Sudden Federal USDA GMO Labeling Rule Ignores Peoples’ Right to Know and Ignores Citizen Input

The USDA’s long delayed GMO labeling rules were originally passed as a shell of a federal law which pre-empted more effective consumer-friendly labeling at the state level around 2013. After food labeling authority was transferred from FDA to USDA, the Federal Government’s USDA proposal became a blank shell of a federal law for so long that the government was sued for holding up the labeling law.   Suddenly, on December 20, 2019, during the holiday season, the USDA slipped in their version of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard as a substitute for genuine GMO food labeling, with callous disregard for citizens and peer-reviewed science findings.  This grand sham of a federal law is shameful and will lead to higher health care costs by hiding the presence of GMOs and associated toxins in the food supply.  It is very likely designed by and for special interests.  Notably, it disingenuously attempts  to disguise what a simple “nonGMO” on the label would most effectively communicate to Americans and US residents.   It deceives and betrays those who want and are entitled to know  what is in the food they feed their families.  Implementation by companies is slated during 2021-2022 by the USDA rule.  You may TAKE ACTION against the USDA Rule here

In effect, deceiving the American public on GMO labeling with misleading cover language and graphics for GMO ingredients is an extraordinary disgraceful act against American families caring for their health  and trying to feed their families wholesome, nonGMO foods. It is especially of concern due to the high and increasing pesticide toxin residues commonly found in US GMO foods as well associated transgenerational gene mutations and other genetic impacts from the genetically engineered process (which can be impossible for doctors to trace if the foods lack GMO labeling). USDA, EPA scientists and employees in particular have been muzzled, especially in recent years from communicating the dangers shown in peer-reviewed science around the world. It is a shameful federal action which must be remedied immediately, as it will escalate already skyrocketing health care costs, and leave families and health care practitioners in a murky morass as they try to determine root causes in diagnosing and helping their patients.

The existing and straightforward “nonGMO” labeling, which large and small companies had already put on their labels starting around 2013, to satisfy consumer needs to know about their foods, is simple to see for shoppers in the grocery aisles.   The agency has now decided to use the term “bioengineered”–a term many Americans may not be familiar with–rather than GMO or nonGMO. Many Americans know the term “GMO” and can connect it to the labeling debate–so the government decides to use a different term that sounds more innocuous. If the government was actually concerned with communicating information clearly to consumers, they would simply use the term “GMO” and not other terminology with which Americans may not be familiar.

The problems continue with the definition of “bioengineered.”  The definition is preposterous and entirely inadequate to capture all the different techniques for genetically modifying food that are currently being used or are in development. Gene-editing using CRISPR is one example, where scientists manipulate an organism’s own DNA to silence certain genes or express otherwise silent genes. For example, the USDA recently decided that a CRISPR-created non-browning mushroom did not have to be regulated, and following the USDA’s logic, the GMO labeling rule will not apply. That’s right: a genetically modified mushroom will not have to be labeled as GMO because the USDA thinks that the genetic change could be accomplished through normal means.

Very importantly, the USDA, taking cues from Congress, has written a labeling rule that applies exclusively to obsolete technology. The USDA’s definition of a GMO completely misses the point. Even if a particular change could have been brought about through traditional breeding, the fact that it was brought about through genetic modification in a laboratory means that consumers have a right to know, end of story.

The problems don’t stop there. The rule establishes a threshold for the “inadvertent or technically unavoidable” presence of GMO material of up to five percent; foods that meet this criteria will not have to be labeled as bioengineered. The plain fact, once again, is that even if the presence of a small number of GMOs is “inadvertent or unavoidable,” consumers still have a right to know.

There is another way that the USDA has narrowed the foods that will have to carry GMO labeling. So-called “highly-refined foods” made from GMO crops–such as sugar from GMO sugarbeets or high fructose corn syrup from GMO corn–will not require a label. The USDA argues that the presence of GMOs cannot be detected in refined products. Once again, consumers have been sold out. Just because current testing techniques cannot detect GMO material in a finished product does not mean there is no modified genetic material in the food. The whole point of a GMO labeling law is to provide consumers with information, so those who wish to avoid GMO foods can easily do so. If refined foods made from GMO ingredients are exempted, the spirit of the law is undermined.

Finally, the USDA has altered the symbol that may be used by companies to communicate the presence of GMOs. Some early proposals looked like a smiling face. The symbol the USDA chose says “bioengineered” rather than GMO and depicts a field and a sun, which is intentionally deceptive. These are natural images used to communicate the presence of decidedly un-natural ingredients in a food. It’s as if the PR department at Bayer/Monsanto came up with it themselves!

US legislators need to hold USDA immediately accountable for this dreadful, and deadly action against Americans and other residents. At every turn, it seems like the USDA has favored industry over consumers. This is unacceptable. Our government is turning a huge,  manipulated deaf ear to Americans and should go back to the drawing board to amend this rule to so it adheres to the principal of a consumer’s right to know, rather than industry’s right to obscure.  This should remain a government for the American peoples’ interests  and it behooves us all to hold the USDA as well as their sister agencies FDA and EPA accountable for steamrolling over the results of legitimate peer-reviewed science, and it replacing it with contrived sham science which is so harmful to our population, constitutional rights, and out of control health care costs.  Think of all the cancers and other ailments associated with the pesticide-dependent  food supply certain industry interests are peddling at the cost of human health and associated family misery.

Tell the USDA ( and your legislators what you think about this dastardly USDA act during the holiday season and federal government partial shutdown.

(Editors Note: Written in collaboration with Alliance for Natural Health /ANH USA)



Roundup Jury Cancer Verdict to Monsanto – GUILTY!


Click here for more consumer info



Gene -Editing Stocks Plunge After Latest Research Cancer Risks Revealed

CRISPR stocks hit after current research indicates cause for serious health concerns.

The importance of scientific integrity , due diligence and thorough research cannot be understated when considering this Gene Editing technique for our food supply, which the Europeans still characterize as GMO (an abbreviation the public grasps rather than using bioengineered or  “BE” terminology as USDA just proposed).  Further, US food labeling requirements are proposed to shift from FDA to USDA as CRSPR technology has been given green lights and there has been much industry PR in US media reports touting the benefits, without addressing the risks. While the Europeans have taken a more cautious approach, it is obvious the US is on a more reckless track when it comes to protecting consumers of GMO food.  At the same time, US Organic Standards are being weakened.


Global Collusion Accelerates with Monsanto’s Agrichemicals and Pesticide-dependent GMO Food System

Agrichemical pesticide Glyphosate (active ingredient in Roundup) is likely the most abused chemical in the world, and can be found  in the most of the world’s food and water supplies with serious repercussions to families virtually everywhere. Don’t think Monsanto disappeared – it’s hiding behind a new name after being recently purchased by another large global chemical company Bayer.  Thus, the pernicious work of pesticide toxins increasing in food supplies deceptively continues …. only hidden under a new nameplate.  For some of the latest disconcerting health and agricultural updates, please see here and here.

Beyond being the active ingredient in Roundup and many other crop and lawn care products, the toxic pesticide chemical had originally been marketed as biodegradable, but with industry safety testing methods later found to be compromised,  Glyphosate is especially harmful to children, poisoning populations, water supplies, and whole ecosystems around the world…..leaving consumers in the dark about protecting their families as profits have taken priority over family health and safety.  Consumers have little chance to find the truth as previous posts show the virtual hijacking of the US food labeling process.  

See also   recent court case documents   and US Right to Know information


Take Action Now! Hijacked Federal GMO Food Labeling in Process- Public Comment Ends July 3rd

Hundreds of millions of public and private funds have been spent since the mid-1990’s when GMO foods were first released for human consumption.  Most Americans were unaware at the time that FDA scientists had issued numerous warnings about the need for more robust food safety and risk assessments, which weren’t done prior to release into the US food supply.  Unfortunately politics and profit ultimately prevailed over health safety, and Americans have been very ill-informed about much of the food they are putting on their family dining tables.

Why is our government balking at requiring plain English text for accurate disclosure of food ingredients directly on food package labels in their latest Agriciultural Marketing Service food disclosure proposal?  Why don’t they want to permit the use of “GMO” and “nonGMO” , already widely understood and in common use on food packaging by many companies to inform consumers about the food they are buying in supermarkets?  Since many companies already are providing the consumer this desired information…what is our government hiding when it doesn’t want us to read plain English text on food labels and use QR computer code?  The purity and quality of the food we eat should not be symbolized by a contrived “smiley BE-faced symbol” as some in government have proposed, especially when it potentially covers up toxic pesticides and other chemicals in such foods. Websites can also be listed on the label for additional manufacturer information as is already common practice.  Consumers should not be required to have and use a smartphone to read QR computer code,  when package text labeling is readily available to everyone in the grocery aisles for health and family-conscientious consumer.

Here’s a summary and Take Action plan courtesy of the Center For Food Safety :      USDA’s Proposed Rule on GMO Food Labeling

“On May 3, 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its long-awaited proposed regulations for the mandatory disclosure of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE). These rules will implement the 2016 federal law requiring those GE disclosures, establishing many details on how the disclosures will be implemented. The rules are the final step in a decades-long process of demanding and securing GE food labeling in the United States at the state and now at the federal level. As such, public comment will be extremely important. The importance of comments is even further magnified by the fact that the USDA proposal presents a range of alternatives and makes few decisions, leaving uncertainty about the final outcome on critical points. Some of the more important issues along with recommended responses are detailed below. Comments are due July 3, 2018. “

With this proposed new Federal Food Disclosure rule, Genetically Modified (GMO) labeling is in the process of a consumer unfriendly hijacking attempt by political powers/special interest maneuverings — putting USDA officially in the driver’s seat to cover up misaligned FDA food labeling –  all the while exposing consumers to more toxins in supermarket foods and continued escalation of health care costs by denying consumers the right to know what’s in our food. If our government isn’t listening to consumers, at least some companies are more sensitive to what the consumer wants to know about their food by already labeling nonGMO! Who is kidding whom??? Avoiding consumption of toxic substances and family health care costs are significant and timely pressing matters which don’t deserve outsourcing to PR departments and other marketing shenanigans to muddle the information about what is in our food.  Take action now by clicking here to comment on this proposal.


