Bad Bad Bad News: USDA Caves to Industry Pressure on GE Alfalfa

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 14:52:05 PM PST

This is a bit of a first, as I've said before. It's not the first GE crop to be grown commercially in the U.S. But it's a first in terms of the impact it will have. Most corn grown in the U.S. is hybrid, which means that the genes in the seed corn farmers plant have been carefully selected. It's likely that some GE contamination occurs in corn, but for the most part, if you try to buy GE-free corn, that's what you'll get. But alfalfa is open pollinated, which means that the alfalfa grown to produce seed sold around the country can be easily contaminated with GE traits.

Truly, this is devastating. Not only for the impact it will have on organic farmers, but also in terms of what it tells us about the USDA. A release from The Cornucopia Institute says:

...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 the operative word is "try," to maintain GE-free strains of alfalfa.

There you are. The majority of 250,000 citizens vs. the biotech lobby. I think, at a minimum, the USDA should now be required to stop referring to itself as "The People's Department" (the name Lincoln gave it when he founded it in the 1860's).

Press coverage:
NYT: Agriculture Agency Approves Planting of Modified Alfalfa
Des Moines Register: Vilsack decides against biotech restrictions

As the Biotech Lobby Spins

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 14:41:52 PM PST

More on what the report actually says and the media coverage of it below.

GE Alfalfa Resources

by: Food Sleuth

Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 23:50:17 PM PST

In response, I have compiled the following resources and links with emphasis on the National Organic Coalition's call for action instead.

Coexistence and GE Alfalfa

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 18:32:38 PM PST

Republican Ag Leadership Supports GE Alfalfa

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 14:14:00 PM PST

ACTION: Save Organic Dairy, Stop GE Alfalfa

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 14:06:43 PM PST

As the Obama administration moves closer to giving a green light to GE alfalfa, they are talking a lot about "coexistence," i.e. finding ways that both organic and farmers growing GE crops can live peacefully side by side. This is a nice thought, of course, but if there's one rock solid scientific observation about GE crops it is that they cannot be contained. Mistakes happen. A lot. So much so that despite GE corn growing nowhere NEAR the birthplace of corn in Mexico (at least, not legally), landrace corn in Oaxaca was found with contamination from GE corn.

A wonderful backgrounder on this issue can be found on the Food and Water Watch site.

Take action to stop GE alfalfa here

The United States of Monsanto

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 13:24:53 PM PST

Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the USG reinforce our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by publishing a retaliation list when the extend "Reasonable Time Period" expires. In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the Commission. In France, the "Grenelle" environment process is being implemented to circumvent science-based decisions in favor of an assessment of the "common interest." Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin to turn this issue in France. End Summary.

This cable was sent from the U.S. Embassy in Paris on December 14, 2007. More below.

WikiLeaks: State Dept. wants intel on African acceptance of GMOs

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 20:16:31 PM PST

WikiLeaks: State Dept. wants intel on African acceptance of GMOs
by Tom Laskawy

The WikiLeaks release of U.S. State Department classified diplomatic cables may be problematic, but it has been quite a trove of information on the workings of our diplomatic corps. For the most part, the dump has confirmed things that we already knew about U.S. policy -- and that seems to be the case regarding the one mention of agricultural policy in these thousands of emails and documents (no doubt there are more) to which I was alerted.

Buried deep in a document that outlines priorities for intelligence gathering in the African "Great Lakes" countries of Burundi, the Republic of Congo, and Rwanda is a list (for the most part, very reasonable) of what the State Department would like to know about the region's agricultural policy. Things like government policies on food security and food safety top the list, for example, along with information on the impact of rising food prices in these countries. Agricultural yield statistics, infrastructure improvements, data on deforestation and desertification, water issues, and invasive species are included as priorities for "reporting" as well.

But also getting its own line item on the intel priority list is this:

Government acceptance of genetically modified food and propagation of genetically modified crops.

Sigh.

Tom Philpott has reported on the State Department's biotech-loving science adviser Nina Federoff and her industry ties -- and certainly USDA Chief Tom Vilsack believes that genetically modified foods are an answer to world hunger. So this revelation hardly counts as a surprise. But it's still a shame to see that our spymasters are actively engaged in efforts to make the world safe for Monsanto. Aren't there better things for them to do?

Tom is a writer and a media & technology consultant who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters and blogs at Grist and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.

Dr. Evil is For Genetic Engineering!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 22:19:44 PM PST

That said, I would have NEVER thought they'd take on the issue of genetically engineered crops in Africa. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure about, it's that they don't give a shit about starving people in Africa. But they do, perhaps, give a shit about the financial well-being and public acceptance of major biotech corporations. They are probably paid handsomely to give a shit about that, although we will likely never know since they don't disclose their funders.

Their article, if you can call it that, touts a recent "independent study" that was led by Harvard University professor Calestous Juma. (As you might have guessed, Robert Paarlberg was among those who worked on this project.) I've posted the press release sent around by the study authors below. Its headline is "Africa Can Feed Itself Within a Generation" and it calls for increased use of genetic engineering and other new technology, such as nanotechnology.

If you read my recent review and summary of the book Seeds of Famine, you know that the Sahel region of West Africa was fairly food secure until the period of French occupation (which lasted until the 1960's), during which time the French forced the local people to destroy their environment, including their farmland and pastures, and pushed many people onto land that was unsuitable for food production. The result was a major famine from 1968-1974. This book is now 30 years old, but it made many points that seemed worth following up on.

From there, I began researching other parts of Africa. Did the same thing happen elsewhere? I am far from having the answers yet, but I had the good fortune of running into a few acquaintances this past weekend - a woman who served in the Peace Corps in Kenya and her husband, a Kenyan. I brought up the topic of the impact that Europe's conquest of Africa had on food security in Kenya and they gave me an earful.

The first thing they brought up was quite familiar to me: the best land in Kenya is used for growing commercial crops for export. Crops like tea, coffee, and sugar. Small wonder why Kenya, a former British colony, would be a major producer of tea and sugar. Subsistence farmers are pushed to more marginal lands. This seems to me to be a constant around the world, that subsistence farmers are pushed to marginal lands.

Then, they brought up something else: the Nile Waters Agreement. In 1929, Britain (on behalf of Sudan) signed a treaty with Egypt governing the water in the Nile. Most other countries along the Nile (like Kenya) did not exist yet. And they didn't sign the treaty. Unfortunately, they are still "bound" by this treat (says who, you gotta wonder... apparently "the Egyptian military, that's who" is the answer) and thus cannot do ANYTHING that effects water levels in the Nile. That means that Kenya cannot touch the water in Lake Victoria, an enormous lake that it shares with Tanzania and Uganda.

This agreement was renegotiated and renamed the Nile Waters Treaty in 1959, but still only split the water between Sudan and Egypt, with Egypt getting the vast majority. If Kenya were able to use the water from Lake Victoria for irrigation, many of its food issues would be taken care of. Instead, that water goes to grow Egyptian cotton, because of a treaty Kenya never signed.

What I've seen in my travels thus far is that the key word in the phrase "food justice" is justice. Is it fair that the rich and powerful control the best land and the poor and hungry get the worst? Is it fair that a country would give priority to growing to export crops over feeding its own population? Of course, life isn't fair. But we are trying to solve this problem of incredible injustice by finding some agricultural silver bullet that would magically make small plots of marginal lands sprout record amounts of food, and that's ridiculous.

If you're committed to everyone in the world eating, then you need to look at the big picture. According to the World Food Program's estimates, some 4.7 million Kenyans are hungry (1.2 million in rural areas, and 3.5 million in cities). Meanwhile, Kenya was the top tea exporter (by quantity) in the world in 2008, according to the FAO. That year, they also exported 41,649 tonnes of coffee. So what are we more committed to? Letting the invisible hand do what it does and letting the chips fall as they may, or making sure everyone eats? (I'm not saying I have all of the answers, but I do know hypocrisy when I see it.)

News from DC: Two Anti-GE Salmon Bills and the Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 14:39:56 PM PST

Second, food safety news. My inbox is FLOODED with news about this and it seems that Senator Tester has spoken on the floor of the Senate on behalf of small farmers. Here is what an email I received said about the state of the compromise taking place on the Tester Amendment.

Consumer groups and the bipartisan authors of S.510 have all agreed to compromise language for the Tester Amendment.  That means the amendment will either be included in the manager's package (and would therefore become part of the overall bill), or it will be voted up or down as a stand-alone amendment.

The compromise differs in three respects from the most recent version of the amendment:

· Language has been added that gives FDA authority to withdraw an exemption from a farm or facility that has been associated with a foodborne illness outbreak.
· The distance from a facility or farm that is eligible to be a "qualified end-user" has been reduced from 400 miles to 275 miles.
· Language clarifying that farmers' market sales are "direct-to-consumer" for FDA's purposes has been revised to avoid creating unintended consequences (the effect is the same).

A summary of the revised amendment is online: http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...
Revised language is online: http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...

So, with all of that taken care of... will there be a vote? All eyes are now on Sen. Coburn.

Turkey May Reject Genetically Engineered Food Imports

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 18:38:17 PM PST

I've not been able to find much about this story in the news, aside from what's been said by the United Soybean Board, some of which sounds like it might be bogus. But apparently, Turkey might be doing this because they want to become more in line with the policies of the EU. Or, honestly, and the United Soybean Board wouldn't say this, maybe they've seen some good science that made them decide to rethink their policies on biotech imports.

At any rate, it does not look like this is a ban. Rather, they are creating a new Turkey Biosafety Board and GE varieties that are already legally sold in Turkey will have to resubmit paperwork to be approved all over again. Or not approved, as the case may be. And it seems there might be a period of time in between the currently approved stuff being disallowed and the new approvals being issued in which U.S. soybeans won't be allowed into Turkey.

Let's continue to follow this one. It's certainly likely the U.S. government will weigh in on GE soy's behalf. I'm also interested to see where Turkey plans to get its soy, if not from the U.S. The other big producers are Brazil and Argentina... and I believe they grow GE soy too.  

BIG NEWS: U.S. Government Says NO to Patenting Genes

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 13:40:55 PM PDT

Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry.

Really? That is a huge turnaround. My first thought was that maybe a lower court judge did this and it could be overturned. But, according to the article, it comes directly from the Department of Justice:

The new position was declared in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Department of Justice late Friday in a case involving two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

"We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA," the brief said.

It is not clear if the position in the legal brief, which appears to have been the result of discussions among various government agencies, will be put into effect by the Patent Office.

The Obama administration is very friendly to biotechnology, and I cannot see them doing something that would so dramatically impact the industry. My prediction is that they will make a distinction between patenting human genes, and genes from other organisms. There have been some efforts to make it illegal to patent human genes, and I can see that happening. But telling Monsanto it no longer has a right to its Roundup Ready genes? I doubt it.

Big Victory Against rbGH!

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 18:32:09 PM PDT

Save for Ohio. Ohio was the one last state where it looked like they might win. Ultimately the fight went to the courts. Today brought BIG news of a court decision in Ohio. The less significant news out of the court is that milk in Ohio can still say "rbGH-free" but it must also contain an FDA disclaimer saying "[t]he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows."

Now, here's the BIG news. The court challenged the FDA's finding that there is "no measurable compositional difference" between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. According to those who have worked on this issue for nearly two decades now (maybe more), the FDA's claim that there was no compositional difference between milk from rbGH-treated and untreated cows was THE MAJOR roadblock to any good regulation. And the court finally struck it down, citing three reasons why the milk differs: 1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, 2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and 3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk).

Below, you will find the exact language of the court's ruling, as well as testimony submitted to the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee all the way back in 1993 by Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers' Union. Amazing how it only took 17 years to get the truth legally recognized.

Smoked Frankenfish May Not Wind Up On Any Bagels Soon*

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 14:06:35 PM PDT

That's the latest. I recommend checking out Marion Nestle's piece The GM Salmon Saga Continues. First, the FDA will offer a 30-day comment period on the Environmental Assessment of the salmon (see more on the EA at the link). After that, they will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or an Environmental Impact Statement. Those findings will result in a decision on whether or not they approve the salmon. The FDA is not giving any sort of timeline on when they will do this, although legally the timeframe is typically 180 days after the New Animal Drug application was submitted. Once the fish is approved, it will take 2 years to come to market.

The VMAC committee that met this past week apparently told the FDA it didn't have enough data to make a decision yet (which sounds about right, based on the actual data submitted to them). But in the meeting Tuesday about labeling, pretty much no one was for mandatory labeling. Apparently Greg Jaffe of CSPI wants AquaBounty to provide voluntary labels that say something like "AquaBounty salmon," "fast-growing salmon" or "environmentally friendly salmon." What?! Environmentally friendly? And Fox News is fair and balanced.

Last, but not least, the CEO of AquaBounty said he doesn't plan to confine production to Panama, hoping to open other operations in other countries, including the U.S. Fortunately, THIS approval process is ONLY for Panama, so he'd have to go through the whole legal process again before he could set up shop anywhere else.

Today's News on Frankenfish

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 11:34:53 AM PDT

Beyond sharp and predictable differences over whether genetically engineered salmon belongs in the food supply, a rough consensus emerged Tuesday at a Food and Drug Administration hearing on labeling requirements: If the fish is approved for market, consumers should have a way to avoid it.

I'd like to see a new law passed here. Check out what the FDA says about labeling laws:

Under current law, FDA does not have the authority to require labeling based on consumer interest alone. For example, in Stauber v. Shalala, the court explained that, absent evidence of a material difference between milk from rBST-treated cows and non-rBST-treated cows, the use of consumer demand as a rationale for mandatory additional labeling would violate the law.

(The "Stauber" in that case is almost certainly MY FRIEND John Stauber. Kinda cool... but would be cooler if he had won his case.)

More news:
Panel Advises More Aggressive FDA Analysis of Engineered Salmon:

While a genetically engineered salmon is almost certainly safe to eat, the government should pursue a more rigorous analysis of the fish's possible health effects and environmental impact, members of a federal advisory committee said yesterday.

That is GREAT news. Although, with the data provided by AquaBounty and the FDA, the panel would have to be either entirely corrupt or stupid to decide otherwise.

Biotech Salmon Leaves Many Questions:

The first genetically modified animal aimed at consumers' dinner plates faces an uncertain future following a federal advisory panel on Monday that gave a mixed assessment on whether such food -- a salmon -- is safe to eat.

A number of the Food and Drug Administration's panelists raised concerns about the fast growing fish, made by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, saying there was not enough data to answer key questions about allergens and other potential risks.

"There are questions that have not been answered by the data that has been presented," panelist James McKean, a veterinarian and professor at Iowa State University, said.

But other panel members argued there was no difference between the altered salmon and its natural counterpart.

"I would not feel alarmed about eating this kind of fish," said Gary Thorgaard, a professor and fish researcher at Washington State University.

(I'd like to point out that saying the fish is probably safe is entirely different from saying that there's enough data to approve it.)