California
January 16, 2007
Growing genetically engineered
(GE) crops in the United States continues to stir debate, but
some University
of California scientists believe attention should now be
focused on how farmers opposed to the technology and those in
favor of it can step back from the controversy and successfully
produce and market their crops in the way they personally see
fit.
“A debate is being fueled by the perception that there has to be
a choice between either organic agriculture or genetic
engineering,” said Alison Van Eenennaam, a University of
California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) specialist in animal
genomics and biotechnology. “This ignores the possibility that
different production systems can coexist alongside each other.”
Coexistence depends on establishing and implementing practical
measures to ensure the integrity of crops destined for different
markets. The first step, say some UC experts, is providing
accurate information on the issue to farmers, environmentalists,
lawmakers and consumers. UC’s biotechnology workgroup has
crafted 13 fact sheets, reviewed by scientific experts for
accuracy, outlining basic information about the production and
safety of GE crops, foods, animal feed and animals.
The information will help counties and state agencies as they
hammer out coexistence plans for organic farmers, farmers
producing products for markets that reject GE crops, and farmers
who consider GE crops necessary to compete in the global
marketplace.
Interest in the use of GE in California agriculture began in
earnest when Measure H, Mendocino County’s ordinance that banned
the growth and propagation of GE plants and animals, was passed
in March 2004. Subsequently, the Trinity County Board of
Supervisors passed a similar measure imposing a ban within
county borders and ballot initiatives like Mendocino’s were
considered in Marin, San Luis Obispo, Butte and Humboldt
counties. (Only the Marin initiative succeeded.) Groups opposed
to the use of GE in California agriculture remain active in a
number of California counties.
“The discourse regarding genetic engineering is often being
inflamed by alarming assertions and facts that are not derived
from, nor are they supported by, scientific research,” Van
Eenennaam said. “There is a continued need to ensure that the
public has access to science-based information and educational
materials.”
According to a report released in December 2006 by the Pew
Charitable Trust, 34 percent of Americans say they believe
genetically modified foods are safe, 29 percent say they are
unsafe and 37 percent had no opinion. According to a UC fact
sheet, scientific evidence to date has indicated that foods
developed using GE pose no greater risk to consumers than foods
produced using traditional methods.
In the Pew study, consumers consistently underestimated their
consumption of GE foods, with just 26 percent believing they
have eaten such foods and 60 percent believing they have not. In
fact, it is likely that all U.S. consumers have eaten foods
containing some ingredients derived from GE crops.
“Seventy-five percent of processed foods contain genetically
modified ingredients – things like cotton seed oil, soy protein,
canola oil and high fructose corn syrup,” said UCCE
biotechnology specialist Peggy Lemaux, author of two of the fact
sheets.
A primary concern of growers producing food for GE-sensitive
markets is the potential for some unintended presence of GE
material in their product. A small amount of engineered genes in
non-GE food can result from pollen flow or unintentional
mingling during post-harvest storage, transportation or food
processing. One hundred percent purity of any processed product,
Lemaux said, is not achievable. Tolerance levels for unwanted
material are applied in every crop sector, from certified seed
to mainstream commodity production.
“The only way we can have coexistence is if both sides are
willing to work together to ensure that they can successfully
deliver products that meet their customers’ tolerance
thresholds,” Lemaux said. “An achievable tolerance level for
unwanted material in an end product is probably 1 percent or
less. In Europe, products with 0.9 percent GE presence are
marketed without labeling.”
San Luis Obispo County officials are currently developing a
protocol for coexistence of GE and non-GE crops. The majority of
voters there rejected Measure Q in 2004, which would have banned
GE crops. But at the polls, nearly 50,000 individuals expressed
their support for the ban.
At the request of the board of supervisors, San Luis Obispo
County agricultural commissioner Bob Lilley assembled a
committee to develop coexistence methods. UCCE horticulture
advisor Mary Bianchi served as a member, supplying technical
information from UC. Many questions raised by the committee are
addressed in UC’s new series of fact sheets. The committee’s
recommendations for coexistence were presented to the San Luis
Obispo County Board of Supervisors last summer.
“One of the primary considerations is communicating where and
when GE crops are grown to minimize GE presence in non-GE
foods,” Bianchi said. “This has been done successfully for years
by seed producers with mapping systems that identify where their
certified seed fields are planted so that other seed producers
can plan their planting strategies around the existing crops. We
are exploring development of a similar notification process for
county growers.”
Lemaux believes the efforts in San Luis Obispo County may serve
as an example for other counties in California or regulators at
the statewide level to implement policies that will allow for
peaceful coexistence of those who favor GE crops and those who
do not.
The free, downloadable fact sheets are:
Introduction to Genetic Modification by Lemaux
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8178.pdf
Plant Genetic Engineering and Regulation in the United States
by Alan McHughen, UC Riverside biotechnology specialist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8179.pdf
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods by Carl Winter, UC
Davis food toxicologist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
Genetic Engineering and Pollen Flow by Norman Ellstrand,
UC Riverside geneticist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8182.pdf
Genetic Engineering and Animal Feed by Van Eenennaam
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8183.pdf
Genetic Engineering and Animal Agriculture by Van
Eenennaam
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8184.pdf
Genetic Engineering and Fish by Van Eenennaam
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8185.pdf
Plant Genetic Engineering and Intellectual Property
Protection by Brian Wright, UC Berkeley agricultural
economist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8186.pdf
Some Food and Environmental Safety Issues with GE Products: A
Scientific Perspective by Lemaux
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8187.pdf
Genetic Engineering and Organic Production Systems by
Pamela Ronald, UC Davis plant pathologist, and Benny Fouche,
UCCE San Joaquin County small farms advisor
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8188.pdf
Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Production Systems
Involving Genetically Engineered Cotton by Robert
Hutmacher, UC Davis agronomy specialist, Ron Vargas, UCCE Madera
County emeritus field crops farm advisor, and Steven Wright,
UCCE Tulare County field crops farm advisor
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8191.pdf
Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Corn Production
Systems by Kent Brittan, UCCE Yolo County field crops
farm advisor
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8192.pdf
Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Production Systems
Involving Genetically Engineered Alfalfa by Dan Putnam,
UC Davis agronomy specialist
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8193.pdf
|