For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, All About Organics page, CAFO’s vs. Free Range page and our California News page.

Rancher Steven Kopp touches base with Dolly at his Silver Springs Ranch in Martinez on Friday.
Manny Crisostomo/mcrisostomo@sacbee.com

Megan Brown sells beef from grass-fed cows, but the Butte County rancher’s choice is motivated more by the higher price she can get for organic beef than worries about the health consequences of eating meat from cows that ate genetically modified grain.

“GE (genetically modified) foods don’t freak me out at all,” said Brown, who works on her family cattle ranch. Brown has toured both organic farms at UC Davis and facilities run by Monsanto, an agricultural bioengineering company that sells genetically modified seeds.

“Each method has its pros and cons,” she said. “I think the majority of people don’t understand the technology behind GE, so they’re afraid of it.”

Her views are supported by a UC Davis study, released earlier this year, that reviewed research in the field and found genetically engineered animal feed poses no significant threat to humans who consume meat or dairy products from the animals.

The study, by UC Davis researcher Alison Van Eenennaam, sought to establish whether there was any scientific consensus on ill health effects of genetically modified feed on animals.

Van Eenennaam reviewed 100 previous studies on the use of genetically engineered feed. The study also looked at production trends in commercial livestock populations – both before and after the 1996 introduction of genetically modified feed, said Van Eenennaam, a specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology at UC Davis.

None of the studies suggested any health effects from genetically modified feed, said Van Eenennaam, a onetime Monsanto employee. Her review found that the genetic material and protein consumed by animals are broken down during digestion and as a result not found in milk, meat or eggs.

“These products are literally indistinguishable in every way from milk, meat and eggs from animals that have eaten equivalent non-GE feed,” Van Eenennaam said.

Some critics of genetically modified food criticized the study as incomplete. Michael Hansen, senior scientist with Consumers Union, said reviewing 29 years of data is problematic because livestock practices changed dramatically during that period.

“If you want to know whether genetically engineered crops have an adverse effect on animals’ health you need to do a controlled feeding study – where animals are kept the same way – with one group fed non-genetically engineered feed and the other fed genetically engineered feed,” Hansen said. “And the data from these studies are not from controlled studies.”

Genetically engineered foods have become a hot political issue. In 2012, Californians defeated Proposition 37, which would have required genetically engineered foods in California to be labeled as such. Voters in Oregon and Colorado defeated similar measures Tuesday.

Until 2013, there was no rule for GMO-free meat labeling. It was that year that Claire Herminjard worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service to set a standard for such labeling. As a result, Herminjard’s Mindful Meats brand became the first to get approval to use non-GMO labeling from the USDA for the meats she sells out of Sonoma and Marin counties.

Herminjard said she thinks the verdict on whether GMOs affect health or not is still out. “We think the science is still early on GMOs,” she said.

Even so, Herminjard said using GMO feed runs contrary to her belief in the benefits of organic farming. “Most of the feed crops that have been genetically engineered are engineered to withstand major pesticides, and that’s a system we do not support,” she said. “We believe in biodiversity and organic farming.”