California Certified Organic Farmers

Volumemagazine XX, Number 2 Creating a Living Standard for Healthy Food Summer 2003

lebrating Ce 30 Years! 1973~2003

Sustainable Industrial Agriculture Agriculture

The Brave New World of

GE-FREE CALIFORNIA WHEN WANDER (WILD)LIFE SUPPORT: RICE CCOF HISTORY: 1980–90 page 6 page 8 page 18 page 28 FIRST WORD

BSERVATION farmer tried the new chemicals and quences. Their political power allowed O , observed that they killed birds, fish, and these companies to put into place regula- REFLECTION AND frogs, and decided that he did not want tory schemes that fail to safeguard human any part of an approach based on death. health and the environment. PRACTICE A few scientists noticed the negative con- Organic farmers and consumers have sequences and questioned rejected the use of genet- By Brian Leahy CCOF President the validity of basing the Imagine if California lost its ically modified organ- production of food on the isms in the production

HE SKILLS use of toxic chemistry. ability to sell its wine, rice, nut of food as the continua- needed to bring Unfortunately, most scien- tion of an approach to forth nutritious tists seemed to shut off crops, or its fruits and vegetables agriculture that fails to T their powers of observa- honestly account for the food from the earth are acquired through observation, reflection tion and reflection and to the EU or Asia because true risks inherent in the and practice. Applying accumulated skill continued to promote a technology. Farmers to nature, the grower uses seed, water, soil, bad technology. of GMO contamination! have noticed that GMO sunshine, labor and technology. The Good farmers are too feed is causing health application of and technology has connected to the physical reality of their problems in livestock and that livestock allowed agriculture to flourish, creating a farm to use bad technology to produce prefer not eat GMO feed when given a reliable source of plentiful food. food. By focusing on two fundamentals, choice. Interestingly, both these observa- Modern organic agriculture was born that the purpose of agriculture is to grow tions were also early warning signs to when farmers observed the deterioration nutritious food, and that the soil is a living farmers of the problems with toxic chem- of soil health and the decline in nutri- system, organic farmers have avoided the ical-dependent agriculture. Farmers have tional food value after the introduction of tragic consequences inherent in the misuse noticed the problem of GMO trespass synthetic fertilizers. Observation led to of synthetic fertilizers, , growth and of consumer rejection, with dire eco- reflection, which led to the desire to use regulators and livestock feed additives. nomic consequences to American pro- science to discover the information con- A new application of science, food ducers of corn and soy beans resulting tained in the structured chaos that makes , in the form of genetically from GMO technology. Transgenic up the natural world. Practical experi- modified organisms (GMOs), has been DNA is wandering into and ments on farms led to the understanding rushed from a theoretical science to large changing weeds, insects, soil, and other that increased yields and nutritional value scale application without being subjected living species in unknown ways that have could be achieved through organic farm- to adequate observation or reflection. not been adequately researched. Farmers ing, a system that relies on biology rather This is not surprising when one realizes have also noticed the changing relation- than chemistry to improve soil fertility. that the food biotech industry is domi- ship they once had with their seed com- Observing the consequences of using nated by a handful of corporations with panies. They now find themselves in synthetic pesticides and herbicides to sordid histories and ethical lapses. Com- one-sided licensing agreements and control insects and weeds led more grow- panies continued to promote such chemi- threatened by aggressive legal actions ers to organic farming. One early organic cals as dioxin and PCBs long after from the biotech companies. observation revealed deadly conse-

Section 771 Repealed CCOF Receives State Grant

COF is celebrating the repeal by Congress of a rider, alifornia Certified Organic Farmers has been awarded known as Section 771, contained in the Omnibus a $450,000 California International Market Promotion CAppropriations Bill that had weakened organic live- Cfor Agriculture (CIMPA) competitive grant. The CIMPA stock feeding requirements and threatened the integrity of program is part of Governor Gray Davis’ Buy California Ini- the organic trade. After a strong showing by organic farm- tiative. CCOF will use the grant to increase awareness and ers, processors and consumers, Congress got the message sales of California organic specialty crops through interna- that it should not play with organic standards. While USDA tional marketing and promotion. may think it owns the definition of “organic,” once again the organic movement has reminded USDA that the people own the government. Biotech companies believe that it is to TABLE OF CONTENTS their benefit to patent life, transfer genes FEATURE ARTICLE, The Brave New World of Genetic Engineering...... 2 from one species to another, and to receive COALITION, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture ...... 6 a royalty on each seed planted. It is our SCIENCE, When Transgenes Wander, Should We Worry? ...... 8 right to demand that our property rights FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Are GMOs Being Regulated or Not? ...... 12 be respected. Imagine if California lost its USE, Genetically Engineered Foods and Pesticides ...... 14 ability to sell its wine, rice, nut crops, or its TRENDS, Public Opinion of GE Foods, 1989–2002...... 16 fruits and vegetables because of GMO con- HOME & GARDEN, Frankengrass ...... 17 tamination! It is also our right to demand FOCUS ON FOOD, (Wild)Life Support: Rice ...... 18 that the integrity of our bodies and all liv- CROSSROADS, A Better Way of Doing Things ...... 22 ing things be respected. Our government THE GE REPORT, News from the Genetic Engineering Front ...... 24 and the owners of the new technology MARKETING, Growing a Relationship: Advice for Retailers ...... 26 owed us due diligence before introducing CCOF HISTORY: 1980–1990, Succeeding Beyond Their Wildest Dreams ...... 28 something so novel as to warrant patenting. NEWS BRIEFS, Glassy-winged Sharpshooter and Other News ...... 32 ASK AMIGO, Reader Questions ...... 34 There is no pressing reason to rush into a CERTIFICATION CORNER , Reminders to Remember...... 36 GMO future; there is time to slow down, HANDLER HIGHLIGHTS, Cleaning Up the Chlorine Issue ...... 37 conduct scientific research that addresses OMRI BRAND NAME PRODUCTS LIST UPDATE ...... 39 true concerns about the safety of the tech- CCOF CERTIFIED OPERATIONS ...... 42 nology, and to ask ourselves if we even BUSINESS RESOURCES...... 43 want to go down this road. CLASSIFIEDS...... 44 CALENDAR ...... 45 ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits of Using Recycled Paper Submissions to the CCOF Magazine Letters to the editor are gladly accepted, provided The CCOF Magazine is printed on New Leaf Opaque 70# paper, 80% recycled, made letters are succinct and remain on topic. Letters with 60% post-consumer waste, and bleached without the use of chlorine or chlorine must include complete contact information, compounds, resulting in measurable environmental benefits.1 New Leaf Paper has provided including daytime telephone number, and must CCOF with the following report of the annual environmental savings: be signed. Letters are subject to editing and will 12 Trees 1,153 Gallons of water not be returned. Submitting a letter to the editor 1,048 Pounds of solid waste 3 Cubic yards of landfill space does not guarantee printing. 1,504 Kilowatt hours of electricity (1.9 months of electric use in an average U.S. home) For information about submitting articles 1,905 Pounds of greenhouse gases (1,542 miles equivalent driving the average American car) to CCOF Magazine, or to discuss article ideas, 8 Pounds of HAPs, VOCs, and AOX combined please contact Keith Proctor toll free at 1-888- 1 423-2263, ext. 12, or e-mail to [email protected] Environmental benefits are calculated based on research done by the Environmental Defense Fund and the other members of the Paper Task Force who studied the environmental impacts of the paper industry. Contact the EDF Classified Line Advertisement Policy & Rate for a copy of their report and the latest updates on their data. Trees saved calculation based on trees with a 10" Classified line ads cost $10 per line. Seven words diameter. Actual diameter of trees cut for pulp range from 6" up to very large, old growth trees. Home energy equal one line. There is a three-line minimum. use equivalent provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Francisco. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), Payment for line ads is required in advance. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Absorbable Organic Compounds (AOX). Landfill space saved Line ads are free for CCOF Certified clients. based on American Paper Institute, Inc. publication, Paper Recycling and its Role in Solid Waste Management. Classified line ads will be posted on our website MAGAZINE PRODUCTION for three months at no additional cost. Web-only Editor: Keith L. Proctor, [email protected] Marketing & Communications Director: advertising available. Graphic Design: Marianne Wyllie, [email protected] Helge Hellberg, [email protected] (www.ccof.org/classifieds.html). Printed at Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA To place a classified advertisement or to receive a The CCOF Magazine is printed using linseed oil-based inks on 80% recycled/60% post-consumer waste paper. quote, contact Keith Proctor at 831-423-2263, Processed chlorine-free. New Leaf Paper, 1-888-989-5323. ext. 12, fax 831-423-4528, or [email protected] Magazine reprints available with prior consent and source identification. CCOF does not endorse advertisers Advertisements submitted via e-mail are greatly nor guarantees their products are OMRI approved / CCOF accepted. appreciated. CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED ORGANIC FARMERS To place a display advertisement, please contact 1115 MISSION STREET • SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 • 831-423-2263 • 831-423-4528 (FAX) Kenny Swain, Marketing Assistant, at ext. 22 or 888-423-2263 (TOLL FREE) • General e-mail inquiries: [email protected] • Website: www.ccof.org [email protected] to inquire about rates or for more information. OUR PURPOSE Distribution CCOF’s purpose is to promote and support organic agriculture in California and The CCOF Magazine, with a circulation elsewhere through: of 10,000, is distributed quarterly to certified •A premier program for growers, processors, handlers, and retailers. clients and supporting members and consumers •Programs to increase awareness of and demand for certified organic product and to in California and around the United States. It is expand public support for organic agriculture. also mailed to supporting members in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Italy, Japan, and Mexico. •Advocacy for governmental policies that protect and encourage organic agriculture. FEATURE ARTICLE

T HE B RAVE N EW WORLD OF G ENETIC E NGINEERING By Ellen Hickey, Pesticide Action Network, & Richard Caplan, U.S. Public Interest Research Group If you listen to , Aventis and even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional plant breeding.

HESE COMPANIES AND REGULATORS larly useful to industry. Monsanto’s Web say that it is the same thing that The biotechnology industry and the FDA site, for example, quotes Henry Miller of Tfarmers and plant breeders have been claim that genetically engineered crops and the Hoover Institution saying that, “genetic doing for generations, and that is why the traditionally bred crops are “substantially engineering [is] essentially a refinement of FDA does not need to require any tests for equivalent.”1 Because some crops that are the kinds of genetic modification that have these crops. But genetic engineering breaks genetically engineered can be characterized as long been used,” and the company itself down the barriers that exist in nature, and largely similar to ‘natural’ crops, the biotech- calls the technology an “extension” of tradi- now it is possible for scientists to cross apples nology industry and the FDA would like us tional plant breeding, only “more precise.”2 with chickens or strawberries with fish— to assume they pose no new health or envi- However, a closer examination of the things that are impossible to do using tradi- ronmental risks. This concept, aggressively technology used to engineer plants and a tional plant breeding methods. advocated by manufacturers of genetically look at some of the genes that scientists are Genetic engineering permits scientists to engineered foods and crops, has been inserting clearly demonstrates that tradi- manipulate genetic materials in ways that endorsed by the UN Food and Agriculture tional plant breeding and genetic engineer- were once inconceivable. But the technology Organization and World Health Organiza- ing are radically different.3 tion and forms the basis of regulation of these relies on methods that result in haphazard THE TECHNOLOGY: GENE INSERTION products by the United States government. insertion of genetic elements into a plant’s Proponents of genetic engineering maintain Although the idea of “substantial equiva- genetic code. This in turn may lead to disrup- that scientists can locate genes and insert lence” is simple and may even seem plausi- tion of complex gene interactions and unin- them into new plants with great precision. ble to some, many scientists feel it is tended, potentially catastrophic results. It is a But currently, the process of introducing misguided. The agencies regulating geneti- technology that has the power to transform genes is done through a limited number of cally engineered food have never properly food and the food supply in ways not possi- relatively crude methods resulting in haphaz- defined the term. As a result, there are no ble with traditional breeding. Genetic engi- ard placement which in no way can be guidelines to test foods to see if this neering is very different, very powerful and described as “precise.” One common method assumption holds true. At the same time, worth a great deal of caution. of insertion uses bacteria that attach them- this vagueness makes the concept particu- selves to a plant and then transfer DNA into the host plant’s genetic code.4 Genes can also Why is CCOF opposed to genetically engineered food? be introduced directly into plant cells using a “” that shoots microscopic particles ALIFORNIA C ERTIFIED O RGANIC FARMERS (CCOF) is opposed to the continued (such as gold) covered with DNA into the release of products that are the result of genetic engineering research for agricul- plant tissues themselves. These techniques Ctural use. We oppose the experimentation of genetically modified organisms and others provide little control over the pre- (GMOs) in open fields and commercial applications. Given the lack of information about 5 their effects, the proliferation of GMOs must be stopped before they become irreversibly cise location of the inserted genetic material. linked to life on the planet. Altered genes, once released in nature, cannot be recalled. The inability of developers of genetically Gene pollution is forever. engineered crops to fully understand what CCOF insists on the labeling of all products of genetic engineering. Consumers genes they are inserting into a plant cell was must be granted the right to make informed choices in order to protect their health. dramatically revealed in May 2000. Mon- Therefore, CCOF insists on labeling that will ensure clear identification of GMOs. santo disclosed that its genetically engineered Where genetically engineered crops are being cultivated in close proximity to soybeans—their largest selling genetically organic production, the neighboring conventional farm growing these GE crops must engineered crop—contained gene fragments accept the burden of legal and financial responsibility and liability for the effects of their that scientists had not intentionally inserted.6 GE crops on neighboring fields, animals and humans. After four years of commercialization,

Page 2 CCOF Magazine researchers discovered the two extra gene as the plant grows. As a result, in addition to promoter may result in a major source of fragments in the soybeans. Neither Monsanto the gene, powerful promoters or enhancers new viruses arising from recombination.10 nor government regulators had any idea the are inserted to maximize its expression. Pro- UNUSUAL AND UNEXPECTED RESULTS supposedly inactive pieces of genetic material moters can respond to signals both from The unpredictability of genetic engineering were inserted during the process of engineer- other genes and from the environment that was illustrated by an experiment performed ing the crop. tell it when and where to switch on, by how on a plant in the mustard family frequently In 1997, a lack of precision in the inser- much and for how long. A promoter may used for biological research.11 Scientists com- tion process for genetically engineered produce different effects depending into pared three lines of the plant that all con- canola also proved to be a costly mistake for which chromosome it has been inserted as tained the same gene for herbicide Monsanto. Approximately 60,000 bags of well as its precise location on the chromo- tolerance—one developed by a modified canola—enough to seed 600,000 to some. The uncertainty of where the promoter form of conventional breeding and two by 750,000 acres of land—had to be recalled will be inserted means that there will be a genetic engineering. Since the plant is nor- by Monsanto because the seed mistakenly fundamental unpredictability related to mally a self-pollinating species with very low contained an unapproved gene. According expression not only of the inserted gene(s), rates of cross-pollination, researchers thought to some reports, quantities of seed had that there would be virtually no gene flow to already been planted when Monsanto dis- GE, GM, GMOs? other individual plants and little risk of genes covered the mistake.7 ENETIC E NGINEERING relies on gene moving from engineered plants to non-engi- MARKER GENES Gtransfer using recombinant DNA tech- neered neighbors. Scientists cannot always be sure if a plant has nology to create a new plant or animal They designed an experiment to test these incorporated inserted genetic material into its that could otherwise not have been cre- assumptions, planting engineered, semi-con- own DNA. To help determine if the insertion ated under natural conditions. ventional and wild varieties in close proxim- was successful, scientists put a “marker gene” People refer to aspects of agricultural ity, and later collecting seeds from the wild into the plant along with the gene for the genetic engineering in many different variety to see how many carried genes for desired trait. The marker gene most com- ways. Below is a list of common terms: herbicide tolerance. The results, as the monly used in genetically engineered crops is • Agbiotech = specifically the agricultural authors note elsewhere, have “great implica- arm of the biotechnology industry a bacterial gene for antibiotic resistance. tions for biotechnology and the controversy • Biotech = the biotechnology industry There is growing concern that over time surrounding the risk of releasing transgenic • Bt () = a poisonous 12 widespread use of antibiotic resistance marker bacterium engineered into a crop, which crops into the environment.” The two genes may contribute to the increasing prob- then creates its own Bt pesticide in genetically engineered varieties were four and lem of antibiotic resistance in humans and virtually all parts of the plant 36 times more likely to cross-pollinate than animals. The British Medical Association has • GE = genetic engineering/genetically the semi-conventional variety. With such a gone so far as to call for a permanent end to engineered high rate of cross-pollination, the act of all use of these marker genes.8 Some scientists • GM = genetically modified genetic engineering functionally turned a fear that resistance genes may move from a • GMO = genetically modified organism species that does not usually cross-pollinate genetically engineered crop into bacteria in • Pharm crop = a GE crop that creates its into one capable of relatively higher rates of the environment. Since bacteria readily own pharmaceutical byproducts in cross-pollination. This experiment demon- exchange antibiotic resistance genes, such virtually all parts of the plant strates that genetic engineering can change • Transgenic = another name for GE genes might eventually find their way into the basic character of a plant. disease-causing bacteria resulting in antibiotic In another example, scientists attempted to but also the expression of a large number of resistance, and therefore making control suppress the color of petunia flowers by trans- the host’s genes, as well as the influence of more difficult. ferring a gene created to turn off a pigment chemicals, climate fluctuations, and geo- It is known that DNA can be taken up by gene in the host plants.13 However, the graphical and ecological changes. bacteria, so the possibility exists that antibi- inserted gene did not have the anticipated Most genetically engineered crops con- otic resistance genes could be transferred to effect and the color varied from plant to plant tain a promoter from the Cauliflower bacteria present in the human digestive tract. in both shade and pattern. The weather also mosaic virus (called CaMV 35S), which in Furthermore, a recent report found that the affected the expression of the genes—some nature causes a disease in plants in the human mouth contains bacteria capable of of the flowers changed colors or color pat- mustard family. The CaMV 35S promoter taking up and expressing DNA containing terns as the weather changed. is used because it is so powerful that it antibiotic resistance marker genes.9 These problems were totally unexpected leads to expression of the introduced gene and unanticipated. If such dramatic changes GENE PROMOTERS at orders of magnitude two to three times could occur in the way the plants developed, Scientists may insert a gene for a desired trait that of the organism’s own genes. Some sci- it is possible that there could be changes in into a plant’s genome, but that doesn’t neces- entists are concerned that use of this viral the plant itself that could affect the nutrition sarily guarantee that the trait will be expressed or safety of genetically engineered crops.

Summer 2003 Page 3 NEW GENES, NEW PROBLEMS? • Corn and humans • Rice and humans Using genetic engineering, scientists can, In 1998, Limagrain, a French multi- To produce pharmaceutical proteins, for the first time, insert genes from different national corporation and one of the world’s Applied Phytologics, a California-based species, families or even kingdoms, some- largest seed companies, conducted field firm, inserted a human gene into a rice thing inconceivable in traditional breeding. tests in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana on genet- plant. The field test took place in Califor- Under normal circumstances, for example, ically engineered corn that contained a nia in 1996-97.17 a strawberry can only acquire genetic • Soybean and cows material from other strawberries—that The University of Illinois has inserted a is, plants of the same or closely related gene from a cow into soybeans in order species. However, using genetic engi- to alter a protein in the soy plant. The neering, scientists can develop strawber- field test was in 1998-1999 in Illinois.18 ries containing genetic material from • Sugarcane and cows trees, bacteria, fish, pigs or even humans Both the United States Company if they choose. and Texas A&M University have field The following is a list of genetically tested sugarcane in Florida and Texas engineered plants that have been cleared that contains a gene from a cow as part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of an effort to develop a crop resistant to for field tests in the United States. clavibacter, a disease-causing bacteria. Biotechnology corporations often refuse The test periods extend from 1998 to to list the type of gene inserted, calling 2001.19 such data “confidential business infor- mation.” As a result, only those crops • Tomato and flounder engineered by public institutions such as In perhaps one of the most famous cases state universities regularly list the donor of unusual genetic combinations, DNA of the inserted gene and therefore it is Plant Technology field tested a tomato not possible to determine how many with a gene from the flounder in an other strange combinations might exist. attempt to develop a tomato that was It is also important to note that Environ- human gene. The corn was engineered to tolerant to cold temperatures. The field 20 mental Assessments are not required for produce a pharmaceutical protein.15 test took place in California in 1991. these releases (field tests). • Potatoes and mice and humans FIFTY ACRES OF CORN AND CHICKENS • Apples and chickens The University of Idaho has engineered None of the above crops has yet been com- To make apples resistant to fire blight, two types of potatoes—one using a mouse mercialized; however, corn engineered to con- Cornell University has developed a type of gene and one a human gene. Both were tain a chicken gene has been grown genetically engineered apple that contains developed to be resistant to a number of commercially in Texas. A Texas-based com- a gene from a chicken. They tested the viral diseases that infect potatoes. Field tests pany, ProdiGene, has been working with the crop in both 1994 and 1991 in the state were held in Idaho in 1998.16 USDA to engineer a gene from a chicken of New York.14 into corn in order to produce the protein

Page 4 CCOF Magazine avidin found in chicken egg whites. Avidin is First Impacts of GMOs on Organic Farmers are Now Documented toxic to many grain-feeding pests and may make the corn resistant to pests that can OFRF Releases Partial Results of 4th National Organic Farmers Survey harm grain in storage. The research was con- NANATIONWIDE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATION ducted by the Grain Marketing and Produc- (OFRF), certified organic farmers have reported the first direct financial and related opera- tion Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas Itional impacts associated with the threat of contamination by genetically modified organ- and by scientists at ProdiGene in College Sta- isms (GMOs). National standards for organic products exclude recombinant-DNA tion, Texas.21 technologies from use in organic farming. In addition, there is a variety of strict tolerances for GMO contamination imposed on organic growers by foreign and domestic buyers. CONCLUSION “In 1998, when OFRF conducted our previous survey, GMO contamination was not yet a Genetic engineering is an imprecise, haphaz- national issue,” said OFRF Executive Director Bob Scowcroft. “These new survey results ard technology—something completely dif- based on the 2001 crop year document that significant impacts have begun to occur within ferent from traditional plant breeding. With a very short time frame.” alarming regularity, biotechnology companies “This new data supports OFRF’s call for a moratorium on the release of GMOs until there have demonstrated that scientists cannot con- is a solid regulatory framework that prevents and assigns liability for the trol where genes are inserted and cannot damages imposed by GMO contamination,” said OFRF President Ron Rosmann. guarantee the resulting outcomes. Unex- Highlights of the survey results are as follows: • 17% of survey respondents indicated that they have had GMO testing conducted on some pected field results highlight the unpre- portion of their organic farm seed, inputs or farm products. 11% of those that had GMO dictability of the science, yet combinations testing conducted indicated that they received positive test results for GMO contamination previously unimaginable are being field tested on some portion of their organic seed, inputs, or farm products. and used commercially. • 8% indicated that their organic farm operation has borne some direct costs or damages To protect public health and the environ- related to the presence of GMOs in agriculture, including: payment for testing seed, ment, Genetically Engineered Food Alert inputs, or organic farm products for GMO contamination; loss of organic sales/markets calls for the following: due to actual contamination or perceived contamination risk; loss of sales due to presence of GMOs in organic product; or loss of organic certification due to presence of GMOs in Genetically engineered food ingredients or organic products. crops should not be allowed on the market • 48% have taken some measures to protect their organic farms from GMO contamination. unless: 24% have communicated with neighboring farmers about GMO risks to their farm. 19% 1.Independent safety testing demonstrates have increased buffer zones to neighboring farms. 18% have discontinued use of certain they have no harmful effects on human inputs at risk for GMO contamination. 15% have adjusted timing of crop planting. 13% health or the environment, have altered cropping patterns or crops produced. 9% have changed cropping locations. 2. They are labeled to ensure the consumer’s • 46% rated the risk of exposure and possible contamination of their organic farm products right-to-know, and as moderate or greater, with 30% characterizing their farm’s risk as high or very high. 3. The biotechnology corporations that • Survey respondents identified contaminated seed stock as their primary concern as a manufacture them are held responsible possible source of GMO contamination (identified as a moderate to high risk by 48% of for any harm. respondents). This was followed by GMO pollen drift in the field (identified as a moderate to high risk by 42% of respondents) and contaminated farm inputs, other than seed, ABOUT THE AUTHORS: (identified by 30% of respondents as a moderate to high risk). Such inputs might include Richard Caplan is an Environmental Advo- seed inoculants or manures and composts from materials obtained from off the farm. cate at U.S. Public Interest Research Group. • Only 10% feel that a regulatory framework is in place to adequately protect their organic farm products from damages due to contamination from GMOs. Ellen Hickey is Director of Research at OFRF’s 4th National Organic Farmers’ Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Pesticide Action Network North America. Organic Marketplace will be published in fall 2003. www.ofrf.org Much of the information in the above article was based on “Genetic Engineering Is Not an Exten- sion of Conventional Plant Breeding: How genetic Crop Failures: One More Problem of Genetic Engineering engineering differs from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene here have been a number of crop failures with GE and soybeans. In the case of transfer,” by Michael Hansen, Research Associate at cotton, bolls were deformed and fell off the plant before harvest. Some attributed this the Consumer Policy Institute. Available at Tproblem to companies hurrying Roundup Ready cotton to market without allowing www.biotech-info.net/ state and federal cotton experts to test the seeds. As a result of the losses suffered, wide_crosses.html compensation was paid to farmers in a number of states including Mississippi, Originally published October 2000. Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. Farmers also discovered that Monsanto’s Reprinted with permission. GE soybeans grown in hot climates are more likely to grow shorter and have their stems split open. GE soybeans grew an average of 15 cm. in hot climates compared to Footnotes located at the CCOF website: www.ccof.org/ a conventional height average of 20 cm., and 100% of the GE plants had split stems magazine.html compared to 50-70% for conventional varieties. Source: www.panna.org

Summer 2003 Page 5 WEIRD SCIENCE: THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF GENETIC ENGINEERING By Ellen Hickey, Pesticide Action Network, & Richard Caplan, U.S. Public Interest Research Group

About The Authors: Richard Caplan is an Environmental Advocate at U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Ellen Hickey is Director of Research at Pesticide Action Network North America.

Originally published October 2000. Reprinted in CCOF Magazine (Vol. XX, no. 2) with permission.

Much of the information in the article was based on “Genetic Engineering Is Not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding: How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer,” by Michael Hansen, Research Associate at the Consumer Policy Institute. Available at http://www.consumersunion.org/food/widecpi200.htm.

Notes 1 The term appears to have been coined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in their 1993 publication “Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles.” 2 From http://www.biotechbasics.com/basics.html. Accessed on October 10, 2000. 3 Michael Hansen. “Genetic Engineering Is Not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding: How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer.” Consumer Policy Institute/Consumer’s Union. 2000. Available at http://www.consumersunion.org/food/food.htm. 4 These bacteria cause a disease in plants by attaching themselves to the plant and then transferring part of their DNA into the host plant’s genome. To use this bacterium in genetic engineering, scientists must delete the disease-inducing genes and insert genes that produce the desired traits. This engineered bacterium, sometimes called a bacterial “truck,” is then mixed with the plant cells and allowed to infect them. 5 Michael Hansen and Ellen Hickey. “Genetic Engineering: Imprecise and Unpredictable.” Global Pesticide Campaigner. Volume 10, Number 1. April 2000. 6 James Meikle. “Soya gene find fuels doubts on GM crops.” The Guardian (London). 31 May 2000. 7 Peter Montague. “Genetic Engineering Error.” Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly. 5 June 1997. 8 British Medical Association press release. “BMA statement on genetically modified organisms.” 18 May 1999. 9 Mercer, D.K., K.P. Scott, W.A. Bruce-Johnson, LA. Glover and H.J. Flint. 1999. “Fate of free DNA and transformation of the oral bacterium Streptococcus gordonii DL1 by plasmid DNA in human saliva.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 65: 6-10. 10 Ho, Mae-Wan, Angela Ryan and Joe Cummins. Hazards of Transgenic Plants Containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter: Authors’ reply to critiques of “The Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter—a Recipe for Disaster?” Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (in press). (Online rebuttal to critiques, www.i-sis.org.uk/camv-mehd.php 11 Joy Bergelson, Colin B. Purrington and Gale Wichmann. 1998. “Promiscuity in transgenic plants.” Nature. 3 September 1998. 12 Wichmann, Gale, Colin B. Purrington and Joy Bergelson. Abstract of “Male promiscuity is increased in transgenic Arabidopsis.” Available at http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Arabidopsis/madison98/abshtml/321.html. Accessed 12 October 2000. (The AtDB Project database remained accessible until November 17, 2000. A new project The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR) is now the NSF funded project for Arabidopsis information. www.arabidopsis.org) 13 Peter Meyer, Linn Felicitas, Iris Heidmann, Heiner Meyer Z.A., Ingrid Niedenhof and Heinz Saedler. “Endogenous and environmental factors influence 35S promoter methylation of a maize A1 construct in transgenic petunia and its colour phenotype.” Molecular Genes and (1992) 231: 345-352. 14 Permit #99-088-09N, Permit #94-039-03R. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. 15 Permit #98-117-01R, Permit #98-117-02R, Permit #98-117-03R. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. 16 Permit #98-100-15N. Permit #98-100-16N. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. 17 Permit #96-355-01R. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. 18 Permit #98-128-17N. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. 19 Permit #98-071-74N, Permit #98-320-03N, and Permit #98-049-04N. http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm 20 Permit #91-079-01R, http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm. 21 ProdiGene press release, June 7, 2000, “New Biopesticide Developed from Egg White Featured in Nature Biotechnology Magazine.”

This page intentionally blank to maintain pagination.

Articles begin on even-numbered (left-facing) pages. COALITION

CALIFORNIANS FOR of that constituency gives the Coalition the infringement — Monsanto has already strength needed to challenge the biotech sued over 400 farmers. GE-FREE AGRICULTURE threat facing California’s farmers. “Genetic engineering presents tremen- It’s a threat that Dave Henson, Director dous economic vulnerability for California READYING STATEWIDE of the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, farmers, especially for family-scale and CAMPAIGN says is very close to becoming reality. “As organic farmers,” said Renata Brillinger, soon as next year, Cropscience plans Cal GE-Free’s Campaign Coordinator. By Will Stockwin to introduce its herbicide-tolerant rice. “California’s primary export markets have Monsanto and its partners are developing rejected GE, farmers assume liability risks ENETICALLY ENGINEERED FRUITS, genetically engineered fruits and vegetables, if they contaminate neighboring non-GE vegetables and grains will be including Monsanto’s Roundup Ready fields, and the seed contracts are restrictive Gintroduced into California within strawberries, lettuce, and pest-resistant and costly. And for farmers who don’t want the next several years if the biotechnology wine grapes,” he said. “Right now cotton is to grow GE product, including organic industry proceeds with its plans unchecked. the only commercial GE crop in the state, farmers, it’s a disaster waiting to happen, These plans are being made without the but as more are introduced, it gets harder since genetic contamination could destroy knowledge, consent or desire of most of to stop the trend. There is still time for their entire crop.” California’s citizens. A newly formed coali- California farmers to heed the hard lessons The Cal GE-Free Coalition is pursuing tion, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, learned by farmers in the Midwest.” these goals: is making its own plans. To date, GE research and application has • To develop a base of farmers who refuse to Since the advent of genetically engi- focused on soy, corn, canola, and cotton, plant the GE crops targeted for commer- neered crops in the late 1990s, there have and the battles to protect sustainable agri- cialization in California. been a number of groups and organizations culture have thus far been waged in the • To work with farmers and consumers cautioning about the risks and uncertain- Midwest where these crops are grown. to convince agricultural food processors ties associated with genetically modified Corn and soybean growers have lost more affecting California planting decisions to organisms in food, and working to encour- than $1 billion dollars in exports because refuse to process GE crops. age the rejection of GE foods in the mar- of consumer rejection of GE foods in ketplace. Until now, there has been no Europe and Asia. Resistance to Roundup • To convince consumers to publicly refuse coordinated effort to enlist farmers, proces- is starting to be identified in some weed to purchase the next wave of GE crops sors and consumers to fight biotechnology species due to cross-pollination between in California. in the most logical place – the farm. weeds and herbicide tolerant GE crops. “In our first two years the Coalition’s work Californians for GE-Free Agriculture (Cal Midwestern organic corn farmers have lost will focus on farmer and market-based GE-Free) is doing just that. Cal GE-Free is markets and face the high costs of testing rejection of GE rice, strawberries, lettuce unique in that it joins farmer-based organi- their fields for GE contamination. Farmers and wine grapes,” said CCOF’s Brian zations with consumer and environmental are increasingly vulnerable to legal action Sharpe, working on the campaign as a groups that have been working on GE issues from biotech companies for patent farmer organizer. “The campaign will work for years (see box facing page). The diversity primarily with farmers to develop a base of HEADSTART NURSERY Vegetable Transplants

4869 Monterey Road, Gilroy, CA 95020 (408) 842-3030 ¥ (408) 842-3224 Fax

Page 6 CCOF Magazine educated, informed spokespeople who Cal GE-Free Coalition of Farmer-based, Environmental, believe it is in the best interests of farmers and Consumer Organizations to reject GE agriculture.” Since GE rice presents the most immi- California Certified Organic Farmers Genetic Engineering Action Network nent threat to California agriculture, the (CCOF) www.ccof.org (GEAN-USA) www.geaction.org campaign will focus first within the rice Center for (CFS) www.greenpeaceusa.org industry. Bayer Cropscience recently peti- www.centerforfoodsafety.org Occidental Arts and Ecology Center tioned the Environmental Protection Community Alliance with Family Farmers (OAEC) www.oaec.org Agency (EPA) for final regulatory approval (CAFF) www.caff.org Organic Consumers Association (OCA) of its herbicide tolerant rice to be commer- Ecological Farming Association (EFA) www.organicconsumers.org cialized for the 2004 growing season. The www.eco-farm.org Four Elements Farm company has applied for regulatory authority to use traditional airplane seed- Advice and Support ~ Pesticide Action Network (PANNA) www.panna.org ing of the crop in the Sacramento Valley, even though the resulting contamination for organic and non-GE rice growers could be devastating. Sharpe says that the rice campaign will focus largely on countering the biotech industry’s slick promotion and promises with the truth about the economic and performance realities of biotech crops. Brillinger says, “We want to provide farm- ers with information on the disadvantages and risks of GE—the kind of information that never makes it into the industry’s promotional materials. The campaign will also provide farmers with economically and agriculturally sustainable alternatives to GE.” Cal GE-Free Coalition members are con- vinced that, with enough balanced informa- tion, farmers will reject this economically risky, uncontrollable technology. For more information about the Coalition and joining the campaign, contact: Cal GE-Free at (707) 874-0316, or [email protected].

Scientists from Purdue University found that if just 60 individual Nestled in the beautiful hills of Morgan Hill, California, we are a family-owned and -operated business. A leader in the intermediate vegetable ingredient industry, we offer both expertise and genetically-engineered fish were a family-personalized touch. Specializing in garlic, peppers, and an array of other vegetables, introduced into a population of we have home-grown as well as fresh-frozen, roasted and shelf-stable process lines, In addition, we offer a number of organic product alternatives. Our large range of products and services 60,000 wild fish, the species would allow us to meet all of your vegetable ingredient needs. become extinct within only 40 G EORGE C HIALA FARMS generations. 15500 Hill Road • Morgan Hill, CA 95037 From Fatal Harvest: (408) 778-0562 The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture www.fatalharvest.org

Summer 2003 Page 7 SCIENCE

WHEN TRANSGENES ments with traditional crops provide a California crop (Klinger et al., 1991). We tremendous amount of information for grew the crop as if we were multiplying WANDER, SHOULD answering these questions. commercial seed and surrounded it with The possibility of flow from stands of weeds at varying distances. When WE WORRY? engineered crops to their wild relatives with the plants flowered, pollinators did their undesirable consequences was indepen- job. We harvested seeds from the weeds for By Norman C. Ellstrand, Professor of Genetics, University of California — Riverside dently recognized by several scientists (e.g. progeny testing. We exploited an allozyme Colwell et al., 1985; Ellstrand, 1988; Dale, allele (Lap-6) that was present in the crop TISHARD TO IGNORE THE ONGOING, 1992). Among the first to publish the idea and absent in the weed to detect hybrids in often emotional, public discussion of were two Calgene scientists, writing: “The the progeny of the weed. We found that the impacts of the products of crop sexual transfer of genes to weedy species to every weed seed analyzed at the shortest I create a more persistent weed is probably distance (1 m) was sired by the crop and biotechnology. At one extreme of the hype is self-righteous panic, and at the other is the greatest environmental risk of planting that a low level of hybridization was smug optimism. While the controversy a new variety of crop species” (Goodman detected at the greatest distance (1 km). It plays out in the press, dozens of scientific and Newell, 1985). The movement of was clear, at least in this system, that crop workshops, symposia, and other meetings unwanted crop genes into the environment alleles could enter natural populations. have been held to take a hard and thought- may pose more of a management dilemma But could they persist? The general view ful look at potential risks of transgenic than unwanted chemicals. A single mole- at that time was that hybrids of crops and crops. Overshadowed by the loud and con- cule of DDT [1,1,1,-trichloro-2,2-bis weeds would always be handicapped by tentious voices, a set of straightforward, scientifically based concerns have evolved, dictating a cautious approach for creating the best choices for agriculture’s future. Plant ecologists and population geneti- cists have looked to problems associated with traditionally improved crops to antici- pate possible risks of transgenic crops. Those that have been most widely discussed are: (a) crop-to-wild hybridization resulting in the evolution of increased weediness in wild relatives, (b) evolution of pests that are (p-chlorophenyl)ethane] remains a single crop characteristics that are agronomically resistant to new strategies for their control, molecule or degrades, but a single crop favorable, but a detriment in the wild. We and (c) the impacts on nontarget species in allele has the opportunity to multiply itself tested that view by comparing the fitness of associated ecosystems (such as the uninten- repeatedly through reproduction, which the hybrids created in our first experiment tional poisoning of beneficial insects; Snow can frustrate attempts at containment. with their non-hybrid siblings (Klinger and and Palma, 1997; Hails, 2000). In the early 1990s, the general view was Ellstrand, 1994). We grew them side by Exploring each of these in detail that hybridization between crops and their side under field conditions. The hybrids would take a book, and such books exist wild relatives occurred infrequently, even exhibited the huge swollen root characteris- (e.g. Rissler and Mellon, 1996; Scientists’ when they were growing in close proximity. tic of the crop; the pure wild plants did Working Group on Biosafety, 1998). How- This view was supported by the belief that not. The two groups did not differ signifi- ever, let us consider the questions that have the discrete evolutionary pathways of cantly in germination, survival, or ability dominated my research over the last decade domesticated crops and their wild relatives for their pollen to sire seed. However, the to examine how concerns regarding engi- would lead to increased reproductive isola- hybrids set about 15% more seed than the neered crops have evolved. Those questions tion and was supported by challenges wild plants. In this system, hybrid vigor are: How likely is it that transgenes will breeders sometimes have in obtaining crop- would accelerate the spread of crop alleles move into and establish in natural popula- wild hybrids. Thus, my research group set in a natural population. tions? And if transgenes do move into wild out to measure spontaneous hybridization When I took these results on the road, populations, is there any cause for concern? between wild radish (Raphanus sativus), an I was challenged by those who questioned It turns out that experience and experi- important California weed, and cultivated the generality of the results. Isn’t radish radish (the same species), an important probably an exception? Radish is outcross-

Page 8 CCOF Magazine ing and insect pollinated. Its wild relative When I gave seminars on the results of to gene flow from any individual cultivar is is the same species. What about a more these experiments, I was met by a new extremely low, but when those problems important crop? What about a more question: “If gene flow from crops to their are realized, they can be doozies. Whether important weed? We decided to address wild relatives was a problem, wouldn’t it transgenic crops are more or less likely to all of those criticisms with a new system. already have occurred in traditional sys- create gene flow problems will depend in Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) is one of the tems?” A good question. I conducted a part on their phenotypes. The majority of world’s most important crops. John- thorough literature review to find out what the “first generation” transgenic crops have songrass (Sorghum halepense) is one of the was known about the consequences of nat- phenotypes that are apt to give a weed a fit- world’s worst weeds. The two are distinct ural hybridization between the world’s most ness boost, such as herbicide resistance or species, even differing in chromosome important crops and their wild relatives. pest resistance. Although a fitness boost in number, and sorghum is largely selfing Crop-to-weed gene flow has created hard- itself may not lead to increased weediness, and wind pollinated. Sorghum was about ship through the appearance of new or more scientists engineering crops with such phe- as different from radish as you could get. difficult weeds. Hybridization with wild rel- notypes should be mindful that those phe- We conducted experiments with atives has been implicated in the evolution notypes might have unwanted effects in sorghum paralleling those with radish. of more aggressive weeds for seven of the natural populations. In fact, I am aware We found that sorghum and johnsongrass world’s 13 most important crops (Ellstrand of at least three cases in which scientists spontaneously hybridize, although at rates et al., 1999). It is notable that hybridization decided not to engineer certain traits into lower than the radish system, and detected between sea beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. certain crops because of such concerns. crop alleles in seed set by wild plants grow- maritima) and sugar beet (B. vulgaris subsp. The crops most likely to increase extinc- ing 100 m from the crop (Arriola and Ell- vulgaris) has resulted in a new weed that has tion risk by gene flow are those that are strand, 1996). The fitness of the hybrids devastated Europe’s sugar production planted in new locations that bring them was not significantly different from their (Parker and Bartsch, 1996). into the vicinity of wild relatives, thereby wild siblings (Arriola and Ellstrand, 1997). Crop-to-wild gene flow can create increasing the hybridization rate because The results from our sorghum-johnsongrass another problem. Hybridization between of proximity. For example, one can imag- ine a new variety that has increased salinity tolerance that can now be planted within the range of an endangered relative. It is clear that those scientists creating and releasing new crops, transgenic or other- wise, can use the possibility of gene flow to make choices about how to create the best possible products. It is interesting that little has been writ- ten regarding the possible downsides of Photo: USDA within-crop gene flow involving transgenic experiments were qualitatively the same as a common species and a rare one can, plants. Yet a couple of recent incidents sug- those from our cultivated radish-wild radish under the appropriate conditions, send the gest that crop-to-crop gene flow may result experiments. Other labs have conducted rare species to extinction in a few genera- in greater risks than crop-to-wild gene flow. similar experiments on crops such as sun- tions (e.g. Ellstrand and Elam, 1993; The first is a report of triple herbicide resis- flower (Helianthus annus), rice (Oryza Huxel, 1999; Wolf et al., 2001). There are tance in canola in Alberta, Canada sativa), canola (Brassica napus), and pearl several cases in which hybridization (MacArthur, 2000). Volunteer canola plants millet (Pennisetum glaveum; for review, see between a crop and its wild relatives has were found to be resistant to the herbicides Ellstrand et al., 1999). In addition, descrip- increased the extinction risk for the wild Roundup (Monsanto, St. Louis), Liberty tive studies have repeatedly found crop-spe- taxon (e.g. Small, 1984). The role of (Aventis, Crop Science, Research Triangle cific alleles in wild relatives when the two hybridization in the extinction of a wild Park, NC), and Pursuit (BASF, Research grow in proximity (for review, see Ellstrand subspecies of rice has been especially well Triangle Park, NC). It is clear that two dif- et al., 1999). The data from such experi- documented (Kiang et al., 1979). It is ferent hybridization events were necessary ments and descriptive studies provide ample clear that gene flow from crops to wild rel- to account for these genotypes. It is inter- evidence that spontaneous hybridization atives has, on occasion, had undesirable esting that the alleles for resistance to with wild relatives appears to be a general consequences. Roundup and Liberty are transgenes, but feature of most of the world’s important Are transgenic crops likely to be differ- the allele for Pursuit resistance is the result crops, from raspberries (Rubus idaeus) to ent from traditionally improved crops? No, of mutation breeding. Although these vol- mushrooms (Aqaricus bisporus; compare and that is not necessarily good news. It is unteers can be managed with other herbi- with Ellstrand et al., 1999). clear that the probability of problems due cides, this report is significant because, if

Summer 2003 Page 9 correct, it illustrates that gene flow into move from variety to variety. The field genetics as well as social sciences and wild plants is not the only avenue for the release of “third generation” transgenic crops humanities to make mindful choices about evolution of plants that are increasingly that are grown to produce pharmaceutical to how to create the products that are best difficult to manage. and other industrial biochemicals will pose for humans and our environment. The second incident is a report of the special challenges for containment if we do ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Starlink Cry9C allele (the one that showed not want those chemicals appearing in the This article was written while I was receiv- up in Taco Bell’s taco shells) appearing in a human food supply. ing support from the USDA (grant no. 00- variety of supposedly non-engineered corn The products of plant improvement are 33120-9801). I thank Tracy Kahn for her (Callahan, 2000). Although unintentional not absolutely safe, and we cannot expect thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of mixing of seeds during transport or storage transgenic crops to be absolutely safe the manuscript and Maarten Chrispeels for may explain the contamination of the tradi- either. Recognition of that fact suggests his encouragement and patience. tional variety, inter-varietal crossing between that creating something just because we are Previously printed in Plant Physiology, Editor’s seed production fields could be just as likely. now able to do so is an inadequate reason Choice, Vol. 125, pp. 1543-1545, April 2001. This news is significant because, if correct, it for embracing a new technology. If we have ©American Society of Plant Biologists. Reprinted illustrates how easy it is to lose track of advanced tools for creating novel agricul- with permission. transgenes. Without careful checking, there tural products, we should use the advanced Footnotes located at the CCOF website: are plenty of opportunities for them to knowledge from ecology and population www.ccof.org/magazine.html

Insects Thrive on GE “pest-killing” Crops

EW RESEARCH BY SCIENTISTS AT IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON the larvae “are able to digest and utilize” the and may be using and the Universidad Simon Rodrigues in Caracas, Venezuela it as a “supplementary food,” adding that the presence of the Nsuggests that pests can actually feed on Bacillus thuringiensis “could have modified the nutritional balance in plants” for them. (Bt) genetically engineered into crops, rather than succumb to the Researchers conclude: “Bt transgenic crops could therefore have poison as the crops were designed. The research radically under- unanticipated nutritionally favorable effects, increasing the fitness of mines one of the key benefits claimed for GE crops—breeding resistant populations.” crops that come equipped with their own pesticide. “The present results and previous work on re-selected SERD4 Drawbacks have already emerged, with pests becoming resistant populations (Sayyed & Wright 2001) suggest that resistant larvae to the toxin. Environmentalist’s say that resistance develops all the may be using Cry1Ac as a supplementary food protein, and that this faster because the insects are constantly exposed to it in the plants, may account for the observed faster development rate of Bt resis- rather than being subject to occasional spraying. tant insects in the presence of the Bt toxin.” Bt, a naturally occurring toxin, is widely used as a pesticide by Pete Riley, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said, organic farmers. However, organic farmers in the U.S. may use only “This...destroys the industry’s entire case that insect-resistant GE approved non-genetically engineered Bt products, which are often crops can have anything to do with sustainable farming.” weaker than GE Bt products. Genetically engineered Bt crops have spread fast. The amount of Researchers fed resistant larvae of the diamondback moth—an land planted with them worldwide has grown more than 25-fold— increasingly troublesome pest in the southern U.S. and in the from four million acres in 1996 to well over 100 million acres in tropics—normal cabbage leaves and ones that had been treated 2000—and the global market is expected to be worth $25 billion with a Bt toxin. The larvae eating the treated leaves grew much by 2010. faster and bigger—with a 56% higher growth rate. They found that Source: Geoffrey Lean, The Independent, UK, 03/30/03

“A Healthy Way to Grow” Salinas ¥ Five Points ¥ Holtville

Summer 2003 Page 11 WHEN TRANSGENES WANDER, SHOULD WE WORRY? By Norman C. Ellstrand, Professor of Genetics, University of California — Riverside

Previously printed in Plant Physiology, Editor's Choice, Vol. 125, pp. 1543-1545, April 2001. ©American Society of Plant Biologists. Reprinted in CCOF Magazine (Vol. XX, no. 2) with permission.

Acknowledgments This article was written while I was receiving support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (grant no. 00-33120- 9801). I thank Tracy Kahn for her thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript and Maarten Chrispeels for his encouragement and patience.

Literature Cited Arriola PE, Ellstrand NC (1996) Crop-to-weed gene flow in the genus Sorghum (Poaceae): spontaneous interspecific hybridization between johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense, and crop sorghum, S. bicolor. Am J Bot 83: 1153-1160 Arriola PE, Ellstrand NC (1997) Fitness of interspecific hybrids in the genus Sorghum: persistence of crop genes in wild populations. Ecol Appl 7: 512-518 Callahan P (2000) Genetically altered protein is found in still more corn. Wall Street Journal 236: B5 Colwell RE, Norse EA, Pimentel D, Sharples FE, Simberloff D (1985) Genetic engineering in agriculture. Science 229: 111-112 Dale PJ (1992) Spread of engineered genes to wild relatives. Plant Physiol 100: 13-15 Ellstrand NC (1988) Pollen as a vehicle for the escape of engineered genes? In J Hodgson, AM Sugden, eds, Planned Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms. Elsevier, Cambridge, UK, pp S30-S32 Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size: implications for plant conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24: 217-242 Ellstrand NC, Prentice HC, Hancock JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30: 539-563 Goodman RM, Newell N (1985) Genetic engineering of plants for herbicide resistance: status and prospects. In HO Halvorson, D Pramer, M Rogul, eds, Engineered Organisms in the Environment: Scientific Issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp 47-53 Hails RS (2000) Genetically modified plants: the debate continues. Trends Ecol Evol 15: 14-18 Huxel GR (1999) Rapid displacement of native species by invasive species: effect of hybridization. Biol Conserv 89: 143-152 Kiang YT, Antonovics J, Wu L (1979) The extinction of wild rice (Oryza perennis formosana) in Taiwan. Jour Asian Ecol 1: 1-9 Klinger T, Elam DR, Ellstrand NC (1991) Radish as a model system for the study of engineered gene escape rates via crop-weed mating. Conserv Biol 5: 531-535 Klinger T, Ellstrand NC (1994) Engineered genes in wild populations: fitness of weed-crop hybrids of radish, Raphanus sativus L. Ecol Appl 4: 117-120 MacArthur M (2000) Triple-resistant canola weeds found in Alberta. The Western Producer. http://www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01.html (February 10, 2000) Parker IM, Bartsch D (1996) Recent advances in ecological biosafety research on the risks of transgenic plants: a transcontinental perspective. In J Tomiuk, K Wohrmann, A Sentker, eds, Transgenic Organisms: Biological and Social Implications. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, pp 147-161 Rissler J, Mellon M (1996) The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety (1998) Manual for Assessing Ecological and Human Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Organisms, Part One: Introductory Materials and Supporting Text for Flowcharts, and Part Two: Flowcharts and Worksheets. The Edmonds Institute, Edmonds, WA Small E (1984) Hybridization in the domesticated-weed-wild complex. In WF Grant, ed, Plant Biosystematics. Academic Press, Toronto, pp 195-210 Snow AA, Palma P (1997) Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience 47: 86-96 Wolf DE, Takebayashi N, Rieseberg L H (2001) Predicting the risk of extinction through hybridization. Conserv Biol 15: 1039-1053

This page intentionally blank to maintain pagination.

Articles begin on even-numbered (left-facing) pages. FEDERAL REGULATION

ARE GMOS BEING a sense of assurance, while leaving the manu- The federal government says that its facturers free of any real restraint. processes are rigorous. It says that the lack of REGULATED OR NOT? In 1986, then Vice-President George Bush any reported human health problems associ- hosted Monsanto executives at the White ated with GMOs is evidence of its effective- By Claire Hope Cummings, M.A., J.D. House to discuss the “deregulation” of ness. The biotech industry claims that their biotechnology. Then, after he became products are “the most studied” on the mar- EW GENETICALLY MODIFIED President, the framework that had been ket. But the industry is simply referring to organisms (GMOs) are on the constructed during years of behind-the-scenes the studies they have done as they develop Nloose and they are causing trouble. negotiations was announced by his Vice- the product. They are not referring to any These are not the GMOs most people hear President, Dan Quayle. Brushing aside the post-market evaluation. Underneath the about: soybeans that resist weed killers or concerns voiced by independent scientists, government’s claims of safety lies a little corn that kills insects. These are experimental farmers and consumer groups, Quayle said known but fundamentally flawed idea that crops that contain pharmaceutical proteins, that “biotech products will receive the same undermines the whole system. industrial chemicals, even human genes. oversight as other products” and not be The governing principle behind the regu- They are being grown outdoors in hundreds “hampered by unnecessary regulation.” lation of GMO food and agriculture is a con- of secret locations all over the country, in The system that was created then is still in cept called “substantial equivalence.” It means open-pollinated plants such as corn. This force today, with only a few minor that a GMO crop can be considered to powerful new use of biotechnology is called exceptions. Basically, it was be just the same as a conventional “,” and it poses very real threats to decided that there would be crop. Unfortunately there is no our personal and environmental health. no new laws passed govern- scientific justification for Cases of pharm contamination have already ing biotechnology. As a this idea. According to an occurred, raising new criticisms of the regu- result, federal agencies are article in the prestigious latory system in the United States. still struggling to evaluate scientific journal Nature, When GMOs were first introduced into and approve a plethora of the concept of substantial agriculture, farmers and consumer groups new and potentially dan- equivalence is “pseudo-sci- questioned the lack of basic protections. gerous products, using laws entific.” The article calls this Since then, GMO contamination has spread designed to deal with chemi- idea a “commercial and politi- from the corn fields in the Midwest to the cals and pathogens, not genetics. cal judgment masquerading as if birthplace of corn in the remote mountains And they continue to be constrained it were scientific” and it was “created of Mexico. Farmers have not been able to by concepts developed with the best science primarily to provide an excuse for not requir- protect themselves from this genetic trespass. available in the 1960s. ing biochemical or toxicological tests.” Legis- Instead of holding GMO manufacturers The reporting system is essentially volun- lators have never agreed on the meaning of liable, the courts are upholding the patent tary and industry is trusted to inform the substantial equivalence. This ambiguity, rights of seed companies and making the government of any problems that arise. It’s according to the article, “acts as a barrier to farmers pay. Taxpayers are subsidizing the sort of a “don’t tell, don’t ask” arrangement. further research into the possible risks of eat- costs of GMO food recalls. While national If industry does not tell government what it ing GMOs.” polls show that well over 90% of U.S. con- knows or suspects about its GMOs, the gov- As applied, substantial equivalence means sumers want GMO food labeled, govern- ernment does not ask. Once crops are that regulators only look at a GMO product ment regulators still refuse to consider it. released, there is no monitoring or follow-up. itself. They do not take the process used to By almost any measure, regulatory over- Agencies are free to ignore significant findings manufacture it into consideration. This is a sight of agricultural biotechnology is failing from independent sources, including reports crucial mistake, because it is the process that to protect the public interest. The reason is, about the nutritional deficits in food made makes GMOs unique. GMOs are organisms it was designed that way. Long before there from GMO crops, how genes wander when that can not be created using traditional were any products ready for market, the GMO crops cross with other plants, about breeding methods. The process is imprecise GMO manufacturers were in Washington, recombinant viruses on the loose, and the and unpredictable and more often than not, D.C. taking pre-emptive action to ensure growing problems of resistance and tolerance, it results in failure. Getting a useful product that the regulatory climate would favor their to name just a few. As a result, evidence of out of that process depends on the use of viral interests. The industry wanted to leave just emerging human health and ecological prob- vectors, anti-bacterial markers, promoters, enough regulation in place to give the public lems are routinely disregarded. switches and other genetically altered mole- cules to succeed. And it is these process-

Page 12 CCOF Magazine related molecules that should trouble us. recommendations and permit requirements, They are the basis for some of the safety con- such as its Insect Resistance Management STATE LEGISLATION ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED cerns of other countries and international Plans for farmers, which are supposed to slow AGRICULTURE & FOOD ISSUES biosafety protocols. down the development of resistance to Bt, are Vermont ~ In April, the State Senate passed a bill, It is also revealing to take a look at how the not adequate to the task. S. 182, which requires labeling of GE seed. The bill also requires that the distributors of GE seed report three executive agencies that are primarily Here is an example of how this regulatory to the State Commissioner of Agriculture how many responsible for GMOs operate. The Food patchwork plays out in the field: In April GE seeds were sold in any given year. Threatened and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency 2003, the EPA announced that a company with not passing in the State House, the language of of the Department of Health and Human growing experimental GMO corn in Hawaii the bill was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill, which is currently pending conference commit- Services, oversees GMO foods. The Environ- had finally satisfied the agency’s regulatory tee. Three other bills on the GE ag issue are pending mental Protection Agency (EPA) deals with requirements. The company, Pioneer Hi- at the committee level. The bills address biotech lia- GMO pesticides. The Animal and Plant Bred, had been fined for permit violations in bility issues, moratorium on GE plantings, and labeling of GE food. Visit Vermont GEAN for more Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an 2002 and was ordered to test and report its info: www.gefreevt.org/home.html agency of the United States Department findings to the EPA to ensure that their Source: CropChoice news, 04/04/03 of Agriculture (USDA), administers GMO experimental corn did not contaminate Texas ~ The House of Representatives is consider- plant testing in the field. All three operate nearby fields. When the company failed to ing a bill, HB 3387, that would ban from the state only under their own legislation and none report on its testing, in direct violation of its GE food crops and animals that produce proteins of their efforts are coordinated. agreement with EPA, it was fined again. for drug production. Texas is home to Prodigene, The USDA relies on the Plant Pest Act, Later, after acquiring and reviewing the test the company responsible for two known incidents of pharmaceutical corn contaminating corn and soy which narrowly defines plant pests and does findings, the EPA said it was satisfied that intended for the food supply. The Prodigene corn not include all the processes or organisms the company was in compliance. But did was genetically engineered to produce a pig vac- currently used in genetic engineering. Permits that mean there was no contamination? No, cine. Livestock and food crops such as corn should not be genetically tinkered to produce drugs, indus- for field tests are obtained from APHIS there was. But it involved fields that were trial chemicals and other nonfood items, and they through a simple notification process, after regulated by the USDA, so the EPA was not should not be allowed in Texas, according to the bill which they are deregulated. There are only concerned about that. For their part, the sponsored by Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Forth Worth. Frito-Lay is in support of the bill, along with Con- bare standards for biological containment of USDA had no comment, saying it was inves- sumers Union. The Texas Farm Bureau and the the field test and no provisions for evaluating tigating. Meanwhile, the company has asked biotech industry are opposed to the bill. certain ecological risks. APHIS can require an neighboring farmers on the island not to For more information on the bill go to: environmental assessment if the applicant plant any of the crops that Pioneer is using www.capitol.state.tx.us For more information on pharmaceutical crops, indicates one might be required. A study of in its experiments, as a way of avoiding cross- go to: www.truefoodnow.org over 8,000 field test results submitted to the contamination. Source: Express-News Business, 04/11/03 USDA showed that not one resulted in an ABOUT THE AUTHOR Montana ~ In April, the State Legislature passed a environmental assessment. Claire Hope Cummings was a lawyer for the resolution, SJ 8, calling on the federal government The FDA uses the Food, Drug, and to withhold introduction of GE wheat and barley USDA during the Carter Administration. Cosmetic Act to review GMOs. The substan- until there is market acceptance. For a full copy of She has farmed in California and in Vietnam the resolution, go to: http://data.opi.state.mt.us/ tial equivalence doctrine fits nicely with FDA where she had an organic farm along the bills/2003/billhtml/SJ0008.htm logic. It goes like this: any “novel” substances Mekong River. As a print and broadcast jour- For more information on farmer opposition to GE in food must be tested and perhaps labeled. wheat, go to: www.worc.org/index.html nalist, she covers the environmental and cul- However, if something can be “generally Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 04/09/03 tural costs of industrial agriculture and regarded as safe” (GRAS), as most conven- follows the progress of the sustainable agricul- Oregon ~ The State Legislature is debating a bill tional foods are, then they are exempt. Since that would prohibit local government from passing ture movement. Her latest work on agricul- GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to con- food labeling laws, including labeling of GE food. tural biotechnology was published in World The bill, HB 2957, passed the Oregon House of Rep- ventional food, they are considered GRAS Watch Magazine in December, 2002, and she resentatives in April – 43 in favor, 8 opposed. The and thus they do not require testing or labels. bill is now pending on the Oregon State Senate. In has written A Farmer’s Guide to GMOs for The EPA makes some effort to deal with the 2002 Oregon election, the biotech and food Farm Aid and The National Family Farm industry spent millions to defeat Measure 27, a the environmental impacts of GMOs. It reg- Coalition, and the Environmental Media Ser- state ballot initiative that would have required GE ulates GMO pesticides (primarily the Bt vices Reporter’s and Editor’s Guide to Genetic food labeling. The bill would not prevent future state crops) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, ballot initiatives or state legislation requiring GE Engineering in Agriculture. She is a 2001 Food and Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances food labeling. It would only prevent local municipal- and Society Policy Fellow. ities in Oregon from passing food labeling laws. Control Act. The EPA operates under the For more information, go to: assumption that Bt is safe, even though www.leg.state.or.us/billsset.htm GMO Bt has been shown to have detrimen- For more information on GE food labeling, go to: www.thecampaign.org tal impacts on soil micro-organisms and ben- Source: AP, 04/11/03 eficial insect populations. The EPA

Summer 2003 Page 13 PESTICIDE USE

GENETICALLY resistant crops engineered to produce their defects in mammals. Some companies are own Bt pesticide is hastening the develop- developing GE crops that are tolerant to ENGINEERED FOODS ment of resistant insects. even more toxic and persistent herbicides such as 2,4-D. THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT GE AND PESTICIDES In addition to the existing evidence CROPS GENERALLY REDUCE PESTICIDE USE about these herbicides, it is likely that a By Skip Spitzer, Pesticide Action Network There is little credible evidence that GE crops generally require less pesticide use. In lack of long-term testing has lead to a sub- stantial underestimation of the effects of AZARDOUS PESTICIDES OFTEN the case of herbicide-tolerant soy, account- herbicides on humans and other animals end up in our environment, the ing for about 59% of GE crops worldwide generally. Moreover, although little studied, places where we work and play, (September 2001), independent studies H some of the so-called “inactive” ingredients and in our food. Agricultural biotechnol- report anywhere from a pesticide reduction in pesticide formulations are also consider- ogy companies would have you believe that of 10% to moderately lower use in five ably toxic. GE foods are the alternative to these toxics. states, 10% or more greater use in three Here’s the real story about GE foods and states and 30% or more greater use in six REASONS TO EXPECT GREATER PESTICIDE pesticides. states. In the case of insect-resistant Bt USE AND HARM DUE TO GE CROPS corn, which account for about 18% of GE There are a wide range of reasons why we GE CROPS ARE DESIGNED crops worldwide, independent pesticide use can expect greater pesticide use and harm FOR PESTICIDE USE assessments range from modest reductions due to GE crops. Nearly 100% of GE crops now on the mar- to the idea that farmers are using Bt corn ket are designed to be used with weed- These include: in addition to pesticides, rather than as a killers (“herbicide-tolerant crops”), to replacement. While there is considerable • The development of pest resistance may produce their own pesticides (“insect-resis- evidence for at least short-term pesticide require additional or more potent pesti- tant crops”), or both. (Insect-resistant crops reduction from the use of , these cide applications. are also known as “Bt crops,” so called for crops account for only about 7% of GE • GE herbicide-resistant crop plants can the bacterial Bt toxin they are engineered crops worldwide. spring up as weeds after switching to to produce.) Furthermore, GE crops often another crop, requiring additional or require the use of pesticides in addition to HERBICIDES USED WITH GE HERBICIDE- more potent pesticides. those they were to engineered to resist or TOLERANT CROPS ARE HAZARDOUS •“Super-weeds,” weeds that have taken on produce. While herbicides used with GE herbicide- the engineered herbicide-resistance trait tolerant crops have sometimes replaced GE CROPS DO NOTHING via pollination, may require additional or more toxic pesticides, they are still haz- TO STOP THE “PESTICIDE TREADMILL” more potent weedkillers. ardous. All three of the Pesticides are intended • GE herbicide-tolerant crops may encour- most common herbicides to control pests. Yet it age extra herbicide use since it won’t used with GE crops can is not uncommon for harm the crop. threaten wildlife and pest populations to • GE Bt crops express their pesticide even human health. grow in response to when the target pest is absent. In fact, Glyphosate (the active pesticide use. More- while Bt crops are often planted every ingredient in Monsanto’s over, pests often even- year, the European Corn Borer, the pri- popular Roundup herbi- tually develop re- mary target of Bt crops, is on average (in cide) has been associated sistance to particular the U.S.) only a significant pest problem with an increased risk of chemicals. This growth Dangerous to handle. Safe to eat? Photo: USDA in one in five years. miscarriage, premature and adaptation of pests • The use of GE herbicide-tolerant trees is birth and reduced fertility. It also contami- generally requires farmers to use even more expected to vastly increase the use of haz- nates groundwater. Testing on pesticides. This treadmill of pesticide ardous herbicides in forestry. laboratory animals, researchers found an reliance is left unchanged with GE crops, •Expansion of GE crops to the Third increase in premature delivery, miscarriages since they are designed to be used with or World is expected to lead to greater and and dead fetuses, and arrested development produce pesticides. Already, the widespread largely unregulated pesticide use in areas of fetal kidneys. Bromoxynil is classified as a use of herbicides with GE herbicide-toler- where little or no use now occurs. possible human carcinogen and is known to ant crops is causing some weeds to become • Bt crops may pose threats to beneficial be a developmental toxicant, causing birth resistant to pesticides. The use of insect- insects such as lacewings and ladybugs,

Page 14 CCOF Magazine and so may disrupt the natural mecha- fessor of Food Safety Richard Lacey said SOURCES nisms that help keep pests in check. “It is virtually impossible to even con- Charles Benbrook, et al., Pest Management at the Crossroads, Consumers Union, 1996. • GE crops further lock farmers into an ceive of a testing procedure to assess” such effects. Rebecca Goldburg, et al., Biotechnology’s Bitter industrial style of agricultural that causes Harvest, Biotechnology Working Group, March • There is some evidence that herbicides crops to be vulnerable to pests, requiring 1990. used with herbicide-resistant crops may extensive pesticide use. USDA Economic Research Service, “Geneti- be causing a dramatic decrease in the • GE crops undermine sustainable, non- cally Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced amount of weeds on which birds feed, pesticide-based farming. This is because: Pesticide Use?,” Agricultural Outlook, August 2 threatening their survival. 2000. 1. About ⁄3 of U.S. organic farmers rely • The widespread adoption of a small on natural, organic-approved Bt World Wildlife Fund Canada, “Do Genetically number of commercially successful GE Engineered Crops Reduce Pesticides?,” March biopesticides (at least as a method of crop varieties greatly erodes agricultural 2000. last recourse) and will face a serious biodiversity, the variety of crops and crisis when pests develop resistance Originally published September 2001. Reprinted other organisms needed for successful with permission from: due to excessive exposure to crops farming. Pesticide Action Network North America engineered to produce their own Bt 49 Powell St., Ste. 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 pesticide; ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE: THE REAL Tel: (415) 981-1771 • Fax: (415) 981-1991 2. GE crops steer farmers away from non- SOLUTION TO HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE USE www.panna.org chemical, environmentally sound pest Fortunately, we don’t have to choose be- Pesticide Action Network North America is one of management techniques, such as fre- tween GE crops and conventional agricul- the founding members of GE Food Alert, a coali- quent crop rotation and intercropping; ture, both of which rely on harmful pesti- tion of organizations concerned with the protec- tion of consumer rights, public health and the cides. Ecological farming offers a viable 3. Pouring research dollars into highly environment. www.gefoodalert.org profitable agricultural biotechnology model of a locally-based, socially-just, envi- reduces the resources available for ronmentally and economi- research and investment in sustainable cally sustainable food sys- farming. tem, without the use of hazardous pesticides. Of THERE ARE NOVEL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH course, it’s up to us to chal- THE USE OF GE-CROP PESTICIDES lenge the biotechnology Pesticide management with GE crops also and agriculture industries entails special environmental and health to realize that vision! risks due to the nature of gene insertion. For example: •In order to be herbicide tolerant or to produce pesticide, GE crops have specific Two Dog Farm, Santa Cruz County, CA. genes haphazardly inserted into their Realizing the pesticide-free DNA, raising potential health risks. future of agriculture. Microbiologist, medical doctor, and Pro- Photo courtesy of Ann Baier.

Summer 2003 Page 15 TRENDS

PUBLIC OPINION OF 81% of Americans think the government foods were labeled they would avoid purchas- should require GE food products to be ing them. (Time magazine, 01/99). GE FOODS, 1989–2002 labeled. 89% of Americans think the govern- 93% of women surveyed say they want all ment should require pre-market safety testing GE food clearly labeled (National Federation OF 819 AMERICANS RANDOMLY SELECTED, of GE foods before they are marketed, as of Women’s Institutes, 1998). 92% want GE foods labeled. 26% would eat with any food additive. (MSNBC Live Vote 93% of Americans who responded to a GE foods, while 23% would not, and 51% Results, 01/00) Novartis survey agree that GE foods should are undecided. 28% think genetic modifica- Over 80% of Americans support the right be labeled as such (Novartis, 02/97). tion makes food unsafe, while 25% think GE of the European Union and Japan to require 94% of 1,900 consumers polled believed Ofood is safe, and 47% are unsure. 43% are the labeling of GE food imported from the that milk should be labeled to distinguish undecided if GE foods from animals are safe; U.S. (Univ. of Md. Center for the Study of milk from rBGH-treated cows, 10% of milk 39% see them as unsafe; only 17% say they Policy Attitudes, et al., 11/99). drinkers say they buy their products from are safe. About two-thirds of the respondents 92% of Americans support legal require- non-treated cows, and more than 74% of mistrust food information from elected offi- ments that all GE foods be labeled (BSMG consumers say they are concerned about the cials, business executives, and celebrities, possible discovery of negative while farmers and professors are long-term effects on human health well trusted. 71% would pay more Views on Genetic Modification of Food Influenced associated with rBGH (USDA, for food that protects the environ- by Religious Beliefs, Not Just Science March-June 1995). ment; 60% would pay more for 92% of 36,000 polled say they food produced without chemicals. HEN ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS want GE food labeled, with a (NC State U., 2002) or moral views in regards to agricultural biotechnology, 94% pro-labeling response from 90% of Americans said foods W57% of Protestants (62% of Evangelicals) oppose the technology based on their religious or ethical views while 37% are women and an 84% pro-labeling created through GE processes in favor; Catholics followed closely behind with 52% opposed and response from men (Vance Pub- should have special labels on them 42% in favor. Among Muslims, 46% said they are opposed, with lishing, in Food R&D, 02/95). (Rutgers U. Food Policy Institute, 32% in favor. Jews were the most favorable of the technology, 81% of 8,000 subscribers to 11/01). with 55% in favor and 35% opposed. Prodigy Internet service think that 90% of American farmers sup- When probed on the question of whether man has been milk containers should be labeled port labels on GE products if they empowered by God to use science to improve life or whether to indicate whether or not the are scientifically different from man is “playing God,” a majority of all those polled felt humans milk comes from cows treated conventional foods. 61% support have been empowered by God to improve life. Jewish adults feel with rBGH—92% of women; labels on GE products even if not most strongly that humans have an obligation to improve the 78% of men (Prodigy Internet scientifically different. (Farm world (60%). Protestants are more likely than other religious company, 03/94). Foundation/Kansas St. U., survey groups to say that humans should strike a balance (43%), with 88% of respondents favor of farms throughout the U.S., nearly half of born-again Christians (48%) saying humans should strike a balance. mandatory labeling from rBGH- 09/01) The poll, part of a nationwide survey of 1,117 adults 18 and treated cows, 9% oppose manda- 93% of Americans say the fed- older, was conducted by Zogby International from July 16–20, tory labeling, and 3% are unsure eral government should require 2001. The margin of error is +/- 5% for Protestants, +/- 5.7% for (St. Norbert College and Wisc. labels saying whether a product Catholics, +/- 7% for Jewish, and +/- 9% for Muslims. Pub. Radio, 02/94). been genetically modified or bio- Source: The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 85% of those polled think that engineered. “Such near unanimity labeling of GE food is “very in public opinion is rare” (ABC Worldwide for the Grocery Manufacturers of important” (USDA, 1992). News.com, 06/01). America, 09/99). Labeling of dairy products from rBGH- 86% of Americans think the government Almost 70% of Americans think the U.S. treated cows was favored in all the following should require the labeling of all packaged government should require more extensive studies: University of Wisconsin (68%) 1990 and other food products stating that they labeling of ingredients in GE food (Edelman Dairy Today (81%) 1989 include corn, soy or other products that have Public Relations Worldwide in Bloomberg Virginia Polytechnic Institute (85%) 1990 come from GE crops (Harris Poll, 06/00). News, 09/99). University of Missouri (95%) 1990 79% of Americans said it should not be 81% of American consumers believe GE Johanna Dairy (98%) 1989 legal to sell GE fruits and vegetables without food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE Source: The , special labels (USA Today, 02/00). www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Page 16 CCOF Magazine HOME & GARDEN

FRANKENGRASS potential for biological pollution. Grass •Economic harm resulting from the cont- pollen is spread by wind and it can travel amination of conventional turfgrass By Steven M. Zien, Executive Director up to 100 yards. Studies indicate the wind growing grounds. of Biological Urban Gardening Services (BUGS) pollinated seeds would hybridize, resulting •Economic harm to organic growers near OU ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR in the genetic contamination of areas GE planted grasses due to contamination with the term “Frankenfood,” where conventional lawns are grown, as by GE materials and herbicides. Americans’ new diet constituent well as native grasses. Y Other organizations, including the Ameri- which, unknown to the consumer, contains Mark Schwartz, head of the branded can Society of Landscape Architects genetically modified crop ingredients. Well, plants group at Scotts, has suggested that (ASLA), the Foundation on Economic get ready for another horrifying fact. Our they may utilize Monsanto’s Terminator Trends, and The Nature Conservancy, have lawns may soon contain “Frankengrass.” technology, which would make the seeds all urged USDA to adopt a moratorium on Open field trials of approximately 100 sterile. This is in contrast to a statement the release of GE grass and suspend all field acres in 15 states are growing genetically Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro made in studies until independent studies are con- engineered (GE) turfgrass. The major play- 1999, promising that the company would ducted. Concerns of the ASLA include: ers in this potentially disastrous experiment abandon its development of Terminator are Monsanto in association with the Scotts technology. Even if Monsanto holds true to •Build-up of herbicide tolerant weeds. Company (major national suppliers of those words, other companies are working • Contamination of native vegetation by chemical lawn care products). They (along with GE grasses and investigating the GE genes. with other companies) are now growing incorporation of Terminator technology. • Loss of biological diversity. GE creeping bentgrass and Kentucky blue- Currently these GE grasses are regulated •Harm to wildlife dependent on native grass. The two traits they are looking to by the United States Department of Agri- plants for food. commercialize are a slow growing turfgrass culture (USDA). A permit is required to •Potential lawsuits resulting from lawns and one that is resistant to the herbicide grow them in field studies, plus they can- contaminated by GE plants. Roundup (Roundup Ready Turfgrass). The not be sold commercially. Recently Mon- Currently Monsanto and Scotts have with- reason for the interest in GE turfgrass is santo and Scotts petitioned USDA to drawn their petition for deregulation of GE that industry officials suspect GE lawn and deregulate the species, opening up the mar- grass. However, Peter Jenkins with ICTA garden products could have sales reaching ket for these frankengrasses. If deregulated, believes that they will soon resubmit a peti- $10 billion annually. these crops would be allowed to be sold to tion to have USDA deregulate these poten- There are several concerns regarding GE the public for use in residential and com- tially environmentally damaging, turfgrass. The use of Roundup in lawns is mercial lawns. The International Center for genetically manipulated lawn grasses. For currently limited to spot treatments, since Technology Assessment (ICTA), along with additional information, contact The Inter- it kills anything with which it comes in the Center for Food Safety, has brought a national Center for Technology Assess- contact. When Roundup Ready lawns are lawsuit against the United States Depart- ment, Center for Food Safety, 660 installed, the grounds manager will be able ment of Agriculture, regarding its failure to Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 302, Washing- to apply Roundup over the entire lawn evaluate these GE grasses as “noxious ton, D.C. 20003; (202) 547-9359; e-mail area. Use of this herbicide will dramatically weeds.” In addition, ICTA wants the [email protected]; web site: www.icta.org. increase on home lawns, school grounds, USDA to list them as “noxious weeds” to Reprinted by permission from Biological Urban athletic fields, and golf courses around the avoid future approval and is also seeking a Gardening Services (BUGS), an international country and world. Kentucky bluegrass court order to end field trials until this law- membership organization (established in 1987) and creeping bentgrass are already problem suit is settled. devoted to reducing our reliance on potentially weeds in native areas and in our home ITCA points out several potential prob- toxic agricultural chemicals in our highly popu- lawns. As a landscape professional, I regu- lems associated with GE grass: lated urban landscape environments. Members receive the latest environmentally sound urban •Increased use and potential misuse of larly see creeping bentgrass invading a fes- horticultural information through the newsletter, cue lawn, drastically reducing the quality of glyphosate (the killing agent in BUGS Flyer —The Voice of Ecological Horti- its appearance. In both natural areas and in Roundup) resulting in pollution, and culture and a catalog of educational brochures. home lawns, if these weeds become resis- damage to non-target plants. BUGS also provides soil analysis with extensive tant to Roundup, their control will be •Development of glyphosate resistant organic recommendations. For more information, contact BUGS at P.O. Box 76, Citrus Heights, more difficult. Plus, these seeds can remain weeds. CA 95611, or visit BUGS on the web: viable for 10 to 15 years! There is also the www.organiclandscape.com

Summer 2003 Page 17 FOCUS ON FOOD

ILD IFE UPPORT Sacramento water supply and the Sacramento The improvement lies more in what is (W )L S : River, home to endangered salmon and innu- replacing old practices. The rice weevil larvae merable other aquatic organisms. In 1984 the still kill seedlings, there is still rice straw to Rice Department of Pesticide Regulation began deal with, and the weeds have not gone away. mandating reduction of herbicide run-off. In fact, the weeds are worse. Years of herbi- By Lisa M. Hamilton Yet 12 years later, the reproductive toxin cide use have cultivated strains resistant to molinate (a popular rice herbicide) was still most everything. As Sutter County farmer OGROWRICE IN A WET CULTURE, detected in Central Valley surface waters Ed Sills remembers, the weeds were what farmers create an artificial wetland 74% of the time, with 48% of those samples sealed his switch to organics. “Water quality that acts like the real thing: water T exceeding water quality goals. regulations were arrives from elsewhere, collects into a pool Meanwhile, the long-time practice of phasing out a lot that hosts birds and insects (who in turn burning rice straw after harvest was polluting of chemicals, so grant fertility), and eventually drains off into the air, producing more carbon dioxide and even if we found other waterways. The most natural approach particulate than all the state’s energy plants something that is that championed by Japanese farmer Mat- put together. Further, it was extracting vital did work there sunoba Fukuoka in his book The One-Straw organic matter from the rice fields’ ecosystem, was no guarantee Revolution. He does not till the soil, nor which was then being replaced with heavy we’d be able to use weed, instead leaves the rice to grow on its applications of synthetic fertilizers. it next year,” he own, springing from seeds left on the ground Third-generation Glenn County farmer says. “The thing from the previous year. American organic Allen Garcia recalls a meeting in the mid- that pushed us growers generally are not so passive, but they 1980s held by Pesticide Action Network to mostly was that we didn’t see a future.” are currently shaping their own version of address the burning. “The Meanwhile, visionaries such as Garcia rec- Fukuoka’s ideal: concentrating room was filled with mothers ognized that by embracing rice’s place in the on not just the crop, but the with kids on their laps. They greater ecosystem, things could turn around. web of life that supports it. were crying, saying ‘You’re Step number one was welcoming the birds. The mistakes large conven- killing our children.’ I was the Each winter, the Sacramento Valley tional growers have made stem only farmer in the room, and becomes what Garcia calls a “bed and break- from exactly the opposite: not it took all the courage I had fast for ducks.” Originally, the migratory recognizing their microcosm just to get up and speak.” waterfowl came for the Central Valley’s 2 as part of a larger system. In After that, he and concerned to 4 million acres of wetlands. Thanks to the 1950s, California first saw colleagues took the initiative urbanization and agriculture, only 300,000 the exotic rice weevil, whose to turn rice farming from a acres remain in natural wetlands, and so the larvae feed on rice seedlings. symbol of agriculture’s dangers into a model bird numbers have dropped—from 40 to 50 For years growers employed the insecticide of environmental partnership. million annually in the late 1800s, to 3 to 5 carbofuran. It solved the immediate problem The immediate steps—none initiated by million today. And the rice fields have but created a new one. Birds ate the granular the rice farmers—lay in stopping the harm. become a surrogate habitat. chemical and died en masse; between 1972 Carbofuran was phased out beginning in For years it was unintentional. Unhar- and 1997, carbofuran was responsible for 1991, and has been all but eliminated from vested seed left on the ground after burning 76% of reported bird kills in California, more rice fields. As per The Rice Straw Burning was eaten by the hungry birds. But since than any other pesticide. Reduction Act of 1991, detritus is now burned burning has been outlawed, researchers such The same approach backfired with weed only for disease control. Mandatory holding as UC Davis’ Cass Mutters are proving that control. Rice is plagued by weeds—far more periods now require water to stay on fields the best alternative is to create habitat. Today than by insects or disease. Because dense, wet long enough for herbicides to break down. most growers disk in their straw then flood rice plantings cannot be cultivated, conven- This is not to say non-organic rice farming the fields for winter. The waterfowl arrive to tional growers have depended on herbicides. has become innocuous—it still involves toxic eat the leftovers, and subsequently act as As weeds develop resistance, they must use chemicals whose manufacture, application, composters—stirring the straw with their feet ever-greater amounts and experiment with and breakdown injure the environment and turning the seed into their own natural new, more expensive herbicides. As the water irreparably. But it is a lot better than fertilizer, which in turn attracts the microbes drains off fields, the chemicals enter the larger it was 15 years ago. that digest the straw and fertilize the fields. world; in California, this means the greater

Page 18 CCOF Magazine Garcia is the local guru of farming with birds. He has two purely for-profit farms, a Rice Research ~ Non-GE Advances conventional operation he runs with his fam- ily and an organic farm of his own. And on Farmers’ Varieties Supply All Special Traits Claimed for GE the Nature Conservancy’s Cosumnes River Farmer-developed traditional varieties of rice can supply all special traits claimed for Preserve, he has a third set-up: a model farm GE varieties, according to a register prepared by the NGO Navdanya (India) as part of designed to demonstrate the benefits of its movement to fight for farmers’ rights on seeds. The register lists scores of rice vari- returning rice to its place in the larger ecosys- eties, tested over hundreds of years, which are tolerant of flooding, drought, and tem. The approach could be called “realistic salinity—contingencies which have been used to force acceptance of GE technology on third world countries. holistic,” in that it experiments only in ways that would be financially feasible for a regular farm. Each decision must uphold equally Traditionally Bred Rice Has Extra Vitamin A, Iron and Zinc Scientists working at the world-famous International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), three objectives: habitat creation, community Manila, Philippines have created a new nutritionally fortified variety through traditional contribution, and financial survival. breeding, not genetic engineering. The rice contains over twice the normal amount of The farm is on a three-year rotation. iron along with Vitamin A and zinc. Field trials have already taken place near IRRI. Over It begins with growing weeds, even the water- 10,000 traditional varieties of rice stored in the IRRI gene bank were screened to look grass that is a rice farmer’s nemesis. All sum- for the right characteristics. After working for more than five years, scientists came up mer the plants host shorebirds, some species with the right combination of a traditionally bred rice plant. A trial carried out on 30 which are only recently returning to the Val- anemic women in Philippines showed their health improved in less than three months. ley from the Bay Area, where they went after habitat declined. Just before the weeds pro- Organic Methods Increase Rice Yield By 100% duce seed, Garcia tills them in as a green A purely organic system of rice planting developed in Madagascar claims to increase manure. The following season produces vir- rice yield per hectare (2.471 acres) by as much as 100%—doubling average rice tually no weeds—their annual reproduction yields of 3.5 metric tons (MT) per hectare to as much as 8 MT. Norman Uphoff, direc- having been stilted a year—meaning he can tor of Cornell University’s International Institute for Food and Agriculture Development concentrate on the plant’s vigor, which allows (CIIFAD), presented the findings. Mr. Uphoff noted that even he himself doubted the it to simply outgrow pests. system until it underwent several field tests in different countries, including China, The key is paying attention on a closer Indonesia and the Philippines, which showed that the system's success could be level than most farmers do. Garcia fertilizes replicated. The system of rice intensification (SRI) grew out of insights gained by Fr. Henri de Laulanie, S. J., from his three decades of work with rice growing farmers in according to a map of the field, adjusting the Madagascar. amount of compost according to a specific area’s slope, drainage, and natural composi- “Genetically engineered (GE) rice—such as the now-famous Vitamin A rice or ‘Golden tion. And whereas other growers change Rice’—is being heavily promoted as a solution to hunger and malnutrition. Yet these water levels weekly, Garcia adjusts them promotional campaigns are clouding the real issues of poverty and control over daily, making sure the rice has exactly what resources, and serving to fast-track acceptance of genetically engineered crops in devel- it needs. “I learned it from the biologists at oping countries. (…) Vitamin A rice is a techno-fix to the problems of the poor decided the preserve,” he says. “They manage the upon and developed, without consultation, by scientists and experts from the North.” landscape to climax a species instead of ~ Joint statement to the press by three farmer organizations from Southeast Asia, 06/02/02 killing off the other ones.” Sources: Norfolk Genetic Information Network, Greenpeace. As the techniques prove themselves, he brings them to his other acreage. Two con- rotation unprofitable. But Sills farms on adults take flight, and where they set down, trols that have made it to all his farms are upland acreage. His best soil gets a four-year they lay eggs—usually in a rice field. Grow- those he relies on in the third season, when rotation of rice, dry beans, wheat, and corn. ers go crazy trying to predict the flight pat- the weeds return. He uses a pre-plant flash The rice’s summer flooding clears out the terns so they can time their expensive aerial irrigation, in which he sprouts the weed dry-land weeds, and three years dry elimi- pesticide applications. But because the insects seeds, tills them in, and then plants his rice. nates some of the water weeds. Even in his enter fields both flying and swimming—and And he manages with water: flooding to heaviest ground, Sills alternates rice with a you cannot predict which—hard numbers drown the weeds, draining to scorch them dry cover crop. He does not till it; he just lets are elusive. In 2001, flight peaks within a 20- with the hot summer sun. it go to seed to provide food (and habitat) for mile radius ranged from April 22 to May 27. Ed Sills uses a similar flood-and-drain upland creatures—hawks, rodents, and deer. Growers can plant their rice late to avoid the method on his Pleasant Grove farm, but In addition to building the soil and deter- flight, but the whole process takes almost a he also relies on crop rotation. Most rice ring disease, the rotation has the unexpected month, and anything that goes in after farmers have soils so heavy they can plant benefit of eliminating rice water weevil. The June 1 is almost guaranteed a measurable only rice there or leave it fallow, making insects work like this: sometime in spring the yield decline. On Sills’ farm, there is no

Summer 2003 Page 19 BECOME A CCOF SUPPORTING MEMBER support the roots of certified organic food and agriculture

There are many important causes in this world that need and deserve our support. CCOF’s Certified Members, Supporting Members, and staff believe that one of these causes is organic food. CCOF has been working for three decades to increase public awareness of and demand for certified organic products, and to expand support for sustainable agriculture. CCOF has a long history of helping implement organic legislation, and emphasizes public education on the benefits of organic food for our own health, the health of our children, and the health of our planet. Please help ensure that CCOF continues to be a leader in the organic movement. CCOF offers different supporting membership levels and benefit packages for both individuals and businesses. Please select your membership level, and decide how much you would like to contribute. Become a Supporting Member today. For more information visit our website at www.ccof.org or call CCOF toll free at 1-888-423-2263.

SUPPORTING MEMBERSHIP LEVELS AND BENEFIT PACKAGES INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS

PROMOTING $40 to $74 $75 to $249 Receive our Magazine, Bumper Sticker, Receive our Magazine, organic cotton and your choice of organic cotton T-shirt, Organic Directory, Handbook, T-shirt or Organic Directory listing in the Organic Directory, and Bumper Sticker CONTRIBUTING $75 to $249 $250 to $499 Receive our Magazine, organic All of the above plus a one-time cotton T-shirt, Organic Directory, 1/12 page space for your advertisement listing in the Organic Directory, and in the Magazine Bumper Sticker SUSTAINING $250 to $499 $500 to $1,249 All of the above plus a one-time listing in All of the above plus a one-time 1/4 page the Magazine space for your advertisement in the Maga- zine (instead of a 1/12 page ad) LIFETIME $500 and over $1,250 and over All of the above plus a one-time listing All of the above plus a one-time full with picture in the Magazine, CCOF page space for your advertisement in the Supporting Member Sign, and Lifetime Magazine (instead of a 1/4 page ad), CCOF Supporting Member Certificate Supporting Member Sign, and Lifetime Sup- porting Business Certificate AG ADVISOR — $50 Receive our Magazine, Organic Directory, Handbook, and Bumper Sticker

STUDENT/ $20 — LIMITED INCOME Receive our Magazine and Bumper Sticker

YES, I want to make a difference and would like to become a CCOF Supporting Member! Promoting Individual $40 to $74 Promoting Business $75 to $249 Name: ______Choose: T-shirt or Organic Directory Contributing Business $250 to $499 Contributing Individual $75 to $249 Business: ______Sustaining Business $500 to $1,249 Sustaining Individual $250 to $499 Address: ______Lifetime Business $1,250 and over Lifetime Individual $500 and over City: ______Ag Advisor $50 State/Zip: ______T-shirt color: Natural Granite Sage Student/Limited Income $20 T-shirt size: S M L XL Phone/Fax: ______Please select your membership level, include a check payable to CCOF, and mail to: E-mail: ______CCOF, 1115 Mission St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060-3526. longer an issue, perhaps because the insects In the Sacramento Valley, this is the rice Its bran contains gamma-oryzanol, a com- themselves got confused. “It might also be feeding the migratory waterfowl, but it is pound whose benefits include lowering the biological diversity that comes from not also the thriving of local ducks. The latter serum cholesterol levels. It is better than spraying,” he says, “but we haven’t seen rice might not feel useful now, but fate can be wheat in terms of available carbohydrates, weevil since the mid-’80s.” funny: Before the advent of the short-season digestible energy, and net protein utilization. Sills’ methods are not new. When he rice varieties and fast machinery that got rice And if you are concerned about energy, look graduated from UC Berkeley and returned harvested by September, the crop was still in no further: Chinese medicine practitioners to the farm with a goal of sustainability, the the field when the migratory birds arrived. use it to increase chi. innovations came from his partner: 87-year- Until the 1970s, the Sandhill cranes and all old Thomas Sills, Ed’s father and a local were major pests, feasting on the soon-to- farmer since 1946. Back when he started, be-harvested crop. The local ducks might cover-cropping and rotation were essential magically develop a taste for watergrass and practices. rice weevils. More likely, though, they will Likewise, Allen Garcia feels he is only re- just prove themselves as part of the system, entering a system to which the plants complete with pros and cons, just like the belong. While biologists struggle to reintro- rice itself. duce the native grasses that once fed the migratory Sandhill cranes, the birds are sub- NUTRITION sisting on Garcia’s rice fields. He says, “You More than any food, rice feeds the world. can integrate the fields so close into the It is lower in protein than other grains— environment that the wildlife actually con- milled rice has 7% compared to wheat flour’s sider you part of it.” 10%—but produces more food energy per In an ironic sidenote, the reintegration has acre than wheat or corn. For this, it is the created a new pest: the local ducks that live in main source of sustenance for over half the world. In Myanmar, the average citizen eats the Valley year-round and are attracted to this Page. and Reymond Group Courtesy of ETC new, perfect habitat. During winter it is not a more than a pound of rice each day. problem; there is no crop in the field. But in Beyond filling the belly, rice’s value spring the ducks’ brooding ruins the fields depends on what kind is eaten. Like all and seedlings, and in autumn they eat the grains, it is a seed with crop. “We’ve tried everything from slapping three sections: bran, the pieces of wood together to driving around the protective outer layer; fields but we can’t get rid of them. They’re too germ, the nutrition smart,” Garcia says. “Last year I put out stored to support germi- scarecrows with mannequin heads. For the nation; and endosperm, first five days the ducks stayed away, but by the starch that fuels the sixth they were sitting on the scarecrows’ seedling growth. A whole heads.” For now his most effective strategy is grain still has all three going to the fields just as the ducks arrive— parts intact, and there- knowledge won from patient observation— fore is a good source of and flushing them out with noisemakers carbohydrates, protein, before they settle in. iron, zinc, magnesium, In discussing the ups and downs of the dietary fiber, and vita- whole farm system, Garcia likes to quote mins E and B-complex. Rene DuBos’ book The Wooing of the Earth. As the bran and germ are In the book, DuBos writes about ecosystems’ lost in refining (such as ability to heal themselves. He mentions their the milling that makes capacity to reinstate equilibrium, but focuses rice white), the grain on another outcome. “More frequently… loses vitamins, fiber, ecosystems undergo adaptive changes of a and protein. creative nature that transcend the mere cor- The obvious choice rection of damage; the ultimate result is then for health is whole the activation of certain potentialities of the grains such as brown ecosystem that had not been expressed before rice. Its concentrations the disturbance.” of B-vitamins help sup- port the nervous system.

