Warf: Moratorium needed on genetically modified crops
Written by Haji Warf   
Saturday, 10 October 2009
This Tuesday, Oct. 13, at 1:30 p.m., the Lake County Board of Supervisors will hear the final report from the Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops Advisory Committee, members of which were appointed by the Lake County Board of Supervisors late last year. Anyone concerned about the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Lake County’s farming community should not miss this meeting.


After nine months of meetings, what has the GE Crops committee learned?


As a member of the public who attended nearly all of the meetings and who paid close attention to the wide-ranging and oftentimes contentious discussions, I can only conclude that the issue of allowing the cultivation of GMOs in Lake County is an intractable problem with entrenched interests.


Nothing of substance has resulted in all this time with no concrete recommendations to be made to the Board of Supervisors. Despite a heroic effort, the committee barely scratched the surface on the mountain of data available out there (and still coming) regarding the effects of genetically modified crops on organic and conventional farming, our native plants and animal species, and the very health of our citizens, among many other vital interests in our community.


Co-existence between conventional or organic and pro-GMO farming has not been proven to be successful anywhere yet known, and I anticipate it to be practically impossible anytime soon with what little guidance and insufficient safeguards are available to date. And distrust resulting from fear on both sides of the issue guarantees no substantial concessions will be made.


So, if no compromise yet exists, what are our options?


Right now, farmers in Lake County adhere to the "first in time, first in right" doctrine, essentially allowing anyone to grow anything at anytime – so long as they do it first. If a farmer chooses to plant genetically modified seeds in the next growing season and no one finds out about it, not a soul will have the right to protest forever thereafter.


Without a requirement for public disclosure in place, how will any neighboring organic farmer ever know the genetic purity of his product if GMO pollen secretly drifts onto his farm? How will he even know to test? All the while, his economic interests will have been compromised without his knowing it – organic standards prohibit GMOs, and should the farmer’s land or product be contaminated, he could lose his certification and thus, his livelihood.


And, once these manmade genes are let loose into the wider environment, it is virtually impossible to contain or remove them. It is the proverbial Genie being released from its bottle.


If we as a community are not deliberate in the manner in which we proceed, Lake County will surely relinquish its right to self-determination, simply through widespread exposure to genetically modified seeds that is sure to come.


For a county whose legacy is so steeped in the frontier spirit, it will be a shame to allow our future to be determined purely by happenstance – and to be perpetually under the thumb of the GMO seed companies on whose products our farmers will rely without end.


The fact is, all genetically modified seeds are patented and farmers are forbidden from harvesting seeds from resultant crops for future use. This means our farmers will be contractually obligated to buy seeds every year, as well as the other products designed to be used with them, such as pesticides. If we allow this to happen, the very existence of our farming community is jeopardized by its absolute dependence on these companies for survival.


By doing nothing now, this will be our inevitable fate.


My hope is that the Board of Supervisors will employ the precautionary principle and put in place a moratorium until the bigger picture of GMO crops and its impacts on all of us is fleshed out more fully. Truthfully, I feel they are obligated to our community to do so.


I am confident the decision will appear to have been a wise one in retrospect as increasingly, the downsides of GMOs continue to change the landscape of our society in so many ways.


Let's not rush into a permanent, irreversible change without being fully informed on how GMOs may harm us.


Haji Warf farms in Upper Lake.

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
Truth
written by a guest, October 12, 2009
State law says that if you grow less than 5k of produce you are organic, even if you nuke your stuff. This genetic is a bunch of misplaced time and energy. People need to eat cheap food rather than starve. I do not see anyone giving away there crops here or anywhere. This is a religion, claiming a higher power should not allow genetic.

The biggest whiners are not the farmers when it comes to this issue. It is the Club elitist types that go by Not in my back yard. The real culprit in Napa Lake Sonoma and all is the ghastly amount of water to grow grapes. This is the real issue and if there was more water there would be more grapes, there is no market here for anything else. Pears are obscene in the amount of poison it takes to grow, and check if the local supposed sustainable is really organic, or just semantics. Look your grower in the eye baloney hides this nasty little fact about organic, see above.
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/ne...ul/organic
written by a guest, October 12, 2009
An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.

Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ‘Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.

'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.’

The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.

The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.

This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.’
Do not
written by a guest, October 12, 2009
waste your money. Organic is overrated bunk.
organic/GMO
written by tyler lee, October 18, 2009
Organics vs. conventional crops is not the point here (though if you can't TASTE he difference I'm sorry for you...). Genetically modified crops a la Monsanto are not designed to increase crop volume but to make the crop grow in a poisoned environment (poisons also supplied by Monsanto). You are right about the pears: groundwater contamination by many years of herbicide/pesticide applications is a reality in some parts of the county. Monsanto et al. are looking forward to a monopoly of seedstock which will trap all farmers in their scheme. So much for freedom of choice.
NO
written by murply, October 26, 2009
Keep Monsanto out of my backyard.
'guest' comments misguided
written by momadance12, November 16, 2009
This issue is not about the taste or nutritional content of genetically modified foods, it's about the disastrous effects these corporations have on farmers and the communities they serve. If you missed it, go back re-read the second half of the article.

The movie Food, Inc. should be required viewing for Lake Co residents or at least the Board of Supervisors. It tells the story of GMO giant Monsanto, their frightening grip on Washington DC & the FDA, and the path of destruction they've left through the Midwest.

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

busy