PoliticalAction.com Blog

The Trans-Pacific Partnership could help save millions of children from dying every year.

President Obama’s trade agenda is dedicated to expanding economic opportunity for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses. That’s why we are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 21st century trade agreement that will boost U.S. economic growth, support American jobs, and grow Made-in-America exports to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing countries in the world.

As the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s economic policy in the Asia Pacific, the Trans-Pacific Partnership reflects the United States’ economic priorities and values. The TPP not only seeks to provide new and meaningful market access for American goods and services exports, but also set high-standard rules for trade, and address vital 21st-century issues within the global economy.

Here are a few of the ways the Trans-Pacific Partnership will unlock opportunity for you

The TPP will support Made-in-America exports

The TPP will make it easier to sell Made-in-America goods and services exports to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing markets in the world, and support homegrown jobs and economic growth.

The TPP will enforce fundamental labor rights

The TPP will level the playing field for American workers and businesses by building strong and enforceable labor standards.

The TPP will promote strong environmental protection

Environmental protection is a core American value. Through the TPP, the United States is negotiating for robust environment standards and commitments from member countries, and addressing some of the region’s most pressing environmental challenges.

The TPP will help American small businesses benefit from trade

American small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy, and have accounted for nearly two thirds of new private sector jobs in recent decades. The TPP will improve transparency and regulations to help U.S. companies engage in and benefit from increased trade in the Asia Pacific.

The President announced his plan to create the world’s largest nature sanctuary. In an article by the Washington Post, it is reported:

The proposal, slated to go into effect later this year after a comment period, could create the world’s largest marine sanctuary and double the area of ocean globally that is fully protected.

“I’m going to use my authority to protect some of our nation’s most precious marine landscapes,” Obama said in a video to participants at a State Department conference, adding that while the ocean is being degraded, “We cannot afford to let that happen. That’s why the United States is leading the fight to protect our oceans.”

Under the proposal, according to two independent analyses, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be expanded from almost 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles — all of it adjacent to seven islands and atolls controlled by the United States. The designation would include waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore from the territories.

“It’s the closest thing I’ve seen to the pristine ocean,” said Enric Sala, a National Geographic explorer-in-residence who has researched the area’s reefs and atolls since 2005.

So, far this year the U.S. Forest Service has spent $967 million fighting wildfires. They have been forced to divert $600 million from timber and recreation to aid the fire fighting budget.

“I recognize that this direction will have significant effects on the public whom we serve and on our many valuable partners, as well as agency operations, target accomplishments and performance,” Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell wrote. “I regret that we have to take this action and fully understand that it only increases costs and reduces efficiency.”

So far this year there have been over 33,000 fires that have burned more than 5,300 square miles.

Many people question whether the government should be spending any money fighting fires.

“The Forest Service, when it lobbied for the FLAME Act, said, `Look, if you give us this reserve fund for large fires, we won’t need to raid other parts of our budget,”‘ said Andy Stahl, director of the watchdog group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. “The Forest Service instead used up the FLAME money and is now using other parts of its budget. That is giving the agency a blank check and it just keeps putting more zeros on it.”

President Obama lays out his vision for the steps we need to take to prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead the global effort to fight it. In the video below, he describes why this is the time to take action.

Learn more about climate change and global warming.

What the Farm Aid Organization has to say about GMO food:

With a new mission to squash “burdensome” regulation and play nice with U.S. businesses, the Obama Administration has been in a frenzy green-lighting genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Just weeks into the new year, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the full deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa—a genetically engineered crop variety designed to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The move gave the OK for commercial planting to take place this spring without restrictions. A week later, USDA announced the deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, followed by the deregulation of Syngenta’s Enogen corn, a variety genetically engineered for biofuel production. Meanwhile, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is now considering the commercial release of genetically modified salmon.

With a new onslaught of GE products hitting the market it’s no wonder the public has some questions, as you do, Jerry. So, what’s the big deal about genetic engineering?

The short and not-so-sweet of it is this: GE crops present real risks, fewer choices for both farmers and eaters and offer unclear benefits except to the companies that develop and market them, and thus pocket major profits.

Risky Business for Farmers
One of the biggest problems GE crops have presented in the real world is the contamination of non-GE crops. The newest wave of deregulated GE crops presents a very real risk that such contamination will happen again.

Take alfalfa, which is pollinated by bees. Bees can generally cover a five-mile range as they buzz from plant to plant, collecting and spreading pollen. Since bees don’t tend to observe property lines or fences, GE alfalfa pollen could, for example, be spread to and pollinate a non-GE alfalfa plant, in turn contaminating a neighboring field with GE genes.

This cross-fertilization would be especially disastrous for organic farmers. If organic fields are contaminated, an organic farmer’s certification is at risk, since the use of GE crops is prohibited under the organic label. Losing organic certification would mean his or her goods can no longer be sold for the premium price that helps cover the higher costs of growing organically. Organic livestock farmers would face similar consequences if their cattle consumed contaminated alfalfa, and the organic industry as a whole could suffer from severe supply problems if organic alfalfa can’t be maintained with integrity. Canada’s organic canola industry suffered this fate, and is virtually extinct due to contamination from GE canola.[1]

GE contamination hurts conventional farmers too. A prime example occurred in 2000, when genes from Aventis’ StarLink GE corn showed up unexpectedly in the nation’s food supply and U.S. export markets. While StarLink corn only represented 1% of planted corn acreage, it ultimately contaminated at least 25% of the harvest that year.[2] Traces of StarLink corn also showed up in taco shells, even though the variety wasn’t approved for human consumption. The fiasco led to a massive recall of over 300 food products. Export markets started rejecting American corn and corn prices plummeted.[3] Corn farmers ultimately filed a class-action lawsuit against Aventis, who forked over $112 million in settlement. Three years later, StarLink genetics were still detected in the U.S. corn supply, well after the crop was pulled from the market.[4] Millers and food manufacturers are concerned the same thing will happen with Syngenta’s Enogen corn intended for biofuel production, which could contaminate corn for human consumption and seriously threaten foods processed with corn–based ingredients.

USDA recognized such risks when it conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) for GE alfalfa. This past December, Secretary Vilsack acknowledged “the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa — a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad.”[5] Despite such concern, USDA approved the planting of GE alfalfa for this spring without any indication of how it will prevent the type of costly contamination that threatens to occur.

Into the Wild: “Superweeds” and other environmental hazards
In addition to the very real risks of GE-contamination, there are numerous accounts of superweeds developing from the overuse of Roundup herbicide on Roundup Ready crops. Fifteen years after Roundup Ready corn and soy first debuted, there are now at least 10 species of Roundup-resistant weeds identified in more than 22 states, as well as superweeds sprouting up in Australia, China and Brazil.[6]

Superweeds undermine the environmental benefits that GE crops are claimed to offer by reducing soil tillage, pesticide applications and soil and water contamination.[7] Affected farmers must now resort to more toxic chemicals, increased labor or more intense tillage of their fields to address superweeds on their farms. The newly approved Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets will only exacerbate that problem. And as companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Dow Chemical work on their own pesticide-resistant crops (including one designed to resist 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange!),[8] even nastier superweeds may be on the horizon, with even nastier pesticides being used to control them in the ever-escalating arms race against weeds and pests.

GE crops pose additional environment risks, such as threats to biodiversity or unintentional harm to other insects and animals in the ecosystem, many of which are beneficial to crop production. But remember, there’s absolutely no recall on GE genetics. Once they’re out there, they’re out there for good. What’s more, once a crop is fully deregulated, USDA currently conducts no monitoring of any kind to see if a GE crop has harmed the environment.[9] To date, we are completely unequipped to deal with all of these consequences. (For more on how GE crops are regulated, see this Ask Farm Aid column from 2009).

Do I eat GE foods?
What does all this mean for eaters? Do we eat GE foods? The quick answer is: almost certainly.

Remember that the vast majority of our corn and soy come from GE seed, and that these crops are generally used as feed for cattle, hogs and poultry, or otherwise used in the many processed foods found in grocery store aisles. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S. and is most commonly used to feed dairy cows and beef cattle.

So, if you drink milk, eat beef, enjoy the occasional slice of bacon with your breakfast, order chicken in your Caesar salad or ever indulge in processed foods, cereals and desserts with ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin, GE crops are part of your food chain. Unfortunately, you can’t be sure when you eat them or in what form, because there is no requirement to label foods with GE ingredients. As discussed above, the release of GE alfalfa also puts several organic foods at risk for contamination—further eroding our choice as consumers to avoid GE foods if we wish.

Little research has been conducted to examine whether GE foods present risks to human health—such as allergens or toxins—but it seems prudent that this be investigated rigorously before GE foods hit the market. Many countries, including countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia and Brazil, have banned the cultivation of GE crops or require labeling of GE foods as precautions.

Feeding the World? The Silver Bullet That Misses the Target
Defenders of GE crops argue they are desperately needed to feed the world’s ever-growing population and address world hunger. Some have accused critics of GE technology as being shortsighted Luddites at best, and irresponsible at worst.

