www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

In 2005, the majority of bills adopted by state legislators supported
agbiotech. The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology announced this
discovery in June. The Initiative also released their updated fact sheet and
web database on state and federal legislative activity in the agbiotech
area, September 2006 by Phillip B C Jones.

Pew Initiative analysts counted 117 pieces of legislation related to
agricultural biotechnology introduced in 33 states and the District of
Columbia during the 2005 legislative session. Hawaiian legislators had been
the busiest; they introduced 33 bills, or 28 percent of the total.
Legislators in the Northern Plains and Midwest introduced 23 percent of the
bills; Northeast legislators generated 22 percent; the South 16 percent; the
West 9 percent; and Alaska 2 percent.

One of the most active legislative topics in 2005 also represented a new
trend: bills to preempt or disallow local and county initiatives aimed at
limiting or prohibiting genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. An
example of a local effort took place in June when Santa Cruz County
supervisors approved a moratorium on growing GE crops within county lines.
The prohibition should have little impact on Santa Cruz County agriculture;
no GE crops are grown here. Berries and lettuce dominate the county?s crops,
rather than the typical targets of genetic engineering: corn, cotton and
soybeans.

Santa Cruz County joined Trinity, Marin, and Mendocino counties, which also
prohibit the planting and production of GE crops. Local bans have provoked
state legislators who do not want to see California become a patchwork of
disparate regulations. Senate Bill 1056 would overrule attempts by local
jurisdictions to regulate crops. "The goal of this legislation is simply to
say that we have a consistent policy," explained Sen. Dean Florez
(D-Shafter), SB 1056?s author. "Twelve other states have passed laws like
this." Pew Initiative analysts anticipate that preemption will continue to
be an active issue for state legislatures throughout this year.

Legislation introduced in 2005 also focused on the peaceful coexistence of
farmers using GE crop technologies, conventional techniques, or organic
production. In at least one case, a higher authority intervened to maintain
peace. In May, Vermont?s Governor Jim Douglas vetoed a bill that would have
made seed manufacturers liable for damages caused by GE seeds that drift
into fields owned or occupied by a person with whom the seed manufacturer
has not entered into a contract of sale, use, or license. The Governor
called the measure unnecessary legislation that "dives into new legal
territory that may only promote needless litigation that pits farmer against
farmer and neighbor against neighbor."

A Summer Rerun in Congress

During the summer of 2003, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
introduced six bills aimed at the agbiotech industry. None emerged from
House committee reviews.

In May, Kucinich introduced essentially the same six bills, which, he said,
"are a common sense precaution to ensure genetically engineered foods do no
harm." The ambitious legislation offers more than a few tweaks of current
laws and regulations. "To ensure we can maximize benefits and minimize
hazards," Kucinich said, "Congress must provide a comprehensive regulatory
framework for all genetically engineered products."

HR 5266, "The Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act,"
would initiate changes in federal agencies and in contracts between
companies and farmers. The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish the best achievable plan for
preventing the development of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
toxin due to the introduction of GE plants that produce the toxin. The EPA
would have to revoke Bt toxin registrations that fail to comply with the new
plan and reduce the use of plant-incorporated Bt toxin if the agency
determines that its use facilitates Bt-toxin resistance in pests, or if the
agency?s review about Bt toxin resistance proves inconclusive.

The legislation would regulate contracts by requiring a company that sells
any GE animal, plant, or seed for use in the United States to provide the
purchaser with written notice of possible legal and environmental risks of
the article?s use. The disclosure would not relieve the company from
liability, and receipt of the notice by the purchaser would not create any
liability for the purchaser. HR 5266 would also allow farmers to save seeds
for future crop planting and prohibit the use of genetic engineering to
generate plants that produce infertile seeds or seeds rendered infertile by
the application of a chemical.

A moratorium on GE crops that produce pharmaceuticals or industrial
chemicals would be initiated by HR 5267, the "Genetically Engineered
Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crop Safety Act." The Act directs the
Department of Agriculture to establish a tracking system to regulate the
growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of all pharmaceutical and
industrial crops and their byproducts to prevent contamination. Until the
final regulations and tracking system have taken effect, the cultivation of
a pharmaceutical crop or industrial chemical crop would be prohibited. The
Act would also prohibit the cultivation of a pharmaceutical crop or
industrial crop in an open air environment, and the production of such a
crop from a plant commonly used for human food or domestic animal feed.

HR 5268, the "Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act," would amend the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include GE food in the definition of
"food additive." Kucinich said that this will create a more strenuous safety
review process. The Act also details requirements that a company must meet
in its petition to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a
regulation prescribing the conditions of safe use of a particular GE food
additive. The Act authorizes civil actions against a company alleged to have
violated provisions regulating GE food additives.

The labeling of GE food, an issue that has generated friction between the
U.S. and European Union, may become a reality with HR 5269, the "Genetically
Engineered Food Right to Know Act." The legislation would amend the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act to require that food that contains a GE
material, or that is produced with a GE material, be labeled accordingly.
The FDA would be required to periodically test products to ensure
compliance.

HR 5270, the "Real Solutions to World Hunger Act," would restrict GE exports
to GE products approved in the U.S. and approved by the importing nation.
The bill would also create an international research fund for sustainable
agricultural research paid by a fund supported from an income tax on
companies engaged in genetic engineering.

The "Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act," HR 5271, would place
all liability resulting from an environmental release of a GE organism upon
the biotech company that created the GE organism. Farmers would be granted
indemnification to protect them from such liability, while biotech companies
would not be allowed to transfer liability from the company.

Like their predecessors, the six bills sit in various House committees for
review.

Selected Sources

Bay, A (2006) Proposed legislation would void county biotech seed bans.
Capital Press (July 2006). Available: [www.capitalpress.info].

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2006) State Legislative Activity
Related to Agricultural Biotechnology in 2005 (June 2006). Available:
[pewagbiotech.org].

Rathke L (2006) Governor vetoes GE seed liability bill. The Associated Press
(May 16, 2006). Available: [www.ruralvermont.org].

Speech of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio in the House of Representatives.
Congressional Record E687-E688 (May 2, 2006).

www.checkbiotech.org

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail