This insertion in the Farm bill, which once again strips communities of
power to make local laws, is a prime example of a consistent pattern of
federal/state override of attempts at local control. As such it should be
recognized as a major stumbling block in decentralist/relocalization
plans and political strategies. We may be saddled with this problem until
large centralized government ability to enforce begins to collapse in the
chaos of the emerging related energy, economic, and ecological crises.
Karl North
Northland Sheep Dairy, Freetown, New York USA
www.geocities.com/northsheep/
"Mother Nature never farms without animals" - Albert Howard
"Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:35:33 -0400 "Tony Del Plato"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Passing along today's news story.
>
> http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070618/A_NEWS/
> 706180320
> Farm Bill may ease modified crop ban
> By Hank Shaw
> Capitol Bureau Chief
> June 18, 2007
> SACRAMENTO - Buried within the gigantic federal Farm Bill now under
> debate
> in Congress lies a seed of discord over the use of genetically
> modified
> crops, known by critics as "Frankenfoods."
> Section 123 of the federal bill bars state or local governments from
> banning
> anything the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already approved. It
> sounds
> benign, but the proposal would sweep away existing bans on
> genetically
> modified crops in four California counties and block bans proposed
> in at
> least 16 other states.
> The proposed measure has sparked uproar among the sustainable
> agriculture
> community, especially among organic farmers, and the office of
> House
> Agriculture Committee member Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, has received
> more
> than 3,000 e-mails protesting the provision.
> Cardoza leads the committee's panel on organic agriculture and says
> he, too,
> has concerns about Section 123.
> "I am slightly troubled by this language, with respect to the fact
> that it
> was put in, ... towards the end of the legislative process, without
> proper
> debate and consideration," Cardoza said. "I will be monitoring this
> section
> closely as the Farm Bill process continues to determine how it might
> affect
> laws already on the books in California."
> At its core, the conflict is between those who believe it is OK to
> alter
> plants and animals by any means necessary to achieve a desired
> result -
> making corn more resistant to pests, for example - and those farmers
> and
> scientists who find the idea of inserting genes from bacteria or
> animals
> into plants abhorrent.
> Traditional animal and plant husbandry relies on a slow, progressive
> progress of selection among similar plants. Genetic engineering can
> serve as
> a shortcut that not only can bypass intermediary steps necessary in
> traditional farming, but can also introduce elements wholly alien to
> a
> plant, such as implanting pesticides into corn.
> Special effects like this have proved to be genetically unstable;
> cross-breeding between genetically modified grasses and natural
> grasses is
> threatening Oregon's seed industry. Worries over genetically
> modified rice
> have caused the California Rice Commission to ban it, largely
> because export
> markets in Asia refuse to buy it.
> Proponents of the measure argue that modified crops require fewer
> pesticides
> and note that a crazy quilt of county and state regulations,
> especially
> regarding sale of genetically modified foods, would cripple
> interstate
> commerce.
> County growers already are raising genetically modified crops such
> as
> alfalfa and field corn, both primarily used to feed dairy catt;e.
> This sort of "pre-emption" legislation stripping local control has
> popped up
> all over the country.
> Last year at the Legislature in Sacramento, state Sen. Dean Florez,
> D-Shafter, sponsored a bill - universally supported by San Joaquin
> Valley
> lawmakers - that was effectively a state version of Section 123.
> San Joaquin County Supervisor Jack Sieglock was an active supporter
> of that
> bill, as were nine agricultural counties as well as nearly every
> farm group
> in the state. Nevertheless, the bill died in the waning days of the
> session.
> This year, a state bill allowing farmers to sue if their fields are
> contaminated by nearby genetically modified crops ran aground in
> the
> Assembly Agriculture Committee.
> It is unclear who inserted Section 123 into the federal legislation,
> but
> staffers working on the bill say they do not expect it to survive
> intact.
> A revised version of the section is expected to be released next
> week as the
> Agriculture Committee continues debate on the overall bill.
> To read the section of the Farm Bill under debate, go to:
> agriculture.house.gov/inside/Legislation/110/LDP_Secbysec.pdf.
> Contact Capitol Bureau Chief Hank Shaw at (916) 441-4078 or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> --
> "Eaters must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the
> world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and that how we
> eat
> determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used."
> Wendell Berry
> _______________________________________________
> RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
> [email protected]
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
