By Nina Budabin McQuown. Originally posted on PursueAction.org.

For months now, I’ve been getting emails from food sustainability organizations with subject lines like “Kiss Your Organics Goodbye!” and “48 Hours to Stop Monsanto’s GM Alfalfa!” They’re in reference to a genetically modified strain of alfalfa that is in testing for public use by the United States Department of Agriculture.

What’s wrong with the alfalfa? Well, for one thing, it’s made by Monsanto, a corporation with a reputation for lawsuit slinging and questionable ethics. It’s also “roundup ready,” meaning it’s engineered to withstand applications of Monsanto’s herbicide “roundup,” so farmers can slather on the weed killer without worrying about damaging their crop. But plenty of sustainability advocates would simply tell you that what’s wrong with the alfalfa is that it’s a GMO–that is, a genetically modified organism produced through human engineering.

Enter Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, a couple of garden-tending, organic-eating, hen-raising, vegetarian academics who think this alfalfa is a good thing. Adamchak runs the organic student farm at the famed University of California, Davis agricultural program, hoeing melons and solarizing carrots for a living. Ronald, Adamchak’s wife, is the chair of the Plant Genomics program at UC Davis where she genetically modifies rice for traits like the ability to withstand a flood.

The couple wrote a book together called Tomorrow’s Table in which they make the case that those two activities –genetic engineering and hoeing–are just two forms of weed control. In separate chapters from their two perspectives, Ronald and Adamchak try to convince their readers that organic and genetic engineering (GE) are not antithetical to one another and there’s no reason why they can’t both have a prominent place in the toolbox of sustainable agriculture as it’s applied to fix this broken food system. They argue, in my opinion convincingly, that the genetic engineering of plants is just a tool, and that sustainability activists should be fighting for its careful application, rather than against its very existence.

There’s a second important focus of the book: transparency and the lack thereof. And this is the part that’s of special interest to Jewish sustainability activists–according to halakha (and Rabbi Steve Greenberg), in any exchange, the seller has a moral obligation to provide full information on his or her product, and the buyer has the right to full transparency. But we eat in a system that protects the rights of companies not to disclose their ingredients, and we vote in a system where hysteria and propaganda are way more common than reason and transparency, so the onus is, finally, on us both to seek transparency in what we read and to supply it in what we write. In Tomorrow’s Table Ronald hopes that by giving readers full information on what genetic engineering entails, she’ll allow them to come to their own conclusion that the process itself is nothing to be afraid of.

In terms of transparency, the most pertinent chapter is the one on politics, in which Ronald debunks some of the less-than-transparent methods of activists in the sustainability community by showing that our arguments against genetic engineering are based on limited or suspect research. Her consummate example is a flyer distributed in one California county urging voters to pass a proposition that would ban growing any genetically modified crops whatsoever. The flyer cites the results from a “study” that, as Ronald shows, seems to have been carried out by a teenager at home with no independent verification except for the pride of the kid’s own mother. It does make that particular county look pretty silly, but more importantly, it points to the sometimes-dubious rhetoric and lack of citations within the sustainability movement–rhetoric for which we can and should take responsibility as a community.

Not that Ronald is a paragon of transparency–the flyer she’s discussing is a pathetically easy target. On the same issue (the safety of genetically engineered produce in our bodies and in the fields) she might have discussed the less flashy, but more commonly cited claims of Mae Wan Ho, who’s a scientist with anti-GE studies published in peer-reviewed journals. This scientist has been repudiated plenty of times, and it wouldn’t strain Ronald to go a round with her.

Still, when it comes to transparency, her overall point is valid–we’ve been relying on a lot of alarmist rhetoric when it comes to GE, so much so that your author, a long time reader and writer on sustainability blogs and signer of petitions, is feeling a bit sheepish of late. I’ve noticed that the anti-GE alfalfa articles I read are generally characterized by calls for “more testing” while simultaneously vowing to continue the fight even if the USDA approves the seeds when the tests are concluded. Those mixed messages undermine our credibility as a group, and as individuals, they undermine our ability to respond meaningfully to questions about the issues we believe in.

Ultimately, if Tomorrow’s Table’s conclusions are accurate, I think they are good news. After all, if, as Ronald and Adamchak claim, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with genetic engineering as a method of plant breeding, then we can stop trying to convince people that there is, and instead we can focus on the concrete issues of patenting, ownership, and lawsuits. We can talk about how these miracle products–like the much touted golden rice that you see in Monsanto’s TV spots and read about in Tomorrow’s Table–have been stuck in development and distribution limbo for years while somehow the financially-beneficial-but-totally-useless-to-anyone-who-doesn’t-have-a-weed-problem “roundup ready” seeds shoot through the approval process like a greased (or anyway, greasier) weasel. We can talk about how heinous lawsuits against American farmers and the lack of necessary support for their most vulnerable customers make Monsanto directly and indirectly responsible for bankruptcy and death all over the world. We can talk, in short, about the policy issues and the policy solutions that might actually make a difference in how, and for whose benefit, GE technology is deployed.

If you haven’t had a chance to see Food, Inc., carpe diem! PBS recently aired it on POV, television’s oldest showcase for independent non-fiction films. POV has also put the entire film on their site for free viewing for a limited time. It’s only up until April 28, so check it out today!

I have long harbored misgivings about soy.  It is highly estrogenic. It’s associated with many environmental concerns (fields are clear cut internationally to support it, most of the crop goes toward feeding animals on feedlots, etc.) It’s highly processed (and a non whole food) as milk, frozen entrees, and other products.  And honestly, and this is just my perspective, I don’t enjoy the taste. But I have always respected the fact that many people do not agree with me on all these points, and enjoy soy as a deliberate and integral part of their diet.  Most of these folks have countered my concerns with the fact that it is a healthy, non-animal protein that provides efficient calories at a low cost. 

Recently, the Cornucopia Institute released their Soy Report and Scorecard, and it is quite a read.  Some highlights include:

• Questionable sourcing, especially as it relates to soy beans from China.
• Widespread use of hexane for processing soy foods.  Hexane is a neurotoxin listed as a hazardous air pollutant by the EPA.
• Significant transparency and quality concerns with private label products.

The report also assigns scores of 1 – 5 beans of excellence to various brands and producers, and allows you to drill down and read details of their findings for each. 

Regardless of your preferences, this report is worth reviewing. It provides significant information about soy and it’s risks, origins, practical uses, and better options.

Image: USDA Agricultural Research Service

The genetically modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture’s approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case – in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto’s insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Our struggle here at CFS is a struggle for organic and sustainable farrmers everywhere. This is truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle, between the farmers we represent and Monsanto, a chemical company turned seed company that appears to have control of our food supply as its ultimate goal. Here are the words of my boss, Andrew Kimbrell: “That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”

The federal district court required the Department of Agriculture to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the impacts of the crop on the environment and on farmers; the first time the U.S. government had ever undertaken such analysis for any GE crop. The court permitted farmers that had already planted to continue, but halted any further planting pending the agency’s re-assessment. That the EIS was required is not in dispute; the legal issue is only the scope of relief while USDA analyzed the impacts of the crop for the first time.

In October 2009 Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to hear further arguments. In response, the Center and the U.S. government separately opposed that request the following December. USDA completed the first draft of the EIS in December 2009.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. It is the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since the U.S. Organic standard prohibits genetic engineering, and alfalfa exporters, since most overseas governments also reject GE-contaminated crops.

Here are the worlds of Phil Geertson who we represent: “We trust the Supreme Court will uphold farmers right to choose their crop of choice and protect us from the constant fear of contamination from GE crops.”

This struggle that we are engaged in is all of our struggle – centered on the right to eat food without GMOs and farmers to grow GMOs. Please stay tuned to this important case, consider a donation to the Center For Food Safety, and please – Submit comments to the USDA on their profoundly disappointing EIS, recently issues.

Onward
zelig

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA failed to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) before deregulating the crop. An EIS is a rigorous analysis of the potential significant impacts of a federal decision. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the GE plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in an EIS.

USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009.
A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously. Instead, USDA has completely dismissed the fact that GE contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products. And, incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE contamination (also known as transgenic contamination or biological pollution) of organic. USDA’s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the environment.

CLICK HERE to Review the draft EIS:

Review Supplemental documents here:

CFS is spearheading a campaign to ensure that all affected parties are involved in the public process and have the opportunity to submit public comments. This is the first time the USDA has done this analysis for any GE crop. Therefore, the final version (and resulting decision) will have broad implications for all GE crops. The failure of the agency to address the environmental and related economic impacts of GE alfalfa will have far-reaching consequences for organic and conventional agriculture and food producers.

