Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Monday, January 23, 2006

Making Our Food Less Safe

The Detroit Free Press reports on a new industry-led effort to ban state and local governments from limiting genetically engineered products in their communities. In response to local initiatives in towns and counties in California and New England that ban raising genetically-engineered crops, state legislatures in18 states have put forward proposals "that would bar towns and counties from enacting local legislation to regulate genetically engineered seed." Initiatives have already passed in 14 of the 18 states.

Genetically-engineered foods pose a variety of known risks both to humans and to the security of the nation's food supply. Moreover, as a relatively new technological advancement, genetically-engineered products also pose many unknown risks as well. The legislation bars communities from enacting the precautionary principle, which would require new technologies be proven safe before being adopted.

Moreover, the situation exemplifies the problems facing state advocacy. Though states have often surpassed the federal government in achieving strong and responsive public protections, they have also presented an easy target for industry special interests whose legislative agendas may meet more resistance in the national arena. Just as state initiatives may present great opportunities for advancing social goods, they are also susceptible to the vast influence of corporate special interests.

More on the hazards of genetically-modified crops: Nanotech, Genetically Modified Crops Spotlights Regulatory Gaps (11/01/2005)

More on state progressive reform: States Present Opportunities and Pitfalls for Progressive Reform (8/22/2005)

Posted by Genevieve Smith



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

Occupational Risk Rule Clears White House

With Concessions to Industry, Right Whale Rule May Be Moving

In Rare Move, White House Rubber Stamped Abortion Proposal

Controversial Rule on Abortion Moving Forward

Bush Administration Backs Off SCHIP Restrictions

Bush Signs Consumer Product Safety Bill

Bush Administration Cuts Habitat for Spotted Owl

Bush Trying Last-Minute Changes to Endangered Species Act

For EPA Staff Trying to Protect the Planet, "Disappointment is Profound"

Consumer Product Bill Delivers Win for Consumers

Archived Entries for Consumer Issues

August

July

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004

September, 2004