Several states across the Union have chosen to legislate on genetically modified foods. But national food industry lobbyists and the members of Congress they fund in Washington D.C. cannot abide any deviation from central authority, including the independent legislation considered by nearly 30 states.Details
PHOENIX, Ariz. (July 11, 2016) – The Arizona State House and Senate leadership soundly rejected the principles of the Founding Fathers during the 2016 legislative session. They protected the Washington D.C. status quo by killing 18 bills that would have blocked the federal enforcement of various unconstitutional programs. To make matters worse, most of the legislative acts did not even receive a vote in their respective chambers.Details
MADISON, WI (Nov. 24, 2015) – A Wisconsin legislator is planning to introduce a bill for 2016 that would expand consumer access to raw milk in the state, and strengthen the foundation to nullify in practice federal goals to fully ban this natural dairy product nationwide.Details
Massachusetts Bill to Facilitate the Production and Distribution of Raw Milk Receives Committee Hearing
BOSTON (Nov. 11, 2015) – Last month, a Massachusetts committee held a hearing to consider a bill that would expand consumer access to raw milk in the state. Passage would also strengthen the foundation to nullify in practice federal goals to fully ban this natural dairy product nationwide.Details
The FDA has become infamous for its corporate protectionism and interference with allowing new treatments in the marketplace, but an Arizona ballot proposition could spell the beginning of the end for the dominating bureaucracy.
The Tenth Amendment Center urges Arizona residents vote YES on Prop. 303 and nullify FDA control over treatment of terminally ill patients.Details
Food Freedom. It’s one of the big issues of today. I’ve been watching friends of mine who are otherwise completely non politically involved become intense activists over this issue. And they’re right that we deserve food freedom…but what does that look like, exactly?
Here in Washington state, the current legislative excitement over this issue, revolves around initiative 522 – regarding gmo labeling. Not long ago I wrote about I-591, the supposed protection of gun rights initiative, and how we need to be careful and read before we sign. Don’t get caught up in an excited frenzy. I learned this lesson personally over I-522.
I was visiting friends, the petitioners had just appeared, the labeling battle in California had just been lost and I thought to myself; this is for a good cause. I was caught up in something I hadn’t thought through all the pieces of. I’ve since had a change of heart.
But actually I’m not here to talk about 522. That issue was just the catalyst for my thoughts. I want to talk about this general idea of petitioning government to affect change.
Sometimes we are passionate on an issue, without really understanding the ins and outs of that issue, or the consequences of demanding change, right now, in the same old way we’ve done before. Some state sponsored programs that possibly began with the best of intentions, are now a heinous mess of bureaucracy that hurt more than they help. Worse, there is plenty of evidence that they are fearfully corrupt. Yet, we hate government for meddling in area A, while we clamor for them to be involved in area B. Is that really the answer?
Let’s look at one of the big players in the food freedom debate: Monsanto. Regardless of your personal feelings about it, I believe we can all agree that they are not hurting for money and they have big friends in D.C., illustrated of course, by the passage of the Monsanto Protection Act.Details
As a consumer, when you walk into most retail stores, you will notice that nearly every product sold has some form of labeling or information on it. Maybe it says where it was made, or what it was designed for. Maybe the product claims how it will make your life better or easier. Maybe it’s labeled with hazard signs or a Surgeon General warning. When it comes to food, most people would agree that they like to know what they’re going to put into their body before they consume it. And for the most part, food products are already mandated by the federal government (FDA) to show its contents. From how much sugar and fat it contains per serving, to if it contains high fructose corn syrup or aspartame. So why would labeling products that contain GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) be any different? Why does the FDA refuse to label genetically modified food?
Let’s first discuss what GMO means.
GMOs are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. These experimental combinations of genes from different species cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding. Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.Details
The Path that Got Me Here
Early on, I grew up like most people, believing that all government regulations are good. And, we just need even more to stop the problems we encounter. All the fears in our lives can be legislated away, and if the government just locked themselves up in a room, they can solve all our problems.
However that was breaking down after just one semester in grad school. I took a class on exposure, risk management, and regulation. I found I was constantly being talked into circles. There was never an answer to “how clean is clean?” I learned that there are only a handful of chemicals we truly know about. And I even found chemical dose response guidelines from federal regulatory agencies don’t necessarily allow you to translate animal to human exposure. Yet, for most publications it is custom to always sight a government standard. Surprisingly, after attending a national conference, I saw many industries just sick of this model. And instead they were pulling away from government standards. Instead, industries were testing their own products that had risks of toxic exposure and formed their own risk management plan that didn’t coincide with government standards. One that was accurate to human exposure and response.
This experience was just one of the first steps in the direction that ended the idea that federal regulatory agencies have an answer for everything. I’m not saying that these agencies were meant to be evil. In fact, there is plenty of good safety information on their websites and in their articles. I just believe that most things that become law flow from good intentions.
Some of those good intentions are now controlling peoples’ lives.
Therein lies the evil. It’s like voting for either political party’s agenda. One day you just wake up and realize, they are both crap and you need to find a better way that doesn’t involve them.
The next step in solidifying my path came from something one of my friends said.Details