Consumer/Organic Outreach Talking Points
*Tell USDA That You Care About GE Contamination of Organic Crops and Food:

USDA claims that there is no evidence that consumers care about contamination of organic alfalfa and alfalfa-derived foods with Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa.

- Prohibition of genetic engineering (GE) is a fundamental tenet of the Organic Standard. In fact, USDA’s failure to exclude GE crops from the first version of the organic rule was one of the main reasons that 275,000 people filed public comments in 1997– the largest outpouring of public participation in the history of U.S. administrative procedure. Consumers care deeply about organic integrity, and genetic engineering is fundamentally at odds with organic. More than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.

*Tell USDA You Will Reject GE Contaminated Alfalfa and Alfalfa-Derived Foods:

USDA claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the GE material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product.

- The Organic Standard requires that livestock feed for animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products is 100 percent organic. Protecting organic alfalfa, the main source of feed for the organic dairy industry, is crucial to the health of that important sector of U.S. agriculture. Additionally, as the Court found in the lawsuit that required this EIS, to “farmers and consumers organic means not genetically engineered, even if the farmer did not intend for his crop to be so engineered.” Whether or not the end product is impacted is not the issue. Farmers’ fundamental right to sow the crop of their choice is eliminated when it is contaminated with transgenes, and so is the public’s ability to support meaningful organic food and feed production. The public’s trust in the integrity of the organic label is essential to the continued vitality of the organic foods industry. Tell USDA you reject GE contamination of organic by any means or at any stage of sustainable food production.

*Tell USDA to Protect Organic Farmers and All Farmers Who Wish to Choose to Grow Non-GE Crops:

Although USDA says it supports “coexistence” of all types of agriculture, USDA refuses to even consider any future for alfalfa that would include protections from contamination for organic and conventional farmers and exporters.

- USDA can approve GE crops in whole or in part. Partial approval could include use restrictions, geographic limitations or planting isolation distances. Yet, in the court-ordered analysis, USDA analyzed only two options: 1) Full approval, allowing GE alfalfa to be grown and sold without restriction like any other crop; and 2) No action, meaning GE alfalfa could only be grown under USDA permit, as at present. USDA’s “all or nothing” approach leaves un-analyzed any potential options to protect farmers. This is contrary to law and logic. USDA’s basic mission is “protecting American agriculture.” Yet, USDA refused to even consider any options that might protect organic and conventional agriculture from contamination and the resulting loss of markets and ability to sow the crop of their choice.

*Tell USDA That Protecting Farmers is Its Job and That Relying Solely on Monsanto’s Business as Usual “Best Practices” Ensures Widespread GE Contamination:

USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent GE contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary.

- In the lawsuit requiring the EIS, the Court found that GE contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place!

- The EIS itself acknowledges that GE contamination may happen and includes studies that honey bees can cross-pollinate at distances over 6 miles, and Alkali bees at 4-5 miles, much further than any distances under Monsanto’s “best practices.”

-In general, where other GE crops were approved without restriction, contamination of organic and conventional seeds and crops is widespread and has been documented around the world. A recent report documented 39 cases in 2007 and more than 200 in the last decade. The harms incurred by organic farmers and food companies from GE contamination are many and include: lost markets, lost sales, lower prices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic certification, expensive testing and prevention measures, and product recalls. In at least one case, pervasive GE contamination eliminated an entire organic sector. According to an article in the journal Nature Biotechnology: “[T]he introduction of GEherbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada destroyed the growing, albeit limited, market for organic canola.”

*Tell USDA That GE Alfalfa Would Significantly Increase Pesticide Use and Thereby Harm Human Health and the Environment:

USDA admits (correctly) that introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa will increase Roundup use. However, USDA’s claims that the increase is not significant and that Roundup will replace other, more toxic herbicides are flat-out wrong.

- The great majority of GE crops grown today are Roundup Ready, and their widespread introduction has vastly increased Roundup use and fostered an epidemic of Roundup-resistant weeds. To kill Roundup-resistant weeds requires higher doses of Roundup, often in combination with other toxic herbicides. Over the past 13 years, Roundup Ready crops have significantly increased overall herbicide use on corn, soybeans and cotton – by 383 million pounds – and Roundup Ready alfalfa will only make matters worse.

- As the agency’s own studies here show, the great majority of alfalfa is currently grown without the use of any herbicides at all. So Roundup Ready alfalfa will increase Roundup use and exacerbate the resistant weed epidemic without displacing other herbicides on most alfalfa farms.

- Roundup has been associated with increased rates of several cancers in pesticide applicators (e.g. non-Hodgkin’s & multiple myeloma), and is highly toxic to frogs at field-relevant concentrations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently re-assessing the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, for the first time in over 15 years. USDA should wait for this new EPA assessment before it considers approving GE alfalfa.

*Tell USDA That Harm to Small and Organic Farmers is Significant:

USDA concludes that GE alfalfa will cause production to shift to larger farms (that can afford built-in isolation distances) and conventional growers who are not threatened by GE contamination, but that these economic shifts are not significant.

- Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected. Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses.

Comments can be filed online HERE:

Comments are due February 16, 2010. 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.

Garbinski, a Registered Dietitian, natural foods industry veteran, and founder of Botanical Nutrition, led a session titled “The Greenwashing of Food: Be an Informed Consumer,” part of the conference’s Food Justice track. Greenwashing, she explained, is the set of efforts a company takes to appear environmentally friendly, when in reality, the majority of their work is not. As “going green” becomes increasingly popular, for companies it means increased cash. And so, more and more food companies claim they are environmentally responsible. It turns out, that’s often not true. They’re simply repainting the background green.

Garbinski, wants you to know the facts in order to make better informed decisions when purchasing food. What makes food “natural?” Or “organic?” Who is approving these labels and what do they mean?

What can you do? Get informed. Did you know that it’s illegal to grow genetically modified crops in Ireland and Japan (although they can be imported), and that it’s illegal to export or import GM in Egypt? Ask questions. Get answers from organizations like Organic Consumers Association.

And then…Vote with your dollar. Consumers are the power behind the resistance to the Smart Choices campaign, which gives a seal of approval to sugar-filled cereals like Froot Loops and Cocoa Puffs. Spread the word. Blog, tweet, talk to your friends. Help advocate for change.

Recently, while sitting in a waiting room, I casually flipped through Audubon magazine.  Suddenly, my eyes nearly popped out of their sockets.  What?!  A Monsanto advertisement in an environmental magazine?

Audubon’s mission statement says: “Audubon magazine provides a place where nature enthusiasts, outdoor adventurers, and socially conscious consumers can discover, connect with, and be inspired by the natural world’s extraordinary beauty and diversity.”  Monsanto—of Agent Orange,  farmer-suing, seed-patenting , genome-tinkering , and crop-spraying fame—is hardly a logical bed fellow.

You can see the ad for yourself, here.  What’s truly infuriating about seeing the ad in Audubon magazine is that Monsanto is clearly targeting the environmental and food justice crowd.  Buzz words like “a changing climate,” “conserve more,” “use…fewer resources,” and “sustainable agriculture” give the illusion that Monsanto is on our side.  They are anything but.

Never one to bite my tongue, I sent Audubon an e-mail:

I was horrified to see a print ad for Monsanto in your magazine.  Monsanto is a foe of the environment, and their advertisement was nothing but propaganda.  Your magazine stands for environmental protection and advancement; Monsanto stands for big business at the expense of farmers, the environment, and health.  The vast majority of Monsanto’s attempts at genetic engineering ultimately increases pollution and endangers the public with unknown health risks.  I urge you to sever your business dealings with Monsanto.

The publisher of Audubon magazine promptly wrote me back:

Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding the Monsanto Advertisement in Audubon Magazine.

We certainly understand your concerns.  However, we must point out that the item is clearly identified as a paid advertisement, which readers readily recognize as the unendorsed claims of the advertiser.  In this case, Monsanto is offering its views for reader consideration, just as other advertisers offer their products.

As you have clearly noted, Monsanto’s products have raised legitimate environmental concerns.  But the company has also worked with conservation groups—including Audubon—to advance opportunities to improve some farming practices to safeguard birds, other wildlife and their habitat. The ad allows them to present their unfiltered view of Monsanto actions to be evaluated by readers like you along with other information and perceptions. Your direct feedback to the company can help influence future policies.

We appreciate your recognition that advertisements make it possible for Audubon Magazine to bring readers the best in environmental journalism. Our stories (and occasionally our ads) can sometimes be as controversial as they are informative.  We hope you can see the value in that, and that you will continue to support our magazine, our organization and the cause we share.

