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

Erin Brockovich Sent Us A Water Expert To Test The Flint River Water

The transcript is from above video clip.

Melissa Mays, "Water You Fighting For?": We started doing more research and we found out in February that there were really high levels of lead.

The EPA maximum is 15 parts per billion. There is one citizen that she had 397 parts-per-billion. We started pushing the testing and telling citizens - get your water tested. Please get your water tested.

More people were popping out with forty parts-per-billion thirty parts-per-million which is not safe.

As we were trying to contact the EPA, we found out that there's actually no safe level for lead exposure. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/fs_consumer.cfm

So, they're trying to tell us it's fine. It's only small areas. You guys be fine.

Don't worry about the total trihalomethanes. Don't worry about the e.coli. Don't worry about the lead. It's safe.

On top of all this, soon after the actual switch, our water was brown yellow. Mine was blue and green because of the copper. Just disgusting. The smell either smelled like bleach or it smelled like an old stagnant pond or it smelled like dirt. Just horrible. And they're like it'll be fine. Just run your tap for a few minutes. It will be fine.

WNEM TV 5

The mayor kept saying, "I drink it everyday. It's perfectly fine."

And so people were getting upset.

Because we're told that you have to pay these ridiculously high rates for water that has such low quality.

We got a hold of Erin Brockovich and she sent a water expert out to help us, Bob Bowcock. He's been in water treatment for thirty years. He said it was a mess. He told them on Valentine's Day, we had a large March, and he told the city that we were out of compliance for the copper rule because they weren't doing the proper testing and we had no corrosion control. Which is unheard of.

So, we were yelling and screaming about this. They told us, "oh, you're just a crazy bunch of moms," no big deal.

We had our water tested and it came back with copper and lead. High copper and lead. I went ahead and had our blood tested and we found out my husband, myself and our three sons all had copper poisoning. So, we started working on the side effects and encouraging everyone to get tested.

Test your water. Test your blood. See a doctor.

Because the damage from lead poisoning is irreversible.

On top of it, its not just lead. We've got copper. We've got tin. We've got aluminum.

All neurotoxins. All extremely dangerous, when you introduce them to hot water.

Consuming them is bad.

But, also showering. Doing your dishes.

I have an environmental physician now and she said even the clothes you wear heavy metals are stored in the fabric and it rubs on your skin or if you sweat in them or your sheets at night you're going to absorb that.

So, it's a constant, it's a constant toxic danger to even be in your own home or in on your own clothes.

So, on top of the extremely high bills, we were buying bottled water.

Just to be able to cook. I we had a documentation come out to the house and it took us 12 bottles of water to make a pot of jambalaya.

So, the cost was ridiculous, especially since we have two puppies, a cat and three very active 11 12 and 17 year old sons that consume a lot of water.

So, there's a lot of people that actually lost their homes. They couldn't afford the water bill so they would put a lien on the property and home be foreclosed upon. So, right now there's a lawsuit for 21,000 people who lost their homes due to their water bills and the lien being placed on them.

Now, that part isn't illegal.

What is illegal is that, in 2011, our mayor raised our rates illegally 35%.

A judge just told them you have to roll back the rates.

You have to do this, this, this and they still haven't done it.

Our bill hasn't gone down and it's actually gone up. We received a bill for one week for one unit and it was a $193.88. For water that we weren't even using except basically to flush the toilet and to bath.

HR 1599/DARK Act Letter To Senator

Dear Senator ..................,

When I became a mother, I did not know that I should have studied medicine in college, but that is what it takes for me, and thousands of other mothers. My children, like so many others, suffer from autoimmune issues that the vast majority of medical professionals are not trained to treat. Today, 54% of American children have a chronic health condition. Children who suffer from allergies, autism, asthma, ADHD and autoimmune issues are now very common in every classroom, and the numbers are climbing. Massive collections of Epi pens fill the cabinets in every school nurse’s office. As parents, we need to be very careful about our children’s diet, and we need to know what ingredients are in everything. Parenting is not the same as it was when I was a child. When I was in school I did not know one child with a food allergy that could kill them. Now there are at least two children with such allergies in every class.


