The debate over genetically modified organisms just got a lot hotter in

California. Last month, Democratic State Senator Dean Florez introduced

an amendment that would effectively remove a community's control over

its food supply.



Florez's amendment reads, in part, "no ordinance or regulation of any

political subdivision may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate

any matter relating to the registration, labeling, sale, storage,

transportation, distribution, notification of use, or use of field

crops."



It seems harmless enough, couched in legalese as it is. But this

controversial overhaul comes in response to three California counties

and two cities that banned the raising of genetically engineered crops

and livestock. Activist groups like Californians for GE-Free

Agriculture, Environmental Commons, and the Sierra Club are up in arms

over the proposed legislation, calling it an affront to local

democracy.



It's easy to see why. Since California currently does not have any GMO

regulations at the state level, the proposed law will successfully

eliminate the only limitations that prevent biotech giants like

Monsanto and Syngenta from moving in with their patented GE seeds.

Moreover, the bill, known as SB 1056, takes pre-emptive measures to

preclude people from raising concerns about GMOs in the future, and in

doing so deprives the public of any chance debate on this hot-button

issue.



Becky Tarot, campaign coordinator for Californians for Genre

Agriculture, says, "If B 1056 or a bill with similar preemptive

language passes in California, it will effectively override the ability

of local communities, including farmers, to make decisions about

whether or not they want to grow genetically engineered crops."



In addition to an infringement on civil liberties, the fundamental

problem that environmental groups have with B 1056 is that farmers who

plant genetically engineered (GE) seeds can't guarantee that their

seeds will not contaminate Genre farms. According to Laurel Hop wood

of the Sierra Club, "What's unfortunate for farmers, especially organic

farmers, is that pollen can move from place to place, so the spread of

GO gene traits is inevitable." Hop wood adds, "What's different about

this form of pollution from any other form of pollution is that it's

alive. These new life forms multiply, spread, and cannot be recalled.

... Not only are organic farmers not allowed to call their crop

'organic' when it becomes contaminated, but also farmers can't sell

their crops overseas where GM are not accepted."



California is the nation's largest agricultural producer, raising

hundreds of crops for larges export and domestic use. The issue of

organic farms losing certification because of GE seed contamination,

then, is just the tip of the iceberg. The European Union and other

major importers of Californian goods like Japan have strict policies

that forbid the purchase or sale of GE crops. Environmentalists fear

the economic repercussions of GE seed contamination could be disastrous

for the both California agricultural community and the U.S. economy.



Beyond the Golden State



But if you think the debate over local control is just going on in

California, think again. Brit Bailey, the director of Environmental

Commons, explained that fourteen states have already passed provisions

limiting local control, and North Carolina is still considering a

similar measure. Bailey says, "When I contacted the Georgia and

Oklahoma legislatures, specifically the authors of the seed preemption

bills, and asked them why the bills were introduced, the authors

responded by saying the bills were in response to the three California

counties that had passed initiatives restricting genetically modified

organisms."



In March of 2004, Mandolin County in Northern California passed a law

prohibiting GE seeds from being planted within the county lines, the

first of its kind. Eight months later, four more counties voted on

similar bans, but in the face of opposition heavily funded by the

bio tech industry and promoted by state and national farm groups, only

one ban passed. Many more counties in California and across the country

are in the process of bringing GO bans to the voters.



But proponents of these seed preemption bills, in California and

elsewhere, believe that seed laws belong uniformly at the state or

federal level and shouldn't be in the hands of a patchwork of local

restrictions. As Charles Marquis of the Center for Food Safety points

out, however, states that oppose local restrictions to GM tend to

have regulations in place at the state level. California does not.



On the other side of B 1056 are groups like the California Farm Bureau

Federation (C, a nonprofit that represents farm interests

throughout the state. While spokesman Dave Ran was unwilling to take

an official stance on B 1056, he says, "Our position has been that we

support technology that offers potential for family farmers to be

innovative and keep up with market trends."



Like other supporters of this pre-emptive legislation, CFBF feels that

farmers ought to have the flexibility to respond to local situations

and should not be prevented from raising GE-crops simply because their

property falls within a certain county line. "We oppose

county-by-county bans on biotech crops just as we would oppose

county-by-county bans on organic crops if those were to occur,"

concludes Kranz.



