Thursday, October 2, 2014

YES ON 92: Scary cost estimates are utter BS lies

Not in My Food

Consumer Reports plays it straight when analyzing things, and their work shows that the cost of Measure 92 is trivially small.

GMO Labeling: Facts not hype!

GMO less than a pennyTake a moment to forward this to your friends and family so they can get the facts about GMO labeling costs.
Your message will contain a link to the report findings, so your friends can read for themselves what the real cost of labeling will be: Only $2.30 a year per consumer, not industry exaggeration of $200 or more.
After you forward this, you'll find a page where you can read the report if you want more details:
Thank you for helping us spread facts about GMO labeling, not hype!

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

YES ON 92: Monsanto, Superweeds & Your Right to Know

Some people make fun of Novick as a wonky Hobbit from Portlandshire, and sometimes he lives up to the Poindexter reputation of not being able to explain things in terms that work with normal folks.

But when he really gets something, that tends to fall away and the excellent communicator with the sharp left hook is seen again, making memorable and powerful points. Like in the ads that really captured a lot of attention.

His YES ON 92 message below is outstanding and dead-on accurate.  He is absolutely right about genetic tampering and super weeds being locked in an arms race that threatens us all.

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

From: "Steve Novick" <>
Date: October 2, 2014 at 15:58:11 PDT
Subject: Monsanto, Superweeds & Your Right to Know

Steve Novick for Portland City Council

Dear John,

I wasn't very familiar with the genetically modified food fights until recently. But as a child of the Cold War era, I can relate to arms races. So when the supporters of Measure 92, the measure to label GMO products, told me it was really about stopping a dangerous arms race that threatens our environment, I paid attention. I'm voting for and donated to Yes on 92, and hope you will too.

Here's what's going on. Since the advent of genetically engineered crops, herbicide and pesticide use has increased dramatically. The most common type of genetic engineering — which is completely different from traditional crossbreeding techniques — alters a plant's genes in a lab to make them resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup. This design allows the spraying of large amounts of Roundup on fields planted with these engineered seeds to kill weeds. Which is bad enough — considering that you and I and pretty much all fish live downstream from a farm. But then come the Superweeds.

Superweeds arise over time as weeds naturally evolve a resistance to the poison they are doused in. To combat superweeds, plants are being engineered to be resistant to ever more toxic herbicides. This creates a vicious cycle of ever higher usage of ever more toxic herbicides, leading to health and environmental problems, and in time to the evolution of more resistant superweeds.

So we now have an escalating battle between toxic chemicals and superweeds. Bees and butterflies are collateral damage, along with the Oregon farmers who face ruined crops if their fields are contaminated from genetically engineered plants nearby.

The best way, as consumers, that we can change this vicious cycle is by making informed choices about what products we buy. Putting a label on our food that simply says whether or not it contains genetically engineered ingredients gives us that information.

There's no question that Monsanto, DuPont and Dow will spend millions to tell voters this is a bad idea. These are the same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe, and they have pockets deeper than Crater Lake. But if Yes on 92 can turn out supporters, we'll win. With donations from thousands of Oregonians like you and me — the average donation is $67 — we can help Yes on 92 beat the odds and engage voters.

Please make a donation of $67 today.

Don't let big chemical corporations buy their way to victory: Contribute $67 right now to beat back Big Ag's attacks and stop the arms race!

All my best,
Paid for by Novick for Portland • PO Box 42307, Portland, Oregon, 97242, United States

Same with Salem: the 1% spray toxic lead emissions on the rest of us

Oregonian Report on the Hillsboro Airport and Lead Emissions

An article by Luke Hammill on lead emissions at the Hillsboro Airport (HIO) entitled Airport Spews Half Ton of Lead in 2011, Critics Say It's Too Much was published in the Hillsboro Argus on 10/1/14. A shorter version Aim for Hillsboro Airport: Get the Lead Out was printed in the 10/1/14 Oregonian Metro section. The report, which initially appeared on-line on 9/24/14, is available at . 

As noted by Hammmill, "Hillsboro Airport is the leading facility source of lead in Oregon." According to EPA documentation HIO ranks in the top one percent, 21st nationwide, among nearly 20,000 airports in lead emissions. The vast majority of flights in and out of HIO are training operations that continue to rely on leaded fuel. Port of Portland and FAA documentation released in February, 2014 projected that lead emissions at this facility will increase from the 2007 level of 0.7 tons per year (as noted by the Port in the initial environmental assessment on the third runway) to 0.8 (tpy) by 2016 and 0.9 tpy by 2021. 

Due to various shortcomings,Oregon Aviation Watch believes that the Port significantly underestimated lead emissions at HIO and has strongly urged that monitoring equipment be placed at, and in the vicinity of, this airport to determine actual rather than estimated lead emissions. Oregon Aviation Watch further supports a comprehensive lead study designed specifically to measure lead emissions at HIO - one that includes adherence to EPA guidelines, substantive public input, and an unbiased third party analysis.

Currently, Port estimates are based on a September 2010 study performed by a private consultant hired by the Port. The study lacked peer review, scientific rigor, public participation, and EPA involvement. Since the Port makes money off every gallon of fuel sold at HIO, their findings and estimates represent an inherent conflict of interest. 


For additional information on airport issues go to

To subscribe or unsubscribe contact

Miki Barnes

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."