THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH RESPECT TO A HEARING BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
LAKE COUNTY – A new effort has been launched to regulate genetically modified materials – known more commonly as GMOs – in Lake County.
GMO regulations sprout up around the state
Measures regulating GMOs are in force in a handful of communities around California, with many of them gaining traction in 2004.
In March of that year, Mendocino County led the way, establishing the first county-level rules forbidding GMOs in the nation.
The Trinity County Board of Supervisors passed a similar measure on genetically engineered crops in August of 2004.
In November 2004, Marin County followed when its voters approved not allowing GMO to be grown that county.
The Arcata City Council adopted a measure to prevent GMOs on Nov. 17, 2004, according to its city code. Point Arena chose to ban GMOs within the city limits in 2004, the city reported.
While 2004 saw the first victories for GMO opponents, voters rejected regulations in three other counties – Butte, Humboldt and San Luis Obispo, according to information compiled by the University of California.
The following year, the Lake County Board of Supervisors voted down instituting a 30-month waiting period before allowing Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa into the county.
No other such efforts to regulate GMOs succeeded until June of 2006. That's when the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved a GE crop moratorium, saying the measure would remain in effect until the state adopted regulations that would protect the state, according to county documents.
Also in 2006, the state Senate voted down a Monsanto-backed bill by state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) that would have preempted local GM regulation decisions. The bill was opposed by groups including California Certified Organic Growers.
Recently, Monterey County citizens have taken a GM regulation proposal, based on one adopted in Santa Cruz, to the county for consideration, according to county officials.
– Lake County News research
The newly drafted proposed ordinance by the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture was expected to go before the Board of Supervisors on April 22. Instead, a discussion on genetically engineered agriculture has been scheduled for 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, according to the clerk to the Board of Supervisors. No action is scheduled to take place at that time.
This is the second time such a proposal has been made to county government.
In 2005 the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture – a group of Lake County farmers, activists and organizations – led an effort to impose a 30-month moratorium on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which the US Department of Agriculture had deregulated earlier that year.
That original ordinance also required that the location of test plots of GMO materials be revealed by the organization and institutions using them, as Lake County News has reported.
The Board of Supervisors voted down the proposed ordinance in October 2005.
However, since the Board of Supervisors turned down the local ordinance, a federal court case resulted in the re-regulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa last spring.
The ruling prevented plantings of the crop after March 2007 until USDA completes a full environmental impact study, which could take several years to complete. It also imposes a number of other stipulations, including the requirement that Roundup Ready alfalfa be labeled by lots and that any equipment used must be cleaned if slated for use with non-GMO hay.
That action against GMO alfalfa left local activists feeling vindicated, said Sarah Ryan, president of Lake County Healthy Environment and Life (HEAL), one of the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture's member organizations that played an active part in the 2005 ordinance.
She added that the court action taken against GM alfalfa showed that the coalition's concerns about the materials weren't an “eco-fantasy.”
The coalition has come back with a broader proposal in mind, which won't just seek to regulate alfalfa but all genetically engineered crops.
Ryan notes, however, that not all coalition members who supported the original ordinance support the newest incarnation. The effort is starting anew, seeking new endorsements for its current effort.
Chuck March, executive director of the Lake County Farm Bureau, said the group opposed that 2005 ordinance because the California Farm Bureau is opposed to any localized ordinance on GMOs, believing that they should be controlled at either a state or federal level.
March said GMOs are a “tool and an option” for growers.
Farm Bureau also is opposed to any type of GMO crop registration for growers, said March. Not only is it extra work, but it also has led to vandalism and protests at farms where the crops are grown.
Attorney Steve Elias, who helped draft the ordinance, said acting now against GMOs is important, because it's early enough to save a GMO-free brand for the county, which will give area farmers a competitive advantage.
The presence of the materials, said Ryan, doesn't just hurt agriculture, but the whole environment.
Ryan, who also serves as Big Valley Rancheria's environmental director, said GMOs require increased pesticide use.
Looking at Lake County's unique and protected geography, Elias said, “We truly can say we don't get drift from anywhere.”
During a recent trip up to the top of Mt. Konocti, Elias said he got a sense of how isolated the county truly is.
“We're just unlike any other county around,” he said.
“We have a community of people who want to support the farmers here,” Elias said, pointing to the county's efforts to promote economic development and agritourism.
With concerns about the environment – clean water, air and soil – taking a stand against contamination against GMOs makes sense to coalition members.
Not only would the new ordinance regulate all GMOs, but Elias said it would include stiff penalties for anyone breaking the new rules. Specifically, it calls for a 30-day incarceration period for anyone caught using the materials.
When considering the possible impacts on the environment, what seems like a severe measure is justifiable, Elias explained.
“There are so many things that aren't OK about GE crops,” he added.
He said breaking the regulations would be an act of “eco-terrorism.”
“We had to explain to the world that we're real serious about this,” he said.
There is a concern by coalition members that GMO crops may already have been introduced in some form in the county.
March said that's his understanding as well, that GMOcrops entered the county in 2006 and 2007. He said he's spoken with local seed distributors who confirmed that, although his request to Monsanto for more information has not been answered.
The University of California Cooperative Extension Office has examined the ordinance, said March. “It's very broad and vague, and could cover even normal hybridization.”
Greg Giusti of the local University of Cooperative California Extension Office confirmed that a colleague looked over an earlier draft of the ordinance, in an effort to determine how it could be interpreted on a scientific basis.
“It's our role to try to give objective interpretations of the language,” he said.
In the early draft, Giusti said a strict interpretation would prohibit traditional plant breeding.
However, coalition members argue that the proposal enables the Board of Supervisors to approve GMO crops on a one-time basis, and it doesn't cover hybridization.
The California Farm Bureau has been working with groups such as the Center for Food Safety and California Certified Organic Farmers on the state level on Assembly Bill 541, by Assemblyman Jared Huffman.
That bill, which continues to work its way through the state Legislature, is supposed to give farmers added protection from corporate lawsuits if GMO crops are found to have spread to their property.
March said the feeling was that the bill had alleviated concerns about GMOs.
“I guess we're a little bit disappointed that all of this pops up now,” he said. “We've been at the table, trying to work on something statewide.”
Ryan said coalition members were serious about the ordinance in 2005, and they're serious about it now.
“We're talking about what Lake County is going to be,” she said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
to GMO!!!! Since WWII and nerve gas turned pesticide and the advent of chemicals in food, water, and air that box are found by the hundreds in the blood of newborns, anyone born in the last 60 years is already a mutant!!! How much more can our bodies, never mind the planet itself, taks???
purplegirl - Anyone
IP:208.106.99.xxx | 04-07-2008 10:59:49
It isn't difficult to find the argument for an ordinance like this. All you have to do is type in GMO (genetically modified organisms), genetically engineered, or Monsanto (the leading biotech firm) in any search engine to see how harmful this stuff is. I would suggest, anyone interested in learning about this subject, do some research and start with the book "Seeds Of Deception" or "Genetic Roulette" by Jeffrey Smith. GE food has even been banned from Monsanto's own cafeteria in Britain. That should definitely tell you something.
Those who argue against this issue either have not done their research or are putting profits before protection of the people and the environment. Big biotech companies like Monsanto would have you believe that GE food is the way to end world hunger but research shows that it isn't lack of food that starves people but poverty and politics. We should have learned our lesson the first time an ordinance like this slipped through our fingers.
As, mentioned...
"However, since the Board of Supervisors turned down the local ordinance, a federal court case resulted in the re-regulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa last spring.
The ruling prevented plantings of the crop after March 2007 until USDA completes a full environmental impact study, which could take several years to complete. It also imposes a number of other stipulations, including the requirement that Roundup Ready alfalfa be labeled by lots and that any equipment used must be cleaned if slated for use with non-GMO hay."
Again, that should really tell you something.
Raphael - How about
Author | 04-08-2008 17:02:52
GMO pharma crops!!...We already have traces of all sorts of medications in the water supply (including some water tables and wells), now we will have medications in breakfast cereals...
The GMO industry pressured government to pressure the FDA to prevent the labeling of GMO products, because it knows that no one would buy them.
If we lived in a real democracy, GMO products would be labeled as such, as they are in other nations, according to THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and for their protection and right to information. You would think that the right to know what we are eating is a fundamental right, but not in the good old USA, where the "right" of industry to make a profit to the possible detriment of public health comes first!
Green Man - No GMOs
Registered | 05-01-2008 03:27:34
It would be foolish to allow GMOs in our county. We have so much to offer without delving into this questionable experiment with our environment. If money must be the bottom line for our county, we must acknowledge the value of being GMO free.
So much to say about this. Let's not make the mistake of letting something loose which we cannot contain or manage sustainably.
