----- forwarded message -----
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:47:19 +0200
From: info <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ND: Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops
----- forwarded message -----
Subject: [ndn-aim] [NativeNews] ND: Farmers Joining State Efforts Against
Bioengineered Crops
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 01:34:10 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by Senior Staff..............thanks
Subj: [NativeNews] ND: Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered
Crops
Date: 3/23/2001 10:49:34 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Senior Staff)
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from Maureen..thanks!
March 24, 2001
Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops
By ANDREW POLLACK
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/24/health/24DAKO.html?pagewanted=all
North Dakota is weighing a bill that would make it the first state to ban
planting of a genetically modified crop, reflecting a surge of concern about
such crops in legislatures around the country.
The North Dakota bill, which would impose a two-year moratorium on growing
genetically modified wheat, is one of more than 40 state bills introduced
this year that would regulate biotech crops or the labeling of foods made
using genetic engineering.
"You have people at the state level trying to get these things passed because
the federal government won't do it," said Andy Zimmerman, who works with the
Green Party in New York, where a bill has been introduced to ban the planting
of genetically modified crops for five years.
But the North Dakota bill, which has already passed the state's House of
Representatives, signals another trend as well ââ�¬â�* that concern about
genetically engineered crops is now coming not only from environmental and
consumer groups but from farmers, who have generally supported such crops.
Although virtually all the state bills proposed in past years failed, the
North Dakota bill has made headway precisely because its main backers are
some of the state's own farmers, not the usual biotechnology opponents. While
many of these farmers say they are not in principle opposed to bioengineered
foods, they fear losing the ability to export their crops to Europe, Japan
and other places where consumers are shunning such food and where governments
strictly regulate it.
"We don't want to lose the ability to sell our wheat abroad," said Todd
Leake, a farmer from near Grand Forks and one of the strongest champions of
the North Dakota measure. "Most of the economy in North Dakota is
agriculture," Mr. Leake noted, "and wheat is the mainstay of that."
To some extent, the North Dakota bill is merely symbolic; the moratorium
would expire on July 31, 2003, probably before any genetically modified seed
would even come to market. And the bill does not mention enforcement.
Still, that has not prevented Monsanto, which is developing genetically
modified wheat, and some farm groups opposed to the bill from putting up a
stiff fight. So while the bill breezed through the state's House last month
by a vote of 68 to 29, its passage in the Senate is far from assured.
In other states as well, biotechnology and food companies, not eager to deal
with a patchwork of laws, have lobbied heavily against some bills, say
legislators who proposed them. Many other bills, however, fail simply for
lack of support.
Many farmers like genetically engineered crops because they contain useful
traits, like pest resistance. But critics say that they have not been studied
thoroughly enough to rule out health problems like allergies or unanticipated
ecological effects, including the killing of monarch butterflies.
The first genetically altered crops ââ�¬â�* herbicide-resistant soybeans and
pest-resistant corn and cotton ââ�¬â�* were snapped up by farmers. About half
of
the soybeans and a quarter of the corn grown in the United States last year
were genetically modified. And many farmers, including some in North Dakota,
are continuing to grow these crops, despite a rise in consumer resistance.
But genetically modified crops like wheat that are not already established
are having a harder time catching on because farmers and food companies fear
they will not be able to sell them.
Genetically altered potatoes never gained much of a foothold after major
potato processors and fast-food companies indicated they would not buy them.
Monsanto is discontinuing its potato product. And farmers in the main
tobacco-growing states are refusing to grow crops that are genetically
modified to reduce nicotine. The farmers and some cigarette companies worry
that smokers, particularly in Europe and Japan, might shun modified
cigarettes, even as they accept the risk of cancer.
Genetically modified wheat probably will not reach the market before 2003,
Monsanto says. The company is developing wheat resistant to its Roundup
herbicide, which would allow the herbicide to kill weeds while leaving the
wheat unscathed.
