Sonoma County’s anti-GMO measure again on the ballot

Is the anti-GMO initiative an emotional overreaction or scientific precaution?|

Measure M on the Ballot

Shall the “Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Prevention Ordinance,” which would

1) prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically engineered organisms, as defined in the ordinance, in the unincorporated County;

2) Require the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner to enforce the ordinance by assessing a civil monetary penalty or pursuing an injunction against violators; and

3) provide for fines and fees for each violation, be adopted?

When the Board of Supervisors approved Measure M for the November ballot, they did so with little enthusiasm.

Known as the anti-GMO bill, the initiative attained sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot as early as April, and the Board had no choice but to put it on the ballot for the voters to decide.

Check that: The Board could have also simply accepted the initiative and passed it as county ordinance, though such an approval of an initiative petition is rare. Besides, the Supervisors expressed skepticism over the broad restrictions of the initiative and were more than willing to give voters the final say.

Officially entitled the “Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Prevention Ordinance,” and on the ballot as Measure M, the bill would “prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically engineered organisms” in unincorporated Sonoma County, and require the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner to enforce the ordinance.

Signature-generated ballot measures are rare in Sonoma County. The last time voters gathered enough signatures for an ordinance to qualify for the county ballot was in 2005, when voters were faced with a similar initiative, also called Measure M, to ban GMOs. That measure failed in the general election with 55 percent of voters opposed and 45 percent in favor.

A key difference between the current initiative and the 2005 version is that this year’s specifically excludes medical treatment and research from the ban, “provided the facilities employ utmost precautions to prevent release of genetically engineered organisms.”

The definition of “genetically engineered (or modified) organisms” as given in the full text of the ordinance includes organisms “the DNA of which has been altered or amended” though techniques such as in recombinant DNA or RNA. Also named as GMOs are organisms with direct injection of nucleic acid into cells, or methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family – for instance, combining scorpion poison with cabbage to kill cabbage-eating caterpillars, or bananas altered with antivirus to prevent hepatitis.

The Sonoma County Farm Bureau and the Sonoma Valley Alliance are two local organizations who oppose the measure, largely for its potential restrictive impact on local business. “We don’t take a lot of positions on the measures, but if we feel there’s an adverse impact on business then we typically will,” said Brian Ling of the Sonoma Valley Alliance, a 370-member organization. “We feel this will have a definite impact on business.”

“What it’s going to do is restrict farmer’s choice, to be as general as we can,” said Kim Vail, executive director of the Farm Bureau. Yet he added, “The use of this technology in crop production right now within the county is minimal. So the real question is whether we need to have a ban.”

Paul Wirtz has a different take on the Farm Bureau’s position.

“I think what that means is they’re trying to protect the farmer’s right to make money,” said Wirtz, whose Paul’s Produce is a familiar supplier at area farmers markets. “That’s good, we need the Farm Bureau, I’m a member of the Farm Bureau, but I’m not in agreement with that stance about that.”

Wirtz and others are concerned with the confusion between GMOs and hybridization, the more traditional form of selective breeding. “Hybridization is in most cases a very natural process,” he said, using an example of cross-breeding tomato strains to produce a controllable set of characteristics. “That’s very different from crossing a tomato with a fish or any number of other things. Those are things that would never happen in nature, and that’s why I think we need to be suspect.”

Both Ling and Vail indicated that opposition to GMOs is largely an “emotional” issue, not a scientific one, and pointed to overbroad or vague definitions of GMO in the ordinance that they felt could be confusing to farmers and consumers alike.

Tony Linegar, the Agricultural Commissioner for the County of Sonoma, recently put together a presentation on GMOs for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. In the presentation, Stephanie Larson of the University of California Cooperative Extension, explained that, “The definition of genetically modified organisms lacks specificity, making it difficult for a grower to know whether they are violating the ordinance.”

That presentation also suggested “the average gardener would be impacted by the ordinance’s prohibitions,” and indicated that “pollen drift” – one of the concerns of anti-GMO forces – was a negligible issue, as pollen drift only has a five mile range, at least according to the Cooperative Extension. Doubt was also cast on the supposed health risks of GMO foods.

Linegar also questioned the ordinance’s enforceability – not a small point, as Measure M as written does include the requirement that the agricultural commissioner “assess a civil monetary penalty against any person or entity violating the ordinance” among other enforcement measures.

Despite these concerns, supporters of Measure M believe it’s better to err on the side of caution than allow a potentially disruptive technology to compromise Sonoma County’s positive perception in the marketplace.

“Sonoma County is a brand,” said Evan Wiig of the Farmers Guild, a local nonprofit that represents farmers and ranchers. “I guarantee you that the people who want to buy sustainable food want to buy food that has no GMOs in it.”

Bob Canard, of Petaluma’s Green String Institute, believes that if GMOs are grown or introduced in the county, they pose a risk to all crops.

“We are a center of the organic or natural process agricultural movement here in the county, and if our vegetable crops become contaminated, that’s a very serious matter,” said Canard.

Genetically altered crops and seeds are currently banned in Mendocino, Marin, Trinity, Humboldt and Santa Cruz counties, making Sonoma the exception rather than the rule along the coastal North Bay. That’s one of the pro-Measure M arguments – to close the gap and make the north coast GMO-free.

Whether retaining Sonoma’s standing as a focus of the organic agriculture movement is enough to convince a majority of voters in November, or if continuing to allow farmers to use whatever means necessary to make their industry profitable is the winning argument, remains to be seen.

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.

Measure M on the Ballot

Shall the “Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Prevention Ordinance,” which would

1) prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically engineered organisms, as defined in the ordinance, in the unincorporated County;

2) Require the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner to enforce the ordinance by assessing a civil monetary penalty or pursuing an injunction against violators; and

3) provide for fines and fees for each violation, be adopted?

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.