Biotech On Trial

categories: Biodiversity, Corporate Kneebiters, Gene Modification, Plants, Policy

Published June 24, 2009 @ 11:56PM PT

Alfalfa in a field; by daryl_mitchell So a court has once again ruled against GE/GMO alfalfa. Jill Richardson writes:

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).

... 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. ...

There were the findings in that first alfalfa case, as reported by the Center for Food Safety:

* The judge found that plaintiffs' concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa are valid, stating that USDA's opposing arguments were "not convincing" and do not demonstrate the "hard look" required by federal environmental laws. The ruling went on to note that "&For those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop."

* USDA argued that, based on a legal technicality, the agency did not have to address the economic risks to organic and conventional growers whose alfalfa crop could be contaminated by Monsanto's GE variety. But the judge found that USDA "overstates the law." ...

Shorter version: A federal judge ruled that crop contamination by genetically engineered foods is a serious problem and the pro-Monsanto USDA argued that it shouldn't matter.

Anyone making the stupid argument that contamination doesn't happen? No. Because the discussion happened in a federal court and there, as opposed to the venue provided by the comments of this blog, you can go to jail for lying.

You may have noticed that the particular breed they were talking about was Roundup Ready, a spin off of their many popular Roundup/glyphosate-resistant crops. Glyphosate seems, according to data accepted by government regulators, to be safer for humans and animals than other pesticides.

However, as I noted not too long ago, pure glyphosate isn't sprayed on crops. It's mixed with ingredients that, because they aren't directly responsible for the desired effect of killing plants, don't have to be listed on the label because they can legally be described as inert, or in other words, as having no effect.

Glyphosate is supposed to be safer for aquatic organisms because it tends to settle out of water in its pure form, but it's commonly mixed with chemicals whose sole purpose is to make it more water soluble, in which case it appears to be a hazard to aquatic life. As for the effects of Roundup's 'inert' ingredients on humans:

Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup's inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. ...

Surprise!

Thank goodness there's at least one less Roundup Ready crop on the market to be spreading this plague farther still.

(Photo credit: daryl_mitchell on Flickr.)

Share this Post

Comments (10)

I agree we should protect non-engineered crops, but as long as the farmer is handling his run off appropriately (failing to do so is a major crime in Maryland), it shouldn't cause any major environmental concern. And the baby thing... what hasn't been proven to kill babies nowadays anyway. Safe bet, don't expose your babies to chemicals, and let me get my super-alfalfa.

Posted by Edward Walsh on 06/25/2009 @ 06:08AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Edward
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
It wasn't even babies it was embryonic cells. Care to guess what would happen to the same cells if they were exposed to say sugar or salt or pepper or milk or starch or pyrethrum or rotenone or sabidilla or copper compounds or... the list is endless and the results for the embryonic cells would be the same. Taking theses cells out of a mother and then exposing them to glyphosate or a million other chemical compounds could only have the same outcome. There is no realistic method possible that this type of exposure would ever happen in real life.

Posted by Robert Wager on 06/25/2009 @ 07:52AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
Your argument here is complete nonsense. It would invalidate numerous forms of medical research to take on face value.

Posted by Natasha Chart on 06/25/2009 @ 10:44PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Robert
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
May I suggest people google fumonisin B and see how this compound really affects fetal development. One of the well documented benefits of Bt corn is greatly reduced fumonisin B levels. In a study sponsored by the Italian government(hardly a GM supporter) two Bt corn varieties and their isogenic non-GM control varieties showed greater yields for the GM corn and fumonisin levels of 100-130 TIMES lower in the GM corn.

In the UK a couple of years back the FSA tested 30 corn imports, including six organic. All six organic corn varieties had fumonisin B levels above tolerance levels with one so high it was very close to that that has caused birth defects in test animals.

Now here is a case with well documented threat to fetal development (not to mention the damage it does to horses and pigs when they east the toxin) and a biotech product that help reduce the threat significantly.

I was wondering if anyone here knows what perccentage of alfalfa is grown organically in the US.

Posted by Robert Wager on 06/25/2009 @ 08:09AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
Italian report

http://agbios.com/static/news/NEWSID_9014.php

Posted by Robert Wager on 06/25/2009 @ 09:53AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Robert
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I recently bought some alfalfa seeds from the local feed store to try as a companion crop/green manure. I really wondered if it was or was not genetically-modified. I really can't afford to buy seeds from on-line seed sources I trust. So since nothing is labelled, and since I think GM soy & corn are more prevalent (in the news, anyway), I'm just hoping that I got normal seeds. But at least I didn't have to sign a contract. So I'm guessing they're OK-enough.

I felt optimistic reading about this judge.

The USDA has no business making decisions about GM crops based on a "legal technicality". That's something lawyers for criminals would do, not people who "should" be trusted to look after the public's best interests.

Posted by Sue G. on 06/25/2009 @ 08:34AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Sue
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Sue

Did you read all the policy statements from scientific organizations around the world I have posted. The overwhelming concesus is GM crops and food are as safe or safer than conventionally bred crops. That is why the publics interest is indeed the primary issue in regulations of GM crops and food.

Now of course that is not what you will read from those pushing pseudo-science. Please remember when pseudo-science dictates public policy we get bad public policy.

Cheers

Posted by Robert Wager on 06/25/2009 @ 09:35AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Robert
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I'm not worried if public policy sides with real food.

Posted by Sue G. on 06/25/2009 @ 11:37AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Sue
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Good news for the developing world.

http://scidev.net/en/news/deadlock-broken-on-international-seed-sharing.html

Posted by Robert Wager on 06/25/2009 @ 12:14PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
Thanks.

Posted by Sue G. on 06/25/2009 @ 08:33PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Robert
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Natasha is an amateur eater with severe snarkolepsy and a c. 2002 blogging habit. She had a fabulous time studying ecological agriculture and policy at The Evergreen State College, and even did her homework while writing at various times for pacificviews.org, boomantribune.com, and mydd.com.