Luke Anderson's Overview of Anti-GE Activism in the USA in 2004

Posted 1/10/05

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
------
"...possibly the most inspiring year on record as far as local activism on
genetic engineering issues in the US is concerned." - Luke Anderson

Here's Luke Anderson's REVIEW OF THE YEAR from the States, focusing
particularly on grassroots actions in California and Hawaii that Luke has
experienced at first hand.

Prior to living in the US, Luke was a founding member of the Totnes Genetix
Group (ToGG). He is also the author of 'Genetic Engineering, Food and our
Environment' (published by Green Books Ltd, 1999 ISBN: 1-870098-78-1)

For others in the GM Watch REVIEW OF THE YEAR SERIES see:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp
------
2004 report - Grassroots Actions in California and Hawaii

by Luke Anderson

Contents
INTRODUCTION
GRASSROOTS RESISTANCE
DO IT YOURSELF
OPPOSING BIO 2004
RECLAIM THE COMMONS
MORE GMO BANS
HAWAII
APPENDIX I: Hawaii Press Release
APPENDIX II: Articles About Mendocino Initiative.
APPENDIX III: Media Reports On Other GMO Bans
...
INTRODUCTION

For reasons that I'm guessing may be obvious to the readers of GM Watch,
2004 has been an extremely upsetting year for supporters of the environment,
peace and social justice in the US. Partly in response to the difficulty in
shifting the political landscape on a national level, people are
increasingly turning to ways in which they can effect change in their
communities. And in this respect, it has been possibly the most inspiring
year on record as far as local activism on genetic engineering issues in the
US is concerned.

GRASSROOTS RESISTANCE

In Vermont, town-to-town educational efforts led to 79 towns passing
resolutions against GMOs. This grassroots organising then provided the
political base for Vermont to pass a groundbreaking seed-labelling bill at
the state level, the first of its kind in the US. There has also been
progress on a state bill holding biotech corporations liable for unintended
contamination of conventional or organic crops by genetically engineered
plant materials.

In California, the political space really opened up for us in March, when
voters in Mendocino county passed the first law in the US to ban GMO release
into the environment. Most people around the world understandably seem to
have the impression that people in the US must be very supportive of genetic
engineering, given its prevalence here and the US government ramming it down
everyone's throats. But this was the first time anyone in the US had the
chance to vote on a county law banning the planting of GMO's, and we won.

Despite more than $600,000 pumped into the county by the biotech industry in
a massive disinformation campaign, (which worked out at $55 for every 'no'
vote) the new GMO law was supported by 56.5% of the voters.

"We're the first county in the US to prohibit the growing of genetically
engineered crops and animals," said Els Cooperrider, a retired medical and
local business owner who helped to spearhead the initiative, "but we won't
be the last."

No amount of money can replace the love and commitment of people who care
passionately about the place they live," said Doug Mosel, spokesperson for
the Mendocino campaign. "This is a turning point in the corporate domination
of the food system and a reclaiming of responsibility for agriculture at a
local level."

Supporters of the initiative ranged from the local sheriff to the West
Coast's largest commercial fishing association, representing 26 commercial
fishing and port associations from San Diego to Alaska. As it has done in
other countries, the GMO
issue broke across many of the traditional political boundaries that often
remain fairly closed in other environmental or social debates. A fair number
of republican voters in the county apparently preferred to align with a
group that included people they would normally scorn as 'radicals, hippies
and environmentalists' than to identify with the big corporations. This is
very troubling to the biotech industry, and the press coverage after
Mendocino voters approved the GMO ban portrayed dumbfounded industry
executives.

"We don't want to see this pick up any steam," said Allen Noe, spokesperson
for CropLife America. "We have to do something. With all the political
subdivisions in the country, if every county started regulating what we do,
the industry would grind to a
halt." The industry is well aware that the Mendocino victory could have a
domino effect across the country. "How to stop that is unclear", said Noe.

DO IT YOURSELF

Here is a very simplified version of the process used to ban GMO release in
a county in California:

1. People write a proposed law (e.g. saying that it will be illegal to grow or plant GMOs)
2. Thousands of signatures then need to be gathered (about 10% of the number
of voters in the county) to show that there is enough support to put this
initiative to the vote.
3. Residents of the county then have the opportunity to vote on whether or
not the support this initiative and pass it as a county law. (The vote
usually happens the next time voters in the county go to the polls for a
local, state or national election)

OPPOSING BIO 2004

In June 2004, at the same time as the G8 leaders were meeting under heavily
guarded conditions in Georgia, biotech corporations met in San Francisco for
their largest meeting ever, attended by over 17,000 industry executives. In
response to these two meetings, a week-long series of educational events and
protests were organised in San Francisco called 'Reclaim the Commons'. These
educational events and protests focused on genetic engineering and life
patents in the context of the 'commons' - all that which we inherit freely
and hold in trust for future generations which is being stolen from us,
polluted and privatised.

These events built on the momentum generated by demonstrations organised in
California last year, in Sacramento in June 2003. There, the US Department
of Agriculture, the Agency for International Development, and the State
Department had invited government ministers and transnational corporate reps
from around the world in an attempt to gather support for the US
government's vision for global agricultural development in advance of the
fated WTO ministerial in Cancun.

At these protests in 2003, we framed genetic engineering as a justice issue,
focusing on the relationships between GMOs, the WTO and corporate
globalisation, and on US agricultural policy as a weapon of empire building.
This approach, reflected in our media work and in our outreach and
organising, meant that we were able to inspire participation from members of
the peace movement and social justice groups who were saying for the first
time that they were beginning to get what genetic engineering was all about.
These connections were developed still further as we organised the 'Reclaim
the Commons' mobilisation in June 2004.

The educational events at Reclaim the Commons were attended by over a
thousand people and included workshops on genetic engineering and biological
weapons, genetic engineering in food and farming, biotech barriers to
medical justice, resistance and alternatives to genetic engineering and
corporate control, nanotechnology, racial justice and human genetic
engineering. (see reclaimthecommons.net, biodev.org and biotechimc.org)

RECLAIM THE COMMONS

The Commons are all that is needed to support life on earth, such as water,
air, land, the forests and the oceans. The Commons also include our genes,
our food sources, wildlife and ecosystems. And the Commons include everthing
that is needed to sustain vibrant cultures: our multicultural heritages,
public and political spaces, education, information and the means to
disseminate it, the air waves, healthcare and other essential human
services. The Commons are everything that we inherit jointly and freely, and
hold in trust for future generations.

We are currently witnessing a massive theft of the global Commons by those
who would seek profit for the few at the expense of us all. Whether it is
the privatisation of water, the patenting of genes and seeds, or the
corporate takeover of public and political space, we oppose this
commodification of life wholeheartedly and choose to envision a better
world. We choose a world that is truly democratic, just, and sustainable; a
world in which every person's basic needs are met, wealth is equitably
distributed, and racial, economic and gender justice prevail. A world where
indigenous cultures are cherished and restitution is made to those that have
been exploited. We work towards a society based on thriving, regional
economies that are ecologically and economically sustainable, in which the
Commons are returned to public stewardship.

