Thanks for all you do,
The Daily Kos team
Did you know that the fight for a living wage is taking place right here in Washington state?
While fast food workers across the nation are demanding higher wages, Proposition 1, the Good Jobs Initiative, will be on the November ballot in SeaTac.
It will enable more than 6,000 transportation and hospitality workers to earn a living wage and enjoy common sense benefits, like paid sick leave.
The Yes for SeaTac campaign needs our help. Can you knock on doors and help spread the word about SeaTac Proposition 1?
What: Yes for SeaTac’s Democrats Weekend!
When: October 12th or 13th, 9am-5pm
Where: Riverton United Methodist Church
3118 S 140th St. Tukwila
SeaTac Proposition 1 is endorsed by community organizations, faith groups, and labor unions.
…provides up to 5 days of paid sick leave for full-time airport employees, preventing the spread of dangerous disease and keeping our families and community safe.
…incentivizes airport-related businesses to employ full time workers, creating jobs our neighbors can count on to make ends meet.
…requires SeaTac hotels and hotel restaurants to do the right thing and give tips and service charges to the employees who perform the actual services.
…ensures that SeaTac residents employed at and around the airport can receive a living wage of $15, helping them make ends meet.
…exempts small businesses in SeaTac. Prop 1 specifically exempts SeaTac restaurants, grocery stores, and all other small businesses.
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
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
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 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
“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, Ph.D., Co-Director, Global Security Program
|Science in Action|
|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.|