Requires persons who sell or distribute genetically engineered plants, planting stock or seeds to provide written instructions to purchasers or growers of such stock.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A8449
SPONSOR: Ortiz (MS) TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to liability for crop contamination by genetically engineered
material
PURPOSE OF BILL: This bill will require manufacturers of genetically
engineered plants, planting stock and seeds liable for damages caused as
a result of cross-contaminating non-genetically engineered crops or
seeds or plants, including wild plants. %
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The Agriculture and Markets law is
amended by adding a new article 9-B which defines genetically engineered
(GE), cross-contamination, and manufacturer. A manufacturer of GE
plants, planting stock and seeds would be liable to any person for
damages due to cross-contamination by their products and to the State
for damages and costs of restoration for natural resources. Damages to
farmers would include: loss of price premiums; penalties for breach of
contract or loss of organic certification; additional transportation,
storage and handling costs; market price reductions due to loss of
exports; and, a farmer's loss of livelihood and reputation. A farmer who
unknowingly uses or possesses GE plants or seeds would not be liable for
damages, including patent infringement. A manufacturer would have an
affirmative defense to liability if a farmer who grew GE crops under a
contract acted in gross negligence to cause the cross-contamination or
if a seed seller or distributor acted in gross negligence to cause GE
seed to be mixed in with non-GE seed. Seed contracts in NYS would be
governed by New York laws and courts, which could not be waived by
contract provisions. Any provision of the law would be severable from
the others.
JUSTIFICATION: The modern techniques of biotechnology, or genetic
engineering, allow for transfer of very specific genetic material or
traits between organisms and these transfers can now occur between very
different organisms, for example insects and plants or animals and
plants. These changes have led to concern among environmentalists, some
farmers, some researchers and the general public about the effects of
these plants on the environment and public health. USDA sponsored
reviews have called for better regulation of GE plants and more monitor-
ing of the potential environmental effects after approval.
GE crops may contaminate non-GE crops or wild plants. The problems posed
by GE cross-contamination of other plants could be both environmental
and economic. For example, there are herbicide resistant GE crops which
appear to have the ability to contaminate plants that are wild rela-
tives. This type of contamination could potentially create an herbicide
resistant "super weed". In Mexico isolated native corn plants were
contaminated by GE corn traits which could present a threat to biodiver-
sity.
Cross-contamination of farmers' crops creates financial problems for
both organic farmers, whose foods are by definition not allowed to come
from GE crops, and conventional farmers who grow non-GE crops. Many
food companies or grain dealers demand and test for non-GE farm products
because of consumer concerns about the safety of GE foods.
There is a lucrative export market for non-GE food products and farmers
who grow those can receive higher prices provided there is no evidence
of GE contamination. New York farmers who choose not to grow GE crops
for financial or other reasons should not have to worry about loss of
sales or the loss of markets because a corporate manufacturer's product
has contaminated their plants or foods. If that contamination occurs the
damaged parties should be compensated.
There have been several cases in the U.S. and around the world of farm-
ers and food businesses that have been negatively affected by GE contam-
ination. The most well known incident occurred when StarLink corn, a
variety of GE corn that was not approved for human consumption, was
found to have contaminated hundreds of food products in 2000 and is
still turning up in corn exports. Some experts estimate that the associ-
ated losses may reach $1 billion, and the liability issues remain unre-
solved. In 2002 a pharmaceutical corn contaminated non-GE corn and
soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska and 155 acres of corn and $3 million
worth of soybeans were destroyed. In 2003 UC Davis researchers discov-
ered that for years they had been mistakenly distributing GE tomato seed
in place of a conventional variety. Seed companies have told their
customers that they cannot guarantee that all non-GE seed is not genet-
ically engineered.
It is virtually impossible to completely prevent cross- contamination of
plants, and GE and non-GE seeds can be indistinguishable until the
mature plants are tested. Because these products can be grown by farmers
who follow manufacturer's instructions and still cause damages to inno-
cent farmers, food businesses and the State's natural resources, the
manufacturer should bear the liability for damages caused by their
products unless a farmer or seed seller acted in gross negligence. The
unique identity of GE plants or seeds makes it possible to identify the
manufacturer that was responsible for contamination.
Other GE-related problems for farmers include lawsuits by manufacturers
claiming unauthorized use of GE plants or seeds even when it appears
that the farmer had no intention of growing GE plants but found them in
their fields because of cross- contamination. In addition, farmers who
grow GE plants must sign contracts that expose them to liability for
cross-contamination and require them to settle legal disputes according
to the manufacturer's conditions. New York law should make clear the
legal responsibilities of the manufacturers, protect innocent victims of
cross-contamination, and allow New York farmers to have their cases
heard in New York courts.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2005-06: A1969A Referred to Agriculture 2007/08:
A3990 Referred to Agriculture 2009/10: A7623 Referred to Agriculture
2011/12: A1559 Referred to Agriculture 2013/14: A6509 Referred to Agri-
culture
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: None
EFFECTIVE DATE: 120 days after enactment