We call for an end to all privatization and destruction of the Commons, an
end to the use of biotechnology to further concentrate ownership and control
over food sources and health services, and to develop new weapons of war.
And an end to corporate control at all levels of government - from national
and international military & trade policies to the domestic agenda that
institutionalizes racism, sexism and poverty.

We call for true democracy, for all people to have a voice in the decisions
that affect them, for complete transparency in all decision-making
processes, and for every person's human rights to be honored and protected.

We, invite all those who value the quality of their own lives and those of
future generations to join us in reclaiming the Commons for the benefit of
all.

MORE GMO BANS

By the end of the summer, there were four more counties in California who
had gathered enough signatures to qualify for a vote on a GMO ban for the
November elections, and one more county, Trinity, which had already joined
Mendocino in passing an initiative banning GMO crops and animals.

The industry had studied its PR failure in Mendocino County, and put
together a far more sophisticated campaign to try to squash this burgeoning
movement towards a GMO free California. They realised in the Mendocino
campaign that people didn't like the look of corporations based thousands of
miles away pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into opposition to local
measures. So in the campaigns for the november elections the money was
funnelled through local pro-industrial pro-GMO farm groups, and the local
campaginers were made to look like the outsiders and the local farm
communities the ones who were opposed to the GMO free zones. This was added
to by a barrage of advertising on billboards, radio, newspapers and TV, as
well as the support of editorial boards of local corporate newspapers. This
was added to by systematic attacks from California University professors
with their careers tied up in genetic engineering. All in all this was a lot
for local groups with limited resources to deal with.

But this is an issue that people feel very affected by, and we were able to
do pretty well. We won with 61% of the vote in Marin County, and managed to
get about 40% of the vote in Butte and San Luis Obispo, which we were happy
with considering the opposition. Humboldt county had a lot of support for a
GMO ban, but the local group had to withdraw it's campaign due to problems
with the language they used for the proposed measure, and plan to
reintroduce a new one in the future. However, one of the main towns in
Humboldt county, Arcata, went ahead and introduced a local ban covering the
town limits.

So now what that means is that we have three counties in northern california
which are now GMO free zones, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin, and several
headed in this direction in 2005/3006. It is very likely that the industry
will make every effort to introduce a bill or legal challenge to undermine
these efforts, but it's not going to be entirely straightforward for them to
do so.

HAWAII

Hawaii has the highest concentration of experimental testing of GMOs
anywhere on the planet.

In one visit in February 2004 to a seed company planting experimental GMO
corn, I asked the corporate executive showing me around what he did with the
'barrier' corn. (This is the corn planted around the edges of the
experimental genetically engineered corn which is supposed to pick up most
of the pollen coming from the experimental corn as a 'barrier' to stop
genetic pollution. Hmm) He told me that this barrier corn was all destroyed,
but refused to say how. The following day I met with some of the local farm
workers who told me that they actually receive it as a bonus to take home
and feed their families.

Grassroots opposition to genetic engineering has been building steadily over
the last 2 year and there are now several groups very active across the
islands. These groups have been developing strategies to raise awareness and
starting to develop the political momentum needed to move towards a GMO free
Hawaii.

The first major victory in 2004 was a resolution against GM coffee passed by
the Hawaii coffee association. This was followed later in the year by a
resolution by Maui Land and Pine, one of the biggest Ag corporations on the
islands.

The groups in GMO-free Hawaii also released a study of contamination from
the world's first commercially planted genetically engineered tree, the
papaya. There has been widespread contamination of organic farms, wild lands
and household gardens by the genetically engineered papaya in Hawaii, and
the tests conducted by these groups showed the extent of this, and that even
the supposedly non-GMO seed sold by the University of Hawaii had low levels
of contamination.

Also being investigated are contamination and human health problems coming
from field experiments such as the pharmaceutical crops which have been
planted all over the islands. There has been no public right to know about
the location of these experiments, but in August a lawsuit was won against
the USDA ordering the USDA to reveal the location of these test sites.

See
<www.earthjustice.org/accomplishments/display.html?ID=204&friend=1&friend=2>

APPENDIX 1: HAWAII - NEWS RELEASE

News Release: 10/9/2004
New Research Reveals Widespread GMO Contamination and Threats to Local
Agriculture From the World's First Commercially Planted Genetically
Engineered Tree

Outraged Farmers, Consumers and Backyard Papaya Growers Return Contaminated
Papayas to the University of Hawaii in Crop Dump

Hilo, Hawaii -- Independent laboratory testing results released today reveal
widespread contamination from the world's first commercially planted
genetically engineered tree, the papaya, on Oahu, the Big Island, and Kauai.
Contamination was also found in the stock of non-genetically engineered
seeds being sold commercially by the University of Hawaii.

Farmers, health professionals, concerned citizens, and University of Hawaii
scientists joined GMO-Free Hawaii in announcing the shocking results of
their research at the University of Hawaii, which created and released the
GMO papaya. Dozens of outraged farmers, consumers and backyard growers
brought their contaminated papayas back to the university to underscore
their demand that UH provide a plan for cleaning up papaya contamination.
The campaign also called for liability protection for local growers and the
prevention of GMO contamination of other Hawaiian commodity crops.

All samples were tested by Genetic ID, one of the world's leading scientific
laboratories for genetic contamination testing. Composite samples from the
Big Island and Oahu both revealed GMO contamination. Nearly 20,000 papaya
seeds from across the Big Island, 80% of which came from organic farms and
the rest from backyard gardens or wild trees, showed a contamination level
of 50%. Oahu's composite of papayas, primarily from organic farms, showed
contamination of over 5%, and trace levels of contamination were found on an
organic farm on Kauai. One package of seed of the Solo Waimanalo papaya, a
non-genetically engineered variety purchased directly from the University of
Hawaii, also tested positive for GMO contamination.

"It is an outrage that UH is selling contaminated papaya seeds to our local
farmers and growers," said Toi Lahti, an organic farmer and papaya grower
from the Big Island. "Not only could organic farmers lose their
certification by growing genetically engineered papayas, GMO papaya seeds
are also patented by Monsanto among others. This opens farmers to lawsuits
for growing GMOs without paying patent fees first, even if they planted them
without their knowledge."

"These tests indicate that UH's non-GMO seed stock is contaminated, and so
there can be no doubt that the University must take immediate action to
protect farmers, consumers and the environment," said Mark Query of GMO-Free
Hawaii. "Papaya contamination is a case study in the threat that GMO
contamination presents to local agriculture. It is now obvious that
coexistence of traditional and GMO crops is impossible."

Farmers raised concerns about the impact the contamination crisis could have
on export markets, particularly to countries like Japan that have stringent
regulations about importing genetically engineered crops. "The Big Island is
home to most of the commercial GMO papaya fields in the state," said Melanie
Bondera, a farmer from Kona and member of the Hawaii Genetic Engineering
Action Network. "The continued planting of GMO crops risk giving Hawaiian
agriculture an undeservedly bad reputation in major export markets around
the world."

Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH, a public health specialist, discussed potential
human health threats posed by the GMO papaya and other GMO foods, including
increased antibiotic resistance and unexpected allergenic reactions. "All
of these concerns are troubling in themselves, but they would be less
worrisome if the GMO mutations did not spread beyond our intentions.
Today's report shows that they do," Dr. Pang said. "If a health problem
arises that is attributable to GMO foods, it will be impossible to recall
such a live, dangerous mutation once it has been released into the
environment."

Dr. Hector Valenzuela, a scientist specializing in tropical crops from UH
Manoa's Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, asserted that the
University's focus on promoting genetic engineering is steering Hawaiian
agriculture in the wrong direction. "Instead of supporting untested
technologies like genetic engineering, the University of Hawaii should
redirect their resources to focus on researching and promoting workable,
non-GMO solutions to local agricultural problems. Hawaii farmers need
agricultural advances that can protect their farms and our state's
agricultural economy over the long run."

Bondera outlined the campaign being launched by GMO-Free Hawaii based on
these contamination results. "Despite the problems local growers have had
with the GMO papaya, the University is now genetically engineering taro,
pineapple, banana, sugarcane, and other commodity crops," said Bondera.
"The problems with GMO papaya contamination show us that there are too many
unanswered questions about agricultural biotech to be releasing new
experimental genetically engineered organisms into our environment.
Hawaiian farmers want to see an immediate moratorium on the release of other
genetically engineered commodity crops, and a commitment from the University
to fund research into local, sustainable agriculture."

Contact: Melanie Bondera, Hawaii GEAN
(808)640-1643

Noli Hoye, GMO-Free Kauai
(808)651-9603
-------
APPENDIX 2: A collection of Articles About the Mendocino Initiative.

A. Text of Ordinance

B. Mendocino voters may decide on local ban of altered crops.
Sacramento Bee, November 19, 2003

C. California County Bans Planting of Biotech Crops, Reuters, Mar 3, 2004

D. Mendocino's Measure H backers overcome a huge fund-raising disadvantage.
Sacramento Bee March 3, 2004

E. Biotech, Timber Fails in Calif. Counties
AP

F. GMO = Get Monsanto Out?
AlterNet, March 3, 2004

G. Sonoma County may be a target next for bio-crop ban
Press Democrat, March 4, 2004

H. Biotech industry to fight vote against altered crops
Mercury News, Mar. 04, 2004

I.Biotech ban may sprout others
Sacramento Bee, March 5, 2004

J. Area growers wary after Mendocino measure passes
Sacramento Bee, March 6, 2004

K. Mendocino Sows Seeds of Dissent
San Francisco Chronicle, March 8, 2004
...
A.ORDINANCE:
The People of the County of Mendocino ordain as follows:

Section 1. Finding. The people of Mendocino County wish to protect the
county's agriculture, environment, economy, and private property from
genetic pollution by genetically modified organisms.

Section 2. Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation to propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically modified
organisms in Mendocino County.

Section 3. Definitions.
(a) Genetically modified organisms means specific organisms whose native
intrinsic DNA has been intentionally altered or amended with non species
specific DNA. For purposes of this ordinance, genetic modification does not
include organisms created by traditional breeding or hybridization, or to
microorganisms created by moving genes or gene segments between unrelated
bacteria.
(b) DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid means a complex protein that is present in
every cell of an organism and is the 'blueprint' for the organism's
development.
(c) Organism means any living thing.
(d) Agricultural Commissioner means the Agricultural Commissioner of
Mendocino County.

Section 4. Penalties.
(a) The Agricultural Commissioner shall notify any person, firm, or
corporation that may be in violation of Section 2 of this Ordinance, that
any organisms in violation of this Ordinance are subject to confiscation and
destruction.
(b) Any person, firm, or corporation that receives notification under
subparagraph (a) shall have five days to respond to such notification with
evidence that such organisms are not in violation of this Ordinance.
(c) Upon receipt of any evidence under paragraph (b), the Agricultural
Commissioner shall consider such evidence and any other evidence that is
presented or which is relevant to a determination of such violation. The
Agricultural Commissioner shall make such determination as soon as possible,
but at least before any genetic pollution may occur.
(d) Upon making a determination that a violation of this Ordinance exists,
the Agricultural Commissioner shall cause to be confiscated and destroyed
any such organisms that are in violation of this Ordinance before any
genetic pollution may occur.

(e) If the Agricultural Commissioner determines there has been a violation
of this Ordinance, in addition to confiscation and destruction of any
organisms that are found to be in violation, the Agricultural Commissioner
shall impose a monetary penalty on the person, firm, or corporation
responsible for the violation, taking into account the amount of damage, any
potential damage, and the willfulness of the person, firm, or corporation.
...
B. Biotech critics gain a victory
Mendocino voters may decide on local ban of altered crops.
By Mike Lee -- Bee Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/7812501p-8753480c.html

Voters in Mendocino County will have a chance to be the first in the nation
to ban the raising of genetically engineered crops.

Mendocino elections officials said Tuesday that backers of a biotech crop
ban have submitted enough valid signatures to earn a spot on the March
ballot.

The announcement marked a victory for a handful of organic enthusiasts who
started building support months ago, hoping to energize Northern California
anti-biotech activists and to draw out opposition on a topic of worldwide
debate.

The Mendocino Organic Network proposed the ban as a way to protect the
purity of the county's large and growing organic wine-grape industry from
genetic contamination. The nucleus of the signature drive was a couple who
run Ukiah Brewing Co., one of the nation's few all-organic brewpubs.

"It's very exciting to set the pace and not only protect our own county but
maybe set a precedent for other counties to follow," said Allen Cooperrider,
one of the owners.

The initiative is largely symbolic because no biotech crops are currently
grown in Mendocino, nor are there commercial genetically modified versions
of Mendocino's major crops, which include wine grapes and pears.

It's no surprise that the initiative took root in Mendocino, given the
county's history of organic farming, its large Green Party registration and
the pride many residents take in bucking corporate-driven movements.

"I think it will spawn other efforts in the state," said Dave Henson,
director of the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, a Sonoma County-based
environmental organization.

"People will see that there is an opportunity to take this issue into their
own hands," said Henson, who is working with environmentalists and farmers
to shape Sonoma's response to genetically engineered crops.

Even though Mendocino's signature drive succeeded, a vote might be delayed
until next fall if county supervisors decide at their Dec. 2 meeting to
further evaluate the impact of the proposed law. Supervisors could enact the
initiative themselves, but that seems unlikely at this point.

