ALISON

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Use of GE crops in CA agriculture and Animal Biotechnology: 

Use of GE crops in CA agriculture and Animal Biotechnology Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology and Genomics alvaneenennaam@ucdavis.edu Phone: 530 752-7942

Use of GE in California Ag: 

Use of GE in California Ag California farmers grow 350 crops CA leads the nation in production of 79 crops Genetically engineered varieties of only 12 plant species that have been deregulated and approved for commercial production in the US Soybeans, Corn, Canola, Cotton, Potato, Squash, Papaya, Tomato, Sugarbeets, Rice, Flax, and Radicchio (red-heart chicory)

Most common use of GE in California agriculture are two herbicide-resistant crops: cotton and corn: 

Most common use of GE in California agriculture are two herbicide-resistant crops: cotton and corn 44% of the 560,000 acres of upland cotton planted in California in 2004 was GE (herbicide-tolerant) 30% of the 400,000 acres of the field corn grown in California in 2003 was GE (herbicide-tolerant) Herbicide-tolerant alfalfa is currently under development and could be widely used in California in the near future. 60% of California’s agricultural value is in horticultural crops (vegetables, fruits, nuts and ornamentals) Only small amounts of genetically engineered virus-resistant squash and insect-resistant sweet corn are grown in the state.

Slide4: 

Proposingaction Growing GE crops

Why are famrers using GE ? Case study: Herbicide-resistant cotton : 

Why are famrers using GE ? Case study: Herbicide-resistant cotton Weeds can cause significant losses in cotton It has been estimated that California cotton yields would decline by 75% if no weed control measures were utilized In 1990 75% of the CA cotton acreage was hand-hoed – averages 8 hours/acre/year Herbicide-tolerant cotton reduces need for hoeing According to 2003 cost-studies carried out by UC Cooperative Extension, the use of genetically engineered cotton was estimated to save producers $59/acre in operating costs

Planting GE crops recommended by SJ air pollution control district: 

Planting GE crops recommended by SJ air pollution control district Herbicide-tolerant crops may also allow producers to move to conservation or no-tillage practices Planting GE crops to reduce dust emissions is one of the CMPs that agricultural producers can use to comply with the agricultural air pollution abatement requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District .

California 2002 data: 

California 2002 data 246,400 acres of GE cotton and an estimated 120,000 acres of GE field corn grown 896 acres of organic cotton, and 760 acres of organic field, sweet and pop corn combined. Since different farming systems are employed in California, often on adjoining fields, producers have a responsibility to cooperate to enable co-existence of these different production methods and implement BMPS to minimize pollen drift and other forms of contamination.

Feeding livestock GE crops: 

Feeding livestock GE crops Several reviews (Aumaitre et al. 2002; Clark and Ipharraguerre 2001; Flachowsky and Aulrich 2001) summarize the numerous studies in many species that have revealed that animals (beef cattle, swine, sheep, fish, lactating dairy cows and chickens) fed biotech crops show no difference in performance relative to animals consuming non-biotech varieties of those same crops. GE insect-protected corn sustains less insect damage, less susceptible to contamination by fungal toxins, resulting in corn that is safer for livestock and human consumption (Flachowsky and Aulrich 2002; Munkvold, Hellmich, and Rice 1999; Munkvold, Hellmich, and Showers 1997).

Eating Livestock that ate GE Crops: 

Eating Livestock that ate GE Crops A number of scientific studies indicate that introduced DNA or proteins from biotech crops are not detected in milk, meat or eggs from animals that consume feed components derived from these crops (Einspanier et al. 2001; Flachowsky and Aulrich 2002; Phipps, Beever, and Humphries 2002; Phipps, Deaville, and Maddison 2003).

