Proponents of Measure P, the much-discussed ballot measure that would ban the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Humboldt County, say that a new state law set to take effect on Jan. 1 would prevent any and all future attempts to pass such a measure in the future.

“Local voters need to seize the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ on Measure P on Tuesday,” the Yes On P committee said in a press release issued today. “They may not have that chance again.”

Here’s the background on this new twist in the Measure P debate:

Assembly Bill 2470, which offered tweaks to the existing California Seed Law [pdf], quietly and unanimously passed the State Assembly back in May and was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Aug. 25 — following the addition of a few amendments.

And there’s the rub.

At first glance, the bill seems to be a relatively innocuous series of clarifications and minor changes to definitions of terms in the state’s seed law. But, as an unidentified someone recently alerted local Measure P proponents, an amendment was added late in the process that states, in part:

The bill would also prohibit a city, county, or district, including a charter city or county, from adopting or enforcing an ordinance on or after January 1, 2015, that regulates plants, crops, or seeds without the consent of the secretary [of Food and Agriculture].

In a press release issued this afternoon, Yes On Measure P committee spokesperson Bill Schaser was quoted saying, “This law was a sneak attack on local democracy. It takes away the right of local communities to regulate plants and seeds as they see fit, and hands that power over to state bureaucrats instead.”

Is that really what the new law does? Would it neuter all future attempts by local governments to regulate GMOs by making such regulations dependent on state approval?

The main thrust of AB 2470, which was authored by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D - Bakersfield), is ensuring that seed containers are properly and accurately labeled. As for the amendment in question, it does not appear to have roots in the GMO debate.

According to the Senate Floor Analysis (which you can download here), the amendment was designed to settle issues raised by a proposed invasive-plant policy down in Encinitas. This municipal policy would prohibit certain invasive plants from being used on city property, public rights-of-way, and any discretionary projects under the city’s purview.

Somebody (the analysis doesn’t say who) objected to the proposed Encinitas policy on the grounds that “there is an existing statewide model (PlantRight) that is successful in helping horticulturalists phase out invasive plants within the supply chain.”

So there is indeed a battle over state versus local control — only it’s about invasive plants, not GMOs. Nominally, at least.

The Yes On Measure P press release issued earlier today contends that there are far-reaching implications to the bill that escaped legislators, and everyone else. “It appears that many other agriculture policy groups throughout the state had been similarly unaware of the bill and its far-reaching effects,” the release says.

In its September legislative report, the California Agricultural Irrigation Association did call attention to this particular provision, noting that it will allow the state food and ag secretary to review “all ordinances that attempt to ban plant or seed varieties.” But the association, for its part, suggested that the implications extend only so far as local governments that try to pass invasive-plant ordinances.

However, the letter of the law does seem to imply broader implications.

The Lost Coast Outpost today contacted the Bakersfield and Sacramento offices of Salas, the bill’s author, but did not hear back before the time of this post.

Humboldt State University Biology Professor Mark Wilson, one of the most vocal opponents of Measure P, said he was unaware of this new law before the Outpost called it to his attention. Like P-proponent Schaser, Wilson said the law could have broader implications, though Wilson believes that the new law may just be an early step toward a statewide policy governing the legality of GMOs. He also believes that Measure P will prove to be unconstitutional.

“One of many concerns about Measure P is that taxpayers of Humboldt County are going to be paying for litigation and testing of a local law only to have those expenses wasted as the state enacts an overriding law,” Wilson said in an email. “This issue clearly needs to be and will be resolved at a state and federal level, and unlike Mr. Schaser I see the new law as evidence that the state is stepping in to prevent a mishmash of conflicting county/town/city laws.”

Schaser, meanwhile, is hopeful that the state will revisit the new law — and perhaps rescind this particular provision — once the implications are brought to light. “But we’re not counting on it,” he said in the press release.