Monday, May 09, 2005

More Anti-GMO news...

This article is from the Western Farm Press regarding the Kern County Supervisors who opposed the GMO ban recently in their area:

...Anti-GM0 factions were turned back last fall in the efforts to ban biotechnology crops with ballot initiatives in agriculturally-significant Butte and San Luis Obispo counties and in Humboldt County. They have been successful in getting anti-GMO initiatives passed only in Mendocino County, where there is significant agriculture, primarily wine grapes, and in Marin County just north of San Francisco, where there is basically no agriculture....[ouch! Marin must've felt that some Marin Pinot Noir reviews here on Mark Squires BBS /huge]

...The ordinance also could preclude the use of immunization vaccines used to combat West Nile virus in horses, rabies, distemper and feline leukemia because they contain living GMOs. It could also impact human health or the livestock industry by limiting sale, distribution or use of currently used or emergency vaccines....

My feelings after I had read the initiative were slightly supportive, and I do feel that all biotechnology should be evaluated fully before being dispersed into the environment. But my apprehensions of this statute grow almost daily.
[Read the
text of the initiative here]

I had asked in my post (in February) about whether this directive would ban the growing of agricultural crops for medical uses which may have been modified…and I could see their point about the organic decertification as a valid (perhaps their most useful and compelling) argument in favor of passage. But if the article from Western Farm Press is accurate, then ‘pollen drift’ as an issue is dead for me. Without the threat of decertification, the argument that GMO’s will make it impossible to farm organically within the County is invalid, and those farmers have no risk on that topic.

Also, I find it very troubling that this group went to the effort to bypass the voters and look to the Sonoma County supervisors to pass their initiative by fiat. When that failed they then looked to have a "quick' special election for only their initiative, which doesn't reflect well on them either...
My thoughts: If one of your stated goals is to provide "rigorous, public scientific review and extensive public debate" [as set forth in §3(c) of the initiative], then it seems rather strange that they would look to railroad the initiative onto the books on the sly by trying to bypass the public in the first place, or minimize the amount of time available for the topic to be discussed.

I'm really leaning against this proposed ordinance now...


Post a Comment

<< Home