Organic farmer Robert Cannard tosses a handful of lemon verbena in a pot, brews the tea and explains his quest.

On this rain-rinsed day, the fields outside are sparkling with endive and eggplant. Twice a week, a truck from Chez Panisse in Berkeley trundles up for vegetables and drops off kitchen scraps for compost. For years, the rhythm of his days has revolved around his 20-acre spread in the Sonoma Valley.

But Cannard's spadework these days is in a new venture: politics.

He's digging into democratic dirt, hoping an initiative requiring labels on genetically altered foods will qualify for the November 2000 ballot. Several thousand signatures have been returned to the Glen Ellen post office already.

Although genetically altered crops, such as corn and soybeans, are grown mostly in the Midwest, the dissent has also taken root in California. Without labeling, people cannot know whether the corn syrup in their colas or the soybean in their tofu came from genetically altered plants.

Cannard is expected to testify today in Oakland at a daylong public Food and Drug Administration hearing on the merits and drawbacks of these foods. The session will be at the Elihu Harris State Office Building, 1515 Clay St.

Genetically modified foods have given rise to protests in Japan, and stringent European labeling requirements effectively ban genetically altered food from the United States.

But the Alliance for Better Foods, a coalition of 40 food organizations including the American Farm Bureau Federation, says genetically modified foods will promote greater nutrition and less reliance on chemical pesticides and could go far in combatting global hunger.

They envision bananas laced with oral vaccines, so shots can be avoided, or vegetables enhanced with more beta carotene. Already, the Rockefeller Foundation is working on rice with more vitamin A to counter nutritional deficiencies in developing nations. Existing federal regulations do not require food labels to describe the plant development process by which food is produced.

``There is no doubt that consumer attitudes will ultimately be a big force in this debate. But other than that, would it do us any good to steer that debate toward fear? That is what labeling would do,'' said farm federation spokesman Mace Thornton.

``The labeling of a food product that scientists and our government agencies say is safe would do nothing more than raise unwarranted fears in the general public.''

Working just a few miles from the prized patch of land where the dapper Luther Burbank proved his wizardry with new hybrid strains, Cannard is cultivating caution. He wants to ensure that the natural order isn't destroyed by unleashed and untested forces.

``Luther Burbank would think (genetic engineering) was crazy. He knew how to look at the natural vibration of plants,'' said Cannard, 46. ``When you start changing the nature of the beast, mixing the genetic organisms from other plants, then you are changing the spirit of the plants. Luther Burbank was into the spirit of the plant and not just the superficial.''

According to Cannard, crossbred strains or hybrid species don't muck with a plant's genetic material, but work with the willingness of the plant to adapt and change. But genetic engineering alters the natural immune system and growth of plants, introducing foreign fungus or laboratory DNA to make plants poisonous or unpalatable to pests, disease or weeds.

The effect on insects or people with allergies or sensitive digestive tracts is unknown, Cannard said. ``Heirloom'' crops like his -- older varieties that more closely resemble the ancient strains --may be at risk from the windblown pollen of genetically altered plants.

Caterpillars of Monarch butterflies have died after consuming pollen from genetically altered corn species that contain toxins for pests, including the European corn borer, according to the journal Nature.

If genetically modified foods are labeled, Cannard said, people can vote with their wallets and let market forces dictate whether farmers use the altered seeds.

``We're not questioning the religious, moral or scientific merits of genetically engineered foods but are giving people the opportunity to know,'' Cannard said.

``We're not saying genetic engineering is bad, like some sort of addictive drug, but it needs to be thoroughly studied and the effect on nature understood before it is released,'' he added. ``If these were drugs, it would take 20 years before release. Drugs affect small quantities of people, but food affects many more people on the mass market.''

His all-volunteer campaign has harnessed the power of the Internet with a Web site explaining the scope and purpose of the proposed initiative.

If successful, this campaign would be the first to qualify an initiative using the Internet, according to Alfie Charles at the secretary of state's office.

The Internet helps hold down printing and mailing costs, giving people access to the petitions without the expense of hiring signature gatherers.

Cannard has donated about $5,000 to the drive, and petitions are sprouting up at farmer's markets, health-food stores and organic-food groups. By March 6, signatures from 419,260 registered voters are needed to place the initiative on the ballot.

While a political novice when it comes to initiatives, Cannard said the effort is worthwhile to educate people about genetically engineered foods.

``The initiatives are an expression of the population. People may not be aware of a potential problem and the caution needed for genetically modified food stock,'' Cannard said. ``This effort will raise awareness, no matter what.''

People interested in the petition can write to California Right to Know/Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Initiative, P.O. Box. 520, Glen Ellen, CA, 95442; call (707) 939-8316 or visit the Web page at http://www.calrighttoknow.org

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **