 |
 |
From Cindy Dutcher: In thinking of strategy and mistakes, we all need to educate our own elected officials, and maybe give presentations to our local political groups. We have sent our rep and senator information on the non Farm Bureau side of the GMO issue, and also wrote to our Rep, Senator(up for re-election) and Gov. Granholm (same) and voiced our displeasure at the vote and signing of SB777, and how we would remember their votes and remember their signing on with the corporations and not listening to the folks who voted for them. They won't give a hoot next year but until November...we have also been given an opportunity to give a presentation to our local progressive Democratic Committee, Maybe a good start, they had NO IDEA they were eating and feeding their children and grandchildren GE foods! They had no idea that SB777 mattered at all! Perhaps a try for labeling??? One thing that really caught me off guard, we were trying to discuss this bill as a local control issue (avoiding the GMO part of the bill), but FB et all were talking the hodgepodge of local ordinance and gmos are safe line...maybe we should be more blatant next time? I do agree with Joe about having enough concerned individuals, and not one coordinated message. Just a few disorganized thoughts... Cindy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Taylor Clarkston Reid" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: The bad news, and some initial reactions > First the bad news: > The Governor signed SB 777 into law at 3:55 this afternoon and filed it > with the Secretary of State at 4:18. The timing seems like a duck and > cover move which is not surprising. Here office was getting a lot of > phone calls and faxes and I'm sure someone let her know that we were going > to continue to challenge the process. At any rate it is now Public Act > 132, and is immediately in effect. This is extremely vexing, but I'm sure > no one is surprised. I'm reluctant to just give up at this point, and > suggest we begin thinking about what to do next. There are several ideas > that people have thrown out as possible courses of action. None of them > will be easy, and I know it's a very busy time for farmers, but I think > most of the legwork could be handled by some of the advocacy groups, and > those of us who spend a lot of time sitting behind a desk. > One option would be getting legislation introduced to amend the Act. Our > best chance with this, I believe, would be to find a Republican who > represents a district with a strong organic agricultural constituency > capable of applying pressure (in the thumb maybe). I know this seems like > a long shot, but we would only have to convince one person, and > Republicans are traditionally opposed to limitations on local control. If > were able to get somebody to listen, we could present a strong argument > about the misrepresentation, bias, and inaccuracy in the testimony that > was given, and present a strong scientific argument about the dangers of > GMO's. The evidence on this is clear, it's just a matter of getting > somebody to hear it. The fact that organic is the only growing sector of > agriculture, which is the second largest component of Michigan's > struggling economy might resonate as well. Obviously we would have to > rebut the notion that "GM contamination is not a threat to organic > farmers", and that "pollen flow can be predicted", but this ludicrous > notion might not be as convincing if it wasn't being misrepresented as a > scientific fact established by MSU. Someone suggested that we might be > better able to pull this off after the next round of elections, but we > could certainly begin to plant the (non-GMO) seed. > Another possibility is actually challenging the effectiveness of the > legislation by working to get an ordinance passed (Ann Arbor was suggested > as a possibility), and fighting it on moral, legal, and scientific > grounds. In my reading, the legislation seems somewhat vague, and has a > number of potential weaknesses. "Superweeds" encouraged by the use of a > single herbicide can certainly become "noxious". As the Percy Schmeiser > case has shown, organic farmers are not the only ones adversely affected > by genetically modified crops, and these crops themselves can be noxious > weeds in certain cases. In addition, it seems to me that there is > significant scientific evidence to present a compelling argument that > these corps present "unreasonable environmental effects" in a number of > ways, and once this argument is made, MDA must hold a public meeting to > evaluate the legitimacy of these claims. > A third option would be to work toward the development of regulations > similar to the existing pesticide laws, which would offer recourse for the > contamination of organic crops by GMO's. This kind of regulation has been > presented in other states already, and just because the NOP does not have > a problem with contaminated organics, does not mean that they fail to > represent a potential financial loss for organic growers. > These are just some initial ideas. Would folks be amenable to a short > late-evening meeting/conference call to discuss these issues in a few > weeks? Please let me know either way. In the meantime we will continue to > work within the University to make sure they honor the obligations they > have committed to as a result of improprieties surrounding the legislative > testimony. Thank you all for putting up with my long-windedness. I hope > we can continue to support one another in this fight, and perhaps build on > the lessons we have learned from it in challenging the upcoming pro-CAFO > bill and other issues that threaten agricultural sustainability, small > farming, and ecological sanity. > Sincerely, > Taylor Reid > 517-862-2793 > [log in to unmask] > > >