While county lawyers and politicians assess the initiative, opposition is
forming. The Mendocino County Farm Bureau has come out against the ban,
saying that it's bad policy for the county to undermine a technology
regulated by the federal government.

It's still not clear whether the biotech industry will try to defeat the
measure, as it did last fall when Oregon citizens unsuccessfully tried to
force labeling of biotech foods.

At the Sacramento-based California Plant Health Association, a large
association of fertilizer and pesticide companies, and at the Biotechnology
Industry Organization in Washington, D.C., officials are monitoring the
Mendocino initiative, but no action is planned.

The main concern of both organizations is that the initiative could limit
farmers' crop choices.

Genetic engineering involves moving genes among species in ways that can't
be done with traditional cross-breeding.

Studies show that Americans are largely ignorant about the use of biotech
ingredients in an estimated 75 percent of all processed foods. So far, their
inclusion has not proved harmful.

Sporadic opposition to biotechnology has surfaced in the United States,
including a protest that shut down Sacramento streets last summer and
spirited campaigns from Hawaii to Vermont to keep out biotech products.
None, however, has led to a ban on the growing of genetically engineered
crops.

Opposition is stronger in the European Union, where the government has
approved a strict labeling policy for genetically engineered foods, and in
developing countries. A few developing countries have refused biotech grain
donated by the United States.

Major concerns include the environmental and human risks inherent in
tinkering with nature. Proponents say the technology offers a way to reduce
pesticide use and, potentially, a way to grow healthier foods.

In a sign of the increasing import of the worldwide debate, the Vatican last
week convened a panel of experts on biotechnology to help shape church
policy.

Closer to home, Bay Area anti-biotech activists are watching to see if
Mendocino's landmark ban prevails.

"I think it would be pretty inspiring," said Devi Peri of GE-Free Marin in
Fairfax.

"It seems like in a place like Marin, which is pretty progressive, it's got
a lot of possibilities."

Even if all Bay Area counties followed Mendocino's lead, however, it would
have little immediate effect given that major biotech crops -- corn,
soybeans, cotton and canola -- aren't agricultural staples in Northern
California.

But genetically modified fruit and nut trees are being developed, and the
ecology center's Henson said Mendocino's initiative could generate important
discussion before they arrive.

"We need literacy," he said. "Our task is to keep it in the public eye."
...
C. California County Bans Planting of Biotech Crops
By Carey Gillam
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=4490762
Reuters
Wed Mar 3, 2004 02:35 PM ET

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Opponents of genetically modified foods celebrated a
historic victory on Wednesday after voters approved a measure Tuesday night
to make Mendocino County, California, the first in the nation to ban
genetically modified crops and animals.

The ban was approved despite strong opposition from biotech companies
including Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., which have successfully defeated
similar measures elsewhere around the United States.

"We won! We beat the biotech bullies," Laura Hamburg, spokesperson for the
"Yes on Measure H" campaign, said on Wednesday. "The people emerged as
victorious. We're sending Monsanto and the rest of the biotech corporate
club packing in Mendocino County."

The measure bans the planting of biotech crops and the raising of livestock
that have been genetically altered. Supporters said the designation as a
biotech-free county should make products grown there more marketable,
particularly to Europe where antibiotech sentiment is strong.

Officials with Monsanto and Dupont were not immediately available for
comment.

Biotech proponents spent more than $600,000 to defeat the measure, compared
to about $80,000 raised by its supporters.

Hamburg said the 80,000 residents in the northern California county,
including about 50,000 voters, are closely tied to agriculture and are
dedicated to preserving the purity of the vineyards and other agricultural
resources there.

"We're part of a growing grass-roots movement of people all over the world
standing up to the biotech industry," said Hamburg.

More initiatives are being organized to stop the spread of biotech crops.

Drives similar to Mendocino's effort are being planned in other California
counties, and a bill is pending in Vermont that would place a two-year
moratorium on planting and growing genetically modified crops.

In North Dakota, where Monsanto is planning to roll out the world's first
genetically altered wheat, opponents are renewing efforts to at least
temporarily prohibit the biotech crop.

Two years ago, consumer groups in Oregon tried to pass a measure requiring
labeling of genetically modified foods, but lost after a coalition of
biotech companies, including Monsanto, spent some $5.5 million to kill the
initiative.

The vote in California comes amid widespread concerns globally about the
genetic modification of crops.

Last week, countries across Asia, Africa, Europe and most of Latin America
agreed to tighter rules governing trade in gene-modified seeds, over the
opposition of the United States.

The United States has steadfastly defended the spread of biotech crops and
has pushed a WTO complaint against the European Union for keeping its
borders closed to the altered foods. Last month, the U.S. Department of
State's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs launched a Web site
dedicated to biotech crop development information.

Biotech crop critics say the government is putting corporate interests ahead
of the public interest.

They say the technology has not been fully tested to determine if it will
cause health problems or irreversible harm to the environment. They also say
it does little to address world hunger and health problems and offers only
minimal benefits to some farmers, while contaminating conventional and
organic crops.

Story by Carey Gillam
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
---
D. Anti-biotech measure approved
Mendocino's Measure H backers overcome a huge fund-raising disadvantage
By Edie Lau -- Bee Science Writer

Published 2:15 a.m. PST Wednesday, March 3, 2004
UKIAH - Demonstrating that money doesn't buy everything, Mendocino County
voters Tuesday made it illegal to grow genetically modified organisms in
their community. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, the vote was 56
percent to 44 percent in support of Measure H and against "GMOs."

The decision has no immediate practical effect, because no genetically
engineered plants or animals are grown or reared in the county. But the vote
has tremendous symbolic value: It established the only anti-GMO law in the
nation, and supporters overcame a 6-1 disadvantage in campaign spending.
"They got the money; we got the people!" said an exuberant Els Cooperrider,
co-owner of an organic-foods restaurant and brew pub in Ukiah. Cooperrider,
a former scientific researcher, thought up the initiative as a way of
educating the public about biotechnology.

"It is unfortunate, but the voters have spoken," said Elizabeth Brazil,
manager of the "No on H" campaign.

The fight over Measure H resulted in the most expensive election in
Mendocino County history, attracting national attention and funding.

As of Monday afternoon, Measure H foes had collected $621,566, of which
$600,000 came from CropLife America, a Washington, D.C.-based organization
whose members include Monsanto Co., Bayer CropScience and Dow AgroSciences,
leading developers of biotech crops.

Measure H advocates raised $93,525. Their largest single donation was
$23,903 from the Center for Food Safety, an environmental group also in
Washington, D.C.

The county measure prohibits growing genetically modified plants or animals
locally.

The measure does not affect food sold in grocery stores that may contain
engineered ingredients, nor animal feed.

Genetic engineering involves the manipulation of DNA in ways not possible
through traditional breeding. By splicing genes from one organism to
another, scientists have been able to create, for example, corn that
produces an insecticidal toxin normally made by bacteria.

