Effort to ban GMOs in Sonoma County organized

This November, county voters will face a ballot measure that would ban the growing of GMOs in Sonoma County’s unincorporated areas.|

Many describe the sweeping grasslands spanning Sonoma and Marin counties as a single contiguous dairy belt, a close-knit agricultural region where shared ideals move freely across the county line.

Yet there is at least one key difference across that invisible border – unlike Marin, as well as neighboring Mendocino County to the north, Sonoma County does not ban the agricultural cultivation of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

That could change this November, when county voters will face a ballot measure that would ban the growing of GMOs in Sonoma County’s unincorporated areas.

Proponents have described the measure as one to protect the county’s existing organic farmers, a ban that would work as a shield against cross-pollination by GMO crops. Supporters also argue that the use of GMOs in agriculture comes with a variety of downsides, ranging from increased pesticide use to negative health impacts.

Meanwhile, the county’s preeminent agriculture organization, the 3,000-member Sonoma County Farm Bureau, is among those opposing the ban, casting it as a push by outsider interests that would reduce the competitiveness of local farmers while limiting their options in the event of a future crisis such as drought or disease.

As a leader in the group that worked to bring the measure to the ballot, Karen Hudson, a Rohnert Park resident, said the appetite for such a rule has grown since Sonoma County voters shot down a similar measure by a 5-percent margin in 2005. Humboldt, Trinity and Santa Cruz counties also have bans in place.

“It’s a North Coast, West Coast, non-GMO growing zone that is forming, and Sonoma County stands out as the county between Marin and Mendocino that doesn’t have this law yet. Why shouldn’t we have a law that protects our farmers too?” said Hudson, campaign coordinator for the group known as Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families.

Voters to decide

Faced with the choice of either adopting the ordinance outright or sending it to the ballot, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors moved in May to let voters decide the outcome. The decision came with sharp criticism for the language of the measure itself, which supervisors described as alarmist and lacking in scientific justification.

“To me, it’s always about the unintended consequences, and really looking at the science behind it,” said Supervisor David Rabbitt, whose district encompasses Petaluma.

Supervisors were required to act due to the resounding success of a signature drive to force the measure to the ballot, which reportedly collected around 10,000 more names than were necessary. The move to the ballot was supported by the Farm Bureau.

A county-commissioned report by the UC Cooperative Extension found loose language in the measure could be interpreted to apply to a wide range of practices, including grafting. The report said no evidence existed that GMO foods were harmful to people, and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which ultimately sets policy for organic certification, does not penalize farmers whose crops are inadvertently “contaminated” by GMOs.

Yet supporters argued the ordinance was sorely needed to protect the operations of organic farmers.

In common usage, “GMO” typically refers to plants or animals that have had their genomes modified through modern genetic engineering methods to provide certain characteristics, such as resistance to herbicide.

The May hearing attracted some of the biggest names in Sonoma County agriculture, ranging from celebrated newcomers to multi-generational dynasties, along with a number of activists. Extensive testimony showed the schism between factions, with speakers representing a cross section of industries and farms large and small.

Among those who spoke that day was Albert Straus, whose Petaluma-based Straus Family Creamery was the first in the country to go all-organic. His family’s dairy farm in the West Marin town of Marshall was also the first in California to obtain organic certification.

The certification for livestock is contingent on, among other things, an all-organic diet. After testing found non-organic genes in a supposedly organic batch of corn in 2005, Straus said he implemented what today has grown to be an extensive third-party testing program across his supply chain.

Without a ban, Straus said cross-pollination by GMO corn and, potentially, GMO grasses, could serve to undermine the operations of free-range dairy farmers in the region.

“Now that approximately 80 percent of the dairies in Sonoma County are certified organic, GMOs are a threat,” he said.

The ordinance would not impact genetic research conducted in controlled labs, nor would it affect treatments for humans. GMO products could still be sold and used in Sonoma County, including feed for livestock, and the rule would only apply in the unincorporated areas.

It could cost the county up to an estimated $9,900 to inspect a case of GMO cultivation and prepare a hearing, and violators could be on the hook for the inspection costs.

Future impact

It is not clear that a GMO cultivation ban would be an immediate disruption to the status quo of agriculture in Sonoma County, a region that has already seen a major shift toward organic production. A 2014 study valued the county’s organic agriculture at $256.7 million.

Farmers not certified as organic through the USDA might still be operating without the use of genetically modified crops – GMO wine grapes, for example, are not currently available.

“It was, really, are you solving a problem that doesn’t exist?” Rabbitt said of the measure.

Even among the dairy ranchers operating without an organic certification in the county, anecdotal evidence suggests only a single example of GMO corn grown for use in feed, said Tony Linegar, the county’s agricultural commissioner. Others likely import non-organic feed from elsewhere, a practice that would not be impacted by the ordinance.

The situation adds up to a potentially tepid rollout for a ban in the near-term, he said. Yet the measure might come into pivotal importance in an unknown future, where drought, disease or other challenges could make GMOs the only viable option to salvage entire industries, he said.

Linegar cited the creation of genetically modified, ringspot virus-resistant Papaya planted in Hawaii in the late 1990s as one real-world example, a development that reversed a devastating die-off. Researchers at UC Davis are also working on grape vines that can better resist outbreaks of Pierce’s disease, a major industry concern.

“We need to be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” he said.

Supporters of a ban cite that same unknown future, and argue that the widespread proliferation of GMO pollen would be difficult to reverse. Rampant cross-pollination could cause organic product consumers to turn away from Sonoma County products, which often command a premium.

“I really don’t think that GMO technologies are worth the risk, and the potential loss of markets, and just the fact that they might one day be a preventative for a disease we have is not a reason to jump on board with them,” said Mark Squire, owner of Fairfax-based Good Earth Natural Foods, who took over Petaluma’s organic Tara Firma Farms earlier this year.

History at the ballot

The rollout of Marin County’s own ordinance has been quiet, without a single enforcement action since the measure passed by a wide margin in 2004, said Stacy Carlsen, Marin’s agricultural commissioner. GMOs were simply not in use in that county when the ordinance passed, and some of those on the market, like corn and soy, often don’t do well in much of Marin.

The low-key nature of Marin’s rollout was in contrast to the fierce debate that erupted when a similar measure, Measure M, hit the ballot in Sonoma County in 2005. That measure failed with a 55 percent majority.

Supervisor Rabbitt recalled that much of the opposition at that time came from long-time agricultural interests who were using genetically modified crops on a wider basis. That coalition has frayed in the decade since amid the widespread, multi-industry pivot away from GMOs.

The Sonoma County Farm Bureau could not be reached for comment on their position, but the organization has come out staunchly against the measure in public comments and a publication distributed to members. Bureau director and grape grower Tito Sasaki told the Board of Supervisors in May that a ban could limit the competitiveness of Sonoma County agriculture.

“The American economy has been keeping world leadership mostly because entrepreneurs are using the best technology and newest sciences. Sonoma County agriculture should not be denied the use of the best technology and newest sciences, either,” he said.

Hudson, of Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families, said her group is working with a San Francisco-based campaign consultant in the leadup to the November election. She expressed confidence that this time around, Sonoma County voters would approve the ban.

“It’s not a new thing we’re trying to do,” she said. “I think we have a solid chance.”

(Contact Eric Gneckow at eric.gneckow@arguscourier.com. On Twitter @Eric_Reports.)

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.