Kent J. Bradford. Seed Biotechnology Center Department of Plant Sciences University of California Davis, CA

Transcription

1 Kent J. Bradford Seed Biotechnology Center Department of Plant Sciences University of California Davis, CA

2 Gene Flow in Agriculture Gene flow can and does occur in nature and in agriculture through pollen (sexual crosses) and seed dispersal. Gene flow can be good (maintain or increase genetic diversity) or bad (loss of genetic identity in crop varieties). In cases where it is not desired, methods to prevent or mitigate gene flow are needed: In seed production, where prevention of outcrossing may be desired to maintain varietal identity. Where gene flow/outcrossing could result in undesirable characteristics in the product: Rape seed and canola, popcorn and field corn Transgenes in organic or non-ge products

3 Glyphosate-tolerant Alfalfa 2005: USDA deregulates glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa 2007: Court rescinds the approval on the grounds that the agency failed to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the issue of gene flow and co-existence between genetically engineered and conventional varieties 2010: USDA completes EIS and three alternatives were proposed: 1. No deregulation 2. Complete deregulation 3. Partial deregulation with conditions and restrictions 2010: USDA Secretary Vilsack meets with interest groups to try to foster co-existence and avoid lawsuits 2011: Alternative 2 is chosen and GT alfalfa is deregulated again 2011: Another lawsuit is filed challenging USDA s decision

4 USDA Requests Conference on Gene Flow and Co-existence USDA-NIFA (Roger Beachy) asks Allen Van Deynze and SBC to organize a conference to discuss the science of gene flow and methods to prevent or mitigated it to foster co-existence of GM and non-gm agricultural sectors. Experts in diverse aspect of gene flow invited to present current state of the art and to discuss strategies to prevent, minimize or mitigate unwanted gene flow. 120 representatives of regulatory agencies, seed companies, NGOs, trade associations, and universities participated. Proceedings and discussions to be written for publication to summarize the current situation. Proceedings available at

5 Conference Program Impact of Gene Flow on Agriculture Economic impact of gene flow N. Kalaitzandonakes Univ. of Missouri Maintaining seed purity in the seed industry R. Dunkle ASTA Implications of gene flow on organic farming M. Lipson USDA Gene flow and germplasm conservation S. Greene USDA/ARS Potential impact of gene flow mitigation K. Bradford Univ. of Cal., Davis Gene Flow in the Environment Outcrossing to wild relatives A. Smith Ohio State Univ. Persistence of genes in the environment J. DiTomaso Univ. of Cal., Davis Movement of genes in grasses C. Mallory-Smith Oregon State Univ. Movement of honeybees in alfalfa J. Hagler USDA/ARS Gene flow in alfalfa L. Teuber Univ. of Cal., Davis Challenges of organic alfalfa seed production R. Johnson TopNotch Seed Gene flow between feral and cultivated alfalfa R. Van Acker Univ. of Guelph Gene Flow Mitigation Strategies Overview of male sterility strategies N. Stewart Univ. of Tennessee Cross incompatibility systems in maize M. Evans Stanford Univ. Transgenic flower sterility strategies Z. Liu Univ. of Maryland Male sterility hybrid systems M. Albertson Pioneer Hi-Bred Transgenic seed sterility systems M. Portereiko Ceres Reversible male sterility-chloroplasts H. Daniell Univ. of Central Florida Transgenic containment in trees S. Strauss Oregon State Univ.

6 Costs of Segregation and Tolerance Levels N. Kalaitzandonakes Nick Kalaitzandonakes studied maize production centers in US and France. Segregation costs increase rapidly and non-linearly as tolerance thresholds decrease.

7 ASTA Guide to Seed Quality Management Practices Ric Dunkle presented an overview of the Seed Quality Management Practices developed by ASTA. Available at:

8 United States Department of Agriculture Organic & Sustainable Agriculture Policy Implications of Gene Flow for Organic Agriculture The Science of Gene Flow and its Role in Coexistence Washington, D.C. September 6, 2011 MARK LIPSON U.S. Department of Agriculture Organic & Sustainable Agriculture Policy Advisor

9 United States Department of Agriculture Organic & Sustainable Agriculture Policy POLICY FRAMEWORK TO INFORM RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH Regulatory Impacts Commercial Impacts Agroecosystem Impacts

10 Science of Gene Flow Conference September 7, 2011 Washington D.C. Importance of Gene Flow to Germplasm Conservation and Development Stephanie L. Greene USDA, ARS Prosser, WA

11 Gene Flow in the Environment Alison Snow described situations where there can be gene flow from crops to related wild relatives, as in sunflower. Joe DiTomaso discussed experimental data and modeling to predict whether species would potentially become invasive, such as for switchgrass or Miscanthus biofuel crops.

12 Gene Flow in Alfalfa James Hagler and Larry Teuber described experiments to determine distances that honey bees will move alfalfa pollen.

13 Gene Flow in Alfalfa Ray Johnson described the challenges of producing alfalfa seed for diverse markets (organic, export, domestic) in the Imperial Valley. Rene Van Acker described experiments in Canada on gene presence, persistence and flow of feral alfalfa.

14 Gene Flow Mitigation Strategies Remaining speakers discussed various biological approaches to prevent/reduce gene flow from transgenic plants: Male sterility Cross incompatibility to pollen carrying transgenes Chloroplastic reversible male sterility Transactivation systems to have fertile parents that produce FI hybrids that are male sterile Male sterile pine trees have been tested Delayed flowering also being studied in trees Forest Stewardship Council genetically modified trees are prohibited Green certification systems prevent even contained research on GE trees, restricting ability of public sector with companies with this certification.

15 Summary Gene flow, and strategies to mitigate it, can create economic issues. Gene flow to related species or feral populations could have fitness consequences that need to be studied. Biofuel species may need special attention to prevent invasiveness. Various strategies to control fertility in transgenic plants are being studied that could help mitigate gene flow. Consensus that absolute containment or zero-tolerance thresholds were not achievable in practice, but that gene flow could be reduced to very low levels that would meet end-use based standards and have minimal environmental impact, based largely on existing knowledge and practices in the seed industry.

16 Potential Impacts of Gene Flow Mitigation Requirements Remainder of talk is derived from KJB s presentation at the workshop. While gene flow can create economic problems in the marketplace, regulations in place or under consideration can also have economic impacts. The seed industry has long experience in managing gene flow to achieve desired purity levels, to produce hybrids, and to keep different crop types separate. Recent regulatory decisions and court rulings can have unanticipated consequences, including on the groups that support them.

17 Preventing Gene Flow The major method to prevent gene flow is distance. The isolation distance required is: Primarily determined by pollination mechanism Selfed crops Outcrossed crops Secondarily determined by consequences of outcrossing Variety characteristics (yellow versus red onions) Hybrids (labeling limits on percentage outcrossing) Marketing considerations Has become more critical with transgenic crops Due to sensitive detection and market restrictions, very low level presence can be problematic.

18 Web-based Isolation Pin Map The California Crop Improvement Association manages an isolation map with Google maps and tools for measuring distances between pinned fields.

19 Use of Cages in Pollination of Seed Crops

20 Pollination in in Hybrid Seed Production Sunflower Maize The seed industry has long dealt with managing gene flow, which is usually achieved through voluntary cooperation among growers. Cucumber

21 Trends in GE Crop Production Soybean Maize Cotton Percent of crop area Sugar beet Genetically engineered (GE) varieties have been adopted by ~90% of farmers in the crops in which they are available. GE soybean, maize and cotton (164 million acres in 2011) equaled 51% of the total 319 million acres planted to all crops in the US in

22 Trends in Organic Crop Production Organic production bans the use of GE crops, and seeks to maintain GE-free products. Organic crop production is currently about 0.7% of total crop area in the US, and about 1.1% of total farm gate value ($3.1 billion out of $280 billion). Graphs by Steve Savage based on USDA-NASS and USDA-ERS data.

23 Alfalfa Certified Seed Isolation Negible hay field Important? 165 hay field seed field 165 seed field Shannon Mueller

24 Alfalfa Certified Seed Standards Isolation: 900 ft (1/6 mile) 165 ft (1/35 mile) California Crop Improvement Association Alfalfa Certification Standards

25 Proposed Gene Flow Mitigation For Alfalfa USDA Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3 (proposed) for gene flow mitigation: In Tier III states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) GT alfalfa for forage cannot be planted in counties where alfalfa seed is grown (based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture). GT alfalfa seed production will be limited to the geographic areas in Tiers II and III where the grower can maintain isolation distances of 5 miles between GT alfalfa and conventional alfalfa.

