LANSING —The Michigan Senate is the latest site of a major consumer and farmer protection battle over democracy at the local level. Big agri-business interests have supported a wave of "preemption" bills in Legislatures across the country to take away the ability of local governments to regulate seeds of almost any kind. This effort is aimed primarily at insulating genetically engineered (GE) crops from any local citizen-driven regulation. To date, citizen initiatives in three California counties have restricted genetically engineered crops, livestock, and other organisms, and nearly 100 New England towns have adopted similar resolutions.

In Michigan, consumer, environmental, and organic farming interests are opposing the preemption bill, SB 777, which has been held up in the Senate Agriculture Committee since late November, after strong public opposition swelled against it. But, its chief sponsor, Committee Chair Gerald VanWoerkom (R – Norton Shores), has said the committee will revisit the bill this month.

“Taking away voters’ rights is a serious threat to democracy,” said Kate Madigan, Deputy Policy Director with the Michigan Environmental Council. “This is especially troubling given that genetically engineered crops are not adequately regulated at the state or federal level, and they pose serious risks to public health and the environment.”

"Many consumers are under the mistaken impression that the federal government strictly regulates the safety of genetically engineered crops,” said Douglas Gurian-Sherman, Senior Scientist and Michigan native with the Center for Food Safety. “The FDA does not approve the safety of genetically engineered foods, but allows the companies that develop them to decide how to test them. It is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse."

Risks include the threat of allergic reaction to genetically engineered crops. In fact, when a variety of genetically engineered corn known as StarLink contaminated the food supply in 2000, hundreds of product lines were recalled from grocery store shelves because of concern the corn would cause allergic reactions. The recall is estimated to have cost those farmers and companies connected to the incident more than a billion dollars.

Experimental crops pose further concerns. In Michigan, there have been more than 750 open air field tests of experimental crops such as biopharmaceuticals and bizarre gene combinations. Biopharmaceuticals are food crops engineered to produce prescription drugs and industrial chemicals, including corn genetically engineered to produce blood clotting agents or contraceptives. There also have been bizarre combinations of crops, such as rice engineered with human genes and corn with chicken genes. One major concern is that these crops will contaminate neighboring fields of food crops with no visual clue that the contamination has occurred. Last month, a report by USDA’s inspector general found that the agency has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including biopharmaceutical crops.

"Field tests of experimental genetically engineered crops, regulated by USDA, are allowed before any testing is required for their safety, despite many known cases of contamination, including one 13 miles beyond the test site,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Under the current abdication of federal regulation, the state and local jurisdictions are necessary to protect the public and send a message to Washington that they need to do a better job."

The economic viability of organic farms may also be impacted should SB 777 pass by removing a potential tool for protecting the identity preservation of their seeds.

“I hope that our legislators don't move to hinder organic seed or food production in this state,” said Joe Scrimger, organic farmer and agricultural consultant. “Both markets are important and could be more important for our local economies.”

Scrimger added that SB 777 would eliminate yet another way that organic farmers can protect their crops from being contaminated by genetically engineered crops. He added, “Since the state isn't protecting us, we may want to create local ordinances to protect
ourselves.”

In 2005, seventeen states introduced legislation removing local control of plants and seeds, and fourteen of these states passed the provisions into law. The common language in each of the bills shows it was a coordinated attempt. The American Legislative Exchange Council and large agri-business have been identified as the promoters of the preemptive legislation. But, in several states the bills sweep
very broadly, blocking any local regulation of any crops or potentially weedy plants for any reason, even to prevent allergies or invasions of natural areas.

Meanwhile at the Federal level, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Dec. 15, 2005 passed out HR 4167, a bill that would block most state food safety labeling laws. Lansing area U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, (R-MI), is the lead sponsor of this bill. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, has led efforts to derail the bill until its full impacts on consumers are considered.

"If this Federal preemption bill becomes law, then in those states where preemption laws, like Michigan’s' SB 777, already exist, most of the power to regulate crop and food safety will be taken from the people and handed over to distant Federal bureaucracies,” said Peter T. Jenkins, an attorney with the Washington, DC, based Center for Food Safety. “We can’t trust those unresponsive and politically-driven agencies enough to justify giving them this supreme power. Americans prefer power to vest in real voters, not
bureaucrats."

“Genetically engineered seeds pose many legitimate concerns,” Claire O’Leary, consumer advocate and member of the Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee. “Local citizens deserve the right to determine how this technology is applied in their communities, what is grown in their fields, and to know what they are buying in the supermarket. These bills would take away those rights.”

For a backgrounder and more links on preemption, see: www.environmentalcommons.org/seedlawbackgrounder.html

For the Status of SB 777, see: www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-SB-0777

For the Status of HR 4167, see:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04167

For the report by USDA’s inspector general on the failure of the agency to oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops:

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-08-TE.pdf

###

Contacts:

In Michigan:

Michelle Lutz, Organic Farmer, Largest CSA in Michigan providing fresh organic foods to about 1000 families in SE Michigan, Tel:810.387.4365, email: mlutz@maplecreekfarm.com

Joe Scrimger, Agricultural Consultant, organic farmer, Tel: 989.635.2864

John Simmons, Lapeer County organic seed corn farmer, Tel: 810.688.2335

Catherine Badgley, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan (also an organic farmer and expert on the ecology of food and agriculture), email: cbadgley@umich.edu, Tel. 734.763.6448

Ivette Perfecto, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan (expert on ecology, food, agriculture, and politics), Tel. 734,764.1433 email: perfecto@umich.edu

Kate Madigan, Michigan Environmental Council, expert on health risks and environmental impacts Tel: 517.487.9539 email: katemec@voyager.net

Claire O’Leary, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee, consumer food advocate Tel: 248.335.4140 email: claireoleary@comcast.net

In Washington, DC:

Peter T. Jenkins, Attorney (expert on legal issues)

Douglas Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., Senior Scientist (expert on risks; Michigan native)

Center for Food Safety, Washington D.C., Tel: 202.547.9359

Email: peterjenkins@icta.org or doug@icta.org

###