Materials on Feeding Livestock GE Crops: 

Materials on Feeding Livestock GE Crops * http://www.fass.org/REFERENC.htm List of references on feeding transgenic crops to livestock (Federation of Animal Societies Web Site) * http://www.animalbiotechnology.org/abstc.pdf Review of literature on the performance of poultry and livestock fed biotech crops compared to their conventional counterparts * http://www.fass.org/geneticcrops.pdf Full color fact sheet entitled “Are the Milk, Meat, and Eggs of Livestock Fed Biotech Crops Safe to Eat?” (Federation of Animal Societies Web Site)

Slide11: 

that the majority of Americans claim to know “very little” (55%) or “nothing at all” (22%) about biotechnology Knowledge gap and related discomfort is particularly evident in the case of animal biotechnology

Dolly the sheep, the first mammal ever cloned or “duplicated” from an adult cell: 

Dolly the sheep, the first mammal ever cloned or “duplicated” from an adult cell

Aqua Bounty - Growth-enhanced salmon up for approval to FDA: 

Aqua Bounty - Growth-enhanced salmon up for approval to FDA

Transgenic Growth-Enhanced Tilapia being grown in Cuba: 

Transgenic Growth-Enhanced Tilapia being grown in Cuba Maclean and Laight. 2000. Fish and Fisheries 1:146-172

GloFish™ – on sale except in CA: 

GloFish™ – on sale except in CA

Slide16: 

CA Senate Bill 245 “bans aquaculture of salmon, exotic (non-native) and transgenic (genetically-engineered) fish in state waters, including the ocean from 0-3 miles offshore.” Existing regulations governing GM aquatic organisms in CA

Slide17: 

Additionally, California Fish and Game department regulations require the possession of a permit to raise GE fish in contained onshore systems in California. Existing regulations governing GM aquatic organisms in CA

Slide18: 

(9) Transgenic Aquatic Animals. The department may issue permits for importation, possession, transportation or rearing of, or research on, transgenic aquatic animals pursuant to the following terms and conditions: (A) All transgenic aquatic animals shall be held, raised, and transported in a closed-water system or in a system which treats effluent discharge from the facility with a disinfection system adequate to ensure against the inadvertent release of live animals. A closed-water system means that there is no discharge to waters of the state. Municipal treated sewage systems are not considered waters of the state. The Commission may grant an exception to this regulation if it is determined that doing so shall not pose a significant risk to the waters or wildlife of the state. (B) Access to facilities containing transgenic aquatic animals must be restricted through means determined to be adequate by the Department to assure against unauthorized removal of animals. (C) Movement of live transgenic aquatic animals from facilities is prohibited unless specifically permitted by the Department. (D) Release of transgenic aquatic animals or their progeny into waters of the state is prohibited. (E) If transgenic aquatic animals are held with non-transgenic animals of the same species, all such animals that commingle with transgenic animals shall be treated as transgenic for the purposes of regulation and may not be introduced into waters of the state. Nontransgenic individuals that can be individually identified as nontransgenic may be exempt from this provision with prior department approval. (F) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any unauthorized release of transgenic aquatic animals or their progeny into the waters of the state may be subject to the penalties provided for under Fish and Game Code Sections 2125, 12007, and/or 12023 (G) A university, college, governmental research agency or other bona fide scientific institution, as determined by the department, may apply for an expedited permit review under 671(b)6 of this section by demonstrating that they meet or exceed the requirements stipulated in subsections (A) through (F) as part of a federal program or permit, for example, National Institute of Health guidelines administered by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Such institutions shall have 120 days from the date of adoption of these regulations to submit supporting documentation for an initial permit. To date several permits have been granted to medical & scientific research laboratories

Slide19: 

“BE CAREFUL NOT TO OBSCURE THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS NOT READILY APPARENT IN THE FIRST GENERATION OF PRODUCTS” What could be done…..

“Transplantation-friendly” miniature GE pigs….: 

“Transplantation-friendly” miniature GE pigs….

Slide21: 

Low emissions Enviropig™…

BSE resistant cows…: 

BSE resistant cows…

SUMMARY – GE ANIMALS: 

SUMMARY – GE ANIMALS No change in animal performance or detection of GE DNA or protein in animal products when livestock fed using GE crops No GE food animals on the market FDA will regulate GM food animals CA has specific regulations about GM fish GloFish was not exempted from permit process Future uses of GM animals are varied and may address societal needs Yet to see if the expense of the technology is commercially viable

QUESTIONS ?: 

QUESTIONS ? ”I hope there is nothing genetically modified in this”

authorStream Live Help