Right-to-farm legislation is likely dead for this session after the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday failed to get enough votes for a procedural move to keep the idea afloat.
Sen. Clarence Nishihara, the committee’s chairman, tried to insert right-to-farm language into a bill that was carried over from last session, a tactical move intended to get a public hearing. But the committee was split 3-3, so the move failed.
The Senate has not scheduled a public hearing on Nishihara’s right-to-farm bill, which was referred to four separate committees and will likely not meet internal deadlines for action.
"Yeah, it’s dead for this year," Nishihara (D, Waipahu-Pearl City) told reporters.
Rep. Jessica Wooley (D, Kahaluu-Ahuimanu-Kaneohe), chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee, said she has no immediate plans to hear a House version of the right-to-farm bill. "I would say if the Senate can’t pass it when it was one of their priorities, I’m not sure why the House would want to consider it at this point," she said.
The legislation would have expanded the Hawaii Right to Farm Act, approved in 2001, by forever guaranteeing the right to engage in modern farming and ranching practices. The bill would have prevented counties from restricting agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices that are allowed under federal and state law.
The legislation was in response to a Kauai County law that regulated genetically modified organism and pesticide use and a Hawaii County law that banned new GMO crops. Biotechnology companies have sued Kauai County to block the county’s law and have raised the concept of state and federal regulatory pre-emption in the suit.
The Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation and biotech companies supported right-to-farm legislation.
"We wanted the discussion with everything that’s happening at the counties," said Alan Takemoto, community affairs manager at Monsanto, a biotech company.
Kauai County Councilman Gary Hooser, an advocate for the Kauai County law, had described the legislation both as a threat to county home rule and a potential favor to biotech companies.
"I think everybody in the Senate and the House knows that this is about agri-chemical companies and preventing increased regulation for them," Hooser said. "It’s not about sustainability. It’s not about growing your own food. It’s not about small farmers."
Senate Vice President Ronald Kouchi (D, Kauai-Niihau), a former Kauai County councilman, and Sen. J. Kalani English (D, East Maui-Upcountry-Molokai-Lanai), a former Maui County councilman, cited county home rule as a reason they voted against Nishihara’s move. "I believe in allowing the counties to make their own decisions and also make their own mistakes," English said.
Sen. Laura Thielen (D, Hawaii Kai-Waimanalo-Kailua) also voted against the chairman, even though she said she would have liked to have a hearing on right-to-farm legislation. She said senators have the option of hearing Nishihara’s bill rather than amending a separate bill in a process that might be seen as unfair by the public.
It is unusual for a committee chairman to lose such a procedural vote, since senators generally — as a courtesy — vote with the chairman knowing they will have another opportunity to consider the merits of the bill later if a hearing is eventually scheduled. In fact, Nishihara would not have lost the vote had Sen. Glenn Wakai (D, Kalihi-Salt Lake-Aliamanu), who serves on the committee, been present. The vote would have been 4-3 in his favor.
But Nishihara conceded that right-to-farm legislation would likely have failed this session even had his procedural move worked. Other Senate sources said privately that it made little sense to expose all senators to an election-year vote on the politically sensitive issue when the bill was likely not going to advance in the House.
Nishihara told anti-GMO activists and farm and biotech interests who had packed his hearing room Tuesday that he believes no particular legislation would bring the GMO debate to a conclusion. But he said the debate should be about science, not emotion.
"In the scientific community the preponderance, the preponderance of the data and the studies and the research says it’s a safe technology," he said. "But as long as there’s even a grain — a grain — of doubt, then you’re not going to get a complete agreement. There’ll always be people who believe the technology is dangerous, the technology should not be done."
Anti-GMO activists applauded in relief at the bill’s demise.
