Report: GM Crops Make Pesticide Use Go UP!

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 21:45:37 PM PST

Court Upholds Ban on GE Alfalfa!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:03:07 PM PDT

Two years ago, a district court ruled that the USDA did not do its homework before approving genetically engineered alfalfa. The USDA approved GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which the court ruled was a violation of U.S. law. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld that decision and its resulting ban on GE alfalfa (pending a full EIS). The suit was brought against the USDA by the Center for Food Safety along with Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.

Following that decision, Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics (who entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors) requested the appellate court to rehear the case. The news today is that the court denied their request and thus reaffirmed the earlier decision in full.

According to the Center for Food Safety:

The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers...

"This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers' livelihoods and the environment; the court rightly dismissed Monsanto's claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America's farmers.  This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country."

My question is: Why doesn't the USDA just do a full EIS? It's been two years since the initial decision? Are they afraid that a full EIS would reveal information that would prevent them from approving GE alfalfa? Or was it just quicker and easier to fight the court decision instead of doing the EIS?

"Organic" Fish: A Bad Decision by NOSB

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:30:50 PM PST

Consumers Union sums up the problem with the new standards as follows:

Fish to be fed food other than 100% organic feed-the gold standard that must be met by other USDA-certified organic livestock;

Fishmeal used to feed farmed fish from wild fish-which has the potential to carry mercury and PCBs; and

Open net cages to be used-which flush pollution, disease and parasites from open net fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability and the health of the oceans.

When you eat an organic apple, you can feel good that you aren't biting into a bunch of pesticides or other toxins. When you drink a glass of organic milk, you can feel good that you won't be drinking antibiotics and growth hormones. But if this recommendation by NOSB becomes a reality, you will have no such assurances if you eat a "USDA Certified Organic" fish.

While some members of NOSB admitted they were under pressure to OK this from the aquaculture industry, it's clear what American consumers want:

Just this week, a Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think that fish labeled as "organic" should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Nine in 10 consumers also agreed that "organic" fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by "organic" fish farms. Nearly 30,000 signatures have been collected in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.

Something Fishy About Organic Standards

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 00:11:30 AM PST

With wild-caught fish the reason is quite simple: if the fish was wild, who the hell knows what it ate? I'd assume it probably ate food that was more natural than anything a fish might eat in captivity, but then there's the question of what kind of pollutants we lovely humans may have added to that wild fish's food. Hmm.

For farmed fish, here's the issue:

But under the proposed standard, farm-raised fish would be considered organic, even if what they eat includes fish meal, which is feed spiked with ground up wild fish.

So a wild fish is not organic, but farmed fish that eats wild fish is? How about not. I'll add to that my own personal concern with this that one of the major problems with some kinds of farmed fish is that it keeps the fish at the top of the food chain throughout their lives, whereas wild fish start lower down on the food chain and only achieve "top of the food chain" status in adulthood. This is significant because the higher you are on the food chain, the more pollutants you accumulate.

One more problem is:

The USDA requires that feed for cows, chickens and the like be 100 percent organic. But under the fish standard, non-organic feed initially would constitute up to 25 percent of the diet of an organically raised fish.

Perhaps NOSB should skip certifying fish and instead allow the MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) continue to provide the gold standard of seafood certification.

Groups opposing the proposed fish rules are Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch, Living Oceans Society, and the Center for Food Safety. I've included a statement from them below.

GM Sugar Beet Lawsuit

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM PST

Fortunately, four wonderful groups - The Center for Food Safety, Sierra Club, The Organic Seed Alliance, and High Mowing Organic Seeds - have filed a lawsuit in opposition to the introduction of GM sugar beets.

The basis of the lawsuit is that the GM sugar beets could contaminate beets and chard all over the country. They seek to stop the planting, sale, and use of GM sugar beet seeds until the USDA studies the risks of the GM seeds.

The likelihood of genetically engineered DNA from Roundup Ready sugar beets migrating into chard and beet seed packets is high. Sugar beets, chard and table beets are all members of the beta genus and sexually compatible. These kissing cousins are wind-pollinated, and the overwhelming majority - 90 percent or more - of the nation's sugar beet and chard seed, along with some of its table beet seed, is grown in a single location, Oregon's Willamette Valley.

ACTION: Demand better organic standards for farmed fish!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 18:21:33 PM PDT

The board recommends that fish can be labeled 'organic' even if they've been fed wild fish, which come from polluted environments and are high in mercury and PCBs. Potentially toxic organic fish? That defeats the whole purpose.

And the board recommends fish raised in open ocean net pens be eligible for the organic label. This type of fish farming is highly polluting, as large amounts of waste are released into the environment.

Please sign the petition and then take action on the Center for Food Safety's site too. The deadline for commenting is MONDAY, November 3.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Check out this article on farmed salmon and sea lice. Also, I strongly recommend checking out Marion Nestle's book What to Eat. She goes into why farmed fish can be higher in PCBs and other toxins than wild fish. It's because essentially the farmed fish live their entire lives at the top of the food chain, where they take in much more contaminants than wild fish who do NOT start their lives at the top of the food chain.