Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0728.069 2000-2002 C I~AW~~II ~~G1~ICUL~tJ1~ SLACI-I CLl®1TLI~ FORMERLY HAWAIIAN SUGAR PLANTERS' ASSOC/ATION 99-193 AIEA HEIGHTS DRIVE, SUrrE 300, AIEA, HAWAII 96701-3911 TELEPH01vE: (808) 487-5561 FAX: (808) 486-5020 http://www.hawaiiag. org/harc TESTIMONY BEFORE TI-IE COMMITTEE ON I~UMAN RESOURCES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IL~~Vr~II COUNTY COUNCIL Related to a Resolution Supporting a Moratorium on tlae Release and Planting of Genetically Engineered Coffee in the Districts of Nortla and Soaath Dona in Order to Protect the Bi®tic Integrity an~I Market Value of Pure Dona Coffee September 25, 2002 ~~;w..__m_~_--_ - ay C.rty r~?vnsil Chairman Arakaki and members of the committee: My name is Stephanie Whalen. I am President and Director of the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC). I am testifying today on behalf of the center, our research and support staff, and our members and clients. HARC is in strong opposition to County of Hawaii proposed Resolution No. 236-02 Draft 2, a resolution Supporting a Moratorium on the Release and Planting of Genetically Modified (GM) Coffee in the Districts of North and South Kona in Order to Assure and Protect the Biotic Integrity and Market Value of Pure Kona Coffee. There is no reason here to repeat the technical reasons for HARC's opposition already presented to the Council at its Committee on Human Resources and Economic Development in HARC's testimony on September 10, its requested clarifying comments submitted September 11, and by its transmission of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, "Guide to U.S. Regulation of Genetically Modified Food and Agricultural biotechnology Products." However, what I do think is important to repeat and emphasize is that HARC in no way opposes the concept of developing and maintaining market niches for Hawaii's crops. In fact, quality differentiation is extremely important for Hawaii's agricultural export producers to compete in a tough global marketplace. Further, I want to correct any misinterpretations of my prior testimony on this resolution. HARC fully recognizes and supports organic farming as one of the high value niches important in the state's diversification. HARC actively supports this fanning process as well as the conventional process and modern technology by seeking competitive funding in partnership with growers who choose to work with its scientists. However, HARC sees no value in public activities that support negative connotations about any process in farming. We know that the parties able to address the concerns raised within the Kona coffee community are ready, willing and able to work towazds a solution that does no harm to the valued Kona coffee market niche. 'There is no reason to believe that the infrastructure that exists to support the agricultural industry in Hawaii would knowingly and intentionally work to undermine the industry's sustainability. Open communication, trust and cooperation are the keys to our future success. e ~ev File NQ. . I3at~ _ ~ ~ ,L _ _ HAWAII AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTER it is the function of the leadership in our communities, agencies and organizations to foster, promote and encourage these values for the success of the whole sector. I believe there is general agreement amongst all the parties that there are no genetically modified coffee plants in field tests anywhere in the State of Hawaii, and that if any coffee plants developed through the process currently referred to as 'genetically modified' in the future demonstrate a potential benefit and are recommended for field trials, that field tests will be done with the agreement of the Hawaii Coffee Industry. Consequently, it is HARC's opinion there is no need for this resolution and urge you not to support its passage. In the interest of promoting cooperation and co-existence amongst our farming sectors in the future, I have provided two attachments for your information on how others are working to address this issue. (1) "Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture." A report from the Joint Research Centre, as commissioned by the Agriculture Directorate-General of the European Union. (2) "10 Strategies to Minimize Risks of GMO Contamination" by James A. Riddle Organic Independents, Winona, MN. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on Resolution No. 236-02. ~°I"I'ACI~I~N'T 1 Brussels, 22 May :002 j Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture Report from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), as commissioned by the Agriculture Directorate-General, now available at http://www, j rc.cec.eu. int/GECrops/ and htep:l/www. jrc.es/welcome.htm 1 What does co-existence of genetically modified (GM), conventional and organic crops mean? Co-existence means that farmers should be able to freely adopt the agricultural production system they prefer. Production systems can be differentiated into conventional systems including GM crops, conventional systems using non-GM craps and organic farming systems using exclusively non-GM crops. Of course, different types of agricultural production are not naturally separated. The cultivation and use of GMOs is strictly regulated in the European Union. i;Iowever, the adventitious presence of GM crops in organic or in conventional crops cannot be excluded during cultivation, harvest, transport, storage and processing. Why has the Commission carried out a study on the problem of . CO-eXlStence? If GM crops increase their share in EU agriculture, the question arises as to whether adventitious presence of GM crops in organic or in conventional crops at farm and at regional level could significantly increase if current farthing practices are maintained. In the Communication on "Idife Sciences and Biotechnology - A strategy for Europe", the Commission has committed itself to take "initiatives to develop, in partnership with Member States, farmers and-other private operators, research and pilot projects to clarify the need and possible options, for agronomic and other measures, to ensure the viability of conventional and organic farming and their sustainable co-existence with GM crops". This study is a first step towards addressing these issues and trying to assess the consequences of the introduction and possible increase of GM crops, and to identify appropriate measures at the faun level to minimise the adventitious presence of GMOs below the thresholds laid down in Commission legislation (for labelling of GM food). The study also aims at developing possible monitoring systems needed for verification, and at estimating the costs of relevant changes in farrhing practices, monitoring systems and of potential insurance systems to cover possible financial losses due to adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops. What is the basis and significance of the study? AT'I'~1C)i101'I° 1 2 The report, as co-ordinated by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, is a prospective study, based on different hypothetical scenarios. `These assumptions should not be taken as an anticipation of future developments. This applies especially to the hypothetical GMO shares of 10°/® and 50% and the selected thresholds of 0.1%, 0.3°/® and 1 An increased GMO share would certainly require a corresponding demand and would result in a different price structure. These aspects have not been included in the study. The scenarios presented, focus on the actual demand and supply situation and the identified costs cannot be used to predict future prices. To estimate on-farm levels of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops and to compare the effects of changing farming practices a combination of expert scientific opinion and computer models was used. Computer models are useful for comparisons of different fanning practices. The absolute values provided by the models (e.g. when considering if a pareicular theeshold can be respected) have to be taken into consideration with care, since the models are not yet fully validated. A set of farming practices, referred to as "current farming practices" in the study, needed to be defined for each crop to estimate a "baseline" level of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops. These current farrcting practices are obviously a compromise given the variability existing in EU farms in this regard. Therefore, when the results indicate that changes in fatrning practices are needed to respect a certain threshold (and the costs of these changes are properly assessed), a significant number of farms could already be applying proposed or similar agronomic practices (especially in the case of seed production). Overall data interpretation needs care, because of the limited on-the-field evidence available and the consequently Dimited validation of the modelling methods employed.l3asfc hypotheses and subsequent quantitative results should also be tested on experimental fields of adequate size before drawing more general conclusions. The unique feature of the study Is the multi-step approach of identifying the sources and levels of adventitious presence of GMOs, proposing suitable changes of agricultural management practices to comply with defined thresholds, and the subsequent calculation of associated costs. `Thus, the study addresses socio-economic implications rather than simply estimating risks of adventitious presence of GM crops in semi-quantitative terms. The study will be one of many inputs into the Commission's deliberations on the issue of co-existence between conventional, organic and GM agriculeure, a subject which requires further research. What are ehe implications of the results of the study for production of conventional farming and for organic farming? Three arable crops were selected as case studies representing different biological features but also the likelihood of a future introduction of their GM varieties in the EU: oilseed rape for seed production, grain maize used for feed production and potato for direct consumption and food processing. Several farm types (both organic and conventional) were defined to ~TT'~C~~~~' 1 cover the variability present across EU farming infrastructure.)=or Pale 3 all crop-farcvc combinations, a hypothetical share of GM crops of l0% or 50% in the region was considered. A share of 50% mimics the situation in countries that have already adopted GM crops (for instance the share of GM oilseed rape in Canada is currently 54%), while the 10% figure represents a scenario of slow adoption of GM crops. The estimated levels of adventitious presence of GM crops do not change dramatically between the two scenarios of GM crop share (10% or 50%). A practical consequence is that measures to prevent adventitious presence of GM crops may have to be implemented in the early stages of adoption. On the other hand, the estimated levels of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops -assuming current farming practices -vary significantly depending on the crop and farm type (for example, as much as 2.2% for a conventional intensive maize farm or as low as 0. ! for an organic potato farm). In general there is a trend to expect lower levels of adventitious presence of GM crops on organic farms, because of segregation systems already in place, but there are relevant exceptions. In seed production of rape, organic farms will face higher probability