Conference Committee Testimony on the Farmer Protection Act Feb 1 2006

Testimony of Amy Shollenberger, Policy Director of Rural Vermont
Conference Committee on S. 18
February 1, 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the issues involved with S.18. It is clear that each of you have given thoughtful consideration to this bill and to the questions raised by those working on the bill, and we very much appreciate that you are taking these issues seriously.

I have been asked to come here today with something new to say, and to not “rehash” all the arguments that have already been made on this bill. I sincerely wish that I could come up with some brand new piece of information or legislative language that would break the “logjam” as some have been calling it. However, the fact is that the situation has not changed. Multi-national corporations are still patenting genetically engineered traits within seeds. Consumers still do not want these traits in their food. Farmers are still being forced to accept all of the economic risk that results from the fact that the traits cannot be contained, while the corporations continue to reap all of the profit.

Many people have been working on this bill for quite some time. What has become clear over the course of time is that the only way to ensure that farmers are not saddled with all of the risk for genetically engineered seeds is to be absolutely clear through policy that the liability stays with the patent holder. Especially because the farmers do not have any ownership rights to the genetically engineered traits, we strongly believe they should not bear the burden of liability for these traits. It seems that the only way to ensure this is with strict liability, which I urge you to support.

I want to say that this bill is not about conventional versus organic agriculture, nor is it about farmers who use genetically engineered seeds versus those who don’t. Strict liability, in fact, would protect all Vermont farmers, and it judges neither the genetically engineered technology, nor the agricultural practices that farmers choose to use.

Also, this bill is not about health and safety issues. I don’t want to talk about health and safety issues. I don’t want to register an opinion about health and safety issues. This bill is about economic issues. This bill, in fact, is about the daily struggle that family farmers all over the world face – the struggle for economic justice, when multi-national corporations are vertically and horizontally integrating every aspect of food production, and at the same time, taking away the farmers’ age-old rights of seed saving and forcing farmers to accept all of the risk for the products that the corporations are creating through the use of contracts and patents.

Some have argued that strict liability is not an acceptable choice because it means that corporations will not have the ability to defend themselves against a malicious or grossly negligent farmer. I would ask why this is a concern, when the current situation is that a farmer has no way to defend himself when the multi-national corporation puts all the risk on his back? Why is the current situation fine, but a new situation where the corporations have to be responsible for the products they create not ok?

That is to say that multi-national corporations that have developed a product that they openly admit cannot be contained, and that actively market this product to farmers, and that charge a licensing fee to farmers who want to use it, and that are doing everything they can to force farmers all over the world into accepting this product – these corporations should be able to tell Vermont’s family farmers that they must bear all the risk for any harm that this product might cause. In fact, they even go so far as to say that the farmer assumes this burden simply by opening a bag of their seed. Why would this situation be something the state of Vermont would want to keep in place?

The question I see before your committee is simply this – should corporations be protected, or should farmers?

If we really want farmers to be able to farm side by side and make their own choices, and if some of those farmers are going to choose to use genetically engineered seeds, then we really need to address a few key issues:
1. Farmers do not own the genetically engineered seed. They are only leasing the right to use the seed.
2. Despite the fact that they have no ownership rights and are prohibited from saving seed, farmers using genetically engineered seeds assume all liability risks for the use of the seed.
3. If there is a dispute over the contract that farmers agree to by opening a bag of genetically engineered seed, the contract stipulates where a court case can be heard, and it’s not here in Vermont.
4. We know that at least one company works very hard to make sure anyone who is suspected of using the genetically engineered seed technology without paying the licensing fee is aggressively investigated and sometimes sued.
5. It is impossible to contain the genetically engineered traits in the fields in which they are planted because of pollen drift.

Both the house and senate version of the bill address one of these concerns – that of the contract disputes. However, only the senate version of the bill adequately addresses the other concerns. It is not enough to simply “open the door” for a farmer to sue a corporation. It is not enough to simply restate what apparently is already in the statutes. It is not enough to say to a farmer, “if you can win against the corporation, then you’re allowed to be reimbursed for your damages.” It is essential that you pass a law that clearly states that the patent holders, who retain the ownership and who reap the profit, are responsible for their products. The burden should not be on the farmer to prove that the corporation should be liable.

Putting this liability on the patent holders does not necessarily mean that the products are dangerous or bad or even undesirable. It simply says that if a manufacturer retains the ownership of a product, and if that product cannot be contained, and if the spreading of that product causes economic harm, then the manufacturer should be responsible for compensating whomever is harmed.

I do not know if economic damages will occur because of the use of these seeds in Vermont. I really hope not. If no damages occur then no harm is done in having a law with strict liability on the books. If something does happen, our farmers will have as much protection and support as we can give them. Even with strict liability, it will be no “walk in the park” for a farmer to recover his economic losses. However, our goal is to support and protect our family farmers here in Vermont to the best of our abilities.

I would like to thank you again for your thoughtful consideration of the bill, and I would like to urge you one last time, please pass a strict liability bill.