Vermont May Become First State to Extend Protection to Farmers from GMO Contamination

From: Vermont Guardian
Grounds for a fight: Farmer protection battle plans take root
http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/122005/Farmers.shtml

By Kathryn Casa and Christian Avard | Vermont Guardian
posted December 2, 2005

It was the day before Thanksgiving, and Vermont Agriculture Secretary Steve
Kerr was thinking about food. Not turkey and stuffing, though. Kerr was
focused on how genetically modified crops might ease world hunger, and how
liberal, well-fed Vermonters have no right to uproot a possible solution
while millions starve.

"This debate has been about selfishness," declared Kerr. "We live in a
society that is too well fed. What's our biggest food problem in this
country? It's obesity. We have the luxury of debating this fraudulent issue
while people are starving."

Kerr is unabashedly enthusiastic about the promise that genetically modified
(GM) crops like Monsanto's "golden rice" < enhanced with vitamin A to combat
blindness < hold for the developing world.

Likewise, he has little patience for Vermont skeptics' go-slow approach,
rooted in concerns that the organisms could have adverse environmental and
health implications.

Other nations are putting the brakes on this technology. Swiss voters last
week passed a five-year ban on the use of genetically modified plants and
animals in farming, and China has dramatically slowed plans to produce the
world's first genetically modified rice for human consumption.

That doesn't dissuade Kerr.

"If we've got this holistic perspective about a clean environment, safe
streets, health care for all, does it only extend to the borders of
Vermont?" Kerr asked. "What about those who don't have enough food? It's not
Vermont's responsibility alone to solve Africa's problems, but if Vermont is
going to position itself as a leader, it seems we're getting pretty damn
selective."

Up north along the Canadian border where farmer Jack Lazor was waiting for
test results on whether his organic seed corn had been contaminated by a
neighbor's GM crop, Kerr's argument hit a little close to home.

Lazor frames the GM issue in a decidedly Vermont context. "We're losing our
land in this state. You can't keep farming it like this year after year <
continuous corn < and expect it to be there for our grandchildren."

Kerr's pro-GM argument promotes the kind of crop and land management that
relies heavily on the genetic engineering (GE), fertilizers, and soil
additives that hurt small farmers and make big ag even richer, Lazor
contends.

Without such crutches, Lazor says, farmers wouldn¹t get their corn out of
the ground "because there's no life left in it."

"What does that kind of agriculture promote? Chemicals and fertilizers and
GE seeds," he said. Kerr "doesn't really care about a little farmer trying
to grow corn up in a little corner of Vermont."

Farmer vs. farmer

Lazor and Kerr, farmer and bureaucrat, personify two polar opposites in a
heated debate that shows no signs of cooling as anti-GM activists lay the
groundwork for their renewed push to pass the Farmer Protection Act.
Expected to take front and center stage in the opening days of the 2006
legislative session in January, the measure as originally proposed would
make seed manufacturers liable for damages from cross-pollination by
genetically modified crops.

Lazor's seeds ultimately tested negative for GM infiltration, but not before
the Westfield farmer spent five months wondering whether he would lose as
much as $10,000 on his organic seed crop after a neighbor inadvertently
planted GM corn that a distributor delivered to his farm.

Even though Vermont was the first state in the country to pass a seed
labeling law, in 2004, the Agency of Agriculture under Kerr has chosen to
enforce the spirit but not the letter of the law, allowing companies to
refer indirectly to their seeds as "virus resistant" or "pest resistant"
without overtly specifying "GE" or "GMO" on the bag label.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) result from genetic engineering when
scientists take a gene from an unrelated species and insert it into another
species. GE crops are engineered to withstand pests with less or no
pesticides.

Soy and corn are believed to be the only GE crops grown in Vermont, and
their prevalence has increased steadily for the third consecutive year,
according to Agriculture Agency statistics.

The agency reported to the Legislature in January that sales of genetically
engineered corn rose 12 percent in 2004, to a total of 337,472 pounds. GE
corn now makes up 19 percent of all field corn grown in Vermont, covering
17,100 acres. In 2002, GE corn claimed only 8 percent of the state¹s corn
crop.

Sales of GE soybeans increased 46 percent in 2004, to 168,900 pounds, the
department reported.

Anti-GE activists say the increased use adds urgency to the quest for
legislation to minimize the potential negative impact of crops on farmers.
Lazor said it was only when his neighbor last spring casually complained
about the high cost of the seed, about $135 a bag instead of $90, that
together they inspected the packaging and determined that he had put in
genetically modified corn.

Had Lazor lost money on his crop, said Amy Schollenberger of Rural Vermont,
his only recourse would have been to sue his neighbor.

Advocates say the Farmer Protection Act would place that liability squarely
on the seed manufacturer.

"Here's a perfect example," said Shollenberger. "Wh y should the farmer bear
this responsibility? It should be on the manufacturer."

Farther south in Rockingham, when a seed distributor brought out a few bags
of GE corn last spring, Arnold Fisher told him to leave it in the truck.

"I don¹t believe in it," said Fisher, who raises about 45 acres of corn in
fields scattered around Rockingham. "The fact that some of the seed can blow
out and get on somebody else's land, I don¹t think we need that here."

According to organic berry farmer and state Rep. David Zuckerman,
P-Burlington, the Farmer Protection Act would resolve both the labeling and
liability issues. "If the liability bill passes with some strong teeth, seed
companies will want to make sure people know what they're planting,"
reasoned Zuckerman, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee.

But that could be a big "if"

Passed in the Senate last session by a margin of 26-1, the original Farmer
Protection Act required that corporate seed contracts adhere to Vermont
laws, and that any dispute between a Vermont farmer and a seed manufacturer
must be heard in a Vermont court, rather than the corporation's home state.

But a compromise version late in the session aimed at moving the stalled
bill out of Zuckerman¹s committee omitted the stringent "strict liability"
section. Instead, the revamped bill attempts to codify case law, established
in a decision called the Mainline Tractor case, which defines farmers as
consumers, and therefore gives them consumer protection rights. But in the
revised bill, the burden of proof still rests on the farmer rather than the
manufacturer.

Time ran out on the measure before it came to a vote of the full House. It
is expected to be one of the first bills out of the chute in January, but
not before a proposed amendment sponsored by Rep. Dexter Randall, P-Troy,
which aims to reintroduce the strict liability provision holding
manufacturers liable for damages.

Supporters say there is strong support in the House for strict liability,
but it's not clear whether they have the votes to restore the original
liability language. It¹s also not clear whether Gov. Jim Douglas, who
supports GMO technology, would veto a liability measure if it gets to his
desk.

Agri-giants like Monsanto, which holds more than 600 plant biotech patents
and has a nearly 30 percent share of all biotech industry research and
development, are expected to lobby heavily against it.

Monsanto's ownership of seed companies and its domination of genetic
technology through patents force farmers to buy new seed every season rather
than saving and replanting seed in the age-old farming tradition, according
to a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety in Washington. The company
has filed nearly 200 lawsuits against U.S. farmers, according to the report.

Ready for a fight

Kerr dismisses the Farmer Protection Act as a "political ploy and nothing
more" < the last ditch effort of an anti-GM movement grasping at straws
after their original line of defense, a proposed moratorium on GM crops in
Vermont, failed to hold.

"Vermont needs to look deep into its heart and ask the question: What are we
really trying to accomplish? If this is really about corporate control, why
are we putting farmers in the middle? Farmers are not legally liable today.
If this is really a contest about corporate control, let¹s have that debate."

He argues that GM seeds like Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn have dramatically
reduced the need for dangerous pesticides like atrazine, an herbicide known
to cause serious health problems.

"We are leaving the era of chemicals in conventional agriculture, finding
finally substitutes that are if not eliminating then dramatically decreasing
the use of chemicals in the open environment," Kerr said. "That's the trend
they¹re stymieing in the effort to stigmatize this technology."

As a bellwether state for progressive causes, Vermont must tread carefully,
Kerr exhorted. "Vermont I think proudly believes that the policy positions
that this little state takes influence national, maybe even international
positions," he said.

" ³This effort to stigmatize GE products is sending a message to the nation
and the world, a message sent by very warm, very well-fed, very comfortable,
very nice people who really should be thinking about the message we are
sending, because we are part and parcel in retarding the use of this product
in countries where starvation still stalks the land."

On that point, at least in part, Shollenberger concurs. The world is
watching and waiting to see what happens to the Farmer Protection Act, she
told a Nov. 16 forum that drew about 30 people in Saxtons River.
Schollenberger said she has received calls from people across the globe
supporting Vermont's campaign.

Similar legislation in Montana, New York, Hawaii, and North Dakota has
failed, she said. Vermont is the only state left where the bill is still
alive.

But Zuckerman dismisses the bellwether argument. "Big ag states don't even
know that Vermont exists," he said. Still, he labels Kerr's big-picture
reasoning as "simplistic and somewhat inaccurate."

"The underlying causes of world hunger have far more to do with
sociopolitical issues within those hungry nations than they have to do with
food supply," he contends. "GE crops, in fact, will add to the problem
because so much land area in these hunger- and food-poor nations is getting
converted to GM crops for export to U.S. markets. So in fact we are creating
a greater food dependence and food problem with our global marketplace and
global use of GMOs rather than solving any kind of hunger problem."

Farmer protection is "what's right for Vermont producers and consumers,"
Zuckerman said. "I think we need to be looking out for our agriculture
situation here at home, which is a very healthy, diverse mix. We need to
keep all farms economically viable, and we don't need to have farmers
potentially suing their neighbors for the losses than can occur."