Ghana's 2011 Biosafety Act - GMO APPROVAL MUST COME FROM A BODY THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST

GM crops: campaigners in Ghana accuse US of pushing modified food

From farmers to MPs, debate over seed ownership and the role of foreign influences on agriculture is causing divisions in Ghana

• 
• Afua Hirsch, west Africa correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 July 2013 02.00 EDT

Women sweep rice at a processing plant in the northern Ghanaian town of Bolgatanga. Photograph: Finbarr O'Reilly /Reuters

The US embassy in Accra held a roundtable on biotechnology this month. The discussion, designed to promote candid dialogue between biotechnology supporters and sceptics, was attended by experts and campaign groups on both sides of the GM foods debate.
But one Ghanaian campaign group refused the invitation. "Our call for a moratorium on GM foods was met with an invitation to a closed-door discussion," said Duke Tagoe, of Food Sovereignty Ghana, which campaigns for greater transparency about GM foods. "We are deeply worried about what seems like an imposition of genetically modified foods on the good people of Ghana without any meaningful public discourse, compounded by attempts to stifle any opposition."
Food Sovereignty Ghana and other domestic organisations accuse the US and other foreign donors of promoting GM foods to west African countries, and tying aid to implementation.
According to a leaked cable, the US government was heavily involved in drafting Ghana's 2011 Biosafety Act, which provided a framework for the introduction of GM foods. The US aid department provided technical assistance and some funding.
The cable said biotech products were being sold in Ghana and GM seeds from neighbouring countries were likely to have migrated over its borders. US companies have begun requesting permission to conduct trials.
The US embassy in Accra declined to respond to a request by the Guardian to comment on its stance on GM food in Ghana, but claims about the arrival of GM are supported by public officials.
Duke Tagoe of Food Sovereignty Ghana. Photograph: Joy News TV "GM foods are used in agriculture. This is something you cannot wish away because it has come and it is in practice," said John Odame Darkwa, acting chief executive officer of Ghana's Food and Drugs Authority (FDA). "We ensure that any food imported into the country is safe."
But campaigners say trials of GM foods, which the FDA admits have been carried out in Ghana, are a violation of the law, which states trials require the written approval of a new body, the National Biosafety Authority. The problem, they say, is that this authority does not exist yet.
"Trials are being conducted, but there isn't any framework in place," said Kweku Dadzie, from Food Sovereignty Ghana. "We are calling for a ban on the importation, cultivation, consumption and sale of genetically modified foods and crops, until the people of Ghana are satisfied that such an important and irrevocable decision is a sound and proper one to make."
Dadzie points to a lack of public debate surrounding the passing of the Biosafety Act. Maxwell Kofi Jumah, MP for Asokwa, recently admitted on local radio that ministers lacked understanding of the issues.
Many opponents of GM crops have pointed to the role of multinational companies that sell GM "hybrid" seeds that do not self-pollinate, compelling farmers to buy new seeds from the same companies each year, as well as their pesticides and herbicides.
Tagoe said: "Farmers in Ghana have had their own way of keeping seeds year after year. If these policies are allowed to manifest, Ghanaian farmers will have to change money into foreign [currency] in order to purchase seeds from overseas firms. The economic impact on the lives of the farmers will be disastrous. The origin of food is seed. Whoever controls the seed controls the entire food chain. These seeds are not owned by any African entity, they are owned by American companies."
However, experts say there are advantages to the technology. The chief executive of CGIAR Consortium on agricultural research, Dr Frank Rijsberman, said: "Private companies could develop self-pollinating seeds that also provide higher yields, but they don't because it's not profitable.
"But at the same time, the quality of seeds that pollinate themselves is often not that great. It can be difficult for farmers to select the best seeds. The job of seed companies is to select seeds that will have a bigger yields. The best hybrid rice, for example, produce about 20% better yields than the best self-pollinating seeds."
Some say that, instead of looking at yield increases through GM, the focus should be on improving access to markets for the crops that are already being grown by greater investment in extension services and low-technology improvements in farming.
"There is huge potential to increase yields using low-cost and existing technologies," said Kanayo Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, speaking at the Africa Agricultural Science Week in Accra last week. "In Africa, only about 6% of the total cultivated land is irrigated … It is estimated that irrigation alone could increase output by up to 50% in Africa.
"Small increases in fertiliser use in sub-Saharan Africa can produce dramatic improvements in yields. Post-harvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa average $4bn every year. This is food that could meet the nutritional needs of around 48 million people."
Rijsberman said farmers needed better seeds, but also required better access to inputs, access to markets, farming systems and livelihood strategies. "These things would go a long way to improving yields and incomes in a country like Ghana," he added.
Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jul/24/gm-crops-ghana-us-genetically-modified-food

