GE in the News

Search Our Site

Enter your search keywords:

07/07/06 - Bill would prevent counties from regulating GMOs

Local laws already on the books would be exempt from the bill if it is approved

Ali Bay - Capital Press, Friday, July 7, 2006

SACRAMENTO — For the second time in a year lawmakers are considering a bill that would prevent local governing bodies from regulating genetically modified seeds or crops.

The Assembly Committee on Agriculture unanimously approved Senate Bill 1056 on June 28, stating that state seed laws and regulations controlling the registration, sale and labeling of nursery stock cannot be preempted by local regulations. The measure, authored by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, would essentially halt further attempts by individual counties to ban genetically modified crops in California.

Florez introduced the legislation last year, citing the need to have consistent policies statewide after several counties adopted resolutions banning genetically altered seeds and crops. The measure was proposed late during the last legislative session and failed to make progress in 2005, in part due to outcries from anti-biotechnology activists.

Again this year, the bill is set to prompt plenty of discussion and controversy.

More than 50 organizations, including the state’s largest agricultural groups, have signed on as supporters of the legislation, while just as many organic farming groups and environmental organizations have denounced the measure.

“Organic farmers are really concerned and natural foods businesses are concerned and oppose the legislation because it threatens their businesses,” said Becky Tarbotton, a spokesperson for Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, a coalition of groups that supports sustainable farming practices.

Tarbotton said 19 states in the nation have considered similar measures, also called pre-emption laws, that prevent local governments from passing laws to regulate seeds and other agricultural crops that may conflict with state rules. Fifteen states have passed measures similar to what lawmakers are considering in California.

SB1056 supporters believe the measure is needed to reinforce the state’s oversight role regarding seed and nursery stock.

“Family farmers can take advantage of the latest innovations — that may be biotechnology or that may be other new seeds and plants that are created,” said Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau Federation. “And if they’ve been approved by the federal authorities and then California says they’re good to go, then that should be plenty of oversight that they can be used here in California.”

While the bill was sparked by county initiatives banning genetically modified crops, the legislation would only void county measures if they are enacted after July 1 of this year. Three California counties, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin, passed anti-GMO ordinances, either by a local government initiative or public vote, long before that date.

In limbo is a recently approved ordinance in Santa Cruz County that places a precautionary moratorium on genetically modified organisms. That measure, approved last month by the local Board of Supervisors, is set to be enacted in August.

Kranz said legislators are planning to reword SB1056 so that the Santa Cruz ordinance would also be grandfathered into law.

Across the Golden State, more than a dozen local entities have either passed pro-GMO measures or rejected efforts to ban GMOs.

Voters in Humboldt, Sonoma, Butte and San Luis Obispo counties rejected ballot measures that would have banned the technology, while more than 10 counties, many in the Central Valley, have passed measures that support genetic engineering.

Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews, D-Tracy, and Assemblyman Bill Maze, R-Visalia, have co-authored the Florez bill. More than a dozen other lawmakers have also signed on as secondary coauthors.

Ali Bay is based in Sacramento. Her e-mail address is abay@capitalpress.com