In fact, GMOs have been linked to allergies in the case of the Starlink corn.

The science is in no way settled on the matter of the safety of these foods. Many high-level scientists with impeccable credentials are NOT convinced that GE foods are safe.

A major concern that I have with GM foods is the level of pesticides used in their farming. Approximately 80% of all GM crops are what are referred to as “Roundup Ready” or glyphosate tolerant. So the foods are sprayed with glyphosate, which would normally kill the plants, but the GE plants are resistant, so they keep growing and they are sprayed sometimes 2-3 times before harvest. The problem with this technology is a growing weed resistance to glyphosate. So farmers are applying it in increasing amounts in a futile attempt to combat the “super weeds”.

Since the glyphosate is continuing to fail, beginning this year, they are ADDING Dicamba or 2,4-D to that mix. We have also found that contrary to industry claims, glyphosate actually bioaccumulates in our systems. In fact, in three different random samplings, two groups of nursing mothers in the U.S. and one group of mothers in Germany, glyphosate was found in their breast milk. In fact, the mother with the highest detectable level in Pennsylvania is living with the heartbreak of an infant with cancer.

These chemicals do not wash off, but rather, they are absorbed into the plant and its food, and it goes into our bodies.

Toxins in our bodies are a great concern on many levels. The addition of glyphosate to our food supply is frightening because the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, has stated unequivocally that it causes cancer in mammals and therefore is likely to also cause cancer in humans. Many countries are in fact moving to ban glyphosate, which is a key chemical for GM farming.

Toxins in children’s bodies today are higher than ever.

Interview With Barbara Loe Fisher President Of The National Vaccine Information Center

WWGF News host Kathleen Hallal interviews Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a non-profit charity she co-founded with parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982. For the past three decades, she has led a national, grassroots movement and public information campaign to institute vaccine safety reforms and informed consent protections in the public health system. NOTE: The above video is the complete 1 hour 7 minute session.

Time Code ListNOTE: The time code numbers below link to the highlight on the YouTube Page. The time code list is also on the YouTube page in comments. 

1:05 Barbara's background 
1:40 Came from a medical family
1:50 Never asked questions about vaccines, 23 doses of 7 vaccines
2:14 The 4th DPT Shot 
2:42 I walked into my sons room...
3:02 I called out his name...
3:08 How old was he?
3:44 It never occurred to me that he was unconscious 
3:54 My mother called me
4:06 You have to go wake him up
4:43 I didn't know what I know now...
5:26 He woke up the next day - he was very quite. We kind of forgot about it
6:02 My son is constantly sick...
6:16 I took him to the doctor...
6:42 Take him home and love him...
7:05 Eventually, he was diagnosed with minimal brain damage, multiple learning disabilities, ADD, dyslexia...  
7:43 My son today is 37 years old 
8:21 I see so many children who are much more severely damaged


8:28 The reason I continue to do this work...I've been doing this work for 33 years and we have seen this explosion of chronic disease and disability among our children
9:20 We can't leave off the research table...
9:50 The price tag our country is paying for these chronically ill individuals is astonishing
10:15 For 30 years, NVIC has been calling for the good science to be done
10:30 It is unfortunate that the government and the medical community is writing off the children who regress after vaccination as just coincidences, that there is not cause and effect...this is totally unacceptable, the mothers of this country have to quit our jobs and become full time care givers of our children...it is up to us to urge  these companies and the government to do better science.

Examining FDA's Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food Ingredients | Energy & Commerce Committee

Examining FDA's Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food Ingredients | Energy & Commerce Committee:

Background Documents and Information: 

Hearing Notice

Background Memo

H.R. 4432, To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered organism,the labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes.

Opening Statements: 

Health Subcommittee Chairman Joseph R. Pitts

Witnesses: 

Panel I

Michael M. Landa

• Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Panel II

Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD

• Cooperative Extension Specialist
• Animal Genomics and Biotechnology, Department of Animal Science
• University of California, Davis
• Witness Testimony and Supplemental Material (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Scott Faber

• Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
• Environmental Working Group
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Rep. Kate Webb

• Assistant Majority Leader
• Vermont House of Representatives
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Stacey Forshee

• Fifth District Director
• Kansas Farm Bureau
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Tom Dempsey

• President and CEO
• Snack Food Association
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Congress: 

113th

The transcript of HR 4432 will be available here (GPO can take 90 days - 202/512-1800)

Colorado Citizens' Initiative Review Panelists

Colorado Citizens' Initiative Review:



Expert Panel 1 Sept. 8, 2014 

Proponents:

Dr. Ray Seidler: Ph.D., former EPA Scientist

Dr. Ray Seidler is a former Senior Scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency, who wrote the EPA’s Bio safety Plan. During his career, Dr. Ray Seidler studied the development of methods to evaluate/predict the survival, multiplication,gene exchange, effects, and dispersal of recombinant organisms (GMOs); the origins, and health significance's of pathogens in surface and drinking water, industrial and agricultural environments.While at EPA he was invited to give over 100 talks on GMO biosafety issues throughout the world. During the 1980′s he was the Chief EPA scientist involved in monitoring the first ever microorganism GMO releases into the open environment.

Cheryl Gray, RD

Cheryl Gray is a Registered Dietitian and natural born leader who inspires others with her passion for individualized nutrition, functional medicine, and wellness. With over 20 years’ experience, Cheryl has worked as a Functional Medicine consultant in the nutraceutical industry where she continues to educate physicians on the value of nutrition and functional medicine principles. In 2001 she founded and served as Executive Director for the highly successful Functional Medicine Forum in Colorado using her leadership skills to create a network of high-profile speakers, providing a series of monthly lectures to physicians and other healthcare providers on the science-based principles of functional medicine. Recently, Cheryl produced the Seeds of Doubt Conference, a special one-day seminar for doctors and healthcare practitioners, which examined the detrimental effects of GMOs on our health and the environment. The conference presented the latest compelling research from leading experts around the world and brought to the forefront the importance of educating practitioners and patients of the growing concerns around the effects of genetically modified crops on our environment and health. She regularly consults with physicians and other health care providers helping them incorporate functional medicine into their daily practice.

Opponents:

Don Shawcroft
Don Shawcroft is a fourth generation rancher from Conejos County, Colorado. Don has been working for the Colorado Farm Bureau (CFB) since 1986 and is currently the President of the CFB. Don has previously served agriculture as the Chairman of the Board for the United States Animal Identification Organization, as Chairman of the Colorado Ag Water Alliance and currently as a Director for the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Back home in the valley, in addition to managing the family ranching operation, Don serves on the Board of the Colorado Choice Health Plans and San Luis Valley Health as well as being active in his church. He and his wife Ann are the proud parents of six, grandparents of nine, with a son and son-in-law currently working on the ranch.


Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc.
Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin directs the University of California System wide Biotechnology Research and Education Program, which covers ten campuses and three national laboratories. She is co-director of a National Institutes of Health Training Grant in Biomolecular Technology and has also served as director of the UC Davis Biotechnology Program. Dr. Newell-McGloughlin travels worldwide for various organizations including the U.S. State Department and the USDA as an expert on biotechnology research and education issues. She has recently provided briefings for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation directors and thePontifical Academy of Science at the Vatican on future opportunities and challenges in biotechnology. Her science training is from Trinity College, Dublin; University College Dublin, and the National University of Ireland.She has extensively studied issues related to mandatory labeling systems of food ingredients in the E.U. as well as proposed single-state labeling systems similar to Proposition 105 in the United States.

BBC News | Sci/Tech | GM food safety row

BBC News | Sci/Tech | GM food safety row:


Dr Arpad Pusztai: Vindicated 

Twenty established scientists have come out in support of a colleague who said that rats fed on genetically-modified potatoes suffered damage to their immune systems.

The UK Government is now facing calls for an urgent safety review of genetically-modified (GM) foods and a row is brewing in the scientific community over the apparent suppression of important research.

Dr Arpad Pusztai, 68, made a public statement about his fears last August. He was effectively forced to retire by the Rowett Research Institute after it accused him of misinterpreting his results.

But the group of scientists, drawn from 13 different countries, have re-examined his work and signed a joint memorandum supporting his conclusions.

GM crops: Moratorium requested

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Labour MP Alan Simpson said Dr Pusztai had been "completely vindicated" and called for a moratorium on GM food.

Last year, the doctor's £1.6m research project, funded by the Scottish Office, found that when rats were fed on GM potatoes for a period of 10 days, the development of certain vital organs was impaired and their immune systems suffered.

Reports in the press also says the size of the rats' brains decreased.



Speaking on BBC Two's Newsnight programme, group spokesman Dr Vyvyan Howard, a Liverpool University toxipathologist, said he believed Dr Arpad's data was "sound".

David J. Brown - Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences | College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

David J. Brown - Heavy NoOn44 article commenter.

David J. Brown

Associate Professor

Curriculum Vitae (pdf)

EducationPhD/MS Soil Science/Biometry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002 MS Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1997 BS/BA Electrical Engineering/Rhetoric, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1988

Research InterestsMy research group is focused on measuring, modeling and explaining the spatial variability of soil properties and processes at hillslope to regional scales.  In pursuing this research, we make extensive use of digital terrain modeling, optical remote sensing, spatial statistics, and proximal soil sensing techniques (e.g. VisNIR spectroscopy).

Article: 

Biotech's Losing Game of Whack-A-Mole

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

Rick North, you can't really be intellectually honest and cite earthopensource as a credible source for science. Cherry picking a handful of poor studies in weak journals is advocacy, not science. Highlighting a handful of scientists who have doubts about GMOs does not balance out the vast majority who believe they are as safe as conventionally bred crops.

And you completely misunderstand the comparison of anti-GMO folks with climate change deniers. They are clearly not the same people. The argument is that they are equivalent in how they operate in a hermetically sealed world, reading only their own websites with carefully cultivated truth. And they are both clearly anti-science. But the anti-GMO folks are almost entirely on the left while the climate change deniers are almost entirely on the right.

On this forum, there have been multiple links provided to independent research, but clearly you haven't taken the time to explore this information seriously. It hasn't been an honest dialog. Instead you fall back on the giant conspiracy that all scientists have been corrupted by the 197th largest corporation in America. This is exactly analogous to the climate change deniers who believe that there is a vast government-academic conspiracy on climate science. Those on the right distrust government. Those on the left inherently distrust corporations. Both put their fingers in their ears and shut out the vast body of science on the GMO and climate change issues, respectively, by simply asserting that the academic enterprise has been corrupted by the enemy (government or corporations, take your pick).

If someone wants to get a balanced, informed, and accessible take on this debate from a science writer who actually supports labeling, spend some time reading Nathanael Johnson at Grist. I don't agree with everything Nathanael writes, but he is honest and informed, something we certainly need more of in this discussion.

http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

The claim that there is no independent research on GMOs is a wildly false internet meme. For the formal approval process for ANY new food or drug, a company must pay for the science to document their submission (either done in house or more often by private firms). But that doesn't mean that academics haven't conduced research as well.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) recently released a report based on thousands of academic studies.
"EASAC also sought to placate green critics who claim that the majority of scientific studies on GMO safety are biased because they are carried out by researchers who are paid for by industrial lobby groups.

“We estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,” said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC."

http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union:

This letter explains why Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) supports Measure 27, the ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of foods and food additives produced using genetic engineering sold in Oregon, or produced in Oregon.
First and foremost, consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating. Many laws, at the federal, state and even local level, are designed to inform consumers of facts they want to know about food. These include laws that require labeling of juice made from concentrate, milk that is homogenized, imported food as to its country of origin, food that is frozen or irradiated, as well as ingredients and additives. All these foods are regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, this information is required to be given to consumers at the point of purchase because consumers care and want to know about these aspects of food. With this information, they are able to make informed choices for themselves and their families.


We thus disagree with the thrust of the letter sent to you on October 4, 2002, by FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford. Unlike FDA, we think the differences between genetically engineered food and non-engineered traditional foods are significant. We believe that FDA should have required labeling of genetically engineered food as a material fact under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Indeed, several years ago more than 50 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner agreeing that genetic engineering is a material fact under the FDCA.

NOTE: On October 17, 2006, Lester M. Crawford pled guilty to a conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating. He received a sentence of three years of supervised probation and a fine of about $90,000.

Label debate pits big name vs. big bucks

Pamplin Media Group:

Supporters of a ballot measure requiring food companies to label genetically engineered foods have about $195,000 in campaign contributions and former Beatle Paul McCartney on their side.

On the other hand, while the measure's opponents may lack star power, they have a whopping $5 million in hand, contributed primarily by international food and biotechnology companies intending to snuff out the movement before other states get similar ideas.

Welcome to the battle over Ballot Measure 27, which is turning out to be among Oregon's most expensive Ñ and mismatched Ñ ballot measure campaigns.

Oregon is the first state to ask voters to decide if labels should be required on genetically altered foods. Previous attempts to pass national legislation requiring labels on such foods have gone nowhere.

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Favor

Measure 27 - Arguments in Favor:

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has been working since 1999 to pass federal legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. We strongly support Oregon Ballot Measure 27.

According to a June 13-17, 2001 survey from ABC News, 93 percent of those polled said the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it has been genetically modified. ABC News stated "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare."

While legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods nationwide was introduced into both the 106th and the current 107th U.S. Congress, it has not received the priority treatment needed to pass it into law.

In the European Union, Australia, Japan, China and many other nations, the controversy over genetically engineered foods has received significant media coverage. As a result, mandatory labeling laws have been enacted in all those countries. Yet in the United States, we still don't have this right.

The food industry does not want labels on genetically engineered foods because they are concerned people will start asking questions such as "Have these foods ever been safety tested for human consumption?" The answer to that question is "NO!" The FDA decided that genetically engineered foods are "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered foods and need no additional safety testing or labeling. Currently the biotech companies do not even need to notify the FDA that they are bringing a new product to market. The very corporations that have a financial interest in selling the products get to decide whether they are safe or not.

Oregon voters are smart and have often shown leadership in important areas of public concern before the rest of the country. Oregon citizens now have another opportunity to show leadership in the area of labeling genetically engineered foods.

Tell big business that you want the right to know if your foods have been genetically engineered. Vote YES on Measure 27!

(This information furnished by Craig Winters, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods.)


"COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ON GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED (GE) FOODS (UPDATED FEBRUARY 1, 2002) Below is a compilation of poll results concerning of genetically engineered foods, listed in chronological order:

• 90% of Americans said foods created through genetic engineering processes should have special labels on them (Rutgers University' Food Policy Institute study, 11/01)
•  90% of American farmers support labels on biotech products if they are scientifically different from conventional foods and 61% support labels on biotech products even if not scientifically different. (Farm Foundation/Kansas State University, survey of farms throughout the U.S., 9/01).
• 93% of Americans say the federal government should require labels saying whether it's been genetically modified, or bioengineered. "Such near unanimity in public opinion is rare" (ABC News.com poll, 6/01).
• 86% of Americans think that the government should require the labeling of all packaged and other food products stating that they include corn, soy or other products which have come from genetically modified crops (Harris Poll, 6/00).
• 86% of Americans want labels on genetically engineered foods (International Communications Research, 3/00)
• 81% of Americans think the government should require genetically engineered food products to be labeled. 89% of Americans think the government should require pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods before they are marketed, as with any food additive. (MSNBC Live Vote Results, 1/00).
• 92% of Americans support legal requirements that all genetically engineered foods be labeled. (BSMG Worldwide for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 9/99).
• 81% of American consumers believe GE food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE foods were labeled they would avoid purchasing them. (Time magazine, 1/99).
• 93% of women surveyed say they want all GE food clearly labeled. (National Federation of Women's Institutes, 1998)."

A Work Product of the Center for Food Safety - Washington, DC 2002
For more polls see http;//www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/polls.html

(This information furnished by Donna Harris, Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods.)


 Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group of doctors committed to human health, patient safety, scientific honesty and environmental protection, supports a yes vote on Measure 27. 


    Less than a decade since their introduction, two-thirds of products in U.S. supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Only one-third of Americans are aware that their foods contain GE ingredients. Multiple polls show that 85% to 95% of citizens favor labeling.

    Currently, food substances are labeled for vitamin, mineral, caloric and fat content; wines containing sulfites warn those allergic. The European Union requires labeling; many countries ban import of GE foods from the US; other countries have or are considering labeling laws and import bans. Unfortunately, US regulatory agencies rely on safety tests done by GE product-producing companies.

    Risks of GE foods include: toxicities from new proteins (deadly eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome in consumers of GE tryptophan supplements); altered nutritional value; transfer of antibiotic resistance genes, contributing to antibiotic resistance; increased pesticide use when pests develop resistance to GE food toxins; herbicide-resistant "superweeds"; non-target insects dying from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops, with ripple effects on other species; GE plants and animals interbreeding with and contaminating wild populations; GE plants outcompeting, or driving to extinction, wild varieties; GE plants adversely altering soil quality; decreased agricultural biodiversity; and corporate control of agriculture, with the transmogrification of farmers into "bioserfs."

    Labeling of GE foods will prevent dangerous allergic attacks (as occurred in unsuspecting consumers of soybeans modified with Brazil Nut genes); allow vegetarians to avoid plants injected with animal genes; and allow concerned individuals to avoid ingesting milk from cattle injected with recombinant BGH, which increases levels of potentially-carcinogenic IGF-1 in milk.
 
Labeling will increase public awareness of genetic engineering, allow us freedom to choose what we eat based on individual willingness to confront risk, and ensure a healthy public debate over the merits of genetic modification of foodstuffs.

Board of Directors
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

(This information furnished by Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP, for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.)

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Opposition

Measure 27 - Arguments in Opposition:



Measure 27 Would Create
a Regulatory Nightmare
for Oregon Restaurant Owners Measure 27 would force Oregon restaurant owners to provide special warning labels with thousands of menu items served each that aren't 100% "organic." Organic food companies are promoting the labeling scheme, to try to give themselves a competitive advantage over conventional food producers.

State officials estimate regulating
restaurant food labels will cost
nearly $9 million a year. State officials estimate the Oregon Department of Agriculture will have to monitor more than 400,000 menu items served in Oregon restaurants, actually auditing 100,000 of those items, then sampling and testing 20,000 of them. State restaurant monitoring and inspections will cost the state nearly $9 million per year with nearly $3 million in start-up costs.

Measure 27 would also cost restaurant owners millions more. Restaurants would face a complicated new burden ­ special record keeping and research to track and determine the origin of virtually every product or ingredient used in any dish we serve. Staff time and costs would be passed on to Oregon consumers through higher prices. On top of that, we'd face huge fines and even jail terms if we accidentally use the wrong labels.

Many basic foods would require costly labels. Basic food items like bread, dairy products, meats and many beverages, would require Measure 27 labels reading "Genetically Engineered," even if they don't contain any genetically engineered ingredients. The labels would be useless. They are just intended to scare consumers away from "non-organic foods" -- even though they are just as safe as "organic" products.

On behalf of all the members of the Oregon Restaurant Association, I urge you to say NO to the Co$tly Labeling Law.

Please Vote NO on Measure 27. Bill McCormick, President
McCormick & Schmick's Restaurants

(This information furnished by Bill McCormick, Oregon Restaurant Association.)


Measure 27 Shifts Funds from Short-Changed Schools
to Pay for a Meaningless New Food Labeling Bureaucracy.One Teacher's Concerns about Measure 27. As a teacher, I'm painfully aware of how Oregon's economic slump has forced budget cuts in schools across the state, including where I teach.

At a time when Oregon is struggling to find funds for schools, Measure 27 proposes to create a new state bureaucracy ­ costing taxpayers more than $118 million over the next 10 years ­ to put meaningless labels on foods that aren't 100% "organic."

Schools Would Have to Put Labels on Food and Beverages Served in School Cafeterias, Vending Machines and Concession Stands To add insult to that injury, Measure 27 is so poorly written that it would require schools like mine to label foods and beverages served in the school cafeteria, in vending machines on school property and at concessions stands during athletic events.

Measure 27 is another example of initiative activists forcing Oregon voters to decide on an innocent-sounding proposal with huge, hidden impacts on government programs, taxpayers and consumers.

When Oregon's economy is sour, proposals like this are even more damaging. School costs make up nearly half of state budget expenditures. So nearly half of Measure 27's costs are likely to come from funds that otherwise would be available to pay for teachers, textbooks and testing ­ all of which have been cut in the current budget crisis.

Measure 27 Is a Right-to-Learn Issue Backers of Measure 27 claim it's a right-to-know issue, but in fact the information on the labels it requires would be misleading and useless to consumers. I think of Measure 27 as a right-to-learn issue. I believe my students have a right to an adequately funded education. Their right to learn should be the state's top funding priority ­ not some new bureaucratic program designed to further one group's political agenda.

Kraig Hoene
High School Social Studies Teacher

(This information furnished by Kraig J. Hoene.)

• The Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Oregon's Department of Agriculture manage the Federal system of food safety through intense, continual scrutiny. Thousands of university-based, publicly financed research projects provide basis for protection of food and fiber supplies.
• The consequential loss of jobs, livelihood and tax revenue adds burden to the remaining taxpayers to carry the burgeoning costs of a la carte ballot measures such as Measure 27. By Department of Agriculture estimates, Measure 27 will add $118 million to our already oversized general fund expenses through 100,000 inspections and by adding 60 new staff positions.
• 4. Consumers would pay higher food costs. In fact, a recent study estimated that Measure 27's labeling scheme would cost an average family of four an additional $550 a year
• Studies show that, by forcing many common food products to be repackaged or remade with higher-priced ingredients, Prop 37 would cost the average California family hundreds of dollars more per year for groceries.
• Ultimately, consumers will pay for this through higher costs at the grocery store. In fact, a separate economic study concluded that forcing products to be repackaged or remade with higher priced ingredients would cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery costs.
• The average family of four would be forced to shoulder an average of $500 in additional food costs each year and could be as high as $800 per year. (New York)

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.

Warning: This is your brain on toxins | Opinion | The Seattle Times

Warning: This is your brain on toxins | Opinion | The Seattle Times:

“Lead helps to guard your health.”

That was the marketing line that the former National Lead Co. used decades ago to sell lead-based household paints. Yet we now know that lead was poisoning millions of children and permanently damaging their brains. Tens of thousands of children died, and countless millions were left mentally impaired.

One boy, Sam, born in Milwaukee in 1990, “thrived as a baby,” according to his medical record. But then, as a toddler, he began to chew on lead paint or suck on fingers with lead dust, and his blood showed soaring lead levels.

Sam’s family moved homes, but it was no use. At age 3, he was hospitalized for five days because of lead poisoning, and in kindergarten his teachers noticed that he had speech problems. He struggled through school, and doctors concluded that he had “permanent and irreversible” deficiencies in brain function.

Sam’s story appears in “Lead Wars,” a book by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner published this year that chronicles the monstrous irresponsibility of companies in the lead industry over the course of the 20th century. Eventually, over industry protests, came regulation and the removal of lead from gasoline. As a result, lead levels of U.S. children have declined 90 percent in the past few decades, and scholars have estimated that, as a result, children’s IQs on average have risen at least two points and perhaps more than four.

So what are the lessons from the human catastrophe of lead poisoning over so many decades? 

Alarm about endocrine disruptors once was a fringe scientific concern, but increasingly has moved mainstream. There is still uncertainty and debate about the risk posed by individual chemicals, but there is growing concern about the risk of endocrine disruptors in general — particularly to fetuses and children. There is less concern about adults.

These are the kinds of threats that we in journalism are not very good at covering. We did a wretched job covering risks from lead and tobacco in the early years; instead of watchdogs, we were lap dogs.

Andrea C. Gore, the editor of Endocrinology, published an editorial asserting that corporate interests are abusing science today with endocrine disruptors the way they once did with lead: for the “production of uncertainty.”

She added that the evidence is “undeniable: that endocrine-disrupting chemicals pose a threat to human health.”

When scientists feud, it’s hard for the rest of us to know what to do. But I’m struck that many experts in endocrinology, toxicology or pediatrics aren’t waiting for regulatory changes. They don’t heat food in plastic containers, they reduce their use of plastic water bottles, and they try to give their kids organic food to reduce exposure to pesticides.

So a question for big chemical companies: Are you really going to follow the model of tobacco and lead and fight regulation every step of the way, once more risking our children’s futures?

Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association and Governor Jay Inslee

No on I-522 money flooding in from out of state - Spin Control - Spokesman.com - June 13, 2013:



“The biotech industry in Washington has enormous potential,” said Clay Siegall, President and CEO of Seattle Genetics, “Jay was a recognized leader on this issue in Congress because he understands this industry. With the right kind of leadership and the right kind of policies, Washington can become an important international hub for research and development, manufacturing and sales of these innovative new medicines and products. Jay will provide that leadership as governor.”

Is Governor Inslee undecided about I-522 and labeling genetically engineered foods? (KURW Oct. 9)

"The No on I-522 campaign was formed by the Washington Farm Bureau, which has contributed “in-kind” contributions of $1,610 for staff and meeting time. Until last month, all of the campaign’s contributions were in-kind, from the farm bureau and other northwest organizations like the Spokane-based Far West Agribusiness Association and the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association of Seattle." (The Spokesman-Review)

Chris Rivera, Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association President and CEO:

“The long-term vision for the biotechnology industry is to heal, feed and fuel the world, and the only way we’re going to be able to take care of nine billion people by 2050 is through biology and biotechnology.”

Biotechnology Agriculture 

Genetically modified organisms are increasingly a topic of conversation in society, the media and the internet.  The many questions and answers are often charged with a lot of emotion ranging from optimism and excitement to skepticism and even fear. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GMO crops on today’s market, but acknowledges that we haven’t always done the best job communicating about them. GMO Answers was created to answer your questions about how food is grown and to engage in a conversation. They invite people to “Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers.” (WWBA - Public Policies)

The WWBA supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade-agreement (TPP): Protect biotech in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade-agreement talks The U.S. should strengthen intellectual-property protection for biotech companies in negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, writes guest columnists Matt Morrison and Chris Rivera. (Seattle Times)

October 25:              GOVERNOR'S LIFE SCIENCE SUMMIT & ANNUAL MEETING 

---------------------------
Maris Abelson (Facebook Post)

Gov. Inslee cosponsored bills on GM food labeling while he was in Congress. Why won't he support a labeling initiative in his own state?

Inslee co-sponsored Kucinich's 
H.R.2916 - Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act 108th Congress (2003-2004): 

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/2916/cosponsors

and the previous one:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4814/cosponsors