|
|
KUFM Commentary - April 30th, 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- "Montana's Farmer Protection Bill" News of a simple bill to protect farmers traveled far from Montana's capitol this legislative session. It wasn't for its merits, though, but rather how a dinner hosted by Monsanto may have swayed Montana legislators to kill it. House Bill 445, sponsored by Representative Betsy Hands, sought to protect the privacy and property rights of farmers. The bill would have established rules for seed patent holders to follow when investigating farmers for illegally saving patented seeds. The bill was straightforward. It said that seed companies had to get farmers' permission before entering their fields and that the Department of Agriculture could be present as a third party to collect duplicate samples. The bill also stated that if farmers inadvertently acquired patented plant material - say, via pollen or other means outside a farmer's control - they could not be held liable for patent infringement. Seems fair, right? Not so, said Monsanto, the world's largest seed company. After the bill easily passed the House, the seed giant and a partner industry group took the Senate Agriculture Committee out to dinner to make its case for why the committee should vote against the bill. A lot has been said about how the dinner may or may not have influenced the committee's vote. In any case, Monsanto's intent seemed clear: to bypass the public process and exert its influence. This is not how we should do business in Montana. The dinner is an example of Monsanto's political power and dominance in American agriculture, and in itself reflects the need to level the playing field. This is precisely what House Bill 445 sought to do, in a small but important way. Perhaps more puzzling than the Monsanto dinner is why some of our state's leading farm groups - including Montana's Farm Bureau and Grain Growers Association - opposed the bill. They chose to protect industry interests instead of the rights of their farming constituents and seemed to use Monsanto's own talking points. Opponents framed the bill as anti-biotechnology and attempted to pit farmer against farmer. But the bill didn't judge the merits of biotechnology at all. It was about protecting all farmers, including those who use the technology. It wasn't about a product, but about an unbiased party verifying a process. Monsanto is known to throw its weight around. There's no doubt farmers enjoy the company's products, yet countless farmers say Monsanto harasses and intimidates farmers when investigating possible infringements of its patents. Monsanto has sued more than 100 farmers in 27 states for patent infringement and hundreds more are investigated each year and sign confidential settlements out of court for undisclosed sums of money. These agreements include gag orders, so many of the stories remain untold. While many farmers targeted by Monsanto admit to saving seed illegally, others say they have records and receipts to prove their innocence. We're fortunate that Montana farmers haven't been targeted with intrusive patent investigations that violate property and privacy rights. But we can learn from farmers in other states who have - and that is exactly what House Bill 445 was about. Indeed, Montana wasn't alone this legislative session in trying to pass this kind of bill. Three states introduced similar bills in 2009 and four states already have these laws in place, including our neighbors in North Dakota. The fact that this string of legislation, now dubbed Farmer Protection Acts, were created to address the misconduct of a single, large company is troubling. What's troubling, too, is the dialogue that ensued during hearings and behind closed doors. Monsanto was put on a pedestal as the savior to American farming - as the only entity capable of solving farmers' agronomic challenges and providing innovative tools. We know that's not true. Opponents of the bill, including some Senate Agriculture Committee members, went so far as to say this bill could discourage Monsanto from doing business in the state. And they repeatedly mentioned the promise of biotech wheat, even in light of Monsanto's claim in January that it had no plan to start up a biotech wheat program at this time. The company pulled this product in 2003 before it was commercialized because of market resistance, not a lack of research dollars. If conversation had focused on the merits of House Bill 445, it would be on the Governor's desk today. Monsanto says these bills are unnecessary, that it doesn't abuse its right to investigate farmers. Why, then, would the company send representatives to Montana to fight a bill that provides an open and transparent process? This alone is a strong indication that this legislation is needed. At the end of the day, Monsanto's dinner only reflects the power some corporations wield in the marketplace and politics. The publicity around this dinner served as a source of embarrassment for some of the committee members, and, consequently, a reminder of what Montanans expect from their lawmakers: an honest, public dialogue in the wide-open spaces we treasure. And that should include the Capitol. I'm Kiki Hubbard for the Alternative Energy Resources Organization. This is one of many conversations we're having at AERO. AERO is a grassroots membership organization that's been building communities by linking people with sustainable agriculture and energy solutions for 35 years. To join the conversation call us in Helena at (406) 443-7272.
|