Have you heard the one about a fetching New England state and the big, bad wolf?

Let me fill you in a bit. Last month, that fetching state, more often referred to as Vermont, passed the first comprehensive, mandatory GMO (genetically modified organisms, for those of you unfamiliar with the acronym) labeling law in the United States.

As expected, as quick as you can say Monsanto and the packaged food industry, one short month later, Vermont is being stalked straight into court by the Grocery Manufacturing Association, as well as by three other heavily financed packaged-food groups.

It certainly didn’t take long for the members of the pack, including St. Louis’s very own homegrown big bad wolf—that’s Monsanto for you non-Missourians—to start baying at the moon. The lawyerly wolves among the group quickly sat down on their haunches and developed a two-pronged attack. The first side of the attack claims that Vermont’s law violates the free-speech rights of corporations. (Who can forget how that cuddly wolf Mitt Romney famously intoned that “corporations are people too”?) The second side of the attack claims that the labeling law is inconsistent with FDA findings that there’s no evidence that GMOs are harmful to humans.

Poor, gentle Vermont. Its voters certainly scared the fur off of the big bad wolves. It’s easy to imagine the giant food corporations pacing and howling in their wounded state. After all, today gentle Vermont. Tomorrow brawny Oregon and Maine and after that tony Connecticut. There’s no question that a majority of consumers clearly back labeling for GMOs—reflecting a slew of unanswered questions about the lack of controlled, independent studies concerning the health effects of GMOs.

What kind of teeth, you may ask, does Vermont’s labeling law display? Not many, unfortunately. The fines for failure to label are a paltry $1,000. But the sharpness or the quantity of teeth is beside the point. As the herds of GMO-labeling advocates know, once the genie is out of the bottle, there may be no stopping it.

To be clear: The range of foods covered by the law is narrow. And the law, if left to stand in the courts, will have to wait until 2016 to kick in. According to Vermont’s attorney general, “the labeling requirement wouldn’t apply to many food categories, including meat, milk, restaurant fare and raw agricultural commodities that aren’t grown with genetically modified seed.”

It’s going to be interesting to watch the wolves gnash and gnaw as the fight heats up. After all, there’s a pile of money and an entire industry at stake in this fight. Remember that almost the entire crop of U.S. soybeans and corn grown in 2013 came from GMOs. Are you surprised by that chapter in this story?

Still you never know, do you, how fairy tales are resolved. The heroes sometimes lose, and the villains, the smelly wolves, sometimes win. Even so, I say it’s time to thank courageous Vermonters for standing up to that big bad wolf. We’ll just have to wait and see how this one ends.

The post Vermont vs. the big bad wolf, aka Monsanto and friends appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Hating Citizens United is easy. Overturning it is much more difficult, but that’s not stopping some intrepid legislators from trying.

The hurdle is high: You may remember, from your middle-school Civics class [I didn’t], that to upend a Supreme Court decision of this magnitude, you have to amend the U.S. Constitution. One route is for states to hold a Constitutional convention. On May 2, 2014, Vermont passed JR27 by a vote of 95-43. The bill places the following language on the November 2014 ballot for voters to ask the U.S. Congress…

…to call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process…by overturning the Citizens United decision…

Ten other states are currently considering similar resolutions this year. I don’t remember if they covered this on Schoolhouse Rock, but it would take 34 states to trigger a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Another way to override Citizens United is for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment, which must then be ratified by 38 states. On May 28, 2014, the California State Assembly passed a bill that would put an advisory [meaning non-binding] question on the November 4th, 2014 General Election ballot, asking voters whether Congress should propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution [it would be the 28th Amendment, in case you’re counting] overturning Citizens United.
The California ballot question would ask voters:

Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission … and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?

Meanwhile in Washington DC, some politicians are taking a similar approach. During the current, 113th Congressional session, Senators and Congressmen have introduced 15 bills calling for a Constitutional amendment, which—using varying language—would either mitigate or overturn Citizens United. Of course, some of the sponsors of these bills–and many others who are not on board– are undoubtedly slurping up the tsunami of campaign donations unleashed by the Citizens United ruling they say they are trying to remediate. Given that reality, the odds are heavily against passage of any of the suggested amendments.

On the other hand, just because the Congressional route seems impractical, we need to be careful about states calling for and convening a Constitutional convention. I think I remember that such a convention can’t be limited to just one topic. It’s wide open and therefore fraught with opportunities for mischief and ill-conceived ideas. I recently read that 49 states have passed resolutions calling for a convention to propose some 700 different amendments. So, I shudder to think, in today’s extreme political climate, what kinds wacko ideas might worm their way in to a wide-open convention and make things much, much worse.

We can only hope that Congress comes to its senses, our representatives look beyond their own next election cycles to see what’s good not just for them, but for our democracy, and that voters push for what’s right. It’s going to be very difficult to put the Citizens United toothpaste back in the tube, but we really must keep trying.

The post Vermont calls for Constitutional convention to overturn Citizens United: Is it a good idea? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It looks as if the near future—in fact, as soon as July 2016 if all goes well—Vermonters are going to know a lot more about what’s in their food than all the rest of us.

 That’s because on April 16, 2014, the Vermont State Senate passed, by an overwhelming majority of 28-2, H.112, the first no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill in the nation. The bill, which now goes to the Vermont House and then onward to Governor Peter Shumlin’s desk, requires mandatory labeling of all food sold in Vermont containing GMOs. The bill goes even further, making it illegal to label any food product containing GMOs “natural” or “all natural.”

Is Vermont’s groundbreaking bill a big deal? You bet it is. The bill goes beyond the bills passed last year in Maine and Connecticut that contain so-called trigger clauses that require comparable labeling laws to be passed in four or five other contiguous states—think Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island—before the two states’ laws can be enacted.

Passing labeling laws in some of those Northeastern states—or any other state, for that matter—has proven to be a high hurdle, making Vermont’s lead even more remarkable. In fact, H.112 may just be the bellwether that anti-GMO activists have been hoping for. After all, in poll after poll of American consumers, results show that a whopping 91% of us favor labeling of GMO products.

Take a look at the map below and you’ll see that there’s a flurry of state-level, GMO-labeling legislative activity currently sweeping the U.S. To the dismay of St. Louis giant Monsanto and the other international chemical and biotech companies in the GMO club, this year there are more than sixty active bills in twenty-three states stretching from the East Coast to the West.

Here’s how Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association, explains the context of Vermont’s game-changing legislation.

Today’s victory in Vermont has been twenty years in the making. Ever since genetically modified crops and foods entered the U.S. food supply in the early 1990s, without adequate independent pre-market safety testing and without labels, U.S. consumers have fought to require the labeling of foods containing GMOs.

Consumer demand for mandatory labeling of GMOs spawned a national grassroots movement that has persevered despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the biotech and food industries to lobby state lawmakers in Vermont, and to fund anti-labeling campaigns in California (2012) and Washington State (2013).

Today, consumers and a number of principled legislators in Vermont made it clear to Monsanto, Coca-Cola and other opponents of consumers’ right to know: We will not back down. This movement is here to stay.

And, if  some of you are thinking, “Why should I care? This GMO thing doesn’t affect me,” here’s a list of some of the biggest food companies in the world whose (unlabeled) GMO-containing products make up a hefty 90% of the food on the shelves at your very own local grocery retailer.

Coca Cola

General Mills          

Nestle

Kellogg’s          

Kraft

Pepsico

Unilever

The post Vermont is first to go all in on GMO labeling appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a recent e-newsletter, Senator Bernie Sanders shared a video about a little town in Vermont called Swanton. Swanton has recently made an important change to its water treatment plant that will save area residents from a rate hike.

The treatment plant featured in the video replaced sixteen decades old units with only five solar-powered units, not only saving residents a heap of money, but proving that small towns can make big, innovative differences. According to the video, the solar-powered aerators will pay for themselves in energy savings alone. Good for the environment and the pocketbook makes this doubly good news.

Once again, Vermont proves to be a leader in environmental protection and conservation. The state was the first in the country to ban fracking, including the import and storage of the toxic water used in the fracking process. The message is clear: Vermonters want no part in the dangerous and harmful extraction of natural gas known as fracking.

Driving through scenic Vermont, you’re sure to see plenty of energy-creating windmills and rooftop solar panels too. What you won’t see? In 1968, the state banned billboards. In 1972, legislation banning the use of toss-away beverage containers was passed to help rid roadsides of litter.

Senator Sanders also recently welcomed the news that Vermont Yankee–the state’s only operational nuclear reactor–is shutting down for good by the end of 2014:

The closure will allow Vermont to focus on leading the nation toward safer and more economical sources of sustainable and renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal and biomass.

Residents of “The Green Mountain State” undoubtedly care about the environment and are eager to prove it.

The post Vermont leads by example on environmental issues appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How did Vermont manage to approve universal healthcare, when its governor initially gave it a zero-percent chance of passing? The driving force was old-school organizing powered by workers, community organizers and ordinary citizens. As a result, Vermont is on a path toward full health coverage through a single-payer plan by 2017.  Jonathan Kissam of the Vermont Worker’s Center recently spoke to about 20 members of Southern Illinois People For Progress and explained the maneuverings behind this success story.

Kissam said that one of the campaign’s earliest decisions was to frame healthcare as a human right. All of the questions asked during surveys, statements made to the public and to politicians emphasized that healthcare should be considered a human right for all, rather than a luxury afforded to the few. This strategy made the point up front that people have a right to expect reasonable access to healthcare and should not have to go hat in hand begging for their very lives from the insurance and medical systems.

Kissam explained that it all started when, in 1998, low-wage workers seeking economic justice launched the Vermont Workers Center as  part of the “jobs for justice” campaign. As workers at the center attempted to assist their constituency, the lack of access to healthcare became a common thread for many who turned to them for assistance. This problem frequently interfered with relationships between workers and employers, drove up costs, and caused discontent on both sides. In 2007, the Vermont Workers Center began the process that became the campaign for universal healthcare in Vermont.

The “healthcare is a human right” campaign had some important ground rules. Organizers agreed that in the past, divisive issues and efforts to split the general public into segments had interfered with progress. The goal became to respect each individual’s viewpoint and value system, but not to countenance racist, sexist or other divisive viewpoints. The campaign had to be for and include all residents of the state.

Early contact with politicians and policy experts made it clear that there was agreement on the issue of healthcare, but that little could be done. Previous efforts by the Center had left workers feeling that they had been fighting a defensive war, counting as victories efforts to retain gains of the past. The Center, therefore, decided to go on the offensive, which would involve organizing people who had been left out of the political process for some time, other than coming out to vote occasionally.

Efforts at organizing Vermont’s citizens included knocking on doors, talking to people at farmers’ markets, and meeting people wherever they were. This “low tech” approach enabled activists to establish personal relationships with individuals. who quickly saw the value of the effort being made and themselves becoming key proponents in their own communities. This result was often accomplished by asking questions such as, “Do you feel that healthcare is a human right?” It quickly got people talking about their own experiences and encouraged further engagement.

During the organizing phase of the campaign, there was not only no effort to involve politicians, the  policy was to ask politicians who attended or wanted to participate to refrain from making “campaign speeches” or otherwise sidetracking the effort. This tactic also allowed the campaign to build popular support, without having to deal with a counter-campaign from prospective opponents. The entire effort at this point was simply to organize.

Regular efforts by activists and locals kept the momentum going. Activists made signs and gave them to individuals, who would add their names and locations, and then take photos of themselves holding the signs. The images were organized into visual petitions. Organizers conducted surveys to provide additional opportunities to contact people, keep the issue in people’s minds and keep in touch with what people thought about the campaign. Organizers also identified local individuals with leadership potential and trained them,, giving the campaign a local and personal touch. Training on how change occurs and anti-racist education were also important elements, preparing people for the large effort involved and maintaining solidarity.

Once the campaign reached the point of calling on politicians, the move toward universal coverage was known to be highly popular throughout the state. Large numbers of ordinary citizens would turn out to demonstrate at the capital. People gave personal testimony before the legislature, having gained confidence and expertise through repeated telling of the same story.

Even so, there were efforts to split the coalition late in the game. The Governor (who had run on a healthcare)told the coalition that there was 0% chance that immigrants would be included. Now organizing paid off, as it became possible to mobilize supporters and let politicians know they would not be happy with half measures. Much the same occurred when right to life activists moved to exclude abortion and related services from the bill.

When asked about influences, Kissam listed “old-school” labor organizing and the expertise of older organizers in the organization. Principles and methods utilized point to a direct descent from the writings of Saul Alinsky, who even emphasized the need to be flexible and not try to follow some kind of formula,  because each situation and effort is different. The pattern of starting with small efforts (getting a few people together, talking to neighbors, etc. and moving towards larger goals as confidence and organization are built follow these same rules. The passage of universal healthcare in Vermont graphically displays that possibilities are still open, provided there are those knowledgeable enough to teach the necessary skills, while being humble enough to listen to what people’s concerns are. The rest is just doing the work.

The post Old-school organizing: Vermont healthcare campaign’s “secret” weapon appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On May 26, Governor Peter Shumlin (D) signed the legislation passed earlier by the VT House and Senate making Vermont the first state to make health care a right and not a privilege. Hopefully, it will be a model for the rest of the country, a system designed to take care of the people of the state, rather than provide profits for  Big Pharma and the health insurance industry. The state will spend the next four years setting up the system.

