Tag Archives: attorney

Ag-gag bill chokes in Tennessee

by gt67dx1 Posted on May 17, 2013

Ag-gag bill chokes in Tennessee

By John Upton

Shutterstock

It appears ag-gag bills can’t even hoof it in farm country: Tennessee joins a roster of states who are strangling ag-gag bills before they can reach the killing floor.

Tennessee lawmakers had narrowly approved a bill that would have required anybody who filmed animal abuses to turn over the footage to law enforcement within 48 hours or risk being fined. That would have prevented undercover animal activists from documenting systematic animal abuse by agricultural workers, helping factory farms get away with cruelty.

But Gov. Bill Haslam (R) called BS on the bill and said that he plans to veto it. From a statement issued by the governor on Monday:

First, the Attorney General says the law is constitutionally suspect. Second, it appears to repeal parts of Tennessee’s Shield Law [which protects journalism] without saying so. If that is the case, it should say so. Third, there are concerns from some district attorneys that the act actually makes it more difficult to prosecute animal cruelty cases, which would be an unintended consequence.

For these reasons, I am vetoing HB1191/SB1248, and I respectfully encourage the General Assembly to reconsider this issue.

Ag-gag bills have been spreading through the U.S. faster than mystery disease at a Chinese swine farm. Some have become law, but others are being withdrawn, defeated, or vetoed. Grist’s Susie Cagle produced this interactive map last month to provide an overview.

Food Safety News reports that Haslam’s veto might make it less likely that other states will adopt such questionable bills:

Six states have adopted “ag-gag” laws. Iowa, Utah, and Missouri passed such legislation last year. Kansas, Montana and North Dakota did so back in 1990-91. No one can find much in the way of prosecutions under these laws, but that could be because animal welfare groups might be less active in those six states.

This year, “ag-gag” bills have fallen short. Wyoming adjourned before there could be a vote in the second house. Indiana’s chambers could not agree after passing differing versions. The bill’s California sponsor dropped it in that state. And now Tennessee’s bill died in a gubernatorial veto.

State legislatures are quickly shutting down for the year. Of the 50, 20 have already adjourned sine die. Many others will do so before June. A couple that meet into the summer, such as Nebraska and Pennsylvania, could still pass another “ag-gag” this year.

But the Tennessee veto makes that less likely than it was before the Haslam veto.

Baaahhh-eautiful.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source: 

Ag-gag bill chokes in Tennessee

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ag-gag bill chokes in Tennessee

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

by trasze2aja Posted on May 13, 2013

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

By John Upton

Shutterstock

/ Jonathan FeinsteinMembers of the Vermont House think shoppers should be told which of these products contain GMOs.

A historic but cautious attempt to force food manufacturers to label products containing genetically modified ingredients passed the Vermont House by an overwhelming 107-37 vote last week.

If approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, the bill, H. 112,  would make Vermont the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

But the measure likely wouldn’t go into effect for two years, and it would not apply to meat or dairy. That means it would not mandate the labeling of AquaBounty fish, a transgenic Atlantic salmon that could receive U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval this year. And it would not affect Vermont’s celebrated dairy industry.

From Vermont Public Radio:

No representatives on Thursday argued against the concept of more transparent food labeling. The most frequent point of opposition voiced on the floor concerned a likely lawsuit from the biotech or food industries that the Attorney General’s Office estimates could cost the state more than $5 million.

Rep. Tom Koch, R-Barre, reasserted that he thinks the state would lose a lawsuit on constitutional grounds. He said the law runs afoul of the First Amendment by compelling speech, and it could pre-empt federal authority under the constitution’s supremacy clause by enacting a law that the Federal Drug Administration has not.

“Nobody else has passed a similar bill. They all seem to be waiting for Vermont to go first and lead the nation,” he said. “What they mean is they don’t want to risk their taxpayers’ money; they want us to risk Vermonters’ money. That is a $5 million to $10 million risk, and one I am not willing to take.”

A ballot initiative that would have required GMO labels in California was defeated last year after Monsanto and other corporations spent nearly $50 million on ads opposing it. A national GMO-labeling bill was introduced recently in Congress, but it has little to no chance of becoming law.

Most of the corn, soy, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and they’re widely used in processed foods. But shoppers who want to avoid them have no good way of doing so. Requiring food manufacturers to label genetically modified foods would allow people to say “no” to such products.

Big Ag and its supporters resist labeling, likening informational labels to warning stickers on cigarettes and liquor, saying such labels could “alarm” shoppers. Because activists fighting for mandatory labeling often oppose genetic engineering altogether, GMO supporters dismiss their arguments. Take a recent post on the Discover magazine website as an example (the contributor has previously ridiculed GMO-labeling campaigns, but in this post describes himself as ambivalent on the issue):

The “Right to Know” people … say they just want to know what’s in their food. This is a specious argument. The truth is they think there is something harmful about GMOs. Why else would they feel so strongly about labeling genetically modified foods? Yes, the Just Label it Campaign is couched as a consumer rights issue, but really it’s based on fear. Everybody knows this, so pretending otherwise is silly.

That would mean there are a lot of silly people in the world. As the Center for Food Safety points out, 64 countries including China, Russia, and all European Union nations currently have GMO-labeling laws in place. Vermonters could be the first Americans to join the trend.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article: 

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Seven states, led by New York, sue EPA over methane from oil and gas drilling

by biglermyrta910 Posted on December 13, 2012

Seven states, led by New York, sue EPA over methane from oil and gas drilling

By Philip Bump

One of the benefits of being an elected official in a bright blue state, a state so blue that it casts a pale blue glow over its neighbors, is that you can be pretty aggressively liberal. New York state has a proud tradition of such politicians (as well as some less aggressive ones) — particularly those politicians ensconced as state attorney general.

Ten years ago, the state’s attorney general was a gentleman named Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer basically created the role of the crusading AG, running hard against Wall Street, prostitution (ahem), and pollution. When he wasn’t at the office, he was at home with his wife Silda, because he is a family man. Spitzer was succeeded in his role by Andrew Cuomo, who went after student loans and violations of privacy by police. In January 2011, when Cuomo became governor, the AG position was assumed by Eric Schneiderman — who has taken up the activist tradition with gusto.

citizenactionny

Schneiderman, during his campaign for attorney general.

Last May, Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking to force an environmental review of fracking. That lawsuit was tossed out. So today, Schneiderman is trying a different route. From his website:

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, leading a coalition of seven states, today notified the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of his intent to sue the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act by failing to address methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry. …

Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. Pound for pound, it warms the climate about 25 times more than carbon dioxide. EPA has found that the impacts of climate change caused by methane include “increased air and ocean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, melting and thawing of global glaciers and ice, increasingly severe weather events — such as hurricanes of greater intensity — and sea level rise.” In 2009, EPA determined that methane and other greenhouse gases endanger the public’s health and welfare.

The EPA’s decision not to directly address the emissions of methane from oil and natural gas operations — including hydrofracking — leaves almost 95% of these emissions uncontrolled.

In August, the EPA finalized new pollution standards for the oil and natural gas industry which limited the amount of volatile organic compounds and other toxics that could be emitted at new extraction sites. But the rule doesn’t explicitly cover methane, though some of the methane that might otherwise escape would be captured or flared under the newly mandated systems. How much methane escapes during extraction — particularly during fracking — is hotly debated.

The EPA is no stranger to taking action in response to a legal dictate; in fact, lawsuits are one of the agency’s primary motivators. 2011′s proposed standard on mercury and air toxics from coal-burning power plants only happened because a court insisted that the EPA develop stricter pollution standards. Lawsuits from states and environmental organizations can reduce the political pressure faced by the EPA — and its supervising administration — when tightening rules that will result in higher costs for industry.

Industry reacted to today’s news as you’d expect, with a representative of the American Petroleum Institute telling the Associated Press that the lawsuit “makes no sense.” Of course, any regulation or imposition on the oil industry makes no sense to the API, because it means having polluters bear the costs of their pollution, and who would want that?

There are two reasons this lawsuit is smart for Schneiderman. The first is that it falls in the sweet spot of two controversial issues: climate change and fracking. New Yorkers are newly sensitive to the former topic, and a battle over the latter has been going on for months. Schneiderman is staking a bold, popular position in both cases.

Which leads to the second reason that this lawsuit is smart. Both of the last two elected governors of New York came directly from the office Schneiderman now holds. There’s basically a footpath worn from the attorney general’s office to the governor’s, with inspirational posters hung along the way saying things like “Bring truth to power!” and “Everyone hates polluters!” As that Associated Press article notes, the seven states that are party to Schneiderman’s suit — New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont — are not big oil and gas producers. But they’re all bathed in that blue light; the attorney general in each can feel confident that taking on greenhouse gas polluters is a politically safe fight to pursue.

For Schneiderman, it’s a push for higher office. But if it results in stronger curbs on methane pollution, who are we to argue?

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More – 

Seven states, led by New York, sue EPA over methane from oil and gas drilling

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Seven states, led by New York, sue EPA over methane from oil and gas drilling

Ohio fights a multi-front war against blight

by Myrna Posted on December 13, 2012

Ohio fights a multi-front war against blight

By Susie Cagle

Good samaritans in Ohio may be getting a reprieve from potential misdemeanor charges.

Today the state House is voting on a bill that would allow people to clean up vacant, blighted properties without fear of a trespassing charge. This measure essentially gives residents more power to improve their neighborhoods, harnessing NIMBY instincts for good. From The Columbus Dispatch:

Some residents hesitate to take care of the properties around them because they risk trespassing charges, said Tiffany Sokol, office manager of the nonprofit Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corp., which boards up and cleans up vacant properties. The bill would allow individuals to clean up blighted land or buildings that have clearly been abandoned.

“Very ugly, nasty places,” [said Sen. Joe Schiavoni (D), the bill’s sponsor]. “These properties are an eyesore, a danger to their neighbors.”

mbmatt356

Blight in East Cleveland.

The Rust Belt is only getting rustier, and Ohio communities have tried a number of strategies to fight neighborhood blight. Yesterday, The Columbus Dispatch and a city website published the names of negligent owners of more than 100 blighted properties. The city called it a fight for neighborhoods.

City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. said anything is worth a try.

“If it gets their attention, good,” he said.

In Cleveland, officials are rehabbing the shrunken city by aggressively tearing down houses, not fixing them up. From National Journal:

“Trying to convince my colleagues that demolition was the right way to go was against everything we had been taught,” said [city council member Anthony] Brancatelli, who spent his time at [Cleveland’s] Slavic Village Development Corp. focused on building, not destroying. “We built 500 new homes and rehabbed about a thousand and the market was good,” he said of his early years. But then he saw the market change. And he saw the speculators swoop in and devastate the neighborhood he loved. “There was the mentality of this wild, wild west of real estate that defies any logic that I grew up on,” he said.

He also saw the devastating impact on his neighbors. He still gets emotional about his dealings with one elderly woman who had lived in the same small house for 80 years with her family operating a butcher shop in the front of the house. But now she was the last member of the family in the house and needed to move out. “That,” said Brancatelli, “was probably the hardest thing I had to do was tell this poor woman that all we were going to do is tear it down. … She just cried.” …

[Jim Rokakis, former Cuyahoga County treasurer,] became an unlikely champion of demolition over rehabbing the abandoned houses. “By 2007, it became obvious to me that this was a war,” Rokakis told National Journal. “We had lost. And now we had to bury the dead. And ‘bury the dead’ meant taking these houses down, many of them functionally obsolete.” The logic, he said, is inescapable. “If you live next to a foreclosed house, your house is worth 10 percent less. If you live on a street with multiple foreclosed properties, your house isn’t worth 10 percent less. Your house is just worthless.”

While other progressive bastions of urban idealism wring their hands, Ohio is picking itself up and getting shit done. As Richey Piiparinen writes at New Geography:

[T]his groundedness, this Rust Belt-ness, it’s not a settling or a lack of aspiration, but rather — for Clevelanders populating the city that never knew its heights — a chance to look around and see nothing but work to do, and an opportunity to do it. There are a lot of fresh eyes around. The city psychology is changing. And I think this may save Cleveland, because people are no longer waiting for Cleveland to save us.

The Rust Belt may be gritty, beat-down, and other patronizing adjectives we seem to reserve for post-industrial American cities, but there’s a lot of hope in it yet.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original post: 

Ohio fights a multi-front war against blight

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio fights a multi-front war against blight