Citizens' Daily Lobby

I don’t know about you, but I pay for my internet access.  The fee gives me access to bandwidth.  At the moment I am free to do things with that bandwidth like watch movies online from a provider that competes with my internet provider.  I pay for the movies, and I pay for the access.  It is, as they say, all good.  Except that some companies are not happy about the arrangement.   Comcast, for example, recently attempted to block Netflix movie streaming and only relented when the company that handles the streaming, Level 3 Communications, agreed to pay a fee whenever users request this content.  This means that I pay for movies and I pay for access and now Level 3  will also have to pay for access for the same bandwidth.   Ultimately, this will mean that I will pay more for movies and Comcast will pocket the difference.

But the problem is deeper. It’s not just about blocking competition.  Once internet providers are allowed to make decisions about content, including what to allow and how to prioritize content delivery, internet neutrality will be lost.    CREDO action has this to say:

This is about more than getting movies via Netflix instead of Comcast. It’s about the ability of media monopolies to decide what information we can access via the Internet. Will Fox News stories be carried in the fast lane while Democracy Now! is relegated to slow lane or perhaps blocked altogether?

The FCC is considering strong rules for net neutrality.  You can take action now by signing the petition with CREDO.

The FDA is taking public comments on the issue of labeling genetically modified organism (GMO) salmon.  The docket number is FDA-2010-N-0385.  It’s easy to comment via the regulations.gov website.  Simply go to the site for this docket and click on “submit comment”.

Why should you care about GMO salmon?

The salmon, produced by AquaBounty USA contain a xenobiotic growth hormone from an eel that will cause them to grow much faster than wildtype salmon.   The company argues that the salmon are not materially different than wild salmon.  Unfortunately, the FDA will not require the salmon to be labeled as genetically modified unless there is evidence that the fish are materially different.

Critics counter that the company has not performed adequate environmental and health impact studies of the fish.  Regardless of the health effects, it is difficult to see how these salmon would not hurt the wild population if they were introduced (and they almost certainly will be accidentally or maliciously introduced to the wild at some point).  In many other countries, it is the burden of the producer to prove a product is safe for consumers and the environment.  Here in the US, we operate under the buyer beware principle, and it’s up to either the government or consumer groups to demonstrate that a product is unsafe.

Consumers who want to know how their food is produced and what is in it face a black hole when it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) thanks to extensive lobbying by the corporate giants that produce them.  Although this fish will be the first GM animal to be approved, several others, including cows and pigs, are in the works.

from Citizensdailylobby, September 20, 2010.

Working America has created a website (JobTracker) that allows consumers to locate outsourcers and companies with recent labor law violations by zip code.   Within a 50 mile radius of my zip code in Little Rock, 4 companies are currently listed as outsourcers by the website:  Franklin Pumps, Inc., Molex, Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corp.,  and Storeroom Solutions.   Sixteen companies are reported as having violations of the National Labor Relations Act.  Although names and specific details are omitted, dates of settlements and types of settlements as well as fines levied are reported.    OSHA violations are also listed, and some are as serious as not providing fall protection for workers in construction.  Data sources for the site include relevant US government data as well as the CNN Exporting America list,  and state/local media outlets.

Conscious consumers may wish to use this site as a sort of ethical companion to the Better Business Bureau.   Regardless of position on outsourcing, most consumers want to spend their money at businesses that practice ethical hiring and management practices as well as good safety.

The advisory panel reviewing Aqua Bounty’s GM salmon has recommended further study of the organism’s health and environmental impact.     Conscientious consumers should not break out the champagne just yet:  the panel hedged its decision with language that strongly supports eventual approval of the salmon.  Details in the NYT.  Please get your comments in before the deadline of November 22, 2010.  Here’s how and where to write.

This is an important issue, and I’ll quote directly from Move On rather than trying to paraphrase.

Big news: according to reports, Google is about to cut a terrible deal with Verizon that would end the fair, open Internet as we know it.¹

The reported Google-Verizon deal would allow giant corporations to control which websites load quickly and easily on the Internet and dump everyone else onto an Internet slow lane. This is exactly the kind of unequal playing field that Google itself has opposed in the past.²

We only have a few days to stop it, so we’re launching a grassroots protest calling on Google to scuttle the deal. Will you sign our emergency petition to Google? Click here to sign:

http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=4

The petition says: “Google: Say no to the reported agreement with Verizon to kill Net Neutrality and the open Internet.”

The Internet was founded on the principle that all data is equal—and that no corporation should be able to decide whose data goes faster or slower. It’s this principle, called Net Neutrality, that has made the Internet such an amazing platform for individual speech, democratic action, and entrepreneurial creativity.³

And until now, Google—which uses the corporate motto “Don’t Be Evil”—has been a staunch defender of Net Neutrality.⁴ But now, Google is threatening to turn the Internet into a closed, pay-to-play, cash cow for large corporations. This move is evil, and Google knows it.

Here’s why this is a big deal. President Obama’s new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair initially came out strong for Net Neutrality, in line with the President’s campaign promises.⁵ But the big telecom companies launched a lobbying frenzy, and soon the FCC was meeting with them behind closed doors.

Because Google and Verizon are two powerhouse corporations that have historically been on opposite sides of this issue, an agreement between them will put enormous pressure on the FCC to go along with their recommendations. Essentially, two giant corporations may be deciding the future of the Internet—if the Obama administration goes along, and if the public doesn’t push back right away. Click here to help stop them now:

http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=5

Google was once a champion on this issue—Google chief executive Eric Schmidt once attacked “phone and cable monopolies” who “want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest.”⁶

But today’s news stories report that under the new deal, Verizon could be allowed to give some sites preferential treatment. Even more ominously, it appears that Verizon would have free rein to discriminate on the mobile Internet (smartphones, cell phones, etc). Since that’s where most people will access the Net going forward, this would essentially spell the end of Net Neutrality.

