Supes approve GMO ordinance for ballot; public to be polled on potential tax measure [Eureka Times-Standard]
The
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted during its Tuesday
meeting to place an ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and growing of
genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, in Humboldt County before the
voters in November. Several members of the public attended the meeting to urge
the board to pass the ordinance during the meeting rather than put it on the
ballot.…If the ordinance passes, producers would have until Jan. 1, 2016 to
convert to a GMO-free operation. Stores would still be allowed to buy, sell and
distribute GMO foods, and research institutions would be able to use GMO
products for experiments. A Ferndale farmer who identified himself as John said
he was a GMO farmer who had converted to organic practices, but said the initiative
would take away farmers' rights to choose. "I urge you to put this vote to
the voters," he said. "We don't need to pit farmer versus farmer. We
don't need any more regulations."
County in Oregon
approves GMO ban despite heavy spending by Monsanto, others [Associated Press]
Residents
in a southwest Oregon county voted emphatically to ban genetically engineered
crops following a campaign that attracted a bushel of out-of-state money. With
most of the ballots counted in Tuesday's all-mail election, Jackson County
voters approved the measure by a 2-to-1 margin. A similar, lower-profile
measure in neighboring Josephine County led 58 percent to 42 percent with
nearly two-thirds of expected ballots counted…."Regrettably ideology
defeated sound science and common sense in Jackson County," Barry Bushue,
president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said in a statement. "We respect the
voice of the voters, but remain convinced Measure 15-119 is bad public policy.
While this election is over, this debate is not. We will continue to fight to
protect the rights of all farmers to choose for themselves how they farm."
Bill to monitor
pumping from county water wells appears headed for passage [Ventura County
Star]
Following
a strong vote in the Senate that included support from two Republicans, a bill
that would give a Ventura County groundwater agency new authority to monitor
pumping from more than 1,200 wells appears on its way to passage this year. “I
feel confident we’re going to get it to the governor and be signed,” Sen.
Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said Tuesday.…The bill would give the Fox
Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, the entity responsible for monitoring
groundwater pumping on the Oxnard Plain, the ability to go onto private
property to inspect wells, with the property owner’s permission. If the owner
does not grant permission, the bill would allow the agency to go to court to
obtain an inspection warrant. California farmers, who generally regard pumping
from their wells as an essential property right, have historically resisted
proposals to allow regulators onto their property to inspect wells. In this
case, however, because the wells are in a managed basin that is being stressed
by overdrafting, the California Farm Bureau Federation is supporting Jackson’s
bill.
Merced County supervisors
decide to write letter questioning groundwater sale [Merced Sun-Star]
The
fight for water during the drought pitted Merced County farmers from opposite
sides of the county against one another in an emotional and lengthy Board of
Supervisors meeting Tuesday. At issue was a controversial contract allowing two
private landowners in Merced County to sell up to 23,000-acre feet of
groundwater to Stanislaus County. In a unanimous decision, the supervisors
voted to send a comment letter to the the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – the
agency proposing the water transfer – outlining “serious questions” about the
proposal. The action doesn’t halt the groundwater sale, but the federal agency
must issue a response to the county’s questions before it can move forward.
Ask a farmer about
climate change [Ventura County Star]
If
there’s any group that doesn’t have to be sold on the idea that government must
address the effects of climate change, it’s farmers. “Anybody who’s paying
attention knows the climate has already changed,” says Daniel Sumner, director
of the UC Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis. And farmers, of course, pay
excruciatingly close attention to the weather….UC Berkeley professor David
Zilberman argued that it’s time to think less about defending against climate
change….That should mean, he argued, a greater reliance on genetically modified
organisms — new grains to feed cattle to reduce their methane emissions, new
varieties of crops that are resistant to heightened threats of pest
infestation, new grape vines engineered to better withstand hot days. As for
dealing with the effects of climate change on California’s water supply,
Zilberman was direct about what needs to be done: “We have to build dams.”
Editorial: Some in GOP would allow schools to opt out of
nutritional standards for students’ lunches [Washington Post]
THE
FEDERAL government spends more than $10 billion a year on the National School
Lunch Program, which serves more than 30 million students in kindergarten
through 12th grade. For that, taxpayers should expect schools not to feed their
children junk. That was the reasonable logic behind a 2010 law requiring
stronger federal standards on school lunches — a law that Republicans in the
House just voted to undercut. Congressmen can prove they care about healthy
school lunches by letting the law phase in, even if it is inconvenient for some
in the school food apparatus. The standards call for students to be served
low-fat dairy products, lean protein, foods rich in whole grain and fruits and
vegetables. Children can decline part of these balanced meals, but they must
take at least one serving of fruits or vegetables. These standards weren’t
developed by fringe food activists or imposed from the first lady’s office.
They come from the Agriculture Department and are based on recommendations from
experts at the Institute of Medicine. Given that a third of American children
and teenagers are overweight or obese, this initiative is common sense.
Ag
Today is distributed by the CFBF Communications/News Division to county Farm
Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for information purposes; stories may
not be republished without permission. 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. For more
information about Ag Today, contact 916-561-5550 or news@cfbf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment