GMO Campaign

Since the late 80's Rural Vermont has taken on issues to address the impact of genetic engineering on farming, the food supply and public safety. In 2004 we successfully worked to enact the Farmers' Right to Know GMO Seed Labeling Act. This law puts the USDA organic standards' definition of "genetically modified" into Vermont statute, and requires that GE seeds be clearly labeled as such.

In 2005 we shifted our focus to the Farmer Protection Act.
The intent of this bill was to:
- hold manufacturers who own the patents on genetically engineered (GE) seeds liable for any economic damages that occur in Vermont as a result of the use of the seeds.
- state that seed contracts in Vermont are subject only to Vermont law and that disputes over seed contracts will be settled in Vermont.

Without this protection, farmers in Vermont have no recourse to recoup on losses they may incur due to GE contamination other than to sue a fellow farmer. Also, a Vermont GE farmer may be bound by contract to settle any legal disputes about his/her contract at a location determined by the manufacturer (outside than Vermont).

In the spring of 2005 Vermont State Senate nearly unanimously (26-1) passed a version of this bill based on "strict liability"- directly holding the manufacturers liable for any economic damages associated with the GE seeds.

From there the bill went through a committee process where it was weakened. The House Agriculture Committee and the House Judiciary Committee process created an amended version of the bill removing the strong liability protections for Vermont farmers with regard to GE contamination - in fact, the committee actually had to rename the bill because it no longer addressed this core issue for Vermont farmers. While the committee’s new version provided Vermont farmers some strong consumer protections, we opposed it because it did not address the very real issue of liability risk being forced on farmers for GE contamination.

Though the Farmer Protection Act was still alive at the end of the 2005 legislative session, in the end, the House ran out of time before a vote could be taken. We looked forward to the next legislative session in 2006 when the lead sponsor of the bill, Dexter Randall, could present a "floor amendment" to put the strong liability protections back into the bill.

In January 2006, the amendment failed with a 68-79 vote. However, the underlying House Version with the consumer protection provisions passed, and so a conference committee was formed. That conference committee attempted to find a compromise between the two versions, but was unable to reach agreement and was dissolved. Then, a few weeks later, a second conference committee was named, and they reached an agreement on a compromise.

On April 20, 2006, the Conference Committee on S.18, the Farmer Protection, passed a compromise version. The committee’s compromise on the Farmer Protection Act would put the liability for economic damages from genetically engineered seeds on the manufacturers who own the patents on those seeds. Instead of using "strict liability" to protect Vermont farmers, the compromise comes at the issue through the legal theory of nuisance. A nuisance, under this legal theory, is simply something that interferes with the use and enjoyment of your property. However, in order to prevail in court with a nuisance lawsuit, you have to meet two criteria: reasonableness and substantiality. The bill addresses the first by saying that if genetically engineered traits come onto your property and you didn’t want them there, that is unreasonable. For the second, substantiality, a farmer must prove that s/he has at least $3500 in economic loss because of the contamination. If the farmer can prove this, then s/he has a valid claim under this bill, and the manufacturer is liable.

The Farmer Protection Act passed in the Senate May 2 with a vote of 19-8. This was the bill’s final hurdle before going the Governor’s desk. Shortly therafter, Governor Douglas threatened to veto the bill. Despite the estimated thousands of calls to the governor’s office in support of the bill that followed, he did not sway and on May 15, 2006 he vetoed the bill.

Materials

Download our GMO Patent Factsheet to learn about Monstanto GMO patent lawsuits (pdf, 2005)

Download our analyses of what the 2005 Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement really says (pdf, 2005)

Monsanto’s Technolgy Use Agreement (2005)

Download our 2005 factsheet about the Farmer Protection Act

Testimony of Amy Shollenberger, Policy Director Rural Vermont March 23, 2005

S-18 formerly known as Farmer Protection Act (as passed by house) July 4, 2005

rBGH-Free Dairy Products List, created to give consumers information on sourcing milk products made using non-rBGH milk. The list contains names of producers and bottling plants committed to using non-rBGH milk. From 2005.

GMO Info Sheet (pdf, 2005)

Transcript of the House Floor Debate on Strict Liability January 17, 2005

A Comparison of Two Versions of Senate Bill 18 (2006)

House Version of S.18 (2006)

Senate Bill S.18 (2006)

Farmer Protection Act Fact Sheet (2006)

Old Monsanto had a Farm (mp3, 2006)

Farmer Protection Act - Outline of Final Language of the Bill April 20, 2006

Farmer Protection Act - Final Language of the Bill April 20, 2006

Floor Speech on the Farmer Protection Act – Representative Dexter Randall – April 25, 2006 (doc)

A Sonnet for the Goddess of Growing Plants by Ben Scotch April 2006


Hearings on S18 (all files mp3 format):

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 3/23/05
Track 1 (35 Mb)

House Agriculture Committee hearing, 4/22/05
Track 1 (15 Mb)
Track 2 (17 Mb)
Track 3 (4 Mb)
Track 4 (4 Mb)
Track 5 (10 Mb)
Track 6 (17 Mb)
Track 7 (10 Mb)
Track 8 (5 Mb)
Track 9 (14 Mb)
Track 10 (12 Mb)
Track 11 (6 Mb)
Track 12 (3 Mb)
Track 13 (30 Mb)
Track 14 (<1 Mb)


This guide will help you determine which products are made from genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) so you can make healthier non-GMO brand buying choices. (.pdf, 2008)