of adventitious presence of GM crops due to problems in controlling volunteers with organic practices. Sources of adventitious presence of GM crops are well known, and can be divided into four main origins (seed impurities, cross-pollination, volunteers and harvesting-storage practices). The relative importance of each source for the final level depends on the crop and farm type. Volunteers are a key source of adventitious presence of GM crops for rapeseed farms (especially organic) but are of low importance in maize fauns, where- seed impurities and cross-pollination account for most of the adventitious presence of GM maize. What are the implications of the results of the study for production of non-GM seeds? The report examines only the case of oilseed rape for seed production. Out of more than 2 million hectares devoted to oilseed rape production in Europe. only about 3000 hectares are devoted to seed production. Cultivation of oilseed rape dedicated to seed -production is catried out under completely different conditions: certified seed producers are assumed to grow seeds according to certified production standards (e.g. for hybrid seed: isolation distance of 300 m and a 6 year rotation; careful post-harvest segregation). Farrtrs using farm-saved seeds are assumed to be about ehree times larger. The conventional farm applies a shore three-year rotation, exchanges seeds and shares machinery with its neighbours or uses contractors. The GENESYS computer model was used, as well as expects' opinions, for estimations of adventitious presence of GM seed crops. GENESYS has been developed by INItA ("Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique'°) in France to rank cropping systems according to their probability of gene flow from heebicide eolerant winter oilseed rape to rape oilseed volunteers both in time via seeds and in space via pollen and seeds. `T'he model integrates various input variables: field pdan of a region, crop r®tations, cultfivation techniques for each crop, type of the transgene, etc. [t is suitable for both seed and crop production. Applying current practices' levels of adventitious presence of GM 1 crops are estimated to range from 0.42% to I.OS% depending on the farm ~ type, in the case of the 50% GM oilseed rape for seed production scenario. Ali farm types, organic as well as conventional, could achieve a hypothetical 0.3% threshold for GMOs in seed production by changing farming practices. For farrdas using Earns-saved seeds costs would however be disproportionately high. These farms would most likely stop saving seeds and instead use certified seeds. A 0. I threshold would be more difficult to reach. Theoretically, levels of adventitious presence of GM crops could be reduced to very low levels 0.1 by reinforcing the changes in farming practices. The only exception would be conventional fauns using farm-saved seed, where achieving such low levels seems not to be feasible without completely changing the post-harvest farming strategy. What are the possibilities for reduction of the adventitious presence of GMOs in conventional or organic crops? The different possibilities depend on farm-crop combination. The theoretical thresholds used in the analysis are 0.3% for seed production of allogamous species (rape) and 1 foe maize and potato crops (for food-feed uses). Ali farm types producing oilseed rape seed or conventional c8aaize will need significant changes to meet their thresholds. In some cases (dependent on farm type) changing farming practices at the individual farm Level will be insufficient. In these cases changes may involve co-operation between neighbouring farms. Examples are the introduction of flowering date differences between GM and non-GM varieties, or region-wide border management. In contrast, all potato faun types and some maize farm types (organic) could meee these thresholds with current farming practices (with all the reservations for the value of absolute figures). The possibility of changing practices to meet very low thresholds for all crops, near the analytical limit of quantifccation 0.1 is also considered in the report. This reflects the situation in organic farming where the use of GM varieties is not permitted (Council Regulation (IEC) 1 X04/1999), setting a de facto threshold. The report concludes that a 0.1 limit will be extremely d'aff~cult to meet for any farm-crop combination in the scenarios considered (10% and SO% GMOs in the region), even with significant changes in farming practices. Some farm types producing seed of o'alseed rape could approach such thresholds, but only with significant changes of farming practices. What are the implications for the I % threshold currently in piece in EU food legislation? Compliance with the I% threshold is possible, however in some cases only through changes in farming practices. This also means setting up monitoring systems as well as insurance needs. le may result in additional costs of 1 to 10% of current product price for the farm-crop combinations studied (in the 50% scenario of GM crops in a region). .~T`TAC~iIl~IEN'T 1 Costs reductions might be possible with segregation becoming an Page $ integrated part of agricultural practices and with decreasing costs of GMO analysis. In general, organic fauns face higher costs, especially indicative insurance cost, than conventional fauns. Q°~lowever, when relating eosu to product prices, the price premium foe organic crops reaay reduce this difference in percentage terms. Cultivation of GM and conventional or organic crops on the same farm might be an unrealistic scenario, even for larger farms. Do we need further analyses on this issue? The study provides the first results on ehe issue of co-existence. The Commission's Joint Research Centre will keep working on this topic. One of the conclusions of the study is, as far as the likelihood of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops is concerned, additional research is necessary to provide experimental data on gene flow for oilseed rape, maize, potato and other crops not taken into account in this study. More information on actual levels of seed impurities in the lots marketed in the EU is key for simulations like the ones presented in this study. It is also necessary to undertake the same work for maize seed, to better understand how co-existence will impact on seed production and to provide information for an adaptation of seed production standards. Regarding economic data, the study Lacks the cost estimation of same of the proposed agricultural changing practices. To assess the real costs of, for instance, introducing large isolation distances, the alternative use of agricultural land has also to be analysed. Changing post-harvest management could include changes of the logistics at the next step of the supply chain, again making a very complex analysis necessary. This points out to the need for further stud'aes, focusing on economic aspects and probably going into more detail with a reduced number of cases and considering the complete economic structure of a farm. - European Commission May 22 News Release: http://europa.eu.ini/rapid/startlcgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.getbct=gtdcdo c=MEMO %20/02/100®~RAP1DdcIg=EN AT'I'AR,CI~~IEN°T 10 Strategies to Minimize Risks of GMO Contamination by James A. ~a~e 1 Riddle Organic Independents, VNinona, MN More and more consumers are looking for organic foods. (t is the largest growing sector of the food industry, with growth rates of 20-25% per year for the last 12 years. The new pederal rules for organic production prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in organic production. Even though organic farmers don't plant GMO seeds, crops can become contaminated by GMO pollen drift, use of contaminated seeds, and/or sloppy handling practices. Since it will soon be planting season, organic, transitional, and nan-GMO crop farmers need to know steps they can take to minimize risks of GMO contamination. The following list, which has been distributed nationwide, outlines some strategies L'1at farmers can employ to minimize risks. 1. Know your seeds - Prior to planting, verify that non-GMO seeds will be used. Obtain statements from seed companies concerning the non-GMO status of the varieties to be planted. ~fave seeds tested for all applicable GMO "events". Retain copies of test results and letters from seed suppliers. 2. Know your farm -Know your fields and determine which have the lowest risk of GMO contamination. Select isolated fields for wind and/or insect pollinated crops (corn, canola). Know the prevailing wind direction. Establish physical buffers, such as windbreaks and hedgerows. 3. Know your neighbors -Establish good lines of communication with neighbors, especially those who directly adjoin organic fields. l~otify them that you are an organic farmer, and where your organic fields are located. Get to know farmers who farm adjoining fields, even if they rent the land. Post "Organic fiarm" signs along field margins, where needed. 4. Know your neighbors' crops -Gather information from neighbor, seed dealers, and farm input suppliers on the types of crops being grown in the vicinity. Know which GMO events are being planted. If neighbors ace growing ~t crops, ask them to plant their "20®/o non-Bt refuges" in areas that adjoin organic fields, to provide some buffer protection. If possible, delay your planting dates so that your organic crops do not pollinate at the same time as GMO crops. 5. Know your equipment -Know what your equipment is used for. This includes rented and borrowed equipment and equipment used by custom operators. Know how to clean all pieces of equipment, including planters, combines, wagons, trucks, etc. Clean equipment prior to use in organic fields, and keep records to document your equipment cleaning activities. 6. Know your harvest -Submit samples prior to harvest for GMO testing. If contamination is likely, collect samples along a grid pattern, going from areas with the highest risk to areas with low risk. Submit the samples separately, in case part, but not all, of the field is contaminated. Make sure samples are tested for al[ applicable GMO events. Keep copies of test results. A'T'TE4C~'Ill~I~lei'I' ~ 7. Know your crop storage -Carefully inspect storage units prior to ~ use. ®ust from GMO crops can contaminate organic crops. 'Thoroughly clean augers, bins, grain dryers, rotary screen cleaners, etc., especially if they might have previously been used for GMO crops. 8. Know your truckers -Carefully inspect and clean trucks and trailers prior to loading with organic grain. Make sure that transport units, including overseas shipping containers, are free of grain, dust, and ocher foreign material. Keep records to document, including clean transportation affidavits and bills of lading. 9. Know your records - ®ocument your efforts to minimize GMO contamination. With good records, you will have a better chance of limiting losses, identifying causes of problems, and determining liability. Valid records of organic yields and sales may help establish claims for losses, should contamination occur. 10. Know your buyers -Know ehe contract specifications under which the organic crop is being grown. Know your buyer's sampling and testing protocols. Know the market-driven GMO rejection levels (tolerances) for the crops grown. Communicate witty buyers and organic cereifying agents concerning GMO contamination issues.