Honestly, I don’t get it. What’s wrong with labeling? Most other developed countries–the 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and China–all have some sort of GE labeling requirements. And public opinion polls here in the U.S. have clearly and consistently shown that nearly all of us–over 90 percent in recent polls–want labeling of GE products.

“If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label,” Mark Bittman notes. So why not GMO’s–genetically modified organisms–why aren’t they listed?

Because they don’t have to be. In the Spring of 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that labeling of GE foods would remain voluntary. Perversely, it is companies with GMO-free products that want to add “NON-GE” labels which have faced the tight regulations (and litigation challenges from industry). The agency argues that guaranteeing a product to be free of GMO material is virtually impossible.

It was 1992 when FDA cooked up this idea that GE foods need not be labeled because they were not “materially” different from other foods.  While the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires the FDA to prevent consumer deception by clarifying that a food label is misleading if it omits significant, “material” information, the Agency chose to limit what it considered “material” to only changes in food that could be noted by taste, smell, or other senses.  Since GE foods can’t be “sensed” in this way, FDA declared them to be “substantially equivalent” to conventionally produced foods, and no labeling was required.

Wow. Has anyone told the FDA about nanotechnology? We have entered a brave new world of 21st century food science, yet we’re using seriously outdated definitions of “material differences” and “substantially equivalent.”

Here’s my thinking on this: If I just made a better salmon, I’d want people to know about it. I’d want them to know that by adding just one gene from a Pacific Salmon to an Atlantic Salmon, I can bring you this GE salmon faster and cheaper and without overfishing its wild cousins.

I might spare everyone the part about how all the fish are infertile females, even if that’s how wild populations are safeguarded. It just might be more than what a customer will want to read on a label, but it makes for an interesting backstory, no?

I’m not an advocate for the GE-salmon, nor am I a frankenfood-phobe. We’ve got to feed the world somehow, and well-regulated aquaculture systems are likely to be a big part of the solution.

What I am for is labeling, and not just labeling “bads,” but labeling “goods” as well. Case in point–the term “organic” on the label means this is a good product which was responsibly produced (without GMOs by the way).

Let’s take the stigma out of labels and have them do what they do best–inform consumer choice. And while we’re setting in place a 21st century approach to genetically engineered food products, let’s settle on some suitably modern-day definitions.

They may taste, smell and look the same, but there is most definitely a “material difference” between a salmon genetically altered to grow at a rate 6-10 times faster than its wild counterpart. Oh, and the former can’t reproduce. If that’s not material, then what is?

Originally published on Huffington Post

A new article in the respected journal BioScience raises important concerns about the harmful influence of genetically engineered herbicide resistant crops on sustainable weed control. As many others have also noted, the excessive reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, has resulted in the emergence and spread of many harmful weeds that can no longer be controlled by glyphosate. These weeds now infest millions of acres of farmland the U.S., resulting in greater herbicide use.

But the new article goes well beyond most previous work by providing insight into the state of weed control for major crops in the U.S., and how the current use of engineered herbicide resistant crops is driving agriculture toward reduced sustainability.

Old herbicides in a new package will cause environmental harm

The authors make several important points to support their thesis. First, because of widespread resistance of several important weeds to glyphosate, companies are now working to commercialize crops resistant to several other herbicides, including the old herbicides dicamba and 2, 4-D. Crops resistant to these two herbicides are likely to be widely used because the herbicides they are immune to are more effective than others. This is bad news, because these herbicides can cause a lot of collateral damage to other crops and nearby natural areas. And natural areas are important for fostering biodiversity, such as pollinators and organisms that control pests and reduce insecticide use.

Based in part on the pesticide/seed industry’s own analysis that both glyphosate and these other herbicides will be used together on engineered soybeans and corn, the authors of the article project total herbicide use to increase more than twofold over the next decade. Dicamba and 2, 4 – D are projected to increase almost tenfold.

And the likelihood of these herbicides moving off site and harming sensitive crops is much higher than for glyphosate—75 to 400 times greater in one comparison, although newer formulations may somewhat reduce this problem.  This spells trouble, especially when combined with several other factors that accompany herbicide-resistant crops, such as use of the herbicides later in the season when nearby susceptible crops and wild vegetation have leafed out and are more vulnerable to damage.

This in turn could lead to a further shift to the few crops that are resistant to these herbicides in an effort to avoid damage.

This kind of further simplification of agriculture is understood to be bad for the environment. And in parts of the country where corn and soybeans are widely grown, it could also impede the growing demand for fresh local foods that have positive effects on jobs.

Where have I heard this before?

Increased herbicide use will surely lead to even more resistant weeds, some with resistance to both glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba (or all three), leaving even fewer options for farmers.

The industry has argued to the contrary that it is unlikely that weeds will develop resistance to these herbicides for several reasons…which the article adroitly refutes.

It is troubling that the industry is taking this “head-in-the-sand” attitude because, to the extent it is accepted, it may lead to lax policy by the government and lax practice by growers—that is, too little effort to prevent resistance or to promote sustainable alternatives.

It is particularly troubling because we have heard these irresponsible arguments before from an industry bent on maximizing its sale of products at the expense of the environment. The current article points out how spurious arguments where similarly made that weeds would not develop resistance to glyphosate, where to the contrary, the dramatic increase in resistant weeds is the driving force behind the new crops engineered for dicamba and 2, 4 – D resistance. And I have noted that the industry is also trying to deny and downplay the potential importance of emerging resistance of corn rootworms to Bt.

Undercutting sustainable agriculture

The authors of the new article describe sustainable weed control practices that readers of this blog will find familiar—crop rotation, use of cover crops, crops and cropping practices that effectively compete with weeds, judicious use of tillage, and for non-organic systems, minimal and targeted use of herbicides.

These methods improve weed control and make it more sustainable, while reducing weed pressure.  That means that when herbicides are used, it is less likely that weeds will develop resistance to them. And organic systems, of course, don’t use herbicide at all.

So in the context of these better ways to control weeds, it is perhaps most troubling that the authors document the decline in, as they put it, “…the knowledge infrastructure needed to practice IWM [Integrated Weed Management] in the future…” And, I would add, harm to the research infrastructure that can improve IWM and make it even more efficient.

The authors document a shift in land grant institutions and USDA away from research on more sustainable types of agriculture, toward more emphasis on chemical controls and engineered crops. The dramatic shift of agricultural research funding from the public to the private sector, and the growing ties between academia and the biotech industry, also do not bode well for sustainable agriculture research and infrastructure.

The biotech and chemical industries have no interest in developing the kinds of knowledge- and ecology-based farming vital to a productive and sustainable agriculture that conserves resources and biodiversity, and which will be vital to confronting coming challenges of climate change and increasing population. The companies can’t sell this knowledge, so they are not interested in it.

Sensible solutions

The authors discuss several useful recommendations to make weed management more sustainable. These include mandatory herbicide resistance management imposed by EPA, which approves these chemicals (and I would add, by USDA, which approves herbicide resistant crops); fees on GE herbicide resistant crops and herbicides to discourage their overuse, and which could be plowed back into sustainable ag research; the fostering of partnerships between all stakeholders to develop better stewardship information for farmers and to advise them on sustainable agriculture practices; and more funding and incentives for sustainable agriculture research.

These important policies face a daunting uphill fight—one that UCS and our allies in the sustainable agriculture community will continue to wage. There is considerable resistance to this important agenda by the biotech and pesticide industry and its supporters in the government and academia.

The GE and pesticide industry have no inherent interest in promoting a truly sustainable farming system, and in fact such a system is antithetical to their narrow interests of selling as much herbicide and engineered herbicide-resistant seed as possible. The kinds of sustainable IWM supported in the article would greatly reduce the need for both herbicides and engineered seeds that these companies sell.

Instead, the strong public sector policies advocated by the authors will only come through ongoing and vigorous engagement to convince the public and its servants, who are lobbied heavily by these industries, that sustainable agriculture is critical to the health of our food supply, our environment, and rural communities.

Photo: Giant ragweed, one of the serious weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, by Peggy Greb.

Originally published on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ blog

The Just Label It campaign today launched a new video by Food, Inc. filmmaker Robert Kenner that empowers consumers to fight for their right to know what is in their food. The video, “Labels Matter,” is the result of collaboration between the Just Label It campaign and Kenner’s new project, FixFood, a social media platform that aims to empower Americans to take immediate action to create a more sustainable and democratic food system.

To date, more than 450 consumer, healthcare, environmental and farming organizations, manufacturers, retailers have joined the Just Label It campaign, which has generated more than 500,000 consumer comments calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to label GE foods.  (We wrote about the launch of Just Label It here.) The video seeks to garner more consumer awareness and participation by galvanizing one million consumers to comment to the FDA by mid-April, the date that the FDA’s public comment period ends.

“Labels Matter” tells the story of three women who share a belief in the right to know, but for entirely different reasons. Heather Donatini is a pregnant woman who knows she is feeding her developing baby, as well as herself, with every bite. Luann Clark recently had heart surgery and has to closely monitor what she eats. Robyn O’Brien is a mother whose child developed an allergic reaction to breakfast. “As a mother of children with food allergies, the labeling of GE foods is especially important, as it would provide essential and possibly life-saving information for the food allergic population,” said O’Brien, founder, Allergy Kids Foundation. (We’ve written about Robyn’s important work here and here.)

As the video connects with each woman, Kenner shows how the U.S. compares to other developed nations, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and even China, where genetically engineered (GE) foods are labeled. The video notes that the vast majority of Americans (90 percent in most studies) believe GE foods should be labeled.

Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Stonyfield and a founder of Just Label It, collaborated with Kenner to produce the video. “While the pros and cons of GE foods is debated, an entire generation is growing up consuming them,” he said. “Until we have no doubt that GE crops are safe to eat, consumers should have a choice about whether we want to eat them. GE foods must be labeled. Consumers need to know.” Hirshberg recently published “Label It Now,” the first consumer guide to GE foods available at online booksellers. All proceeds of the e-book go to the Just Label It campaign.

The drumbeat for mandatory GE labeling is getting louder, as the FDA decides whether to approve GE salmon and a proposal advances at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate corn engineered to be resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D, a major component in Agent Orange. You can join in asking the FDA to allow consumers the right to know what’s in their food.

On Monday afternoon a coalition of 11 food safety, environmental, consumer and fisheries organizations sent a letter to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) calling for a halt to its approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon after learning that the company’s–AquaBounty Technologies, Inc.–research site was contaminated with a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), the deadly fish flu that is devastating fish stocks around the world.

“This new information calls into question the reliability of AquaBounty’s data and the validity of its claims that their fish are safe for the environment” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “The FDA must respond appropriately and conduct their own environmental impact statement that looks at a broad range of environmental risks from these genetically engineered salmon, including the risk of spreading diseases such as ISA and antibiotic use for other diseases.”

AquaBounty has claimed that the company’s process for raising GE fish is safer than traditional aquaculture.  However, documents that were revealed last week indicate that their production site was found by Canadian Authorities to have been contaminated in Nov. 2009.  This information was hidden from the public and potentially FDA and other Federal agencies consulting on the GE salmon application. ISA is a deadly disease and is classified as a ‘Listed’ disease by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)–alongside diseases such as Anthrax, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), Foot and mouth disease, rabies, sheep pox, swine fever, avian influenza, West Nile fever, scrapie, fowl cholera, bovine tuberculosis and myxomatosis.

“Infectious Salmon Anaemia threatens wild fisheries around the world and the communities whose livelihood depend on those fish” said Erich Pica, President of Friends of the Earth US. “ISA infections in Chile cost the industry around two billion dollars. A similar infection in Canada and the U.S. could be the last blow to wild Atlantic salmon populations and bring a collapse in wild salmon fisheries.”

The December 19 letter urged FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to release all health data on AquaBounty’s GE salmon and to suspend any approval actions until all the data is disclosed and the public has an opportunity to review the data. Additionally, the coalition asked the FDA to conduct a full environmental impact statement that includes review of the effect of fish diseases, like ISA, on wild fish populations that might come into contact with the AquaBounty fish. Currently, the FDA has only performed a less comprehensive environmental risk assessment.

This news comes on the heels of a Senate subcommittee hearing held last Thursday on the environmental risks of GE fish, the first hearing of its kind in Congress.

Originally published on the Center for Food Safety’s blog

Advocates of GMOs claim that biotechnology increases yields, reduces chemical usage, controls crop pests and weeds, and delivers “climate ready” traits such as drought-tolerance. However, the on-the-ground experience in many countries discloses that this technology has failed on all fronts.

For example, GMO proponents often hail the success of GM cotton in South Africa’s Makhatini Flats. But after initial, highly visible headlines of success, this report reveals a different story. Instead of thriving crops and increased farmer incomes, after five years, the majority of farmers growing GM cotton are in debt due to the high costs of seed, chemical, and other farm inputs. Concurrently, the volatility of the cotton market means that farmers cannot rely on predictable, steady incomes. The essays contained in this Global Citizens Report confirm that such experiences are repeated in many countries and regions. The story of Indian farmer indebtedness and over 250,000 suicides further emphasizes the tragic costs of this failed GM technology. (The essay from India thoroughly reviews this tragedy.)

Super Weeds, Super Problems

Farmers and agronomists throughout the world are alarmed by the growing epidemic of weeds developing a resistance to the herbicide, glyphosate, used on GM crops. These “superweeds” have evolved resistance to glyphosate as a result of the intensive use of this herbicide. From November 2007 to January 2011, infested acreage in the U.S. has more than quintupled, from 2.4 to 12.6 million acres. In Brazil, researchers have reported that nine species have developed tolerance to glyphosate.

And now super pests are also becoming a major hazard. Rootworms are developing a resistance to GM corn in Iowa and Illinois. And, Monsanto, the undisputed leader in GM seed and crop technology and ownership, has, after several years, finally acknowledged that a bollworm pest has developed resistance to its Bt cotton in India.

Another common story detailed in this Global Citizens Report describes how GM technology is pushed by intensive lobbying and marketing efforts, “revolving door” influences, and funding of research and educational institutes. As noted in the report from the U.S., the leading proponent of GM crops—top food and agricultural biotechnology firms spent more than $547 million lobbying Congress between 1999 and 2009. The report from Argentina documents that representatives from biotechnology corporations—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and Pioneer—sit on a prominent national panel that directly advises the government agency that approves field trials and commercialization of GM crops.

Finally, the report documents increasing scientific evidence and warnings from scientists that GMOs may be harmful to human health, ecosystems and also have failed to increase food production. It highlights that, in contrast to GM seeds and crops, agroecological farming systems are proving to be the real answer to food insecurity. A recent study by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food reported that agroecological systems doubled crop yields over a period of three to 10 years in field tests conducted in 20 African countries. The report also cites numerous other studies confirming high yields and reduced chemical use in other regions of the world due to agroecological farming methods.

Owning at least 90 percent of GM seeds and crops, Monsanto is viewed as the leader in promoting this technology and thus its role is particularly highlighted in these voices from the planet reports.

The report will be launched around the world during 2011 and 2012, and began with a launch in San Francisco on October 13.

The report was published by Navdanya (India), Navdanya International, the International Commission on the Future of Food,  with the participation of the Center for Food Safety. The report consists of contributions from groups around the world.

Originally published by the Center for Food Safety

The cables further confirm previous reports from the Web site Truthout on the diplomatic pressure the US has put on Spain and France, two countries with powerful anti-GE crop movements, to speed up their biotech approval process and quell anti-GE sentiment within the European Union (EU).

Several cables describe “biotechnology outreach programs” in countries across the globe, including African, Asian and South American countries where Western biotech agriculture had yet to gain a foothold. In some cables (such as this 2010 cable from Morocco) US diplomats ask the State Department for funds to send US biotech experts and trade industry representatives to target countries for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials.

Truthout recently reported on front groups supported by the US government, philanthropic foundations and companies like Monsanto that are working to introduce pro-biotechnology policy initiatives and GE crops in developing African countries, and several cables released this week confirm that American diplomats have promoted biotech agriculture to countries likeTunisia, South Africa and Mozambique.

Cables detail US efforts to influence the biotech policies of developed countries such as Egypt and Turkey, but France continues to stand out as a high-profile target.

In a 2007 cable, the US embassy in Paris reported on a meeting among US diplomats and representatives from Monsanto, DuPont and Dow-Agro-sciences. The companies were concerned about a movement of French farmers, who were vandalizing GE crop farms at the time, and suggested diplomatic angles for speeding up EU approvals of GE Crops.

In 2008 cable describing a “rancorous” debate within the French Parliament over proposed biotech legislation, Craig Stapleton, the former US ambassador to France under the Bush administration, included an update on MON-810, a Monsanto corn variety banned in France.

Stapleton wrote that French officials “expect retaliation via the World Trade Organization” for upholding the ban on MON-810 and stalling the French GE crop approval process. “There is nothing to be gained in France from delaying retaliation,” Stapleton wrote.

Tough regulations and bans on GE crops can deal hefty blows to US exports. About 94 percent of soybeans, 72 percent of corn and 73 percent of the cotton grown in the US now use GE-tolerate herbicides like Monsanto’s Roundup, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. 

A 2007 cable, for example, reports that the French ban on MON-810 could cost the US $30 million to $50 million in exports.

In a 2007 cable obtained by Truthout in January, Stapleton threatened “moving to retaliate” against France for banning MON-810. Several other European countries, including Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, have also placed bans on MON-810 in recent years. MON-810 is engineered to excrete the Bt toxin, which kills some insect pests.

Originally published on Truthout

With more than 15 years of commercialized GMOs behind us, we know not to believe these promises any longer.

Around the world, from the Government Office of Science in the UK to the National Research Council in the United States, to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, there is consensus: in order to address the roots of hunger today and build a food system that will feed the future, we must invest in “sustainable intensification”—not expensive GMO technology that threatens biodiversity and locks us into dependence on fossil fuels, fossil water, and agrochemicals. And that’s never proven its superiority, even in yields.

By definition, sustainable intensification means producing abundant food while reducing agriculture’s negative impacts on the environment. Water pollution from pesticide run-off, soil degradation from synthetic fertilizer use, are just two examples of the cost of industrial agriculture. (And, mind you, nearly all of the GMO crops planted today rely on synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.)

Sustainable farming has many other co-benefits as well, including improving the natural environment by increasing soil carbon content, protecting watersheds and biodiversity, and decreasing the human health risks from exposures to toxic chemicals. In its policymaker’s guide to sustainable intensification, the FAO states clearly that the “present paradigm” in agriculture–of which Federoff’s beloved GMOs play a starring role–“cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium.”

So while we hear from GMO proponents about the wonders of these crops, the proof is in the fields. Says the FAO: sustainable practices have helped to “reduce crops’ water needs by 30 percent and the energy costs of production by up to 60 percent.” In one of the largest studies [pdf] of ecological farming in 57 countries, researchers found an average yield increase of 80 percent. In East African countries, yields shot up 128 percent.

What about the specific claims that GMOs confer much-desired benefits: nutritional improvements, drought-resilience, or fewer pesticides?

A much-touted effort in Kenya to develop a genetically-engineered virus-resistant sweet potato failed after 10 years, millions of dollars, and countless hours of effort. Not only did it fail, but researchers in Uganda [pdf] have developed varieties of sweet potatoes resistant to the same virus and with greater levels of beta carotene (Vitamin A)—not with genetic engineering’s tinkering, but with conventional breeding.

Federoff boasts that GMOs reduce pesticide usage, but an analysis of 13 years of commercialized GMOs in the United States actually found a dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides used on these crops that swamped the relatively small reduction in insecticide use attributable to GMO corn and cotton during that same period. On the other hand, an FAO ecological farming program in six countries in West Africa helped farmers reduce chemical pesticide use as much as 92 percent, while increasing their net value of production by as much as 61 percent.

Perhaps most gravely, Federoff’s message that GMOs are the key to addressing our planet’s food needs ignores the political and economic context of agricultural interventions.

What’s unique to sustainable interventions is that they build farmer and community capacity, they strengthen social networks. “Social capital”—as development wonks would say—is created. In a study of sustainable farming projects involving 10 million farmers across the African continent, researchers found that adopting sustainable intensification techniques not only upped production significantly, but more importantly increased the overall wealth of farming communities, encouraged women’s participation and education, and built strong social bonds that have helped these communities strengthen their economies and continue to learn, develop, and adapt their farming practices.

In a world rocked with volatile markets, a volatile climate, and diminishing natural resources, we need to turn our attention to investing in the proven sustainable intensification techniques that create resilient communities not to the still-hollow promises of GMO promoters.

One of the many downsides to genetically engineered food is the fact that modified genes are patented by the companies that isolate them. This is not typically part of the story that gets much attention when you read about all those great (but nonexistent) magic seeds that will grow faster, better, cheaper, etc. and seem to forever remain “just around the corner.”

As any music or movie lover knows from experience, patent and copyright law in this country is a mess. You only need to look at the music industry’s successful campaign to sue random consumers over file-sharing to know that. Fun fact: no fiction copyright granted after 1929 — whether a movie, television show, or book — will ever be allowed to expire because that was the year of Mickey Mouse’s “birth” and Disney has convinced Congress that Mickey should never fall into the public domain. That’s one screwed up way to go about protecting the interests of authors. And forget about the folks over at the U.S. Patent Office — it’s clear that they have no idea what they’re doing anymore.

In my recent Common Ground cover story on GMOs, I referred to the fact that the federal government “insists the food revolution will be genetically modified.” Well, what biotech companies want more than anything is for the food revolution to be patented. Why is that? Because, unlike pharmaceuticals, patented genes will never go “generic” after some number of years. Monsanto and its biotech buddies can keep milking that transgenetic cow for decade after decade.

GMO crops have another interesting quality — you can “use” a patented gene without even knowing it. When you download and share music and movies on peer-to-peer networks or plagiarize blog posts or books, let’s face it — you know what you’re doing. But if you’re a farmer, GMO seeds can literally blow in to your fields on the breeze or just the pollen from GMO crops can blow in (or buzz in via bees) and contaminate your organic or “conventional” fields. And if that happens, Monsanto or Syngenta or Bayer CropLife maintain the right to sue you as if you had illegally bought their seed and knowingly planted it.

In an appropriately Orwellian twist, the companies even call such accidental contamination by their products “patent infringement.” And, in the face of a government more than willing to allow companies to “defend” their “intellectual property” in this way, organic farmers and others have now stepped up and said, in short, “Hell no!”:

The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald.  Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it.  The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s transgenic seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”

If the suit is successful, not only will it limit Monsanto’s ability to sue farmers, the company will have far greater responsibility for how and where its biotech seeds are planted. The regulatory free ride will be over. While that won’t eliminate GMO crops, it will at least give organic farmers a hope of avoiding contamination.

What I find intriguing about this suit is that it comes on the heels of a set of rulings against biotech companies and in favor of organic farmers. As I have speculated before, courts have decided that the interests of organic and other non-GMO farmers are now significant enough to require protection. While the USDA and the White House seem happy to do Monsanto’s bidding (as they did in recent decisions to allow Roundup Ready beets and alfalfa), the federal courts — and even the Supreme Court – do not seem so quick to dismiss the economic harm that might come to unfettered use of GMO seeds. This one, my friends, bears watching.

Originally published on Grist

Today, attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), arguing that the agency’s recent unrestricted approval of genetically engineered (GE), “Roundup Ready” Alfalfa was unlawful.  The GE crop is engineered to be immune to the herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto markets as Roundup.  USDA data show that 93 percent of all the alfalfa planted by farmers in the U.S. is grown without the use of any herbicides.  With the full deregulation of GE alfalfa, USDA estimates that up to 23 million more pounds of toxic herbicides will be released into the environment each year.

“USDA has once again failed to provide adequate oversight of a biotech crop,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This reckless approval flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that GE alfalfa threatens the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as significant harm to the environment.  APHIS has refused to apply and enforce the law and instead has chosen to bow to the wishes of the biotech industry.”

This is the second case challenging the legality of USDA’s handling of GE alfalfa.  In 2007, in another case brought by CFS, a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of the engineered crop 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 Roundup.  The case resulted in USDA undertaking a court-ordered four-year study of GE alfalfa’s impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Remarkably, it marked the first time USDA had ever undertaken such a study, known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in over 15 years of approving GE crops for commercial production.  While USDA worked on the EIS, GE alfalfa remained unlawful to plant or sell, a ban that remained in place despite Monsanto appealing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff commented: “We expect Monsanto to force-feed people genetically engineered crops–that’s its business model.  We hoped for better from the USDA, which has much broader responsibilities.  GE alfalfa will greatly increase use of toxic chemicals from coast to coast, threatens the organic dairy industry, and will have farmers going back to Monsanto every year to buy its patented seed and Roundup.”

The plaintiffs include a diverse coalition of conventional and organic farmers, dairies and agricultural associations, and environmental and consumer groups: CFS, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, California Farmers Union, Dakota Resources Council, Geertson Seed Farms, National Family Farm Coalition, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Sierra Club, Trask Family Seeds and Western Organization of Resource Councils.

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

Known as the “queen of forages,” alfalfa is the key feedstock for the dairy industry.  Organic dairies stand to lose their source of organic feed, a requirement for organic dairy, including milk and yogurt products.  The organic sector is the most vibrant part of U.S. agriculture, now a $26 billion a year industry and growing 20 percent annually.

“Approving the unrestricted planting of GE alfalfa is a blatant case of the USDA serving one form of agriculture at the expense of all others,” says plaintiff Ed Maltby, Executive Director of the Northeast Alliance of Organic Dairy Producers.  “If this decision is not remedied, the result will be lost livelihoods for organic dairy farmers, loss of choice for farmers and consumers, and no transparency about GE contamination of our foods.”

Because alfalfa is pollinated by bees that can fly and cross-pollinate between fields and feral sources many miles apart, the engineered crop will contaminate natural alfalfa varieties.  Roundup Ready alfalfa is the first engineered perennial crop, meaning it remains in the ground for 3-6 years and is widely prevalent in wild or feral form throughout America, further increasing the likelihood and extent of transgenic contamination.

“USDA’s review is inaccurate and completely failed to consider critical issues.  The decision to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa opens the door to widespread transgenic contamination, costing farmers their markets, reputation and ability to grow natural varieties,” said plaintiff farmer Phil Geertson.

“We are an organic, grass-fed beef operation relying on alfalfa in pasture mix and for winter feed.  GE alfalfa means contamination of all alfalfa seeds within a few years.  Our options include giving up organic production at great revenue loss or finding another forage at great cost increase,” says organic beef producer Jim Munsch from Wisconsin.

Approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa will spur the glyphosate-resistant epidemic that is already regarded as one of the most serious challenges facing U.S. agriculture.  Weeds evolve resistance to glyphosate just as bacteria evolve immunity to overused antibiotics.  While other Roundup Ready crops spawned the epidemic, Roundup Ready alfalfa will exacerbate it by increasing the frequency and intensity of glyphosate use on millions of acres of cropland.  Farmers respond to resistant weeds by applying more and more herbicides, soil-eroding tillage operations, and even hand-weeding on hundreds of thousands of acres.  Such “superweeds” have expanded four-fold to infest over 10 million acres since just 2008, with some projecting 38 million acres by 2013.  Alfalfa, the fourth most prevalent crop in the U.S., is grown on over 20 million acres, spanning every state.

“Alfalfa grows in dense stands that naturally suppress weeds, and so has traditionally been the one crop in farmers’ rotations that provides a much-needed break from the onslaught of toxic herbicides.  Roundup Ready alfalfa will only foster still more resistant weeds, and thereby increase the pesticide dependence of U.S. agriculture beyond already unsustainable levels,” said Bill Freese, CFS Science Policy Analyst.

The latest USDA data show that less than 10 percent of alfalfa acres are sprayed with any herbicide, and consequently, GE alfalfa will dramatically increase the use of such chemicals across the country, with all of their attendant hazards to wildlife, plants, groundwater, and people.

Originally published at the Center for Food Safety

In late January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture deregulated genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa and sugar beets.  These products will now enter the food stream for animals and people.  Who cares about these developments?  Organic farmers certainly care, because of the risk of contamination of their non-GE crops through drift of the GE seeds onto their non-GE land.  Well-informed and true-believing food advocates care.  They do not want to GE food products, on principle and for fear of harm to living creatures.  Stated more broadly and clearly, people want to know—indeed deserve to know—that they eat safe food, not contaminated or toxic in any way.

In actuality, the science on GE products so far simply has not demonstrated harm to living beings beyond any reasonable doubt from GE food. This situation does not mean that there is no harm; it only means that science has not found it yet—and funding for this research is very limited. Science depends on testing and re-testing and figuring out if any particular result holds up to this kind of scrutiny. In the long run, science may never find harm from GE food because there is none.  Or we may encounter a biological catastrophe like what occurred with the introduction of thalidomide.

The precautionary principle would seem to apply to GE foods—with the implication that we keep doing the science to learn as much as we can before unleashing an unknown force into the environment.  But the advocates of GE alfalfa, sugar beets, corn, and soybeans repeat their mantra:  There is no scientific evidence for harm. Farmers need to plant now. With GE seeds they can use a pesticide that kills weeds but not the product and thereby reduce the cost of production. The company that owns the patent on the GE seed and makes the pesticide earns more money.  (Oh, and of course that one company would be Monsanto. In 2004, Monsanto GE seeds accounted [PDF] for 91 percent of global soybean area and 97 percent of global maize area, a combined total of 155 million acres.  In 2004 Monsanto sold seeds worth more than $28 billion.)

Does anyone else care?  It would seem that not many more people care. After all, most people just want to buy their food.  As long as the grocery store is open, stocks their favorite foods and keeps prices reasonable, people keep shopping. Perhaps more people would care if the grocery store posted a sign at the front door:  THE PRODUCTS IN THIS STORE MAY CONTAIN TOXIC SUBSTANCES.

How crazy would such a warning be?  It would not be crazy at all, even without indisputable, conclusive science.  Charts showing both the rising rate of obesity and the growing quantity of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the food stream demonstrate a startling fact: The obesity epidemic started at the same time as the introduction as HFCS into the U.S. around 1975, at about the same time as sugar tariffs and quotas made imported sugar very expensive. Coke and Pepsi began to use HFCS in 1984. (See this animated map.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the increase of diabetes in the U.S. also increased after the introduction of HFCS, more than tripling from 1980 through 2008, from 5.6 million to 18.1 million. In addition to soft drinks, HFCS sweetens a large number of processed foods, the canned, packaged and bottled foods occupying the center aisle shelves of supermarkets and making up the vast majority of the stock keeping units (SKUs) in stores that carry tens of thousands of food products.

HFCS is the tip of the toxic iceberg in our food and in our environment.  Residues from other chemicals used in industrial agriculture to increase productivity and lower costs also increase the toxic load carried by every living being. Chemicals like Bisphenol-A in the lining of cans containing food on center aisle grocery store shelves add to our toxic load. We poison the living soil. We poison the fungi and the worms. We poison the frogs and destroy bee and butterfly habitat. Worst of all, every nursing mother has toxins in her breast milk–we are poisoning our babies.

This shared toxic load is self-inflicted genocide—actually biocide, since we are killing all living things.  While we could point fingers and express our outrage, such demonstrations have little impact.

Consumers need to take charge. More than foodies and activists, we need everyday people in neighborhoods all over the U.S. to buy real food and to avoid anything in a bottle, can or package unless the producer can certify that the ingredients are produced using sustainable practices and the production introduces no harmful substances. We need to build a blue-collar, working class, youth and adult popular campaign on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, calling for toxic-free food from the food system. The campaign could include the following actions:

• Everyone who shops can choose to eat real food (defined below) one week a month—buy and cook local food, real food from the supermarket. Nothing from the center aisle;
• Avoid all HFCS and all GE soy-based products all the time. However, since at least 60 percent of all processed foods contain GE soy and are not labeled, the best strategy might be to avoid all soy-based products.
• Reach out to family and friends to join the campaign on Facebook and Twitter;
• Write a letter to the White House and to Congress asking for protection from toxics;
• Form a political action committee that can lobby with the same fervor as the corporations using the services of a volunteer lawyer;
• Create YouTube viral advertising to promote real food.  The most compelling image is the image of toxic mother’s milk poisoning the innocent baby, the symbol of all future generations.  The most intense message is global genocide; and
• Mount a campaign calling on all union pension funds to divest all stock in companies that use GE products.

We need to free our food now.

Definitions:

Food

Food is an edible plant or animal that grows, walks or swims on the earth and its waters with no genetic engineering, no exogenous hormone-driven growth, no anti-biotic driven growth and no synthetic chemical substances to mimic natural qualities.  Plant foods do not depend on petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides or herbicides.  Over millennia human metabolism and cultures have adapted to the foods growing in every ecological niche.

Anything else is a MESS (Manufactured Edible Substitute Substance)

Any edible substance other than real food is a MESS. A MESS has genetic engineering, hormone and antibiotic residue from concentrated production, and synthetic additives. Emerging research demonstrates that human metabolism cannot handle MESSes. MESSes subvert food cultures and food sovereignty. MESSes and the processes used in their manufacture and packaging contribute to the alarming toxic load that every human being now carries.

Photo: stevendepolo via Flickr