House Bill 1388: Liability for GMO Crop Contamination
On Thursday, February 11, 2010, NH House Environment and Agriculture Committee hearings were held on two bills that would affect the status quo of GMOs. One of the bills, HB 1388 asked that if a farmer’s crop becomes contaminated with genetically engineered organisms, the farmer has the right to seek damages from the patent holder (some language in the bill will change to “patent holder,” as the original bill used the term “farmer,” which removed the responsibility from the manufacturer or patent holder, which was not our intention).
There is disagreement between the NH Department of Agriculture and the organic farming community about whether organic and non-GMO corn grown in New Hampshire would cross contaminate with genetically modified corn. The NH Department of Agriculture states that there are so few farms, so far apart, that there is no problem with cross-contamination from corn pollen, which is too heavy to move very far. Yet most organic and traditional farmers disagreed with that analysis upon hearing it. One of our certified organic farmers offered written testimony that organic corn seed that he purchased from a very reputable seed distributor got recalled because GMO seed got mixed in with the organic seed. There are many other ways corn pollen, often via GMO corn seed can travel; birds and mammals and spillage can drop GMO seed to other locations, and wind can transport pollen in the right conditions. Even though spores and pollen are not the same things, how did the blight get transported so easily throughout NH last year when our farms are so far apart?
While working on this legislation, we found that at least two of those corn mazes marketed as fun and entertaining on New Hampshire farms are grown using genetically modified corn. Adults and children walk through these mazes and can pick up pollen and transfer it to other farms that do not want GMO contamination. Also, more NH organic farmers are raising organic sweet corn in larger acreage around the state. There are some types of sweet corn that are now genetically engineered and though we are told they are only available to farmers who must purchase the seed in large amounts, who knows if they are also available to consumers.
There are no statistics on the amount of GMO corn being grown in NH, but the state of Maine hired the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to find out how much GMO crops are growing in their state. NASS found that 40% of corn crops are GMO in Maine. Maine grows corn for the same reasons NH does, feed stock for dairy mostly, and it has been estimated that NH’s corn crops could be 20-40% GMO. Nationally, 80% of feed corn is GMO.
The most troubling piece of news to come out of these hearings is that the NH Department of Agriculture stated that the USDA has told the organic certifiers in this state that if up to 5% of an organic crop did become contaminated with GMOs, the certifier would not have to de-certify that organic farm. This suggests that organic integrity has been sold out to the biotech companies – organic crops can now be partially contaminated with GMOs and sold labeled as organic. The discussion about protecting a farmer from cross-contamination by leveling the field so that a farmer can sue the patent holder of the GMO seed is a critical discussion to have; organic products must be GMO-free. Many organic processors (value added products, such as chips) are testing organic crops for GMOs, and are rejecting those that are contaminated.
A strong market: Organic agriculture continues to grow at 12% annually. New England NASS 2007 Agriculture Census showed an increase in acreage grown to organic crops in NH. Organic farms have been shown to be more profitable than conventional farms (2007 US Census) see link for more info on organic statistics: http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/usda-releases-organic-production-survey-results/
NH organic farms contribute $10.7 million, which is 4.8% of NH’s $213 million cash receipts from sales of agriculture products (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007).
Hearings on March 11: Both hearings for the seed labeling and the damages bills were delayed by 4 hours due to the strong interest in the HB 1456, establishing a committee to study the use of pesticides, herbicides, and their alternatives in residential neighborhoods, school properties, playgrounds, and other places children congregate. Much testimony was offered by homeowners, professional landcare providers, consumers and people harmed by exposure to lawn chemicals, both against and in favor of this bill.
While the 9 AM hearing for HB 1456 went for an unscheduled three hours (instead of the one hour assigned to it) dozens of members of the organic, NOFA, and local foods community began appearing early, for the first GMO bill hearing scheduled at 11 AM, ready to testify and witness the hearings in support the bills. We mingled, conversed and greeted each other and the excitement was palpable. Part of the process of hearing a bill not only includes oral testimony, but written testimony (letters or emails) as well as the opportunity to sign-in against or in favor of the bills. It turned out that seventy-two people signed-in in favor of our bills, with less than ten signing in against them.
