Undermines participatory democracy
Local governments have historically overseen policies related to public health, safety, and welfare. Preventing local decision-making contradicts the legitimate and necessary responsibilities of cities, towns, and counties. Traditionally, laws enacted at the federal and state level have set minimum requirements and allowed for the continued passage and enforcement of local ordinances that establish greater and regionally appropriate levels of public health protection.

Genetic Engineering: Existing California regulatory system
SB 1056 has only one purpose: to prohibit county ballot initiatives or ordinances adopted by county supervisors that would affect the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture.  The amendments fly in the face of the California Constitution, which guarantees the right of cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws”(Article XI, Section 7). 

Regardless of your views of county initiatives and ordinances to restrict the use of genetically modified organisms, the case cannot be made that they are in conflict with general laws, which is the constitutional test.  Unlike other areas of law where the state has asserted primacy, the state has no body of law regarding genetically modified organisms that would justify pre-empting the right of local citizens to act by legal means to protect their interests as they see fit. 

For example:

• California Seed Law (FAC 52251 ff.), which SB 1056 would amend, is silent on genetically modified organisms.  In fact the state of California has no laws or regulations governing genetically modified organisms.  
• In 2000, the state established a Food Biotechnology Task Force.  It met only once before disbanding.  According to a 2003 Issue Brief by the Senate Office of Research,1 the Task Force “produced two published products, neither of which explicitly addressed the issue of whether more state oversight and monitoring of biotechnology is advisable.”  SOR also concluded that, “with few exceptions, states rely solely upon the federal government for regulation of biotechnology products.”
• Senate Resolution 34 (January 2002) found that “state agencies have virtually no resources allocated to evaluating any potential adverse effects of biotechnology on the environment, public health or consumers.”

Genetic Engineering: Existing Federal regulatory system
In addition to an absence of state regulations on GE, the federal government also does not have specific or adequate mandatory environmental or human safety testing requirements for GE crops.  Companies are permitted to determine what tests are to be performed and how they are conducted. The federal and state governments do not require pre-market review or labelling of GE products; and rarely require monitoring of GE crops for health or ecological risks after they are commercialized.

The sponsors of SB 1056 will no doubt claim the federal regulatory structure for genetically modified organisms is adequate.  However, according to the SOR Issue Brief, at least two well-respected studies, by the National Academy of Sciences (2002) and the Pew Initiative on Food Biotechnology (2003), “raised serious concerns about the adequacy of federal regulation of food biotechnology, particularly with regard to products that have already entered the market and to future technological developments in the industry.” 

Local legislation does not result in an unworkable patchwork of laws
It has been argued that local legislation results in an unworkable patchwork of laws, but citizens handle various legal patchworks all the time. Regularly, the public adjusts to varying speed limits, building codes, zoning codes, and multiple local resolutions and ordinances pertaining to issues of public health, welfare, and safety. If the end goal is effective state-level regulation, the way to go about it is to initiate a broad based multi-stakeholder discussion, not to strip local rights and disenfranchise the voting public.