His response raises some interesting questions about the nature of publishing and free press.  Should Audubon provide an open forum to any company that approaches them for advertisement, even if that company has a history that is contradictory to their mission?  Does Audubon have a responsibility to screen the advertisements themselves to make sure that they accurately represent the company?  Personally, I find it concerning that Audubon has facilitated Monsanto in presenting their so-called “unfiltered view,” but what I would call a “skewed, propagandist view.”

Moreover, the publisher reveals that Audubon and Monsanto have an ongoing collaboration on bird and habitat conservation.  Perhaps some of you already knew that—I certainly didn’t, and it doesn’t sit well.  It appears as though Monsanto, a multinational corporation, can throw a bit of money to appease the environmentalists and seemingly absolve itself from its environmentally harmful endeavors.  That being said, I don’t want to be naïve about the challenges of raising money for environmental causes, especially in a tight economy.  I’m sure that Audubon is glad to have the extra support.  But the question is, should they accept it?

Now, one could argue that Monsanto might be trying to genuinely reinvent itself via its advertisement and habitat conservation projects.  Perhaps Monsanto wants to get the attention of environmentalists and food activists to prove the benefits of genetically modified food in alleviating hunger and food shortages given the realities of limited natural resources.  To be sure, there are some environmentalists who do see the benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMO) as a solution for these major global issues and advocate for their development.  And while that is a legitimate point of debate, it does not rationalize most uses of GMO, which are irresponsibly disseminated into into the environment with potentially devastating effects to ecosystems, farming, and human health.  In my book, Monsanto has struck out far too many times for me to think of it as anything other than a profit-hungry behemoth willing to make a buck at any cost.

You can learn more about Monsanto and GMO through The Center for Food Safety and the Organic Consumers Association.

The other day my boyfriend and I were enjoying a Sunday walk in Brooklyn when we ran into his friend Ana, her partner and their adorable new baby.  Among the introductions and pleasantries she mentioned that she was distributing her film FRESH.  “Here, tell me what you think of it,” she said handing me a copy, knowing I was a food writer.

So, one night a while later my boyfriend and I tucked into the sofa and watched FRESH, the new film by Ana Sofia Joanes.  As someone who has seen Food Inc and has read a lot of Michael Pollan, the material was not new to me, however I found the material’s presentation (forgive the pun) fresh.  I had found Food Inc to be a good film, but heavy on the propaganda.  I felt that FRESH got its message across in a far more even-handed way.  The film invoked a pretty good discussion, and I was happy to see on their website they had some additional educational materials and even a call for recipes.  But you don’t have to be a Jew and the Carrot writer or have chance encounters with the director to see this film.  If you live in the New York area there will be a screening this Tuesday.

Green Screens and Independents Night Presents
FRESH
Tuesday, Oct. 27, 6:30 p.m.

Director Ana Sofia Joanes will join David Haight, New York Director of American Farmland Trust; Hudson Valley Farmer Cheryl Rogowski (winner of a 2004 MacArthur Fellow Genius Grant) and moderator Jen Small of AFT and Flying Pigs Farm for a discussion and reception following the screening at Lincoln Center 70 W 63RD St New York, NY 10023

And if you don’t find yourself in NYC this Tuesday, you can click here to find a screening near you.  Or you can also host your own screening, for more information click here or check out their website www.freshthemovie.com

A Federal Court ruled yesterday that the Bush USDA’s approval of genetically engineered (GE) “RoundUp Ready” sugar beets was unlawful. The Court ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) when it failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) before deregulating sugar beets that have been genetically engineered (“GE”) to be resistant to glyphosate herbicide, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup.

This court decision is a wakeup call for the Obama USDA that they will not be allowed to ignore the biological pollution and economic impacts of GE crops … The Courts have made it clear that USDA’s job is to protect America’s farmers and consumers, not the interests of Monsanto.

Additionally, over 100 companies have joined the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry opposing the introduction of GE sugar beets, and pledging to seek wherever possible to avoid using GM beet sugar in their products: www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/services/nongm_sugar_beet_registry_display.cfm. Check out the registry, and pass it on to food producers who want to stand in solidarity to reject this GE crop.

Sugar beet seed is grown primarily in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, which is also an important seed growing area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. GE sugar beets are wind pollinated and will inevitably cross-pollinate the related crops being grown in the same area. Such biological contamination would be devastating to organic farmers, who face debilitating losses when their crops are contaminated by a GE variety. Contamination also reduces the ability of conventional farmers to decide what to grow, and limits consumer choice of the foods they can eat. In his September 21, 2009 order requiring APHIS to prepare an EIS, Judge Jeffrey S. White emphasized that “the potential elimination of a farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food, is an action that potentially eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant has a significant effect on the human environment.”

The Court found that the USDA failed to analyze the impacts of biological contamination on the related crops of red table beets and Swiss chard. Because organic seed is the foundation of organic farming and organic food integrity, and “organic” rules explicitly exclude GMOs, this GE crop threatened all organic chard and beets in the U.S. This victory is another step in protecting non-GE seeds along with the rights of organic farmers to be protected from negative economic impact from GE crops, and consumers rights’ to choose to eat food free of GE components.

“Roundup Ready” crops allow farmers to douse their fields with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide without killing the crop. Constant application of the herbicide has resulted in weeds becoming resistant to it. There are now millions of acres across the U.S. of such “superweeds,” including marestail, ragweed, and waterhemp, and farmers are using greater applications of Roundup or other, even more toxic chemicals. According to an independent analysis of USDA data by former Board of Agriculture Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Charles Benbrook, GE crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 138 million pounds – a huge increase of these herbicides attributed to GE crops.

There is also mounting evidence that Roundup itself is very harmful. A 2008 scientific study revealed that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. Other recent studies suggest Roundup is an endocrine disrupter, and that some amphibians and other organisms may be at risk from glyphosate.

Now that Judge White ruled in our favor, we now take Monsanto into the courtroom to move for a permanent injunction to halt the sale and planting of GE sugar beet seed, just like we did in the GE Alfalfa case…

For you lawyers out there, the case is Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 08-00484 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2009). The decision follows on the heels of a June 2009 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the illegality of the APHIS’ approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa, which Monsanto says they will now Petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review…

Stay tuned!

For press coverage, check out:
SF Chronicle:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/23/BACP19QTF7.DTL

NY Times:

www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23beet.html?_r=1&sq=sugar%20beets&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1253728815-Ut3l69B7bPr/u2PoX9llrg

Recent laboratory tests have discovered that consumers in Israel are eating Genetically Modified Organisms – whether they like it or not.

Tests by Milouda Quality Control Laboratories, which analyzes food destined for sale in the European Union, discovered GM soya in popular foods sold in stores across Israel, reports Haaretz. Food contaminated with GM included baked goods, packaged schnitzel and meat substitutes. Israeli favorites like falafel could also potentially contain GM if they are fried in soya oil.

Biotechnology research may be big business in Israel but, as far as I am aware, no GM crops are grown commercially in the country. However, it is clearly being imported and is entering the human food chain via processed foods or animal feed. In addition to denying consumer choice – and putting public health at risk – GM contamination could precipitate an economic disaster for the Israeli food industry.

EU law requires all food containing GM to be labeled and many retailers refuse to stock any GM whatsoever. If the Israeli food industry doesn’t take action promptly, it risks exports to the EU and elsewhere being wiped out overnight – a fate which already befallen non-GM farmers in north America.

Far from being a precise ‘science’, GM is a relatively new and unpredictable technology based on inserting a gene from one organism to another in the hope of transferring specific genetic traits. Despite attempts by GM proponents to persuade the public that their crops are safe to eat, the lack of reliable scientific studies, such as animal feeding trials, have led to a backlash by consumers and farmers in many countries. The small number of available scientific studies [PDF report] have found alarming health effects including:

• High mortality rates in the offspring of rats fed Monstanto’s GM Roundup Ready soya in a Russian laboratory
• Toxic effects on the liver and kidneys of rats fed Monstanto GM maize in Germany
• Allergic reactions in mice after eating peas modified with a gene from the kidney bean found by Australian scientists.

Sources in Judaism and other Abrahamic Faiths stress that GM is an unkosher technology and runs counter to their religions.

So why is GM being sold in Israel without being labeled or adequately tested?

Take action: If you are concerned and want the choice to eat GM-free food in Israel, then email the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour <click for webform>, Ministry of Environmental Protection <pniot@sviva.gov.il> and Ministry of Agriculture <pniot@moag.gov.il> to demand the following:

• An immediate moratorium on all GM imports into Israel
• The introduction of mandatory labeling of all food containing GM
• A full and open public debate over the Genetic Modification of food in Israel.

:: Genetically enhanced food sold unmarked, Haaretz.
:: GM crops – the health effects, Soil Association [PDF report].
:: Treif Tomatoes,Teva Learning Centre.

Photo credit: The Rocketeer.