Case IH Power Tab

Farm Futures
   Search Site:   Saturday, May 26, 2012 | Bookmark This Site   
Skip Navigation Links
Home
Markets
News
Weather
Farm Futures NOW!
Magazine Online
RSS News
Land For Sale
Mobile
Subscribe
Reprints
Register
Login
About Us
Advertise
 
Share This
 

State Legislatures Increasingly Attempting to Limit Ag Biotechnology

At the same time, many state legislators are continuing to introduce legislation in support of agricultural biotechnology according to Pew Initiative analysis.
Compiled by staff 
Published: Jun 22, 2006

In 2005, state legislatures increasingly attempted to preempt, or disallow, local and county initiatives that were mostly aimed at limiting or prohibiting genetically modified seeds and crops, according to a new fact sheet and Web database released by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 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% of the bills introduced (the same percentage as in 2003-2004) and 15% 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," says 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% of introduced legislation addressed support of agricultural biotechnology. In other areas, 12% of introduced bills in 2005 imposed moratoria on GM crops and animals; 8% imposed labeling requirements; 8% involved studies and taskforces and 2% 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%) 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% "very good reason") or producing cattle resistant to mad cow disease (40% "very good reason.)"


Permalink: Click here

Tagged: organic

Comments
Read comments from others and share your own thoughts.
Please provide the answer to the following question:

 = 
 
Search this site:   

Read More Stories
USDA Seeks Comment on Report Timing
Read this storyWith new market hours,USDA is looking into the right time to release information to the market.
Read this story

Weekend Forecast Changes Pivotal for Grain Futures
Read this storyEurope remains a concern, but the big driver on Tuesday will likely be the state of next week’s anticipated Midwest rains.
Read this story

Farm Markets Rise Ahead of Holiday
Read this storyOvernight boost based on positive comments from Europe aimed at pressuring Germany.
Read this story

 
USDA Seeks Comment on Report Timing
Afternoon Recap by Arlan Suderman
Weekend Forecast Changes Pivotal for Grain Futures
The Buzz: Grain Market Chaos Continues
Weekly Fertilizer Review
Morning Call by Bryce Knorr
Satellite Imagery Shows the Good and the Bad
CRP Signup Results Announced
Farm Markets Rise Ahead of Holiday
Livestock Call By John Otte
Top 50 Tags
4-H afternoon recap American Farm Bureau Federation American Soybean Association animal health arlan suderman biodiesel biofuels bryce knorr BSE Bushel checkoff cotton Drought Environmental Protection Agency EPA ethanol Extension extension service farm farm bill Farm Bureau farm futures farm futures magazine farm futures market farm progress Farm Service Agency farmfutures farmfutures.com farming farmprogress.com fertilizer FFA free trade agreement Harvest insurance labor legal National Cattlemen's Beef Association National Corn Growers Association NCGA soybean soybean association soybeans SURE usda wheat winter wheat www.farmfutures www.farmfutures.com