Two American states have cast aside proposed legislation that would have made biotech companies liable for damage caused by the release of genetically modified wheat, but a third state might yet approve an even tougher motion.
Senators in Montana and North Dakota defeated similar bills designed to protect wheat markets for organic and conventional growers.
The legislation was vanquished in North Dakota by a tally of 14 in favour, 30 against. It was a closer call in Montana where the motion almost achieved the required majority, splitting the state senate with 25 votes for and 25 against the proposal.
Read Also
Canola oil transloading facility opens
DP World just opened its new canola oil transload facility at the Port of Vancouver. It can ship one million tonnes of the commodity per year.
A broader piece of legislation that applies to all GM crops is now being debated in the Vermont legislature. Proponents of the bill say it will be passed by the senate and has already garnered significant support in the house.
If it is approved by both bodies and receives the signature of Vermont’s governor, it will become the first law of its kind adopted by any U.S. state.
A group of Saskatchewan organic growers is taking a different approach on the same issue by attempting to launch a class action suit against Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer CropScience Inc. for damages caused by the commercialization of GM canola.
Linda Setchell, program director for Rural Vermont, a family farm advocacy group that supports the proposed Farmer Protection Act, said the intent of the bill is straightforward.
“It simply says that the manufacturers should be liable for their products. That liability should not rest on the backs of farmers.”
The bills that went down to defeat in Montana and North Dakota had a similar stated purpose, although the legislation strictly pertained to GM wheat.
They suggested the introduction of GM wheat could cause “significant harm” to domestic and foreign wheat markets, leading to a loss of value to farmers and grain handlers.
The bills would have made biotech companies liable for lost price premiums, additional transportation, storage and handling costs, loss of organic certification or loss of livelihood or reputation caused by the introduction of GM wheat.
North Dakota senator Robert Eberle voted against Bill SB2235 when it came forward for second reading on Feb. 14.
“It would have created a real island mentality for the state,” he said in a recent interview.
Eberle worried the proposed legislation would have chased research dollars out of North Dakota and placed the state’s farmers at a competitive disadvantage if GM wheat is ever commercialized.
He pointed out that the United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration all monitor food safety issues at a national level.
“In our country I feel we have enough safeguards in place that we don’t need to legislate it at a local level,” he said.
Eberle said the GM wheat liability legislation is a perennial bill in North Dakota. He has been a senator for three sessions of the legislature and at each session it has been shot down.
“If anything, it is losing steam and it is losing credibility.”
When Monsanto voluntarily shelved Roundup Ready wheat last summer it took the most advanced GM wheat project out of the running for commercialization.
“To save yourself from something that doesn’t exist is kind of a silly thing to be doing,” said the North Dakota senator.
But GM wheat is far from a dead issue south of the 49th parallel. Last month a national grower organization vowed to aggressively pursue the commercialization of the controversial crop.
At its annual convention in Reno, Nevada, the National Association of Wheat Growers passed a resolution to do anything it can to help technology providers develop a viable domestic market for GM wheat.
Setchell said the senate will vote on Vermont’s bill next week. Last year that same body passed a slightly different version of the legislation and she fully expects it to give the nod to the new Farmer Protection Act.
However, before it can become law the proposed legislation has to also be approved by the house, which will probably vote on the matter in late April.
“About one-third of the Vermont house co-sponsored the bill, which is pretty exciting,” said Setchell.
