Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Missouri Bill Introduced to Require GM Fish and Meat Labeling

A state Senator from St. Louis has introduced a bill requiring the labeling of genetically modified meat and fish in Missouri.

State Sen. Jemilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis) introduced Senate Bill 155 this week.

“While I understand that food production is an integral Missouri industry, I don’t feel the trend of biotechnology and genetically engineered foods is always apparent to the average citizen, “ said Sen. Nasheed. “I am merely asking for clarity in the sale of certain genetically engineered, or GE, foods to Missouri’s customers.”

She said SB 155 requires any genetically modified meat or fish raised or sold in Missouri to be clearly labeled as genetically engineered as of Sept. 1, 2015. Senator Nasheed said her bill further defines the term “genetically modified” to mean any animal or fish, including further offspring whose genetic structure has been altered beyond natural conditions.

Alaska, out of concern over genetically modified Salmon, adopted similar legislation in 2005, according to the St. Louis Democrat. Her bill would give the Missouri Department of Agriculture the authority to continue to demand such labeling beyond its 2015 effective date.

Violations of the law, if enacted, would be a Class C misdemeanor.

Use of recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material or the alteration of the position of a gene or similar procedure would all fall under the bill’s definition as being genetically modified.

Proposition 37, a California ballot initiative to require labeling of all GM foods, was defeated last November by about 6.5 percentage points. Several states in addition to Missouri have already seen similar bills introduced this year, including New Mexico and Washington State.

The Washington State measure is an initiative to the Legislature, which gives lawmakers the option of passing a bill filed by advocates or an alterative. The Oregon Legislature is also expected to see a GM labeling bill shortly.

© Food Safety News
  • http://twitter.com/therawdoctor Dr. Carly Willeford

    We are starting the grass-roots movement in the Carolinas! Happy to join in on this fight. 

  • 19Matty36

    As I had writtenafter the defeat of proposition 37 in California due to misinformation by the powers that be, it was a Pyrrhic victory for them.  The spirit of prop. 37 is alive and well!  Give us the choice.  Allow us to know whether it’s GMO or non GMO.  I for one will always choose non-GMO but if others want to accept GMO, let them.  Just let us know.

  • kelemvor

    So that’s only if the actual animals are genetically modified.  Too bad it doesn’t seem to cover the animals that are only fed GM corn, grain, etc.   But at least it’s a 1st step.  Ya gotta start somewhere.

  • AgEditor1

    Oh brother. More science-ignorant people out to panic the world. If it doesn’t say organic, it has some genetic modification in the food. Been that way for at least a decade. Our food is safe, people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1410219081 Alex Morales

    How about banning all corporate lobbying and gift giving to our legislators so Monsanto doesn’t buy the defeat of any labeling bill. 75% of the US Senators were bought off by Monsanto to defeat the federal labeling law. Monsanto is confident that its money muscle is enough to stave off any attempt to label our foods as GMO.

  • http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com Ella Baker

    If fishes and meat are genetically modified, does that mean there are lesser organic fishes and meat?

  • http://www.facebook.com/acweber Tony Weber

    gotta crawl before you walk