Thank you for contacting me regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and food labeling. I appreciate hearing from you on this divisive, yet very important issue. As a veterinarian and an organic farmer, and having spent six years on the House Agriculture Committee including two as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Biotechnology, I’ve studied the issue of GMOs very closely and it’s something I take very seriously.

For thousands of years humans have grown or bred plants and animals and chosen the most desirable traits for breeding the next generations in an effort for them to be able to resist pests and disease and increase yields. Through modern techniques using biotechnology it has become possible to modify or isolate genes in a laboratory with great precision and speed to improve a plant’s resistance to disease, insects or drought, a plant’s tolerance to a herbicide, improving a food’s quality or nutritional value, or increasing its yield. Genetic modification builds on breeding techniques that farmers have been using for thousands of years through hybridization and selective plant breeding.

Through biotechnology we’ve been able to increase productivity and efficiency while reducing the number of inputs like water and pesticides, resulting in higher crop yields. Higher crop yields per acre allow for better land management and the conservation of marginal lands. GMOs reduce the application frequency and toxicity of pesticides in farming. According to the USDA, pesticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant GE crops with only 9 percent of all U.S. corn farmers using pesticides in 2010. Pesticide use on corn farms declined from 0.21 pound per planted acre in 1995 to 0.02 pound in 2010. In addition, herbicide-tolerant crops have enabled the substitution of glyphosate (or Roundup) in place of more toxic and persistent herbicides.

GMOs in combination with good agricultural practices also improve soil quality and reduce pollution by allowing farmers to till less often, or not at all, therefore reducing soil erosion and reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture. For example, according to data from the USDA approximately 45 percent of GE soybean acres were cultivated using no-till technologies in 2006.  By comparison only 5 percent of the acres planted with conventional seeds were cultivated using no-till techniques. 32 percent of GE cotton acres were planted using conservation tillage in 2007, compared to 17 percent of conventional cotton acres. 33 percent of GE corn acres were planted using no-till in 2005, versus 19 percent of conventional corn acres.

Since their introduction in 1996, the use of GE crops in the United States has grown rapidly, accounting for approximately 94 percent of soybean, 88 percent of corn, and 90 percent of cotton acreage in the U.S.  Globally, GE crops are grown in 28 countries (including the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Canada, India, South Africa, and China to name a few) and account for 420 million acres – an area nearly the size of Alaska.

It is estimated the world population will increase to nine billion people by 2050 increasing food demand by 70 percent. With increased pressures from climate change, we will become even more reliant on the ability of the scientific community to develop the necessary technologies that will increase the yields and productivity of our crops to provide a safe and sustainable food supply. Biotechnology will become an even more important tool in the fight against global poverty and food insecurity. GM crops that flourish in challenging environments without the aid of expensive pesticides or equipment can play an important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing world. This is precisely why I am very concerned about the demonization of biotechnology and the rejection by many of the supporting science behind it. We must be careful we do not discourage further scientific advancement and innovation in this critical area.

Safe and effective use of crops developed through biotechnology can help us feed the hungry and malnourished in developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin and South America.  For example, a lack of vitamin A in rice-based societies in developing countries leads to an increased incidence of malnutrition, blindness, disease and premature death in small children.  Vitamin A deficiency is responsible for 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and up to 2 million deaths each year. However, dietary supplementation of vitamin A can eliminate this problem. Researchers have developed a strain of rice that uses genetic modification to fortify the grain with vitamin A. This “Golden Rice” can help combat nutrient deficiency, disease and death in developing nations around the world. In fact, Golden Rice was one of the winners of the “Patents for Humanity Award” in 2015 from the White House Office of Science and Technology and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unfortunately, many of the countries most affected by vitamin A deficiency that could benefit from products like Golden Rice have rejected GM foods due to misconceptions about their safety. I don’t think the U.S. should do anything to play into those fears.

The Pew Research Center recently conducted a poll of the scientific community and found that 88 percent of scientists polled found GE food is safe to eat[1]. A wide range of well-respected international science organizations concur with this analysis concluding GMOs are no less safe than other foods. Here are some examples:

• The American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer reviewed literature.”[2]

• The American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”[3]

• The National Academy of Sciences: “To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”[4]

• The European Commission: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”[5]

• World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”[6]

• The Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities: “In consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health. “[7]

• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: “Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”[8]

• American Phytopathological Society: “The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”[9]

• The French Academy of Science: “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”[10]

Proponents of mandatory labeling often point to the European Union (EU) who many think, incorrectly, has a ban on GMOs. To date, 75 GM products were approved for food and feed use in the EU[11] including corn, sugar beets, cotton, and soy beans. The EU has also approved two crops for cultivation: a GMO corn and a potato. The Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Union stated, “If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.”[12]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the government agency tasked with ensuring that foods sold in the United States are safe, wholesome and properly labeled. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act are the Federal laws governing food products under FDA’s jurisdiction. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which amended the FD&C Act requires most foods to bear nutrition labeling and requires food labels that bear nutrient content claims and certain health messages to comply with specific requirements.

Under these laws the FDA requires that consumers have all information relevant to health, safety, and nutrition, on federally approved labels and that they are accurate, informative, truthful, and not misleading. Any food, whose composition has been changed in any way that is related to health, safety, or nutrition, must inform consumers of such changes on the label. Mandatory labeling of GE foods would damage the integrity of our food labeling laws by redefining their purpose and moving us away from a labeling system that has always been based solely on health, safety, and nutrition.

There is now near unanimity among scientists that GMOs are safe to eat and I’m afraid in the rush to mandate labeling of GE food we will unfairly stigmatize these foods and mislead consumers. The costs and negative impacts of a fifty state patchwork of inconsistent and incoherent standards would be significant. A more reasonable approach is to put in place a national standard for voluntarily labeling products free of GM ingredients. That is why I am a strong supporter of HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act which would:

• Require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a safety review of all new plant
  varieties developed using bioengineering before those foods are introduced into commerce.
• Create a new legal framework, subject to FDA oversight, governing the use of label claims regarding either the absence of, or use of, genetically engineered food or food ingredients.
• Require FDA to develop a Federal definition and regulations for “natural” claims on product labels.
• Establish a voluntary, national “non-GMO” certification program at the USDA. This would allow those who wish to label their products as GMO-free to do so through a USDA-accredited certification process providing consumers with a nationwide label they can have confidence in no matter which state they are in.
• Would not preempt local bans on the cultivation of GE crops like those in Jackson and Josephine Counties in Oregon.

HR 1599 passed the House on July 23, 2015 with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 275-150, including 45 democrats, and has been sent to the Senate for further consideration.

I understand this issue is extremely sensitive to many people and I take their concerns to heart. I hope you realize that my approach on this issue is one based in science and my long history of being an organic farmer. Crafting a legislative solution to a difficult public policy problem is never easy task, but I feel we have achieved a reasonable solution that serves the needs of those on both sides of this issue. I believe there is room for conventional and organic agriculture and I will continue to be a voice for both here in Congress.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

See the original letter here.

Blue Mt. Seeds announced Sept. 14 it has purchased a seed cleaning facility from Barenbrug USA that was damaged earlier this year in a fire.

“We needed room to expand,” said Bill Merrigan, manager of the Imbler, Ore., based company. “We were right at capacity, both cleaning capacity and storage, and we were out of land to build on. We viewed this as a good opportunity.

“If growers choose to increase grass seed acres in Union County, we’ll have the facilities to handle it,” he said.

Blue Mt. plans to clean fine-leaf fescue seed and bluegrass seed at the plant after some reconstruction, and use the facility’s warehouse for seed storage.

The plant is located about two miles south of Imbler.

The purchase includes the plant’s 4-acre lot and 5 acres of land adjacent to it – acreage that connects an existing Blue Mt. seed cleaning facility and the former Barenbrug plant.

The purchase was set in motion in part by the March 31 fire that did more than $1 million of damage to buildings and equipment at the plant, including destroying a seed-cleaning line. A second seed cleaning line was only partially damaged.

Barenbrug opted not to rebuild the 50,000 square-foot facility, but to reinvest in a seed cleaning facility it operates in Boardman, Ore., according to James Schneider, CEO and president of Barenbrug USA. The Tangent, Ore., based company has since added square footage to the Boardman plant and installed a third seed cleaning line there.

Schneider said the company will continue contracting with Grande Ronde Valley growers to produce seed.

“We’re not abandoning the Grande Ronde Valley,” Schneider said. “We still have a field man based there and we are contracting directly with growers there. But we are now cleaning that seed in Boardman.”

He added: “We are thankful that good came out of such an unfortunate event. Blue Mt. Seeds has always been a great neighbor, and we can’t think of a better outcome than for the sale to allow both our companies to continue to invest in future growth.”

Blue Mt. already has begun storing seed in the west end of the Imbler facility, which was not damaged in the fire, adding 2.5 million pounds of seed storage capacity to the company’s current capacity of 12 million pounds, Merrigan said.

Depending on how much of the facility Blue Mt. rebuilds, it could increase its storage capacity by another 2.5 million pounds, he said.

