USDA seeks public comments by February 16 on the department's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (large .pdf) for genetically modified alfalfa. Participate in our democracy and let USDA know your view on this technology.
The background is that USDA in 2004 approved Monsanto's technology for genetically modified (GMO) alfalfa, which is resistant to the pesticide glyphosate (such as Roundup Ready sold by Monsanto). Previously, Roundup Ready was deadly to alfalfa and weeds alike, and was sometimes used at the end of the season to clear a field of alfalfa. With the new technology, farmers could use Roundup Ready more widely to kill the weeds while protecting the alfalfa.
The federal government has traditionally claimed that GMO technologies are substantially equivalent to conventional technologies. USDA had previously conducted a shorter environmental assessment but had claimed that no longer and more formal EIS was required. In response to a 2006 lawsuit, USDA was forced to conduct the full Environmental Impact Statement. The draft statement was published in December, and the comment period is now open.
The draft EIS says the new technology is mostly safe for the environment, but it does acknowledge what it describes as a small probability that genetically modified genes will contaminate non-GMO fields of alfalfa. This possibility threatens the markets for organic alfalfa and organic dairies that use alfalfa feed for cows, because the certified organic label requires using non-GMO technology. This possibility also threatens U.S. export markets for dairy, because consumers in other developed countries are reluctant to consume GMO foods.
The draft EIS says Roundup Ready is not very dangerous for animals who live in or near alfalfa fields. It says Roundup Ready (like any herbicide) may pose some risk for threatened and endangered terrestrial and acquatic plants. The EIS says these risks can be mitigated by good application practices, and it also essentially says the new GMO technology is not to blame, because, of course, other herbicides also endanger plants. That's what herbicides do.
Overall, the draft EIS says the GMO alfalfa should be approved.
For another view, Food & Water Watch, an environmental and food safety group that opposes GMO technologies fairly broadly, has a web page with suggested themes for public comments.
USDA is holding a series of public meetings around the country to discuss the Environmental Impact Statement.
The biggest positive impact of Roundup-Ready crops is that it allows the use of no-till agricultural practices, which substantially reduces the amount of topsoil lost as runoff. For me, if farmers are growing conventional crops, it's probably a net win. The biggest negative impact is on neighboring organic farmers. The laws need to be very clear that organic farmers can be harmed by neighboring GMO crops. Buffer zones, land swaps, and other practices would allow both conventional and organic farmers to coexist. It's not clear to me that the current situation is as good for organic farmers as it should be, but preventing the sale of GMO alfalfa is not going to fix the problem.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCounter to what I expected, Stewart Brand of Whole Earth Catalog fame makes a fairly persuasive argument for genetically engineered crops (his label for GMO) in his new book Whole Earth Discipline: An ecopragmatist manifesto (Viking, 2009). He concludes that on the basis of the evidence that he reviewed, concern about GE is considerably overblown. FWIW.
ReplyDeletePLEASE don't give Monsanto so much power. Small farmers are the way to go. Corporate farming is not good for anyone. A 50s relic. Let it go.
ReplyDeletei think i agree with others, there will no prob if the farmers decide to plant conventional crops since this will bring more income from them.
ReplyDeletekosher