Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Games

Arcade
Sudoku
Board gives anti-GE ordinance OK in first read PDF Print E-mail
Written by Elizabeth Larson   
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED.


LAKEPORT – By a 3-2 vote the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday ave initial approval to an ordinance to ban the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops in Lake County.


The ordinance has been advanced to a final reading next month.


Supervisors Ed Robey – who introduced the ordinance – along with Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing voted to approve the measure, with Jeff Smith and Rob Brown voting no.


With the exception of Rushing, who wasn't yet on the board in 2005, the rest of the board members voted the same as they did when considering a 2005 ordinance that would have placed a 30-month moratorium on GE alfalfa.


That crop has since been re-regulated by a court decision, with the US Department of Agriculture ordered to do a full environmental impact study before it can be released again to the market, as Lake County News has reported.


The board's decision followed three and a half hours of public input and board discussion, which revealed a deep divide in opinion.


Local agricultural leaders and business people said the kind of scientific tools used for genetic engineering are crucial to giving them a competitive advantage.


On the other side of the issue, those against the use of the GE crops said they wanted agriculture to thrive but didn't believe that state and federal governments have done enough to vet the safety of genetically modified organisms.


Robey aid he attempted to find a balance point that would appeal broadly to people on all sides of the issue, although he realized it was a divisive topic.


“I think there is one thing that we can all agree on though, and that is, agriculture is an important part of Lake County's history and our economy, and we want to make sure the agricultural industry in Lake County survives and thrives, and it's going through some tough economic times right now,” said Robey. “That's where I'm coming from with this ordinance.”


He said the ordinance prohibits use of GE crops unless they produce medical products, and also includes a provision where the board can exempt any crop if they make specific findings that the crop is beneficial, such as if it is resistant to disease.


Robey pulled out a box of energy bars purchased at Costco and made in China, which states on its package that it's free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which he said is an economic advantage.


The issue of economic benefit proved to be a major one throughout the meeting.


Farrington questioned if there was substantiation for that claim, citing a letter from county Agriculture Commissioner Steve Hajik, who contacted Marin and Mendocino counties, where non-GMO ordinances have been accepted. Hajik reported officials from those counties weren't able to quantify if they were getting higher prices for their produce.


Brown said there's been no proof about economic advantage.


Community members present different viewpoints


Winemaker Jim Fetzer, who has become prominent nationally for his efforts in biodynamic winemaking, said he supported the non-GMO approach because it provides the community with an opportunity to market itself. Local winegrape growers have taken that chance to position the county's grapes on the market.


“We've got the cleanest air in the county, why not the cleanest food?” Fetzer asked.


Victoria Brandon, chair of the Sierra Club Lake Group, said she was concerned that people opposing the ordinance were accusing its supporters of being “anti-scientific,” which she said wasn't the case. Rather, it's a case of “too many uninvestigated dangers.”


“The consequences are not just for agriculture, there's consequences for ecology in general,” she said.


The county is very special, said Brandon, and being able to label it as GMO-free “will be just one tool in a wider toolbox.”


Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March said the group is remaining consistent in its opposition to such an ordinance, reaffirming that stance in a 14-2 vote of its board of directors in May.


He said he knows of no scientific, peer-reviewed document that shows GMO dangers to health. The only concern that has been raised involves a corn that is resistant to the organic compound Bacillus thuringensis (Bt), which has been known to damage the health of livestock.


March went on to say that Mendocino County hasn't seen an economic advantage since going GMO-free in 2004.


Organic labeling, he said, is a suitable recourse to ensuring safety of crops, although there's no certification program that guarantees genetic purity.


March said the big concern was for conventional growers' rights and their ability to grow and protect a legal commodity. All markets should be fully protected and encouraged.


Hajik said he has received an 84-page list of proposed federal regulations relating to GE crops that may offer additional protections.


Rushing read from a letter from California Certified Organic Growers, which supported the measure for a variety of reasons, including impacts of GE crops on insects, development of herbicide-resistant pests, genetic pollution, trading partners' rejection of GE crops, and inadequate testing and research of the effects on human health.


Winegrape and walnut grower Broc Zoller said there has been genetic changes to crops – such as grafting – for thousands of years. “There's some question in some peoples' minds about what's natural and what isn't.”


He said he was concerned about local growers not getting the chance to use some of the new tools that are being developed.


Doug Mosel, who helped draft Mendocino's anti-GMO ordinance, said one of the proposed ordinance's strengths is that is offers the ability to have exceptions on some crops. But he said that the promising technology of GMOs is decades down the road.


He said federal regulations relating to GMOs have been loosened, not strengthened, in recent years. Mosel said a University of Missouri study shows premium prices from GE-free soy.


Businessman Kenny Parlet said government spends a lot of its time trying to catch him doing things wrong. “In order to be in business today it's a real struggle.”


He asked why government should put more impediments in place. He said the customers at his Northshore grocery store won't be able to afford the more expensive GE-free foods.


Parlet, who was so passionate about the subject that the veins were actually bulging out of his neck, said for the supervisors to stay out of local farmers' business. “You need to back off, let business take its course.”


Anna Ravenwoode said she supports the ordinance. “Lake County should be the leader in ensuring public health, environmental safety and protection of our organic, biodynamic and sustainable agriculture.”


Toni Scully of Scully Packing said the majority of commercial growers in the nearly packed room wanted to be able to take advantage of advances in biotechnology. Lake County's pear growers, she added, were pioneers in integrative pest management.


“This would be a real backwards step for the development of agriculture historically,” she said, adding that many other counties have passed ordinances affirming support for GE agriculture.


Scully asked the board to exercise leadership to bring both sides together and “not impose the will of one group over the other.”


Finley resident Phil Murphy said that while a lot was mentioned about the promise of GMOs, the reality is that those which are Bt- or glyphosate-resistant are most commonly used. The optimal way to deal with weeds and bugs is to rotate crops and pesticides, but that's not how GE licensing works.


“The only way that ag is going to make it in Lake County is if we develop marketing niches,” he said.


He pointed to how the local winegrape industry has created a marketing niche for itself and so is thriving.


Murphy asked Brown, who emphasized the importance of property rights, about whose rights got priority if an organic farmer was trying to grow seed but someone down the road wants to grow a GE crop.


Brown said if he believed property rights were in danger, he would have a different opinion.


Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Melissa Fulton suggested the board form a citizens advisory committee to investigate the issue before making a decision. “I sincerely urge you to give that some consideration.”


Smith said there were great points on both sides, but he couldn't support the ordinance as written.


Farrington said he believed that, when health and safety is an issue, government needs to consider taking action. He said he and Parlet have clashed over issues such as the ordinance to place pseudoephedrine – a cold medicine ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine – behind the counter at stores to prevent easy access to it. But that went through and it's now become federal legislation.


He went on to cite many other materials – from Saccarin to MTBE to Agent Orange – that have been considered safe but, after further study, have been ruled harmful to people.


Farrington suggested a six-month or one-year sunset clause on the ordinance, during which time the suggested advisory committee could work on fine-tuning the document.


Robey said he was open to the sunset clause. Smith said six months was too long and even with that and other changes Farrington suggested he couldn't support the measure.


Rushing said the sunset clause might bring the two sides together. “This is an issue that affects generations.”


However, the sunset clause was a concern for Robey in the case the group didn't reach consensus, and Brown added, “To me there's nothing more permanent than a temporary ordinance.”

Rushing said she would prefer the ordinance without the clause, and Farrington withdrew it.


She moved the ordinance with Farrington offering the second, resulting in the 3-2 vote. The ordinance will come back for its second readind on Nov. 4.


If Lake County gives final approval to the ordinance next month, it would be one of only a handful of counties and cities around the state to adopt definitive, anti-GE legislation.


E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .


Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

Trackback(0)
Comments (21)Add Comment
Kudos to all in taking a
written by Donna Christopher, October 21, 2008
measured, intelligent response until the info is in on GMO's before we loose them into Lake County. Unbelievable it took a court order for an EIR - that should have been a no brainer.
Yippee!!
written by ccolelewis, October 21, 2008
With so many issues to stay on top of, I must admit this is not one I follow closely. However, my gut instinct tells me tinkering with nature is not such a good idea. Thanks Denise, Ed, and Anthony for approving this measure to ban GE crops.
...
written by Littlered56, October 21, 2008
smilies/shocked.gifops: Too bad we can not tie up all those infavor of this...and forse feed then on meat from cattle forced fed this crap....Just a thought!!!!
When the USDA
written by Raphael, October 21, 2008
and the FDA are bullied by the administration to not do their job, so that a product or technology can be pushed faster on the marketplace, it takes the courts, the only power in this nation that is still keeping us from total governmental corruption and oligarchy, to force these agencies to live up to their responsibilities to the public (Bush the decider decided their responsibilities were to industry and the corporate bottom line).

