FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Conn. – HB 5117, the bill being considered in the Connecticut State Legislature that would have required the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has been downgraded to what supporters now regard to be an ineffective piece of legislation. The provision that would have required labeling of all foods containing GMOs sold in the state was removed last Friday.

Activists rallied last week in support of CT HB 5117 to require the labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including Analiese Paik (center left) of the Fairfield Green Food Guide and Right to Know CT and Tara Cook-Littman (center right) of Right to Know CT.
Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Fairfield Green Food Guide

“Removing this provision left the bill absolutely meaningless,” says Tara Cook-Littman, a former New York City prosecutor and co-founder of Right to Know CT, a group dedicated to enacting legislation that would mandate labeling of all foods containing GMOs.

The bill would have been the first of its kind in the United States, according to Right to Know CT and other organizations trying to push for legislation, including the national non-profit, Just Label It. More than 40 other countries, however, including all European Union members, require labeling of foods containing GMOs, according to both groups.

As for who killed Connecticut’s bill, there is some disagreement. Supporters such as Cook-Littman accuse Governor Dannel Malloy of eleventh hour negotiations that resulted in the changes to the bill. “You have to look behind the scenes to understand what happened here,” says Cook-Littman. “If this bill had gotten in front of the house, it would have passed. But the governor and his lawyers ripped out the section that mattered, effectively usurping legislative power and the will of the people.”

A spokesperson for the governor’s office decided not answer any questions for this article, but instead redirected inquiries to a blog post, which indicates the legislature was responsible for the change.

Rep. Richard Roy, lead sponsor of the bill and co-chair of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee, indicated the governor's office was involved in the decision in his statement to the Fairfield Green Food Guide, “The labeling provision was eliminated from the bill due to fears that it opened the state up to a lawsuit. The attorneys for the leadership and governor’s office felt that the constitutional rights of Monsanto gave them the power to successfully sue the state."

According to Analiese Paik, founder of the Fairfield Green Food Guide and co-founder of Right to Know CT, “Eighty-five percent of House Representatives said they would support the bill with the labeling provision intact in a pre-vote tally. We know the change was not made because of a lack of support. But, the perceived threat of a lawsuit by biotech giant Monsanto overshadowed all of that.”

The fear of a lawsuit by GMO manufacturing agri-giant Monsanto--the self-admitted manufacturer of Agent Orange, used in herbicidal warfare by the United States military during the Vietnam war—against a state is not without precedent. Vermont is considering a bill similar to HB 5117, but progress has stalled. Supporters of that bill accuse legislators of caving to pressure from Monsanto. Last month for the New York Times, Mark Bittman wrote, “[A] Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official in Vermont that the biotech giant would sue the state if it dared to pass a GMO labeling.”

But what is all the fuss about anyway? Haven’t countless studies shown GMOs in food to be safe for human consumption?

“No way,” says Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, best-selling author, GMO expert and leading consumer advocate. “There is so much evidence to the contrary. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) published a position paper on this in which they recommended a moratorium on all GMOs.”

Supporters of the original bill are now looking to California, where efforts to get a GMO labeling ballot initiative lined up for popular vote in November 2012 have been successful. “If California goes,” says Paik, “then it will be a domino effect.”

“I want to be optimistic about California,” says Cook-Littman. “But after my experience in Connecticut, watching the will of the people be so utterly disregarded, it’s tough. We have to demand this. We’re not going to give up.”

HARTFORD — State Rep. Richard Roy may be retiring at the end of this legislative year, but he remained feisty Wednesday morning when he used his prerogative as co-chairman of the Environment Committee to kill legislation that would roll back the state’s ban on the use of pesticides on elementary school grounds.

During a brief meeting outside the hall of the state House of Representatives, the 10-term represesentative announced to lawmakers, lobbyists and staffers standing in a tight group that he would not call the bill for discussion. It amounted to a pocket veto, because without committee approval, the legislation died for this year.

While the inaction terminated the bill, Roy said he’ll be on the lookout for any attempts by the chemical and lawn care industries to revive it through the amendment process during the days leading to the General Assembly’s May 9 adjournment.

“ We have a couple weeks to go in session and I’m sure that the people who are very much in favor of using these poisons will find a way to get some amendments out there,” Roy said after the meeting. “ We’ve got to be alert to that.”

Roy said the current law prohibiting pesticides from lawn care products at elementary schools is a good one.

“It’s designed to protect children from having contact with these toxic chemicals,” Roy said.

“We’ ve done a lot of work over the years to get it in place, and it’s no time to turn our backs on Connecticut’s children.

I expect that supporters will develop some amendments and there are a number of bills they could attach it to. We’ll just have to be alert and be ready to fight it.”

Connecticut took the first step requiring producers to label genetically modified food Wednesday, as a Legislative committee overwhelmingly backed a measure promoted as giving consumers more information while avoiding the debate over health concerns.

The Legislature’s Environment Committee voted 23-6 to approve the measure, allowing supporters to prevail over opponents who said the measure would lead to higher packaging costs.

“It’s something that’s coming, and I think we can be in the forefront in helping shape how it’s done,” said Democratic Rep. Richard Roy, the committee’s House chairman. “Think of us as the mouse that roared.”

The federal government and states do not require labeling for all genetically modified foods. Connecticut is among nearly 20 states considering a requirement, with backers saying genetically engineered foods pose allergy and other health risks and that labels give consumers valuable information.

The state Department of Agriculture opposes the legislation, saying that the federal government is responsible for setting national standards and that Connecticut would be at a competitive disadvantage with other states if it alone sets standards.

Commissioner Steven K. Reviczky told lawmakers at a hearing in February that genetically engineered crops are researched and designed “with a whole host of benefits in mind,” such as drought resistance, reducing the need for pesticides and soil erosion, increasing production and driving down costs.

The Connecticut Farm Bureau also opposes the legislation. The group favors labeling when it’s necessary to protect health or inform consumers who have allergies, said executive director Henry Talmage. The federal Food and Drug Administration is responsible for food labeling, he said. “If you don’t like what they FDA is doing, take it up with the FDA,” he said in an interview. The FDA has said genetically modified foods pose no greater health risks than traditional foods. A spokeswoman says genetically modified crops must meet regulatory standards and possible voluntary consultation to ensure they are safe.

Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States have been genetically modified to resist pesticides or insects, and corn and soy are common food ingredients.

“I feel the federal government has turned its back on consumers and is more interested in helping the agriculture industry hide what is actually going into our food.” said Rep. Roy, House Chair of the Environment Committee. “In some cases, pesticides are inserted into seeds, genetically modifying the food we eat. You can’t wash out these pesticides, they’re there forever.”

The Environment Committee recently raised HB 5117, An Act Requiring the Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Consumer Protection would be responsible for label content and form.

GMOs are products that have been genetically modified at the cellular level to increase yields and resist disease. DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified genes.

Long term effects of GMOs on consumers have not been determined. GMOs are banned in five countries in the European Union, most recently Germany.

“Consumers have a right to know what is in their food,” said State Representative Phil Miller, Vice-chair of the Environment Committee. “When a parent buys fruit, they assume that they are bringing a natural snack home for their children, but that isn’t always the case these days. When we buy packaged foods, we can read the label and make an informed decision if we want to buy that product—so why shouldn’t parents know if fruit contains genetically modified ingredients?”

Types of foods that have been genetically modified include:

• Soy beans
• Corn
• Cotton seed oil
• Canola oil
• Sugar beets
• Alfalfa
• Milk with bovine growth hormone

“In recent years we’ve made tremendous progress in food labeling requirements, working to help consumers know what they buy and what they eat in terms of a comprehensive list of ingredients, nutrition information and vitamin content, and things to watch like sugar, fat, and calorie content,” Senator Edith G. Prague (D-Columbia) said. “I think this bill is consistent with that progress, to help consumers know whether and when the food they buy includes GMOs or has been subjected to any of these accelerated modification techniques.”

“Labeling of modified products is not new nor is it negative,” said Catherine Iaccarino, a concerned citizen who testified before the Environment Committee. “Labeling of milk that has been modified, for example, informs us if it is 2%, skim or lactose free. This is a simple request that Genetically Modified Organisms carry the label for which they are named GMO. It is a request to exercise our right of freedom of choice."

Rep. Roy hopes passage of this bill will allow Connecticut to become a national model for GMO labeling. GMO labeling legislation is also pending on the federal level and in Vermont, Washington and California.

There are no long term studies of the effects of GMO’s,” said Rep. Roy. “We’ll all be subjects of a giant experiment unless we’re made aware of what we are eating.”

The legislation asserts that municipalities retain the authority to enact and implement zoning laws that regulate safety issues, such as fire and traffic concerns, at solid waste facilities in their communities. Without this legislation, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection would have sole regulatory authority over these facilities with little local control over zoning decisions. This clarification allows applicants to be informed early in the process of all the conditions they will be expected to meet in order to construct or expand a given facility.

“I have been listening to concerns about this important issue during the last five years and was determined to find a solution to alleviate this burden not only for our town, but towns across the state,” Rep. Rose said. “This is an important step forward in helping us address our local issue and in allowing towns to regain local control over infringements on quality of life. I am pleased we were able to work on this in an expedited manner.”

"Defending the right to participate in regulating any solid waste operation within the community is critical to addressing health and safety concerns," said Rep. Roy. "If this court ruling were to stand, Milford and the other 168 municipalities in our state would have no ability to protect its residents."

“This was a Milford’s delegation teamwork effort,” said Davis. “I look forward to continuing to work to protect the interests of our community.”

Milford has been dealing with a local recycling firm seeking expansion approval for their waste facility.

The bill moves to the Senate Wednesday for consideration.

HARTFORD — Seven years after the General Assembly banned the use of pesticides around Connecticut’s elementary schools, an effort to overturn the law is getting some support from suburbs that claim their athletic fields are now crabgrass-strewn lots.

But during a public hearing Wednesday, the chairman of the Legislature’s Environment Committee joined ecology watchdogs in attacking the attempt to roll back the law.

Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, the veteran committee chairman who helped write the 2005 ban, said that the effort of some local public works officials and the lawn-care industry to end the synthetic chemical ban, is unwarranted.

While Roy admitted that no single pesticide or lawn chemical has been directly linked to ailments, the ban acknowledged the fragile bodies of children.

“ We don’t know just about any of the chemicals, but there is a huge mixture that is pouring into our environment daily,” Roy said.

“There is something happening throughout the environment and we’re trying to mitigate that as much as possible,” Roy said. “Every time you put the chemicals on the ground, some little 6-year-old boy is going to come rolling in it. I do hope that this bill fails.”

Other environmental activists noted that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that exposure of children to home and garden pesticides makes youngsters seven times as susceptible to leukemia and that chemicals are routinely tracked into schools on children’s shoes.

“ With so many unknowns and with plausible evidence of harm to children it makes no sense for our children to be involuntarily exposed to the unnecessary use of these toxic chemicals especially when there are safe, effective affordable alternatives,” said Bill Duesing, who runs the chemical-free Old Solar Farm in Oxford.

But municipal officials from Glastonbury, Madison and South Windsor claimed that without pesticides administered through Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocols, their athletic fields are becoming unplayable.

“The continued selective and judicious use of pesticides is needed and is only one tool required to maintain safe playing surfaces for student athletes,” said Raymond E. Purtell, Glastonbury’s parks and recreation director.

“It’s an expensive item to go back and redo fields,” said Matthew B. Galligan, South Windsor’s town manager, agreeing with committee members that the possibility of a compromise could arise during the legislative session, which runs through May 9.

HARTFORD — Consumers at Connecticut grocery stores would be able to know if genetically engineered foods are in the merchandise mix under a bill state lawmakers are considering to require the labeling of such foods.

Neither the federal government nor any state currently has a labeling requirement that applies to all genetically modified foods. Connecticut is among nearly 20 states considering a labeling mandate amid health concerns that supporters of the legislation have raised about such foods.

Connecticut's legislation would require clear labeling on any food sold in the state that is completely or partially produced with genetic engineering.

Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, said he introduced the legislation due to public concern over the issue. Roy co-chairs the state Environment Committee, which heard from supporters and opponents of the bill at a hearing Wednesday.

Roy said his bill has gained bipartisan support, and he expects the committee to pass it, although its fate after is unclear.

"We're not taking a stance on whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad," said Roy. "What we're saying is that we have a right to know what we're putting in our bodies."

Proponents of the legislation say that genetically engineered foods pose allergy and other health risks and that the labels will increase safety for consumers.

Analiese Paik, who runs the Fairfield Green Food Guide website and testified in favor of the labels, said that the Food and Drug Administration has yet to produce a scientific study on whether or not genetically modified foods are safe.

Paik pointed to a recent Canadian study that found toxins from genetically engineered corn circulating in the bloodstream of women.

"The burden of proof is on the FDA to prove that it's safe," she said.

U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman R. Andre Bell, said the USDA, FDA and Environmental Protection Agency regulate genetically engineered crops to ensure they are safe to eat and grow.

Opponents of the proposed legislation, including grocery stores and farmers, say they disagree with Paik's claims and argue that genetically engineered food has been long-studied and is proven to be safe.

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said in a statement that "a special declaration on the food label would...not provide any additional useful information."

FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said that genetically modified foods, as a class, pose no greater health risks than traditional foods. She said that genetically modified crops must meet regulatory standards and may undergo a voluntary consultation to ensure they are safe.

DeLancey said that while there are currently no genetically modified animal-based products on the market, they undergo substantial testing to ensure they are safe, as well.

She said the FDA has the authority to label products only when there is a material difference affecting things like nutritional values.

Henry Talmage, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau, said that adding labels to genetically engineered foods would be costly for farmers and complicate selling products over state lines. He said that organic and GMO-free certified farmers currently have the option to label their products as such, making the bill's mandatory label proposal redundant.

While the legislation looks to add labels, it does not require genetically engineered ingredients to be listed or identified. Additionally, the label would not be placed on foods from animals that were fed genetically engineered crops or fast food.

Under the proposed legislation, genetically engineered foods include any food that is unnaturally produced by altering genetic material.

Growing genetically engineered crops is attractive to farmers because they are modified to resist insects and tolerate herbicides. According to USDA data, the growth of genetically engineered crops has increased tremendously since their commercial introduction in 1996.

Between 1996 and 2011, growth rates for genetically engineered soybeans that are herbicide tolerant rose from less than 10 to 94 percent. Likewise, the rates for genetically engineered cotton and corn have risen around 70 percent across the board.

In recent years, many states have pushed to require clear labeling of genetically engineered products. Earlier this month, a California bill calling for labeling of genetically engineered salmon narrowly failed to pass a committee vote.

Connecticut is among 18 states that are considering labeling requirements for genetically modified foods, said Scott Hendrick, a spokesman for the National Conference of State Legislatures. He said Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire are among surrounding states that are currently considering similar legislation.

Although no states require all genetically engineered food to be labeled, Alaska has a law requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish, Hendrick said.

At the federal level, Congress is reviewing legislation in both the House of Representatives and Senate requiring labels on genetically engineered fish. The House is also reviewing legislation that calls for mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods.

Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was not immediately available for comment on whether or not he supports the legislation, his spokesman, Andrew Doba, said.

“Last Augusts’ Storm Irene caused tens of millions of dollars in property damage,” Speaker Donovan said. “Hundreds of homes received significant damage or were destroyed. Despite the severity of the damage, it would have been much worse had Irene hit the shore as a category 1 or 2 hurricane. We need to look at our policies to see if they are sufficient to meet the specific and unique needs of shoreline communities, residents and businesses.”

State Representative Richard Roy (D-Milford) attended the news conference and will be a member of the task force.

 “When homes are destroyed, we shouldn’t rush back to rebuild them.  We should work with real estate agents and builders to make sure when we rebuild it in a safer area than right on the beach,” said Rep. Roy. “The sand moves quickly. We need to be smart to save homeowners, the state and federal government’s money in repairs they pay for year after year.”

The task force, which will be chaired by State Rep. James Albis (D-East Haven), will also look at the impact of climate changes on efforts to preserve shoreline communities.

Rep. Albis said, “We know that sea levels are rising, and that many shoreline communities incurred significant damage during Tropical Storm Irene. Homeowners and businesses are still recovering. Any severe storm has the potential to cause mass flooding and damage to shoreline properties, and a hurricane of any magnitude could be extremely devastating.

The task force is charged with making recommendations to the General Assembly for legislation that will:

• Assist those still rebuilding and recovering from Irene
• Develop new policies that specifically address the unique needs of shoreline and waterfront residents and businesses with respect to shoreline erosion, rising sea levels, and future storm planning.
• Make sure new policies complement legislation that may be developed regarding emergency communications between towns and the state; utility company preparedness, response and accountability; and insurance issues.

Donovan said the Task Force will be made up of legislators from shoreline towns, and will include representatives and senators, Democrats and Republicans. It also likely will include others such as climate and land use experts. The group expects to meet with and hear from homeowners, business owners, shoreline municipal leaders, insurance company representatives, climate scientists, and others before making recommendations. The task force will begin meeting immediately. Its goal is to complete work and forward recommendations to the General Assembly in December 2012.

 “It is critical to support the cultural, artistic and historic preservation organizations so that they can achieve their goals and continue to add to Connecticut’s economic vitality and quality of life,” said Rep. Roy. “I’m pleased DECD included these worthy Milford groups.”

The Academy of Our Lady of Mercy on the campus of Laurelton Hall received a Historic Preservation Restoration Grant of $103,400. The grant provides assistance for the rehabilitation, restoration or stabilization of historic buildings and structures.

The Milford Fine Arts Council received a Local Arts Agency Grant of $8,450. The grant supports local/regional allies of DECD/COA and establishes a network of committed Local Arts Agencies helping to develop a statewide culture and tourism infrastructure to more effectively serve Connecticut’s citizens.

“This award honors me greatly,” said Rep. Roy. “A society is often judged on how they treat their veterans.  Having been involved with the VFW Local 7788 has meant a great deal to me.”

“I have been a member of the Ladies Auxiliary Devon Post 7788 for over eight years and currently serve as Jr. VP,” Rose said. “It is one of the most rewarding experiences anyone can enjoy. It is a great honor to be recognized and I thank the VFW for thinking of me.”

“The VFW recognizes individuals in the community those who go above and beyond their position or responsibility for the citizens of that community,” said Robert Paddock, Director of Local 7788. “At Post 7788 we recognized these individuals who have met and continue to meet these standards for the citizens of Milford

For more information: vfw7788.org

A Ledyard farmer has recruited powerful government allies in his drive to get Connecticut to become the first state to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

Robert Burns, an organic vegetable farmer who owns Aiki Farms on Shewville Road, spoke during a meeting Friday in Hartford chaired by state Rep. Richard Roy, co-chairman of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee. State Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, one of the committee’s two vice chairmen, also attended.

Burns wants genetically modified fruits and vegetables labeled, including foods shipped into Connecticut. The most important issue is “the public’s right to know,” Burns said.

Ledge Light Health District, a five-town Eastern Connecticut authority that includes Ledyard, has passed a resolution supporting the labeling. Burns is on Ledge Light’s board.

California is considering such labeling,  and congressmen from Maine and Vermont are supporting federal legislation known as House Bill 3553. Labeling efforts are being stymied nationally by St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto Co., Burns said.

“They’re big, they’re powerful and they come in hard and heavy,” Burns said to the Legislative Office Building gathering of 15 people.

The company doesn’t support labeling largely because of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s position, Monsanto says on its website. Spokesman Nick Weber confirmed the entry is the company’s position.

“The FDA has determined that where genetically modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops that products containing them don’t have to be labeled,” the website says. “FDA does require the product to be labeled if the ingredient is a potential allergen or somehow changes the nutritional properties of the food. To date, no approved biotech crop is either an allergen or has any significant nutritional differences from non-GM counterparts.”

Roy pledged his full support to an effort, although he doesn’t plan to seek re-election in 2012. He also was critical of Monsanto, saying it has a “hidden agenda.”

Roy, D-Milford, is trying to recruit Republicans to support drafting of a bill, which he expects to occur sometime in the next two weeks. Rep. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, attended the meeting, encouraging supporters to tailor their message as one of helping Connecticut small farmers and encouraging alliances with other New England states.

“This effort might push us to healthier foods,” he said.

Burns’ “right to know” message is the one most likely to resonate with the public, Maynard said.

“Keep it simple,” he said.

Details will be critical to whether the bill passes in the session that begins in February, said Henry Talmage, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau Association. The Windsor-based association supports labeling efforts, but at the federal level, he said.

New Haven, Conn. (WTNH) - Even though it's dangerous, many drivers still talk or text on their cell phones while driving.

Now, the feds say it's time for a serious crackdown on distracted drivers with a call to even ban hands-free devices.

The National Traffic Safety Board wants to put a ban on almost all electronic devices in the car that cause distractions, PDA's, cell phones and hands free devices. GPS devices would still be allowed.

Since 2005, there's been a law in place in Connecticut to stop texting while driving.

Last year, 3,000 people were killed as a result of texting while driving.

There were two very high-profile crashes that caught the NTSB's attention. A multi-vehicle crash in Missouri in 2010 where two school buses ended up on top of each other. Two people died and 38 were injured. Officers said texting and driving were to blame.

In 2008 in California, a train crashed after the engineer ran a red signal while texting. 25 people died in the crash.

Yet, people still continue to text and surf the internet while behind the wheel.

"People have got to communicate when they're on the roads," said Joseph Medina. "I definitely think it's safe to drive and talk with a blue tooth."

State Representative Richard Roy disagrees.

"The blue tooth only helps if you don't pay attention to what's going on there in the car, because the conversation that's what truly is a problem. It's not the device itself," said Roy.

Rep. Roy worked for seven years to get the state's cell phone ban in effect.

"I think we've got to make tougher penalties, stricter penalties," Roy said.

Connecticut State Police tell News 8 they're writing about 1,000 tickets a month to distracted drivers, a strong indication people aren't obeying the current law.

Representative Roy says as much as he's like to see Connecticut take the NTSB's recommendations for stricter electronic device rules on the roads, he says he doesn't see it happening anytime soon.

The NTSB does not have the authority to force Connecticut to do anything but their recommendations do carry weight.

State Rep. Richard Roy has certainly left his mark on Milford, and his absence, after he retires next year, will no doubt be noticed.

Roy has become a local celebrity, easily recognized for his white hair and white mustache.

A true gentleman, he will be remembered for a number of legislative initiatives, such as helping to establish the state’s ban on cell phone use and texting while driving, and his considerable work on numerous environmental initiatives.

He was a leader in efforts to prohibit the use of pesticides on school property, and to ban the use of questionable chemicals in the making of baby bottles.

He supported zero tolerance for underage drinkers who then drive, and he worked hard on efforts to properly label genetically modified products sold in the state.

A state legislator since 1992, he decided to retire next year, partly because redistricting puts him outside the 119th District he has represented so long.

Roy has done as much for his city as for the state. Locally, he has served on the Woodmont Day Committee for more than 30 years, three times as co-chairman. He is a former member of the board of directors of the Milford Chamber of Commerce and has been a member and past president of Milford Pride, a member of the Environmental Concerns Coalition, a former volunteer firefighter with the Woodmont Fire Co., an usher at St. Agnes Church, and a member of the parish’s St. Joseph’s Men’s Society.

He received the Milford Pride White Glove Award in 1992, Chamber Director of the Year Award in 1992, the Milford Arts Council Arts Advocacy Award in 1993, and the Environmental Concerns Coalition’s Vision of Milford Award in 1996.

He also received the Safety Leader Award from the National Highway and Auto Safety Council in 1995 and was named “Outstanding Legislator in Reducing Underage Drinking” in 2005.

The list goes on.

We salute Roy for all his hard work on behalf of Milford and state residents.

A key federal safety agency called Tuesday for a widespread ban on cellphones in cars that would go beyond Connecticut's current law.

If enacted by the states, the landmark ban being promoted by the National Transportation Safety Board would prohibit drivers from using hands-free devices and Bluetooth technology.

Connecticut currently allows the use of hands-free devices, but it passed its cellphone ban in 2005 after seven years of often-bitter debates at the state Capitol. The measure was bottled up in the Senate for years before lawmakers finally passed the bill. Some lawmakers said that driving with a cellphone in your hand was just as dangerous as trying to drive while eating a slice of pizza. The pizza, though, was not illegal.

Although the NTSB's proposal is not binding, the views of the national board have wide influence throughout the country.

Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, spent seven years trying to impose the ban. He succeeded multiple times in the state House of Representatives, but the bill was repeatedly squelched in the Senate. Lawmakers finally reached a compromise, and the law took effect under Gov. M. Jodi Rell in October 2005.

Roy strongly favors the move by the NTSB because he says that the hands-free devices are not safe because drivers are still distracted. Despite the cellphone bans, distracted drivers are still getting into serious accidents, he said. It's the conversation that is the problem, he said, not the technology.

Even the new technology that has the hands-free devices embedded in the car is not safe, he said.

"I'm delighted," Roy said of the NTSB's proposal. "The numbers are beginning to shock people a bit. Maybe now we'll get things done. Quite frankly, Congress in the past 30, 40 years hasn't done a lot in a bunch of areas. They've pretty much ignored it."

But Rep. Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven, who is among the longest-serving state House members in Connecticut, questioned whether a new law is needed.

"The NTSB should first worry about pilots who come to work intoxicated," said Dargan, the co-chairman of the legislature's public safety committee under the past four speakers of the House. "How many more bills do we have to do to teach common sense? Don't be putting on makeup. Don't drink and drive. Don't put eyeliner on. Just drive. C'mon."

Despite the increase in the use of hands-free devices, the number of cellphone violations and fines collected by the police in Connecticut has increased steadily through the years. Soon after the law took effect, the state collected $185,000 in fines in the first three months of 2006. That number exploded to nearly $1 million for the period from April 1 to June 30 this year. The increase in fines collected was more than five-fold as the number of offenses more than tripled, according to state records.

Influential lobbyists for the automobile industry and the cellphone companies have derailed various bills on the issue in Washington, D.C. Some lobbyists from those industries came to Hartford to try to block Connecticut's bill in 2005, but they were too late, Roy said.

The five-member NTSB lacks the authority to unilaterally impose the new regulations, but it could provide momentum for a ban at the state level.

The impetus for the proposed regulation was a massive pile-up in Missouri last year that killed two motorists and injured 38 others in an accident caused by a 19-year-old driver who had been sending text messages before the accident.

Overall, 35 states now ban the sending of text messages while driving. By comparison, fewer than 10 states have bans on cellphones, Roy said. Connecticut was the second state in the nation to enact a ban on handheld devices by drivers — four years after the New York State ban took effect in 2001.

Connecticut specifically bans texting, but Roy says the entire gamut is covered through the banning of driving while using handheld communications devices — a ban that would extend to any futuristic technology in cars. A 2010 law that specifically banned texting while driving was "feel-good" legislation, Roy contends, because such texting was already banned under the umbrella of communications devices.

"We're ahead of the curve," Roy said. "A lot of states are doing texting. They're not worried about talking. ... Most people think they can talk on the phone and it doesn't affect them."

Noting that drivers in states like Wyoming, Montana and Idaho do not want any restrictions, Roy said those states are a case of apples and oranges.

"There's a little difference between Connecticut and Montana," Roy said. "If you go off the road there, there's grasslands and maybe you'll hit a cow."

Reuters quoted NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman as saying, "When it comes to using electronic devices, it may seem like it's a quick call or a quick text or a tweet, but accidents happen in the blink of an eye. No emails, no texts, no calls. It's worth a human life."

Nationwide, according to U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, more than 3,000 motorists died in 2010 in crashes caused by distracted driving.

Despite the various moves by states, Congress has not passed a federal ban on texting while driving or using cellphones.

State Rep. Richard Roy, second from left, plans to retire at the end of his term. He is pictured here with
City Clerk Linda Stock, and Representatives Paul Davis and Kim Rose, during Milford's recent mayoral
inauguration. (Photo by Ralph Petitti)

State Rep. Richard Roy (D-Milford) has decided not to seek re-election following the completion of his 10th term at the conclusion of 2012.

Roy’s decision follows the release of new House district lines, which left him outside the 119th district he currently serves.

House Chair of the Environment Committee, Roy was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1992.

“My wife and I have been discussing the possibility of not running again for many months,” Roy said. “The results of the redistricting effort just made my decision easier.”

Recently redrawn House districts lines have Roy residing outside the newly configured 119th district come January of 2013. The new 119th district will be comprised of a section of north-central Milford and a portion of Orange.

“Dick Roy has served the people of his 119th District with distinction for 20 years,” said House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan (D-Meriden). “He has made important contributions to Connecticut as chair of the legislature’s Environment Committee, and he has worked tirelessly with legislators from across the country to set policy and direction on issues involving agriculture, the environment and energy. His professional and effective presence will be missed in Hartford.”

Roy plans to spend more time with his family and grandchildren and will continue advocating for environmental causes, specifically the fight against toxic chemicals.

“The chemical industry needs to change the way it does business and develop less toxic products,” Roy said. “I will continue to fight that fight on behalf of Connecticut residents.”

“My wife and I have been discussing the possibility of not running again for many months,” said Rep. Roy. “The results of the redistricting effort just made my decision easier.”

Recently redrawn House districts lines have Rep. Roy residing outside the newly configured 119th district come January of 2013. The new 119th district will be comprised of a section of northcentral Milford and a portion of Orange.

Some of the important issues highlighting Rep. Roy’s career include:

• Establishing Connecticut’s ban on cell phone use/texting while driving
• Prohibiting the use of pesticides on school property
• Banning BPA from baby bottles and receipts
• Zero tolerance for under age drinkers who then drive
• The effort to label GMO (genetically modified) products in the state

“Dick Roy has served the people of his 119th District with distinction for 20 years,” said House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan (D-Meriden). “He has made important contributions to Connecticut as chair of the legislature’s Environment Committee, and he has worked tirelessly with legislators from across the country to set policy and direction on issues involving agriculture, the environment and energy. His professional and effective presence will be missed in Hartford.”

"Dick Roy has many accomplishments as a tireless champion for driver safety by banning cell phones and texting while driving and protecting natural resources as Co-chair of the Environment Committee. His contributions to the safety and well-being of our state and it's residents will have a lasting impact far into the future," said House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden). "Dick has been a devoted advocate for Milford constituents and the entire shoreline area during his years of distinguished service as State Representative."

"I have had the pleasure of working with Representative Roy for four terms. He has served with distinction and always kept the best interests of his constituents, our community and Connecticut foremost is his mind,” said State Representative Paul Davis (D-Milford, Orange, West Haven). “His leadership and dedication will be missed by our Milford delegation and the entire legislature."

“I have known Dick for many years and was fortunate to work with him in the legislature. His experience and encouragement helped me and inspired me tremendously during my freshman year. He is a true professional and hard working individual whom I had the opportunity to work with on several issues on the Environment Committee. I will surely miss him in the legislature and wish him all the best in his future endeavors,” Rep. Kim Rose (D-Milford) stated.

Rep. Roy plans to spend more time with his family and grandchildren and will continue advocating for environmental causes, specifically the fight against toxic chemicals.

“The chemical industry needs to change the way it does business and develop less toxic products,” said Rep. Roy. “I will continue to fight that fight on behalf of Connecticut residents.”

State lawmakers are raising new concerns about Department of Energy and Environmental Protection staffing after a new audit concluded that the former administration allowed millions of dollars in federal funds owed Connecticut -- some dating to 2001 -- to go uncollected.

The same audit also found that the former Department of Environmental Protection improperly wrote off nearly $2 million that the emergency spill response program should have received in the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years, and failed to report another $3 million in losses by assigning responsibility for 575 cases to unidentified parties.

But an administrator at the new Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a realigned energy and environmental watchdog agency created last spring, said Monday that the department has made "significant progress" addressing these concerns with a new, streamlined accounting database.

"Certainly I would like to see more people in the department," Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, House chairman of the Environment Committee, said Monday. "We've expressed our dismay at the lack of enforcement personnel in the past. But I think the staffing in general eroded over a long time and we can see that's a problem."

"This was a major wake-up call for me," said Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Branford, the Environment Committee's other co-chairman.

Meyer, who introduced legislation last year that would have mandated minimum staffing levels for environmental protection permitting and enforcement tasks, said lawmakers must discuss increasing DEEP staff during the 2012 session, which starts in February.

"This is an agency that has been decimated in many ways over the decades by attrition, early retirement incentive programs and other cuts to staff," Meyer said.

With 942 positions in 2010, staffing reached its lowest level since 1987, when the department employed 964, according to Meyer's office. Dennis Thibodeau, chief of administrative services at DEEP, added that the agency's staff, excluding those assigned to energy planning or regulation functions, currently totals 1,002.

The state Council on Environmental Quality, a small environmental watchdog agency, reported in 2008 that the then-DEP's budget -- adjusted for inflation -- and staff levels, matched those of the mid-1970s.

The council's executive director, Karl Wagener, said that while he wasn't familiar with the concerns raised by state auditors about DEEP, "I do know that they don't have enough staff to do everything they need to do."

One of the chief concerns raised by state auditors John Geragosian and Robert Ward involves the department's responsibility to "draw down" or collect federal funds the agency already has qualified for in connection with various programs. In many cases, state funds initially are spent and then reimbursed with federal money.

There is always a lag time between the steps in that process, but the auditors found that between the 2008 and 2010 fiscal years, more than $7.1 million in state funds were spent while the corresponding federal payments were not obtained.

Further review showed that certain programs, such as a regional trails initiative, still hadn't recovered federal money due as far back as 2001.

For three years in a row, DEP staff had made no progress in reducting the gap in 24 different programs, the auditors noted. In nine of those 24, the gap had not changed for five years.

"Lack of attention to this area caused the above conditions," Geragosian and Ward wrote.

In a written response to the auditors, DEEP administrators did not contest the finding, but noted that the agency must track "126 active grants across nine federal agencies all of which are unique."

Thibodeau, the agency's chief of administrative services, said legislators' concerns about decades worth of inadequate increases in staff and other resources are valid. "That's absolutely fair," he said. "But we are prioritizing what we need to address immediately."

And though Thibodeau didn't provide specific numbers, he said, "we have really made significant progress" since 2009 to reverse its backlog of uncollected federal funds using a new, streamlined accounting database.

State environmental staff also oversee an emergency spill cleanup program and must try to recoup funds from any individuals or businesses held liable for those spills.

The DEP reported in 2008-09 that the program was due $22.3 million. But nearly $3 million of those funds, involving 575 cases or 13.3 percent of the entire program caseload, "had no identified responsible party," the auditors wrote.

"Since DEP did not have anyone identified to collect the receivables from or enforce a claim against, there was no enforceable legal claim," they said.

Thibodeau said this problem stemmed from a misunderstanding between the department and the auditors regarding its reporting requirement, and that this won't happen under the new accounting system.

But, in their written response to the auditors, DEEP officials also raised concerns about their ability to process these claims.

"The agency understands the importance of immediate collection action in order to improve collection success but also it should be noted that additional time is warranted to complete the necessary review process," DEEP officials wrote.

If a claim is not paid after 120 days, the department refers the matter to the attorney general's office for lien purposes or additional collection action.

The auditors found that claims had been reduced by nearly $1.9 million in total during the audit period by "unauthorized write-offs."

According to the audit, environmental protection staff routinely exclude interest and penalty charges from damage cost assessments when submitting claims to the AG's office. But during the audit period, $1.9 million in interest "was not added back into account balances" afterward by DEP staff once the reviews were completed.

"DEP would have recognized these adjustments and made corrections if reconciliations had been performed," they wrote, concluding that problems with the emergency spills account developed because "management had not identified this as a high priority."

Lastly, auditors also found that the department struggled during the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years to monitor grants of state funds awarded to municipalities or private entities.

State law requires a written review on the use of each grant that's more than $100,000.

A sample of 23 grant awards were reviewed by the auditors. In some instances inspection findings were not documented and in no cases had those reports been read or reviewed by department authorities.

"Noncompliance may go undetected and uncorrected," Geragosian and Ward wrote. "The department had assigned a low priority for the review of ... reports received."

Among the revisions being discussed by the newly formed General Law Committee work group charged with leading the overhaul is a new question that would require home sellers to state whether they are aware of any hazardous materials on the property.

Currently, the form doesn't specifically ask homeowners to divulge to buyers whether hazardous materials are present on a residential lot.

Though there isn't a specific question about toxins on the disclosure form, it requires real estate agents to tell buyers about anything on the property that could affect its value. And beyond the disclosure form, sellers must answer truthfully, to the best of their knowledge, any additional questions a buyer might have about the property. The problem is most homebuyers don't know to ask about hazardous materials. And real estate agents may not know about it to disclose it to buyers.

More than 40 states have a disclosure form with a specific question about hazardous waste. Connecticut isn't one of them.

A hazardous materials disclosure would particularly benefit residents in Stratford, where more than 100 homes are part of a federal Superfund site.

Homebuyers here have found it's no simple matter to learn whether there's a history of toxicity associated with a property.

Nearly a dozen residents interviewed by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers who moved into Stratford homes since the government declared them toxic dump sites said they were not told their properties are tainted by hazardous waste. If they had known, many said they never would have moved in.

State Rep. Laura Hoydick, R-Stratford, said the Environmental Protection Agency needs to work harder and faster to remediate the contaminated land here. But she said adding a hazardous waste disclosure to the disclosure form would benefit potential home buyers in the interim.

"It's heart-wrenching to see people who have invested so much in the purchase of their home and then see them find out that there is hazardous waste there they didn't know about," Hoydick said.

She added, "I really think it's fair that if you're going to invest money into a home -- which in most people's lives is their primary, largest purchase -- I think you should know if there's any toxicity there."

State Rep. David Baram, D-Bloomfield, chairman of the eight-member legislative work group, said he favors the idea of adding a hazardous waste disclosure question to the form as a means of encouraging sellers to remediate any known contaminates before putting a property on the market. A specific question about toxins would also help alert buyers to the possibility that a property could have a history of contamination and prompt them to investigate further, he said.

Tom Swan, executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said he strongly supports a hazardous waste disclosure to ensure purchasers know what they're getting when they buy a home.

"I will admit that I'm shocked we haven't passed this legislation yet," he said, "and I will commit to working actively to make sure that homeowners and their families have access to information about hazardous waste on their properties and in their communities."

Drawing on suggestions from the Legislature's Regulation Committee, members of the work group -- three real estate professionals, four attorneys and Baram -- compiled a master list of items they want to add or amend to the form at its initial Oct. 4 meeting.

In addition to the hazardous waste issue, Baram said the group has discussed adding a question to the form requiring sellers to state the age of a structure to alert buyers that older homes may need repairs and could contain asbestos or lead paint.

