MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) – Lawmakers will be confronted on their first day back in session with the contentious issue of what kind of legal protections farmers should have against the use of genetically modified seeds.

The House did not finish its consideration of the proposal when it adjourned in June, so it’s automatically on the calendar on Tuesday.

Among the backers of the bill are two farmers who say it’s needed to protect everyone involved in agriculture.

Armand Pion and Jack Lazor both farm in Orleans County. Lazor farms organically and is trying to develop a market for organic corn. Pion grows for other farmers and raised corn this year for cattle.

Pion said he planted corn a half mile from Lazor’s organic crop in the spring and then discovered the seed was a variety that had been genetically modified to resist herbicides.

Because corn pollen drifts in the wind, Lazor was concerned that the gene-altered crop could cross-pollinate with his organic variety.

“It’s a really wide valley up there in Westfield Troy and the wind, if it’s not blowing from the south, it’s blowing from the west,” Lazor said. “So I was dead in the path of the pollen of that corn.”

He ultimately tested his crop and it didn’t show any signs of the genetically altered corn. But if it had been, his only recourse would have been to sue Pion, because contracts covering gene-altered crops make the farmer and not the seed company liable for damages.

Both Lazor and Pion said they supported the bill in the Legislature that would transfer liability back to the seed company.

Rep. Dexter Randall, P-Troy, is the bill’s sponsor.

“So in case there are any problems with genetic drift that it would go directly back to the manufacturer and not the neighbor,” Randall said.

Agriculture Secretary Steve Kerr is opposed, arguing there is no scientific evidence the gene-altered crops pose any danger.

“And yet that’s what the application of strict liability clearly tries to state,” Kerr said. “Since it’s absolutely untrue, it is a fraud. Then, I can only conclude that this is another political jihad much as we often see in Washington, D.C., and I think it’s unfortunate to see in Montpelier.”