26 Regulation by Counties: Different Perspectives?

27 Regulatory Restrictions by Counties Regulating crop choices by county would have large impacts in California.

28 No Hay Production Where Seed Produced in 2007 If planting any GT alfalfa were prohibited in counties in which seed production occurred in 2007: 45% of growers and 57% of the acres in California would have had their crop choices restricted. This would be the case even though seed production is only 3-4% of the total alfalfa acreage in California. Impact of proposed USDA-APHIS restrictions on California Haygrowers. In this example, acreage allowed under proposed restrictions based upon 2007 census of Agriculture are shown. Percentage acreage or tonnage permitted under proposed restrictions is shown. Scenario Growers Acreage Production No Restrictions 3, , million Restrictions (2007 Census) 1,958 (55%) 425,783 (43%) 2.9 million (41%) (data from USDA-NASS Census of Agriculture - online sources) Source: Dr. Dan Putnam, University of California, Davis

29 Five-Mile Isolation for GT Seed Production This isolation distance is 2.5 times greater than pollination and gene flow data indicate is required to reduce gene flow to very close to zero, and 30 times greater than Foundation seed requirements. Five-mile radius zones on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. A circle of radius 5 miles encompasses 78.5 square miles, or 50,265 acres, not considering the size of the farm itself.

30 Two-Mile Isolation for GT Seed Production Two-mile isolation zones would be sufficient to reduce gene flow to extremely low levels, and would allow much more flexibility for choice and co-existence. A = π r 2 A circle of 2-mile radius encloses 12.6 square miles (8,038 acres) or 84% less area than a 5-mile radius. Increasing the radius of isolation zones exponentially increases the affected area, with insignificant effects on gene flow.

31 Voluntary Isolation Guidelines and Export Zones The USDA in the end did not adopt Alternative 3, and approved GT alfalfa without regulatory restrictions. The alfalfa industry instead voluntarily agreed to keep the Imperial Valley a GT alfalfa-free zone to facilitate export and organic production, and to the 5-mile isolation buffer for seed production.

32 Gene Flow Mitigation: Glyphosate-tolerant Sugar Beets 2005: USDA deregulates glyphosate-tolerant (GT) sugar beets 2009: Court rescinds the approval on the grounds that the agency failed to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the issue of coexistence between genetically engineered and conventional varieties 2010: Further court actions on injunction suits 2011: USDA allows sugar beet seed and root production to continue under rigorous, mandatory restrictions to mitigate gene flow until the EIS is completed and final decision rendered on deregulation. Under permit (many monitoring and reporting requirements) Some excluded areas (including all of California) 4-mile isolation from all other Beta crops

33 Environmental Impact No health or safety issues were claimed. The environmental impact was based on the following: Plaintiffs contend that one significant environmental impact resulting from the deregulation of Roundup Ready sugar beets is that genetically-engineered sugar beet seeds [sic] may cross-pollinate with and thus genetically modify non-genetically engineered sugar beets and Beta related Swiss chard and table beet seed, all of which are grown in the same valley in Oregon.

34 Environmental Impact: Background Context: Virtually all of US sugar beet seed is produced in Oregon, and 70% of that in the Willamette Valley ~2500 acres, 200 growers, $8 million in value per year Sugar beet seeds produced in Oregon support 1.1 million acres of root production worth $1.5 billion annually Red beet seed production in Oregon is ~79 acres. Swiss chard seed production in Oregon is not reported, but probably less than the 80 acres each in Washington and in California. Declaration of Frank Morton, Wild Garden Seed, Philomath, OR: Currently, the loss of organic Beta vulgaris crops [e.g., swiss chard and table beet] due to biological contamination from GE sugar beets would cost me $15,000 per year.

35 Willamette Valley, Oregon A

36 Willamette Valley, Oregon with Isolation Zones 4 miles ~ 12 farms 10 miles ~ 2 farms

37 Fundamental Rights? Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 2011 The USDA s decision threatens the fundamental right of conventional and organic farmers to sow the crop of their choice. Fundamental right, unless your choice is to grow GT sugar beets: Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin the further planting, cultivation, processing, or other use Roundup Ready sugar beets or sugar beet seeds...

38 Mitigation: Compensation Funds It has also been proposed that in order to mitigate injury due to gene flow, developers of GE crops should establish a compensation fund that, according to the National Organic Coalition, would not only pay for any losses that actually occur, but should also cover costs for: Sampling and testing Buffer zone control, including production acreage losses Segregation and commingling prevention plans, including on-farm and post-harvest and all related supply-chain integrity costs Seed contamination Market price differentials Additional categories as documented and deemed necessary to ensure viable non-gmo farming and marketing opportunities. Note: This has not been the operating principle in the seed industry, where the entity that is seeking the more stringent standards and higher value market has shouldered the costs for meeting that standard. /GEAlfalfa/ProposedCompensationPlan.pdf

39 AC21: Compensation Funds The USDA s Advisory Committee for the 21 st Century (ACT21) has been reappointed (August 2011) and the two questions before it are: 1. What types of compensation mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate to address economic losses by farmers in which the value of their crops is reduced by unintended presence of GE material(s)? 2. What would be necessary to implement such mechanisms? That is, what would be the eligibility standard for a loss and what tools and triggers (e.g., tolerances, testing protocols, etc.) would be needed to verify and measure such losses and determine if claims are compensable?

40 Reciprocal Compensation Funds? Assuming that such compensation funds are established to mitigate the impacts of gene flow, and that growers deserve to be compensated for the consequences of cropping choices made by their neighbors, Who will provide a compensation fund for the growers in the 50,000+ acres in a GE-free isolation zone established around an organic farm? They are denied their fundamental right to choose the crop of their choice; They suffer economic loss due to the inability to grow the most economical and productive varieties; They should be entitled to compensation for their losses that allow the organic growers to meet their market standards.

41 Compensation Funds Compensating Benefits? It is interesting to note in this context that in some situations, it is in fact the conventional/ge growers who make organic production possible: Without control of papaya ring spot virus by GE varieties in Hawaii, it would not be possible to grow organic papayas there. Organic cotton production in Arizona is feasible because the most severe insect pests are controlled by conventional/ge farmers. Insect-resistant maize in the Midwest returned $2.6 billion in benefits to adopters of those varieties, but returned $4.3 billion to non-adopters due to reducing insect populations regionally.* How might these benefits, which enable viable organic production and marketing opportunities to occur, be calculated into a fair compensation fund? *Hutchison et al Science 330:

42 Principles Associated with Recent Court Rulings Recent law suits and court rulings are moving toward establishing some propositions that have implications for gene flow mitigation and co-existence: 1. Farmers have a fundamental right to grow the seeds of their choice. 2. Organic farmers deserve protection in the form of large isolation zones and compensation funds to protect them and make them whole for any losses associated with GE presence. 3. Economic injury is a form of environmental impact, and is subject to National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) jurisdiction. 4. Farmers should be fully responsible and liable (based on strict liability) for anything that leaves their farm and causes economic injury to another farm.

43 Logical Consequences If Principle 1 is true, then the fundamental right of crop choice should also extend to growers who chose to plant GE varieties. If Principle 2 is true, then organic farmers are entitled to large buffer zones to protect them from unwanted gene flow in which other farmers would not be allowed to plant GE crops. If Principle 3 is true, then the economic loss sustained by those potential GE growers as a result of not being allowed to grow the most economical/productive varieties is an environmental impact of the organic farm on their neighbors under NEPA. Thus, if buffer zones are mandated for organic farms, the National Organic Program (NOP) must be required under NEPA to do an Environmental Impact Statement before certifying an organic farm. Based on the alfalfa and sugar beet rulings, the NOP would be enjoined from any further certifications until the EIS is completed.

44 Government Action under NEPA Quoting from Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 2011: Direct effects are those "which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place." 40 C.F.R (a). Indirect effects are those "which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." 40 C.F.R (b). A cumulative impact constitutes the "impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." 40 C.F.R Imposition of mandatory isolation zones to mitigate gene flow would require an EIS to consider economic impacts on neighboring farmers.

45 Further Logical Consequences If Principle 4 (strict liability) is true, then one has to revisit the declaration of Mr. Morton in the sugar beet lawsuit, where he stated: at 6 miles away, red chard traits appeared in the target sugar beets at a rate just below 1 in 10,000 pollinations. At a distance of 8 miles, red chard traits were still within detectable limits. I believe that the study indicated that 10 miles was necessary to avoid detectable cross pollinations from upwind red chard pollen. Under a strict liability standard, this would mean that if Mr. Morton s red chard plants resulted in pollination of a sugar beet seed field, the sugar beet seed grower would be entitled to sue Mr. Morton for the consequent economic loss of value of the seed crop. Pollen blows both ways. Establishment of a strict liability standard for pollen flow in agriculture would potentially result in a legal free-for-all.

46 Conclusions Gene flow can have serious consequences for both GE and non-ge growers. The seed industry has long experience in managing gene flow and keeping it to levels that can meet pragmatic market standards. In most cases, this occurs by discussion and cooperation within the industry, all the way from seed production to end users, to enable everyone to meet their market goals. Mitigation measures to limit gene flow can also have serious consequences that may be greater than the problem they seek to fix. The establishment of pragmatic, attainable thresholds, rather than a zero-tolerance limit, is essential to co-existence. Some recent judicial rulings are establishing principles that could well be disruptive and increase liability for all segments of agriculture.