by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The tide has turned in the consumer fight to have GMO Label Laws in place, as upwards of 30 states are working toward enacting such laws.  The Biotech Industry headed by Monsanto and company, have apparently realized that defeat is inevitable on the state level.  As a result, they have turned to a heavy congressional lobby to avoid fighting on a state by state level to get their way.   The outcome is the King Amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill, as recently proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

If the King Amendment is passed, it will prohibit a state's right to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and any animals raised for food, that are involved in interstate commerce.  This will also effectively stomp out state rights as granted by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment sets forth that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states or the people.

Are we no longer a government by the people and for the people?  Is there no limit to the hippocracy coarsing through the veins of our elected officials?  It is time for the people of this great country to wake up and smell the pesticide, for it is generously laced within our food.  Take the time to contact your state congressional and senatorial representatives and let your voice be heard.  Our future generations will be shaped upon what we do and fail to do today.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq. 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

We have the technology for genetically modified seeds, food, animals and reportedly even for humans.  The technology, known as cytoplasmic transfer, was reportedly put to use in or about 2001 when upwards of 30 genetically modified babies were born.  The process essentially blends the genetic material from multiple mothers into a single egg, which is then fertilized with the sperm from a male.  Promulgated to be a credible solution to infertility, the process was banned by the FDA in that genetically manipulated embryos are considered a "biological product".

Although the current prohibition on this technology which has untold ramifications is difficult to police, a contingent of the scientific community strives to eliminate the prohibition and  gain world wide acceptance.  If acceptance of this technology is obtained, it is likely that attempts to obtain patents will either precede or follow.  Biotech companies have already secured patents on everything from genetically modified seeds to engineered animals.  Even human genes have already been patented such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.  Myriad Genetics, the private biotech company that holds these patents, has the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying or doing anything with these genes without Myriad's consent.  

As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants patents on human genes, which means that the patent holders own the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Anyone who makes or uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder – whether it be for commercial or noncommercial purposes – is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder for such infringement. Gene patents, like other patents, are granted for 20 years."

Biotech companies continue to dominate and amaze us,  from "Round Up Ready" seeds that produce food with genetically built in weed killer, to cloning animals for would be human consumption with potentially devastating health consequences, to genetically modified babies.  One could only imagine that if the biotech industry has their way, the technology for human cloning is on the horizon or perhaps already exists.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

There is a classic Three Stooges episode called "Disorder In The Court" in which Curly tells the Judge, "Truth is stranger than fiction Judgie Wudgie."  It appears that Curly was correct, as the title question to this article is on track to be a reality in less than 10 years. 

Dr. Mark Post of the Netherlands, among others, have been working on perfecting the technology to grow synthetic beef.  In fact the world's first "test tube burger" is likely to debut in London before the end of this year.  Although the cost to develop the first "test tube burger" has exceeded $300,000, the progress made to date indicates that synthetic beef may be available in food stores near you within the next decade. 

In order to create a synthetic burger, stem cells are first extracted from bovine muscle tissue.  The cells are then grown under tension in strips stretched upon velcro boards.  When maturation is attained, approximately 3,000 muscle strips are minced together with 200 fat strips to create a synthetic burger. 

Proponents of the technology claim it may be the solution to world hunger.  Opponents to the technology question the safety and health risks of the synthetic "frankenbeef" and whether or not proper studies will be performed before it comes to market for human consumption.  Further, that once it does come to market, will regulations and laws be in place to require labeling and proper warnings.  Whether or not consumers will accept the idea of synthetic beef, remains to be seen. 

This developing technology begs the question as to whether or not the 1973 movie entitled "Soylent Green", starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson in his final film, really was fiction.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the Matter of Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden, the Appellate Division upheld town zoning ordinances barring hydraulic fracturing.  Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is the controversial process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth.  The process entails, among other things, deep drilling that frees gas from within the rock by injecting wells with high pressured water that is laced with toxic chemicals.  Opponents maintain that the process contaminates the water supply, impairs the health of local residents and is damaging to the environment.  Proponents maintain that the process is a safe and effective  method to tap into an unused energy source.

In the court's decision Justice Karen Peters stated, "While the Town's exercise of its right to regulate land use through zoning will inevitably have an incidental effect upon the oil, gas and solution mining  industries, we conclude that zoning ordinances are not the type of regulatory  provision that the Legislature intended to be preempted by the [Oil, Gas and  Solution Mining Law]."  

Norse Energy argued that NYS Environmental Conservation Law 23-0303(2) superceded all local laws and ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and mining industries.  The court rejected this argument, finding that the Town ordinance did not regulate but rather established permissible and prohibited uses of land within the Town.  The court concluded that, "We find nothing in the language, statutory scheme or legislative history of the
statute indicating an intention to usurp the authority traditionally delegated
to municipalities to establish permissible and prohibited uses of land within
their jurisdictions. In the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent
to preempt local control over land use, we decline to give the statute such a
construction."  Norse Energy respectfully disagreed with the court's decision and plans to appeal.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.  

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Recent movements and propositions in the U.S., may lead one to believe that GMO label laws in our country are inevitable.  If GMO label laws are passed, it undoubtedly would significantly reduce the profit margin of the Biotech Industry.  But the Biotech Industry in the U.S., is way too big and powerful to let anyone or anything cut into their profits.  In an effort to stay ahead of the impending curve, the Biotech Industry is now working on their next GMO project to help maintain their high profit margin and control over the food supply. 

This new project is known as Naturally Enhanced Organisms (NEO).  NEO is to be displayed in a green and leafy emblem on future food products and has supposedly been psychologically tested to inspire consumer confidence.  NEO food products will contain 2 parts "natural" material and 1 part genetically modified material.  It is in this way the food will conform to a new regulation that states a plant or seed is only considered genetically modified, if the genetically modified material makes up 50% or more of the total material.  In that NEO food will maintain a 2 to 1 ratio, it will not be considered genetically modified and therefore not require any legally imposed GMO label.

If this new plan is implemented, it will successfully circumvent GMO label laws before they are even passed.  It seems now that if the Biotech Industry can't stop certain laws from being passed, they will simply change definitions of terms within the law to suit their greedy purposes.  This is all too similar to the Dairy Industry's petition to the FDA, to effectively change the definition of Milk to include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose without the need to list such on the label (See our February 26, 2013 blog entitled "Dairy Industry Petitions FDA To Approve Unlabeled Chemical Sweeteners").

The new NEO foods will still be one third genetically modified which means, among other things, that one third will still likely be sprayed with glyphosate or 2-4-D, which is the active ingredient in Agent Orange.  But that is just the "icing on the potentially toxic genetically modified cake."  Food label laws in the U.S. will not be enough to safeguard consumers.  In order for consumers to have a fighting chance, we need full disclosure food label laws that will remove once and for all, the veil behind which Biotech and Corporate America hides. 

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the days of old, a student would give the teacher an apple as a nice gesture.  But today, if the Biotech Industry gets their way, that same gesture may be equivalent to the apple the Witch gave to Snow White.  

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

On August 6, 2012 we posted a blog detailing a lawsuit between Monsanto and DuPont, who were fighting it out in court over the rights to genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready Technology.  Monsanto had sued DuPont for an alleged infringement of their patented technology and DuPont brought an anti-trust lawsuit against Monsanto alleging a monopoly.

As an update, Monsanto and DuPont have now settled their litigation matters against each other.  The settlement provides that DuPont has agreed to pay Monsanto a 1.75 billion dollar royalty over a ten year period of time.  In addition, DuPont has suprisingly agreed to drop its anti-trust lawsuit against Monsanto.  In that Monsanto controls approximately 80% of the US corn and 90% of the US soy beans, it appears that DuPont had an excellent chance of winning their ant-trust suit had they continued to pursue it.

Now that Monsanto and DuPont have resolved their differences, they present a stronger and more united front in their fight against GMO label laws in the US.  As a result, it is now more important than ever for consumers to stand up for the right to know what is in the food they buy.  Consumers are faced with a veritable "David and Goliath" like battle.  In this case, consumer success lies not in a sling shot but the passage of a full disclosure food label law.  Once that law is passed, the Monsanto giant will fall.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Purchasing car insurance is often a very expensive and frustrating experience, with the selection process primarily driven by cost.  Perhaps that is why Progressive has invigorated its promotion of its "Snapshot" auto savings plan.  The "Snapshot" plan requires you to agree to plug a device into your car, that will monitor how "safe" you drive.  It measures the miles you drive, the time of day/night you are driving and your braking patterns.  If the data obtained indicates that you are a very safe driver, then you are eligible for up to a 30% savings on you car insurance.

On its surface this may seem like an attractive way to save money and as Progressive would have you believe, to stop paying higher premiums because of all the bad drivers on the road.  But upon closer examination, many believe that this is nothing short of George Orwell's "Big Brother" from the book 1984 come to life.  In today's technological age where privacy is at a premium, having devices in our car to monitor our moves appears to be antithetical to safeguarding privacy.  What's next, installing cameras in our homes that watch for extra hazardous activities in order to save on our homeowner insurance premiums?

In addition, many opponents argue that the "Snapshot" device cannot accurately determine whether or not you are a safe driver based on the information obtained.  That a driver could potentially pass red lights and stop signs and still be deemed a safe driver by the device.  Conversely, just because someone has to make a short stop or drive in the early morning hours because they have a night job, doesn't mean that they are not a safe driver.  Opponents also question whether or not this device poses any health risks, such as those from radiation emitted from cell phones.  

Proponents of Progressive's "Snapshot" plan, believe that this is a small price to pay in order to save money on your auto insurance.  Further, that if you truly are a safe driver, then you should have nothing to hide and should not have a problem passing the device's safe driver test.  Opponents argue that in the past if you had a safe driving record without any accidents or tickets, you were entitled to the maximum discount available.  That now under the "Snapshot" plan, it appears that the maximum discount is being withheld unless you capitulate to using a subjective device of questionable accuracy, that is tantamount to an invasion of what little privacy we have left. 

George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair, published his book 1984 as science fiction in the year 1949.  He died at the young age of 46 years and did not live long enough to see any semblance of today's modern world.  If he had, one can't help but think that he would reverberate the adage, "Truth is stranger than fiction".

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) is going to trial against baby food giants Gerber Products Co., Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp, Del Monte Foods and others, for failing to provide warning on their food labels that their baby food contains lead.  ELF maintains that defendants' failure to warn consumers of the lead contents in the baby food, is violative of California Proposition 65.  In support of defendants, the FDA stated that they have tested the alleged offending baby foods and have concluded that they contain levels of lead that are an "acceptable risk".

According to the Center For Disease Control (CDC), more than 500,000 children in the United States suffer from lead poisoning.  Excessive exposure to lead in children is widely believed to cause brain damage and low IQ, among other problems.  That is one of the main reasons why lead was removed and banned from house paint in 1978.  Gerber maintains that the lead is "naturally occuring" and cannot be prevented.  ELF proponents maintain that no level of lead poisoning is safe for our children and that even if the lead was "naturally occuring", it should be removed before selling the baby food. 

It seems that in today's society, there are innumerable acts of toxicity performed for pecuniary gain under the veil of "acceptable risk".  The Judge in this case will have to decide just how "acceptable" the levels of lead are and if they require a label warming,   Perhaps the real issue that should be decided, is whether or not it should be legal for companies to include toxic ingredients such as lead in our baby food in the first place. 

This case is just another glaring example of how desparately we need full disclosure food label laws in the United States.  There are far too many governmental agencies designed to protect the American people, that have become corporate puppets.  "We the people" need to protect ourselves more than ever when it comes to our food arena.  If you wish to avoid the ramifications of the toxic pitfalls in our food, consider the following:

    1.  Read all ingredients carefully and make sure you understand what is in the food you are buying.    
    2.  Buy U.S. certified organic food whenever possible.
    3.  Refuse to buy products from food companies that do not support the consumer's right to know what is in our food.
    4.  Demand that your grocer supply foods with full disclosure labels on the food they sell.
    5.  Teach your children to appreciate the health significance of what is in the food they eat.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The USDA has reversed an existing regulation (9 CFR  424), which previously prohibited the use of three toxic meat and poultry preservatives.  Despite a previous ban on the use of sodium propionate, sodium benzoate and benzoic acid on meat and poultry products, these preservatives are now deemed "safe".  The USDA has changed its opinion that these preservatives were used to conceal damage and inferiority in meat and poultry products.

This change begs the question as to why the USDA would reverse this consumer protection regulation.  The reversal was prompted by intense lobbying by major companies such as Kraft Foods Global, Inc.  Kraft submitted its own company funded trials, claiming the three preservatives were safe and could not disguise inferior meat and poultry.  As a result and as announced by the FDA, the USDA changed their position.

Consumer advocates maintain that conventional cows and chickens come from highly profitable factory farms, where the animals spend most if not all of their lives in confinement.  That unfortunately this confinement and factory farm style, results in some extremely unsanitary conditions that breed disease and illness among the animals.  As a result and in order to make the product "safe" for human consumption and maintain a high profit margin, the meat and poultry is sanitized and smothered in antimicrobial agents such as sodium propionate, sodium benzoate and benzoic acid. 

Consumer advocates also maintain that sodium propionate is linked with respiratory and gastrointestinal problems, sodium benzoate promotes cancer cells and damages DNA and that benzoic acid could lead to asthma and hyperactivity especially in children.  Perhaps some day the United States will have a Department of Agriculture and a Food and Drug Administration that truly serves the best interest of people.  Until that day, be mindful of the adage professing that you are what you eat and eat organic foods.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.