Important news and actions from the US:

5.Group proposes new GMO ordinance
Written by Elizabeth Larson
Lake County News, 6 April 2008
http://lakeconews.com/content/view/3790/742/

LAKE COUNTY – A new effort has been launched to regulate genetically modified materials – known more commonly as GMOs – in Lake County.

***

BOX: 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 [email protected]

---

6.Finely Aged, Well Engineered
By Matthew Lickona
San Diego Reader, April 2 2008
http://www.sandiegoreader.com:80/news/2008/apr/02/finely-aged/

Erica Martenson is not a scientist. Rather, she is a gardener. In her big backyard in Napa, she says, she has 'several fruit trees and a small area where I have a vegetable garden. At this point, I can grow pretty much what I need for the year — I dry my fruit, and I can things.'

Until 2005 or so, one of her homegrown crops was soybeans, 'for edamame. Then I saw an article that mentioned something about genetically engineered soy, and I started wondering if my soybeans could be genetically engineered. I started doing some research and found that even organic seed companies like Seeds of Change can’t guarantee anymore that their soybeans are GE-free. There's too much contamination — partly through cross-pollination, but also because there's so much consolidation now within the seed supply. Sometimes even the organic seed supply is contaminated. So I stopped growing soybeans, and that's how I got introduced to the whole issue — not being able to grow something that I wanted to grow. It’s one of those issues that a lot of people don’t know about, but once you do know about it, you tend to have a strong feeling about it.'

It’s a pretty strong word, 'contaminated' — the sort usually reserved for poisoned water supplies and the like. Martenson isn’t trying to be alarmist, only to indicate that GE foodstuffs have a way of insinuating themselves into the general food supply. But she is concerned. 'I’m concerned about the health aspect. There hasn’t been a single peer-reviewed study to prove that GE foods are safe, for example. There are no safety tests required by the government. Most of the developers’ own studies have not been made public. A German court recently forced Monsanto to make one of its studies public, and it showed that there were problems with the lab animals. And there have been independent studies that have pointed to problems. There have been studies of GE yeast that showed — and this is a problem with GE in general — that inserting the foreign genes disrupts the genome. It can cause unexpected changes in the yeast — change its metabolism, cause toxicity or allergenicity. I think the way the whole GE thing has unfolded has been very unscientific. There’s been a lot of propaganda saying that this is going to solve people’s problems, that it’s progress, and that if you’re against it, then you’re a Luddite.'

Martenson mentioned yeast in particular because she drinks wine, because she lives in Napa, and because there are currently two GE yeasts on the market for use in wine production. (One unites alcoholic and malolactic fermentations to reduce production of the biogenic amines that cause headaches in some people. The other degrades urea and so reduces the production of ethyl carbamate, a substance found to exhibit carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, though Martenson points out that the substance has not been shown to cause cancer in humans and that 'wine has other properties that seem to counter those carcinogenic effects.' Martenson is not pro-headache/pro-cancer, but neither is she confident in the biotech industry’s assurances and disinterest.) She also mentions it because it’s a local issue. 'There are lots and lots of groups that are working on this at the international and national level. I decided I wanted to do something locally — there’s so much corporate influence at the national level, and there wasn’t anything happening here in our county.'

The result was PINA: Preserving the Integrity of Napa's Agriculture. PINA's website identifies the group as 'a grassroots organization comprised of diverse individuals from Napa County' who 'share the belief that genetically modified organisms pose a serious risk to our health…and that they threaten our environment, economy, and consumers’ rights…No GMOs should be introduced into Napa County until a regulatory system is in place.'

'Our focus is education,2 adds Martenson. 'There are field tests going on all over the country, and nobody knows where they are. We've been doing lots of film showings and presentations' — things like the documentary Future of Food - 'and are just trying to open up a dialogue with the whole community. Including the wine industry. We work through organizations. We went to the Native Plant Society and asked, ‘Would you be interested in sponsoring a film?' That way we bring in all of their members and people interested in native plants.' So far, with winegrowers, 'It's been more sharing conversations. I know the grape growers have had two forums on GE grapes, but that was more for the industry.'

And the response? Martenson goes into hopeful mode: 'Um, positive. There are conversations happening. I think the wine industry here has always been very good about working with the community to solve problems that affect the industry and the environment and to find creative solutions. We have a long history of doing that, and I hope this will be the same way. I think there's an image and reputation issue. There's no labeling law here now that says you have to say if your product is GE, but that could change very quickly. The Food Policy Institute, a research unit of Rutgers University, conducted a poll in 2003 that revealed that 94 percent of American consumers want GE food labeled. Both presidential candidates on the Democratic side have said they support mandatory labeling, as does independent candidate Ron Paul. It's a health and safety issue; since GE foods aren't labeled, any health problems associated with them are impossible to trace. In Europe, there are already strict labeling laws, and even though there's no ban on GE foods, nobody wants to market products as GE because they won't sell. Here, the whole GE thing has been very stealth, but I think producers here have to look forward. It would be very difficult, I think, for them to go the GE route and not lose something as far as their image and market share.'

PINA is after a moratorium on GE products in Napa County; in the meantime, Martenson will settle for bringing matters into the light. She wrote an opinion piece for the Napa Valley Register on GE grapevine trials, noting that both Cornell and UC Davis 'have permits to field test up to five and a half acres of experimental GE grapes anywhere in California.' The piece asks a lot of questions that may have fairly benign answers, but Martenson’s point is that she can’t get those answers, benign or otherwise. 'What types of genes are they using that they feel they need to hide that information from the public?' she asks, regarding a trial using genes designated as 'confidential business information.'

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the article is that the Cornell professor she quotes, Dr. Bruce Reisch, shows up several times in the comment section. Reisch takes issue with much of what Martenson writes and argues that the United States food system is 'one of the very best in the world,' the success of which 'includes the ongoing and widespread consumption of a multitude of products from plant genetic engineering, and these products have an excellent track record of…production of healthy food products.' Martenson counters with arguments about U.S. approval of products (such as bovine growth hormone) that are not allowed in other first-world countries and adds that 'many third-world countries will not even accept GE crops as food aid.' The exchange is civil, extended, and enlightening and may be found here: http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/03/15/opinion/commentary/doc45f9480b21e0e837159310.txt

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive