GM Food Legislation
Modified Foods in the Halls of Power
by Lara Freeman
Trying to follow the burrowing of U.S. public policy into genetically modified (GM) agriculture is like chasing earthworms through a cornfield. At first glance, the paths of GM legislation don’t seem to be along any certain trajectory, just a dizzying course of competing interests. Legislation to regulate the use of GM crops in one part of the country is met with its full encouragement in another.
What is the stimulus channeling this legislation between federal regulation agencies, government houses, town hall meetings, and conversations at the seed store? Legislation promoting GM agriculture is being introduced by agribusiness interests and, more often than not, kept alive long enough to be signed into law. However, legislation to regulate GM agriculture, under agribusiness influence, withers or gets watered down long before it leaves state Agricultural Committees. Concern for environmental precaution and human health is rarely at the heart of legislation on GM agriculture, and the rhetoric of economic benefits underlies the influence of industry money.
According to the Pew Initiative on Biotechnology, roughly forty percent of the bills introduced at the state level in 2002-2003 supported the use of genetically modified agriculture, specifically through research and development, tax exemptions for biotechnology corporations, and the promotion of agribusiness development. In the present recession, many states face fiscal deficits, and thus exploring the promotion of biotechnology, looking for ways to boost their economies .
The increasing use of GM crops worldwide brings new attention to liability and agricultural contracts. A battle is now being waged between farmers, seed distributors, and agribusiness owners over who should be responsible for genetic contamination of neighboring fields and who will cover the costs of unexpected repercussions. Task forces to study GM technology, as well as bills to regulate GM organisms in the environment or place a moratorium on their use, made up a significant portion of the GM legislation introduced last year—eighteen percent and fourteen percent respectively. The latter group, however, has fallen in frequency from previous years. Only eight percent of the legislation introduced in 2002-2003 dealt with labeling, as compared with sixteen percent in 2001-2002. Moratorium bills fell from nine to six percent.
While some GM legislation is introduced with the idea of bolstering dilapidated state economies through greater agricultural production and business development, not all states see GM agriculture as a moneymaker, and perhaps no state leader should see it as economically beneficial. For many states, GM agriculture will reduce the marketability of their crops, further enforce trends of unsustainable monocrop agriculture, and continue to disenfranchise farmers from their trade. The organic farming communities in California and Vermont have been especially vocal in the promotion of GM regulation, as have conventional and organic farmers in the mid-west. North Dakota, for instance, produces forty-eight percent of all U.S. wheat, and risks the loss of its international wheat markets—where sixty percent of its crop is sold—if it moves towards the use of GM wheat. As Congressman Earl Pomeroy pointed out in his statement to the federal government's Interim Agricultural Committee, important consumers of U.S. wheat such as Japan, Mexico, Algeria and the Philippines, don’t want GM wheat inside their borders or on their tables. Pomeroy questioned the wisdom of growing something without consumer demand. The North Dakota Wheat Commission, on the other hand, has stated that its goal in the coming year is to create such demand, by encouraging market acceptance of GM products and reassure consumers of the safety and wholesomeness of American wheat.
The recent legislation in North Dakota reflects significant agribusiness influence on the legislators in that state, the dampening of other views, and the tenuous market outlook for GM wheat. According to Janet Jacobson of the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Alliance, “Legislators don’t listen to the science. The party line is ‘We won’t stand in the way of technology.’ Not many will buck that line. Senator Bowman tried to introduce a liability bill and the Senate made gestures to take this seriously, but in the end they re-wrote it to be meaningless and defeated it anyway.” The testimony and hearings in the Agricultural Committee on GM wheat have been dominated by representatives from Monsanto. At one hearing, Monsanto was given six hours of presentation time, while citizens and those opposed to biotechnology were given just one hour. According to Jacobson, “even [the legislators’] body language says they aren’t listening. They sat with their backs to the citizens, some were sleeping, and some were playing on their laptops.”
Over the past year, all attempts at legislation to regulate GM in North Dakota have been defeated, including the establishment of a wheat board (HB1026), certificates of approval for the sale of GM wheat (SB2408), and a bill concerning cross-contamination (SB2304), among others. While there are some state and regional groups trying to organize and educate farmers, few people attend the meetings and those who do tend to be polarized. The discussion seems to be dominated by agribusiness and the state legislators whose hands they have tied.
New England states and pockets of mid-sized farming communities across the country share concerns with farmers in the heartland. States with vigorous organic agricultural markets, specifically Vermont, seem to be distancing themselves from GM agriculture. With twenty-four percent of its vegetable acreage under organic management, Vermont has the greatest proportion of organic vegetable acreage of any state. It is not surprising that organic and conventional farmers in Vermont are concerned about GM contamination hurting the marketability of their produce and dairy products. And, unlike North Dakota, Vermont's organic farmers have found a voice in the state houses through effective organization.
The combination of a system of local government that requires extensive constituent involvement, a growing number of well-informed farmers and consumers, and effective grassroots organizing creates an atmosphere in Vermont where citizens can develop an informed opinion on GM agriculture. The outcome of these efforts has been significant. According to Brian Tokar of the Institute for Social Ecology, seventy-nine towns in Vermont, as well as eleven in Massachusetts and a few in New Hampshire, have passed resolutions at Town Meetings stating that they are opposed to GM agriculture. While these are advisory only, the Vermont state legislators are paying attention. They have responded with three groundbreaking bills. On April 12, the Vermont House of Representatives voted 125-10 on final passage to endorse the Farmer’s-Right-to-Know Seed Labeling Bill (H.0777). This bill defines genetically modified seeds as different from conventional seeds and mandates the labeling of all genetically modified seeds sold in the state of Vermont. This follows on the heels of a March 10 vote where Vermont Senators voted unanimously (28-0) in support of the Farmer Protection Act (S.0164), a bill that will hold biotechnology corporations liable for unintended contamination of conventional or organic crops by genetically modified plant materials. The Time Out on GMOs Bill (S.0162), calling for a two-year moratorium on the planting of genetically modified crops in Vermont, is awaiting action in the Senate.
If the Vermont legislature passes these bills into law, they will join Mendocino County, California as the leaders in domestic policy to ban genetically modified crops. Measure H, Mendocino County’s initiative, was passed on March 2, 2004. The success of this legislation can be attributed to the hard work of local business owners, farmers, and concerned residents organized by Els and Allen Cooperriders of the Ukiah Brewery Company and Restaurant, who led the locally inspired campaign against GM. As it stands, this measure is a symbolic act ,since genetically modified crops are not grown in the area; however, some voters felt that it could be used as a marketing tool for their organic goods, especially in the European market, where consumers strongly oppose GM foods. Others felt that Measure H set a precedent for neighboring counties in Northern California and other communities nationwide that are becoming more aware of the implications of GM crops and foods. Six other California counties—Butte, Marin, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, Santa Barbara, and Humboldt—had similar measures on the November 2 ballots, though only the Marin County measure passed. At the state level, however, there is concern that agribusiness lobbyists will introduce legislation that will remove the authority of counties to pass agricultural legislation, thus nullifying the Marin and Mendocino measures.
Legislators in costal states have responded much more decisively to regulate GM aquaculture. National scientific advisory groups, supported by international studies such as the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization’s Guidelines for Action on Transgenic Salmon, and vocal aquaculture communities have aided this legislative activity. Additionally, the corporations genetically engineering fish are generally smaller and less politically influential than others in agribusiness. Because the distinction between “wild” and “farmed” ocean areas are blurry, often separated only by an easily broken net, and because fish have much greater mobility than land crops for spreading their genes, the potential for the decline or complete destruction of competing wild fish stocks is immanent if precautions are not taken. Genetically modified fish are engineered to grow quickly and have a larger adult body size than their wild counterparts; GM males tend to out-compete the wild males, and their size is more attractive to females.
For these reasons, if GM fish were accidentally released into the wild, they might be more successful reproducers than their non-engineered competitors. However, GM offspring would be less fit and less likely to survive. As a result of this combination, scientists predict that GM fish could cause some species to become extinct if they escape from open ocean farms. This potential impact of GM fish is a significant threat to coastal fishing communities whose economies depend on the continuation of wild fish populations.
Tracie Letterman of the Center for Food Safety’s Campaign on Genetically Engineered Fish suggests that the states, responding to the demands of fishermen and scientists alike, are taking up this issue because the federal government has not. Eight states passed laws between 2002-2004 regulating either the release or use of GM fish in state waters. These include California, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. California’s legislation (Cal. Fish and Game Code 15007) bans the raising of GM fish and the entry of salmon farms in California ocean waters. While GM fish are not currently being raised in California’s oceans—or any ocean—at this time, there is concern that, if the USDA approves GM salmon for human consumption this year, the industry will soon take root.
Thirty-one states proposed legislation on the genetic modification of agriculture or aquaculture in 2002-2003. The intended goal of much of this legislation is economic growth, but it should be asked whose economic growth will truly be realized: that of states and their constituents, or that of distant corporations? Tax breaks for national or transnational corporations and state-funded construction of buildings for agribusiness research do not help a government prosper. Liability for cross-contamination that falls on citizens of the state rather than the corporations that produced the contaminating seed does not improve the economic situation of the residents of the state in the long run.
As the legislation is sorted out, it becomes clear that much of the pro-GM legislation is funded and promoted by agribusiness lobbyists, while legislation to regulate GM is painstakingly proposed through collective efforts of concerned and informed constituents. While those who seek to regulate GM also have economic interests in mind, these tend to represent the broader interest of sustainable livelihoods, markets, agriculture, and health. According to Brian Tokar, the success of legislation to regulate GM agriculture in his state rests with a democratic system where the voices of the people have been heard over private corporate interest. The efforts there began in town hall meetings where only citizens of each township were allowed to speak. When seventy-nine towns spoke in favor of regulating genetically modified agriculture, state legislators had to listen. May the people of Vermont continue to be heard the world over.
