House bill puts GMO liability on seed makers
Wednesday, April 26, 2006

By Ross Sneyd Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds could be liable for damages if their products drift into the fields of neighboring farmers who don't want them under a bill that won approval Tuesday in the Vermont House.

The proposal could put Vermont at the forefront of a heated national debate about the wisdom of using the seeds and plants, which can be scientifically modified to resist pests or disease. Some farmers and consumers don't want such technology being used on their food. But others say it's an important way to keep food economical and to control the use of pesticides on farm fields.

That divide was starkly illustrated in the Statehouse. Supporters and opponents thronged the House chamber to witness the debate on a compromise version of the bill that's been debated in the Legislature for the past year and a half.

"As an organic farmer, my job is to make sure I'm producing a crop that's free of genetically modified (organisms)," said Leceister dairy farmer Annie Claghorn after the House voted 77-63 in favor of the bill.

But opponents were out in equal force to demonstrate to Gov. Jim Douglas, who has made pretty clear he'll veto the bill if it wins Senate approval, that they'll back him.

"We're here to show the governor he has the vote when, hopefully, he vetoes it," said St. Albans dairy farmer Mitch Montagne, standing outside the governor's office after the vote.

The issue in the legislation is fairly arcane. The bill was designed to give farmers who don't want to use modified seeds a forum to address their grievances if pollen from modified plants drift into their crops.

The bill would treat farmers as consumers and would allow them to sue a seed manufacturer, claiming the so-called drift into his or her field was a private nuisance. Such a claim could only be made if the farmer could prove that his or her total loss exceeded $3,500.

"This is a bill to protect all farmers, especially those who use genetically modified seeds," said Rep. Dexter Randall, P-Troy, the primary sponsor of the bill and a dairy farmer.

He and others said it was an attempt to give farmers a greater say over their businesses. Although manufacturers retain ownership of the genetically engineered seeds and plants and only lease them to farmers, the companies have been insulated from damage claims.

The new bill would protect a farmer using the genetically engineered seeds, making manufacturers liable for damages. Supporters said that's why they believed the bill would be good for both conventional farmers and organic farmers, who are among the leaders in opposing the use of the genetically altered seeds.

"This bill is not about dividing these farmers," said Rep. Rosemary McLaughlin, D-Royalton. "(It) is about protecting these two types of farmers."

Rep. William Johnson, R-Canaan, also a dairy farmer, argued that all the bill would do was erroneously call into question the safety of genetically modified organisms. "It's based on a false premise," he said. "It's based on the premise that there's something wrong with genetically engineered seeds or biotechnology."

On January 19th at the State House, Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters brought together twenty one of Vermont’s environmental organizations, calling for the Vermont Legislature to Honor Vermont’s Legacy of Self Reliance by protecting Vermont’s Air, Land and Water for all. The organizations share a common goal: to work with elected leaders to preserve the quality of life in Vermont for its people and protect Vermont’s natural resources by advocating for a common list of environmental legislative priorities.

Copy this entire address into your browser to view the 2006 priorities: Http://www.vacv.org/legislature/documents/2006Legislativeagenda.pdf

MONTPELIER, Vt. --The House gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill that would require residential furnaces, certain lamps and other appliances to meet energy efficiency standards.

But the bill still does not have a provision for enforcing the policy if it becomes law.

That has been a challenge for the House Natural Resources Committee, which drafted the bill. The committee was forced to pull the bill off the House calendar twice because of that issue.

The panel decided to move the bill through the process while lawmakers continue searching for an agency of state government willing to enforce the law. The problem is that the attorney general's office, the Public Safety Department and the Natural Resources Agency have said that their existing organizations do not lend themselves to being the enforcement agency.

"We don't think enforcement will be much of an issue at all," said Rep. James Masland, D-Thetford.

He said the committee anticipated that only a half dozen or so cases would arise annually.

Rep. Richard Hube, R-Londonderry, said he was not comfortable going along with the proposal until it was fully worked out. "To pass a bill at this point without enforcement, I think, is premature," he said.

The 2006 Vermont Legislature convened on Tuesday, January 3. Some of the hot environmental issues this year include:

· Setting goals for reductions in global warming pollution
· Setting efficiency standards for appliances
· Continuing our land conservation investments
· Enacting the Farmer Protection Act
· Protecting our way of life through Smart Growth
· Recognizing groundwater as a public resource:

Be on the lookout for email action alerts from the Environmental Action Network about how you can help!