Motivation for ag biotech legislation in 2003-2004
legislative sessions varies by region; local level activities
draw increased attention
A new fact sheet and updated database released
today by the Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology finds that state
legislation introduced in the 2003-2004 legislative sessions
focused on issues raised by the “next generation” products of
agricultural biotechnology - such as genetically modified fish,
pharmaceutical-producing food crops and animals, or new food
crops such as wheat–-though concerns varied by region. Local
activities, such as ballot initiatives, were also found to be
more prevalent in 2003-2004 than they were in the 2001-2002
legislative sessions.
The kinds of agricultural biotechnology
legislation introduced by state lawmakers in 2003-2004 reflected
regional concerns and were often tied to the economic interests
of a particular state. For instance, the majority of
agricultural biotechnology legislation introduced in the
Northern Plains States (including Montana, North Dakota, and
South Dakota) where growers debated what impact genetically
modified wheat would have on global wheat markets, attempted to
curb the introduction of the product. In contrast, the majority
of agricultural biotechnology legislation introduced in
midwestern states during the 2003-2004 legislative session
reflected a desire to leverage both their existing agricultural
infrastructure through new tax incentives and other policies
which would make states such as Iowa a desirable home for life
science corporations and other new businesses.
Activity at the local level was also extensive
in the 2003-2004 state legislative session, adding to the
conclusion that managing the issues associated with agricultural
biotechnology is of increasing concern at the state level. For
example, in 2004 five counties in California considered ballot
initiatives, one California county board of supervisors
considered a resolution restricting the technology. Over 79
different towns in Vermont supported non-binding town hall
resolutions calling for moratoria on GM organisms in recent
years.
“The 2003-2004 legislative session confirms our
belief that the introduction of biotechnology – especially new
products like genetically modified wheat or fish – has given
rise to a complex web of issues that vary from region to region”
said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative
on Food and Biotechnology. “The increasing level of state
activity raises the question of whether or not state laws will
ultimately create a checkerboard of inconsistent legislation
where rules for agricultural biotechnology vary from
state-to-state.”
The active role of the states was originally
identified by the Pew Initiative’s analysis of state legislation
introduced in 2001. Since then, the Pew Initiative has tracked
state legislation and provided a summary of the highlights both
halfway through and at the conclusion of each two year session.
The 2003-2004 analysis includes a fact sheet, entitled “State
Legislative and Local Activities Related to Biotech Continue to
Grow in 2003-2004,” which chronicles state legislation regarding
agricultural biotechnology that was introduced during that time.
When appropriate, comparisons are made to a similar analysis of
the 2001-2002 legislative session released by the Pew Initiative
in June 2003. The fact sheet is accompanied by
LegislationTracker, a database that archives state legislation
as well as some federal legislation, ballot initiatives, and
town hall resolutions introduced since early 2001.
Highlights of the 2003-2004 analysis include:
• In the 2003-2004 session, 39 bills were
introduced in state legislatures addressing future biotech
products including genetically modified wheat and coffee,
crops and animals designed to produce pharmaceutical or
industrial compounds, and transgenic fish. In comparison,
only 10 bills addressing future products were introduced
during the 2001-2002 session.
• The 2003-2004 legislative session was the
most robust to date for agricultural biotechnology. 170
pieces of legislation (156 bills and 14 resolutions) related
to agricultural biotechnology were introduced in 35
different states. This represents a seven percent increase
over the amount of legislation introduced in 39 different
state legislatures in 2001-2002.
• Hawaii continued to introduce more bills
regarding agricultural biotechnology than any other state.
Whereas 15 bills and 8 resolutions were introduced in Hawaii
during the 2001-2002 session, 32 bills and 7 resolutions
were introduced in the 2003-2004 session. The Iowa
legislature was the source of the second most legislation
(16 bills) introduced in any one statehouse, followed by
Michigan (13 bills).
• No bills introduced in the 2003-2004
session address the violent or willful destruction of GM
crops. Since “anti-crop destruction” was the largest
category of bills introduced during the 2001-2002 session,
the absence of any bills on this topic likely means that
legislation passed in prior sessions has addressed all
concerns related to crop vandalism.
• More bills supporting biotechnology,
particularly as a tool for economic development, were
introduced in 2003-2004. The 58 pieces of legislation (55
bills and 3 resolutions) introduced in 20 state legislatures
which implemented research and education initiatives,
facilitated economic and business development for the state,
or offered tax incentives to biotechnology corporations and
businesses, comprised 34% of the total number of bills
introduced at the state level in 2003-2004. In comparison,
only eight pieces of comparable legislation were introduced
in 2001-2002.
• Only 22% of the legislation introduced (37
bills and resolutions) actually passed and became law. This
was down slightly from the 2001-2002 legislative session
during which 45 pieces of legislation passed (28% of the
total introduced).
The fact sheet can be viewed at:
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation/factsheet.php.
The database can be viewed at:
http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/legislation
