Two States Ready
to Fight for GMO Labeling in November While Industry Pushes Bill to
Remove State Rights
September 23, 2014
Story at-a-glance
Last October, residents in Cedar Valley, Oregon were doused
with pesticides by a helicopter aiming for privately-owned
timberlands. At least one appears to have suffered
complications that led to death
The “Farm and Forest Practices Act” prevents the residents
from suing for damages. But 17 of those affected by the
pesticide dousing are now challenging the constitutionality
of that law
A federal judge has ruled that Idaho’s Bill 1337--dubbed the
“ag-gag law,” as it criminalizes the secret filming of
agricultural practices—may in fact be unconstitutional
The Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA) is
suing Vermont in an effort to overturn the first
no-strings-attached GMO labeling in the US
GMA is also pushing a Congressional bill, the “Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, dubbed the “DARK”
(Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, which would bar
states from passing GMO labeling laws
y Dr. Mercola
The pesticide and junk food industries continue to cause harm,
even deaths, while destroying our rights and indemnifying themselves
from liability.
That’s the take-home message from the September 8 article in
The Progressive,1
which recounts the travails of residents in Cedar Valley, Oregon.
It’s also the take-home message of other related news. And yet
there’s hope...
“A group of residents of the Cedar Valley area near Gold
Beach in Curry County, Oregon say their properties were doused
with pesticides by a helicopter aiming for privately-owned
timberlands last October,” the featured article states.
In what has been called a ‘severe sanction,’ the
pesticide applicator and the aerial spray company he owns have
been fined $10,000 each by the state and had their pesticide
licenses suspended for a year for providing false information
that misled investigators.
But at least one of those affected says this basically
amounts to a big traffic ticket, when instead he believes the
incident should be considered an act of ‘criminal trespass’
linked to 45 illness reports.”
‘Right to Farm’ Laws Protect Big Ag from Legal Action
At present, the “Farm and Forest Practices Act” prevents the
residents from suing for damages. But 17 of those affected by the
pesticide dousing are now challenging the constitutionality of that
law.
While originally intended to protect small farmers from frivolous
nuisance lawsuits by suburban neighbors, today, many of these laws
do little more than shield large corporations from being held
accountable for large-scale environmental and human harm.
Small farms have been replaced with gigantic warehouse-style
factory farms that produce toxic waste on a scale that is simply
incomparable to a regular family-run farm.
Yet you still cannot sue them for damages as long as they’re
following “generally accepted” farming or foresting
practices—including aerial pesticide applications, even though in
this case people were doused in their own backyards!
Moreover, Oregon’s Right to Farm law contains a provision stating
that if you sue and lose the case, then you are responsible for
paying the defendant’s legal fees. This is another effective
dissuasion strategy that coddles big industry while leaving regular
folk to suffer without effective recourse.
Residents Exposed to Toxic Agent Orange Ingredient
Two residents reporting health problems in this case include John
Burns, who is the assistant chief of the local volunteer fire
department, and his neighbor, James Welsh.
According to Burns, a total of 45 people have suffered health
effects from the exposure. While Burns began feeling progressively
worse as the day wore on, Welsh was immediately struck will nausea
and breathing problems when the chemicals rained down on him.
Welsh, who had a preexisting heart condition, rapidly
deteriorated after the exposure, and died in April. That exposure,
it turned out, was a mix of
2,4-D—which was a major ingredient in Agent Orange—and
triclopyr, plus an adjuvant.
One of the ingredients was applied “at a rate above the maximum
allowed by the label instructions,” according to the Oregon
Department of Agriculture.2
As reported in the featured article:
“The pesticide spray over Cedar Valley is certainly not
the first residential exposure due to aerial pesticide
application. Residents of the Triangle Lake area in Lane County
say they have been exposed to aerial pesticide drift multiple
times in recent years, especially in 2011, as CMD has reported.
Urine tests performed by scientists at Emory University
in spring 2011 confirmed 2,4-D in 100 percent of their urine
samples and the weedkiller atrazine in most.”
Cedar Valley Residents Challenge ‘Right-to-Farm’ Law
The law firm Craig Law Center has taken on Cedar Valley’s case,
challenging the “Right to Farm” law. According to the featured
article:
“Crag attorney Chris Winter said he was interested in the
case because he became ‘concerned that people weren't able to
defend their property rights against toxic chemicals.’
The lawsuit challenges ‘right-to-farm’ under the under
the clause of the state constitution that guarantees that every
individual will have a legal remedy for the violation of any
fundamental legal right...
Winter said, ‘Because toxic chemicals and aerial
application are so risky, courts have said there's a higher
standard of care, more than just being reasonably prudent, but
being careful that nothing gets on neighbors' property.’
But because of the ‘right-to-farm’ law, citizens still
can't sue. That means courts have ‘tipped in favor of chemical
companies and applicators.’
Winter says that the plaintiffs hope to change the ‘Right
to Farm and Forest Law,’ but that additional changes are needed
to address structural problems in the state's regulatory system,
like ‘basic standards and guidelines for how pesticides are
applied.’"
Judge Declares Idaho’s ‘Ag-Gag’ Law Potentially Unconstitutional
In related, but slightly more optimistic news, a federal judge
has ruled that Idaho’s Bill 13373--dubbed
the “ag-gag law,” as it criminalizes the secret filming of
agricultural practices—may in fact be unconstitutional.
The bill was hastily signed into law in February, after footage
of animal abuse occurring in a confined animal feeding operation
(CAFO) was aired on TV. The law was quickly challenged by the Animal
Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), alleging that politicians ignored the
First Amendment simply to protect corporate interests. As reported
by the Courthouse News Service:4
“Gov. C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter and Attorney General Lawrence
Wasden moved to dismiss the complaint in April... but US
District Judge B. Lynn Winmill... said the opponents may have a
case: First Amendment and equal protection clause.
