[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ SB 777 Urgent action needed
Enviro-Mich message from "Mary La France" <email@example.com>
Good Point, that's why I don't even like the term "genetically modified"
because everything is genetically modified by order of evolution. Genetic
Engineering points to a man-made technology.
Regarding SB 777 they didn't vote on it and will next week. We still need
your calls and letters.
Senator VanWoerkum introduced the bill and he has been notorious for his
work in helping factory farms as well.
It is critical that this bill doesn't pass because it would undermine local
control and set a precidence. A similar law was just passed in Iowa (corn
If genetically engineered seeds are allowed to be grown anywhere without
local restrictions, farmers are at risk of contamination. Especially when
they are conducting experiments with genetically engineered pharmeceuticals
in food crops.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Gear" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Enviro-Mich@Great-Lakes.Net" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: E-M:/ SB 777 Urgent action needed
> Enviro-Mich message from John Gear <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Lakoff Lesson #1 (from Don't Think of an Elephant!): don't buy your
> opponents' frame ...
> "GE" stands for "genetic engineering," which conjures up visions of
> carefully engineering genes to express certain traits, using scientific
> But GENETIC TAMPERING is more accurate, in that tampering is what you do
> when you're fooling with something you don't understand and could not
> have built yourself ...
> So which one will people be more likely to question and/or reject?
> Genetic engineering, or genetic tampering?
> So which one should environmentalists trying to communicate the gravity
> of the risk to the public use?
> Mary La France wrote:
> > From Claire O'Leary
> > email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To All Concerned about Michigan Farming, Food security and safety,
> > Environmentalists, Native plant preservationists including forests,
> > and those dedicated to the Preservation of Local Control:
> > A new bill, SB 777, has been introduced to the Michigan Senate and is
> > being discussed by the Senate Agricultural, Forestry, and Tourism
> > Committee (see attached)
> > This bill is an attempt to change the Michigan seed law of 1965 and
> > 1988 "to preempt ordinances prohibiting or regulating certain
> > activities with respect to seeds" and to add a new section that will
> > prevent local units of government (cities, townships, municipalities,
> > counties, etc.) from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing "an ordinance
> > that prohibits or regulates the labeling, sale, storage,
> > transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural,
> > vegetable, flower, or forest tree seeds."
> > What this means if passed: Citizens and local governments in Michigan
> > will no longer be able to ban the use of, sale of, transportation of,
> > etc. seeds that have the potential to expose people, farmers, and the
> > environment to unreasonable risks.
> > This is just one of several State level bills that have been
> > introduced across the country to counteract the success of some
> > counties and municipalities in other states that have passed local
> > ordinances banning the use, sale, etc. of genetically engineered
> > seeds. The only thing that stops these bills is a large public outcry.
> > Potential Unintended Effects:
> > Unique local concerns might include
> > --Public health: the allergenicity and toxicity effects of certain GE
> > crop pollen is already suspected of causing illness
> > --Organic farming: seed drift and pollen drift can directly
> > contaminate organic farms with the subsequent loss of certification as
> > well as organic markets
> > --Conventional farming: Many farmers have already been sued or
> > threatened into silence by the Agri-Biotech firms like Monsanto due to
> > suspected crop contamination.? Given the way federal laws are being
> > interpreted in the courts, there is no protection for farmers against
> > these lawsuits.
> > --Unique natural or cultural resources may be compromised through the
> > weediness of some invasive organisms
> > --potential weediness of GE grasses and certain crops could prove to
> > become a widespread?nuisance since they are engineered to overcome
> > natural obstacles and are creating pest and chemical resistances
> > --GE Trees are being introduced and have the potential for silencing
> > forests and creating?anomalies that harm other creatures and other trees
> > The bill offers no protection to preserve local zoning ordinances and
> > leaves many at risk including:
> > --Schools
> > --Hospitals and Convalescent Centers
> > --Organic and Conventional Farms
> > Additionally, there is no protection from potential law suits for the
> > property owned or controlled by local governments (parks, play fields,
> > roadsides, county-controlled agricultural lands, etc.) should GE crops
> > become uncontrollable weeds.
> > When the Federal government attempts to impose uniformity on
> > individual State laws, especially in the area of food regulation,
> > States have a right and a duty to object. We need the same degree of
> > respect for local control from our State legislature.
> > Please Call or Write to your State senator. Mention the bill by its
> > designation: SB 777 The bill is sponsored by the Committee Chair, Sen.
> > Van Woerkom
> > If you have the time, please consider also writing to your newspaper.
> > Sincerely,
> > Claire O'Leary
> > Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
> > Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee
> > Healthy Traditions Network
> > Some actions to take:
> > 1) outline your concerns and the consequences of this bill in a one to
> > page letter (if possible on your association letterhead) as
> > dispassionately
> > as possible avoiding terms (however they might apply here) like
> > "anti-democratic." Try to give examples of common-sense/main
> > stream/programs/consumer preferences/that this bill would ban or
> > Be polite and as positive as possible ("you may be unaware of the
> > unintended
> > consequences of this bill"...)
> > Keep your comments focused on the bill (for instance, too much
> > background on the value of
> > organics etc will not be effective).
> > Stress that any bill which limits what local communities - which
> > include the
> > farmers who live and grow there - can decide to do in their own
> > communities
> > is a very serious step and should only be taken after very careful
> > consideration. It is comparable to the value we place on State Rule
> > over Federal preemption.
> > Fax to the Committee Chair and ask that he distribute copies to members
> > the Senate Ag Committee. Cc your own state senator and follow up with
> > a call
> > to his or her staff asking that they look into this issue as well.
> > 2. Get AS MANY PEOPLE FROM AS MANY DIVERSE AREAS OF THE STATE TO EMAIL
> > CHAIR AND THEIR SENATOR WITH CONCERNS. You may want to include in your
> > contacts a copy of your letter which they could put into their own
> > 3. Get as MANY FARMERS AS POSSIBLE to email or call or fax a letter to
> > chair with a request that their message be copied to all committee
> > members.
> > Stress that however well-intended, this will have an anti-farmer impact.
> > 4. It is especially important that individuals who live in the
> > districts of
> > the committee members speak out. See list below.
> > 5. If you have done all this and still have energy and time to spare,
> > send a letter to the editor of your paper (&/or a Muskegon paper) on why
> > this bill is not good for Michigan.
> > Members, Senate Agriculture, Forestry, & Tourism committee
> > Chair, Sen. Gerald VanWoerkom (R-Norton Shores)
> > Republican of District 34
> > Office Phone: (517) 373-1635?
> > FAX: (517) 373-3300?
> > Office Location: 420 Farnum Building
> > E-mail Address: SenGVanWoerkom@senate.michigan.gov
> > <mailto:SenGVanWoerkom@senate.michigan.gov>
> > Vice Chair, Sen. Judson Gilbert II (R-Algonac)
> > Judson Gilbert II
> > Republican of District 25
> > Office Phone: (517) 373-7708
> > Office Location: 705 Farnum Building
> > E-mail Address: SenJGilbert@senate.michigan.gov
> > <mailto:SenJGilbert@senate.michigan.gov>
> > Sen. Ron Jelinek,(R-Three Oaks)
> > Republican of District 21
> > Office Phone: (517) 373-6960
> > Office Location: 405 Farnum Building
> > E-mail Address: SenRJelinek@senate.michigan.gov
> > <mailto:SenRJelinek@senate.michigan.gov>
> > Sen. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor) Minority Vice Chair
> > Democrat of District 18
> > Office Phone: (517) 373-2406
> > Office Location: 510 Farnum Building
> > E-mail Address: SenLBrater@senate.michigan.gov
> > <mailto:SenLBrater@senate.michigan.gov>
> > Sen. Samuel "Buzz" Thomas (D-Detroit)
> > Democrat of District 4
> > Office Phone: (517) 373-7918
> > Office Location: 610 Farnum Building
> > E-mail Address: SenBThomas@senate.michigan.gov
> > <mailto:SenBThomas@senate.michigan.gov>
> ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
> Postings to: email@example.com For info, send email to
> firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: email@example.com For info, send email to
firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"