The group is also considering raising the fee a seller must pay a buyer if he or she wishes to avoid filling out the form from $300 to $500.

"We agree that if the form is too complicated and too long, it will lose its value to the buyer and it may deter sellers from completing it," said Baram, who practices real estate law in Bloomfield. "But we're not shying away from additional questions that we think are critical in the disclosure process."

Eugene A. Marconi, a work group member who serves as general counsel for the Connecticut Association of Realtors, said it's important to strike a balance between settling for a form that's too weak to protect buyers and one so long and complicated that it deters sellers from filling it out.

State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the Environment Committee, said he is "100 percent in favor" of adding a hazardous waste disclosure to the form. "If there's a dump or toxic waste issue in the neighborhood, I think buyers should be aware of it," he said. "And if the toxic waste issue is on the property they're looking to buy -- even more so."

But Roy questioned the impartiality of a work group whose members are revising a document that could affect their livelihood. "What concerns me a little bit is you have real estate people who are going to protect their income and lawyers who are going to protect their income. How much are they going to protect the buyer and the seller?

"I think they should have people with knowledge of the problem and who can raise questions that would not affect their work. It's like asking the fox to protect the hen house, it seems to me."

Roy said he would also like to see someone with an environmental or science background join the group.

Baram said members of the work group were chosen for their familiarity with the disclosure form.

"Interestingly," he said, "the real estate agents and groups that have participated in this review do favor better disclosure because it actually takes some of the liability off the agent. Rather than be put in situation where the real estate agent is the bad guy making a disclosure that could be detrimental to their client or to the sale of the property, they prefer that it be made directly by the seller on the form."

Baram said the group aims to solidify it's recommendations at its planned Nov. 28 meeting. Members will then vote and, eventually, its recommendations will be presented to the legislature during the upcoming session.

Legislation being introduced by state Rep. Richard Roy (D-Milford) to require clearer labeling of food products that contain genetically modified organisms could prove costly to produce distributors.

The legislation failed in the Connecticut General Assembly this past session, but when it is resubmitted next session, Rep. Roy said he expects the bill to require distributors to be responsible for the labeling before products are offered for sale.

GMOs are organisms that have been genetically modified at the cellular level to increase yields and resist disease. They are most often found in produce, but processed foods can also contain GMOs. One of the concerns about GMOs is that the long-term effects on consumers have not been determined. Five countries in the European Union, most recently Germany, have banned them, due to the “threat to the environment.”

Opponents say consumers ought to have the right to know if the genes in their food have been modified.

Robert Burns of Aiki Farms in Ledyard, who supports GMO labeling, held a conference to educate legislators on the topic earlier this year. He said the public needs to be better informed.

“The public is angry,” Burns said. “This is a national movement to label. People are outraged that they’re not given the right to choose. Foods produced through GMOs entail different risks than their counterparts.”

Roy said he learned about the issue through contact with folks in the environmental arena.

“We ask them to list the ingredients and the percentage of daily requirements, how much fat, sugar and salt (are in the food),” he said.

Roy said the industry doesn’t want to label any GMOs, arguing GMOs have not been proven harmful.

“Labeling is going to cost them a few extra dollars,” he said. “If GMOs were beneficial, they should be using it as a selling point as opposed to hiding it. When people start to hide stuff, the reason is never good.”

Daniel E. Batchelder, outside sales manager at FreshPoint, a produce distributor based in Hartford, said the legislation would have to be very specific about what is considered genetically modified.

Batchelder added that any costs associated with such legislation would eventually reach the consumer.

“From a distribution point of view, anything that adds cost to the movement of product adds costs to customers, so the bottom line is, if they’re requiring us as a distributor to label everything, that’s a cost that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer,” he said.

Batchelder said FreshPoint deals with many farms and growers across the country, which would also be affected by required labeling.

“We’ll have to say, ‘You’ll have to label the product or we can’t buy your stuff,’” he said. “I think that will have a negative impact on many farms across the country.”

Batchelder said he thinks all large-scale distributors would do the same thing, asking farmers to take care of the labeling on their end.

“We take in a product and we ship it out,” he said. “We try not to put our hands in the box as well.”

While Roy concedes it may be difficult to ever see a full list of ingredients in any food product, he is hoping to educate the public.

“I hope it gets people more aware of what’s out there,” he said. “If we can get people interested in what’s in their food, changes will come about, driven by the market as opposed to law and regulation. We have enough laws and regulation.”

Roy said he expects shoppers to decide not to purchase certain products if they know they contain potentially harmful ingredients.

“In the long term, we won’t have to pass laws or demand they do certain things,” he said. “The marketplace will determine what happens with suppliers and growers. I think that would be a better track to take.”

Emily Brooks of the Edibles Advocate Alliance said defining a GMO gets quite complicated. There are many ways products can be genetically modified including harmless natural processes, making any legislation requiring labeling complex.

General consumer misunderstanding about genetic modification could make the language of proposed legislation very slippery and leave open gaping loopholes that may not be in a consumer’s best interest.

She said the question of who should pay for such labeling is a good one to ask.

“Right now, consumers have to pay with misinformation,” she said. “We’re paying with our dollars. These products may be more expensive to conceive but, with ill-defined definitions and labeling loopholes the resulting products become cheaper to mass produce. Most still advocate for GMO’s under the flag of the Green Revolution, but the reality is that the Green Revolution hasn’t increased overall food production yields world-wide or decreased food insecurity in any country.”

A recent report by Union of Concerned Scientists titled “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops,” showed that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields while only driving up costs for farmers.

“Requiring the labeling of GMO’s with the proper legislation coupled with adequate consumer understanding is probably one of the most important things we can do to protect small and medium-sized farmers,” Brooks said.

Roy said since the legislation will need to be re-introduced next year, it’s not definite yet, but he expects to put the labeling responsibility on the distributors.

“The distributor is the spot where we think it would probably be least onerous, but they would also be able to watch and monitor what’s happening,” he said.

Roy said he envisions the system working like the bottle law, which has distributors handling five-cent deposits.

“I would hope that if there is a better system out there that we will come across it, or we will devise one,” he said.

Roy concedes it’s not yet known what the legislation will look like when it’s finished being crafted.

“We are looking at what other states are doing as well as developing our own proposal and campaign for passage,” he said. “At this point, we do not have a definitive piece of legislation nor a complete roadmap from here to there.”

According to the website SayNotoGMOs.org, no state has passed a law to date requiring GMO labeling.

Joe Ruffini, part owner at Northeast Produce Inc., a Plainville tomato distributor, said although he hasn’t seen the legislation, there are too many unanswered questions about what would be required to have a label at this point.

He said anything that puts additional costs on distributors is a burden in an already tough economic climate.

“It’s just an added expense,” Ruffini said. “We’re already being bombarded with food safety costs, higher insurance rates and just the increased costs of doing business.”

Cori Griswold of North Granby, a consumer concerned about GMOs, said what she has read about the potential dangers has her paying more attention to what she puts in her shopping cart.

“The more I learn about GMO, the more I buy organic,” she said. “I don’t think the public realizes how pervasive GMO has become in our food supply, and I definitely don’t believe the public knows about the studies out there.”

A 2010 study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences indicated that agricultural company Monsanto’s genetically modified corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

“I’ve seen surveys that say most people want to know if their food is GMO,” Griswold said. “I’d like to think it would lead to significantly different buying choices.”

The goal of the legislation is to jump-start job creation and foster long-term economic growth. Incentives for small business, cutting red tape, incentives for innovation, economic development tools and workforce development and training are all addressed in the bill.

One of the key components of the legislation is the Small Business Express Package which will make $50 million/year available to small businesses through incentives, grants and loans.

“Small business is the foundation of our state economy,” said Rep. Roy.

Another vital component is aligning programs at vo-tech schools, community colleges and universities, including Yale University, with high demand job needs of employers, like the state’s manufacturing technology companies.

“The inclusion of Yale University is a boon for local employment,” said Rep. Roy. “Yale’s west campus at the former Bayer site on the Orange/West Haven town line adjacent to Milford, will provide additional employment as research work there expands. We and our neighbors stand on the threshold of a bright and prosperous future.”

Other components of the jobs bill include:

• Consolidating and increasing the tax credit for new hires
• Incentivizing investments in emerging technology (Angel Investors)
• Building innovation centers in key cities and investing in innovative ventures
• A second “First Five” program
• Cutting the business entity tax
• Streamlining the business permitting process
• Remediating old industrial sites/brownfields
• Computer upgrades to foster seamless communication between business and the state
• Workforce development, education and training
• Allowing the Airport Authority to designate new Development Zones
• Investments in roads and bridges
• Replenishing the Manufacturing Assistance Act (MAA)
• Main Street commercial centers improvement initiative

In addition, the legislature signed off on Jackson Laboratory’s plan to build a $1.1 billion research facility at the UConn Health Center campus in Farmington. The State of Connecticut will invest $291 million and Jackson Laboratory will raise the balance of $860 million for the project.

According to the state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), the project is expected to create over 660 positions at Jackson Laboratory in Farmington within 20 years. DECD estimates more than 4,600 bioscience jobs would be generated through spin-off companies, and another 2,000 would be added to local service and area retail stores. The project would yield more than 840 construction jobs as well.

State Senator Beth Bye (D-West Hartford), who championed the bill in 2009 along with many of her legislative colleagues including state Senator Ed Meyer (D-Guilford), state Representative Lonnie Reed (D-Branford) and state Representative Richard Roy (D-Milford) held a press conference at the Legislative Office Building today to celebrate the new law and discuss the importance of continuing the dialogue of comprehensive chemical policy reform.

Senator Bye, one of the initiative’s strongest advocates in the General Assembly in 2009, said, “Consumers have been demanding BPA-free baby products, and now manufacturers -- in responding to Connecticut's new regulations -- are poised to provide BPA-free containers nationwide. We have the strongest BPA ban in the country and all businesses have complied. This new law shows that one state can have a huge effect on public health.”

State Senator Edward Meyer (D-Guilford), Senate Chair of the Legislature’s Environment Committee agreed with his senate colleague and added, “Connecticut residents will be safer because this toxic chemical has been banned.”

Eight states including Connecticut have passed laws banning BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. These states are Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. California’s legislature also just passed a ban that is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature. Connecticut’s law was the first to also ban BPA in infant formula containers. Vermont is the second and only other state with such a broad ban.

Senator Meyer’s Environment Co-Chair, state Representative Richard Roy (D-Milford) said, “"I want to specifically thank Sarah Uhl and Anne Hulick for leading the effort to pass this ban," said State Representative Richard Roy (D-Milford), House Chairman of the Environment Committee. "This ban on BPA is another major step for our country in removing toxic chemicals from our environment. I appreciate the steps being taken by the chemical companies to comply with these laws, but more needs to be done."

“I am proud to be among the Connecticut legislators who voted to lead the nation by banning BPA from baby bottles and other children’s food containers. We did it in a rational and responsible way, giving companies time to find safe substitutes," said State Representative Lonnie Reed (D-Branford) "This law serves as a model for the country and sends the powerful message that we must keep fighting to protect not just our children, but all consumers from toxic products that are harmful to health and development.”

Joining the lawmakers at the event was Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut (CSHC) – a driving force behind efforts on the state and federal level to eliminate dangerous chemicals from everyday products. CSHC Coordinator Anne Hulick, RN, MS, JD said that a growing number of its members are concerned parents, particularly mothers, who want to protect their children from the many illnesses, such as cancers, reproductive disorders and learning and behavioral disorders that are linked to dangerous chemicals – like BPA.

She added, “I wish I could say that as of tomorrow Connecticut’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens are safe from the harmful effects of dangerous chemicals, but I can’t. We need to continue to stay the course of eliminating toxic chemicals from the products we use everyday – with thousands of chemicals in commerce and only a fraction of them tested for safety – it’s more important than ever that we work together on comprehensive reform.”

Hacah Boros, a mother and a nurse, said that toxic chemical reform, such as this ban on BPA, is so important to the future of our children’s health. She added that it is a comfort to know that her government has taken a step to ensure the safety and well being of her child, “As a mother, time is limited and life is very busy. Even for someone like myself, educated in health and science, it is very difficult to know what products are safe to use--even when you know what to look for. To read through the ingredients of products to pick out the unsafe chemical (among a long list) is exhausting and very few parents have the time to do so. I have talked to many parents who are frustrated and overwhelmed, and feel like they are unsure how to protect their children from these hidden toxins. Toxic chemical reform is long overdue. I am so proud of CT for being at the leading edge of this reform!”

“Toxic chemical reform is important to me and my family, because we should be able to trust the products on the shelves in our stores,” said H. Shiyrah Suplita, a concerned mom who attended the press conference. “We use the most toxic chemicals on the smallest, most vulnerable humans and it really needs to stop. I shouldn’t have to worry if the shampoo I am buying now is going to affect my son’s health. He will have enough to worry about with all of the chemicals that already exist in his body and in the environment. Let’s stop adding to that and protect our kids!”

The Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut is a growing partnership of citizens and over 50 organizations working for safer alternatives to toxic chemicals. The Coalition represents health professionals, workers, nurses, businesses, environmentalists, occupational safety advocates, people of faith, and individuals whose health has been impacted by toxic chemicals.

George Aftamonow, Mayor James Richetelli Jr. and State Rep. Richard Roy
lead Saturday's dedication ceremony at the Woodmont library.

“This was her baby,” George said as more than 100 friends and city officials walked through the small Woodmont Library, which now bears the name Ellen Aftamonow Woodmont Volunteer Library.

“It didn’t matter what she was doing, if someone called about the library, she’d run over,” George said. “If someone couldn’t find a book, or didn’t know how to do something, she’d be there.”

Ellen was the library director — a volunteer position — for many years, having taken over the post from Ellen Austin.

Austin was at the dedication ceremony Saturday afternoon in Woodmont, and said it is more than fitting that the library bear Ellen Aftamonow’s name.

“There were a few of us who kind of spearheaded the library after the city decided to close it,” Austin said.

“Ellen was one of them.”

Austin was the first library director, and Ellen Aftamonow became the second director.

Austin, with support from other Woodmont residents, spoke up when the city decided to close branch libraries in the early 1980s. She managed to get the Borough of Woodmont to take over the library and fund and staff it.

“I was in the right place at the right time,” Austin said, pointing out that her husband was warden of the Borough of Woodmont and she was not working at the time.

Like other people who knew Ellen Aftamonow, Austin said she was a phenomenal person who gave much of her time to the library.

State Rep. Richard Roy was one of several speakers at Saturday’s rededication ceremony, and he remembered Ellen Aftamonow as a great volunteer, and a great neighbor.

“On a day like today,” Roy said, “Ellen would carry her love of books and reading to her favorite reading room — her back yard. We look forward to this library staying here a long time with the name Ellen Aftamonow above it.”

The library is located in the old Fannie Beach Center on Dixon Street, in a space that housed the school library when the building was the Fannie Beach School.

There is a children’s section, complete with popular children’s books, and an adult section that offers magazines, DVDs, best sellers, and books on tape.

It’s small and it’s quaint, and it’s staffed entirely by volunteers, but this local amenity provides a handy service.

“A branch library is a community place,” said Milford Public Library Director Jean Tsang, praising all the people who have worked to make the Woodmont Library a reality over the years.

Aftamonow died last October at age 69, after more than 20 years leading the volunteer staff that keeps the Woodmont Library going.

The Borough of Woodmont supports the library with taxes that Woodmont residents pay directly to the borough.

The borough provides $6,000 in annual funding, and there is occasional “scratch money” from donations, said Susan Kopsco, who is the new library director along with her co-director, Katherine Patrick.

It is the only all-volunteer library in the state.

Kopsco said the sizable turnout for a library dedication on a beautiful late-summer afternoon was because Ellen Aftamonow had a lot of friends.

“She was very active, and not just here but with the Historical Society. She was a lovely person,” Kopsco said.

A toxic chemical that health advocates say is linked to cancer will be banned in cash-register receipts in Connecticut, thanks to a recently passed law.

Bisphenol-A, commonly referred to as BPA, has made its way into a variety of products, including cash register receipts and plastic bottles. Health advocates say people's exposure to the chemical is widespread.

State lawmakers have banned the chemical from baby bottles by enacting a law that takes effect in October. Lawmakers then looked for other products using the chemical, and found it's widely used in receipt paper.

The Environmental Protection Agency has composed a plan of action for the chemical, saying there are questions about BPA, while environmental and health advocates say it has been linked to cancers and reproductive disorders.

Pregnant women may have particular concern about the chemical. Animal studies show effects in fetuses and newborns exposed to BPA, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed the legislation banning BPA in receipts into law earlier this year. The move will ban the sale or distribution of receipts containing the chemical by October 2013, giving businesses two years to switch to an alternative.

It's unlikely consumers will notice a difference in their receipts when the ban goes into effect, but the move may cost retailers.

BPA can be used on special thermal receipts that replace traditional ink printing by using a process that uses heat to form words and numbers on the paper. In theory, that makes the thermal receipts cheaper to print because ink isn't required.

On receipts, the chemical comes in the form of a powdery film that can rub off and be absorbed through the skin, according to environmental advocates. Because it's easily transferable, people are often exposed to the chemical, according to multiple studies.

State Rep. Richard F. Roy, D-Milford and co-chairman of the environment committee, was one of the proponents of the legislation. Roy said the chemical has a deleterious effect on the body's endocrine system, especially in children.

"We had banned it in baby bottles and toys for toddlers because the first thing they do is put in their mouth," Roy said. "It took a long time to find out this was an issue."

Advocates are concerned about the amount of BPA cashiers are exposed to when they handle hundreds of receipts per day.

The EPA states that 1 million pounds of BPA are released into the environment each year.

A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found BPA in 93 percent of 2,517 urine samples from people 6 years and older, according to National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Washington Toxics Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, conducted a study of receipts laden with the chemical and found that many contained BPA; 95 percent of the $1 bills they tested also contained the substance.

As part of the study, laboratory tests were conducted on receipts taken from 22 stores. Half of the receipts contained BPA, including those taken from Shaw's, Sunoco and Safeway, according to the study. Trader Joe's, Home Depot and Sears were using BPA-free receipts, according to the study.

Some distributors are offering BPA-free receipt tape as an alternative to paper rolls containing the chemical.

But as Roy put it, stores used plain paper receipts in the past.

"We can go back to it," he said.

It was once considered a brilliant, environmentally friendly solution to a disgusting and ever-growing Connecticut problem. Three decades later, the quasi-state agency created to turn our trash into energy has a reputation pockmarked by mismanagement, accusations of corruption and political influence, costly court battles and claims it's polluting the air poor children breathe.

One environmental group in Hartford is now demanding the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority shut down part of its last garbage-burning plant, accusing it of contributing to the city's sickeningly high (41 percent) rate of childhood asthma. A 2009 state report showed Hartford children age 4 and younger had higher rates of emergency room asthma diagnoses than for any other Connecticut city.

CRRA officials insist there's no scientific evidence to back up those claims, argue their mid-Connecticut plant in Hartford is "one of the cleanest in the country," and warn cutting the plant's capacity by one-third would leave Connecticut finding some way to get rid of 250,000 tons of trash a year from nearly 70 communities.

Some critics believe the CRRA is on its last legs. They say increased recycling will leave it with less garbage to burn, which means the trash-burning plant will be able to produce less energy, and that modern technology and more efficient private industry will soon put the agency out of its misery.

The 20-or-so people who staged an anti-asthma demonstration outside Hartford City Hall last week claim the CRRA and Connecticut are incinerating far more garbage and putting far more pollutants into the air than necessary. According to Claire Miller of the Toxics Action Center, Connecticut is burning 66 percent of its garbage, a rate she says is the highest in the nation. The CRRA's Hartford plant is the fifth-largest trash incinerator in the U.S. and it's putting nasty crap like dioxins and mercury and nickel into the city's air, Miller claims.

"It's not that they are the cause of asthma in Hartford," Miller says, "but that they pollute things that contribute to asthma." She says increased recycling and composting should make burning garbage "a last resort."

CRRA spokesman Paul Nonnenmacher insists there are no facts to back up such claims. And he asks what else Connecticut would do with all that trash coming in from municipalities across the state.

He argues his agency is already pushing towns hard to recycle. Composting up to 14 percent of all this state's garbage is possible, he says, except nobody wants a composting facility in their backyard. The CRRA's effort to open a new landfill in the rural eastern Connecticut town of Franklin was a political no-go. Trucking that much refuse to Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania or even Ohio would create traffic headaches and more pollution.

A big chunk of the CRRA's trouble today is that too many people remember its history. Not long after it started up in the late 1970s, the agency's Bridgeport garbage-to-energy plant kept exploding. There were endless complaints from towns that its disposal costs were too high. The topper was the agency's absurd $220 million deal with Enron, a scheme engineered by one of then-Gov. John G. Rowland's chief henchmen. When Enron went belly-up, the CRRA deal imploded, and the repercussions helped bring down Rowland's felonious administration and left the trash agency with a permanently scarred image.

There were stories about its high-paid executives, the four state lawmakers who were on its payroll at one point, including one — former state Sen. Tom Gaffey — who pleaded guilty to misusing state money. (Gaffey's still a CRRA official.)

Michael Pace, who came in as chairman nearly 10 years ago to help get the CRRA back on its feet, agrees that the "cumulative effect" of that scandal, court battles over distributing the $111 million that was eventually recovered, and ongoing contract problems continue to haunt the agency.

Pace is first selectman of Old Saybrook and he's planning to retire from his no-pay CRRA post at the end of this year.

He says poor decisions made decades ago cost the CRRA control of its plants in Bridgeport and Wallingford. Pace believes much of the criticism leveled at the agency today is coming from "other entities ... that are looking at the CRRA and seeing what pieces they could take." But he says there's a future for the agency he helped revive, insisting it can help solve Connecticut's trash issues and save taxpayers money.

That's not the opinion of state Rep. Dick Roy, co-chairman of the legislature's Environment Committee.

Roy says the quasi-state agency's days are numbered, and that its tasks are soon likely to be taken over by some private operation that's "perhaps run more efficiently and without the politics the CRRA has been involved with over the years."

“There are 7.4 million gallons of paint sold in Connecticut each year and 10 percent of that goes unused. Thankfully, we now have a cost-effective program for disposing the 740,000 left-over gallons in a safe way that will not harm our environment,” said Roy, House Chairman of the Environment Committee.

90 percent of Connecticut homeowners who responded to a state survey claimed they have unwanted paint in their households and 20 percent of those have more than 10 containers of paint. More alarming, half of the respondents said they have never used a household waste collection program to get rid of the paint.

The new law (PA 11-24) is a result of an initiative by the American Coatings Association allowing a non-profit organization representing the industry the ability to collect a nominal fee to be used for the recovery and recycling of architectural paint.

Following approval of regulations by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the program is expected to be running by July 1, 2013.

In 2008, it was calculated the cost of disposing leftover and unused paint in Connecticut at hazardous waste collection locations was $620,000. It is estimated the recovery cost involved in this new program will be a fraction of that number, specifically 75 cents a gallon or $1.60 for 5 gallons. Latex-based paint not brought to hazardous waste collection sites results in increased tipping fees for municipalities when containers are just placed in the trash after drying out.

Types of paint products that can be covered under the program include:

• Oil based paint
• Latex based paint
• Deck coating
• Waterproof sealers
• Primers
• Varnish
• Stains
• Shellac

Under the program, recycling drop-off locations will be established at certain paint retail centers and possibly at other businesses.

NEW HAVEN - Towns and cities in Connecticut may be able to ban pesticide use on private properties if environmental activists in Connecticut can convince state legislators.

The environmentalists would like to see a reversal of a 1983 law that prohibits municipalities from passing stricter lawncare pesticide regulations than the state government has.

As a general rule of thumb, Connecticut towns have the right to pass custom regulations as long as they are at least as strict as the state's. But pesticides, like tobacco and a few other products, are protected from local crackdowns. Forty-two other states also prevent local governments from passing stricter regulations on pesticides, said Nancy Alderman, president of Environments and Human Health.

She led a meeting of like-minded environmentalists on Wednesday at Yale University to decide what the anti-pesticide agenda should be for the next legislative session.

State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, and state Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford, who co-chair the Environment Committee, were at the meeting, as well as state Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport.

While the activists are pushing for stricter measures, the pesticide industry's agenda will be to get rid of the ban altogether, Roy said.

Many pesticides can pose a risk to people, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Some pesticides may affect the nervous system, while others may affect hormone production, the agency says. Some pesticides may be carcinogenic.

Greenwich has a moratorium on pesticides on any town-owned grounds where children might be present. But a reversal of the existing law would allow towns to also ban lawn-care pesticides on private lawns. The activists propose exempting agricultural uses and personal gardens so the law has a better chance of passing.

They would also like to mirror some of New York state's pesticide laws enacted in the past year, specifically one that requires insect or rodent bait to be in a tamper-resistant container. A provision in current pesticide laws allows the use of certain banned pesticides if they are used as bait, said Jerry Silbert, executive director of The Watershed Partnership in Guilford.

The state also currently bans some pesticides that are actually non-toxic, like plant extracts that attract insects to traps, Silbert said. Another such pesticide is boric acid, which is commonly found in eye wash. He said he would like to see Connecticut copy New York and make those pesticides legal.

Pesticides cannot be used on day-care center or elementary school grounds. Environmentalists would eventually like to see that ban extended to high schools as well, but the existing laws have gotten a lot of push-back from groundskeepers, who say organic methods do not work, Silbert said.

Many pesticides can pose a risk to people, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Some pesticides may affect the nervous system, while others may affect hormone production, the agency says. Some pesticides may be carcinogenic.

On June 9 of this year, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to ban the harmful chemical BPA from register receipts. This bill was passed largely due to the efforts of Representative Roy, who co-chairs the Energy & Environment Committee. The bill was passed in dramatic fashion on the last day of the legislative session with bi-partisan support, at 10:30 at night, and was later signed into law by Governor Malloy.

Representative Roy credits the hard work of the committee in passing the BPA bill. "The committee is made up of good people who care about the environment, who care about what happens to people, and what the chemical industry is doing to our environment."

BPA in register receipts is of particular concern to environmental advocates because it is in the form of a fine powder, which means it can easily rub off onto the skin and various surfaces, and 40% of receipts have been found to have BPA5. Hundreds of scientific studies have tied BPA to health concerns including reproductive issues, miscarriage, diabetes and obesity, cancer, behavioral impacts in young children, and brain development.

Connecticut had already passed a law banning BPA in infant formula containers, baby food cans or jars and reusable food and beverage containers, which will go into effect on October 1, 2011. Representative Roy thinks that the education process required to pass the original BPA ban helped to get the BPA-in-receipts bill passed. In a recent interview, he said, "With the original ban in place, I think that the members of the legislature were familiar with the term BPA and knew it was bad stuff. We didn't have to go through that education process."

Much of the opposition to the BPA-in-receipts bill had to do with budget questions, which were addressed partially by compromising and pushing out the effective date of the law until 2015. It is generally accepted that there will be a safer alternative by this date. Though, it should be noted that a couple of large retailers – Kroger and Ikea – have both declared intent to stop using receipts with BPA this year. Representative Roy says, "We had to convince people that it wasn't going to cost more money or break the budget. By pushing out the effective date, we took care of some of the budget problems that really would have caused problems for business. They should be thinking about what applications are going to come along that make this a safer issue."

Representative Roy's motivation for pushing state toxics reform comes from the desire to see a safer environment for the residents of Connecticut, and for parents and families:

“We just want a clean environment. We want people to be able to get up in the morning and breathe deeply and feel good about it. We want little boys to be able to get out in the yard and tumble on the grass without any concern. We want people to be able to buy products that are safe and don’t pose a risk to their families.”

Like Senator McCormack, Representative Roy also credits the state-level environmental groups for doing much of the heavy lifting regarding research into toxic effects. "The Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut has been a tremendous help. They have marshaled resources and brought forth much of the research that we were able to use. My hat goes off to them."

Save the Sound, a program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment, along with a slew of politicos from U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal to Environment Committee Co-Chair Representative Richard Roy (D-Milford) and Audubon Connecticut, released the findings of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s 2011 Testing the Waters report.

The annual report examines national water quality and beach closings data for 2010, breaking down the information state-by-state and beach-by-beach. This year, Connecticut saw an increase in beach closings and advisories in 2010 to 143, a 32 percent increase from 2009.

“While Connecticut has taken massive strides to improve water quality recently, the tide has not yet turned,” said Leah Schmalz, director of legal and legislative affairs for Save the Sound.

“The number of beach closures and advisory days in Connecticut rose significantly last year and we tumbled to 24th in the nation for the number of bacteria tests exceeding national beach standards,” Schmalz said. “The writing on the wall is clear: we cannot rely on the whims of weather cycles to ensure our beaches stay open, we must stay vigilant and be proactive.

“If we want to enjoy our coastline, eat local seafood, and promote tourism along the shore, rain or shine, we must curb pollution at the source—investment in the state’s Clean Water Fund is solution number one,” Schmalz said. “Thankfully the governor and General Assembly committed significant resources for the next two years, but sustained and consistent funding in years to come will decide whether the citizens of Connecticut will have the clean water they deserve.”

The great majority, 66 percent, of beach closures and posted advisories reported in 2010 were due to stormwater contamination, a condition that can be mitigated through investment in sewer infrastructure upgrades and stormwater management techniques like green infrastructure and landscaping. Sewage leaks or spills, wildlife and unknown sources of contamination account for the remaining 34 percent of beach closures and advisory days.

“This report serves as a stark reminder that we must provide communities in Connecticut with the resources and tools they need to protect our precious natural resources— especially the Long Island Sound,” said Senator Blumenthal. “Limiting the damaging effects of stormwater runoff and pollution is essential to preserve our beaches and wildlife so that they can be there for us and future generations.”

“During the past 20 years, our municipalities and the state upgraded old sewage treatment systems and installed new ones. Mother Nature, however, delivered record-breaking amounts of rain and snow this past year, taxing all our storm and sewage systems and causing localized and statewide damage,” said state Rep. Richard Roy. “The results left our beaches in bad shape and the waters polluted to the point that public health was put at risk.”"

The report showed that in 2010, 11 percent of all reported beach monitoring samples in Connecticut exceeded the state’s daily maximum bacterial standards. New London County had the highest exceedance rate, 15 percent, following by Fairfield County, 11 percent, New Haven County, 10 percent, and Middlesex County, 10 percent. The beaches with the highest exceedance rates included:

NEW LONDON COUNTY
Kiddie’s Beach- 54%
Green Harbor Beach- 45%

NEW HAVEN COUNTY
Branford Point Beach- 28%
Anchor Beach (Merwin Point)- 22%
Pent Road Beach- 20%

FAIRFIELD COUNTY
Shady Beach- 24%
Long Beach (Marnick’s)- 24%
Long Beach (Proper)- 22%

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Town Beach (Clinton)- 21%

CT Environmental Headlines spoke with Leah Schmalz about the situation:

How do the “weather cycles” you mention affect the health of the water at our beaches?
“Right now it is predominately the amount of rain that dictates how much pollution we will have, and in turn if the water quality from our beaches meets or fails testing standards. This is the case because in many communities, stormwater runoff picks up all of the fertilizers and wildlife waste it encounters on the way to the stormdrain and deposits it right into the nearest watercourse (like Long Island Sound); in other communities the stormwater mixes with raw sewage and is discharged into the Sound, or its tributaries, completely untreated. But we can curb nonpoint source pollutions by acting locally and we can stop raw sewage discharges by funding the Clean Water Fund, as the governor and General Assembly has vowed to do.

What can *we* as residents of a coastal state, do to help prevent the pollution that causes the beaches to close after heavy rains?
Residents can practice Sound-lawncare by minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use, going organic, and installing green infrastructure–like rain barrels, rain gardens, and green roofs–around the home. And in New Haven, they have the unique opportunity to support the creation of a stormwater authority!

Do you know of any good examples, currently or historically, of communities taking beach pollution into their own hands and stemming that tide that you talk about in the press release?
The freedom lawn effort in Milford is a corollary, though it is centered on pesticides, not the bacteria issues that close beaches. But really, New Haven’s attempt to begin a stormwater authority is a perfect example of a municipality trying to do the right thing by its water quality and its residents.

Rep. Roy supported placing labels on products in Connecticut that contain GMOs, allowing residents the ability to discern and choose whether or not to purchase GMO items. The legislation did not get enough votes to pass through the committee process this year.

“I look forward to continuing the effort to make this law in Connecticut,” said Rep. Roy, House Chair of the Environment Committee. “The federal government has turned its back on consumers and is more interested in helping the agri-business industry hide what is actually going into our food.”

GMOs are products that have been genetically modified at the cellular level to increase yields and resist disease. DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified genes. Long term effects of GMOs on consumers have not been determined. GMOs are banned in five countries in the European Union, most recently Germany, due to the “threat to the environment.”

Among the ideas discussed at the conference was the goal of creating a legislative forum in the fall to discuss the issues surrounding the use of GMOs and what options are available to Connecticut as a state.

HARTFORD - Connecticut Wednesday essentially banned BPA from thermal register receipts, often used by retailers, gas stations and banks.

"We've discovered that 60 percent of our thermal receipts contain BPA. Since the chemical is unbound, it rubs off on our hands and enters our systems," said Rep. Lonnie Reed, D-Branford, who led the discussion in the state House, where it was debated for four hours.

Once signed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut will be the first state to ban the chemical in paper receipts when it goes into effect in 2015.

Bisphenol-A or BPA is a proven endocrine disruptor — meaning that BPA mimics human hormones. The BPA on thermal receipt paper is unbound, readily transmitted to hands and absorbed through human skin, where it is recognized by the body as estrogen. The subject of numerous studies by those in the scientific community, BPA has been strongly linked to breast and prostate cancer, reproductive disorders, diabetes, obesity and hyperactivity and developmental problems in children.

"Connecticut is yet again providing first-in-the-nation policy advances that will better protect the health of families and workers from exposure to BPA found in most receipts," said Dr. Mark Mitchell, president of Mitchell Environmental Health Associates. "We hope that this new BPA law helps propel efforts to move forward with the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which will update our federal chemical policies as well."

"This is one more important step in removing toxic chemicals from our environment," said state Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, House chairman of the Environment Committee. "It is incumbent upon us to do all we can to clear our living spaces, especially for workers and our children."

With the clock ticking on the last day of the legislative session, the House unexpectedly spent close to four hours debating the bill, which hadn't been especially controversial throughout the legislative process. The Senate passed it on a consent calendar just two days earlier. Before that, it passed the General Law Committee unanimously and the Environment Committee 21-6.

Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford, said Republicans were likely questioning the bill extensively to kill time in an effort to prevent Democratic bills from being raised.

The Senate had already amended the measure to address the concerns of Republicans in that chamber, he said. The bill was changed so that rather than banning the substance by 2013, businesses would have until 2015, he said.

Meyer said it was important the legislature passed the measure since studies have shown the chemical to be highly toxic.

"The obstruction of this bill is strongly against the public interest," he said.

Republicans offered a strike-all amendment that would have replaced the bill with a call to establish a study of the chemical, which was rejected 52-94.

“We are taking responsibility for Connecticut’s energy future with this legislation,” said Rep. Roy, House chair of the legislature’s Environment Committee. “We are clearly moving to cleaner energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and have successfully balanced our energy needs in a way that recognizes the impact on rate payers. We have included goals for lowering rates in all aspects of our planning process.”

In its major components, the legislation:

• Creates the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)
• Creates the Clean Energy Finance & Investment Authority to leverage private capital for clean energy projects
• Improves electricity contracting and procurement procedures to lower rates
• Orders a study of electric market rules and their effect on higher rates
• Supports zero-emission and low-emission technologies
• Establishes a one-stop-shop to proactively reach out to businesses and consult with them on available programs and reducing their energy costs

The broad aim of Senate Bill 1243 is to lower Connecticut’s energy costs and electric rates (amongst the highest in the nation), while moving the state toward clean and efficient energy. The bill seeks to help create the industries, jobs and businesses necessary to facilitate this kind of transformation in Connecticut, and then export those products, technologies and services elsewhere in the world.

The bill, having passed both the House and Senate now goes to the Governor who is expected to sign the bill.

Read a fact sheet on Senate Bill 1243.

“This is one of the most important pieces of legislation this year. The fact that it received unanimous bipartisan support shows that we can work together and achieve concrete results that will help create and retain manufacturing and technology-based jobs for the long-term,” said Rep. Roy. “Incentives and a strong network between investors, academics and the state can transform Connecticut into a center of innovation that can be a magnet for entrepreneurs, talented people and great ideas to take root.”

The goal of the legislation is to jump-start job creation in the state and lays a foundation for long-term economic growth. Incentives for entrepreneurship and innovation, investments in manufacturing and education are all contained in the bill.

The legislation is an outgrowth of the Majority Leaders’ Job Growth Roundtable initiative that was led by House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden) and Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney (D-New Haven). In addition to lawmakers, the roundtable was made up of academics, economists, labor and business leaders, and venture capitalists.

Specifically, the Job Growth Roundtable’s recommendations reflected in HB 6525 include:

• Investing in business growth – Positions Connecticut to be an innovation leader by driving technology-based economic development and manufacturing reinvestment.

• Student loan reimbursement for green tech degrees - Students can qualify for up to $2,500 or 5 percent of annual tuition for 4 years.

• A manufacturing reinvestment fund - Expands and protects manufacturing base through new tax-preferred account where machinery, equipment or facilities can be purchased. Up to $50,000 can be used by 50 manufacturers with 50 or less employees for up to 5 years to reinvest and grow their businesses. Account disbursements are taxed at only 3.5 percent.

• An innovation network created in government – DECD will organize technology leaders and entrepreneurs, to increase the state’s innovation competitiveness using incentives and financial support to strengthen the bond between universities and industry. In partnership with federal research funds, increases corporate-sponsored research and establishes an innovation accelerator linking universities, corporations to start-up technology companies. Strengthens technology transfers and entrepreneurship activities at UConn and links angel networks and incubators.

“There are 7.4 million gallons of paint sold in Connecticut each year. 10% of that total is leftover or unused,” said State Representative Pat Widlitz (D-Guilford, Branford), who negotiated the bill and lead the effort to pass it on the House floor. “This program will save our towns money, cost less than the current hazardous waste collection process and insure the proper disposal and recycling of unused product in an environmentally appropriate manner.”

In 2008, it was calculated the cost of disposing leftover and unused paint in Connecticut at hazardous waste collection locations was $620,000. It is estimated the recovery cost involved in this new program will be a fraction of that number, specifically $.75/gallon and $1.60/5 gallon. Latex based paint not brought to hazardous waste collection sites results in increased tipping fees for municipalities when containers are just placed in the trash after drying out.

