|
|
|
|
|
|
| Farm groups and localities oppose power grab by USDA |
|
|
|
More than 30 groups representing farmers and localities sent a letter (www.acga.org/News/2007/062807b.html) to the Leadership and Members of the House Agriculture Committee, expressing grave concerns regarding Section 123, a provision approved without discussion by the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee in the draft 2007 Farm Bill. The groups asked that Section 123 be withdrawn when the full Committee votes on a Farm Bill later in July.
Title 1, Section 123 of the 2007 Farm Bill prohibits states and localities from enacting laws relating to livestock, poultry or genetically engineered crops after they have been inspected and/or approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
“Section 123 provides the USDA with exclusive jurisdiction over public health issues and circumvents the ability of the states to adopt programs that support and promote farmers and rural economies,” said Bill Wenzel, national director of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering – a project sponsored by the National Family Farm Coalition. “To eliminate traditional powers in states and localities to craft meaningful programs in favor of a one-size fits all federal program makes absolutely no sense,” added Wenzel.
Section 123(2) would prohibit state or local regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops once approved by USDA.
At risk are programs in many states that protect farmers and their markets from economic harm caused by genetic contamination. Rice Certification Acts have been established in California, Arkansas and Missouri to provide rice industry input before new rice varieties are introduced for commercial production.
“Rice farmers face a number of threats to the health of our markets, including contamination of our rice varieties with genetically modified material, commingling of commercial rice with other varieties and even through the introduction of exotic diseases,” said Greg Massa, Rice Producers of California (RPC).
“Section 123 could eliminate our ability to self-regulate our industry and to protect our rice varieties and markets,” Massa added.
The ability of farmers and consumers to choose what they will plant and what they will eat is jeopardized by Section 123. The American Corn Growers operates the Farmers Choice, Consumers First program which gives farmers the choice to use or not use genetically engineered crops and to make sure that their customers come first, when their members make planting decisions.
“The preemption contained in Section 123 is a direct assault on those choices,” states Keith Bolin, president of ACGA.
In light of recent evidence of failures by the USDA to adequately regulate GE crops, Section 123 is particularly troubling.
A 2005 Inspector General audit determined that the policies and procedures of the USDA did not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of GE crops. In May, a Federal judge halted the planting of GE alfalfa, citing gross failures in the USDA regulatory process and in August of 2006, a small field trial of GE rice contaminated the conventional supply, costing rice producers millions of dollars and leaving many farmers with an inability to find noncontaminated seed. “In light of the recent events, it’s obvious that the USDA cannot protect our crops or our markets,” said Greg Yielding of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association. “We continue to need the ability to monitor and protect ourselves,” Yielding added.
“No matter how you cut this, everybody loses if the USDA is given exclusive control to regulate issues involving genetically engineered crops,” concluded George Naylor, president of the National Family Farm Coalition.
This farm news was published in the July 11, 2007 issue of Farm World, serving Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee. |
| 7/11/2007 |
|
|