“We may not rebuild that facility the way it was,” Merrigan said. “We may put up a new building, or we may try and change the design of that building. That is something we are discussing right now.”

The sale leaves Blue Mt. Seeds as the only commercial grass seed cleaner operating in the Grande Ronde Valley.

Read the press release here.

Barenbrug USA acquires Oregon Seed Enhancement, a high-output seed coating facility located down the road from Barenbrug USA’s headquarters in Tangent, Oregon. This purchase will continue the substantial investments by the company to enhance its supply chain with the overall goal to meet market realization of the value-creation of seed enhancement technology in both forage and turf.

Barenbrug USA has been an innovative and market leader in seed coating since the launch of Yellow Jacket Enhanced Seed Technology in 2006, chief executive officer James Schneider says.

“We are excited about the ability to become more vertically integrated which will allow us to more proactively invest in future innovations in seed coating technology. This investment will create future value for our distributors as well as the end-users.”

Read the original article on Seed World here.

Field burning takes place at a grass seed field in the Lyons area in 2011. Field burning started Aug. 1 that year.(Photo: Statesman Journal file)

Field burning has kicked off early in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, as hot weather and drought conditions lead to an early grass seed harvest.

A test fire was conducted in the Silverton area Tuesday, with open field burning expected to follow.

“It’s probably two weeks earlier than a normal year,” said Roger Beyer, executive director of the Oregon Seed Council.

Grass seed is big business in Oregon, especially in the Willamette Valley counties of Linn, Benton and Marion.

Farmers burn fields to clear weeds and fight pests and erosion without chemical pesticides and herbicides.

But the plumes of smoke can enter communities, causing health problems and even traffic accidents.

As many as 200,000 acres per year were burned in the early 1980s, drawing thousands of complaints each year. Then, in August 1988, smoke caused low visibility on Interstate 5 near Albany, causing a massive pileup that killed seven people and injured 38.

In 1991, the Legislature established a phased-in cap on field burning of 40,000 acres per year.

And in 2009, lawmakers banned it entirely, except for a small area in Marion County, mostly near Silverton, where steep terrain and certain types of seed make alternatives difficult.

In the five years since, the industry has seen increased disease and pest problems, Beyer said.

“We predicted that and it’s coming true. The biggest one right now we’re facing is slugs,” he said. “We’re talking tens of millions of dollars of crop loss and treatment loss.”

Farmers also are using more chemicals, Beyer said.

Complaints, however, have fallen, from 3,783 in 1988 to just 76 last year, according to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which regulates field burning.

The state only allows burning when conditions promise to lift smoke up and away from populated areas, said John Byers, the ODA program manager who oversees field burning.

And the State Fire Marshal bans field burning when two of three conditions exist: Temperature over 95 degrees, humidity of 30 percent or less, or winds of 15 miles per hour or greater, Byers said.

“We go to such lengths to monitor the weather,” he said. “If we issue a permit for a burn, they have one hour in which to light it.”

Last year, 12,304 acres were burned, and ODA estimates communities were impacted by smoke for a total of 30 hours.

Read the original article on the Statesman Journal here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COVER CROP AND SOIL HEALTH REPORT RELEASE 

Washington, D.C.; July 3, 2015—Soon the National Working Group on Cover Crops and Soil Health will release a report outlining recommendations for cover crop and soil health reform. In February 2014, the National Conference on Cover Crops and Soil Health was held in Omaha, Nebraska with 300 key stakeholders in attendance. One of our partners at Grassland Oregon met with the National Working Group while visiting Washington for the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) conference. One of the main recommendations from the report calls for public-private partnerships for cover crop research and reform.

When asked about the public-private partnerships mentioned in the report Risa DeMasi, Chair of ASTA and partner at Grassland Oregon, stated, “Public-private partnerships will keep us from being redundant with our resources such as trials and research. We can bring consumers solutions faster by walking down the path together rather than working separately.” As ASTA seeks public-private partnerships, companies like Grassland Oregon also hope to foster a partnership with the National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and the USDA.

The report is a joint effort by all concerned parties about cover crops. The report’s call-to-action is to provide funding for more research, incentives for cover crop adoption by farmers, and insurance coverage reform specifically for cover crops. If over 6000 stakeholders can come together to promote these ideas, and 42 diverse organizations and corporations believe the recommendations in the report to be true, then their recommendations must be seriously considered and deemed a priority by government regulatory bodies.

To learn more about cover crops visit http://www.grasslandoregon.com/cover-crop.html or contact Risa DeMasi at RisaDeMasi@GrasslandOregon.com or at 503-566-9900.