Legal Analysis

660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE , Suite 302, Washington, DC 20003

(202) 547-9359  FAX (202) 547-9429

1009 General  Kennedy Ave., #2  San Francisco, CA 94129

(415) 561-2524 FAX (415) 561-7651

www.centerforfoodsafety.org 

M  E  M  O  R  A  N  D  U  M

TO: Citizens of San Luis Obispo County

FR: Joseph Mendelson III, Legal Director

RE: Measure Q-04; County Ordinance Prohibiting Growing of Genetically Engineered Organisms

DA: 10 September 2004

Opponents of San Luis Obispo County’s Initiated Measure Q-04; County Ordinance Prohibiting Growing of Genetically Engineered Organisms have made claims that specific language contained in the measure would prohibit the production of medicines, industrial cleaners and other non-agricultural items created through genetic engineering techniques.  These assertions ignore both the intent of Measure Q-04 and the entire context of the measure’s language.  It is clear that a reasonable legal interpretation of measure’s language limits its coverage to the propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of genetically engineered crops and animals.

In interpreting voter initiatives, California courts apply the same principles that govern statutory interpretation.  People v. Rizo, 99 P. 2d 27, 30 (Cal. 2000). Courts will turn first to the language of the  statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning. Id.  Opponents of Measure Q-04 suggest that applying a prohibition against “raising,” “growing” or “propagating” as relates to a “genetically engineered organisms” would encompass more than a prohibition against the cultivating, raising, growing or propagating of genetically crops and animals. Such an analysis is incomplete and wrong.

In analyzing the breadth of Measure Q-04, it is necessary to look beyond the abstract or isolated combination of the words “raise,” “grow,” “propagate” with “genetically engineered organism.” The statutory language must be construed in the context of statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme. Id. The meaning of a statute may not be determined from a single word or sentence; the words must be construed in context, and provisions relating to the same subject matter must be harmonized to the extent possible. People v. Garcia, 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410, 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).    

In this regard, the entire context of Measure Q-04 indicates that the prohibition is to be applied only to agricultural products such as crops and animals.  The measure would provide exclusive enforcement power to the Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo County.  Measure Q-04, Section 6.  County agricultural commissioners are delegated authority to carry out programs related only to agricultural issues such as pest control, pesticide enforcement, seed certification, nursery inspection, egg inspection and crop statistics. See California Department of Food & Agriculture, “County Agricultural Commissioners: Protecting Agriculture and the Environment,” available at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/cl/cacasa.htm (last visited Sept. 9, 2004).  Therefore, the use of specific terms such as “propagate,” “grow” and “genetically engineered organism” need to be harmonized with the scope of authority and traditional role of the Agricultural Commissioner.  Within such a context, it is clear that the terms of the measure are directed to the use of agricultural goods such as crops or animals ( i.e. the subject matter that is traditionally the subject of agricultural commissioner oversight).

To the extent that a contextual analysis does not resolve any ambiguity concerning the scope of Measure Q-04, California courts will refer to other indicia of voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet. Rizo, 996 P.2d at 30.

An analysis of the Measure Q-04 official ballot pamphlet reveals that the clear intent of the measure is to prohibit the use genetically engineered organisms in agricultural settings.  For example, the pamphlet’s “Fiscal Impact Statement” speaks specifically to the cost and benefits that may accrue to the county’s agricultural sector and the status of the county’s agricultural commodities in the marketplace.  The statement does not in anyway suggest that the measure would apply medicines or other non-agricultural products that may be produced through genetic engineering techniques.

Furthermore, the pro and con arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet indicate the measure is directed exclusively toward the agricultural sector. The “Arguments in Favor of Measure Q-04"  address only the benefits the prohibition will have on the county’s agricultural sector.  The “Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure Q-04" similarly focuses almost exclusively on the measure’s impact to the farm economy and speaks to international acceptance of genetically engineered crops. It  references life saving medicine only in a single sentence bullet. Similarly, the “Argument Against Measure Q-04" solely argues that the measure will negatively affect the county’s agriculture and food supply. It makes a one sentence passing reference to general advances created by technology, but in no manner does it discuss how the measure would prohibit the creation or production of medicines derived from genetically engineered organisms.  The “Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure Q-04" makes no reference to the proposed prohibition in a setting other agricultural.  As a result, any analysis of the material contained in the official ballot pamphlet for Measure Q-04 will leave little doubt that the electorate’s intended goal, as reflected in the language, context and substance of the ballot arguments, is to focus exclusively on whether their should be a prohibition on the use of genetically engineered agricultural organism in San Luis Obispo. 

As the California courts have reflected, “[i]n the case of a voters’ initiative statute . . . we may not properly interpret the measure in a way that the electorate did not contemplate: the voters should get what they enacted, not more and not less.” Robert L. v. Superior Ct. of Orange Co., 69 P. 3d 951, 961 (Cal. 2003).  In this instance, the electorate will vote on nothing more than the use of genetically engineered organisms in San Luis Obispo agriculture and any attempt to broaden the intent and scope of the initiative to bolster political opposition are unsupported by the prevailing legal standards interpreting perceived ambiguities contained in Measure Q-04.