Page 8 - SCG December 2015.indd

Block the GMO Rush
COASTAL LAND USE cont’d from page 1
is set forth in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) of Sonoma County. The LCP is a set of regulations based on both state and local policies and the local policies cannot subvert or override state policy interests.
On Highway 1 near Valley Ford, there is an establishment called the Sonoma Coast Villa. The Sonoma Coast Villa was approved in 1985 and provides lodging and restaurant services. This property is within the Coastal Zone and subject to the statewide policy interests noted above. In the context of the LCP this business is considered a “visitor serving facility” since lodging and food are needed services for those Californians who come to the coast from some distance. These services support public access to the coast and are distinguished from “non- coastal dependent commercial” businesses.
By Rebel Fagin
This fall voters may be able to decide if they want to ban growing GMO food-
The upcoming January 12th public hearing
like substances in Sonoma County. This doesn’t please the Corporate Death State and they’ll spend big bucks to defeat it. To them nature is a machine that can be tinkered with in the pursuit of short-term profits. Monsanto’s policies are a prime example of this false notion.
In 2002 Monsanto introduced Bt cotton seed in India. After eight years, 87% of all the cotton grown there was Bt cotton. Bt cotton is a sterile hybrid so farmers had to buy seeds every year. Farmers pledged their future crops, backed by their land deeds, to pay for these seeds. By 2010 the price of seeds had risen 8,000%. Farmers lost their farms. Many went out into their fields, drank Monsanto’s pesticide, and died. Over 300,000 farmers died this way. In August 2012 the state of Maharashtra, India banned Bt cotton.
In 2012 an application was filed seeking a Use Permit for a private residential care facility which would result in the end of lodging and restaurant services. In 2013 the Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission. I and others brought to the attention of County staff at PRMD that the Use Permit was erroneously approved and that staff failed to require a Coastal Permit for the change of use from “visitor serving” to “non-coastal dependent commercial” (a residential care facility can be located anywhere and is not coastal dependent). Staff initially took the position that the change of use, the “conversion,” was not a “project” for Coastal Act purposes.
Monsanto’s mix-n-match mentality has created combinations that never occur in nature. They’ve injected rat and human genes into trout, spider genes in goats, and human genes in corn and rice. Over 80% of GMOs are engineered for herbicide tolerance. We’re told this will reduce herbicide usage. From 1996 to 2003 herbicide use in the U.S. increased by 50,000,000 pounds.
GMOs aren’t labeled and over 90% of Americans want them labeled. Food & Water Watch is helping folks pass labeling laws state by state with their “Let Me Decide” campaign. The Non-GMO Project has established their own label for GMO avoidance. Look for the butterfly on the label. The Federal Organic seal also means no GMOs.
In a meeting with PRMD and an attorney for the County, I cited California Supreme Court case of Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates v, City of Los Angeles, 2012, (55 Cal 4th 783), which is on point as to the Coastal Permit requirement. In that case, changing the ownership structure of a mobile home park was considered to be a “project” requiring a Coastal Permit.
We know the GMO 4: cotton, corn, canola, and soy. Other modified food-like products include: sugar beets, yellow summer squash, alfalfa, zucchini, rice, flax, papaya, and trout. Ingredients derived from these products include amino acids, aspartame, ascorbic acid, citric acid, sodium citrate, ethanol, natural and artificial flavorings, high fructose corn syrup, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, lactic acid, maltodextrins, molasses, monosodium glutamate, sucrose, textured vegetable protein (TVP), xanthan gum, vitamins, and yeast products.
The Supreme Court said “An expansive interpretation of “development” is consistent with the mandate that the California Coastal Act of 1976 is to be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.” The Justices also said “...the requirements of the 1976 Act apply to a proposed conversion, within California’s coastal zone, of a mobile home park from tenant occupancy to resident ownership.” Sonoma County staff then agreed that the proposed conversion from lodging and restaurant to residential treatment center required a coastal permit and sent the proposal back to first base.
Animal derived foods that get feed and other inputs containing possible GMO contamination include: trout, milk and milk products, beef, chicken, eggs, honey, and bee products.
The owner subsequently filed an application for a Coastal Permit and a Use Permit. On August 20, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the project on a split vote. I appealed this decision and the matter will be heard by the Board of Supervisors in January.
In September 2014 Dow’s Enlist Duo seeds were approved by the USDA for corn and soy beans. Enlist Duo combines glyphosate and 2, 4-D into one herbicide-laden seed to combat increasingly resilient weeds. The use of this seed could increase the use of 2, 4-D by up to 600%. 2, 4-D is associated with birth defects, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, and hormone disrupters.
Should the approval be overturned by the Board of Supervisors?
The only people who want GMOs are people making money from them. To protect their investments California passed a seed law in 2015 banning non- commercial seed exchange if over three miles in distance. This legislation was met with defiant protests as folks traveled three miles and a smidgen to exchange seeds with their neighbors. Some even went to Sacramento.
The existing facility is a visitor serving facility and the proposed treatment center is a non-coastal dependent commercial use. On its own the non-coastal dependent commercial use is out of favor in the coastal zone since it can be located elsewhere and has no nexus to the 1976 Coastal Act policy values. What makes this project even worse is that it eliminates an existing preferred use... visitor serving lodging and restaurant!
In March 2004 a coalition of Mendocino family farmers, vineyard owners, health professionals, parents, and local government officials passed Measure H banning the growing of GMO plants and animals in Mendocino County. Mendocino farmers wanted to protect Mendocino’s clean reputation and with this law grown in Mendocino equals GMO free. This law is important to parents and medical professionals who want to protect the most vulnerable from allergies, infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance, or new toxins.
Now for the kicker. Within the last couple of years the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District along with the California Coastal Conservancy have spent nearly $1.5 million of public funds (your money) acquiring easements on a ranch directly across Highway 1 from the Sonoma Coast Villa. The easements include planned hiking trails of nearly 6 miles, parking and also access to the Estero Americano a popular kayaking venue. Eliminating lodging and food services directly across the road from this substantial public investment in public recreation makes no sense.
Mendocino County was joined by Trinity, Marin, Santa Cruz, and Humboldt Counties, as well as Jackson and Josephine Counties in southern Oregon in creating a GMO Free Zone. In 2016 the voters of Sonoma County may have the opportunity to join them in creating a GMO Free block from the Monterey Bay into Oregon. You can contact GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com and make this a reality. GMOs affect everyone from children to doctors to agriculturalists to consumers. Help stop their propagation in Sonoma County. Who wants spider webs in their wine?
The proposed residential treatment facility should be denied. The Planning Commission should be over-ruled by the Board of Supervisors.
Sources: Vandana Shiva at the Willits grange 9/7/15, Censored 2016 © Huff & Roth, Monsanto: A Corporate Profile © 2013 Food & Water Watch, foodandwaterwatch.org, nongmoproject.org, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, labelgmos.org
Rebel Fagin writes for the Sonoma County Peace Press and dailycensored.com © November 17, 2015 Rebel Fagin
The existing visitor serving facility should remain open. If the current owner doesn’t want to run the existing business he should sell it to someone who does. The potential for a revitalized visitor serving business in light of the public investment across the road will attract an owner who wants to run a business consistent with public policy.
8 - www.sonomacountygazette.com - 12/15
Mark your calendar for January 12, 2016, to support the integrity of the 1976 Coastal Act and the Sonoma County Local Coastal Program.