While the protection of private property is a valid
concern, it does not necessarily justify the restriction of free
speech, the court found.
‘The First Amendment requires more than the invocation of
a significant government interest; it requires that the
restriction's benefits be balanced against the burden on
protected speech,’ Winmill wrote. ‘The state therefore must
justify a need to serve its interests in protecting private
property through targeting protected speech.’"
This is good news, as this law is all about protecting the status
quo of industrial farming; turning it into a crime to
expose the horrors, cruelties, and dangers associated with big
agricultural business... Time will tell if the “ag-gag rule” will be
repealed, but at least the issue will be addressed in a court of
law.
Help Vermont Defend America’s First No-Strings GMO Labeling Law!
Speaking of courts of law... The Grocery Manufacturers
Association of America (GMA), which consists primarily of pesticide
producers and junk food manufacturers, is suing Vermont in an effort
to overturn H.112—the first no-strings-attached GMO labeling in the
US.5,
6,
7 H. 112 was passed by an overwhelming margin,8
and Governor Peter Shumlin signed the historic bill into law on May
8 this year.
The law will require food manufacturers to label genetically
engineered (GE) foods sold in Vermont, and prohibits them from
labeling foods with GE ingredients as “natural” or “all natural.”
The GMA’s lawsuit claims that their members are going to end hunger
with their pesticide-laden GMOs, but we already know that the
problem with hunger is not production, it’s distribution. There’s
more than enough food to go around; it’s just poorly distributed.
Besides, must Americans be kept in the dark about what we’re
eating in order for the chemical technology industry to be able to
“save the world” with its genetically engineered grains? To help
Vermont defend its GMO labeling law against these multi-national
giants, please consider making a donation to the Organic Consumers
Fund, which has been set up to raise funds for this purpose. The
fund has also pledged to help Oregon and Colorado pass their
respective GMO labeling initiatives this November.
Beware the ‘DARK’ Act...
The GMA, whose 300-plus members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and
General Mills, is also pushing a Congressional bill called the “Safe
and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014.9
The bill, dubbed the “DARK” (Denying Americans the Right to Know)
Act, would actually preempt all states from passing GMO
labeling laws.10
It would also bar states from enacting laws that make it illegal for
food companies to misrepresent their products by labeling GE
ingredients as “natural.” Last but not least, the DARK Act would
also limit the FDA’s power to force food companies to disclose GE
ingredients.
Does any of this make you warm and fuzzy inside? Are these the
actions of companies that have your best interest at heart? I would
say no. They are trying to HIDE the presence of genetically
engineered ingredients, and are pulling out ALL the stops to do so!
Ask yourself, why? These companies—the very ones providing
much of our food—are actually trying to take away
individual state’s rights, just to ensure certain food
ingredients remain hidden! Curiously enough, Monsanto is more than
willing to “support” GMO labeling in other countries.
Here’s a Monsanto ad from the UK, letting British consumers know
how much the company supports the mandatory labeling of their
goods—even urging Britons to seek such labels out—ostensibly because
Monsanto believes “you should be aware of all the facts before
making a decision.” What’s the difference between British shoppers
and American shoppers? Why does Monsanto support one nation’s right
to know but not another? It’s time to put an end to this
hypocritical charade and label foods in the US, as has been done in
64 other countries across the globe already!
American state rights were encouraged by our constitution, and
the constitution was meant to prevent federal superpowers becoming
corrupted and creating an authoritarian, fascist federal government.
Sadly, we’ve watched our individual and state rights deteriorate
over many decades, succumbing to these enormous industry powers, and
this is probably one of the biggest, most blatant overreaches yet,
proving that corporate interests are ruling the roost on Capital
Hill. As stated by Marni Karlin, director of legislative and legal
affairs for Organic Trade Association:11
“Consumers, particularly the eight out of ten American
families who buy organic products, want to know what is in their
food. Rep. Pompeo’s bill ignores this consumer demand for
information. Instead, it ties the hands of state governments,
the US Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug
Administration concerning GMO labeling. It is fatally flawed."
What Happens in Oregon and Colorado in November Could Make or Break
the GMO Labeling Movement
In addition to all this legal wrangling, opponents of GMO
labeling spent more than $27 million on lobbying in the first six
months of this year alone. This is about three times more than they
spent during all of 2013, when they shelled out $9.3 million.12
Among the biggest spenders on anti-labeling lobbying were the
Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and major food makers such
as Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc., along with chemical industry
heavyweights like Monsanto and DuPont.
Undoubtedly, they are well aware that November is going to be a
crucial turning-point for the GMO labeling movement. Both Colorado
and Oregon have GMO labeling on their November ballots, and it’s
absolutely imperative that we make a strong push to make sure these
ballots succeed. So please, consider making a generous
donation to the Organic Consumers Fund.
I know, it’s an uphill battle, but persistence pays! We cannot
and will not give up now. During last year's I-522 ballot campaign
to label GMOs in Washington State, the Grocery Manufacturers
Association (GMA) came up with a devious, and illegal,
money-laundering scheme to protect the identity of members who
donated funds to the opposing campaign. Unfortunately, this illegal
move helped the GMA defeat I-522 by a mere one percent
margin—ONE PERCENT!
Fortunately, the GMA was caught, and sued by Attorney General Bob
Ferguson, who accused them of intentional money laundering and
violating state campaign disclosure laws. They had to resort to
illegal activity to beat us by one percent the last time... With
that in mind, I am firmly convinced that we CAN win in both Colorado
and Oregon. But it will take effort. And money, to make sure all the
voters are informed enough to make a sound decision. It’s time for
truth in labeling. Together, we can make it happen.
Copyright 1997- 2014 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.