BEE-POCALYPSE NOW: Can you say "FUNGICIDES" & "Neonicotinoids" Boys & Girls?

BEE APOCALYPSE NOW

Scientists discover what’s killing the bees and it’s worse than you thought

By Todd Woody @greenwombat July 24, 2013

Outlawing a type of insecticides is not a panacea. AP Photo/Ben Margot

As we’ve written before, the mysterious mass die-off of honey bees that pollinate $30 billion worth of crops in the US has so decimated America’s apis mellifera population that one bad winter could leave fields fallow. Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probable causes of bee deaths and the rather scary results show that averting beemageddon will be much more difficult than previously thought.
Scientists had struggled to find the trigger for so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that has wiped out an estimated 10 million beehives, worth $2 billion, over the past six years. Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearing parasites and poor nutrition. But in a first-of-its-kind study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists at the University of Maryland and the US Department of Agriculture have identified a witch’s brew of pesticides and fungicides contaminating pollen that bees collect to feed their hives. The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying though they do not identify the specific cause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once.
When researchers collected pollen from hives on the east coast pollinating cranberry, watermelon and other crops and fed it to healthy bees, those bees showed a significant decline in their ability to resist infection by a parasite called Nosema ceranae. The parasite has been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder though scientists took pains to point out that their findings do not directly link the pesticides to CCD. The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite.
Most disturbing, bees that ate pollen contaminated with fungicides were three times as likely to be infected by the parasite. Widely used, fungicides had been thought to be harmless for bees as they’re designed to kill fungus, not insects, on crops like apples.
“There’s growing evidence that fungicides may be affecting the bees on their own and I think what it highlights is a need to reassess how we label these agricultural chemicals,” Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the study’s lead author, told Quartz.
Labels on pesticides warn farmers not to spray when pollinating bees are in the vicinity but such precautions have not applied to fungicides.
Bee populations are so low in the US that it now takes 60% of the country’s surviving colonies just to pollinate one California crop, almonds. And that’s not just a west coast problem—California supplies 80% of the world’s almonds, a market worth $4 billion.
In recent years, a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids has been linked to bee deaths and in April regulators banned the use of the pesticide for two years in Europe where bee populations have also plummeted. But vanEngelsdorp, an assistant research scientist at the University of Maryland, says the new study shows that the interaction of multiple pesticides is affecting bee health.
“The pesticide issue in itself is much more complex than we have led to be believe,” he says. “It’s a lot more complicated than just one product, which means of course the solution does not lie in just banning one class of product.”
The study found another complication in efforts to save the bees: US honey bees, which are descendants of European bees, do not bring home pollen from native North American crops but collect bee chow from nearby weeds and wildflowers. That pollen, however, was also contaminated with pesticides even though those plants were not the target of spraying.
“It’s not clear whether the pesticides are drifting over to those plants but we need take a new look at agricultural spraying practices,” says vanEngelsdorp.
Source:  http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/

