Sally Jo Sorensen is a writer and researcher who lives in rural Minnesota. She blogs as Ollie Ox at Bluestem Prairie.
On May 23, the Detroit Lakes Journal Online published "Minnesota's wild rice now has protection," a guest column by White Earth Land Recovery Project founding director and Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) activist Winona LaDuke.
LaDuke's column explained the complicated political process through which Anishinaabe people had worked to protect wild rice from genetic modification. They had met with some success:
On May 8, 2007, Governor Pawlenty approved the Omnibus Environment and Natural Finance Bill (H 2410/S 2096): Included in this bill was protection for wild rice. Andrea Hanks, the Wild Rice Campaign coordinator for the White Earth Land Recovery Project expressed great relief that the bill had passed, thanking all of those who supported it, "Protection for Wild Rice has been a long time coming for Anishinaabeg communities, many people on all levels contributed to moving this legislation, the tribes of Minnesota, tribal leaders, allied organizations, citizens and legislators, I'm thankful for the help and support that was given."Spurred initially by the work at the University of Minnesota to map the DNA sequence of wild rice, the Anishinaabeg became concerned about possible genetic modification of wild rice in 2002. Anishinaabeg concerns were heightened when scientists revealed that ancient varieties of corn, deep in Mexico, had been contaminated by genetically engineered seed varieties hundreds of miles away.
The possibility to expand on that success may be threatened by language in the new Farm Bill, and this language could spell trouble for Minnesota Democrats in 2008. Minnesota is home to Ag chair Collin Peterson, whose district includes White Earth.
As Kirk James Murphy at Firedoglake noted earlier in the week, Section 123 of the 2007 Farm Bill contains language that some food safety advocates believe is intended to deny local or state rights to regulate genetically engineered crops or food.
SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED STATUS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has--
(1) inspected and passed; or
(2) determined to be of non-regulated status.
While the new state legislation does not ban genetically modified wild rice outright, LaDuke notes that a number of state legislators suggested doing so. In the end, a two-year outright moratorium on genetically engineered rice was dropped in exchange for a series of protections that effectively restrict the introduction of wild rice into Minnesota. LaDuke cites the hopes of activists in the Wild Rice Campaign that their work will help set a precedent for other states in protecting wild rice from genetic modification.
What clout does Minnesota's Anishinaabe community have in politics? Voter education projects have caused increased turn out at White Earth; in 2004, the Native Vote project reported that native voting in Minnesota was up significantly (see pages 21-23).
Moreover, native issues and voting can have an impact statewide. Casino gambling is controlled by tribal groups. Protecting wild rice showed up as a question in the 2006 Minnesota gubernatorial race. Today's Star Tribune reports on the connection between former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer's efforts to suppress native turnout and the ongoing scandal in the U.S. Attorney General's office.
According to the Star Tribune:
The issue was politically sensitive because the size of the Indian vote can be pivotal in close Minnesota elections. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has one of the largest urban American Indian populations in the United States. Its members turn out in relatively large numbers and predominantly identify with Democrats.
Ties between "The Cities" and reservations remain strong for American Indians in Minnesota, as many enrolled members live in urban areas.
In the past, LaDuke used her considerable reputation to pressure area legislators to support protecting wild rice. In 2006, a threat to run against a Democratic state senator, who is a commercial wild rice grower, caused him to change his position and side with LaDuke. Could federal efforts to prohibit state level restrictions on GE wild rice cause native voters to stay home in 2008? Or might native activists bring other types of pressure to bear in Peterson's district?
As the White Earth Land Recovery Project demonstrates, wild rice carries deep cultural and spiritual weight for Anishinaabeg people. Should Section 123 of the Farm Bill become law, could wild rice alter Minnesota's political landscape in 2008?
Coming Friday evening Saturday in Farm Bill Blogging: an interview with the League of Rural Voters' Niel Ritchie.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 1 Comment :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
