Flint Water Crisis: Citizens Fighting For Clean Water Against Poison Politics

Jack Olmsted (Videoblogging 206/GMO Free News): You seem like a pretty even-keeled guy. What gets you upset about this (Flint Water Crisis) or is it simply business as usual? You have been at it (journalist) for twenty years…haven’t you seen it all?

Curt Guyette: Never seen anything like this. Where people...especially children, pregnant women, being poisoned with LEAD just to save money. Then the extent to which they went to try to cover it up. To deny there was a problem. What they did in terms of testing to make it appear that LEAD levels were lower than they really were. In terms, of just the scope of the issue, and how serious the issue is.

How many people are affected...I've never been involved with a story like this at all.

Jack: What is the big story here? There's lots a little stories - pregnant women, kids, schools, the [water system] infrastructure, the lead pipes, the government [corruption], the emergency manager [law]. What is the big story here for you?

Curt: Well it's a combination of the things that you just talked about certainly the role of the emergency management in this and how emergency management created this crisis. Which was a totally created crisis that could have been avoided. So that's one thing.

Jack: Let's say you are going to write a book. What is the title of the book?

Curt: I would say, "It's Fighting The Poison" because the big story is how citizens like LeeAnne Walters and Lois Amaze, the “Concerned Pastors For Social Action”... all these different groups and people who created this “Coalition for Clean Water” in Flint and refused to accept the government claims that the water was safe and kept pushing and pushing and pushing until they eventually forced the governor to allow Flint to go back to the Detroit system is the story.

In that sense, it's a very inspiring story about how citizens were able to through incredible effort and perseverance do what was needed to create change.

Part of what they did was find allies. One of the allies that they found was Virginia Tech which did the testing. And they really did heroic work. They were working around the clock when the samples were collected. Another ally was the ACLU of Michigan. This is not a traditional ACLU kind of issue but because it stemmed from taking away democracy, we thought it was important to become involved. And it freed me up to spend a lot of time with helping to coordinate and conduct the tests with the citizens.

Then at the same time doing our own parallel investigation into how the city was able to claim LEAD was below the federal action level when Virginia Tech was finding it to be far above the action level.

They [City] were basically exploiting loopholes in the law that effectively skewed the test low. So, these are all parts... but the really inspiring and instructive thing to come out of this is how even when democracy is taken away from them, if people are determined and persevere, can win out against really incredible odds.

You have all the power of the state that was working against these people.

They were not getting any help from the local media who were writing some of these activists off as being hysterical or however else they might have characterized them and certainly not give them any credibility without investigating really what the government was claiming.


Flint Water Crisis Playlist

Josephine County Citizens Vote to Phase Out Genetically Engineered Crops

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2014

Contact: Mary Middleton
541.660.6204

Campaigners for ballot Measure 17-58 declared victory on May 20, 2014, when voters in Josephine County, Oregon approved the measure to restrict genetically engineered crops in the county by 58 percent. Neighboring Jackson County voters passed Measure 15-119, a similar initiative. The two measures passed despite a barrage of negative advertising brought by outside biotech interests in an attempt to defeat them.

These victories build on a growing movement to create GMO-free agricultural “safe zones.” This trend of passing genetically engineered (GE) crop restrictions through local initiative efforts demonstrates that food integrity is becoming an increasing priority for Oregon voters.

On September 30, 2013, members of GMO-Free Josephine County submitted a petition for a county ballot initiative to phase out and prohibit the growing of GE crops in Josephine County to address the risk of genetic contamination to neighboring farms and gardens in the county.

The restrictions also address the risks to humans, pollinators, soil, and water associated with the increased pesticide and herbicide use that GE agriculture typically requires.

Passage and enforcement of Measure 17-58 is critical to the agricultural economy of Josephine County, larger Rogue Valley, and many other regions across Oregon.

The Rogue Valley is a premier seed-growing region for many crops, including beets and chard. GE crops have directly threatened the economic viability of the seed industry in this valley because of the actual and potential cross-contamination from nearby GE plants.

Genetically engineered organisms, (also called “genetically modified organisms” or “GMOs”), are organisms that have undergone laboratory processes to introduce genes from other species to create novel genetics that do not occur in nature, such as splicing fish DNA into tomato, or foreign bacteria into corn.

GMOs are not created using traditional cross-pollination or hybridization techniques. Organic and conventional crops contaminated by GE crops, can no longer be sold and often have to be destroyed by farmers due to consumer expectations, patent infringement liability, and contractual obligations.

When pollen from GE sugar beets, for example, is carried by the wind and pollinates an organic crop of beets or chard, then the owner of that farm will be raising GE crops the next year and will no longer have a truly organic or natural product.

Cross-contamination has cost area businesses money in lost seed production and, under current United States patent law, may place innocent farmers at risk for patent infringement.

This Measure was supported by a great diversity of local business, farm and community supporters who agreed that everyone has a right to grow food free from genetic contamination for themselves and others.

Measure 17-58 prohibits new plantings of GE crops and allows farmers currently growing genetically modified crops a 12-month period to phase out their plantings and transition to non-genetically engineered crops.

The law provides exemptions for certain medical and educational research facilities that use GE organisms in controlled environments that prohibit escape into the open environment.

In early October 2013, shortly after the Josephine County Elections Office approved the proposed ballot title as constitutional, the Oregon legislature passed a bill (SB 863) as part of a controversial special session called by the Governor. SB 863 aims to preempt counties from enacting their own laws regarding all “seeds and seed products.”

The stated objective of the law is to prohibit local regulations regarding genetically engineered crops, effectively relegating all decisions of agriculture to the State, with only Jackson County granted an exemption.

Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families is standing up in good faith for the citizens of Josephine County, and all Oregonians, to assert their rights to self-governance.

"We believe our citizens should have a voice in decisions regarding critical local agricultural matters," says Mary Middleton, chief petitioner for Measure 17-58. "These decisions should be free from undue outside corporate influence and the unnecessary overreaching of state or federal preemption."

Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families intends to continue asserting citizens’ rights to local decision making on matters affecting our local food, farms and future, and will challenge the legality of SB 863.

Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families is a Political Action Committee created by concerned citizens affiliated with GMO Free Josephine County and with the express purpose of supporting and defending Measure 17-58.

Josephine County in Southern Oregon - VOTE YES ON MEASURE 17-58

Please STAND UP in solidarity with Josephine County, Oregon, on May 7. We are asking people nation-wide and globally to show solidarity on this one day as we attempt to draw attention to a dire situation that is occurring in our county right now.

Josephine County in Southern Oregon is one of two counties that together have been a refuge for seed growers who want to grow seeds with genetic integrity. The isolation of our beautiful Rogue Valley, with its myriad narrow tributary watershed valleys and protective mountains and foothills, has made this one of the premier seed-growing regions in the world – a region that has been fairly protected from biotech intrusion and genetic contamination. The narrow spaces that typify our valley bottoms also keep our farms fairly small (many are less than 20 acres), which by nature predisposes them toward biodiversity and natural farming methods. This, in turn, translates into a much higher employment rate per-acre compared to larger mono-cropped farms.

But our local farms are in danger. Syngenta (a multinational, multi-billion dollar Swiss chemical company this is legally prohibited from growing its genetically engineered seeds in Switzerland) has chosen our valley to create a checkerboard of “test” plots for their GMO (genetically modified organism) sugar beets. The pollen from these beets threatens the seed crops of local chard and beet growers. We are also now faced with GMO corn and alfalfa being grown in remote areas, putting our world-class corn seed growers at risk, and threatening our ecosystem with escaped biotech alfalfa.

To address these threats an all-volunteer, grassroots campaign has successfully placed on our May ballot an initiative to ban GMO crops in the county. Public sentiment seems to be strong in our favor, but we are the proverbial David in battle against Goliath.

• Over a million dollars have been contributed from out-of-state organizations including Monsanto, Syngenta, the Farm Bureau, and similar groups for the sole purpose of defeating our measure and a similar measure in neighboring Jackson County.
• The state of Oregon passed a law last year – just after our ballot initiative was approved – to preempt our local authority over agricultural issues. Our county is the ONLY county standing against this unfair law, on behalf of all Oregonians.
• Most media attention on this issue is being focused on Jackson County, which has a larger population. Unfortunately, this means that Josephine County is operating in a sort of media-shadow.



We have been described by supporters in other states as “the little GMO-free movement that could” and “one badass little county in Oregon.” And while this is all true (we are not ashamed to acknowledge our “badassed-ness”), the truth is that we have very little funding and outside media attention. Don’t get us wrong: we are not complaining. In fact, if we need to win this battle with $5 contributions from grandmas and babysitters, then our victory will be that much sweeter considering who our deep-pocketed opponents are. But we all know that money speaks, and our well-funded foes are speaking very loudly.

Here’s where your group comes in. Beginning on Monday, May 5, we are asking you to begin requesting that your social media followers on Facebook and Twitter change their profile pictures on May 7, using the attached STAND UP graphic. The message can mean to them whatever they want it to mean – perhaps they want to STAND UP for First-Nation or Aboriginal peoples, or maybe they will STAND UP for the plight of a beleaguered endangered species. It can have intimate meaning to each person, but it will show solidarity with our grassroots campaign to protect our local economy, beautiful rivers, and world-class seed growers.



We also ask that you please publish, along with the STAND UP graphic, a link to our website: www.oregoniansforsafefarmsandfamilies.org. We need contributions to our campaign to help us leverage the value of people-based marketing and networking as well as to hopefully purchase some radio and/or TV ad space to counter the big-money lies that are already flooding our airwaves.

For a great taste of what The Little GMO-Free Movement that Could has already achieved through all-volunteer input, please also take a moment to enjoy this wonderful video that we are using for social-media advertising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYHgsamepM 

Will you STAND UP with us on May 7?

STAND UP:

• Against outside corporate money
• For local control
• For all Oregonians
• For safe farms and families

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 17-58 May 20, 2014


Thank you!
Daniel Bowden 
Co- Chairperson, GMO Free Josephine County

Lessons learned from the Washington state I-522... - GMO FREE Farmers & Friends

Lessons learned from the Washington state I-522... - GMO FREE Farmers & Friends:



Lessons learned from the Washington state I-522 campaign for GMO food labeling

We now have even more ammunition. Attorney Ellen Brown has written an article, “Monsanto's Global Food Dominance and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” printed in the January 2014 Carotec Health Report.

In the article she says – “In September 2013, the National University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina, published research finding that glyphosate enhances the growth of fungi that produce aflatoxin B1, one of the most carcinogenic of substances.”

See Barberis, et al, “Influence of herbicide glyphosate on growth and aflatoxin B1 production by Aspergillus section Flavi strains ...” Journal of Environmental Science And Health, Part B (2013), vol. 48, pp. 1070-1079.

Bingo! This explains why Seralini's rats at the end of a lifetime feeding trial (“Food And Chemical Toxicology,” September 2012) on RoundUp Ready GMO corn had tumors coming out of their necks the size of golf balls. There is even more confirmation about the harm from GMO glyphosate sprayed crops in the scientific paper – “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?”, Michael Antoniou, et al, 2011, earthopensource.org.

This is the kind of factual ammunition that we need to use to win the GMO food labeling campaigns. 

But here is why the Yes Committee on I-522 in Washington state, and their political consultants Moxie Media, misinterpreted the meaning of their focus groups and surveys and went down the road to defeat with a weak “right to know only” campaign.

Standard politics in America is conducted by political consultants who use focus groups to find out what the voters already believe. Then the political consultant crafts a campaign whereby the candidate tells the voters what they want to hear. 

This is done regardless of whether the campaign message has any basis in reality and regardless of whether the candidate actually intends to follow through on the campaign rhetoric. The classic example would be Barack Obama whose administration (wars, drone assassinations, spying) is a total disconnect from his campaign rhetoric.

But standard politics does not work with a GMO food labeling initiative. 

Yes, the voters already believe that they have a right to know what is in their food. But they do not hold this belief deeply. Any potent practical argument (true or not such as, “cost more, cost more”) coming against “right to know only” will cause “right to know” to crumble. Hence the results of the I-522 campaign.

If “right to know” and “freedom of choice only” campaigns could win elections, then the Libertarian Party would be the majority party, Ron Paul would be president, and the foreign wars, drug war, police state, and income tax would be history.

A GMO food labeling campaign must be a Paul Revere campaign (“the British are coming, the British are coming!” – “the GMOs are coming, the GMOs are coming!”).

“Right to know” is a good opening, but it must be followed up with scientific facts as to why people should want to know what is in their food. Without the “why” the abstract principle fails.

The GMO food labeling campaign must be prepared to tell people what they don't already know and what they may not want, at first, to believe. Advertising researchers tell us that people have to hear a new message at least 7 times before it starts to sink in.

But this can be done. The smaller alternative media such as health newsletters, documentary movies, the American Free Press newspaper, and Jeffrey Smith's tireless campaign have already convinced a significant share of the public that GMOs are harmful and that they must be labeled.

But this is a bigger and more thought-intensive task than what Moxie Media wanted to take on. 

Moxie Media sent the pro I -522 farmer, Seth Williams, into a 3 hour radio interview on KXLY in Spokane with a hostile talk show host, Mike Fitzsimmons, with little to no preparation. Just the vague “right to know” message. This turned out very badly. Spokane, the second largest city in Washington, was a place where we very much needed to garner more votes and Moxie Media threw away a valuable opportunity by failing to prepare.

“The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: How much more do no calculation at all pave the way to defeat!
It is by attention to this point that I can see who is likely to win or lose.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War, chapter one

Yours,

Tom Stahl, Treasurer
Farmers and Friends of I-522
PO Box 296
Waterville, WA 98858

Lessons Learned: Advice For Oregon Leadership

Donna Martz :
So glad you asked! Use early money to educate the public. Make it real, not polite. Don't worry about being politically correct or being sued. The public is not stupid, give them real information. Give them links to look up information on their own, independently. By giving them the resources to research you won't have to pay to get them all the facts. The voting public is the campaign, they not separate from it.

It would a really interesting bit, if someone came up with a graphic timeline on the CA and WA campaigns revealing the monetary contributions to the NO side and those to the YES side, and other pertinent details and the public poles and ending votes.

The MOST important factor for Oregon to win, is to be rid of the isolated leadership group deciding how to spend the money and what direction the YES campaign should go in.

The WA leadership did not allow any input from anyone. When the campaign started to go downhill, they did not listen. When we tried to tell them the ads were too soft, they did not listen. There had even been conjecture that they were failing on purpose, at one point before voting day.

The leadership group should be transparent, and hold public meetings. What is there to be kept secret?

There is nothing to hide about telling the public the truth about the Big 6, gmo's and the money. Do not let a few people decide the future for your children.

Allowing a small leadership group to run the whole campaign, wastes the resource of a lot of talented people.

Allowing a small isolated leadership group to dictate the campaign without input from the volunteers, is no different than allowing Monsanto to decide what you are having for dinner.

Lessons Learned: Steve Hallstrom's Letter To Scott Bates (I-522 Assessment)

Letter Excerpts:

Spring 2012.

Legislative hearings held on bills to label.  Packed halls with strong citizen support against a few professional lobbyists.  Clearly the bills would die in committee.

I suggested an initiative was in order, someone connected me to Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for PCC,  and the discussions started.  Trudy and I agreed to proceed, win or loose, the cause was too important.  We were forming a strategy when Chris McManus filed.  He filed an old version of the bill which had errors.  Trudy worked with Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Tom Stahl to get an improved version.  At this time the schism between a professional and a volunteer effort became clear.  Chris had some experience in campaigns and Trudy argued that we would need paid signatures, I wanted more volunteer involvement.  Chris it turns out wanted to advance his business opportunities, both in managing future initiative signature efforts and his media business.

Summer 2012

At this time Chris and Leah (his wife) had legal control of the PAC including all funds and expense decisions.  This was a concern to me and volunteer organizations and a meeting was held at Lori Lively’s work....

....The signature phase ended in debt.  David Bronner paid the bills.

Winter 2012

David Bronner laid down some expectations.  Hold a summit, get commitments of $3M and he was in.  

The summit was a success, close to $3M of which $750K was Bronners.  The SC now includes Bronner, OCA, FDN, EWG, CFS… as well.  The decision is made to proceed and Bronner brings in Bob Meadows, a consultant to Prop37.....

Read More: Steve Hallstrom's Letter To Scott Bates

Ronnie Cummings, Director Organic Consumers Association, talks about Steve's letter and the I-522 campaign: Download MP3 (17+ mins)

Moms Across America Director Zen Honeycutt's Speech on GE Labeling

Capitol Steps Jan 6th CA State Grange Rally 

Thank you! Good Morning!

How many of you have been volunteering since Prop 37? How many of you marched in the Moms Across America Marches on the 4th of July? How many of you care about what you eat?

First of all I want to say I am truly honored to be here today with all of YOU. Whether you have just started or have been doing this for years, you are what makes America great. You are America’s heros. Also, without you who came before me, the health of my family Todd, Ben, Bodee and Bronson, would not be what it is today. So we thank you very, very much.

I am here today because of love.  

We are all here because we love our families, our communities, our freedoms, our environment, our dogs and cats, our bees and butterflies. 

We love our farmers and we have FAITH in our farmers. 

We have faith that they can and will farm as has been done for thousands of years, 

without GMOs containing foreign proteins and the use of toxic chemicals. 

We have faith in Californians. 

Californians do not back down! 

We will not give up. 

Our love for our families will never end. 

We insist on GMO labeling now!

Some may say that it is not likely, but that doesn’t concern us. After Prop 37, which was a win in so many ways…my son Ben said “Mom, even Star Wars took six episodes.” And they had Yoda!  Our children are our inspiration and that will never end!

My son went GMO free and organic for 4 months and his life threatening allergic reactions were drastically reduced. This past year, his nut allergy decreased from a 19 down to a .2. This is not just about an allergy; this is about LIFE and the people we love.

It is not enough that our family eats organic, however. My son’s future spouses are out there somewhere and if they want to, I want them to be able to experience the profound love that it is to have their own child someday. Today, young couples have a 30% “failure to conceive” rate. That is the lowest in recorded US history.  Everyone needs to know about GMOs!

I asked myself what could I do? Inspired by Jeffrey Smith’s “Tipping Point Network” and Robyn O’Brien’s Patriotism on a Plate” I thought of 4th of July Parades. We could reachthousands locally and millions nationally in a single day. And it would be fun! With the partnership of the CA State Grange and support of Pamm Larry, Kathleen Hallal and many more, I founded Moms Across America and the March to Label GMOs in 4th of July parades. What happened was amazing.

Leaders from all across America emerged. Moms and supporters said, “I am the one who will have a group march in my 4th of July parade and educate my whole town know about GMOs.” And they did. In 172 parades in 44 states, generous, committed people made banners, signs, and floats and sang as they marched down Main streets all across America. We directly reached an estimated 1.5 million people and tens of millions more through the 120 media venues: radio, websites and newspapers, which picked up the story including CNN and Fox News. It was an empowering gathering of community which has helped to grow our cause and raise awareness about GMOs. Our food system may be broken but the people are not. We are creative, courageous and committed and we make a huge contribution to others by sharing with love.

Since the 4th of July parades we have received hundreds of stories, such as: Karen’s son went from daily use of an inhaler to never having to use an inhaler again after switching to an organic diet.

Cindy’s son switched to organic for two years ( and she is a single Mom who makes 40K so this was not easy, but it was important)  and this year when he entered high school,  NOT ONE of his new high school teachers could tell he was ever severely autistic.

His life is dramatically improved. Who knows how our country will benefit by the contribution this one person will make? He has, WE have a NEW future because his Mom found out about GMOs.

The projected level of autism is predicted to be 1 out of 2 of our children in the US within the next 20 years or sooner. That is half our children. What kind of society will we have? What kind of future and economy will we have if our children’s futures are compromised? We Moms say, not on our watch! We will not stop! The love for our children will never end. We want a new future NOW!­­­­

 We demand GMO labeling now so that the millions of people who still don’t know about GMOs can have the ability to take care of the families they love. Moms see that GMOs ARE substantially different and our kids get better when we get them off GMO foods. We demand that people of ALL economic backgrounds have access to GMO free and pesticide free solutions and we have faith in our farmers that they can provide them.

How many of you think that most people really don’t want to know about GMOs and pesticides because it’s too inconvenient? Let’s check in. How many of you know someone with diabetes, obesity, asthma, auto immune disorders, allergies or autism? 

Look around. I assert everyone really wants to know about GMOs because everyone knows someone in America who is sick. 1 out of 2 of our children have some form of chronic. 1 out of 2 of our American men and 1 out of 3 American women are expected to get cancer…so everyone WANTS to know about GMOs and pesticides because we have enough problems & we want solutions! We want a new future now!

So what can we do? Be a leader and inspire leaders! Join us in the celebration and sign up to host a 4th of July parade by Feb 14th “Share the Love, Sign Up your Parade Day” so we can have sponsors support the printing of the GMO flyers to pass out at the parades. 

Be the one to say, MY TOWN WILL KNOW about GMOs. 

Give them a new future. 

Go to momsacrossamerica.com and host one of the 75 parades in California and 589 parades on our list across the USA. Adopt a “Sister City”, another town with a parade, and call and connect with other , moms in the Moms Club, La Leche League or Holistic Moms Network, share about GMOs and support and foster new leaders! When we get outside of our comfort zone, we will win.  

We can reach 600,000 in California and 5 million people in the USA in a single day. We are called “consumers” AND we are also the creators of our future. The future belongs to YOU. The future belongs to me. The future belongs to US. This is OUR time for health and freedom in California and America! Thank you!

Go to www.momsacrosamerica.com for more information. Thank you.

The History Of The GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula

Photo Credit: Diane Urbani de laPaz, Peninsula Daily News

The GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula was started in the spring of 2011 by Kia Armstrong (Photo) from Nash's Organic Produce (Video). She had organized several rallies previously, protesting GMOs and Monsanto. 

She made up small flyers and placed them in various businesses as well as sending invitations through email for the first meeting. I volunteered to be the facilitator of the group at that first meeting and another person offered to keep meeting notes.

We met at a regularly scheduled time every month, had an agenda (sent out ahead of each meeting) and stuck to a time frame. This is important to keep people engaged. We shared information and began to develop educational materials.

Our first event was the Lavender Farm Fair. By then we had created a tri-fold poster of information about GMOs, had printed educational materials, and gave away GMO shopping guides. We also held a bake sale to raise funds to pay for the materials we were giving away. We continued these efforts through Farm Day October 2013, sponsoring a booth at community events and outreach. We also participated in Millions Against Monsanto rallies twice a year. When the initiative was filed, we helped gather signatures. Efforts in 2013 continued to include education about GMOs as well as information about I-522.

A van load of folks went to Olympia for hearings of House and Senate bills.

We collected email addresses at events and used a listserv to keep the list private. We only shared information about GMOs and avoided requests for other subjects.

GAG also developed a mission statement. This helped to keep the group focused.Through a facilitated process, we identified our priorities which resulted in the formation of three sub-committees. 

They were a committee that collected and created educational materials, another that collected scientific research (peer reviewed and edited) and a legislative/legal committee. 

These functioned successfully for awhile and provided reports to the group. However, for various reasons people left, others joined and the groups gradually stopped meeting. We also had people available to speak to groups and wrote articles for newsletters of local natural foods markets.

NOTE: GAG is based in Clallam County that has a strong Republican lean and a large senior population. According to "Yes On 522" campaign exit polls, these two groups voted against I-522 in the 2013 election. Three Olympic Peninsula counties, Clallam, Jefferson and Kitsap, voted Yes On 522

What works:

1. EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION! People on the peninsula didn't know anything about GMOs or had mis-information about them. Develop and distribute eye-catching, informative brochures and pamphlets. Here's what we used from (with permission from Nature's Path Organics). Let people know where to go if they want to learn more. Talk to them in person. Create interesting tri-fold posters. Then get out into the community to share the information. Hosting a booth at large events works well. We also created a food game, using packaged foods. People were asked to guess if the food contained GMOs or not. A "yes" or "no" sticker was on the bottom. Great learning tool!

2. Regular meetings, agendas and sticking to time limits.

3. Write articles for newsletters, letters to the editor and other media. 

4. Setting up a Facebook page. A website would be good too, but costs money. Other social media tools. 

5. The film series in Port Townsend was an excellent way to generate interest. People then could get involved. This was a highly successful tactic. 

What didn't work:

I think overall in the state, we had the cart before the horse. We had an initiative asking people to label something they knew nothing about, which neatly paved the way for a fear and intimidation strategy by the No campaign. People need information. The YES campaign didn't address any reason why we should know what is in our food.

Dr. Beverly Goldie

GMO Awareness Group, North Olympic Peninsula

Sequim, WA

Lessons Learned: Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap Counties

Initiative to the Legislature 522 Concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods:

Clallam, Jefferson and Kitsap counties won the I-522 vote with minimal support from the Yes On 522 campaign.

Clallam County has a strong Republican lean with a large senior population. Internal 522 campaign polling showed "Yes Voters" were primarily Democrat and under 60 years old.

All three Olympic Peninsula counties had strong grassroots leadership:

Clallam: Beverly Goldie Facilitator GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula and Dr. Frank Springob
Jefferson: Judy Alexander and Dr. Richard Doherty, GMO Jeff Co
Kitsap: Laurie Olsen and Jennifer Newell

In 2010, Beverly Goldie organized the GAG Group and helped Jefferson an Kitsap counties develop their grassroots outreach programs in 2013 that included:

Events
Letters to the editors
Organic Food Store Support
Regular Meetings


With support from the Port Townsend Food Coop, Judy Alexander organized a GMO Film series from August-September that had good community attendance.

Did Seattle PBS Station Sway Voters To Reject GMO Labeling Initiative?

       
              

Next Meal: Engineering Food was posted on YouTube May 7, 2013 and premiered six days later in the San Francisco Bay Area on KQED Channel 9. Originally, the thirty-minute special report was scheduled to air on PBS stations nationwide, after the Nov. 5 Washington State election, Nov. 13.

Randy Brinson, Executive Director of KCST Programming, decided to broadcast the QUEST science program on the Seattle PBS station with a viewing audience of almost two-thirds of Washington's population, a couple of days before the end of the election because it was "timely".

On the Washington State ballot was Initiative 522, a bill that would require genetically engineered foods to be labeled.

TV Guide states the premise of the show is "an examination of genetically engineered crops, including how they're created; their pros and cons; and what the future might hold for research and such regulations as labeling."


Photo:  Grassroots Volunteers for I-522, Spokane, WA

Upon learning of the re-scheduling of "Next Meal" on KCST, Washington State grassroots volunteer supporters of I-522 sent e-mails and made phone calls to the station in an attempt to prevent the program from airing days before the end of the election. Since the program, funded by the National Science Foundation, heavily featured the pros of genetically engineered crops and did not fully explore the cons that it could sway voters to reject the ballot initiative.

When the program was shown in May, audience members posted comments on the KQED website and the KQED Science YouTube page regarding the biased bio-tech slant.

KQED member "Jenny" posted the comment below 5 months ago that represents viewer back lash:

"In your description of this piece, you state:
'Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks?'

"I heard a lot of talk about the benefit, but I didn't hear anything about the risks.
"Where are the scientists on the other side of the argument?
"This special doesn't even try to be serious.
"I am amazed that KQED would put something like this on the air."

The day after "Next Meal" was first shown on KCST October 30, two articles were published regarding the show:

Steven Peters, Natural Revolution, stated in his article, "PBS to Air Pro-GMO Film in Washington Days Before Vote on Labeling Initiative,"

"This film Next Meal: Engineering Food is little more than a commercial for the biotech industry. It’s a shame that public broadcasting has been co-opted by big corporations. The airing of the documentary film, Next Meal: Engineering Food is indeed not an impartial look at both sides of the GMO controversy. The undertones are very much Pro-GMO; not showing both sides equally, but in favor of GMOs 'and the chemicals used to grown them being safe'."

Retired US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson wrote in her Seattle Examiner article, "Et Tu, PBS?" that:

"This program looks like the propaganda put forth by the chemical industries who are promoting GMOs. On the program, they trotted out an array of plant biologists, all singing the praises of GE crops and how they are environmentally friendly and are going to feed the world."

Last week, the Yes On 522 campaign conceded the election. Washington State voters failed to pass I-522, the initiative that would have labeled genetically engineered foods, by the narrow margin of 39,000 votes (49%-51%).

In her letter to supporters, Trudy Bialic, Co-Chair of Yes On 522 and PCC Natural Markets director of consumer affairs, did not mention the Seattle PBS stations broadcast. Instead she focused on the 22 million dollars spent by the opposition: "As we continue to push for labeling, we also must work to reverse the perversion of our democratic election procedures with unlimited corporate spending."

Did the four broadcasts of Next Meal between Oct. 30 and Nov. 5 sway voters? Did it, in fact, influence the outcome of the Washington State election?

If so, it is a huge slap in the face to several KCST donors:


PCC Natural Markets is a KCST local programming underwriter. The certified organic retail cooperative that operates nine stores serving 46,000 active members, spent over $250,000 to collect signatures to put the initiative on the ballot last year and to fund the "Yes On 522" campaign this year.

The Newman's Own Foundation is a KCST matching fund donor. Royalties paid by Newman's Own Organics for use of the Newman name help support foundation activities. Nell Newman, the oldest daughter of Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman and founder of Newman's Own Organics, states on the company website: "GEs have no place in organic agriculture and [we] are calling for a moratorium until more scientific research has been done on the safety of this technology."
                           
Both organizations were asked if they would support a boycott on PBS, along with Grassroots Volunteers for I-522, GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula, the Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America and GMO Free USA, by withdrawing their financial support to the Seattle station.


The Seattle based PCC replied with this e-mail:

"At this time, PCC does not plan a boycott of KCTS for the airing of this show.

"It would be unfair to boycott KCTS for airing this show even with the assumption (and it is an assumption) that they aired it to persuade public opinion to vote No on this initiative.

"The Seattle Times editorial board chose to support No on 522 but we did not pull our advertising from their papers.

"We honor and agree with freedom of the press and free speech.

"We plan to continue to support KCTS with underwriting of local programming.

"Sincerely, Laurie Albrecht Director of Marketing / PCC Natural Markets"

The News's Own Foundation Response:

"Newman’s Own Foundation turns all royalties and profits from the sale of Newman’s Own products into charitable donations.  To date, Paul Newman and Newman’s Own Foundation have given over $380 million to thousands of charities around the world.  

It is the Foundation’s policy not to comment on individual grantees. However, we do review each organization prior to awarding grants, to determine its fit within the Foundation’s priorities. Further information about our grant making policies is available on the Foundation’s website at www.NewmansOwnFoundation.org.

We greatly appreciate your interest in the foundation."

In a statement sent to KCST members before the first broadcast of the program, Brinson, a 35-year public broadcasting veteran, defended his decision to protesting members that "Next Meal" was "a journalistic piece that explores the science behind genetic engineering while including multiple perspectives on the issue."

Photo: UC Berkeley biologist Peggy Lemaux is genetically engineering sorghum to make it more easily digestible. Sorghum, a cereal related to corn, is a staple food for 300 million people in Africa. Credit: Arwen Curry, KQED

Is Next Meal objective journalism or an infomercial for the biotech industry?

Charles Mish, a retired journalism, English and film professor, looked up the Society of Professional Journalists "Code of Ethics.”   Here's what he found in  Section 4: Accuracy and Objectivity:

"Good faith with the public is the foundation of all worthy journalism.

"1. Truth is our ultimate goal.

"2. Objectivity in reporting the news... serves as the mark of an experienced professional. It is the standard of performance towards which we strive. We honor those who achieve it.

"3. There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness."

According to Wikipedia,  Journalist ethics and standards comprise principles of "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability-- as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public."

To answer the "journalistic" question, this survey was sent to journalists across the county to get their perspective regarding the controversy.

Research Notes

• Next Meal: The First Five+ Minutes (GMO Skeptics air time 0:31 seconds)
• Next Meal: Complete Log/Rating (GMO Skeptics total air time: 1:50 minutes)

Lessons Learned: Brandi Gibson

(48) Photos of Yes on 522 - Weekly Women's GMO Free News:

Brandi Gibson Start earlier!! I didn't get involved until Sept when Pamm Larry came to Oly. We fought hard here, but I think had we empowered more folks earlier, & gotten to the moms via MAA or school PTAs, we may have made a bigger impact. However, looking at re voter turnout, it may have just been our timing. So proud of all the 522 volunteers!! We made a difference & our voice IS being heard!!

Lessons Learned: Grassroots Supporter

What lessons did you learn from the I-522 campaign?

I really think Oregon needs to wait until 2016 and in the mean time to the real ground work to gain the broad base support from farmers and unions, and educate and inoculate voters.

More food and consumer advocacy groups would definitely be able to support a longer term campaign building toward a ballot initiative we know will pass.

 In my opinion not only is 2014 too soon but I don't think there's any money out there. I doubt Dr. Bronner's can throw another $3 million into another campaign. Especially after pouring major money into two back to back failures in California and Washington.

We need the extra time to also do the fundraising so the ballot can succeed. If we move ahead with a 2014 ballot initiative it will be not only underfunded but we will not have the resources to reach enough voters and build enough political support to combat the millions that the GMA and Monsanto will throw down.

I don't see how a lot of key food and consumer advocacy groups will be able to support a ballot measure in 2014. There's just no way that's winnable with the current or foreseeable resources we have or will have at our disposal.

While these groups may support the ballot initiative process they also recognize that we have to put in the real work and time to ensure it will succeed - which is the lesson we seem to have not yet learned from CA and WA.

I really think Oregon needs to wait until 2016 and in the mean time to the real ground work to gain the broad base support from farmers and unions, and educate and inoculate voters. We would definitely be able to support a longer term campaign building toward a ballot initiative we know will pass.

What is your 2 cents regarding how the Yes on 522 campaign operated?

I think they didn't have the best grasp of how to utilize or support the grassroots.

That said, the grassroots wasn't what is should have been because we didn't take the solid year or two to build it up.

They also got a late start, which isn't necessarily their fault, Moxie Media wasn't hired until March, and it took a bit to get off the ground. I think we all-around just jumped the gun.

The Yes on 522 campaign would probably have been enough as it was if we'd had a solid year or two of building up union and ag support as well as done adequate voter education and inoculation.

I don't think they did so poorly that we can 100% blame them. We didn't put in the longer term base building necessary to ensure that the initiative would pass.

The Koch brothers and other conservatives spent unprecedented amounts of money to stop Obama's reelection. His message to Americans was strong enough to enough voters that the money spent by the opposition wasn't able to sway the electorate.

Lessons Learned: Jeri Weinhold

My observations on the GMO Labeling Initiative

By Jeri Weinhold, GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula

Things to be considered for future campaigns.

The NO campaign did many things right:

1. They started the paid website advertising first and under many different search words and removed those that didn’t get hits early in the game—spending a little more in the beginning, but reducing costs as they went on.  Our paid ads were a quick let’s get things up with a request to contribute rather than any facts.

2. They sent out multiple post card mailings.  They may not have had to send out as many, but getting them out early on was a good strategic plan and having one arrive on the same day as the voter pamphlets was an excellent idea.

3. They stated their information on their TV ads as facts.  Albeit, it was misinformation, but the audience didn’t know it.  Our response to those ads was simply they are giving you misinformation and go to our website to see the truth.  Our ads needed to state facts.  Our “We have a right to know” stance did not win over those who listened to vote No misinformation: it only impacted people who felt like their choice was somehow compromised.  The fear and confusion the NO ads generated turned undecided voters who did not know the whole story or saw choice as less important to them into NO votes. (Many believe that if the FDA or USDA have blessed GMO’s, they can’t be bad!)

4. They had people on their ads who lent credibility to the NO position, including an organic female farmer with a PHD.  Finding out why these people did not agree with our YES position would help future initiatives understand and create a better model.

5. Their main spokeswoman was articulate and confident in her position.  Having a professional public speaker who can distance themselves from emotions and appear factual is a plus. Objectively review the I522 debate.  From the perspective of an uninformed viewer, who appeared to be the most convincing speaker?  Although our speakers were passionate and articulate, they didn’t command the space in the same way.  It is not a criticism, but simply an observation.  Sometimes when you are too close to a situation, the arguments are tinged with the emotions you feel and may appear radical rather than fact.

WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER

6. I know it was decided to stick to the simple “we have a right to know” slogan, but most people do not know why. The fear of the impact of eating GMO foods and the threat to our environment needs to be communicated. The fear is real and it is not running a negative campaign.                                      

A.    Have a veterinarian talk about the damage to the animals that directly eat the GMO grains.  Have them also talk about the still births and problems they have seen with fertility.  

B.     Have someone talk about the difference in using BT organically and the way it is being used by the chemical companies.

C.     Address the fact that there has never been any long term testing to humans by GMO seed companies so any health issues may take centuries to expose just like tobacco and asbestos.

D.    Talk about the need for labeling because there are no potential issues that can ever be proven because we do not know what we are eating in our food.

E.     Have someone from the organic seed companies talk about who owns the seeds, how cross-pollination is impacting organic seed and the diversity of local seed and how soon we can not go back to normal seed becoming dependent on the drug and chemical companies.

 7.  Talk to the small businesses.  I know of one grocery that had their supplier tell them they wouldn’t    deliver to them if I522 passed.  Have some meetings or go to the small groceries ahead of time to talk about the empty threat of suppliers.  Talk to the small businesses that create a food product.  Let them know ahead of time what impact the initiative will or won’t have on them.

    

       8.  Ask farmers which portion of the initiative created a problem for them and try to address the problem before it is submitted as an initiative for signatures. This may get more small farmers on our YES side. Read the Capital Press (or whatever agricultural newspaper in the area) to gain insights into what the farmers are being told to know how to approach the farmers.   The organic label is a paperwork nightmare and small farmers, I believe, saw their time being spent on perceived paperwork required for labeling which made a YES vote a bad choice for them.

9.      Get people from different political backgrounds to do an ad together showing that this is not just a     liberal issue.  Have people contact their respective political parties and talk to neighbors to let them know their position so we gain more political allies.  Many people saw this initiative as liberal activism.

    10.   Review all the newspaper articles that favored a No vote to find out the improvements that need to be   made to the initiative or to better inform the papers to the history of why we need to label.

    11.   Talk to everyone on the same side.  Informal groups were formed due to lack of communication.  We could have been much more powerful if we weren’t trying to reinvent the wheel.  Simple things like how to get yard signs, posters, car stickers and what should be the cost.  Different answers, different people—be more organized, define areas, communicate and mobilize the volunteers to carry out the agenda!!

12.    When the Washington State November 5^th Ballot voter handbook came out, they valued state costs over the next six years for the I522 initiative to be 3.3 million dollars.  Those who were undecided based on the “fight for right to know” then became swayed by the implementation cost to the state.

13.    Do we have any study of the real costs for labeling?  What it costs companies to put Natural on their label or gluten free?  Anything to combat the concept that labeling will cost the consumer.  What is the cost to use sugar vs corn syrup—many companies have voluntarily done that. What is the cost for a NON-GMO label to the manufacturer and do they pass that cost on to the public?  Use these facts as well as convincing the audience there is nothing to fear.  Help them to realize what the consumer wants the consumer gets!

14.    Is there any way to separate out chemically treated or cross species GMO’s from perceived healthy GMO’s for the sake of the labeling issues?  It was never mentioned that long term test of the chemical GMO’s should be required to bypass the need for labeling.

  15.     Is there any way to know whether the chemical companies rank and file eat GMO foods?