Mr. Troxler and the GMO's

My recent post on pesticides and State Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler's role in blocking protections for agricultural workers reminded me of another story about Steve Troxler from way back in 2005.

Here's the gist of it:

A bill likely will pass in the legislature this session that will stop local governments from banning genetically modified crops, as three California counties have done. The bill, requested by the Department of Agriculture [emphasis added], passed in the Senate on Friday, the last major hurdle to its success. The House, which passed the bill in May, must agree to a few changes to make it final. . .

Troxler said the Agriculture Department asked for the bill, which is similar to those being floated in several other states. It would give the state Board of Agriculture, which Troxler chairs, sole authority to outlaw plants. He said the push comes at the request of seed dealers, farmers and agribusiness companies that were concerned about what they saw in California and New England - where "genetically engineered free" movements have gained steam.

In a nutshell, what happened was that Monsanto and some other companies saw local governments (in California, Maine, and Vermont) banning GMO crops, and took action.

The bills are not a home grown initiative, but part of a nationwide agribusiness effort. Similar bills, containing identical language, have cropped up in at least nine other states as part of an orchestrated campaign by industry to prevent citizen initiatives . . .

“These bills represent a pledge of allegiance to Monsanto,” said Hope Shand, Research Director of ETC Group in Carrboro, “and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture was quick to take the pledge, followed by their friends in the General Assembly. But what’s good for Monsanto isn’t necessarily what’s best for local communities.”

North Carolina's organic farmers agreed with this assessment, with Tony Kleese of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association telling the Raleigh News and Observer:

allowing local governments to create zones where genetically engineered crops aren't allowed could protect organic crops from being contaminated by wind-blown pollen.

"Now, that right will be taken away . . . The more of these kind of laws that go into effect, the more the balance tips to genetically engineered crops."

In the end, the bill died in conference, perhaps because after the public outcry legislators were happy to give it a quiet death - or perhaps because the vague language of the bill, which cleverly managed to omit any mention of GMO's, meant that local communities couldn't take action against any invasive or noxious plant without a go-ahead from Steve Troxler.

So what's my point? I mean, besides the fact that Monsanto has already given Steve Troxler $1000 this cycle?

Well, two things: first, note the creative use of preemption - the process by which the state legislature tells cities and counties they simply can't regulate in a particular area. Democrats use this tool as well - Troxler's bill, after all, had Democratic sponsors in the House and Senate - and there's a payoff in having some laws and regulations uniform across the state.

But two of the most pernicious legacies of 1994 (when Republicans won control of the state house) involve preemption. School systems that want to use a sex-ed curriculum that moves beyond abstinence have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove that they're not offending anyone. And North Carolina's cities and counties are powerless to regulate guns according to the standards of their communities, thanks to Republicans who were taking their marching orders from the gun lobby.

Second, national issues aren't only addressed in D.C. In fact, had Monsanto gone to Congress and asked them to pre-empt the power of states to regulate GMO's (say by arguing that the transmission of pollen involved interstate commerce), you can bet that there would have been an outcry and probably a lot of bad press. So Monsanto turns to the state legislatures and to people in obscure offices like the Departments of Agriculture. If the bill passes, great - they can move on to the next state - if not, then nobody's going to notice or care all that much.

Using state governments to stay under the radar has, in fact, become a favorite tactic of corporate conservatives. Which, again, is another effect of the failure of media to cover state and local politics.