I am very relieved that the House of Representatives recently cut most of the money requested for research on new nuclear weapons in the energy and water appropriations bill. I urge you to act with similar conscience and actively support amendments to cut the funding for new nuclear weapons in the Senate version of the energy and water appropriations bill (S 1424). New nuclear weapons research would likely lead to further proliferation and undermine U.S. security.
The fact that the U.S., an unrivaled global military power, continues to rely on nuclear weapons for its security, reinforces the idea that these weapons can lead to national security. How can the U.S. demand that Iran, North Korea, and others disarm if the U.S. is continuing to develop its arsenal? If the U.S. wants lasting peace and security, new nuclear weapons research is not the correct approach.
Subject: Stop Bullying Tiny Dairy Over Growth Hormones
To: Monsanto Company (no fax, so I guess it's time for an actual letter)
I am writing to urge Monsanto to drop its lawsuit against Oakhurst Dairy regarding their Farmer's Pledge, which advertises that their farmers pledge not to use artificial growth hormones on their cows.
I understand that Monsanto has a monopoly on the commercial version of artificial bovine growth hormone, and thus it is in your interest to increase sales of rBST and attempt to prevent the development of demand for rBST-free products. Your lawsuit is a rather transparent attempt to use your substantial financial resources against a tiny family-owned dairy. Your efforts to pressure the State of Maine to drop a related requirement were appropriately rebuffed by the state.
Monsanto is disingenuously arguing that it is misleading for Oakhurst to make a simple factual assertion about its products, and is demanding that Oakhurst add additional information of Monsanto's choosing (primarily the FDA's approval of rBST) to its label. Noticeably absent from your demand for additional information is the fact that, justified or not, both Canada and the European Union have banned rBST.
I suggest that Monsanto spend its funds on further research supporting its position, and on convincing consumers of the benefits of its products, rather than on attempts to suppress information that consumers clearly want.
I would like to thank you for releasing a proposal (Docket ID No. A-2001-28) that would save lives and improve Americans' health. I believe that we should do all that we can to clean up diesel engine pollution, which is why I urge you not to weaken this rule or delay its implementation.
Diesel pollution has been known to create many health problems, including asthma and cancer, and contribute to acid rain, which harms the environment. I want my children to grow up to live healthy lives and enjoy the beauties of our natural landscape.
Industries might complain that this regulation would be too costly and try to water this regulation down. This regulation would provide countless benefits in the long run, saving lives and improving the well-being of many Americans. You can't put a price tag on these kinds of benefits. You should not be beholden to these companies in making this regulation, nor should you include any cost-benefit analysis that would devalue a human life.
For the sake of cleaner air and improved health, I urge you to keep in place this strong regulation. In addition I ask that you take these other steps to further reduce diesel pollution: tighten emission standards for locomotive and marine diesel engines, and reduce the sulfur levels in locomotive and marine diesel fuel to 15 parts per million so that all diesel fuel will have a lower sulfur content.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope to be informed of future developments.
I am writing to urge you to cosponsor S. 1460 / H.R. 2932, The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2003, introduced by Senators Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Representatives Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD). This bipartisan legislation phases out, over two years, the routine feeding to food animals of eight classes of antibiotics, but allows the continued use of antibiotics to treat sick animals and to prevent the spread of disease, when indicated. The legislation also requires producers of agricultural antibiotics to report data in order to help monitor usage and track resistance trends. The Senate bill authorizes transition payments for farmers and encourages research-and-development to aid them in identifying ways to successfully phase out routine antibiotic use.
Just last month, McDonald's took an important step by telling its chicken suppliers to reduce their antibiotic use and by providing incentives for beef and pork suppliers to adopt similar measures. However, voluntary private sector initiatives to reduce antibiotic use in animal agriculture are limited in number and scope, and are often difficult to verify. This legislation will ensure comprehensive reductions of routine antibiotic use by most livestock and poultry producers.
An estimated 70 percent of all antibiotics and related drugs in this country are fed to chickens, cows and pigs to make them grow faster, or to compensate for overcrowded, stressful and unsanitary conditions on industrial-scale farms.
More than 300 organizations, including the American Medical Association and a wide range of other health, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and humane organizations, have called on Congress to enact legislation to phase out this inappropriate use of antibiotics.
This legislation is essential in the face of mounting scientific evidence that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture promotes the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that go on to infect humans. I urge you to cosponsor S. 1460 / H.R. 2932, The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2003.
I am writing to urge Wal-Mart to stop discriminating against women and to bring in independent third-party monitors to ensure that the discrimination ends.
While women comprise over two-thirds of the Wal-Mart hourly workforce, only one-third of store management jobs and less than 15% of store manager positions are held by women, and there are only two women among Wal-Mart's 23 senior officers. For comparison, women comprise 56% of all managers at Wal-Mart's major competitors. In addition, the women who have filed a discrimination suit against Wal-Mart claim that Wal-Mart's work atmosphere is demeaning to women. For example, they have reported that female managers were required to go to Hooters and strip clubs for meetings and office outings. This is outrageous.
According to the plaintiffs, Wal-Mart's own data indicates that women in every major job category have been paid less than men with the same seniority in every year since 1997, even though the female employees on average have higher performance ratings and less turnover than men.
Wal-Mart, don't wait for the courts to establish the case as a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 1.5 million women currently and formerly employed by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer and employs more women than any other company in the United States. The retail leader should not also be the discrimination leader, and it shouldn't take a class action lawsuit on behalf of 1.5 million women to force Wal-Mart to stop discriminating and make serious improvements in how female employees are treated. Ensure fair and equitable treatment for all Wal-Mart employees.