One of the dominant debates in the world of agriculture is the role of genetically-modified organisms. So-called GMOs can increase crop productivity and resistance to disease, but also increase risks to native and wild species and even to larger ecosystems.

From Mendocino County to the European Union, regulations have been drawn up to limit or ban GMOs, even as they play a larger and larger role in the world’s food supply. In Napa County, a vigorous debate is taking place in agricultural circles as the wine industry considers the risks and potential of GMOs.

Genetically modified yeasts, which encourage stable fermentation and affect the flavor of wines, are already on the market. Genetically engineered grapevines, designed to resist Pierce’s disease and vineyard pests, are presently being developed and are expected to arrive on the market in five or 10 years.

Yet the Napa Valley wine industry has been cool to the concept of GMOs. Viticulturalists are leery of the environmental effects and lack of regulation of GMOs. Winemakers share those concerns and believe that even if GMOs eventually produce some benefits, their presence would likely prove a marketing negative, hurting sales overseas and discouraging interest in an industry that celebrates its time-honored traditions.

None of those interviewed for these articles knew of anyone in the Napa Valley openly using GMO products.

For  nearly a year, Napa County environmentalists, grapegrowers and others have been meeting regularly to examine the possible impact of GMOs. The Napa GMO Stakeholder Group was spearheaded by Erica Martenson, a strong GMO critic who founded the group Preserving the Integrity of Napa’s Agriculture or PINA.

Martenson has considered leading the charge to place a GMO moratorium on the Napa County ballot, a move that has been made elsewhere. For example, voters in Mendocino and Santa Cruz counties have approved GMO bans. Sonoma County voters rejected one in 2005.

Environmental activists are pressing for bans in Lake County and Monterey County.

Martenson said she would like to see a precautionary ban on all GMOs in Napa County and a ban on all field-testing of GMOs until scientists have rigorously assessed environmental hazards. But for now, the action in Napa Valley is around the conference table, where Martenson and other member of the stakeholders group explore the issues.

“Maybe in the future GMOs will have effective regulatory oversight,” says Martenson. “But until that exists, genetic experimentation should be restricted to the laboratory or greenhouse.”

Not going with the flow

PINA opposes the genetically engineered wine yeasts and field experiments for all genetically engineered plants because of inevitable gene flow, the process by which these plants crossbreed with non-GMO plants. The resulting offspring bear the engineered gene.

New gene combinations, whether designed or not, can behave in unpredictable ways. For example, the changes in chemistry can harm wildlife that feed upon the gene-contaminated plant. One well-documented case from the 1990s involved Monsanto’s Bt corn, dubbed “killer corn,” which created its own pesticide. Other “killer” crops followed. Later, Bt corn was shown to harm monarch butterflies that fed on the engineered pollen. Bt corn pollen also contaminated natural corn varieties in Mexico.

Chris Howell, of Cain Vineyard and Winery, represents the Napa Valley Vintners in the GMO Stakeholders study group.

He expresses concerns about testing and regulation of GMOs. The federal government has not moved aggressively into the arena, and some say local GMO bans may prove ineffective. Because plants, birds and prevailing winds do not follow county boundaries, the patchwork of local regulation may do little to stop the spread of GMOs.

“Genetics is complex,” says Howell. “And there is a black hole of things we don’t know about, so you go right to the precautionary principle. The technology itself is neither good nor bad. It merely creates new possibilities. But where is the financial incentive to understand all the ramifications?”

Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., said there is no financial incentive for agribusiness to understand all the ramifications.

“The present regulatory system puts the burden of proof for safety upon the bioengineering corporation,” says Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist who formerly worked or the Environmental Protection Agency. “Based on the scientific literature, we conclude that the existing guidelines are a very weak regulatory process.”

Grassroots action

Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Dave Whitmer is encouraging the stakeholder group. While he is wary of the effectiveness of local bans, he said he is sympathetic with those critical of the current lack of regulation.

“I know why people are not satisfied with the way the government is handling the issues,” said Whitmer. “It’s no wonder that groups have been taking initiatives to their county supervisors, trying to get ordinances passed.

“The trend is toward patchwork regulations,” he said, “which may get the feds to delegate authority to the states.”

Current state and federal laws apply to the oversight of pesticide use and organic farming in California, but do not regulate GMOs.

In recent years, California lawmakers have considered GMO regulation. But the debate has nothing to do with the scientific questions fueling the discussion in Napa County. Instead, it addresses a dispute between farmers and agribusinesses like Monsanto that develop and market GMOs and farmers.

The latest effort, AB 541, sponsored by state Assemblyman Jared Huffman, whose district includes Marin County and part of Sonoma County, is intended to protect non-GMO farmers from patent infringements lawsuits accusing farmers of stealing genetically engineered property when pollen or seeds from GMO crops drift and contaminate non-GMO crops.

AB 541 passed in the Assembly in January, and could become California’s first GMO legislation.