These programs are referred to as the California High-Cost A-Fund and the California High-Cost B-Fund. Their existence helps compel the PUC to meet its stated goal of universal telephone service to all Californians, along with competition in the residential telephone service arena.

The A-Fund provides a source of supplemental revenues to 17 small, rural local telephone companies. Up until 2007, the A-Fund provided them with approximately $37 million in annual subsidies through a 0.21 percent surcharge on telephone bills; that surcharge was reduced to 0.13 percent on Jan. 1. In any case, the subsidy is used to cap residential telephone rates for these companies at not more than 150 percent of the rate charged to residential customers in urban areas.

The B-Fund provides subsidies to telephone carriers of last resort for providing basic local service to residential customers in high-cost areas that are currently served by larger companies (Pacific Bell, Verizon California Inc., Citizens Telecommunications of California and Surewest).

A “carrier of last resort” is obligated to serve customers within its service area – even those in very high-cost areas. The purpose of the subsidies, among other reasons, is to keep basic telephone service affordable in rural and high cost areas and to encourage competition. In 2007, this subsidy provided these companies with approximately $434 million funded by a 2.7 percent surcharge on telephone bills (this surcharge was also reduced, to 0.25 percent, effective Jan. 1 of this year).

The whole of Humboldt, Lake and Mendocino Counties are considered B-Fund areas, as are parts of Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

The problem is that both of the high-cost funds are set to expire on January 1, 2009. If they do, many Californians are likely to experience extreme increases in their residential telephone rates.

In fact, people across the North Coast shouldn’t be surprised if their bill for basic phone service doubles or triples after Jan. 1, 2009, when the telecommunications industry is deregulated. For example, according to the PUC, a resident of Humboldt County’s basic phone service costs $68.64 per month, but the customer only pays a rate of $11 a month. The B-Fund pays the rest of the cost of service.

Without an extension of the B-Fund, customers can expect to pay the entire $68.64 on their own. The amount could be higher, depending how much AT&T or Verizon choose to charge for basic phone service next January. And services that customers used to receive for free, such as free incoming calls, free calls to 800 numbers and free access to call 911, could all become things that they are charged for – at a cost that is unregulated.

That’s because in August 2006, the PUC decided that there should be no regulation of rates for telephone services, no examination of costs of service, and no profit regulation on previously-regulated phone companies. In essence, the commission deregulated all telephone rates, allowing rural prices to change independently of urban rates. However, the deregulation of basic service was delayed until 2009, pending an examination (by the PUC) of the high cost fund programs. All other services were deregulated in 2007. If the excessive increases in these services are any indication of what’s to come, folks in rural areas where there is no competition for basic services should be prepared for the worst.

Since 2007, caller ID rates have increased 62 percent, call waiting rates have increased 86 percent, unlisted numbers rates have increased 346 percent, and directory assistance has increased 226 percent.

I introduced Senate Bill 780 to ensure that rural/high cost residents in my Senate district would not be subjected to exorbitant residential telephone rates. SB 780 will extend the A & B funds, and will require the PUC to conduct an affordability study of basic phone rates and factors affecting affordability.

The PUC continues to report statistics about subscribership and universal service, but has not undertaken any analysis, since 2004, of the factors which cause service to become unaffordable for customers. My bill requires the PUC to report the findings of its affordability study to the Legislature by July 1, 2010. And it will enable the Legislature to examine the cost/rates of basic phone service and determine if the rates are affordable or excessive and take the appropriate action.

SB 780 expresses my desire that the high-cost programs be extended, and that they address the continued need for affordable basic telephone service in rural and high-cost areas of the state, particularly where telecommunications competition is limited, and without diminishing the key components of what customers expect as ‘basic telephone service.’

