Franken Foods: Agribusiness Targets State Legislators to Pre-empt Local Laws on

[Guest guest]

GMW: Agribusiness Targets State Legislators to Pre-empt Local

Laws on Seeds

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:15:24 +0100

 

 

 

Agribusiness Targets State Legislators to Pre-empt Local Laws on Seeds

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http;//www.gmwatch.org

------

....the same preemptive strategy has been used by the tobacco industry

and the National Rifle Association to thwart local efforts to introduce

more stringent smoking and gun laws, respectively. As Tina Walls of

Phillip Morris & Co. admitted, " By introducing preemptive statewide

legislation, we can shift the battle away from the community level

back to

the state legislatures where we are on stronger ground. "

------

Agribusiness Targets State Legislators to Pre-empt Local Laws on Seeds

http://www.naturalnewswire.com/2005/04/agribusiness_ta.html

 

Contact: Brian Tokar, Biotechnology Project Director, Institute for

Social Ecology, Vermont, (802) 229-0087 briant; Britt Bailey,, Environmental Commons, California, (707) 884-5002;

britt; Stephanie Weisenbach, Sustainable

agriculture advocate, Iowa, (515) 556-4873 iowacleanwater

 

Legislators in eight states have passed bills preventing counties,

towns and cities from introducing ordinances, resolutions, or other

legislation relating to agricultural seeds. These seed pre-emption

bills are

an orchestrated industry response to recent local actions on genetically

modified organisms. For example, ballot initiatives in three California

counties have prohibited the cultivation of genetically modified crops,

livestock, and other organisms, and nearly 100 New England towns have

passed various resolutions in support of limits on genetically

engineered crops.

 

" Pre-emptive seed laws serve the agribusiness industry by weakening

local laws and precluding the introduction of stronger protections in the

future, " said Britt Bailey of Environmental Commons. " They are

industry's stealth response to a growing movement of people that are

seeking to

protect their communities at the local level. "

 

" Over the past several years in Iowa, we've seen local control be taken

away for the benefit of the corporate hog industry, " said George

Naylor, an Iowa farmer and President of the National Family Farm

Coalition.

" With this seed pre-emption legislation recently signed into law, we are

now losing our ability to protect ourselves from irresponsible

corporations aiming to control the agricultural seeds planted

throughout the

state. "

 

In the past decade, the same preemptive strategy has been used by the

tobacco industry and the National Rifle Association to thwart local

efforts to introduce more stringent smoking and gun laws,

respectively. As

Tina Walls of Phillip Morris & Co. admitted, " By introducing preemptive

statewide legislation, we can shift the battle away from the community

level back to the state legislatures where we are on stronger ground. "

 

See attached backgrounder (online at

www.environmentalcommons.org/seedlawbackgrounder.html) for contacts,

resources, and discussions of:

 

* Why this is a challenge to local rights.

* Who is behind this strategy of state pre-emption.

* Why this is a matter for wide public concern.

* What the legal precedents are for local action.

 

###

Background: Agribusiness Industry Passing State Laws to Pre-empt Local

Initiatives on Genetically Modified Organisms

 

As of April 12th, legislators in twelve states have introduced bills

that would override local and county measures relating to the

registration, labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution,

or use of

agricultural seeds. These bills have already been signed into law in

Georgia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota,

and are

rapidly working their way through the legislatures in Arizona,

Oklahoma, Ohio, and West Virginia. Similar bills in Indiana and Kansas

have

passed both houses of the legislature and are awaiting the governor's

signature. Additionally, the Maine Department of Agriculture is

seeking to

forestall local action around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) via

an overreaching interpretation of the state's `Right to Farm' Law. For

a continually updated tracking of seed pre-emption legislation, see

http://www.environmentalcommons.org/gmo-tracker.html.

 

Why this challenge to local rights?

 

Since 2002, towns, cities and counties across the US have passed

resolutions seeking to control the use of genetically modified organisms

(GMOs) within their jurisdiction. Close to 100 New England towns have

passed resolutions opposing the unregulated use of GMOs; nearly a

quarter of

these have called for local moratoria on the planting of GMO seeds. In

2004, three California counties, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin, passed

ordinances banning the raising of genetically engineered (GE) crops and

livestock. Advocates across the country believe that the more people

learn about the potential hazards of GE food and crops, the more they

seek measures to protect public health, the environment, and family

farms.

They have come to view local action as a necessary antidote to inaction

at the federal and state levels.

 

Who is behind this strategy of state pre-emption?

 

These pre-emption bills are being introduced by state legislators who

support large-scale industrial agriculture, and are often funded by

associated business interests. These bills are mainly supported by

Agribusiness Councils and Farm Bureau chapters in the various states.

They

represent a back-door, stealth strategy to override protective local

measures around GMOs.

 

The industry proposal for a " Biotechnology state uniformity resolution "

was first introduced at a May 2004 forum sponsored by the American

Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC claims over 2000 state

legislators as members and has more than 300 corporate sponsors,

according to

People for the American Way (see Resources). The organization has its

origins in the efforts of political strategist and fundraiser Paul

Weyrich

to rebuild a Republican power base at the federal and state levels in

the aftermath of Watergate. Other recent measures supported by ALEC

include efforts to deregulate electric utilities, override local

pesticide

laws, repeal minimum wage laws, limit class action lawsuits and

privatize public pensions.