But to date, GE crops have done little to address hunger worldwide—yield results have been mixed globally, and are nominal for America’s family farmers. A recent study of historical yield data in the U.S. found that herbicide-resistant genetics in GE corn and soy didn’t increase yield any more than conventional methods.[10] Perhaps more importantly, the GE varieties hitting the market aren’t focused on yield in the first place. Developing a crop for herbicide resistance or biofuel production is quite different than selecting for plant traits that encourage plant growth, drought resistance or other traits that would actually help address food security worldwide. Moreover, companies haven’t invested their dollars in the staple crops of food insecure populations worldwide, such as millet, quinoa or cassava. We will need much more than Roundup Ready alfalfa to solve world hunger.

The Seedier Side of GE: Who Benefits
So if farmers, eaters, the environment and the world’s undernourished won’t appreciably benefit from the government’s recent GE green-lighting parade, who will?

Most GE crops hitting the market are developed by multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and Dow Chemical to increase their sales and push their related pesticides. For example, Roundup Ready crops are all engineered to withstand Monsanto’s toxic herbicide Roundup. With Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets on the market, Monsanto can expect increased profits from its new seeds, as well as increased sales of Roundup herbicide to douse all those new seeds.

GE crops are also patented, which grants several privileges to corporate seed giants. For example, companies have repeatedly restricted independent research on the risks and benefits of GE products, which is perfectly legal under patent law, but severely limits objective examination of the efficacy and safety of GE crops.[11] If that weren’t bad enough, patents have given companies the power to pursue lawsuits against farmers for illegally “possessing” patented GE plants without a license. Monsanto has famously sued thousands of individual farmers for patent infringement when their fields were contaminated with GE genes.[12]

With the power to own and patent genetics, seed companies can demand even more control over the market as a whole. The seed industry has suffered enormous concentration of power in the past few decades, with at least 200 independent seed companies exiting the market in the last fifteen years and four companies now controlling over 50% of the market. This consolidation means farmers have far fewer options for seed varieties. Meanwhile, farmers have seen the sharpest rise in seed prices during the period in which GE crops rose in prominence.[13]

In this sense, the deregulation of new GE varieties comes as a slap in the face to the farmers and eaters who put their trust in the USDA and Department of Justice as they examined antitrust abuses in our food system this past year, including specific investigations into Monsanto and the seed industry. The newest wave of GE products will only further corporate control over our food supply, putting the interests of corporations far before the needs of farmers and eaters.

The bottom line?
Surely, this is a lot to take in. Genetic engineering is a complicated topic, with a broad set of consequences for our society. There are many questions left unanswered about how GE will impact farmers and eaters, and even less clarity about how these impacts will be managed.

Until our regulatory system and the biotech companies themselves properly address the risks inherent in GE crops, farmers and eaters have a right to reject them. Releasing GE crops into the fields without mitigating their risks is gambling with our health, our environment and livelihoods of family farmers.

The President spoke with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to express his concern for those who have been affected by the tornadoes last night and continuing today.

As the President told Governor Fallin tonight, the administration — through FEMA — is committed to providing all the assistance it can to Oklahoma as the response effort unfolds. Already, FEMA has deployed an Incident Management Assistance Team, Urban Search & Rescue Teams, and an Medical Emergency Response Support Team to provide resources to hard-hit areas in Oklahoma.

FEMA is urging those in impacted areas to listen carefully to instructions from local officials, and to take the recommended protective measures. Residents should monitor local radio or TV stations, or the National Weather Service at www.weather.gov.

Update 1: The President continued to receive updates overnight from his team on the ongoing response to the devastating tornados and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma Sunday night and Monday. Last night, following his call to Governor Mary Fallin, the President also spoke with Congressman Tom Cole to express his concern for those who had been impacted and his deep condolences for the many who have lost loved ones as a result of the horrible tornados. The President praised the brave first responders, and made clear that the country would stand behind the people of Oklahoma as they continued to respond and recover.

Last night, the President approved a Major Disaster Declaration for Oklahoma, making federal funding available to support affected individuals, as well as additional federal assistance to support immediate response and recovery efforts.

This morning the President received a briefing in the Oval Office on the response by Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco and other senior members of the President’s response team.

Update 2: This morning, President Obama delivered a statement on the devastating tornadoes and severe weather that impacted Oklahoma. He described the response efforts underway, and assured the people of Moore and all the affected areas that they “would have all the resources that they need at their disposal.”

For there are homes and schools to rebuild, businesses and hospitals to reopen, there are parents to console, first responders to comfort, and, of course, frightened children who will need our continued love and attention. There are empty spaces where there used to be living rooms, and bedrooms, and classrooms, and, in time, we’re going to need to refill those spaces with love and laughter and community.

“Americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them, opening our homes, our hearts to those in need,” President Obama said. “Because we’re a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes. We’ve seen that spirit in Joplin, in Tuscaloosa; we saw that spirit in Boston and Breezy Point. And that’s what the people of Oklahoma are going to need from us right now.”

