What is Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act?

There is no Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act.

The anti-GMO, anti-technology, regressive crowd has given that title to SB 633, Seed Preemption.

To begin, there is no such thing as the Monsanto Protection Act…anywhere.  There was a Plant Protection Act passed recently in congress. This protects farmers who had legally purchased and planted seed from activist judges who make decisions based on rhetoric and emotion from declaring legal seeds and plants to be illegal and ordering them to be destroyed.

I testified in favor of SB 633 over a month ago.  I still stand by that testimony and the bill.

I have been accused of not supporting democracy and opposing local control because of my support for Seed Preemption. Let’s be clear about this.

  • I support States’ rights as granted by the constitution.
  • I support less regulation and this bill prevents multiple regulations on county & city levels.
  • I support freedom to choose what you eat and grow but cannot dictate that to your neighbor.

As I responded to a recent blog comment.

I am a believer in Farm and Let Farm and I don’t believe in restricting my neighbor’s choice of what he plants. I do believe in being a good neighbor and discussing the options and the science of cross-pollination. If one is truly worried about cross-pollination there are multiple options to how to avoid it besides an outright ban.

Ultimately it is about freedom and choice and once laws & politicians start regulating what we can and cannot grow we lose both.

Lastly, SB 633  has little to do with GMOs and Monsanto.  The Anti-crowd even acknowledges this in a recent Action Alert.  They direct their followers to not mention GMOs when contacting legislators….



This bill makes a level playing field for all Oregon farmers and supported by both Organic and Conventional farmers. If you look through the anti-crowd’s rhetoric and scare tactics you will see that it is a common sense bill.

Good Neighbor Farmers

Good Neighbor Farmers


Filed under GMOs, Seeds

34 Responses to What is Oregon’s Monsanto Protection Act?

  1. Orin

    Pretty telling that they instruct their followers NOT to mention the GMO issue, isn’t it? But they wont admit it to the media…….or the general public.

  2. il nastase

    GMO’s are being banned rapidly across the globe. The main problem with farmers opening their mouths–is that 99% of the time, it’s monetarily motivated from a person low on education and high on opinion. So, please tell me what you scientifically know in depth that the average country banning these GMO’s don’t…

    • Thank you for the comment and opinion, as everyone is entitled to one.

      I have not seen any increasing of banning GMOs across the globe, in fact I have heard of more countries allowing it. As for me I have read & listened to many scientists on the subject and feel the science supports the use of the technology. We need regulators who understand the science of it, counties do not have the resources nor the expertise readily available determine what’s best to do with seed.

      To insinuate that 99% of farmers are “low on education” is an absolute falsehood and is quite frankly rude. This remark was not appreciated. I ask that you keep conversation civil and refrain from name calling.

      • let's get real

        I don’t want to speak for the original commenter, but it is quite a leap of logic to conclude that he or she thinks 99% of farmers are anything.

        Next. Scientists do not understand the effects of GMOs. So it doesn’t matter at this point whether or not GMOs are “bad”. When you take a look at the scope of the effects that are possible when you introduce a GMO into nature, it is impossible for the gravity of the situation to escape a rational mind.

        So, respectfully, you are wrong.

        • How do you know scientists don’t understand the affects of GMOs? Why is it different then cross-breeding hundreds of thousands of genes versus a handful…? Don’t we know the effects of cross breeding hundreds of thousands versus a handful even less?

      • ozob

        “How do you know scientists don’t understand the affects of GMOs?”

        Because there is a complete lack of consensus and a stunning lack of *independent* peer-reviewed (not to mention longitudinal) studies. What studies have been done have pointed to some seriously concerning issues, such as possible heightened inflammatory (immune) responses and carcinogenic effects of ingestion. The precautionary principle applies.

        “Why is it different then cross-breeding hundreds of thousands of genes versus a handful…? Don’t we know the effects of cross breeding hundreds of thousands versus a handful even less?”

        These are the type of comments that make you seem like a Monsanto spokesperson to me. Genetic engineering is *not* cross-breeding. Sticking genes from one species in an entirely different phylum or kingdom into another species is *nowhere near* cross-breeding two similar species, which has been happening since the beginning of life on the planet. Should we stick dog genes into humans to create humans with elongated snouts and superior sense of smells? Because that’s what genetic engineering is. Regardless of any phenotypic expressions, what’s more concerning is that under the hood, we are not only creating novel proteins, but are forcing certain organism’s bodies to create those proteins and introducing them into our bodies and the rest of the environment. As soon as genetic engineering experiments escape the lab environment, they are exposed to countless interactions.

        One might make an argument that genetic engineering is akin to Lynn Margulis’ (well-documented) evolutionary theory of endosymbiosis. But endosymbiosis is much more subtle and incremental because it happens through hundreds of generations of close symbiosis. If genetic engineering were limited only to the combining of genes from species already under close evolutionary symbiotic relationships, then it would be a valid argument. But it’s not, so the argument is invalid.

  3. ozob

    Thank you for allowing discussion on your page.

    It takes an incredible amount of intelligence to acheive sustained, consistent farm yields from year to year, not to mention intergenerationally, not to mention over hundreds of years. The previous comment is errant and rude in that sense, and I appreciate you calling the person out in such a mature manner. That type of vitriol does us all harm. Farming has a social stigma, esp. among many urban elites (regardless of their politics). We need more farmers, and we need kids to be passionate about food and farming.

    I have some questions or points for your consideration…

    1. A list of worldwide bans (missing Peru and a few others, but close):
    Not sure what the trends are…

    2. Have you read this, and if so, what in it do you actually dispute?

    3. Monsanto has fabricated much of the data that supports its products…
    It’s BS about Roundup is only the tip of the iceberg. But why should that be surprising considering we’re talking about the company that was the main supplier for Agent Orange, which devastated an entire nation, our troops included? (have you ever worked with vets who had to deal with Agent Orange?) At the time, Monsanto pseudo-scientists also insisted that Agent Orange was perfectly safe, and falsified data to reduce the apparent toxicity of dioxin. What indication do we have that their pseudo-scientific corporate practices have changed at all? I have only seen evidence to the contrary, that they continue to falsify data to support their business. Why should we expect anything else?

    Pseudo-scientists produce data that will support their livelihood. Scientists are skeptical and conservative (my brother is an annoying example of that!). To that end, scientists are conservative and invariably embrace the precautionary principle while they test for the ability to reject the null hypothesis. Otherwise, the practitioner is a pseudo-scientist who is trying to match the data to the hypothesis (for example, by cherrypicking data or massaging the figures or calculations, etc). That’s not science — that’s statistical propaganda.

    4. States rights were originally about the states vs the federal government (ref 10th Amendment). Given this, why do you say you support states’ rights over and above the rights of local governments? Do you also support federal rights over and above states’ rights? That is, would you support a federal version of SB 633? Why or why not?

    5. GMO crops regularly threaten, contaminate and destroy their identity-protected counterparts, and ruin entire crops and seedstocks. But the reverse is not true. Given this fact, how do you reconcile your support of SB 633 with your statement that you support people’s right to “eat and grow whatever they want.” What methods do you support to contain GMOs and eliminate threats of contamination? Does that mean you also support mandatory labeling of GM-containing foods to give consumers the choice you say you believe they should have?

    5. I appreciate your distrust of government regulation. I’m of the same mind. What are your feelings on Monsanto, et al’s destruction of the nation’s independent granaries and its consolidation and centralization of the nation’s seed supply? (How) is this trend conducive to your support of independent farmers and farming practices that are free from “red-tape?” If not, (why) do you make an exception for corporate red-tape?

    6. Are you concerned at all about the extent to which Monsanto (human) resources bribe or hold key positions in governments? Example:

    I strongly believe that “good farmers get good yields.” The “brute-force” soil-mining that characterizes much of our current farming using fertilizers and pesticides doesn’t require anywhere near the sophistication of knowledge of intensive polycultural/holistic techniques that protect soil health, sustained yields and food safety.

    The aberrant soil-mining techniques and systems will be gone soon, one way or another. However, the health of the land-base we leave behind is an open question. Industrial monoculture indisputedly destroys the land-base. It’s why the “fertile crescent” is a desert. It’s why we have a “dust bowl.” It’s a foundation for civilization and a main reason why every civilization collapses. Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, et al are all a part of that system. Either we protect our landbase now, or our children’s children might actually live to regret it…

    • Thank you for the well thought out comment. I will respond as soon as a I have the time to address each of your points/questions. 🙂

    • Again, Thank you for the well thought out comment. Here is my response

      1) Interesting list, also interesting is how many countries on that list allow the import of GMO crops from the United States. While bans are not increasing but countries approving biotech are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqWb7tprBPo In the big picture I would also question the type of government system each of those countries have and ask ourselves if that is the type of governance we want for ourselves. Or do we enjoy our constitution and our republic?

      2) I would disagree with the majority if not all of it. Biotechnology is precise, does decrease pesticide usage in some crops and helps to solve poverty. Likewise I would ask if you have read this: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/default.asp a comprehensive review of GMOs from 1996-2012. No one said Biotechnology is simple or easy. It is complex and often times people try to simplify it to a point that confuses the subject even further. http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-muddled-debate-about-pesticide-use.html

      3) Monsanto has scientists on their staff, these scientists have gone through at least a decade of schooling and research to even get a job as an independent scientist. To call them pseudo-scientists would be rather insulting to the investment they have made in their education.

      How do react to scientists who don’t work for a biotech company such as Dr. Kevin Folta at the University of Florida http://kfolta.blogspot.com/ is critical of Monsanto but a strong support of biotechnology & GMOS? Or the folks who work for a non-profit on biotechnology http://www.biofortified.org/?

      As for your accusations about Agent Orange, the active ingredient that was truly dangerous is no longer available and the other component of that is 2,4D which is an integral part on farm in controlling weeds. As for Round-up I feel very safe using. In fact I don’t like to use products blindly I make sure to read the label and use them properly. I also go to third party sites to research them as well. The one I use most frequently is the National Pesticide Information Center through Oregon State University http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html

      Also the process which GMO crops go through scrutinized by reviews and numerous studies, by the company, by the government & 3rd party entities.

      4) States are local control and local government.

      5) There is always a threat of contamination in all GMO, Non-GMO and even organic crops. There are no absolutes but there are practices put in place to limit the possibility that it happens such as buffer zones. In Central Oregon where they grow hybrid carrot seed the varieties grown can’t be an average of 1 to 5 miles of another crop. They use a pinning system to reduce the threat of contamination. Several options out there. And I am not aware of any documented case in the US where inadvertent cross pollination made a grower or farmer lost any money, crop or marketability.

      5(again) I don’t see this destruction. While our farm does use seed from Monsanto or similar companies I know many farmers that do. They feel comfortable about using these seeds. They are still very independent farmers and companies do not dictate which seeds they grow nor the methods they use unless it was previously agreed to it. The market is main driver to what a farmer plants.


      As to your soil mining comment any type of farming method takes stuff away from the soil. However we choose to add nutrients back should be our choice, the basic molecules are still the same.

      Along with the links I reference above I would also encourage you to check our A Sleuth for Health. She felt that way you did about biotechnology and GMOs. However she has recently changed her viewpoint and blogs about her change of heart. http://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/science-is-laughing-at-us/

      Thank you again for visiting my blog and I appreciate the dialogue.

      • ethan

        Thanks for the response.

        1. Not sure what your comment about governments is about. Many of the European countries banning GMOs have arguably as sound republican principles in their governments, and often have much more diversity than our bread-and-circus two party system.
        2. “Biotechnology is precise.” This a misleading statement. Yes, it is “precise” to produce BT Corn. It is incredibly imprecise to a. allow that corn anywhere outside of a highly-controlled laboratory setting and b. allow it to enter into normal diets. but in the big picture, the diets of civilization are diets that are new to humans on an evolutionary level, and are already incredibly hard on our bodies compared to what we were eating as a species 10+ thousand years ago.

        Profit motives are precise. Pro-GMO forces outspend anti-GMO forces by several factors. The persecution complex that many pro-GMO people seem to feel is misplaced and weird.

        3. I would question why those “scientists” have, after all their hard work, opted for careers within a company that has a clear, established and unapologetic pattern of altering study data to promote the “health” and “safety” of its products. Why would they throw so much of their training away to work at a company that will marginalize them or tamper with their work if it doesn’t produce the “correct” result?

        Re: people who don’t neatly fit in boxes. They are evidence of the complexity of this (and any) debate, and often get marginalized or sidelined when they have important contributions to make that shake up the simplistic “for/against” positions. Reminds me of our “two-party system” yeah?

        RE: Agent Orange. Dioxin (if that’s what you were referring to) wasn’t an active ingredient, it was a by-product of the production techniques Monsanto, et al used to meet government demands. Monsanto knew about the heightened toxicity of TCDD, but kept a lid on it. Thanks, Monsanto. “Corporate responsibility” at work, huh?

        RE: your feeling safe about Roundup. Monsanto (erroneously) tried to call it biodegradable. It isn’t. And why is your discussion only about glyphosate? Chemical companies regularly list toxic ingredients as “inactive” to avoid regulation and regulatory scrutiny, and that’s exactly what has happened with the other ingredients of Roundup:

        The above link addresses both the flaws in our regulatory system, as well as the specific instance of Monsanto, yet again, erroneously marketing “glyphosate” as “safe.” Current regulatory statutes allow Monsanto, et al to be actively negligent in their internal research duties.

        More recent research looking at inactive ingredient as well as synergistic toxicities bears this out:

        Where is the precautionary principle when you need it?? We are doing a number on ourselves by assuming “safe until proven dangerous.”

        I disagree. States are often arbitrary political boundaries that are oddly in-between locally-situated (e.g., county and service districts) and regional governments. I really don’t think they make much sense. Of course, you have to put that in the context of the fact that I don’t think our Fed makes much sense, and the largest government I’d support is bioregional. BC, WA, OR and northern CA have more in common with each-other. Even still, the coasts, valleys and high deserts have more in common w/each-other. It doesn’t make sense for others to dictate their policies.

        5. How do 5-20 mile buffer zones and neighbor-to-neighbor conversations that you espouse work when the state dictates a monopoly on all regulatory behavior? For example, if two neighbors agree to go GMO or pesticide free, and another neighbor’s GMOs or chemicals contaminate their lands and/or destroy their product, do you disagree that there should be no recourse available?

        5 (part 2, I guess, sorry about that!). It’s great that farmers “feel” independent. But when all your seed comes from a handful of centralized places on a national or international level, how independent does that really make you? How well would the operation do if fossil fuels and/or electricity weren’t available starting tomorrow? How many farmers are losing the ability to save their own seed? What is happening to our seed diversity?

        Re: Soil mining. Replacing mined soil with NPK is not “all the same” on a molecular level. That is a fairly reductionist view that leads to erroneous conclusions, similar to your comment about the bioengineering being “precise.” Industrial fertilizer application actively washes out soil micronutrients. It contaminates the soil and streams. It destroys the soil life and creates an abiotic growth environment that promotes pest and pioneer-species behaviors and requires increased applications of pesticides:

        Also, you never answered my question about food labeling 🙂

        • I appreciate you responding to my responses however your sources do not sway my opinion. I do not think GMOs are the “end all be all” I do think they are a very important tool in the tool box to make farming more efficient and feeding a hungry world. I have done my research on various sites trying to find third party sites such biofortified.org, that do not appear to have an agenda. Majority, if not all, of the the sites that you have referenced have a clear motive, to promote organic food & vilify biotechnology because ultimately it adds to the organic industry’s bottom line. Isn’t that what everyone is in it for anyway, to increase their bottom line GMO or not?

          I am not going to take the time to respond to each of your individual criticism again as it will just turn into a constant back and forth and I stand by my first response and if you look through my blog more you may find some posts that answer any additional questions that you have.

          I’ve noticed critics of biotechnology such as yourself are not satisfied no matter how safe it proves to be or no matter how many studies and tests are conducted…which is fine that is your prerogative. That’s why we have options. And no there is no conspiracy to wipe out the little guy.

          I would also recommend you read this post, it may help you in your search for sources http://www.sci-phy.com/detecting-bogus-scientific-journals/

          • ozob

            One mixed organic & conventional farmer does not make a plurality of “organic farmer support.”

            Every source has a bias. You are rejecting US National Library of Medicine
            National Institutes of Health, Scientific American, Ecological Applications and other established sources simply because articles they have published or distributed were *reported on* by others with a clear and transparent bias, and they happen to be inconvenient to your beliefs?

            I agree, parroting party lines is not helpful. Yet you have no problem parroting Monsanto’s own propaganda? I hope you are willing to look into the mirror and consider how your own actions do not meet the standards you use to criticize others.

            Re: toolboxes for world hunger — our problem is not production, right now, it is population growth and food distribution. FoodFirst.org has covered this issue extensively. We need food production systems that are less calorie-intensive. Industrial Ag’s input:output ratio of 40:1 is not sustainable, nor is it environmentally sound (ref. David Pimentel’s work).

            You refuse to address the facts that Monsanto has a clear history of lying about its products. Roundup has clearly-established toxicity, not, mind you, because of glyphosate, but because of the inert ingredients and their synergistic effects on the overall toxicity of the product. You are excellent at addressing concerns that no one asked about, and outright ignoring others. No doubt we have conflicting pre-analytic visions…


      • ethan

        Here’s the study I forgot to include refuting the claim that genetic engineering has reduced the use of herbicide. It has actually increased herbicide use specifically because of instances of herbicide-resistant weeds:

        Ready to redact your claim that genetic engineering is “precise?” 😛

      • let's get real

        Is your life’s savings invested in Monsanto? Whose interests are you trying to protect? Why? I don’t need to know these answers, butthey are questions you should be asking yourself…

        • I explained why I support the Seed Preemption bill. I don’t like the thought of having multiple layers of regulations through cities & counties…As a farmer who farms in two counties that is a nightmare.

    • Your links are to anti-science groups who peddle nonsense. And you sound like some new age doofus. And no, monoculture is not why the “fertile crescent” is a desert. It was 200 year drought. And the dust bowl? Drought. And by the way, the Sumerians who created industrial agriculture allowed people to invent the first write language and the wheel

      • ethan

        Wow, Bernie. You pack a lot of ignorance into a short space.

        Read up on Dust Bowl history:

        Here’s some info about the connection between drought and deforestation:
        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/deforestation-makes-droughts-worse/ (read the actual studies referenced, dork!)

        Agriculture (and urbanization, two sides of the same coin) is responsible for the loss of topsoil through biotic cleansing (clearing the land for “production”), erosion, and mining:
        “The National Academy of Sciences has determined that cropland in the U.S. is being eroded at least 10 times faster than the time it takes for lost soil to be replaced.”

        Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/The-lowdown-on-topsoil-It-s-disappearing-1262214.php#ixzz2TLky744S

        And who is peddling nonsense?

        Yeah, so I decided to cite some popular new-agey sources. But you know what? In between bong hits (maybe), they were reporting and synthesizing serious, erudite, rigorous knowledge sources, like this (definitely):
        The “toxic effects” of GMO crops — both due to inherent properties and due to their reliance on pesticides in production — are “clearly undeniable”

        and this:
        After gaining direct access to the data the Monsanto doctored, independent researchers found that “hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary.”

        and this:
        “the spread of [ed: SPECIFICALLY] glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.”

        and this:
        “The median lethal dose for Roundup (0.7%) was nearly half that for glyphosate, meaning Roundup was nearly twice as toxic as the single chemical alone. Further, the viability of cells exposed to glyphosate was considerably reduced when even minute dilutions of Roundup were added.

        “…the demonstrated toxicity of Roundup, even at concentrations below those in agricultural use, could contribute to some reproduction problems.”

        and this:

        “Pesticide formulations have proven to be more potent genotoxins than active ingredients alone in a variety of test systems.”

        and on and on…

        Snake oil is a whole lot less expensive than biotech! Integrated pest management is even less expensive, although it takes a bit more to understand than “pay corporation money, receive poison, ignore inadequate label warnings, spray spray spray, pretend all is well.” Just a thought! 🙂 Like I said, good farmers get good yields, and biotech is irrelevant to that. Cheers!

  4. You state three guiding reasons on why you support this bill. I want to address your third point: “I support freedom to choose what you eat and grow but cannot dictate that to your neighbor.”

    This simply isn’t the case with support for SB 633. If you believe in freedom of choice to grow what you like, then you should NOT support this bill.
    As you know, the more people included in making a local decision, the less freedom one has in the end. This bill opens the possibility for lawmakers in Portland to decide what is grown in Eastern Oregon or further down the valley. People on the coast should not be telling ranchers in Eastern Oregon how to manage the land, and this logic applies to this bill. Wouldn’t you rather have agricultural decisions be decided between you and your neighbors, rather than someone in the Salem machinery?

    Additionally, your freedom to grow what crop you like is more likely to be influenced by national organizations who have political funding systems in place at the national and state level. SB 633 opens the door for larger organizations to push their agenda on small and local farms. Their influence grows the higher agricultural issues are pushed in the political process.

    SB 633 is not freedom to choose, it boots the decisions to people who are further removed from you and your views on how to care and manage your land. If you don’t trust your neighbors to make the right land decisions with you, why would you choose public policy groups, PACs, and career politicians instead?

    • Think you for the comment. Your question is great because I did consider all this before deciding to support SB 633.

      State Lawmakers already decided what we can and cannot do before this bill came. Such as their rulings on field burning and cougar hunting to name a few examples.

      This bill keeps one regulatory body on the issue of seed instead of multiples in terms of cities and counties. Basically simplifies any regulations and limits confusion and headaches for farmers and which regulatory authority they have to obey.

      The state legislature approved pesticide preemption in the 1990s. This legislation has worked great in terms of regulating chemicals. It has protected farmers from the whims of activist groups.

      The same with Right to Farm and Forest Act, which if counties & cities banned certain seed could violate this act as well.

      SB 633 encourages that you work it out with your neighbor so it doesn’t need to be legislated. I think the canola legislation is a prime example of neighbors not being able to properly communicate or work together.

      State control is local control. Counties, especially rural counties where the majority of farming takes place, do not have the resources in terms of man power, money & expertise to regulate crops. Unless we start cutting our forests again.

      Do I think Portland legislators know what’s best for my farm? No, but that’s why I go to the capitol and explain what I do and why I do it.

      As for what we grow…it is not dictated by any national organization, it is dictated by the market place, the global one. Not sure if you are aware or not but Oregon grows 70% of the world’s cool season grasses.

      As for PACs…farmers pay their dues to them as well to look out for our best interest at the capitol since we can’t be there all the time. That’s what they are doing with SB 633.

      • I should add that not only the marketplace dictates what we grow but also our soils and weather conditions play more of a factor. We grow grass seed because majority our soils do not support vegetables. We grow wheat on our better soils.

        I am not sure what national organization you are referring to that would dictate to any farmer on what they grow. All farmers I know are independent thinkers and don’t like being told what to do.

      • let's get real

        This is straight up propaganda. It doesn’t even make sense.

  5. I think that one of the most interesting GMO conversations I have heard lately was at a Food Dialogues event in NY. Here is a link to the video
    I would suggest everyone take a listen, there is so great info in there about a lot of the science behind GMO technology. Pay attention especially to Dr. Bob Goldberg, he has the first hand experience of GMO techonology and can really speak in layman’s terms about what it is all about.

    I am pro GMO because of the thousands and thousands of meals eaten everyday, not one complication has ever been proven. NOT ONE! All of the studies that are done that claim to have proof, fail to either be legitimate or fail to be replicated. Unfortunately there are so many bogus studies out there people start to believe in the hype, in the fear, and in the marketing from yes other large companies like Whole Foods, who yes make loads of money because people believe in the fear and then go out and buy GMO free products from their stores.

    I am frustrated that just because I am a person who believes in the safety of GMO food that somehow I must be making money off of it. There must be a bride somewhere from Monsanto to praise them, well if there is, I haven’t seen it come to my farm yet. We don’t grow GMO crops on our farm, not to say that we won’t someday, but right now it’s not an option. And I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories that everyone is out to get us. I do believe in talking to your neighbors. I believe in working together and not making money off the backs of other farmers. I believe that we can co-exsist and I believe that the people who usually preach this concept the most are the most often to jump up and down when I as a conventional farmer wants to farm next to them. We can grow markets together, grow food side by side, there is room for all of us.

    As for SB 633, I agree with Marie that there are truly issues that are of state wide concern. Especially issues that run so high off emotions (clear from all the comments above). Emotions are not a good reason to ban crops or make special growing districts, we need facts and science. Unfortunately facts and science aren’t cheap, and unfortunately counties and city governments don’t have the funds or the expertise to be doing the studies required to make such huge changes. Large issues need to stay at the legislature, that’s what they are there for. That is the protection that conventional farmers need, because of the movement of extremists who if they had their way would put me out of business tomorrow and never blink an eye.

  6. “State control is local control. Counties, especially rural counties where the majority of farming takes place, do not have the resources in terms of man power, money & expertise to regulate crops. Unless we start cutting our forests again. ” ~Amen~

    Will Tucker spoke before the same panel you did on SB633. He and the other Linn County commissioners, as well as the Association of Oregon Counties are in support of SB633. Because they can see this becoming a county by county petition battle across our state. And then once we have a new county regulation on seeds, the county has to magically come up with the money to enforce it and spend more money on court costs defending it or persecuting violators. Not to mention in some of these petitions the county would be responsible to destroy the now contraband crops. Can you imagine a county employee coming onto your land to plow in your crop? Who are they going to get to do that job? Does the county own tractors big enough to pull a plow? Do they have the experiences to know if a crop is truly a GMO variety? Because once you start to plow it under you had better be sure or you will be facing a lawsuit, not to mention a possibly pissed-off and armed farmer who thinks you are trespassing and destroying property.

  7. ethan

    Also, who are the “organic farmers” who are supporting SB 633? I find that surprising given that the bill — and the OFS front group — were created as a direct response to organic farmers protecting themselves against the corporate GMO juggernaught in Jackson Co. Even OFS admitted as much.

    Basically, Syngenta and its farmers ignored existing buffer zones, resulting in the destruction of several contaminated crops on neighboring organic farms. The farmers and, then regulators, did nothing to correct the mistake. Instead, Syngenta and Monsanto co-authored SB 633, which would make their illegal trespasses legal ex-post facto, and make the destruction of all buffer zones possible. With the destruction of buffer zones, organic farming becomes near-impossible.

    • There was an organic & conventional farmer who testified in favor of it from Josephine County, if you look on OLIS I am sure you can find his testimony.

      Also OFS was created in 1980 and has worked to protect farmers, ranchers and foresters since its inception. The fact that you are just regurgitating what you read on anti-GMO sites makes me question the depth of your research that you have actually done on the matter of biotech.

      • Seems to me the pot is calling the kettle black, here…”makes me question the depth of your research that you have actually done on the matter of biotech.” Why attack the evidence instead of the issue? Seems you have no intention being open to anything other than your opinion, which to many of us following this discussion, is based on Farm Bureau propaganda. God Bless America and keep Her a country where we are all entitled to our opinions, even when they are not based on reason, science or the facts.

        • I was questioning his depth of research because he was telling a blatant lie about an organization I have worked with for a long time, prior to the bill he was referring to. If one is ok with lying about one thing whats me to think they are not lying about another.

          Also I meant to tell you that you have a great name! My name is Marie as well! And Go Cougs as you said you studied at WSU! 🙂

  8. Pingback: GMO Wheat found in Oregon | oregongreen

  9. Incredulous

    Who pays for the Farm Bureau PAC?- Here’s the top 18 contributions for the last few years. If you see all the contributions , Monsanto and Syngenta account for over 25% of OFB PAC revenues. So when Barry Bushue speaks , every 4th word is paid for by big big biotech,

    08/18/2008 MONSANTO COMPANY $17,500.00
    12/18/2012 MONSANTO COMPANY $10,000.00
    08/16/2011 MONSANTO COMPANY $10,000.00
    01/03/2011 MONSANTO COMPANY $10,000.00
    10/07/2010 MONSANTO COMPANY $10,000.00
    08/25/2009 MONSANTO COMPANY $10,000.00
    10/20/2008 MONSANTO COMPANY $7,500.00
    03/14/2007 MONSANTO COMPANY $7,500.00
    11/03/2010 Miscellaneous Cash $6,777.28
    08/15/2012 MONSANTO COMPANY $6,000.00
    07/07/2010 Miscellaneous Cash Contributions $5,450.26
    09/28/2010 WILLAMETTE EGG FARMS $5,000.00
    08/16/2010 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION $5,000.00
    09/09/2009 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION $5,000.00
    10/13/2008 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION $5,000.00
    07/26/2010 Miscellaneous Cash Contributions $4,450.00
    01/03/2008 Miscellaneous Cash Contributions $4,398.99
    10/11/2011 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION $4,360.00

  10. Pingback: Why Farmers Need Lobbyists | oregongreen

Thanks for following my blog! Hope you enjoy!