Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 26, Issue 1–2, pp 95–105 | Cite as

Localizing control: Mendocino County and the ban on GMOs

  • Marygold Walsh-DilleyEmail author


In March, 2004, the rural northern California county of Mendocino voted to ban the propagation of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This county was the first, and only, U.S. region to adopt such a ban despite widespread activism against biotechnology. Using a civic agriculture perspective, this article explores how local actors in this small county were able to take on the agri-biotechnology industry. I argue that by localizing the issue, the citizens of Mendocino County were able to ignite a highly effective, decentralized and grassroots social movement against which powerful, and well-funded, pro-biotechnology entities were unable to compete. The social problem of biotechnology was embedded in issues of mass concern to Mendocino County residents, such as democracy, equity, distribution of power, and corporate control over local life. The campaign was an arena for “local problem-solving activities organized around food and agriculture” (Lyson 2004, p. 103). However, though localizing this issue was key for generating a successful ban against the propagation of GMOs at the county level, the local orientation of the No to GMOs movement created a barrier for scaling-up and transferring this success to the wider anti-biotechnology movement.


Biotechnology Civic agriculture Localization Re-localization Social movements GMOs 



Genetically modified organism


Genetically modified


Deoxyribonucleic acid



A preliminary draft of this article was written for a course given by Tom Lyson on Genomics, Agriculture, Food Systems and Development in the Department of Development Sociology at Cornell University. Thanks go to Tom Lyson, Max Pfeffer, and two anonymous reviewers for comments made on earlier drafts.


  1. Abel, T.D., and M. Stephan. 2000. The limits of civic environmentalism. American Behavioral Scientist 44 (4): 614–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, B., and M. Lappé. 1998. Against the grain: Biotechnology and the corporate takeover of our food. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard, J. 2002. Oregon votes down measures for free medical and genetically altered food labeling. The Associated Press State and Local Wire, November 6.Google Scholar
  4. Bradford, P., T. Piper, R.G. Geisler, J.R. Harris, and M. Anderson. 2004. Arguments against ballot proposition Measure H. Mendocino County election materials. Accessed Apr 2004.
  5. Calvan, B.C. 2004. County weighs ban on modified foods. The Boston Globe February 29. Accessed Apr 2004.
  6. CNN. 2004. Marijuana-rich California county considers GMO ban., January 10.Google Scholar
  7. Cooperrider, E., M.J. Sheppard, and R. Epstein. 2004. Ballot statement in favor of Measure H. Mendocino County election materials. Accessed 1 Apr 2004.
  8. Craver, T., D. Harris, Z. Grader, D. Fetzer, and M. Lappé. 2004. Rebuttal to argument against Measure H. Mendocino County election materials. Accessed Apr 2004.
  9. Due, L. 2004. Opening fire on GMOs. Alternet-EnviroHealth, February 27.Google Scholar
  10. Gamson, W. 1990. The strategy of social protest, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Garcia, K. 2004. Planting seeds of rebellion. The San Francisco Chronicle, February 16: B-7.Google Scholar
  12. Geniella, M. 2004. Mendocino County voters ban biotech crops: First county in US to bar gene-altering farming. The Press Democrat, March 3.Google Scholar
  13. Goode, E., and N. Ben-Yehuda. 1994. Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Hamburg, L. 2004. Monsanto, Dow and Dupont dump more than $300k into smear campaign against Measure H. Press Release, February 20.Google Scholar
  15. Hilgartner, S., and C.L. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology 94 (1): 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoban, T.J. 1995. The construction of food biotechnology as a social issue. In Eating agendas: Food and nutrition as social problems, ed. D. Maurer and J. Sobal, 189–209. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Irvine, R. 2004. Activists around the world watch Mendocino County: An example of corporate vs activist PR. Truth About Trade and Technology, February 25.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, P. 2004. Mendocino measure focuses debate over biotech crops. Mercury News, March 1.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, K.E. 2000. Constructing rBST in Canada: Biotechnology, instability and the management of nature. Canadian Journal of Sociology 25: 311–341.Google Scholar
  20. Kupfer, D. 2004a. Report from the grassroots—The Mendocino victory. Organic Consumers Association (March 3). Accessed Apr 2004.
  21. Kupfer, D. 2004b. GMO = get Monsanto out? AlterNet, March 3.Google Scholar
  22. Lau, E. 2004. Anti-biotech measure approved: Mendocino’s Measure H backers overcome a huge fund-raising disadvantage. Sacramento Bee March 3. Accessed Apr 2004.
  23. Lucas, Greg. 2004. Efforts to ban genetically altered crops spreading. San Francisco Chronicle, March 30: B-3.Google Scholar
  24. Lyson, T.A. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lyson, T.A. 2005. Civic agriculture and community problem solving. Culture and Agriculture 27 (2): 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazur, A. 1981. The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, H.L., J. Melo, T. Nelson, J.R. Harris, and G.A. Hollister. 2004. Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure H. Mendocino County election materials. Accessed Apr 2004.
  28. Nestle, M. 2003. Safe foods: Bacteria, biotechnology, and bioterrorism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. O’Neill, G. 2002. Oregon setback for GM food opponents. Sunday Herald Sun, November 17.Google Scholar
  30. Organic Consumers Association. 2004. Mission accomplished-Mendocino County bans GE crops! Organic Bytes 29: 1.Google Scholar
  31. PANUPS. 2004. Mendocino votes on GE crop ban. Pesticide Action Network Updates Service, March 1.Google Scholar
  32. Petersen, J.C., and G.E. Markle. 1989. Controversies in science and technology. In Science off the pedestal: Social perspectives on science and technology, ed. D.E. Chubin and E.W. Chu, 5–18. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Pogash, C. 2004. California county debates use of gene-altering foods. New York Times, March 2.Google Scholar
  34. Scott, P., E. Richards, and B. Martin. 1990. Captives of controversy: The myth of the neutral social researcher in contemporary scientific controversies. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15 (4): 474–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tolbert, C.M., T.A. Lyson, and M. Irwin. 1998. Local capitalism, civic engagement, and socioeconomic wellbeing. Social Forces 77: 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Development SociologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations