We in Boulder County have front row seats to a drama being played out with plenty of audience participation. The story mimics great literature. There are impassioned and colorful characters, tensions between rural and urban ways of life, financial gain, political and philosophical differences of opinion, and of course political power plays. On November 30, 2016, the Boulder County Commissioners voted 2-1 to phase out genetically modified crops on county-owned farmland. The county commissioners voted April 13 to approve a plan that would ban GMO corn by the end of 2019 and sugar beets by the end of 2021.

Andre Housey. Photo courtesy of Andre Housey.

Famuer Rasmussen Jr., a third-generation Colorado farmer in Boulder County, who mostly farms on county land, spoke during the final two hours of testimony before the vote: “In farming, a five year deadline to force something new is the equivalent of a past-due notice. Making change in a responsible way takes patient work and time. Starting the clock on the transition plan before local research produces results is irresponsible.”

This was last fall, and the county process of hiring a contractor to conduct research on non-GMO farming options has yet to bear fruit. The county has committed to test methods that are not just steps backward in terms of production, profitability, and environmental impact through more plowing and spray- ing. This comes at a time when the County has recently hired Blake Cooper as the new Agricultural Resources Division Manager. The policy includes a provision that county staff work with the farmers to minimize financial hardship. Cooper is hopeful that creative solutions can be found: “There is a tremendous amount of progress we can make. Clearly both sides are highly emotional. We need to ratchet down the rhetoric, stay open- minded and look for ways we can find common ground and coexist.”

One of the crops frequently grown in the Boulder area is sugar beets. Non-GMO commercial sugar beet seeds are not available, so they will most likely be phased out of production on county land. Non-GMO corn is currently a part of conventional farmers’ rotations and farmers can demand higher prices for their harvest. Bob Condon of Cottonwood Farms grows non-GMO corn and expects to be able to sell it for a higher price than GMO corn. And certified organic corn could fetch even higher prices. Andre Housey of Jacobs Creek Farm says, “There is a demand for non- GMO grains in Boulder County. I am having to buy organic feed from Nebraska right now, others are doing the same, and we are paying a premium.” Converting to USDA organic is a costly process, though. New equipment may be needed, especially for weed control. Many
county farmers use ditch water which makes growing corn in this dry environment possible, but that also brings weeds along with it. Another expense is the record keeping and fees for the organic certification process. Con- don claims these expenses are part of what keeps him from getting certified Organic.

But regardless of the costs and drawbacks to phasing out GMO crops, the county votes of the past year mean that change is definitely a comin’. Some, like Housey, are looking for- ward to these changes. He says, “The people of Boulder County have spoken, and they are wanting a type of agriculture on their land that lines up more with their values.” But Rasmussen and others like him are not as excited about being told to remove the GMO tool from their shed, especially without empirical research to justify the arguments against it.

With the clock ticking towards towards the end of the GMO-era in Boulder, it remains to be seen whether farmers like Rasmussen will adapt or hang up their boots.

The post GMOs: Neighbor Feud appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

We in Boulder County have front row seats in a drama being played out with plenty of audience participation. This story mimics great literature. There are impassioned and colorful characters, tensions between rural and urban ways of life, financial gain, political and philosophical differences in opinion, and of course political power plays. On November 30, 2016, the Boulder County Commissioners voted 2-1 to phase out genetically modified crops on county-owned farmland. The county commissioners voted April 13 to approve a plan that would ban GMO corn by the end of 2019 and sugar beets by the end of 2021.

Famuer Rasmussen Jr., a third-generation Colorado farmer in Boulder County, who mostly farms on county land, spoke during the final two hours of testimony before the vote: “In farming, a five year deadline to force something new is the equivalent of a past-due notice. Making change in a responsible way takes patient work and time. Starting the clock on the transition plan before local research produces results is irresponsible.”

This was last fall, and the county process of hiring a contractor to conduct research on non-GMO farming options has yet to bear fruit. The county has committed to test methods that are not just steps backward in terms of production, profitability, and environmental impact through more plowing and spraying. This comes at a time when the County has recently hired Blake Cooper as the new Agricultural Resources Division Manager. The policy includes a provision that county staff work with the farmers to minimize financial hardship. Cooper is hopeful that creative solutions can be found: “There is a tremendous amount of progress we can make. Clearly both sides are highly emotional. We need to ratchet down the rhetoric, stay open-minded and look for ways we can find common ground and coexist.”

One of the crops frequently grown the Boulder area is sugar beets. Non-GMO commercial sugar beet seeds are not available, so they will most likely be phased out of production on county land. Non-GMO corn is currently a part of conventional farmers’ rotations and farmers can demand higher prices for their harvest. Bob Condon of Cottonwood Farms grows non-GMO corn and expects to be able to sell it for a higher price than GMO corn. And certified organic corn could fetch even higher prices. Andre Housey of Jacobs Creek Farm says, “There is a demand for non-GMO grains in Boulder County. I am having to buy Organic feed from Nebraska right now, others are doing the same, and we are paying a premium.” Converting to USDA organic is a costly process, though. New equipment may be needed especially for weed control. Many county farmers use ditch water which makes growing corn in this dry environment possible, but that also brings weeds along with it. Another expense is the record keeping and fees for the organic certification process. Condon claims these expenses are part of what keeps him from getting certified Organic.

But regardless of the costs and drawbacks to phasing out GMO crops, the County votes of the past year mean that change is definitely a comin’ Some, like Housey. are looking forward to these changes. He says, “The people of Boulder County have spoken, and they are wanting a type of agriculture on their land that lines up more with their values.” But Rasmussen and others like him are not as excited about being told to remove the GMO tool from their shed, especially without empirical research to justify the arguments against it.

With the clock ticking towards towards the end of the GMO-era in Boulder, it remains to be seen whether farmers like Rasmussen will adapt or hang up their boots.Check back in the pages of Yellow Scene for future developments on this hot-button issue.

The post GMOs: Neighbor Fued appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

It’s one of the hottest topics in food: Genetically modified organisms are center stage with farmers suing ag corporations over the right to grow non-GMOs, watchdogs suing food corporations over the word “natural” on products with GMO ingredients, and protestors targeting Whole Foods’ GMO labeling.

Boulder drew national attention when officials with Boulder County’s Parks and Open Space agreed to allow genetically modified beet crops to be grown on public lands. But what’s the fuss all about? Are GMOs really the devil incarnate, as some food crusaders would have us believe?

A genetically modified organism’s genetic material has been altered through technology. This means combining DNA from different sources to create new DNA that produces a specific, desirable feature. Most often, that feature in crops is resistance to an herbicide, to make clearing away other weeds easier, or production of an internal pesticide.

Doesn’t sound like evil hocus pocus on the surface. In fact, farmers have done the low-tech version of this from time immemorial: crossing two different plants or animals in hopes of getting the best qualities of each. Think pluots (part plum, part apricot) or Labradoodles.

Some see GMOs as the natural continuation of this process; others believe we cannot possibly comprehend the full ramifications of engineering these organisms without the natural “fail safes” that are built in by the limitations of crossbreeding.

Although big ag companies claim GMO crops produce higher yields, studies have failed to back that up. In addition, GMO crops are often bred to resist highly toxic herbicides, which are then sprayed onto fields in high doses to kill off competing plants. This process only increases reliance on chemicals and contributes to pollution of the environment. Another big complaint is the addition of “terminator” or “traitor” genes that cause crops to yield sterile seeds—requiring farmers to buy new seeds from the seed producer every year, rather than gathering and saving a portion of the seed to replant.

Around the world, nearly 50 industrialized countries have banned or severely restricted the use of GMO crops, but the United States does not set any limits on GMOs. And, despite growing public outcry, the United States does not require companies to label products with GMO ingredients, and voluntary labeling efforts are still in their infancy.

There simply isn’t enough research to know whether GMO crops are a hazard to our health, but there is plenty of evidence to say that they are hazardous to our environment and our community, if only by proxy. The question, then, is not so much one of an outright ban—but one of education and of helping us as consumers make informed choices. Unfortunately, choosing non-GMO products isn’t as easy as going organic or even buying local. But the more often we go the extra mile to vote with our dollars and go non-GMO, the more likely a national standard will soon be set.

5 Fast Facts About GMOs:

1. In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80 percent of conventional processed food.

2. Worldwide, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced.

3. Crops at high risk for GMO contamination include: alfalfa, corn, canola, cotton, papaya, soy, sugar beets, zucchini, and yellow squash.

4. Milk, meat, eggs, and honey are also at high-risk for containing GMOs because of contaminated feed.

5. The Non-GMO Project Verified seal is the only third-party verified label for non-GMO products.

The post The GMO Game appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The future of Boulder County’s local-, organic-food-filled plates lies in the hands of non-elected officials this month as Boulder County’s Parks and Open Space moves forward with its first-ever comprehensive cropland policy. If Commissioner Will Toor approves the nine-part policy draft—a constitution for open space management—it would include provisions for local food production and distribution, water use and conservation, ecological approaches to agriculture, accommodating farmers’ needs and increased transparency.

Public attention, however, has focused almost entirely on a half-page subpoint in the 14-page policy draft that would allow additional genetically modified crops on the county’s 16,000 acres of plantable open space cropland. It’s a big deal for organics lovers… though, genetically modified corn has been allowed on open space since 2003, and the 200 acres of sugar beet fields that spurred this debate are surrounded by genetically modified sugar beets, said David Bell, county agricultural resource manager.

Area open space farming operations are relatively small, as is the GM portion of open space cropland, so this policy focuses on balancing local economy, ecology and community support, said Jesse Rounds, BCPOS natural
resource planner.

“It’s really about, how do we make sure at each decision point we’re doing the best we can for all three of those,” Rounds said. “We are proposing to expand our organic farming programs, lowering the barriers to entering that market, supporting local food efforts and also popularizing and promoting the fact that most of the crops we do grow here, whether they’re grown on 500 acres or 10 acres, end up in the local food economy.”

The policy recognizes the ecological value in aquatic ecosystems on and around agricultural land and promotes conservation as well as farmers’ needs, Rounds said.

Rounds manages the Cropland Policy Advisory Group and its policy recommendation as it makes its way up the county government food chain to the commissioner who will make the final approval.

“The reason this policy exists is to encourage us to put down on paper exactly how we (Boulder County Parks and Open Space) do all of the things we’re doing,” Rounds said.

Right now, they’re debating and publishing broad statements about open space management standards for an official cropland policy. However, instead of asking about policy implementation—the document leaves out how BCPOS will fulfill these promises—the public focuses here:

Agricultural parts of the drafted policy cite generic reviews, tests and approvals by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration as they propose opening the door to additional GM organisms. Genetic modifications typically create pesticide resistance or increase yield but can nutritionally enhancement food or increase its pest resistance. Pest management provisions in the drafted policy reflect pro-GMO practices by allowing the use of pesticides that would harm
unmodified plants.

Cropland Policy Advisory Group member Rich Andrews said the majority of the group’s trusting approach fails to recognize extensive scientific research that led him and two other organic farmers on CPAG to disagree with the final recommendation and policy draft’s approval of GM crops and certain pesticides (glyphosate and neonicitinoid). He said he’d like to see the county ban those pesticides as well as genetically engineered crops, and set aside land to encourage non-GMO seed-supply production so area farmers “don’t have to feel captive to the giant seed companies.”

No legitimate scientific research—including that done by crop-engineering corporations, the FDA, the USDA or the EPA—indisputably proves pesticides or genetically engineered crops healthy or ecologically sound, he said. Although the policy requires those farmers using genetically engineered crops to prove any nutritional, production or pest/pesticide related claims before those plants are approved for use, it does not specify the proof or approval processes.

“BCPOS will develop a monitoring system in cooperation with farmers, CSU and other partner agencies to determine whether the GE technology is consistently delivering the anticipated and claimed benefits and whether any unanticipated adverse impacts have occurred,” the majority policy recommendation says.

“I’m glad they at least put in some criteria…” Andrews said. “…(Earlier in the process) it was basically just saying ‘If the federal government says it’s OK, it’s OK.’ I certainly can’t buy that because I know what the (federal) process is and I see how corrupt it is.”

True to promises of transparency, BCPOS’ preceding public policy meetings allowed for community comment, including a Cropland Policy open house Nov. 7, weeks after the draft and minority opinions were published. Now comes the sit, wait and trust groups including, but not limited to, Parks and Open Space staff, the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, CSU extension, CPAG, the Food and Agricultural Policy Council and the Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee.

A joint meeting of FAPC and POSAC will be held Nov. 15, an FAPC meeting on Nov. 16 and a POSAC meeting on Nov. 17. All are open to the public but not public comment. No date has been set for the policy’s submission to the commissioner or its implementation. To see the full policy draft, visit bouldercounty.org/find/library/environment/croppolicy.pdf.

The post Cropland Constitution appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.