http://counterpunch.org/tokar05262005.html
May 26, 2005
Ag Industry Aims to Strip Local Control of Food Supplies
Big Food Strikes Back
By BRITT BAILEY and BRIAN TOKAR
Legislation aiming to prevent counties, towns and cities from making
local decisions about our food supply is being introduced in states
across the nation. Fifteen states recently have introduced
legislation removing local control of plants and seeds. Eleven of
these states have already passed the provisions into law.
These highly orchestrated industry actions are in response to recent
local decisions to safeguard sustainable food systems. To date,
initiatives in three California counties have restricted the
cultivation of genetically modified crops, livestock, and other
organisms and nearly 100 New England towns have passed various
resolutions in support of limits on genetically engineered crops.
These laws are industry's stealth response to a growing effort by
people to protect their communities at the local level. Given the
impacts of known ecological contamination from genetic modification,
local governments absolutely should be given the power to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Local restrictions
against genetically modified crops have provided a positive and
hopeful solution and allowed citizens to take meaningful action in
their hometown or county.
Over the past several years in Iowa, we've seen local control taken
away for the benefit of the corporate hog industry, said George
Naylor, an Iowa farmer and President of the National Family Farm
Coalition. With these pre-emption laws signed into law, we are now
losing our ability to protect ourselves from irresponsible
corporations aiming to control the agricultural seeds and plants
planted throughout the state.
According to Kristy Meyer of the Ohio Environmental Council, The
amendment to our House Bill 66 would strip cities and villages of
their authority to implement safeguards and standards concerning
seeds. Supporting local control is quintessentially American, clearly
reasonable, and represents the standards our country was founded
upon.
In the past decade, the same preemptive strategy has been used by the
tobacco industry to thwart local efforts to introduce more stringent
smoking and gun laws, respectively. As Tina Walls of Phillip Morris
Co. admitted, By introducing preemptive statewide legislation, we
can shift the battle away from the community level back to the state
legislatures where we are on stronger ground.
Why this challenge to local rights?
Since 2002, towns, cities and counties across the US have passed
resolutions seeking to control the use of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) within their jurisdiction. Close to 100 New England
towns have passed resolutions opposing the unregulated use of GMOs;
nearly a quarter of these have called for local moratoria on the
planting of GMO seeds. In 2004, three California counties, Mendocino,
Trinity and Marin, passed ordinances banning the raising of
genetically engineered (GE) crops and livestock. Advocates across the
country believe that the more people learn about the potential
hazards of GE food and crops, the more they seek measures to protect
public health, the environment, and family farms. They have come to
view local action as a necessary antidote to inaction at the federal
and state levels.
Who is behind this strategy of state pre-emption?
State legislators who support large-scale industrial agriculture, and
are often funded by associated business interests are introducing
these pre-emption bills. Farm Bureau chapters in the various states
are key supporters. The bills represent a back-door, stealth strategy
to override protective local measures around GMOs.
The industry proposal for a Biotechnology state uniformity
resolution was first introduced at a May 2004 forum sponsored by the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC claims over 2000
state legislators as members and has more than 300 corporate
sponsors, according to People for the American Way (see Resources).
The organization has its origins in the efforts of political
strategist and fundraiser Paul Weyrich to rebuild a Republican power
base at the federal and state levels in the aftermath of Watergate.
Other recent measures supported by ALEC include efforts to deregulate
electric utilities, override local pesticide laws, repeal minimum
wage laws, limit class action lawsuits and privatize public pensions.
The tobacco industry has mounted similar efforts in recent years to
circumvent local ordinances restricting youth access to cigarettes as
well as smoking in restaurants, bars, and workplaces. Ironically,
many of the interests now promoting state pre-emption have
vociferously opposed federal regulations designed to pre-empt weaker
state laws.
Why is this a cause for wide public concern?
Local governments have historically overseen
