The
zealot that was our Democratic Club chair was now forwarding to all
club members brief email attacks on our state senator Arnie Roblan,
messages spread on the internet by special advocacy groups like Food
Democracy Now, determined to thwart Monsanto Corporation’s attempts
to force upon independent-minded farmers its genetically modified
seeds.
Here
is information (provided by Snopes.com) that you need to know to
understand better the issue that caused such criticism of Roblan and
the events that took place at Roblan’s town hall event May 4.
***
On
26 March 2013, President Obama signed into law a bill
passed
by the House and Senate earlier that month known as the “Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013” to provide funding
for various federal agencies through the end of the 2013 fiscal year.
One of the provisions included in that bill in the section for
“Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and related agencies” was Section
735,
variously
dubbed the “Farmer Assurance Provision” or the “‘Monsanto
Protection Act,” an inclusion which reignited a clash between the
agribusiness industry and food safety groups. The former maintain
that the Farmer Assurance Provision prevents activists from
manipulating the court system to force farmers to abandon or destroy
genetically modified (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) crops that
have already received U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety
approval; the latter assert that Congress kowtowed to big business by
sneaking into an appropriations bill a provision that allows large
biotech companies like Monsanto to do an
end run around the court system and avoid legitimate legal challenges
to the safety of their products.
…
The
provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary
deregulation status to allow growers to continue the cultivation of
biotech crops that had previously been approved by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) while legal challenges to the safety
of those crops are underway, and it prevents courts from interceding
in the review process — a situation which critics contend
unconstitutionally bars the court system from taking part in ensuring
the safety of food products.
…
Dozens
of food and consumer groups opposed
the provision on the grounds that it was unnecessary and undermined
the judiciary’s authority to regulate the growing of genetically
engineered crops.
…
The
provisions of this bill (including the “Monsanto Protection Act”)
were originally to remain in effect for six months, until the end of
the fiscal year on 30 September 2013. The bill was later extended to
expire on 15 December 2013 (Mikkelson
1-3).
Work
cited:
Mikkelson,
Fred. “Monsanto Protection Act.” snopes.com,
updated
September 13, 2013. net.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/monsanto-protection-act/
***
Fireworks
were set off in Oregon when the state senate passed a bill (SB633)
that opponents dubbed the “Oregon Monsanto Protection Act.”
“SB
633 appears to be in response to local efforts to protect farmers and
consumers from genetically modified (GM) foods.
…
“Efforts
in Jackson County have led to a measure on the ballot for May 2014
that will let voters decide if they want to ban GM crops in the
county, and people in Benton County have been working on a community
rights initiative to protect the heritage and vegetable seed industry
there. GMO Free Oregon has discussed putting forth a similar measure
in Lane County. …
“Melissa
Wischerath and Mary Beth Williams of the newly formed, Eugene-based
Center for Sustainability Law are concerned about SB 633. Wischerath
says the bill is based on corporate-funded American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC) proposed legislation from 2007.
“Williams
says a Monsanto attorney came to Oregon to testify for the bill. She
says that the vague language in the bill that calls for regulation of
seeds and “products of agricultural seed, flower seed, nursery seed
and vegetable seed” to be done by the state could lead to local
governments not being able to do simple things like dealing with
invasive species and could ban county-funded local food initiatives.
…” (Mortensen 1-2).
Work
cited:
Mortensen,
Camilla. “Will
Oregon Protect Monsanto?” Eugene
Weekly, May 16,
2013. Net.
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2013/05/16/will-oregon-protect-monsanto/
***
A
biased description of SB633 and why and how it came about is provided
by Common Dreams.”
***
Last
week, SB 633, a bill that strips all local control of agricultural
seed and seed production and replaces it with a “one size fits all”
policy dictated by the state passed out of the Rural Communities and
Economic Development committee by a vote of 3 to 2 in favor. SB 633,
known as Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act, earned the support of
the committee Chair, Arnie Roblan (D-Coos Bay) whose office has cited
the passage of Section 735, known as Monsanto Protection Act, of H.R.
933, as justification of the dangerous new seed preemption bill that
is now awaiting a full vote on the Oregon Senate floor.
Under
current Oregon law, local citizens have the right to make democratic
decisions concerning local agricultural practices and Oregon’s
Monsanto Protection Act is seen as a corporate handout to
agribusiness to protect biotech seed and chemical monopolies like
Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta from the growing number of American
farmers and citizens who have become concerned about the flaws of
genetically engineered crops and the undemocratic lobbying method
these giant multinational companies use to deceptively garner growth
in the marketplace.
"Barely
two weeks after sneaking into U.S law, the Monsanto Protection Act is
being cited as an example to strip Oregon’s family farmers of their
basic democratic rights," said Dave Murphy, founder and
executive director of Food Democracy Now! "By siting Section
735, better known as the Monsanto Protection Act, as a reason to
subvert the citizen-led ballot initiative process, Oregon Senators
have proven that the Monsanto Protection Act is a part of a
well-coordinated effort by Monsanto and the biotech industry to
undermine simple protections from GMO crops that a growing number of
farmers and citizens across the U.S. are demanding."
...
Oregon’s
Monsanto Protection Act is a direct attempt to silence farmers
critical of genetically engineered crops who are looking for a
reasonable democratic solution to protect their organic and non-GMO
seed supply from genetic contamination.
In
an effort to protect local agriculture and farmer’s economic
livelihoods, on January 2nd of this year, GMO-Free Jackson
County, led by a local farmer, submitted nearly 6,500 signatures to
get a ban on genetically engineered crops on the ballot. The
initiative will appear on the ballot May 2014, if not sooner and
Monsanto, Syngenta and other biotech seed companies are working
behind the scenes to make sure that SB 633 strips Oregon residents of
their right to make local agricultural decisions at the county level.
According
to Oregon farmers, SB 633 is a thinly veiled attempt to silence the
growing concern over genetically engineered foods and gut all county
efforts to address the real problems that growing GMO crops can have
on seed purity and the economic livelihoods of family farmers.
Last
week Senator Roblan was joined by Herman Baerschiger (R-Grants Pass)
and Betsy Close (R-Albany) in voting in favor of SB 633. The bill
must now be assigned to a committee in the House and then be voted on
by both chambers of the Oregon legislature.
This
vote comes barely two weeks after Congress passed the Monsanto
Protection Act and President Obama signed it into law, over the
objections of more than 300,000 Food Democracy Now! members who
signed a letter to Obama and Congress to the stop the provision from
becoming law. Now in Oregon, state senators are hiding behind the
precedent of the Monsanto Protection Act undermining efforts in
Jackson County to pass a countywide ban on GMO crops, a ballot
initiative that qualified for the May 2014 ballot (Food 1-3).
Work
cited:
Food
Democracy Now. “Monsanto
Protection Act” Spreads to Oregon in New Bill Passed That
Will Ban Local Control over
Food and Farms.” Common
Dreams, April
18, 2013. Net.
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/04/18/monsanto-protection-act-spreads-oregon-new-bill-passed-will-ban-local-control
***
I
was not aware of the federal legislation nor the proposed state
legislation. I was seeing messages spread across the internet mostly
by Food Democracy Now lambasting Arnie Roblan courtesy of the current
Florence Area Democratic Club (FADC) chair. Here are two examples.
***
Unfortunately.
Senator Arnie Roblan (D-Coos Bay) and other senators in the Rural
Communities and Economic Development committee are determined to do
the bidding of biotech seed and chemical giants Monsanto, DuPont and
Syngenta by working to pass a law that pre-empts local county
authority over seeds and seed production.
---
posted April 10
Already,
Monsanto’s lobbyists are crawling through the Oregon capital trying
to
round
up votes before the truth can come out publicly that they’re
working
overtime
to undermine America’s basic democratic rights once again. But we
won't
let them get away with it.
Ominously,
the Monsanto Protection Act, Section 735 of the continuing
resolution,
H.R. 933, that passed last month in Washington DC and prompted
endless
controversy is now being cited as supporting evidence for the Oregon
seed preemption bill.
In
an email to an Oregon constituent from Senator Arnie Roblan (D-Coos
Bay)
the
bill’s chief sponsor and chair of the committee that the bill just
passed out of, makes clear he’s doing the bidding of Monsanto and
the biotech seed industry.
– posted
April 19
***
Arnie
Roblan and the FADC had been close allies since 2004 when he ran for
state representative. Both of us having been educators, he and I had
a natural regard for each other. Over the years he frequently
appeared before our club to provide information about legislative
bills. I always wrote and sent synopses of his presentations to our
club members, a practice that he appreciated. During election years
I always commended him in letters I wrote to the local and Coos Bay
newspaper editors. We had similar values. He valued all my efforts
on his behalf; I appreciated how he served his constituents. The
assertion by Food Democracy Now! that he was a creature of Monsanto
was both offensive and absurd, and our clueless, zealot chair was
enthusiastically promoting it.
We
were to hold our next club meeting on May 4. When the zealot had
replaced me as chair in January, I vowed to myself that I would not
advise him how to do any aspect of the job. I would do so on
request, but I wanted to respect his independence. I knew that the
May 4 town hall meeting at the local library began at 1 p.m. That
was the time that the library opened. I arrived about ten minutes
early, and already a crowd was waiting in the hallway outside the
library’s rooms. Roblan was also waiting. No chairs had been set
up inside the room where he was to speak. I had to alert one of the
librarian’s inside her office to unlock the door to where we were
suppose to gather, and, hastily, I, the chair, and several other
people arranged the chairs.
While
we were doing this, one of the leaders of Citizens Democracy Watch, a
very progressive group not a part of but an ally of the FADC, started
putting up along the walls of the room very large signs attacking
Monsanto and demanding that Roblan reverse himself. His facial
expression indicated apprehension. We, the FADC, were the sponsors
of the event. He hasn’t gotten the permission of the library to do
this, I thought, or permission from us! I wanted to tear the signs
down.
At
most all of the town halls that the club had sponsored, I, the chair,
had introduced the speaker and afterward chosen whom in the audience
to recognize to ask questions. Our chair introduced Senator Roblan
and then took a seat in the audience. Roblan had to select the
questioners. A majority of the questions asked were in varying
degrees hostile. He had nobody to step in to tone things down or to
admonish. At least three people gave tutorials – each at least 5
minutes in length – information about GMOs and Monsanto Corporation
as if Roblan had no clue about either. I would have stopped each
person after 30 seconds with the reminder, “What is your question?”
and if receiving push back, “People came here to here Seantor
Roblan speak, not any one of us.” Senator Roblan was facing a
tough crowd, and our chair, I was certain, was reveling in it.
I
audio taped the meeting, so what I have written below is not based on
memory.
On
the issue of SB633 and Monsanto seeds Senator Roblan made these
points.
“When
I make a final decision, it is based on what I believe is the right
thing to do for Oregonians.”
“When
people actually talk to each other, and listen to each other,
surprising things happen.”
SB
633 is about seeds, not GMOs, is about “who has the responsibility
for deciding and making the statues and rules regarding the growing
of different kinds of seeds” in Oregon.
The
ballot measure sponsored by people in Jackson County would “preempt
the use of any GMO seeds” there. “Not one county
in the state of Oregon wants this responsibility.” They “believe
it will bankrupt them” if passed. “We have another law in the
state that is called Right to Farm.” It “gives farmers the
rights that they need to do the common practices of being a farmer.”
He
talked to scientists at Oregon State and Portland State and other
people and asked, “Who has the expertise to make those kinds of
decisions?” The answer he got was “Probably the best is the
federal government: they have more scientists than anybody else.
Next would be the Department of Agriculture; that’s part of their
job.” Who has the expertise? Arnie was told, “Probably, right
now, not many. It’s a fairly new industry.” The place that has
the best chance of making good decisions … is the Department of
Agriculture. “Now we need to fund them, which we haven’t done
very well.” Woefully underfunded.
Two
major industries looked at the bill and said, “Oh my gosh, they are
going to start regulating our seeds, county by county, 36 counties?”
Nursery
Associations: “We think we have genetically engineered plants that
we grow and sell all over and we’re kind of concerned now what
we’re going to do with this.”
Forest
Industry: “We’re doing a lot of stuff now with our trees that are
growing and … we don’t think that having this regulated” is
good.
Obama
just signed a bill that prevents some of this GMO from being
regulated. “There is a lot of stuff happening on this issue. To
have it decided county by county made absolutely no sense to me.”
“In
the valley we have a penning system for most of our seed production
that allows people to know within two or three miles who else is
growing whatever, so that we can avoid the conflicts that happen.”
“If
you do the science and pen so that they are away from each other, do
other kinds of things to prevent it, you don’t get that problem.”
“With
respect to the long-term viability of this agricultural industry, …
I think it [SB633] is the right thing for our state to do. People
can differ with that. I’ll gladly hear from other people who show
me examples about where it’s been a problem.”
“When
I get frustrated in elections and this kind of stuff, [it’s
because] the same people who are really anti-bullying employ bullying
techniques.”
A
number of questions that were asked were about subjects other than
GMO seeds: guns, education, coal trains, mental health, forestry,
industrial farms. The following is representative of a greater
amount of argumentation that occurred between critics in the audience
and the Senator.
***
GMO
drift doesn’t stop at two-and-a-half miles.
Roblan:
Monsanto has won few lawsuits about farmers using their seeds that
drifted onto the farmers’ properties. “I understand the
concerns … I think we are more frightened than we need to be.”
Scientists
are being bought and sold by Monsanto. Cattle being fed chips of
corn foreign to the bodies of the cattle that are laced with
antibodies. Cattle should be grass-fed. We are poisoning ourselves.
Monsanto is making trees that are resistant to bugs but are killing
all the trees around them. We are in trouble. Our planet is in
trouble.
Roblan:
“I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don’t agree with
the indiscriminate spraying of pesticides. Most farmers out there
are using the least amount that they can. ..[interruption] More
pesticides may be coming into our water systems from our urban areas
than ever come from our farms. [interruption] If we ban them, we
have to be prepared to acknowledge that a whole lot of people in the
world are going to die of starvation.
“But
that’s not true.” Somebody else jumped in. “People farm for
themselves in other countries. Monsanto and other companies took
over their lands.”
Roblan:
“I’ll get some other books to read on that one, but I will
guarantee you right now if we only had organic farming and no
pesticides in this world there would be a major loss of life in this
world and poor people would be the ones that would take the biggest
brunt of it.
[Somebody
else spoke.] “The problem with Monsanto is that they prescribe the
seed … that are not viable the next year. [voice became too soft
to hear well] … The Department of Agriculture does not look at
independent studies.” They look at Monsanto and similar GMO
studies. The Department of Agriculture is headed up by a former
Monsanto official. The reason Obama signed that bill was because it
was on the tail-end of the appropriations bill to keep the government
running. He didn’t want that in there. Obama said that if any
changes are to happen in this country, it has to come from the grass
roots. People have a right to organize and to say what they need.
“SB633 undermines home rule. It is essentially favoring the
farmers that want to plant GMO. It takes away the right completely
of other farmers that [couldn’t make out what was said].” In
Mendocino County in California they passed a GMO ban that was quite
successful. “If you take the right of protest and the right of
organizations and the right of making change away from the people who
are not doing GMOs, then you are just cutting them off at the knees.”
Roblan:
“I
understand your position. I don’t necessarily agree. … There
are other ways in which laws can be important. If you have drift of
your pesticides on other people’s farms, … you will have to pay
for that. I look at this group here. 40 years ago most of us would
not be here. We wouldn’t live this long. If you look historically
at our country to other countries, our food production and safety is
better than most every country in the world. I understand people’s
belief structures around organic [mumbled words]. I keep asking for
studies that show me. Show me the studies that show it’s going to
be a problem and not going to be a problem. I will continue to read
the [?] from everyone.”
[Another
person] Talking about seeds sounds very benign, but how those seeds
are altered in a way to resist some of the pesticides, ”the only
reason that is being done – we are killing ourselves, hurting
ourselves … only to kill weeds.” The person continues a tutorial
giving information about farmers’ use of stronger pesticides to
eradicate more pesticide-resistant weeds, cross-pollination, drift,
storage of unused chemicals, the European Union 2-year ban on
pesticides that apparently are killing bees, the EPA looking at the
effects on children’s brain development because of use of
pesticides around schools. At this point several people in the
audience declared that they wanted other people to have the
opportunity to speak and ask questions.
Another
person spoke.
You
mentioned earlier that there is no science regarding GMOs.
Roblan:
“No, there was science.”
Okay,
you went to Oregon State. They didn’t know …
Roblan:
“I said, they’re saying that the fears that people have are not
founded enough in science. Because there is science that’s been
done.”
Money
going into the colleges is not supporting science. It’s not
supporting the research and development. The governor is not
supporting it. The federal government is not supporting it. All the
money we suspend for growing our children are also growing our
society now seems to be going to different places, mostly
corporations.
Roblan:
“I agree that corporations don’t pay what I think they should
pay. … What I’m saying is, I want reputable science. So I
don’t care if Monsanto does it, or if the University of Oregon does
it, or whoever.” I want to see how they did it “and I take that
same science and I can replicate it over here and I get the same
results. If you can’t do that kind of science, then I don’t
think it is real science. … So I don’t care if Monsanto does
it, and I don’t care if the University of Oregon does it. For me,
it’s show me the science. And then let’s make some decisions
about it.
Another
person, with a low voice, hard to decipher: “None of the science
that they’re putting out there … [something about genetic change,
“GMO stuff “]
Roblan:
“One thing I will say about science. They don’t ever really have
the final answer. … Their answer is, ‘Here’s the best we know
now. Give us some more time and we’ll tell you the next thing is.
I agree.
***
I
immediately left the room after the town hall had concluded. I was
furious, not because I believed that accusations leveled at Monsanto
were not true but because Senator Roblan had been accorded so little
respect.
