2018 AG 452 Final Report

Issues Affecting California Agriculture

2018

By Dr. Mark Shelton and the Students of AG 452

Book Design: James Broaddus & Eleanor Harlan Cover Photo by Mitchell Yerxa, Class of 2012 Class Portraits by the Brock Center for Agricultural Communications All other photos by Mady Braught

1

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Contents Introduction

3

Letter from Dr. Shelton Student Biographies

Agricultural Advocacy

8

This report covers three broad categories: Agriculture Yesterday, which looks at the history and past messages of agriculture; Agriculture Today. which covers the topics of the communication strategies and educational programs of agriculture; and lastly Agriculture Tomorrow, which focuses on the enhancement and future perception of agriculture and solutions to closing the information gap between agriculture and the general public.

Agricultural Land Preservation

15

Acknowledging the need to preserve California’s agricultural lands protects the state’s diversified cropping systems and supports the nutritional needs of a growing global population. By analyzing urban development, conservation measures, and instances of local compromise, a conversation calling for balance and understanding may begin.

California Wildfire Policy

25

California has over 130 million dead trees across the state and wildfires are occurring with greater intensity and frequency. Taking a holistic approach, and addressing how current fire policy needs to changed, requires a commitment to several key areas.

Agricultural Biotechnology

31

Agriculturalists, specifically in California, are faced with the challenge of finding efficient and innovative ways to feed the growing population. Biotechnologies, such as genetically modified organisms, hold the potential to help feed future generations for years to come.

Conclusion

41

Thank You References

2

A Letter from Dr. Mark Shelton This publication is the culmination of the team projects of my 2018 AG 452 class, Issues Affecting California Agriculture.

Since I assigned the students to issue teams, many of them had little prior experience with their group topic and they learned a great deal about it in a short time. This class was envisioned by George Soares, Cal Poly alumnus and founding partner at Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP, as a way to expose top agriculture students to key issues affecting California farmers and ranchers. Through discussions with industry leaders, a field trip to Sacramento, and considerable independent and team analysis, students have learned about some of the major issues affecting our industry and how the political process influences decision making. Ag industry leaders helped Cal Poly obtain a grant through the California Specialty Crop Grant program to launch our first class in 2003. Now in our 16th year, this class has grown in reputation and popularity and has been replicated at Chico State, Fresno State and Cal Poly Pomona. All 20 of my students were hand-picked by our department heads, who recommended them to me and Dean Andy Thulin. It is a pleasure for me to learn with these fine young people who are committed to the future of California agriculture. I am encouraged by these bright and motivated students and know the future is in good hands.

-Dr. Mark Shelton

Left: Mr. George Soares. Right: Agricultural Biotechnology Group meets with Dr. Shelton

3

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

AG 452 Students Anna Baney is a fourth-year Agricultural Business student from Rohnert Park,

California. She grew up visiting her family’s farm in north-east Poland, where she became interested in international agricultural development. Anna has experience working for the U.S. federal government under the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and plans to pursue a career in Agricultural Policy upon graduation.

Molly Barker is from Lompoc, California. After studying mathematics at Allan

Hancock College, she transferred to Cal Poly where she will graduate in June 2018 with a B.S. Agricultural Systems Management. Though unsure of specific career goals following graduation, Molly hopes to find meaningful work where she can continue to learn and help other people.

Helen Barnes is an eighth generation farmer from Hickman, California and

is proud to be a second generation Cal Poly Mustang. She is a senior studying Agricultural Systems Management with a minor in Agribusiness. During her time at Cal Poly, Helen has been actively involved in the BioResource and Agricultural Engineering Department and is currently serving as the President for the Agricultural Engineering Society. Helen hopes to obtain a career involving Agricultural Safety.

James Broaddus is a junior Agricultural Communications student minoring in

Agribusiness and Agricultural Education from Davis, California. At Cal Poly, James participated in the National Agri-Marketing Association Student Competition, is active in Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity and serves on the Associated Students, Inc. Board of Directors. Following graduation he plans on a career in agricultural communications and advocacy.

Kinser Coelho is a fifth year Agriculture Business Student and from a fourth

generation San Joaquin Valley farming family from Hanford, California. His greatest accomplishment is overcoming a near fatal car accident upon high school graduation and fighting his way to being able to attend Cal Poly. At Cal Poly, he is an active member of the Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity, Crops Club, and the Agribusiness Management Club and was a finalist for the Louis H. and Stella Soares Outstanding Achievement Award in Agriculture. After graduation, Kinser plans to return to the valley and pursue a career in the agriculture industry as a Certified Crop Advisor.

4

AG 452 Students Sarah Dreyer is a third-year Animal Science major with a minor in Agriculture

Business. She is from Exeter, California where she was raised on her family’s ranch with livestock and citrus. At Cal Poly, Sarah is involved with Agriculture Ambassadors, Open House and Western Bonanza holding various other leadership positions. After graduation, Sarah plans to pursue a career within animal nutrition and return to production agriculture.

Julie Dunbar is a third year Agricultural and Environmental Plant Science Major

with a Concentration in Fruit and Crop Science. Raised in Johnson City, Tennessee, Julie grew up in her family’s canning business, which includes a bell pepper canning operation in Southern California. Currently at Cal Poly, she works as a Peer Advisor at CAFES Advising Center, serves as Treasurer for Cal Poly Crops Club, and participates actively in the Wesley Foundation. At present, Julie’s career focuses include working in the seed industry or pursuing a career as an agronomist.

Elizabeth Esparza is a first year Public Policy graduate student from Fullerton, California. She graduated from Sonoma State University in 2015 and then spent two years as a FoodCorps service member in California, first with the Child Nutrition Department of the Pittsburg Unified School District and then with the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. After graduation, Elizabeth hopes to bring a policy knowledge to community food systems work, with a particular interest in food waste and redistribution.

Eleanor Harlan is a fourth year Agriculture Business student from Woodland,

California. She grew up on her family’s diversified crop operation, where she developed her passion for the agriculture industry. At Cal Poly, Eleanor serves on the leadership team for the Agribusiness Management Club and has participated in the National Agri-Marketing Association Student Competition. After graduation, Eleanor plans to enter a career in Agriculture Credit and Finance.

Trey Johnston is a fourth year Agricultural Science major from Hilmar, California.

At Cal Poly, Trey is the President of the Agriculture Ambassadors, active in the FFA State Finals planning team, and a leader across the College of Agriculture Food and Environmental Sciences. After graduation, Trey plans on receiving a masters and teaching credential in agricultural education.

5

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

AG 452 Students Karina Medrano is a fourth year Agriculture Science student concentrating in

plant protection and crop science from Salinas, California. At Cal Poly Karina serves on the leadership team for Crops Club, as a representative within the College of Agriculture student council and as the public relations co-chair for Sigma Alpha, the professional agricultural sorority. After graduation, Karina plans on obtaining her Pest Control Advisor license and entering a career within the farming industry.

Mika Mercado is a fifth year Agricultural Communication student from Tulare,

California. Mika’s interest for agriculture and international affairs, has led to her living and interning in many countries, from Brazil to Spain to Egypt. Mika’s senior project, agroterrorism, was a reflection of her passions. After Cal Poly, Mika will be pursuing a MA in Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California. Following her studies, Mika plans to enter a career with the U.S. Government.

Karl Montague is a third year Agricultural Science student from El Nido,

California. He grew up on his family’s diversified crop and pig farm. At Cal Poly, Karl has been heavily involved in Cal Poly’s Western Bonanza Junior Livestock Show. Upon completion of his masters and credential program, Karl plans on becoming a high school agriculture teacher.

Daniel Namyst is a third year Environmental Management and Protection major

from Los Altos, California. He grew up in Silicon Valley and the Central Valley, in which he developed his passion for natural resource management. At Cal Poly, Daniel served as an executive officer in two organizations on campus in addition to working as an intern for a land surveying company. After graduation, Daniel plans on obtaining a master’s in Public Policy and then pursue a career in natural resource management.

Elise Regusci is a third year Dairy Science student minoring in Agricultural

Communication. She was raised on her family’s farm in Modesto, California where they have a diversified row crop operation including almonds, walnuts, hay, pumpkins, corn, and beans. Elise’s love for the dairy industry came from showing her Brown Swiss dairy cattle across the country. At Cal Poly, Elise is involved in the Los Lecheros Dairy Club, Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow, Cal Poly Dairy Judging Team, and the Sigma Alpha Sorority. She plans to pursue a career in communications in the agriculture industry.

6

AG 452 Students Jana Russell is a junior Agricultural Science major from Manson, Washington.

Raised in her family’s apple orchards, Jana was also highly involved in the local 4-H and FFA chapters. At Cal Poly, she is involved in Associated Students, Inc. Student Government, Vice President of the Agricultural Leadership Society, and serves on the Agricultural Education and Communications Student Advisory Committee. Following graduation she hopes to be involved with international agriculture education.

Stuart Suplick is a fourth year Environmental Management and Protection major,

with a minor in Geographic Information Systems from Berkeley, California. Officer positions within the Cal Poly Triathlon Club have developed a passion for service, team development, project management, and water management. He hopes to apply a collaborative, win-win problem-solving mindset, acquired through his undergraduate degree and club officer experiences, to his future career.

Brittney Tierney is a fourth year Experience Industry Management student with a concentration in Event Planning and Management and a minor in Agricultural Communication from a small farm in Atascadero, California. She was active for fourteen years with her local 4-H. Currently she serves on the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences Dean’s Student Advisory Panel and is the co-chair of CAFES Open House. After graduation, Brittney plans to pursue a career in agriculture leadership and advocacy.

Madalyn Vieira is a second year Political Science student with a minor in Dairy Industries and a concentration in Agriculture and Law. She is from Tulare, CA where she grew up around the dairy industry and was actively involved in the FFA throughout high school. At Cal Poly, Madalyn is the executive secretary for Sigma Alpha, a women’s professional agricultural sorority. She also serves as the district legislative intern for Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham of California’s 35th District. After graduation, Madalyn plans to attend law school and practice agricultural law.

Katy Yamada is a 4th year applied food science major from Albany, California.

She is also a 1st year blended masters student pursuing a masters in agriculture with a specialization in food science. She is an active member of the Cal Poly Food Science club and the Institute of Food Technologists Student Association. She hopes to find herself working in food regulatory compliance and aid companies in ensuring their product is being produced safely while following government regulations.

7

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Advocacy

This report covers three broad categories: Agriculture Yesterday, which looks at the history and past messages of agriculture; Agriculture Today. which covers the topics of the communication strategies and educational programs of agriculture; and lastly Agriculture Tomorrow, which focuses on the enhancement and future perception of agriculture and solutions to closing the information gap between agriculture and the general public. The researchers acknowledge that there are a multitude of additional aspects to this topic but for the purposes of this paper chose to cover these specific areas.

Overview

Agriculture is an industry that everyone is connected to, yet many are unaware of its reach. Through the broad reach of its food and fiber products, there are many areas where misinformation or lack of awareness can occur, which results in individuals utilizing agricultural products unknowingly. This disconnect between product origin, development, and consumption results in an information gap between the farmer and the general public, and a decrease in the value placed on the agricultural industry. Although a significant issue, this provides great opportunity for growth and development in the realm of agricultural communication and education.

This information gap is expected, particularly when considering that less than 2% of the United States’ population is directly involved in production agriculture1, and over 79% of the United States’ population is urban.2 California specifically is the leading state in cash farm receipts3, yet it is also the most populous state in the country4 which has an 87% urban population.5

There are ways to decrease this divide through effective communication and education techniques. Solutions are being explored to alleviate this issue due to the potential adverse effects on the agriculture industry. Not only does lack of knowledge about agriculture’s role in society result in low levels of general interest, it can also have detrimental effects through decreased

9

support of the industry. A study conducted by the National Library of Medicine found that increased knowledge about a topic encourages communication and positively influences attitudes.6 As a result, this report seeks out new and innovative ways to inform the general public about agriculture’s role in society.

This report explores the potential to bring forth a new perception of agriculture that emphasizes the value behind the culture of the industry, through analysis of the two broad categories of education and communication, and their interrelation.

Agriculture Yesterday

The history of the United States is based heavily in the development of production agriculture. George Washington considered himself a farmer first, and a public official second.7 Generations later, John F. Kennedy said, “For today American agriculture is in the grip of a technological revolution as vast and as rapid as any in history. It is a revolution, which has made the American farmer the most efficient in history.

It has made his productivity the marvel and envy of every nation… Experts from all over the world come to see our farms, to study our techniques, and learn our methods. And the farm technology we have developed here in the United States holds out hope to the world for the first time that no man, woman, or child on earth needs to go hungry again.”8 Despite increases in agricultural yields due to technological advancements, the number of chronically

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Advocacy undernourished people in the world has reached 815 million, a five percent increase from 2015.9 10

Although publicly elected leaders of the United States have expressed numerous times, across generations, the necessity of a strong agricultural industry, the general public does not necessarily carry the same value. At the founding of the nation, Thomas Jefferson argued for the United States to be founded on an agrarian ideology.

Alexander Hamilton disagreed, arguing for a manufacturing based system. The United States has progressed into an ideology more similar to Hamilton’s rather than Jefferson’s.11

While the economic focus of the nation moved towards urbanization, the culture and value of agriculture remained prominent in American life. Agricultural

fairs were established in the late 1700s as one of the first methods of connecting the industry to the people through education and communication.12 Shortly after, societies were formed with the purpose of creating agricultural publications to share knowledge more efficiently and to disprove common misconceptions of the industry.13 Additionally, agricultural education in public schools and universities began to gain momentum, specifically in rural communities.14

The creation of land grant universities, beginning with the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862, sparked creation of lower level education programs. For example, the 4-H organization was founded in the early 1900s with a goal of encouraging new farming practices and ways of thought

Figure 1: Time-line and impact of Agricultural Communication and Education Programs16

10

developed by university researchers. In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act was passed creating the Cooperative Extension System, creating a partnership between government organizations and agricultural universities. In 1928, Future Farmers of America (FFA) was founded with the goal of encouraging youth involvement in the agriculture industry.15

As seen in Figure 1, both education and communication grew parallel to one another until the early 1900s, when there was a slowing in new print communications strategies. Education, on the other hand, continued to grow, despite the lack of growth in agricultural communications.

Communications stayed relatively stagnant until the 1990s with onset of the Internet and later, social media, causing a boom in marketing and communication campaigns.17

Agriculture Today

In 1988, the National Academies of Science published the Understanding of Agriculture: New Direction for Education with the primary focus of creating new ways to expose students to educational opportunities in agricultural sciences, agribusiness, nutrition, and land stewardship. This was one of the first examples of agriculture being advertised as more than one entity. The report found that agricultural education was successful in rural areas, yet only focused on vocational programs.18

It was recommended that agricultural curricula be offered to all students K-12, regardless of whether they were from an

11

urban, suburban, or rural community. This standard would ensure agricultural literacy, defined as the general understanding and awareness of all sectors in the food and fiber industry.19

Agriculture Education

In the United States, 42% of schools participate in farm to school activities, ranging from local food procurement to the creation of school gardens.20 Additionally, outside organizations, such as The California Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom aim to educate students about the importance of agriculture in their lives by developing materials, programs, and trainings for educators to use in their K-12 classrooms.21 Programs such as these, paired with farm to school efforts, are working to integrate agricultural knowledge into the education system.

FFA / 4-H

Supplementary agricultural education programs have been active since the early 1900s. The 4-H program provides an opportunity for leadership and agriculture involvement for members aging 5-18.22 The National FFA Organization provides high school students with instruction following a three-ring model, which consists of: classroom instruction, FFA, and Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE).23 Students in these programs are immersed in the agriculture industry through classroom instruction, leadership opportunities, and through their own projects associated with

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Advocacy the industry. In California alone, there are approximately 317 agriculture programs, and 43 of these have been added within the last decade.24 These programs play a key role in exposing students of all backgrounds to the agriculture industry.

reduction of sales in the dairy industry. “got milk?” became one of the most influential campaigns in the history agricultural communications, due to its increase in household engagement.27

Agricultural Communications

Agricultural communications is the exchange of information about the agricultural and natural resources industries through effective and efficient media, such as newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and the internet to reach target audiences.25 Bob Stobaugh, the former Public Affairs Director of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service states the need for agricultural communicators to be twofold: 1) sharing necessary information with the dwindling number of farmers to make the best financial decisions on their farms, and 2) disseminating information about varying industry sectors to the general public.26

Communication Strategies

Over the last several decades, traditional communication strategies have morphed into integrated marketing campaigns. Many companies and organizations have launched campaigns, with varying levels of success.

Communicators utilize new and traditional strategies to share their messages to target markets.

An example of a successful campaign is California Milk Advisory Board’s “got milk?” The campaign addressed the

Figure 2: got milk?

In 2000, the board debuted its “Great Cheese Comes from Happy Cows.

Happy Cows Come from California” campaign. Over the following years, the “Happy Cows” spread across the nation, with advertisements reaching viewers in nearly every state.28 Both marketing campaigns emphasized the California Dairy Industry as a national leader in sales and market engagement, while also positively highlighting agriculture as a whole.

Figure 3: Happy Cows Advertisement

12

In 1984, the California Raisin Board released the “California Dancing Raisin” campaign to “remind consumers and their families--of how perfectly California raisins fit in their lifestyles.” Raisins had traditionally been seen as “dull and boring.” As in the Dairy industry, the successful Dancing Raisins campaign increased consumer interest and awareness about the commodity, boosting sales.29

Figure 4: California Dancing Raisins

Opportunities for Growth

Even prominent campaigns such as “got milk?,” “Happy Cows,” and the “California Dancing Raisins” demonstrate the reactive strategies that have been typical of the agriculture industry. However, these strategies have likely been successful due to their influence on consumers through connections to their daily lives. Rather than focusing on introducing unfamiliar consumers to commodity specifics, industry leaders suggest that changing the public’s view of agriculture is more effective when quantitative information is removed, and replaced with a feeling of

13

“trust.”30 For example, one specific avenue of this is through the development and modernization of technology in agriculture.

Instead of explaining the actual logistics of mechanization or genetic modification technology, it is more constructive to show the consumer why these developments are beneficial to the world population.

Additionally, agriculture as an industry needs to be marketed as a top of the line endeavor that requires skilled members in order to fill the needs of the growing world population and food demand.31

The California Farm Bureau’s communications work to address this gap between farm and city through their Ag Alert and California Bountiful publications.

While Ag Alert provides information for farmers,32 the California Bountiful television show and magazine promote connections between farms and cities by sharing stories which personalize the people and places that make up the agriculture industry.33

Figure 5: Ag Alert

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Advocacy

Figure 6: California Bountiful

With a growth in communications such as these, consumers might develop a more personal connection to the agriculture industry as a collection of individuals.

In regards to education, current programs continue to spark interest and grow in popularity. Currently, there is a deficit of agricultural educators entering the workforce which is detrimental to the growth and demand for more programs. According to Teach Ag California, there was an increase of 15% of agriculture educators in 2014, which was not enough for the 40% increase in student enrollment.34 In order to meet this growing need for agricultural educators, education and communication strategies must continue to successfully engage the publics interest.

Agriculture Tomorrow

As agriculture continues to grow and refine as an industry, it is necessary to look to the future and the development of proactive strategies. With changing climate, diminishing natural resources, and a growing population, priorities, critical issues, and jobs within agriculture are rapidly changing and will likely continue to evolve.

Looking ahead to the future of these jobs, there must be an alignment with the general public that will allow them to prioritize agriculture as a valued field.

With a better understanding of agriculture and a meaningful connection to it, there might be an increase in agriculture programs and participation. By introducing agriculture early on in school and continuing that learning throughout students’ educational careers, participation and growth in supplementary agricultural programs may result. Understanding the opportunities to align agricultural knowledge with existing standards will allow agriculture to be seen as less of an addendum to classroom learning and instead, as an integral part of the educational system. Further, as interest and involvement with these programs grows from elementary to high school, there may be a greater interest in and demand for agricultural programs, which will ultimately produce the next generation of agricultural advocates.

