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 policies related to
public health, safety, and welfare. Preventing local decision-making
contradicts the legitimate and necessary responsibilities of cities,
towns, and counties. Traditionally, laws enacted at the state level
have set minimum requirements and allowed for the continued passage
and enforcement of local ordinances that establish greater levels of
public health protection. Preemptive legislation reverses this norm.
Furthermore:
· Pre-emption undermines democracy and local control, and is a threat
to meaningful citizen participation around issues of widespread
concern. Communities enact local measures as an expression of their
fundamental right to shape their future, whereas wealthy corporate
interests are far better able to wield power and influence policy in
state capitols.
· Local actions around GMOs, in particular, are designed to address
important gaps in federal and state policy, and mitigate potentially
serious threats to public health, the environment, and survival of
local farm economies. Additionally, some communities are taking a
further step, and benefiting economically from the positive effect of
becoming known as "GE-Free," supporting farmers and the local food
system by promoting organic and sustainable agriculture in their
jurisdictions.
· In recent years, similar local measures have sought to address a
variety of industry practices not adequately regulated at higher
levels of jurisdiction, including pollution from factory farms, use
of sewage sludge as fertilizer, uncontrolled pesticide use, and
mismanagement of water resources. The current pre-emption campaign is
part of a strategy aimed to weaken all such protective measures; it
is part of a well-funded, highly-orchestrated, and frequently
stealthy corporate effort to rewrite public policies at all
jurisdictional levels.
What are the legal precedents for local action?
According to the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, local
measures to restrict the use of GMOs are generally on a sound legal
footing:
· Local rights of self-governance and protection of health, safety
and well-being are guaranteed by most state constitutions. Local
governments are free to be more protective of their citizens and
unique communities than lowest-common-denominator state laws can
provide.
· The federal government does not have specific mandatory safety
testing requirements for most GE crops, instead allowing companies to
voluntarily determine what tests are needed; also there is virtually
no monitoring of commercial GE crops for persistent hazards.
· No state has yet enacted comprehensive regulations governing GE
crops and livestock that protect public health and the environment.
Historically, American custom and tradition has granted local
communities considerable autonomy. Local sovereignty has its
foundation in the Town Meetings of colonial New England. While some
states have come to view local jurisdictions as creations and agents
of the state, others endow municipalities with varying degrees of
"home rule," an established legal principle with origins in the 19th
century.
Town Meetings and subsequent local decision-making procedures are
further rooted in Common Law, which has hinged on the traditional
maxim, "Use your property as not to injure another's." Harmful
activities affecting the public commons, such as over-cutting timber
or spreading noxious weeds, have traditionally been restricted in the
name of the greater public good.
Resources on Pre-emption and GMOs
For a continually updated tracking of seed pre-emption legislation,
see http://www.environmentalcommons.org/gmo-tracker.html
Michael E. Libonati, "Local Government," from Subnational
Constitutions and Federalism: Design and Reform Conference, Center
for State Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University, March 2004,
available at http://www.environmentalcommons.org/locgov.pdf
People for the American Way profile of ALEC:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=6990.
Karen Olsson, "Ghostwriting the Law," Mother Jones, September 2002,
at http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/09/ma_95_01.html.
County Ban on the Planting of Genetically Engineered Crops:
Background on Legal Authority, Center for Food Safety, March 2004, at
http://www.environmentalcommons.org/CFSlegal.pdf
New England local measures on GMOs: http://www.nerage.org. California
counties: http://www.calgefree.org.
Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, Gone to Seed: Transgenic
Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, Union of Concerned
Scientists, February 2004, at
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=382.
Charles M. Benbrook, Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use
in the United States: The First Nine Years, BioTech InfoNet Technical
Paper Number 7, October 2004, at
http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper7.html.
Richard Caplan,Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered
Crops in the US, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, April 2005, at
http://uspirg.org/reports/Raising%20Risk%202005%20Final.pdf
GRAIN, "Farmers' Privilege Under Attack," at
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=121.
Britt Bailey works with Environmental Commons and Brian Tokar works
at the Institute for Social Ecology. They can be reached at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Search the Biofuels-biz list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/