Google has issued a short, carefully worded statement challenging some of the details in The New York Times story, but it hasn’t denied that it is going along with this agreement to kill Net Neutrality.⁷ So much for “Don’t be evil.” Will you sign our petition today and tell Google not to be evil on Net Neutrality?

http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=6

Thanks for all you do.

–Kat, Justin, Carrie, Steven, and the rest of the team

1. “Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers,” The New York Times, August 5, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html

2. “Google Just Killed Net Neutrality,” Gizmodo, August 5, 2010
http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

3. “Network Neutrality Fact Sheet,” Common Cause, April 6, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87794&id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=7

4. Google Investor Relations: Code of Conduct, accessed August 5, 2010
http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html

5. “FCC Chair Proposes Net Neutrality Rules,” Digital Daily, September 21, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87795&id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=8

6. “Google Just Killed Net Neutrality,” Gizmodo, August 5, 2010
http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

7. “Google Denies Priority Internet Access Deal With Verizon,” PC Magazine, August 5, 2010
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367436,00.asp

Genetically modified alfalfa, marketed by agri-giant Monsanto, will likely be planted in the near future, following a ruling by the Supreme Court that overturned a California-court ban on the plants pending a full environmental impact study.  According to the AFP, the ball is now firmly in APHIS’ court.  (APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service).

“Until such time as the agency decides whether and how to exercise its regulatory authority, however, the courts have no cause to intervene,” the ruling said.

In the age of unbridled corporate influence in government, it’s fairly clear that the agency will not choose to exercise regulatory authority.

Proponents of further study prior to introducing such modified organisms point to the very real possibility of cross-contamination of the introduced gene into wild-type alfalfa stock.  Because the gene makes the plant resistant to a proprietary Monsanto herbicide,  use of the crop will promote heavier application of the chemical.  That will likely lead to more environmental contamination as well as more chemical residues on alfalfa products.

Monsanto may have the Feds in their pocket, but consumers can still fight back.  Refuse to buy GMO products, or meat products from animals fed GMOs.  This means buying organic or from local, trusted growers.  Consumer pressure can and does effect change.

I sincerely hope that none of my readers patronizes  McDonald’s.  Just in case…

McDonald’s recently recalled 13.4 million of its Shrek -themed plastic glasses after the US  Consumer Product Safety Commission and Canada’s health ministry Health Canada warned of cadmium contamination in the paint. Story here.

The real question is how many of these glasses will be returned, and how many will continue to be used by little kids drinking their favorite sugary-sweet beverages?

According to USA Today, Wal-Mart continued to sell the now-confirmed toxic Mylie Cyrus line of jewelry in spite of known test results that demonstrated high levels of cadmium.   A separate line of bracelet charms was also determined to be contaminated with toxic levels of cadmium.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. had learned of cadmium in the Mylie Cyrus jewelry, as well as in an unrelated line of bracelet charms, back in February, based on an earlier round of tests by a chemistry professor, but had continued selling the items. It said as recently as last month that it would be too difficult to test products already on its shelves.

In its statement, Wal-Mart did not say whether it would also remove the bracelet charms.

The bad press did have a positive result.  Wal-Mart will now test items that are “already on the shelf,” and it is pulling the Mylie Cyrus line.

Albeit on a smaller scale, this is exactly the corporate mind-set exhibited by BP and TransOcean in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.    If  the bottom line is more important than the health of our children, one should not be surprised that  the health of the environment is taken so lightly.     Wal-Mart portrays itself as the friend of working -class families, bringing them goods at rock-bottom prices.    Willingly leaving toxic items on the shelf to be marketed to children is not the action of a benefactor.

With all the well-deserved negative press BP is getting over its irresponsible behavior in the Gulf, one would think the company would give 100% effort to resolving the problem.   Not so.  Shareholders still rule, and getting the job done cheaply is still more important than getting the job done well.  Think Progress reports that BP chose to buy an oil dispersant known to be among the least efficient and most toxic.

Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.

So far, the company has put over 400,000 gallons of this stuff in the water.   The product comes from Nalco, a former BP subsidiary, and a company that still has close executive ties to BP.   To make matters worse, the formula for Corexit is proprietary, and it’s difficult to predict what long-term effects may be.

It’s time not only for a boycott of BP, but for consumers to take back the environment and their health from megacorporations.  Consumers have a right to know what’s being put into the Gulf of Mexico.  We have a right to know what’s being put into the ground closer to home here in Arkansas, in natural gas fracking operations around the state.

Thanks to CREDO Action for an alert regarding the USDA approval of Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa.   Those of you who follow this blog will remember past discussions about the problems with GMOs in the food chain.  These problems include possible health effects (GMOs have yet to be adequately studied for toxicity), loss of biodiversity, and control of food supply and markets by large corporations like Monsanto (a company that has proven itself ready and willing to viciously pursue its agenda at the expense of farmers).  In the case of Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA acknowledged that the GM alfalfa is virtually certain to “contaminate” existing, wild-type plants.

Organic farmers will be hardest hit by the spread of GM alfalfa to existing crops.  Organic food can not contain any GMOs.  Organic dairy farmers that unknowingly feed alfalfa contaminated with the GMO seed could lose certification.  Farmers growing alfalfa that becomes contaminated with Monsanto’s product could be held legally liable for patent infringement and face lawsuits.

The USDA/APHIS has determined that Monsanto’s seeds meet the Obama administration’s standards (here).  You may submit comments on this decision through February 16, 2010.  CREDO has made it easy with a standard comment to click and submit, or you may submit your own comment (always recommended) on the regulations.gov website.