NEWS ARTICLES

Comments on USDA’s unregulated release of Roundup Ready Alfalfa
February 16, 2011

From the Montana Organic Association
MOA is as disappointed in the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa as it would be with the deregulation of any further grains or seeds with Genetically Engineered traits. We are deeply concerned with the future ability of farmers and ranchers, to grow non-genetically engineered crops and consumers to know whether or not they are feeding Genetically Engineered products to their families.  In order to protect the integrity of safe wholesome food, controls must be put in place to eliminate the risks of Genetically Engineered trait contamination.  The USDA has repeatedly been asked to step in by courts, farmers and consumers and establish such controls, which would allow all agricultural sectors to coexist, but conformity has never been reached.

Farmers should have the right, the freedom, and the obligation, to raise agricultural products in any manner that does not adversely affect their neighbors or the environment.  Still biotech agriculture continues to fight to be exempt from any responsibility for contaminating organic agriculture with Genetically Engineered traits.

From the Organic Trade Association
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 27, 2011)— The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced plans to allow commercial planting of Forage Genetics International’s (FGI) Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa genetically engineered to tolerate St. Louis-based Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide without any federal requirements to prevent contamination of the rest of alfalfa seed and plantings. The genetically engineered technology is licensed exclusively to the seed maker FGI by Monsanto. The expected impact of this decision is far reaching, particularly to organic farmers.

“This creates a perplexing situation when the market calls for a supply of crops free of genetic engineering. The organic standards prohibit the use of genetic engineering, and consumers will not tolerate the accidental presence of genetic engineered materials in organic products yet GE crops continue to proliferate unchecked,” said Christine Bushway, Executive Director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association (OTA).

She added, “Preserving market and farmer choice and agricultural diversity are central to USDA’s mission and the future of rural American livelihoods. This failure to do so will make it increasingly difficult to meet the growing demand for U.S. organic crops.”

The organic sector is a profitable part of a diverse U.S. agricultural economy—a 26.6- billion-dollar-a-year industry that employs tens of thousands around the country, and helps keep at least 14,540 family farms operating in our rural countryside. Except for 2009, the organic industry has experienced double digit growth—often over 20 percent—annually for over a decade.

Unrestricted commercialization of genetically engineered crops—86 percent of the country’s corn and 93 percent of soybeans—has resulted in widespread unlabeled presence of GE materials in mainstream food products unbeknownst to the average consumer. According to California’s Department of Food and Agriculture, at least 70 percent of processed foods in American supermarkets now contain GE ingredients.

The USDA organic program is the only federal food label that prohibits the use of GE crops or materials. Under current USDA policy, the organic sector bears the burden created by unchecked release of GE crops.

While USDA, for the first time, took a step and acknowledged organic and IP agriculture as a stakeholder in decisions around the release of GE crops it is a small step for organic alongside giant steps towards accelerated decisions to deregulate many new GE crops awaiting review at USDA. The organic industry and the loyal consumers of organic products will continue to resist this unrestricted commercialization of GE crops being brought to market by the well-funded and influential biotech industry.

In addition to concerns for the organic sector, many unanswered questions remain regarding genetic engineering. For instance, how does the biotech industry and USDA intend to control the rapid development of superweeds from the overuse of Roundup and other herbicides, analogous to the advent of antibiotic resistance with conventional agriculture’s routine overuse of antibiotics to address overcrowding and growth rather than disease? Also, how do you conduct sound epidemiological science on the long-term health impact of genetically engineered substances that cannot be traced through the food system because foods produced using GE are not labeled as such?

“Until these questions are addressed, the argument that agricultural biotechnology represents ‘sound science’ is just not valid,” Bushway added.


From the Center for Food Safety
CENTER ANNOUNCES IMMEDIATE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO USDA’S FLAWED ASSESSMENT
 
The Center for Food Safety criticized the announcement today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it will once again allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of Monsanto’s genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers USDA acknowledged in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).  On a call today with stakeholders, Secretary Vilsack reiterated the concerns surrounding purity and access to non-GE seed, yet the Agency’s decision still places the entire burden for preventing contamination on non-GE farmers, with no protections for food producers, consumers and exporters.

“We’re disappointed with USDA’s decision and we will be back in court representing the interest of farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.”

On Monday, the Center sent an open letter to Secretary Vilsack calling on USDA to base its decision on sound science and the interests of farmers, and to avoid rushing the process to meet the marketing timelines or sales targets of Monsanto, Forage Genetics or other entities.

CFS also addressed several key points that were not properly assessed in the FEIS, among them were:

• Liability, Implementation and Oversight — Citing over 200 past contamination episodes that have cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, CFS demands that liability for financial losses incurred by farmers due to transgenic contamination be assigned to the crop developers.  CFS also calls on USDA to take a more active oversight role to ensure that any stewardship plans are properly implemented and enforced.
• Roundup Ready alfalfa will substantially increase herbicide use – USDA’s assessment misrepresented conventional alfalfa as utilizing more herbicides than it does, which in turn provided a false rationale for introducing herbicide-promoting Roundup Ready alfalfa.  In fact, USDA’s own data shows that just 7% of alfalfa hay acres are treated with herbicides.  USDA’s projections in the FEIS show that substantial adoption of Roundup Ready alfalfa would trigger large increases in herbicide use of up to 23 million lbs. per year.
• Harms from glyphosate-resistant weeds – USDA’s sloppy and unscientific treatment of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds ignored the significant contribution that RR alfalfa could make to their rapid evolution.  USDA failed to analyze how GR weeds fostered by currently grown RR crops are increasing herbicide use; spurring more use of soil-eroding tillage; and reducing farmer income through increased weed control costs, an essential baseline analysis.

“We in the farm sector are dissatisfied but not surprised at the lack of courage from USDA to stop Roundup Ready alfalfa and defend family farmers,” said Pat Trask, conventional alfalfa grower and plaintiff in the alfalfa litigation.

The FEIS comes in response to a 2007 lawsuit brought by CFS, in which a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of GE alfalfa violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of glyphosate herbicide, sold by Monsanto as Roundup.  The Court banned new plantings of GE alfalfa until USDA completed a more comprehensive assessment of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on GE alfalfa planting.  In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs.

“Last spring more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the USDA highly critical of the substance and conclusions of its Draft EIS on GE Alfalfa,” said Kimbrell.  “Clearly the USDA was not listening to the public or farmers but rather to just a handful of corporations.”

From the Cornucopia Institute
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced this afternoon that the agency will fully deregulate Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered alfalfa. The choice was favored by the biotech industry and one of three options identified in the USDA’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released last month.

USDA could have maintained regulatory status over the perennial crop that is so important as forage for the livestock industry. Or they could have chosen a limited regulation strategy with bans on the planting of GE alfalfa seeds in seed growing regions to attempt to limit the contamination of alfalfa seed stock by foreign DNA from Monsanto’s crop (alfalfa is pollinated by bees and other insects and has a pollination radius of five miles). Instead, the agency, under heavy pressure from the biotech sector, chose total deregulation. Over 250,000 public comments were received during the FEIS process, with the vast majority opposing deregulation.
Vilsack did announce that the USDA would establish a second germ plasm/seed center for alfalfa in the state of Idaho to try and maintain GE-free strains of alfalfa. They currently operate such a facility in Prosser, WA. He said the FEIS process brought home two key points to USDA: choice and trust.

The Center for Food Safety, supported by The Cornucopia Institute and others, has been embroiled in a court case fighting the release of GE-alfalfa. Cornucopia is a formal plaintiff in the case. The legal matter has been on hold while the USDA completed its court-ordered EIS. Opponents of GE-alfalfa may soon determine their “choice” and resume the legal battle.

Genetic engineered crops, animals and food are banned in organic agriculture. Many conventional alfalfa and seed producers also have expressed their opposition to Monsanto’s new crop. Like organic producers, they do not want their strains of alfalfa contaminated by foreign DNA. Monsanto has aggressively pursued farmers for damages when they have discovered evidence of their patented DNA in their conventional crops.

Planting of GE-alfalfa could begin this spring as Forage Genetics (owned by Land O’ Lakes) has millions of pounds of Monsanto’s seed in storage.




Food Safety Act, H.R. 2749 and S. 510
January 18, 2011

11/30/2010--Passed Senate amended.
1/4/2011- President Obama signs bill.

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -
Title I - Improving Capacity to Prevent Food Safety Problems
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the food safety activities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), including to authorize the Secretary to inspect records related to food. Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act. Requires each owner, operator, or agent in charge of a food facility to identify and implement preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent hazards that could affect food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by such facility. Sets forth provisions governing exemptions from such requirements for certain facilities. Requires the Secretary to: (1) issue guidance documents to reduce the risk from the most significant foodborne contaminants; and (2) establish minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables based on known safety risks. Authorizes the Secretary to issue exemptions and variances from such standards. Directs the Secretary to assess and collect fees related to: (1) food facility reinspection; (2) food recalls; (3) the voluntary qualified importer program; and (4) importer reinspection. Directs the Secretary to develop voluntary food allergy and anaphylaxis management guidelines for schools and early childhood education programs.

Title II - Improving Capacity to Detect and Respond to Food Safety Problems
Requires the Secretary to: (1) allocate resources to inspect facilities and imported food according to the known safety risks of the facilities or food; and (2) establish a product tracing system to track and trace food that is in the United States or offered for import into the United States. Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to enhance foodborne illness surveillance systems to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data on foodborne illnesses. Gives the Secretary the authority to order a recall of an article of food.

Title III - Improving the Safety of Imported Food
Requires U.S. importers to perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities to verify that imported food is produced in compliance with applicable requirements related to hazard analysis and standards for produce safety and is not adulterated or misbranded. Requires the Secretary to establish a program to expedite review and importation of food offered for importation by U.S. importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program. Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) require a certification that an article of food imported or offered for import complies with applicable requirements of this Act; and (2) enter into arrangements and agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of registered foreign facilities. Requires food to be refused admission into the United States if permission to inspect the food facility is denied by the facility owner, operator, or agent or the foreign country. Sets forth provisions governing the establishment of a system to recognize bodies that accredit third-party auditors and audit agents to certify that foreign entities meet applicable FFDCA requirements for importation of food into the United States.

Title IV - Miscellaneous Provisions
Authorizes appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for the activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Directs the Secretary to increase the field staff of such Centers and Office. Establishes whistleblower's protections for employees of entities involved in the manufacturing, processing, packing, transporting, distribution, reception, holding, or importation of food who provide information relating to any FFDCA violation.


A rather lengthy article about the bill, written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, can be downloaded here. (1.1 MB)
 
For a less non-partisan analysis of the bill (without the Tester-Hagen Amendment), here is a good link:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/sff/S510%20memo%20FARFA.pdf
 
More info on the Bill:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/food_safety_bills_09
 
And analysis of the Tester-Hagen Amendment: 
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/Tester-Hagan-explanation

Top Ten Things Food Industry Professionals Need to Know About the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Registrar Corp:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=vonteqdab&v=001DcfdIOMFLbnyyKd-BmTYgr-SRHC8RP0lWoJwmMzeIiuZNjbIp8xw6N4jpMDQNHtbSCBnawJOAfEEf2t2XXYzCamVSmRQYfE-fpqxWV3JHtQFw5RcsxJlA_CwhYiK2qsM





Update on GE Alfalfa Case
by Kiki Hubbard
July 1, 2010

There has been confusion around the Supreme Court decision involving genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. You probably saw conflicting media reports and press releases where both sides claimed victory. It’s true that both sides took away a win from the ruling.

For Monsanto, the ruling was a victory in that the Supreme Court reversed the injunction on planting and selling GE alfalfa. The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction on planting the GE variety was unnecessary because under the lower courts' rulings GE alfalfa became a regulated crop again and therefore illegal to plant commercially.  In other words, the injunction was "overkill" because the victory in the lower federal court determined that USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it approved Roundup Ready alfalfa. The Supreme Court decided that voiding USDA's decision to make GE alfalfa legally available for sale was enough.

So why is it a victory for the organic community? Because the ban on GE alfalfa remains in place – it is still illegal to sell and plant GE alfalfa. The Supreme Court also did not rule on arguments presented by Monsanto that could have harmed NEPA. And the Court’s opinion does not bar future action related to GE contamination. That is, contamination can still be considered harm under NEPA from an environmental and economic perspective. Monsanto had asked the Court to rule that contamination by GE crops not be considered irreparable harm.

To sum it up, the organic community can celebrate two pieces of the ruling: 1) the Court did not allow for the immediate sale and planting of GE alfalfa, and 2) farmers can continue to argue in future cases that the threat of GE contamination causes irreparable harm to their crops and livelihood.

Learn more by visiting the Center for Food Safety at www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

To place your news article on this page, email: moa@montanaorganicassociation.org.