Testimony of Amy Shollenberger

Testimony of Amy Shollenberger, Policy Director Rural Vermont
to Senate Agriculture Committee January 26, 2005 on S.18 - The Farmer Protection Act

Thank you, especially to the chairwoman and this committee for the attention they've given to this issue in the past, as well as this hearing today to talk about this bill. Rural Vermont's members are solidly behind this bill. We have just gone through a process of visiting with our members throughout the state, and without exception, we have been told that our job this year is to get this bill passed, so I just want to say that, that our membership is very much behind this bill. We also have folks who join Rural Vermont, not as members, which means they don't pay dues, they join our Farm Policy Network, which is an activist network, which some of you have had experience with. They are also solidly behind this bill.

I have been told in the past, that what legislators like is to be told what the problem is, and to give them a solution, so that's what I'm here for today. I've made some copies of this worksheet. On one side is the problem, and on the other side is the solution. So basically, the problem is that as soon as a farmer opens a bag of seed, that farmer has agreed to the contract. The contract states that the farmer assumes all liability for any damages that occur because of the seed. The contract also states that if there is any dispute or litigation about the contract, it will occur in St. Louis, Missouri, which is where the headquarters of the corporation who owns the patent is, and that the farmer may be bound by the laws of Missouri. Another piece of the problem, which does not show up on this particular piece of paper is that there is a hotline for people to call if they believe that a farmer potentially has patented traits on his or her land and has not paid the licensing fee. There are rewards for people who call this hotline. These are problems for farmers.

The solution is on the other side. The solution is the bill that Sam [Burr - legislative council] just explained to you. It's not a complete solution. It's a good step in the right direction, and the reason it's a good solution is that this bill does not discriminate. This bill will protect all Vermont farmers, whether they grow genetically engineered crops, or they do not grow genetically engineered crops. It does not judge the technology. It simply says that the manufacturer should assume the liability.

In my view, and in Rural Vermont's view, if the technology is all that the manufacturers say that it is, there should be no problem with this bill because they should be happy to say that we stand behind our product. If there are damages, of course we'll assume the liability for those damages. If there is a problem with the technology, it's absolutely unacceptable that that burden is placed on our farmers.

You know, one of the arguments that's often put forth about this technology is that farmers are struggling, and they need every tool in the toolbox. Well, if farmers are struggling, the last thing they need is another burden placed on their backs. So, if the technology is safe and there is no problem, the bill places no burden on anybody. If the technology is not safe, it protects the farmer from assuming that burden.

The other quick thing I wanted to say about this bill is that we've done our homework on this bill. Last year, there was a slightly different version of the bill. Several legislators raised concerns with the way the language was written. We spent the summer and the fall researching those concerns and trying to find solutions to them, and we've worked closely with Sam to work out the language, and I feel like this bill is a very strong bill, it addresses the concerns that were raised last year, and it protects our farmers, and I hope that you will pass it. Thank you.