as a boon for workers and ordinary seniors rather than a massive handout to the wealthiest Americans.
In an X post late Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that any lawmaker who opposes the 887-page bill is voting against "no tax on tips," "no tax on overtime," and "no tax on Social Security" benefits.
Leavitt's post was sufficiently misleading as to draw a "community note" on the Elon Musk-owned platform, which clarified that the Republican bill "does not fully eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security as claimed; it offers limited deductions with caps (e.g., $25,000 for tips, $12,500 for overtime) and excludes high earners, with no provision to remove taxes on Social Security."
As Axios reported Thursday, the Republican legislation does include "an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older," but the benefit "leaves out the poorest seniors" and expires in 2028, when President Donald Trump is set to leave office.
The tax deductions for overtime and tips also expire in 2028.
That's unlike the major tax breaks for the wealthy that are included in the legislation, which extends soon-to-expire provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law. For example, the new Republican bill would permanently raise the estate tax exemption, allowing ultrawealthy individuals and married couples to give their heirs up to $15 million or $30 million without paying any federal taxes.
"A married couple worth $30 million where both spouses die in 2026 would pay some $6 million less under the bill compared with current law," The Wall Street Journal observed.
Brendan Duke, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that the GOP reconciliation bill's tax breaks for the richest 1% are roughly 10 times larger than the tax deductions for tips and overtime combined.
You left something out. https://t.co/LwMFX2nbyM pic.twitter.com/9Dn2FoBZNH
— Brendan Duke (@Brendan_Duke) July 3, 2025
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) noted in a recent analysis that the Senate-passed legislation also "includes permanent corporate tax breaks (involving more generous versions of tax rules for bonus depreciation, research, and limits on interest deductions) that lawmakers have attempted to enact in recent years."
Contrary to the Trump White House's characterization of the reconciliation bill as a historic "middle- and working-class tax cut," ITEP found that "the richest 1% of Americans would receive a total of $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026."
By contrast, according to ITEP, "the middle 20% of taxpayers on the income scale, a group that has 20 times the number of taxpayers as the richest 1%, would receive less than half that much, $53 billion in net tax cuts that year."
"The effects of President Trump's tariff policies alone offset most of the tax cuts for the bottom 80% of Americans," the group added. "For the bottom 40% of Americans, the tariffs impose a cost that is greater than the tax cuts they would receive under this legislation."
Survey data released Wednesday by Data for Progress shows that the Republican legislation is unpopular with a majority of likely U.S. voters. The new poll, conducted between June 27 and July 1, found that 62% of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about the bill's "cuts to income taxes on wealthy Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abrego Garcia’s Attorneys Say He Faced Beatings and ‘Psychological Torture’ in El Salvador Prison
While the prisoners were kneeling, guards allegedly kept watch over them and would physically strike anyone who fell over from exhaustion, allege attorneys representing Abrego Garcia.
Jul 03, 2025
Attorneys representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant whom the Trump administration wrongly sent to El Salvador's infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), are alleging that he and other detainees at the site were subjected to physical abuse and psychological torture.
In a court filing published on Wednesday evening, Abrego Garcia's attorneys write that their client "was subjected to severe mistreatment upon arrival at CECOT, including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture."
The filing describes Abrego Garcia and approximately 20 other inmates "being struck with wooden batons" after arriving at the facility as they were frogmarched to their cell, where guards would subsequently force them to kneel from 9:00 pm until 6:00 am While the prisoners were kneeling, guards allegedly kept watch over them and would physically strike anyone who fell over from exhaustion. The complaint adds that "during this time... Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself."
The complaint alleges officials at the prison would repeatedly threaten to transfer Abrego Garcia to cells that contained gang members who would "tear" him apart. These threats were made more menacing, the attorneys state, because "Abrego Garcia repeatedly observed prisoners in nearby cells who he understood to be gang members violently harm each other with no intervention from guards or personnel. Screams from nearby cells would similarly ring out throughout the night without any response from prison guards on personnel."
During Abrego Garcia's first two weeks at the facility, the attorneys write, he lost approximately 31 pounds.
The Trump administration last month complied with a Supreme Court order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to United States after it acknowledged months earlier that he had been improperly deported to El Salvador. Upon his return, the United States Department of Justice promptly hit him with human smuggling charges to which he has pleaded not guilty.
President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have also accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the gang MS-13, although they have produced no evidence to back up that assertion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular