GE-Free legislation drives CE/AES education

1. GE-Free legislation drives CE/AES education Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology and Genomics alvaneenennaam@ucdavis.edu 6/14/2005 Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Education

2. It all began one sunny September day in 2003....

3. Maybe we should we show some interest ?

4. Yep – we should definitely show some interest !

5. A coalition committed to ecologically responsible and economically viable agriculture. We provide education, training and resources in support of the rights of farmers and communities to protect themselves from the environmental, human health and economic risks of genetic engineering in agriculture. • Coalition Members • California Certified Organic Farmers - CCOF • The Center for Environmental Health • Center for Food Safety Community Alliance with Family Farmers • Ecological Farming Association - EFA • Four Elements Farm • Genetic Engineering Action Network • Occidental Arts and Ecology Center • Organic Consumers Association • Funding sources • Ben and Jerry's Foundation • Patagonia • Columbia Foundation • John Merck Fund • Firedoll Foundation • Gaia Fund • Sierra Fund: Funk Charitable Trust • Wendy P. McCaw Foundation • William Zimmerman Foundation • Pacific Chapter of the National Cooperative Grocers Association • Chico Natural Foods • Co-oportunity Consumers Co-op • North Coast Co-op • Ocean Beach People's Food Co-op • Quincy Natural Foods • Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op • Briar Patch Community Market • Ukiah Natural Foods

6. Makes it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically modified organisms in Mendocino County

7. Worked in collaboration with, and at the request of, local farm advisors (John Harper, Gregg Giusti, Glenn McGourty) to provide objective science-based information Employers Council of Mendocino County, 1/16/04 (Lemaux and Van Eenennaam) Mendocino College, 2/26/04 (KentBradford) Wrote 4 fact-based pieces on different aspects of genetic engineering for local newspaper (Lemaux, Van Eenennaam, McHughen, Gusti) Mendocino Educational EffortsCE maintained neutrality

8. “I will be voting yes on Measure H for many reasons, but mostly because GMOs have affected me personally. When my son was 6 month (sic) old and receiving chemotherapy for leukemia, he was also receiving soy lipids (fat) intraveneously because he had lost the ability to eat or drink. The longer he received the lipids, the higher the dose of chemo. When I asked why I was told that the soybeans used were genetically modified to be “Round Up Ready,” they were putting food into my son’s veins that could withstand the chemicals they were using to kill the leukemia blood cells, making the chemo less effective. In order to keep my son alive nutritionally, the higher doses of chemo almost took him away ” Jenny Shattuck-Hale, Ukiah Daily Journal, 2/20/04. The discourse in Mendocino was inflamed by alarming assertions and facts that are not derived from, nor supported by, the scientific literature

9. And so now in Mendocino county if nowhere else in the world “DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid means a complex protein that is present in every cell of an organism” Measure won by ~ 3,240 votes. Shortly thereafter Board of Supervisors voted to ban GE in Trinity county (8/04) . At the time of these votes, there were no GE plants or animals in production in either Mendocino or Trinity County. March 2, 2004, Mendocino. Measure H passed 56.3% for and 43.7% against.

10. And by August 2004 it had developed into an “issue”

11. Despite an attempt to obtain funding for Biotechnology outreach activities (3/04), program council “did not feel that there was any urgency to this issue” and even formulating an ANR position statement emphasizing the need for science-based information on the issue proved to be unattainable WE FORGED AHEAD ANYWAY IN RESPONSE TO DEMAND FROM COUNTY-BASED CE ADVISORS UCCE was by definition neutral on the issue – focused on outreach providing science-based information to voters. Needed AES expertise to provide answers to a plethora of very technical questions Also needed scientists familiar with the issues who were willing to take a position for “debate” formats AES faculty - Kent Bradford, Rick Roush, Martina McGloughlin, even Reg Gomes was a speaker at a forum in Marin ! What was Biotech workgroup’s response ?

12. California State Farm Bureau, Sacramento, 5/14/04, Lemaux and Van Eenennaam UCCE farm advisors and agricultural commissioners on GM initiatives in Davis 6/22/2004 and Monterey 6/29/2004 , Lemaux and Van Eenennaam Lake County Sierra Club, 9/7/2004, Bradford State agricultural commissioners, Yolo, Lemaux California Planting Cotton Seed Distributors (CPCSD) Expo., 9/14/2004, Shafter, KernCounty, Roush Santa Cruz Agricultural Policy Advisory Commission, 9/16/2004, Lemaux and Van Eenennaam UCCE Small Grains workshop, Davis 9/22/2004, Van Eenennaam UC Davis Campus Greens, Environmental Law Society, UC Davis students for Sustainable Agriculture, and Yolo GE-Free Agriculture, 10/8/2004, Roush Sacramento Organics, Yolo GE-Free Agriculture, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Davis, 10/8/2004 Roush and Bradford CSU Chico, 9/22/2004, McHughen CSU San Luis Obispo, 10/6/2004, McHughen CSU HumboltState, 10/27/04, Lemaux Marin Conservation League, 10/28/2004, Bradford Presentation on anti-GE initiatives to ANR Pest Management Coordinating Conference, San Benadino, 11/2/2004 Lemaux,Van Eenennaam and Vargas Presentation “Genetic Engineering in California Agriculture” to UCCE San Benito County Continuing Education Seminar, Hollister, 12/9/2004, Van Eenennaam Presentation “Genetic Engineering in California Agriculture” to Tulare Ag Expo, 2/8/2005, Lemaux and Van Eenennaam Presentation “Genetic Engineering in California Agriculture” to California Agriculture Symposium, Sacramento, 3/23-24/2005, Van Eenennaam Presentation “Genetic Engineering in California Agriculture” to Sonoma American Association of University Women (AAUW), Healdsburg, 3/31/05, Van Eenennaam Presentation “Genetic Engineering in California Agriculture” to the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, 4/20/05, Van Eenennaam Presentations given to local groups at their request 2004/05....

13. A 30 minute peer-reviewed video explains the science behind genetic engineering was developed with funding from the Animal Science Department http://groups.ucanr.org/anronuctv/Video_Program_Sales_Information/ • “Genetic Engineering in California Agriculture” • Development began 6/1 and released 9/1/2004. • Over 100 VHS or DVD copies were provided to all interested UCCE county extension educators and agricultural commissioner offices • The video was also made freely available to a wide general audience in September 2004 though innovative distribution channels including broadcasting on UCTV (“Dish Network” Station 9412) and local cable stations throughout the state, and a direct streaming link (mms://STREAM.ucanr.org/Windows Media/UCTV_04_06.asf).

14. ANTI-GMO ORDINANCES PASSED ANTI-GMO ORDINANCE VOTED ON AND REJECTED, NOVEMBER 2004 ANTI-GMO ORDINANCES UNDER CONSIDERATION ANTI-GMO ORDINANCE QUALIFIED FOR BALLOT PRO-GMO RESOLUTION PASSED Green outline denotes major GE-crop growing areas As of 5/25/05

15. Counties where CE GE informational outreach events have been held GE Outreach Efforts 2004-2005

16. “Co-existence is related to the principle that all farmers should be able to cultivate freely the crops of their choice using the production system they prefer. The general concept of co-existence is already well established in California agriculture with conventional, organic, and integrated pest management systems working successfully together.” One of the most divisive issues regarding genetic engineering is the suggestion that a choice must be made between either “organic agriculture” OR “genetic engineering”.

17. Co-PIs and Collaborators ANR Kent Brittan, Benny Fouche, Peggy Lemaux, Alan McHughen, Dan Putnam, Alison Van Eenennaam, Ron Vargas, Carl Winter, Dan Putnam AES Kent Bradford, Norman Ellstrand , Pam Ronald , Rick Roush, Brian Wright ANR CORE ISSUES GRANT APPLICATION: Co-existence of Diverse Production Systems in California Agriculture: Development of Science-based Educational Materials and Outreach Programs.

18. Co-existence of Diverse Production Systems in California Agriculture: Development of Science-based Educational Materials and Outreach Programs. $35,000 • Development of science-based educational materials on specific concerns with regard to the use of genetic engineering in California agriculture. • Development of educational materials on methods to enable co-existence. • Travel for project planning, UCCE "Train the trainer" workshops, educational symposia and forums.

19. Conclusions • This issue involved the whole continuum because there was a demand for the information in the counties, and there were campus-based AES and CE people with expertise who were willing to participate • This outreach effort in 2004 was essentially done in the absence of any institutional support – sometimes the job gets done in spite of the system • As a result of the connections that were made in this effort we were able to put together a successful ANR grant application with strong CE and AES participation and support