Benton County "Local Food System Ordinance" Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 2-89 (May 2015)

Voting on Food & Agriculture
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local GMO

The Benton County Local Food System Ordinance was on the ballot for voters in Benton County, Oregon, on May 19, 2015. It was defeated.

This measure, which was backed by what supporters called the Benton Food Freedom campaign, would have prohibited the cultivation of genetically modified organisms in the county.

The initiative also included a clause that would have asserted the county's right to self-governance, seeking a way around the state law passed in 2013 attempting to preclude initiatives such as this one.

The measure would have also claimed the rights of individuals over corporations, the rights of county residents to a sustainable "Local Food System," the rights to preserve "seed heritage" and the preservation of the purity of their own crops. Moreover, it would have established rights for natural land and water systems, allowing citizens to file lawsuits on behalf of "natural communities."

Proponents had originally planned to put this measure on the November 2014 ballot, but it was ultimately postponed until 2015.

Supporters of the GMO ban argued that GMOs can cause health problems and that, because of pollination from wind, insects and other natural agents, the rights of organic, GMO-free farmers were being violated by cross-pollination from neighboring GMO farms, which resulted in contaminated crops that could no longer be used or sold as organic or GMO-free. Responding to those who criticized Measure 2-89 based on alleged, harmful impacts to the agriculture industry, supporters claimed that making Benton County an all-organic, GMO-free farming zone would actually allow farmers to thrive because of the strong demand for GMO-free food products, both locally and world-wide.

Opponents argued that farmers should have the right to grow whatever crops they wish on their own property and that the commonly used genetically altered products had proven harmless to humans. They argued that eliminating the mainstream crop sources would make farming more expensive and hurt the agriculture industry in the county and that this issue is best controlled on a state level, rather than a local one.

Voting on Business Regulation
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local business regulation Fireworks Local GMO Rent control

Research done at Oregon State University (OSU) involving genetic engineering also became a much-debated topic surrounding Measure 2-89. Opponents argued that, since the measure included no exemption for research, it would have shut down whole departments at the university and destroyed millions of dollars worth of research. Supporters said this concern was just a gimmick designed by opponents to trick voters into rejecting the measure. They argued that Measure 2-89 would have been restricted to GMOs that affect the "Local Food System," making isolated OSU research exempt from the ban.

Election results

Benton County, Measure 2-89
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		16,778	72.41%
Yes		6,392	27.59%

Election results from Benton County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot language

The following language was circulated with the initiative petition and put on the ballot:

“

Caption: Creates rights relating to agriculture and prohibits genetically engineered organisms Question: Should voters enact an ordinance prohibiting cultivation of genetically engineered organisms and creating rights relating to local food production? Summary: Enactment of measure establishes: Right to Local Food System, Right to Seed Heritage, Rights of Natural Communities (including right of terrestrial and aquatic systems to exist, persist and maintain themselves), Right to Self-Government. Rights established are self-executing. Measure prohibits corporations or government from using genetically engineered organisms; prohibits corporations or government from planting transgenetic risk seed in County unless seek is proven to be free of any genetic modifications. Measure prohibits corporations and government from requiring registration or patenting of certain seeds. Violation of prohibitions is subject to civil and criminal penalties. Measure eliminates personal liability to any corporation claiming seed patent or ownership rights or claiming loss of income or commercial infringement resulting from inadvertent infection of agricultural crops by genetically engineered organisms or other patented traits. Measure would require harvest, removal, or destruction of genetically engineered organisms within 90 days of enactment. Measure could be enforced by the county and individuals. Measure repeals inconsistent provisions of County Code and pre-empts state and federal law inconsistent with rights or prohibitions of measure.

