RE: [pronut-hiv] Fw: Another GE Free county in California (USA) (2)

["Quick, Timothy C (GH/OHA/TLR)" <TQuick@usaid.gov>]

Actually, genetic engineering started ~6000 years ago when humans began
to domesticate plants for food production.  Would you have us all go
back to hunting and gathering?  Sorry to be so flippant, but it's just
to make the point that many technologies over the millennia have had the
potential for both benefit or harm.  Recombinant DNA technologies, which
I assume you are referring to, are no different.

Tim Quick, PhD, MS
Senior Technical Advisor for Nutrition
USAID Office of HIV/AIDS, 5.10.20
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20523
202-712-0974
202-216-3015 (fax)
301-275-6652 (cell)

 


-----Stacia Nordin wrote:

Great news that people in the USA are looking deeper into the issues of 
Genetic Engineering and choosing not to allow it in their areas.  I hope

that more people around the world choose to avoid GE and instead create 
sustainable food systems.

Stacia Nordin, RD
Malawi

--- From: Susan L Roberts, JD MS RD
Director
Food & Society Policy Fellows Program
Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute
8830 NW 35th Street
Ankeny, IA 50023

 515.965.3859
 515.480.5898 (c)
 foodandsocietyfellows.org

> Another GE Free county in California

> Two days ago the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted
> UNANIMOUSLY to develop an ordinance to implement a precautionary
> moratorium on GE crops. The vote came after accepting a report from a
> subcommittee appointed by the supervisors to study the issue.
>
> I was an appointed member of this subcommittee. Amazingly, all of the
> members agreed on the findings in the report, despite the fact that
this
> group was stacked with the current ag commissioner and a
representative
> from the University of Cali(Novartis)Fornia Cooperative Extension, AND
> appointees included two large-scale (Farm Bureau) growers, the former
ag
> commissioner, and an employee of Syngenta (Novartis).
>
> Aside from the 6 individuals just noted, the rest of the subcommittee
> voted to recommend that the supervisors enact a precautionary
> moratorium. At the hearing a large number of residents attended to
voice
> their support, and for some mysterious reason NO ONE spoke against it.
>
> To read the report or find out more about the subcommittee's work see:
> http://www.santacruzhealth.org/ge/
>
> Thanks for all your efforts that laid the foundation for our report
and
> the supervisors decision. For example, a chart of existing GE
> regulations from data compiled by the Center for Food Safety was
> mentioned by one supervisor as playing a role in her decision.
>
> Below is GM Watch's take, and local newspaper coverage.
>
> Phil Howard
> Santa Cruz
>
> GM WATCH daily
> http://www.gmwatch.org
> ---
> Who could argue with the findings of the report written by Santa
Cruz's
> agriculture commissioner and two public health experts together with
two
> appointees from each of the five supervisorial districts in the
county:
>
> *State and federal laws provide inadequate oversight. The USDA does
not
> know the location of many GE test sites. Some crops not approved for
> human consumption have found their way into the food supply.
>
> *Lack of safety testing leaves a potentially dangerous void in
> understanding long-term health effects of GE food, which is still
> largely unlabeled in the U.S.
>
> *Farmers worldwide have reported their crops being tainted by stray GE
> pollen, subjecting some to patent infringement lawsuits from large
> biotechnology corporations.
> ---
> County eyes ban on genetically engineered crops
> By ROGER SIDEMAN
> Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 8 2006
>
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/June/08/local/stories/02lo
> cal.htm
>
> SANTA CRUZ - The county is one step closer to seeing a ban on the
> cultivation of genetically engineered crops.
>
> Supervisors unanimously agreed Tuesday to develop an ordinance that
> would place a "precautionary" moratorium on the use of crops that
carry
> transplanted genes from other species to make them more nutritious or
> easier to grow. The ordinance is being drafted, and will come before
> supervisors on June 20.
>
> There are no genetically engineered, or GE, crops in Santa Cruz
County,
> but the supervisors' action was prompted by a nine-month study of the
> laws and risks associated with such crops, which are being planted on
a
> growing share of the world's farmland.
>
> The group that conducted the study suggested a moratorium because too
> little is known about the effects of genetically engineered organisms
on
> human health and the environment. The future viability of organic
> agriculture is also at risk, the report states.
>
> Some counties, including Trinity, Mendocino and Marin already have
> imposed bans on genetically engineered crops.
>
> "There are too many concerns about the impact on crops and human
> health," said Peggy Miars, executive director of California Certified
> Organic Farmers in Santa Cruz.
>
> A minority within the study group said in an unsigned letter that the
> technology "holds promise" and that a moratorium is unnecessary since
> there's currently no interest in planting GE crops in the county.
>
> Indeed, a moratorium would be more of a preemptive move. Genetically
> engineered crops are typically corn, cotton and soybeans rather than
the
> berries and lettuce crops that dominate the county's agriculture.
Still,
> the potential exists for local GE crops, said Poki Namkung, county
> health officer and the report's lead author.
>
> Genetic engineering research in other areas has begun on 13 of the 39
> commercial crop and flower varieties grown in the county, including
> strawberries and apples, Namkung told supervisors.
>
> The report was written by two appointees from each of the five
> supervisorial districts, as well as the county agriculture
commissioner
> and two public health experts.
>
> Among its findings:
>
> *State and federal laws provide inadequate oversight. The USDA does
not
> know the location of many GE test sites. Some crops not approved for
> human consumption have found their way into the food supply.
>
> *Lack of safety testing leaves a potentially dangerous void in
> understanding long-term health effects of GE food, which is still
> largely unlabeled in the U.S.
>
> *Farmers worldwide have reported their crops being tainted by stray GE
> pollen, subjecting some to patent infringement lawsuits from large
> biotechnology corporations.
>
> The moratorium could be lifted once GE crops are better contained,
> tested and labeled.
>
> "A ban places responsibility back on the industry," said Angela Flynn,
> an organic farmer in Bonny Doon.
>
> Flynn was among about 15 people who spoke in favor of the ban Tuesday.
> No one was against it.
>
> "I am one of the 76 percent of Santa Cruz residents who buys organic
> foods on a regular basis," said Gavilan College instructor Debra
Klein,
> citing a well-publicized study. "The looming prospect of unregulated
GE
> foods being sold in our grocery stores and farmers markets is
horrifying
> to me, my family and friends."
>
> Supervisor Ellen Pirie agreed, describing the report's findings as
> "scary." Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt said a ban would be "only prudent
> when 65 nations already have regulations."
>
> "Hopefully other communities in California will see this," said
> Supervisor Mark Stone.
>
> During the meeting, Supervisor Tony Campos, whose district spans most
of
> the county's farmland, was quiet on the subject and did not return
calls
> later Tuesday.
>
> County Agricultural Commissioner Dave Moeller noted that supervisors
> already passed a law in 1988 that requires that the county be notified
> before genetically modified crops are planted. Down the road,
additional
> regulations could hurt local farmers if GE technology takes off,
Moeller
> said.
>
> A anonymous minority within the study group disagreed with a
moratorium.
> In their letter, they wrote:
>
> "We do not want to close the door on those opportunities for increased
> yields, reduced pesticide use ... which results in cleaner water and
air
> through reduced emissions."
>
> The comments echo sentiments heard in counties where similar bans have
> failed and where GE crops have been touted by their producers and many
> scientists as the future of farming, improving agriculture and even
> human health.
>
> Though the letter was unsigned, Moeller was later identified as one of
> its authors, along with Richard Nutter, Steve Bontadelli and Thomas
> Rider - all of whom participated in creating the report.
>
> Moeller later said that the minority group agrees with the report's
> general findings.
>
> The report can be found online at: http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us
>
> Contact Roger Sideman at rsideman@santacruzsentinel.com