An Oregon task force on genetically engineered crops agrees that more regulatory clarity is needed for biotechnology but diverges on the specifics of any governance scheme.
Earlier this year, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber convened a task force to frame the debate over genetic engineering and issue a report to guide lawmakers during the 2015 legislative session.
After six months of discussions, the task force has now released a draft version of its report to the public.
While task force members believe there should be a “path to coexistence” among biotech, conventional and organic growers, they were divided as to whether preventing cross-pollination among such crops should be mandated by the government or conducted on a voluntary basis.
During an Oct. 23 task force meeting, members negotiated revisions to the draft.
Marty Myers, general manager of Threemile Canyon Farms, said he would like the report to emphasize the possibility of farmer-to-farmer cooperation.
“Farmers are quite good at this and have shown examples of being able to coexist in the past,” he said.
However, there have clearly been conflicts over cross-pollination, as evidenced by farmer participation in lawsuits over biotech sugar beets and alfalfa, said Ivan Maluski, director of Friends of Family Farms, which is critical of biotech regulations.
“I don’t think we would be here if it had been smooth sailing all the way on coexistence,” he said.
The topic of liability for cross-pollination also highlighted the members’ contrasting perspectives.
Suggestions that organic and conventional farmers could buy insurance to cover the risk of cross-pollination by GE crops were deemed unfair by members who said biotech companies should not be absolved from responsibility while the burden falls entirely on growers.
Some members thought biotech seed developers should be liable for harms caused by cross-pollination but others argued this approach is unfair because companies would be held “liable for actions beyond their control,” the report said.
The problem of liability is also technical, said Greg Loberg, manager of the West Coast Beet Seed Co.
The report should reflect that there is no way to ensure that seed is absolutely free of biotech genes — there has to be a testing threshold, rather than just “zero,” he said.
“In order to have compensation or enforcement, you have to have a test,” Loberg said. “What test?”
The draft report also said government policy should “clarify the interaction between state and federal law” for GMOs and define the role of state agencies in regulating biotechnology.
However, the task force did not reach consensus on what level of regulatory oversight is sufficient.
Some members were confident in conclusions by federal agencies that deregulated biotech crops are equivalent to conventional ones, while others didn’t think these studies were of adequate duration and worry about long term impacts to human health and the environment.
The State of Oregon’s current authority to regulate biotech crops and its ability to expand that oversight was another subject of dispute.
At this point, the Oregon Department of Agriculture only sets “control areas” designating where GMOs can or cannot be grown if the crops are still regulated by USDA. Once they’re deregulated, the ODA believes it no longer has authority over those crops.
“There were varied and strong perspectives among members on whether ODA should or could take on a larger role at present or if its authorities were changed,” the report said.
Oregon Consensus, a mediation program that’s assisting the task force, will adjust the draft language to incorporate changes discussed during the recent meeting.
“We want to find a solution everybody can live with,” said Peter Harkema, project manager for the program.
The task force plans to ask the public to comment on its report at a meeting in Salem, Ore., in mid-November, though a firm date has yet to be set.
A draft version of the report is available online at www.oregon.gov/gov/gnro/.
Source: www.capitalpress.com