|
|
 
|
Indiana, Oregon biotech food, crop legislative front (Thursday, April 3, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- Here is news of two state bills dealing with genetically modified foods and crops.
In Indiana, House Bill1571 was reported out of committee today and is eligible for second reading -- and amendment -- in the state Senate. Following the third and final reading will come the vote on the bill.
Three of the four provisions in the original bill meant to protect farmers made it through committee. Language that would have kept all lawsuits against farmers in the state was deleted under pressure from agribusiness, said Troy Roush, an Indiana farmer.
"Once Pioneer gets a farmer into DesMoines or Monsanto gets someone into St. Louis to defend against a patent infringement case, they can't effectively defend themselves because of the high costs" of travel and lodging, Roush said.
However, Roush emphasized what he saw as the following positive aspects of the bill that did survive committee:
1. If a seed supplier gets a court order to come onto a
farmers land and take samples, then the farmer is allowed to have
independent, identical samples taken. This provision ensures that a farmer
will have access to the same evidence a seed company has gathered. Farmers
can use this evidence to conduct their own tests. Therefore, if a seed
company attempts to sue a farmer for violating the terms of a seed contract,
the farmer will at least have access to independently gathered evidence,
identical to that of the seed supplier. This would prevent the obvious one
sided instance of a seed supplier suing a farmer, with the only evidence in
the case being evidence that was gathered by the company and tested by the
company.
2. If a farmer possesses a product that is patented by
the seed supplier, but the farmer did not intend to possess the patented
product, then the farmer is not liable. This protects farmers who are not
growing genetically modified (GM) or patented seed from being sued for
inadvertently possessing patented genetics. For example, if you plant
conventional corn, and your neighbor plants BT corn (a patented GM variety),
your neighbor's BT corn can cross-pollinate with your conventional corn
causing it to test positive for patented traits. In this instance, a farmer
should not be held liable for patent infringement just because the wind blew
the genes onto the farmer's land. This protection is needed for farmers in
Indiana. In fact, a seed company representative testified last year before
the State's Judiciary Committee that four out of six of their attorneys
believe a farmer who possesses patented genes because they blew onto his
field is technically liable for patent infringement. If you take this
reasoning to its extreme, then theoretically, every crop farmer in Indiana
could be potentially liable for patent infringement. This defies reason and
is morally wrong. If a farmer did nothing wrong, they should not be
technically in violation of a seed contract.
3. If a seed supplier brings an action against a farmer
that is frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or litigated in bad faith, then
the farmer has a right to recover litigation costs and court costs. This
basically means that if a seed company brings an action against a farmer,
and the company should have known better, then, if the farmer wins, he can
recover all his attorneys fees and legal costs from the company.
See the bill at :
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2003/HB/HB1571.2.html
Toll Free Senate Switchboard Number for the Indiana legislature: (800) 382-9467
or call (317) 232-9400
Meanwhile, in Oregon, State Representative Jeff Kropf (R-Halsey), the Chair of the
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, has introduced legislation
that would prohibit state or local labeling of Genetically Engineered
food. HB 2957, scheduled for a hearing on April 4, states: "A state or local governmental unit may not
impose a labeling requirement for a food product unless the governmental
unit determines: (1) That the reason for the labeling requirement is
recognized and endorsed by the federal Food and Drug Administration; (2)
The labeling requirement provides health and nutritional information
that will benefit consumers; and (3) The labeling requirement is the
most cost-effective method of educating consumers regarding the subject
of the requirement." In other words, until the FDA decides that GE foods
are unsafe, the state cannot take any measures to tell its own citizens
what's in their food.
Proposed Amendments to the Bill state the following:
Section 1 (1) A local government may not impose requirement for the
disclosure or display of information on a food label. (2) If a food is
subject to a federal requirement for disclosing or displaying
information on the label, a state agency may not impose a labeling
requirement regarding the same information that is more stringent than
the federal requirement. | |
