The Food and Drug Administration wants large, graphic warning labels to scare smokers, but tobacco companies say that violates their right to free speech.
Diseased lungs, gnarly rotting teeth, even what appears to be the corpse of a smoker are some of the images that accompany the bold new cigarette labels the FDA requires to cover half a pack of cigarettes, front and back. The written warnings include: "Smoking Can Kill You" and "Cigarettes Cause Cancer."
As you might expect, the cigarette companies fiercely oppose this approach, and the federal courts are grappling with this issue.
In Australia, the High Court just ruled that the cigarette companies must place gruesome labels on their packs of cigarettes.
The High Court rejected a challenge by tobacco companies who argued the value of their trademarks will be destroyed if they are no longer able to display their distinctive colors, brand designs and logos on packs of cigarettes.
"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."
Essentially, it requires a label on foods that are genetically modified. That's it. A label indicating whether or not the food one is considering buying has been tampered with at the genetic level. It doesn't ban or tax such products, it just offers you, the consumer, the chance to know what is in the food you are purchasing.
Here is a list of the companies opposed to this Proposition, and the amount they have spentjust this week to defeat it:
Population Media Center is willing to discuss the elephant in the room--that number of human animals appears to have exceeded the ability of the Earth to sustain them. It's not that simple, of course, because the number of people combines with the type of lifestyles they are living to determine carrying capacity. Here is the Mission of PMC:
Our mission is to collaborate with the mass media and other organizations worldwide to:
Bring about stabilization of human population numbers at a level that can be sustained by the world’s natural resources
Lessen the harmful impact of humanity on the earth’s environment
The emphasis of the organization’s work is to educate people about the benefits of small families, encourage the use of effective family planning methods, elevate women’s status and promote gender equity.
Who else is willing to speak frankly about this critically important issue? Global Population Speakout. The GPSO home pages states: Population Seven Billion: It's Time to Talk. Here is the GPSO mission:
The United Nation's Population Division reports that on October 31, 2011, world population reached the 7 Billion mark. The U.S. Census Bureau says it will happen in April, 2012. Regardless of the exact moment, each and every day world population grows by 227,000 people. That means we are adding more than one million people to the planet every five days. The implications for people, posterity, and the planet are of global importance.
Because the population of the world ultimately affects most of the issues that we all really care about, the 7 Billion: It's Time to Talk campaign is working to open up the conversation on population to new audiences around the globe. When everyone recognizes that there is a need to talk openly about population growth and the importance of family planning, the empowerment of women, and reproductive health and rights, we can more easily find the solutions to issues like global hunger and the environment. When people discover how a rapidly growing world population affects them and their hopes for the future, we know that more people, particularly young adults, will want to lend their voices to the global discussion.
I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Peter Raven, who also directly addressed the issues of overpopulation and carrying capacity of the planet. This is an excellent presentation, which begins at the 6 min mark (and see here):
Mitt Romney says we can't afford to support PBS, National Endowment for the Arts or Amtrack. This is a disgraceful lie. These three programs add up to barely more than $2 Billion/year. Let's put that number in context. How much are we now spending on the militarization of America? $1.2 Trillion per year (carefully count the zeros and make sure you add it ALL up, like Tom Dispatch has done). That comes out to $600 Million per working HOUR (assuming that there are 2,000 working hours per year) to militarize the United States (don't call it "Department of Defense," because this is largely a lie).
In other words, with FOUR HOURS of our warmongering budget, we could afford all of the things Romney says we need to cut.
[More . . . ]
This cartoon sums it up for me. Whether you vote for Romney or Obama, you are voting for 80% of the same old. Compare that to the platforms of third party candidates, who most definitely WON'T be invited to the prime time debates.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