Back to Work Budget – Green Jobs
As you already know, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget is beyond devastating– dismembering Medicare, slashing Medicaid and dismantling other vitally important social programs If enacted, it will put the United States on a fast-track back to 1928.

Fortunately, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has proposed a “Back to Work” budget which puts the emphasis back where it belongs: the creation of seven million jobs, the preservation of the “entitlements,” and full funding for domestic social programs. Deficit reduction will be achieved by increasing the number of working Americans, by raising taxes on the rich and making reductions in the Pentagon budget. For more details: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/back-to-work-budget/

Although we would prefer larger cuts from the Pentagon, the CPC Budget represents an immense step forward. It is already changing the terms of the national debate.

But to make a real difference, we need a large number of Representatives to vote YES on this “Back to Work Budget.” National and local groups across the country are sponsoring call-in days in support of this budget.

During this week, Progressive Democrats for America will be continuing its effort to personally deliver messages to local offices around the country. To get more information and get involved with a letter drop near you: http://www.pdacommunity.org/issues/bblv-mission

The President on energy:

Few areas hold more promise for creating good jobs and growing our economy than how we use American energy, and today President Obama visited the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois to talk about the progress we are seeing from his all of the above approach to energy independence and the risk that this important sector faces from the arbitrary cuts being imposed by the so-called sequester.

As President Obama noted in his remarks, these cuts do not distinguish between wasteful programs and vital investments. “They don’t trim the fat; they cut into muscle and into bone,” the President said. “Like research and development being done right here that not only gives a great place for young researchers to come and ply their trade, but also ends up creating all kinds of spinoffs that create good jobs and good wages.”

Because of the sequester, American labs could face two years without starting new research, opportunities we cannot afford to miss. This comes at a time when this country is poised to take control of our energy future, as the President pointed out:

After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future. We produce more oil than we have in 15 years. We import less oil than we have in 20 years. We’ve doubled the amount of renewable energy that we generate from sources like wind and solar — with tens of thousands of good jobs to show for it. We’re producing more natural gas than we ever have before — with hundreds of thousands of good jobs to show for it. We supported the first new nuclear power plant in America since the 1970s. And we’re sending less carbon pollution into the environment than we have in nearly 20 years.

In addition to the balanced solution he has proposed to replace the painful cuts, a phased-in approach that includes smart spending cuts, entitlement reforms and new revenue, and that won’t hurt the middle class or slow economic growth, President Obama today talked about his proposal to create an Energy Security Trust. The proposed trust uses revenue generated by oil and gas development on federal lands to support new research and technology that will shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good. The recent rise in gas prices is a reminder that we are still too reliant on oil, which comes at a cost to American families and businesses, and the President today urged Congress to take up his common-sense proposals that will further reduce our dependence on oil, better protect consumers from spikes in gas prices, and reduce pollution.

by the Environmental Defense Fund

In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced the goal of cutting energy waste in buildings and homes in half over the next 20 years. House Speaker John Boehner clapped approvingly. U.S. buildings and homes waste so much energy that a 50% reduction of such energy waste would save businesses and individuals billions of dollars, would deliver healthier air to all Americans and would put us on the path of energy independence. Most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels; so, consuming less fossil fuel will reduce toxic emissions and improve air quality. Cleaner air will save lives. Studies estimate that over 35,000 Americans die every year due to air pollution related illnesses.

Cutting energy waste in half won’t just happen on its own, though, and it won’t be easy. We need to identify the opportunities where we can eliminate energy waste, and then invest in the types of technologies that lead to more energy efficient buildings and homes. The good news is that these modern, cost-effective technologies are available now.

Clearly, opening windows when a building is overheated is not the solution. For example, building owners will need to invest in control technologies that cut overheating and turn off lights and equipment when not needed. These are smart energy efficiency investments with typically short pay-back periods. And, in reducing the energy we waste, we improve our quality of life with more money in our pockets and fresher air in our lungs.

Finally, let’s not forget about the environmental impacts of energy exploration, which is another reason why we shouldn’t waste the energy that was so hard to get out of the ground in the first place. The actual extraction of fossil fuels is the second biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and – if developed irresponsibly – can pollute our water, air and oceans — jeopardizing our health, livelihoods and quality of life. When you consider the whole range of health and environmental impacts involved with using, and (of course) wasting, energy –it is blatantly obvious that wasting energy is already coming back to hurt us.

If Washington can agree that wasting energy is senseless, let’s keep the momentum going and support smart efforts, policies and investment tools that will help energy efficiency reach its full potential. Cutting energy waste is a win for our wallets, our health and our children’s’ future.