GMW: GMO bill tough on manufacturers

[Guest guest]

GMW: GMO bill tough on manufacturers

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:56:40 +0100

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

GMO bill tough on manufacturers

Bennington Banner (Vermont, USA), 26 April 2006

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/headlines/ci_3752330

 

MONTPELIER- Manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds could be

liable for damages if their products drift into the fields of neighboring

farmers who don't want them under a bill that won approval Tuesday in

the Vermont House.

 

The proposal could put Vermont at the forefront of a heated national

debate about the wisdom of using the seeds and plants, which can be

scientifically modified to resist pests or disease. Some farmers and

consumers don't want such technology being used on their food. But

others say

it's an important way to keep food economical and to control the use of

pesticides on farm fields.

 

That divide was starkly illustrated in the Statehouse. Supporters and

opponents thronged the House chamber to witness the debate on a

compromise version of the bill that's been debated in the Legislature

for the

past year and a half.

 

" As an organic farmer, my job is to make sure I'm producing a crop

that's free of genetically modified (organisms), " said Leceister dairy

farmer Annie Claghorn after the House voted 77-63 in favor of the bill.

 

But opponents were out in equal force to demonstrate to Gov. Jim

Douglas, who has made pretty clear he'll veto the bill if it wins Senate

approval, that they'll back him.

 

" We're here to show the governor he has the vote when, hopefully, he

vetoes it, " said St. Albans dairy farmer Mitch Montagne, standing outside

the governor's office after the vote.

 

The issue in the legislation is fairly arcane. The bill was designed to

give farmers who don't want to use modified seeds a forum to address

their grievances if pollen from modified plants drift into their crops.

 

The bill would treat farmers as consumers and would allow them to sue a

seed manufacturer, claiming the so-called drift into his or her field

was a private nuisance. Such a claim could only be made if the farmer

could prove that his or her total loss exceeded $3,500.

 

" This is a bill to protect all farmers, especially those who use

genetically modified seeds, " said Rep. Dexter Randall, P-Troy, the

primary

sponsor of the bill and a dairy farmer.

 

He and others said it was an attempt to give farmers a greater say over

their businesses. Although manufacturers retain ownership of the

genetically engineered seeds and plants and only lease them to

farmers, the

companies have been insulated from damage claims.

 

The new bill would protect a farmer using the genetically engineered

seeds, making manufacturers liable for damages. Supporters said that's

why they believed the bill would be good for both conventional farmers

and organic farmers, who are among the leaders in opposing the use of the

genetically altered seeds.

 

" This bill is not about dividing these farmers, " said Rep. Rosemary

McLaughlin, D-Royalton. " (It) is about protecting these two types of

farmers. "

 

Rep. William Johnson, R-Canaan, also a dairy farmer, argued that all

the bill would do was erroneously call into question the safety of

genetically modified organisms. " It's based on a false premise, " he said.

" It's based on the premise that there's something wrong with genetically

engineered seeds or biotechnology. "

 

 

 

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