Biotech industry threats backfire in Vermont - GMO liability bill passes 26-1

[Guest guest]

GMW: Biotech industry threats backfire in Vermont - GMO

liability bill passes 26-1

 

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:14:25 +0100

 

 

 

Biotech industry threats backfire in Vermont - GMO liability bill

passes 26-1

 

GM WATCH DAILY

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

EXCERPTS: Seed manufacturers who will reportedly not sell their

products in Vermont if the bill passes may have been responsible for the

nearly unanimous vote, senators said.

 

" Some of the manufacturers made threats that undermined their

arguments, " Welch said.

 

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, was even more direct.

 

" I don't take well to threats from international companies that don't

want to come into the state and compete on a level playing field, " he

said. " It's not acceptable. "

------

Senate passes GMO liability bill

By Louis Porter

Vermont Press Bureau

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050406/NEWS/504060325/100\

3

 

MONTPELIER — The Vermont Senate on Tuesday gave nearly unanimous

approval to a bill designed to make seed manufacturers liable for the

impacts

of genetically modified crops.

 

As many as a dozen senators were expected to oppose the bill, but the

final vote was 26-1. Sen. Wendy Wilton, R-Rutland, voted against final

passage.

 

But the political wrangling over the bill, which now goes to the House,

is far from over and could end in a veto by Gov. James Douglas.

 

And a portion of the bill which defines the extent to which

manufacturers of genetically modified seeds are liable for potential

harm remains

a sticking point.

 

Two amendments designed to strengthen the protection afforded to

farmers were added to the bill almost without debate.

 

But the amendment which caused the most consternation and discussion in

the Statehouse wasn't even offered on the floor in the end.

 

That change, which hung on a single word, would have removed the

" strict liability " provision of the proposed legislation.

 

Under strict liability a seed manufacturer would not have to be proven

at fault before they could be held liable for potential damages from

pollen drift of genetically modified crops.

 

The change supported by Wilton, Sen. Robert Starr, D-Essex/Orleans, and

Sen. Harold Giard, D-Addison, who also proposed the other two

amendments, would have changed the wording of the bill from " is

liable " to " may

be liable " . " The dog in this bill is strict liability, " said Starr, who

vowed to work to change the language in the bill in the House, where he

used to be a state representative. Strict liability is " killing a fly

with a baseball bat, " he said.

 

Wilton agreed.

 

" I thought long and hard about what I was going to do, " she said. " It's

the strict liability provision that is most damaging. "

 

If strict liability remains in the bill, Agriculture Secretary Steve

Kerr said he will recommend to Douglas that he veto the bill.

 

" The governor shares the concerns that have been articulated by

Secretary Kerr, " said Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs. " The governor is

hopeful

we will be able to reach a compromise before the bill arrives on his

desk. "

 

Strict liability is typically used with chemicals and products which

are known to be abnormally dangerous, Kerr said, and that claim has not

even been discussed this year during the debate over the genetically

modified seed bill.

 

Pesticides, which are known to be dangerous, are not governed under

strict liability, he said.

 

Amy Shollenberger, policy director for Rural Vermont, said strict

liability was the only way to ensure that seed manufactures, not farmers,

were liable for the impact of genetically modified crops.

 

" It's the only way to get it off their backs and establish a clear

course of action, " she said.

 

" The fundamental part of the strict liability is to have the

responsibility lie where it belongs, " said Senate President Pro Tem

Peter Welch,

D-Windsor.

 

Seed manufacturers who will reportedly not sell their products in

Vermont if the bill passes may have been responsible for the nearly

unanimous vote, senators said.

 

" Some of the manufacturers made threats that undermined their

arguments, " Welch said.

 

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, was even more direct.

 

" I don't take well to threats from international companies that don't

want to come into the state and compete on a level playing field, " he

said. " It's not acceptable. "

 

Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter

 

 

--------