GM: Big Food/ Big Pharma Strikes Back

[Guest guest]

GMW: Big Food Strikes Back/GM crop-ban headed for state

Senate vote

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 27 May 2005 23:18:33 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1.Big Food Strikes Back

2.GM crop-ban headed for state Senate vote

 

" Close to 100 New England towns have passed resolutions opposing the

unregulated use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms); 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 crops and

livestock. " In response, " fifteen states recently have introduced

legislation removing local control of plants and seeds. Eleven of these

states have already passed the provisions into law. " The move to deny

local

control over food was launched at a May 2004 American Legislative

Exchange Council forum, where industry groups proposed a " Biotechnology

state uniformity resolution. " Previously, the tobacco industry used a

similar approach. A Philip Morris employee explained, " 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. " (item 1)

------

Ag Industry Aims to Strip Local Control of Food Supplies

Big Food Strikes Back

By BRITT BAILEY and BRIAN TOKAR

COUNTERPUNCH, May 26, 2005

http://counterpunch.org/tokar05262005.html

 

Legislation aiming to prevent counties, towns and cities from making

local decisions about our food supply is being introduced in states

across the nation. Fifteen states recently have introduced legislation

removing local control of plants and seeds. Eleven of these states have

already passed the provisions into law.

 

These highly orchestrated industry actions are in response to recent

local decisions to safeguard sustainable food systems. To date,

initiatives in three California counties have restricted 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.

 

These laws are industry's stealth response to a growing effort by

people to protect their communities at the local level. Given the

impacts of

known ecological contamination from genetic modification, local

governments absolutely should be given the power to protect the health,

safety, and welfare of its citizens. Local restrictions against

genetically

modified crops have provided a positive and hopeful solution and allowed

citizens to take meaningful action in their hometown or county.

 

" Over the past several years in Iowa, we've seen local control 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 these pre-emption laws signed into law, we are now losing our

ability to protect ourselves from irresponsible corporations aiming to

control the agricultural seeds and plants planted throughout the state. "

 

According to Kristy Meyer of the Ohio Environmental Council, " The

amendment to our House Bill 66 would strip cities and villages of their

authority to implement safeguards and standards concerning seeds.

Supporting local control is quintessentially American, clearly

reasonable, and

represents the standards our country was founded upon. "

 

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

tobacco industry 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. "

 

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?

 

State legislators who support large-scale industrial agriculture, and

are often funded by associated business interests are introducing these

pre-emption bills. Farm Bureau chapters in the various states are key

supporters. The bills 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 industry has mounted similar efforts in recent years to

circumvent local ordinances restricting youth access to cigarettes as

well

as smoking in restaurants, bars, and workplaces. 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.

 

Resources on Pre-emption and GMOs

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

County Ban on the Planting of Genetically Engineered Crops: Background

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

www.environmentalcommons.org/CFSlegal.pdf

 

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

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

 

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,

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

 

GRAIN, " Farmers' Privilege Under Attack, " at

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

 

Britt Bailey works with Environmental Commons and Brian Tokar works at

the Institute for Social Ecology. They can be reached at:

briant

-----

2.GE crop-ban headed for state Senate vote

Mark Engler

Capital Press, 5/27/2005

http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67 & SubSectionID=618 & ArticleID=17\

451 & TM=29336.99

 

SALEM – The anti- " biopharm " bill under consideration in the Oregon

Legislature that seeks to prohibit farmers and researchers from growing a

range of genetically modified crops drifted to the Senate floor this

week.

 

On a 3-2 straight party-line vote, Democrats on the Senate Environment

and Land Use Committee moved Senate Bill 570 with a " do pass "

recommendation. The bill directs the state Department of Agriculture

to slap a

hefty fine – as much as $25,000 – on anyone caught growing genetically

engineered plants covered under the ban.

 

Specifically targeted for prohibition by the legislation are

genetically modified crops " designed to produce industrial products,

substances

for use in industrial products, industrial or research chemicals, or

industrial or research enzymes. "

 

If the legislation is adopted, Oregon would become the only state in

the country with such a ban in place.

 

Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, sitting in for an absent

Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, cast the deciding committee vote in favor of

SB570 on Tuesday.

 

Plants would be defined as " genetically engineered " if they contain

genetic material " changed through modern biotechnology in a way that does

not occur naturally by multiplication or natural recombination " and

" not used in traditional breeding and selection. "

 

During the May 24 hearing the environment committee approved amendments

to the bill to exempt certain herbicide-tolerant GE crops such as the

Round-Up Ready varieties. In general, " if a plant has been genetically

engineered to enhance disease-resistance, this bill does not cover

that, " said Rick North, of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a

chief proponent of the legislation.

 

North and other activists who oppose genetic engineering worry altered

plants grown to produce certain chemicals or drugs could contaminate

society's food supplies with those substances. They believe the federal

government is doing little to adequately address the dangers they say

are posed by outdoor commercial growing, or even testing, of the crops.

 

But if successful in the full Senate, the biopharm legislation is

likely to run into much stiffer resistance in the Oregon House of

Representatives – where rural Republicans set the agenda, and have in

the past

been critical of efforts to intentionally sideline Oregon as other states

seek to reap economic rewards from biotechnology.

 

Senate Bill 570 is opposed by the Oregon Farm Bureau and the

pro-industry Oregonians for Food and Shelter. In addition, state

government

agriculture officials have said they'd prefer to defer to the federal

government on the issue, rather than set a precedent for regulating

the crops

on a state-by-state basis.

 

Katie Fast, a lobbyist for OFB, said her organization is confident the

bill will die in the House.

 

" These are already highly-regulated crops by the USDA and the FDA, " she

said. " We're in support of rules to protect other producers and protect

the spread of these crops. But we just can't support a ban on their

production. "

 

Fast said OFB would like to see the state Board of Agriculture develop

a comprehensive policy for genetically modified crops after a full

examination of the issues involving all the interested parties and

industry

sectors.

 

" That would hopefully be the beginning of a thoughtful, long-term

discussion on this issue, " said Fast.

 

No biopharm crops have yet been approved for commercial production in

the United States. In 2004 USDA officals approved testing on about 40

trial plots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------