 |
Old varieties of corn seeds in author's collection;
an unwanted pollen cross with GMO corn
could make them the property of a
corporation that created the GMO. |
Listening
to a tape of the proceedings of Arts, Parks, Health, Aging And River
Committee it seems surrealistic hearing the questions at the
beginning of the discussion around Los Angeles City Council File
number 13-1374. There is such cordiality and the reading of the parts
of the proposed ordinance makes a listener happy to live in a country
where a group of concerned citizens can petition city hall and make a
difference. The questions are about implementation and other
practicalities.
The
movement for this bill started in October 2012 when Vandana Shiva met
with a few activists in a Santa Monica home. She asked what would be
next in LA whether or not Proposition 37, the labeling of GMOs
initiative, succeeded. I said, “I'd like to see LA become a GMO
Free Zone.” Which led us to finally to this committee
meeting some two years later. Prop 37 passed in LA County, but did
not pass statewide. With that as our mandate, a group of “seed
people” set out to propose and work for a law that would make LA a
GMO Free Zone.
We
had no political savvy and no political background – however, we
knew how our government was supposed to work. We knew that Congress
was not going to do anything constructive about GMOs and the
legislature in Sacramento seemed to run a parallel course. We believed that our local city council would take action and support us in the face of the inaction of Congress and the Legislature.
But
we most certainly knew then, what many know to be the truth today:
- GMOs
are at best questionable in their effects on bodies that consume them
- GMOs
are bad for the environment
- and
GMOs have failed to deliver on any of their promises
We
knew GMOs, contrary to the claims of the likes of Monsanto had not
been properly tested and we knew as well, their pollen can cross
with our plants making the plants we grow in our gardens GMOs too.
Wanting to avoid GMOs in our diets, we wanted to keep them out of the
plants we were growing to avoid GMOs and their associated pesticides.
This
law would “ban the propagation, cultivation, raising, growth and
sale of genetically modified foods.” To us, this is what “GMO
Free Zone” in Los Angeles would look like. We felt we had a very
small window to get this accomplished because of a new state law, AB
2470 which seemed to our reading to preclude the city from making any
laws that would apply to seeds.
We
moved quickly to get a bill to the City Attorney's office and they
crafted an excellent ordinance based on previous laws enacted in
other municipalities that had already stood the test of time and gave
us a track record as to how much enforcement would cost and how
easily it could be implemented.
The
proposed ordinance came back to this committee on Monday December
8th. About 30 of us in the room were there to see this
bill move through the committee and on to the council floor the next
day. But lobbyists, a couple of 'experts' spread lies, ignoring the
ongoing experience of other municipalities that have successfully
enacted similar laws and gave the city council members the cover they
needed.
The
first onslaught, our law was attacked because there are no GMO crops
growing in Los Angeles, ignoring the fact that once they have bred
with crops that are GMO free, the latter becomes GMO irreversibly.
There is no way to get it out once it's in, obviously the only way to
do any good with this is to keep it out in the first place. Yes, we
do want it crafted and in place before there is a problem. You don't
say a flood is coming – lets stack sand-bags after we are flooded –
some things don't work that way. Calling this a “feel good
ordinances that lacks substance” ignores the precedent established
in more rural counties where it has stood the test of time and
ignores the fact that we will have to deal with this pollen problem
sooner or later and sooner is much better. We are losing the plants
we use for food at an alarming rate and the proliferation of
genetically engineered plants accelerates the rapidity of that loss.
The
“suits” were called. One of their so-called experts, George David
Kieffer, read from his letter (1) to the committee, adding comments
amounting to about 5 minutes of time. Calling the ordinance
anti-scientific, he tried, like all the Monsanto shills to
characterize GMOs as being the most studied, safest technology to
come to American shelves for year. His intent was to have all us
characterized as Luddites and religious kooks. Typically, the big ag
chemical companies, Monsanto being the biggest, prefer to attack the
messenger and not the message – so of course, we have to
characterized as extremists and non-conformists.
We
know, the opposite of what he said is true. From scientists in the
European Union, 297 as of December 10th and growing,
banded together to bury this false-hood we can read:
“There
is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs: Regarding the
safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a
comprehensive review of animal feeding studies of GM crops found “An
equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the
basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products
(mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the
respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious
concerns”. (2)
I could go on pulling items from the letter and the conversation in that
room and pointing out the fallacies, but here's what really happened: three council members took
testimony from two lobbyists over the input from 30 citizens. The two
suits probably made more in that two hour meeting than all of us
supporters put together. Paid to broadcast lies and half-truths;
ignoring the successes that we cited in our literature (did the
council members even read our materials?) and painting everyone in
the room (including the council members themselves as “not educated
enough to make decisions about genetic engineering”) they prevented
a discussion of substance that might have happened if we had really
looked at what has actually happened. We were not paid for our time
off from work, travel expenses or any other thing we did in support
of this measure. We have no hope of a bonus for our work or for our
testimony. We do so at our own expense. We do so to improve OUR
community as we see fit. Paid attorney's who may or may not live in
our community, might have voted for the council people, were accorded
more deference. It was not government 'by the people' but by
attorneys.
Every
council member in the room voiced concern about GMOs. But,
three of four sought to table it. They are "concerned"
about GMOs in an abstract way; like being concerned that something
might happen sometime in a distant future.
Gardeners
and mothers with children are not “concerned.” They feel
assaulted by corporations and governments that are bought and paid
for by corporations. We saw that in the committee meeting that their
fears are justified. The official story from the politicians is
"yeah, but..." As if, we'll get around to it when you
bring in your own lobbyist.
They
admitted they could do it now and if it needed changing they could
change it. In fact, that happens with a LOT of laws. But
in this case, they used the precautionary
principle backwards, becoming cautious when action is called for and
allowing genetically engineering to move forward unabated when that
would be the appropriate time to be precautionary!
As
the discussion continued, we spotted one of the lawyers in the back
of the room giving hand signals to at least one council person, we
could not tell which one, relaying instructions about what was
expected. Clearly the lawyer was definite that this ordinance was not
going to go to the full council no matter what else happened. It did
not.
The
suits got what they came for. The committee referred the ordinance
for further study. They killed it. There was no more time for the
ordinance to move forward in light of the impending implementation of
AB 2470.
One
of the council members moved to exit the room walking through those
of us in the committee room – the ones that had just testified for
the motion. He was asked how he could do this? Why were the suits
afforded more importance than the people? He took three strides
toward the door. Suddenly, he spun around, threw out his chest, flung
a finger out at me, even though I was not involved in this exchange,
shouted at me, “This is your government process,” I replied
something to the effect that it was not how I understood democracy.
Fairly screaming at me, he repeated “This is how democracy works,
this is your government – this is how we do things - and you gotta
like it. This is how it works!”
There's
our civic lesson for the day, children. This is how government works. You gotta like
it.
But we
aren't going away.
david
