Category: Health

American “democracy” in action: 60 corporations contribute $22m to stop WA GMO labeling bill

by

November 2, 2013-MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money’s influence on politics, has updated the campaign finance data on the ballot intiatives in Washington state to make labeling of foods containing GMOs mandatory.

A MapLight analysis of campaign finance data from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as of October 30, 2013 shows the Top 10 contributors on the supporting and opposing side and the geographic origin of the contributions.

From MapLight’s Voter’s Edge in Washington State

I-522: GMO Labeling
(Requires labeling of food products made from genetically modified organisms).

Contributions from Supporting Interests

Total Raised: $7.7 million from 10,500 donors

1 DR. BRONNER’S MAGIC SOAPS $1,840,635
2 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY ACTION FUND $455,000
3 MERCOLA.COM HEALTH RESOURCES LLC $300,260
4 ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION $298,076
5 PRESENCE MARKETING, INC $260,000
6 PCC NATURAL MARKETS $230,274
7 NATURE’S PATH FOODS USA INC $178,700
8 FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW $175,000
9 WASHPIRG $168,121
10 WEILAND WILLIAM T. $150,000

Contributions from Opposing Interests

Total Raised: $22.0 million from 60 donors

1 MONSANTO $5,374,484
2 DUPONT PIONEER $3,880,159
3 PEPSICO $2,352,966
4 NESTLE USA $1,528,206
5 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY $1,520,351
6 GENERAL MILLS INC $869,271
7 CONAGRA FOODS $828,251
8 DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $591,654
9 BAYER CROPSCIENCE $591,654
10 BASF PLANTSCIENCE $500,000

Background: The initiative, I-522, is a sibling to California’s 2012 Proposition 37 (GMO Labeling): many of the major contributors in this race also contributed to committees for or against Proposition 37, and the recent spike in opposition dollars echoes last year when the opposition to Proposition 37, according to the LA Times, “bankrolled” a “media blitz” in the final stretch.

Monsanto’s absurdity reaches new heights

mon828By Jim Hightower, 3 November 2013, Climate Connection 

It was my privilege to go to Des Moines recently for a World Food Prize extravaganza recognizing Monsanto’s work against global hunger. But wait, Monsanto is not a hunger-fighter. It’s a predatory proliferator of proprietary and genetically engineered seeds.

That’s why I wasn’t actually attending the ceremony to bestow a false halo on the corporate giant. Rather, I was one of more than 500 scruffy “outsiders” in the city’s First United Methodist Church to protest the Monsanto absurdity.

There, real-life Iowa farmers spoke plainly about the countless abuses they have endured at the hands of the genetic manipulator.

One pointed out that if the corporation genuinely gave even one damn about hunger, it could’ve used its immense lobbying clout in Washington this year to stop Congress from stripping the entire food stamp program from the Farm Bill. Instead, Monsanto didn’t lift a finger to help fend off hunger in our own country.“It doesn’t care at all about feeding the world,” the Iowa farmer said with disgust. “It cares about profits, period.”

Indeed, Monsanto is a pitch-perfect example of what Pope Francis was referencing in May, when he declared: “Widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless. Concealed behind this attitude is a rejection of ethics.”

How ironic, then, that Monsanto bought this year’s World Food Prize for itself, just to masquerade as a world hunger fighter, hoping to persuade the Vatican to bless its demonic effort to force the world’s poor farmers to buy and become dependent on its patented seeds.

The World Food Prize Foundation says it recognizes contributions for “agriculture.” But Monsanto has zero to do with agri-culture. It’s the agri-business face of the unethical, selfish, corruption that the Pope warned about.

Local orthodontist buys back Halloween candy

MARYSVILLE — Area orthodontist Dr. Jason Bourne is bringing back his Halloween candy buy-back program for the 10th year, starting on Tuesday, Nov. 5.

Bourne will pay $4 for each pound of Halloween treats surrendered in his office, in Suite 3 at 815 State Ave. in Marysville, with $2 going to the trick-or-treating child, and the other $2 donated to the local Boys & Girls Clubs and YMCA.

Last year, Bourne Orthodontics collected more than 1,300 pounds of Halloween candy, allowing them to donate more than $2,600.

The donated candy itself is sent to American military members serving overseas, local homeless shelters and humanitarian groups for trips to Africa.

Since its inception, the Bourne Orthodontics Halloween candy buy-back has donated almost $15,000 and 7,900 pounds of candy.

“We love this program, because the kids still get to have fun trick-or-treating, plus they get money and save their teeth,” Bourne said. “Then we can give back to our community and the troops. It’s a lot of fun.”

Halloween candy can contribute to tooth decay, and some candy can even damage orthodontic patients’ braces, so Bourne began buying back Halloween candy to help kids avoid injury to their braces and teeth.

Bourne explained that some candies are permissible for orthodontic patients, including plain chocolate and soft, chocolate-covered peanut butter cups. However, he cautions patients to brush and floss thoroughly after indulging in any treats with a high sugar content.

According to Bourne, the days immediately following Halloween are usually an orthodontist’s busiest time of year for emergency calls, so he hopes that his candy buy-back program will cut down on orthodontic emergencies and tooth decay, and help children, especially those wearing braces, enjoy the holiday.

Bourne Orthodontics in Marysville will accept children’s Halloween candy during normal business hours on Nov. 5, 7, 11 and 13. There is a limit of 25 pounds per person with this offer. For more information, call 360-659-0211 or log onto www.bourneorthodontics.com.

How the Affordable Care Act Improves the Lives of American Women

By Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Today, we join our White House colleagues in celebrating National Breast Cancer Awareness month; and almost four weeks into the launch of the Health Insurance Marketplace, I’m reminded of the tremendous impact the Affordable Care Act has on the lives of American women.

As the President said, the law is much more than just a website – it’s affordable, quality health insurance made available to everyone.  Through the Marketplace, 18.6 million uninsured women have new opportunities for affordable, accessible coverage.  And if you’re one of the 85 percent of Americans who already have insurance, today you have stronger coverage and more choices than ever before.

Important preventive services are now available to women at no additional cost.  These include an annual well woman visit, screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer; certain contraceptive methods; smoking-cessation treatment and services; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence; immunizations; and many more.  Thanks to the health care law, more than 47 million women have guaranteed access to preventive services without cost-sharing.

These preventive services are critical to keeping women healthy.  For example, breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the US, after lung cancer. But when breast cancer is caught early and treated, survival rates can be near 100 percent.

The Affordable Care Act also protects women’s access to quality health care. No one can be denied health insurance coverage because of a preexisting health condition, such as breast cancer, pregnancy, depression or being a victim of domestic violence.  And there are no more annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage.

Today, health plans in the Marketplace offer a comprehensive package of ten essential health benefits, including maternity care.  An estimated 8.7 million American women currently purchasing individual insurance will gain coverage for maternity services, and most women will no longer need a referral from a primary care provider to obtain obstetrical or gynecological services.

Cost has also been a significant barrier to care for many women.  According to one study, in 2010, one third of women spent 10 percent or more of their income on premiums and out of pocket costs.  For low income women, that situation is much worse – over half of women who make $11,490 per year or less spend at least $1,149 a year on care.  But through the Marketplace 6 out of 10 uninsured individuals can get coverage for $100 or less.

This year, as in every year, women will make important decisions for themselves and their families about health care.  They can apply for coverage through the Marketplace:  Online at Health care.gov; Over the phone by calling the 24/7 customer service center (1-800-318-2596, TTY 1-855-889-4325); Working with a trained person in their local community (Find Local Help); or by submitting a paper application my mail.

The six-month enrollment period has just begun.  And unlike a sale on Black Friday, coverage will not run out; it will not get more expensive.  Sign up by December 15, 2013 for coverage starting as early as January 1, 2014. Open enrollment continues until March 31, 2014.

To read more about the how the Affordable Care Act addresses the unique needs of women, visit: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2013/08/womens-health-needs.html

 

Shellfish made poisonous by toxic algae may bloom into bigger problem

Click image to watch video or listen to interview.
Click image to watch video or listen to interview.

Oct. 23, 2013

 

PBS NEWSHOUR

 

The Pacific Northwest is known for its seafood, but when algae blooms in coastal waters, it can release toxins that poison shellfish and the people who eat them. Katie Campbell of KCTS in Seattle reports on the growing prevalence and toxicity of that algae, and how scientists are studying a possible link to climate change.

Transcript

HARI SREENIVASAN: Next to the West Coast, where algae has been poisoning shellfish and subsequently people.In recent years, toxic algal blooms have been more potent and lasted longer.That has scientists trying to understand whether climate change could be contributing to the problem.