“This law recognizes an economic and fiscal imperative – that we must control the growth in health care costs that are putting families at economic risk and making it harder for small employers to do business,” the Governor said.

Just as importantly, he added, “We have a moral imperative to fix this problem, with 47,000 Vermonters uninsured and another 150,000 underinsured and worried about how to afford keeping their families healthy.”

According to Think Progress:

In order to actually enact the system, the state needs a waiver from the Affordable Care Act health reform law. Currently, the federal government will start handing out state waivers in 2017 — three years after Vermont wants to implement its system. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) has introduced an amendment that would move the waiver date up to 2014, an idea that President Obama has endorsed.

Because of the corrupting influence of Big Pharma and health insurance corporations on House and Senate members, it will be exceedingly difficult to get a single payer health care system passed first at the federal level. But there is a chance that the U.S. could eventually end up with a single payer system on a state-by-state basis. For example, Canada did not begin with a federal system. It arrived there through a series of incremental steps.

Canada developed its universal health care system province by province

The Canadian province of Saskatchewan had always had a chronic shortage of doctors, which led to towns using public monies to subsidize doctors to practice there. Then, various communities joined together to create subsidized hospitals. In 1946, building on its tradition of government involvement in health care, the government of Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for much of its population. It had hoped to provide universal health care, but the province did not have the money.

In 1950, Alberta created a program similar to Saskatchewan’s, which included hospitalization and prepaid health services providing medical coverage to over 90% of its population.

In 1957, the federal government of Canada passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act‘ to fund 50% of the cost of such programs that Saskatchewan and Alberta had created for any provincial government that adopted them. The HIDS Act outlined five conditions:

• public administration
• comprehensiveness
• universality
• portability
• accessibility.

These remain the pillars of the Canada Health Act. By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. So, it was province by province that Canada moved toward universal, free health coverage for all.

Do Canadians like their single payer health care system?

Canadians strongly support their publicly funded health care system. In a 2009 poll by Nanos Research, 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported public solutions to make our public health care stronger.

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, with only 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system. A Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.

Is Vermont the “camel’s nose under the tent” for single payer in the U.S.?

Hopefully Vermont will serve as a model for  achieving universal single payer health care in the United States. It will not happen over night, but if Vermont and other states are successful in setting up efficient and cost-effective single payer systems that provide universal health care and improve the quality of life for their residents, the idea of healthcare as a right will supplant health care as a privilege. Hopefully, in time, the for-profit health care system we have today, will become nothing more than a bad memory.

The post Vermont governor signs historic single payer health care law appeared first on Occasional Planet.

After Congress passed the health insurance reform bill, it seemed that the idea of single-payer healthcare was all but dead for at least the next decade. But the great state of Vermont has come to a different conclusion. Its state legislature recently passed a bill mandating the study of three approaches to universal healthcare—single payer, insurance-based healthcare with a public option, and the system based on the health insurance reform bill passed by Congress. The legislature plans to choose the best plan in 2011 and begin implementation in 2012.

According to Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, Vermonters, with the support of Senator Bernie Sanders, turned out for the “Healthcare is a Human Right” campaign and pressured the state legislature to pass the bill.

Senator Sanders is confident that the study will show that the single-payer approach is the most cost-effective way to provide universal healthcare to every Vermonter. According to Sanders, the bill is important because it demonstrates that Congress doesn’t have the last say in health care. He feels that states can and should go forward in the fight for a Medicare-for-all/single payer system. If Vermont chooses a single-payer system, he plans to go to President Obama and the Senate and insist that Vermont become the laboratory for other states, and the country, for the adoption of single payer healthcare.

But there is a problem in states adopting single payer that both Sanders and Senator Ron Wyden tried to address in the Congressional health reform bill. States need a waiver to implement alternatives to the insurance market exchanges. That waiver date was 2014 but was pushed back to 2017 in the final bill. Sanders and Wyden are pushing for 2014. If the date is not restored to 2014, Vermont would have to first implement an exchange system, then only in 2017 could it ask for a waiver for a single payer system.

“We are working together on that—and hoping to enlist the support of some governors—who will make the fight to push that [waiver] up to 2014. We think that states should have the flexibility to go forward with, among other things, the single-payer program, and I intend to work very hard on that.”

You can read more about the waiver issue here.

Vanden Heuvel reminds us that Canada achieved single payer health care after Saskatchewan adopted it and served as a laboratory for the rest of the country.

“If Vermont sees this fight through, and achieves single payer by 2014, it may serve as the laboratory this country needs to finally achieve quality affordable healthcare for all.”

The post Single-payer plan, alive and kicking in Vermont appeared first on Occasional Planet.