Donna,
The national Sierra Club has a policy on genetic engineering. Below is the
portion on agricultural genetic engineering and a link to the complete
policy. The policy was extensively revised in 2000. I was on the national
genetic engineering committee, now the Genetic Engineering Action Team (GEAT)
during the policy re-write, and did the final editing.
The GEAT was not consulted about the press release congratulating Visack
for his Ag Sec. appointment, and we would have opposed it had we been asked,
due to Vilsacks strong support for ag biotech: he is practically a
lobbyist for Monsanto. We were not at all happy about being ignored by the
national Sierra Club staff.
The destruction of the genomes of entire species is something
environmentalists ought to be opposed to.
(GEO means "genetically engineered organism.")
Tom
============================================================================
==
In accordance with this Precautionary Principle, we call for a moratorium
on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all
GEOs into the environment, including those now approved. Releases should be
delayed until extensive, rigorous research is done which determines the
long-term environmental and health impacts of each GEO and there is public
debate to ascertain the need for the use of each GEO intended for release into
the environment.
============================================================================
===
The complete policy:
_http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/biotech.aspx_
(http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/biotech.aspx)
============================================================================
===
Donna wrote:
I don’t know if there’s a list, but I’ve been following Vilsack and he’s
walking the fine line of mentioning “food” and “consumers” and “people
won’t buy food that scares them” along with the obligatory nod to
production agriculture. Conversation that NEVER happens in Iowa.
Vilsack’s proposal to eliminate the nothing-but-giveaway direct subsidies
for the 6 basic commodities was a true step in the right direction. Of
course, Iowa corn farmers shivered over losing their government handout – even
some of our very best friends at Iowa Farmers Union, for example.
Changing govt policy is fine, unless it costs me money – I found that reaction
very short-sighted (and downright dumb) – so I am following the two food
issues that may rise to the surface in federal discussions – better food for
school lunch and eliminating direct subsidies designed solely to promote
excess production of corn.
While the Sierra Club praised the appointment of Vilsack, the Iowa Chapter
has remained quiet. Mostly because of the uproar from this listserv,
would be my guess as to why. Biotech is still an outstanding issue, I believe,
and because there is at least some science on both sides of the issue,
biotech is much harder to pigeon hole than something like CAFOs which are pure
bad. Realizing I may cause reaction to my previous sentence… I guess that’
s the point, though. We’re up in the air – or downright flat against –
biotech. But there is so much more that USDA is involved in and where
Vilsack is doing the “right” thing. As far as this current action, I
personally follow the ag issues and not national forests. Maybe someone else knows
the answers to Ken’s final questions….
Donna
____________________________________
From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of KENNETH LARSON
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Vilsack
Is there a list of the things Vilsack has done right (or perhaps
"correctly" is a better word), in his new job? Is there a list of things he has
done wrong.. ? Was the Iowa Sierra Club one of the first to congratulate him
and to thank him for this latest action...? If that note of appreciation
has not yet been sent, I am sure it would be appreciated.
I appreciate hearing about this Positive effort that is in line with SC
recommendations.. It would be interesting to know if Vilsack made this
ruling in response to SC or other environmental group efforts or was he just
paying attention to the Laws and Regulations by putting Bush/Cheney efforts to
on Hold..
Ken Larson
----- Original Message -----
From: _Wally Taylor_ (mailto:[log in to unmask])
To: [log in to unmask]
(mailto:[log in to unmask])
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:36 PM
Subject: Vilsack does something right
_Vilsack issues directive protecting national forest roadless areas_
(http://coloradoindependent.com/29841/vilsack-issues-directive-protecting-nationa
l-forest-roadless-areas)
(http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php) By _David O. Williams_
(http://coloradoindependent.com/author/dwilliams/) 5/28/09 5:34 PM
Agriculture Secretary _Tom Vilsack Thursday issued a memorandum_
(http://www.environmentcolorado.org/uploads/XV/b3/XVb3YtkXHgpoFLMaOe-TjQ/InventoriedR
oadless_InterimDirective_Final.pdf) essentially blocking most development
and road building on more than 53 million acres of national forest (4.4
million in Colorado) designated as roadless areas.
[snip]
**************We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
(http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml
cntnew00000007)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
|
