November, 17 2010, 01:02pm EDT
Biotechnology Industry Spends Over Half a Billion Pushing Controversial Projects like Genetically Engineered (GE) Food Animals
Food & Water Watch Analysis Exposes Government Connections to Biotech Lobbyists; Despite Widespread Opposition, FDA may Approve First GE Food Animal on Nov. 23
WASHINGTON
Over the last decade, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations spent over half a billion dollars - $572 million - in campaign contributions and lobbying Congress in support of controversial industry projects like genetically engineered (GE) food animals, according to a new analysis by national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions and lobbying expenditures by biotechnology interests more than doubled during this time.
"The public needs to know that despite their concerns with eating genetically engineered (GE) foods, there's a powerful industry spending hundreds of millions to promote products like GE salmon," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Over the last few months, our coalition has collected approximately 200,000 petitions from consumers who oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered salmon. Yet sadly, each of these consumers would have to pay nearly $3,000 to match the biotech industry's lobbying influence."
The analysis comes less than a week before the FDA will close its public comment period on the first GE animal to be approved for human consumption, AquaBounty salmon. The FDA could approve the controversial product as early as Nov. 23.
In addition to promoting GE foods, biotech lobbyists work to prevent foreign governments from banning or limiting the products and fight requirements that they be labeled for consumers.
FDA labeling of AquaBounty salmon has been a hotly contested issue. Despite consumer concerns, the agency currently does not require it. According to an NPR article published earlier this week, a survey of more than 3,000 people (conducted for NPR by Thomson Reuters) revealed that 9 out of 10 people believe GE foods should be labeled. The majority said they would not eat a genetically engineered fish, labeled or not.
Food & Water Watch's analysis also exposed intricate relationships and financial connections between well-connected lobbyists and former high-ranking legislators who lobby Congress and the federal agencies. According to the analysis, food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations have hired on as lobbyists at least 13 former members of Congress and over 300 former congressional and White House staffers through well-connected lobbying shops.
The consumer group's analysis comes on the heels of its release of startling U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service emails (obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request) revealing the agency scientists' disbelief that the FDA would approve AquaBounty salmon. With regards to GE fish escapes, one Fish & Wildlife Service geneticist was quoted saying, "Maybe they [the FDA] should watch Jurassic Park."
"It seems the FDA is more interested in pandering to lobbyists then listening to the American public and the other federal agencies it is required by law to consult with," Hauter said.
At least 30 House members and 13 senators have expressed concern with the FDA's review process for GE salmon, with many calling for its outright prohibition.
On Monday, Nov. 22, a coalition of groups including Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, the Organic Consumers Association, Food Democracy Now and CREDO Action will submit over 200,000 consumer comments to the FDA and President Obama, urging them to reject the approval of genetically engineered salmon.
Click here for Food & Water Watch's full biotech lobbying analysis.
For more information, contact Lauren Wright; Lwright@fwwatch.org; 202 683-4929
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Progressives Praise New US Guidelines for Government AI Use
"Today, the OMB's guidance takes us one step further down the path of facing a technology-rich future that begins to address its harms," said Maya Wiley.
Mar 28, 2024
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris announced on Thursday a Office of Management and Budget guidance regarding how the federal government will utilize new artificial intelligence tools going forward, and it received praise from some progressives.
The guidance focuses on how federal agencies can benefit from utilizing AI tools but also the risks involved in putting them to use.
"The order directed sweeping action to strengthen AI safety and security, protect Americans' privacy, advance equity and civil rights, stand up for consumers and workers, promote innovation and competition, advance American leadership around the world, and more," says a White House fact sheet.
At the first-ever Global AI Summit last year, I laid out our vision for a future where AI advances the public interest.
To help build that future, I am announcing our first government-wide policy to promote the safe, secure, and responsible use of AI. https://t.co/6NPXLWn8Oc
— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) March 28, 2024
The guidance says all federal agencies will now have a senior leader in charge of the use of AL tools, agencies will have to publicly report how they're using AI, agencies will be required to create "concrete safeguards" to protect the rights of citizens, and more.
