Luke Anderson recently reported how the last 12 months have been possibly the most inspiring yet as far as local activism on genetic engineering issues in the US is concerned. In Vermont 79 towns passed resolutions against GMOs while the State government passed a groundbreaking seed-labelling bill. In California in March, voters in Mendocino county passed the first law in the US to ban GMO releases into the environment. Other counties have followed suit.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4772
A backlash against local communities taking action was inevitable and here's an item that might set many good folks in Iowa and beyond up in arms as it is a direct assault on local democracy, and specifically local ordinances controlling GM seeds.
"HF 202" is being pushed (or should it be: 'sneaked in'?) by Rep Sandy Greiner who, we're told, has previously been an advocate for special interests. For instance, she apparently sponsored language to bypass years of work by the Dpt of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Commission to set up air quality standards for big, hog factory "farms" in the state...
The proposed bill is for "An Act relating to the regulation of agricultural seed, by providing for preemption of local legislation".
The ACT would stop, "a local governmental entity, including a county, special district, township, or city, from adopting or enforcing legislation which relates to the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging, labeling, certification, or registration of agricultural seed. The local legislation is void and unenforceable."
The article below shows that Iowa is not the only front for "pre-emption", although we've not heard of it being as advanced elsewhere:
"The fight bearing down on Sonoma County [California] over genetically engineered crops and animals could shift to the Legislature as efforts escalate to pre-empt an emerging patchwork of local ordinances."
The article confirms, "a broader effort is under way to nullify the county-by-county voter initiatives that began in Mendocino County last year and spread to Marin, San Luis Obispo, Butte, Humboldt and, most recently, Sonoma counties."
As someone points out in the article, "People in local communities don't feel represented or protected at the state level."
Details of the proposed Iowa legislation can be found at House File 202 here:
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/legislation%5CBills%5CHouseFiles%5CIntroduced%5CHF202.html
------
Fall vote likely on GMO ban
by Spencer Soper
The Press Democrat, 6 February 2005
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050206/NEWS/502060304/1033/NEWS01
The fight bearing down on Sonoma County over genetically engineered crops and animals could shift to the Legislature as efforts escalate to pre-empt an emerging patchwork of local ordinances.
Later this year, possibly in November, Sonoma County voters will decide whether to impose a 10-year ban on the cultivation of genetically modified plants, livestock and fish.
The county Board of Supervisors will determine the fate Tuesday of an initiative signed by more than 45,000 people - the most ever in Sonoma County to sign a ballot petition - to ban genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
County supervisors must adopt the proposed ordinance or place the measure before voters. On Tuesday, they likely will request a 30-day study of the ramifications of a ban before scheduling an election for later this year.
"I don't know how much scientific data there is out there to determine if this is a real threat to people or if this is overkill in terms of overregulation," county Supervisor Mike Kerns said. "If it goes to the voters, we need time to provide accurate information to voters so they can make an informed decision."
Supervisors Paul Kelley and Valerie Brown echoed Kerns' call for more information.
"I think the GMO issue is heading for an election," said Kelley, who wants to know what implementing such an ordinance would cost. "Before we run off and put something on the ballot, we ought to have some sense of what those costs are."
Meanwhile, a Tulare County assemblyman and fruit farmer said he wants the state to adopt rules on genetically modified products that would supercede county guidelines and provide a more uniform regulatory framework for the farming industry.
"This needs to be an issue addressed at the statewide level," said Assemblyman Bill Maze, R-Visalia, vice chairman of the Assembly Agriculture Committee. "I am working on something in that direction. If you have different rules in different counties, it makes it much more complicated."
No state legislation has been introduced and it remains unclear if that will happen this legislative session. But Maze's comments demonstrate a broader effort is under way to nullify the county-by-county voter initiatives that began in Mendocino County last year and spread to Marin, San Luis Obispo, Butte, Humboldt and, most recently, Sonoma counties.
Voters approved GMO bans in Marin and Mendocino counties.
For now, the Sonoma initiative is largely symbolic. GE-Free Sonoma County, the group that crafted the proposed ban, says there are no known genetically modified crops cultivated in the county. There have been no violations in neighboring Mendocino or Marin counties since they enacted GMO bans last year.
"To this date, we have not had one complaint alleging anyone is growing GMOs," said Tony Linegar, Mendocino County's assistant agricultural commissioner. "It's (the GMO ban) had very little impact on our office."
Nearly all the soybeans and cotton and half the corn in the United States is genetically engineered, but little else is. Those crops are not grown on a large scale on the North Coast, where agriculture is dominated by the wine industry and dairies run a distant second.
But supporters of a GMO ban, including environmentalists and organic farmers, say they want to protect the county's agricultural economy and environment from contamination from genetically modified products before they arrive.
Both sides of the GMO debate are shifting their political strategies following the costly and controversial campaign in Mendocino County, the first in the nation to ban genetically modified organisms last year.
Proponents of the Sonoma County ban actively sought to include the county and the farm industry in crafting the initiative's language. As a result, the Sonoma County proposal is much more flexible than the GMO bans adopted in Mendocino and Marin.
For instance, it would end in 10 years and could be modified by a majority vote of county supervisors, unlike measures passed in Mendocino and Marin with no such provisions.
The proposed Sonoma County ordinance "tried to find some middle ground and made some concessions," said Renata Brillinger, director of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, a coalition formed three years ago to focus on the potential risks of genetic engineering. "This appeals to more people who are concerned, but don't want to go as far as a ban. It's more toward the middle."
Brillinger said she could not comment on Assemblyman Maze's call for statewide guidelines until he proposes specific rules, but she expects the debate is inevitable. Until that happens, county ballot measures will continue, she said.
"People in local communities don't feel represented or protected at the state level," she said.
The biotech industry is shifting its efforts as well.
CropLife America, an industry group representing such biotech giants as Monsanto, Dow and Dupont, was the leading contributor to the campaign that spent more than $600,000 in a losing battle against the GMO ban in Mendocino County last year. But the group will not fight the Sonoma County initiative, spokesman Allan Noe said.
Once ballot measures proposing GMO bans began to proliferate, other stakeholders in California took over the fight, Noe said.
"The rest of the agricultural community is coming to the forefront, like the farm bureau and the commodity organizations," Noe said. "They represent the farmers and growers who stand to lose production tools. Once it started to proliferate, they realized this could be a serious situation."
Last year, engineered crops were grown by 8 million farmers in 17 countries around the world, covering 200 million acres, according to a report issued last month by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a nonprofit supporter of biotechnology.
The amount of acreage devoted to engineered crops jumped 20 percent last year, compared to 2003, and has exploded over the past decade. In 1996, the first year genetically modified crops were commercially available, about 4.3 million acres were under biotechnology cultivation.