Our report comes from special correspondent Katie Campbell of KCTS Seattle.She works for the environmental public media project EarthFix.

KATIE CAMPBELL, KCTS:Every family has its legends.

For Jacki and John Williford and their children, it’s the story of a miserable camping trip on the Olympic Peninsula in the summer of 2011.It all started when the Willifords did what Northwest families do on coastal camping trips.They harvested some shellfish and cooked them up with garlic and oregano.

JOHN WILLIFORD, father:Oh, they were amazing.I was like, wow, these are pretty much the best mussels I have ever eaten.And I think I said in a text to Jacki.

JAYCEE WILLIFORD, daughter:They were the best mussels in the whole wide world.

JOHN WILLIFORD: Is that what you said?Yes.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Two-year-old Jessica and 5-year-old Jaycee were the first to get sick.Next, John got sick.

JACKI WILLIFORD, mother:They just were so violently ill, and I just knew it had to be the mussels.And that next week, I called the health department and said, I think we got shellfish poisoning or something from the shellfish.And that’s when all the calls started to come in.

(LAUGHTER)

KATIE CAMPBELL: It turned out that Willifords were the first confirmed case in the United States of people getting diarrhetic shellfish poisoning.DSP comes from eating shellfish contaminated by a toxin produced by a type of algae called Dinophysis.

It’s been present in Northwest waters for decades, but not at levels considered toxic.

NEIL HARRINGTON, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe:It’s unfortunate to discover you have a new toxin present by people getting ill.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Neil Harrington is an environmental biologist for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in Sequim, Washington.Every week, he collects water and shellfish samples from the same bay where the Willifords harvested mussels two summers ago.He tests for Dinophysis and other naturally occurring toxins in shellfish.

NEIL HARRINGTON: Shellfish are filter feeders, so they are filtering liters and liters and liters of water every day.If they are filtering phytoplankton that is a little bit toxic, when we eat the shellfish, we’re eating essentially that — that toxin that’s been concentrated over time.

KATIE CAMPBELL: A number of factors can increase the size and severity of harmful algal blooms.As more land is developed, more fertilizers and nutrients get washed into waterways.It’s a problem that has also hit Florida and the Gulf of Mexico as well.

NEIL HARRINGTON: The more nutrients you add to a water body, the more algae there is, and the more algae you get, the more chance that some of those algae may be harmful.

KATIE CAMPBELL: But on top the local problem of nutrient runoff is the larger issue of global warming.Scientists believe the increase in prevalence and toxicity of Dinophysis is linked to changing ocean chemistry and warming waters.

STEPHANIE MOORE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:There’s a whole lot of changes that are occurring in Puget Sound, and not — and they’re not occurring in isolation.And that’s the challenge for scientists.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Stephanie Moore is a biological oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.She studies Puget Sound’s harmful algae.Most algal blooms here occur during warmer weather.

Because climate change is expected to raise temperatures in the coming decades, Moore says that could directly affect when and where harmful algal blooms occur.

STEPHANIE MOORE: We’re going to have to look for these blooms in places and during times of the year when, traditionally, we haven’t had to worry about them.Their impacts could then span a much larger time of the year, and that could cost a lot more money in terms of the effort that needs to go into monitoring and protecting the public from the toxins that they produce.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Washington has one of the most advanced algae and shellfish testing systems in the country.It’s in part because of the state’s 800 miles of shore and its multimillion-dollar shellfish industry.

Today, Moore is testing a new piece of equipment that has the potential to raise the bar even higher.The environmental sample processor, or ESP, automatically collects water from a nearby shellfish bed, analyzes the samples, and sends Moore a photograph of the results.

STEPHANIE MOORE: This is a huge advancement in our ability just to keep tabs on what’s going on, and in near real time.It’s amazing.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Moore says she hopes that, next year, the ESP will be equipped to monitor for Dinophysis, the toxin that caused the Williford family to get sick.

In the meantime, Jacki Williford says she will continue to be extremely wary of eating shellfish.

JACKI WILLIFORD: I think it’s scary because you just — you just don’t know what you’re getting anymore in food.

KATIE CAMPBELL: As for the rest of the family, well, not everyone has sworn off mussels.

JOHN WILLIFORD: It doesn’t change a thing for me.

(LAUGHTER)

JACKI WILLIFORD: For him.

(LAUGHTER)

HARI SREENIVASAN: Jaycee might keep eating mussels, but the high levels of toxins have forced the Washington State Department of Health to shutdown shellfish beds in six counties around the Puget Sound.

No scientific consensus on GMO safety – scientists release statement saying public is being misled

Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”

 

Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

A third signatory to the statement, Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University and member of the UK government’s GM Science Review Panel, said: “The main reason some multinationals prefer GM technologies over the many alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative ways to control intellectual property and global supply chains. To sideline open discussion of these issues, related interests are now trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific diversity. This undermines democratic debate – and science itself.”

The scientists’ statement was released by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta and UK environment secretary Owen Paterson branded opponents of GM foods as “wicked”.

Signatories of the statement include prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former winner of the World Food Prize and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in India.

Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source commented, “The joint statement and comments of the senior scientists and academics make clear those who claim there is a scientific consensus over GMO safety are really engaged in a partisan bid to shut down debate.

“We have to ask why these people are so desperate to prevent further exploration of an issue that is of immense significance for the future of our food and agriculture. We actually need not less but more public debate on the impacts of this technology, particularly given the proven effective alternatives that are being sidelined in the rush to promote GM.”

Notes
1. http://www.ensser.org/media/
—
Summary of the statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”:

1. There is no scientific consensus that GM crops and foods are safe for human and animal health.

2. A peer-reviewed review of safety studies on GM crops and foods found about an equal number of research groups raising concerns about GMO safety as groups concluding safety. However, most researchers concluding safety were affiliated with biotechnology companies that stood to profit from commercializing the GM crop concerned.

3. A review that is often cited to show GM crops and foods are safe in fact includes studies that raised concerns. Scientists disagree about the interpretation of these findings.

4. No epidemiological studies have been carried out to find out if GM crops are affecting human health, so claims that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects have no scientific basis.

5. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops for the environment. Studies have associated GM herbicide-tolerant crops with increased herbicide use and GM insecticidal crops with unexpected toxic impacts on non-target organisms.

6. A survey among scientists showed that those who received funding from biotech companies were more likely to believe GM crops were safe for the environment, whereas independent scientists were more likely to emphasize uncertainties.

7. Although some scientific bodies have made broadly supportive statements about GM over the years, these often contain significant caveats, call for better regulation, and draw attention to the risks as well as the potential benefits of GMOs. A statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claiming GMO safety was challenged by 21 scientists, including long-standing members of the AAAS.

8. International agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety exist because experts worldwide believe that a strongly precautionary attitude is justified in the case of GMOs. Concerns about risks are well-founded, as can be seen by the often complex, contradictory, and inconclusive findings of safety studies on GMOs.

Navigators help get Native Americans insurance

Associated Press

Insurance enrollment helpers are encouraging Native Americans to sign up for coverage under the nation’s new healthcare law, saying it will help them better access X-rays, mammograms, prescription drugs and trips to specialists not covered under Indian Health Service.

American Indians are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that people carry insurance, but the law opens up resources that for years have been limited through IHS, said Jerilyn Church, executive director of the South Dakota-based Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board.
“There’s a huge gap in access to services, so being enrolled in the marketplace is going to make a big difference in terms of accessibility to healthcare,” Church said.

The Indian Health Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, provides free healthcare to enrolled members of tribes, their descendants and some others as part of the government’s treaty obligations to Indian tribes dating back nearly a century.

Critics long have complained of insufficient financial support that has led to constant turnover among doctors and nurses, understaffed hospitals, sparse specialty care and long waits to see a doctor.

The Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board received $264,000 in South Dakota and $186,000 in North Dakota to assist with Native American signups on the states’ reservations and urban areas.

The new law healthcare law will especially benefit people who seek treatment at urban Indian health clinics, which collectively are funded by just 1 percent of the IHS budget, said Ashley Tuomi, executive director of the American Indian Health and Family Services clinic in Detroit.

“Our resources are extremely limited, even more so than the tribes,” Tuomi said. “What we have within our walls is what we can offer for free.”

The clinic has seen a lot of patient interest in the healthcare marketplace, but “navigators” helping with signups have had to cancel many appointments because of continued issues with the federal healthcare.gov website, Tuomi said.

The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska has received about $38,000 in federal grant funds to encourage signups for tribal members scattered in 12 counties in Nebraska, two in Iowa and one in South Dakota.

The tribe’s IHS-contracted clinic in Omaha, Neb., has a medical doctor and two nurse practitioners, but the X-rays, specialists and prescriptions that are outsourced are not covered, said Jan Henderson, the tribe’s navigator project director. “And if they don’t have insurance, they have to pay for it themselves,” she said.

Tribes across the country get some federal money for referrals, but the small pools run out quickly, Henderson said.

She views the new healthcare law as a great step for Native Americans, but the greatest challenge is educating tribal members who are weary from decades of promises of improved healthcare.

“Education is very important in this right now to get people to be open to actually hearing about it,” Henderson said. “We hear a lot of people who say they don’t need this, they don’t want this.”

Get a flu shot today

Flu shots today at the Tulalip Administration building from noon -3:00
Flu shots today at the Tulalip Administration building from noon -3:00

By Monica Brown, Tulalip News Writer

TULALIP, Wash. – Flu season is here and if you want to prevent from getting the flu or contributing to spreading it, the flu vaccine is the way to go. Today, Oct. 22nd,  from 12:00 to 3:00pm at the Tulalip Admin building, the Tulalip Pharmacy is issuing flu vaccines on the second floor in the lunch area. For non-tribal members please bring your medical insurance information.

The Center for Disease Control recommends that all those who are able to be vaccinated do so. Listed below is some information from the CDC about how the vaccine works and who should consider getting vaccinated.

How do flu vaccines work?

Flu vaccines cause antibodies to develop in the body about two weeks after vaccination. These antibodies provide protection against infection with the viruses that are in the vaccine.

The seasonal flu vaccine protects against the influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. Traditional flu vaccines (called trivalent vaccines) are made to protect against three flu viruses; an influenza A (H1N1) virus, an influenza A (H3N2) virus, and an influenza B virus. In addition, this season, there are flu vaccines made to protect against four flu viruses (called “quadrivalent” vaccines). These vaccines protect against the same viruses as the trivalent vaccine as well as an additional B virus.

While everyone should get a flu vaccine this season, it’s especially important for some people to get vaccinated.

Those people include the following:

  • People who are at high risk of developing serious complications (like pneumonia) if they get sick with the flu.
  • People who live with or care for others who are at high risk of developing serious complications (see list above).
    • Household contacts and caregivers of people with certain medical conditions including asthma, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
    • Household contacts and caregivers of infants less than 6 months old.
    • Health care personnel.

Supreme Court Sides With Feds On Marijuana Prohibition

The highest court says there’s not enough evidence to warrant taking a second look at marijuana’s Schedule I status.

By Katie Rucke, Mint Press News

Despite a dramatic increase in public support for marijuana legalization in the U.S., the federal government doesn’t appear to be budging on decriminalization, legalization or “downscheduling” the substance anytime soon.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to review and reverse a ruling from a lower court that upheld the federal government’s current classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance, but the high court declined to do so.

The ruling in question was issued this past January by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which ruled that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was in the right when it rejected a petition to conduct a scientific review of marijuana’s safety and therapeutic efficacy.

The D.C. Court of Appeals said that the DEA was correct in its assertion that an insufficient number of clinical studies exist to “warrant a judicial review of cannabis’ federally prohibited status,” which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with.

But as marijuana legalization advocate Russ Belville pointed out in an article for High Times, the court’s ruling is more about whether or not the DEA was following its own rules than whether or not marijuana should be rescheduled.

Currently marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, meaning that the U.S. government does not recognize a valid use of marijuana at any time — even for medical purposes — and believes marijuana is highly addictive, has a high potential for abuse, and functions as a gateway drug. Other Schedule I substances include heroin and phencyclidine (PCP).

Moving marijuana to a lower classification such as Schedule V would mean that marijuana had known health benefits and was not likely to be abused as much as other drugs.

“The DEA requires we show real, FDA-approved research proving marijuana is medical, safe and non-addictive, and since the DEA won’t let that research happen, there is nothing forcing them to change the scheduling of cannabis,” Belville wrote.

“But what about the 19,000+ published studies on cannabis’ medical benefits? The federal government patents on the medical effects of cannabinoids?  The four surviving federal medical marijuana patients still receiving U.S. government-grown schwag? The 20 states with medical marijuana and the millions who are living testament to marijuana’s medical miracles?”

Each year the U.S. spends about $40 billion fighting the war on drugs, even though no one has ever died from consuming or smoking too much marijuana.

Since a large percentage of the DEA’s money comes from drug sting operations, specifically marijuana trafficking, many marijuana advocates have questioned whether the DEA opposes legalization simply because they don’t want to lose that income. According to a report from Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana patient advocacy group, each raid costs taxpayers around $17,000.

 

State vs. federal law

Since 1996, 20 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, and last year two states — Washington and Colorado — legalized recreational use of the drug, creating a direct conflict between state and federal law.

Though some lawmakers such as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have pushed for the passage of federal legislation that would allow states to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use, citing a waste of taxpayer and law enforcement resources, most lawmakers have been rather passive toward the legalization issue.

The Obama administration has been quiet in its stance on marijuana legalization, even though during his 2008 bid for the White House Obama indicated he would not crack down on medical marijuana users.

But in an interview with Mint Press News, Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a marijuana legalization advocacy group, said the federal government has continued to raid large-scale marijuana retailers around the country, and as of November 2012, Obama had shut down more dispensaries that President George W. Bush did in his eight years in office.

However, in response to the passage of the legalization legislation in Colorado and Washington, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced last month that it had decided to defer its legal right to challenge the marijuana legalization laws and would not file a lawsuit against either state for failure to follow the laws under the federal Controlled Substances Act — at least for now.

As Mint Press News previously reported, the DOJ’s announcement made it clear that both states would be allowed to continue implementing state rules and regulations for recreational marijuana even though the substance will remain illegal under federal law. However the DOJ failed to mention anything about states that legalized medical marijuana or industrial hemp.

Though the DOJ’s new stance on marijuana wasn’t as progressive as many had hoped, states have continued to introduce legislation that legalizes medical marijuana, recreational marijuana and/or industrial hemp.

Why? Because legalization appears to be what the majority of Americans want.

A poll released earlier this year by Quinnipiac University found that as of December 2012, voters supported legalization of marijuana 51 to 44 percent. As Mother Jones reported, “Even in the relatively conservative states of Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, polls released in the past week have shown majority support for recently proposed medical marijuana laws.”

 

Legalization: only a matter of time?

In 2014, voters in Alaska are expected to vote on legislation that would legalize recreational marijuana, and by 2017, ten other states are expected to also have initiatives on the ballot that would legalize marijuana.

“Most Americans are tired of seeing their tax dollars used to arrest and prosecute adults for using a substance that is objectively less harmful than alcohol,” said Marijuana Policy Project executive director Rob Kampia. “Voters and state legislators are ready for change, and the federal government appears to be ready, as well.

“Marijuana prohibition has been just as problematic and counterproductive as alcohol prohibition,” Kampia said. “We look forward to working with elected officials, community leaders, organizations, and other local and national allies to develop more effective and efficient marijuana policies.”

One of those ten states is California.

Though California was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, voters in the state have yet to pass legislation legalizing recreational use of the substance. Many advocates said that because the state has borne the brunt of the federal government’s crackdown on marijuana, many voters in the state were likely reluctant to pass any legislation to further legalize the substance.

But on Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union announced they were working to put legalization back on the state’s ballot. Before any legislation appears on the ballot, however, the ACLU said it would be creating a new panel to study marijuana legalization in California in preparation for a 2016 ballot measure that would legalize the substance.

The panel is to be led by the state’s Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will include academics, drug policy experts, law enforcement authorities, and officials from Colorado and Washington.

Newsom said he is in support of legalizing marijuana because “enough’s enough. I can’t sit back and support the status quo any longer.” He explained that even though he doesn’t smoke marijuana, he isn’t concerned about any political fallout that may occur for his decision to take a stand on the issue.

“To me, it’s like smoking anything else — I want a regulatory regime that doesn’t advertise to kids, that doesn’t allow public use and secondhand smoke,” he said.

According to the ACLU, while California’s 2010 legalization measure was defeated with 53.5 percent of voters voting against the measure, a new poll found that legalizing recreational marijuana received support from 65 percent of polled voters.

In addition to efforts to legalize recreational marijuana, a few states are also considering legislation that would legalize medical marijuana, including Ohio, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Will GMO Labels Alter Consumers’ Perception Of Specialty Foods?

