While at work, they may discover a drug that helps end suffering. But, given our distrust of pharmaceutical companies, we’re suspicious of their motives. Or they may help develop new pest-resistant crops that reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides. But because these plants are produced the “new-fangled” way instead of the old-fashioned way, we’re dubious.
It’s not that I think science should run wild without a lot of ethical debate and sufficient government regulation. But if you look at the track record, we are experiencing better living through chemistry and biotechnology.
One example that comes to mind is in-vitro fertilization. Maybe I’m dating myself, but I remember a time, maybe 15 years ago, when doctors who mixed sperm and eggs in a petri dish were accused of playing God. Would-be parents who visited these clinics were maligned. Then their children were called “test tube babies.” Nowadays, these children are everyday miracles, and the clinics are seemingly magical places where childless couples seek help to start families. This scientific advance has made many people very happy, despite the fact it seemed daunting when introduced.
All this brings me around to the genetically modified organism (GMO) debate. Even the term “GMO” is misleading. Many call these biotech crops. Biotech crops are plants or sometimes animals that have had some sort of genetic alteration. Here is an easier way to think about it. When Luther Burbank was crossbreeding plants, he was mixing genomes to bring out a desired trait in the next generation. Such traits might be cactus without thorns or juicier fruits. Geneticists are doing the same thing as Burbank, only it’s more precise and saves years in slow horticultural trials.
Here are some examples of present and future biotech crops. Geneticists at U.C. Davis are working with grape varieties to produce plants that are resistant to Pierce’s Disease. Without these biotech plants, this disease, carried by the glassy-winged sharpshooter, could spread throughout our area and devastate the wine industry. Other scientists want to grow rice that has increased vitamin A content to be used as a food source in regions of the world to prevent blindness in some one million children per year. On this note, crops could be used to deliver all sorts of vitamins or medicines that are now routinely given in pill form. Wouldn’t it be great to eat a medicine-containing (locally grown) strawberry in the morning instead of taking a pill? This is to name very few of the humanitarian and agrarian benefits of this sort of research and development. The future is wide-open and our farmers should be allowed to grow these crops if the market demands them.
Scientific progress can seem intimidating to the layman. Exploiting this, a group of folks has decided to use scare tactics and has introduced the “GMO ban” on our November ballot. It’s called Measure M. I don’t think this group has bad intentions; it seems like it is, in fact, trying to protect our food supply. However, they are the classic example of a little information being a dangerous thing. Apparently this group believes it knows better than the scientists, government regulators and farmers about the pros and cons of all present and future crops, and about which crops should be grown in Sonoma County.
Let’s be clear. Banning local farmers from growing biotech crops will not remove them from our food supply. To do that we have to ban the supermarkets and farmers markets from selling these items. Our food has long contained biotech ingredients. Back in 1999 alone, more than 70 million acres of biotech food crops were planted in the United States, according to the National Academy of Science. And one glance through the produce section of any supermarket will demonstrate that our food comes from around the world. So preventing our local or even national farmers from growing any crop will not prevent their use in our food.
If it passes, Measure M will affect the economic viability of our family farmers. It will prevent them from growing plants the market demands. Some of these biotech crops may actually be more nutritious and safe, such as those grown without the need for pesticides or those that will supply medicines. Passage will allow Napa grape growers to use technology that Sonoma vineyards can’t use, leaving Sonoma-based farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It will remove the Sonoma County farmer’s choice when it comes to agriculture. Frankly, as a city person, I don’t think I should be telling farmers what they can and cannot grow. It’s hard enough for them to keep their farms intact when the pressures to sell the land must be very strong.
I hope voters will think twice about why we feel afraid of scientists and scientific advances and whether or not we also need to fear farmers. I hope they’ll realize voting for the ban will not affect their food choices but will prevent farmers from having choices when it comes to guaranteeing their livelihood. I hope voters will not be scared by the misinformation and tactics used by a small group in Occidental, and will vote “No” on Measure M, the GMO Ban. Be pro-choice and ban the ban!
P.S. I didn’t even touch on the costs to enforce the ban. Do we really want to increase government to regulate and police farmers?
