Washington Archives - Page 17 of 22

Whole Foods campaigning to support food labeling initiative

Mark Mulligan / The HeraldWhole Foods is encouraging shoppers to "Say Yes on 522" with signs and other literature distributed around its stores, including at their Lynnwood location Thursday morning. — Mark Mulligan / The Herald
Whole Foods is encouraging shoppers to “Say Yes on 522” with signs and other literature distributed around its stores, including at their Lynnwood location Thursday morning.

By Jerry Cornfield, The Herald

LYNNWOOD — You can’t go far inside the Whole Foods Market in Lynnwood without knowing the company’s stance on Initiative 522, the food labeling measure on this November’s ballot.

There are banners hanging from the ceiling, brochures above the salad bar and a poster on an easel in the poultry section, all proclaiming, “We say Yes on 522.

The same message can be seen on every aisle and even under selected products of like-minded companies. It’s coming to checkout stands soon. It’s outside, too, where, parked a few strides from an entrance, is a forest green Chevy truck with Yes on 522 painted on the driver’s side door.

And the store’s roughly 155 team members — Whole Foods code for employees — carry literature in their aprons and are trained on the basics of the initiative should they be quizzed by a customer.

It’s not just here but in each of the company’s seven Washington stores, a reflection of how serious the international chain wants to win.

“We don’t dabble a lot in the political world,” said Leah Abell, marketing team leader for the store. “This is different because this is such a hot topic and we have been leading the way for organic labeling.

“Our customers are telling us we want to know what is in our food,” she said. “We want to give that to them.”

Whole Foods spent $250,000 trying to pass a similar measure in California last year. It has reached that mark in Washington already and expects to spend more, spokeswoman Susan Livingston said.

“We’re trying to engage people in every way we can,” she said, noting the company is funneling many resources through its Will Vote For Food effort.

If voters pass Initiative 522, many packaged and processed food products sold in retail stores will need labels revealing if the item was genetically engineered or contains genetically engineered ingredients starting in July of 2015.

There are a host of exemptions. For example, food sold in restaurants is exempt as are alcoholic beverages. And meat from animals that ate genetically engineered feed is also exempt.

Proponents contend requiring labels will give consumers needed information about the food they are eating. Opponents say it amounts to a costly new regulation that will manifest itself in higher prices.

Campaigns for and against the measure expect to spend millions of dollars in the next few weeks, much of it on the airwaves. Both sides launched their first television commercials this week.

Against that backdrop, individual farmers and businesses are trying to reach voters in a simpler and more direct way. Up and down the I-5 corridor and across the Cascades, businesses known for offering organic foods and products without genetically engineered ingredients are marketing a political message to customers.

Employees at PCC Natural Markets, which operates a store in Edmonds, wear Yes on 522 buttons. Information about the measure is available in the stores and has been sent to members of the nation’s largest consumer-owned natural food retail co-operative.

“This is an affirmation to our customers that we are doing what they have been asking us to do for 20 years,” said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs.

So far no one’s complained.

“I have not received one letter from one shopper that they didn’t appreciate it,” she said.

A spokeswoman for the opposition expressed little concern about the strategy.

“Proponents can share the information as long as they are reporting it to the PDC (Public Disclosure Commission),” said Dana Bieber, spokeswoman for the No on 522 campaign.

Bieber wouldn’t say if they’ll have retailers opposed to the measure put up materials too.

“We’re committed to sharing the facts with voters,” she said.

She did point out that one Whole Foods infographic echoes the message of their campaign as it urges customers to look for products with the USDA organic label if they want to avoid GMOs.

“That’s what our campaign has been saying,” she said. “They’re reinforcing the message that the organic label is a better way to know if GE (genetically engineered) ingredients are in their food. It is better than 522.”

Such tactics are not novel in Washington.

Two years ago, Costco used its shopping warehouses to gather signatures for the liquor privatization initiative and then dole out materials backing the measure. Other grocery stores and many restaurateurs put up materials in their businesses.

It’s too soon to gauge the effect of such in-store campaigning on Initiative 522 because voters aren’t focused on the election yet.

“I think it can make a small difference,” said Seattle political strategist Christian Sinderman, who’s not involved in the campaign. “People have more opinions about food than they do about politicians so to reach people where they shop and where they eat will have more impact than a yard sign.”

Sinderman doesn’t think it will swing the outcome.

“Voters are smart enough to know that the businesses only engage in these things because they impact their bottom lines,” he said. “If they support that (company’s view) they won’t have a problem.”

TV ads against food-labeling initiative to launch this week

The campaign against the food-labeling initiative received millions this month from Monsanto and DuPont.

By Jerry Cornfield, The Herald

Opponents of a food labeling initiative are gearing up to air their first television commercials in an ad campaign expected to cost millions of dollars and run up to Election Day in November.

A copy of a contract filed with the Federal Communication Commission shows the No on Initiative 522 campaign has booked $72,000 worth of advertising this week on KOMO-TV in Seattle. A 30-second spot would air beginning with the early-morning newscast Monday, according to the contract.

Additional contracts reserve time every day on the station through the last day of voting, Nov. 5.

A representative of the campaign declined to confirm the schedule, which could be amended after the filing of the contracts.

“I am not going to give out our playbook,” said campaign spokeswoman Dana Bieber.

Supporters of the measure are anticipating the launch of television ads now that the opposition has received millions of dollars from Monsanto and DuPont, two corporations that worked to defeat a similar labeling measure in California in 2012.

“This goes to show these corporations are really more focused on protecting their bottom line than giving grocery shoppers in Washington state more information about their food,” said Elizabeth Larter, spokeswoman for the Yes on 522 campaign.

If passed, Initiative 522 would require many food products made with genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. This would apply primarily to processed and packaged foods sold in supermarkets and other retail outlets.

What this means, for example, is a product made with corn, canola or soybeans grown from scientifically created seed stock would need a label to inform the buyer of the modified ingredients. Snack foods such as chips and soft drinks that contain artificial ingredients would need labels starting in July 2015.

Supporters argue the measure is about giving shoppers more information about what’s in the food they consume. Labels would not be required on food sold in restaurants nor on dairy and meat products, even if the cattle are fed genetically engineered foods.

Opponents counter that I-522 would create new and costly burdens on farmers and businesses and would increase food costs. They also say the state will need to spend money to enforce the labeling law.

As of Friday, the No on 522 Committee had raised nearly $12 million in donations and pledges, according to reports filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission. After expenditures, the committee had a little over $10 million available.

“We plan to use our resources to share with voters how misleading 522 is and how it is going to increase grocery costs by hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year,” Bieber said.

The majority of the opposition money arrived this month from the two companies, which are among the nation’s biggest producers of genetically modified seed products.

Monsanto wrote a $4.6 million check on Sept. 5, pushing its total donations to the campaign to roughly $4.85 million. On Sept. 10, DuPont gave $3.2 million and is now up to nearly $3.4 million in contributions.

The level of spending should come as no surprise. Last year, the two firms topped all contributors to the effort to defeat Proposition 37 in California.

In that campaign, Monsanto gave $8.1 million and DuPont $5.4 million, according to state campaign finance reports compiled by Ballotpedia.org.

In Washington, as of Friday, the Yes on 522 committee had collected $3.5 million in donations and, after expenditures, had about $2.6 million available in cash. The single largest donor is Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, which has given roughly $1 million.

Reports filed with the FCC show the committee reserved time starting in mid-October on KOMO.

A statewide poll released last week shows the measure enjoys strong backing among potential voters. Of the 406 registered voters surveyed in the Elway Poll, 66 percent expressed support, with only 21 percent opposed. The survey has a margin of error of 5 percent.

Larter predicted the numbers will change once ads begin airing.

“This will be a competitive race,” she said.

Uncover food: I522 works to label genetically engineered products

By Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News

The opposition claims that costs will rise. The proposition cites updated packaging as routine business costs. Money seems to be at the heart of Washington State Initiative 522, a measure that would require food labels to specify whether or not foods are genetically engineered.

Opponents of the “Washington-only” measure claim that this is a simple case of bureaucracy. I522 would create unnecessary governmental regulation that exists nowhere else in the nation. What the opposition fails to mention is special interest groups and corporations spent millions of dollars, in recent years, to defeat similar measures in other states, such as prop 37 in California. Furthermore, similar regulations are in place in several countries outside of the United States.

Proponents of I522 purport that the costs are minimal, and that regulation would not be more bureaucratic as similar regulations are already in place to determine fresh caught or farm raised salmon, sugar or high fructose corn syrup, etc.

Let’s look at the facts.

Genetically engineered foods are those created or altered in a laboratory to achieve desired qualities. Their genetic makeup is not seen in their naturally occurring, and healthier, counterparts. According to studies from the United Farm Workers, genetically modified plants are more vulnerable to weather and pests, leading to greater use of fertilizer and pesticides. It is then important to know that many companies that oppose the measure are chemical companies that manufacture these products.

Both sides agree that studies show there are no immediate health concerns caused by GE (genetically engineered) foods, and that in fact these foods do allow growers and consumers to maximize quantity, meaning it is cheaper because it is easier to grow and harvest.

Why is this important to Pacific Northwest Tribes?

In recent years, genetically engineered salmon have been successfully made in labs and farm raised. These fish mature at twice the rate of wild salmon. The FDA has not yet decided if this product will be available to consumers, though if it passes, it would be the first engineered meat to be sold in stores. Currently, only GE crops are on the market. Fishing continues to be a crucial industry for northwest tribes, and the new GE fish stand to threaten the market. Without a market, the native fishing industry would se a drastic decline.

I522 does not stop any of this from happening, it only requires labeling. The “Yes on 522” campaign says repeatedly that this shouldn’t be a hindrance to business as usual. The largest appeal to the public is consumers have the right to make informed decisions about their food choices, and I522 is all about information. It does not prevent future operations, nor does it stop current ones.

Washington State Initiative 522 will be on the November ballot.

Sources: http://factsabout522.com

http://yeson522.com

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org

Monsanto Funds Anti-GE Labeling Efforts in Washington

Source: E-News, Park Forest

Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–September 12, 2013. Monsanto recently made a multi-million dollar contribution to an organization fighting to stop a ballot initiative in Washington State that would force food processors to label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Monsanto has poured millions of dollars into multiple anti-labeling efforts, previously contributing over $7 million against a similar proposition in California last year. In spite of being out fundraised, support for labeling GE ingredients remains strong in Washington State, and consumers across the country are becoming increasingly aware of the problems associated with GE crops.

Washington State’s Initiative 522 (I-522), which will be voted on this coming November, will require manufactured raw agricultural products that are genetically engineered, and processed foods with GE ingredients to be labeled by July 1, 2015. However, in the past week Monsanto contributed nearly $4.6 million to the ‘No on 522′ campaign. With this recent contribution by Monsanto, the No on 522 campaign, which opposes GE labeling, has raised close to $7.9 million, $3.5 million more than the Yes on 522 campaign. This influx of corporate money was predicted by Beyond Pesticides last month. In Washington state, individual and corporate contributions to campaigns for elected office cannot exceed $800-$1800 depending on the office. However, there are no restrictions to donations for ballot initiatives in the U.S., as they are protected as free speech.

Despite being outspent, polls in Washington show strong support for I-522 with 66% in support to only 22% opposed. The poll also dug further into how voters would react towards negative ad campaigns. The poll stated, “Support for labeling withstands a barrage of opposition attacks. After voters hear one message in favor of labeling and six messages against it, support for I-522 holds at 64%, while opposition only increases to 29%.” Though this poll is good news for supporters of I-522, the campaign still will face strong opposition by the heavily corporate funded No on 522 campaign.

This past November, Prop 37 in California, a similar ballot initiative to I-522 that would have required GE ingredients to be labeled, was narrowly defeated by a margin of 6.2%. Support for Prop 37 during the summer before the election was at 2-1; however, as the election grew closer the supporters of Prop 37 were outspent by over $30 million, and support for the measure weakened. The corporate money that was raised in opposition was used to promote misinformation and negative attack ads.

Despite the defeat of Prop 37, GE labeling activists started other legislative campaigns in states other than Washington and have won several high profile victories. In Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed House Bill 6527- An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Food. This bill will require GE ingredients to be labeled when similar legislation is passed by other states in the New England region with an aggregate population of 20 million. The Maine legislature also passed a similar law. Whole Foods Market announced in March that it would label GE ingredients sold in its stores, making it the first national chain to do so. Several other state legislatures have also introduced bills that would require GE ingredients to be labeled. In Minnesota H.F. 850 and S.F. 821 were introduced in February of 2013 and are still being considered by the legislature. In Vermont the House of Representatives passed H.112, a GE labeling law, on May 10. The bill is expected to be taken up by the state Senate in January when the legislature reconvenes.

Activism around GE labeling will continue to grow around the country, as a recent New York Times poll shows national support for GE labeling reaching 93%, a number consistent with past polls showing broad support that cuts across race, gender, socio-economic class and party affiliation. On the Federal level Senator Barbra Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Peter Defazio (D-OR) introduced companion legislation that would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “clearly label” all GE ingredients. The bills, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, H.R. 1699 and S. 809, have 22 cosponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate.

GE labeling campaigns have drawn strong public support because consumers understand that they have a right-to-know the ingredients that are in their food. Though large companies have had short term success pouring money into state level campaigns, over time this strategy may help feed public opinion that these companies have something to hide. GE labeling campaigns come at a crucial time, as new varieties of GE crops are being introduced and evidence that GE foods are harmful to the environment continues to grow.

In Washington state, new GE crops such as Aquabounty’s GE Salmon, which are designed to reach maturity faster than their wild counterparts, and GE apples that won’t brown could have dramatic impacts on the state’s agricultural economy. On a national level, the St. Louis Pots-Dispatch reported in 2012 on progress that multinational chemical corporations Dow AgroSciences, BASF, and Monsanto are making to bring multi-herbicide resistant varieties to market. Under separate arrangements with each company, Monsanto adds glyphosate resistance to seeds that are simultaneously engineered to resist other herbicides. In October 2012, Dow AgroSciences obtained a global patent on its Enlist Duo technology, which packages an herbicide containing 2, 4-D and glyphosate with seeds engineered to tolerate both materials. Monsanto has also been partnering with BASF on dicamba and glyphosate tolerant crop varieties since 2009 with a focus on soybeans, cotton, and corn.

The explosion of GE crops on the market has led to growing pest and weed resistance, which has resulted in increased pesticide use. Increased pesticide use threatens wildlife, particularly sensitive species. A 2012 study found the herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed on thousands of acres of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, to induce morphological changes in three species of frogs. GE crop-induced herbicide applications are also indirectly affecting the health of beneficial species. Widespread applications of Roundup destroy sanctuary land and the plant species that support beneficial insects and other wildlife.

The best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited. To learn more about organic agriculture, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture, and Eating With a Conscious pages.

To support Washington State’s labeling efforts, get involved with the Yes on I-522 campaign. National GE labeling efforts are being spearheaded by the Just Label It! campaign. For more information on GE foods and labeling issues, see Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering website.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources: KUOW, http://www.beyondpesticides.org

Agribusiness: More millions to fight I-522

By Joe Connlley, Seattle PI

Major agribusiness companies and grocery chains appear set on a “Shock and Awe” approach to defeating Initiative 522 on Washington’s November ballot, and have poured nearly $9 million into the cause over the last two days.

The latest big bucks include $3.2 million from Dupont, on top of $171,281 previously given; a $562,000 pledge from Dow Agrisciences and a $500,000 pledge from BASF Plant Science. Montsanto made the biggest investment earlier in the week with a $4.5 million contribution to the No-on-522 campaign.

I-522 would put labeling requirements on genetically manufactured foods and seeds offered for sale in Washington State. A similar ballot measure in California set off a massive advertising blitz: Major grocery chains and agribusiness interests spent $46 million and narrowly defeated it.

Supporters of the initiative have put together a $3.5 million war chest. About $19 million was spent on behalf of the California measure.

Shelby Scates: A memorable election night argument.

The No-on-522 campaign has retained services of Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Winner & Mandabach, the nation’s most experienced consulting firm at promoting and fighting initiatives. Winner & Mandabach worked in 2012 for opponents of the California labeling measure.

Winner & Mandabach was formerly Winner Wagner & Mandabach, and gained initial fame (or infamy if you were on the opposite side) in the 1980′s for successful strategies that defeated anti-nuclear power initiatives in Western states.

Its first setback came in Washington with the so-called “WPPSS initiative.” I-394, put on the ballot in 1981, was aimed at curbing soaring costs of the Washington Public Power Supply System’s nuclear program, which eventually left four abandoned, partially built reactors and caused the biggest municipal bond default in American history.

I-394 required utilities to get voter approval before issuing new bonds to pay for WPPSS’ nuclear plants, whose total costs had reached $23.9 billion.

Major brokerage firms and nuclear contractors spent $1.2 million to beat it, compared to just $200,000 for supporters. But backers aired radio ads produced by famous New York adman Tony Schwartz, creator of the famous “Daisy” ad that implied that Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater might set off a nuclear war.

I-394 rolled up 58 percent of the vote, although courts later threw it out. Election night featured a memorable, not-entirely-friendly encounter at “No” headquarters between firm principal Chuck Winner and Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Shelby Scates.

The cost to corporations of ballot campaigns has since gone up. The American Beverage Assn., in 2010, spent $16.9 million to persuade Washington voters to roll back a modest soda pop tax, enacted by the Legislature to fund education. Costco topped that with its successful campaign to end the state’s monopoly on retail liquor sales.

With its latest influx of cash — and nearly two months until election day — the No-on-522 campaign may challenge previous spending records.

Celebrating Labor Day: A Profile of American Labor

Aissa Yazzie &150; Navajo Nation, prepares for a career inNative Environmental Science at Northwestern Indian College — Aissa Yazzie &150; Navajo Nation, prepares for a career in
Native Environmental Science at Northwestern Indian College

Source: Native News Network

WASHINGTON – Labor Day pays tribute to the social and economic achievements of American workers. The first observance of Labor Day was likely on September 5, 1882, when some 10,000 workers assembled in New York City for a parade. That celebration inspired similar events across the country, and by 1894 more than half the states were observing a “workingmen’s holiday” on one day or another.

That same year, Congress passed legislation and President Grover Cleveland signed the bill on June 29, the first Monday in September would be designated as “Labor Day.” This national holiday is a creation of the labor movement in the late 19th century.

The following statistics that provide an overview of the labor force in the country today were furnished by the US Census Bureau:

Who Are We Celebrating?

155.7 million

Number of people 16 and over in the nation’s labor force in May 2013.

Our Jobs

Largest Occupations May 2012

Retail Salespeople
4,340,000 employees

Cashiers
3,314,010 employees

Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food
2,943,810 employees

Office clerks, general
2,808,100 employees

Registered nurses
2,633,980 employees

Waiters and waitresses
2,332,020 employees

Customer service representatives
2,299,750 employees

Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand
2,143,940 employees

Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners
2,097,380 employees

Secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal medical, and executive
2,085,680 employees

Largest Occupations 1910

Farmers (owners and tenants)
6,132,000 employees

Farm laborers, wageworkers
2,832,000 employees

Farm laborers, unpaid family workers
2,514,000 employees

Operatives and kindred workers, manufacturing
2,318,000 employees

Laborers, nonmanufacturing industries
2,210,000 employees

Laborers, manufacturing
1,487,000 employees

Salesmen and sales clerks, retail trade
1,454,000 employees

Housekeepers, private household – living out
1,338,000 employees

Managers, officials, and proprietors, retail trade
1,119,000 employees

Mine operatives and laborers, crude petroleum & natural gas extraction
907,000 employees

847,516

The number of paid employees (for pay period including March 12) who worked for a gasoline station in the US in 2011. Oregon was the first state to make Labor Day a holiday in February 1887. Oregon (9,634 paid gasoline station employees), along with New Jersey (15,734 paid gasoline station employees), are the only states without self-service gasoline stations.

15.9 million

The number of wage and salary workers age 16 and over represented by a union in 2012. This group includes both union members (14.4 million) and workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union contract (1.6 million).

14.5 million

Number of female workers 16 and over in service occupations in 2011. Among male workers 16 and over, 11.2 million were employed in service-related occupations.

1.9 Percent

Percentage increase in employment in the US between December 2011 and December 2012. Employment increased in 287 of the 328 largest counties (large counties are defined as having employment levels of 75,000 or more).

7.4 Percent

Percentage increase over the year in employment in Elkhart, Indiana, between December 2011 and December 2012, compared with national job growth of 1.9 percent. Within Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 5,479 jobs over the year.

Another Day, Another Dollar

$48,202 and $37,118

The 2011 real median earnings for male and female full-time, year-round workers, respectively.

Fastest Growing Jobs

70 Percent

Projected percentage growth from 2010 to 2020 in the number of personal care aides (607,000). Analysts expect this occupation to grow much faster than the average for all occupations. Meanwhile, the occupation expected to add more positions over this period than any other is registered nurses (711,900).

Employee Benefits

84.7 Percent

Percentage of full-time workers 18 to 64 covered by health insurance during all or part of 2011.

Say Goodbye to Summer

Labor Day is celebrated by most Americans as the symbolic end of the summer and the start of the back-to-school season.

25,448

The number of shoe stores for back-to-school shopping in 2011. Other choices of retail establishments abound: there were 28,128 family clothing stores, 7,093 children and infants clothing stores, 8,144 office supply and stationery stores, 8,407 bookstores and 8,625 department stores.

21,227

The number of sporting goods stores nationwide in 2011. In US sports, college football teams usually play their first games the week before Labor Day, with the NFL traditionally playing their first game the Thursday following Labor Day.

48,548

The number of travel agents employed full time, year-round in 2011. In addition, there were 15,067 tour and travel guides employed full time, year-round nationwide, according to the 2011 American Community Survey. On a weekend intended to give US workers a day of rest, many climb into their drivers’ seats or board an airplane for a quick end of the summer getaway.

The Commute to Work

5.7 million

Number of commuters who left for work between midnight and 4:59 am in 2011. They represented 4.3 percent of all commuters.

4.3 Percent

Percentage of workers 16 and over who worked from home in 2011.

76.4 Percent

Percentage of workers 16 and over who drove alone to work in 2011. Another 9.7 percent carpooled and 2.8 percent walked from home.

25.5 Minutes

The average time it took workers in the US to commute to work in 2011. Maryland and New York had the most time-consuming commutes, averaging 32.2 and 31.5 minutes, respectively.

Anybody can help clean state’s beaches

Source: Energy Innovation Foundation

Washington coasts are included in an international coastal cleanup day set for Sept. 21.

The event depends on volunteers for success. They can select from dozens of beaches to help remove marine debris from Cape Flattery to Cape Disappointment.

Volunteers in Washington state will be joined by thousands of volunteers around the world, sharing the common goal of protecting the marine environment.

This is a worthwhile effort supported by individuals, families, nonprofit groups, businesses and government agencies, all under the banner of CoastSavers.

Keeping the beaches clean is more than just an exercise in aesthetics. Plastic debris in the water and on the beach poses a threat to marine mammals and birds. They can be fooled into thinking it’s food, ingest it and then suffer serious consequences, including malnourishment or even death.

Public awareness of marine debris may be at an all-time high in the wake of the March 2011 tsunami that swept an estimated 5 million tons of debris into the ocean from Japan. Some of the debris landing on state beaches since then has arrived from Japan, adding to the importance of these beach cleanups.

Volunteers who aren’t physically capable of patrolling beaches and lifting bags of debris still can help by serving as a registration station beach captain, assisting with registering volunteers and ensuring they fill out the paperwork and follow cleanup protocol.

For information on how to register for the event, what beaches will be cleaned, where to camp and other trip planning tips, go tocoastsavers.org.

Colorado, Washington get OK from feds on marijuana

Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog

When voters in Colorado and Washington approved the legalization of marijuana possession for adults, it was a policy breakthrough, but there was a problem: the newly approved state laws conflicted with federal law.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, federal law bans marijuana use, so Colorado and Washington were left wondering whether the Justice Department would intervene and block the measures approved by state voters.

Today, as Ryan J. Reilly and Ryan Grim reported, Colorado and Washington got their answer.

The United States government took an historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults.

A Justice Department official said that Holder told the governors in a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon that the department would take a “trust but verify approach” to the state laws.

That last part is important. The DOJ is effectively letting the states know that they can proceed on their current course, but if federal law enforcement has reason to believe in the future that Colorado and Washington are failing to be responsible, the feds can revisit the new policy.

In the meantime, though, that means these states — and any others that choose to follow their lead — can move forward on legalization.

After watching the “war on drugs” move in only one direction for the majority of my life, this strikes me as a pretty amazing development. Up until fairly recently, it would have been unimaginable.

The Huffington Post added that Deputy Attorney General James Cole also issued a three-and-a-half page memo to U.S. attorneys outlining eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. These are the areas where prosecutions will continue:

* the distribution of marijuana to minors;

* revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;

* the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;

* state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;

* violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana

* drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;

* growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;

* preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

But note that this leaves a whole lot of recreational pot use that federal prosecutors will no longer feel the need to pursue.

On voters’ plates: genetically engineered crops

JUAN MABROMATA / AFP/Getty Images, 2012Transgenic soy plants are seen in an Argentina farm field. — JUAN MABROMATA / AFP/Getty Images, 2012
Transgenic soy plants are seen in an Argentina farm field.

Washington voters will decide whether to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients, a debate that’s roiling the food industry nationally.

By Melissa Allison, Seattle Times

Get ready for a food fight.

When Washington voters decide Initiative 522 this fall, they will do more than determine whether to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients.

They also will take sides in a national battle that has raged for two decades about the benefits and safety of manipulating the DNA of food — something many people view suspiciously but do not really understand.

“There’s a lot of uneasiness among consumers on the topic,” said Amy Sousa, managing consultant at the consumer research firm Hartman Group in Bellevue. “They don’t like the sound of it but have a difficult time articulating exactly why.”

GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Technically, any plant or animal that has been bred for particular characteristics is genetically modified. The difference with so-called GMOs is that their DNA is directly manipulated by inserting or modifying particular genes. Some call such targeted work “genetic engineering.”

