According to the coalition of small farmers, environmentalists, and consumers that successfully campaigned to stop a bill in the Michigan Senate that sought to limit the capacity of local municipalities to restrict the use of genetically modified seeds, the bill will likely reemerge in the state’s House of Representatives. Already, Republican representatives Neal Nitz and John Proos, both of whom are members of the House Agriculture Committee, are circulating a version of the Senate bill to recruit co-sponsors in an effort to pass a House version of the bill before drawing the public attention that effectively defeated the Senate bill.
The Michigan Senate bill (SB 777), sponsored by Republican Gerald Van Woerkom, would prevent local communities from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting or regulating the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of genetically modified seeds. According to reporting in the Michigan Citizen, Van Woerkom says that while large agribusiness corporations such as Monsanto would benefit the bill they are not behind it and that the impetus for the bill instead comes out of concerns for farmers who could benefit from the use of genetically modified seeds and questions about the abilities of local governments to regulate and evaluate genetically engineered crops. Van Woerkom has also claimed that he has the support of the Senate Agriculture Committee citing the working relationships he has with other Committee members and conversations that suggest only Democratic Senator Liz Brater opposes the bill. While Van Woerkom says that he did not introduce the bill on behalf of industry, it is worth noting that Van Woerkom receives extensive political contributions from industry political action committees (PACs), many of whom are among Michigan’s top PACs.
The legislation, which is being promoted in Michigan by the Farm Bureau, has likely come at the behest of industry despite Van Woerkom’s comments to the contrary. Across the United States, agri-business corporations and lobbying interests are supporting “preemption” bills as a way of preventing cities from restricting genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Industry has taken this course in response to citizen initiatives around the country that have sought to restrict GMOs, including successful initiatives involving three California counties and one-hundred New England towns that have GMOs. In 2005, seventeen states introduced legislation removing local control of plants and seeds and the common language between the bills has suggested a coordinated effort by industry. The effort is believed to have originated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group, where an industry proposal for a “biotechnology state uniformity resolution” was first discussed in May of 2004.
Aside from issues of local control and corporate involvement in the legislative process, the legislation is also opening old questions about the safety of genetically engineered foods. As has historically been the case, environmental and human concerns are being raised with activists pointing out that there has been little human study on the long-term safety of GMOs which frequently produce allergic or toxic effects in people. The allergy threat has been highlighted with by the accidental introduction of StarLink corn in 2000 that was subsequently pulled from stores due to allergy concerns. Moreover, there is no pre-market safety testing for GMO foods, a fact that has led campaigners to argue that restricting municipalities’ capacity to regulate GMOs undermines the so-called “precautionary principle” whereby thorough investigation of new technologies should be conducted before their adoption.
Particularly in Michigan, much of the opposition to GMOs has been in terms of their potential environmental concerns. Genetically modified crops can contaminate neighboring crops without providing any visual clues, a process which may have devastating effects on local ecosystems. This concern is particularly acute with experimental crops, which are frequently “field tested” in Michigan. The biotechnology industry began field testing in the 1980s as a way of determining the impact of new crops on the environment and how they function, but the USDA has failed to adequately regulate the tests leading to the introduction of nonnative organisms in ecosystems, soil damage, so-called genetic pollution, and the development of new viral strains in response to virus-resistant plants. In Michigan, some 750 open-air field tests of GMOs and biopharmaceuticals have been conducted. Since the introduction of field tests, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has only rejected 3.6% of the total applications—a number that has caused critics to question the capability of the USDA to oversee such tests. These concerns gained additional validity last month when the USDA’s inspector general released a report finding that the agency has failed to properly oversee trials. The report was released shortly before the Center for Food Safety sued the USDA for its failure to adequately analyze the public health, environmental, and economic consequences of its release of genetically engineered alfalfa.
Questions of oversight, along with opposition from consumers, activists, university professors, and cities, are what ultimately caused the Senate bill to stall in committee. Already, activists are organizing against a similar bill in the House, beginning their effort before such a bill is introduced. As part of this effort, there is currently a letter writing campaign targeting the Michigan House Agriculture Committee.
Of Michigan’s 125 food crops, 90% of soy is genetically engineered, as is 32% of the corn crop. On the national level, 85% of soy and 45% of corn is genetically engineered while about 70% of processed foods are believed to contain genetically modified ingredients.