 

The tobacco and handgun industries have mounted similar efforts in

recent years to circumvent local smoking ordinances and restrictions on

handgun use. Ironically, many of the interests now promoting state

pre-emption have vociferously opposed federal regulations designed to

pre-empt

weaker state laws.

 

Why is this a cause for wide public concern?

 

Local governments have historically overseen policies related to public

health, safety, and welfare. Preventing local decision-making

contradicts the legitimate and necessary responsibilities of cities,

towns, and

counties. Traditionally, laws enacted at the state level have set

minimum requirements and allowed for the continued passage and

enforcement

of local ordinances that establish greater levels of public health

protection. Preemptive legislation reverses this norm.

 

Furthermore:

 

* Pre-emption undermines democracy and local control, and is a threat

to meaningful citizen participation around issues of widespread concern.

Communities enact local measures as an expression of their fundamental

right to shape their future, whereas wealthy corporate interests are

far better able to wield power and influence policy in state capitols.

 

* Local actions around GMOs, in particular, are designed to address

important gaps in federal and state policy, and mitigate potentially

serious threats to public health, the environment, and survival of local

farm economies. Additionally, some communities are taking a further step,

and benefiting economically from the positive effect of becoming known

as " GE-Free, " supporting farmers and the local food system by promoting

organic and sustainable agriculture in their jurisdictions.

 

* In recent years, similar local measures have sought to address a

variety of industry practices not adequately regulated at higher

levels of

jurisdiction, including pollution from factory farms, use of sewage

sludge as fertilizer, uncontrolled pesticide use, and mismanagement of

water resources. The current pre-emption campaign is part of a strategy

aimed to weaken all such protective measures; it is part of a

well-funded, highly-orchestrated, and frequently stealthy corporate

effort to

rewrite public policies at all jurisdictional levels.

 

What are the legal precedents for local action?

 

According to the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, local

measures to restrict the use of GMOs are generally on a sound legal

footing:

 

* Local rights of self-governance and protection of health, safety and

well-being are guaranteed by most state constitutions. Local

governments are free to be more protective of their citizens and unique

communities than lowest-common-denominator state laws can provide.

 

* The federal government does not have specific mandatory safety

testing requirements for most GE crops, instead allowing companies to

voluntarily determine what tests are needed; also there is virtually no

monitoring of commercial GE crops for persistent hazards.

 

* No state has yet enacted comprehensive regulations governing GE crops

and livestock that protect public health and the environment.

 

Historically, American custom and tradition has granted local

communities considerable autonomy. Local sovereignty has its

foundation in the

Town Meetings of colonial New England. While some states have come to

view local jurisdictions as creations and agents of the state, others

endow municipalities with varying degrees of " home rule, " an established

legal principle with origins in the 19th century.

 

Town Meetings and subsequent local decision-making procedures are

further rooted in Common Law, which has hinged on the traditional maxim,

" Use your property as not to injure another's. " Harmful activities

affecting the public commons, such as over-cutting timber or spreading

noxious

weeds, have traditionally been restricted in the name of the greater

public good.

 

For more information:

 

Pre-emption Bill Tracker

 

For a continually updated tracking of seed pre-emption legislation, see

http://www.environmentalcommons.org/gmo-tracker.html

 

Contacts:

 

Britt Bailey

Environmental Commons

(707) 884-5002, britt

 

Brian Tokar

Institute for Social Ecology

(802) 229-0087, briant

 

Renata Brillinger

Californians for GE-Free Agriculture

(415) 561-2523, renata

 

Peter Jenkins

Center for Food Safety

(202) 547-9359

peterjenkins

 

LaVon Griffieon

Sixth-generation Iowa family farmer

(515) 964-0876, xxvhrsaday

 

George Naylor

National Family Farm Coalition

(515) 370-3710, moonbean

 

Resources on Pre-emption and GMOs

 

County Ban on the Planting of Genetically Engineered Crops: Background

on Legal Authority, Center for Food Safety, March 2004, at

http://www.environmentalcommons.org/CFSlegal.pdf.

 

Michael E. Libonati, " Local Government, " from Subnational Constitutions

and Federalism: Design and Reform Conference, Center for State

Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University, March 2004, available at

http://www.environmentalcommons.org/locgov.pdf.

 

New England local measures on GMOs: http://www.nerage.org. California

counties: http://www.calgefree.org.

 

People for the American Way profile of ALEC:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=6990.

 

Karen Olsson, " Ghostwriting the Law, " Mother Jones, September 2002, at

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/09/ma_95_01.html.

 

Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants

in the Traditional Seed Supply, Union of Concerned Scientists, February

2004, at http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=382.

 

Charles M. Benbrook, Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in

the United States: The First Nine Years, BioTech InfoNet Technical

Paper Number 7, October 2004, at

http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper7.html.

 

Richard Caplan, Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered

Crops in the US, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, April 2005, at

http://uspirg.org/reports/Raising%20Risk%202005%20Final.pdf

 

GRAIN, " Farmers' Privilege Under Attack, " at

http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=121.

 

 

 

------