Preemption goes Beyond GMOs

More Than Just a Food Fight
By Zack Pelta-Heller, AlterNet. Posted August 4, 2005.
Fifteen states have passed laws preventing bans on biotech foods. Sounds
harmless enough -- but green activist groups are protesting the proposed
legislation as an affront to local democracy.

The debate over genetically modified organisms just got a lot hotter in
California. Last month, Democratic State Senator Dean Florez introduced
an
amendment that would effectively remove a community's control over its
food
supply.
Florez's amendment reads, in part, "no ordinance or regulation of any
political subdivision may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any
matter relating to the registration, labeling, sale, storage,
transportation, distribution, notification of use, or use of field
crops."
It seems harmless enough, couched in legalese as it is. But this
controversial overhaul comes in response to three California counties and
two cities that banned the raising of genetically engineered crops and
livestock. Activist groups like Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
<http://calgefree.org>, Environmental Commons
<http://environmentalcommons.org>, and the Sierra Club
<http://sierraclub.org> are up in arms over the proposed legislation,
calling it an affront to local democracy.
It's easy to see why. Since California currently does not have any GMO
regulations at the state level, the proposed law will successfully
eliminate
the only limitations that prevent biotech giants like Monsanto and
Syngenta
from moving in with their patented GE seeds. Moreover, the bill, known as
SB
1056, takes pre-emptive measures to preclude people from raising concerns
about GMOs in the future, and in doing so deprives the public of any
chance
debate on this hot-button issue.
Becky Tarbotton, campaign coordinator for Californians for GE-Free
Agriculture, says, "If SB 1056 or a bill with similar pre-emptive
language
passes in California, it will effectively override the ability of local
communities, including farmers, to make decisions about whether or not
they
want to grow genetically engineered crops."
In addition to an infringement on civil liberties, the fundamental
problem
that environmental groups have with SB 1056 is that farmers who plant
genetically engineered (GE) seeds can't guarantee that their seeds will
not
contaminate GE-free farms. According to Laurel Hopwood of the Sierra
Club,
"What's unfortunate for farmers, especially organic farmers, is that
pollen
can move from place to place, so the spread of GMO gene traits is
inevitable." Hopwood adds, "What's different about this form of pollution
from any other form of pollution is that it's alive. These new life forms
multiply, spread, and cannot be recalled. ... Not only are organic
farmers
not allowed to call their crop 'organic' when it becomes contaminated,
but
also farmers can't sell their crops overseas where GMOs are not
accepted."
California is the nation's largest agricultural producer, raising
hundreds
of crops for large-scale export and domestic use. The issue of organic
farms
losing certification because of GE seed contamination, then, is just the
tip
of the iceberg. The European Union and other major importers of
Californian
goods like Japan have strict policies that forbid the purchase or sale of
GE
crops. Environmentalists fear the economic repercussions of GE seed
contamination could be disastrous for the both California agricultural
community and the U.S. economy.
Beyond the Golden State
But if you think the debate over local control is just going on in
California, think again. Britt Bailey, the director of Environmental
Commons, explained that fourteen states have already passed provisions
limiting local control, and North Carolina is still considering a similar
measure. Bailey says, "When I contacted the Georgia and Oklahoma
legislatures, specifically the authors of the seed preemption bills, and
asked them why the bills were introduced, the authors responded by saying
the bills were in response to the three California counties that had
passed
initiatives restricting genetically modified organisms."
In March of 2004, Mendocino County in Northern California passed a law
prohibiting GE seeds from being planted within the county lines, the
first
of its kind. Eight months later, four more counties voted on similar
bans,
but in the face of opposition heavily funded by the biotech industry and
promoted by state and national farm groups, only one ban passed. Many
more
counties in California and across the country are in the process of
bringing
GMO bans to the voters.
But proponents of these seed preemption bills, in California and
elsewhere,
believe that seed laws belong uniformly at the state or federal level and
shouldn't be in the hands of a patchwork of local restrictions. As
Charles
Margulis of the Center for Food Safety points out, however, states that
oppose local restrictions to GMOs tend to have regulations in place at
the
state level. California does not.
On the other side of SB 1056 are groups like the California Farm Bureau
Federation <http://cfbf.com> (CFBF), a non-profit that represents farm
interests throughout the state. While spokesman Dave Kranz was unwilling
to
take an official stance on SB 1056, he says, "Our position has been that
we
support technology that offers potential for family farmers to be
innovative
and keep up with market trends."
Like other supporters of this pre-emptive legislation, CFBF feels that
farmers ought to have the flexibility to respond to local situations and
should not be prevented from raising GE-crops simply because their
property
falls within a certain county line. "We oppose county-by-county bans on
