WASHINGTON, D.C. — Whether farmers can continue to grow crops using new seeds that become subject of court action is key to a debate on development of a new ag spending measure and farm bill.

A host of consumer groups, including Food Democracy Now, the Center for Food Safety and the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, have petitioned the U.S. House to remove what is called the “Farmer Assurance Provision” (Section 733) in the latest Agriculture Appropriations bill approved last month by the Senate.

But ag groups such as the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) support the measure because they say it provides farmers with a measure of certainty once they begin the growing season.

In a letter to House lawmakers, the groups claim that lawsuits filed once the USDA approves new products for use are costly to everyone, and counterproductive.

“Opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products,” the letter stated.

“These lawsuits have also created tremendous resource constraints for USDA and have resulted in significant delays in approval of new, innovative products that will help growers provide Americans with an abundant and economical food supply while remaining competitive in the world market.”

The debate now sits within the House, which is expected to consider its version of a new farm bill on the floor beginning July 23. The House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the bill on July 11.

“They were determined to get their work done as soon as possible, and they did,” said Adam Nielsen, director of policy development and national legislation for the Illinois Farm Bureau.

The opposition groups say the language in the appropriations bill is unconstitutional and would undermine the USDA’s oversight on genetically modified (GMO) crops and set unreasonable limits on judicial review. Monsanto, a key supporter of the change along with the ASA, maintains farmers need the security of knowing an appeal of a USDA decision won’t sideline a year’s crop, or more.

Danielle Stuart, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said the bill “provides an assurance for farmers growing crops which have completed the U.S. regulatory review process that their harvest won’t be jeopardized by subsequent legal disputes.”

Dave Murphy, the founder of Food Democracy Now, said the measure potentially could harm consumers.

 “If allowed to pass, (it) will only open farmers and the agricultural economy to very real and significant harm from cross-contamination events like the StarLink corn incident,” he said. “(It) will allow biotech seed and chemical companies to openly skirt even minimal protections of human health and environmental concerns. It’s time that our elected officials start putting our rights over profits for Monsanto and the biotech companies.”