Patricia Wiggins represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

The fantasy of “royalty” is built into European mythology. Becoming a prince, princess, king or queen dominated the fairy tales and early cinematic cartoons of our era; however its roots were firmly entrenched from the beginning. New World Europeans, long under the boot of aristocracies, cherished the “freedom” to own their own property and lands, and create whatever personal “castles” they could with as much of a buffer between themselves and their neighbors as they could afford. In fact, this has been the standard for determining one's status of wealth in the Americas. The more square footage; the more acreage; the more isolation one can achieve is a direct measurement of financial achievement. Today's monoculture still exhorts the rags-to-riches mythology – a procreation of the desire to become royalty.

This desire translated geopolitically as new immigrants automatically looked to creating their own kingdom – which was eventually watered down to houses in the hills, Beverly, or otherwise. The American dream encompassed a desire to, in some small way, achieve the goal of becoming a king or queen of one's domain – the essence of the philosophy of private property. If an individual can autonomously control the right to affect one's property and lands with impunity – one has, in some small measure, achieved royalty.

Some people claim that I am misguided, and that this tendency toward wanting one's own is inherent in the human psyche and can be evidenced in the behavior of children. Unfortunately, it is they who are misguided. The type of selfish behavior our children often display relating to toys and possessions is primarily a First World trait. You do not find that behavior evidenced in communally oriented communities, certainly never in indigenous communities. It's like the myth that all teenagers are rebellious. It simply isn't true anywhere but in the fat First World. Teenagers the world over in Third World countries suffer no such alienation and social repugnance. It wasn't even common in America until around the aftermath of the Second World War, when James Dean and Marlon Brando gave the myth of rebellious teens its face.

The Provinsalia project proposed for Clearlake is a classic example of “sprawl.” It contains all the elements that have contributed to the creation of the word in the first place. What are those elements?

First is the desire to escape urbanity, with all its attendant poverty, slums, lows property values and feeling of closeness as opposed to space. Of course urban areas were constructed that way, even though space could have been incorporated if it had been deemed important. But rural planners and developers have responded to areas of poverty in the same way. Their answer is to ignore or isolate them and then relocate or develop in other areas. Redevelopment is always a last option when there are new and more pristine areas to conquer!

Second is the desire to create “upscale development – supposing that bringing in wealthier people will somehow “trickle-down” wealth to the general populace and improve values. Of course, there’s no evidence that this has ever happened. The presence of wealth has never elevated the poor ... The poor areas remain poor – the wealthier people just move further away so they aren't offended by the needy. It’s the same mentality that created landfills and Indian reservations.

Third is just plain old selfishness. Upscale people want their gated community in a safe and beautiful location. However developers and proponents never admit that, sooner or later, other development will follow. A gas station convenience store here, a mini-mall strip there ... the simple drive to bring necessities closer (even if it’s only a five minute drive to town) will cause that development to ultimately take place. After all, it makes good business sense. If you have a community of 500 families and can build a business that provides services they need closer to them than other competitors – whom do you suppose they will go to? Sooner or later – the new development is consolidated into the old town and you have “sprawl.” Yes, it could take a generation, even two or three, but it will happen. That's the model of American development we must break.

In the modern world, short of an unlikely total philosophical reversal, the issue of private land ownership rights cannot be altered, but reasonable provisions must be added that recognize the new/old understanding that we share this world – and what we do with it, both individually and communally, will have a lot to do with whether or not we survive as a species. A communal sense of responsibility for the land and its resources must come into play, even while recognizing a right to private ownership.

The concept of individual authority, cherished as the basis of the private property paradigm, has heretofore freed property owners from any community responsibility, giving them carte-blanc on their own lands. Unfortunately, no matter how entrenched this philosophy has become in the American psyche, it has become obsolete and must needs be discarded for Americans to embrace the changes that must be made.

James BlueWolf lives is an artist and writer. He lives in Nice.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

For anyone who has had a family member in the military, who has heard their stories firsthand, days like this take on a painful significance, especially when remembering those whose stories have been silenced by time, age or injury.

Memorial Day is usually a time to focus on those already departed, but for me it's also a time to honestly consider how we treat all vets, and if we're doing right by them before it's too late.