The first genetically engineered food to appear on grocery shelves was a tomato that failed because consumers didn’t buy it. By contrast, the handful of genetically engineered crops that have been widely adopted by American agriculture — corn, sugar beets, soybeans, canola — are designed to appeal to growers by withstanding certain herbicides or creating their own internal pesticides.

Many of these genetically engineered seeds are owned by chemical companies such as Monsanto and Bayer — which has fueled some people’s mistrust.

GMO advocates, however, also include powerful non-business players, such as the Gates Foundation, that say the technology can be used to enhance nutrition and other qualities desired by consumers.

To Neal Carter, founder of a British Columbia company seeking regulatory approval for genetically engineered apples that don’t brown, GMOs conceived to appeal to consumers constitute a “second wave.”

“We’re going to see the next generation of biotechnology,” he said.

What he calls his “arctic” apples are a start. Carter grows them at test sites in Washington and New York states but will not disclose specific locations for fear anti-GMO activists could disrupt the work.

“It’s a huge investment, and we can’t afford to let folks know where we’re doing this because of that kind of risk,” he said. He wants to avoid the type of GMO crop sabotage that appears to have happened this summer in Oregon, where 6,500 genetically engineered sugar beets were uprooted.

Monsanto has said it also suspects sabotage in the discovery of genetically engineered wheat in Oregon during the spring, which prompted Japan to stop buying a popular Northwest wheat for two months. GMO wheat is not approved for commercial use, and it was found miles from where the company tested genetically engineered wheat almost a decade ago.

But the real war over GMOs is happening in the political arena.

Airing the arguments

The most recent skirmish took place last year in California, where the biotech industry and others spent $44 million to fight a labeling measure similar to I-522. Labeling supporters spent about $10 million.

The measure lost, but the idea of labeling GMOs appears to be gaining traction.

Maine and Connecticut recently passed labeling laws, although they are contingent upon other states participating. The grocery chain Trader Joe’s said in December that its private-label products contain no GMOs, and Whole Foods said earlier this year that within five years it will require suppliers to label products with genetically engineered ingredients.

The Hartman Group advises clients, which regularly include major food companies such as Kraft Foods, General Mills, ConAgra Foods and Kellogg’s, to discuss the matter openly.

“Trying to suppress labeling and skirt around the issue is not a sustainable approach, especially as more and more food retailers get on board with crafting their own position,” Sousa said.

People who oppose GMOs want labeling because they say genetically engineered crops have not been studied or regulated enough to know whether they are harmful.

They also argue it would be hard to return to non-engineered crops if damage is discovered later. And they point to dozens of other countries, including Japan and those of the European Union, that ban or label genetically engineered food.

“We already have the right to know as Americans what the sugar and fat content is, whether flavors are artificial or natural, whether fish is wild or farmed, what country our fruit comes from — and we have a right to know whether our food is genetically engineered,” said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs for PCC Natural Markets, which helped write I-522 and led signature-gathering for the measure. It garnered about 100,000 more signatures than were required.

Other authors were Washington wheat farmer Tom Stahl and lawyers from the nonprofit Center for Food Safety and a Washington, D.C., law firm that helped write the California measure.

GMO proponents say the changes made to food using genetic-engineering techniques are not that different from changes that occur when plants and animals are bred conventionally.

They also point out that every independent science group to look into the issue, including the National Academy of Sciences, has found no evidence of ill health effects. And, they add, millions of people have eaten genetically engineered food for 20 years.

“It’s fine for people from rich, well-fed nations with productive farms to decline the use of GMOs. But they should not be allowed to impose their preferences on Africa,” Bill Gates said in a 2011 speech.

Processed-food manufacturers oppose labeling because labels could hurt sales, said Dave Zepponi, president of the Northwest Food Processors Association.

Removing all genetically engineered ingredients to avoid labeling would create enormous expenses, both in tracking down GMO-free ingredients and in segregating GMO and GMO-free ingredients, he said.

“Most of our companies are or attempt to be GMO free, but the risk of having a small amount of genetically engineered material in the product is too great. They would have to put a label on it, which is probably going to hurt their sales,” Zepponi said.

Although most food in the produce section is not genetically engineered, several major U.S. crops are — along with many processed foods.

More than 90 percent of soybeans, field corn and canola grown in the United States is genetically engineered. So is more than 80 percent of the sugar beets.

Those crops are turned into dozens of ingredients — cornstarch, soy lecithin, non-cane sugar — that are in processed foods.

But that is not how the GMO industry began.

The first genetically engineered food, which appeared in supermarkets in the early ’90s, was the Flavr Savr tomato. It was designed to last longer than regular tomatoes, but it flopped in the market.

“The tomato variety they worked with wasn’t that well suited for fresh use; it was more of a processing variety,” said Carter, the orchardist developing the non-browning apple. “It was remarkably ignorant or naive, and it goes to show how technology by itself isn’t the be all, end all.”

The market has not seen more products like the Flavr Savr, with traits that appeal directly to consumers, in part because it costs so much to develop GMOs.

“It’s very hard to get a payoff,” said Daniel Charles, author of the 2001 book “Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and The Future of Food.”

“If you come up with, say, a soybean with maybe healthier oil content, how are you going to make money on that? You have to first convince the consumer they want to pay more for that.”

Making a better apple

While the focus has been on growers, other GMOs are in the pipeline that have functions unrelated to herbicides and pesticides.

