Farmer Protection Act
Would Distribute
Liability Fairly

We are farmers and neighbors, who want to tell you what happened with us this spring.

At Butterworks Farm we produce organic milk and value-added dairy products and grow organic grains and beans. This spring our neighbors planted genetically modified (GMO) corn in a field near ours.

They didn't know it was a GMO crop, because the labeling was not clear and the farmer was not told. At Pion Farm we don't milk cows any more, we do custom field work for farmers in the area, including our friends at Butterworks. Last spring we planted GMO corn seeds. Even though Vermont has a law requiring GMO seeds to be clearly labeled, they weren't. If we knew they were GMO seeds we would not have bought or planted them.

At Butterworks we are working to bring seed corn back to Vermont. This year we made a significant investment of time, labor and money to plant a specific organic seed corn crop.

If our crop was contaminated by our neighbor's GMO crops, our investment would be lost. We would have had no legal protection. Under current law we would have to sue our neighbor for damages, something we would never want to do.

The labeling issue is important, but we are really concerned about possible GMO contamination among local crops. There is no doubt GMO pollen drifts and contaminates the crops of non-GMO farmers. Crop testing confirms it. Monsanto's GMO seed contract admits pollen drift between fields is a "well known" occurrence and they have sued farmers over it. When contamination happens it costs farmers money and markets.

Monsanto has started dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of investigations of farmers they say have GMO crops growing in their fields though the farmers did not buy or plant them.

A conventional soybean farmer in North Dakota lost his contract with a Japanese soy sauce maker when his crop tested positive for GMOs.

Grain companies specializing in non-GMO grains regularly find grain from non-GMO farms contaminated with GMOs.A Wisconsin farmer lost his contract to sell organic corn when his crop was contaminated.

In Australia, GMO canola genes were found in non-GMO crops even though there is a GMO ban covering half of the country. Anheuser Busch threatened to boycott Missouri rice until a biotech company agreed to grow GMO rice far from the non-GMO rice fields the beer maker uses.

In Vermont one of 12 non-GMO farms tested positive for GMO contamination. There are a lot of other examples.

We went to the trouble and cost of testing our crop and found no contamination. We were lucky. But others may not be so lucky.

Currently, farmers take the risk while the seed companies make the money. Using Monsanto for example; when you sign a contract or open a bag of seed you agree to take all responsibility for damages to neighbor's fields. You also give up your right to save or share the seed. And you agree that any legal disputes will be heard in courts in St. Louis Mo., their corporate headquarters. So, you aren't even buying the seeds. You are renting them—agreeing to use them for one season. Monsanto retains ownership but you get all the risk and liability.

This is what concerns us. The GMO seed companies should be responsible for their seeds and liable for damages they cause.

After hearing from farmers, the Vermont Senate passed a bill last year to help us out. It holds seed sellers liable, puts the transactions under Vermont law and says any lawsuits against Vermonters will be heard in Vermont.

But the Vermont House weakened the bill. The House bill might give farmers who buy GMO seeds protection. They are "consumers" doing business with the seed seller. But, the Vermont Department of Agriculture is wrong when it says the House bill will protect farmers who face GMO contamination. Farmers who suffer contamination may lose money, markets and even organic certification but they are not "consumers" of the seed. They did not buy them—they are victims of drift.

Why not protect them and make it clear that the companies that own the seeds, and retain ownership even after they are planted, are liable for any damage they do.

This will not stop anyone from using GMO seeds. It will only make the lines of responsibility clear helping those who use them and those who do not. This way farmers don't have to argue it out between neighbors or, even worse, end up in court.

When the Legislature meets in January, an attempt will be made to make the House bill as strong as the Senate bill. We certainly support it and hope you will help us out.

By By Jack Lazur and Armand Pion

Butterworks Farm Chris Costanzo