Still, wheat millers in Europe and Japan have already warned American
industry trade organizations that they would not accept any wheat that has
been genetically modified.
Concerns among wheat farmers have increased in the wake of the StarLink corn
fiasco, in which genetically modified corn not approved for human consumption
found its way into taco shells and other foods, causing recalls and numerous
other disruptions to farmers, grain elevators and food companies and leading
to a decline in corn exports to Japan.
That is why backers of the North Dakota measure say a moratorium is needed.
If even a few farmers were to plant genetically modified wheat, they say, the
state's whole crop could become contaminated and exports jeopardized,
particularly if competitors like Canada were to grow only nonmodified
wheat.
Neal Fisher, administrator of the North Dakota Wheat Commission, a marketing
group financed by farmers, said that North Dakota's wheat crop was valued at
about $1 billion annually, about half of it exported. The state is the
leading producer of hard red spring wheat, a premium crop used in breads and
rolls.
There have been 77 bills related to agricultural biotechnology introduced
this year in 27 states, said Chip Kunde, vice president for state affairs at
the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents food companies. The
list overstates the amount of legislative activity somewhat because in about
10 cases, the same piece of legislation introduced into two legislative
chambers is counted as two separate bills. Nonetheless, the number of bills
is up from 50 bills in 16 states last year and only 12 bills in 1999.
Much of the increase, Mr. Kunde said, is from what might be characterized as
pro-biotech bills, in that 19 bills in 15 states are intended to penalize
protesters who tear up genetically modified crops.
But there are eight bills in six states that would ban or put a moratorium on
the planting of genetically engineered crops, compared with seven bills in
four states last year, Mr. Kunde said. There are nine bills in seven states
that would require foods made from bioengineered crops to be labeled, up from
six bills in five states last year.
Other bills deal with seed sales. Still, virtually all the crop moratorium
and labeling bills have made little headway. The one bill that did pass last
year was in Mississippi, which required more extensive labels on bags of
genetically modified seeds. That bill, like the North Dakota one, was backed
by farmers.
Douglas Farquhar, a program director at the National Conference of State
Legislatures, said the bills have not progressed because the federal
government "keeps on saying we've got this covered." He said a state law
might be subject to challenge on the grounds that it interfered with
interstate commerce.
But that is not clear. States can enact regulations that are stricter than
federal ones, unless federal law specifically prohibits them, Mr. Kunde said.
He said he was not aware of any pre-emptive federal rule related to
bioengineered crops.
The North Dakota bill, introduced by Representative Phillip Mueller, a wheat
farmer himself, allows a committee of state officials and farm
representatives to lift the ban earlier if Canada approves genetically
engineered wheat. Research would be exempt from the ban.
In lobbying against the bill, Monsanto has told legislators that a moratorium
by a major wheat-growing state would discourage the company from doing
research on improved wheat, particularly for varieties grown in North
Dakota.
Mark Buckingham, a Monsanto spokesman, said a moratorium was not needed
because the company was willing to work with farmers to resolve their
concerns. "It is absolutely not in our intentions to press forward with a
product until it's wanted," he said.
A similar bill proposing a two-year moratorium on genetically modified wheat
appears to have died in Montana. The North Dakota bill is now before the
Senate Agriculture Committee. Terry Wanzek, a Republican and the chairman of
the committee, said he had sensed some momentum to defeat the bill and
instead require a study of the issues.
"A lot of farmers are for the bill and a lot of farmers are against it," said
Mr. Wanzek, another farmer. "It's not an easy position to be in the middle of
right now."
Reprinted under the Fair Use
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
doctrine of international copyright law.
<<<<<>>>>>
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
http://nativenewsonline.org/
Alternately if a name server is down:
http://216.97.43.231/
<<<<<>>>>>
Native News Online
a Service of Barefoot Connection
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!
" YOU ~ARE~ THE MESSAGE"
List info at: http://nativenewsonline.org/
