[GPSCC-chat] [SCC-MTA-General] Move To Amend Disinformation/Misinformation

[John Thielking]

--- On Thu, 5/16/13, Kerri Hamilton <kerrihamilton2004 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Kerri Hamilton <kerrihamilton2004 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [SCC-MTA-General] Move To Amend Disinformation/Misinformation
To: "SCC-MTA-General at yahoogroups.com" <SCC-MTA-General at yahoogroups.com>, "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 10:19 AM



  




Also, it isn't a GMO labeling case, but it is about labeling Bovine Growth Hormone, which is required to be labeled in many other nations. I believe it's the International Dairy case. The San Jose Mercury News just did a related food labeling Op/Ed in support of legislation co-sponsored by Senator Boxer, btw.









From: Kerri Hamilton <kerrihamilton2004 at yahoo.com>
To: "SCC-MTA-General at yahoogroups.com" <SCC-MTA-General at yahoogroups.com>; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org> 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [SCC-MTA-General] Move To Amend Disinformation/Misinformation





John,

I don't know who was speaking, but I believe that this is one of the cases identified by members including lawyers who participated in the IRATE project as a case where a corporation used a Constitutional "right" assigned by the courts to overturn a law. I wasn't a part of that project and haven't studied the details of the cases that were analyzed, so I'm not sure if it was one of the cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court or if it was a ruling by a lower court based upon prior decision(s). Judy or someone else involved with that project might be able to tell you definitively.

Kerri









From: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
To: SCC-MTA-General at yahoogroups.com; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:59 AM
Subject: [SCC-MTA-General] Move To Amend Disinformation/Misinformation




  





Hello,
 
I was at the board meeting of the San Jose Peace and Justice Center a couple of days ago when a rep from Move To Amend stated that the GMO labeling law in Vermont had been struck down by the US Supreme Court on the grounds that corporations have "negative free speech rights" allowing them to not state something on a food label if they so choose. I did an Internet search for any info on this and could only find this article:
 
http://www.alternet.org/food/why-vermonts-governor-peter-shumlin-bowing-monsanto
 
which states that Vermont's governor is bowing to Monsanto because he fears that a GMO labeling law will be struck down just as the rgbh labeling law was struck down, but in fact no such Supreme Court decision has been made, not even in the case of the Rbgh labeling law. Please keep your facts straight when discussing the pros and cons of corporate personhood. Thanks.
 
Sincerely,
 
John Thielking
 
PS: If such a GMO labeling law were struck down on the basis of negative free speech rights, this could throw out ALL of the requirements that food have ingredient and nutrition labels, which just seems laughable.




__._,_.___



Reply via web post 
Reply to sender 
Reply to group 
Start a New Topic 
Messages in this topic (3) 
Recent Activity: 

Visit Your Group 
 
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback 


. 

__,_._,___



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130516/4b1a3dab/attachment.html>