Organic, conventional farmers clash in GMO debate

By James Tressler The Times-Standard

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

EUREKA -- Technically, Tuesday night's debate over whether Humboldt County should ban genetically modified organisms was not a debate -- since even the ban's supporters have dropped support for the legally flawed Measure M.

But while the November ballot measure may be dead in the water, the issue of whether genetically modified organisms can help solve world hunger or permanently infect the world's food supply remains very much alive.

Recently, the measure's authors, a group of organic farmers called the Humboldt Green Genes, dropped its support after several flaws were found in the measure, such as its charge that the county agricultural commissioner could arrest someone found growing the controversial crops.

But Tuesday's debate clearly showed that while organic and conventional farmers appear to be on different sides of the issue, both see the issue as striking at the core of their way of life.

Tuesday night's debate, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County and broadcast on KEET-TV Channel 13, pitted the ban's supporters, organic farmer Paul Lohse and retired soy business owner Martha Devine versus two advocates for genetically modified organisms. Those proponents were Ken Anderson, dairy farm and agricultural waste adviser for Humboldt and Del Norte counties, and Scott Parsons, a local conventional farmer.

Devine, who is also co-chairwoman of the Humboldt Green Genes, reiterated concerns that genetically altered crops and other foods are sold in stores without labels, even thought health risks still aren't known. While at this point only a half dozen or so farmers grow genetically modified crops in Humboldt County -- corn that is used only as feed -- Devine and Parsons also argue that pollen drift from these crops could infect other crops. Such "pollen drift" could infect the county's rapidly growing organic crop industry, she said.

"That's why the organic industry is growing by double-digit sales every year," Devine said. "Because more and more Americans are becoming aware of this and they want organic foods. They don't want to eat GMOs."

Parsons, who grows some genetically modified corn to feed livestock, said a ban could mean he'd see smaller yields and could have to go back to using more caustic herbicides and pesticides.

"We're trying to make a living," Parsons said. "And we want to make a living the way everyone else in the United States makes a living .... But a county-by-county ban to us as growers just doesn't seem fair. We start thinking, 'What else is next?' Can you stop us from milking cows? Where does it end?"

Anderson and Parsons conceded there may be some unknown factors in determining the long-term benefits or risks of genetically modified foods, but they also argued that there appears to be growing worldwide acceptance of the foods, especially in terms of that these altered crops could help farmers in the Third World.