Unfortunately, the liability/damages bill, the first GMO hearing scheduled, did not start until 2 PM, and many of those who wanted to testify for either bill had to leave; some decided to hand-write their testimony to make sure it got in. But the people who were able to stay and testify, several farmers, gardeners, and local/organic food supporters, offered strong testimony in favor of both bills. One person, a lawyer by trade, and a four-year member of a CSA, offered a legal perspective on the liability issue. The committee asked him lots of questions which helped clarify the issue. Later, when a legal question was asked that he could not answer, he revealed that he was an immigration lawyer, which then was humorously associated with GMO pollen “migration.” Another farmer spoke eloquently about heritage foods that represent real food. The family traditions that have kept heirloom genetics in existence have also maintained the original, non-engineered genetics to produce healthy, delicious, vibrant foods while supporting sustainability.
Testimony against both bills was offered by NH Farm Bureau (who was against the “seek damages from farmers” language, which will change to “seek damages from the patent holder” and who said that there is no problem), NE Vegetable and Berry Growers Association (who claimed that GMO seeds have extensive labeling and these bills were “solutions in search of a problem”), the NH Department of Agriculture (who said there is no problem of cross contamination in NH because the farms are few and far apart for pollen to drift; and that cross contamination of crops will not affect organic certification) and the biotech industry lobbyist, Crop Life, to protect their market.
Post-hearing Executive Session, February 18, 2010: The Committee’s Executive Session is where one of three possible outcomes for the bills are decided after the hearings: to recommend “OTP” (ought to pass), “ITL” (inexpedient to legislate) or for interim study. Both our bills did not get out of Committee. But neither did they get killed with “ITL.” In spite of the volumes of information available from the hours of testimony and amount of written testimony, the Committee voted “Interim Study”. Often, interim study means the slow anonymous death of a bill through neglect, but what is different this time is that, fortunately, the Committee has a committed Chair and the word is that they will study the issues. Usually, interim study happens in the summer, but the committee made a point to state that they will start the study in early April because of the process of going through the Speakers Office for appointment. It is the intention of the Chair to have the entire committee study this bill.
The downside of not moving out of Committee is that should the pro-organic leadership not prevail in the November election, it could be the composition of the Committee will change (along with many other things) and it may again be an upward battle. Our bill sponsor, Susan Wiley, is encouraged that this education process will provide a strong foundation for future legislation. The committee will be looking for experts to offer clear facts to help deepen their knowledge of these issues. We will alert you to possible actions that you can take when the committee takes up these bills again in April. In the meantime, if you can recommend knowledgeable people who can offer clear information on these subjects, please let NOFA know.
Thanks! Thank you to all supporters of this effort! Thank you first to Bob St. Peters of Food for Maine’s Future for speaking at a community meeting held at Blue Moon Market and Café and for connecting us to Rob Fish who connected us to Democracy in Action for their quick creation of an email blast service which generated over 160 email letters to legislators. Thank you to Kathy Gallant of Blue Moon Market for providing a free space for the meeting. Thank you to Brian Tokar for presenting and Lebanon Coop for supporting our community meeting at the community center across the street by providing food for attendees. Thank you to all the NOFA members and dedicated growers of real food for your pre-hearing preparation work and networking to get the word out about this opportunity to make history by creating a true GMO labeling bill, and by offering farmers a true level playing field when it comes to seeking damages from the biotech industry for contamination. Thank you for making the time to leave home and work to participate in the legislative process and take a stand against GMOs in our state. Your actions supported the growing organic and traditional agriculture markets and our citizen’s efforts to raise their own food free of GMOs, and full of nutrients, flavor and sustainable genetics.
Useful websites to learn more about GMOs and what to do about them:
http://attra.ncat.org/new_pubs/attra-pub/PDF/geneticeng.pdf?id=NewHampshire
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/sample_articles.php
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16515.cfm
http://www.celsias.com/article/genetically-modified-foods-unsafe-evidence-that-li/
http://www.ecomii.com/blogs/business/2009/04/16/gmo-crops-threaten-biodiversity/
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/0/0/8/pages180089/p180089-1.php
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=3912&context=va
http://www.flaginc.org/topics/pubs/arts/GMOrestrict.pdf
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/09/0440.xml