BE THERE! GMO LABELING BILL A-3525-A HEARING - TUESDAY, JULY 30 2013

NEW YORK: Two Ways You Can Help Pass GMO Labeling in N.Y. What: Meeting with Sen. Gillibrand When: July 29, 1 p.m. Where: 780 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 Why: To hold Sen. Gillibrand accountable for her vote against the Sanders Amendment What: Hearing on GMO Labeling Bill A3525-A When: July 30, 10 a.m. Where: Lehman College Campus, Bronx, N.Y. Why: To show support for GMO Labeling in N.Y. Dear New York Organic Consumer, If you want to see a GMO labeling law in New York, here's how you can help. Two important events are coming up. Can you attend one or both? Or help by writing a letter to the editor of your paper? Or by sending written testimony to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection? Please read on for more details. MEETING WITH SEN. GILLIBRAND, JULY 29 The night before a worldwide protest against Monsanto, 71 U.S. senators – including New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, who received $198,883 in 2012 campaign contributions from the Agribusiness lobby - voted against the Sanders Amendment to protect states’ rights to pass GMO labeling laws. If New York passes a law requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs, will Sen. Gillibrand support a federal law that would knock down your state law? We want to find out, and we’d like your help. We’ve set up a meeting with Sen. Gillibrand’s office to ask about her vote against the Sanders Amendment. We also will ask her to pledge that she will not support any federal rider, amendment or other legislation that would preempt states’ rights to label GMOs. Please sign up here if you can attend a meeting with Sen. Gillibrand’s Senior Advisor on July 29 in New York city. Then click here and we'll help you write and send a letter to the editor asking Sen. Gillibrand to support states’ rights to label. The momentum is building. Connecticut and Maine just passed the country’s first GMO labeling laws. Vermont and Washington State are soon to follow.  Monsanto and Big Food know they can’t fight these battles in every state. They also know that once a few more states require labeling, companies will be forced to label in all 50 states. So what’s the opposition’s next best strategy to deny your right to know? Pass federal legislation to deny states’ the right to pass GMO labeling laws. It takes organized people to defeat organized money. Please join us in letting Sen. Gillibrand know that it is NOT okay that she voted against the Sanders Amendment. And let’s get a promise from her that she will not support any federal legislation that would stomp on states’ rights to label GMOs. HEARING ON N.Y. GMO LABELING BILL A3525-A The Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection has scheduled a hearing for New York labeling bill A3525-A on July 30, on the Lehman College Campus in the Bronx. Click here for more information and to attend the hearing. We need to help GMO Free New York turn out a large number of voters to impress the Committe, so that when the bill's sponsor, Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, reintroduces the bill at the start of the next legislative session in January 2014, the bill will be immediately voted on and moved through the Assembly to a floor vote. (And then hopefully the Senate will do the same!) Testimony is by invitation only, but written testimony can be submitted and sent no later than August 5th to: Matt Aumand Committee Assistant Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection Room 513 - Capitol Albany, New York 12248 Email: aumandm@assembly.state.ny.us We urge you to attend one or both meetings, write a letter to the editor and submit written testimony. Thank you! Zack, Melinda and the rest of the OCA Team

Organic Consumers Association 6771 South Silver Hill Drive - Finland, MN 55603 - Phone: 218-226-4164 - Fax: 218-353-7652

YES ON I-522! GET GMOs OUT: HUMAN FOOD-ANIMAL FEED-BIOFUEL-SUPPLEMENTS-COTTON

Millions Against Monsanto:
On the Road to Victory

• By Ronnie Cummins
  Organic Consumers Association, July 18, 2013
  
  

