Food Fight at the Ballot Box : Agriculture: Coalition of growers counters anti-pesticide campaign with its own proposal aimed at calming fears.

California farmers and food producers on Thursday unveiled their strategy for countering a sweeping anti-pesticide ballot initiative advanced by environmentalists and Democratic political leaders--their own 59-page alternative “wholesome food” ballot proposal.

The food industry’s initiative is intended to reassure Californians the food they eat will not harm them. It foreshadows what could become a colossal campaign fight in 1990 over food safety and how much government control of pesticides is enough, or too much.

Environmentalists, and Democratic leaders Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Assemblyman Tom Hayden of Santa Monica, contend that food is tainted with residues of cancer-causing pesticides. Their initiative would phase out such pesticides over six years.

It also contains far-reaching provisions to restrict release of so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, to prepare California for an offshore oil spill and to promote tree-growing. And it would establish a statewide elected office for an environmental adviser.

Signatures are now being collected to qualify this measure for the November ballot. It is a key part of Van de Kamp’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Food producers and retailers, on the other hand, argue that food is safe. And their initiative is advanced in the hope that--with some modest increases in testing, research and government oversight--Californians will be put at ease.

“The Hayden-Van de Kamp measure is irresponsible. It takes a sledgehammer approach rather than a common-sense approach to the food safety issue. We’ve come up with a better mousetrap to reassure, or assure, the public that our California-grown food is in fact safe,” said Jasper Hempel, vice president of government affairs for the Western Growers Assn. and a coordinator for the campaign.

According to a summary provided by its drafters, the initiative would:

- Double the amount of food tested for pesticide residue.

- Broaden the powers of the governor’s secretary of environmental affairs to include new oversight responsibilities “for food, water and worker safety.”

- Require the state to review whether existing laws are sufficient to protect children’s health.

- Increase research on Medfly eradication and double the production of sterile flies.

Additionally, the measure would grant the state director of food and agriculture the power to halt the use of dangerous chemicals and to impound food when pesticides have been used improperly. However, sponsors acknowledged the director effectively has such authority already.

The additional research and testing would cost about $10 million to $12 million a year, as calculated by the sponsors.

In general, Hempel said, the aim of the initiative is to underscore the industry’s basic belief: “We can tell you unequivocally that your food is safe.”

Hempel acknowledged the measure would not change the existing process of registering pesticides based on governmental assessment of acceptable health risk.

Many of the state’s important farm and grocer organizations are part of the coalition behind the measure, including the state Farm Bureau Federation, the Agricultural Council, the California Growers Assn. and the California League of Food Processors. The chemical industry is not part of the coalition.

The sponsors said that the rival measure by the environmentalists would eliminate 70% to 80% of the registered chemicals now being used on California food. “That will mean a decrease in the quantity and quality of what we produce,” Hempel said. “And frankly we don’t understand that. Why are they doing that?”

Leaders of the environmentalists’ campaign said the industry was advancing only “token reform.”

“This is not to protect food, this is to protect their privileged position, their status quo,” Assemblyman Hayden said. “Their proposal does little that is not already authorized by state law. They would double the amount of testing of food but do nothing about removing dangerous pesticides from food.

“Specifically, theirs would permit the continued use of pesticides known to cause cancer and birth defects, while our proposal would phase out such chemicals over a six-year period.”

The food industry said it would begin collecting signatures in mid-February and turn them in for verification in April. A total of 372,178 signatures of registered voters is required to secure the measure a place on the ballot.

The alliance, which calls itself Californians for Responsible Food Laws, or CAREFUL, has hired a Republican political consulting firm, the Dolphin Group of Westwood, to manage the campaign.

Lee Stitzenberger, a political consultant with Dolphin, said the agricultural industry is prepared to spend from $3 million to $5 million on behalf of the initiative, although such early projections are not necessarily reliable.

What is clear is that defeating the environmentalists’ proposal is a compelling goal of agriculture.

Earlier in the autumn, farm interests succeeded in getting the Bush Administration to announce it would seek to impose federal pesticide standards and preempt individual states, like California, from enacting any stricter controls. This promises to be a significant battle for Congress in the coming year.

Hempel said the primary goal of the food industry was to forestall the “radical” steps of phasing out pesticides so California can finally begin to determine the extent of chemical use on the farm. Under a new law that takes effect Jan. 1, he said, growers will have to report to the state all pesticides they use. “Let’s give it a chance to work. Farmers contend we don’t use nearly as much as our opponents say we use,” Hempel added.