Northwest News Network, source: OPB

In the food business, everything comes down to that moment when a shopper studies a label and decides whether to buy or move on. That’s why food producers have a big interest in Washington’s Initiative 522 on the ballot next month.

It would require foods with genetically engineered ingredients to have a label on the front of the package. Supporters say consumers have a right to know what’s in their food. But some companies worry the law could dramatically change how their products are seen.

Updating labels

Tubs of veggie dip go three-by-three through a labeling machine on the production floor at Litehouse Foods in Sandpoint, Idaho. They pop out the other side with “Country Ranch” stickers stamped on the lid.

None of the elements on that label are there by accident says Kathy Weisz, the head of graphic design for Litehouse.

“We’re trying to convey to the consumer what it might taste like,” she says. “Kind of the feel of that product.”

Litehouse markets to “foodie” shoppers. The side of the label says “made fresh.” The company uses raw ingredients, without preservatives — which is why the dressings are refrigerated.

Weisz says the label involves a constant dance between pictures of sliced tomatoes and sunflowers and the stuff on the label that has to be there legally — like nutrition content, and ingredients.

So, Weisz says it’s not that big of a deal to add one more thing to the label. “Label updates happen all the time.”

When was the last one?

“Today, yesterday … it’s always something,” says Weisz.

But the initiative before Washington voters would create a labeling rule that’s a little bit different from others. The label saying “genetically engineered” or “partially produced with genetic engineering” would have to go on the front of the package and it would be specific to one state.

“I mean we already do sell to Canada and Mexico and that’s difficult enough,” says Weisz. “But starting to treat a state like a country – I would think that most manufacturers are just going to do it across the board, rather than making certain labels going to certain states or whatever.”

Meaning that people in Idaho and Oregon would be seeing the same thing as consumers in Washington.

That worries Paul Kusche, the senior vice president of Litehouse. He says the supply of non-genetically engineered canola and soybean oil just isn’t large enough to overhaul the company’s entire product line. If Initiative 522 passes, consumers will see labels on most of Litehouse’s products.

“I don’t know what the reaction is,” Kusche says. “I really don’t.”

“Our right to know”

Research shows price, not labeling, is the most important factor for many shoppers. But companies like Litehouse cater to a particular crowd: the label readers — people who are willing to pay more for a product they perceive as healthier.

Andie Forstad, who lives outside of Spokane, helped gather signatures to put the labeling initiative on the ballot. To her, it’s about having information about her food – just like the calorie count on a box of cookies or whether her juice comes from concentrate.

“For transparency, for our right to know. So that we can make an informed decision,” says Forstad . “I know people still buy genetically engineered products, but for those who wish not to, we can make that choice.”

Forstad cut genetically engineered foods out of her diet eight years ago. But she says it’s hard. In fact, as we’re looking through her refrigerator, Forstad spies a bottle of raspberry syrup.

“Okay, so this one, most likely is genetically engineered,” she says. “And I just noticed it in our fridge, but it hasn’t been used! [I know] because it says sugar. Most sugars are sugar beet and sugar beet is genetically engineered. That shouldn’t be in our fridge.”

An unnecessary warning?

The problem, says Jim Cook, is that raspberry syrup may actually be identical to raspberry syrup considered GMO-free.

Cook is a retired plant pathologist from Washington State University. He’s thrown his support behind the effort to defeat the measure.

“Sugar. You take a bag of sugar, you look on the label, and it says zero protein. And of course it’s zero protein because it’s pure sugar.”

Cook says the original sugar beet plant was genetically engineered to produce a certain protein.

“But that’s the green plant,” he explains. “And that protein’s not in that sugar. Why would you put a label on sugar that says it’s genetically engineered? Because it’s not.”

Even if the initiative were written differently, Cook would still be concerned about what he considers a warning for food he says doesn’t need one.

“How do you process that information?” he says. “What do you think when you see ‘genetically engineered’ on the label? Are you going to buy it anyway?”

Supply and demand

Back at Litehouse Foods, Paul Kusche is already looking beyond the November election. Litehouse has started sourcing non-genetically engineered ingredients and has submitted 21 products for non-GMO certification.

Kusche says, the demand for foods that don’t come from genetically engineered sources is undeniable.

“Whether it happens tomorrow or whether it happens 10 years from now, we know it’s coming.”

And for now, at least he knows that if Washington does require Litehouse to label its products, they’ll have lots and lots of company on grocery store shelves.