Lake County votes to ban GMO crops

<p>Lake County on Tuesday became the latest in the region to ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops.</p><p>Voters in both Mendocino and Marin counties approved bans on growing genetically modified crops in 2004. Unlike in those counties, Lake County supervisors, not voters, made the decision.</p><p>They approved the ordinance on a 3-2 vote following 3½ hours of contentious public debate.</p><p>Sonoma County voters rejected a ban in 2005 and Napa County has not taken up the issue.</p><p>More than 100 people packed the Lake County Board of Supervisors chambers on Tuesday. Most of about 20 people who spoke favored the ban drafted by Supervisor Ed Robey.</p><p>Proponents said the ban will protect the county's burgeoning organic growers from potential contamination by genetically engineered crops and help create a lucrative niche market for farmers' products.</p><p>"This is a real opportunity for Lake County," said Jim Fetzer, owner of Ceago vineyards and a successful pioneer of biodynamic organic winegrape cultivation in both Lake and Mendocino counties.</p><p>His growing methods have attracted worldwide attention and have been featured in numerous national publications, including the New York Times Magazine, Sunset magazine and Time.</p><p>While opponents were outnumbered at Tuesday's meeting, they presented 270 signatures against the ban. They worry a ban would prevent farmers from utilizing new technology that could make agriculture more sustainable and cost effective.</p><p>"My big fear is we won't get some of the great new tools that are developed," said grape grower Broc Zoller.</p><p>Opponents also said they didn't need more government intervention in their lives. "Get out of our business," market owner Kenny Parlet said during an animated discourse against government intervention.</p><p>Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March said he doubted there is an economic advantage to farmers in a county where GMOs are banned unless it's also linked to organic produce.</p><p>Both sides said the other had no proof to back their beliefs about GMOs.</p><p>The lack of definitive, unbiased studies is precisely why the county needs the ordinance, said Supervisor Tony Farrington.</p><p>He said he investigated various studies about genetically engineered crops and found that favorable ones were inevitably funded by the biochemical companies that produce GMOs and that those against were funded by organic farming interests.</p><p>Farrington said the county wouldn't need to regulate GMOs if state and federal authorities could be trusted to take the lead, but they're the ones who initially said that now banned substances such as asbestos, saccharine and the gasoline additive MTBE were safe.</p><p>"I have as much faith in our state and federal government as I do in Elvis Presley being alive," Farrington said.</p><p>Because it's a county ordinance, it can be changed at any time to accommodate new studies and scientific breakthroughs that are safe and help farmers, he said.</p><p>The ordinance specifically states that there can be exceptions to the ban. It includes an exception for crops grown for pharmaceutical purposes, which led to several cracks Tuesday about marijuana production.</p><p>Supervisors also added a requirement that a working group of stakeholders be formed to develop ways to fine tune the ordinance, which will be in effect for a year.</p><p>The approval followed nearly five years of discussion and a failed attempt to pass a version two years ago.</p><p>Supervisor Denise Rushing, who was elected to the board last year, was the swing vote on Tuesday's decision.</p><p>Supervisors Rob Brown and Jeff Smith voted no.</p><p>The ordinance will take effect 30 days after its final approval, scheduled for Nov. 4.</p><p>You can reach Staff Writer Glenda Anderson at 462-6473 or glenda.anderson@pressdemocrat.com.</p>