The millions of veterans who call the United States home have a right to the best health care we can afford them.

It certainly hasn't been the case in recent years that all our vets have been treated to the highest standard of care. The well-known nightmare of Walter Reed Hospital is an example that continues to resonate in many peoples' minds.

A country with a strong military needs a strong medical program for its service members, and that takes funding.

A bill in Congress that has the attention of many local veterans as well as national veterans organizations is HR 2514, the Assured Veterans for Health Care Act of 2008.

The bill is meant to change the way Veterans Administration funding is determined, taking it from discretionary to mandatory, establishing a baseline funding year and providing future funding based on the number of actual veterans who participate in the health care system. In addition, it would figure in rising costs of providing health care.

Congressman Mike Thompson is among the bill's cosponsors.

Unfortunately, the bill – introduced May 24, 2007 – has been stuck in the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health since just days after its introduction.

In January, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota introduced S 2639, the Senate's version of the bill. In February, that bill was sent to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sen. Johnson reported on his Web site that the legislation is supported by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The Vietnam Veterans of America also are lobbying for the bill. Dr. Thomas J. Berger, chair of the VVA's National PTSD and Substance Abuse Committee, and Rick Weidman, the association's executive director for policy and government affairs, testified last Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asking them to consider a number of bills, including S 2639.

The men pointed out, “Unfortunately the debates regarding funding of veterans' health care continue to focus on the year-to-year 'band-aids' and quick fixes needed to keep the health care system afloat.”

They said it was time to ensure “a consistent, predictable and responsible level of funding that will give more than lip service to the mandates for health care set forth in law, and by the will of the American people.”

The Veterans Administration's funding is so uncertain and inadequate that it is barring many veterans from eligibility for services, Berger and Weidman reported.

There are many causes vying for attention and money from Congress, but certainly the care of our nation's veterans has to be at the top of the list.

For those of you who would like to help move these bills forward, write to Congressman Bob Filner, the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health chair, and ask him to move HR 2514 toward a House vote. Write to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 335 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C 20515; fax your letter to 202-225-2034; or call 202-225-9756.

On the Senate side, contact Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chair Sen. Daniel Akaka at www.senate.gov/~veterans/public/index.cfm?pageid=1, by writing to 412 Russell Senate Building, Washington D.C. 20510, or by calling Democratic staff at 202-224-9126 or Republican staff at 202-224-2074.

Neither Sens. Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein have signed on as cosponsors of the Senate bill.

Contact Sen. Barbara Boxer at 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20510; telephone 202-224-3553; Web site, http://boxer.senate.gov; e-mail, http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm. Her San Francisco office can be reached at 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111, telephone 415-403-0100, fax 202-224-0454.

Contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein at 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20510; telephone

202-224-3841, fax 202-228-3954, TTY/TDD 202-224-2501. For her San Francisco office, write One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; telephone 415-393-0707; fax 415-393-0710. Her Web site is http://feinstein.senate.gov, where you also can send her an e-mail at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe.

I think Memorial Day is an entirely appropriate time to ask if we're doing right by our surviving veterans. After all, those who died in combat, or served and passed on later, did their duty to ensure that this country continued to give its citizens the very best it had to offer.

Our honored dead had a right to expect we would take care of their brothers and sisters in arms when they came home, after their service was done. That's what we should strive to do now and always. It's a critical and moral obligation, and a duty of love to those who served.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

After several conversations with John Stoddard and others, I became aware that there are many laws being broken by members of the current board. Both developed and undeveloped property owners are being held hostage by these tyrannical individuals, who prey on the elderly and absentee landowners, illegally imposing fines and restrictions and forcing compliance by processing liens against them. There is no democracy here.

My property was transferred to me in 1979 and I have not developed it. Plans were submitted and approved, but with the economy being what it was (through the 1980s and 1990s), and next to zero growth in the Riviera over the last 20-plus years, I couldn’t afford to build on it.

