Farmers and local food enthusiasts go up in arms when they feel that the federal and state governments are hindering their freedoms. That’s exactly what happened when the Senate committee passed SB 633 by a narrow 3-2 vote on April 11.
But those protesting the bill, who will take their complaints to its first public hearing on May 12, may not fully understand its intentions. SB 633 certainly deserves a closer look.
The bill essentially gives the state government the ability to decide what can and can’t be grown in each of its counties and prevents county and city governments from making similar regulations. At first glance, it appears as though this bill strips local farmers of a basic right to decide what they grow — but it’s important to understand why the bill was brought before a senate committee in the first place. Is it really just an attempt to strip individuals of their freedoms and give more power to the political machine?
Like most bills that give the state a broader authority, SB 633 was proposed with a specific goal in mind. The bill is a reactionary measure to a recent development in Jackson County.
Jackson County citizens recently pushed for a measure that would ban the production of any genetically-engineered crops in the county for the May 2014 ballot. This measure, while purifying the quality of local crops, would dictate what farmers can and can’t grow — which is exactly why people are enraged about SB 633. A bit hypocritical, right?
The bill, more than anything, is a preventive measure. It strips counties and cities of the right to implement liberty-removing legislation on their citizens. The state government fears that if Jackson County votes in favor of the GE ban, the rest of Oregon will follow suit and that Oregon will ultimately be a GE-free state whose farmers have no freedom.
While a GE-free state is great in theory, Oregon needs to be able to grow cheap produce that can be shipped across the country, and even overseas, in order to survive economically. Unfortunately, this often calls for genetically-engineered crops. While more and more people, and even countries, are recognizing the nutritional and ecological value of non-genetically engineered crops, there is still an economic market for this sort of produce, and farmers should have the right to grow crops the way they want to.
Still, local farmers argue that counties should be able to govern themselves and the state should stay out of local affairs — which is ironic because just eight years ago small-scale farmers were praising the Oregon Department of Agriculture for playing “Big Brother.”
When counties recognized the invasive nature of canola, which can easily cross-pollinate with an array of other crops, the ODA came to the rescue with the Willamette Canola Ban in 2005. Though the ban is in jeopardy of being lifted and has seen its share of troubles, it is still effectively protecting local farmers by prohibiting the production of the problematic crop in nine counties in the Willamette Valley.
Fast forward eight years, and the ODA is all of a sudden the bad guy looking to hurt small-scale farmers. When you look a little deeper, the ODA seems to have the same principle in mind as in 2005: protecting farmers.
The bill is not, however, perfect. The issue lies in Oregon’s diversity — Oregon senators would be forced to make decisions for all of Oregon’s counties, despite drastic differences in climate and crops produced. That being said, and what many of the bill’s opponents don’t recognize, is that senators don’t need to make agricultural ultimatums. They simply need the power to prevent counties from making them.
Despite the fact that individual counties may be better equipped to make local decisions, SB 633 is necessary to prevent freedom-abolishing policies like that proposed in Jackson County. While people cry that the state is trying to dictate exactly what is produced — it’s looking to do just the opposite — it’s looking to stop counties who are trying to do exactly that.
Yes, the power SB 633 gives the state government is frightening, but for now, the bill seems to simply be a regulation that gives farmers freedom and lets them grow what they want before their counties tell them otherwise.