USDA has until Wednesday, March 3 to receive public comment on its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on approval of GE alfalfa. In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued USDA on behalf of farmers and others regarding its approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, saying that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should have prepared an EIS. CFS won and USDA was required to prepare a full EIS analyzing the impact of approving genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa on the environment, farmers, and the public. While USDA prepared the EIS, Monsanto appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case later this year. In the meantime, farmers are in limbo about the legality of planting GE alfalfa this spring.
Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, today released new poll data showing that two-thirds of organic food consumers are concerned about GE ingredients contaminating organic food. Given the popularity of alfalfa sprouts among health-oriented eaters, Consumers Union urges USDA to consider the overwhelming consumer concern before deciding to allow GE alfalfa on the market. The poll results can be found online [PDF].
"USDA's draft EIS is inadequate, leaving farmers and consumers unprotected. This alfalfa has been engineered to allow herbicides to be used on it that would normally kill the crop. The EIS states that consumers and organic farmers don't care if their organic food is GE contaminated," said Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist with Consumers Union. "Consumers Union's poll states the exact opposite: consumers care greatly."
The Consumers Union poll found:
• A majority of respondents expressed some level of concern with genetic engineering contamination of organic food crops. Overall, 58% said they were extremely concerned, very concerned or somewhat concerned with this contamination.
• Two-thirds (66%) of consumers who purchase organic food indicated being concerned versus half (50%) of those who don't make organic food purchases.
"Genetically engineered corn and soy are widely grown in the U.S. and organic farmers and processors are having a very hard time keeping it out of organic food and animal feed, where it is prohibited. Allowing GE alfalfa on the market will create a whole new set of problems for the organic industry in maintaining organic integrity. Once an engineered variety is grown outside, it is almost impossible to contain it," said Dr. Hansen. "We are also concerned that there is no FDA safety approval process for GE foods--companies may consult with FDA, but it is up to the companies themselves to decide if an engineered food is safe."
Here's how to take action:
1. Click here for CFS's easy comment page.
2. Spread the word! You can forward this post and the action letter to others, or send them the link.
3. For written, mailed comments please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044.
4. Comments can also be filed online.
Originally posted on CivilEats.com.
Follow Naomi Starkman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NaomiStarkman
There's a great discussion going on at Biofortified about the poll results, including a graph so you can see what they really found:
http://www.biofortified.org/2010/03/organic-consumers-not-very-concerned-about-ge/
Do neighbors of those who grow non-GMO crops retain the right to sue those growing GMO crops nearby for contaminating their crops?
There is a history of individual farmers who have had their own saved seed contaminated by GMO genes being sued by companies like Monsanto,... for using seed that carries the transformed gene. However - that gene was introduced by 'nature', in an outbreeding crop system.
http://www.savethepinebush.org/News/04FebMar/PercySchmeiser.html
What happens when the same thing starts to happen with alfalfa?
This issue of pollen "contamination" is really bogus. Pollen has always spread naturally and will continue to do so. Pollen from non-GMO crops are just as likely to "contaminate" as any other.
The pollen from GMO crops is just as healthy as from non-GMO crops. This is a non-issue that is clearly intended just to attack GM science, which has withstood the test of time.
I predict that the uproar will conveniently go away when Monsanto's Round up ready patents expire in 2014.
FYI, Percy Schmeiser is not to be trusted. His description of the legal battle he had with Monsanto is just plain wrong. He's just an old-fashioned thief who pirated the technology and didn't want to pay. To find out what really happened, take a few minutes to look up the actual court ruling. It's pretty clear that the Canadian Supreme Court recognized that Schmeiser is just a con man, which is why he lost his case.
Schmeiser may have been a con man,.... but that doesn't change the fact that his case was plausible. Unless Monsanto has dreamed up a way to ensure that pollen transferred to other crop cultivar germplasm can not be viable and expressed then that outcome is only a matter of time rather than "IF".
btw - I am not some radical anti-GMO nut. Well designed, well thought out modifications are an excellent idea. I just don't buy the fact that adding herbicide resistance genes is well thought out. It simply allows a farmer or factory farm to practice unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly, monoculture, poor management practices agriculture.
My 'best' example of a good GMO is ringspot virus resistant papaya;
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/14.genetically_modified_papayas_virus_resistance.html
A real problem is addressed, using an immune-like response from the plant, by expressing a protein that would otherwise be found in virus-infected papaya anyway.
GMO is not bad. GMO that permits bad agricultural practices is bad.
When are the GMO opponents going to admit they were completely wrong?