In 2005, state legislatures increasingly
attempted to preempt, or disallow, local and county initiatives
that were mostly aimed at limiting or prohibiting genetically
modified (GM) seeds and crops, according to a new fact sheet and
web database released today by
the Pew Initiative on Food
and Biotechnology (PIFB). This activity represents one of
the largest categories of bills introduced in 2005 and is the
most significant legislative development of that year.
Additionally, the Pew Initiative analysis finds
that states continue to grapple with potential conflicts among
farmers who use GM crop technologies and those using
conventional or organic production approaches. Bills that
focused on the coexistence of different food production systems
and that attempted to address concerns about liability and
contractual agreements comprised 17 percent of the bills
introduced (the same percentage as in 2003-2004) and 15 percent
of adopted legislation.
At the same time, many state legislators are
continuing to introduce legislation in support of agricultural
biotechnology. Bills supportive of agricultural biotechnology
combined with preemption bills, represented close to two-thirds
of adopted bills, indicating that adopted legislation in 2005
was largely supportive of the technology.
“In 2005, states continued to balance the
competing interests of different stakeholders,” said Michael
Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology. “As agricultural biotechnology progresses, and
farmers, the food industry and consumers continue to adapt to
it, state legislatures are at the forefront. States sometimes
have little choice but to address new policy issues, even before
they emerge at the federal level.”
During the 2005 legislative session, 117 pieces
of legislation related to agricultural biotechnology were
introduced in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Fourteen
percent of the bills introduced addressed preemption and
twenty-six percent of introduced legislation addressed support
of agricultural biotechnology. In other areas, 12 percent of
introduced bills in 2005 imposed moratoria on GM crops and
animals; eight percent imposed labeling requirements; eight
percent involved studies and taskforces and two percent
concerned crop destruction.
The fact sheet entitled
“State Legislative Activity Related to Agricultural
Biotechnology Continued in 2005”, chronicles and
catalogues state and federal legislative activity relating to
agricultural biotechnology during 2005 and the first half of the
2005-2006 state legislative session. It is the first of two
planned reports covering the 2005-2006 legislative session in
states. When appropriate, comparisons are made to a similar
analysis of the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 legislative sessions
released by the Pew Initiative in June 2003 and May 2004. The
fact sheet is accompanied by
Legislation Tracker, a database that archives
legislation introduced since early 2001.
Other findings:
-
As in previous sessions, the Hawaii state
legislature introduced the most bills on agricultural
biotechnology, generating 33 bills. Other states introducing
large numbers of bills were New York, with 12 pieces and
Massachusetts with seven pieces.
-
Although 117 pieces of legislation were
introduced, only a relatively small percentage (20 percent)
were passed, as is typical in the first year of a two-year
legislative session.
-
One labeling bill was adopted in Alaska, out
of nine introduced nationwide: SB 25, which requires that GM
fish not be sold for human consumption unless it is
conspicuously labeled. the most widely favored uses are
those that offer direct human benefits, including producing
chickens resistant to avian flu (40 percent “very good
reason”) or producing cattle resistant to mad cow disease
(40 percent “very good reason.)”
The fact sheet can be viewed at:
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation/factsheet.php.
The database can be viewed at:
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation
