Rural Vermont
Farm Policy Network News, April, 2003
* 15 Barre Street, Montpelier, VT 05602 * (802) 223-7222 *
No. 21

Vermont Lawmakers Debate GM Seed Rules

On April 8, 2003 the Vermont Senate overwhelmingly (25 to 3) passed Senate bill 182 requiring the registration and labeling of genetically modified (GM) seeds sold in the state. This legislation, which would give us knowledge about GM crops grown in the state, would be the first of its kind in the nation if it becomes law.

The new legislation would not pose restrictions on what farmers can grow, nor would it identify who purchases the seeds or where they are planted. Seed manufactures, not farmers or seed dealers, would be required to register their sales of GM seeds in the state. They would also be required to label their seed packets clearly as genetically modified.

Originally, four bills concerning GM crops were introduced by Senator White (D-Windham). The bills addressed the registration of seed sales, food labeling, liability protection for farmers, and a two year moratorium on growing GM crops in Vermont.

In mid-March, the Senate Agriculture Committee heard two weeks of testimony on this legislation from farmers, seed dealers, biotech industry representatives, and public interest groups. During the first week of hearings, most of the testimony came from farmers in favor of placing restrictions on GM crops. Seed dealers, GM seed manufactures, and several farmers growing GM crops in Vermont, as well as Vermont Commissioner of Agriculture, Steve Kerr, testified in opposition to the legislation.

Ken Van Hazinga, a grain farmer from Orwell, was one of many organic farmers who expressed his concerns about genetic contamination. Van Hazinga is especially concerned about the introduction of GM wheat and clover.

“As Robert Frost said, good fences make good neighbors,” Van Hazinga said. “Before, you could build a fence and live peaceably with your neighbor. Now with the introduction of GM crops, a fence is not enough.”

Dexter Randall, a conventional dairy farmer from Troy, spoke of the case of Percy Schmeiser, a conventional grain farmer from Saskatchewan, Canada, who was taken to court by the Monsanto company because its GM Roundup Ready canola was found growing in his fields and ditches.

“A farmer is guilty of violating Monsanto’s patent if Monsanto’s patented genes drift over onto his fields,” he said. “That means that if my crop is contaminated, it becomes the property of Monsanto. It means I could lose my farm.”

Randall, who is the board chair of Rural Vermont, said that two hundred farmers have signed on to a letter circulated by Rural Vermont calling for a moratorium on growing GM crops. “Protecting a farmer’s right to choose his seeds and crops is precisely why farmers need protection from GM crops,” he stressed.

On the other side, James Bushey, a seed dealer from Middlebury, testified in opposition to labeling requirements, to the liability legislation, and to a moratorium, although he did not oppose requiring the registration of sales of GM seeds.

“Biotechnology is a viable tool in today’s competitive market,” said Bushey. “Farmers are producing more for less.” Bushy stressed the economic hardship farmers are facing, arguing that they do no need more regulations.

Seed dealers Jacob Bourdeau from Fairfield and Brad Law from Brandon, testified that GM seeds are currently “clearly” labeled. Laws stated that farmers are using Roundup Ready corn to address serious weed problems; their chemical use, he said, is being “cut in half.” While other seed dealers estimated GM crops to represent between 5% and 20% of the crops grown in Vermont, Laws stated that 30% of his sales are Roundup Ready corn and soy.

Monsanto representative Kim Morin took issue with the claim that GM technology has led to an increase in pesticide use, which was stated earlier by organic farmer S’ra Desantis. Morin also stated that organic farmers cannot lose their certification from GM contamination.

“The ‘unintentional presence’ of genetically modified organisms,” she said, “does not constitute a violation of USDA organic standards.” She also stated that it is the responsibility of the organic grower to install buffer zones to protect the integrity of their crops.

Later, John Cleary, certification specialist for NOFA, clarified that although an organic farm is not automatically decertified, a crop contaminated by GMOs cannot be marketed as organic; nor could an organic dairy farmer feed his cows contaminated grain. In western Canada, certain crops — canola, soy and corn — cannot be grown organically because of widespread contamination.

Ed Miller, a Vermont attorney representing Monsanto, stated that current law provides adequate means to address liability issues involving GM contamination.

Agriculture Commissioner Steve Kerr made strong statements of faith in the promises of biotechnology:

“Biotechnology and globalization represent the greatest promises for the future,” he stated. “All human progress has been the result of free and aggressive scientific inquiry.” A moratorium, he believes, would “chill commercial opportunity and scientific inquiry.”

Kerr is against labeling because it would “stigmatize” these products. “If the government says its safe, that’s good enough for me,” he said. “I’m not smarter than the FDA.”

Concerning Senate bill 164, which would shift liability for genetic contamination from farmers to seed companies, the Commissioner does not support this initiative. “We live in a society that accepts responsibility. If someone runs a over a child and kills her, and he comes before the judge and says he’s sorry, the judge is going to say, you may be sorry but you still killed this child. You have to pay the consequences.”

Initially, the Commissioner expressed support for the requirement that seed manufacturers register the sales of GMO seeds. In an about-face, however, he withdrew his support for the registration requirement as well. Kerr said he had met privately with industry government relations specialists who support voluntary registration by seed manufacturers.

Dexter Randall said that he was “shocked” that the Commissioner would not support legislation that would protect farmers from unjust lawsuits. “This legislation is a protection for farmers. That’s all it is. It doesn’t hurt anyone. It doesn’t even say that farmers can’t grow the stuff.” Concerning Monsanto’s statement that current law covers potential liability issues, Randall commented, “but only if the farmer has hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend himself in court.”

As for the seed registration bill, “What’s not to support?” asks Randall, stating that the registration requirement imposes no burdens or regulations on farmers. “We are not required to do any paper work. And the labeling requirement respects our right to know if the seeds we buy are genetically modified or not.”

In the end, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted on two of the four bills: S. 164, addressing liability, and S. 182, requiring registration and labeling of GM seeds. The legislation was passed by a five to one vote. Senators Kittell (Franklin), White (Windham), Ayer (Addison), Dunn (Windsor), and Macdonald (Orange) voted in favor; Senator Maynard (Rutland) voted against the bills.

Senate bill 182, as of this writing, is in review by the House Natural and Resources Committee. It must be passed by the House, as well as the Governor, before it will become law.

Senate bill164 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill would protect farmers from liability for contamination of non-GM crops with GM pollen or seeds. The Senate Appropriations Committee is also considering a summer study to analyze the potential impacts of this technology, as well as the potential impacts, negative or positive, of a statewide moratorium on GM crops. • Please contact us for up to date information on the status of these bills.

S. 182—An Act Relating To Identifying Living Modified Organisms Intended For Intentional Introduction Into The Environment

Some Facts about the Bill:

S.182 is a Senate Agriculture Committee bill.
It passed the Senate upon third reading by unanimous consent.
S. 182 is a housekeeping bill that amends an already existing seed statute to keep up with advancing technology.
Thousands of Vermonters support this legislation, including many farmers, both conventional and organic.
70 Vermont towns passed resolutions urging the legislature to address concern about genetically modified seeds.

What does the bill do?
Defines "living modified organisms" (i.e., genetically modified seeds).
Requires that GM seeds be clearly labeled as such (the Commissioner of Agriculture makes this determination).
Requires that manufacturers or processors which distribute GM seed in the state report once per year on sales to the Commissioner on how many seeds were sold.

What the bill does NOT do:
The bill does NOT require reporting as to who the seeds were sold to—only the amounts sold.
The bill does NOT add any burden to seed dealers or to farmers.
The bill does NOT limit farmers' choices about what to plant.

Why should the state require registration of GM seeds?
It's important to know how many of these crops are being grown in Vermont. Currently this data does not exist.
It is beneficial to all Vermont farmers to know the amount of GM seeds that are being introduced into this state—especially those farmers who choose not to use GM.

Why should the state require labeling of GM seeds?
To absolutely guarantee that GM seeds are used only if so desired. Farmers who wish to use conventional seeds should be afforded the opportunity to know unequivocally what seeds they are purchasing.
Farmers and home growers need to know what they are growing. They should not be at risk of planting GM seeds unintentionally.
GM seeds are highly advanced technology. Growers must know how to use this technology properly.
Seed labeling requirements already exist for many things, such as inoculants. This is an update to already existing requirements to keep up with technology.


Dear Commissioner Kerr:

I was in attendance at the Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing on Thursday, April 17th, on S.182, a bill that would provide us with knowledge about the use of genetically engineered seeds in the state of Vermont.

While you clearly represented the concerns of the biotechnology industry, I did not hear you represent the concerns of farmers, nor of the citizens of Vermont, who are overwhelmingly concerned about the use of this technology.

You deferred several times to Margaret Laggis, a lobbyist for CropLife America, which, according to her own description, is a trade association representing 83 biotechnology companies. You spoke at length about your willingness and commitment to ensure that any reporting requirements set by the state meet the needs of these biotech companies, stressing that voluntary measures were the best option.

Not once did you mention the concerns of farmers, although you were present during the testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee in March, in which farmers voiced their concerns about this technology. Organic farmers are especially concerned. Several conventional farmers testified that clearer information is needed about these crops for farmers to make informed decisions. Are these concerns insignificant to you?

Most surprising was your reasoning for opposing S.182. You stated that these companies do not want regulations on genetically engineered seeds. These companies would have to spend a lot of money fighting this bill, was your stated concern. Using this logic, the legislature should never pass any legislation.

S.182 is a bill that simply updates an existing, decades-old statute. All this bill does is give us knowledge. It would provide the farmers in our state with important information about trends in the industry and also about the seeds they are buying (with the labeling requirement). Initially, when you appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee you expressed support for the registration requirement. It is highly disturbing to find that that you have had a change of heart after meeting with the industry, despite continuing concern from farmers and other Vermont citizens.

Finally, you stated that the industry is concerned that S.182 is only a first step, "a camel's nose under the tent" – implying that other legislation may follow. I should not have to remind you that the legislature must debate each and every piece of legislation on its own merits. To suggest that the committee should not pass legislation for fear of more legislation coming later is not even an argument.

In short, your unilateral support for the concerns of the biotechnology industry, with so little regard for the welfare of the farmers and other citizens of Vermont, leads us to question whether you are fulfilling your mandate as a public servant.

The time has come to put the concerns of Vermont farmers ahead of the special interests of multinational corporations. We respectfully request that you stand behind this fairly benign piece of legislation.

Sincerely,
Amy Shollenberger, Rural Vermont Policy Director

Do you support S. 182?

To sign onto a letter of support to Governor Jim Douglas, go to:
www.gefreevt.org
or call Matthew at 223-7222

For up to date alerts, join the
Farm Policy Action Network: email: amybeth@together.net