biotech crops just as we would oppose county-by-county bans on organic
crops
if those were to occur," concludes Kranz.
In an recent op-ed piece <
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/20/EDGTRDQ0A11.DTL> in the San Francisco Chronicle, CFBF President Bill Pauli lays out a
clear
case for GE foods. "[Californians] are among the most progressive farmers
in
the United States, and we play a vital role in providing safe and healthy
food throughout the world. That's why I can't understand all the
misinformation associated with biotechnology, an established practice of
modern farming that makes our food more plentiful, longer-lasting and,
yes,
healthier than ever."
Pauli devotes most of his article to assuring readers that no one
(neither
people nor animals) has become sick from biotech foods since their
inception
in the mid-nineties. On the federal level, biotech crops are subject to
inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration. Research has suggested
that GE foods have the curative properties and the potential to improve
nutrition worldwide. "A 2004 report from the National Academy of
Sciences,"
asserts Pauli, "concluded that foods from biotech crops are as safe as
any
other foods in your supermarket." The question remains though, after
reading
Pauli's article, why would he spend so much energy convincing the public
that GE foods are safe for consumption?
Is it because consumers fear the possibly toxic effects of herbicides,
which
can be sprayed at will on the 70 percent of GE crops that are
herbicide-resistant? Or perhaps the answer lies in the recent failures of
federal regulatory agencies to ensure the safety of biotech crops.
Anuradha
Mittal, Executive Director of The Oakland Institute, exclaims, "The EPA,
USDA, and FDA were asleep at the wheel during the StarLink controversy."
The StarLink fiasco <http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/starlink.html> resulted in an enormous recall on corn products, heightened concerns over
biotech products, and was an economic black eye for the U.S. when Japan
and
South Korea were forced to turn to China for corn supplies. Since the FDA
already determined that genetic engineering is only an extension of
agriculture, and that GE foods are not significantly different from
traditionally grown foods, their methodology for determining safety seems
suspect.
Mittal and Margulis of the Center for Food Safety also emphasize that
none
of the federal regulatory agencies have conducted long-term tests to
determine the lasting effects of GE foods on consumers and the
environment.
Margulis maintains that the studies Pauli mentions in his op-ed are
"ludicrous" and broad-ranged. "None of those studies were conducted by
independent organizations; none fed animals just GE foods and saw what
happened." And, he says, the biotech corporations would prefer it that
way.
The End of Local Control?
Concerns over GE food safety aside, the true transgression being
perpetrated
by SB 1056 is that California legislators are turning a blind eye to
public
safety and debate in favor of biotech corporations. "By taking away the
sovereign powers of communities," Mittal concludes, "legislators are
rendering the elected officials in these communities basically impotent."
To
say nothing of the rights of farmers and citizens that this pre-emptive
legislation will strip away. Mittal adds, "The interests of the family
farmers are being sold off, while bigger farmers receive subsidies and
are
therefore more likely to support the bill."
Of course, the debate over local control doesn't center solely on GMOs.
Britt Bailey says, "Twenty states have laws restricting local governments
from passing tobacco-free ordinances, 40 states have laws removing local
control of pesticides, and I think there are 20 or so states with
preemptive
gun laws."
The result is that when communities raise concerns on these topics at the
local level, industry swoops in at the state level to ensure these
concerns
fall on deaf ears. Ironically, Sen. Florez currently supports a measure
to
give his district the power to decide whether or not to apply sewage
sludge
to agricultural land, the same kind of local control prohibited by his
seed
bill.
While activist groups are calling for labels on products containing GMOs
or
higher standards for regulatory testing, others have not thrown in the
towel
yet on the local control debate. Mary Zepernick, a coordinator at the
Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy, feels a new take on this fight
might be necessary. "We need to reframe these issues as rights-based
struggles rather than harms-based. Looking at things that way -- abuse by
abuse, corporation by corporation -- will keep these issues mired in the
regulatory regime." Instead, she says, activists should show how the
attack
on GMO bans are part of a larger attack on communities' ability to stand
up
to corporations.
Similarly, Britt Bailey and the Environmental Commons want to see a
constitutional challenge to the bans on local control. "If we want to
secure
local authority of issues related to health, safety, and welfare," Bailey
argues, "we could build case law by placing the intent of a local
authority
to govern within the local ordinances and resolutions we develop and
pass.
This way, if state preemption occurs, a local government has the intent
and
therefore standing to challenge. We could also choose to amend the
constitution."
Such a step might be the only way for farmers to keep locally grown food
viable and for the dialogue over GMOs to continue.
Zack Pelta-Heller is a freelance writer living in Astoria, NY. Currently,
he's an assistant editor for Dell Magazines.


Mitch Triplett - One of Many
GMO Free Alameda County
510-286-7542
gmofreeac@earthlink.net
We're going to win!