Valley
farmers fear 'modified' wording in Prop. 37 [Fresno Bee]
The
Valley's edible crops are grown without genetic engineering, but farmers here
still fear a ballot initiative aimed at labeling food that has been genetically
modified, saying it could make it harder to sell their products. Farmers are
battling Proposition 37 because they say it hurts business and exposes them to
possible lawsuits. Supporters of the November California ballot measure argue
that consumers have a right to know whether the food they are buying has been
altered using genetic technology. Many crops grown nationwide, including corn,
soybeans and canola, have been tinkered with to resist chemicals, bugs or
drought.
Commentary
by Jamie Johansson: No Initiative would drive frivolous lawsuits
[Sacramento Bee]
…Proposition
37 is a poorly written measure that would increase food costs for families by
$400 per year, would add millions in new government bureaucracy and red tape,
and would establish a whole new class of shakedown lawsuits against family
farmers and food companies like mine – without providing any health or safety
benefits for consumers….What's worse, the measure has a confusing provision
that would prohibit any food that is pasteurized, heated, dried, juiced or
otherwise processed from being labeled or advertised as "natural."
This provision applies even if the processed food has no GMO ingredients
whatsoever. For example, a bag of raw almonds would be considered
"natural" and could be labeled as such. But if they are roasted and canned,
they could no longer be called "natural."…As an olive farmer, that
means that just because I press my olives into olive oil, I would be prohibited
from marketing my product as natural. Keep in mind GMO olives don't exist. It
puts me at a disadvantage to my competitors in other states and
countries….Doctors, scientists and agriculture experts, along with business and
taxpayers groups and farm bureaus representing regions across California, all
agree: Proposition 37 is a bad law that will increase costs for consumers and taxpayers
and harm family farmers and small businesses.
Editorial: No on Proposition
37 [Los Angeles Times]
…In
most cases, there is no requirement to inform consumers, via labels, about the
use of pesticides, hormones or antibiotics, or about the inhumane conditions in
which animals are often kept. But Proposition 37 would make an exception for
genetically engineered food, requiring that it be labeled before being sold in
California. Although we generally endorse people's right to know what goes into
their food, this initiative is problematic on a number of levels and should be rejected….So
far, there is little if any evidence that changing a plant's or animal's genes
through bioengineering, rather than through selective breeding, is dangerous to
the people who consume it. In fact, some foods have been engineered
specifically to remove allergens from the original version. By contrast, there
is obvious reason to be worried about the fact that three-fourths of the
antibiotics in this country are used to fatten and prevent disease in
livestock, not to treat disease in people. The rise of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria from overuse of pharmaceuticals poses a real threat to public health.
So why label only the bioengineered foods? Because the group that wrote
Proposition 37 happened to target them. What's needed is a consistent, rational
food policy, not a piecemeal approach based on individual groups' pet concerns.
Lawsuits
seek injunction to halt rail work [Fresno Bee]
High-speed
rail opponents that include Madera County filed a motion Wednesday in
Sacramento asking a judge to order work on California's proposed bullet train
to stop until their lawsuits over the Merced-Fresno stretch are decided. A
hearing will be held Nov. 16 by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley
on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court is combining three
different lawsuits that challenge the California High-Speed Rail Authority's
approval in May of an environmental-impact report and selection of a route
between Merced and Fresno. The consolidated suits were filed by Madera County,
which was joined by the Farm Bureau organizations in Madera and Merced counties,
Preserve Our Heritage, the Chowchilla Water District and the Fagundes family
that farms in Madera and Merced counties; the city of Chowchilla; and companies
that own properties along the route in Madera and Fresno counties.
Calif.
agrees to study protections for gray wolf [Associated Press]
As
California's lone gray wolf continues roaming the state's far northern wilds,
officials Wednesday decided to launch a one-year study to see whether the
species should be given state endangered species protections. The California
Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in Sacramento that a "status
review" study - spurred by a petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity and other groups - is warranted….Ranchers and at least three rural
counties in the state's rugged, sparsely populated north opposed the plan,
saying it was an unnecessary use of public money for a species that already has
federal protection. While the actual cost of the state's one-year study is
unknown, it will be at least partially funded by a $300,000 federal grant.
Farmworker
suffered heart attack [Salinas Californian]
The
farmworker who collapsed and died Monday in a Soledad-area lettuce field was
Everardo Cazares, 51, of Calexico, according to the Monterey County Coroner’s
Office, and CalOSHA says he died from a heart attack. With temperatures Monday
hovering between 94 and 97 degrees, initial emergency radio communications
indicated that a farmworker was suffering a heat-related illness. Detective
Randal Dyck, a deputy coroner, cautioned against rash conclusions that Cazares’
death was solely caused by working in the hot weather. In fact, Dyck, who
attended the autopsy Wednesday morning, said he saw no signs common to
heat-related deaths. Heat can, however, exacerbate existing medical conditions,
including heart disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Just how
big a role heat contributed, if any, to Cazares’ heart attack is still unclear.
While pathology tests are continuing, drawing conclusions about the effects of
heat in this specific case could be elusive.
Ag
Today is distributed to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for
information purposes, by the CFBF Communications/News Division, 916-561-5550; news@cfbf.com.
Some story links may require site registration. To be removed
from this mailing list, reply to this message and please provide your
name and e-mail address.
No comments:
Post a Comment