Supervisors support bioengineered crops

By Roman Gokhman
San Joaquin News Service
Mar. 12, 2006

San Joaquin County officials hardly made a big deal two weeks ago when supervisors voted to support farmers who grow genetically engineered crops.

The county became the 12th in the state to pass such a resolution, which espouses the potential for engineering research to find cures for diseases and the promise of engineered food to be healthier for Americans than organic crops.

Not all believe that biotechnology, and its agricultural application in genetically engineered seeds, is a good thing. Some believe the plants could pose health risks because the industry is not regulated strictly enough by the federal government.

“We believe there needs to be much broader discussion about this,” said Becky Tarbotton of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, a group that opposes genetically engineered crops.

Voters in Mendocino and Marin counties have gone so far as to pass anti-biotechnology initiatives. Administrators in Trinity County passed an ordinance in opposition of biotechnology, reportedly to avoid the cost of placing a similar initiative on the county ballot.

Anti-biotechnology attempts in Butte, San Luis Obispo and Humboldt counties failed.

However, San Joaquin County’s resolution does nothing to change genetic engineering rules, as no prohibitions against the practice previously existed.

“It’s a proactive approach to support this technology in the face of the bans in other places,” Agricultural Commissioner Scott Hudson said.

San Joaquin officials believe that engineered foods can only help people, not hurt them. Hudson said each crop has to get approval from three federal departments — the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture.

“The scientists look for any possible harm,” Hudson said. “And then the crops are field tested. The best minds in the country are working on this.”

Biotechnology alters the biology of plants to develop crops that are more productive and resist inclement weather, harmful insects and diseases.

The three most common altered crops in the state are cotton, corn — although most of it is used for livestock feed — and alfalfa. Nationwide, soybeans are the most commonly engineered crop.

Supervisor Leroy Ornellas said local farmers can use the new technology to meet their needs.

Officials also say biotechnology holds promise in developing medicines for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and AIDS.

“I don’t think there will be any (negative) repercussions,” he said.

The board’s vote leaves the choice of whether to use organic or bioengineered crop varieties up to farmers. It was supported by the county agricultural board, San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation and Hudson.

According to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a September 2005 survey showed that 54 percent of registered California voters say farmers should be allowed to grow biotech crops, and 31 percent say they should not.
The percentage jumps even higher in the Central Valley, where 68 percent support biotech crops, and 24 percent oppose them.

Fresno, Kern and King counties also have adopted resolutions in support of genetically engineered crops.
So have San Diego, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Tulare, Solano, Sutter and Imperial counties.

“The benefits of (engineered crops) greatly outweigh the risks,” said Joe Peterson, chairman of the committee that drew up the county’s version of the resolution.

Tarbotton said Californians for GE-Free Agriculture opposes biotechnology despite the absence of any sure danger.
“There haven’t been a lot of studies done,” she said. “It’s an inadequate federal regulatory system.”

The group is worried that engineered seeds will be carried by wind or birds into organic fields and mix with organic crops. If organic farmers can no longer promise their crops are organic, they will lose clients, she said.
“These farmers have no way to protect themselves,” she said.

And because other countries, such as Japan, have passed bans against engineered crops, selling to those countries will become difficult if crops are cross-contaminated.

Tarbotton said California has a worldwide reputation as being a producer of quality crops, “but that reputation will be harmed.”

The group also supports labeling all genetically engineered products at stores, which is not done today. Supervisor Victor Mow said he would support such a measure if he could vote on it.