Our good old friends at the US Department of Agriculture show once more whose side they are really on. Not to worry, though, 2,4-D only composed 50% of Agent Orange…
On August 6th, the USDA announced final plans to give Dow the greenlight to begin marketing its controversial 2,4-D-resistant seeds. After 30 days, the USDA decision will become official. At the same time, the agency announced its preliminary decision to also approve Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant seeds.
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network, released the following statement:
We are outraged. Today USDA has turned its back on America’s farmers and rural communities. For over two years, farmers from Iowa to California have been urging USDA to reject Dow’s 2,4-D seeds. Because the seed is designed to be used with 2,4-D, a highly toxic and drift-prone herbicide, farmers risk losing their crops, their farm businesses and livelihoods, as well as their families’ health. The surge in 2,4-D use that even USDA acknowledges will accompany commercialization of Dow’s seed is also expected to intensify the spread of ‘superweeds’ resistant to the chemical.
Yet USDA’s final EIS on Dow’s 2,4-D-resistant crops states its unchanged intention to deregulate these crops, demonstrating the Agency’s stunning indifference to farmers’ concerns. More than half a million farmers, scientists, health professionals and concerned individuals have voiced their concerns regarding the risks that accompany Dow’s pesticide-seed technology, but to no avail.
Despite this public outcry, today’s announcements show that USDA is much more interested in working with Dow and Monsanto and getting their products to market than in protecting the well-being of our farmers and rural communities.
Note: Global Justice Ecology Project has worked with the Center for Food Safety in the past, suing the USDA over their approval of GE eucalyptus field trials throughout the southeast. Read their report, Genetically Engineered Trees: The New Frontier of Biotechnology.
-The GJEP Team
By Carey Gillam, March 13, 2014. Source: Reuters
A public interest group is asking a court to force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to turn over documents explaining its approval of a genetically altered alfalfa even as the department acknowledged the crop’s potential to do environmental damage.
The Center for Food Safety said on Thursday that it believes the USDA may have succumbed to outside pressure, possibly from Monsanto Co., the developer of the genetic trait in the biotech alfalfa.
CFS filed a lawsuit late on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., seeking a court order for the USDA to turn over nearly 1,200 documents related to the decision about the crop called Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Neither the USDA nor Monsanto responded to requests for comment on Thursday.
Note: More damning evidence against the “coexistence” of GE crops and organic farms. As GE corn and soybeans have contaminated organic crops, we can expect that, if legalized, GE pine and poplar trees will likely contaminate non-GE trees growing in forests nearby industrial plantations. This concern, frequently raised by opponents of GE trees, has also been voiced by some of the leading proponents of GE trees as one of the risks. But hey, maybe the bears, birds and bees will just have to buy some better crop and habitat insurance.
-The GJEP Team
March 10, 2014. Source: Beyond Pesticides
New data finds that organic farmers are growing increasingly concerned with genetically engineered (GE) crops cross-pollinating and contaminating their fields. This contamination can lead to serious economic losses for organic farmers and has created tension between neighbors. The data comes at a critical time as USDA is advancing the notion that “coexistence” between GE and non-GE growers presents no problems for the organic market. USDA has been widely criticized in organic circles because its decisions to deregulate numerous GE crops place the burden of reducing contamination on non-GE growers.
A survey, released by Food and Water Watch and Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM), finds that a third of U.S. organic farmers have experienced GE contamination in their fields due to the nearby use of GE crops, while over half of these growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination. These rejections can lead to big income losses for farmers, with a median cost of approximately $2,500 per year, according to the survey. Additionally, several farmers report annual losses of over $20,000 due to the need to establish buffer zones, while limit the threat of contamination from their neighbors by taking contiguous farmland out of production.
In the survey, organic farmers also express their frustration that efforts to reduce contamination fall squarely on their shoulders. Nearly half (45 percent) of respondents say that they would not purchase crop insurance intended to cover costs associated with GE contamination. Of the 35 percent of respondents who answered that they would purchase insurance for GE contamination-related losses, more than three-quarters of them (78 percent) believe that the added premium for coverage should be paid by GE patent holders or GE patent holders and GE users.
One farmer responded to the survey, “If [GE] was not here this would not be going on. It’s their contamination that’s the problem but we have to guard against something we have no control over. How do you even get a patent on something you can’t control? The whole object is control and that is not our [organic farmers’] problem.”
Dr. Devon G. Peña, March 4, 2014. Source: Environmental and Food Justice
Huichol yarn weaving of a sacred ceremony for maize. Source: Environmental and Food Justice
I am submitting this statement to express opposition to the proposed USDA co- existence policy. As a plant breeder, seed saver, traditional acequia farmer, and agro-ecologist familiar with the scientific evidence on gene flow I am unequivocally opposed to this policy. Asking for co-existence with GMO crops means seed-savers and plant breeders like myself have to accept the inevitability of severe business losses due to damage to our native seed stocks and active plant breeding programs. I ask that you consider the fact that farmers like myself are the keepers of the nation’s diverse bioregional ‘arks’ of native seeds and these are the ultimate basis of all agriculture in this country. As vulnerable traditional seed savers, we cannot accept co-existence. The scientific fact of gene flow makes it so. Let’s not pretend the scientific fact of gene flow is unsettled, like an agricultural crisis version of climate change denial.
Working with friends, family, and neighbors, I produce local heirloom varieties of the ‘Three Sisters’ (corn-bean-squash/pumpkin) for a land race seed library grown and stored on a farm in Colorado’s Rio Grande Headwaters bioregion. The preservation of multiple native gene streams is necessary to the business of plant breeding and seed saving which is a central focus of my agroecological enterprise and productive activity. The introgression of transgenes from genetically engineered corn is a direct threat to my livelihood because the open- pollinated nature of maize makes for frequent cross-contamination events. Corn pollen can travel quite far – with some studies showing distances of up to 30 miles or more depending on the nature of regional wind patterns. The San Luis Valley is a high altitude intermountain park known for strong winds and corn pollen can travel very far under these conditions. The valley has an average elevation of 8000 feet and is surrounded by a circle of mountains at 14,000 ft. and higher. We do our plant breeding and seed stock production in this valley on a historic farm that is organized and collectively run to serve as a grassroots agricultural extension research station and farm school for acequiero growers of Colorado and New Mexico. Continue reading
Note: Seems like a great opportunity for Monsanto and the other “Gene Giants” to push their so-called “Climate-ready” crops. Good to keep an eye on this one…
-The GJEP Team
By Patrick J. Kiger, February 5, 2014. Source: National Geographic
This aerial view of drought-stricken Arkansas shows damaged corn and sparse soybean crops. The ground is so dry that tractors leave several hundred yards of dust in their wake. Photo: LES STONE, CORBIS
Saying it wants to help farmers and ranchers better cope with the effects of climate change, the Obama Administration on Wednesday announced a new network of regional “climate hubs.”
The idea is to dispatch a cadre of climate change specialists across the nation to gather the latest science on how climate shifts may affect crops and animals, and to disseminate the information to farmers, ranchers, local officials, and others.
The hubs will operate out of U.S. Department of Agriculture offices,Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in making the announcement.
Data from those hubs could help farmers and ranchers anticipate a variety of potentially damaging effects of the warming trend, said Bill Hohenstein, director of the USDA’s Climate Change Program Office. Continue reading
February 4, 2014. Source: National Organic Coalition
“Agricultural Coexistence” ≠ GMO Contamination Prevention
USDA is asking for public comments on how agricultural “coexistence” (relationships between GMO and non-GMO farmers) can be strengthened.
Comment deadline: March 4, 2014
Farmers & Handlers: Share your experiences and costs with preventing GE contamination, or about being contaminated
Consumers: Tell USDA: Contamination Prevention Now!
WHY IS THIS ACTION SO IMPORTANT?
Organic and Non-GMO agriculture has shouldered the burden of GMO contamination for too long. Tell USDA:
(1) Implement mandatory contamination prevention measures to avoid the problem and protect the non-GMO sector.
(2) Ensure shared responsibility for the unwanted spread of GE products. Farmers should not shoulder the burden through GE contamination crop insurance. Patent Holders should be held responsible for the contamination. Continue reading
Note: Will Bennington is a campaigner with Global Justice Ecology Project.
-The GJEP Team
By Will Bennington, January 9, 2014.
Genetically engineered apples may be the next novelty food item to hit markets, if Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits wins the praises of the USDA.
In an article published Tuesday by the Seattle Times, the Arctic Apple, engineered to prevent browning and bruising, is described as an “economic disaster” by organic apple grower Henry House. Industry groups and consumer advocates are also condemning what would be the first ever GE apple available for commercial production.
Concerns are far ranging, from the risk of contamination of non-GE and organic orchards via pollen transported by honey bees, to the unknown human health impacts of eating GE foods. Some groups are concerned that that apple – which lacks a naturally occurring apple gene that aides in defense against pests – will increase the amount of pesticides used in apple orchards. The Center for Food Safety features the Arctic Apple in its new report, Genetically Engineered Trees: The New Frontier of Biotechnology
Because the Arctic Apple doesn’t actually present a solution to any significant problem (not even an inconvenience, really), there is broad opposition among consumer advocates and other unlikely allies. According to the Seattle Times, some industry groups are coming out against deregulation:
The USDA is accepting public comments on the application for deregulation of an apple tree genetically engineered to prevent the flesh of the apple from turning brown. As usual, assessments of the risks to human health, especially children’s health, are utterly lacking and little is known about how the GE apple will interact with the environment.
from the Arctic Apple website
This is the first GE fruit tree that is to be widely grown and eaten. There are concerns about the silencing of a whole gene family with unknown functions (suspected to be involved in defense against pests and pathogens), inadequate testing of susceptibility to pests and pathogens in the tree and the fruit, and other issues. There is no attempt to prevent gene flow–this apple will pollinate freely.
Please submit comments to the USDA regarding your thoughts on their approval of this GE apple.
The Petition for Non-regulated Status, Draft Environmental Assessment, Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Notice are all here:
Submit pdfs of comments to: