Missouri House Bill That Would Have Required GMO or mRNA Labeling Killed

 A bill that would have required labeling of any product treated with mRNA was defeated in committee in the Missouri House. The bill, HB 1169, would have required that any product that acts as, or exposed to processes that could have resulted in the product acting as a gene therapy, introduce genetic material, or a genetic change into the user of the product be labeled with the words, “Potential Gene Therapy Product.” If a product was known to be a gene therapy product, the product would have had to be labeled with the words, “Gene Therapy Product.”

Upon written request, any entity that produces, sells, or distributes a product with the capacity to infect an individual with a disease or expose an individual to certain genetically modified material would have had to provide all information by which people could be exposed. Any entity which makes a product available that could infect, transmit to, or be absorbed in a way that would act as a medical intervention, vaccine, drug, or genetic modification would have had to obtain fully informed consent from consumers.

The bill would have covered anything from food to cosmetics.

Local legislators were split on the bill. State Rep. Mazzie Boyd, who represents Worth and Harrison counties, was listed as a co-sponsor. Rep. Jeff Farnan, who represents Nodaway and Gentry counties, who was on the committee that heard the bill, voted against it. The bill died in committee 10-4.

Pro – Tom Renz, Townhall 

Tom Renz, a Twitter influencer who also has a Substack account at tomrenz.substack.com, wrote in a Substack post on April 5th that the bill would have been the country’s best chance of stopping what he said was a nightmare scenario where “people’s genetics are potentially altered with ‘factory foods’ without them even knowing.” He argued that there were backdoor efforts underway as early as 2013 to genetically modify foods in order to become edible vaccines.

He argued that there were too many unknown effects with mRNA and no long-term studies not to safeguard the public by creating informed consent. 

Mr. Renz noted that the bill did not ban anything. “All it does is require labeling of products that can alter your genetics, require companies share info on transmissibility of gene altering interventions, and that fully informed consent be given for any vaccine, gene therapy, or medical intervention. So why are the RINOs in Missouri, lead by the Democrats and Republican House Speaker Dean Plocher are trying to slow-walk this bill through committee to prevent it from being approved this session,” he wrote.

Kimberly Fletcher, writing in Townhall, a conservative website on April 14th, said that given what she saw as the failure of COVID-19 vaccine mandates that Big Pharma was using the food supply as a backdoor effort to distribute mRNA vaccines. Pointing out that many large organizations were lobbying against HB 1169, she wrote, “If these substances were not going into our food supply, why are the lobbyists pitching a fit? The level of outrage among agricultural associations and professional lobbyist groups suggests that this is a very big deal.”

Con – By the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association

In a major win for Missouri farmers and ranchers, the Missouri House Committee on Emerging Issues voted down H.B. 1169, sponsored by Rep. Holly Jones (R-88), on Wednesday, April 19, 2023. According to the Missouri Cattlemen's Association, the legislation would have devalued Missouri cattle by requiring all beef derived from Missouri cattle to include labels regarding what vaccines the cattle received throughout the animal's life. The legislation would have applied to Missouri cattle only.

"This was the most poorly drafted piece of legislation I have seen in my career," said MCA Executive Vice President Mike Deering. "If passed, this careless piece of legislation would have devalued Missouri agricultural commodities for absolutely no reason. Given that 98 percent of the calves in Missouri are exported to other states for finishing and processing, this legislation truly would have been a train wreck for Missouri cattle producers. The out-of-state attorney pushing this legislation showed complete disregard for the farm and ranch families in this state."

The legislation went far beyond vaccines in livestock. It also targeted genetically modified corn and soybeans. According to the Missouri Soybean Association, meat derived from livestock fed corn or soybeans would have been required to be labeled as "potential gene therapy," which is contrary to science. The legislation included no definitions on gene therapy and would have exposed farmers and ranchers to an onslaught of litigation.

In addition to MCA and the Missouri Soybean Association, the legislation was also opposed by Missouri Corn Growers Association; Missouri Pork Producers; Missouri Farm Bureau; Missouri Chamber of Commerce; and more.

"This anti-science legislation would have exponentially driven up food prices, set up the potential for massive lawsuits and had a chilling effect on economic development in the state," according to a letter penned by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce.

The legislation failed with a 10-4 bipartisan vote effectively ending any hope for the legislation in 2023. The legislators who stood with Missouri farmers and ranchers were Reps. Dane Diehl (R-125); Ashley Aune (D-14); Jeff Farnan (R-1); Sherri Gallick (R-62); Mike Haffner (R-55); Dave Hinman (R-103); Josh Hurlbert (R-8); Jamie Johnson (D-12); Doug Mann (D-50); and David Tyson Smith (D-46). The legislation was supported by the bill sponsor, Reps. Bishop Davidson; Bill Hardwick (R-121) and Adam Schnelting (R-69).

Transportation committee members say raising taxes may be only way to fix Missouri's crumbling road systems

By Alex Mallin

(MDN News) -- The Blue Ribbon Transportation Committee has been meeting across the state since July to discuss fixing the state's aging highways.

Committee Co-Chair and former state Sen. Bill McKenna said that the Missouri Department of Transportation will need extra revenue before Missourians see safer roads.

"I can't see increasing money to MoDOT unless it would come from a new source of revenue, which would be new dollars on top of our existing taxes," McKenna said.

MoDOT Chief Financial Officer Roberta Broeker said Missouri's gasoline and license taxes haven't risen in 20 years and the state ranks 41st in the nation in terms of revenue per mile of road.

Committee member and president of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce Dan Mehan said taxpayers will have to foot the bill for their roads to improve.

"I think that Missourians will trade some sort of a tax increase somewhere in the future if and only if they trust where it's going," Mehan said.

Missourians may not, however, be receptive to a tax increase. Voters have rejected a tobacco tax increase three times in the last decade.   

Gov. Nixon voices support for Medicaid expansion

By Matt Evans, Eric Stoyanov and Nick Thompson

(MDN News) -- Gov. Jay Nixon announced his support for expansion of the state's Medicaid program under the new federal health care law.

But his proposal for one of the state's largest Medicaid expansions in history came under immediate attack from top Republican leaders.

At a series of news conferences across the state, Nixon pointed to the federal law that would provide full federal funding for the health care coverage of up to 300,000 recipients for the first three years.

After that, however, the state would have to begin picking up a part of the expense at a cost to the state's budget estimated to exceed $100 million per year.

Republican critics, including the House Speaker and lieutenant governor, argued the state could not afford that cost. Nixon, however cited a University of Missouri study that predicts more than 24,000 jobs can be created in 2014 if the state takes part in the expansion.

While Republicans criticized Nixon's welfare expansion proposal, a slight opening emerged for agreement.

The Republican-leaning Missouri Chamber of Commerce endorsed the expansion, and the Senate's Appropriations Committee chair said he wanted to wait on a decision until he got more information from the administration.

"We support the expansion," chamber spokeswomen Karen Buschmann said. "While we do not support the Affordable Care Act, we are supporting this expansion as part of it. It is the law of the land. We do not feel that we should leave the federal money on the table."  

Under the Affordable Care Act, states must expand the Medicaid program to cover people with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty line. In upholding the federal law, The U.S. Supreme Court gave states the option to expand the program or not.

Under the expansion proposal, the federal government would foot the bill of expanding the program for the first three years. In 2017, the state would pay 5 percent of the costs and by 2020 the state would pay up to 10 percent.

"Congress passed it, the President signed it, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it. It is the law of the land," Nixon said during his series of news conferences in St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield.

Nixon's Republican critics charged the governor was expanding the state's largest welfare program, which already costs Missouri $8 billion a year.

"Overwhelming majorities of the legislature are opposed to this and will not go along with a gigantic expansion of welfare," Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder said. "I think those that do support it in the legislature are overwhelmingly outnumbered and that it will not come to a vote in either the House or the Senate."

House Speaker Tim Jones, R-St. Louis County, could not be reached for comment but said in a statement that he is concerned where the funding will come from for the Medicaid expansion.

"Now is not the time to put our state on the end of yet another big-government program that will only increase the burden on future taxpayers," Jones said.

A study commissioned by the Missouri Hospital Association and the Missouri Foundation for Health predicts as many as 220,000 Missourians would be eligible for the expanded program. Other studies, however, project as many as 300,000 people would be eligible in the state.

According to the University of Missouri study, the federal government would pay about $8.2 billion through 2019 while the state would spend about $332.9 million and about $100 million per year after 2019 to cover new enrollees. A report released earlier this week by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute projected the federal government's cost at $17.8 billion and with the state's share at $1.6 billion from 2013 to 2022.

Missouri hospitals are also advocating for the expansion, citing losses in federal payments that reimburse hospitals serving large numbers of low-income patients.

A provision of the federal health care law cuts Disproportionate Share Hospital Adjustment Payments (DSH) in half by 2020. Those federal payments go to hospitals that treat large numbers of low-income patients without health coverage. Missouri received the seventh highest DSH funding in the country in 2011.

Dave Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association, said Missouri hospitals provide $1 billion worth of uncompensated care in any given year.

Dillon said without the expansion, some Missouri hospitals may suffer when the reimbursement payments are cut. The expansion would allow those low-income patients without insurance to enroll in Medicaid, making DSH payments obsolete.

"If they disappear or are substantially reduced and we don't see an increase in Medicaid, or folks enrolling in an exchange, the hospital and health care infrastructure in the state will be significantly hurt by this," Dillon said.   

Editorial -- Respect the Peoples' Wishes on Minimum Wage Law

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce is planning to fight the proposed state minimum wage increase that will raise the rate from $7.25 per hour to $7.35 per hour starting in 2013. This is accompanied by the usual partisan posturing in which they claim that it will drive Missouri employers out of the state to states which do not have such an increase.

But the fact of the matter is that this is simply not true. Washington, with a similar law as Missouri's, has the highest minimum wage in the country, at $9.19 per hour yet their unemployment rate is no higher than the rest of the country. Another common argument against the minimum wage is that there would be inflation, yet we were able to buy groceries and other goods cheaper there than we can here.

What the Chamber of Commerce ignores is that when wages go up, people have more disposable income and thus spend more money on the economy -- to the very people whom the Chamber of Commerce says this will hurt.

The state Minimum Wage law was passed as a 2006 ballot initiative by the people of Missouri. It passed overwhelmingly, including in Worth County. The Chamber of Commerce says that they are going to work with the legislature to get it overturned. The problem with that is that they are ignoring the wishes of the people of Missouri, who passed this law overwhelmingly.

The Missouri legislature now has a veto-proof Republican majority. But here is the catch -- they have to use that power responsibly, or the people of Missouri will simply vote them out in two years time. If they wish to be able to maintain that sort of a majority, they must respect the wishes of voters even if it goes against certain special interests. The people of Missouri have spoken. The best thing that all parties can do is to respect the wishes of the voters and focus on other ways to open Missouri for business.

Missouri Chamber of Commerce plans to challenge minimum wage increase

(MDN News) -- Missouri's minimum wage will increase by 10 cents in 2013, but the state's top business organization is fighting the change.

The hourly wage is slated to rise from $7.25 to $7.35 next year because of a 2006 ballot measure approved by voters that ties the minimum wage to cost of living.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry's spokeswoman, Karen Buschman, said the minimum wage should not be tied to an indicator that automatically increases.

Buschman said the high minimum wage will drive businesses -- and the jobs they create -- to Missouri's neighboring states. Illinois is the only adjacent state with a minimum wage higher than $7.35 an hour.

"The last few years we have pursued legislation to try to disconnect the minimum wage from the mandates it is currently tied to," Buschman said. "We have been unsuccessful, but it will likely be part of our legislative priorities for the upcoming year."

Director of Missouri Jobs With Justice Lara Granich said the fear that businesses will suddenly flock to bordering states is unfounded.

"All the research shows that this does not bear out. That's just a scare tactic in the public today to try to keep the minimum wage down," Granich said.

Missouri Chamber of Commerce endorses Dave Spence for governor

(Missouri Digital News) -- The Missouri Chamber of Commerce is endorsing Republican Dave Spence in his bid to unseat incumbent Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

Citing Spence's business background, Dan Mehan, president of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, announced the organization is endorsing Spence.

Mehan said he thinks Spence is the best candidate for the job.

"That's what we need right now. We need to show the world and the global economy that Missouri's going to put on an aggressive push to be that place that employers are confident that they can expand their operation or locate in Missouri and that we're going to be absolutely pro-jobs and pro-business and friendly to those entrepreneurs out there that are going to pull us out of a sluggish economy," he said.

Nixon's campaign manager said in an email that Nixon has helped make Missouri's business climate one of the strongest in the nation since taking office.