Allen Mackey

Prof. Marx

English 134-16

1 November 2004

Convincing Q?

            Voting on a proposition banning genetic engineering seemed odd to me, but to the voters in the county of San Luis Obispo (SLO) on 2 November 2004 it was just another proposal on the ballot. This proposition, known as Measure Q shall make it “unlawful for any person or entity to propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically engineered organisms in San Luis Obispo County.” This law was proposed after the proponents for Measure Q claimed that “the people of San Luis Obispo County wish to protect the county’s agriculture, environment, economy, and private property from genetic pollution by genetically engineered organisms until all the risks associated with these organisms are fully understood.” The only exemptions in the measure allow “a fully accredited college or university to engage in scientific research or education using genetically engineered organisms” and do not prevent health care professionals from providing “any diagnosis, care, or treatment to any patient.” On the sample ballot was a section entitled “Argument In Favor Of Measure Q-04.” This argument makes a good case, but it lacks the clarity to be convincing.

            “Argument In Favor Of Measure Q-04” emphasizes the negative effects of genetic engineering on the agriculture in SLO County. The claim of this argument is that genetically engineered (GE) crops are bad for the agriculture of SLO County.

            The first reason given in support of the claim of “Argument In Favor Of Measure Q-04” is “keeping SLO County free of genetically engineered (GE) crops maintains our [SLO County’s] strong agricultural economy.” This reason is supported by evidence pertaining to the agricultural economy of SLO County. The argument states that “our [SLO County’s] US and international trading partners are demanding GE-free crops” and that “having pure crops will ensure a market advantage for our county’s $529 million agricultural economy.” The argument goes on to say that “the American Farm Bureau estimates that US exporters have lost about $300 million per year because of GE corn.” These pieces of evidence are sufficient in demonstrating that there is a demand for GE-free crops, which is necessary for economic success in the “pure” crop market, and the loss of $300 million per year by US exporters shows a way in which GE crops are harmful to the economy. This evidence is shown to be credible and accurate by its reference to the American Farm Bureau, a national agency whose mission it is “to implement policies that are developed by members and provide programs that will improve the financial well-being and quality of life for farmers and ranchers” (http://www.fb.org/about/thisis/). This evidence is also strengthened by the manner or rhetoric in which it was phrased. Saying that the trade partners are demanding something rather than saying that they want it or desire it gives the evidence a feeling of urgency and economic opportunity, and stating that Measure Q “will ensure a market advantage” gives the impression that acting on that urgency will benefit the economy of the entire county.

            “Argument In Favor Of Measure Q-04” states its second reason that GE crops are bad for the agriculture of SLO County: GE crops are bad for farms and farmers. This reason is effective in the argument and relevant to the claim because it shows another adverse affect of GE crops on SLO County.

            This reason is supported by many points of evidence. First of all, the argument states that “GE food, pharmaceutical, and industrial crops can contaminate conventional food crops at many points: seed production and transport, cross-pollination, harvest, milling, storing, and processing. Such contamination has already occurred,” and the argument continues to list statistics of how much corn was contaminated. This evidence is sufficient in proving that contamination of “pure” corn by GE crops is possible, which is most definitely hazardous to the business of farmers. However, these pieces of evidence are unclear as to what “contamination” actually is. The author fails to mention how the GE crops contaminated the other crops, which leaves other possibilities of contamination open for question. Second, the argument brings to light the fact that “contamination raises liability questions for farmers and property owners.” This is sufficient to prove the existence of legal complications in genetic engineering. The argument goes on to state a new piece of evidence: “From 2001-2003, over 73 million more pounds of pesticides were applied on GE acres than on non-GE acres.” They are also sufficient in proving that GE crops are bad for farms and farmers since GE crops require more pesticide treatment which is more expensive for the farmers as well as the other negative ramifications of pesticides. Finally, all these lines of evidence are strengthened by consistently including the word contaminate because the word has a very negative connotation and is usually associated with poison and filth, making genetic engineering assume that same association.

            The personal credibility of the supporters of this argument is, for some, established by their credentials. Matt Trevisan is an owner and a winemaker at the Linne Calodo Winery, a winery that does not engage in the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Bill Spencer is the owner of the Windrose Farm, a facility that has been certified by the State of California as an organic farm. Eric Michielsen is a co-owner of the Dark Valley Ranch. Their credentials as owners of farms that do not grow GE crops establishes the credibility of these men when it comes to risks involved with genetic engineering. The fourth author adds credibility to any mention of pharmaceutical companies. Terri Carlson, MD should be knowledgeable concerning the area of GE crops used in pharmaceuticals. However, the credibility of the entire group is brought down by the fifth and final supporter. Dr. Margaret C. Carman has no credentials other than the title of doctor before her name. For all a reader knows, Dr. Carman may very well be a doctor of human psychology, a field in which one would not expect to see an expert on the implications of GE crops.

            When taken as a whole, “Argument In Favor Of Measure Q-04” might be convincing. However, it emphasized the line of evidence that GE crops can contaminate “pure” crops stating neither how the conventional crops were contaminated nor what was meant by the term “contaminated.” Due to this uncertainty, this main support of the argument lacked the clarity to be convincing. Therefore, I am still undecided on Measure Q[SM1] .