Summer 2003 Page 21 CROSSROADS

A BETTER WAY OF duction costs and prices in the market place, reduce costs and enhance biological interac- they also lead to increased vulnerability to tions and natural processes. Descriptions of DOING THINGS insect pests and weeds and heavy reliance on some of these methods follow. synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Geneti- ALTERNATIVES TO GENETICALLY Crop rotation: Growing different crops in cally engineered crops were developed to fit ENGINEERED CROPS succession in the same field is one of the most into this system—to allow conventional common and successful techniques used in RE THERE ALTERNATIVES farmers to continue growing monocultures to genetically engineered (GE) crops? sustainable agriculture. Rotation can play an and to allow pesticide companies (the corpo- When it comes to protecting crops important role in pest management since A rations that are developing genetically engi- from pests—such as insects and weeds— growing different crops interrupts insects’ life neered crops) to increase their profits. farmers have many alternatives to GE crops cycles and can help keep their numbers in being grown today. But these alternatives are ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE check. Planting the same crop year after year not products that farmers buy. Instead, they AND DIVERSIFICATION are alternative ways of growing our food and Farmers who use alter- fiber, methods that together are often called native methods rely on sustainable agriculture. knowledge and tech- Today’s GE crops weren’t designed to help niques based on local small family farmers in the U.S. or the devel- conditions. They take oping world. These crops belong to a system advantage of natural of agriculture that views the farm as a factory processes and naturally and farmers as contract labor, where the only occurring biological goals are to increase yields and decrease costs relationships, such as of production—regardless of the costs to those between pests human health and the environment. and predators. Perhaps By contrast, sustainable agriculture is a sys- most importantly, their tem of farming that can produce high yields farms are diversified. without destroying the environment and Instead of continu- threatening our health. Farmers who use ously planting corn or these methods rely on knowledge and experi- a corn-soybean rotation, for example, these provides insect pests with a steady food sup- ence to work in harmony with the environ- farmers may grow corn, soybeans, wheat, ply to support a growing population. oats, red clover, hay and adzuki beans—plus ment, rather than relying on hazardous Cover crops: Farmers plant cover crops such raise beef and/or milk cows. pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and GE crops. as clover, alfalfa or vetch between cropping Diversified farms tend to be more stable Sustainable agriculture looks at a farm as an periods. These crops can prevent soil erosion, and resilient. Financial risk is reduced and, in “agroecosystem,” not as a factory. retain moisture, improve soil texture, suppress general, they provide more protection from weeds and provide nitrogen (an important INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE drought, pest infestations and other natural nutrient) for future crops. As a result, farmers AND MONOCULTURES factors that might affect production. Industrial agriculture is based on a system of using the right crops can reduce or eliminate monocultures—cultivation of one crop at a THE SUSTAINABLE APPROACH the need for chemical fertilizers and haz- time in vast fields. While monocultures Alternative farming practices are a range of ardous pesticides. result in economies of scale that reduce pro- technological and management options to Increasing soil fertility: In industrialized agri- culture, soil is often “sterilized” to kill pests CCOF Announces Partnership with Soil Association in England and pathogens, but beneficial microorgan- COF has formed a partnership with Soil Association Certification Ltd (SA Cert) in isms that play an important part in building the United Kingdom to provide organic certification services to companies inter- and maintaining healthy soil are also killed in Cested in exporting their products to markets in the U.S. and the UK. CCOF and SA the process. Maintaining and improving soil are now offering companies on both sides of the Atlantic organic certification services quality is one of the most important factors to U.S. standards as well as Soil Association standards, which meet and exceed the to ensure the long-term sustainability of agri- European standards. Every company in the U.S. certified by a USDA accredited certifier culture. Farmers need good soil to grow can now apply for this CCOF/SA Certification service and simplify access to markets in healthy plants that are less vulnerable to pests the United Kingdom. Call CCOF toll free at 888-423-2263 for more information. and that produce high yields. This can be Page 22 CCOF Magazine accomplished in many ways including using Tomatoes — At the University of California, Organic Farming Influence animal manure, living plants (such as cover researchers found no difference in yields crops) or compost (plant debris) to build up between organic and conventional tomatoes ONDUCTING A CASE STUDY REVIEWING the soil. after 14 years. economic, social and environmental Certified organic refers to crops that have Cbenefits of organic agriculture, Uni- Alternative weed control: Rotary hoeing, been grown and processed according to strict versity of Georgia researcher Luanne increasing the density of crop plants to crowd Lohr has concluded that even though standards and verified annually by indepen- out weeds, intercropping, timing of planting organic farmers are not a large percent- dent state or private organizations. Certifica- to give crops a competitive advantage and age of U.S. farmers, their influence is felt tion includes inspecting and evaluating long transplanting seedling crop plants to give through their innovative management term soil management, buffering between them a head start on weeds are some of the techniques and leadership. Farmers bene- organic farms and neighboring conventional alternative methods used to control weeds. fit from retail price premiums for organic farms, product labeling and record keeping. averaging 10–30% higher than for con- Natural pest predators: Many birds, insects When you buy organic, you are not only ventional. Farm price premiums are and spiders are natural predators of agricul- supporting organic farmers, you’re also buy- 70–250% more than what conventional tural pests. Farmers can manage their farms ing food made without genetically engineered farmers receive. In addition, counties with so that they provide an attractive environ- ingredients. organic farms have stronger farm Sustainable agricul- economies, and contribute more to local ture offers a viable economies through total sales, net rev- model of a locally enue, farm value, taxes paid, payroll, and purchases of fertilizer, seed, and repair based, socially just, and maintenance services. Counties with environmentally and organic farmers also provide more bird economically sus- and wildlife habitat, and have lower insec- tainable food system, ticide and nematicide use. Watersheds without the use of with organic farms face less agricultural hazardous pesticides impact and lower runoff risk from nitro- and synthetic fertiliz- gen and sediment. Source: OTA ers. But we must challenge the bio- Organic Explosion technology and agri- CCORDING TO A NEW REPORT ISSUED hoto courtesy of Ann Baier. hoto courtesy of Ann

P culture industries to by the USDA, “U.S. farmland man- realize this vision! Aaged under organic systems ment for these predators who can then play For more information: expanded rapidly throughout the 1990s an important role in keeping pest popula- Pesticide Action Network North America and has sustained that momentum.” The tions in check. www.panna.org report says that U.S. farmers and ranchers Organic Farming Research Foundation have added another million acres of certi- WHAT ABOUT YIELDS? www.ofrf.org fied organic cropland and pasture since Many critics of organic and sustainable farm- Union of Concerned Scientists 1997, bringing the 48-state total to 2.34 www.ucsusa.org ing maintain that these methods would dra- million acres in 2001. Pasture and range- California Certified Organic Farmers matically reduce the amount of food www.ccof.org land more than doubled in the period. The produced by U.S. farmers, resulting in higher number of certified organic beef cows, This fact sheet was prepared by Pesticide Action prices and shortages. But research has found milk cows, hogs, sheep, and lambs went Network North America, September 2001. up nearly four-fold, and poultry showed that even though only a small percentage of Reprinted with permission. agriculture research dollars are spent on sus- even higher rates of growth. The U.S. tainable practices, yields can be comparable ranks fourth in the world for total organic to those grown conventionally. Monsanto should not have to acreage, but is not in the top ten as far as percentage of crop area—the top six are Corn — Comparing conventional and vouchsafe the safety of biotech all European countries. The report noted organic corn over 69 seasons, organic yields food. Our interest is in selling as that many EU countries, and some U.S. were 94% of conventional farms. much of it as possible. Assuring states, subsidize conversion to organic Soybeans — Data of 55 growing seasons farming for environmental reasons. Per- from five states showed that organic yields its safety is the FDA’s job. haps this is a factor in the disparity among were 94% of conventional yields. ~ Phil Angell, Monsanto’s Director states; nine actually lost organic acreage Wheat — Over 16 years of research showed of Corporate Communications (mostly in the Southeast), while others organic matched 97% of conventional yields. New York Times, 10/25/98 grew rapidly. Source: OCA

Summer 2003 Page 23 THE GE REPORT

EU BIOTECH LOBBY dure has attracted 18 applications, the first a non profit research organization. The DISMAYED AT U.S. CHALLENGE of which are expected to reach the decision post-market oversight of biotech crops is European advocates of genetically modified stage this autumn. U.S.-based Monsanto, intended to ensure compliance with restric- food expressed dismay at a U.S. challenge whose Roundup Ready corn, canola rape- tions that agencies might impose to protect to the EU’s de facto biotech ban, saying the seed and other products account for 10 of public health and the environment. The move was ill-timed and would make it the new applications, is not getting hopes current regulatory oversight system, write harder to win over wary consumers. The up too high. Opposition exists in Italy, the authors of “Post-Market Oversight of U.S. action at the World Trade Organiza- France, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg, and Biotech Foods: Is the System Prepared?” is tion (WTO) in May came as the European Denmark, where parliament in January poorly equipped to carry out this mandate. Union put the finishing touches to legisla- demanded a study on whether the country The report finds that biotech crops are reg- tion that could remove a five-year-old could go completely GMO-free. ulated through a patchwork of laws—three moratorium on gene-modified crops. The federal agencies use at least 10 different AMERICAN CONSUMERS TO SUE European Parliament is due in July to vote laws and a range of regulations and guide- U.S. GOVERNMENT OVER GE CROPS on laws to ensure the traceability and label- A coalition of U.S. environmental and con- lines to address biotechnology products. ing of all GE food and feed. Such a system sumer groups has threatened to sue the Each of the laws currently used was devel- is aimed at informing consumers exactly U.S. Agriculture Department unless it oped before the advent of biotechnology what they are eating and allowing GE places a moratorium on planting biotech products and reflects widely different regu- products on shop shelves. The EU has not crops genetically engineered to produce latory approaches and procedures, authorized the sale or cultivation of any medicinal and industrial products. At issue explained Taylor and coauthor Jody Tick, new GE products since 1998, when a sub- is the worry that some new kinds of bio- also with Resources for the Future. The stantial minority of governments said they engineered pharmaceutical crops could reports address holes in regulations by the would block any new permits pending inadvertently contaminate corn, soybeans U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal tougher regulations on testing and moni- and other nearby crops grown for human and Plant Health Inspection Service toring. Only a handful of GE products can and livestock food. A coalition of 11 (APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protec- be sold in the EU. European Commission groups, including Friends of the Earth, tion Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Food figures show 70 percent of the European Greenpeace, and Center for Food Safety, and Drug Administration (FDA). population do not want to eat GE food accused the USDA of allowing the experi- EPA “IGNORING ITS ADVISERS” while 93 percent of consumers wanted a mental crops to be planted without con- OVER BT MAIZE proper labeling system for GE products. ducting required environmental risk A strain of maize that is genetically modi- Many farm groups in Europe and the U.S. assessments. Without such analyses, the fied to fight rootworm has won approval believe the U.S. action would only increase USDA “is risking permanent contamina- from the U.S. Environmental Protection European consumer opposition to such tion of the environment and our food sup- Agency. But scientists who were consulted foods. ply with numerous drugs and chemicals,” before the February 25th decision say that BIOTECH FIRMS LOOK said Peter Jenkins, attorney for the Center the agency ignored their advice and is TO CRACK EU MARKETS for Food Safety. Last year, about 300 acres doing too little to ensure that insects don’t Taking the European Union at its word of American farmland in Hawaii, Iowa and develop resistance to the insecticide pro- that the biotech ban is about to end, seed other states were planted with experimental duced by the plant. Last October, a scien- companies are testing the waters by sub- pharmaceutical crops. The groups said they tific review board recommended that the mitting new applications for genetically will file a lawsuit against USDA unless the strain should only be grown if farmers modified corn, cotton, canola and other government imposed a temporary ban by plant an equal area of non-transgenic maize plants. Even as some EU countries signal early May. next to it. Such a stipulation would have the 5-year-old moratorium on biotech undermined the commercial viability of the U.S. NOT PREPARED crops could be over in a matter of months, strain, however, and the EPA has rejected TO MONITOR APPROVED BIOTECH others are raising new objections. New EU The U.S. government’s oversight of biotech it, saying that a 20% “refuge” of non-trans- legislation that took effect in October was crops once they have been approved is genic maize will suffice. The decision has intended to end the ban by strengthening inadequate and has potential vulnerabili- drawn immediate fire from members of the decade-old rules on testing and licensing ties, according to a new report from the review board. Whereas established Bt maize genetically modified organisms as crops or Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, varieties produce high doses of toxin, the ingredients. Since January the new proce- new variety kills only about half the root-

Page 24 CCOF Magazine worm larvae, according to data provided by be approved for commercialization within $250,000 and requiring it to reimburse the Monsanto to the EPA. With such a low the next two years. Critics have said con- cost of destroying a warehouse full of mortality rate, resistance is certain to arise, sumer attitudes about genetically modified potentially adulterated soybeans in Aurora, the strain’s critics say—the only question is wheat are so negative that both domestic Nebraska. Buying, transporting and burn- when. Farmers can delay resistance by and foreign buyers are likely to shun all ing the beans ultimately cost $3.5 million. planting larger refuges. Members of a sci- U.S. wheat if it is sold. Even if the wheat is Under the arrangement, the government entific review board that looked at Mon- approved by the United States, Monsanto paid for the cleanup. The company is not santo’s application urged the EPA to has promised not to sell it until at least required to begin making payments for a require a refuge size of at least 50% of the Canada and Japan accept it. The USDA year, and it will have two years to pay the total area planted with corn. In its ruling, said Monsanto may have to meet certain money in quarterly installments, owing the however, the EPA sided with three dissent- requirements if and when the government government no interest on either the fine ing review-board members, and sanctioned approves the product. U.S. wheat exporters or the cleanup—totaling $3.75 million. the 20% refuge size that Monsanto had currently sell their wheat to foreign mar- AGRIBUSINESS TAKES MOST SEATS requested. kets with a USDA-approved statement say- ON USDA BIOTECH PANEL ing no biotech wheat is commercialized in USDA MULLS RULES Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in the United States. FOR MONSANTO BIOTECH WHEAT April gave agribusinesses and farm industry The U.S. Agriculture Department said last U.S. WILL SUBSIDIZE CLEANUP groups most of the seats on a federal advi- March that it may impose strict require- OF ALTERED CORN sory committee responsible for examining ments on Monsanto to ensure it was abid- The U.S. Agriculture Department’s settle- the future of biotech crops. The 18 com- ing by its pledge not to sell biotech wheat ment with a Texas company that mishan- mittee members will meet as USDA imple- until foreign markets accepted it. Mon- dled gene-altered corn, portrayed three ments new restrictions on the planting of santo’s “Roundup Ready” wheat, which months ago as a stringent crackdown experimental pharmaceutical plants and would be the first genetically modified designed to send a message to other poten- reviews Monsanto’s application for the wheat in the world, is under review by the tial violators, actually involved a no-interest commercialization of the first biotech U.S. and Canadian governments and could $3.5 million government loan that means wheat crop. Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont, American taxpayers will General Mills, Procter & Gamble, BASF effectively subsidize Plant Science, CropTech Corp. and the cleanup efforts. The North Mississippi Grain Co. were each payment terms, worth given one seat. The National Corn Grow- as much as $500,000 in ers, American Seed Trade, and the National interest and other sav- Association of Wheat Growers also have ings to the company members on the committee. The remain- over the next three ing seven seats were given to academic years, are contained in experts, consumer groups and an interna- a document newly tional plant research center in Mexico. The uncovered in govern- Union of Concerned Scientists and the ment files by the Wash- Center for Science in the Public Interest ington-based Center were each given a spot. USDA spokes- for Science in the Pub- woman Alisa Harrison would not elaborate lic Interest. The con- on what biotech issues the committee will cern is that the examine. Agriculture Depart- Sources: Aine Gallagher, Reuters; The Asso- ment did not release ciated Press; Stuff Online, New Zealand; the information at the Environment News Service; Jonathan time it announced the Knight, Nature 422, 5 (2003); Randy Fabi, settlement with Prodi- Reuters; Justin Gillis, Washington Post; Gene Inc. of College Reuters. Station, Texas. The story explains that GE Report compiled by Brian Sharpe, when it outlined the CCOF’s GE point-person and Chapter settlement last fall, the Resource Coordinator. government said it was fining ProdiGene

Summer 2003 Page 25 MARKETING

GROWING A handbook. Realistic? Not even with the best document the best order and delivery times. of memories. For example: We take orders between 9 A.M. RELATIONSHIP: So where do you begin? Start by keeping a and NOON, Monday through Saturday, buyer’s journal. Take a few minutes each because then we have the best grasp of our ADVICE FOR RETAILERS delivery and record everything that is going inventory and are fully present in the order- to make a difference next year. Keep a section ing process (not doing three other things By Mark Mulcahy for each grower, and list all the different cate- while trying to order). gories that make a difference to the success of Explain your bunching and packing needs E ARE OFFICIALLY IN THE PEAK your program. for optimum sales and have clear quality stan- of the local growing season For example: dards and post-harvest techniques. For throughout California and W •Delivery and order schedules instance: Zucchini needs to be firm, 6 to 8 much of the United States. Along with amaz- Your note: Growers keep calling during inches long, packed in 20# boxes with all ing produce that has taste buds danc- peak business hours. The apricots sat at the field heat removed. ing, there is evidence that produce farmers’ market all day and were delivered Everyone knows what’s expected, and you departments everywhere are embracing the at 3 P.M. instead of 10 A.M. will be amazed at how much chaos idea of supporting local growers. I’ve seen •Post harvest handling, good and bad this will take out of both your and your growers’ photos and profiles on produce quality standards grower’s daily routines. Now when you sit department walls, farm tours being offered, Your note: Farmer A has got to stop pack- down to draw up a grower-retailer agreement and in-store produce tastings becoming the ing zucchini in banana boxes; they get for next season, you both can expect very few norm, much to the customers’ delight. squished and are too heavy for the crew. surprises and you can concentrate on selling While you are enjoying displaying and The arugula bunches need to be larger for the amazing, local food. selling this season’s produce, I suggest that the price the grower wants. If you are just getting started and need it’s time to start thinking about next year. •Sales and weather help setting up guidelines to build your local Why, you ask? Well, let’s look at some valu- Your note: The purple Cherokee tomatoes grower relationship, consider using some or able information you might have available sold two times better than expected July 4 all of these suggestions below. right now: weekend. The hailstorm on August 2 • Early Moon and Stars watermelons really hurt the corn crop, and we had GROWER GUIDELINES don’t have enough sugar the first two to switch to conventional, which cut FOR SELLING TO RETAIL weeks of the season. sales in half. BOXES: {your store name} will save/return • The KY beans are most tender on •Surprises all labeled boxes to grower. All produce deliv- the first pick. Your note: We brought in Kadota and ered in grower-supplied boxes must have • Contact Yuba River whitewater tour guides Calimyrna figs, and we increased our Black farm name label and follow standard size about using Foxfire Farm’s giant zucchinis Mission and total figs sales. Selling mixed conventional guidelines {attach packaging for canoes. colors and varieties of cherry tomatoes by guidelines as necessary}. Boxes must have The quality conditions of each produce item the pound was better for the customer and lids/tops so that they can be stacked. Delicate and each farm you deal with are a lot to keep easier for the grower. Green tomatoes sell produce (e.g. tomatoes) will need to be lay- track of throughout the season, let alone with a good recipe. ered in the case (unless sold as bulk). Product remember in the winter when you have next The delight of making these notes is the must be accurately pre-weighed by the grower year’s grower meetings. It would be like trying detailed information you will be left with. and will need to allow for box weight. All wet to remember every farmer in the CCOF These examples show some benefits to keep- produce (e.g. lettuce) will need to be deliv- ing a journal for the winter’s grower meetings. ered in closed waxed boxes. Boxes may be Organic Retail This does not have to all fall on your shoul- reused if they previously contained organic ders; get the crew involved, have them enter produce and are lined with clean paper or Revival Seminar plastic. Boxes previously containing conven- Please visit our web site at www.ccof.org to their observations in the journal. As a matter tional produce are not allowed for organic find more information about the Organic of fact, I suggest that you have your growers produce. Retail Revival Seminar! This retail training do the same. workshop is sponsored by CCOF and New What’s next? Take this information and ORDERING: It is {your store name}’s goal Hope Natural Media and will take place in review how you can make each other’s lives to have all orders placed by {state time} for Southern California, October 2003. easier. Create a set of grower guidelines that next day delivery. Our plan is to use the {time

Page 26 CCOF Magazine period} for inventory, planning, and ordering tion of our local growers program, while still any point during the growing season, either for the next day. You may want to do the calling attention to each individual a vendor or {your store name} is having diffi- same. We plan to take/make phone orders grower/company. It is our intention that we culty fulfilling either the agreement, or any of during this time. By using pre-determined will provide space (where space is available, the guidelines, either party can pre-arrange a packaging standards, we will be able to order done on a first come first serve basis) to each meeting to resolve the issues. by the case rather than by the pound. The interested vendor for a large “Producer Pro- PURCHASE AGREEMENT: Once a suc- amounts delivered will then more accurately file” including the grower/vendor’s logo, a cessful pattern of business has been estab- reflect the amounts ordered. Unless under photo of the vendor and his/her/their farm or lished by {your store name} and the grower special circumstances (a heat spell that pro- operation, and a brief description of the oper- of a specific product, it is {your store name}’s duced more product sooner, and we change ation. {Your store name} will cover the cost of goal to sign a purchase agreement with the our agreement etc.,) {your store name} will the framing and matting, and inclusion of grower for the specific product designated, only accept produce of the amounts ordered. the logo and description of our choice for the giving the grower priority in supplying {your photo, the producer is expected to cover the RECEIVING: Under normal circumstances, store name} with the product. {Your store cost of the photo itself, done by a professional {your store name} will receive local deliveries name} has purchased produce from local photographer to be arranged by {your store from {time period}, seven days a week. Our growers successfully for many years and listed name}’s marketing department. {Your store goal is to eliminate all afternoon and evening below are some examples of our agreements: name} will invoice, or deduct from a vendor’s deliveries. We may feel the need to entertain a (Grower Name): apples, apple cider invoice, the cost of the photo itself. (If your one night per week delivery (example: Tues. (A Different Grower): raspberries, store does not have a marketing department 5–8 P.M.). Deliverer will need to meet with strawberries then design and costs could be negotiated produce staff on duty to identify, inspect (And Yet Another Grower): organic between the grower and store.) quality of produce and sign invoice for pro- basil, herbs and red bell peppers duce ordered. PRE-ARRANGED TOUR OF FARM One last thing to remember is documenting AND/OR DEMO: {your store name} would INVOICE: Duplicate itemized invoices must growers who are exempt from certification. like to encourage all growers to be available include company name, date, produce, Farmers who gross less than $5,000 annually for one tour of the farm and one product amount, cost and total. These need to accom- in total organic sales are not required to cer- demo at {your store name} during the season, pany all deliveries, and a {your store name} tify to the National Organic Program (NOP) {your store name}’s produce department can produce department employee must sign standards. I recommend that you keep a assist in tours and our marketing and food each duplicated invoice. detailed affidavit of each grower’s organic demo department will assist you with an in- growing practices on hand. While it isn’t QUALITY STANDARDS: {your store store product promotion. This is extremely required, it does come in handy. name} and local growers should follow stan- beneficial to both parties to teach the depart- Good luck with your local programs. And dards already established by the organic ment’s crew about the farms they support and remember that whatever you decide to do industry in terms of category of product by for the farmers to generate customer excite- with your local growers that the relationship size, count, weight and variety. For example, ment for your products at the beginning of a you build should be “a good deal is always a all bunch basil, parsley, spinach, etc. is of particular season some size and weight and sold by dozen. good deal for both parties.” Large zucchini and small zucchini are pack- PROJECTIONS: {your store name} will ABOUT THE AUTHOR: aged separately, as are cucumbers. Varieties of meet with each grower in January. By using Mark Mulcahy runs an organic education tomatoes need to be kept separately, etc. the previous season’s purchase and sales reports and growing conditions, we will plan and produce consulting firm. He can be ORGANIC STANDARDS: If you are sup- together the season to come, including esti- reached at (707) 939-8355, or by e-mail plying {your store name} with organic pro- mated season longevity of product, estimated at [email protected] duce, you must be in compliance with amount purchased weekly by {your store {whatever applicable state and/or federal law} name}, and estimated and provide documentation of third-party price per case of each Growers Since 1883 Processors certification if requested {and whatever else is product. {your store required in your region or state}. name} will also be LABELING AND SIGNAGE: This can responsible for drafting a tremendously increase sales of your product. means of getting feed- Currently, {your store name} uses a {whatever back from each vendor type—e.g. particular color} label for all on the success of the organic produce. We would like to encourage relationship throughout ORGANICALLY GROWN WALNUTS each grower/company to develop its own the season, which will Russ & Kathy Lester 5430 Putah Creek Road Owners Winters, CA 95694-9612 logo. Together with our marketing depart- most likely be a “grower 530/795-4619 • FAX 530/795-5113 ment, we can make a unifying special promo- satisfaction survey.” If at www.dixonridgefarms.org • [email protected]

