Organic Farmer Aug/Sept 2019

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Organic Agriculture and the New Biotechnology By BRIAN BAKER | Contributing Writer OF ALL THE QUESTIONS that were up for debate in the development of organic standards in the 1990s, the most contentious was likely the use of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques. Early efforts to introduce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their products to organic farming and food systems throughout the world were not well received. In the United States, the question was hotly debated by the thennew National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and culminated in a recommendation not to accept the technology. In 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed allowing specific applications of genetic engineering and asked for public comment on a blanket allowance. Public comments in response overwhelmingly opposed allowing recombinant DNA techniques and the release of GMOs on organic farms. In 2000, the final National Organic Program (NOP) rule prohibited genetic engineering in the form of “excluded methods”. Transgenics Since that time, both organic agriculture and biotechnology have continued to develop. New techniques to manipulate genetic information have been developed in recent years and are now in the process of being commercialized. Instead of transferring genetic information from one species to another—a process known as “transgenics”—many of the new techniques rely on modifying the existing genetic structure within the species. These include editing, deletion, multiplication or manipulation of genetic sequences as well as new techniques to induce mutations. The proponents of the gene editing describe the technology as being more precise than previous methods of genetic modification. CRISPR One of the new techniques that has received attention is known as CRISPR, which is short for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats”. Cas9 is the CRISPR-associated protein 9, which is an enzyme that can be used identify sequences, cut and splice them into different sections of a cell’s genome. The technique can also be used to silence (turn off) genes, delete them entirely, or duplicate them. Some claim that, because the technique does not involve the transfer of genetic material between species, the same modifications could result naturally from random mutation, at least in theory. Another genome editing technique is known as TALEN, which stands for Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases. While commercial applications thus far are limited, the technologies are receiving a lot of attention, funding and investment in academic and industrial settings because of the perceived potential for the new technology to replace classical breeding techniques. The question has come up in the organic community as to whether there might be any applications of gene editing technology that would be compatible with organic farming systems. Excluded Methods In April 2016, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) determined several gene editing and targeted genetic modification techniques, including CRISPR-Cas, zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) mutagenesis and oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM) to be excluded methods. Gene silencing, reverse breeding, synthetic biology, cloned animals and offspring, and plastid transformation were also included in the NOSB’s findings and recommendations. Cisgenesis, intragenesis, and agro-infiltration were later added to the NOSB’s list of excluded methods in November 2017. These are widely accepted to be excluded methods in organic production and handling systems and recommended that the USDA issue a clarification. The NOSB noted unanimous public comment that supported adding these three techniques to the excluded methods list. The USDA did the same for cell fusion techniques in 2013. The USDA has not yet responded to these NOSB recommendations. Those who were involved in responding to the first proposed rule find themselves in familiar territory. “I see history repeating itself,” said former NOSB Chair Michael Sligh. “Whatever 30 Organic Farmer August/September 2019
promises the new technologies have, they are unlikely to reach their potential given the lack of a holistic approach and the larger issues of who owns the technology, who decides how it will be applied and who pays when it goes awry.” Mandatory Labeling The USDA has also developed mandatory labeling regulations for bioengineered foods. The status of foods developed using these new techniques is still an open question. If the foods can be developed through conventional breeding technique or are found in nature, then they are not subject. Similarly, foods where bioengineering techniques cannot be discovered are also exempt. However, it is currently unknown whether novel foods not found in nature and developed with these new technologies could be developed with conventional techniques. Different laboratories indicate that the ability to detect foods made from the new techniques will be possible given reference material that has the “fingerprint” of the bioengineered food. Companies that develop such food are considered by laboratories and USDA Accredited Certifying Agents to be likely to use a marker or identifying sequence to be able to protect their intellectual property before they commercially release such products. Gene Editing Academic and industry sources claim that gene editing has several advantages over earlier recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, such as precision and predictability. However, such advantages are not obvious to various farmers, seed companies, and others involved in the organic community, who have expressed skepticism in their public comments. The companies that introduced the earlier techniques made similar claims that turned out to be inaccurate, at least in some cases. While there are some organic farmers who think that there may be potential benefits someday, no known existing applications are accepted. As before, the proponents claim equivalency with existing classical breeding, while at the same time distinguishing it from classical breeding in terms of novelty, speed, and ability to modify the organisms to get certain specific traits. Among plant breeders, the distinction between the two approaches is starker. International Implications The new technology is expected to have international implications. The European Court of Justice ruled in July of 2018 that CRISPR-Cas is a form of genetic engineering and food produced by it is subject to the European Union’s (EU) GE food labeling law. The international organic network IFOAM-Organics International published a position paper on the Compatibility of Breeding Techniques in Organic Systems. The paper documents the potential for new genetic disruption caused by the release of the technology. As in the US, the subject of the use of genetic engineering techniques has been the subject of a polarizing debate. Monika Messmer of the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture in Switzerland, Continued on Page 32 Essential Minerals For Certified Organic Farms Higher Yields. All Natural. Better Quality. Continued on Page 31 Call 1.800.451.2888 or learn more at intrepidtrio.com August/September 2019 www.organicfarmermag.com 31
Page 1 and 2: August/September 2019 Adopting Dive
Page 3 and 4: Organic FARMER 4 10 18 22 30 34 38
Page 5 and 6: example, in biodiverse ecosystems,
Page 7 and 8: Navel Orangeworm Control! Mating di
Page 9 and 10: services, majority of them do. To a
Page 11 and 12: NON-GMO 100% Water Soluble 80%+ Ami
Page 13 and 14: Bio With Bite.
Page 16 and 17: Figure 3. Spinach plants infested b
Page 18 and 19: Using Concentrated Organic Fertiliz
Page 20 and 21: Continued from Page 18 expensive an
Page 22 and 23: PROTECTING THE WHOLE ORGANIC FARM J
Page 24 and 25: Continued from Page 23 • The appr
Page 26 and 27: Powered By: AG MARKETING SOLUTIONS
Page 29: 2-Day Agenda 7.5 Hours of PCA Credi
Page 33 and 34: Providing the Gold Standard for Fer
Page 35 and 36: The research that led to this findi
Page 37 and 38: COMPOST 100% Fully Composted Dairy
Page 39 and 40: THE LATEST REPORT FROM the Intergov
Page 41 and 42: Helping Farmers Grow Naturally Sinc
Page 43 and 44: August/September 2019 www.organicfa
Page 45 and 46: control options, including cultural
Page 47 and 48: Multi-Target Navel Orangeworm Monit

Organic Farmer Aug/Sept 2019

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?