For more details and information you may visit:

This GE salmon is likely one of the earlier reasons that the labeling laws are being switched from FDA to USDA- Against extraordinary levels of public opposition, the antibiotic-laden GMO salmon application apparently had to be squeezed in as a “New Drug Application”  under the Center for Veterinary Medicine umbrella because there was no animal procedure in place for it under FDA regs at the time.  Also there are quite a few current genetic manipulation technologies like Gene Editing (CRISPR) being vigorously promoted despite continuing problems and risks.

Biological Storm Clouds – GMO Food Consumption Peppered with Increased Human Exposures to Cellular and Wireless EMF Radiation …What is Happening to Americans?

What biologically impactful health changes are occurring right now in our so-called “advanced” wireless age of cellular 5G installations?  Most Americans are in the dark about higher microwave -powered home WiFi systems and commercial WiFi devices which are already wirelessly transmitting 5G blankets of radiation in the United States.  This is happening not only in commercial village and city centers, but also in rural areas eager to “catch-up” where people can also purchase more powerful homeWiFi systems which can unwittingly spread biologically impactful microwave radiation to you and your neighbor’s homes.

These known health impacts of the latest microwave technology emitting man-made electromagnetic radiation are now unregulated by the FCC under the current US Presidential Administration.  The FCC’s commercial-connected technology wisdom banning citizen testimony has also included disallowing testimony on peer-reviewed health impacts in new state and local legislation under the current US government administration.

Regarding safeguarding the health of it’s citizens, the US has fallen further behind many European countries, Russia, China, Iran and others around the world , who have been taking the Precautionary Principle seriously.  Unlike the US, they are more focused on their citizens’ health gleaned from the wisdom of focusing on the biological science impacts of these new technologies.  This pernicious trend is happening at a time when the US has been dramatically falling behind safeguarding its citizenry (when compared to health statistics of  peer-developed nations (OECD), measured by international health organizations such as  the World Health Organization (WHO).

The above YouTube interview of German Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, and other scientists and doctors’ presentations documented on this site, back up known serious biological disruptions and health impacts  (ADHD, cancers, memory failures) of poorly risk-assessed modern food and communications technology.  (Note: This is not to suggest new GMO or electromagnetic radiation (EMR) technology is all bad; rather indicating agreement to the necessary application of the Precautionary Principle, which the US used to follow along with its European peer nations.

Listen also to Dafna  Tachover’s testimony about what Israel is doing to prevent microwave radiation sickness, especially among their children at minute 37 of the hearing in front of the Michigan legislature on EMR in this video

For additional electromagnetic radiation (EMR) updates , especially in view of the upcoming exponential EMR increases expected from the rollout of 5G, please visit :

Note also that the FDA had stated about electromagnetic radiation that “It is not scientifically possible to guarantee that these non-thermal levels of microwave radiation, which do not cause deleterious effects for relatively short exposure, will not cause adverse long term health effects.” In 1999, FDA  nominated electromagnetic radio frequency radiation (RFR) to be further studied under the National Toxicology Project, indicating that a human exposure study is necessary due to insufficient data for current guidelines to be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures   and that multi -dose animal studies are perform more thorough studies of biological health impacts of cell phones.  However funding for the FDA- nominated study was redirected to focus on cell phones, avoiding Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) health-impact studies from cellular antennas, wifi and “smart” meter emissions.  Thus, we are now are in very uncharted territory regarding the non-thermal  health impacts  of proliferating 5G cell systems and 5G wifi, especially in combination with other ubiquitous man-made electromagnetic frequency (EMF) emissions.

About the National Toxicology Program (NTP): NTP is a federal, interagency program headquartered at NIEHS, whose goal is to safeguard the public by identifying substances in the environment that may affect human health. For more information about NTP and its programs, visit

About the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS): NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists ( to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications.

2018 update – See Electronic Silent, an excellent website for continued updates on Katie Singer’s excellent book “An Electronic Silent Spring –  Facing the Dangers and Creating Safe limits.  She chronicles the history of how EMR safety regulation moved forward without any human or biological health assessments before giving the latest industry applications the green light,  while ignoring scientists warnings. Other very informative links: and  You may also  wish to take a look at recent EMR testimony regarding 5G proposed rollouts (2018) at the  Michigan State Legislature  , which draws attention to some of the already identified scientific issues and

Cutting Edge Medical Research Findings on Glyphosate/Roundup Impact

Excellent discussion about your body’s mitochondria and how GMO chemical Glyphosate can affect not only cellular health in your gut, but also your brain, nervous system and more.  Also the importance of bacteria and fungi in soil and in your body’s ability to thrive. A major reason demand for a glyphosate-residue free food label is growing.  Since Glyphosate also has been patented as an antibiotic, it is notable that spraying Glyphosate-based products like Roundup on food crops also results in additional antibiotic load consumed from glyphosate-laden food consumed by both humans and animals.