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

“ The harder they come the harder they fall, one and all.”
Jimmy Cliff, reggae classic
After enjoying a year of maximum profits, record stock prices, the defeat of a major GMO labeling campaign in California, pro-industry court decisions, and a formidable display of political power in Washington, D.C. – including slipping the controversial Monsanto Protection Act  into the Federal Appropriations bill in March - the Biotech Bully from St. Louis now finds itself on the defensive.
It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has now become the most hated corporation in the world.
Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D (“Agent Orange’), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees).
Reacting to this dangerous escalation of chemical farming, toxic residues on foods and environmental pollution, over a million consumers and organic farmers have pressed the Obama administration to reject a new generation of GE “Agent Orange” and dicamba-resistant crops, forcing the USDA to postpone commercialization of these crops, at least temporarily.
According to the trade press thousands of U.S. farmers, as well as farmers worldwide, are moving away from biotech crops and searching for non-GMO (genetically modified organism) alternatives. At the same time U.S. and global market demand for non-GMO organic foods and crops is steadily increasing.
Compounding Monsanto’s superweed and superpest problems, scientific evidence continues to mount that GMO feed and foods, laced with Bt toxins and contaminated with ever-increasing residues of Monsanto’s deadly weedkiller, Roundup, are severely damaging animal and human health.
As the June 24, 2013 issue of Green Medical News puts it:

“ . . . within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide , and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide , in the etymological sense of the word: "bio" (life) and "cide" (kill) – that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants.  Moreover, it does not rapidly biodegrade as widely claimed, and exceedingly small amounts of this chemical – in concentration ranges found in recently sampled rain, air, groundwater, and human urine samples – have DNA-damaging and cancer cell proliferation stimulating effects.”

On May 25, two million people from 436 cities, in 52 countries, on six continents took to the streets in a global “March Against Monsanto.” From New York to New Delhi, protestors reaffirmed their determination not only to force the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, as has already been accomplished in the European Union, India and at least 36 other nations, but also to drive all GMOs off the market. That includes GMOs in human food, animal feed, cotton, nutritional supplements, body care products, and GMO cotton and biofuels.
The same week as the global March Against Monsanto, the New York Times reported that U.S. food companies, “large and small” are starting to make arrangements to reformulate the ingredients in their processed foods and reorganize their supply lines so to avoid having to admit that their brand name products contain GMOs. Monsanto and its Junk Food allies recognize that if the Washington State ballot initiative on mandatory GMO labeling passes on November 5, which now appears likely, their ability to keep food consumers in the dark will be over.
Large processed food and beverage companies, such as Kellogg’s, General Mills, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Unilever, Dean Foods, Wal-Mart and others understand that once labeling is required in one strategic state, such as Washington, they will be forced to label in all 50 states.
The anti-GMO movement in the U.S. has identified Monsanto’s Achilles heel—GMO food labeling at the state level—and has begun to achieve some preliminary victories, both in the marketplace and in the legislative arena. For example, Whole Foods Market and dozens of natural food stores and co-ops, along with restaurants like Chipotle, are, or are planning to, voluntarily label GMOs. And Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO labeling laws.
Our common task now must be to win the all-important Washington State ballot initiative. This will require a tremendous fundraising effort and netroots-grassroots get-out-the-vote effort. If you have not already made a donation to this effort, please do so now. If you would like to volunteer, sign up here.
Monsanto’s Minions React
The food industry knows it will be difficult to stop voters in Washington State from bypassing the politicians and the federal government and directly voting into law a mandatory GMO food labeling initiative on November 5. So the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is circling the wagons. Claiming that pro-labeling consumers have created “an unprecedented period of turmoil” for the food industry, the GMA convened a meeting, on July 10, in Washington D.C., of large food manufactures and supermarkets. Their agenda? Figure out how to co-opt and neutralize the growing anti-GMO movement.
One of the strategies apparently being put forth by members of the GMA is to ask the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to step in and formulate watered-down federal rules on GMO food labeling. The GMA would like weak labeling laws, similar to those in Japan and other nations, that would contain loopholes, high tolerances and weak enforcement, coupled with a lengthy implementation period, so as to preempt strict state labeling requirements and deflate the growing GMO-Right to Know movement.
On the international level, Monsanto and Big Food, joined by other large corporations concerned about the growing grassroots power of consumer, environmental, and Fair Trade networks, are lobbying for fast track passage of new secretly negotiated Free Trade Agreements, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), popularly known as “TAFTA,” and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Both TAFTA and TPP are basically supercharged versions of the highly unpopular NAFTA and WTO trade agreements.
These “forced trade” agreements would, among other things, lower standards on food safety and environmental protection, including taking away the rights of nations and states to require strict GMO food labeling and safety-testing. Provisions in these trade agreements would allow corporations to sue a nation if pro-consumer or environmental laws interfered with their trade and “expected profits.”  Judgments and penalties would be determined by secret trade tribunals, with corporate lawyers serving as judges. Under the TAFTA/TPP regime, the U.S. and other countries would be required to hand over national sovereignty to foreign investors and multinational corporations.
So even as we mobilize for strategic GMO right-to-know victories in Washington, Vermont and other states, we must simultaneously mobilize the public to fight against federal preemption on GMO labeling, and stop the next generation of these secret Forced Trade agreements.
GMO Food Labeling: Just the First Step
Passing I-522, Washington State’s GMO labeling initiative, is a necessary first step toward honest labeling of GMO ingredients in the U.S. But Monsanto has survived mandatory food labeling in the EU and scores of other nations. The biotech giant will likely survive strict labeling requirements by U.S. states, too. What Monsanto can’t  survive is mass awareness and rejection of all GMOs, especially GMO cotton and GMO animal feed on factory farms. A successful global boycott of factory-farmed meat and animal products and GMO-tainted cotton, combined with GMO food labeling, will literally drive genetic engineering out of the marketplace.
Eighty percent of all processed foods in the U.S. contain GMOs. Yet if we examine the entire global production and consumption cycle of GMOs, we learn that only 20 percent of GMOs grown worldwide go into human food. The other 80 percent end up in animal feed, cotton production, biofuels, body care products, and nutritional supplements.
Even in Europe, where GE foods are rarely sold in grocery stores or restaurants, several billion dollars worth of GE animal feed from North America, Brazil and Argentina are imported every year. Although EU consumers have forced voluntary labeling of GMO-fed non-organic meat and animal products in Germany, France and Austria, and in large chains throughout Europe, there is no mandatory GMO animal feed labeling law in the EU. India is the only major country up until now that requires labels on GMO animal feed. No country yet requires labels on GMO cotton clothing, nutritional supplements, body care products or biofuels.
Almost half of Monsanto’s profits now derive from its sales outside the U.S., especially GMO crops for animal feed.  So if we’re serious about turning back the biotech threat, and building up an alternative food and farming system that is organic, local, climate-friendly and humane, we need to strengthen our international solidarity and cooperation as well as our domestic efforts. Once we take into account the full scope of agricultural biotechnology and its myriad products, we can position ourselves for the next stage of the battle: a comprehensive and global anti-GMO offensive, strategically targeting the entire GMO food, fiber, fuel, supplements and body care industry where they are most vulnerable. This Great GMO Boycott and GMO Right to Know mobilization will require a broader coalition, both domestically and internationally, and an unprecedented mass education effort around the role of GMOs and factory farms in exacerbating our health, environmental, animal welfare and climate crisis.
All Out for Washington State Nov. 5
But first things first. The consumer, farmer and fishing community insurgency that frightens Monsanto and its allies the most is the upcoming ballot initiative (I-522) in Washington State on Nov. 5. As Monsanto and its allies, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) understand, this is the most crucial battle against GMOs today. If voters pass mandatory labeling in Washington, reinforced by contingent state labeling laws already passed or in progress in Connecticut, Maine and Vermont, it will mean the end of the road for genetically engineered food in U.S. grocery stores.
As the biotech lobby has readily admitted, GMO food labeling is a “skull and crossbones” that will drive genetically engineered foods off the market in the U.S. and North America. As evidenced by marketplace trends in Europe, the largest agricultural market in the world, once GMOs are labeled, consumers will not buy them, food companies and grocery stores will not sell them, and farmers will not grow them. This is why Monsanto and Big Food corporations—hiding behind the façade of their trade association, the GMA—will likely pour up to $20 million into defeating I-522.  Pro-labeling forces currently have a commanding lead in the polls in Washington. But we need to raise at least $4 million more (to augment the four million dollars we’ve raised already) to buy enough TV and radio time to counter the forthcoming flood of lies that Monsanto and its minions will launch in Washington State. We already know what those lies will look like: Labeling will raise food prices, hurt family farmers and  confuse consumers.
The Road to Victory means building up our war chest in Washington State for the Nov. 5 ballot initiative. Please spread the word. This is the most important food and farming battle in the world today. If you haven’t already made a donation to the Yes on I-522 campaign please do so now.
Source:  http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27919.cfm