”

Full text

The first section of the full ordinance, entitled "Findings and intent," read as follows:

“

Section 1. Findings and Intent We the people of Benton County have the inalienable right to grow, raise, rear, access, harvest, preserve, process, exchange, and consume – both individually and collectively – whole food and food products from a local food system. We the people of Benton County find that our right to a local food system is essential to the well-being of the County’s residents and natural communities, as well as the health, resilience, and flourishing of the local economy, of which local agriculture plays a vital role. We the people of Benton County have the right to a local food system and seed heritage that does not harm the right of natural communities to exist, persist, and flourish; adapts to local growing conditions; promotes biodiversity, resilience, and productivity; and provides for the social, equitable, nutritional, economic, and cultural enhancement of the quality of life for all residents of Benton County. We the people of Benton County find that the civil right to grow, save, preserve, protect, harvest, adapt, and distribute open pollinated seeds, which is the foundation of all agriculture, is required – both individually and collectively – to secure the peoples’ commonly held seed heritage and right to a local food system. We the people of Benton County find that the patenting and ownership of seeds and other self-replicating life forms used for the growing, rearing, or raising of food is a direct threat to our inalienable right – both individually and collectively – to grow, save, preserve, protect, harvest, adapt, and distribute seed to grow food and produce food products from one generation to another within Benton County. We the people of Benton County find that the patenting and privatization of seeds that have been genetically modified interferes with the diversity of and access to the people’s seed heritage, reduces the people’s ability to save, replant, and adapt open pollinated seeds free of contamination, limits research and development of seeds and other life forms adapted to local growing conditions and soils that meet the economic and nutritional needs of the community, and encourages the use of genetically modified or altered life forms which pose significant risks to natural communities and farmer livelihoods through irreversible contamination of crops and related species. We the people of Benton County understand that any attempt to prohibit the privatization and use of patented seed may run afoul of claimed corporate “rights” to engage in those practices, as well as State or federal laws. We understand that failure to legislatively challenge those “rights” and laws guarantees that a local food system will never exist. We the people of Benton County therefore enact this local law pursuant to the inherent and inalienable right of the residents of Benton County to govern their own county for their own health, safety, and welfare. That authority is also secured by the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people, in the State Constitution of Oregon’s recognition that all power is inherent in the people, and in the Benton County Charter, which delegates the authority to the people and their representatives to enact local legislation on matters of county concern; Therefore, through this Ordinance, which shall be known and cited as the “Local Food System Ordinance of Benton County, Oregon”, the people of Benton County ordain as follows:

”

The full text of the initiative is available here.

Oregon State University research

Debate over Measure 2-89 stirred up questions concerning the effect that this initiative would have had on research done at Oregon State University (OSU) by prohibiting any genetically modified organisms from being grown in Benton County. Ordinances governing GMOs in other local jurisdictions included explicit exemptions for research-specific work. Although Measure 2-89 did not have such an explicit exemption, none of the authors or supporters of Measure 2-89 intended the initiative to interfere with purely research-related genetic engineering. Those who drafted the ordinance claimed that the measure needed to be interpreted according to its title, "Local Food System Ordinance," and would not have applied to OSU plants or research unless they interfered with the "Local Food System." Some ways OSU research can have an impact on the "Local Food System" was through cross pollination that could occur if OSU students or faculty grew genetically altered plants out doors. Such research would have been forbidden by both the interpretations of the law.

Position of supporters

Supporters of the measure said that the measure was designed to be restricted to only affect GMOs related to the "Local Food System." In fact, they claimed the single-subject rule governing local initiatives in Oregon required this. Thus, unless GMOs produced during OSU research had an impact on the local agriculture in the area, they would be exempt.

Supporters alleged that the issue of OSU research was brought up by opponents of Measure 2-89 as a red herring to scare voters into rejecting the initiative. Some also claimed that, since Measure 2-89 was designed to be largely driven by citizen enforcement through complaints and lawsuits, there was no way the measure would have been used against the university.

Stephanie Hampton of Benton Food Freedom argued that the concerns over OSU research were nonsense, saying, “The prohibitions only come into effect if there’s a threat to the local food system. OSU has taken the position that non-food research is affected using an isolated phrase taken out of context.”

The Ten Rivers Food Web gave the following explanation in its argument supporting Measure 2-89:

“	This prohibition does not put any restriction on GMO types of research at OSU as long as that research does not directly impact the Local Food System. In fact this ordinance supports much of the food related OSU research that creatively uses knowledge of various genomes to do conventional plant breeding.	”
—Ten Rivers Food Web

Position of opponents

Opponents of Measure 2-89 said that, since the measure did not have an exemption for research, it would have put an end to millions of dollars worth of research being done at OSU. Opponents thought that the measure was badly written and would have hurt the university, even if the consequences were unintended.

OSU officials focused on Section 3(b) of Measure 2-89, which read: “It shall be unlawful for any corporation or governmental entity to engage in the use of genetically engineered organisms within Benton County.”

Steve Clark, a representative of the university, said, “Our general counsel’s office has done a review of the ballot measure as written and has a strong concern that that language, whether intended or otherwise, would impact the use of genetically engineered organisms at Oregon State University."

The following was written by representatives of the Benton County Board of Commissioners:

“	Should it pass, this measure would significantly and adversely affect Oregon State University research and education related to medicine, agriculture, forestry, environmental protection and wildlife conservation. The measure would cost OSU millions of research dollars and impact more than 100 faculty and support staff and hundreds of students.	”
—Commissioners Jay Dixon, Annabelle Jaramillo and Anne Schuster

The Corvallis Chamber of Commerce wrote:

“	OSU estimates that research valued at over $18 million in fiscal year 2014 would be ended, impacting hundreds of faculty, staff and students.	”
—Covallis Chamber of Commerce

Support

Supporters

The Benton County Community Rights Coalition was the group behind the campaign for this initiative, which its members called the Benton Food Freedom campaign.

An official "Yes on 2-89" campaign was also started. This group was started by local organic farmers including:

• Harry MacCormack
• Clint Lindsey
• Dana Allen

An organization called GMO Free Oregon also supported all initiatives to ban GMOs in Oregon.

The following individuals and organizations put arguments in favor of Measure 2-89 on the official Benton County voters' guide:

• Martha Perkins, Benton County resident
• Benton Food Freedom
• Dana Allen of the Benton County Community Rights Coalition
• Ten Rivers Food Web

Summary

The following summary of the initiative and its intentions was given by its supporters:

“	Measure 2-89 would establish and maintain a sustainable local food system in Benton County, Oregon, by: Elevating community rights above those claimed by corporations, patent holders, and the State of Oregon regarding a GMO-free local food system; Securing rights for natural communities (e.g. soil, water, pollinators) to exist and flourish; Protecting locally grown heritage seed from contamination by GMO and other patented technologies; and Establishing legal standing of a local food system for present and future food security.	”
—Benton Food Freedom

Arguments in favor

The following five reasons to approve Measure 2-89 were posted on the Yes on 2-89 website:

“	What does the Local Food System Ordinance of Benton County do?: 1. Protects the biodiversity (e.g. soil, water, pollinators) necessary for a healthy local food system. 2. Prohibits the planting of GMOs within Benton County to protect family farms. 3. Defends our right to save our seeds without corporate control. 4. Asserts our rights above those claimed by corporations. 5. Empowers every person in Benton County to legally defend their local food system from corporate harm.	”
—Yes on 2-89

Dana Allen said, “We had tried every other avenue to protect our seed from contamination by GMOs." He continued, “Syngenta walked out of the talks about sugar beets in Southern Oregon. The farmers there already know that you can’t co-exist. We felt that we had to ban the planting of GMOs and patented seeds to protect our food system—we have a really vibrant local farming system that provides a lot of food for Benton County and to surrounding areas.” Allen also focused on the seed crops grown in the county, saying, “We grow probably 90% of the table beet seed around the world." Yet, he said, "We’ve got some farmers that don’t plant corn anymore because they know there are other farmers close to them who are planting corn that’s a GMO commodity crop.”

Official arguments

The following official argument in favor of Measure 2-89 was submitted by Benton Food Freedom:

“	In 2012, conventional and organic farmers were galvanized when the Oregon Department of Agriculture declared an emergency rule to allow widespread cultivation of high-risk transgenic canola on 1.7 million acres ordinarily off-limits to this crop. Canola, which could potentially contain genetically engineered traits, readily cross-pollinates with brassicas, a foundational plant of the $32 million specialty seed industry and fresh market vegetable farmers. Legislative action secured a 2013 bill banning canola that sunsets in 2019. The 2013 discovery of genetically engineered wheat in Oregon caused an importation ban by Japan, major importer of Oregon wheat. Eventually, Monsanto paid $2.4 million in damages due to its unapproved proprietary seed. The Local Food System Ordinance was born during this turmoil as local farmers realized they had few protections against corporate threats to their crops and markets. The three farmers who wrote the ordinance based it on Article 1 of the Oregon Bill of Rights which declares that all power to govern is inherent in the people who have the right to alter or reform their government which is instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness. The Food Bill of Rights within the ordinance asserts the people’s rights to a local food system, seed heritage, and selfgovernment, also securing the rights of natural communities (e.g. pollinators, soil, and water) as foundational for the creation and protection of the local food system. The ordinance elevates the inalienable rights of human beings above those claimed by corporations or the power of the state to forbid. By Benton Court order, the single subject of Measure 2-89 is the local food system; therefore, all provisions in this ordinance are valid only against impacts to this system and will not affect the use of genetic engineering in biomedical and pharmaceutical research or laboratory teaching and investigation. This ordinance will not impact OSU non-food genetic research. Measure 2-89 gives community rights to the people not corporations. Vote for your rights. YES on Measure 2-89	”
—Benton Food Freedom

Three other official arguments in favor of the initiative were put on the Benton County voters' pamphlet. To read all of the arguments, click here to access the voters' pamphlet.

FAQs

The Benton Food Freedom group produced a "frequently asked questions" document supporting Measure 2-89 and answering some objections. A portion of the document is displayed below:

“	What will Measure 2-89 do? Measure 2-89 – Local Food System Ordinance of Benton County, Oregon – will protect our right to a local food system, one free from GMO contamination and our right to seed heritage, in order to protect the future of food production for us and those who depend on the food grown in Benton County to be healthy. It would place our community rights over so-called corporate “rights”. Didn't the state government preempt counties from banning GMOs? No. The state is attempting, illegitimately, to claim through a new preemptive law to override our right to local, community self-government which includes our right to protect and determine the future of our local food system including prohibiting harmful agriculture like GMOs. Measure 02-89 is founded on rights and would not recognize state preemption if used to violate the community rights of Benton County. What happens when the GMO patent holders sue Benton County? If a lawsuit comes it will most likely be from corporate interests unwilling to recognize the will of the people in adopting Measure 2-89. The corporate interests will assert that they have greater “rights” to engage with GMOs than the people have the right to reject GMOs on the grounds of protecting the local food system. A lawsuit will pit community rights against corporate power, and most importantly our right to determine the future of our local food system. Why shouldn't farmers have a right to plant whatever they want? For the same reason you can't pour any chemical you want into a stream. Farmers share the same environment and genetic drift from one field can impact those around it. Willamette Valley farmers have traditionally cooperated to avoid drift problems, but GMO corporations don't respect such convention. GMOs, and the higher pesticide use that come with them, cannot coexist with conventional and organic seed. Most importantly, there is no need for harmful GMO seed. If you don't like GMOs, you don't have to eat them. Why go after GMOs? GMOs are the biggest threat to local food systems all over the world. GMOs are not safe for people, require higher use of toxic pesticides, do not yield more crops per acre, threaten our local seed stock heritage, centralize agricultural practices that eliminate natural diversity and economically indenture local farmers, and are harmful to the environment. Measure 2-89 is about the people of Benton County choosing to protect our local food system from GMOs not be allowed to be controlled and harmed by them.	”
—Benton Food Freedom

Campaign finance

Total campaign cash as of May 20, 2015
Support:	$25,602.21
Opposition:	$115,944.99

The political action committee (PAC) registered in support of Measure 2-89 is called Benton Food Freedom, and, as of May 20, 2015, it had reported contributions equaling $25,602.21 and had made expenditures amounting to $22,758.87. Below is a list of the top ten donors to the "Yes on Measure 2-89" campaign as of the latest campaign finance filing:

Donor	Amount
Food Democracy Now	$10,000
Organic Consumers Association	$2,640
Theresa Griffith	$1,000
Ronnette Steed	$600
Organically Grown Co. of Portland	$500
Elizabeth Waldorf, Dr	$500
Marie L. Long	$500
Jeffrey D. Gump	$500
Luan Le	$500
DONOR NAME	$500

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals and organizations put arguments against Measure 2-89 on the county voters' pamphlet:

Organizations

• Benton County Citizens Against Measure 2-89, represented by:

• Ilene Kleinsorge
• Larry Roper
• Lee Strandberg
• Judith Corwin
• Karen Wuerch
• Jeff Davis
• Philip Mote
• Brandon Trelstad
• Kevin Ahern

• The Corvallis Chamber of Commerce, represented by:

• Cindy L. Dahl
• Curtis Wright
• Bond Starker
• Megan Schneider
• Mayor Biff Traber
• Mike Corwin
• Skip Rung

• The Benton County Board of Commissioners, represented by:

• Jay Dixon
• Annabelle Jaramillo
• Anne Schuster

• Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association
• Specialty Seed Growers of Western Oregon

Farms and farmers

• Larry Venell, Venell Farms
• Tom Brooks, Brooks Farms
• Eric Horning, Horning Farms
• Loren Smith, Smith Farms
• Chuck Warden, Warden Farms
• Tony Stroda, Stroda Brothers Farm
• Frank Nusbaum, Nusbaum Farm
• Crocker Farms
• Goracke Farms
• Deerhaven Farms
• Nixon Farms
• Bruce Ashenbrenner
• Barbara Ashenbrenner
• Mark Poormam

In other places featuring similar ballot measures, such as Jackson and Josephine counties in Oregon, Humboldt County in California and Maui County in Hawaii, large bio-chemical agriculture companies such as Monsanto and DowAgroScience LLC were very active and outspoken opponents and the largest donors to the opposition campaigns.

Arguments against

Opponents of this measure argued that this issue should be handled on the state level and that, if approved, this measure might lead to expensive lawsuits that could ultimately overturn the measure. Opponents also argued that the measure might harm the agriculture industry by restricting all of the farmers that use GMO crops, such as the crops provided by Monsanto.

Official arguments

Benton County Farm Bureau:

The following official argument in opposition to Measure 2-89 was submitted by the Benton County Farm Bureau:

“	Benton County Farm Bureau urges a NO vote on Measure 2-89. It is bad for our farms, bad for our county Few measures have come along that would do as much harm to Benton County as Measure 2-89. This measure will hurt local farms, OSU, local families and businesses that rely on sustainable and responsible agriculture for their livelihoods. Here’s what it does: Gives county commissioners the authority to determine and approve which seeds farmers can use, with no explanation for who tests the seeds, process of analysis, length of time for testing, or the costs associated with the testing. Requires local crops banned by the measure to be torn out of the ground within 90 days of passage, and gives no rights to farmers and their families to recover economic loss. Enforcement could cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars for crop and seed testing, litigation and violation response, staffing and more—all at the burden of taxpayers. It provides no exemptions for medical or educational institutions, effectively shutting down important work at Oregon State University, high schools, community colleges, and our hospitals. It extends human legal rights to trees, plants and seeds, and creates a “food bill of rights.” Any person can sue individual farmers on behalf of a tree, plant or seed. It would halt OSU research in environmental protections, agriculture, science, and life-saving medicine. OSU estimates over 120 faculty, 200 staff, and 400 students will be impacted by the measure, and a loss of over $18 million in funding. Life-saving medical research for treatment for Lou Gehrig’s disease, and prevention of skin, lung, ovarian, bone, and pancreatic cancers would end in our county. The dangerous impacts and aftershocks this measure will have on our county are unprecedented, irresponsible and irreversible. It’s just too extreme. Please join the Benton County Farm Bureau in protecting our county and voting NO on Measure 2-89.	”
—Benton County Farm Bureau

Benton County Citizens Against Measure 2-89:

The following official argument against Measure 2-89 was submitted by Benton County Citizens Against to Measure 2-89:

“	Community leaders strongly urge a NO vote on Measure 2-89 Measure 2-89 may be one of the most damaging initiatives we’ve ever seen in Benton County. That’s why a broad coalition of concerned community members is urging a NO vote. Measure 2-89 shuts down research at OSU. Banning genetic engineering technology would hinder the research and development of therapies for awful human diseases, such as Lou Gehrig’s disease. It also impedes OSU researchers from finding new ways to prevent or treat types of cancer. This groundbreaking work is being done in our community but Measure 2-89 would ban some of the most effective research tools, shutting down lifesaving work done at OSU. OSU estimates the measure might directly impact 120 or more faculty, stop research valued at $18.3 million from external funding, affect the education of 300-400 students and impact 100-200 support university staff. The measure could cost nearly $30 million in grant funding to OSU for science, medical and agricultural research. Measure 2-89 also bans some research in protecting endangered species, eradicating crop diseases and providing environmental protections. Measure 2-89 hurts family farmers and threatens the economy. Under Measure 2-89, some farmers would have to destroy their crops within 90 days with no right to recover loss of income or livelihood. This isn’t how we should treat members of our community who are drivers of our economy. Job losses and economic stress wouldn’t end at the farm. Small business related to farming would also suffer. Measure 2-89 could require the county to pay upwards of hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars for enforcement. Measure 2-89 is dangerous to life-saving research and environmental protections, is damaging to our county’s economy, and has irresponsible and irreversible impacts. Please join us in standing up against this irresponsible initiative and vote NO on Measure 2-89	”
—Benton County Citizens Against Measure 2-89

Seven other official arguments against this initiative were put on the Benton County voters' pamphlet. To read all of the arguments, click here to access the voters' pamphlet.

Editorials

• The Albany Democrat-Herald editorial board wrote an article critiquing the GMO-prohibiting initiative. Besides opposing the provisions of the measure itself, the editorial claimed that, if the measure passes, it will likely face lawsuits based on state legislation against such county governance on agricultural issues. The board wrote:

“	More seriously, as we’ve argued in the past, this is a matter that is better handled at the state level; farms aren’t necessarily limited by county lines, and saddling farmers with a crazy quilt of regulations that vary from county to county doesn’t seem like sound agricultural policy. And we remain unconvinced about the value of submitting to Benton County voters a ballot measure that may turn out, after the inevitable lawsuits, to be little more than a straw vote about the merits of GMO crops. But that’s the call that Benton County voters almost certainly will get to make for themselves in November.	”
—The Albany Democrat-Herald editorial board

Campaign finance

The chief PAC registered to oppose Measure 2-89 was called Benton County Citizens Opposed to Measure 2-89. As of May 20, 2015, this PAC had received $115,944.99 in contributions and made expenditures equal to $135,995.36, according to the latest campaign finance filings. Two other PACs were registered for miscellaneous activity but included opposition to Measure 2-89 among their registered purposes. These two PACs were called FirstVote and Oregon Farm Bureau Political Action Committee. These PACs, which in turn gave money to Benton County Citizens Opposed to Measure 2-89, have received donations from Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont, large agriculture corporations, and CropLife America, a representative of the agriculture chemical industry. For full campaign finance filing information for each PAC, see the secretary of state's campaign finance system.

Below are the top ten donors to Benton County Citizens Opposed to Measure 2-89:

Donor	Amount
Betaseed Inc.	$50,000
West Coast Beet Seed Company	$17,500
Oregon Farm Bureau PAC	$15,000
Oregon Wheat Growers League	$5,000
Marion County Farm Bureau	$5,000
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation	$5,000
Benton County Farm Bureau	$3,000
Deschutes County Farm Bureau	$2,500
Yamhill County Farm Bureau	$2,500
Lone Rock Timber Management Co.	$1,000

Relevant state laws

On October 3, 2013, Oregon legislators, in a 17-12 vote, approved Senate Bill 863, which prohibits Oregon counties other than Jackson County from regulating or banning genetically modified organisms. SB 863 claimed an emergency status in order to preclude efforts against GMOs in Benton and Lane counties. A 2014 court ruling, however, stated that SB 863 cannot be used to keep initiatives off the ballot. It may be the source of a court battle if initiatives concerning agriculture regulation are approved, but activists in Benton, Josephine and Lane counties moved forward with their proposed measures.

This GMO-banning initiative was designed to subvert SB 863 by including a clause that asserted the county's right to self-government.

Reports and analyses

County's "Explanatory statement"

The following "Explanatory statement" was provided for Measure 2-89 by Benton County officials:

“	This ballot measure was submitted to the voters through the citizen initiative petition process. It would create a Benton County ordinance establishing a local food system. Food Bill of Rights In order to promulgate the local food system, three legal rights would be created: (1) The local food system right would protect foods generated from sustainable agricultural systems; (2) Right to seed heritage would protect seeds from “infection, infestation, or drift by any means from genetically engineered organisms or trans-genetic risk seed;” and (3) Natural communities, described as “soils and other terrestrial systems, aquatic systems” would be given legal rights. Natural communities must be named as plaintiffs in any action brought to enforce the rights of natural communities. Natural communities would be given the right to be free from genetically engineered organisms and to be free from patenting, licensing or ownership of their genes. Prohibitions to Secure the Bill of Rights The prohibitions described in the ordinance would apply only to corporations or governmental entities. Individuals would not be held liable for violating any of the rights enumerated in the food bill of rights. Corporations or governmental entities may not: (1) violate any of the rights set forth in the food bill of rights; (2) use genetically engineered organisms in Benton County; (3) plant transgenetic seed that has not been verified as free of genetic modification; or (4) require registration or patenting of open pollinated or traditionally-bred seed. Implementation If enacted, the ordinance would require genetically engineered organisms to be harvested, removed or destroyed within 90 days of the effective date of the ordinance. Following this initial 90-day period, corporations, but not individuals, would be strictly liable for removal of all genetically engineered organisms for which they hold patents or licenses and which are unintentionally located on other property owners’ lands. If, after the 90-day period, genetically modified organisms are discovered in Benton County, the owners of the patents would be liable for all clean-up costs, testing, loss of income, attorney fees and other removal costs. Enforcement The local food system ordinance would have supremacy over any law enacted, or rule adopted by the State of Oregon which would “violate the rights or prohibitions” of the ordinance. Corporations which violate the ordinance would have no “legal rights, privileges, powers, or protections which would interfere with the enforcement of rights or prohibitions enumerated” in the ordinance. The loss of rights would bar corporations from asserting state or federal law preemption claims or that the ordinance lacks authority under law. Enforcement of the ordinance may only be undertaken by individuals and Benton County. Corporations or other governmental entities would be given no enforcement rights. Violation of the ordinance could be both a civil violation and a criminal offense. Repeal of Inconsistent County Code Inconsistent county code provisions would be repealed. The ordinance does not specify which, if any, county code provisions would be in conflict with the proposed amendment.	”
—Benton County officials

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Oregon

The "Local Food System Ordinance" initiative was originally rejected by the county clerk on the grounds that it was too broad and violated the single subject rule, which requires initiative ordinances to be contained to one issue or subject matter.

After fighting through several lawsuits described below, initiative petitioners John Booker Jr., Cheri Clark and Dana Allen turned in 3,078 signatures to the county elections office on December 16, 2014. According to Elections Supervisor Jeff Doty, the group needed 2,171 of these signatures to be valid, a number determined by 6 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Doty, after investigating the submitted petition sheets, found 2,658 valid signatures, allowing the initiative on the May ballot by a comfortable margin.

Lawsuits

When the initiative was originally rejected by the county clerk, the initiative proponents brought the issue to court and, on January 31, 2014, Benton County Circuit Court Judge Locke Williams ruled that the initiative passed a preliminary set of requirements. In March 2014, Judge Williams ultimately ruled in favor of the initiative. Backers then faced legal challenges to the ballot title and summary, consisting by Oregon law of a 10-word caption, a 20-word question and a 175-word summary. This lawsuit needed to be settled before the signature collection could begin. In mid-April, Circuit Court Judge Matt Donohue finalized several changes to the ballot title and summary, clearing the initiative for circulation. Although they originally targeted the November 2014 election, petitioners decided to postpone the initiative until a 2015 election.

Ballot language changes

When Judge Donohue made a decision on the ballot language lawsuit, among other changes to the measure's caption, ballot question and summary, he amended the caption to read “Creates rights relating to agriculture and prohibits genetically engineered organisms" instead of “A measure establishing a Local Food System Ordinance."

The full changes are highlighted below:

Original text

The following is the original ballot language:

“

Caption: Measure to Establish a Local Food System Ordinance Question: Should Benton County voters enact a Local Food System Ordinance? Summary: Enactment of this measure would establish protections for the following: Right to Local Food System, Right to Seed Heritage, Rights of Natural Communities (including the right of terrestrial and aquatic systems to exist, persist and maintain themselves), Right to Self-Government and Self-Executing Rights. The measure would prohibit any corporation or government from using genetically engineered organisms; make it unlawful for any corporation or government to plant trans-genetic risk seed in Benton County unless such seed has been proven to be free of any traces of genetic modification; and eliminate personal liability to any corporation claiming seed patent or ownership rights or claiming loss of income or commercial infringement resulting from inadvertent infection of agricultural crops by genetically engineered organisms or other patented traits. Measure would require harvest, removal or destruction of genetically engineered organisms within 90 days of enactment. Standing to enforce the measure would be limited to the county and individuals. The measure would curtail corporate rights inconsistent with measure's provisions. The measure would also repeal inconsistent provisions of Benton County Code.

”

Final text

The following is the language that was approved to be circulated and put on the ballot:

“

Caption: Creates rights relating to agriculture and prohibits genetically engineered organisms Question: Should voters enact an ordinance prohibiting cultivation of genetically engineered organisms and creating rights relating to local food production? Summary: Enactment of measure establishes: Right to Local Food System, Right to Seed Heritage, Rights of Natural Communities (including right of terrestrial and aquatic systems to exist, persist and maintain themselves), Right to Self-Government. Rights established are self-executing. Measure prohibits corporations or government from using genetically engineered organisms; prohibits corporations or government from planting transgenetic risk seed in County unless seek is proven to be free of any genetic modifications. Measure prohibits corporations and government from requiring registration or patenting of certain seeds. Violation of prohibitions is subject to civil and criminal penalties. Measure eliminates personal liability to any corporation claiming seed patent or ownership rights or claiming loss of income or commercial infringement resulting from inadvertent infection of agricultural crops by genetically engineered organisms or other patented traits. Measure would require harvest, removal, or destruction of genetically engineered organisms within 90 days of enactment. Measure could be enforced by the county and individuals. Measure repeals inconsistent provisions of County Code and pre-empts state and federal law inconsistent with rights or prohibitions of measure.

”

Similar measures

See also: Local GMO on the ballot

Local bans

2015

• Benton County "Local Food System Ordinance" Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 2-89 (May 2015) d

2014

• Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Moratorium Initiative (November 2014) a
  
• Humboldt County "Genetic Contamination Prevention Ordinance" GMO Ban Initiative, Measure P (November 2014) a
  
• Jackson County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 15-119 (May 2014) a
  
• Josephine County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 17-58 (May 2014) a
  
• Lane County Genetically Modified Organism Ban (2014)
  

Statewide labeling measures

• Colorado Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative (2014) d
  
• Oregon Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative (2014) d
  
• California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative (2012) d
  
• Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) d
  
• Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013) d

See also

• Local GMO on the ballot
• Notable local measures on the ballot
• Benton County, Oregon ballot measures

External links

Suggest a link

Basic info

• Benton County Elections Department website

Support

• Benton County Community Rights Coalition website
• GMO Free Oregon website
• Yes on 2-89 website

Additional reading

• Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorial: Election defeat doesn't close out GMO debate," May 21, 2015
• Corvallis Gazette-Times, "M2-89 relies on 'community rights' to challenge Oregon statute," May 5, 2015
• Albany Democrat-Herald, "Editorial: Benton's GMO measure could shake Linn County," May 4, 2015
• News OK, "University says county GMO measure could hamper research," May 4, 2015
• Corvallis Gazette-Times, "City Club to examine anti-GMO initiative," April 17, 2015
• Corvallis Gazette Times, "Speakers debate local GMO ban," April 9, 2015
• Eugene Weekly, "Lane County Fight Continues Over GMOs," March 6, 2014
• Growers for Biotechnology, "Lane County clerk rejects GMO initiative," July 24, 2014