Iowa Legislature Moves Toward Taking Away Rights of Local Governments to Ban GE Crops

Crop bill receives approval in Iowa House

Local governments wouldn't be able to ban planting of certain seeds

By JERRY PERKINS
approval in Iowa House>
DES MOINES REGISTER FARM EDITOR
March 15, 2005

The Iowa House of Representatives approved a bill Monday that pre-empts local governments from banning the planting of certain crops, such as seeds that have been genetically modified.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Sandy Greiner, a Keota Republican, at the request of the Iowa Seed Association. It was approved by a vote of 70-27 and sent to the Senate.

Greiner said the intent of the bill was simple: to give the Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship final authority on seed grown in Iowa.

Clarifying that the state is the final authority would prevent local governments - cities, counties or townships - from barring the planting of genetically modified, organic or any other type of seeds, Greiner said.

"I can see where we could have corn planted specifically for use in ethanol production, and one or two people could get it banned in the whole township because they are worried that it would cross-pollinate with their crops," Greiner said.

Greiner said she has been accused of introducing the bill to promote large agribusi- nesses.

"I'm standing up for small farmers," said Greiner, who farms with her husband, Terry, and their three sons. "I want to see small farmers continue to be able to plant traditional crops."

Critics of the bill are misrepresenting it, she said, by saying it would prevent the planting of organic or identity-preserved crops. Identity-preserved crops are grown for a specific use, such as organic soybeans for food or high-starch corn for ethanol, and need to be sequestered from other plants to keep from losing their special qualities.

"That's a flagrant misrepresenting of the bill," Greiner said. Identity-preserved crops are being grown now in Iowa without any state protection, she said, and would continue to be.

Rep. Mark Kuhn, a Charles City Democrat, offered two amendments to the bill.

One amendment, which defined genetically modified crops, was ruled out of order by Rep. Rod Roberts, a Carroll Republican, who was presiding as speaker during Monday's debate.

The other amendment, which would have created agricultural areas to protect identity-preserved or other types of specialty crops, was defeated, 62-36.

Kuhn said the bill was a creation of the biotechnology industry, which wants to prevent the growing of organic and identity-preserved crops.

The bill also meant a loss of local control and home rule for areas of the state that wanted to boost the growing of higher-value specialty crops like food grade soybeans and corn for export markets. There are efforts in other states to ban the growing of genetically modified
crops.

In California, Daniel Solnit, campaign coordinator for the GE-Free Sonoma initiative, said three counties in California have enacted bans of genetically engineered crops and 15 other counties are watching the Sonoma County ballot initiative, scheduled for a Nov. 8 vote.

The movement to ban genetically modified crops is spreading throughout California, he said.

"If the biotech industry is scared, it should be," Solnit said.

Renata Brillinger, who works for Californians for a GE-Free Agriculture, a coalition of groups headquartered in Occidental, Calif., said three local initiatives to ban genetically engineered crops have failed.

A dozen other communities are interested in similar measures, but only Sonoma County has it on the ballot, she said.

********************************************************************************************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org <http://www.eco-farm.org/
********************************************************************************************************