PETITION TO UNDAM THE KLAMATH RIVER

The Klamath basin is plagued by PacifiCorp's dams that block salmon from returning home to spawn and endanger community health. Right now, Congress is considering legislation that could un-dam the river, but they need to hear from you. With your support, we can push members of Congress to do what it takes to restore the Klamath!

Petition

to UnDam the Klamath River

OCA: Tell Burt’s Bees: Stop Consorting with the Bee Killers!

Tell Burt’s Bees: Stop Consorting with the Bee Killers!

It’s been less than two months since Burt Shavitz, nature-lover, beekeeper and co-founder of Burt’s Beesdied, at the age of 80. And even though Burt sold the company years ago to Roxanne Quimby, who in turnsold it to the Clorox Co. for a cool $925 million, Burt is probably rolling over in his grave to see his beloved company supporting an expensive, glossy, public relations campaign, paid for by Bayer CropScience, and aimed at obfuscating the fact that Bayer is one of the world’s most prolific killer of bees.

How could that “bee,” you ask?

Burt’s Bees is one of the companies signed on to the Pollinator Partnership, an organization that on the surface appears very concerned about the plight of honeybees. In fact, the Pollinator Partnership is a corporate creation whose primary purpose it is to shift the blame for Colony Collapse Disorder away from the real cause: Bayer’s (and other companies’) neonicotinoid pesticides. And right there on the Pollinator Partnership’s board of directors is Craig Stevenson, vice president and general manager of the Clorox Company, who is also responsible for the Burt’s Bees product line.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Burt’s Bees: Stop Consorting with the Bee Killers!

As Friends of the Earth revealed in its “Follow the Honey” report, companies like Bayer have engaged fancy public relations firms to help spin an alternative story about what’s killing the bees. These companies, whose profits depend on massive sales of neonicotinoid poisons, don’t like the conclusion most scientists have arrived at—that neonicotinoids are largely responsible for the mass die-off of the honeybee.

At the core of Bayer’s PR strategy are Bayer Bee Care Centers, touted as centers “for scientific exchange and communication, inviting discussions and joint projects with external partners.”

But Bayer is also a key player in the Pollinator Partnership, which is nothing more than a collection of corporations intent on protecting their profits, especially those derived from sales of bee-killing pesticides.  The Pollinator Partnership says its mission is to “promote the health of pollinators [that are] critical to food and ecosystems through conservation, education, and research.”

On paper, that looks like a smart idea, especially given the public’s intense and widespread interest in protecting bees and other pollinators. But with corporate sponsors like Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta (which make up nearly the entire supply chain of neonicotinoids, currently representing 25 percent of the global market for pesticides),  the Pollinator Partnership’s true motivation is highly suspect.

Or not. In fact, if you read this letter from the Pollinator Partnership, the group’s mission becomes much more clear: defend, deny, deflect.

Neonicotinoids come with a bee hazard statement on the label as they have been determined to have the potential to harm bees; but the question is, to what extent are these substances alone responsible for CCD?

The letter goes on to defend neonicotinoids “as a response to and as a replacement for previous chemicals that had proven risks associated with bee kills and human health concerns.”

In the letter, Executive Director Laurie Davies Adams also denies that neonics are the primary cause of CCD, and points instead to changing weather patterns, varroa mites and other threats to bees, totally overlooking the fact that neonics, a systemic pesticide, weaken the immune system of bees, making them more vulnerable to these other threats.

It’s a shame that Clorox now owns, and has corrupted the product—a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by consumers who are asking to “change back” Burt’s Bees.

It’s an even bigger shame that Burt’s Bees is now supporting the very company that is killing off the bees.

OCA: Tell Burt’s Bees: Stop Consorting with the Bee Killers!

Petitioning American Employers, American Goverment: Make it illegal and classed as discrimination to not hire someone based on hair colour, haircut, tattoos, or piercings. · Change.org

Make it illegal and classed as discrimination to not hire someone based on hair colour, haircut, tattoos, or piercings.

Someone's hair colour, style, or body mods to not reflect who they are as a person, their capabilities, or what they will be like as an employee. Most places will not hire you if you have hair colour that looks unnatural, a haircut considered extreme (like a mohawk or a man with long hair), if you have visible piercings or tattoos. Why? For no other reason than it is unappealing to many people and because some people assume people that look like that are degenerates/delinquents with bad morals. That is discrimination. An obese person may not be appealing to many people, but that would be discrimination to not hire them for that reason. One may argue that customers won't shop where a person who has tattoos/piercings works. Well in this world some customers might avoid a place because an employee is gay. So why is one illegal to refuse a job to and not the other?

Appearance does not reflect character, capability, or morals. To not hire a person with piercings/tattoos or dyed hair for worry that they do drugs or might steal from the establishment and would scare away prejudiced customers is just as prejediced and discriminatory as not hiring a black person for the prejudice that they would steal and scare away prejudiced customers. It is discrimination and it is WRONG. 

We understand, a customer finding a dropped nose ring in their food can result in law suit. A piercing can be dangerous in certain jobs. I would understand certain industries wanting employees to remove piercings to remove health and safety risks or if a person had an offensive tattoo like a swastika or something witha swear on it and this tattoo is not covered by clothes. But hair style/colour and tattoos are in no way a threat to health or safety. Long hair can be tied up/netted. Dyed hair and tattoos do not affect anything other than appearance. Nothing about a person's physical appearance should be expected to change unless it is a health and safety risk. If employers want appearance changed for no other reason than for the appearance of the change, it should not be allowed.

Discrimination laws officially protect those of a certain race, religion, age, gender, marital status, family relation, and more recently sexuality has been added to that list. Let's add physical appearance to that list, including piercings, tattoos, and hair choice with the exception of threat to health and safety. 

Petition · Petitioning American Employers, American Goverment: Make it illegal and classed as discrimination to not hire someone based on hair colour, haircut, tattoos, or piercings. · Change.org