Is the GMO Ban in Sonoma County Benefit or Detriment to Local Farmers?

[Moonbear]

What about pointing at studies that do show problems. Like this one for example; http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1535428,00.html
Perhaps those experts who advocate GM crops should also educate themselves before 'running around like headless chickens' saying everything in the garden is rosy.

Of course, buried all the way at the end of the article was this comment:

Farmers in Canada and Argentina growing GM soya beans have large problems with herbicide-resistant weeds, though these have arisen through natural selection and not gene flow through hybridisation.

Here, the question one must ask is what is the real problem, the way the plant was bred (would it have mattered at all if the resistance gene were bred in by selective breeding rather than using GE?), or the environmental impact of herbicide usage? Note that GM crops don't alter whether or not herbicides are used to control weeds, they only alter when the herbicides can be used.

Agriculture is not innocuous to the environment, it never has been. By definition, we are modifying the natural environment when we employ agricultural practices to supply food. Even organic farming has an impact on the environment. Just tilling the soil an planting a non-native species alters the habitat dramatically. Selective breeding alters the plants. The use of pesticides and herbicides produce selection pressures that promote survival of insects and plants with resistance to those pesticides and herbicides. Tilling the soil provides a selection pressure for weeds that can survive having their roots uplifted, or that grow in full sun rather than shade, or that germinate later in the season. The question is not whether agriculture has an impact on the environment, it's whether there is anything special about how the plants were bred.

One can find fault with using an herbicide resistant variety, regardless of how that resistance was obtained, because it promotes increasing the use of herbicides and any related run-off, environmental impacts on neighboring ecosystems, potentials for herbicide residues on the plants, etc. But, this doesn't mean that GE, as the method of inserting that resistance, is at fault. If, instead, a pest resistance gene is inserted, such that mass quantities of pesticide currently used can be eliminated, along with all the effects of those pesticides both on the environment and on the workers in those fields, should we avoid it because of how that gene got there? Populations of organisms are not static. This is why new pesticides are always being developed, because pest populations resistant to the pesticide emerge. This is why new varieties of plants are bred, because ones with naturally occurring pest-resistance that were selected by farmers end up unable to resist all the pests, and those pests unaffected by whatever conferred resistance increase in the population and reinfect the crops. All GE does is enable us to keep up with these changes at a faster pace, so when a new pest or new strain of that pest emerges that threatens to decimate a major crop, we aren't thrust into famine while breeding the few plants that survive the new infestation to select for resistance to that pest.

This is the problem I see...people are fearing the method, and attacking everything produced with that method under the same broad umbrella. I have no problem with a group saying, "We don't want herbicide resistant plants because it promotes increased herbicide use, which is an unreasonable trade-off for the production benefit." But, then focus on the herbicide use and herbicide resistance, not whether it got there via GE or selective breeding, or happenstance. I also have no problem if you say, "I object to allowing large corporations to patent plant products, or the genes in them." You'd have a tough battle to fight there against industry, but if the objection is that they maintain proprietary control over seeds, and produce plants that require buying new seed stock year after year, that would make perfect sense as a political battle to fight. But, would you still view GE as bad if it enabled crops to be grown in very poor soil or drought conditions, and were provided free, with viable seeds, so that people in famine-stricken regions could use their land to grow sustainable crops to feed themselves? Do you see that, like many things that are the outcome of scientific research, the method itself is not inherently bad, the objection is to how it is used and who has control of it?

Just as many of the outcomes of physics research have given us simultaneously the technology to provide energy to heat our homes in winter and powerful weapons to kill people, it is in the use, not the method, that the problem lies.

So, now that we're in the politics forum with this thread, what sort of political actions would I view as more reasonable than a complete ban on GMO crops?

1) You could request patent laws be changed, or commerce laws be changed to limit the extent to which patenting and licensing of crops can be done. For example, you could insist that if they are going to be planted outside of greenhouses and laboratories, that they be kept in the public domain. Or, you could ask that corporations selling GMO seeds can only seek damages for intentional breeding outside the license agreement with those purchasing from them, not from others whose crops are inadvertently crossbred with those in nearby farms. You could even say we need a law whereby nearby farms can seek damages from the corporations if their crops are contaminated and affect their production/profits.

2) You could focus on specific environmental risks and assess the trade-offs. If the trade-offs are unacceptable, lobby to have approval of specific GE products revoked based on the relative risks.

3) You could insist the technology be used for more altruistic reasons than making a profit; demand government funding for crop science or plant science researchers in universities (i.e., public domain) who work toward developing crops that are more nutritious, or that grow in poor soil, or the climates prevalent in famine-stricken regions.

4) You could even insist that our food supply is important enough to warrant increased funding of government research labs to perform independent testing of products prior to FDA/EPA approval; keep in mind this would be very costly as more of the technology is used, but if that's what is important to you, then go ahead and lobby for it.

None of these approaches demonize the method for the method's sake, and I think they better address the root of people's fears about these crops better than a blanket ban on everything that is GE. This is not saying that I'd join you in all of the above approaches, but I think they are reasonable arguments and approaches even if I wouldn't necessarily agree. Personally, I'd promote items 2 and 3, and oppose 1 and 4, but that's based on my priorities and interests, not whether they are reasonable to request.

 

[Moonbear]

The OP is about a new proposed ordinance in Sonomo County. If you read the ordinance you would find it says

The ordinance excludes from its coverage the purchase, sale, distribution, or use of human food or animal feed which contain transgenic ingredients, such as transgenic corn, soy or cotton seed, or their derivatives. The ordinance would, however, prohibit growing these crops.

You know, nobody has yet addressed a question I posed much earlier in this thread. Will people be banned from obtaining medicines produced using GE technologies in Sonoma County? Under the definitions provided in the proposed ordinance, recombinant insulin would fall within those definitions and restrictions, and no exception is made for pharmaceuticals distributed, sold, or otherwise brought into the county. Do diabetics need to move if they wish to purchase and use recombinant insulin? Recombinant insulin is the form not extracted from animals and considered safer because it doesn't elicit an immune reaction to other contaminants from the extraction process, and is identical to human insulin rather than being of another animal source. To my knowledge, all insulin produced and sold in the US is of the recombinant form. It seems to be a sloppily written proposal that affects more than what the writers necessarily intended.

 

[edward]

You know, nobody has yet addressed a question I posed much earlier in this thread. Will people be banned from obtaining medicines produced using GE technologies in Sonoma County?

That is stretching the situation a bit. The real opposition to GE crops in Sonoma county is by the the farmers who grow crops for the expanding "organic" foods market market. The organic farmers in Sonoma county appear to have mixed some scare tactics with politics to try to have it their way.

A similar situation is developing in Canada's wheat country. Canadian wheat is the gold standard in the European market. Europe and Japan will not touch
GE grains. The Canadian farmers do risk losing millions odf dollars.
I posted a link in regards to this to this earlier in the thread.

When Monsanto's GE canola was intoduced to Canada a few years ago their exports of canola oil to Europe dropped by 90%.

I remember a few years back when the "corn that produced its own pesticide"
was introuduced. The corn was to be kept separated from the human food chain and used only in animal food. There was no plan devised to do this and now most of our corn for human consumption is a mix of traditional and GE.

This odd mix of; culture, money, politics, science and farming isn't going to go away anytime in the near future.

The link below is (hopefully) a good pro amd con video clip on GE foods:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-1597-10958/science_technology/genetically_modified_food/clip2

 

[Moonbear]

That is stretching the situation a bit. The real opposition to GE crops in Sonoma county is by the the farmers who grow crops for the expanding "organic" foods market market. The organic farmers in Sonoma county appear to have mixed some scare tactics with politics to try to have it their way.

I know it sounds like a stretch, and it's not the intent of those supporting this proposal, but when poorly worded laws get enacted, there can be unintended consequences that harm people who were never meant to be harmed. For example, when Ohio voters passed the amendment to the state constitution prohibiting gay marriage in the 2004 election, the way it was worded had the unintended consequence, which went ignored by supporters, of weakening protection of unmarried people living together under domestic abuse laws.
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=26182&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
(That's just one of many sources describing this.)

Pharmaceutical and related industries are going to need to adhere to these regulations in that county, and they are going to have to follow the letter of the law, not the wishful thinking of those who wrote it.

 

[loseyourname]

You know, nobody has yet addressed a question I posed much earlier in this thread. Will people be banned from obtaining medicines produced using GE technologies in Sonoma County?

That has been a concern raised by opponents of Measure M. According to the wording of the proposed ban, there are no exceptions for medical products. If I had to guess, I would say this would end up being a consequence that would likely never actually be enforced, but it certainly could be. As Ed points out, the reason this is being proposed is that there is a very large contingent of organic farmers around here and they are trying to 1) protect themselves from contamination by GE crops that would take away their organic certification (which would kill their business, as the non-organic prices are much lower), and 2) they are probably trying to corner the market somewhat on local food production.

My own opposition to this measure is due to the fact that they are not taking a very 'conservative approach,' as Les puts it. Instead of addressing the specific legitimate concerns they might have, as would be done by several of the approaches you advocated, an outright ban on all GE products grown in the county is taking it a little far, especially when it inadvertently includes the banning of even using or purchasing GE products if they are not human foodstuffs. I can certainly understand the contamination concern and the drive to protect one's economic interests, but I do not support doing it at the expense of all the non-organic farmers, and especially the wine-makers, that would be negatively affected by this. There needs to be a solution reached, a compromise, that will not protect one interest at the expense of another.

 

[Moonbear]

That has been a concern raised by opponents of Measure M. According to the wording of the proposed ban, there are no exceptions for medical products. If I had to guess, I would say this would end up being a consequence that would likely never actually be enforced, but it certainly could be.

My concern is that a company as powerful as Monsanto would insist it be enforced as a way of forcing the legislators' hand in repealing the law. It would be horrid to see diabetics used as a political pawn, but until that loophole is plugged up, it's not much of a stretch to think a corporate giant just might not take the ethical high road.

1) protect themselves from contamination by GE crops that would take away their organic certification (which would kill their business, as the non-organic prices are much lower),

I read somewhere recently that if GE crops unintentionally contaminated the crops of an organic producer, that as long as it wasn't intentional, they wouldn't lose their organic certification. I haven't had a chance to verify that by any alternate sources though, so am not certain if that is true. I should follow up on that, because it sure would change both the extent of damages organic producers would experience in terms of certification as well as the way consumers view an organic certification.

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, here we go, directly from the USDA, who certifies organic farms:

Posted 1/14/05
Q: If a producer adheres to all aspects of the National Organic Program (NOP), including never utilizing biotech-derived seeds, but a certifying agent tests and detects the presence of biotech-derived material in the crop, is that crop’s status determined to be no longer “certified organic?” And, if so, what in the NOP supports this conclusion?

A: It is particularly important to remember that organic standards are process based. Certifying agents attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set of production standards and practices that meet the requirements of the Act and the regulations. This regulation prohibits the use of excluded methods in organic operations (§205.2—Terms defined, and §205.105—Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients in organic production and handling). The presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of this regulation. As long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not affect the status of the organic operation. As to the status of the commodity, USDA’s position is that this is left to the buyer and seller to resolve in the marketplace through their contractual relationship. (See page 80556 of the preamble, “Applicability—Clarifications; (1) “Genetic drift”).

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html

 

[Art]

Of course, buried all the way at the end of the article was this comment:

Moonbear you make some interesting and valid points however a major concern I have as a layman arises from articles I read after the human genome project unravelled human DNA.

Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not trained in this field but I like many others thought that this project would provide a list of ingredients which when added together individually, made a human being.

My understanding is it turned out it to be a lot more complicated than that. Genes may act alone or may interact with a complex set of other genes to provide none, one or numerous characteristics.

This means that although researchers may identify a gene to make a crop more gene resistant it is nigh on impossible to say if that gene also interacts with one or more other genes to produce another entirely different effect which may be wholly unwelcome.

The issue is that if scientists do screw up and their product is introduced into the wild it may be impossible to fix the problem afterwards and so I would think gene manipulation in crops should only be undertaken where there is an overwhelming advantage to the human race to offset any potential downside and even then only after extensive independent testing to minimilize the possibility of undesirable side effects.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, in that case, maybe they are only trying to corner the market. I can't really bring myself to believe that this is honestly about ensuring the health of the children, as all of the one-liners in favor of the measure would have you think.

 

[Moonbear]

This means that although researchers may identify a gene to make a crop more gene resistant it is nigh on impossible to say if that gene also interacts with one or more other genes to produce another entirely different effect which may be wholly unwelcome.

The unrealistic expectations of the human gene project by the lay public aside (we actually have a lot more information out of it than scientists predicted...that's why it ended up being privately funded, because most scientists thought it would be too much of a waste of money for too little outcome to pursue with public funds), the effects of gene manipulation are studied long before the seeds are planted outdoors. Does gene manipulation sometimes end up with undesirable outcomes? Yes. But, such a product would never meet safety standards and would be scrapped while still being grown in little test plots in a controlled laboratory setting (i.e., research greenhouse).

...and so I would think gene manipulation in crops should only be undertaken where there is an overwhelming advantage to the human race to offset any potential downside and even then only after extensive independent testing to minimilize the possibility of undesirable side effects.

I think this is a fair request of GE crops. Of course, how we define "overwhelming advantage" might differ. As for independent testing, that's also reasonable, as long as you're willing to pay for it. Otherwise, as with all FDA regulatory oversight, it is the burden of the manufacturer to pay for and oversee the safety trials, which will always fall under some suspicion, but nobody is going to volunteer to do the work either if there is no compensation for it.

 

[Art]

The unrealistic expectations of the human gene project by the lay public aside (we actually have a lot more information out of it than scientists predicted...that's why it ended up being privately funded, because most scientists thought it would be too much of a waste of money for too little outcome to pursue with public funds), the effects of gene manipulation are studied long before the seeds are planted outdoors. Does gene manipulation sometimes end up with undesirable outcomes? Yes. But, such a product would never meet safety standards and would be scrapped while still being grown in little test plots in a controlled laboratory setting (i.e., research greenhouse).

Yes, but what if the problem doesn't arise until it interacts with the gene(s) of another plant in the wild. This is why the reports showing cross pollination occurring is very worrisome.

I think this is a fair request of GE crops. Of course, how we define "overwhelming advantage" might differ. As for independent testing, that's also reasonable, as long as you're willing to pay for it. Otherwise, as with all FDA regulatory oversight, it is the burden of the manufacturer to pay for and oversee the safety trials, which will always fall under some suspicion, but nobody is going to volunteer to do the work either if there is no compensation for it.

The independent testing should be funded by the company looking to license the product. This should ensure unbiased results and also help ensure the other proviso I mentioned, that GE should only be undertaken where there is a massive upside.

 

[Moonbear]

The independent testing should be funded by the company looking to license the product. This should ensure unbiased results and also help ensure the other proviso I mentioned, that GE should only be undertaken where there is a massive upside.

How would independence be assured if the company licensing it has to pay? I'm not disagreeing with the goal, I think it's a good one to require, just not so sure how that's very different from what we do now which still comes under criticism when all the studies on a product are funded by the company licensing it.

 

[Art]

How would independence be assured if the company licensing it has to pay? I'm not disagreeing with the goal, I think it's a good one to require, just not so sure how that's very different from what we do now which still comes under criticism when all the studies on a product are funded by the company licensing it.

I'm not sure if your non-response to my first point is a concession that my concern is justified.??

As I have said I am not an expert in this area but personally I would like to see an apolitical international testing house set up with the costs being made met by the companies seeking certification of their products.
Btw I would like to see a process like this rolled out across the entire pharmaceutical industry too as I personally know one guy whose career for many years consisted of moving from drug trial to drug trial who has horrendous stories to tell of the sloppy procedures used in these trials.

I should also point out that I am not a Luddite and am all in favour of research but I am concerned that the organisations pursuing this research are currently too focused on converting their work into quick profits.

 

[edward]

As far as I know, especially as it relates to Monsanto. The company seeking the licsense actually does their own testing. The government for some reason accepts their data.

The same is true with pharmaceuticals. VIOXX anyone? The people have been dumped on so many times, that we simply don't trust the system that is supposed to protect us.

On the other hand I doubt if the average person knows that over 60% of all food items sold in grocery stores currently contain GE products.

 

[Art]

Another example of the problems with GM crops

GM crop 'ruins fields for 15 years'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 09 October 2005, The Independent, UK

GM crops contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they have
been harvested, startling new government research shows.

The findings cast a cloud over the prospects of growing the modified
crops in Britain, suggesting that farmers who try them out for one
season will find fields blighted for a decade and a half.

Financed by GM companies and Margaret Beckett's Department of the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the report effectively torpedoes
the Government's strategy for introducing GM oilseed rape to this country.

Ministers have stipulated that the crops should not be grown until rules
are worked out to enable them to "co-exist" with conventional ones. But
the research shows that this is effectively impossible.

The study, published by the Royal Society, examined five sites across
England and Scotland where modified oilseed rape has been cultivated,
and found significant amounts of GM plants growing even after the sites
had been returned to ordinary crops. It concludes that the research
reveals "a potentially serious problem associated with the temporal
persistence of rape seeds in soil."

http://www.gmfoodnews.com/in091005.txt