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

Stepping into the middle of a growing debate, a freshman assemblyman has
introduced legislation that would make companies developing genetically
engineered crops liable for damages if their work results in contamination
of other fields, February 2007 by Steve Lawrence.

The bill by Assemblyman Jared Huffman also would ban open-field production
of genetically engineered crops used in the development of medications. And
it would require growers to give county agriculture commissioners at least
30 days notice before engaging in open-field development of other
genetically modified plants.

Huffman, D-San Rafael, said the measure is needed to protect California
farmers against significant losses if their conventional or organic crops
are contaminated by genetically engineered plants, seeds or pollen.

His bill would cover cases in which a grower claimed annual losses of at
least $3,500.

He said an incident last year in which an experimental form of rice being
developed by a German company showed up in grain elevators in Arkansas and
Missouri should serve as a wake-up call for California.

Hundreds of rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana have filed
lawsuits claiming losses because of that contamination.

"It certainly underscores the urgency of taking action before things like
that happen here," Huffman said.

The bill would clarify who would be responsible for damages if there was
contamination. With some limited exceptions, it would be the seed producer,
chemical company or other manufacturer paying for the genetically altered
crop rather than the farmer growing it under contract.

"I'm not interested in farmers suing farmers...," Huffman said. "The kind of
damage that can occur when cross-contamination does happen can be of a scale
where you're not going to be able to make farmers whole unless they can hold
the manufacturer responsible."

The measure also would identify who was involved in genetically modified
crop production. Right now, no one seems to have a clear idea of how much of
that activity is taking place in California.

The bill would prevent the mixing of pharmaceutical plants with other crops
by preventing those projects from being conducted in open fields.

"We're seeing food crops being engineered to grow chemicals as an
alternative way of producing things like vaccines and antibiotics," Huffman
said. "That is fascinating stuff, but obviously you don't want those crops
getting into the food supply."

Huffman's bill might go too far for some segments of California's
agriculture industry and not far enough for others.

Greg Massa, co-chairman of the Rice Producers of California, said he
welcomes Huffman's bill but added, "I don't really know if it's enough."

His group of 200 farmers wants a moratorium on genetically modified rice
experimentation and production. A study it commissioned found that
California growers could lose about 40 percent of their rice market if
Japan, China and several other nations imposed trade embargoes to keep out
genetically modified crops.

"We can't take the risk," Massa said. "The report we just put out said
pretty clearly that our customers don't want (genetically engineered crops)
and that contamination in California would be much more severe than in the
South."

A California law adopted in 2000 might give farmers enough protection
already, said Tim Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the
California Rice Commission, which represents growers and marketers.

That statute, the California Rice Certification Act, provides for a
committee representing growers, handlers, warehouses and researchers to
suggest regulations designed to prevent the intermingling of different
varieties of rice.

"That really has provided us, at least up to this point, the tools we need
to manage customers' response to genetically modified crops," Johnson said.
"That said, the industry will take as deliberative a review of Mr. Huffman's
legislation as we did in developing the California Rice Certification Act of
2000."

The California Farm Bureau Federation opposes the bill "as it stands now,"
said Cynthia Cory, the bureau's director of environmental affairs.

But she said her group of 91,000 farmers and others in the agriculture
industry, including companies engaged in genetic engineering, is willing to
work with Huffman.

"Biotechnology across the board is very important to this state," she said.
"I don't think the bill acknowledges that."

The bill's ban on open-field production of corn and other crops for use in
medications could curtail "a cheap and effective way to produce the drugs,"
Cory said.

Huffman's bill may be unnecessary because legal remedies already exist, said
Richard Matteis, executive vice president of the California Seed
Association, which also represents some companies involved in genetic
engineering.

"In California, I'm not aware of any growers being damaged because of the
presence of biological crops in their crops," he said. "I think the system
is working."

Huffman's bill is similar to legislation introduced in 2005 by Assemblyman
John Laird. That measure passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee but died in
the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said his bill ran into "big fears that (it) would get
in the way of certain agriculture production."

"I think those fears are misplaced," he said. "I think it's an issue of
markets. There are potentially markets that will close themselves to
American crops if they believe there is (a genetically modified crop)
involved."

Huffman's bill might have a better chance of passing because of increased
concern about the potential threat posed by the inadvertent spread of
genetically modified grasses and crops since his bill failed, Laird said.

Several federal court rulings in the last six months have found that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture has been lax in enforcing environmental
protections on genetically modified crop projects, Laird said.

In one case, a judge ordered the department to conduct more detailed reviews
of genetically engineered plant projects after studies found that pollen
from weed killer-resistant grass had drifted more than 12 miles from plots
in Madras, Ore., and bred with conventional plants.

"Two things are inevitable on this issue," Huffman said. "One is genetic
engineering is here to stay. We're going to see it more and more.

"But the second is there is going to be some regulation of this, and
hopefully we can put a coherent policy in place before California
experiences a cross-contamination disaster like the one that happened in
Arkansas."

[www.theledger.com]