In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, CFBF President

Bill Pauli lays out a clear case for GE foods. "[Californians] are

among the most progressive farmers in the United States, and we play a

vital role in providing safe and healthy food throughout the world.

That's why I can't understand all the misinformation associated with

biotechnology, an established practice of modern farming that makes our

food more plentiful, longer-lasting and, yes, healthier than ever."



Pauli devotes most of his article to assuring readers that no one

(neither people nor animals) has become sick from biotech foods since

their inception in the mid-nineties. On the federal level, biotech

crops are subject to inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug

Administration. Research has suggested that GE foods have the curative

properties and the potential to improve nutrition worldwide. "A 2004

report from the National Academy of Sciences," asserts Pauli,

"concluded that foods from biotech crops are as safe as any other foods

in your supermarket." The question remains though, after reading

Pauli's article, why would he spend so much energy convincing the

public that GE foods are safe for consumption?



Is it because consumers fear the possibly toxic effects of herbicides,

which can be sprayed at will on the 70 percent of GE crops that are

herbicide-resistant? Or perhaps the answer lies in the recent failures

of federal regulatory agencies to ensure the safety of biotech crops.

Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of The Oakland Institute, exclaims,

"The EPA, USDA, and FDA were asleep at the wheel during the StarLink

controversy."



The StarLink fiasco resulted in an enormous recall on corn products,

heightened concerns over biotech products, and was an economic black

eye for the U.S. when Japan and South Korea were forced to turn to

China for corn supplies. Since the FDA already determined that genetic

engineering is only an extension of agriculture, and that GE foods are

not significantly different from traditionally grown foods, their

methodology for determining safety seems suspect.



Mittal and Margulis of the Center for Food Safety also emphasize that

none of the federal regulatory agencies have conducted long-term tests

to determine the lasting effects of GE foods on consumers and the

environment. Margulis maintains that the studies Pauli mentions in his

op-ed are "ludicrous" and broad-ranged. "None of those studies were

conducted by independent organizations; none fed animals just GE foods

and saw what happened." And, he says, the biotech corporations would

prefer it that way.



The End of Local Control?



Concerns over GE food safety aside, the true transgression being

perpetrated by SB 1056 is that California legislators are turning a

blind eye to public safety and debate in favor of biotech corporations.

"By taking away the sovereign powers of communities," Mittal concludes,

"legislators are rendering the elected officials in these communities

basically impotent." To say nothing of the rights of farmers and

citizens that this pre-emptive legislation will strip away. Mittal

adds, "The interests of the family farmers are being sold off, while

bigger farmers receive subsidies and are therefore more likely to

support the bill."



Of course, the debate over local control doesn't center solely on GMOs.

Britt Bailey says, "Twenty states have laws restricting local

governments from passing tobacco-free ordinances, 40 states have laws

removing local control of pesticides, and I think there are 20 or so

states with preemptive gun laws."



The result is that when communities raise concerns on these topics at

the local level, industry swoops in at the state level to ensure these

concerns fall on deaf ears. Ironically, Sen. Florez currently supports

a measure to give his district the power to decide whether or not to

apply sewage sludge to agricultural land, the same kind of local

control prohibited by his seed bill.



While activist groups are calling for labels on products containing

GMOs or higher standards for regulatory testing, others have not thrown

in the towel yet on the local control debate. Mary Zepernick, a

coordinator at the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy, feels a

new take on this fight might be necessary. "We need to reframe these

issues as rights-based struggles rather than harms-based. Looking at

things that way -- abuse by abuse, corporation by corporation -- will

keep these issues mired in the regulatory regime." Instead, she says,

activists should show how the attack on GMO bans are part of a larger

attack on communities' ability to stand up to corporations.



Similarly, Britt Bailey and the Environmental Commons want to see a

constitutional challenge to the bans on local control. "If we want to

secure local authority of issues related to health, safety, and

welfare," Bailey argues, "we could build case law by placing the intent

of a local authority to govern within the local ordinances and

resolutions we develop and pass. This way, if state preemption occurs,

a local government has the intent and therefore standing to challenge.

We could also choose to amend the constitution."



Such a step might be the only way for farmers to keep locally grown

food viable and for the dialogue over GMOs to continue.