Agriculture is an industry that touches the lives of every individual in both obvious and hidden ways. The aim of an approach that incorporates both communication and education strategies is to bring about a new perception of agriculture that finds meaningful ways to connect people to the industry, resulting in greater awareness and narrowing the information gap.

14

Agricultural Land Preservation

Acknowledging the need to preserve California’s agricultural lands protects the state’s diversified cropping systems and supports the nutritional needs of a growing global population. By analyzing urban development, conservation measures, and instances of local compromise, a conversation calling for balance and understanding may begin.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Introduction

Preserving existing agricultural land is essential to maintaining a sustainable food supply for an ever-increasing world population. It is paramount to acknowledge that while arable land is a finite resource, population growth is infinite. California has an opportunity to play a key role in feeding the world by preserving its valuable farming acreage.

Figure 1: Map of the world depicting rangeland in (brown) and cropland in (green).

By 2050, the world’s population will reach nine billion – more than a 35 percent increase in approximately 30 years.1 Agricultural outputs must increase by 100 percent in developing countries, as their populations’ protein demand increases.2 The developed world must increase food outputs by 15 percent.3 This increase is typical, but new pressures to accomplish this task with minimal negative externalities from government organizations, such as the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, significantly increases its difficulty.4

Agricultural Land Preservation In combination with decreasing inputs— such as water, fertilizer, and pesticides—the agricultural community will also have to tackle this challenge with fewer acres of arable farmland. The American Farmland Trust (AFT) reports, “more than 40 acres of U.S. farm and ranch land are lost every hour.”5 Since 1982, 24 million acres have been developed in the U.S.6 There is no argument that agricultural land will continue to be developed as population growth persists; the debate lies in how and where this loss will occur. Because many highly populated urban areas exist in the state with the strongest agricultural presence, California’s agricultural land debate continues to increase in complexity. The significance of California’s farmland must be acknowledged and appreciated.

With an agricultural sector valued at $45.3 billion in 2016, this state leads the U.S. in cash farm receipts with more than 400 commodities.7 This includes producing more than half of all fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in the U.S.8 In 2015, California’s abundant production presence translated to it being the largest U.S. agricultural exporter at 26% by volume and over $20 billion.9 Through this national and international presence, it is evident that California is a major player in domestic and international food security; therefore, this state sets an example to the national and international agricultural communities with its leading edge production and preservation practices. In addition to

16

its international presence, California’s agricultural land supported over 77,000 farms in 201510 and employed an annual average of 420,000 employees in 2016.11 In 2012, 93 percent of California’s farms were family owned.12 These numbers show this state is committed to agriculture and has the infrastructure and labor force to continue making record breaking sustainable yields. These figures are made possible by California’s diverse array of microclimates, temperatures, precipitation patterns, and soil types. This varied combination of cropping environments coupled with political stability is unique to only a few places in the world. These resources must be preserved, as they cannot be recreated in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze current and future impacts of urban development, current preservation efforts, and local instances of compromise. This will allow various viewpoints to be considered, so a discussion for a holistic solution may be initiated.

Urban Sprawl Encroaches on Vital Farmland

While conservation efforts on behalf of the agriculture industry have been successful on many fronts, acres of bountiful soil are now pavement. The threat to California farmland is real with the AFT reporting that around 40,000 acres of California farmland are lost on average each year.13 This staggering amount is projected to continue.

17

Figure 2: No Farms, No Food: a slogan by the American Farmland Trust that promotes the need for farms in America.

Organizations like the AFT and California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) are key advocates for the preservation and continuation of California farmland.

Educating the public about the importance of maintaining production agriculture acreage is important in limiting the development of vital farmland. Cities grow around new development and as a result, may displace more farms. In Yolo County, arguments emerged in 2016 about a bed and breakfast operating in rural farmland.14 Those in opposition argued whether the business can be considered agritourism.15

Figure 3: American Farmland Trust Logo

Whether a wedding venue is placed in rural farmland or developers purchase farmland to build houses, urban areas are expected to increase due to California’s rising population. As of 2017, 39.5 million

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Land Preservation people lived in California. In a 2017 Department of Finance report, the state’s population is estimated to increase by 30 percent by the year 2060.17 Counties such as Los Angeles, known for their once prosperous food production regions, are now engulfed with booming population numbers, and farmland is a rare sight.18 Urban sprawl is occurring in the San Joaquin Valley, an area known for its strong agriculture industry and 60 percent of the state’s agriculture.19 What cities will be affected next? Will we see more agricultural cities moved from farmland to the development of larger concentrated cities?

16

Figure 4: CA Department of Finance’s projection of where population will increase in terms of each county.

Transportation

One of the factors that is perhaps the most threatening to preserving agricultural land within California is transportation.

California is home to a mass amount of people that live within three large population densities: Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.20 In order for this mass influx of people to travel across the state in a reasonable amount of time, an intricate series of transportation methods must be developed and sustained. There are two major transportation initiatives that are currently in danger of taking agricultural land in California’s abundantly fertile Central San Joaquin Valley. These two initiatives are the High Speed Rail and developing roadways.

The High Speed Rail is a rail system that will extend from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin with an estimated travel time of less than three hours.21 This system will reach speeds of over 200 miles an hour, allowing for many to commute to the state’s large population centers quicker than ever before.22 The High Speed Rail was approved by voters on the Proposition 1 ballot in 2008.23 Since then, amendments to this proposition have stated that the railway will eventually extend to Sacramento. While this may be beneficial for those who want to commute from suburban communities, it will inevitably destroy thousands of miles of some of the world’s most fertile farmland.

To transport people as fast as possible, the

18

rail system must cut through north of Fresno County stretching down to Bakersfield while over 2,200 miles of arable farmland are lost to eminent domain.24 Agriculturalists believe that the High Speed Rail will attract more people to live in the Central Valley because of the faster commute to larger cities such as Los Angeles and the Silicon Valley.25 However, the 2015 Los Angeles Times article shared how urbanization will continue with or without the complexity of the High Speed Rail.26 The article stated how growth is already projected in the southern counties in the Central Valley.27

Figure 5: Illustration of the Central Valley where the High Speed Rail will cut through.

Another large threat to farmland is the construction and extension of highways throughout the Central Valley. This can be seen in the example in the extension and widening of Highway 25.28 This project will

19

change the two lane State Route 25 into a four lane highway, eventually turning it into an expressway.29 Not only will this remove surrounding farmland to the highway in order to expand, but it may also contribute to the urbanization of surrounding lands, as the expressway would make it much quicker to gain access into the larger surrounding cities.

Legislation and Conservation

To offset the pressures of urbanization, current legislative measures and conservation easements are in place to preserve valuable farmland. The conservation and protection of farmland stems from the Williamson Act dating back to 1965, when many lands faced conversion pressures from population growth following WWII.30 This act was created to establish contracts between land owners and local governments to voluntarily restrict development of production land for a minimum of 10 years. Under the first two years of the Williamson Act being enacted there were 200,000 acres of farmland enrolled in contracts throughout California.31 The Williamson Act is still in place today and is the most stable and effective method for preserving agricultural land and open space throughout the state. Since 1980, California has sustained 16 million acres of farmland under the Williamson Act.32 This is one third of all privately held land and over half of all the state’s agriculture production land. The program has remained at a local level and

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Land Preservation is based on offsetting the property taxes of the contracted land with the market value.

In 1978, a U.S. constitution amendment, Article 13, was drafted and signed into law declaring preservation of open space and finding a basis for valuing the property used for food and fiber production.33

The AFT is also advocating for agricultural land preservation through their mission, “save the land that sustains us by protecting farmland, promoting sound farming practices and keeping farmers on the land.�34 The AFT principles were created to protect existing farmland, build advocacy programs, and create policies to protect the farmers who are stewards of the land across the nation. AFT research aided in their discovery of the tax code burden placed on producers, the decline in local farm economics, and the lack of previous planning for population growth and housing needs.35

In the State of California, the Farmland Conservancy Program, CFLP, establishes agricultural conservation easements through statewide grant funding.

CFLP has created three grant categories that producers and cities can apply for funding to create a conservation easement. All easement options have a common goal of either gaining voluntary acquisition of land under pressure or temporarily purchasing lands under easement, directly contributing to farm land conversion mitigation.

On a nationwide level, the USDA also works closely with individual landowners

on conservation measures inspired by the USDA Farm Service Agency. The current USDA conservation measures focus on preservation of private grazing land, reducing soil erosion, wildlife habitat preservation, and aiding farmers in land restoration after natural disasters.36 The USDA chooses farmers and states to assist based on economic needs and if the solutions directly impact the preservation and restoration of farmland.

The last level of conservation and policies that are in place for land preservation at a local level is through Resource Conservation Districts (RCD).

Their purpose is to improve and protect soil and water resources. The Coastal San Luis RCD is working towards conserving natural resources by helping with funding, permits, and implementation of hundreds of conservation projects within the district.37

While there is concern with the preservation of fertile lands throughout California, these legislative measures and local conservation easements help protect farmland from urbanization throughout the state.

20

Cal Poly Examples

The threat of preserving California farmland is apparent at local levels as well.

California Polytechnic State University has been struggling to find a balance between keeping farm land and expanding the university facilities. The university is the second largest land holding university in California because of the large scale farmland and pastures that Cal Poly operates.38 In San Luis Obispo County alone, Cal Poly is responsible for 6,000 acres.39

In recent years, there has been debate over the preservation of agricultural lands with the increase in student enrollment and plans to house more students on campus in

the next 20 years.40 This creates a demand for more student and staff parking, housing, teaching, and dining options. The university has sought to covert agricultural land as a solution to this problem. Cal Poly’s 20 Year Master Plan intends to transform 32 acres of university agricultural land to construct housing, parking lots, and sports complexes.41 Some support these changes claiming that the university should accommodate this growth, while agricultural students and staff claim the land is vital to their education and instruction.

A recent land use conversion at Cal Poly is the solar farm that was installed in December of 2017.

Figure 6: Cal Poly Master Plan Update

21

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Land Preservation The solar panel array is a 4.5-megawatt farm that is expected to meet 25 percent of the university’s energy needs.42 The installation of the solar farm included an agreement with the Animal Science Department that would allow students to study vegetation management while the panels and sheep work in conjunction.43 The sheep graze near the panels and benefit from the shade that the solar farm now provides, while the panels provide a great amount of electricity to the school.44 The unit was constructed on 18.5 acres of the sheep pasture at Cal Poly, but the two coexist on the land without severely impacting the functions of each other.45

This example shows how agriculture and renewable energy production can coexist in an environment that benefits both parties involved. Renewable energy can be one industry that doesn’t displace farm land, but may coexist with it.

Figure 7: Cal Poly Solar Farm Map

Conclusion

While these pressing issues are similar in that they drastically effect the preservation of agricultural lands, they also differ in that there are multiple holistic approaches to trying to solve this urgent issue affecting California agriculture.

An example can be seen through the aforementioned Cal Poly Solar Farm. When Cal Poly looked to use agricultural land for solar power they reached an agreement between a power company and the Animal Science Department so that both parties can coexist.46 If this type of agreement could be reached between farmers and those who wish to extend highways, build schools or even vast railways, then maybe there would not be such controversy and land loss. Another way that agricultural land can further be protected is through legislation.

Language in bills and propositions that protect land that may be extremely fertile or be the most accessible to a sustainable water source, will be vital to California remaining one of the largest agricultural contributors to the world. This also means that agriculture political interest groups such as the AFT and the CFBF must continue to advocate for the protection and regulation of the use and requisition of farm land.

Although there is no finite solution to this major problem, there are several precautions and actions that can be taken to ensure that the public as well as lawmakers understand.

22

California Wildfire Policy

California has over 130 million dead trees across the state and wildfires are occurring with greater intensity and frequency. Taking a holistic approach, and addressing how current fire policy needs to changed, requires a commitment to several key areas.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

California Wildfire Policy

Background/Introduction

Over the past few years in California, fire season has turned into fire year. In the early 1970s, fire season used to average five months; currently fire season has turned into seven months or more.1 This past year alone, California was up in flames, from Napa Valley to the Central Coast to Southern California. According to CAL FIRE, there were 9,133 fires in 2017,2 in comparison to the 6,954 fires in 2016.3 There were over three times as many fires in 2017 than 2016, and fire damage totaled five times larger in size.

What has been fueling these fires?

Maurica Zimmerman, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialist says that all fires need is fuel and embers. With variables such as the drought, bark beetles, and climate change, we can see the effects of these factors on fuel loads, feeding California’s fires.

When there are dry years, trees are more susceptible to disease and infection, as they compete for limited resources, resulting in more dead trees, adding to the fuel loads.

When there are wet years, there is a spurt of new growth, new vegetation, that also adds to the fuel loads. Furthermore, effects of fire on the environment can be seen through soil erosion. According to CAL FIRE, fires cause high amounts of erosion, affecting watershed quality.4

Certain insects by the name of bark beetles have taken advantage of these conditions. Bark beetles thrive in dry, warm

years – when trees are more susceptible to their attacks. With the boom of the bark beetle population, even healthy trees are not immune from these pests. The USDA calculated that from 2006-2016, the dead tree population had grown to over 100 million trees across California.5

Due to climate change, drought conditions, and bark-beetles’ intensification, forest and fire management approaches are suppression- instead of preventionfocused, and the differences in the costs are noteworthy. Other than these cost differences, we can see that the differences in fire statistics account for when prescribed burning and other methods were used more frequently as preventative management techniques. For instance, according to CAL FIRE, during 1949-1953, the average number of acres burned per year was 141,400 acres. Since 1999, the average of acres burned decreased to approximately 13,000 acres, marking a decrease in prescribed burns. As for the average number of fires, during 1949-1953, it was 2,274 fires, whereas in 2017, CAL FIRE responded to 7,117 fires.6 This last statistic is associated with the state agency’s shift to suppressionfocused strategies.

As has been shown, current methods and policies to suppress wildfires in California are no longer effective as conditions continue to worsen. This paper will show that as a politically viable solution, proactive management thus demands funding. It is cost effective, creates healthier

24

ecosystems, and ensures safety in our communities.

Economics of Fire Management

supporting preventative methods such as prescribed burns, timber management and inter-agency reform.

This position is supported by economic data and will be discussed by analyzing:

• The cost of suppression techniques,

• Economic impact on communities

• The cost of proactive measures

such as prescribed burns and timber management.

Fire management is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental problem. Agencies must determine the most effective way to allocate financial resources for forest management, thereby influencing fire management strategy.

Long-term, proactive strategies need Cost of Suppression to be assessed alongside the traditional

Suppression techniques have reactive strategies. Despite the high upfront dominated firefighting strategy for decades. costs of proactive management, there is a However, with changing climate and point where costs of proactive management environment, including a severe drought are eclipsed by the costs of reactive and the infestation of bark beetles, the cost firefighting. The Little Hoover Commission of suppression is not as viable as it has been released a new report in January 2018, in the past. highlighting this explicitly:

Figure 1 below shows CAL FIRE data

“Investing upfront to create these on the costs of fire suppression per fiscal healthier forests will pay dividends in year through 2016.8 Final costs for the 2017the long run by curbing the spiraling costs of state firefighting and tree removal while building stronger recreation and sporting economies in the Sierra Nevada.”7 Based on recent policy research, it is our recommendation that the state budget be the first source for creating a culture shift to fire prevention from fire suppression, Figure 1: Cost of California’s Fire Suppression, by Fiscal Year.8

25

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

California Wildfire Policy 2018 year are not yet finalized, though estimates are around $700,000,000.9

The economic devastation to local economies is an indirect effect of wildfires. Decreased tourism, destruction of environment, and financial instability of local residents are merely a few of the factors contributing to economic loss. The loss to the economy alone from the Napa fires is estimated between $3-6 billion for Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Lake and Mendocino counties.10

Though difficult to quantify, there is need to assess the cost to local economies because preventative strategies would reduce or eliminate this cost. Economic impact is only relevant if a fire occurs- if forests are pro-actively managed, this number would likely decrease.

Figure 2: A family visiting the site of their home after the northern California fires.

Cost of Prevention

Preventative fire management, particularly prescribed burns, are criticized for the immense up-front cost and planning requirements. However, as fires become

more common and more expensive, there is a point where preventative work is a cheap investment compared to suppression costs.

A study published by the Society of American Foresters found that on U.S. Forest Service land, cost of uncontrolled wildfire is over five times more expensive per acre than prescribed burns. Similarly, average cost per acre of uncontrolled wildfire on National Park land was two times more expensive than prescribed burns.11

Despite the large upfront cost, it is clear that funding for prescribed burns needs to be made available as it will be less expensive in the long term.

Current Budget Proposal

The 2017-2018 proposed budget from Governor Jerry Brown allocates $160 million to CAL FIRE fire prevention and fuel reduction work.12 Other agencies like the California Conservation Corps and Office of Emergency Services receive additional funding for fire suppression and training facilities.

While funding is necessary to maintain infrastructure and resources for fire suppression, there is growing support to prioritize funding fire prevention and the interagency systems that will support the planning and implementation of proactive management.

26

Current Timber Harvesting Techniques

Timber harvesting is one of several strategies to tackling the fuel load problem in California’s forests. According to the Society of American Foresters (SAF),13 certain timber harvesting techniques need to be implemented to reduce fire.

One of the techniques that has been cited by the Forest Service and Jan W. Van Wagtendonk14 to be particularly effective is the use of ‘pile and burn.’ In this timber harvesting method, undesirable woody material is piled up and burned right after a recent rain. This is often used when prescribed burns are deemed too risky to attempt.

Another method of timber harvesting commonly used is the cut and scatter method.15 This technique cuts the ladder fuels (woody material that can move the fire from the ground up the tree and into the canopy), and spreads the fuel load around a designated area. One of the perks of this method is that it is a cost-effective solution for organizations with minimal funding.16 This measure can be taken as a proactive approach in reducing the overall damage of a wildfire.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed fires are one of the most effective tools in mitigating fires in the future. One of the biggest benefits of these prescribed burns is the low probability of breaking containment. According to

27

Ms. Susan Britting, of all the prescribed fires on U.S. Forest Service land in 2012 (16,626 total) only 14 broke containment; with minimal impacts once those fires broke containment.17 With man-made fires, agencies can either enhance the fuel load or reduce the overall fuel load. This in turn helps to manage fire intensity and helps reduce future damage, while also protecting neighboring structures.18

One of the biggest issues with unregulated fires is that intense fires can destroy ecological processes for decades to come.19 In this regard, controlled burns can be used at appropriate times of the year to avoid any issues with plant germination or breeding habits of the local species.

Furthermore, prescribed burning will require the population to sacrifice their air quality for a short duration to have lasting impact.

If regulators sacrifice a couple of weeks for prescribed fires, it can greatly improve air quality during the next large fire in a specific region.

Another critical aspect of controlled burns is that they reduce the risk of major fires impacting local communities. With a decreased fuel load, the likelihood of a fire escaping to a residential area becomes increasingly unlikely. This can also promote fast habitat recovery after a fire and restore local environmental processes.

Interagency Reform

Exhaustive publications that the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center,20 the California Natural Resources

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

California Wildfire Policy Agency,21 the Little Hoover Commission,22 and George Mason University’s Mercatus Center23 have released all agree upon the need for greater use of fire prevention methods such as prescribed burns in addition to an arsenal of other necessary changes in wildfire prevention policies that California should pursue. A common thread among all the reports is a call for greater collaboration among state and federal government, local government and nonprofits, and local private landowners.

Specifically, to promote the use of timber harvesting, prescribed burns, or other expert-recommended tools suitable for a given location, and enhance collaborative effectiveness, the groups and agencies agree on the need for expanded use of the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA), which allows state authorities to manage USFS or BLM land, as provisioned under the 2014 Farm Bill.24 They also agree on amendments to, or a shift in interpretation of, environmental laws to promote longterm, statewide thinking in a city or county’s resource-use decision-making.25 Finally, they advocate for the creation of multiplestakeholder management districts and collaboratives for forested lands, especially headwater forests.26

Of course, the devil lies in the details.

Despite an agreed-upon need for greater collaboration, California policymakers will need to decide on local involvement levels if a new statewide forest district management system is created. Simply put, while local people, private forest

owners, and conditions can provide creative opportunities and ideas for winwin or pareto optimal solutions, they can also chip at local political will to work in a unified, long-term, state-over-locals front.

For instance, Scott Stephens, a UC Berkeley professor of fire science, proposes a system akin to the California Coastal Commission to promote smart housing development and private land owner fire prevention requirement compliance in wildland urban interfaces.27 He argues that such a system could prevent another Fountaingrove, a luxury housing complex in Santa Rosa that the Tubbs Fire destroyed. (Despite knowing the location had burned in a fire less than 30 years earlier, local planning officials allowed housing construction in the 1990s because of favorable economic conditions and increased tax revenues).28

Figure 3: The Tubbs Fire burning through a house in the Fountaingrove complex.

Then there is the question of financial resources to support increased collaboration. As the Little Hoover Commission report makes clear,

28

collaboration is wise in the long-term, but crippling to government’s wallet in the shortterm, and thus demands fiscal prudence. As CAL FIRE Director Ken Pimlott explained: the larger the landscape-level project, the more the project proponents will need to coordinate…For landscape-level projects, [CEQA and NEPA] environmental reviews cover larger areas of land and therefore take longer to complete.29

In short, much time is currently spent on environmental analysis processes within CAL FIRE and the USFS. Other examinations support this statement, labeling the USFS in a state of “paralysis by analysis”, as it spends large parts of its budgetary resources on document preparation.30 While Congress must authorize a larger USFS budget for this necessary amount of collaboration, California does not have time to wait. As it thus works to better forest management across the state, it needs to pursue funding for this valuable collaboration to avoid further conifer calamities. Such may include obtaining a larger share of state budget funding or using allocated money in smarter ways, taxing water utilities districts who benefit from healthy headwater forests or implementing innovative opt-in taxes,31 and supporting private investment bonds.32

However, as discussed previously, we recommend the California government act upon the first of these options immediately.

Not only is it politically viable, as is covered in the next section, but it is a crucial step to show California residents that their elected officials are listening, and willing

29

to take a momentous first step to change an ineffective, forest and fire management status quo. Even if that step is perhaps the smallest and easiest to complete.

Politics

To create change, there must be a public desire to make a difference and improve upon practices that are currently set in place. Fire policy changes, just as any other politically related change, will need the support of the people. As the data within this document states, 2017 was one of the worst years regarding California fire destruction, costs, and lasting impact. With enormous amounts of fuel littered across our forest floors, fire will be imminent for the foreseeable future unless we can reform current fire policy as stated. Regarding fire policy, a desire for change seems greater than ever in California.

Sadly enough, the destruction and mass amounts of pain that the fires in the Napa and Sonoma regions caused over the past year have awakened many to the burning issue of outdated fire policy. From the people of Northern California, both old and young, to state Assembly Bills, we are seeing a public desire for fire policy change.

Regardless of method, the aspiration for improved fire policies has reached a crucial state.

An issue which plays an enormous role in fire prevention includes the effect this natural disaster has on the elderly. The average age of those killed in 2017 Northern California wildfires was 79.33 A desire of

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

California Wildfire Policy many is policy change at the local and state levels to improve early warning systems, which would prevent the catastrophic deaths of many elderly folks. In relation to this, there have even been many Northern Californians who feel that change needs to occur where huge wildfires are treated as national natural disasters with funding to be of a natural disaster scale.34

It is also a well-known fact that thinning forests makes them far less vulnerable to wildfires.35 Thinning is practiced by The Nature Conservancy within forests in the state of Washington, where positive effects have occurred.36 Many Californians who experienced the Thomas Fire urge California to make it easier to thin federal land, revise laws, and limit lawsuits filed by environmentalists who oppose the logging of trees. Essentially, we need policies to be supportive of collaborative solutions that are aligned with long-term, multiple-use, state-wide interests.

Through the following assembly bills, one can see that the political viability of fire policy change in California exists.

For example, Assembly Bill 771 calls for routine burning of forest lands. Assembly Bill 1965 asks for improved resiliency on the landscape and adaptation to increased frequency and intensity of large wildfires. Assembly Bill 1391 expresses the importance of fire prevention by charging a fire prevention fee to habitable structures within state responsibility areas as well as encouraging maintenance of defensible space.37

Clearly, fire policy change is desired within the state of California.

There have been requests for, “common-sense fixes,� across our state.

Common-sense fixes include the desire for prescribed burning to not only prevent huge fire blowups, but to encourage forest health.38 Many individuals that are educated in fire science and ecology have stated that the proactive approach of thinning forests through prescribed burning is far wiser and safer than the poor practice of complete fire suppression.39

Through public uproar, assembly bills, and various scientific findings, it is apparent that fire is one of California’s largest issues.

Policy changes in how we address fire and our overgrown forests are necessary and forthcoming. Current methods and policies to suppress wildfires in California are not effective, and Californians are ready for proactive fire policy changes.

30

Agricultural Biotechnology

Agriculturalists, specifically in California, are faced with the challenge of finding efficient and innovative ways to feed the growing population. Biotechnologies, such as genetically modified organisms, hold the potential to help feed future generations for years to come.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Biotechnology

Feeding a Growing Planet

It has been predicted that the human population will reach 9 billion in less than 25 years. This means that agriculturalists are faced with the challenge of finding efficient and innovative ways to feed the growing population. In order to meet this demand, producers will need to increase food production, while facing constraints on available farm land, water and fossil fuels. New technological advances, such as genetic engineering, are going to play a key role in reaching this demand. However, consumers across the nation are driving demand for non-GMO food products with the fear that biotechnology is harmful and/ or unsafe. While it is not feasible to change the mind of every consumer, there is a gap in consumer knowledge of the benefits and safety of genetic engineering.

Addressing the global food demand with resources such as genetically modified technology is a pathway that producers can no longer avoid. With a current population which already faces starvation, we must be proactive in highlighting the benefits of biotechnology to work to eliminate consumers’ fear of this evolving and beneficial technology.

History of Genetic Engineering

The very first agricultural revolution happened over 10,000 years ago when people transitioned from the huntergatherer lifestyle to a more permanent

and reliable way of life.1 Agriculture had a positive impact on the growth of cities and civilizations because crops and animals could be farmed more reliably to meet the nutritional demand of feeding people.

In the mid 1800’s, Gregor Mendel, the “Father of Modern Genetics”, started to dig deeper into the science of crossbreeding plants, specifically pea plants. Farmers have been crossbreeding plants for millennia, but have not fully understood the science behind it. That all changed when Mendel bred pea plants to purposefully acquire certain genetic traits. This was done by cross pollinating certain varieties, which were previously self-pollinated.2 This was the first time that genetic traits were identified in plants and selected for the subsequent generations with predictable results.

In the middle of the 1940’s, U.S. Vice President Henry Wallace toured Mexico, and was disappointed in the agricultural state. A research team, among them Dr. Norman Borlaug, set out to investigate wheat breeding, thus increasing the productivity of their agriculture industry.

He successfully bred wheat plants using a method called backcrossing; this involves crossing a hybrid plant with a recurrent parent. This created a plant that eventually had different genes stemming from donor parents that could defend against diseases such as stem rust. With this new form of cross breeding, Borlaug was able to double wheat crop yields.3 Borlaug’s team did similar groundbreaking work on rice in the

32

Philippines. These innovations would later be known as the “Green Revolution”, which paved the way in supplying more food in a sustainable way.

The technology surrounding genetic modification is making advances towards providing food for an increasing population.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) can be defined as a plant or animal that has had its genetic material altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.4 Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material of all living things. The first commercial examples of genetic modification were the New Leaf Potato and the FLAVR SAVR tomato.

These genetically modified (GM) crops were created through a process known as transgenesis, in which the genetic material being transferred comes from an unrelated species.5 Geneticists soon figured out a way to transfer genetic material from two

related species to achieve the same goals, which is known as cisgenesis.6 For example, certain apple varieties have a gene to deter scabbing on the skin, and geneticists have been able to isolate that genetic material and transfer it into other apple varieties.

The newest method of genetic modification is called gene editing, and uses a system called CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR is short for “Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats” and Cas9 is a bacterial enzyme that can cut specific DNA sites where genetic material can then be inserted.

With this approach, certain regions of the DNA can be moved around or deleted to introduce new variations and develop desired traits within crops.7 This is essentially the same as the constantly occurring genome changes that occur in nature due to random mutation. The first appearance of CRISPR technology will not be on the market until the year 2020, although there are a number of other GM crops that are available today.

Current GMO Market

Figure 1: Transgenes and Cisgenes in apples.

33

Currently, there are ten GM crops produced in the U.S. The most common GM crops grown in the U.S. are corn, soybeans, cotton, and alfalfa. More than 90 percent of the acreage of these crops in the U.S. is genetically modified.8 According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), nearly 445 million acres of genetically modified crops were planted worldwide between 2015 and 2016.9

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Biotechnology

The U.S. leads the way in GM crop production with a total planted acreage of 180 million. Last year, 94 percent of U.S. cotton and soybeans and 92 percent of corn acreage were herbicide tolerant.

Farmers purchase GM seeds for a variety of reasons including weed management, pest control, disease prevention, or for enhanced productivity. Much of corn and soybean production is used for animal feed or to make ethanol.10

New genetically modified food products are in constant development to be brought to the market. Two recently developed GM products were the Arctic Apple® and the AquaBounty AquaAdvantage Salmon®. The Arctic Apple® has been genetically modified by the insertion of a suppression gene sequence into its DNA, essentially turning off the gene that makes it brown. In 2015, regulators approved the AquaBounty AquaAdvantage Salmon®, a genetically engineered animal for human consumption.

This genetically modified fish grows twice as fast as conventional Atlantic salmon and is considered more sustainably grown. This was accomplished through the insertion of genetic material from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, that allows it to grow yearround. Although the salmon is not available on the retail market, it has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.11 The commercialization of the Arctic Apple® and approval of the AquaBounty AquaAdvantage Salmon® are just two accomplishments for biotechnology and

science but will continue to fuel the debate on the branding and labeling of GMO products as well as the regulatory processes within the industry.

Role of Regulators

In 1986, a policy known as the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology was put forth by the U.S. Federal government to evaluate products developed through biotechnology.12 As a result, three U.S. Federal government agencies were made responsible to provide regulations, which are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). The EPA’s focus is to protect consumer health and the environment by requiring a registration process on the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides. The FDA aims to provide safety and proper labeling on all plantderived food and feed, including imports and domestics, and regulation over the introduction of food additives into a product. The USDA-APHIS ensures the protection of agriculture from pests and diseases, which encompasses the regulation of imports, handling, interstate movement, and release into the environment of organisms. These regulatory agencies all hold the responsibility for oversight of biotechnology products and work in collaboration to provide comprehensive regulation.

34

Current GMO Labeling Regulations

In July of 2016, President Obama signed a bill which amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require food labels identifying ingredients that have been bioengineered. The bill states that any company that includes genetically engineered ingredients in their products must disclose the presence of the GM product on the label. Food products regulated under the label range from candy to frozen dinners and beverages, however, meat, poultry, dairy and egg products from animals that were fed GMO feeds are exempt from labeling.13

Figure 2: How Campbell’s has implemented a GMO label on all products following the new regulation.

35

The USDA, specifically the Secretary of Agriculture, was given two years to establish formal standards for the labeling regulations and create a plan of implementation.14 Establishing formal standards for the regulation includes determining the amounts of bioengineered ingredients that will require the label, as well as a process for determining which products are considered bioengineered.15

The labeling requirements come with challenges to food producers, but one of the benefits to the new regulation is that there is some flexibility. Producers are able to choose whether to disclose the information using plain text, symbols, a toll-free number to call for information regarding the product, or a scannable QR code that will take the consumer to a digital link.16 From the 2016 date the bill was signed, large producers, like Nestle and Campbells, have two years to implement the new labels, while smaller producers (fewer than 500 employees) are allowed an extra year to implement the regulation.

Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed foods containing GMOs safe to consume, the new regulations stemmed from ongoing consumer concerns with the safety of bioengineered food products. While the labeling requirements will satisfy those in favor of labeling because of their belief that consumers have a right to know, the cost of implementation on the producer side could increase the retail costs of food products, affecting low income consumers.17

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Biotechnology Furthermore, requiring these labels on products could mislead uneducated consumers regarding the safety of bioengineered products.18

Consumer Perceptions of GMO Food Products

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted a study in 2016 looking at the drivers of preferences towards the labeling of genetically modified products.19 They concluded that it wasn’t that consumers were afraid of long-term health risks of GMO food products, but that the biggest driver for GMO labeling is the perception and lack of trust of various information sources.20 The majority of respondents indicated that they were “moderately knowledgeable” when asked about how much they knew about genetically modified organisms.

Respondents also indicated that in terms of information sources, the federal government was deemed knowledgeable, while scientists were considered the most knowledgeable on the subject. Consumers seeing scientists as experts on the subject is a positive result of the study, however, respondents had ranked environmental activist groups, such as the Non-GMO Project, providing more accurate information than industry associations, which is where the issues lies in communicating information about genetic modification to consumers.

Market trends have shown that consumers are seeking foods that are healthier, and specifically ones that cater

to special diets such as gluten-free, dairyfree, organic and most importantly, nonGMO. According to the Mintel New Global Products Database, in 2012, 2.8% of products showcased a non-GMO label, while in 2015, 15.7% of products on store shelves claimed to be non-GMO.21 Consumers tend to purchase more products containing a GMO-free label with the idea that they are purchasing “healthier” products.22 The fact that consumers are actively seeking non-GMO products is also what drove the current labeling requirements of GM foods. An opportunity lies in changing the level of knowledge that consumers have of genetically modified food products, and what positive impacts they can have on providing a sustainable food production system.

Sustaining a Future

Sustainability centers around the principle of “addressing the needs of the present without compromising the ability of our future generations to meet their own needs.”23 With the growing population, agriculturalists must work to increase global food production. GM crops are one method to address this issue. Between 2014-2016, 10.9 percent of the 7.3 billion people in the world suffered from chronic undernourishment.24 There are 780 million hungry people, living in developing countries, which represents 12.9 percent of the total population in developing countries.25 The world population is climbing

36

rapidly, and is expected to increase by 30 percent to 9 billion people, by 2050.26 With genetic engineering technology, producers are able to increase production yields, and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint to help meet the needs of this growing population. However, the consumer dilemma revolving around GMOs has prevented potential progress on developing a plan to ensure global food security.

There are multiple technologies that can be applied as tools to advance the next generation of agriculturists, one of them being biotechnology. Genetically modified crops are able to improve water efficiency, provide pest resistant traits to prevent pest losses, and mitigate the effects of poor weather conditions which lower crop yields. For example, half the cotton grown in China in 2002 was genetically modified to produce a substance that is poisonous to the boll worm, a pest that devastates cotton crops, but harmless to people. Previously, farmers had applied the pesticide directly by spraying the crops. The benefits of the “Bt cotton” resulted in a reduction in pesticide use, an increase in yields and profits, and health benefits for farm workers.27 GM crops, along with existing agriculture practices, offer the opportunity of reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.

In 2015, GM crops helped reduce CO2 emissions by 59 billion pounds, equivalent to removing 12 million cars from the road for one year. Since 1996, genetically modified crops have resulted in the use of less pesticides, and their environmental impact

37

was reduced by 19 percent.28 In 2015, without GM crops, 48 million more acres would have needed to be planted to yield the same amount of food.29

Studies from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have stated there is no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between commercially available genetically engineered and conventionally bred crops.30 GM crops offer the opportunity to increase yields, resist pests and diseases, and adapt crops to harsh environmental conditions such as drought. In 2002 researchers at Cornell University successfully tested, under greenhouse conditions, a variety of GM rice that maintained yields while under the stress of cold, drought, and salty soil. Results such as this are impactful when considering one third of the world’s arable land is affected by drought.31 The implementation of effective policy-making, along with the introduction of innovative biotechnology, aid in keeping the agricultural footprint from growing, while still allowing enough food to feed the planet. Promoting the use of GMOs corresponds to beneficial advances in society, primarily those of economic and environmental sustainability.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Biotechnology

Economic Impacts of Biotechnology

Worldwide markets are adopting biotechnology to promote sustainability, help alleviate poverty and hunger, increase productivity and economic gain, and develop overall food and fiber security.

For the last two decades, biotech crops and products have benefited farmers, corporations, governments, and end consumers. From 1996 to 2016, the global planting of biotech crops increased from 4.2 to 457.4 million acres.32 The global value of biotech crops in 2016 was $15.82 billion, which grew from $0.09 billion in just twenty years.33 Today, GM technology is being introduced to global markets and supplying

economic benefits to the whole of society.

Early adopters of GM technology are experiencing gains in economic benefits as yields increase, while later adopters still receive smaller economic benefits, and non-adopters earn fewer benefits and suffer potential losses. The introduction of new GM technology begins with biotech companies selling product to farmers who then plant, grow and apply the product, and turn a profit depending on yield success.

Aside from an increase in farmer income, farmers adopting biotech crops are also experiencing non-monetary economic benefits; savings in the time and effort spent on labor and management and equipment, improved environmental safety, increased

Figure 3: International map of Biotech Crop grown.

38

convenience, and better overall worker safety.34 The “Big Six” biotech companies, for example, Monsanto, largely aid farmers in achieving new levels of productivity and efficiency, non-monetary gains, and economic benefits.

Monsanto states, “Each new GMO undergoes years of testing to ensure that it brings value to farmers and is as safe as the non-GMO counterpart—on average, it takes 13 years and costs $130 million to bring a GMO to market.”35 In comparison, a conventionally bred hybrid crop takes seven years to bring to market. The lesser time to commercialize GM crops is due to additional tests for toxicity and environmental impact.

Another study found that costs for privatesector firms are approximately $35.1 million for regulatory compliance, and for the commercialization of a single trait anywhere between $50 to $100 million - 70% of which goes towards research and development.36 One of the criticisms against GM technology is the power shift away from local farmers to larger biotech companies.

39

Political Powers

The political dilemma surrounding GM technology began in the 1990s and early 2000s, when mergers and acquisitions developed the emergence of the “Big Six” chemical, pharmaceutical, and seed companies.37 Recently, from 2015 to 2017, the biotech companies are merging once again to transform into the “Big Four.”

Government and activists raise political concern over these mergers because they have a direct effect on competitive pricing and the centralized ownership of crop genetics.

Activists opposing the novelty of GM innovation have focused monetary efforts towards lobbying for food labeling regulations. In 2014, a total of $66 million was spent by companies and organizations in food label lobbying expenditures; $2 million in expenses was disbursed by “pro” labelers, and “anti” labelers expended $63 million.38 The lobbying expense numbers display an apparent political disparity between those opposed and in support of GM technology. As organizations and corporations involved in the political landscape of GMOs look forward, there is much to consider in informing and protecting the rights of consumers at large. In the near future, the benefits and advancements of GM foods need to be better communicated to consumers.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Biotechnology

Looking Ahead

As the world’s population continues to grow, an increasing global food supply is necessary to keep up with the rising demands. Genetic engineering technology holds the potential to help feed future generations for years to come. With California producing a large percentage of the nation’s food supply, the state is at the forefront of leading this technological revolution. To maximize the benefits of genetic engineering, consumer understanding of GMOs will need to change pace. Numerous opportunities arise when GM technology is put into practice to promote sustainable farming, boost economic development, and reduce malnourishment worldwide. To implement these various beneficial outcomes, a solution will need to offer sound results to mitigate consumer apprehension.

