Opposing sides argue over financial impact of GMO initiative

October 19, 2005

By DAN JOHNSON
ARGUS-COURIER STAFF

They both envision raking in money from savings on pesticides and herbicides, as well as reaping the rewards of greater access to national and international markets.

But they have extremely different philosophies as to how this vision could become a reality.

As with other major issues surrounding Measure M, which would ban the growing of genetically modified organisms in Sonoma County for 10 years but allows changes or amendments to be made by a unanimous vote by the Board of Supervisors, proponents and opponents have markedly contrasting perspectives on the initiative's financial impact.

And as Petaluma residents ponder over their vote, money clearly is one of the central concerns. Many local farmers and veterinarians are troubled with the initiative, and leading proponents are attempting to assuage their fears.

The only GMOs being used in Sonoma County are Roundup Ready corn, and to a smaller extent, alfalfa, which are licensed by Monsanto Corporation. Roundup Ready corn is used to feed cattle, and is produced on less than .02 percent of the county's 1 million acres. In Petaluma, the initiative most directly affects dairy farmers at this point, and potentially impacts a much greater population if additional GMOs become available for other crops.

Spraying land with Roundup Ready kills weeds, thus facilitating crop growth and trimming labor costs.

Jim Groverman, who has owned the Petaluma Pumpkin Patch for 11 years, has a maze on an adjacent 4-square-acre corn patch. He doesn't buy Roundup Ready corn but planted 50 acres for a local dairy owner.

"If Measure M passes, Sonoma County agriculture will be at a great disadvantage compared with other counties. In this day and age, technology is developing so fast that a lot can happen in 10 years, and people here wouldn't be able to benefit from GMOs that are allowed in other places."

Dave Henson, the "Yes on M" campaign director, counters that in the long term, the initiative would boost farmers' finances.

"If Roundup Ready continues to be available here, farmers using it might save money over a few years by applying it through spraying, because it will kill everything green but corn, and they may save on labor and management," he said. "But inevitably, insects and broad-leaf weeds will become resistant, resulting in high cleanup costs.

"Unfortunately, many farmers don't feel they can afford to think long-term, but they will suffer financially if they don't."

Daniel Solnit, the "Yes on M" campaign coordinator, warns that local farmers using GMOs would be at a financial disadvantage as many countries and more U.S. counties ban the products.

"Most consumers don't want genetically engineered foods, and local residents are willing to pay more for Sonoma dairy products that aren't genetically engineered," he said.

Henson warns that additional problems will pop up as more GMOs become available.

"Hundreds more are in the pipeline," he said. "Farmers using GMOs will keep paying expensive prices to Monsanto and other GMO producers, and give up substantial rights because these producers run tests on their land.

Many Petaluma opponents of Measure M counter advocates' arguments, although they generally don't feel they can give a dollar estimate of the initiative's possible financial impact on specific businesses.

Lex McCorvey, the executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and one of the leading opponents of the measure, uses Roundup Ready alfalfa at his cattle ranch in Petaluma.

"I had noxious, poisonous weeds but don't have to use herbicides because Roundup Ready alfalfa is resistant to pesticides," he said.

McCorvey feels that GMOs could provide an essential option for grape growers, although so far there are no genetically engineered grapevines growing in Sonoma County and researchers believe it could be 10 to 20 years before such a grapevine is developed to tackle common problems such as Pierce's disease and powdery mildew.

"Grape vines suffer from pests and are subject to diseases," he said. "Biotech offers a tool to ensure that their rootstock will be more viable for a longer period of time.

"Many wine growers oppose the measure because if they have new tools around to reduce herbicide and pesticide operations, this would cut costs and potentially improve the health of farm workers."

Hoot Smith, the owner of Kastania Vineyards in Petaluma, also opposes the initiative.

"I feel it was written up without a lot of strong arguments," he said. "It definitely would hurt farmers and ranchers. The cleanup costs would affect everyone, including taxpayers, and the agricultural commissioner would need to police it."

This month, the Redwood Empire Veterinary Medical Association, the largest veterinary organization in Sonoma County, announced that it opposed the initiative.

Dr. Fred Groverman, Jim's father, is a past president of the organization and opponent of the measure.

"I'm concerned that I won't be able to use vaccines for such things as rabies, distemper and cat leukemia," said Groverman, a resident of Petaluma. "I've also been involved with Petaluma Valley Hospital, and I'm worried that some cancer cures and vaccines used in human medicine wouldn't be allowed.

"It's important that we have access to really important new steps being taken in technology. We're behind the 'eight ball' if this passes."

Groverman feels that the potential long-term dangers of GMOs, such as crop contamination, have been sensationalized and exaggerated.

"For the most part, they're not true. I don't know how contamination would affect organic growers unless it would affect production, and this depends on the individual crop."

He is concerned that people are not well-educated about the measure.

"I've tried to get medical people interested in it, to help them develop an intelligent answer," he said. "I think that calm education is needed, rather than wild rhetoric.

"But I feel that the initiative is poorly written and that a county election is a poor venue for it. This should be decided on a statewide basis."

Henson and other advocates of the initiative offer pointed responses to opponents' concerns.

In response to their arguments about vineyards, proponents argue that the Board of Supervisors could override the measure if a GMO strain resistant to a vine disease is available, and assert that reputations could be tarnished by using GMO grapevines.

They also contend that necessary vaccines would be available.

"People still would be able to use vaccines and other medicines produced with genetic engineering techniques, and scientists would be able to perform genetic engineering research," Henson said.

And Henson, the main author of the initiative, defends its scope and clarity.

"I believe that it is exceptionally modest and moderate," he said. "We tried to gather considerable input before writing it, and included an exception clause as well as a stipulation that the ordinance would expire in 10 years unless the Board of Supervisors votes to extend it for another 10 years."

(Contact Dan Johnson at djohnson@arguscourier.com)