[2] Measure
Q goes too Far. Citizens for a Sustainable Future-No on Q. 30
Nov. 2004 <http://www.noonq.com>.
|
|
The Tribune against Measure Q
The Tribune posted an editorial stating their opposition to Measure Q on Saturday, October 16th, 2004. It describes the debate over the measure Òboiling down to one sentence: ÔIt shall be unlawful for any person or entity to propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically engineered organisms in San Luis Obispo County.Ó The Tribune claims that ÒMeasure Q is a poorly written ordinance with unintended consequences of banning research on life-saving medicines.Ó It begins with an effective strategy of stating arguments of the proponents and responding to each, but continues with an unconvincing list of reasons to vote against Measure Q and a conclusion that weakly ties the article together.
To open the editorial, the author questions proponentÕs credibility. ÒProponents say the ban would give county farmers protection from GE crops until all risks are known,Ó is argued by the statement, ÒThe farming community by and large says that the ban will hurt them competitively if or when they decide to use GE seeds.Ó The supporters of Measure Q are questioned as to where they are getting their information if the people they are ÒprotectingÓ feel the ordinance will hurt them. This is a successful strategy to convince the reader that advocates of the ordinance are untrustworthy.
The article supports its claim that Measure Q is a badly written ordinance by discussing the use of the broad term ÒorganismÓ in the measure. It includes arguments from two credible sources, San Luis Obispo attorney Robin Baggett and the Washington D.C law firm of Arent Fox. The two agree that the use of the word ÒorganismÓ implies both laboratory research as well as crops, therefore both would be banned. Baggett, a lawyer and president of the San Luis Obispo Vintners and Growers Association sent a letter to the Health Commission which stated Òthat the term ÔorganismÕ is defined as Ôany living thing, exclusive of human beings and human fetusesÉand courts will enforce that definition.ÕÓ Adding strength to the argument that GE crops and GE medical applications are inseparable is that the Health Commission Òhas voted 7-3 not to take a stance on the issue.Ó Fox writes that, Òall genetically engineered organisms are biological systems; a prohibition on growth or propagation is a prohibition on production, regardless of whether that growth or propagation takes place in a field or in a factoryÉMeasure Q-04 unambiguously prohibits all commercial research and production of genetically engineered organisms.Ó The credentials of these sources solidify the claim.
In addition to the central controversy about the term Òorganism,Ó additional reasons are given to vote against the measure. The first includes two issues concerning the Cal Poly agricultural department. It argues that the measure is discriminatory against local farmers by making Cal Poly exempt from it. In order not to turn Cal Poly students and faculty off, the article also makes the statement that money available to Cal Poly genetic engineering programs will not be given if the county is hostile to the projects. The article claims that bio tech jobs will be the high paying jobs of the near future for San Luis Obispo County and those jobs could be filled by our own Cal Poly students, stimulating the local economy.
The issue of enforcement is discussed next with the statement that the county Agricultural Commissioner, Bob Lilley, Òhas neither the expertise nor the budget to oversee compliance of medical bioengineering.Ó Why he lacks in these two areas is not mentioned, but the word ÒbudgetÓ sounds an alarm in nearly every CalifornianÕs mind. Using it here strengthens the argument telling people that this measure will cost the county money that it probably does not have.
The final reason given against the measure is the weakness of its Òsafety factor.Ó Included in Measure Q is a statement that the ban on genetically engineered organisms would stay in place Òuntil all the risks associated with these organisms are fully understood.Ó The author of the article claims that the sentence was put in to appeal to undecided voters in order to add assurance, but that in reality the safety factor is unreachable. No explanation of why this Òsafety factorÓ is unattainable is given. The reader is left hanging which is the case in many of the arguments included in the article.
The editorial concludes with a reference to a similar ordinance in Humboldt County where the writers pulled their support when they realized Òthe fatal flaws of the ordinanceÕs wording.Ó The Tribune calls for the authors of Measure Q to do the same and Òif they are serious about county residents having and informed say on GE foods being raised in this countyÓ they should come along side those whom the measure would directly effect and Òcraft an ordinance that says what it means and means what it says.Ó This conclusion is successful in appealing to the emotions of its readers. Not only does it give evidence of Measure Q failing elsewhere, but adds sarcasm in discussing Measure QÕs creators as needing to be ÒseriousÓ about the ordinance before writing another one.
Having researched this ordinance using various sources prior to reading this article, I had come to the conclusion that voting against Measure Q was the right decision. The arguments in the article were weak in comparison to those brought forth by advocates and opponents alike. ProponentsÕ websites have rebuttals to every argument in the editorial. The proponent argument ÒGenetically engineered crops have cost U.S. farmers and taxpayers $12 billion since they were introducedÓ[1] could be used as a rebuttal to the TribuneÕs claim that the measure would cost millions of dollars for enforcement. Added sentences explaining each argument set forth by the author of the article would have strengthened the argument against proponent rebuttals. For example, ÒMeasure Q would prohibit development in SLO County of medicines like insulin used by diabetics, and treatments such as for cancer, AIDS/HIV, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseaseÓ[2] could have been included to explain why the banning of lab research would be a problem. I feel that my decision to vote against the measure was the right choice, but I do not think that this article could convince me if I was undecided or for Measure Q.