By Jon Bailey

Editor's note: This is a piece written by our Research Director, Jon Bailey, in our weekly legislative update regarding the Nebraska State Legislature. We thought it would be informative for all our blog readers who may face similar threats in their states.

Thanks to a question from an alert reader, we are providing analysis of a bill that we have not previously included in the Update. LB 263, introduced by Sen. Rogert, seeks to forbid any political subdivision (i.e., any county or municipality) from action prohibiting or regulating “matter regarding the registration, labeling and sale, storage, transportation, distribution and notification of use of seeds, fertilizer and soil conditioners.” The bill was advanced to General File on a 7-0 vote of the Agriculture Committee and was designated a Priority Bill by the Speaker. The bill explicitly protects local zoning authority and zoning enforcement.

LB 263 is nearly identical to a bill introduced in 2006 (LB 834) which also advanced to General File but received no further action in the 2006 session. The bill is also part of a national movement to preempt any local authority over seed and plant regulation. At the end of 2008 state legislative sessions 15 states had adopted statutes similar to LB 263.

Some states – notably California – have witnessed local governments adopting prohibitions against the use and planting of genetically modified seeds. In Nebraska, however, it does not appear that any local government has attempted or is even contemplating such a move. No matter what one thinks of genetically modified seeds, it would be pure folly for any local government in Nebraska to attempt to regulate or prohibit their use. In 2008, 86 percent of corn and 97 percent of soybeans planted were of some sort of genetically modified variety. LB 263, therefore, is in many ways a “solution” in search of a “problem.

In 2006, we opposed LB 834, mostly out of concerns for the Legislature trampling on local control and for the precedent adoption of LB 834 might create. But that probably was an incomplete analysis on our part. Bills like LB 263 actually are examples of corporate interests exerting influence to obtain unnecessary policy in ways that can ultimately hurt attempts by small farms to develop entrepreneurial activities and markets. For example, taking the language of LB 263 to its logical and plain meaning could result in harm to organic farmers by not allowing local notification policies in the case of pesticide or herbicide drift or genetic drift (the winding blowing sprayed chemicals from one field to another, or the genetic characteristics of genetically modified crops pollinating with non-genetically modified crops). The possibilities of drift have the very real potential to ruin organic crops or create legal issues with the corporate dealers of genetically modified products.

If the Legislature is determined to consider bills like LB 263 they should follow the lead of most of the 15 states that have enacted similar laws and also provide resources and a state commitment to entrepreneurial agricultural pursuits such as organic production and locally produced food. Unfortunately, few bills have been introduced to support these efforts and those that have been introduced are stuck in committee (LB 130 included below, for example).

In 2006 we opposed LB 834; in 2009 we will do the same with LB 263.