Types of paint products that can be covered under the program include:

• Oil based paint
• Latex based paint
• Deck coating
• Waterproof sealers
• Primers
• Varnish
• Stains
• Shellac

Under the program, recycling drop-off locations will be established at certain paint retail centers and with the potential for future businesses established to recycle or properly dispose of paint products.

“This is another step in the effort to rid Connecticut of toxic products in our environment,” said State Representative Richard Roy (D-Milford), House Chairman of the Environment Committee. “Similar to the successful electronics recycling programs now gaining popularity, states like Oregon, California and now Connecticut are leading by example.”

“This common sense approach to recycling paint is great for the environment, for town budgets and for consumers who will find it more convenient to safely and legally dispose of all those cans of leftover product that seem to pile up in our homes and garages,” said State Representative Lonnie Reed (D-Branford). “Representative Pat Widlitz deserves our gratitude for her extensive negotiations with the paint industry to create a bill that earned our unanimous support.”

Following approval of regulations by the DEP, the program is expected to be running by July 1, 2013. The bill heads to the Governor for his expected signature.

MILFORD — Talk of a boardwalk connecting Walnut Beach and Silver Sands State Park first surfaced in 2003.

After eight years of starts and stops, the $2.4 million boardwalk is complete. More than 100 residents and officials gathered at Walnut Beach for a ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday morning.

Two driving forces behind the project, Walnut Beach Association President Joseph Garbus, and former state House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, said they could not believe the project was finished.

State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Daniel C. Esty, during his remarks, quipped that Amann said he’s been pushing for the project since he was 28 years old.

“Jim Amann’s not 29 anymore,” Esty said, while adding this project is a “long time coming.”

State and federal funds for the project were first approved in 2006, and construction almost started in 2008, but nests of piping plovers, a species of bird protected by state and federal regulations, were found in its proposed path. The project had to be redesigned, and when the country fell into a recession there was talk the money may be rescinded, but local pressure prevented that from happening.

The boardwalk is a total of three-quarters of a mile, which is one of the longest, continuous boardwalks in the state. The new walkway is two-thirds of a mile and connects to the existing Silver Sands boardwalk, which is 600 feet.

Esty said the boardwalk is handicapped-accessible and is made of high-tech composite materials, which will last a long time. There is also fencing in some areas, which is designed to protect the piping plovers.

Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said numerous residents have called to say how much they enjoy the new boardwalk. Richetelli praised Amann, former state Sen. Winthrop S. Smith Jr., R-Milford, former state Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford, and Garbus for ensuring the project became reality.

The mayor said the boardwalk will be good for Walnut Beach’s economy.

“We have a vibrant Walnut Beach artist colony,” Richetelli said. “People can come down and visit the arts gallery, grab an ice cream cone, and go to one of the restaurants. It’s a real destination spot.”

The contractor for the project was LaRosa Building Group LLC of Meriden, and the engineer was BSC Group of Glastonbury. The project was administered by the state Department of Public Works.

“This is going to be the biggest hit on this section of the shoreline,” said lifelong resident Ralph Harrison. “I hope it brings economic benefits.”

James Winkelman, who lives in Laurel Beach, said Garbus deserves a lot of credit for ensuring the project did not fade away.

“We’re all just tickled,” Winkelman said. “We all come down here every day. It’s a great thrill.”

Garbus said he is “so overwhelmed” the project is completed.

“The vision is coming through. The federal, state, city and grass-roots community were all instrumental in pushing for all of this,” Garbus said. “I’m very happy to bring back the Walnut Beach community that came back from hard times. It finally happened.”

A low-level legislative committee has quietly killed a proposal to require that Connecticut consumers be informed the foods they are buying have been genetically modified.

The idea of labeling genetically modified (GM) foods is looked upon with horror by the food industry and agricultural-industrial giants like Monsanto, which produces most of the GM seeds planted in this country. Organic farmers and pro-natural food activists say people are becoming increasingly conscious about where their food comes from and that they have a right to know if has been genetically modified.  Earlier this year, the GM labeling proposal was attached to another bill and approved by the General Assembly's Environment Committee, which sent it on to the state Senate for action. The Senate bounced it back to the General Law Committee.

General Law isn't considered one of the legislature's powerhouse less influential panels but lobbyists often find it useful for killing legislation passed by other committees.

"General Law has a habit of doing things like that," state Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, said of the rejection of the genetically modified labeling proposal he sponsored. "We've seen a number of bills, not just Environment's, run into trouble in General Law. We can look for some additional places for an amendment," added Roy, referring to the legislative tactic of reviving legislation that's been killed by attaching a new version to another bill.

'Or we can gather our thoughts and our forces and try to do it again next year.'

Roy says he doubts he can muster enough support to push the GM food labeling legislation through this session but hopes he can at least keep the debate alive for the future.

The NCSL Environment Committee is one of 12 standing committees of the National Conference of State Legislatures responsible for state and federal natural resources legislation, regulations and policies. Its goal is to educate Congress and federal agencies as to state concerns regarding these issues and serve as a forum for legislators and legislative staff to learn about and share information about options being considered in other states. The NCSL uses these polices as guides to advocate at the national level.

“Few issues are as important to me as the environment” said Rep. Roy. “As a former vice chair of this committee, I look forward a continued exchange of ideas and bringing them back to Connecticut.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures is a bipartisan organization that serves legislators and staffs of all states, commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and advocate for the interests of states in the American federal system.

 “Rep. Roy’s state legislative experience will allow him to represent Connecticut well as he undertakes this exciting challenge,” said Speaker Donovan. “I am confident Rich’s work on this committee will strengthen the work of the NCSL while protecting Connecticut's environmental interest at the national level.”

Letting Connecticut consumers know if the food they're buying has been genetically modified seems like an innocent enough idea. After all, U.S. government experts say it's safe, the agri-industrial giants say it's safe, and so do the food manufacturing conglomerates.

So why do you suppose everyone is expecting an all-out legislative Blitzkrieg to be waged against a little proposal in Connecticut's General Assembly to require labeling of genetically modified foods?

“Anytime you step on somebody's toes, you're going to stir up a hornet's nest,” explains state Rep. Richard Roy, the Milford Democrat who attached the labeling proposal to a bill that came out of the legislature's Environment Committee last week.

The toes in this case belong to some of the biggest, baddest agricultural and food industry players in the world. And the reason they don't want products labeled as “genetically modified” is they know more and more consumers are worried about their food and how it's produced.

“Consumers increasingly want to know what's in their food,” says Colin O'Neil, a policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. “And the companies want to give out less information, not more.”

O'Neil says bills similar to Connecticut's genetically modified (or GM) food labeling measure have been repeatedly introduced in other state legislatures and in Congress, and have been blown away by the combined lobbying power of the food, agricultural and biotechnology industries.

According to O'Neil, agricultural and biotech companies have spent more than $500 million since 1999 on lobbying, and much of the effort was designed to promote GM products and to prevent consumers from being informed about what is being done to create that food.

Estimates of how many of the products purchased every day in American supermarkets that involve some sort of genetic modification range from 40 to 70 percent.

Karen Batra, a spokesperson for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, says 93 percent of all soybeans grown in the U.S. and 86 percent of all corn raised here come from biotech-engineered seeds.

That means that nearly all of the high-fructose corn syrup in sodas and cereals and hundreds of other products comes from genetically modified corn. Most feed eaten by beef cattle, dairy herds, pigs and chickens in this country comes from crops that have been genetically changed to resist weeds and pests and the chemicals sprayed on crops.

Japan and the European Union prohibit the growing and sale of GM crops and their use as feed for animals intended for human consumption. (The one exception in Europe seems to be potatoes that are used in industrial processes. Who knew we even needed industrial potatoes?)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates GM crops and animals, have repeatedly declared there is no real difference between GM foods and conventional foods. (That $500 million in lobbying cash probably had nothing to do with massaging those federal regulators' opinions.)

Batra says her organization “supports the current U.S. labeling system” approved by the federal government, so there's no need to bother telling people their food isn't the same as it used to be.

“Biotech ingredients don't need to be labeled because it's been determined by the government and scientific organizations that there's no compositional difference between biotech foods and their conventional counterparts,” Batra says.

In fact, she adds, putting a GM label on food would be “misleading consumers into believing there is a difference,” and that would be bad.

That argument, according to Bill Duesing, is the equivalent of genetically modified bullshit. “We're in the middle of this great unmonitored experiment,” says Duesing, the executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association. “You don't know what you're eating, what's genetically modified and what isn't.”

Duesing says the revolving door between agri-conglomerates like Monsanto, which produces most of the GM seed used in the U.S., and the federal government has been spinning for decades, with Monsanto execs becoming regulators and regulators going to work for Monsanto.

(A spokesman for Monsanto declined to comment for this story.)

“It's a really powerful industry,” Duesing says of the combination of agricultural, food and chemical corporations involved in GM crops and food.

O'Neil says the labeling regulations were the result of “backroom discussions” between federal officials and representatives of the agricultural and food industries back in the mid- to late-1990s. “Consumers feel they were left out of those discussions and that decisions were made behind their backs,” he says.

The Food and Drug Administration is now considering allowing genetically engineered salmon (which opponents have tagged as “Frankenfish”) to be marketed without any distinction from other farmed salmon. Two U.S. House members from Washington and Alaska have introduced legislation in Congress to either ban the Frankenfish outright or require it to be labeled as “transgenic” if sold for human consumption.

AquaBounty Technologies, the Waltham, Mass., company that has created the genetically altered salmon, says their fish would grow larger and faster than other salmon and thus help save wild salmon stocks.

All this is happening at a time when the fastest growing sector of the food industry involves organically grown crops and meat. Despite this trend, Batra argues her industry isn't worried about people shying away from GM products.

“I don't think it would necessarily discourage people,” Batra says of labeling GM products. She says most organic food is bought by “an elite social class that has the money to pay a premium” for their food.

Batra points out that GM or biotech food is a lot cheaper to grow than organic crops and animals, which means a better deal for consumers. And genetically engineered products can actually be “made safer and more nutritious” than organic or conventionally grown food, she argues.

Roy, who is co-chair of the environment committee, has a feeling this labeling bill will run into a stone wall of opposition. Another similar measure was shunted into legislative oblivion earlier this year, which led Roy to try the end run of attaching it as an amendment to another bill.

State Rep. Len Greene, a rookie Republican from Seymour, was one of five committee members who voted against the GM labeling measure. “It's going to be a large cost associated with this for business,” he says. “I didn't think this was a necessary or wise policy decision in this economy.”

Even if this proposal goes down to defeat (as Roy and activists like Duesing and O'Neil fully expect) its advocates insist this will at least open a much needed debate about what's in our food.

“I think this is probably the start of a long battle,” says Roy, who adds that he isn't at all discouraged by the prospect.

“This isn't the United States of Monsanto yet,” says Roy.

The CSG Environment and Energy Committee works with state officials from 19 Eastern Regional Conference member jurisdictions to develop innovative energy and environmental policies dedicated to safeguarding the region's natural resources.

“Serving on regional and national committees on various topics with legislators from other states expands one's knowledge of those issues while giving us the opportunity to determine what other legislators are doing and what they think of our approaches,” said Rep. Roy.   Sharing information and ideas leads to better, more efficient and economical legislation.”

The Energy & Environment Committee is composed of more than 100 state officials from all levels of government. The committee meets 2-3 times per year to exchange ideas for effective legislation and programs, and to foster a cooperative, non-partisan approach to forging regional strategies to address common energy and environmental concerns.

“Rep. Roy’s state legislative experience will allow him to represent Connecticut well as he undertakes this new challenge,” said Speaker Donovan. “I am confident Rich’s work on this committee will not only benefit our state, but help ensure the continued support for the environment.”

Established in 1933, the Council of State Governments is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that provides information, research, and training to state officials in all 50 states and U.S. territories to promote region-wide initiatives, facilitate inter-branch cooperation, advocate on state-federal issues, and educate policymakers and the public on regional priorities.

“These intersections are an important link between Interstate 95, Milford Center and points east and west,” said Rep. Roy. “I applaud Governor Malloy on his leadership in approving this upgrade”

The work involves operational improvements such as turn lanes, new signals and road repaving. Traffic delays are expected to be minimal and during daylight hours. Selection of the project by the Department of Transportation was based on traffic volume, condition and need.

“The state has, for too long, neglected our transportation infrastructure, leading many of our roads and bridges to languish in woeful need of repair,” said Governor Dannel Malloy. “These types of strategic investments will bring our aging system into the 21st century so it can be part of the equation to attract businesses to our state.”

“The original plan required the taking of private property, but was scaled back after unanimous neighborhood objections,” said Rep. Roy. “The current plan squares off intersections to provide safer sight lines for drivers.”

“I look forward to continuing the effort to make this law in Connecticut,” said Rep. Roy, House Chair of the Environment Committee. “I feel the federal government has turned its back on consumers and is more interested in helping the agriculture industry hide what is actually going into our food.”

The Environment Committee recently passed SB 1116 with an amendment requiring labeling of GMOs. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Consumer Protection would be responsible for label content and form. The bill now moves to the House floor for potential referral to other committees or a vote.

“In some cases, pesticides are inserted into seeds, genetically modifying the food we eat,” said Rep. Roy. “You can’t wash out these pesticides, they’re there forever.”

GMOs are products that have been genetically modified at the cellular level to increase yields and resist disease. DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified genes. Long term effects of GMOs on consumers have not been determined. GMOs are banned in five countries in the European Union, most recently Germany, due to the “threat to the environment.”

“Labeling of modified products is not new nor is it negative,” said Catherine Iaccarino, a concerned citizen who testified before the Environment Committee. “Labeling of milk that has been modified, for example, informs us if it is 2%, skim or lactose free. This is a simple request that Genetically Modified Organisms carry the label for which they are named GMO. It is a request to exercise our right of freedom of choice."

Rep. Roy hopes passage of this bill will allow Connecticut to become a national model for GMO labeling.

“This would not be a ban on GMO products,” said Rep. Roy, House Chairman of the Environment Committee. “It would be better educating consumers as to what they were eating by means of simple labeling.”

Rep. Roy is considering drafting an amendment to attach to another bill to try and separate GMOs from being classified as “organic” and require labels on food stuffs that have been genetically modified.

“In some cases, pesticides are inserted into seeds, genetically modifying the food we eat,” said Rep. Roy. “You can’t wash out these pesticides, they’re there forever.”

GMOs are products that have been genetically modified at the cellular level to increase yields and resist disease.   DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified genes. Long term effects of GMOs on consumers have not been determined. GMOs are banned in five countries in the European Union, most recently Germany, due to the “threat to the environment.”

“Labeling of modified products is not new nor is it negative,” said Catherine Iaccarino, a concerned citizen who testified before the Environment Committee.  “Labeling of milk that has been modified, for example, informs us if it is 2%, skim or lactose free. This is a simple request that Genetically Modified Organisms carry the label for which they are named GMO. It is a request to exercise our right of freedom of choice."

Rep. Roy hopes passage of an amended bill will allow Connecticut to become a national model for GMO labeling.

“I look forward to continuing the work of protecting the integrity of our environment not only for us, but for future generations that will in turn be affected by it,” Rep. Roy said. “It’s been a productive effort so far and I am ready to continue to work this legislative session.”

“From decreasing sulfur content in fuels and enhancing the recycling program, to reducing the use of pesticides on school properties, Richard has shown he is a champion on environmental issues,” Speaker Donovan said. “We can all continue to breathe a little easier with Roy at the helm of this important committee.”

The Environment Committee oversees all matters relating to the Department of Environmental Protection, including conservation, recreation, pollution control, fisheries and game, state parks and forests, water resources and flood and erosion control; and all matters relating to the Department of Agriculture, including farming, dairy products and domestic animals.

“I am very grateful the state has stepped up and provided this non-profit with critical funding for infrastructure improvements,” Rep. Roy said. “The services provided by the Boys & Girls Village are indispensable as they assist the most vulnerable in society and the organization has many years of successful programs.”

The Boys & Girls Village is a non-profit organization that serves children in crisis and at-risk children that have experienced social rejection and face unstable lives. The $21,900 grant will finance a new roof for its student center and kitchen renovations at the Milford location on Wheelers Farms Road.

Among the services offered at the center are residential shelter, clinical, after-school, counseling, special educational, foster & adoptive programs, family support services, and day programs for children and their families.

The bills encourage more municipal recycling (HB 5120), increase the proper disposal of paints and stains (HB 5122) and aid in the preservation of and conservation of state-owned land (HB 5117).

"It is very appropriate that on the 40th celebration of Earth Day, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved these pro-environment measures," Rep. Roy said. 

Earth Day was first celebrated April 22, 1970.  An estimated 20 million Americans demonstrated in cities across the country. In December 1970, Congress authorized the creation of a new federal agency to tackle environmental issues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Earth Day was the beginning of the modern environmental movement," Rep. Roy said. "We have made a lot of progress over the past 40 years, but the struggle to protect the environment continues."

Environment co-chair Richard F. Roy:
Making the process 'business-friendly'
(Jacqueline Rabe)

To the alarm of environmentalists and applause of industry, a legislative committee Tuesday approved a bill aimed at speeding up the application and review process by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

"We need to make the process more business friendly. And that's not a bad thing, especially in this recession," said Rep. Richard F. Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the Environment Committee.

But environmentalists oppose the bill, particularly a provision requiring the DEP to set up a pilot program under which it must approve applications within a certain time or the permit is automatically granted.

Environment co-chair Richard F. Roy: Making the process 'business-friendly' (Jacqueline Rabe)

"This is the holy grail for businesses. This essentially is saying we're really not going to apply the law if DEP fails to act" in the specified time, said Christopher Phelps, director of Environment Connecticut. "Installing a faster process is fine, but setting arbitrary deadlines is not."

The bill, which also was approved last month by the Commerce Committee, also removes some statutory requirements for permits, requires establishment of an on-line application process, and directs the DEP to provide more assistance to applicants by redirecting existing resources.

DEP Commissioner Amey Marrella asked the Environment Committee on Monday to delay forcing changes in permitting procedures, saying the DEP is making progress.

But waiting is exactly what has businesses across the state frustrated, says Eric Brown, a lobbyists with the Connecticut Business and Industry Association.

Brown says he frequently hears stories from local businesses about how they have been waiting to get the go-ahead from DEP for two and three years.

"It's making it hard to do business in this state. DEP is by far the most challenging agency to deal with," he said.

DEP doesn't dispute that more needs to be done to speed up the process, spokesman Dennis Schain said, but the agency has shed 150 workers and seen its budget cut by 15 percent in the past two years. With 950 employees its staffing is at a 12-year low.

"We understand that we need to act in a timely manner, but we have concerns this will erode the environmental standards," he said.

Schain said DEP already has taken steps to cut approval times in about a quarter of its programs. For example, he said, the time it takes to get a decision on an application to the Office of Long Island Sound Programs has been cut from two years to just three months.

"We have taken action, and it's working," he said.

But CBIA says requiring DEP to abide by deadlines will help jump-start the economy by allowing business projects to move forward.

"A business should not have to wait two years to do something," Brown said, who says DEP's problem is how it does business, not that there are staff shortages.

Legislative leaders have expressed some support for pushing change on DEP. "Certainly looking at ways to reduce red tape for small businesses should be considered," said Derek Slap, spokesman for Senate Democrats.

But with mounting deficits ahead, the cost of change is an issue.

The legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates creating the on-line application process to serve DEP and three other agencies would cost at least $3.6 million next year, and although the bills says the agencies should pay for the project with existing resources, it is likely that more funding would be required.

"Should we do this? Of course we should streamline the process and make it more predictable," said House Majority Leader Denise W. Merrill, D-Mansfield. "But if we don't have the manpower or the money, then maybe we should wait."

Merrill said she is not confident the legislature is in the mood to fund such an initiative, since with the looming deficits all eyes are on where to make cuts.

"We just aren't very well positioned to do that right now," she said.

HARTFORD - A bill that would reduce the amount of harmful sulfur in home-heating oil and replace it with cleaner-burning biofuels while growing state jobs received support today from small business owners and Environment Committee Co-Chairs Sen. Ed Meyer (D-Guilford) and Rep. Dick Roy (D-Milford), who said passage of the bill will result in cleaner home-heating oil, cleaner air emissions and more jobs for Connecticut's burgeoning biofuels industry.

Senate Bill 382, "An Act Requiring Biodiesel Blended Heating Oil and Lowering the Sulfur Content of Heating Oil Sold in the State," passed the Environment Committee by a vote of 27-3 on March 17. Yesterday, the bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee for action.

The bill requires, over the course of three years, that the amount of sulfur in Number Two home heating oil offered for sale in Connecticut be reduced from the current level of approximately 3,000 parts per million to just 15 parts per million. That would make Connecticut's home heating oil among the cleanest in the nation and similar in content to the 65 million barrels of 'ultra-low sulfur" automobile diesel fuel that American refineries now export to Europe and South America every year (automobile diesel fuel and Number Two home heating oil are the same product, differentiated only by the sulfur content and a dye.)

At the same time, the bill requires that all such heating oil sold in the state contain a biodiesel blend (derived from vegetable oils and animal fats) beginning with a 2-percent blend in 2011 and concluding with a 20-percent blend by 2020.

"The fact that sulfur reduction was sought by our home-heating oil distributors reflects the benefits of this initiative - cleaner and lower-cost fuel," Sen. Meyer said.

"I look forward to the inclusion of biodiesel fuels that will be healthy both for our environment and our economy," Rep. Roy said. "I think that this is a path that we can blaze and be an example for the rest of the country, and I hope that they join us now and for our future."

There are significant health benefits to using low-sulfur home-heating oil. It emits substantially fewer air pollutants such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. Fewer airborne particles contribute to better overall health by lessening heating oil's contribution to asthma, lung disease, and cancers, among other ailments. Sulfate emissions also lead to acid rain, which raises acidity levels to toxic levels in ponds and lakes, stunts or kills the growth of plants and trees, and damages buildings and other property by eroding structure surfaces.

"450,000 people in Connecticut are living with lung disease, including over 86,000 children and 248,000 adults with asthma. Senate Bill 382 is an important step in reversing this public health crisis," said Dawn Mays-Hardy of the American Lung Association in Connecticut. "The American Lung Association enthusiastically supports this bill and the effect it will have on air quality along with the health benefits it will bring the citizens of Connecticut."

A new report by the National Oilheat Research Alliance (NORA) concludes that using low-sulfur home heating oil could save Connecticut homeowners approximately $45 to $75 a year in reduced heating plant service costs due to the benefits of a cleaner-burning, less-corrosive fuel. Approximately 700,000 Connecticut households use heating oil for heat and hot water.

The NORA report also concludes that if Connecticut changes the sulfur content of its home- heating oil, it would use only a fraction of the surplus ultra low-sulfur diesel oil that is already exported overseas every year by American refineries.

"I want to thank Senator Meyer and Representatives Roy and Clark Chapin for their work on this important issue. Their leadership will help to bring the cleanest home-heating fuel in the nation to Connecticut," said Gene Guilford, president of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association. "Big oil may not want Connecticut to use cleaner fuels here in our state, but we do. Our more than 682,000 Connecticut heating oil customers, environmentalists and others in the legislature are excited to be taking this important step."

According to the Connecticut Biodiesel/Bioheat Association, implementation of S.B. 382 would result in the creation of nearly 300 "green collar" jobs in Connecticut in biofuel manufacturing, distribution and research, as well as generating $27 million in new state excise and property taxes and $77 million in federal and private investments.

"The Connecticut biodiesel industry stands ready to meet the growing requirements for this cleaner-burning fuel in home heating systems. We are a young and growing industry in Connecticut," said CBBA President Gus Kellog, who is CEO of Greenleaf Biofuels of Guilford. "This is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that greatly reduces air pollution in order to protect our state's citizens. Connecticut's local biodiesel producers are dedicated to producing the most sustainable biofuels possible, and that is why both existing production facilities and planned facilities will all be using recycled waste materials to produce biodiesel."

WCBS reporter Fran Schneidau says Governor Rell is suggesting the state boosts fines for drivers who continue to break the law as they chat or text while driving, is gaining support.

State Representative Richard Roy, who wrote the law five years ago, is appalled that the state ban is ignored by so many drivers.

"I think if we talk about the money that could be gained through fines and people not being able to duck a fine if they are arrested, I think that would bring some people over," said Roy.

Along with toughening the law, Roy believes the phone companies also need to step up to the plate by placing stickers on every cell phone sold.

"Saying, 'Warning: using this while you are operating a moto vehicle can be dangerous to yourself and others' or something along those lines," said Roy.

And Roy agrees with Rell that after five years on the books, drivers should not be given the courtesy of a waiver the first time they break this law.

"I hate to come in here and tell people what to do, but the facts and the safety of people, commuters and families on the road, government has to step up and say this is not acceptable behavior," said State Representative William Tong.

"The governor's decision to hold this funding will have an adverse effect on municipal budgets and will possibly contribute to mill rate increases," Rep. Richard Roy said. "She needs to make this grant money available to cities and towns immediately."

"As we continue to deal with the impact of our state budget deficit, it becomes more frustrating to see that our towns will now face more challenges to move forward with local improvement projects," Rep. Barbara Lambert said.

"This funding is needed to help pay for critical local road repairs and paving improvements," Rep. Paul Davis. "It's critical that the payments are released because the state has an obligation to act in behalf of our local communities."

Due to the current budget deficit, the governor has held back $30 million in Town Aid Road (TAR) Grants.   

In the previous fiscal year, the towns received the following TAR grants:

• Milford - $314,267
• Orange - $139,090
• West Haven - $305,809

Towns usually receive TAR funding in January and July each year.