The United States is the No. 1 producer of biotech crops, accounting for 63
percent of 167 million acres worldwide. Four crops dominate: corn, soybeans,
canola and cotton.

With their future potentially at stake, major agricultural biotechnology
companies have worked doggedly to squelch protest efforts in this country.

A proposal in Oregon to label biotech foods went before voters in November
2002 and attracted $5 million in funding from industry, which opposes
labeling. The measure failed, 71 percent to 29 percent.
---
E. Biotech, Timber Fails in Calif. Counties
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=753&e=3&u=/ap/20040
304/ap_on_sc/no_gmo_election

PHILO, Calif. - Voters along California's wild north coast defeated the
biotech and timber industries, imposing the nation's first ban on raising
genetically engineered crops and animals and beating back a logging
company's effort to recall a crusading local prosecutor.

Activists said Tuesday's stunning defeat of biotechnology in Mendocino
County breathes momentum into similar local efforts just now getting
underway nationwide, setting up a series of regulations the industry
desperately wants
to avoid - and a big reason it spent so much money here....
---
F. GMO = Get Monsanto Out?
By David Kupfer, AlterNet
March 3, 2004
www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18027

Signaling a turning point in the effort to halt the introduction of GMO
crops in the U.S., the citizens of Mendocino county today dramatically
approved a
countywide measure that prohibits the "propagation, cultivation, raising and
growing of genetically modified organisms."

With 98% of the precincts reporting, the final tally was 56.34% for and
43.66% against.

Measure H, which had wide support from county residents, farmers, wineries,
business owners, and even the County Sheriff, is the first county wide ban
on GE crops in the US. It's is sure to be felt around the nation and world.

CropLife America - a national lobbying group representing agribusiness
giants like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow - pumped an unprecedented $518,000 into
the opposition's smear campaign to defeat the initiative and is expected to
attack the measure in court. The proponents of Measure H spent $79,000,
raised mostly from small local contributions.

"The County has never seen anything like this campaign. This victory means
the people of Mendocino County saw through the bullying of corporations that
were trying to undermine the democratic process. These multibillion dollar
corporations underestimated our savvy citizenry. Passage of Measure H is
just the beginning. We're the first county... but the revolution is just
starting," said Els Cooperider, the community leader who spearheaded Measure
H and co-owner of the certified all organic Ukiah Brewery.

"This is a great day for local democracy. It's a demonstration of citizens
taking control at the most immediate level-which is at home in the places
where they live," said Doug Mosel, Yes on H's Campaign Coordinator. "It's an
example of local government at it's best, acting to protect it's citizens
and the local economy and future generations. In our present climate of
corporate
domination of the food system this is a reclaiming of responsibility for
agriculture at a local level. This amazing local campaign demonstrates where
transnational corporations are vulnerable. No amount of money can replace
the love and commitment of people who care passionately about the place
where they live."...
---
G. Sonoma County may be a target next for bio-crop ban
Vote expected next year at earliest; group in Humboldt may put issue on
November ballot
March 4
Santa Rosa Press Democrat

Activists in Sonoma and Humboldt counties already are planning local
initiatives to ban genetically engineered crops in the wake of Tuesday's
vote in Mendocino County, which became the first in the nation to prohibit
such crops.

A Humboldt County measure is being prepared for the November ballot, and
Sonoma County organizers are targeting an election next year or beyond.

Meanwhile, the biotech industry is considering a lawsuit to strike down
Mendocino County's ban and may go to Sacramento or Washington to pre-empt
local initiatives.

"We have to do something. With all the political subdivisions in the
country, if every county started regulating what we do, the industry would
grind to a halt," industry spokesman Allen Noe said.

Despite the uncertain legal future for Mendocino's Measure H, organic food
interests around the state and across the nation were overjoyed by Tuesday's
election.

"We're really excited about the success of Measure H," said David Henson of
the Occidental Art and Ecology Center.

Mendocino voters by a vote of 56 percent to 44 percent approved the
precedent-setting crop ban, a vote that's attracting attention around the
globe. The nation's agricultural biotechnology industry spent nearly
$700,000 to defeat Measure H, which it feared would trigger similar efforts.

Those fears have come to pass.

The Occidental center is part of a statewide coalition working to limit
genetically engineered crops in California. At present, only gene-altered
cotton is grown in the state, although a genetically engineered rice variety
could be available for planting as soon as next year.

Sonoma County activists are likely to pursue an initiative to ban
genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, Henson said.

"It's certainly the best way to allow the people of the county to have their
say," Henson said.

However, there are no plans to try to place a measure on the November
ballot, he said.

"We think it very important to have a robust discussion in the community
about how to keep Sonoma GMO-free instead of rushing to place an initiative
on the November ballot," Henson said.

In Humboldt County, however, activists are not waiting.

"We're hitting the ground running, thanks to Mendocino," said Michael Gann,
who's helping coordinate a new petition drive to qualify a similar
initiative on the November ballot.

The passage of Measure H was a stunning victory for supporters, who were
outspent 7-to-1 by the nation's biggest producers of biotechnology crops
used in agriculture.

CropLife America, a Washington-based consortium of biotech crop producers
that include Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience, filed a late
contribution report on Election Day showing it had dumped another $175,000
into the No on H campaign.

With the last-minute donation, CropLife America has provided $675,000 of the
$696,566 raised by Measure H opponents.

In a county with 47,000 registered voters, Measure H foes spent about $60
for each of the 11,420 "no" votes cast.

Measure H advocates raised about $105,000, with the largest donation of
$23,905 coming from the Center for Food Safety, based in Washington.

On Wednesday, CropLife spokesman Noe defended the spending, contending the
group only had eight weeks to "change minds, clarify misconceptions and
address fears" about a technology that is coming under increasing scrutiny.

"This kind of measure would never get traction in the Midwest, where growers
have been working intimately with genetically engineered crops for years,"
Noe said.

The agriculture biotech industry fears a "domino effect" in California as
the result of the Mendocino vote.

How to stop that is unclear, Noe said.

"We're regrouping, and considering our options," he said.

It's possible Measure H will be challenged in the courts, he said.

The biotech industry also may seek comprehensive legislation in Sacramento
or Washington. The industry believes federal regulatory review is better
than state, said Noe and Steve Beckley of the California Plant Health
Association, which helped coordinate the CropLife campaign.

"There's tremendous ongoing international trade considerations associated
with this issue, along with the complexity of the science itself. We believe
only the federal government has the resources to regulate the industry," Noe
said.

Beckley said creating a state level of regulatory review will only add to
the "anti-business climate that confronts California."

Measure H supporters said the concerns were sour grapes.

"We won because we had the people behind us. They learned you can't buy
that," said Allen Cooperrider, treasurer of the Yes on Measure H campaign.

You can reach Staff Writer Mike Geniella at 462-6470 or
mgeniella@pressdemocrat.com.
---
H. Biotech industry to fight vote against altered crops
HUMBOLDT ACTIVISTS FOLLOW MENDOCINO EXAMPLE
Mercury News, Mar. 04, 2004
By Paul Jacobs
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2784

The biotechnology industry is considering a lawsuit or statewide legislation
to nullify a successful Mendocino County ballot initiative, the first in the
country to outlaw the growing of genetically modified crops.

At the same time, activists in at least one other rural Northern California
county, Humboldt, are already at work on an identical initiative and hope to
gather enough signatures to qualify it for their local ballot in November.

Backers of Mendocino County's Measure H were jubilant Wednesday after they
won almost 57 percent of the vote for a homegrown initiative that bans the
raising of genetically engineered organisms -- animals as well as plants --
within the county.

"This is just the beginning of the revolution," said Els Cooperrider, an
author of the initiative and co-owner of the Ukiah Brewing Company &
Restaurant, which became headquarters for the yes-on-Measure H campaign.
``We're the first county in the U.S. to prohibit the growing of genetically
altered crops and animals, but we won't be the last."

They won even though they were outspent by a ratio of more than 6-to-1 by
opponents, who raised more than $600,000 -- most of it from CropLife
America, a trade and lobbying group representing the largest producers of
genetically engineered seed in the world, including Monsanto, DuPont and
Dow.

The measure's backers spent about $100,000 in a mostly volunteer effort that
was headquartered in an establishment they say is the country's first
certified organic brew pub, in the town of Ukiah.

"We're obviously disappointed with the outcome," said CropLife Vice
President Allan Noe. "We're regrouping to see what our options are. They
could be legislative. They could be legal."

In the past, county efforts to restrict local use of agricultural pesticides
have been voided by the state Legislature, and a similar fate could await
the Mendocino County crop ban.

Backers of the measure saw their effort as the beginning of a national
movement that could spread county by county across the country.

Said Doug Mosel, the campaign's chief coordinator: "One of the lessons is
that at the local level we can take control of our agricultural system where
it can't be bought off by corporate money." Mosel pointed out that the
opponents spent almost $55 per no vote in a campaign featuring a constant
barrage of radio advertising and direct mail.

For the past month, a group organized by several Green Party activists has
been trying to gather the 4,400 voter signatures needed to qualify an
identical measure for Humboldt County.

In just six days of actively circulating its petition, the volunteer group,
calling itself Humboldt Green Genes, has 1,200 signatures and is well on its
way to qualifying for the November ballot, said Michael Gann, co-chair of
the group.

"We copied their words," Gann said of the successful Mendocino County
effort. "They were a model for us and still are now."

A group in vineyard-rich Sonoma County also is trying to build a coalition
for a local ban on genetically engineered crops.
---
I. Biotech ban may sprout others
Mendocino County's action rattles genetic engineering industry
By Edie Lau and Mike Lee -- Bee Staff Writers
Friday, March 5, 2004

The 14,839 voters who this week banned genetically modified organisms in
Mendocino County have shaken the establishment far beyond their small North
Coast community.

Their success, the first in the United States, is encouraging voters in at
least two, and maybe as many as nine, other California counties to consider
pushing similar prohibitions on "GMOs," as the biotechnology products are
called.

"We're next," exulted Martha Devine, a leader of the Humboldt Green Genes,
which is gathering signatures for a ballot measure in November.

Fearful of growing anti-GMO sentiment in California and nationally, the
biotech industry vowed to continue fighting Mendocino's initiative.

"I don't think we can afford to let it stand," said Allan Noe, spokesman for
CropLife America, the industry trade group that almost single-handedly
funded the No on Measure H campaign.

CropLife contributed $600,000 of the $621,566 raised to fight the ban.
Supporters raised $93,525, a disparity of more than 6-to-1.

But the side with less money got more votes. Unofficial election results
showed 14,839 yes votes to 11,420 no votes.

As returns came in Tuesday night, the Ukiah Brewing Co., an organic-foods
restaurant and bar where Measure H was born, overflowed with celebrants,
many of whom had given time to the campaign. Three blocks away, the
opposition headquarters was dark, closed and empty, a "for lease" sign
hanging outside.

Measure H makes it illegal to grow genetically engineered life forms in
Mendocino County. Its power is not in the act itself - no known biotech
plants or animals are being raised in the county - but in the statement it
makes.

"Now people are going to realize, 'Wow, (if) Mendocino .. can say no, maybe
we can say no,' " said Adam Gaska, 25, an organic farmer and Yes on H
volunteer.

Genetically modified organisms are produced through gene splicing, a
technique that enables scientists to move genes among plants, animals and
microbes in ways that are impossible through conventional breeding.

The biotech industry and U.S. government maintain that genetic engineering
is a benign tool that can be used to lessen agricultural pollution,
including the use of herbicides and pesticides, and to improve crop yields,
among other things.

Skeptics say the technology is too young to be sure of its safety, so its
adoption should be slowed and monitored more closely.

The first biotech crop went to market in 1994. Today, 167 million acres
worldwide are planted in biotech crops, chiefly corn, cotton, soybeans and
canola engineered to produce their own insecticides or withstand treatment
by herbicides. The United States is the world's top producer.

The biotech industry is expected to challenge Mendocino's ban on the grounds
that it preempts federal regulations. It also may seek to override the ban
through state legislation.

Surprised that the ban passed, CropLife's Noe speculated that opponents were
hampered by the brevity of the campaign: The initiative qualified for the
ballot three months before the election.

"The tactic of creating fear of the unknown was, in this short time frame,
difficult to disarm," Noe said.

The issue of local control is one Dave Henson hopes will resonate in Sonoma
County. Henson, director of the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center there, is
eyeing a possible no-GMO ballot measure next year.

"Farmers and environmentalists have to beware that biotech corporations are
going to try to take away our rights to control our local economies," he
said.

Els Cooperrider, a brew pub co-owner and former scientific researcher who
dreamed up the Mendocino initiative to educate the public about genetically
engineered food, said on election night that voters from nine counties had
contacted her about similar measures. Cooperrider declined to identify the
counties, except for Humboldt, for fear of tipping off the industry.

Maverick counties could force debate in Sacramento over an issue that the
state mostly ignores. Anna Blackshaw, a consultant for the state Senate
select committee on international trade and state policy, said Mendocino's
ban delivers a "political imperative" for more action by the nation's
largest farming state.

"Cities and localities ... want to see California play a bigger role," she
said.

Any prospective change in state role likely would be influenced by the
biotech industry, whose leaders are particularly concerned about what they
perceive as an undercurrent of anti-technology sentiment expressed in
Measure H.

"It's sending a negative message in a state where we rely on science to
create the technology and the jobs of the future," said Joe Panetta,
president and CEO of BIOCOM San Diego, a major industry trade group.

