Tag Archives: vermont

Connecticut Senate passes GMO-labeling bill

by 0df53x21 Posted on May 23, 2013

Connecticut Senate passes GMO-labeling bill

By John Upton

Shutterstock

Is this corn genetically modified? Connecticut lawmakers think you have the right to know.

Does your mouth water at the thought of corn that’s engineered to produce a poison that kills insects? If not, Connecticut might be the place for you.

The state’s Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that would require food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically engineered ingredients such as GM corn. The bill sailed through on a 35-1 vote, and now moves to the state House.

From the Connecticut Post:

Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey [D] wants to support legislation that would require the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms.

But he’s not sure whether the House will approve the version approved in the state Senate late Tuesday night that would depend on three nearby states to approve similar legislation by July of 2015.

Sharkey, in an interview near the House podium around the time the Senate was approving the bill, said his majority caucus met behind closed doors earlier in the day to discuss the controversial measure.

“The caucus confirmed my own sense that obviously we want to do something,” Sharkey said. “My concern all along has been the question of whether Connecticut should put itself out on its own, requiring this labeling and whether that puts us at an economic disadvantage being the first and only state to do this.”

Unlike 64 other countries, the U.S. lacks any labeling laws for GMO food (though Americans who want to avoid it could do so by buying certified organics). Some countries outright ban GMOs — officials in Hungary just burned 1,000 acres of Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn after new crop-testing regulations led to its discovery.

So lawmakers in Connecticut, Vermont, and elsewhere are trying to take matters into their own hands, pushing forward with state-level labeling legislation. Bills in both of those New England states are cautious, setting long timeframes for the start of a ban and including caveats based on whether other states adopt similar laws. That caution is a response to fears of lawsuits from the powerful food and ag industry, which opposes GMO labeling.

From the Hartford Courant:

“I’m concerned about our state going out on its own on this and the potential economic disadvantage that could cause,” House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said. “I would like to see us be part of a compact with some other states, which would hopefully include one of the bigger states such as New York.” …

Even if the bill passes the House and is signed into law by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy [D], it would not take effect until at least three other states pass similar legislation. GMO labeling legislation is pending in more than a dozen states.

The Center for Food Safety reports that legislation in Maine is also moving forward:

In addition to the Connecticut victory, [on Tuesday] Maine’s GE food labeling bill passed through the state’s Agriculture Committee — a major hurdle — which voted 8-5 in favor of their labeling bill. The bill passed the state Assembly earlier this month.

“Both of these victorious votes show the power of the voice of consumers, who through their vocal and powerful demand for GE food labeling, are finally getting their state lawmakers to listen and take action,” said Rebecca Spector, west coast director of Center for Food Safety.

All of this action has some Monsanto backers nervous. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) recently inserted an amendment into the Farm Bill that would forbid states from requiring labels on GMO foods.

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: Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit link:  

Connecticut Senate passes GMO-labeling bill

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Connecticut Senate passes GMO-labeling bill

Minnesotan towns say ‘no’ to a fracking sand mine

by Sylvesterax6 Posted on March 14, 2013

Minnesotan towns say ‘no’ to a fracking sand mine

By John Upton

Mulad

The main strip in the city of St. Charles, Minn.

The fracking industry can’t seem to buy itself any love.

While lawmakers in New York, Vermont, Fort Collins, Colo., and elsewhere consider or implement bans on hydraulic fracturing, companies that mine the sand that’s used by frackers are also finding themselves rejected. And dejected.

Minnesota Proppant is one such company. It wanted to open one of the world’s largest frac-sand processing and rail-loading facilities in St. Charles Township in rural southeastern Minnesota (population 629). Sand in that area is highly prized by the fracking industry: It is just the right size and strength to be pumped with water and chemicals at high pressure into gas-rich shale, where it wedges into cracks that are opened up and holds them open, allowing natural gas to escape.

Unfortunately for the company, townsfolk weren’t too keen on the pollution it was expected to produce. Nor were they thrilled that well water would be liberally pumped out of the ground by the miners. Concerns were raised about lung diseases that could be caused by airborne silica. And they worried that the local tourism industry could take a hit.

Do you suppose company officials took a hint and moved on?

They did not.

Instead, the company looked to the next city over. It promised abundant jobs and economic progress to the city of St. Charles (population 3,735) if lawmakers there would just annex the potential sand-mining land into city limits, and permit the proposed mine to open.

But on Tuesday evening, the city council rejected that proposal. From the Star Tribune:

Mayor Bill Spitzer said the issue was tearing the community apart. His biggest reason for saying “no” to the project, he said, was to stay on good terms with the township. “Once you start destroying relationships, you can’t move forward,” Spitzer said.

What Spitzer perhaps didn’t realize was that his city’s move would destroy other relationships — those precious relationships of onetime business partners who had joyously come together to scoop sand out of the ground so it could be sold to frackers. From a followup story in the Star Tribune:

The collapse of a major frac sand proposal in Winona County has caused a split among investors in the project, with one faction pulling out in frustration over Minnesota’s anti-frac sand sentiment.

“Me and my partners split up. They went to Wisconsin,” said Rick Frick, one of two remaining principals in Minnesota Proppant LLC. “Were they fed up? Yes, that had a lot to do with it.”

Wisconsin, he said, has embraced the industry more warmly than Minnesota has — to the point where some communities are “tickled pink” about upswings in jobs and taxes. In the past four years, the nation’s oil and gas fracking boom, which relies on silica sand as a main drilling ingredient, has coincided with the permitting of almost 100 new mining facilities in Wisconsin.

Take it easy there, buddy. Not everybody in Wisconsin loves your kind. Just last month the town of Bridge Creek, Wis., rejected plans to open a similar frac sand mine there.

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

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More here – 

Minnesotan towns say ‘no’ to a fracking sand mine

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Minnesotan towns say ‘no’ to a fracking sand mine

Motor vehicle deaths rose 5 percent in 2012

by greenenergy4 Posted on February 20, 2013

Motor vehicle deaths rose 5 percent in 2012

By Philip Bump

A hopefully non-fatal accident.

The National Safety Council yesterday released its estimates of 2012 motor-vehicle deaths in the United States. And: bad news. From the report [PDF]:

Motor-vehicle deaths up 5% in 2012.

Motor-vehicle deaths in 2012 totaled 36,200, up 5% from 2011 and marking the first annual increase since 2004 to 2005. The 2012 estimate is provisional and may be revised when more data are available. The total for 2012 was also up 2% from the 2010 figure. … The estimated annual population death rate is 11.49 deaths per 100,000 population, an increase of 4% from the 2011 rate. The estimated annual mileage death rate is 1.23 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, an increase of 4% from the 2011 rate. …

The estimated cost of motor-vehicle deaths, injuries, and property damage in 2012 was $276.6 billion, a 5% increase from 2011. The costs include wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, administrative expenses, employer costs, and property damage.

The deadliest month on the roads was July, followed by August and June. The safest: February — not a surprise, since it’s the shortest month.

The NSC also provided state-by-state data, which is revealing. Last November, we looked at a report suggesting that red states were more likely to experience traffic deaths. That report used preliminary data — but the data released yesterday seems to reinforce the idea. You wouldn’t notice it looking at the raw, per-state data, however.

Speaking of:

Deaths per month

Darker shades mean higher overall numbers. Not surprisingly, states with larger populations have more road deaths. (There was no data for Vermont.) This doesn’t tell us very much.

Population per road death per month

In the map above, a lighter color means a bigger number, which is good — it suggests that there are fewer road deaths as a function of population. Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, New Mexico, and the South have more road deaths by population than many other states — reinforcing the link between red states and traffic deaths. New York’s rate of death as a function of population is relatively low.

Rate of change since 2011

Darker shades mean an increase in the number of deaths; lighter shades mean a decrease. Interestingly, the Northeast has seen a larger increase in the number of road deaths than many other regions. Two adjacent states saw the biggest changes — South Dakota went up, Wyoming went down — but this is largely because they have small populations, making percentages more volatile.

The moral of the story is this: If you don’t want to die in a car accident, move to New York. Or go back in time to 2011. Or don’t leave the house. All viable options.

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

Read more:

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article: 

Motor vehicle deaths rose 5 percent in 2012

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Motor vehicle deaths rose 5 percent in 2012

Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

by pedzacastrzala87 Posted on January 31, 2013

Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

By Susie Cagle

Want to be able to tell the difference between a natural fish and a genetically engineered frankensalmon in the dystopian food future? It looks like you may not be required to live on the crunchy West Coast for that.

After California’s GMO-labeling Proposition 37 failed to pass last fall, bills that would require labels for genetically modified food are rolling in Oregon and Washington, and similar initiatives are picking up steam in Minnesota, Missouri, and New Mexico, as well as in Connecticut and Vermont, where GMO-labeling legislation failed to pass last year amid threats of legal action from Monsanto.

New Mexico could be the first state to pass such a law. State Sen. Peter Wirth of Santa Fe, who is sponsoring the legislation, says the bill is aimed at “leveling the playing field” for food actually grown in fields.

Minnesota is home to the headquarters of General Mills, Hormel, Cargill, and Land-O-Lakes, which were all big contributors to the fight against Prop 37, but citizens groups are pushing legislators to pass a label law there too (and the local Fox affiliate covers them pretty appropriately). Meanwhile, Missouri’s legislation would just target genetically modified meat and fish.

The most interesting take on the national GMO label fight comes from the belly of the beast: the International Dairy Foods Association, which just had its annual meeting. From Meat Poultry News:

Connie Tipton, president and chief executive officer of the International Dairy Foods Association, urged food and beverage manufacturers to not rest on their laurels following the defeat of Proposition 37, legislation that would have required the labeling of bioengineered foods sold in California, this past November. Tipton spoke Jan. 28 at the IDFA’s annual Dairy Forum meeting.

“The drumbeat for GMO labeling is as loud as ever and proponents are taking their show on the road,” she said. “They are training their eyes on other states… Moreover, they learned from their mistakes. We anticipate that these new initiatives will be better written with a better ground game to push them forward.”

Tipton added that Walmart’s GMO-labeling efforts were cause for concern.

“It announced this past summer it planned to sell a new crop of genetically modified sweet corn created by Monsanto. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of us were scratching our heads when Wal-Mart added that it would label the product as containing GMO ingredients – even though the Food and Drug Administration has already said the product is safe. Given Wal-Mart’s size and market share, there are legitimate concerns that its decision on GMO labeling will force other retailers to march in lockstep behind the industry giant.

March in lockstep, eh? This is starting to sound familiar (and fascist), though GMO-labeling fascism seems more appealing than frankenfood-fascism, but maybe that’s just me.

Not to be completely outdone by states with fewer organic quinoa points-of-sale, supporters of California’s Proposition 37 have licked their wounds and swear to be back with another campaign to label GMOs next year.

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

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

Posted in Citizen, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

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