NY STATE GMO LABELING BILL A3525-A - PUBLIC HEARINGS JULY 30, 2013

New York to hold public hearing on proposed GMO labeling law

The New York Assembly’s Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection has scheduled a public hearing to debate a bill to mandate labeling of food ingredients developed from genetically engineered products.

By David Knowles / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, July 17, 2013, 6:11 PM

141

26

0

Print

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

A bill being considered by the New York Assembly would require manufacturers to label genetically modified foods. 

When it comes to requiring labels for GMO foods, New Yorkers will soon be given the opportunity to have their voices heard.
The New York Assembly’s Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection has scheduled a public hearing to debate the merits of a bill currently before the legislature that would require that manufacturers to list whether their products contain genetically engineered ingredients.
The text of the bill, A.3525-A, states that the new law “provides for the labeling of food or food products that contain a genetically modified material or that are produced with a genetically modified material; defines terms; imposes penalties for false labels and misbranding; sets forth exemptions.”
RELATED: MAINE LEGISLATURE EASILY PASSES GMO LABELING BILL
Similar measures have recently passed by the legislatures of Connecticut and Maine, but neither state will move forward with enforcement unless surrounding states, such as New York, follow suit and enact similar laws.
“In recent years, a consumer's ability to know if the food he or she eats contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become a growing issue of contention,” Jeffrey Dinowitz, the chair of the Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection, said in a statement. “Legislators in several states, including New York, have introduced legislation that would require foods containing GMOs to be labeled to indicate the presence of GMOs. Consumer and food advocates argue that a labeling requirement would provide consumers with a better understanding of the foods they buy. Retail, agricultural, and biotechnology advocates contend that such labeling requirements would be unnecessary, costly, and perhaps unlawful. This hearing seeks to solicit information regarding scientific research and data on the health and safety of GMOs in foods, federal and state policy related to foods containing GMOs, and the potential economic and legal implications of requiring labels on foods containing GMOs.”
The bill’s primary sponsor, Manhattan Democrat Linda Rosenthal, told the Daily News that
RELATED: NEW YORK COULD REQUIRE LABELS FOR GMO FOOD
the primary issue is one of transparency for consumers.
“When it comes to what you put into your body, it’s important that, as a consumer, you know as much as possible,” Rosenthal said.
GMO seed manufacturer Monsanto, on the other hand, argues that there is no proof that genetically engineered foods are unsafe for human consumption.
“We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks,” the company says on its website. “Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”
The hearing on the bill will take place at 10 a.m. on July 30 in the East Dining Room at Lehman College in New York City. Only those invited to testify will be able to speak, but applications are currently being accepted, and the general public is invited to attend the meeting.
DKnowles@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-hold-public-hearings-gmo-labeling-bill-article-1.1401572#ixzz2ZM7UkvyO

EPA 20 YEARS BEHIND -NOT PROTECTING FARM WORKERS FROM POISON HERBICIDES/PESTICIDES

Published on 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 by Common Dreams

Nation's Farmworkers Demand Protections From Toxic Pesticides

20-year delay on updating EPA rules leaves millions at risk

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Fruit pickers in Oxnard, California. (Photo: Alex Proimos/cc/flickr) Farmworkers and their advocates from across the nation descended on Washington, DC this week to demand better protection from the pesticides they're exposed to while picking the nation's produce.
Their specific target, the Center for Public Integrity reports, is

The Worker Protection Standard, a set of EPA rules meant to reduce the risk of pesticide-related injuries for some 2.5 million agricultural workers and pesticide handlers at 600,000 agricultural establishments nationwide.
Yet, even as the perils of pesticides have become better known, EPA protections have not been seriously updated in 20 years.