After the debacle with Mt. Konocti Water Co., it even left a bigger sour taste in the mouths of property owners. The only people who prospered from that endeavor were the attorneys.

There was a glimmer of hope. Younger families began migrating into Kelseyville, and it seemed that there was some positive movement towards cleaning up old dumpy properties and chasing out the less-than-desirable characters that inhabited Kelseyville proper. A new grammar school was built two blocks below my property, and I saw hope. The property values jumped exponentially and it was time to build.

Then came the crash. Sept. 11, 2001. Within one year, the market began to decline and the insurgence of new blood all but dried up. Property vales began to stagnate, and sales and purchases began a steady decline.

Two years ago, my little chunk of land in the Riviera was fetching a price over $60,000. Yet now I can’t even hope to list it for more than $25,000 – and then there’s the lien, which prevents me from being able to sell anything.

Add in Allied Trust, and the tyrannical Riviera Association.

Right around the time the Riviera began to see some positive growth, the board saw fit to start charging folks late fees and assessments and aggressively pursuing homeowners for ridiculous demands such as the removal of a carport (that was part of the permanent structure) to the clearing of properties. In my opinion, this was done to do nothing more than fatten the board members' coffers, and the community as a whole saw no benefit.

Without proper notices on property “assessments” from the Riviera Association, I received a threatening collection notice from Allied Trust for more than $3,000 for past due Riviera fees and of course a 50 percent-plus collection fee attached. Like a fool, I settled the matter. I had to borrow money to bail my property out of a lien status, and it took the agency months and me constantly requesting them to produce the completed filing, to actually acquire the recorded lien release.

In short, I allowed the Riviera to bully me out of fear. They won, and I’m out thousands.

Then the real problems began.

I began receiving notices from the Riviera Associatioin that all lots had to be “cleared to a park-like setting” and they provided a list of “recommended contractors” who would clear properties for astronomical prices. I smelled a rat. This was the first. I checked it out, and called several of the “approved” vendors, and was amazingly quoted very similar price structures from each. I began to think that they had a deal with the board, and kickbacks were being given to listed vendors. Although I cannot substantiate the claims, there was talk that this had in fact occurred.

I, at one point, found an independent vendor (out of town) who said they would gladly do it for approximately $500 less than the quoted prices for approved vendors. He, too, also believed that the landowners we being bamboozled by the board.

As if this wasn’t enough, I started receiving notices from the Riviera board that noncompliance of lot clearing would result in a fine of $125. I contacted the Riviera Association and began asking questions. They were many times downright rude and abrasive, and refused to answer questions. I tired to negotiate with them. I took several days off of work to personally meet the members of the board and review activity within the Riviera, and somehow, the office was always closed, or they were unavailable.

The minute I began to question the ethics of the board, their attitude changed and they became more aggressive and threatening. They told me my property was now designated a “fire hazard,” and shortly thereafter that I began receiving notices in the mail, that I was being fined $125 for the “fire hazard,” and if I cleared the lot, and until I cleared the lot, I would continue to be fined. They said I could attend a hearing, which meant taking more time off work, to deal with these felonious charges. I chose to address the board in a letter. Their response was to send me a letter that stated the fines would not be lifted, and increased to $250. Clearly, this was purely retaliatory in nature, and meant as an in-your-face tactic to bully me.

At this point, I began to demand accountability. One, to produce a signed copy of the CCRs and bylaws, and two, to prove to me that all members of the Riviera had similar fines. They refused on both parts, and continued to send me fines. Every attempt I made to resolve the issue was met with resistance and more fines. They have now employed the use of Allied Trust to further harass me.

I contacted the California Department of Forestry, which I believe is the governing body for the Kelseyville area, to ascertain if, in fact, my property had been deemed a “fire hazard.” The chief I spoke with said that there had not been a fire, and no properties within the Clear Lake Riviera had been tagged for fire hazard. I questioned further if the Riviera Association had the authority to designate a property “fire hazard.” “No,” they do not. Further, there haven’t been any significant fires in the Riviera, period.

As my property, and a majority of the hillside has been undeveloped for over 25 years, it seems to me that we would be destroying the natural habitat, and it seemed senseless to change the trail of the deers, quails, etc., for no reason. There is, I believe, a green belt directly behind the end of Bel Air East/West, in which everything remains in it’s natural state. As an environmentally aware person, it seemed senseless to destroy the natural surroundings, and if and when I was to build, great care would be taken to make sure that the natural wildlife would not come to any harm, and be disturbed as little as possible.

In short, I started doing research on the Web, and discovered there may be many more people, many of which are retired seniors, who are in a similar boat as I.

John Stoddard, and his colleagues belong to We the People, which I understand is an organization established to represent the owners of the Riviera properties. I gladly lend my voice to them, as we cannot fight the tyrannical association and its cronies without help.

I would encourage all residents and owners of the Clear Lake Riviera to band together and stand up to the egregious claims and fines levied by the current board.

Talk to any real estate agent in the surrounding area. Property values in the Riviera have plummeted, and lots are just not selling.

The current board has done nothing for the Riviera community to improve this situation. All they have done is generate false charges, harass senior citizens and landowners, and cast a disparaging light on the future of the community as a whole. I once thought this would be a great place to retire. I’ve changed my mind.

I suggest we contact the plaintiff’s attorney in the Mt. Konocti Water Co. debacle, and see if they would represent the Riviera landowners in a class action lawsuit. I know personally that I can’t afford to hire an attorney, and I doubt many senior citizens are in any better shape. We need help. The Riviera community needs the help of someone greater.

Barbara Betz lives in San Jose.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

CAN is a tool, composed of ordinary citizens who have joined with the Coast Guard, to detect suspicious activities in and along the Pacific Coastal Waters as well as assist in search and rescue. Basic equipment – binoculars to observe the shores and coastal waters and a telephone to report observations.

Can this idea be extrapolated to areas other than coastal? Yes. There are CAN organizations across the US. Without becoming another Lake County organization, citizen awareness can be developed along these lines.

How can citizen vigilance work? Again, my one plus one theory, if enough people report violations, perhaps violations will decrease as violators are apprehended. Report what you see or sit on your tush and say how terrible!

Document and report traffic violations: speeders, cell phone users, passing on yellow lines, tailgating, driving under the influence, crossing over the centerline.

Drug use: report suspected drug houses, meth labs, use of a hallucinogen and unusual congregations of people.

Neighborhoods: cars driving “too” slowly through your neighborhood, night driving without lights, strangers on bikes, questionable solicitors, unknown “greenbelt walkers,” graffiti showing up.

Firearms: Suspicious carrying or use.

Dumping: on roadway and private property.

Unsafe boating/water activities: use of alcohol and erratic driving of boats.

Realizing, no matter how good a police force is, it cannot have eyes and ears everywhere at all times. Observe what is happening around you. Using the chart of NON-EMERGENCY and EMERGENCY phone numbers published in this issue, factually report what you see.

Lt. Commander Dane R. Hayward, Clear Lake Area Highway Patrol has graciously provided the correct contact phone numbers. Please clip the chart and post in a convenient location and carry a copy in your vehicle and purse.

NON-EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Traffic Violations:

Kelseyville CHP Office

707-279-0103, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Ukiah CHP Dispatch

707-467-4000, After hours

Caltrans (Lakeport)

707-263-6848

Lake County Road Department

707-263-2341

Drug Enforcement:

Lake County Sheriff’s Office

707-263-2690 (Dispatch Center)

Lake County Narcotic Task Force

707-263-9055

Suspicious Circumstances/ Firearms/Dumping:

Lake County unincorporated area:

Lake County Sheriff’s Office

707-263-2690 (Dispatch Center)

City of Lakeport:

Lakeport Police Department

707-263-5491

City of Clearlake:

Clearlake Police Department

707-994-8251

Lake County Code Compliance

707-263-2309

Waterways:

Lake County Sheriff’s Office

707-263-2690 (Dispatch Center)

Fish and Game

707-944-5500

U.S. Coast Guard, Noyo

Station, Fort Bragg

707-964-6611

The above numbers are non-emergency numbers. Call 911 for all emergencies.

Leona Butts lives in Clearlake Oaks.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

This offhand response toward the end of the interview seems an appropriate representation of the extent of research some politicians, local or otherwise, undertake to make important, public policy decisions ... in the context of a strong antagonism towards anything that does not seem to fit their narrow ideology or interests rather than through actual analysis.

Since we now know that objectivity regarding this topic is lost in at least one corner of the Board of Supervisors chamber, let's restore it here and look at the biotech industry objectively, particularly at some very critical, crucial, undisputable facts.

Simply put, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wasn't allowed to do its job. Documents made public from a lawsuit (has anyone noticed how the public has to sue the government to get any answers to any relevant questions?) show that the overwhelming majority of FDA scientists felt that biotech foods were inherently dangerous and could create poisons or allergens, new diseases, or nutritional problems, particularly in infants and children.

These FDA scientists urged their superiors to require a long-term study. However, the FDA was under orders from the White House to promote the biotechnology industry. They consequently created a new position to bypass the science and the regular FDA channels of research and approval, called the "Deputy Commissioner of Policy," and hired Monsanto's former attorney to this position, Michael Taylor. Yes, you read correctly, an industry insider lawyer made, alone, a "scientific" decision that will affect the American population for the coming centuries.

So Taylor became the lone "decider" at the FDA, under Bush and in the interests of the biotech industry. I wish I was making this up, but it is a sad reality of today's government, that has totally escaped public control and escaped its own morality, if it even had any.

Taylor was in charge of policy when the GMO policy was created. That policy stated that the agency was not aware of any information showing that the foods created from these new experimental methods differed in any meaningful or uniform way from any other. On the basis of that one sentence, the FDA declared, "We require no safety studies whatsoever" ... this regarding a technology that is one of the biggest scientific breakthrough in decades, and radically alters the DNA of our food.

Consequently when Monsanto and others claimed that their foods were safe, the FDA had no further questions, having being reduced to nothing more than an impotent rubber stamp bureaucracy at the service of dominant corporate interests by the Bush administration.

Of course the FDA decision was an outright lie from the top. Not only was the agency aware of the important differences of GM foods, but the overwhelming consensus among its scientists-whose objections were suppressed-was that further studies were necessary before releasing these products to farmers and consumers.

The consistent denials and coverups about the health risks of GM foods are very similar to what went on with the tobacco and particularly the cigarette industry, as researches by the industry are rigged to guarantee conclusions of safety, the GM industry meticulously designing their so called studies to avoid finding problems.

The biotech industry has a genetically engineered counterpart to virtually every fruit, vegetable, grain and bean that is being sold in the United States. More than 172 different species have been field-trialed, with more than 50 000 field trials in the US alone.

Soy, corn, cottonseeds, canola, potatoes, cocoa, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini and yellow squash are currently the major GMO crops. There are many dairy products made from cows injected with rBGH (synthetic growth hormone), and there are genetically modified enzymes and food additives that are usually not listed on the label of processed foods. Many supplements are created from genetically engineered bacteria or microorganisms. The wine industry is looking at GMO grapes.

As GM crops are predictably and unavoidably beginning to contaminate all other forms of agriculture, European standards for organically grown food are being lowered to include trace amounts of GMOs, these amounts expected to rise significantly in the coming years, which is why a biotech industry representative stated cynically that “the cat is already out of the bag,” meaning that they had already altered the global food supply and that resistance was futile precisely because of contamination, while stating at the same time that contamination would not be a problem, yet suing farmers whose fields are contaminated ...

The transfer of genes is a very serious issue, ignored by the FDA and the industry. The only human feeding study ever conducted on GM foods demonstrated that the genes inserted into soybeans transfer into human intestinal bacteria DNA and remain there, integrated on a stable basis, never eliminated. The implications regarding the genes that produce GM pesticides, that could remain in the intestinal flora, or transfer into our own cellular DNA, causing it to produce foreign proteins, could be devastating.

Back in the 1980s, 100 people died and anywhere between 5,000 to 10,000 fell sick or were permanently disabled after ingesting a brand of L-tryptophan supplement that was manufactured through a genetically modified bacteria. The FDA however, after pulling all such supplements off the market, withheld information from the public and from Congress about the genetic engineering aspect of the problem.

In Europe, a GM food researcher named Arpad Pusztai discovered that supposedly harmless GM potatoes caused massive damages to rats. He was fired from his job after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. In Russia, a leading researcher in the Russian Academy of Sciences discovered that female rats that were fed GM soy had an infant mortality rate that was over 50 percent within the first three weeks, compared to only 10 percent of the offspring with mothers who were fed non-GM soy. This scientist has since been told she could not do any more GM food research.

Most people do not realize that there have not been extensive and independent tests on GM foods. Most people do not even know what GMO means, yet they ingest an unproven, experimental, highly controversial, untested, revolutionary "Frankenstein" food that could have devastating consequences for their health and particularly that of their children ...

The points made by Rob Brown on the GMO issue during his interview are all invalid.

It is easy to demonstrate that those who have an "agenda" are not the people who seek to get a moratorium on all GMOs until further studies are completed by independent scientists, a process which any reasonable person would demand and support, the heavy-handed agenda comes from those who have stealthily forced this technology on the American consumer without such proper and prudent studies, without the labeling of GM products as is required in Europe, and with the help of a corrupted bureaucracy; the only existing agenda here comes from the industry itself and those who support it and its distortion and strangulation of science in the name of immediate profits.

Objective scientific research is not an agenda, it is not political ... to ask that FDA scientists be allowed to do their jobs is not an agenda ... to request that a new product be held until considered safe by the FDA after such required studies is not an agenda.

And no, the power to decide whether to have GMOs in Lake County cannot be given exclusively to farmers or the farm bureau, who are not scientists and have no appropriate science upon which to base their decisions, it must be given to the greater public through he restoration of an honest and independent FDA process of scientific research and approval or rejection of GM products. Short of this and under current corrupt conditions, the American public must educate itself and demand to be heard, and to be respected. Alfalfa is not the only issue in Lake County, other GM crops will eventually be available to replace traditional crops, as in the case of winegrapes, and GE pears will certainly be available at some point.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the Bush administration is attempting to force famine stricken third world countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, to plant genetically engineered crops, as part of a $770 million aid package, just as it has bullied Iraq to also plant GE crops.

These untested and mostly unregulated GE crops are considered controversial all over the world; at least 40 nations have restricted GE farming and GE ingredients in foods by requiring, because of public demand, mandatory labeling. (A majority of the American public has also demanded labeling of GMO products, but in America, giant corporations have more rights and apparently more powerful votes than ordinary citizens, particularly under Republican regime). A number of nations and regions have banned GMOs in agriculture altogether, until further research proves it is safe.

Beyond health and environmental concerns, and contrary to industry propaganda, GE crops do not significantly increase yields, but rather force farmers to stop saving their seeds and instead buy toxic chemicals and highly priced patented seeds from biotech companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont, Dow's and BASF. Once they do, they no longer have a choice, as their fields are contaminated at the DNA level and will remain so forever.

Is forever a good choice concerning an untested and potentially dangerous technology that could affect our own human DNA in unpredictable ways?

Sources of information:

Books: “Seeds of Deception” and “Genetic Roulette,” both by Jeffrey Smith; “Genetically Engineered Foods,” by Martin Teitel and Kimberley A. Wilson; “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism,” by Scott Tips.

The Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit organization created by leaders representing all sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the US and Canada.

Raphael Montoliu live in Lakeport.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}