California Rice Lobby Threatens to Kill County GMO Bans

Chico Enterprise Record

Rice Commission opposes initiative to ban GE crops
By HEATHER HACKING - Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 -

YUBA CITY The California Rice Commission passed a resolution Tuesday saying
if a ban on genetically engineered (GE) crops is passed in Butte County, an
existing state law will supersede the county's ability to regulate rice.

The commission also voted to oppose the ballot initiative to ban GE crops in
Butte County.

About 30 Rice Commission board members voted for the resolution, with one
vote against.

Assembly Bill 2622 was passed in 2000 and provides for certain protocols for
keeping different rice varieties separate. For example, consumers wouldn't
want dark colored varieties mixed in with medium grain white rice.

This year a biotech company wanted to grow rice in Butte County with genes
spliced into it to grow pharmaceutical drugs. A special AB 2622 committee
voted to only allow pharmaceutical rice in non-rice dominant regions,
basically Southern California.

The resolution passed Tuesday asserts the authority of AB 2622 and states
that "the commission shall take appropriate action to safeguard and fully
protect the act and the authority contained therein."

Rice is Butte County's number one crop, with more than $100 in revenue to
the county economy.

Farm Bureau member and rice grower Ryan Schohr has been actively opposed to
the GE-ban initiative. The Rice Commission "feels that state law says the
Rice Commission is the only body, which is a state empowered organization,
to regulate new varieties," Schohr said.

"That was done so we didn't have these county-by-county laws."

"This act, they feel, would violate that law (AB 2622)," he said.

Rice Commission board member Don Bransford said the resolution shows the
commission opposes the proposed local ban and will take legal steps to
protect their authority if the county law is passed.

Proponents of the ban on genetically altered crops argue that a ban would
protect farmers because many foreign countries do not want GE in their food
supply, particularly Japan, which buys California rice.

Scott Wolf, one of the main organizers for Citizens for a GE-Free Butte,
said he was very disappointed to hear the resolution was passed because
members of his group did not have warning to travel to Yuba City and oppose
it.

"The issue to a lot of farmers and to our group comes down to who gets to
make the call," Wolf said. "Does a statewide board that gets lobbied by the
biotech community get to ban it, or do the voters get to have some say on
the local level," he said.

Opponents have said a ban will create extra regulations that will cost an
already cash-strapped county hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, Wolf
said that's not the case. "The agricultural commissioner paints a picture of
needing a team of vegetable police. It's just absurd," Wolf said. "You don't
make everybody on the road take a breathalizer test.

"Butte County has become the front line in the battle between local people
governing themselves and huge corporations buying democracy," Wolf said. "By
voting yes on Measure D, Butte County and only Butte County chooses a strong
economy, good health and a clean and natural environment."

Glenn County rice grower Greg Massa can't vote for Measure D but he is
strongly for it.

He said the discussion Tuesday included misinformation about the ban
affecting "mutagenisis" rice. This is rice that generations ago was mutated
by radiation to have better genetic properties.

The head of the Rice Experiment Station in Biggs has said the Butte County
ordinance, if passed, could affect growers' ability to grow the most common
medium grain varieties because the ancestors of common rice was mutated.

But proponents of the GE ban argue that's not true and that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture clearly considered only modifications through
recombinant DNA (recombining genes) to be considered genetic engineering.

Trinity County Board of Supervisors voted recently to put a ban of GE crops
into place. San Luis Obispo and Marin counties have also collected enough
signatures to place the question on the ballot. Sonoma County is still
collecting signatures and organizers there are hoping to put it on the
ballot in March 2005.