Page 8 - the NOISE September 2014

NEWSBRIEFS
BY CINDY COLE
being chased down and threatened by em- ployees from Recreation Resource Man- agement (RRM). Even though he was so frightened that he called 911, he was issued a ticket for Disorderly Conduct and told by the County Attorney that trespassing charg- es would also be pressed.
The RRM employee who allegedly as- saulted Mr. White was also issued a Disor- derly Conduct ticket but his was dismissed almost immediately. For some reason, Mr. White’s case was pursued in spite of the “he said, she said” nature of the encounter and statements taken by the Coconino Sheriff’s Department provided no further clarity on what had occurred.
But Vance White stuck to his guns. He rep- resented himself before a judge on several occasions and refused to agree to offered plea bargains. The Noise published his ac- count in June 2014 and received several let- ters from other citizens who had similar sto- ries to tell about encounters with RRM staff. Mr. White was patiently waiting for his next court date when he finally received a notice from the County Attorney that his case had been dismissed “due to insufficient evidence.”
Mr. White had this to say upon receiving this news: “I’m not happy having been a victim who was treated like a criminal while watching the person who assaulted me walk free. But I do believe in karma! I feel if the law enforcement officers who investigated my case had done a better job from the be- ginning, the outcome would have been a lot different and I wouldn’t have had to go through this extended process to prove my innocence.
“I am very thankful for everyone who sup- ported me through this. Although it took a long time, I am very happy the County Attor- ney admitted to the lack of evidence against me. This has been an amazing growth ex- perience for me, too. From learning how to prevent encounters like this from the get-go to dealing with law enforcement officers at the scene. From the value of self-defense courses to learning the law, seeing how ‘grey’ it is and figuring out how to represent myself in court. Going through this has made me stronger. I know that no matter how hard something seems, never give up ― stand up for yourself and what’s right! I do not believe in the forest service’s use of concessionaires or the idea that they have rights to our public lands. This is what our forest service is for! But if they are here to stay, I really hope they change the way they do business and how they deal with the public on public lands.”
Through email correspondence, Warren Meyer, President of RRM, stated that “Ob- viously, verbal or physical assault on cus- tomers is not something we tolerate. The employee left the company just after the incident occurred, since the snow play area was closed, so the issue of employee disci- pline was moot. We have since changed our policies to protect our employees in such encounters.”
Let’s hope concessionaire employees will learn to play better with the public in the future and be adequately trained so that en- counters like this won’t be repeated.
| Cindy Cole is a news findin’ mama. news@thenoise.us
GMA SUES VERMONT OVER GMO LABELING LAW
In May, Vermont Governor Peter Shum- lin signed Act 120 into law. The Act is the first of its kind and establishes mandatory labeling for all genetically modified organ- ism (GMO) foods sold in the state. The label- ing law is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2016. On June 16, 2014 the Grocery Manu- facturers Association (GMA) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. It is unknown at this time whether the imple- mentation date of the law will be delayed by the court battle.
In addition to the GMA, the plaintiffs for the suit include the Snack Food Associa- tion, the International Dairy Foods Associ- ation and the National Association of Man- ufacturers. The GMA describes itself as “the voice of more than 300 leading food, bever- age and consumer product companies that sustain and enhance the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people in the United States and around the globe.” Its members include Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Kraft, General Mills, Godiva, Hillshire, Heinz, McDonald’s, Monsanto and even Microsoft.
In a press release announcing its legal ac- tion, the GMA stated that “Vermont’s man- datory GMO labeling law — Act 120 — is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patch- work of GMO labeling policies that do noth- ing to advance the health and safety of con- sumers. Act 120 exceeds the state’s authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, the GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate.
“Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements — and restrictions — that will affect, by Vermont’s count, 8 out of every 10 foods at the grocery store. Yet Ver- mont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, includ- ing milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law. This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact.
“The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly ‘governmental’ interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution
prohibits Vermont from regulating nation- wide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The US Food & Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, and the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork.”
But the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), which describes itself as “an online and grassroots nonprofit public interest or- ganization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability,” knew this was coming. Before Act 120 was even signed into law, the GMA announced that it would fight against it and immediately take legal action.
The OCA released a statement the day the lawsuit was filed, saying: “Today’s move by the Grocery Manufacturers Association to prevent Vermont from requiring food companies to disclose the truth about what they put in the billions of dollars’ worth of food they sell to consumers is a desperate attempt to protect corporate shareholder profits at the expense of consumers’ rights and health. More than 60 other countries have either banned GMOs, or require man- datory labeling of foods that contain them. Consumers in the US have every reasonable right to the same information that consum- ers in other countries have about foods and ingredients that have not been subjected to independent, pre-market safety testing.
“Beyond the truth and transparency in la- beling issue, every US citizen should be con- cerned when a multi-billion dollar corporate lobbying group sues in federal court to over- turn a state’s right to govern for the health and safety of its citizens. Every precaution was taken to ensure that Vermont’s H.112 would withstand any and all legal challenges, and legal experts agree that that the bill will hold up in federal court. The GMA is merely attempting to inflict damage on Vermont in retaliation for passing H.112, and to intimi- date other states that are considering similar legislation or ballot initiatives.
“The GMA’s membership includes more than 300 companies in the business of sell- ing junk food, pesticides and drugs. The OCA today calls on consumers to boycott the products sold by all of those companies, including the organic and natural brands whose parent companies are members of the GMA. We also call on consumers to sup-
port those companies that demonstrate soli- darity with consumers by withdrawing their membership support from the trade associa- tion. Marketing statistics show that boycotts impact sales, and that this is the best way for consumers to influence corporate decision- makers.”
After spending millions of dollars to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in Washington and California, the GMA is simply not going to let Vermont move forward without a fight. But a Constitutional challenge may not hold up in court.
In January 2014 Emord & Associates, a Constitutional law firm that specializes in the food and drug industry, released a re- port analyzing Vermont’s GMO labeling leg- islation. Their examination determined that the GMA’s freedom of speech challenge will not withstand the court’s scrutiny because it
“protects consumer health and safety.” The re- port says that “the law is likely constitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The GMA’s challenges to Vermont’s right to impose its own label- ing standards do “not impede or conflict with the federal Food and Drug Administra- tion’s labeling regime for foods and dietary supplements. The federal system does not preempt H.112, which was enacted constitu- tionally under the State’s general powers,” ac- cording to the law firm. “Finally, H.112 does not discriminate against interstate com- merce, or impose a burden that outweighs Vermont’s legitimate interest in protecting the consuming public ... any more than oth- er similar labeling regulations throughout the nation,” determined the firm.
Who will win this battle in court remains to be seen. But Vermont’s stand on GMO la- beling is not going unnoticed by other state legislatures or consumers across the nation. This precedent setting move by the second- least populated state in the country certainly has all the major food and chemical manu- facturers up in arms.
VANCE WHITE:
YOU CAN FIGHT CITY HALL — AND WIN!
On February 16, 2014, Vance White set out for a fun trail ride in his Polaris RZR ATV near the Wing Mountain Snow Play Area of Coconino National Forest. He ended up
8 • SEPTEMBER 2014 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us