Endorsement: Ban on GMOs should finally come to harvest

A question for Sonoma Valley amateur scientists: What do you get when you stuff bacterial DNA into plasmid DNA?

Answer: the world’s first genetically modified organism (GMO). First developed in 1973 by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, that genetic marriage of those two molecular bodies rendered the bacteria resistant to antibiotics. And, with that, the world saw its first super organism. Fast forward 40-plus years, and you’ve got far more impressive combinations of life forms than just a bacterium with tenacious defense. Today there are scorpion-venom cabbages, apples that never brown and tomatoes that would accurately be described as blue-tomatoberries. GMO advances have been, in a word, fruitful. But mostly all the genetic mucking around has resulted in various pest-resistant or pesticide-resistant crops. Corn, soybean, cotton and potatoes are among the most common crops to have genetically modified versions – not a major presence in organic-heavy Sonoma County, but likely a small presence nonetheless.

Enter Measure M.

Measure M is the initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot asking county voters to ban the growing of genetically engineered organisms.

Or, in the exact words of the proposed ordinance, it would make it “unlawful for any person, partnership, corporation, firm or entity of any kind to propagate, cultivate, raise or grow genetically engineered organisms in the county.”

And why are Measure M proponents trying to root out the presence of gene-tinkered veggies? Because, they say, GMO seeds (like all seeds) have a tendency to spread beyond their planting sites – wafting in the wind to cross-pollinate in uninvited areas, like a weed sprouting up in a lush St. Augustine lawn on the east side of Broadway.

The possibility, however remote, of a GMO crop cross pollinating is particularly problematic in agricultural areas like Sonoma County, whose many organic growers are reliant on the purity of their crops to stay in business. If an organic farm winds up with GMO contamination in its crop, it’s bye-bye organic certification.

Opponents of Measure M, however, point out correctly that such cross pollination is extremely rare and that a ban on GMOs could limit the 21st-century tools local farmers can use to operate sustainably.

“Measure M would permanently ban future crop technologies that protect local crops from pests and diseases,” reads the rebuttal ballot argument to Measure M. Officials from the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, which opposes the ban, also suggest the ordinance is vaguely worded and would result in a proliferation of false GMO-growing investigations upon ordinance-adhering farmers.

A previous measure to ban GMOs in Sonoma County – also called Measure M – was defeated in 2005. When that earlier measure was brought before voters 11 years ago, GMOs were just coming onto the radar for many county residents. Questions about the future health consequences of ingesting “unnatural” lab-created foods abounded (meanwhile, the most popular store-bought foods in America were Lay’s potato chips and Cheez-Its!), while GMO proponents championed the world-saving benefits of science’s ability to perfect foods in ways Mother Nature never could.

A decade later, neither of those scenarios has played out – consumers have nibbled plenty of GMOs for much of their lives, and no significant health consequences have been firmly established. Likewise, the pro-GMO promise of a hunger-ending foodtopia is nowhere on the radar. Mostly, GMOs have given some non-organic farmers an edge with a more resilient crop – and given organic farmers cause for alarm over possible contamination.

It’s that latter concern that earns our endorsement of Measure M.

Sonoma County’s agricultural makeup today heavily weights the number of organic farms against those known to be using GMO crops. Some estimate 80 percent of county farms are organic. To us, supporting the local ag industry is clearly tied to protecting the organic status of the vast majority of farms – a status that is far more precarious if GMOs were to proliferate.

Opponents of Measure M have dismissed the ban as merely a marketing tool for the county organic farm industry. And in a way, they’re right. A GMO-free zone will go a long way toward further cementing the county’s reputation for organics and sustainability – which also implies a GMO ban would be good for business.

The question over whether a ban would limit the county’s ability to enjoy any future scientific breakthroughs GMOs may bring is worth asking – but hardly a deal breaker. If such a “wonder GMO” were ever developed to, say, end the vineyard-ravaging Pierce’s disease – county voters could always approve an updated ordinance, or simply overturn it. That’s the beauty of elections.

And the argument that the ordinance is vague and would cause confusion is tepid at best. It clearly targets the cultivation of GMO crops. It has nothing to do with buying or selling GMO foods, prohibiting GMO research or preventing physicians from using GMO-based treatments.

The ordinance is very similar to the one passed a decade ago in Marin, where GMOs – or any ill-effects caused by that ban – are now a nonissue. Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity and Santa Cruz counties have also passed bans on growing GMO crops. We think it’s time Sonoma joined them.

We recommend a Yes on Measure M.

– Jason Walsh, editor

– John Burns, publisher