Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Dan DeWalt, who writes for ThisCan’tBeHappening.net.
The farm bill in Congress has been getting lots of attention lately. The debate in Vermont has mostly been framed around the loss of food stamp support and the need for dairy support. But there is also a subtle and dangerous part of the bill that we haven’t heard much about.
Several sections, referred to collectively as the “Monsanto rider,” give the GMO/chemical-producing behemoth quite an offering. It prohibits the environmental review of the impact of any new genetically modified crops to be introduced onto our farmlands. Not even the fates of endangered species will be allowed to slow the pace of this brave new future of Frankencrops and Goliath profits. It also gives the USDA, already in bed with Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, sole jurisdiction over any decision about the use of GMOs, abrogating even court authority regarding adequate review of applications. To top it off, it sets an improbable deadline for each application and then declares that any not fully processed by said deadline will be approved nonetheless and forces the secretary of Agriculture to do the dirty work.
Poor Monsanto needs the help. Europe has said “no” to GMO foods; not by government edict, but through the marketplace. European politicians didn’t let corporate agribusiness prevent the labeling of GMO foods as is done here in the U.S. And so far at least, people there have little interest in having science experiments for dinner. In Canada, Monsanto has faced stiff opposition to its GMO wheat.
Monsanto also understands that some of their current faves, such as Round-Up-ready soybeans, are already facing new strains of weeds that are adapting on their own to the herbicide. In fact, Monsanto is now seeking approval for a new GMO strain of corn that can tolerate being sprayed with, if you can believe it, 2,4D. Yes, agricultural use of Agent Orange is just around the corner as far as Monsanto is concerned, and these provisions in the farm bill will further enable the corporation’s reckless assault on our ecosystems.
The action in this bill is on the House side, so I decided to contact Peter Welch’s office and find out if he knew about the Monsanto rider and where he stood on the issue. A pleasant young man answered the phone. An intern, he explained that he did not know anything about Mr Welch’s position. No one else was around who could take a call, so he took down my questions and promised to ask our representative and respond. After a couple of weeks, I tried again. This time an equally pleasant young woman answered, and gave me the same answer as I had received the first time. I said that I would be on the radio later and would like to call in live to try to glean an answer. This happened and was no more fruitful than the first two conversations. But it did prompt Rep. Welch’s office to call back; not with any information about the farm bill, but to complain about having an intern having to field a call from live radio. This is a fair point. But why does our House member handle his communications with his constituents with a team of interns that can neither answer our questions nor find someone who can? How are citizens supposed to know how to communicate to our representative if we can’t find out where he stands on an issue?
Citizen power is largely limited to having a voice with which to persuade your representatives to take right action. Without knowing where our representative stands, our discourse is limited and less effective. Are all queries about legislation met with such a casual non-response?
It could be that Mr Welch is fighting to remove this language bought and paid for by Monsanto and could use our help. It could be that it hasn’t yet been brought to his attention, in which case the appropriate response would be to get lots of Vermonters to contact him about it. He might even think that it’s a good idea and need to be dissuaded. Citizen power is largely limited to having a voice with which to persuade your representatives to take right action. Without knowing where our representative stands, our discourse is limited and less effective. Are all queries about legislation met with such a casual non-response? Would being a campaign contributor assure a more timely response? Has government grown so large and unwieldy as to effectively shut us out of the conversation if we’re not part of the system?
Four weeks out, and Mr. Welch’s office has responded. He supports the labeling of GMOs in our food and is co-sponsoring legislation to that effect. He also says that he supports federal protection of farmers’ right to choose not to grow GMO crops. Unfortunately, he still didn’t say anything about the Monsanto rider.
As it stands, it will strip farmers of federal or judicial protection from GMO corporate bullies. His only reference to the farm bill was to say that it wasn’t to the House floor yet and that he didn’t expect it to be in the near future. But that same week, on VPR’s “Vermont Edition,” he was exhorting the House Republican leadership to get that same bill out onto the House floor so that it can be amended by whomever and voted on. Mr. Welch could back his commitment to protect farmers by pledging to work to amend the bill and defeat the Monsanto rider. His silence on the question is not encouraging.
If the feckless Congress can’t pass this farm bill, they may resort to a one-year extension of last year’s bill. Let’s use that time to encourage Rep. Welch to take action to protect farmers and to oppose the Monsanto rider as long as it’s part of the farm bill. In the meantime, you can find out how to help in the fight to remove the Monsanto rider by contacting the Organic Consumers Association at organicconsumers.org.
