Features

DAVIS — Though California researchers are at the forefront of agricultural biotechnology, the commercial use of genetically modified crops is sparse compared to widespread use in the Midwest. 

“That’s kind of the paradox,” said Kent Bradford, director of the seed biotechnology center at the University of California, Davis. “UC has some of the original patents for recombinant DNA and a lot of research capability. But it mostly hasn’t gone into the commercial market here.” 

That’s not due to a public outcry over “Frankenfoods” or concerns for safety, but because California’s agriculture covers more than 250 crops, as opposed to the Midwest’s reliance on corn and soybeans, said Judith Kjelstrom, associate director of the biotechnology center at UC Davis. 

“They’re niche crops, not the large crops. The research into the niche crops is slower and is just coming into play over the next few years,” she said. 

UC Davis officials estimate that within the nine-campus UC system there are 200 invention disclosures on agriculture biotechnology – the first step toward a patent. About half of those are from UC Davis, said school spokeswoman Pat Bailey. 

The international environmental group Greenpeace warned last week that if California farmers jump into genetically modified crops, it could harm the state’s $26.8 billion agriculture economy. 

The Greenpeace report looked at six of the state’s agricultural products – rice, walnuts, grapes, lettuce, strawberries and tomatoes – that amount to $1.1 billion a year in exports to Japan, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. 

Consumers in those countries are reluctant to buy genetically engineered products, with some governments requiring labeling and others banning their import, said Jim Tischer, director of the Davis-based Community Alliance with Family Farmers. 

The result, Tischer said, would be a glut of GMO products with no place to sell them. 

“It would be horrific, as highly regarded as California farm products are in foreign markets, to have them be tainted with the genetically engineered label,” said Tischer. 

California has a reputation for organic growing and makes up a good portion of that $6.6 billion industry nationwide, he said. 

“You can have thriving organic growers who have a genetically engineered crop go in the next field, and there goes your crops,” he said. 

While scientists are testing genetically modified strains of those crops, commercial use of GMOs in California is limited to cotton and a small percentage of corn, said Bradford, who also is a professor of vegetable crops at UC Davis. 

“We’re behind the curve, since the companies mainly targeted the big crops like corn and soybean in the Midwest. We have very little corn and soybeans aren’t grown here,” he said. “It’s just taking much longer to develop those markets.” 

Most of the crops that scientists have tinkered with are geared to making life easier for farmers, not consumers, Kjelstrom said. 

“There are advances in herbicide-tolerant lettuce, but the industry isn’t real excited about that,” she said. “They were hoping for something like golden rice that has increased Vitamin A – a poster child for biotechnology.” 

Golden rice – genetically modified to contain extra beta carotene – is advertised as a way to reduce blindness brought on by a Vitamin A deficiency, a condition that affects millions in Third World countries. 

Kjelstrom said biotechnology is not only safe, it has the potential to feed the world as the planet’s population grows. 

“We’ll have to be able to grow on less-than-desirable land,” she said. “We’re going to have to have new crops that can grow in salty or drought-stricken soil. We have to think of the future.” 

Bradford believes the use of GMO in most crops is inevitable. 

“Commercialization is still a few years off. All the industries involved want to make sure the public will accept it,” he said. 

“The problem now is marketing. Greenpeace has hit it.” 

The state’s rice industry has taken measures to ensure that the GMO and traditional rice won’t be mixed in silos or in transportation to appease public apprehension. 

“They worked very hard to get into the Japanese market. They don’t want to lose that,” Bradford said. 

While Greenpeace cites surveys showing that the U.S. public wants GMO products labeled, limited or banned, Tom Hoban, a researcher at North Carolina State University, said consumers place genetically engineered foods at the bottom of their list of concerns. 

Even the recent discovery that GMO corn not approved for human consumption was found in taco shells and corn chips hasn’t changed the public’s opinion about altered crops, Hoban said. 

Hoban is conducting an ongoing study of the public’s attitude toward GMOs and said when it comes to food safety, microbial contamination and pesticide use are the top concerns. 

Tim Johnson, president and CEO of the Rice Growers Association, said the California rice industry will respond to what customers want. If that’s GMO, then rice growers will produce it, he said. 

But he said he’s not concerned that public opinion of the genetically altered strains will create a glut of GMO rice without a buyer. 

“We honestly don’t know if they will be in production in California. It takes between seven and 10 years to bring rice to production,” he said. 

Tischer’s organization, which promotes sustainable and organic farming, is proposing a moratorium on GMO crops until testing protocols are redesigned. 

“We also think the biotech companies should be prepared to stand behind the products, and indemnify the farmers who buy their crops from liability and loss of market,” Tischer said. 

On the Net: 

Read the Greenpeace report at www.greenpeaceusa.org 

The California Department of Food and Agriculture is at www.cdfa.ca.gov