This concludes a two-part series looking at a recent report on genetically modified crops and their significance to the local economy.

Genetically Modified Crops have drawn attention in the national news and in a  report released by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service earlier this month.

The debate over genetically modified crops focuses primarily on whether they are dangerous to public health.

The main concerns center on  negative reactions to the specific gene inserted into the genetically modified plant. Scenarios describe possible toxic effects from plants made resistant to pesticides like Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) or glyphosate, or an allergic reaction that might occur if someone has a peanut allergy and consumes a crop, such as soy bean, with a foreign nut gene.

The Fish and Wildlife Service Report includes public comments on the issue but its general purpose focuses on the use of genetically modified crops in farming programs. Another report from the Fish and Wildlife Service on the topic is due in November.

The report drew a variety of responses.

Dominic Reisig, Extension Specialist and Assistant Professor at North Carolina State University. submitted some public remarks in response to the USFWS’s evaluation of the use of genetically modified crops on national wildlife refuges.

“My responsibility and charge as a faculty member of the North Carolina State University, Department of Entomology, is to conduct research and extend these findings for field crops across the state of North Carolina.  I am based off-campus and have conducted many research trials adjacent to several of the wildlife refuges under consideration,” Reisig explained.

 

Reisig’s specific research experience with genetically modified crops centers around the use of various Bt toxins in corn and cotton.

 

“Specifically, I am testing new constructs in several field crops and am investigating the impact of certain Bt constructs in corn on yield and insect resistance,” he explained at the time that his remarks were submitted.

Most of the corn grown in North Carolina contains at least one Bt gene, with some containing more than one, and the vast majority of cotton contains two Bt genes This is with the exception of non-Bt refuge corn and the rare grower who has non-Bt cotton.

“My predecessor showed an average yield benefit of six bushels per acre for growing corn with a single Bt toxin.  Furthermore, in a trial with cotton as recent as 2010, I documented a 21 percent yield increase for cotton expressing Bt compared to non-Bt cotton.  These data are not skewed toward particularly heavy pest infestations and represent what I consider to be actual benefits to growers.  Therefore, growing both corn and cotton that expresses Bt is important to preserving yields in North Carolina,” said Reisig.

Reisig explained that in addition to preserving yields, Bt crops are environmentally friendly.  In the case of cotton, once boll weevil was eradicated, North Carolina growers averaged four to five insecticide sprays a year. Once Bt cotton, initially single gene, was introduced, insecticide sprays dropped to two to three per year, primarily because tobacco budworm is so well controlled by the specific Bt toxins expressed in cotton.  Non-target impacts on other arthropods from Bt crops are non-existent to minimal.  Furthermore, the risk of out-crossing to wild species is not likely in North Carolina, where maize and cotton relatives are not native.

Genetically modified corn and cotton, containing Bt toxins, are necessary in North Carolina to preserve yield.  They are environmentally friendly, since they reduce the number of insecticide applications needed to preserve yield, and impacts on non-target arthropods are non-existent to minimal.  Based on this perspective, I would urge the USFWS to continue to allow the use of genetically modified crops containing Bt on wildlife refuges throughout the southeast,” said Reisig.

State-wide action prohibiting genetically modified crops has not yet occurred.

Joy Hicks is a legislative liaison with the State Department of Agriculture.

The State Board of Agriculture has eleven members now. All eleven members are appointed by the governor.

This authority comes from the North Carolina General Statues.

Hicks explained the approach that state government takes on the GMC issue.

“Already within our authority, the Board of Agriculture had the ability to regulate plants, pests, seeds, and certain food products,” said Hicks.

Hicks said that a House Bill 379 says that the oversight to regulate plants would be there through the Board of Agriculture.

“That would extend to any type of plant including a genetically modified one,” said Hicks.

Already GMOS are regulated through the USDA specifically through the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service.

According to Hicks, the State has not approached the issue of Genetically Modified Crops and made a decision as to whether they should or should not be grown.

“The department already looks at and regulates new varieties that come out. Genetically modified trees are already being grown under strict regulation. But these are federal regulations,” said Hicks.

House Bill 379 was developed in part because 95 percent of the corn, cotton, and soybean varieties are grown in North Carolina are genetically modified.

Hicks mentioned a concern that in other parts of the country local governments might decide that they did not want genetically modified crops grown within their jurisdiction.

“That would be devastating to an area like Tyrrell County. The Blacklands of North Carolina are well known for growing corn, soybeans, and cotton,” said Hicks.

Any drastic changes would take time to implement.

“Any restrictions would have to go through a rule-making process where people would have a chance to comment. If two many people object to it, it would get kicked over to the legislature and the legislature would have to consider it,” said Hicks.

The issue is still very much in the public domain.

“But if the Board of Agriculture would have to decide on it, they would at least put it in front of a body that has agriculture at its heart and has full knowledge of agriculture rather than maybe being put up to a group of county commissioners or local government officials that may not be as knowledgeable on agriculture,” said Hicks.