The Public Loses With Task Force Bias: Tribune Get's it Wrong Again

Below is our rebuttal viewpoint and a reprint of the editorial.

In January 2005 the Tribune was presented with a list of questions on the coverage of Measure Q during the 2004 election. These questions remain unanswered and their bias continues.

The Public Loses With Task Force Bias

The Tribune’s editorial of Oct. 28 referred to the last Health Commission meeting as “the latest skirmish” in the debate over the safety of genetically engineered foods.  Unfortunately, truth has been the casualty not of the “skirmish” but of the Tribune’s reporting. No one from the Tribune has attended any of the Health Commission or GE Task Force meetings, nor did the Tribune ask anyone from SLO GE Free how they felt about the decision to add three members. If asked, SLO GE Free would’ve expressed optimism with the decision.

The unanimous Health Commission vote rekindled hopes for an open-minded task force seeking to consider all sides of the issue.  Mark Phillips, SLO GE Free representative, was quoted after the decision, by the Tribune as saying “…we are hopeful that a new era of cooperation can ensue between a public that has serious concerns regarding the safety of GE food and crops and a task force that has been at times openly hostile to those citizens.”

The unanimous vote clearly indicated real problems with the GE Task Force. 

Although the task force isn’t about Measure Q, an applicant’s position on Q affected their acceptance to the committee.  All applicants supporting Q were rejected, including two Health Commissioners.  Yet, of the five public citizens chosen for the task force, three were very active in the No on Q campaign. 

The “Cal Poly crop scientist who’s familiar with bioengineering” signed the ballot argument against Measure Q and sold genetically engineered corn at the SLO Farmers Market during the election.  The “farmer who sells his produce at farmers market” has only recently become a farmer.  Previously, his professional life involved 25 years  of research on GE crops.  The “retired doctor who also practiced dentistry” lobbied the Tribune editorial board to oppose Measure Q.

For 3 months, SLO GE Free tried unsuccessfully to learn how task force members were chosen.   Asking to disband and recreate the task force using a transparent selection process was a legitimate option.  The Health Commission has chosen to rebalance the existing task force.

The GE Task Force is, above all, a committee of our county Health Commission, including the 49,910 people who voted yes on Measure Q.  A biased, unbalanced committee cannot look objectively at the genuine food safety concerns of these citizens.  Stating that the task force will examine existing scientific research and present this data to the Board of Supervisors is a simplistic view of the challenges of any GE Task Force   If it were that simple, the job would’ve been done elsewhere and conclusions drawn long ago.  Instead, this is an issue that needs to be open to public scrutiny and debate.  For that reason, SLO GE Free members will not relinquish their rights as citizens, go home and “dial down the rhetoric,” as requested by the Tribune, but will look forward to the addition of three new task force members and hope for a true discussion on the safety of our food.

Tribune Editorial

Let the task force studying biotech food do its work

The Tribune (Original: http://tinyurl.com/d2lgt)

Almost a year after county voters defeated a proposed ban on genetically modified crops, the debate over biotech food continues.

The latest skirmish occurred when the county Health Commission recently added two as-yet unfilled positions -- a biomedical researcher and biomedical ethicist -- to its seven-member Genetic Engineering Task Force.

SLO GE Free, which opposes growing biotech foods, says the two areas of expertise politicize the task force, adding that the committee isn't living up to its mission: "To provide the people of San Luis Obispo County with scientifically based information regarding the health implications of genetically engineered foods and crops."

We strongly disagree.

The task force's sole purpose is to gather scientific data on bioengineered food from journals, reports or people familiar with the field. It will give its report to the Health Commission in the spring with plans for it to be used as an educational tool for the public.

Contrary to the fears of some members of SLO GE Free, the task force isn't charged with collecting opinions -- either pro or con -- about the issue.

That isn't what SLO GE Free wants to hear or believe, so the group disrupted a recent task force meeting, claiming that it's a "betrayal of public trust" and that "the fix is in." They want the task force disbanded.

Again, we strongly disagree.

Here's the makeup of the committee: A retired doctor who also practiced dentistry and a nurse who represent health interests, a Cal Poly crop scientist who's familiar with bioengineering, a landscape designer /contractor who represents the public, a chiropractor who uses nutrition in his practice, a farmer who sells his produce at farmers markets and holds a doctorate in chemistry, research and development, and a member of the Health Commission. A biomedical researcher and biomedical ethicist, when selected, would give increased value to an already highly credentialed committee.

We urge SLO GE Free to dial down the rhetoric and let the task force focus on its mission, one that will hopefully shed more light than heat on an issue that may ultimately have a profound effect on our lives.