Summer 2003 Page 27 CCOF HISTORY: 1980~1990

Succeeding Beyond Their Wildest Dreams By Keith L. Proctor wrote a “visionary piece” in support of paperwork. In addition to these structural The 1980s DAWNED ON A 7-YEAR OLD organic farming and COFA ’79, the Board of changes, organic received an unexpected CCOF with new organic legislation that FOE allowed Scowcroft to write a letter of boost at a very unexpected time. offered a large measure of protection for endorsement. Fishman, Weisman and other July 4th, 1984—people around the coun- organic growers and their consumers. In CCOF members and friends were also seek- try were celebrating Independence Day with addition to the California Organic Food Act ing help from other organizations and indi- baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet of 1979 (COFA), organic garnered more vali- viduals. With adequate endorsements, the —and watermelon. What should have been dation during the first summer of the new clause was repealed, and Farr had marked a satisfying and thirst-quenching slice of the decade. A study authorized by the USDA himself as the legislator for organic. red fruit of the summer sun turned out to be officially established the existence of “organic” The law now a delectably near- farming. The federal government had finally firmly in place, deadly dose of recognized what CCOF and other growers CCOF continued to , otherwise around the country had been doing for many develop itself and the known as Temik. A decades before and since “better living organic trade while non-organic grower though chemistry.” keeping a watchful in Southern California Although relatively small in 1980, CCOF eye over fraudulent had used the pesticide would not remain so for long. The organiza- claims. In 1984, on his potato crop the tion and the movement were growing strong Fishman discovered year before, and, in and fast. In 1981, the Mendocino Chapter a Southern California violation of the prod- became the third chapter in CCOF. Boiler- operation that was uct labeling, planted plate chapter bylaws already created by blatantly repackaging watermelon in the CCOF President Barney Bricmont and and selling non-or- same field the follow- North Coast Chapter member Sy Weisman ganic carrots as or- ing year. Unbeknownst allowed for the smooth entry of future chap- ganic. Without the to the grower, the mel- ▲ Mark Lipson and Brian Baker ters. Following Mendocino came Yolo, Big willingness of the State ons took up the pesti- Valley, and North Valley chapters in 1982. to enforce the organic law, it was up to cide from the soil. With widespread sickness, This same year, Weisman noticed that no CCOF, and people like Fishman, to ensure the issue of on and in food was raised one had stepped up to remove the “sunset that organic claims were truly organic. in the public’s consciousness—along with a clause” from COFA ‘79. None of the organi- Welcoming more growers to CCOF, the small, but gaining, agricultural model— zations involved in writing the first organic Fresno-Tulare, South Coast, and the Pacific organic farming. law was completely satisfied with the out- Southwest chapters were established that In March 1985, Barney Bricmont stepped come, so it had a built-in clause to terminate same year, which also saw the resurrection down as president and turned the gavel over the legislation in January 1983. The impend- of the California Certified Organic Farmers to Warren Weber. The Humboldt-Siskiyou ing end of the little-enforced but much- Statewide Newsletter under the editorship of Chapter appeared this year, adding a north- needed legislation was brought to the Kate Burroughs. CCOF was growing to a ern neighbor to Mendocino Chapter. With attention of a new State Assembly member point where it once again needed a forum for the influx of new members and new interest from Carmel named Sam Farr. The effort to internal dialogue. The original incarnation of in organic in the wake of the watermelon repeal the sunset clause had found a sponsor, CCOF in 1973 produced its first newsletter incident, the hiring of Mark Lipson as but more help was needed. Stuart Fishman, the following year, but ceased production in CCOF’s first staff member was well-timed. a retailer at Rainbow Grocery and a master late 1974 when the organization was decen- Mark had moved to the Molino Creek Farm- of organic integrity, contacted Bob Scowcroft tralized. Ten years later, CCOF was set to ing Collective outside of Santa Cruz in June at Friends of the Earth (FOE) centralize again, this time with 1983. He became familiar with CCOF while asking the organization to a sturdy foundation of growers researching organic certification for Molino endorse the continuation of the organized all over the state. The Creek. Active in the Central Coast Chapter, organic law. FOE, however, was Board of Directors authorized a he held a few different positions—chapter reticent to support the per- new grower fee—one-half of president and board representative—while ceived “counter-culture” of 1% of gross sales—to fund also a staff member. The first CCOF office organic farming. After a mem- marketing and a part-time staff space was 80 square feet in a building in ber of the FOE advisory board position to handle the increasing downtown Santa Cruz.

Page 28 ▼ CCOF Magazine Bob Scowcroft Membership continued to increase into approved of alternate treatments for the the state. At 15 chapters, CCOF was build- 1986, reaching more than 160 growers. Four maggot on organic farms. This first recogni- ing a solid structure for itself, growing rapidly, new chapters entered CCOF tion by CDFA was thanks to and in need of someone who could take the this year: Inland (LA), Kern, the efforts of CCOF grower reins full-time. The next three years were San Luis Obispo, and Sierra John LaBoyteaux. Acceptance going to be both exciting and exhausting for Gold, underscoring the need was growing. the adolescent organization. for two additional staff mem- Legislation and cooperation As CCOF’s first Executive Director, Bob bers: Phil McGee as Adminis- also increased during the mid- Scowcroft was hired to be responsible for all trative Assistant, and Brendan 1980s. CCOF joined aspects of the organization—management Bohannan as Certification OFPANA (the Organic Food of staff, oversight of the certification pro- Coordinator. Additional Production Association of gram, fundraising, and media contact. changes and improvements fol- North America), an association Scowcroft had already made many friends lowed. Inspectors now received of U.S. and Canadian organiza- within CCOF from his years at FOE and ▲ Phil McGee more formalized training and tions. OFPANA would later the Eco-Farm conferences. Shortly after the state certification committee was given become The Organic Trade Association Scowcroft’s hiring, CCOF received a the authority to review and invalidate chapter (OTA). Given the benefits of making con- $10,000 gift from the Grateful Dead, certifications that were not in compliance. tacts with other sympathetic organizations, thanks to Mark Lipson’s relationship with a The continuing goal was to improve the over- networking became one of CCOF’s goals. few well-placed individuals. In part with this all efficiency and technical sophistication of The Agricultural Productivity Act was signed gift, CCOF was able to hire Brian Baker to the certification program. However, the into law in 1985 as part of the Farm Bill that replace the departing Brendan Bohannan as approval or prohibition of various materials year. It called for research comparing three Certification Coordinator. had still been left to the chapters, causing types of farming systems: conventional, The CCOF name garnered a boost in confusion around the state. There was a farms in transition, and farms using alterna- 1988 when it pursued the investigation, in growing demand for a uniform certification tive methods. The Act, originally introduced cooperation with the California Department handbook and materials list for CCOF grow- in 1982 as the Organic Farming Act, was of Health Services (DHS) of Pacific Organ- ers to follow, and a growing realization that drafted to implement major recommenda- ics, a distributor that had been selling con- the CCOF structure was rife with real and tions of the 1980 report on organic as pre- ventionally-grown carrots as organic. The perceived conflicts of interest. Policies and pared by USDA. fraudulent activities of the business were procedures were sorely in need. Settled into a larger office space complete brought to the attention of the San Jose Expressing support for CCOF while with a new computer, 1987 was the year in Mercury News, complete with photographs. detailing the problems retailers had with which growers the lack of a solid, transparent certification finally saw the process, Stuart Fishman wrote in the publication of the Statewide Newsletter, “While I believe that, as first CCOF Certi- of this date, CCOF’s certification process is fication Handbook weak, I know that the and Materials List, overwhelming majority and the first Farm of CCOF farmer mem- Inspection Man- bers are honest and dedi- ual, as well as the cated to the principles of first series of Farm organic agriculture as Inspector Train- defined by CCOF.” It was ings. Livestock time to streamline the standards were certification process. At a proposed this ▲ Warren Weber Board of Directors retreat year, but it would at Sy Weisman’s, CCOF hammered out a set take several more of goals, with the ambition to be the premier years for the certification agency in California. When all USDA to recog- Mark North was said and done, a stronger certification nize an organic Financial Advisor process was established. “It was a crucial claim for meat. The Zimmerman Group 1700 Second Street, Suite 100 foundation piece for the growth that hap- The Desert Napa, CA 94558 pened afterwards,” said Lipson. Valleys Chapter (707) 254-4408 Although the State had refused to enforce appeared in 1987, (800) 829-0194 COFA ’79, when the apple maggot infested adding more portions of the state, the California Depart- members in the ment of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) southern part of A sensational front page story appeared. In CBS 60 Minutes aired a story based on a show, supporting local farms and organic the Statewide Newsletter, Scowcroft wrote, “I report by the Natural Resources Defense foods as a viable agriculture model that believe that others looking back at the history Council (NRDC), titled Intolerable Risk: Americans could trust. As one of the largest of organic agriculture will treat the Pacific Pesticides in our Children’s Food. Although organic organizations in the U.S., people and Organic case and CCOF’s role in it as a his- the report focused on 20 pesticides, the 60 businesses, allies and adversaries from all over toric event. Not only did we expose the faulty Minutes segment addressed only one. Known the country were looking to CCOF for infor- labeling practices of this company in particu- as Alar, it was used on apple trees to force mation and direction. For weeks following lar but the resulting publicity made the State them to hold fruit longer and improve the 60 Minutes story, the phones at CCOF enforce the law and put into place programs appearance. When it was reported that Alar rang off the hook. Calls numbered around to institutionalize that enforcement in the was carcinogenic, families all across America 150 per day with reporters, retailers and con- future.” were stunned. Parents, schools, and retailers sumers all wanting to know where they could In 1979, an unwilling CDFA refused to rejected all apple products. While the federal get organically grown food. “We literally assume regulatory enforcement of the first government tried to reassure a panic-stricken broke the phone from so much use,” says state organic law. Instead, COFA ’79 was public, apple growers suffered losses in the Scowcroft. In the two months following the placed under DHS. After the Pacific Organ- hundreds of millions of dollars. The event, program, CCOF mailed out nearly 400 ics incident, CCOF asked the State once still debated today, would later become application packets. But thanks to earlier again to enforce the known as “the Alar scare.” In the Spring work by CCOF to solidify its certification law. DHS refused, say- 1989 Statewide Newsletter, Lipson reported, process, the organization weathered the storm ing it was an agriculture “The historic coincidence of events over the of scrutiny that followed Alar and continued issue, making it CDFA’s last 10 weeks has left us in a completely new well into 1989. job. CCOF growers position. Like it or not, things will never be With organic thrust onto the national asked themselves and the same.” stage, a wider variety of players was entering an embarrassed state Two weeks after the 60 Minutes show, into the fray that was the redrafting of the bureaucracy, “Are we a was purported to have been found in California Organic Food Act, submitted for health issue or are we Chilean grapes imported into the United CCOF by an old friend, Assemblyman Sam farmers?” States. Newsweek and Time magazines asked, Farr. Mainstream agribusinesses and lobby Partially in response “Is our food was safe? Who can you trust?” groups, national consumer and environmen- to the Pacific Organics Meryl Streep, Hollywood spokesperson for tal organizations, and government agencies ▲ Bill Brammer case, a bill to further the NRDC report, went on the Donahue were many of the interested and influential regulate organics in California was parties involved. Initially the recep- created and introduced in the tion in Sacramento was almost hos- Assembly, again without input from tile towards CCOF. It was a widely organic farmers. The bill as written held assumption that organic was would have given all control to not real agriculture, but rather an CDFA to create and enforce organic environmentalist hippie phenome- production standards. CCOF had non. However, by its growth, to stand up for organic and take process, and people, CCOF defied control. “We weren’t going to hand the stereotypes. Homer Lundberg, it over to CDFA, that was clear,” a founding member of CCOF in Lipson states emphatically. Under a 1973, was on the legislative commit- new board president, Bill Brammer, tee of CCOF. Lundberg was viewed CCOF went into action, creating a by Sacramento as a real farmer, not special committee to deal with the an ex-hippie. In addition, Mark Lip- proposed law. Lipson was the staff son was on the Santa Cruz County person to that committee and Farm Bureau board of directors. would see several versions of the law Examples such as these, coupled with through to its signing. Ten years determination, helped to establish after COFA ’79, CCOF was assert- CCOF’s reputation as a legitimate ing itself in Sacramento again. With agricultural organization. CCOF CCOF resources focused at home, a asserted itself as the primary inter- national event was about to shake ested party in crafting the organic the entire country. law. Although that did not mean All agricultural practices came they had total control, since politics into question in Spring 1989 when is all about negotiation and compro- mise, CCOF was in a good position

Page 30 CCOF Magazine to determine the process. “Barry Epstein, of the Farm Bill that year. CCOF’s standards CCOF attorney for rewriting the state law, were used as the foundation for COFA ’90, knew how to operate in the Sacramento envi- which was in turn largely incorporated into ronment with integrity,” Lipson extols. “His the federal law by Merrigan. presence gave us credibility; his demeanor 1989 and 1990 proved to be pivotal for gave us a lot respect as well.” Everyone from CCOF. Between 1989 and 1990, total opera- CCOF who worked on the law—the board, tions increased 38%. 1990 saw the most staff, members, and supporters—had a hand growth in total acreage, with a 67% increase in improving the reputation of and respect in the total number of CCOF acreage. The for CCOF and the entire U.S. organic trade. growth, a large portion of it caused by the In the middle of re-writing the state Alar scare and a stronger state organic law, organic law, the Loma Prieta earthquake hit also caused problems within the organization. the Bay Area, and nearly destroyed the So many farmers wanted to enter the pro- CCOF Statewide Office. Staff was given gram and add more acreage that at times ▲ three hours to enter the office and take all chapters were swamped with new applicants Sam Farr visiting with Phil Foster of Foster Ranch that they could before the entire building was and inspections in some areas were greatly tioning as it was designed. In the 1990s, demolished. CCOF operations once again delayed. “CCOF systems and process are CCOF would meet its growing needs to the retreated to a private home, that of Bob strained to the limit,” wrote Bob Scowcroft benefit of the entire organic trade; the cre- Scowcroft. For several months, UC-Santa in the Summer 1990 Statewide Newsletter. ation of the Organic Farming Research Cruz offered a small space with a telephone. “While we are regarded by many as the pre- Foundation (OFRF), and a central materials Phil McGee would answer the phone, ride mier certification and organic advocacy orga- testing facility, the Organic Materials Review his bike to Scowcroft’s, pull a file, make nization in the country, we have arrived at Institute (OMRI). CCOF had met each copies, and then ride back to the UC. The that position at no small cost to our staff, vol- challenge it encountered, breaking down latter half of the 1980s was an amazing and unteers, and finances. In a sense we have an stereotypes people held about organic, build- arduous period in CCOF’s history. organization which is ruled by statutes ing a strong reputation, and gaining wide- On September 25, 1990, California designed in 1985 and amended piecemeal, spread respect—for itself and organic Governor George Deukmejian signed the year by year to deal with problems as they everywhere. It had truly succeeded beyond California Organic Foods Act of 1990, closing appeared. We never had a concrete plan in its wildest dreams. a 20-month marathon effort by CCOF. The place to deal with growth, lines of authority, 42-page bill was passed 29-4 by the full State and the strain of a consumer uprising CCOF is indebted to Brandon Lee, Sy Weis- Senate on August 31, the last day of the leg- demanding organic products. In other words, man, Ron Neilsen, and Tammy Hansen for islative session. The Assembly unanimously we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams and their prior writings on CCOF’s history. Sincere ratified the final version. Included in the law reality has caught up with us.” appreciation is extended to Bob Scowcroft, were requirements for all organic producers Although there was a new state law in Mark Lipson, Kate Burroughs, Brian Leahy, and handlers to register with the State, for all place that was stronger than its predecessor, Carl Rosato, and Jeff McAravy for their time, growers to pay a stepped-scale fee to fund an it would take more time to get the law func- dedication, and achievements. enforcement program, obligatory record keeping and disclosure, a materials review by CDFA, the creation of an advisory board, land transition rules, and requirements for treated seeds and sprouts. With CCOF’s blessing, third-party certification was still voluntary under the new law. While in Washington, D.C. in early 1989, Mark Lipson made a cold call to the Senate Agriculture Committee. He met with was a staffer named Kathleen Merrigan, who had just joined the committee staff. Lipson explained all about organic and CCOF, offered the certification handbook and mate- rials list, and suggested a future need for fed- eral standards. Some states had standards, but if organic was to continue to grow, something would be needed at the national level. It was the beginning of the Organic Foods Produc- tion Act (OFPA), completed in 1990 as part NEWS BRIEFS

NEWS OF THE OTHER NEWS FROM approach is required in organic systems. Sys- tems need to be designed so that plant health GLASSY-WINGED SHARPSHOOTER CALIFORNIA, THE NATION, is maximized, regardless of pest numbers, AND AROUND THE WORLD RECENT GLASSY-WINGED SHARPSHOOTER although this approach takes planning and (GWSS) DISCOVERIES: time. The design of cropping systems with WEEDS AFTER TEN YEARS minimal pest impact requires a much more • Butte County: No viable GWSS since June OF ORGANIC MANAGEMENT extensive and specific knowledge base than ’02. Preventative treatments within the Research carried out at the organic pilot farm needed for reactive strategies. infested area tentatively scheduled to begin at Kishantos, Hungary proved that agro- on May 28. nomic and mechanical methods are suitable TURNING THE LIGHT ON NEMATODES • Imperial County: On May 9, nine adult for minimizing or at least decreasing to a tol- Clemson University (S. Carolina) scientists GWSS were trapped. One male in Bash- erable level the harmful effect of weeds. Weed have made a breakthrough discovery in the ford’s Spa, three males and one female in control of cereals was easily and simply car- management of the root-knot nematode, a Imperial Spa, and two females and two ried out by a single pass of weed harrow. parasite that reduces crop yields worldwide by males in Fountain of Youth Spa. Fifty-eight Maize and sunflower fields were maintained diverting nutrients from the plant’s shoot to properties were treated in Bombay Beach weed-free with mechanical operations and the roots. The parasite affects major food and on April 16–17. Treatments of Corvina additional hoeing. However, weed infestation fiber crops—such as tomato, soybean, Estate and Fountain of Youth Spa on April in peas was not eliminated by cultural means. peanut, corn, cotton, and —and is 29–30. Applications consist of foliar The strategy was to employ hoeing that tar- difficult to control without pesticides. and/or soil drench of Merit (Imidacloprid). geted only certain weed species considered Researchers found that using red plastic • Sacramento County: Working on delimita- particularly troublesome, such as Cirsium mulch altered the light environment of the tion plans in the infested areas of Foothill arvense, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Datura stra- plants and allowed them to produce their Farm & Rancho Cordova. monium, and Sorghum halepense. After ten crops in spite of the nematodes’ presence. • Santa Clara County: On May 12, visual years of organic farming, the number of weed The reflected red light stimulated the plant to surveys yielded one viable egg mass in species was still low in every field and there send nutrients to the shoots, overriding the Calle Alondra (Blossom Hill), San Jose. was almost no difference in the composition nematodes’ signals to feed the roots. This The county treated 16 single-family homes of weed species compared to the adjacent, finding, along with an integrated manage- and 2 commercial properties in the Bran- conventionally managed areas. ment system that uses crop rotation and plant ham area on May 1–2. Treatment plans for resistance, reduces nematode damage without MANAGING PESTS Blossom Hill are underway. Treatments heavy reliance on pesticides. consist of foliar and soil injection of Merit IN THE TRANSITION TO ORGANIC (Imidacloprid). An abrupt transition from conventional to MORE MEXFLIES FOUND • Tulare: Treatments in the Porterville area organic may be risky if pest numbers are high IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY scheduled to begin on May 20. Applica- and alternative practices are not yet in place, Three Mexican Fruit flies were recently tions consist of Merit (Imidacloprid) to concludes research carried out by the Univer- trapped in the Fallbrook and De Luz areas selected residential properties adjacent to sity of Florida at Gainesville. Hybrid systems, of San Diego County, outside the Valley citrus groves currently undergoing GWSS involving decreasing levels of conventional Center quarantine zone. The finds—two control treatments. tactics and increasing levels of organic tactics, males and an unmated female—add to the may be needed before the transitional period 177 flies and 15 larval sites in the quaran- Please visit www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdcp for begins, in order to bridge the gap and lessen tine zone. No new quarantine area has been links to other important and useful informa- the impact of crop losses during the transi- announced but spraying with spinosad- tion for growers and the general public tional period. As an agroecosystem makes the based pesticide has begun. Visit: regarding the GWSS, Pierce’s Disease, and transition from conventional to organic prac- www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/MexicanFF treatment options. tices, changes in the pest management tactics NEW PROSTATE CANCER STUDY used are often apparent. In a paper presented News Briefs Sources: CDFA; OCA; Horizon POINTS TO PESTICIDES Organic; OTA; Növényvédelem 39(1) 25-32; during a workshop on ‘Pest management A new study published in the American Jour- HortTechnology 12(4) 597-600; during transition from conventional to nal of Epidemiology claims that “farming is the www.clemson.edu; Field Talk, a weekly organic farming’, held in Sacramento in July most consistent risk factor for prostate can- e-newsletter of Rincon Publishing; EFA; 2002, it was argued that although many con- cer,” according to its lead researcher. Studies Cal-DPR News, 4/2/03. ventional systems rely on reactive strategies to of 55,000 farmers and nursery workers in deal with pest problems, an alternative

Page 32 CCOF Magazine North Carolina and Iowa between 1993 and clippings could make compost toxic to CCOF Organic Forum 1999 show that the risk of developing pros- non-target vegetation. trate cancer was 14% greater in them than PROPOSED NEW DIESEL ENGINE STANDARDS HE CCOF WEBSITE, www.ccof.org, has the general population. , EPA has proposed tough new standards for a new online feature designed to facili- coumaphos, fonofos, phorae, permethrin and tate communication among members diesel engines in farm and construction T butylate exposure all show increased risk in of the organic community—the CCOF industry equipment aimed at improving the farmers with a family history of the disease. Organic Forum. Here you can post a topic nation’s air quality. The standards would Methyl bromide exposure increased the risk of discussion or a question, reply to discus- address the sulfur content of diesel fuel as to all men in the study. sions and questions, and post basic infor- well as adding pollution-reducing technology mation about yourself once you register. AIRBORNE PESTICIDE POLLUTION to diesel engines. According to EPA, off-road Use the CCOF Organic Forum to commu- REGULARLY EXCEEDS “ACCEPTABLE” diesel engines account for 44% of particulate nicate with other CCOF members, con- HEALTH LEVELS matter and 12% of nitrogen oxide emissions sumers, and the entire organic industry. A new report released by Pesticide Action that produce smog nationally. In California, Share organic information, buy or sell Network, California Legal Rural Assistance off-road diesels produce 644 tons of nitrogen organic ingredients/products, or discuss Foundation, and Pesticide Education Center, oxides daily compared to 528 tons from cars, your point of view. reveals that current regulations ignore 80- vans, and light trucks. Under the proposed To register, visit the CCOF website and click on the link called “Organic Forum” 95% of airborne movement of hazardous rules, sulfur levels in diesel fuel would be low- listed under CCOF Foundation. After you drift-prone pesticides, putting the health of ered from the current 3400 ppm level to 500 enter the Forum, you will find a link and many hundreds of thousands of Californians ppm by 2007 and down to 15 ppm by 2010. instructions at the top left of the page to at risk. The report finds that for four of the (CA air quality standards already call for no register as a member of the Forum and join six commonly used pesticides evaluated, their greater than 500 ppm in diesel fuel.) New in the discussions. The Forum is available concentrations in air at significant distances emission control devices would become for viewing to the general public; however, from fields greatly exceeded the “acceptable” mandatory on diesel engines as the standards only registered members will be able to short-term “reference exposure levels” (RELs) are lowered. Ag industry officials fear the cost post and reply to discussions. for both children and adults. RELs are the of these air quality improvements will be Thank you for joining us in the dialog. concentrations of pesticides in air below passed down to farmers as higher equipment We hope you enjoy this online connection which the EPA or Cal-DPR considers adverse and fuel costs. to the organic world! health effects unlikely. Ongoing, background CERTIFIED ORGANIC exposure to pesticides in air in high pesticide INFANT FORMULA use areas also poses considerable long-term Crop production is enhanced by routine use Horizon Organic Hold- health risks, the report reveals. More than of fine-grade high quality gypsum ing Corporation recently 90% of pesticides used in California are ™ unveiled the first and Good Stuff Gypsum prone to drifting away from where they are only USDA certified applied, and 34% of the 188 million pounds Guaranteed Analysis…100% Calcium Sulfate organic infant formula, of pesticides used in 2000 were highly toxic Certified organic offering parents who use “ ” to humans, capable of triggering asthma and formula an organic causing immediate poisoning, other respira- There are over 30 known benefits to plants choice that is the next tory illnesses, cancer, birth defects, sterility, and soils by applying high analysis best thing to breast milk. neurotoxicity, and/or damage to the develop- Art Wilson Company Gypsum Set to launch this fall on ing child. the west coast as a DPR ANNOUNCES RESTRICTIONS USDA-certified organic TO PROTECT COMPOST option to formula brands The California Department of Pesticide currently on the market, 100% Good Stuff Gypsum™ is SUPERIOR Regulation will restrict sales of the herbicide Horizon Organic Infant to all other gypsum products… clopyralid (“clo-PEER-ah-lid”) to lawn and Formula with Iron meets no brag, just fact! turf professionals, instruct those licensees to all of the FDA require- assure that green waste stays onsite when ments for complete Get Maximum Economic Yield the herbicide is used, and require dealers to infant nutrition for full- for your Money provide written notice of the restrictions term, healthy infants and To order contact your fertilizer dealer. when they sell some clopyralid products. is produced without the For more information about DPR will immediately begin drafting regu- use of antibiotics, growth 100% Good Stuff Gypsum™ call toll free: lations to enforce those restrictions, based hormones and dangerous 1-888-GYP-MINE (497-6463) on concern that clopyralid residue in grass pesticides. www.awgypsum.com

Summer 2003 ASK AMIGO

EADER UESTIONS Ground squirrels can also be trapped using Question 2 R Q humane or kill traps. Both Conibear and Q Here’s a question for Amigo Cantisano box-type kill traps can be used to control By Amigo Cantisano, Organic Ag Advisors regarding ACQ pressure treated lumber. I small populations of squirrels but must be want to put up a desk next to my backyard n this issue, Amigo responds to several regularly monitored to get maximum success. organic garden. It seems that I can either use Ireader questions. Keep sending them in! Baiting with the same foods that the ground redwood or ACQ pressure treated lumber for squirrels are feeding on improves the trap the joists, beams and posts. I am concerned Question 1 success. Common baits are melon rinds, wal- about the effect that the ACQ treatment QI just read Amigo’s column on how to control nuts, almonds, or grains. The Black Fox might have on the vegetables that I get out of gophers. I’d like to ask Amigo the million Repeating Live Squirrel Trap is an impressive, my garden. Do you have any information dollar question: How do I control ground relatively easy to use tool, popular with many that might be able to help? Thanks, Mark. squirrels on a certified organic fruit tree farm? growers. Answer 2 The critters are killing us! Thank you. The best time to control ground squirrels,A It appears that there is conflicting informa- no matter what the method chosen, is late Answer 1 tion about the safety of ACQ pressure treat- winter and early spring, when the squirrels AI believe the best organic option for control- ing of wood. Until, if ever, this controversy is have left hibernation but have not yet begun ling ground squirrels is the use of the propane settled, the powers that regulate organics have reproduction. and oxygen explosive devices as described in declared ACQ as a prohibited material. The Great Horned Owls and Red Tail Hawks the gopher management article in the Fall limited choices for legal and safe organic lum- prey on ground squirrels. Provide habitat, 2002 issue of The Newsletter of CCOF (Vol. ber include untreated redwood, cedar and roosting poles and nesting boxes for these XIX, No. 3, p. 28— archived online at recycled plastic “wood”. www.ccof.org). The concussion action of the winged allies in and around the perimeter of the orchard to increase the natural predation Question 3 explosion of a mix of propane and oxygen is a Q When/where should I use zinc in my farm- very effective tool for controlling ground of the squirrels. ing? How do I know when I need to use zinc? squirrel populations. The mixture needs to be Resources: What kind(s) can I use? injected for a longer period than with Rodentorch Propane Oxygen Devices: gophers or voles, in order to reach the deeper Rid-A-Rodent, 800-743-7177 Answer 3 levels of squirrel burrows, thus making the AZinc is used in many crops as a soil and foliar Rodex 5000 Propane Oxygen Devices: tool somewhat more dangerous than when Rodex Co., 800-750-4553 applied micronutrient. Zinc plays important hunting for gophers. Numerous growers are Black Fox Repeating Live Squirrel Trap: roles in plant nutrition and is essential for the successfully reducing ground squirrel popula- The Trap Maker, 530-529-1910, transformation of carbohydrates and regula- tions with the propane torch method. www.trapmaker.com tion of the consumption of sugar in the

Page 34 CCOF Magazine plant. It is also part of the enzyme systems rate and timing, even though the visual and QQuestion 4 that regulate plant growth. tissue tests would not indicate the obvious Do you ever recommend applying manure Some crops such as almonds, citrus or benefit of the foliar application of zinc. Foliar instead of compost? peaches may show a visual zinc deficiency applications of zinc just before bloom Answer 4 known as “little leaf” if foliar zinc levels increase the yields and set of grapes, olive, cit-A I cannot think of a situation where manure become very low. Generally, however, crops rus, tomatoes and others. We are reevaluating would be preferable over compost, other than do not show visual symptoms of zinc defi- the thresholds we use to determine the need perhaps in organic rice production, a unique ciencies until a severe condition exists. for foliar zinc applications. Growers often cropping system using anaerobic growing To determine if your crop may benefit note a significant benefit to additional zinc, conditions. Compost is a superior source of from zinc applications, check the following: usually applied as a foliar spray to crops such nutrients, microbiology, organic matter, A basic soil mineral analysis will help deter- as grapes, strawberries, tomatoes, peaches, humus, water-holding capacity and more. mine if the soil is naturally low in zinc; many almonds, cherries and more. We often recom- Manure is best used as an ingredient in the soils in California are. Soil levels below 1.5 mend a broadcast application of zinc powders production of compost. ppm generally will indicate a benefit from or granules when planting a field to assure ground application of additional zinc. high levels of this important micro-element Thank you to the readers who sent in their If the soil analysis indicates a marginal or right from the planting date of the crop. questions. If you have any organic crop- low level of zinc, this should be followed up Allowed sources for zinc include zinc related questions for Amigo, please send with a combination of visual observation and acetate, zinc carbonate, zinc gluconate, zinc them to: Ask Amigo foliar leaf analysis. The norms for zinc in oxide, zinc sterate and zinc sulfate. Zinc sul- c/o CCOF, 1115 Mission Street crops vary quite a bit, but foliar zinc numbers fate and zinc oxide are the two most common Santa Cruz, CA 95060, below 50 ppm would prompt action by zinc sources, likely due to their relatively low or e-mail to [email protected] growers of many crops. cost. Both foliar and soil applied grades of or fax to: 831-423-4528 We have experienced numerous examples these products are offered by many compa- Amigo Cantisano, Organic Ag Advisors of increased yield and quality through foliar nies and farm supplies. P. O. Box 942 • No. San Juan, CA 95960 application of zinc to the crop at the proper 530-292-3619 office • 530-292-3688 fax

Summer 2003 Page 35 Addendum to Ask Amigo! Reader Questions, CCOF Magazine, Vol. XX, no. 2, pp. 34-35 (Summer 2003).

Answer 2: It would also be legal to treat wood yourself with a boron-based treatment, and it also is okay to set any treated posts that go into the ground in concrete to prevent the arsenic from coming into contact with the soil.

Answer 3: Zinc chloride is prohibited. Because of the annotation in the NOP rule, there has to be at least a soil or tissue test showing deficiency. Growers cannot use zinc as a preventative measure without documenting deficiency. Zinc is prohibited for use as a defoliant or herbicide.

This page intentionally blank to maintain pagination.

Articles begin on even-numbered (left-facing) pages. CERTIFICATION CORNER

REMINDERS 1. OMRI Brand Names List PESTICIDE USE REPORTING (www.omri.org) CCOF continues to find anomalies in pesti- TO REMEMBER 2. Washington State Department cide use reporting records maintained with of Agriculture Materials List the County Agricultural Commissioner’s By Brian McElroy, Certification Services Manager (www.wa.gov/agr/FoodAnimal/ Offices as part of the California Department Organic/MaterialsLists.htm) of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use CCOF RENEWAL & INSPECTION YEAR CYCLE 3. US EPA listed pesticides that are labeled Reporting Program. CCOF producers are Beginning this year CCOF will combine “For Organic Production”—see the Feb- encouraged to take the time to make sure the inspection year and the renewal cycle. ruary 2003 Certification Update (CCOF that organic fields are clearly identified by This statement likely seems so obvious as Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 34.) site identification numbers that do not to be strange to many of you, what do I include conventional applications. Produc- really mean? What I mean is that your Easy: If the product is not approved by one ers are also encouraged to request historical operation must be inspected annually of the three programs listed above then you records in order to ensure that use reports within the time frame of your renewal year. may be able to obtain a letter or affidavit for prohibited materials are not mistakenly from the manufacturer that their product is •If you renew in January 2003, then you associated with an organic field or opera- compliant with all applicable sections of must complete your inspection in 2003. tion. Contact you County Agricultural the National Organic Program Standards. •If you renew in April 2003, then you Commissioner’s office to review the records This statement needs to include the inert must complete your inspection prior to for your organic locations. April 2004. ingredients. If CCOF Certified Operations have •If you renew in July 2003, then you Not so Easy: Obtain full disclosure of all of must complete you inspection prior to questions regarding any of these topics, the product ingredients including the inert please contact your local Regional Service July 2004. ingredients and verify that the product meets Representative (RSR) or the CCOF Home In the past CCOF sought to complete all all the applicable sections of the National Office Certification Staff. inspections within the calendar year, no Organic Standards. matter when your operation renewed, so Clearly the “easiest” even in you renewed in April your calendar thing to do is tell suppli- year inspection was from January to ers that they need to get December. their product on one of Last note on this: CCOF will seek to inspect the approved lists, or you your operation within the first six months do not want to buy it. after your renewal date. So please, work TREATED SEED with the inspector to schedule your inspec- REMINDER tion as soon as possible. If you delay the Every CCOF producer inspection it may delay your ability to has been notified and re- renew in a timely manner. notified that treated seed

BRAND NAME MATERIALS REMINDER is not allowed for use in CCOF producers must provide evidence organic production. All that all brand name products used on the I can say at this point is farm meet the NOP requirement, includ- Do not use treated seed. ing the inert ingredients. This issue has If you do use treated been addressed in previous certification seed, you may lose the corner articles and Certification updates organic status for the available at www.ccof.org/certifiedclients/ crop, the land, and even usda.html. Each producer may comply the operation. (See the using the following scenarios: February 2003 Certifica- Easiest: Use only brand name products tion Update for details that are listed on or approved by one of —CCOF Magazine, Vol. the following: 20, No. 1, p. 34.)

Page 36 HANDLER HIGHLIGHTS

CLEANING UP among regulators, certification mally a technical term, not an indication of agencies, inspectors, and processors where it is measured), the NOP language THE CHLORINE ISSUE about how to interpret and comply seems to require measurement of chlorine at with the chlorine requirement. the discharge point. In response to questions, By Janning Kennedy The NOP language on chlorine for the USDA has used both the Preamble to Director of Handler Certification processors is found in NOP section the NOP regulation and its Question and 205.605(b)(9) under Synthetics Allowed: Answer page on the NOP website to try to HE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS “Chlorine materials disinfecting and sani- clarify the meaning of this language. But Board (NOSB) recently voted to tizing food contact surfaces, Except, That, both have reinforced the concept that the recommend to the USDA that the T residual chlorine levels in the water shall not chlorine level is to be measured in waste- National Organic Program (NOP) rule rein- exceed the maximum residual disinfectant water where it is discharged from the pro- state the original reference to “residual chlo- limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (i) cessing plant. rine levels in the water in direct crop or food Calcium hypochlorite. (ii) Chlorine dioxide. The Chlorine Task Force, formed by the contact” that was part of their original rec- (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.” Processing Committee of the NOSB to ommendation in 1995. The Board also sug- In 1995 the NOSB reviewed chlorine and review the chlorine issue, notes that the gested that the Question and Answer section recommended its use, with provisions, in Organic Foods Production Act was enacted to of the NOP website should be rewritten to organic food processing. The NOSB is a protect organic integrity rather than regulate focus on monitoring chlorine levels in water body of certified organic producers, han- wastewater. They suggest it would be more that last contacts organic products rather dlers, consumer and environmental represen- relevant to measure the level of chlorine in than chlorine levels in the waste water at the tatives formed by the original Organic Foods water as it contacts food or crops. The Pro- point of discharge. They further suggest that Production Act to review materials and make cessing Committee presented the recom- chlorine as an allowed substance be re- recommendations to the USDA regarding mendations from their Chlorine Task Force reviewed in light of new information about which ones should be allowed or prohibited to the whole NOSB at its May 2003 meet- chlorine in aspects of food and worker safety, in organic production. The USDA, when it ing in Austin, Texas in a document titled health effects, available alternatives, and printed its NOP regulations, amended the “Measuring Effluent: Clarification of Chlo- other criteria. Their recommendation does NOSB’s recommendation to the current lan- rine Contact with Organic Food.” The infor- not address the NOP language as it pertains guage above. The original NOSB recom- mation in this article is largely from that to using chlorine to sanitize equipment. mendation for allowing chlorine read: document. The use of chlorine, commonly called “Annotation: Allowed for disinfecting and The Chlorine Task Force members are Dr. bleach, in organic processing has long been a sanitizing food contact surfaces. Residual Joe Montecalvo, Professor of Food Science at contentious issue. Chlorine is a sanitizing chlorine levels for wash water in direct crop California State Polytechnic University San agent used to kill pathogens either on the or food contact ‘cannot exceed the maximum Luis Obispo, Emily Brown Rosen, Policy raw food itself by adding it to the wash residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Director of the Organic Materials Review water, or on food processing equipment. Drinking Water Act.’” Institute (OMRI), and Jim Riddle, member Prior to the NOP standards, certifying The italicized words were not included in of the NOSB and expert on certification agents used various private or state standards the NOP language. The maximum residual standards. that often specified the upper level of chlo- disinfect limit under the rine allowed in wash water for organic food, Safe Drinking Water Act though there was little uniformity among is 4 ppm. those standards. CCOF’s standard, prior to The missing words the NOP regulation, allowed up to 50 parts indicating that “residual per million (ppm). chlorine levels for wash The USDA’s NOP rule was written to water in direct crop or bring a single, uniform standard to the food contact” has United States. Through an apparent misun- apparently led to the derstanding by the USDA of the 1995 rec- confusion. Rather than ommendation, the chlorine issue has been measuring the levels of clouded by the language used in the NOP “residual chlorine” regulation. Currently there is confusion (residual chlorine is nor-

Summer 2003 Page 37

OMRI BRAND NAME PRODUCTS LIST UPDATE MAY 2003

BRAND NAME OF PRODUCT SUPPLIER GENERIC MATERIAL OMRI STATUS

CROP PRODUCTS Agreaux Organics All Natural Agreaux Organics Inc manure, processed R Organic 3-3-3 Slow Release Plugs Agreaux Organics All Natural Agreaux Organics Inc fertilizers, blended, regulated R Organic 5-5-5 Agreaux Organics All Natural Agreaux Organics Inc fertilizers, blended, regulated R Organic 6-2-4 Fertilizer Agreaux Organics All Natural Agreaux Organics Inc fertilizers, blended, regulated R Organic 6-2-4 Slow Release Plugs Agri Coat Natural II Agricoat LLC seed treatments, allowed A Bio-Genesis High Tide SeaWeed Green Air Products Inc kelp extracts A Biolizer Boost California Liquid Fertilizer LLC fertilizers, blended, allowed A Brown Rice Sonoma Compost Co compost—windrow A Cheep Cheep 4-3-3 North County Organics manure, processed R CSC Dusting Sulfur Continental Sulfur Company LLC sulfur, elemental R Custom-Organic B5 Custom Biologicals Inc microbial products, allowed A Cyd-X Certis USA biological controls A DiTera DF Valent BioSciences Corp biological controls A Dutch Treat Natural Fish Global Recycling and Research fish products, stabilized R Fertilizer (Canada) Early/Vineyard Mulch Sonoma Compost Co mulch, nonsynthetic A Fish/Seaweed Blend 2-3-0.5 Neptune’s Harvest Fertilizers/ fish products, multi-ingredient R Ocean Crest Seafood Garden Safe All Purpose Plant Schultz Company manure, processed R Food 5-3-3 Garden Safe Azalea & Rhododendron Schultz Company manure, processed R Plant Food 4-4-2 Garden Safe Bulb Food Plant Schultz Company manure, processed R Food 4-4-3 Garden Safe Citrus & Palm Plant Schultz Company manure, processed R Food 4-3-3 Garden Safe Evergreen & Shrub Plant Schultz Company manure, processed R Food 5-4-3 Garden Safe Rose & Flower Plant Schultz Company manure, processed R www.omri.orgFood 3-5-3 Garden Safe Tomato & Vegetable Schultz Company manure, processed R Plant Food 5-5-3 Golden Harvest 5-3-3 Deutrel Industries fish products, multi-ingredient R Gold-N-Gro 9.6-0-0 McGeary Organics Inc corn gluten A Ground Dolomite Ash Grove Cement Company dolomite, mined A Limestone Flour Ash Grove Cement Company limestone A Mallard Mulch Sonoma Compost Co compost—windrow A Matran 2 EcoSMART Technologies Inc herbicides, nonsynthetic R Micro Sulf NuFarm Americas Inc sulfur, elemental R Microlizer Agromar Inc microbial products, allowed A Mineral Matrix Micronutrient Green Air Products Inc micronutrients, synthetic R Mycorise ASP Premier Tech Inc inoculants A Myke Lawn 10-3-3 Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Myke Lawn 3-3-8 Organic Fertilizer Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Myke Lawn 9-4-2 Organic Fertilizer Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Myke Organic Evergreen Food 7-3-5 Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Myke Organic Flower Food 6-8-4 Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A

© 2003 Organic Materials Review Institute † = see IFOAM appendix in the April 2002 OMRI Generic Materials A = Allowed; R = Regulated Page 39 Myke Organic Rose Food 5-3-8 Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Myke Organic Seeding Mix Premier Tech Inc transplant media, nonsynthetic A Myke Organic Tomato Food Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A 5-6-8 + Ca Myke Organic Vegetable Food 8-4-5 Premier Tech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Myke Potting Mix For Organic Premier Tech Inc transplant media, nonsynthetic A Growing Nature’s Best 5-1-1 Deutrel Industries fish products, multi-ingredient R Novagib 10L Fine Agrochemicals Ltd gibberellic acid A Open All Plus 4-1-1 Deutrel Industries fish products, multi-ingredient R Orchard Mulch Agri Service Inc mulch, nonsynthetic A PDM-7 Nutrient Phase III Inc microbial products, allowed A Premium Bioash Roseburg Forest Products Co ash R Pro-Mix Ultimate Organic Mix Premier Horticulture Ltd transplant media, nonsynthetic A Safer Brand All-Purpose Fertilizer Woodstream Corporation fish products, stabilized R with Fish Emulsion Safer Brand Moss & Algae Killer & Woodstream Corporation soap A Surface Cleaner Ready to Spray (lot #H23000 or higher) Safer Brand Moss & Algae Killer & Woodstream Corporation soap A Surface Cleaner Ready to Use (lot #H23000 or higher) Spray Oil 653-0055 Petro Canada oils, narrow range R SuperBio SoilBuilder Advanced Microbial Solutions LLC manure tea R Superzyme 1-0-4 JH Biotech Inc fertilizers, blended, allowed A Synergy Green Air Products Inc kelp extracts A The Answer Potting Soil Answer Garden Products Ltd transplant media, nonsynthetic A www.omri.orgTop Coat 100 for Dust Control Cascade Organics Inc lignin sulfonates A Virosoft CP Biotepp Inc virus sprays A Zinc Coposoil 15-30 Dust Agro Valley Enterprises zinc products R

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS AgMaster Corn Silage Inoculant Agtech Products Inc microbial products, allowed A AgMaster Pro Max Agtech Products Inc microbial products, allowed A Conlic Grotek Inc probiotics, regulated R Culbac Animal Liquid TransAgra International Inc microbial products, allowed A Culbac Hay and Silage Treatment TransAgra International Inc microbial products, allowed A Healthy Start TransAgra International Inc microbial products, allowed A Penergentic-t Planistics Management Ltd calcium carbonate A PyGanic Crop Protection EC 1.4 II MGK Company pyrethrum R PyGanic Crop Protection EC 5.0 II MGK Company pyrethrum R

PROCESSING PRODUCTS Urnex Urn & Brewer Cleaner Urnex Brands Inc detergents R

© 2003 Organic Materials Review Institute † = see IFOAM appendix in the April 2002 OMRI Generic Materials A = Allowed; R = Regulated

CCOF CERTIFIED OPERATIONS

FEBRUARY 1 – MAY 21, 2003 HORACE LEE HILLARD (CC) RATTO BROS., INC. (BV) TUFTS RANCH LLC. (PR) Jeffery, Joan & Lee Hillard David Silveira W. Stanley Tufts NEWLY CERTIFIED MEMBERS 8831 Fairview Rd. 6312 Beckwith Rd. 27260 State Hwy. 128 A’ROMA ROASTERS (PR) Hollister, CA 95023 Modesto, CA 95358 Winters, CA 95694 Dayna Irvine 831-635-9956 209-545-4445 530-795-4144 95 Fifth Street Crops Certified: Walnuts Crops Certified: Basil, Beets, Bok Choy, Services Certified: Cold Storage, Packing, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 JACOBS DAIRY (HT) Cabbage, Carrots, Celeriac, Chard, Processing 707-576-7765 Jeff & Chris Jacobs Chicory, Collards, Cilantro, Daikon, VOLCAFE SPECIALTY COFFEE Certified Product: Organic Coffee P. O. Box 595 Dandelion, Dill, Endive, Fennel, Herbs, LLC. (PR) Kale, Kohlrabi, Leeks, Lettuces, Mustard A. VOLPI & SON INC. (BV) Loleta, CA 95551 Alan Nietlisbach Greens, Parsley, Radish, Spinach, Nancee L. Volpi 707-733-5603 7 Beyer Court Turnips, Watermelons P.O. Box 58 Certified Crop: pasture Novato, CA 94945 Holt, CA 95234 Certified Livestock: Dairy Cattle STEVE L. CALVER (PS) 415-848-2588 209-464-0508 Certified Product: Milk Steve Calver Services Certified: Green Coffee Trading, Certified Crop: Asparagus JAMES & MICHELLE MCINTYRE (PS) 49750 Three Pts. Rd. Green Coffee Import Service Neenach, CA 93536 ARROWHEAD CO. (YO) James & Michelle McIntyre 661-724-0525 INACTIVE Randy Salveson 11164 Calle Oro Verde Crop Certified: Cherries 850 Market Street Valley Center, CA 92028 GARDEN EXPRESS (CC) Colusa, CA 95932 760-742-3639 STRAWHOUSE (PR) John Van Diepen 530-458-4000 Certified Crop: Grapefruit Donald Ellis Certified Crops: Beans (dry), Grapes 457 Hwy. 299 GRIFFITH AND PARKER (NV) KALLO FOODS (PR) Doug Parker & Tom Griffith (wine), Rice, Walnuts, Wheat Andy Stride Junction City, CA 96048 530-623-1990 CALIFORNIA-SINALOA ORGANIC Coopers Place, Combe Place, Wormley MARMOT MEADOWS FARM (SG) Product Certified: Roasted Coffee FARMS (AL) Surrey, UK GU8 552 Steve Martin Services Certified: Grinding, Packing, Wayne Parks 142-868-1289 Roasting OCEAN SONG GARDENS (NC) Av. Independencia No. 936-A Products Certified: Peanuts, Peanut butter Fred Beeman Centro Sinaloa C.P. 80129, Mexico Services Certified: Manufacturing (peanut SUNRAY’S HARVEST LLC (YO) 52-66-7714-5381 products) Raymond & Christine Belcher Withdrawn and Decertified Operations 7616 Locke Rd. Crops Certified: Broccoli, Cucumbers, LLOYD’S PRODUCE (YO) for these dates are included in the online Peppers, Squash (summer & winter), Vacaville, CA 95688 Lloyd Johnson version of this Magazine. Tomatoes (fresh market) 1801 Chapman Place 530-304-1626 Crops Certified: Microgreens www.ccof.org/magazine.html CAPRICORN COFFEES, INC. (PR) Davis, CA 95616 Craig Edwards 530-753-3299 353 Tenth Street Crops Certified: Mixed Vegetables San Francisco, CA 94103 NEW LEAF COMMUNITY 415-621-8500 MARKET (PR) Product Certified: Roasted Coffee Sarah Miles CARSTENSEN FARMS (NC) 1537 Pacific Ave., Suite 201 Neal & Sally Carstensen Santa Cruz, CA 95060 484 Ely Rd. 831-429-1480 Petaluma, CA 94954 Product Certified: Apple Juice 707-778-8934 O. LIPPI & CO., INC. (PR) Crops Certified: Cucumbers, Flowers, Dennis Martin Melons, Squash (summer), Strawberries, 2050 Jerrold Ave. Tomatoes (fresh market), Watermelon San Francisco, CA 94124 CHATEAU FRESNO NURSERY (FT) 415-647-6743 Ibrahim & Marie Abuhilal Product Certified: Bananas 3805 Howard St. POSEIDON FARMS LLC (CC) Selma, CA 93662 Dean Shiroyama & Steve Bassi 559-896-4225 P. O. Box 4070 Crop Certified: Tomatoes (greenhouse) Salinas, CA 93908 CLARK VALLEY FARM, INC. (SL) 831-455-2950 Eric Michielssen Crops Certified: Cantaloupe, Garlic, 2310 Clark Valley Rd. Lettuces, Melons, Mixed Vegetables, Los Osos, CA 93402 Peppers, Spinach, Tomatoes (fresh 805-528-7395 market), Watermelon Crops Certified: Blueberries, Cranberries, PREMIER ORGANICS (PR) Fruit Trees, Mixed Vegetables, Potatoes, Jason Mahon Strawberries 2342 Shattuck Ave. #342 DRAKE LARSON RANCHES (DV) Berkeley, CA 94704 Drake Larson 415-279-4053 P.O. Box 355 Products Certified: Almond Butter, Thermal, CA 92274 Cashew Butter, Macadamia – Cashew 760-399-5494 butter, Almonds, Macadamias, Soy Crop Certified: Grapes nuts, Pecans, Filberts, Brazil nuts, Walnuts, Cashews, Pistachios, Sesame FRUITA DEL SOL (FT) Seed, Pumpkin Seed, Sunflower Seed, Ryan Metzler Flax Seed, Rice, Wild Rice, Honey, 2421 S. Judy Granola products, Cereal products, Fresno, CA 93727 Sage, Cinnamon, Garlic, Oregano, 559-905-2706 Ginger Root, Burdock Root Crops Certified: Nectarines, Peaches CCOF Certified Operations addendum – CCOF Magazine, Vol. XX, no. 2, p. 42.

Due to space limitations, we could not include decertified and withdrawn operations in the print version of CCOF Magazine, Vol. XX, no. 2, p. 42 (Summer 2003 issue). Codes in parentheses refer to CCOF Chapters, http://www.ccof.org/chapters.html

Decertified

ALEX R. THOMAS & CO. (pr) CORNELIA VINEYARDS, INC. (ft) Tom Thomas Lance Jackson

BAER ORGANIC (ft) JONES FARM (ft) David Baer Dave R. Jones

Withdrawn

ABUNDANCE FARM (nc) PINE GROVE FARM (nv) Anudeva Stevens HOLLAR SEEDS (pr) Mike McDougal Myron Svoboda BREZNOCK RANCH (yo) RAINBOW ORGANIC GARDENS Gene & Ann Breznock KHAWAR FARMS (ke) (ps) Khalid and Imran Khawar John Hogan CALBERI, INC. (pr) Mack Ramsay LACROIX (DAVID & JANICE) RAINBOW VALLEY ORCHARDS (nv) (pr) CONNELL GROVES (ps) David & Janice Lacroix Richard Hart Eva M. Connell LAGANZA (ps) SINGING NETTLE FARM (sg) COUNTRY SWEET (ke) Pedro Torres & Ronald Chilcote Mary Schnaufer & Steve Elias Catarino Martinez MANSOUR MALEK (ps) SITES RANCH (nv) DAVID C. MOSTIN (me) Mansour Malek Phil and Betsy Sites David Mostin MANUEL & MICHELI (nv) SKYVIEW COOLING (pr) DENNISON VINEYARDS (me) Bert Manuel John Studer Peter & Will Dennison MCCURDY (RAY) (me) SMITTY’S VINEYARD (me) DHALIWAL RANCH (yo) Ray McCurdy Smith Williams Tarlochan Dhaliwal MORGAN VALLEY ST. JOHN’S SPIRIT GT- PS143 NOW (ps) EMANDAL, A FARM ON A WORT (me) Jerry & Annie Benefield Lawrence RIVER (me) Keith & Vicki Riggin Sue Morganti, Fred Marshall, Clive & TALBOT FARMS (ps) Tamara Adams MT. OSO TRADING CO. (pr) Karen Talbot Darby A. Buchele EMMET PENNEBAKER (nv) TERRANOVA MANAGEMENT Emmet Pennebaker NATURE FARM, THE (sc) CO. LLC. (ft) Russell Lugli Don Cameron & Dave Kelly FARM HOUSE GOODS (ft) Fred & Diane Gaalswyk O’HARA GROVE (ps) THOMAS RANCH (cc) Kay O’Hara & Ron Gates Moises & Jose Magana FARMCO PARTNERS (ke) Jacque Cook & Robert Taylor OCCIDENTAL MUSHROOMS WOOLEY FARMS (nv) (nc) Dan & Loretta Baker GUICEL FARM (sc) Don Lareau Celia B. Suarez

This page intentionally blank to maintain pagination.

Articles begin on even-numbered (left-facing) pages. BUSINESS RESOURCES

NEW AND UPDATED Visit our website, http://attra.ncat.org/ The Safe Seed Sourcebook ATTRA PUBLICATIONS publication.html, to read or download all Your Resource for GE-Free Seeds • An Organic & Sustainable Practices Work- our publications, or call toll-free 1-800- book & Resource Guide for Cropping Sys- 346-9140 for your FREE print version. griculture and seeds provide the tems (new) http://attra.ncat.org/attra- basis upon which our lives BOOKS pub/summaries/cropsworkbook.html Adepend. We must protect this • An Organic & Sustainable Practices Work- The Organic Decision: Making the Transi- foundation as a safe and genetically book & Resource Guide for Livestock Sys- tion to Organic Dairy Production. Cornell stable source for future generations. tems (new) http://attra.ncat.org/attra- Cooperative Extension specialists in con- For the benefit of all farmers, gardeners pub/summaries/livestockworkbook.html sultation with the Northeast Dairy Produc- and consumers who want an alterna- tive, we pledge that we do not know- • Growing Your Range Poultry Business: ers Alliance developed this workbook, ingly buy or sell genetically engineered An Entrepreneur’s Toolbox (new) which examines the stability and trends of seeds or plants. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/ the organic milk market, the cost of mak- ing the transition (includes budget work- www.gene-watch.org/programs/ summaries/poultrytoolbox.html safeseed/ sourcebook.html • Efficient Agricultural Buildings: sheets), forage yield reductions (includes inventory balance calculator), and herd An Overview (new) http://attra.ncat.org/ elements in equilibrium are attra-pub/summaries/agbuildings.html health considerations (cull rate, disease incidence, veterinary costs). Those com- likely to roll back more weeds than all • Organic Greenhouse Herb Production the available herbicides on the market. (updated) http://attra.ncat.org/attra- pleting the workbook will have a business plan, a budget, and an action plan for the Specifics on a hundred weeds, why they pub/summaries/gh-herbhold.html grow, what soil conditions spur them on • Downy Mildew Control in Cucurbits transition. 40 pages, 2002, Cornell Univer- sity Small Farms Program, $12. Contact or stop them, what they say about your (updated) http://attra.ncat.org/attra- soil, and how to control them without pub/summaries/downymildew.html Faye Butts at (607) 254-7412 or e-mail [email protected]. the obscene presence of poisons. All cross- • Flea Beetle: Organic Control Options referenced by scientific and various com- Weeds — Control Without Poisons (updated) http://attra.ncat.org/attra- mon names, and a pictorial glossary. 352 by Charles Walters pub/summaries/fleabeetle.html pages. www.acresusa.com • Strawberries: Organic and IPM Options “Low biological activity is inherent in each (updated) http://attra.ncat.org/attra- weed problem…Each weed is keyed to a WEBSITES specific environment slotted for its prolifer- pub/summaries/plum.html The Organic Agriculture Information ation.” So says Weeds — Control Without • Poultry Nutrition (new), funded by website, developed by the Organic Agricul- Poisons author Charles Walters. Further, Heifer Project International. (Available ture Consortium, has been launched at calcium, magnesium, potassium, and other in print only, not on the Web.) www.organicaginfo.org. The sites includes information on production, economic For Sale to Clients and the General Public data, research results, farmer anecdotes, certification information, transition strate- Application Packet $25.00 CCOF CERTIFIED CLIENTS ONLY gies and other subjects related to organic (Grower/Processor/Handler/Retailer/Livestock) CCOF Logo Stickers (1000 per roll) • “Certified Organic by CCOF” $10.00 agriculture. Certification Handbook (Manuals 1–4) $20.00 • Logo only $ 6.00 Organic Directory $10.00 • Transitional (grower only) $10.00 The PAN Pesticides Database is your one- UBBER TAMP SUPPORTING MEMBERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC CCOF R S stop location for current toxicity and regu- Supporting Member Sign $25.00 • “Certified Organic by CCOF” $20.00 latory information for pesticides. To find • Logo only $15.00 Organic Cotton CCOF T-shirt $15.00 out more about insecticides, herbicides and (Colors: sage, natural, blue • Sizes: S,M,L,XL) Twist Ties (per 900/case 10,200) other pesticides, visit www.pesticideinfo.org/ Baseball Hats $15.00 6" — $6.00/$35.00 • 12" — $8.00/$55.00 18" — $11.00/$90.00 index.html Bumper Sticker: $.50 each or 3/$ 1.00 Certified Grower/Processor Signs $26.00 “Support Organic Farmers” (24" x 18" plastic or aluminum, w/NOP wording) “Support Yourself: Eat Organic” “¡Viva La Agricultura Organica!” (Please) Do Not Spray Signs $16.00 (2 styles, black on yellow, 12" x 18")

To Order, Call Toll Free 888-423-2263, ext. 10 or visit the CCOF Store at www.ccof.org

Summer 2003 Page 43 CLASSIFIEDS

FOR LEASE FOR SALE Farmall M tractor - Classic! and bulletproof, 26100 sq. ft. L&B greenhouse + 5 acres on ROCK DUST! Remineralize soil FAST— 4-cylinder rebuilt engine with only 30 hours. county road, climate control, 75 50 ft. redwood Activate a explosion on your PTO and belly pump, but no 3-point. Runs tables, municipal & well water, organic certifi- farm. 70+ elements - Single application lasts great! $1800, Vincent, 831- 763-3848. able, Boulder Creek, 650-321-5302. decades! 1-2 ton/acre recommended. Only $190/ton delivered, SC County. Call Vincent SEEKING LAND SERVICES Looking for farm land to rent in the Carmel Lewis and Carlsen: An independent insect mon- at “Glacial Goddess” (831) 763-3848, Valley up to 5 acres certified organic, John, itoring service. Serving the Central Coast. We’ll [email protected] 559-694-0017. find what’s bugging you! Call (831) 728-3190. CALENDAR

J UNE 21–25 J ULY 20 AUGUST 16 American Seed Trade Assoc. Convention, Medicinal plant walk, Occidental Arts Medicinal plant walk, Occidental Arts Henderson, NV, www.amseed.org and Ecology Center, Occidental, CA, and Ecology Center, Occidental, CA, 10:30AM–1:30PM, $25, 707-874-1557, 10:30AM–1:30PM, $25, 707-874-1557, J UNE 23–25 ext. 201, [email protected] ext. 201, [email protected] The Sacramento Ministerial. Ministers from 180 nations have been invited to this AUGUST 7–10 S EPTEMBER 4–7 event for the U.S. to discuss industrial Northeast Organic Farming Association’s Natural Products Expo East, Washington agriculture, pesticides, irradiation, and 29th Annual Summer Conference: D.C., 303-390-1776, biotechnology to the third world in a “Harvest the fruits discover the roots,” [email protected] positive light. During this event there will Amherst, MA, contact Julie Rawson, S EPTEMBER 6–7 be public awareness events to help explain 978-355-2853, [email protected] Fall and Winter Garden Sale and Open the other side of the story, 415-918-6205, AUGUST 8–10 House, Occidental Arts and Ecology ext. 383, www.biodev.org/sacramento Organic Gardening Class: “Winter Center, Occidental, CA, 9AM–5PM, J UNE 23–28 Gardening and Seed Saving,” Occidental 707-874-1557, ext. 201, [email protected] Bio-Logical Organic Gardening Arts and Ecology Center, Occidental, CA, S EPTEMBER 26–28 Workshop, Organic Planet Farms Learning $300 for the class, 707-874-1557, ext. 203. 25th Annual Prairie Festival, there will be Center, Fallbrook, CA, 760-731-1238, AUGUST 11–16 speakers, dancing, and sustainable food, [email protected] Bio-Logical Organic Gardening Salina, Kansas, 785-823-5376, e-mail: J UNE 24 Workshop, Organic Planet Farms Learning [email protected]; Fresh Produce & Floral Council Expo, Center, Fallbrook, CA, 760-731-1238, web: www.landinstitute.org Anaheim, CA, 714-739-0177. [email protected] O CTOBER 13–18 J ULY 2 AUGUST 12 Bio-Logical Organic Gardening Strawberry Culture and Veg Disease Avocado Grower Seminar, Ventura, CA, Workshop, Organic Planet Farms Learning in Coachella Valley, Indio, CA, [email protected] Center, Fallbrook, CA, 760-731-1238, [email protected] [email protected] AUGUST 14 J ULY 13–25 Avocado Grower Seminar, Escondido, CA,

International Short Course on [email protected] SEND CALENDAR SUBMISSIONS TO: Agroecology 2003, Santa Cruz, CA, Agriculture, Hunger and Biotechnology: A Debate Lisa Stutey contact Joji Muramato, • e-mail: [email protected] [email protected] What Role Do GE Crops Have in Developing Countries? • U.S. Mail: 1115 Mission St. Monday, June 23rd, 7 PM J ULY 16–18 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 The Crest Theater • 1013 K Street • Sacramento, CA Short course on growing organic wine • Phone: 888-423-2263, Directions at www.thecrest.com/directions/index.cfm grapes, Valley Oaks Ranch, Hopland, CA, ext. 10 Come and hear diverse viewpoints on the 707-272-1152. international controversy over GE crops and food. J ULY 18 Speakers will include scientists, policy makers, Women in Ag Conference, Tucson, AZ, activists, and industry representatives. 602-659-7008. Requested donation: $5.00

LAST WORD An organic farm, properly speaking, is not one that uses certain substances and avoids others; it is a farm whose structure is formed in imitation of the structure of a natural system; it has the integrity, the independence, and the benign dependence of an organism. ~Wendell Berry

Summer 2003 Page 45 REGIONAL SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES (RSRS) FOR CCOF CHAPTERS

At-Large Fresno-Tulare (FT) North Coast (NC) San Luis Obispo (SL) (Unassigned counties (Fresno, Kings, Tulare) (Marin, Napa, Sonoma) Glenn Johnson and outside California) Cynthia Ortegon Elizabeth Whitlow 685 Grade Mountain Road Lois Christie 25334 Grove Way P. O . Box 11 Nipomo, CA 93444 (See Pacific Southwest) Madera, CA 93638 Camp Meeker, CA 95419 T: (805) 929-3081/F: 929-3081 Big Valley (BV) T: (559) 664-0471/F: 664-0471 T: (707) 874-1022 [email protected] (Contra Costa, Merced, [email protected] [email protected] Sierra Gold (SG) San Joaquin, Stanislaus) Handler/Processor (PR) North Valley (NV) (Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Earl Hiatt (Handlers, Packers, (Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Placer, Tuolumne) 13507 Quince Avenue Processors, Retailers) Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Raoul Adamchack Patterson, CA 95363 Nadya Peattie Tehama, Yuba) 26951 County Rd. 96 T: (209) 892-8170/F: 892-6143 (see Processor/Handler) Tom Harter Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] Humboldt-Trinity (HT) P. O . Box 817 T: (530) 753-8003 Central Coast (CC) (Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity) Biggs, CA 95917 [email protected] (Alameda, Monterey, San Benito, Elizabeth Whitlow T/F: (530) 868-1814 South Coast (SC) San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa (See North Coast) [email protected] (Santa Barbara, Ventura) Clara, Santa Cruz) Kern (KE) Pacific Southwest (PS) Glenn Johnson Jamie Collins Paola Legarre (Riverside, San Diego) (see San Luis Obispo) 918 Sinex Avenue 2512 N. Arthur Ave. Lois Christie Yolo (YO) Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Fresno, CA 93705 (see Desert Valleys) (Colusa, Nevada, Placer, T: (831) 375-2332 T: (559) 229-3525 Processor/Handler (PR) Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Yolo) [email protected] F: (559) 272-6186 (Handlers, Packers, Raoul Adamchack Desert Valleys (DV) [email protected] Processors, Retailers) (see Sierra Gold) (Imperial, Riverside) Mendocino (ME) Nadya Peattie Lois Christie (Lake, Mendocino) c/o CCOF Home Office 40911 Via Ranchitos Tim Bates T: (888) 423-2263, ext. 23 Fallbrook, CA 92028 F: (831) 423-4528 18501 Greenwood Road View the CCOF Chapter Map at T: (760) 451-0912 [email protected] Philo, CA 95466 www.ccof.org/chapters.html F: (760) 723-3775 T: (707) 895-2333/F: 895-2333 [email protected] [email protected]

BOARD OF DIRECTORS HOME OFFICE STAFF CERTIFICATION SERVICES STAFF Vanessa Bogenholm (cc), Chairman Brian Leahy, President, ext. 17, [email protected] Brian McElroy, Certification Services Manager, ext. 16, Will Daniels (pr), Vice Chairman Armando Bonifacio, Accountant, ext. 15, [email protected] [email protected] Kate Burroughs (nc), Secretary Amber Proaps, Accounting Assistant, ext. 15, [email protected] Janning Kennedy, Director of Handler Certification, ext. 20, Stephen Bird (sg), Treasurer Keith Proctor, Office Manager, ext. 12, [email protected] [email protected] Jim Zeek (sg), CSC Chair Brian Sharpe, Chapter Resource Coordinator, ext. 24, John McKeon, Certification Services Associate, ext. 19, [email protected] [email protected] Bill Reichle (bv), Vanessa Bogenholm (cc), Lisa Stutey, Office Coordinator, ext. 10, [email protected] Cynthia Ritenour, Handler Certification Assistant, ext. 18, Vacant (dv), Kurt Quade (ft), [email protected] Patti Rose (ht), Malcolm Ricci (ke), Helge Hellberg, Marketing and Communications Director, Kerry Glendening, Certification Services Assistant, ext. 14, Charles Fowler (me), Kate Burroughs (nc), ext. 21, [email protected] [email protected] Philip LaRocca (nv), Will Daniels (pr) Kenny Swain, Marketing Assistant, ext. 22, [email protected] Erica Chernoh, Certification Services Assistant, ext. 13, Richard Taylor (ps), Hank Sharp (sc), [email protected] Stephen Bird (sg), Roy Reeves (sl), Visit our Website at: Nadya Peattie, Handler Service Representative, ext. 23 Paul Underhill (yo) [email protected] www.ccof.org Sean Feder, Inspection Operations Director, [email protected] (530) 756-8518, ext. 11 (Davis Office)

CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED ORGANIC FARMERS Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage Paid 1115 Mission Street • Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Permit #262 (831) 423-2263 • FAX (831) 423-4528 Santa Cruz, CA TOLL FREE: 1-888-423-2263