As a solution, we propose that a three tiered marketing plan be implemented throughout the food chain. The marketing strategy will promote collaboration between the three tiers of agriculture: scientists, producers, and retailers, along with consumers. Scientists can promote the scientific background and safety behind GM technology, while producers and retailers can share with consumers how GMOs reduce pesticide use, to create less of an environmental footprint and increase food availability.

We recognize that not every consumer will buy into genetically engineered food, but as an industry, we can increase the quantity and quality of information about GM food to educate consumers.

Increased awareness of GM technology, we hope will develop unity throughout the agriculture industry to send a clear message to consumers and to provide clarity and transparency into all aspects of GM technology.

40

Conclusion On behalf of the AG 452 Class of 2018, we would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to the people who make this class happen. We are grateful for the opportunity to be exposed to so many influential industry leaders that have opened our minds to the complexity of California agriculture. Thank you to everyone mentioned below, as well our family and friends; your support is greatly appreciated.

Thank you to: Dr. Mark Shelton Mr. George Soares, Kahn, Soares & Conway Mr. Richard Matteis, California Farm Bureau Mrs. Tonya Antle, Organic Produce Network Mr. Mark Borrecco, Rabobank Mrs. Laura Brown, California Strawberry Commission Mr. Carlos Castaneda, Castaneda & Sons Mr. Dan Dooley, New Current Water & Land LLC Mr. Neal Ewald, Green Diamond Resource Co. Dr. Roland Fumasi, Rabobank Dr. Joseph Jen, Former Undersecretary of the USDA Mr. James Mayer, California Forward Mr. Joel Nelsen, California Citrus Mutual Mr. Donn Zea, California Dried Plum Board Marnie Perry College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Thank you!

AG 452 Class of 2018 41

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

42

References 1. World Bank. (n.d.). Distribution of the workforce across economic sectors in the United States from 2006 to 2016. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/270072/distribution-of-the-workforce-across-economic-sectors-in-the-united-states/.

2. Rural California: Demographics Download PDF. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http:// ruralhealth.stanford.edu/health-pros/factsheets/ 3. California Department of Food and Agriculture. (n.d.). California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ 4. California Population 2018. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from http://worldpopulationreview.com/ states/california-population/ 5. Rural California: Demographics Download PDF. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http:// ruralhealth.stanford.edu/health-pros/factsheets/ 6. McGlade, D., & Pierscionek, B. (2013). Can education alter attitudes, behaviour and knowledge about organ donation? A pretest–post-test study. BMJ Open, 3(12), e003961. http://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjopen-2013-003961 7. Farmer. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/ farming/ 8. John F. Kennedy: “Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, National Plowing Contest, Sioux Falls, SD - (Advance Release Text),” September 22, 1960. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74149.

9. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2017. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017.

Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome, FAO. 10. United States., World Food and Agricultural Outlook and Situation Board. (2018). Agricultural supply & demand estimates. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

11. Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. ed. Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations That Shaped a Nation. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

12. County Fairs. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/ pages/345.html 13. Barnett, C. (1928). “The Agricultural Museum”; An Early American Agricultural Periodical. Agricultural History, 2(2), 99-102. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3739456 14. Debra Spielmaker, Administrator and Yasuko Mitsuoka Grow, Designer. (n.d.). Historical Timeline Agricultural Education & Extension. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/ timeline/ag_edu.htm 15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. (1988). “Understanding Agriculture: New Directions for Education” National Academies Press, 1988.

19. Ibid.

20. United States, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2015). The Farm to School Census.

21. California Agriculture in the Classroom. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://learnaboutag.org/ 22. 4-H Hands-On Learning & Education Programs for Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from

43

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Advocacy

https://4-h.org/ 23. Agricultural Education. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.ffa.org/about/agriculturaleducation.

24. Teach Ag California. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from https://www.teachag.org/ 25. Telg, R., & Irani, T. A. (2012). Agricultural communications in action: a hands-on approach. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar, CENGAGE Learning.

26. Ibid.

27. James, Steve. (2015). Got Milk, a Brief History, Presentation to the Oregon State Health Department, June 25, 2015.

28. Leake, Linda L. (2004). Happy Cows. Dairy Today, Dairy Today, Dec 14, 2004.

29. Chung, S., Fernandes, Y., & Hsu, W. M. (n.d.). The California Raisins. Lecture. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/CalRaisins.pdf 30. Borrecco, M., & Fumasi, R. (2018, January 26). Rabobank. Presented to the students of AG452.

31. Dooley, Dan. (2018, February 3). Presentation to the students of AG452.

32. Ag Alert: The Weekly Newspaper for California Agriculture. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.agalert. com/ 33. California Bountiful. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://californiabountiful.com/ 34. Teach Ag California. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2018, from https://www.teachag.org/

44

References 1. Foley, J. (2014, May). A Five-Step Plan to Feed the World. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https:// www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/?beta=true 2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/about/what-we-do/so2/en/ 5. FARMLAND. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/ farmland 6. Ibid.

7. California Department of Food and Agriculture. (n.d.). California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ 8. Ibid.

9. California Department of Food and Agriculture. (2016). California Agricultural Statistics Review 2015-2016 (pdf). Retrieved February 15, 2018 from: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2016Report.pdf 10. United States Department of Agriculture. (2012). Table 9: Land in Farms, Harvested Cropland, and Irrigated Land, by Size of Farm: 2012 and 2007 (pdf). Retrieved February 15, 2018 from https:// www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/California/ st06_1_009_010.pdf 11. State of California Employment Development Department. (2016). Estimates of Agricultural Employment by Annual Average (data file). Retrieved February 15, 2018 from http://www.labormarketinfo. edd.ca.gov/data/ca-agriculture.html.

12. United States Department Agriculture. (2012). Census of Agriculture Highlights: Family Farms (pdf).

Retrieved February 15, 2018 from https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/ Highlights/NASS%20Family%20Farmer/Family_Farms_Highlights.pdf 13. California. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from https://www.farmland.org/our-work/where-we-work/ california 14. Hudson Sangree <a href=”mailto:hsangree@sacbee.com” title=””>hsangree@sacbee.com. (n.d.). Yolo County struggles to balance farm tourism with farming. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from http://www. sacbee.com/news/business/article65836582.html 15. Ibid.

16. QuickFacts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2018, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA 17. State of California , Department of Finance. (2017, March 7). DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE RELEASES NEW STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS[Press release]. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from http://www. dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/documents/P_PressRelease.pdf.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. California, S. O. (n.d.). High-Speed Rail Program Fact Sheets. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from http:// www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/fact_sheets.html 22. Ibid.

23. Proposition 1 Analysis – Voter Information Guide 2008. Accessed February 15, 2018. http://vigarchive. sos.ca.gov/2008/general/analysis/propl-analysis.htm 24. QuickFacts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA

45

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Land Preservation

25. Critics fear bullet train will bring urban sprawl to Central Valley. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-farms-20150224-story.html 26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Highway 25 Widening Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/paffairs/ hey25widening/index.htm 29. Ibid.

30. California, S. O. (n.d.). Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Program Overview. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/basic_contract_provisions 31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. California, S. O. (n.d.). The Land Conservation Act. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from http://www. conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca 34. Mission & History. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from https://www.farmland.org/mission-history 35. Ibid.

36. Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from https://www.nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/ 37. Itech-solutions.com, I. S. (n.d.). Welcome to Coastal San Luis RCD. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from http://www.coastalrcd.org/ 38. Cal Poly Quick Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://calpolynews.calpoly.edu/ quickfacts.html 39Cal Poly Master Plan 2035 40. Ibid.

41. McGuinness, C. (2017, November 09). Latest Cal Poly master plan includes development on campus farmland. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/latest-cal-polymaster-plan-includes-development-on-campus-farmland/Content?oid=3732386 42. Cal Poly Begins Construction on 4.5 Megawatt (AC) Solar Farm. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://calpolynews.calpoly.edu/news_releases/2017/October/SolarFarm 43. Tarica, J. (2018, January 24). A quarter of Cal Polyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s power now comes from the sun. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/education/article196484414.html 44. Cal Poly to Build Solar Farm as Part of Net Zero Plan. (2017, April 19). Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://cafes.calpoly.edu/cal-poly-build-solar-farm-part-net-zero-plan 45. Energy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://afd.calpoly.edu/sustainability/campus_ resources/energy 46. Cal Poly Begins Construction on 4.5 Megawatt (AC) Solar Farm. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://calpolynews.calpoly.edu/news_releases/2017/October/SolarFarm

46

References 1. Cleetus, R., & Mulik, K. (2014, July 01). Playing with Fire: The Soaring Costs of Western Wildfires (2014).

Retrieved February 02, 2018, from https://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/ climate-change-development-patterns-wildfire-costs.html?_ga=2.82252949.221276582.15193569931821019447.1519356993#.Wo-NCK6nGM9 2. California, S. O. (2018, January 24). California Statewide Fire Map. Retrieved February 5, 2018, from http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2017 3. 2016 Wildfire Activity Statistics. (2016). Retrieved February 1, 2018, from http://calfire.ca.gov/downloads/ redbooks/2016_Redbook/2016_Redbook_FINAL.PDF 4. Chapter 4. Soil and Water Protection of Soil. (2003, October). Retrieved February 5, 2018, from http:// frap.fire.ca.gov/data/assessment2003/Chapter4_Soil_and_Water/soil_2.pdf 5. Feliciano, A. (2018, February 05). New Tool Helps California Land Managers Predict Tree Mortality.

Retrieved February 08, 2018, from https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2018/02/05/new-tool-helps-californialand-managers-predict-tree-mortality 6. CAL FIRE Vegetation Management Program. (2009, January). Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http:// www.calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/VegetationManagement.pdf 7. Little Hoover Commission. (2018). Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada (Rep. No. 242).

8. CAL FIRE. (2017). Emergency Fund Fire Suppression Expenditures [Chart]. In California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

9. Frank, B., & Mendelson, A. (2018, January 12). Thomas Fire fully contained, as firefighting costs set new record. KPCC. Retrieved February 14, 2018.

10. Kasler, D. (2017, October 20). Billions in losses – where will wildfires rank among California’s costliest disasters? The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved February 14, 2018.

11. North, M., Collins, B., & Stephens, S. (2012). Using Fire to Increase the Scale, Benefits, and Future Maintenance of Fuels Treatments. Journal of Forestry, 110(7), 392-401. Retrieved February 21, 2018.

12. 2018-19 Governor’s Budget. (2018, January 10). Retrieved February 21, 2018, from http://www.ebudget. ca.gov/budget/2018-19/#/Home 13. Society of American Foresters (SAF). (2018). The Need for Expanded Wildland Fuel Management in California 14. JAN W. VAN WAGTENDONK. (1996). Use of a Deterministic Fire Growth Model to Test Fuel Treatments 15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Little Hoover Commission. (2018). Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada 18. US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016). Keeping Fire On Our Side.

19. North, Collins, Stephen. (2012). Using Fire to Increase the Scale, Benefits, and Future Maintenance of Fuels Treatments 20. Public Policy Institute of California. (2017). Improving the Health of California’s Headwater Forests. San Francisco: PPIC Water Policy Center.

21. California Natural Resources Agency. (2018). Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, p. 148-168.

Sacramento: CNRA. 22. Little Hoover Commission. (2018). Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada (Rep. No. 242).

23. Nelson, R. (2008). Fire in the National Forest System: California Solutions for a California Problem.

Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Fairfax: Mercatus Center.

47

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

California Wildfire Policy

24. Public Policy Institute of California. (2017). Improving the Health of California’s Headwater Forests.

San Francisco: PPIC Water Policy Center; California Natural Resources Agency. (2018). Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, p. 148-168. Sacramento: CNRA; Little Hoover Commission. (2018). Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada (Rep. No. 242); Nelson, R. (2008). Fire in the National Forest System: California Solutions for a California Problem. Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Fairfax: Mercatus Center.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Martin, G. (2017, October 30). Burning Question: Can California Prevent the Next Wildfire? Retrieved February 4, 2018, from Cal Alumni Association California Magazine: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/ california-magazine/just-in/2017-10-30/burning-question-can-california-prevent-next-wildfire?utm_ content=buffer07513&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer 28. Martin, G. (2017, October 30). Burning Question: Can California Prevent the Next Wildfire? Retrieved February 4, 2018, from Cal Alumni Association California Magazine: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/ california-magazine/just-in/2017-10-30/burning-question-can-california-prevent-next-wildfire?utm_ content=buffer07513&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer; McCallum, K. (2017, October 28). Fire-scorched Fountaingrove in Santa Rosa focal point of debate over rebuilding.

Retrieved February 4, 2018, from The Press Democrat: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7572376-181/ fire-scorched-fountaingrove-in-santa-rosa?sba=AAS 29. Little Hoover Commission. (2018). Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada, p. 25 (Rep. No. 242) 30. Nelson, R. (2008). Fire in the National Forest System: California Solutions for a California Problem, p. 2.

Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Fairfax: Mercatus Center.

31. Lund, J. (2018, January 1). Nudging Progress on Funding for Safe Drinking Water. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from News Deeply: https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/community/2018/01/01/nudgingprogress-on-funding-for-safe-drinking-water 32. Johnson, M. (2018, February 8). A Focus on Resilience After Southern California Fires. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from News Deeply: https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2018/02/08/a-focus-onresilience-after-southern-california-fires 33. LA Times, (2018). California’s deadliest wildfires were decades in the making. ‘We have forgotten what we need to do to prevent it’.

34. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board. (2017, October 16). In wake of Northern California disaster, fire policies need common-sense fixes.

35. Elizabeth Shogren Image credit: Sheila Whitmore/UW Madison Dec. 11, 2017 From the print edition.

(2017, December 11). What fire researchers learned from Northern California blazes.

36. The Washington Post, (2018). 2017 was California’s largest and most destructive fire season in a decade.

37. Official California Legislative Information.

38. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board. (2017, October 16). In wake of Northern California disaster, fire policies need common-sense fixes.

39. Irfan, U. (2017, October 12). California’s wildfires are not “natural” - humans made them worse at every step.

48

References 1. The Development of Agriculture. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/ development-of-agriculture/ 2. Olby, R. (January 25, 2018). Gregor Mendel. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/ Gregor-Mendel 3. The Green Revolution & Dr. Norman Borlaug: Towards the “Evergreen Revolution”. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/green-revolution.html 4. Q&A: genetically modified food. (2014, May). Retrieved from, http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/ food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ 5. Nester, E. W. (2014 ). Agrobacterium: nature’s genetic engineer. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5. doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00730 6. Schouten, H. J., Krens, F. A., & Jacobsen, E. (2006). Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis. EMBO reports, 7(8), 750-753. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400769 7. Katiraee, L. (2015, February 11). Gene Editing and GMOs. Retrieved from https://www.biofortified. org/2015/02/gene-editing-and-gmos/ 8. GMO FAQ (2016) Agricultural biotechnology frequently asked questions, Genetic Literacy Project.

Retrieved from https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/which-genetically-engineered-crops-areapproved-in-the-us/ 9. ISAAA. (n.d.). Acreage of genetically modified crops worldwide from 2004 to 2016, by leading country (in million hectares)*. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/263294/acreage-of-genetically-modified-crops-by-country-since-2003/.

10. GMO FAQ (2016) Agricultural biotechnology frequently asked questions, Genetic Literacy Project.

Retrieved from https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/which-genetically-engineered-crops-areapproved-in-the-us 11. Gonsalves, A. (May 2015). Biotechnology. The Licensing Journal, 35(5), 18-20.

12. United States Department of Agriculture, (July 2017) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, How the Federal Government Regulates Biotech Plants. Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ ourfocus/biotechnology/sa_regulations/ct_agency_framework_roles 13. Poinski, M. (June 7, 2017). USDA on GMO Labeling Law: Sill on Track but a Little Behind. Retrieved from, https://www.fooddive.com/news/usda-on-gmo-labeling-law-still-on-track-but-a-little-behind 14. Amelinckx, A. (August 8, 2016). What You Need to Know About the New GMO Labeling Law. Retrieved from https://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/gmo-labeling-law/ 15. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. GMO Disclosure & Labeling.

Retrieved from, https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/gmo 16. Amelinckx, A. (August 8, 2016). What You Need to Know About the New GMO Labeling Law. Retrieved from https://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/gmo-labeling-law/ 17. Fama, R. (September 8, 2016). The GMO Labeling Law: A Matter of Perspective. Retrieved from, http:// www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/09/the-new-gmo-labeling-law-a-matter-of-perspective 18. Berning, J. and Campbell, B. (2017). Consumer Preference and Market Simulations of Food and NonFood GMO Introductions. Retrieved from, https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/252733/2/paperGMO%20market%20share%201%2018%2017.pdf 19. Berning, J. and Campbell, B. (2017). Consumer Knowledge, Perceptions, and Acceptance of GMOs. Retrieved from, https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/252769/2/paper-GMO%20Labels.pdf

49

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural Biotechnology

20. Ibid.

21. Keller, S. Insider Insight to Non-GMO Claim Market Trends. Retrieved from http://foodsafety. merieuxnutrisciences.com/2017/03/07/insight-non-gmo-claim-market-trends 22. Ibid.

23. Fraley, R. (n.d). Use organic and GMOs to feed the world. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost. com/dr-robert-t-fraley/lets-use-organic-and-gmos_b_5669928.html 24. No author (n.p). Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ hunger/ 25. World Hunger, Poverty Facts, Statistics 2016. World Hunger News, Retrieved from www.worldhunger. org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/.

26. Fraley, R. (n.d). Use organic and GMOs to feed the world. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost. com/dr-robert-t-fraley/lets-use-organic-and-gmos_b_5669928.html 27. Nuffield Council. (n.p) Possible Benefits of GMOs. Retrieved from http://nuffieldbioethics.org/report/ gm-crops-developing-countries-2/benefits-gm-crops-developing-countries 28. Brookes, G, and P Barfoot. (2015) GM Crops Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 19962015. Retrieved from Www.pgeconomics.co.uk, 2017, www.pgeconomics.co.uk/.

29. Ibid.

30. The National Academies Press. (2016) National Academy of Sciences, Genetically Engineered. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/ 31. Nuffield Council. (n.p) Possible Benefits of GMOs. Retrieved from http://nuffieldbioethics.org/report/ gm-crops-developing-countries-2/benefits-gm-crops-developing-countries 32. ISAAA. (n.d.). Acreage of genetically modified crops worldwide from 2004 to 2016, by leading country (in million hectares)*. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/263294/acreage-of-genetically-modified-crops-by-country-since-2003/.

33. Ibid.

34. National Academy of Sciences. (2016) “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.”

Genetically Engineered Crops. Retrieved from nas-sites.org/ge-crops/.

35. “Benefits of GMOs and Biotechnology.” Monsanto. Retrieved from monsanto.com/innovations/biotechgmos/.

36. National Academy of Sciences. (2016) “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.”

Genetically Engineered Crops. Retrieved from nas-sites.org/ge-crops/.

37. MacDonald, James A. (2017) “Mergers and Competition in Seed and Agricultural Chemical Markets.”

USDA ERS - Mergers and Competition in Seed and Agricultural Chemical Markets. Retrieved from www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/april/mergers-and-competition-in-seed-and-agricultural-chemical-markets/.

38. Ewg. (2015) “Anti Pro Dash.” Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from static.ewg.org/ reports/2015/anti-label-lobby-2013-2014/anti-pro-dash.html?_ga.

50

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo