EXCERPT: Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, majority leader and a supporter of applying strict liability to genetically altered crops, said the debate will continue when the conference committee of House and Senate members meets.
"The Senate feels very strongly that strict liability should be part of the bill," he said.
---
House waters down modified-seed bill
By Louis Porter
Vermont Press Bureau, January 4, 2006
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/NEWS/601040339/1004
A long-debated measure designed to hold seed manufacturers liable for the accidental spread of genetically modified crops was narrowly defeated in the House Monday, a busy first day of the new session.
The House passed a less stringent version of the bill, which requires that lawsuits over the unintentional spread of genetically modified crops be filed in Vermont courts and affirms farmers' rights to sue companies under consumer protection law.
It is not the end of the issue, however, because the Senate passed the tougher proposal last year and a compromise will have to be worked out with the House before the end of the session.
Dozens of farmers and activists on both sides of the debate crowded the Statehouse. Supporters of the more stringent version of the bill wore red shirts, and sat elbow-to-elbow with those who opposed the bill and wore green caps.
Organic farmers who do not use genetically altered seeds could lose money if their crops are accidentally pollinated with genetically modified corn or soybeans, according to supporters of applying so-called "strict liability" to genetically modified seeds.
Under current law and contracts with seed manufacturers, the farmers would have to sue their neighbors, not the manufacturers, they said.
If strict liability was applied to genetically manufactured seeds, a farmer who suffered a loss due to pollen drift would not have to demonstrate negligence on the part of the manufacturer to claim damages.
But farmers who use the seeds and other opponents of the strict liability proposal said that seed manufacturers may stop selling the products in Vermont at all if the bill passed. And, they added, strict liability is more suited to inherently dangerous materials like explosives than to genetically modified seeds, they said.
The version of the bill which included the strict liability provision was defeated in a 79-68 vote.
"It is government trying to protect people from themselves," said Jeff Sanders of St. Albans, who left the 1,400 acres he farms to make his first trip to the Statehouse to oppose the measure. "GMO products are a tool conventional farmers use to eke out a living. Tradition is that neighboring farmers work out their differences and generally they can do a pretty good job."
But farmer Armand Pion worries about what would happen if the pollen from the genetically modified corn he used this year spreads to his neighbors' organic crops.
"If they can be allowed to sell the GMO seed they should be held responsible for what happens with it," he said of the manufacturers.
Cross-pollination could easily have happened, since without even thinking about it he planted genetically modified corn near his neighbor's fields, said Pion, who sells both organic and conventional feed.
Lawmakers were just as divided as farmers.
The strict liability proposal isn't about whether genetically modified crops are safe, said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier.
"A farmer needs to be on a level playing field with these corporations in court," he said. Without the strict liability provision a farmer cannot afford to sue a large seed manufacturer, Klein said.
But Rep. Harvey Smith, R-New Haven, said that the strict liability proposal was in reality about opposition to genetically modified products.
It is "a backdoor attempt to disallow the use of biotech seeds in Vermont," he said.
Secretary of Agriculture Steve Kerr opposed strict liability and was pleased by the vote.
"I think it is a good policy decision," said Kerr.
One lawmaker who wasn't heard from was Rep. Dexter Randall, P-North Troy, who proposed the strict liability provision and was taken to the hospital Monday night for pain from an apparent heart attack.
"I still feel that strict liability was the way to go," Randall said by telephone from the hospital. "It would point the finger right back at the manufacturer, where it belongs. The farmer would know he could recover damages."
Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, majority leader and a supporter of applying strict liability to genetically altered crops, said the debate will continue when the conference committee of House and Senate members meets.
"The Senate feels very strongly that strict liability should be part of the bill," he said.