I522 … The other Washington and gentically-engineered foods ~Read I522 carefully


Washington Secretary of State

Initiative Measure No. 522 concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods.

This measure would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.

Written by the Office of the Attorney General

The Law as it Presently Exists
In general, federal law regulates the safety and quality of food shipped between states, while Washington law regulates the safety and quality of food produced and sold within the state. Both federal and state law identify and regulate foods that are “misbranded” or “adulterated,” but neither state nor federal law requires any specific labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.

Under Washington law, the director of the state Department of Agriculture is authorized to condemn, seize, and destroy misbranded or adulterated foods and food items. Washington law defines food and food products as “misbranded” where labeling or packaging is false or misleading, and “adulterated” if they contain some added substance that is poisonous or harmful to health, or if they are contaminated, diseased, putrid, or otherwise unfit as food or injurious to health. State law imposes many specific labeling and packaging requirements and prohibitions for food and food products, but it does not require any specific labeling of genetically engineered foods. No provision of state law treats genetically engineered food as adulterated.

Washington law also authorizes the director of the state Department of Agriculture to stop the sale of mislabeled agricultural seeds, flower seeds, and vegetable seeds sold in Washington, and to condemn and seize the seeds if necessary. Seeds are considered to be misbranded if they are not accurately labeled in compliance with state law, but existing state law does not require that genetically engineered seeds be labeled as genetically engineered.

The Effect of the Proposed Measure, if Approved – Read what it says carefully


The measure would impose labeling requirements on genetically engineered foods and seeds offered for retail sale in Washington. The measure defines “genetically engineered” to mean changes to genetic material produced through techniques that directly insert DNA or RNA into organisms or that use cell fusion techniques to overcome natural barriers to cell multiplication or recombination.

Beginning July 1, 2015, any food produced using “genetic engineering” that is not labeled as required in the measure would be considered “misbranded.” The measure would require genetically engineered raw agricultural commodities to be labeled conspicuously with the words “genetically engineered,” and genetically engineered packaged processed foods would have to be labeled conspicuously with the words “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.” The measure would exempt the following foods from the labeling requirements: alcoholic beverages; certified organic foods; foods not produced using genetic engineering, as certified by an approved independent organization; foods served in restaurants or in food service establishments; “medical food”; and foods consisting of or derived from animals that have themselves not been genetically engineered, regardless of whether the animal has been fed any genetically engineered food; and processed foods produced using genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes. Processed foods containing small amounts of genetically engineered materials would be exempt until July 1, 2019.

Beginning July 1, 2015, the measure also would require that genetically engineered seeds and seed stock be labeled conspicuously with the words “genetically engineered” or “produced with genetic engineering.”

The measure provides that its requirements are to be implemented and enforced by the state Department of Health, instead of the state Department of Agriculture, and would authorize the Department of Health to assess a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars per day for each violation. The Department of Health, acting through the Attorney General, could bring an action in superior court to enjoin a person violating the measure. Separately, after giving sixty days notice, any private person could bring an action in superior court to enjoin a person violating the measure, and potentially recover costs and attorney fees for the action.

Please click on the link below for EVERYTHING you might need to know before voting YES or NO on I522

https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/OnlineVotersGuide/Measures?language=en&electionId=50&countyCode=xx&ismyVote=False&electionTitle=2013%20General%20Election%20#ososTop

   ============================================================================

I have had quite a few people say I have to vote yes or that at least this is a start …

I think I522 doesn’t go far enough and consumers need better reasons for why some things are not included while others are …and I

have a problem with the timing of I522. I need to have everything labeled … period

Why do we have to wait until 2015 and why should we trust that these people providing us with food are truly organic given what we know popped up in organic farms(the good bad and the really ugly) I am slightly offended by the notion that we must take them at face value and isn’t it a bit disingenuous to think accidents don’t happen lest we talk about cheaters or the corrupt.

I want everything labeled

beaseedforchangestickersGREEN

UCS and Nuclear Weapons


UnionofConcernedScientists

Nuclear weapons have become a security liability, not an asset. Since these weapons were first invented and used nearly 70 years ago, the world has become a much different place. The Cold War has been over for a quarter century, yet the United States and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are kept on hair-trigger alert, raising the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch in the absence of any credible threat. Despite the president’s commitment not to build new nuclear weapons, the administration is now planning to spend tens of billions of dollars to do so. In 2009, President Obama pledged to seek a world free of nuclear weapons, but he must take strong steps now if we are to see any real progress during his tenure. —Karla

This Just In
The future of nuclear weapons in the U.S. The future of nuclear weapons in the United States? To safely reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this country, we must ensure that those we do have remain reliable, safe, and secure. But what does that require? A new UCS report, Making Smart Security Choices, takes a big-picture look at the laboratories and facilities that research, design, produce, and maintain nuclear weapons and recommends cost-effective changes that will improve national security and save taxpayers money. MORE

Ask a Scientist

Report: Making Smart Security Choices

“How much does it cost to create a single nuclear weapon?”—Z. Witmond, New York, NY

Although the United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since the 1990s, it has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime. It also plans to replace its entire arsenal with a suite of five new weapon types over the next 25 to 30 years, violating the spirit if not the letter of President Obama’s 2010 pledge not to develop new nuclear warheads. This plan, along with modest reductions in the U.S. arsenal of both deployed and reserve weapons, will cost taxpayers some $250 billion in the next few decades. That’s roughly equal to 30 years of federal funding for Head Start programs for kids at 2012 enrollment levels. MORE

Lisbeth Gronlund

Lisbeth Gronlund, Ph.D.,  Co-Director, Global Security Program

Follow Lisbeth’s blog >>

Science in Action
Missile Defense Missile defense: costly and unproven. There are much better ways to alleviate the threat of missile attack than by spending billions of dollars to build a missile defense system with an abysmal track record that will not make Americans safer. Urge your senators to oppose funding for costly, unproven, missile defense sites and to instead work to alleviate the threat posed by nuclear weapons in more sensible ways.

Will the House move into the 21st Century


By 

Senate Passes Landmark LGBT Rights Bill

Pride Flag Thumbnail Friday (3x2)

Great News: It may have taken nearly two decades, but the Senate finally passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act today on a strong, bipartisan vote of 64-32 (one supporter was absent). Support was unanimous among Democrats and 10 Republicans, including conservative Senators like Kelly Ayotte (NH), Pat Toomey (PA), and Orrin Hatch (UT), also supported the landmark civil rights legislation.

Only one Republican senator even bothered to speak against the bill.

Good News: Before passing the bill, the Senate also overwhelmingly defeated a very damaging amendment that would’ve negated many of the bill’s protections by dramatically and unnecessarily expanding the bill’s religious exemptions, which are already quite expansive.

Bad News: Even before today’s historic vote, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and other GOP leaders in the House of Representatives already said they won’t bring up the bill, even though it would almost certainly pass with a combination of Democratic and Republican votes.

Ugly News: Shockingly, 32 Senate Republicans voted today to deny one of the most basic civil rights — the right to earn a living — to LGBT people.

Bonus News: Hawaii is set to pass marriage equality tomorrow, which would make it the 16th such state overall and the 2nd just this week!

The CBS News “Eyewitness” Who Wasn’t There


Media Matters for America
On last week’s 60 Minutes, CBS News presented an account from a British security contractor who claimed to be an eyewitness to the attack against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. But the contractor’s own incident report revealed that he was nowhere near the facilities and was instead at a beachside villa. [1]Journalistic malpractice? Tell CBS to fix this faulty reporting.The 60 Minutes report largely hinged on revelations from “Morgan Jones,” who CBS News claimed “witnessed the attack.” In an interview with correspondent Lara Logan that sounded like the script for an action movie, “Jones” described scaling the wall at the burning compound, fighting off terrorists inside, and gaining access to the hospital to view the remains of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The CBS News report quickly fueled the ongoing right-wing politicization of the terror attack and provided renewed vigor to accusations of a “Benghazi cover-up.” [2]

The problem? “Jones,” whose real name is Dylan Davies, previously wrote that he “could not get anywhere near” the diplomatic compound that night. In the incident report submitted to his employer, Davies stated that, due to roadblocks, he spent most of the night of the attack at his Benghazi beachside villa, only learning of the Ambassador’s death from a Libyan colleague’s cellphone picture. Davies later claimed that he lied in the employer report, not the story he gave to the media. Either way, the discrepancy is troubling. [3]

Veteran journalists agree that the new details raise questions about whether 60 Minutes properly reviewed Davies’ story before it aired. “Other sources, even if those were off the record sources, they could have done something to address this discrepancy,” said Kelly McBride, ethics instructor at The Poynter Institute and co- author of the new book the New Ethics of Journalism. Dave Cuillier, Society of Professional Journalists president, agreed: “Accuracy’s number one and we’ve got to get it right and if we don’t, which is going to happen inevitably, then we need to correct it. That applies in every situation, whether it’s an obit in the Green Valley News or 60 Minutes.” [4]

What’s more, CBS Corporation owns Simon & Schuster, which published Davies’ “eyewitness” memoir about the attack. The ties between 60 Minutes and the publisher of Davies’ book were not disclosed when 60 Minutes was promoting Davies’ story. Given the financial relationships involved, it’s especially concerning that CBS News did not properly address the discrepancy between Davies’ stories. [5]

Whether due to negligence or a deliberate lack of disclosure, CBS News failed to properly verify its source in pursuit of a scoop.

Will you join the call for CBS News to explain the discrepancies or retract its report?

In 2004, when questions were raised about 60 Minutes reporting on documents involving President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News appointed an independent panel “to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken.” [6] Following the investigation, CBS News fired four producers connected to the story, and chose not to renew correspondent Dan Rather’s contract.

To maintain its reputation as a respected news organization, CBS News needs to respond to this instance of questionable journalism with the same professionalism it has displayed in the past. Can you help us remind CBS News that journalism and the facts matter?

Sign the letter to CBS News: http://action.mediamatters.org/cbs_benghazi

We’ll send the letter next week, so sign on by Monday to ask CBS News to take responsibility for the problems in its report.  Your participation makes a difference.

Cynthia Padera Campaigns Manager Media Matters for America

—–

[1] 60 Minutes Benghazi Report Takes A Huge Credibility Hit http://mm4a.org/1aZgivt  [2] Conservative Media Praise CBS’ 60 Minutes Report On Benghazi http://mm4a.org/16h0mpS [3] CBS “Eyewitness” Admits He Lied About Benghazi Attack While Bashing Critics http://mm4a.org/1aUykCt [4] Veteran Journalists Criticize 60 Minutes For “Serious Problem” With Benghazi “Witness” http://mm4a.org/1h6tur2 [5] 60 Minutes’ Benghazi Eyewitness Asked Fox News For Money http://mm4a.org/17sky9b [6] David Brock Calls On CBS To Retract Faulty Benghazi Story http://mm4a.org/1iAIgBK