Greetings from the GE Free VT Campaign
Talking about genetic engineering...
"Biological pollution will be the environmental nightmare of the 21st century. This is not like chemical pollution- an oil spill- that eventually disperses. Biological pollution is an entirely different model, like a disease. Is Monsanto going to be held legally responsible when one of its trans-genes creates a super weed or resistant insect?"
- Andrew Kimball, director of the Center for Technology Assessment
Who's legally responsible when the unwanted traits of a genetically engineered crop turn up in a farmer's field? Who will make a non-GMO farmer financially whole when his or her crop is contaminated by a GMO, resulting in lost markets and economic opportunities? And who will be financially responsible if Vermont's exploding organic industry is decimated by unfettered GMO proliferation? Vermonters need to address these and other questions...and have begun to by advancing the principles of the Farmer Protection Act.
What was the Farmer Protection Act?
Now the casualty of an adjourned assembly, the FPA was VT legislation to tackle two major GE liability questions that all Vermont farmers face, regardless of production method.
By law, the creator of a new, genetically engineering life form is able to secure a patent on that life form. Beyond the moral, ethical and socio-political issues that arise from this authority, a farmer may run afoul of this patent protection when the novel traits of this new organism show up in his field. In today's world, a farmer may be held liable for patent infringement for possessing the company's "product," the new life form, regardless of how that product turned up on his property. GE seeds may have swept into his field from an uncovered, passing truck or his non-GE crop could have been pollinated by a nearby GE crop. In the end, it doesn't matter how the company's "property" arrived in the field. A patent violation has occurred. Farmers are being sued for "stealing" genetic intellectual property that, in actuality, could have blown into their fields on a stiff breeze.
In another liability question, the FPA dealt with the issue of who is liable if a non-GMO farmer suffers economic harm and worse, loss of livelihood, as a result of GMO contamination. The question is particularly nettlesome for VT's organic farmer. The use of GMOs are prohibited in organic production and many consumers of organic products consciously choose to avoid GMOs in their diets. If an organic farmer experiences GMO contamination, they face a loss of the economic premium their products can fetch in the marketplace. They may perpetually lose organic marketability given the intense sensitivity many organic consumers have about GMO safety, particularly among our overseas customers. The non-GMO farmer may unwittingly commit a breach of contract violation when they're unable to provide a crop with contractually-promised characteristics or quality. As Vermont leads the nation in the blossoming organic food industry, the state may wish to carefully consider the consequences of not safeguarding the integrity of this industry for the farmers that choose to produce organically and for the consumers that demand their products.
The FPA had a simple premise: the manufacturer is legally responsible for its product. When the practices of a company or industry cause harm, the offenders should bear the consequences; legally, financially and otherwise. The polluter should pay.
The farmer protection goals are founded on the principles that the property rights of all farmers are legally valid, that the right of people to choose their own food production methods and sources must be inviolate, and that every citizen's right to choose the foods they wish to consume and avoid is sacrosanct. Please support these inherent rights.
Visit www.gefreevt.org