“Each year pesticide exposure poisons as many as 20,000 farmworkers," stated Virginia Ruiz, Director of Occupational and Environmental Health for the advocacy group Farmworker Justice.   “These injuries, illnesses, and deaths are preventable by taking the necessary steps to protect our farmworkers and their families,” she continued.
Farmworker Justice profiles some of these dangers in their new report, Exposed and Ignored: How Pesticides are Endangering Our Nation’s Farmworkers.  In it, they list a frightening number health problems from pesticide exposure:

Short-term (acute) effects may include stinging eyes, rashes, blisters, blindness, nausea, dizziness, headaches, coma, and even death. Some long-term health impacts are delayed or not immediately apparent such as, infertility, birth defects, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, and cancer.

In an op-ed in The Hill this week, Bruce Goldstein, president of Farmworker Justice, writes:

The nature of working with crops likely always will involve some occupational danger.  But farmworkers deserve more than the meager set of protections we offer them now.  Simple revisions to the Worker Protection Standard should require more frequent and thorough safety training on farms, ensure that workers receive information about the specific pesticides used in their work, and require medical monitoring of workers handling toxic pesticides.
Moreover, it’s time to require Spanish translation of pesticide labels and implement buffer zones around schools and residential areas to protect farmworker communities from aerial drift.  These basic protections are hardly unwarranted for the men and women who put food on our tables every day.

“People seem to care if their tennis shoes are produced by exploited child labor in Asia,” said Tom Thornburg, managing attorney for Farmworker Legal Services of Michigan. “They should also be concerned whether their blueberries are being produced in situations that are causing workers to become poisoned.”

___________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/17-10

HEAR YE! HEAR YE! JULY 30, 2013! NY STATE A3525 GMO LABELING BILL PUBLIC HEARING

Hi All 

The NY Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection has decided to hold a hearing on July 30th for GMO Labeling Bill A3525-A, Sponsored by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal. It will be held on the Lehman College Campus in the Bronx, NY, at 10 am. Public transportation and on-site parking are available. Details are here: http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/Consumer/20130716/.

Date: July 30, 2013 Time: 10 am -- ???
Place: Lehman College
East Dining Room
250 Bedford Park Blvd West
Bronx, NY

It is incredibly important that we fill the seats of this room with GMO labeling advocates from New York. Can you help us make this hearing a standing room only event and garner it the attention our bill deserves by joining us at Lehman College on July 30th? Also, even if you can't attend, you can help by spreading this news. The posting on the GMO Free NY Facebook page can be seen here: on.fb.me/13wjwSK. Please feel free to copy and share or modify this post or what is written here in any way. But please do share it with as many social media outlets, email lists, friends, colleagues, and organizations you know.

And, ALERT YOUR LOCAL MEDIA!!! Our showing MUST impress the committee so that when the bill's sponsor -- Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal -- reintroduces the bill at the start of the next legislative session in January 2014, it is immediately voted upon and moved through the Assembly to a floor vote. (And then hopefully the Senate will do the same!)

Oral testimony is by invitation only, but written testimony can be submitted and sent no later than August 5th to:

Matt Aumand
Committee Assistant
Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection
Room 513 - Capitol
Albany, New York 12248
Email: aumandm@assembly.state.ny.us

We urge you to send in written testimony!

We all need to stand together on this if we want GMO labeling in NYS to be a reality. Thank you for your support and help! Let's fill all of these seats with our people!!!

Best,
Stacie and Kat
GMO Free NY
www.gmofreeny.net
https://www.facebook.com/events/514831028586077/