One is a genetically engineered salmon that grows to maturity more quickly. Another is rice with higher levels of vitamin A, known as “golden rice”; it has been a project of the Gates Foundation and others for years.

Then there are Carter’s non-browning “arctic” apples from British Columbia.

He said apple consumption has been in decline for years, and one reason restaurants and industrial kitchens don’t want to use them is that they brown.

So Carter, a former agricultural engineer, set up a research facility to create apples that do not brown. His company of seven employees is awaiting regulatory approval in Canada and the U.S. for arctic apples.

Like the Flavr Savr tomato, his genetically engineered apple turns off a gene rather than inserting one. But unlike the Flavr Savr, Carter said, his apples are derived from popular varieties — Granny Smith and Golden Delicious, to start.

Carter plans to label them as arctic apples, not specifically GMO. But information about their GMO origin will be available on the company’s website and elsewhere.

“We’re pretty confident by the time it hits stores, people will know exactly what it is,” he said.

Melissa Allison: 206-464-3312 or mallison@seattletimes.com. Twitter @AllisonSeattle.

Seattle Times science reporter Sandi Doughton contributed to this report.

Power Brokers IV, Pacific Northwest: The Most Tribes, But Few Legislators

Brian Daffron, ICTMN

The “Power Brokers” series travels to the Northwest and West Coast, whose traditional tribal lands house some of the most ethnically diverse cultures in the United States. Yet, among the states along the West Coast and Northwest, there is little representation in state government. Indian Country Today Media Network contacted the administrative offices—as well as legislative assistants—for the states of Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington State, Idaho and Nevada. Among these states, only two—Alaska and Washington—have Native people within its legislative body – an interesting statistic given California is home to the second largest federally recognized tribes within a state at 103, and Nevada is home to more than 20.

Alaska

According to the Environmental Protection Agency website, there are 229 federally recognized tribes, villages and Native village corporations within the state of Alaska. From the 229 tribal governments, the 2012 U.S. Census shows that the American Indian and Alaskan Native percentage is 14.8 percent. The halls of Alaska’s state legislature have six Native members overall—two in the Senate and four in the House.

Senator Lyman Hoffman (D)

Tribal Afflilation: Yupik

Senate District: S

Years in Office: 1991-1992 and 1995-Present

Previous Legislative Experience: Alaska House of Representatives, 1986-1990 and 1993-1994

Committees: Community and Regional Affairs; Fish & Game Subcommittee; Transportation & Public Facilities—Finance Subcommittee; Legislative Centennial Commission; Finance; Governor-Finance Subcommittee; World Trade; Alternate, Legislative Council; Commerce, Community & Economic Development–Finance Subcommittee; Legislature—Finance Subcommittee; Alaska Arctic Policy Commission

Key Legislation: Co-Sponsor, Energy Assistance Program; revision of state brand board

Senator Donny Olson (D)

Tribal Affiliation: Inupiaq (Golovin)

Senate District: T

Years in Office: 2001-Present

Committees: Part of a Republican/Democrat Coalition—One of two Democrats invited within coalition; Finance; Judiciary; State Affairs

Key Legislation: Creation of Native Language Preservation Council; controlled substances classification; legislation concerning U.S. Coast Guard operations in the Arctic; request for U.S. government to open oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; establishment of Alaska Mining Day; reduction of salmon catch by trawl fishers

Representative Bryce Edgmon (D)

Tribal Affiliation: Choggiung Village Corporation

House District: 36

Years in Office: 2006-Present

Additional Experience: President, Choggiung Village Corporation

Committees: Chair, Subcommittee on Corrections; Chair, Subcommittee on Public Safety; Finance; Subcommittee on Health and Social Services; Alternate, Alaska Arctic Policy Commission

Key Legislation: Change of the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” in Alaska statutes; act relating to performance reviews, audits and termination of Alaska executive and legislative branches, the University of Alaska and the Alaska Court System; request to the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management to plug legacy well drilling sites; reinstatement of child and adult immunization programs in the state Department of Health and Social Services; renewable energy grant fund; loan for commercial fishing entry permits; act making regional Native housing authorities eligible for grants from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; law requiring the Department of Natural Resources to deliver a fishing stream access report to the legislature and governor’s office; Village Safe Water Act

Representative Neal Foster (D)

Tribal Affiliation: Sitnasuak Native Corporation

House District: 39

Previous Experience: Vice-President, Sitnasuak Native Corporation

Years in Office: 2009-Present

Committees: Co-Chair, Military & Veterans Affairs; Community & Regional Affairs; Public Safety-Finance Subcommittee; Judiciary; Transportation & Public Finance Subcommittee; Natural Resources-Finance Subcommittee; Energy

Key Legislation: Legacy well sites; creation of a state food resource development group; opposition to Food & Drug Administration’s findings on genetically-engineered salmon; act relating to performance reviews, audits and termination of Alaska executive and legislative branches, the University of Alaska and the Alaska Court System; revolving bank loan fund; request for United States Congress to adequately fund United States Coast Guard Arctic missions; act making regional Native housing authorities eligible for grants from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; law requiring the Department of Natural Resources to deliver a fishing stream access report to the legislature and governor’s office; relocation of the Coastal Villages Region Fund home port; Village Safe Water Act

Representative Charisse Millett (R)

Tribal Affiliation: Inupiaq

House District: 24

Years in Office: 2009-Present

Committees: Co-Chair, Energy; Select Committee on Legislative Ethics; State Affairs; Labor & Workforce Development-Finance Subcommittee; Judiciary; Administration-Finance Subcommittee; Labor & Commerce; Commerce, Community & Economic Development—Finance Subcommittee; Task Force on Sustainable Education

Key Legislation: Vulnerable adult prompt response and notification; Alaska Challenge Youth Academy; police standards; creation of a state food resource development group; commercial use authorization for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; legacy well sites; Change of the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” in Alaska statutes; proclamation of Alaska as a Purple Heart State; opposition to Food & Drug Administration’s findings on genetically-engineered salmon; laws concerning sale and possession of switchblades and gravity knives; encouragement of firearm and firearm accessory manufacture; Alaska Minerals Commission membership; establishment of the Alaska Gasoline Development Corporation; self-defense definitions; establishment of Vietnam Veterans Day; Statewide Suicide Prevention Council; no charge for death certificates of deceased veterans; establishment of Alaska National Guard Day; renewable energy grant fund; authorization of Native housing authorities to receive grants through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; requirement of Department of Natural Resources to submit report on fishing stream access; urging of U.S. Congress to open coastal plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration; opposition to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to create new protected habitat within upper Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay; prevention, evaluation and liability for concussions in student athletes

Representative Benjamin Nageak (D)

Tribal Affiliation: Inupiaq

House District: 40

Years in Office: 2013

Committees: Co-Chair, Community & Regional Affairs; Education & Early Development—Finance Subcommittee; Health & Social Services; University of Alaska—Finance Subcommittee; Court System—Finance Subcommittee; Energy

Key Legislation: Law regarding abandoned and derelict vessels; legacy well capping; changing of statute language regarding phrases “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded”; opposition to FDA findings on genetically-engineered salmon; establishment of the Alaska Gasoline Development Corporation; allocation of funds to the Special Education Service Agency

Washington

Washington State—the home of Chief Seattle and Sherman Alexie—has 30 federally recognized tribes within its borders, making up 1.8 percent of the state’s total population. Out of 97 members of the Washington House of Representatives, two are Native.

Representative John McCoy (D)

Tribal Affiliation: Tulalip

House District: 38, Position 1

Years in Office: 2003-Present

Committees: Chair, Community Development Housing & Tribal Affairs; Vice-Chair, Environment; Education

Recent Key Legislation: Initiative to increase STEM education; authorization of state-tribal compact schools; protection of state’s cultural resources; Yakima River Basin resource management; access of tribal members to state land; music education initiatives; academic credit for military training; visitation rights for grandparents; Small Rechargeable Battery Stewardship Act; modification Native child care costs; hunting regulations for tribal members; recognition of Native American Heritage Day; regulation of sibling visitation for foster children; excuses of work and school absences for reasons of faith or conscience; increasing capacity of school districts to respond to troubled youth; limiting liability for habitat projects; job order contracting procedure for Department of Transportation; insurance coverage of eosinophilia gastrointestinal associated disorders; initiatives in high school to save lives for cardiac arrests; housing trust fund investments; tribal conservation easements; prohibiting liquor self-checkout machines; high school equivalency certificates; powers and duties of gambling commission; contribution limits to school board candidates; law requiring state to retrocede civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, county and lands; creation of state Indian Child Welfare Act; enhancement of Pacific Salmon production; creation of Washington Investment Trust; decommissioning of coal-fired power generators; establishing state-tribal relations; enactment of Middle Class Jobs Act; creation of Clean Energy Partnership; air quality protection; regulation of aviation biofuels production; clarification of rights and obligations of domestic partners in regards to parentage; creation of Indian Education division within office of Superintendent of Public Instruction; bullying prevention; oil spill program requirements; traumatic brain surgery strategic partnership.

Representative Jeff Morris (D)

Tribal Affiliation: Tsimshian

House District: 40, Position 2

Years in Office: 1996-Present

Committees: Chair, Technology & Economic Development; Environment; Transportation

Previous Experience: Speaker Pro Tempore and Floor Leader, Washington House of Representatives

Recent Key Legislation: Joint Center for Aerospace Technology Innovation; business and government streamlining projects; early learning opportunities; wireless communication structures; restriction of crab fishery licenses; extending business and occupation tax credits for research and development; assessment of energy storage systems; using marijuana-related revenue to fund agricultural production research; modification of renewable energy cost recovery program; authorization of small consumer installment loans; stewardship of household mercury-containing lights; scrap metal licensing; renewable energy options for electricity company customers; grandparents’ visitation rights; increase of regulatory oversight for the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises; renewable energy jobs; elimination of traffic safety cameras; reduction of littering by retail carryout bags; firearm safety funding; tribes and conservation easements; establishment of energy efficiency improvement loan fund; child abuse investigation and proceedings statutes; decommissioning of coal-fired power generators; establishments of energy efficiency standards for consumer products; establishing government-to-government relationship between state and tribes; privatizing management of state ferry system; limits on fertilizer containing phosphorus; defining of municipal solid waste as a renewable resource; procedure of retrocession of civil and criminal jurisdiction over federally recognized tribes; implementation of Blue Alert System; Higher Education Opportunity Act; restriction of television viewers in motor vehicles; expanding rights of domestic partners in regards to parentage; embalmer regulations; improvement of fishing opportunities in Puget Sound and Lake Washington; creation of Indian Education division within office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; epa.gov; Washington Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs; Open States; and Project Vote Smart