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.
|