Damon T. Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called it "a significant step to implement meaningful safeguards on the government's use of artificial intelligence."
Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said it's necessary to make sure technology "serves us," rather than "harms us," and it should "advance our democracy rather than disrupt it."
"Today, the OMB's guidance takes us one step further down the path of facing a technology-rich future that begins to address its harms," Wiley said. "The guidance puts rights-protecting principles of the White House's historic AI Bill of Rights into practice across agencies, and it is an important step in advancing civil rights protections in AI deployment at federal agencies. It extends existing civil rights protections, helping to bring them into the era of AI."
The Biden administration released an AI Bill of Rights blueprint in 2022, which is an outline for how new AI tools should be utilized and developed to protect consumers. It also secured a voluntary AI safeguard agreement with seven major AI developers in July of last year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Former US Lawmaker Finally Enjoys Social Policies He Fought for—In Europe
"I saw and felt what it's like to live in a community where everyone can go to the doctor. Where children aren't massacred by gun violence. It changes everything."
Mar 28, 2024
A former U.S. lawmaker who spent nearly half a century fighting for a nation that would have universal healthcare coverage and less gun violence is finally living in such a place—but he had to retire and move to Europe to find it.
In recent interviews with Roll Call and The Washington Post, former Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott, who also served in the Washington state Legislature, discussed life in France and the threat of former GOP President Donald Trump, who is set to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November.
"It was like I walked through an invisible door," McDermott told the Post's Elizabeth Becker about going to France. "Now I saw and felt what it's like to live in a community where everyone can go to the doctor. Where children aren't massacred by gun violence. It changes everything."
McDermott visited Civrac-en-Médoc in 2017, the same year he retired from Congress, and quickly bought a stone cottage. The 87-year-old keeps a residence in Seattle and remains an American—he is a member of Democrats Abroad and plans to vote for Biden. However, he largely lives in the rural French village, where he "doesn't need to lock his doors at night" and "loves that kids in the neighborhood don't worry about gun violence," as Roll Call's Ariel Cohen reported Wednesday.
"I spent 16 years in the Washington state Legislature trying to get single-payer healthcare. Then I spent nearly 30 years in Congress trying to get single-payer. Then I came to France and in three months I had single-payer. Was that mind-blowing? You bet."
France—which requires a psychological test for a gun license—has a population of about 68 million and each year sees 3.23 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people, according to World Population Review. The United States, home to over 333 million, has 10.84 gun deaths per 100,000 people and mass shootings are on the rise.
During his decades on Capitol Hill, McDermott, a psychiatrist, supported stricter U.S. gun laws and nationwide universal healthcare. While progressives including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) continue the battle for Medicare for All in Congress, McDermott is experiencing France's full coverage system, which was built over seven decades.
"The system covers most costs for hospital, physician, and long-term care, as well as prescription drugs; patients are responsible for coinsurance, copayments, and balance bills for physician charges that exceed covered fees," according to the Commonwealth Fund. "The insurance system is funded primarily by payroll taxes (paid by employers and employees), a national income tax, and tax levies on certain industries and products."
McDermott told Cohen "I spent 16 years in the Washington state Legislature trying to get single-payer healthcare. Then I spent nearly 30 years in Congress trying to get single-payer. Then I came to France and in three months I had single-payer. Was that mind-blowing? You bet."
As Cohen detailed:
When he arrived in France, he needed to fill a few prescriptions but didn't have a French primary care doctor. The pharmacist looked at his empty pill bottles and refilled them, no questions asked. When McDermott finally got a French physician, he received a brand-new CPAP machine at no cost. A month later, someone came to make sure it was working properly.
"Coming to France is like a drink of cold water," he says. "Once you've had this experience, it's easy to see all the ways in the U.S. you're getting screwed—well, not screwed per se, but definitely overcharged."
McDermott's first electoral win was tied to healthcare—specifically, his support for abortion rights. He was elected to the Washington House of Representatives in November 1970, the same election in which the state's voters legalized abortion, three years before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority—including three Trump appointees—overturned Roe, sparking a fresh wave of forced pregnancy bills across the nation. Meanwhile, the French Parliament earlier this month enshired abortion rights in France's constitution.
