Mendocino County, California, was the first jurisdiction in the United States to ban the cultivation, production or distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The ordinance, entitled Measure H, was passed by referendum on March 2, 2004. Initiated by the group "GMO Free Mendocino", the campaign was a highly publicized grassroots effort by local farmers and environmental groups who contend that the potential risks of GMOs to human health and the ecosystem have not yet been fully understood. The measure was met with opposition by several interest groups representing the biotechnology industry, The California Plant Health Association (now the Western Plant Health Association) and CropLife America, a Washington-based consortium whose clients represent some of the largest food distributors in the nation, including Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical. Since the enactment of the ordinance, Mendocino County has been added to an international list of "GMO free zones." Pre-emptive statutes banning local municipalities from such ordinances have now become widespread with adoption in sixteen states.
Background GMOs are commonly considered to be any organism whose DNA has been modified by human intervention. Agricultural practices, however, have long used selective breeding techniques for the same purpose as modern biotechnology. Researchers now define genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) as those that are produced from a range of recombinant DNA technologies, which introduce a transgene into the genome of a host cell. The most widely practiced method involves the use of bacteria, which are able to penetrate the cell membrane of the host. Other methods include a "gene gun" or "biolistic particle delivery system". Recombinant DNA technology allows for the creation of synthetic genes with specific traits that have anthropogenic benefits. The term GEOs will be used here to describe organisms produced by the recombinant DNA technology commonly referred to by usage of the term GMOs.
Environmental concerns The geographic and temporal scope of the regulatory debate regarding transgenic organisms and recombinant DNA technology is vast. Environmental risk assessments must weigh unquantifiable long-term risks against high and quantifiable short-term benefits. There is widespread concern amongst environmental groups, organic farmers and the international community that the introduction of transgenic organisms into local ecosystems may cause irreversible loss of biodiversity when the new synthetic strains become predominant. Further concern comes from members of the medical community who warn of the risk that the antibiotics used in the production of many GEOs may give rise to more resistant strains of bacteria. While the scientific community generally acknowledges the possibility of these risks, the scenarios are hard to quantify, particularly in a Risk-Cost Benefit Analysis (RCBA) model commonly used in public policy. Proponents of the technology dispute many of these findings or the significance of the risk factors. They generally contend that the GE strains have no further evolutionary advantage than any other new strain introduced into a local ecosystem and that they behave in the same way. They also cite less need for pesticides than conventional non-organic crops. Opponents, by contrast, adhere to the precautionary principle, which advocates waiting until further study is done and puts the burden of proof on the producer to prove that their productive activities are no threat to the environment or human health before continuing. The precautionary principle has become the foundation of environmental policy for the EU.
Causes The promulgation of agricultural biotechnology follows a trajectory that began in what is commonly referred to as the "green revolution". In the twentieth century, industrial methods were increasingly applied to agriculture for the mass production of monocultures, large tracts of land used for the production of single high yield crops with the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The actual physical problem GEOs seek to address, most commonly, is the destruction of crops from pests. The gradual shift towards monoculture has increased the frequency and severity of pest invasion and infestation because of the lack of agricultural diversity. Many pests that threaten different crops are natural predators to each other, which helps to offset their impacts. When many miles of the same crop are planted, however, it leaves the local habitat more vulnerable to the threat of single pest. GEOs have brought short-term benefits in the control of pests by having genetically programmed immunities to the pesticides that are produced to be used along with them, such as the well-known post-emergence herbicide Roundup produced by Monsanto. The primary forces that are driving the production of GEOs, however, are social and economic. GEOs are the latest development in the drive to produce higher yields with less inputs, according to the profit maximization model. Proponents of the technology see it as an answer to growing food shortages in the face of rising global population. They also cite potential benefits, such as the creation of more healthy strains of produce, aquaculture or livestock, with higher nutrient content and less fat. Opponents of GEOs, however, argue that world hunger is caused by economic and political dynamics rather than scarcity so regardless of whether the yield is increased, the produce will not to flow through the supply chain to those in need.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
