http://www.bluejersey.com/diary/23278/statement-of-senate-president-stephen-m-sweeney

Statement of Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney
by: Rosi Efthim
Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 09:08:18 PM EDT

We got this at around 7 pm:

"Barbara Buono is the clear choice to move New Jersey forward. Whether it is improving our schools, protecting our seniors, fighting for women's healthcare, ensuring civil rights for all New Jerseyans, or providing economic relief that our workforce and middle-class desperately needs, Barbara Buono reflects true Democratic values and believes in the middle-class. These values unify our party, solidify our resolve and are the reasons all Democrats must stand with Barbara."

Thoughts, Blue Jersey?

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sat Jun 15, 2013, 03:27 PM (0 replies)

Maine House Overwhelmingly Supports GMO Labeling

Please see: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/06/11/politics/maine-house-overwhelmingly-supports-gmo-labeling-requirement/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/maine-legislature-easily-passes-gmo-labeling-bill-article-1.1370871

Maine Legislature easily passes GMO food labeling bill, a blow to Monsanto
The state’s Senate unanimously approved a similar version of the bill on Wednesday, after House of Representatives approved LD 718 on Tuesday by a vote of 141 to 4. The final bill will eventually head to Gov. Paul LeFarge.
BY DAVID KNOWLES / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013, 6:01 PM

Handing genetically engineered seed giant Monsanto Co. another legislative defeat, the Maine Legislature has passed a bill requiring the labeling of foods made from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

After the state’s House of Representatives approved LD 718 on Tuesday by a vote of 141 to 4, the Senate unanimously approved a similar version of the bill on Wednesday. Once differences are ironed out between the two measures, the final bill will head to Gov. Paul LeFarge’s desk.

<>

Monsanto argues that no valid, peer-reviewed studies have shown any ill health effects related to consuming genetically engineered foods.

“We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks,” the company says on its website. “Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

Nationwide, similar legislation has been introduced in 28 states this year, the Stamford Times reported ( http://www.thehour.com/stamford_times/news/on-gmo-labeling-conn-needs-other-states-to-act/article_b8a2187e-d2cf-11e2-9e63-0019bb30f31a.html ).

http://www.agri-pulse.com/Maine-GMO-labeling-bill-passes-state-House-06122013.asp

Maine GMO labeling bill passes state House
By Agri-Pulse staff

WASHINGTON, June 12, 2013 - A GMO labeling bill overwhelmingly passed through Maine’s House of Representatives yesterday, signaling a possible sea change in the labeling laws of Northeastern states.

<>

The Maine law shares a “trigger clause” nearly parallel to Connecticut’s - if passed, it would only take effect should four Northeastern states pass their own GMO labeling laws.

If Vermont is successful in passing a GE labeling law, the entire Northeast could be closer to a labeling law. Vermont’s House of Representatives became the first American legislative body to pass GMO labeling legislation when it voted 99-42 in favor of a bill in May. And some producers complain that printing different labels for different regions of the country would prove too costly - meaning as the Northeast goes, so could go the country.

The Maine Grocers Association has publicly renounced the law, calling mandatory labeling “unnecessary public policy, expensive for Maine farmers, processers and manufactures, grocers and retailers, and the state to implement and enforce,’’ according to Shelley Doak, the group’s executive director, who spoke at a hearing in April.

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:26 PM (1 replies)

12/12: American Academy Of Pediatrics Endorses Cell Phone Safety Bill

http://www.ewg.org/release/american-academy-pediatrics-endorses-cell-phone-safety-bil

American Academy Of Pediatrics Endorses Cell Phone Safety Bill

Contact: Alex Formuzis
(202) 667-6982
alex@ewg.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2012

Oakland, Calif. -- The Environmental Working Group applauds the decision by the influential American Academy of Pediatrics to support pending legislation that would require new research into the safety of cell phone radiation, especially for children, require safety standards that protect children and other vulnerable populations, and impose new labeling requirements for the ubiquitous devices.

EWG Senior Scientist Renee Sharp said in a statement that the bill’s endorsement by the nation’s largest organization of physicians specializing in children’s health “should be a wake-up call” to Congress and the public:

“Many people wrongly still regard the question of cell phone safety as a fringe issue. The fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is officially supporting a bill calling for more research, more protective standards, and better labeling of cell phones’ associated radiation exposure should be a wake-up call that this is an issue that must be taken seriously.

“We are pleased that this well-regarded doctors’ group has joined the mounting calls for legislation aimed at ensuring cell phone safety. The science is not definitive that exposure to cell phone radiation can cause cancer or other health problems, but there is real reason for concern. Given their widespread use by children and adults, the federal government needs to be doing all it can to ensure that cell phones are safe and that consumers are informed. The government’s efforts have fallen woefully short.

“We must demand stronger safety laws such as the Cell Phone Right to Know Act to help consumers make informed decisions and protect the public from potentially harmful consequences for human health.”

The Cell Phone Right to Know Act, H.R. 6358, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, would expand research on the potential health effects of cell phone radiation, require the Federal Communications Commission to update its limited and outdated safety standards and mandate better labeling and right-to-know measures.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is the first physicians’ organization to take a position on the bill. In his letter to Rep. Kucinich, Academy President Thomas K. McInerny, MD, wrote:

"The AAP strongly supports H.R. 6358's emphasis on examining the effects of radiofrequency (RF) energy on vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. In addition, we are pleased that the bill would require the consideration of those effects when developing maximum exposure standards. Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child's brain compared to an adult's brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults. In addition, the AAP supports the product labeling requirements in H.R. 6358. These standards will ensure consumers can make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases. They will also enable parents to better understand the potential dangers of RF energy exposure and protect their children."

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Wed Jun 12, 2013, 12:52 PM (0 replies)

Wave Of Opposition To Senate Chemicals Bill Swells From Public Interest Groups, Legal Scholars

Source: Press Release Environmental Working Group

Contact: Sara Sciammacco
(202) 667-6982
ssciammacco@ewg.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Dozens of public interest organizations and legal scholars today sent letters to Congressional leaders expressing their unified opposition to the industry-backed Chemical Safety Improvement Act introduced last month by a bipartisan group of senators.

In a letter to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Economy, 24 environmental and public health groups from around the country wrote:

“We respect and appreciate the efforts to identify areas of bipartisan compromise and consensus on chemical safety legislation. However, we believe that the resulting Chemical Safety Improvement Act, S. 1009, has serious limitations and will fall far short of our shared goal of safeguarding human health from the risks posed by exposure to toxic chemicals. As a result, we will oppose this bill as it is currently written unless it is amended to address our key concerns.”

Among the organizations that signed the letter were the Breast Cancer Fund, Greenpeace, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Child, Healthy World and the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.

The coalition took issue with several sections of the industry-supported bill. Among the groups’ concerns are the legislation’s failure to create much-needed health protections that are absent in the current law but were included in the Safe Chemicals Act introduced earlier this year by the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg.

Specifically, the groups noted, the current bill doesn’t “explicitly protect women and children” or take into consideration “the cumulative burden of chemical pollution for residents of highly polluted communities and workers.” In addition, the industry-backed bill “sets no clear timelines to ensure EPA assesses hazardous chemicals in a timely manner” and “would not require that chemicals be found to be safe before manufacturing begins.”

Another letter, sent by more than a dozen California-based advocacy groups, voiced concerns over the legislation’s potential to preempt the state’s existing tough regulation of toxic chemicals. Several analyses of the Senate bill have concluded that it could leave California’s Proposition 65 toxic chemicals regulation law in tatters by giving the federal Environmental Protection Agency authority to supersede the state statute, which was created through a popular referendum vote in 1986. The California organizations wrote:

“…the broad language on state-level preemption could tie California’s hands and prevent the state from continuing to be a leader on toxic chemical issues. While the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, TSCA and many other federal environmental laws allow states to take more aggressive action to protect their residents from potential environmental threats, any such action would be severely limited under the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. For these and other reasons, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act is not acceptable in its current form.”

The California-based organizations sent their letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In a third letter, 34 law professors, legal scholars and public interest lawyers with years of collective experience in public health and environmental law and a particular focus on state and federal toxics policy, also weighed in. In their letter and detailed analysis of the bill, which was sent to Congressional leaders, the wrote:

“In view of tomorrow’s hearing, we write to express serious reservations with the ‘Chemical Safety Improvement Act,’ which was introduced by Sen. David Vitter and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg on May 22, 2013, in an effort to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Supporters have heralded the bill as a ‘historic step’ toward fixing our broken framework for regulating chemicals on the market. However, for reasons explained herein, we cannot support the bill as written, which must be strengthened to overhaul current law and ensure that chemicals are safe for people, particularly vulnerable populations such as children.”

In his own comment on the bill, EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook said that: “While we appreciate the efforts to craft a bipartisan path toward TSCA reform, the bill as it stands now is nothing short of a monument to the chemical industry. Something is clearly amiss when chemical companies, their lobbyists and lawyers are united in support of a bill while virtually the entire environmental community is aligned against it.”

All of the letters sent today can be found here: http://static.ewg.org/pdf/Combined-CSIA-Letters-2013.pdf

Read more: http://www.ewg.org/release/wave-opposition-senate-chemicals-bill-swells-public-interest-groups-legal-scholars

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Wed Jun 12, 2013, 12:40 PM (5 replies)

Christie picking up major Democratic endorsements this week

Source: By Ryan Hutchins and Matt Friedman/The Star-Ledger

June 11, 2013 at 6:15 AM, updated June 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM

UNION CITY — One of New Jersey’s more influential Democrats, Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo, is poised to endorse Gov. Chris Christie this afternoon — just a day after the Republican was backed by another Democratic powerbroker.

DiVincenzo, one of the top party bosses in North Jersey, will announce his support for the governor at McLoone’s Boat House in West Orange around noon, two sources with knowledge of the announcement said Monday. The sources requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly until the announcement is made.

Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura will also back Christie at the event, according to the sources, as will several Democratic mayors and ministers.

The big-time support for Christie — a nationally ambitious Republican — comes just a day after state Sen. Brian Stack, the mayor of Union City and a Democratic powerbroker in Hudson County, also said he wants to see the governor reelected.

Read more: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/christie_picking_up_major_demo.html

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Tue Jun 11, 2013, 07:36 PM (55 replies)

Lack of nuance does great disservice to that argument.

In fact, if you read AOA you'd know that "On May 30, 2013, there was a piece on SCOPE, the Stanford University Medical School site, with the title, 'Director of Stanford Autism Center responds to your questions on research and treatment.'" Check it out.

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2013/05/30/director-of-stanford-autism-center-responds-to-your-questions-on-research-and-treatment/

<>

"How meaningful are environmental factors, such as nutrition and exposure to toxins during pregnancy, in terms of autism risk?"

Feinstein's answer:

"During pregnancy, proper nutrition and taking reasonable measures to avoid exposure to known environmental toxins are basic steps an expectant mother, and family, can take to promote a baby's health and minimize risks of medical problems for the newborn. This principle certainly applies to giving birth to a baby with a healthy brain and nervous system, and pregnant women should consume proper nutrients to support brain development. There are a number of known toxins, including lead, alcohol, mercury, tobacco, various insecticides, petrochemical products and some medicines that are harmful to fetal development. An important area of concern is our current environment and findings showing that food and water sources, and other common materials, can contain man-made chemicals.

"A great deal of scientific attention is now being focused on the potential consequences of some of these chemicals on the bodily organs, including the brain, as well as possible mutagenic or harmful effects on the reproductive organs and human genes. There is a very real basis for concern that environmental toxins play a direct causative role or increase the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, including ASDs. There is now much research underway to discover what types of chemicals present in the environment might be causatively implicated in ASDs."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/06/sanford-us-dr-carl-feinstein-responds-to-autism-questions.html

June 3, 2013
Stanford U's Dr. Carl Feinstein Responds to Autism Questions
By Anne Dachel

<>

Feinstein didn't tell us that all the autism is just better diagnosing of a genetic disorder that's always been around. He knows that environmental toxins are major players in neurological disorders like autism. He even knows about the mutagenic effects they have. He specifically cited MERCURY as a factor. Yet for some reason, he's not willing to talk about the horrendous level of untested mercury allowed in the majority of the flu vaccine that is recommended for pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy. He didn't mention anything about the other issues in the vaccine-autism debate like aluminum, human fetal cells, and the live viruses in the MMR vaccine.

"At present, it appears very unlikely that vaccines of any type are a meaningful causal factor in the vast majority of cases of ASDs."

That statement seemed to settle the issue, or did it?

"At present..." Does that mean that in the future vaccines may be shown to cause autism?

"It appears very unlikely...are a meaningful factor..." That's not the same thing as "there is absolutely no connection between vaccines and autism."

"In the vast majority of cases." So vaccines may be a casual factor in SOME cases?

Feinstein sounded a lot like Dr. David Amaral from the MIND Institute at UC-Davis and Dr. Martha Herbert from Harvard.

Check this out, also.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

March 31, 2011 11:32 AM
By Sharyl Attkisson

...The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.

Ratajczak's article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."

As always, for those individuals happy with the condition, it's simply neurodiversity.

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sun Jun 9, 2013, 02:06 AM (0 replies)

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next »