Campaign heats up in GMO-ban initiative

A ballot measure that would ban the growing of genetically modified organisms in Sonoma County is eliciting impassioned campaigning on both sides of the issue.

Known as the anti-GMO bill, the initiative attained sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot as early as April, and the Board of Supervisors had no choice but to put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. In doing so, however, the supervisors expressed skepticism over the broad restrictions of the initiative.

Officially entitled the “Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Prevention Ordinance,” the bill would “prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically engineered organisms” in Sonoma County, and require the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner to enforce the ordinance.

The last time voters gathered enough signatures for an ordinance to qualify for the county ballot was in 2005, when voters were faced with a similar initiative, also called Measure M, to ban GMOs. That measure failed in the general election with 55 percent of voters opposed and 45 percent in favor.

This time around, there is a strong campaign from anti-GMO activists and less opposition from agricultural interests. In the 10 years since Sonoma County’s last anti-GMO measure failed, five counties - Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity and Santa Cruz - have passed similar measures.

“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 Karen Hudson, campaign coordinator for the group known as Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families.

According to the ordinance, the definition of genetically engineered or modified organisms is “the DNA of which has been altered or amended” though techniques such as in recombinant DNA or RNA. Also named as GMOs are organisms with direct injection of nucleic acid into cells, or methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family – for instance, combining scorpion poison with cabbage to kill cabbage-eating caterpillars, or bananas altered with antivirus to prevent hepatitis.

The Sonoma County Farm Bureau and the Sonoma Valley Alliance are two local organizations who oppose the measure, largely for its potentially restrictive impact on local business.

“We don’t take a lot of positions on the measures, but if we feel there’s an adverse impact on business then we typically will,” said Brian Ling of the Sonoma Valley Alliance, a 370-member organization. “We feel this will have a definite impact on business.”

The Farm Bureau, while campaigning against the measure, is not raising any money for its opposition efforts.

“What it’s going to do is restrict farmer’s choice, to be as general as we can,” said Kim Vail, executive director of the Farm Bureau. “The use of this technology in crop production right now within the county is minimal. So the real question is whether we need to have a ban.”

Farmer Paul Wirtz has a different take on the Farm Bureau’s position.

“I think what that means is they’re trying to protect the farmer’s right to make money,” said Wirtz, whose Paul’s Produce is a familiar supplier at area farmers markets. “That’s good, we need the Farm Bureau, I’m a member of the Farm Bureau, but I’m not in agreement with that stance about that.”

Wirtz and others are concerned with the confusion between GMOs and hybridization, the more traditional form of selective breeding.

“Hybridization is in most cases a very natural process,” he said, using an example of cross-breeding tomato strains to produce a controllable set of characteristics. “That’s very different from crossing a tomato with a fish or any number of other things. Those are things that would never happen in nature, and that’s why I think we need to be suspect.”

Traditional breeding techniques like hybridization and grafting would not be outlawed under the measure.

Both Ling and Vail indicated that opposition to GMOs is largely an “emotional” issue, not a scientific one, and pointed to overbroad or vague definitions of GMOs in the ordinance that they felt could be confusing to farmers and consumers alike.

Tony Linegar, the Agricultural Commissioner for the County of Sonoma, recently put together a presentation on GMOs for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. In the presentation, Stephanie Larson of the University of California Cooperative Extension, explained that, “The definition of genetically modified organisms lacks specificity, making it difficult for a grower to know whether they are violating the ordinance.”

That presentation also suggested “the average gardener would be impacted by the ordinance’s prohibitions,” and indicated that “pollen drift” - one of the concerns of anti-GMO forces - was a negligible issue, as pollen drift only has a five mile range, according to the Cooperative Extension. Doubt was also cast on the supposed health risks of GMO foods.

Linegar also questioned the ordinance’s enforceability - not a small point, as Measure M as written does include the requirement that the agricultural commissioner “assess a civil monetary penalty against any person or entity violating the ordinance” among other enforcement measures.

Despite these concerns, supporters of Measure M believe it’s better to err on the side of caution than allow a potentially disruptive technology to compromise Sonoma County’s positive perception in the marketplace.

“Sonoma County is a brand,” said Evan Wiig of the Farmers Guild, a local nonprofit that represents farmers and ranchers. “I guarantee you that the people who want to buy sustainable food want to buy food that has no GMOs in it.”

Bob Canard, of Petaluma’s Green String Institute, believes that if GMOs are grown or introduced in the county, they pose a risk to all crops.

“We are a center of the organic or natural process agricultural movement here in the county, and if our vegetable crops become contaminated, that’s a very serious matter,” he said.

(The Argus-Courier contributed to this report.)