"The whole country stood up and said, 'Up your ass, we're not going your way, America,'" McDermott said of the French vote. "People have realized America is not the place you want to be on everything."
While U.S. legislators in over 20 states have imposed new restrictions on reproductive healthcare since the fall of Roe, Trump—who's now signaling his support for Christian nationalism by hawking $60 patriotic-themed Bibles—and many congressional Republicans are pushing for a 15-week federal abortion ban and various other far-right policies.
From France, Becker noted, McDermott keeps tabs on U.S. politics, conversing with friends and politicians, sending money to campaigns, and warning people against a Trump win in November.
According to the former war correspondent:
In private conversations with McDermott, they wonder how to gauge the seriousness of Trump's increasingly dire threats to the country's democratic underpinnings and, potentially, to them and their families. "I get calls from my friends now who say they are scared to do what I did but are scared to stay."
He tells them: "If you can afford it, buy a second home in France, or Spain, or Portugal, wherever… a second home that could become a safe house."
Still, McDermott has some hope for his home country's future, telling Cohen: "I still vote, I still got my house in Seattle. Just because I don't live there doesn't mean I've given up on the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down 4 'Unconstitutional' Voting Laws Passed by GOP
The laws disproportionately impacted the ability of Native people to participate in voting, the court noted.
Mar 28, 2024
Native rights groups were among those applauding a decision by the Montana Supreme Court late Wednesday as four voting restrictions, passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in the wake of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, were struck down as "unconstitutional."
The sweeping 2021 laws had ended same-day voter registration, eliminated the use of student ID cards as a form of identification for voters, banned the distribution of absentee ballots to teenagers who would turn 18 by Election Day, and prohibited third parties from collecting ballots and returning them on behalf of voters.
Indigenous rights groups and tribes including Native Voice, Montana Native Vote, the Blackfeet Nation, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a lawsuit in 2021 to challenge H.B. 176 and H.B. 530, the two laws pertaining to same-day registration and ballot collection.
Chief Justice Mike McGrath noted that Native people were disproportionately affected by the two laws, writing that it is "much more difficult on average for people living on reservations to either get to a polling place on or before Election Day, or to mail an absentee ballot prior to election day."
The summary of the majority opinion said the laws "violate the fundamental right to vote provided to all citizens by the Montana Constitution."
The court upheld a district court ruling from 2022.
"Today's Montana Supreme Court decision is a great victory for our clients and all Native Americans in Montana, who have asked for nothing more than the ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney at the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Once again, courts have struck down the Montana Legislature's attempts to unconstitutionally burden the constitutional rights of Native Americans across the state. We will continue to fight for Native American voters in Montana and across the country to preserve their fundamental, constitutional right to vote."
Jacqueline De León, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, called the 4-3 ruling "a resounding win for tribes in Montana."
"Despite repeated attacks on their voting rights, tribes and Native voters in Montana stood strong, and today the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that the state's legislative actions were unconstitutional," said De León. "Native voices deserve to be heard and this decision helps ensure that happens."
Josh Douglas, a law professor at University of Kentucky, wrote at Election Law Blog that the state Supreme Court "put real teeth into [the] state constitutional protection for voters," recognizing that the Montana Constitution goes further than federal law in protecting voting rights.
As the state constitution reads, "All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
"The court refused to follow federal precedent, noting that '[t]his court can diverge from the minimal protections offered by the United States Constitution when the Montana Constitution clearly affords greater protection—or even where the provision is nearly identical,'" wrote Douglas. "State courts have various tools within state constitutions to robustly protect voters. The Montana Supreme Court's decision offers a solid roadmap for how to use state constitutional language on the right to vote. Other state supreme courts should follow the Montana Supreme Court's lead."
The ruling comes as Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) faces a competitive race for reelection.
Ronnie Jo Horse, executive director of Western Native Voice, said the ruling "reinforces the principle of equitable access to voting services and the protection of the rights for all voters."
"We are very pleased with today's landmark ruling," said Horse. "It stands as a testament to justice prevailing in defense of the rights of Montanans, especially those of Native American communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular