Corporate Interests Lose Two Big Election Day Battles in Northern California

Editor's Note: Of three significant local battles in California elections on March 2, citizens defeated the corporate agenda in two. The losing battle not covered here was Wal-Mart succeeding in passing a local initiative that it placed on the ballot in Contra Costa County. The initiative overturned a county law that limited the size of "supercenters" that sell both department store merchandise and groceries. However, that defeat may be partly due to the poor construction of the law. We won't get into detail here, but please contact us to learn more if you are considering such an initiative locally.

Voters along California's wild north coast defeated the biotech and timber industries, imposing the nation's first ban on raising genetically engineered crops and animals and beating back a logging company's effort to recall a crusading local prosecutor.

Activists said Tuesday's stunning defeat of biotechnology in Mendocino County breathes momentum into similar local efforts just now getting underway nationwide, setting up a series of regulations the industry desperately wants to avoid - and a big reason it spent so much money here.

"This is a start of a revolution," said Els Cooperrider, owner of the Ukiah Brewing Co. and leader of the Mendocino County campaign. Campaign supporters mobbed her pub on election night, drinking organically made beer, blowing conch shells and chanting "we can't be bought."

The biotechnology industry and its supporters lost the fight to stop Measure H despite spending at least $621,000 - six times as much as opponents - in a county of 47,000 registered voters.

"That was all the more reason to vote for Measure H," said Philo resident Barbara Chase, who cast her vote at the Anderson Valley Grange No. 669. "That's just plain offensive for outside corporations to try to buy an election like that."

The measure was approved by 57 percent of voters.

While the ban is more symbolic than practical - there are no genetically engineered crops growing in the county - biotechnology foes said the victory in Mendocino will boost similar efforts nationwide.

Residents in Vermont, Hawaii and elsewhere also are launching anti-biotech measures, and the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety said it has begun fund-raising and organizing to help local governments pass restrictive legislation.

Opponents of the measure, primarily the industry consortium CropLife America of Washington - said they were disappointed with the results and that lawyers were reviewing the measure to see if a lawsuit would be warranted, said spokesman Allan Noe.

Opponents spent about $54 for each no vote.

Vintners in the rolling, remote hills above the Mendocino coast came out against genetically engineered crops. So did fishermen along the water, and rural residents.

"I think we are truly the mouse that roared," said Jim Klein, winemaker at Navarro Vineyards near the tiny town of Philo in the Anderson Valley.

Legislation restricting biotechnology has been passed elsewhere, but nothing as sweeping as the proposal in Mendocino County, a place with a frontier spirit where the biggest cash crop is marijuana.

The local ban will not prevent processed food made with genetically modified ingredients from being sold in stores.

There are no known genetically modified crops raised in Mendocino County, but farmers said they would use the law as a marketing tool, especially in Europe, where opposition to genetically engineered foods is fierce.

Meanwhile, just across the county line in Humboldt County, District Attorney Paul Gallegos survived a recall election with 61 percent of the vote, despite the fact that Pacific Lumber Co. spent close to $250,000 to oust him.

The campaign to unseat Gallegos came after he sued the timber giant, accusing it of falsifying data on landslide risks to get permission to harvest 100,000 redwood trees in a forest it sold to the government for $380 million.

The company said the recall election had nothing to do with the lawsuit and that it contributed to the recall campaign because it felt Gallegos was too soft on criminals.

© 2004 Associated Press