| 
 
 
 by Mike Ludwig 22 February 2011 from Truthout Website 
 
 
 
 
 
 
			 The USDA recently approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa. Government regulators openly rely on data and research provided by the biotech industry when approving GE technology. 
			(Photo: tipsycat) The recent approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa is one of most divisive controversies in American agriculture, but in 2003, it was simply the topic at hand in a string of emails between the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Monsanto. 
 
			In the emails, federal regulators and 
			Monsanto officials shared edits to a list of the USDA's questions 
			about Monsanto's original petition to fully legalize the alfalfa. 
			Later emails show a USDA regulator accepted Monsanto's help with 
			drafting the initial environmental assessment (EA) of the alfalfa 
			and planned to "cut and paste" parts of Monsanto's revised 
			petition-right into the government's assessment. 
 
			The CFS views the emails as prime 
			evidence of "collusion" between the biotech industry and public 
			officials charged with regulating genetically engineered (GE) crops. 
			It's unclear if such internal cooperation continues under the 
			current administration, but regulators still openly rely on data and 
			research provided by the biotech industry when approving GE 
			technology. 
			It's unclear if such internal cooperation continues under the 
			current administration, but regulators still openly rely on data and 
			research provided by the biotech industry when approving GE 
			technology. 
 
			Monsanto was happy to redraft the letter 
			point by point. 
 
			APHIS conducts EA's to assess the 
			potential environmental impacts of proposed agricultural products. 
			See "The 
			World According to Monsanto - From Agent Orange to Genetically 
			Modified Crops". 
 Meier, who was in charge of writing the EA, accepted Monsanto's help and said he would "cut and paste" information right from petition into the EA: 
 Bill Freese, a policy analyst with CFS, said this kind of cooperation between federal regulators and the biotech industry is unacceptable. 
 
			The USDA did not respond to Freese's 
			letter, but a spokesperson told Truthout that the USDA works closely 
			with industry petitioners and can include some information from a 
			petition in the EA. 
 Opponents argue that Roundup Ready alfalfa will threaten organic crops with herbicide drifts, increase the presence of an already growing list of herbicide-resistant weeds and inevitably contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa with transgenes through cross-pollination. 
 
			The EIS contains evidence of these 
			risks, but the USDA considers them inherent to modern agriculture 
			and ruled that Roundup Ready alfalfa poses no more "plant pest 
			risks" than conventional or organic alfalfa varieties. 
 The possibility that Roundup Ready alfalfa could cross-pollinate and infect non-GE organic alfalfa is a key issue for organic farmers. 
 
			If the Roundup Ready transgene spreads 
			to non-GE alfalfa - which critics like Freese claim is inevitable - 
			then the industry may have to change the standards for determining 
			what can be labeled "organic" and "natural," and the growing organic 
			food industry could face millions of dollars in losses if their 
			alfalfa is contaminated with Monsanto transgenes. 
 About 200,000 acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa in 48 states were planted and harvested in 2005 and 2006 before the CFS lawsuit forced a ban. 
 During this time, two alfalfa seed production firms, Dairyland and Cal/West Seeds, reported transgenic contamination in non-GE alfalfa seeds in California, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. 
 
			
			
			Dairyland reported contamination rates 
			hovering around 1 percent, but in 2009, Cal/West reported that 12 
			percent of more than 200 alfalfa seed lots were contaminated with 
			transgenes, and in 2008, all six of the firm's research lots tested 
			positive for GE contamination. Preliminary data from 2009 showed 
			that 30 percent of seed stock lots were contaminated. 
 
			Critics like Freese say data provided by 
			the industry doesn't belong in the USDA's assessments, but the USDA 
			claims the data shows "acceptable" rates of transgenic 
			contamination. 
 
			Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) in sending a 
			letter to the USDA requesting the department decide against 
			deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa. Citing alfalfa seed markets in 
			countries that have banned GE seeds and data provided by Dairyland 
			and Cal/West Seeds, Leahy and his supporters claim the US could lose 
			$197 million annually in alfalfa seed and forage exports as a result 
			of GE contamination of organic and conventional seeds. 
 
			Freese said alfalfa is often treated 
			with chemicals sprayed by airplanes, and the CFS is concerned that 
			aerial sprays of Roundup could drift onto conventional and organic 
			alfalfa plots and damage crops that are not resistant to Roundup. 
			According to some estimates, Roundup Ready alfalfa could increase 
			herbicide use by up to 23 million pounds per year. 
 Farmers now combat the weeds with cocktails of herbicides like 2,4 D - an ingredient in Agent Orange - that are know to be more toxic than glyphosate. 
 
			In all, farmers have used at least 318 
			million more pounds of herbicides and pesticides in the past 13 
			years as a result of planting GE crop seeds like Roundup Ready corn 
			and soy. 
 
			Freese said that, like the data provided 
			on cross-contamination provided by Forage Genetics, the USDA relies 
			on data from industry-funded groups like the National Center for 
			Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) and PG Economics. 
 One week before Roundup Ready alfalfa was deregulated, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack testified before the House Committee on Agriculture, where Chairmen Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) led a charge to press the USDA to fully deregulate the alfalfa. 
 A political action committee and individuals associated with Monsanto donated $11,000 to Lucas' campaign last year, and Lucas has received $1,247,844 from the agribusiness industry during his political career, according to watchdog site www.opensecrets.org. 
 
			Since 1999, 
			the top 50 companies holding agricultural or food patents have spent 
			more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying 
			efforts, according to a report released last year. 
 The public comments may have fallen on deaf ears, or perhaps they were just drowned out by the booming voice of a biotech industry that refuses to take no for an answer. 
 
 |