Too bad this issue has become political and argued by a couple of confused conservative board members along narrow ideological lines...the food we ingest is neither Republican nor Democrat, neither are the crops.

To get the FDA and the USDA to do their jobs (proper studies, as is required by law) is not a political agenda, it is not a conspiracy.

About "taking tools away from farmers", nothing has been taken away, it is simply placed on hold, the way DDT, another very convenient farming tool of a different kind, should have been placed on hold and properly studied before being released into the environment.

And Alfalfa is not the only crop Lake County should be concerned about...GE grapes are coming, next will be pears, and eventually anything that grows.

The board has made a sensible, practical, common sense decision to protect not only the farming community, but the public, until these products are proven safe.

Next we must fight, as consumers, at the national level to get these food products labeled, for if farmers claim the right to have a choice to use this technology, consumers must claim the equal right to have a choice whether to ingest these products, whether to expose their infants and young children to them.

How can we have a functional free market without basic consumer choice?

The industry does not want labeling and has forced its agenda on the government and its bureaucracies, thinking a large part of the public might otherwise reject its products...so the industry did not want to take a chance, and has essentially made competition, the very foundation of the free market, so far impossible. The local farmers are talking about competition, but there is no fair competition as far as the consumer is concerned, what the farmers mean is keeping up with a stealth technology, an unfairly applied technology whose end-products cannot be openly tested with the consumer according to free market principles, only sneaked in covertly, in other words imposed...so much for "choice" and "competition". The GE industry has even attempted to prevent non GMO products from being advertised and labeled as such...so much for the GE industry's version of the free-market!

Should corporate interests continue to trump consumers' interests, as has been allowed under the Bush administration, as would be allowed under any corrupt administration, whether Democrat or Republican? (corporate profits, like crops, are apolitical...they are opportunist, and grow wherever conditions are optimum, regardless of consequences).
GE Marijuana exception
written by Hwy175, October 21, 2008
No matter what you think about this, I think that Ed Robey's addition of an exception for 'plants grown indoors for medical purposes' is downright hypocritical. If GE is unsafe - which it may well be - why is it ok to allow in the county for medical marijuana? Idiocy at its finest.
...
written by bearer, October 22, 2008
Great another feel good vote.

These special interest groups are determined to undermine the fabric of America one strand at a time.
They will be
written by Raphael, October 22, 2008
eating unlabeled cloned meat fairly soon, thanks to the government's no-choice corporate "free-market" notions (no labeling = no consumer choice = no fair competition between cloned and regular meat producers = putting regular meat producers out of business unless they adopt the new technology!)
The rest of the population that does not raise its own meat, is not vegetarian or can't afford organic foods will also consume this untested laboratory experiment, like compliant guinea pigs, and this will include young children and adolescents ingurgitating tons of fast food meat.
Unless we do something as consumers...which is not impossible. Dean Foods, under pressure from consumers, has publicly rejected milk from cloned cows for its dairy products.
Democracy and freedom are uphill battles, not just against world tyrant, but against corporatism, corporations and industries attempting to have more rights, more influence over government than the people do.
since when
written by Raphael, October 22, 2008
did GMO's become the fabric of America exactly, was it when Benjamin Franklin planted them in his backyard?
Special interest groups?...Yeah, I would say that the majority of the US population, the fabric of America, wanting the labeling of these foods, is a very special group to whom the federal government should pay attention, and would if it did its job.
this isn\'t the end...
written by smurf, October 22, 2008
by ANY stretch, it's the beginning of a whole new marketing program for Lake County ag products that several growers have been working on for some time, so this is hardly a "feel good" measure.

Many thanks to Kenny Parlet, Steve Hajik and Brock Zoller for providing us with so much comic relief, Parlet with his near-total flip-out, Hajik with his "I have no idea how to do my job" routine, and Zoller with his, "well, the walnut, rice and forage crop growers will have to work something out" to protect themselves from contamination from GMO crops, thanks for making it clear that there are no answers for that problem!
Good but more is needed
written by purplegirl, October 22, 2008
"He said he knows of no scientific, peer-reviewed document that shows GMO dangers to health. The only concern that has been raised involves a corn that is resistant to the organic compound Bacillus thuringensis (Bt), which has been known to damage the health of livestock."

I think I am going to print this statement out and frame it. Only a blind man could not see the irony in this statement which in itself supports the opposite argument.

Point being, the reason we aren't seeing any documentation about test results and harmful effects is because it HASN"T BEEN TESTED WELL ENOUGH. As far as "peer reviewed" documentation goes, aspartame and cigarettes documentation were "peer reviewed" and accepted as having "no danger to health". This was based not only on "peer reviewed" but "government reviewed" documents. Obviously, people still don't get that there is a tendency to present the positive results and bury the negative to get their products passed for financial gain despite the "dangers to health". In fact, we now know that despite the "peer reviewed documents" in many cases, products have been deemed safe and have been proven both harmful and deadly, after further time and testing. And, the fact that it can make animals sick should raise a HUGE red flag that it could also have the potential to make humans sick and that it NEEDS to be tested more thoroughly.

Here is something for everyone to think about... concerning the FDA and "peer reviewed documents" in regards to Genetically Engineered Food...

"There is no mandatory testing, there is no mandatory labeling, what they did set up is what they call a voluntary consulting process. So, if you're putting a new genetically engineered food on the market, you can choose if you wish, to consult with the FDA if you have issues. ... Can you imagine this with drugs? If you tell the drug companies, "Oh, no, you don't have to test, you don't have to label your drug, but if you think it's going to kill somebody, you should probably consult us."

I mean, no one would accept that. No one would accept that with car safety, no one would accept that with virtually any aspect of what's going on, yet we're accepting it with genetically modified food?
- Andrew Kimbrell who runs the Center for Food Safety (CFS) as well as its parent organization, the International Center for Technology Assessment.
So \'government spends alot
written by Donna Christopher, October 22, 2008
of it's time' trying to catch Kenny 'doing something wrong'. Wow - must be why we got the new Sheriff's substation here. Gee THANKS KENNY :wink: Are you really up to no good or just a tad paranoid? hehehe
I\'m sure everyone has good
written by justbeinglogical, October 22, 2008
intentions. It seems to me, though, that this is a topic that we the citizens should be able to investigate on our own, come to our own intelligent conclusions and then VOTE on it! This is a democracy after all. Our board of supervisors is only a few people and should not be making decisions like this on their own. Leave it to the voters.
Well, maybe voting on
written by Donna Christopher, October 22, 2008
it might be a good idea. Just as soon as all the facts are in on it, all the research has been done, EIR's completed and testing complete. Then we can take all of the very highly technical information and give it to the flat earth crowd to vote on. Shall we put all drugs submitted for market approval up to a vote to the peeps also? How about a vote on all imports, especially those from China? Hell, let's vote on everything and then we have no need for any of the bureaucracies or agencies we now employ. Just being logical.
Good Point
written by egbjr, October 22, 2008
"Shall we put all drugs submitted for market approval up to a vote to the peeps also?"

Good point. This is our FOOD we are talking about not just some plants we are planting for fun and pleasure. There needs to be some sort of responsibility by our government to protect and inform consumers. You can't make an educated choice (or vote) if accurate and current information is not there due to lack of accurate testing, labeling and virtually no regulation when it comes to genetically altered foods. This IS food we are talking about.
btw
written by purplegirl, October 22, 2008
I posted that last post not egbjr, something is messing up the posts in the system again.
Should the public
written by Raphael, October 22, 2008
vote on the introduction of new, untested medications to the consumer? Should the public vote on untested, revolutionary surgical procedures? Since when did the average citizen acquire the credentials to okay or reject new science? YOU VOTE WITH YOUR POCKET BOOK AS A CONSUMER, or at least YOU COULD IF THESE PRODUCTS WERE LABELED, as they are in MOST OTHER DEMOCRACIES.
Lake Co. is the leader in GMO
written by COMMONSENSE, October 23, 2008
We are the leader!!!! Can't you smell it? I sure can. All the genetically enginered marijuana growing in back yards throughout the county. It would be a shame if a mutant clone pot plant got created and wiped out the harvest. The other bad thought is if it got graffed with the pear trees in the county ("pot head pears"smilies/wink.gif.
I can see the ag commissioner with a bunch of bureaucrats talking with a pot-head medicinal backyard farmer about the origin of his planting stock. This whole thing is stupid. It hurts consumers and growers (food and grape).
I had no
written by lenny, October 23, 2008
idea what an impact and news item this is/was, until I needed to go to Burlingame yesterday...
literally every radio channel I flipped to included this as a news item....explaining of course where Lake County was!!!
reality check
written by vbrandon, October 23, 2008
(a) there is no such thing as GE marijuana

(b) if there were, it would not be exempted from the restrictions in the ordinance (read it for yourself at http://www.lakelive.info/cra/finalordinance.pdf

(c) no grape, pear, walnut or other Lake County crops now grown are affected by this measure

(d) if an environmentally safe genetically engineered crop is developed that would be beneficial to local ag, there are provisions in the ordinance to allow its cultivation without overturning the whole thing

(e) no genetically engineered (unlabelled!) food products sold in grocery stores are affected, the ordinance applies to crops ONLY.
Exposing The Myth
written by purplegirl, October 24, 2008
"We are the leader!!!! Can't you smell it? I sure can. All the genetically enginered marijuana growing in back yards throughout the county. It would be a shame if a mutant clone pot plant got created and wiped out the harvest. The other bad thought is if it got graffed with the pear trees in the county ("pot head pears").
I can see the ag commissioner with a bunch of bureaucrats talking with a pot-head medicinal backyard farmer about the origin of his planting stock. This whole thing is stupid. It hurts consumers and growers (food and grape)."

I have heard some pretty ridiculous statements about genetic engineering but
that last one takes the cake. I appreciate Victoria's response but I think there is something that needs to be cleared up because people are really missing a few major points.

First of all, genetic engineering may be considered the "newest technology" but it really cannot be compared with any other NATURAL propogation method because IT IS NOT A NATURAL PROPOGATION METHOD.

Historically, there are basically three methods for propagation. All of which CAN occur naturally.

1) Open Pollination
2) Hybridization
3) Cloning

Open Pollination is when pollen or seed is carried naturally (either by animal, insect, wind or rain) with the end result being the reproduction of a plant of the same variety. This is the type of propagation most consider “natural” but it is a common misconception that it is the only type of natural propagation.

Hybridization is when two plants of a different species, genus or family procreate. Despite the widespread belief that humans invented this type of propagation, it has been happening in nature for thousands of years. For example, peppermint plant is a natural hybrid (dating back to 1,000 years B.C.) of watermint (Mentha Aquata) and spearmint (Mentha Spicata). On the other hand, manual forced hybridization has only been around for a few hundred years or so.

Plants of different species are likely (but not guaranteed) to hybridize with similar characteristic because they share many of the genes and a similiar DNA sequence. As well, for the same reasons, hybrids are likely (but not guaranteed) to reproduce results similar to the characteristics of the hybrid parent plant. However, hybrids of two different genus or families will rarely reproduce with similar results. In fact, what you will most likely get from a hybrid of two different genus or families is a mixed match combination of any of the many different characteristics of the combined parent plants which could be wide in range due to the dissimilar genes and DNA.

Cloning is when a piece of the actual plant is used to reproduce rather than the seed or pollen of a plant. Many asexual plants (plants that don’t need a partner to pollinate) reproduce in this way. Humans have adapted this method of propagation, as well, to reproduce plants with reliable DNA structures. This type of propagation is used very consistently and reliably, in nature, via three methods .

The first is called layering. This is how one of the first cloned plants called King’s Holly (over 43,000 years old) has reproduced itself and how the creosote bush continues to stay alive as the oldest known living cloned plant. It involves plants reaching the ground and rooting themselves to create a new plant while still attached to the original parent plant. Eventually, the parent plant dies off but the new plant with a separate root system stays alive and continues to grow and reproduce. Humans do this manually and call it “serpentine rooting”.

The second way is called cutting. This is when a piece of a plant falls to the ground, no longer attached to its original parent plant, but still reproduces an identical plant by rooting itself. Humans also have adapted this method, calling it a “cutting”.

The third method of cloning is a bit more complicated because it combines the complete DNA structures of two different plants. This method is called “grafting”. In nature, it happens when two different pieces of plants combine to create a new plant. For instance, if a tree in a forest falls onto another tree in a forest and both still carry a life force this life force may combine to make a new tree before the other two trees die off. Humans have adapted “grafting” and it is used most often to create new and improved plants.

ON THE OTHER HAND, genetic engineering has never occurred naturally because IT CANNOT OCCUR NATURALLY. That is because genetic engineering is when genes are artificially put together into species which would never intermingle (even on a good day) that is why they have to GENETICALLY ENGINEER them to! So comparing clones, grafting or even hybridization to genetic engineering is pretty ridiculous.
Thanks purplegirl, you
written by Donna Christopher, October 24, 2008
do a wonderful job of cutting thru the clutter and static and laying out the facts in a very understandable way.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 22 October 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >

Choose language

Powered By Page_Cache by Ircmaxell
Generated in 1.5420830249786 Seconds