Panetta and dozens more biotech leaders were in Sacramento this week for an
annual visit with legislators. A special "Measure H working group" was
dispatched to stem anti-biotech momentum.

"What we don't want to see is bad information getting into the hands of
members of the Legislature who might decide that it would be appropriate to
ban genetically improved crops in California," Panetta said.

In Mendocino, meanwhile, county Agricultural Commissioner David Bengston
took steps to enforce the new ban. He directed an inspector to study a list
of plants that have been engineered and to watch for those varieties during
her routine morning checks of shipments arriving through carriers, such as
FedEx.

He also asked the manager of the county's largest seed supplier to ask his
sources which varieties are genetically engineered.

He said although most such crops are grown in the Midwest, he can't treat
the ban as simply symbolic. "You can't do that with an initiative," he said.
"... I'm not taking it lightly at all."

Moreover, the initiative could inspire a new rebellion - one against the
ban. "I would guess there's GMO material in the county right now," Bengston
said. "I've had people tell me, if it passes, they're going to plant GMO
plants."

In other states, resistance to genetic engineering could cause immediate
practical problems for an industry that has benefited from consumers' being
ignorant or indifferent on biotech foods.

Perhaps the most important anti-biotech action is taking shape in the
Dakotas, where Monsanto Co. aims to sell wheat that withstands the company's
flagship weedkiller Roundup.

A proposal to ban genetically engineered wheat was defeated in the North
Dakota Senate in 2001, but residents are pushing a ballot initiative, and
farm groups are aiming for more legislation.

Bill Wenzel, national director of the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign on Genetic
Engineering, said Mendocino's success adds fuel to an anti-biotech movement
from Hawaii to Vermont.

"So far, we have been looking at a few brush fires (of resistance) here and
there," he said, "but increasingly this is becoming a bigger issue that
could in all likelihood result in a prairie fire."
---
J. Area growers wary after Mendocino measure passes
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: March 6, 2004, 08:16:32 AM PST
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/8239977p-9086044c.html

The passage of a controversial farming measure in distant Mendocino County
has some Northern San Joaquin Valley growers wondering if similar
restrictions could take root here.

Measure H, which bans the "propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of
genetically modified organisms in Mendocino County" was approved by 56
percent of that county's voters.

Few genetically modified crops, known as GMOs, are being produced in
California. The early research has focused on grain crops produced in the
Midwest and in foreign countries.

Mendocino is the first county in the nation to ban GMOs, plants and animals
whose "inherent DNA" is intentionally altered with "non-species-specific
DNA."

"It's Mendocino now, but it could become an issue in Stanislaus or another
county in the valley," said Jim Duarte, president of Duarte Nursery in
Hughson.

Growers and environmentalists in Humboldt and Sonoma counties were
developing similar measures even before Measure H was approved Tuesday.

"This is an issue that worries people, farmers and consumers, because we're
still learning how GMOs affect our environment," said Dave Watts, owner of
Sanhedrin Nursery in Willits and a Measure H supporter. "We don't want to
stop progress, we just want to make sure that it's safe."

Despite the lack of GMO crops in California, there is plenty of livestock in
the valley, including poultry and cattle, that dine on GMO grains.

Valley consumers expressed mixed views on the subject, ranging from curious
to concerned.

Safety, taste concern shoppers

Shoppers emerging from the Save Mart grocery store at Oakdale Road and
Scenic Avenue in Modesto said their priority was food safety and taste, but
they also asked if GMO foods would impact the price of food.

Researchers said they won't know that until more GMO foods are introduced to
the market.

Measure H also attracted attention because of the resources biotechnology
and chemical companies threw into their unsuccessful bid to defeat the
proposal.

More than $600,000 was spent trying to defeat the measure, according to
financial campaign records. CropLife America, a Washington, D.C. trade group
representing biotech companies, donated the majority of it.

Supporters of Measure H spent less than $100,000 on their effort.

Concerns about the impact of GMOs on human health, existing crops and even
the farm economy have been prominent in the United States and abroad. Many
European countries refuse to accept GMO-processed foods, including corn,
soybeans and livestock that consume such grains.

"Companies that benefit from GMOs are pushing products to market too
quickly," said Watts, a nursery owner for 20 years. "We run a terrible risk
letting these get into our food supply while there are still questions."

Hailed by its proponents as a victory for farmers, some in the valley say
it's a step backward.

"Banning GMOs is pointing us back to the dark ages," Duarte said. "I realize
the need to be cautious, but a ban like this only creates more fear about a
product that could truly benefit people."

The California Farm Bureau Federation and other growers' groups in the
valley expressed similar concerns about the law.

Measure H doesn't outlaw traditional breeding methods or hybridization,
which researchers have used to give consumers juicier nectarines, heartier
tomatoes and exotic varieties, including pluots and cherry-plums.

Nor does the measure prohibit GMO foods from being sold in stores or served
in restaurants.

Duarte said public concern of GMO foods is already affecting the industry.
The research arm of his nursery recently stopped work on GMO plants because
it couldn't identify a market that would warrant the investment.

"How do we sell a GMO tree to a grower, when four years from now, there
might not be anyone to buy his product?" Duarte said.

Bee staff writer Richard T. Estrada can be reached at 578-2316 or
restrada@modbee.com.
---
K. Mendocino Sows Seeds of Dissent
Monday, March 8, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle
by Ken Garcia
www.commondreams.org/views04/0308-02.htm

THE BIOTECH corporations producing genetically engineered plants have spent
years trying to create seeds that are immune to a variety of pests and
insecticides. But they can't find a formula to stop the rise in
contamination of their public image and tactics.

So-called "Franken-food" producers like the Monsanto, DuPont and Dow
companies have spawned a real monster -- a growing movement in agricultural
communities to ban genetically altered crops, the corporations' DNA-modified
bread and butter.

Nowhere in the country is this more evident than in Northern California,
where rural Mendocino County last week became the nation's first region to
ban genetically modified organisms from being raised within its borders. It
was of such a serious concern to the multibillion-dollar biotech industry
that it spent nearly $700,000 trying to defeat the measure, nearly $60 for
every man, woman and child in the county.

The upshot? It looks as if a number of neighboring counties are prepared to
follow suit -- officials in Humboldt, Sonoma and Marin counties are said to
be contemplating similar ordinances and several states are considering even
more strict initiatives. Indeed, the movement to ban genetically modified
plants and foods is sweeping the country almost faster than same-sex
marriage.

"This is the first time people have taken on these corporate giants and
won,'' said Laura Hamburg, a spokeswoman for Mendocino County's Measure H
campaign, which won with nearly 57 percent of the vote. "It's a sign of hope
and inspiration for grassroots movements around the country.''

The grass is definitely not greener for the synthetic-life-producing biotech
giants who have been battling skirmishes on fronts from Oregon to France.
Organic food producers -- one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative
segments of U.S. agriculture -- have stepped up their efforts to market
their products as better, healthier alternatives to gene-altered plants and
animals. Recent findings by independent scientists regarding contamination
of conventional crops by mysteriously wandering DNA-manipulated pollen have
heightened fears among farmers about future crop damage.

A few weeks ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a respected health and
environmental group, released a 70-page report that found that a surprising
amount of the U.S. supply of regular crop seeds had been contaminated with
strands of genetically-altered DNA.

The study, "Gone to Seed,'' concluded that more than two-thirds of 36
conventional canola, soy and corn seeds contained traces of DNA from
genetically enhanced crops. The report warned that if the United States
can't do a better job of safeguarding its food supply, it would be nearly
impossible to guarantee any portion of it would be free of
genetically-altered elements.

Such a finding for an already leery public is the worst possible news for
the likes of Monsanto, which is facing fever-pitched opposition to
DNA-altered products in European and Asian trade markets. Couple that with
the fact that wine-growing regions such as Mendocino see organic products as
a way to market themselves competitively to foreign buyers and you
understand why the biochemical giants are spending millions trying to stomp
out similar political uprisings.

The Mendocino County fight was sown with seeds of desperation from the
start. Rather than deal with science and safety questions, the opponents of
the genetic plant ban focused on phantom issues such as increased taxes. The
slick mailers and radio ads delivered during the stretch run of the campaign
also intimated that farmers would suffer an invasion of privacy from
agricultural inspectors -- a pretty clever ploy in a county where marijuana
is the No. 1 cash crop.

Yet it's clear that attempting to stave off similar campaigns in the future
is going to take more than just endless pockets of money. In California,
where organic farming is booming, producing grapes and other crops that have
been certified "uncontaminated'' will certainly be a major marketing pitch
for foreign countries that are nearly rabid about genetically modified
organisms.

With major wine producers stretching from Southern California to Washington
state, it's only a matter of time before the debate over engineered seeds
begins to take root.

The biotech agricultural companies are in a position similar to where the
tobacco industry was a decade ago, fighting wave after wave of legal, safety
and health challenges from individuals, cities and states. The backlash
won't be easily contained -- it's already blowing in the wind.

?2004 San Francisco Chronicle
---
APPENDIX III: Media Reports On Other GMO Bans

One More California county bans genetically engineered organisms
Nov 4, 2004
http://www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/14979

Over the past year California has become an epicenter in the global struggle
to stop the use of GE in agriculture. In March 2004, voters in Mendocino
approved a measure to become the first county in the United States to ban GE
crops. In August, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors voted to become
the second. Many other counties, including Sonoma, Alameda, and Santa
Barbara, are organizing to pass similar measures. Arcata is likely to become
the first US city to ban GE crops when the city council votes at a November
3rd meeting.
---
Arcata to move forward with anti-GMO ordinance
By Meghan Vogel The Times-Standard
November 04, 2004
http://www.organicconsumers.org/biod/arcata110804.cfm

ARCATA -- The Arcata City Council unanimously voted to move forward with an
ordinance banning genetically modified crops in the city, which will be up
for final adoption on Nov. 17.

The ordinance was once again before the council on Wednesday night. The
city's Open Space/Agriculture Committee had recommended the city slow down
on the ordinance to gather more community input -- specifically more input
from the agricultural community. The council, however, felt the ordinance
was already solid, and recent improvements to its language have made it even
more so.

Arcata attorney Greg Allen, who requested the city look at such an
ordinance, said the adoption of such an ordinance was important not only for
Humboldt County, but for the rest of the state.
---
Responding to Assault on County Initiatives to Ban GE Crops, by Doug Mosel

All sides in the critical debate about genetically engineered crops surely
realize that the more the public learns about this experimental technology
and its track record, the more they have reservations about it. The
Charlotte Observer reported on November 3 that public acceptance of food
biotechnology is declining.

Is this why Ted Sheely, his Truth About Trade and Technology group
(Chronicle, 10/28), and their activist allies in the Farm Bureau,
Cattlemen's Association and universities teamed up in a blistering assault
on the recent ballot measures to ban GE crops in Butte and San Luis Obispo
Counties?

Last March the grassroots victory over the biotech industry-funded campaign
against Measure H in Mendocino County inspired citizens in four California
counties to place similar measures on the November 2 ballot.

Determined never to permit a repeat of their March loss, industry allies
studied how Measure H was passed against such odds. It must be said that
they learned well, and strategized the defeat of the Butte and San Luis
Obispo measures.

One assessment for the biotech forces was conducted by a UC Cooperative
Extension (UCCE) advisor from Mendocino County and the UCCE biotechnology
specialist at UC Berkeley. They concluded that UC scientists can address
people's concerns about genetic engineering by providing "factual
information."

It would have been of great service to voters in both counties if they could
have counted on scientists from UC Davis, UC Berkeley and Cal Poly for
unbiased information about genetically engineered crops.

Instead, voters heard scientists from these public institutions sing the
praises of GE crops - a far cry from presenting a factual assessment of this
still controversial technology.

Sadly, considerable doubt has been cast on the public trust in university
research on GE crops. An industry-sponsored program at UC Berkeley exists to
teach scientists how to "talk biotechnology in the community."

The California State University biotechnology program (CUSUPERB) adopted an
official public position opposing the county initiatives in California.

Over the last ten years UC Davis received almost $10 million from the
agbiotech giants. Of the GE crop research there, Paul Gepts, professor of
agronomy and plant genetics, recently said, "On this campusŠthere is
actually very little research going on - no organized effort - about the
environmental effects of GMOs."

UC Berkeley researcher Ignacio Chapela published a study that found genetic
contamination of traditional maize crops in Mexico. So great was the
industry pressure on Nature, the journal where his study appeared, that the
editors disavowed his research. Dr. Chapela, who had also questioned the
$25 million partnership between UCB and biotech company Novartis, was
refused tenure in 2003.

The debate about genetically engineered crops in California is hardly over.
Over-whelming two under-funded local ballot initiatives with Farm
Bureau-funded TV spots laced with misleading, fear-based information is not
the last word.

In the next few years, citizens will bring new initiatives before voters to
insure that there is no further genetic contamination of food and fields in
California.

In the campaigns to come, how can the public trust university scientists for
"factual information" about genetic engineering when their input is so
important to informed decisions?

The citizen initiatives springing up all over California are fine examples
of people taking responsibility for the future of food. They exemplify
courageous action from the heart, standing against heavily-bankrolled
campaigns of misinformation.

At stake is the right of citizens to safeguard the integrity of the world's
seed supply, our health and environment, and for generations to come, the
gene pool on which Life itself depends.

Doug Mosel, Redwood Valley, CA, coordinated the campaign that made Mendocino
County the first in the nation to ban the growing of genetically engineered
crops.

****************************************************************************

This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's
Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the
Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org <http://www.eco-farm.org/>
****************************************************************************