Tag Archives: grocers

Bad Man Wants to Ban Bag Bans

by ChunNicastro Posted on February 9, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Columbia, Mo., is considering a ban on plastic shopping bags. This is good. Plastic bags are wasteful and bad for the environment and generally terrible. They create tons of nasty litter on city streets and can block up recycling facilities. So there’s really no reason why grocery stores and other retail outlets should hand out trillions of them for free. Tons of local, regional, and national governments around the world have already figured this out, and implemented bans.

But Missouri state Representative Dan Shaul, a Republican from the suburbs of St. Louis, disagrees. That’s why he wants to ban bag bans, with a bill going before committee in the state’s legislature this week.

From the St. Louis Riverfront Times:

Shaul, a sixteen-year member of the Missouri Grocers Association, is trying to stop bag bans outright. He says he doesn’t want to burden shoppers with an additional fee at the grocery store.

“If they choose to tax the bag, it’s going to hurt the people who need that the most: the consumer,” especially the poor, Shaul says. “My goal when I go to the grocery store with a $100 bill is to get $100 worth of groceries.”

But a ten-cents-per-bag fee for forgetting your reusable bag? “That adds up pretty quick.”

Here’s the thing, though: Ban bags are actually really good for local economies, because they reduce costs for retailers and cleanup costs for governments. California, which became the first US state to ban bags last fall, previously spent $25 million per year picking them up and landfilling them.

So instead of bag ban bans, a better bill would be a ban on bag ban bans.

Original post – 

Bad Man Wants to Ban Bag Bans

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, KTP, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bad Man Wants to Ban Bag Bans

Food Activists Target Ben & Jerry’s Even Though It Supports GMO Labeling

by BrianneRNAU Posted on June 19, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ben & Jerry’s pitched a tent at Tennessee music festival Bonnaroo this week, where they dished out free ice cream with a side of lobbying. Their new flavor, ‘Food Fight!’ was inspired by the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and consumers’ right to know what they’re eating. The ice cream brand has publicly supported the fight to GMO labeling on foods since its decision a year ago to start phasing out genetically modified foods from its products. So why is it still getting boycotted by organic-food activists?

The first victory in the fight for genetically modified food transparency came in Ben & Jerry’s home state of Vermont last month, when the state passed a law requiring food and drink manufacturers to label all genetically modified foods. The Grocers’ Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents Monsanto, Pepsi-Co, and other big food companies, has sued Vermont as of last week over the new law and hopes to destroy legislation requiring food to be labeled with GMO stickers. In response to the lawsuit filed by the GMA, the Organic Consumers’ Association, a consumer protection and organic agriculture advocacy group, has renewed a 2013 boycott against the GMA and “traitor brands” whose parent companies are members. One of those “traitor brands” is Ben & Jerry’s, whose parent company, Unilever, is part of GMA.

Despite Ben & Jerry’s support for labeling laws and plan to phase out GMOs from its ingredients, the OCA won’t be amending its boycott list. “Any company that pays dues to the GMA is by virtue of its membership in the GMA, supporting the GMA’s anti-labeling campaigns, including the campaign against Vermont,” OCA representative tells Mother Jones. “We are asking brands like Ben & Jerry’s to pressure their parent companies to withdraw from the GMA.”

Christopher Miller, a Ben & Jerry’s representative, says that the ice cream manufacturer doesn’t deserve to be one of OCA’s banned brands, but acknowledges that “there is a role for everyone to play on the issues they care about.” Unilever owns more than 1,000 brands and holds a membership in the GMA, but when it acquired acquired Ben and Jerry’s in 2000 for $326 million, it promised to keep its hands off the brand’s social causes. Miller makes it clear that Ben & Jerry’s sides with Vermont in its ongoing fight against the GMA. “Anyone’s entitled to file suit,” he says. “But we believe that the law is legally defendable and sound. We think we’re going to win.” And Ben & Jerry’s will continue to support labeling bills as they spread through the states. “Our voice is important in this debate,” Miller says. “As a business, we can bring this to the mainstream audience.”

Link:  

Food Activists Target Ben & Jerry’s Even Though It Supports GMO Labeling

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Food Activists Target Ben & Jerry’s Even Though It Supports GMO Labeling