1.Support S.18
2.Farmer protection: Liability bill among first to the House floor
EXCERPT: House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Zuckerman, maintains that it is imperative to protect Vermont farmers with a bill that puts liability for GM contamination not on fellow farmers, but on the seed dealers.
"Farmers are the ones really having their necks put on the line" (item 2)
---
1.Support S.18
Rutland Herald
December 31, 2005
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051231/NEWS/512310315/1037
When the legislature reconvenes this week, the House of Representatives will consider the Farmer Protection Act, which the Senate passed last year on a vote of 29-1. The bill states that the manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds are liable for any damages that occur in Vermont as a result of use of the seeds.
Known damages from GM crops include contamination of crops grown by traditional and organic farmers, with resulting loss of marketability. Currently, Vermont's farmers who never actually own the genetically engineered seeds are being forced to bear the full burden of liability for unintended damages to neighboring crops.
Please encourage your state Representatives to support a version of the Farmer Protection Act which contains strict liability provisions, ensuring that manufacturers of these seeds - huge conglomerates such as Dow and Monsanto - are held strictly liable for any economic damage caused to farmers by contamination from use of the seeds.
ABIGAIL SESSIONS
Cornwall
---
2.Farmer protection: Liability bill among first to the House floor
Vermont Guardian, Dec 30 2005
http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/122005/LegPreview.shtml
The contentious Farmer Protection Act is expected to heat up the 2006 session early. After passing the Senate last year 26-1, a compromise version of the measure - which omits the "strict liability" provision in the original bill - is headed to the floor of the House during the first or second day of the new session, where it's likely to reinvigorate a debate that has not softened over the break.
Instead, opposing viewpoints have germinated over the fall and summer, sprouting even more resolve on the part of supporters to amend the bill to protect farmers from the influence of genetically modified (GM) crops. Likewise, opponents, among them the Douglas administration, have dug in their heels with equal vigor, fueled by the belief that a liability measure could actually hurt conventional farmers and would send the wrong message nationally and internationally.
"We're aiming at the wrong target," contends Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr, an impassioned supporter of GM technology. A Vermont law would do nothing to protect farmers along the borders, where drift from GM crops in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Canada could contaminate their crops, Kerr argues. Instead, supporters should be lobbying Congress to examine the issues of corporate control of seed genomes and decreasing genetic diversity, he said.
But House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, maintains that it is imperative to protect Vermont farmers with a bill that puts liability for GM contamination not on fellow farmers, but on the seed dealers.
"Farmers are the ones really having their necks put on the line ”¦ because of the contracts they sign either with ink or by opening the bag," said Zuckerman.
Soy and corn are believed to be the only GM crops currently grown in Vermont, but their prevalence has increased steadily for the third consecutive year, according to Agriculture Agency statistics. Sales of GM corn increased 12 percent in 2004, while GM soybeans increased 46 percent.
Anti-GM activists say this growth adds urgency to their quest for legislation to minimize the potential negative impact on farmers seeking to keep their crops GM free.
The Farmer Protection Act is the most recent manifestation of a years-long push to limit the influence of genetically modified crops in Vermont. In 2004, the Legislature passed the nation’s first seed-labeling law, but left implementation open to interpretation by the Department of Agriculture.
Kerr has chosen to enforce the spirit, but not the letter of the law, critics say. Hence, seed manufacturers have been deemed to meet the requirements with phrases like "pest resistant" or "virus resistant."
Clearly defining liability rules would have the added bonus of clearer labeling, said Zuckerman. "Ultimately, if the liability bill passes with some strong teeth, seed companies will make sure people know that they're planting ”¦ I think by default, more clear labeling will occur."