Frankenfeed We Can Believe In

Argh.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on Thursday that he would authorize the unrestricted commercial cultivation of genetically modified alfalfa, setting aside a controversial compromise that had generated stiff opposition.

In making the decision, Mr. Vilsack pulled back from a novel proposal that would have restricted the growing of genetically engineered alfalfa to protect organic farmers from so-called biotech contamination. That proposal drew criticism at a recent Congressional hearing and in public forums where Mr. Vilsack outlined the option.

Mr. Vilsack said Thursday that his department would take other measures, like conducting research and promoting dialogue, to make sure that pure, nonengineered alfalfa seed would remain available.

“We want to expand and preserve choice for farmers,” he told reporters. “We think the decision reached today is a reflection of our commitment to choice and trust.”

Mr. Vilsack in recent months has been calling for coexistence among growers of genetically engineered crops, organic farmers and nonorganic farmers growing crops that have not been genetically altered.

Organic farmers can lose sales if genetic engineering is detected in their crops, which occurs through cross-pollination from a nearby field or through intermingling of seeds. And exports of nonorganic but nonengineered crops to certain countries can be jeopardized if genetically engineered material is detected in significant amounts.

The genetically modified crop---developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics, an alfalfa seed company that is owned by the Land O’Lakes farming and dairy cooperative---contains a gene that makes the plant resistant to the herbicide Roundup. That allows farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds without hurting the crop.

Alfalfa is grown mostly to make hay fed to dairy cows and horses. More than 20 million acres are grown in the United States; it is the nation’s fourth-largest crop by acreage, behind corn, soybeans and wheat, with a value of about $8 billion. About 1 percent of alfalfa is organic.

While this is awesome news for Monsanto shareholders, it's insanely stupid policy on so many levels:

Two of our major concerns with [Roundup-Ready Alfalfa] deregulation are unintended gene flow from RRA to conventional and organic alfalfa, and the likelihood that introduction of RRA would worsen the ongoing epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Gene flow and resistant weeds have already caused substantial harm to thousands of American farmers, and thus deserve careful analysis in the context of RRA.

Alfalfa is a bee-pollinated, perennial plant, which makes transgenic contamination much more likely than it is with self-pollinating crops like rice or wind-pollinated crops like corn. Yet confinement efforts with these more easily contained crops have often failed, sometimes spectacularly. Conventional corn and rice growers suffered losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars from contamination episodes involving two genetically engineered (GE) crops: StarLink corn (2000/2001)i and LibertyLink rice (2006/2007).ii The organic canola industry in Canada was "destroyed" by pervasive transgenic contamination. Two key similarities between canola and alfalfa---long-distance bee pollination and ubiquity of volunteers and feral plants---suggest a similar fate could befall conventional and organic alfalfa.

At present, Canada’s entire $320 million flax industry is threatened by GE contamination with a long de-registered variety that late in 2009 turned up unexpectedly in flax shipments to the European Union, which has rejected them. There have been over 200 transgenic contamination episodes documented over the past decade, many of which have triggered rejection of shipments by grain elevators or food companies. Conventional and organic growers undertake expensive and often unsuccessful “contamination prevention” efforts, and many also commission expensive testing of their supplies for the presence of unintended transgenic material. Things have reached the point where grain dealers are “offshoring” organic production (e.g. organic seed corn) to foreign countries that are able to ensure production of uncontaminated product, costing American farmers jobs and income.

There'a also the matter of liability. Or, rather, the lack of it, since the USDA's traditional definition of "regulation" has been pretty much identical to "self-regulation":

We note that Bayer CropScience (developer of LibertyLink rice) denied any culpability for the contamination episode noted above that caused such huge losses to American rice farmers, and instead blamed "unavoidable circumstances which could not have been prevented by anyone"; "an act of God"; and farmers' "own negligence, carelessness, and/or comparative fault." In this light, it is troubling that co-applicant Forage Genetics has a history of refusing to inform conventional growers of the locations of RR alfalfa fields.

The Department would have to oversee implementation and enforcement of these plans because the applicants’ conflict of interest disqualifies them for the task. Recall that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated stewardship responsibilities for GE StarLink corn to Aventis CropScience, its developer, much as USDA proposes to let Monsanto-Forage Genetics (FGI) implement and enforce RRA stewardship via contracts or licenses with growers.x Aventis misbranded some StarLink seed bags by not including required planting restrictions. Iowa attorney general Tom Miller suggested that Aventis failed to inform many farmers of restrictions on growing StarLink for fear of losing them as customers. The result was a huge and costly contamination debacle for American farmers. Monsanto and FGI would be in a similar conflict of interest situation---reluctant to enforce contractual stewardship obligations for fear of losing customers disinclined to fulfill them.

Monsanto recently provided an illustration of how conflict of interest operates to undermine compliance with stewardship obligations. In the summer of 2010, EPA fined Monsanto $2.5 million for distributing misbranded GE insect-resistant cotton seed.xii Due to Monsanto’s failure to include in Grower Guides EPA-ordered language prohibiting commercial planting of the cotton seed in 10 Texas counties, the seed was widely sold and planted in those counties from 2002 to 2007. The planting restrictions were part of EPA’s program to forestall evolution of insect resistance to GE insect-resistant crops (no comparable program exists for herbicide-resistant weeds fostered by RR crop systems).

Monsanto clearly profited from its violation of EPA rules, gaining substantial revenue from illegal seed sales over a six-year period.

Bottom line:

Roundup Ready crops have led to use of 383 million lbs. more herbicide than would have been applied in their absence over the 13 years from 1996 to 2008. One important reason for this is the widespread evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds they have fostered. According to the National Academy of Sciences, farmers respond to glyphosate- resistant weeds by “...increasing the magnitude and frequency of glyphosate applications, using other herbicides in addition to glyphosate, or increasing their use of tillage.” Pesticidal responses to these resistant weeds include toxic arsenic-based herbicidesxviii and increased use of 2,4-D, the dioxin-laced component of the Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange. Many farmers afflicted with GR horseweed have resorted to tillage to remove them, abandoning their no-till regimes and in the process increasing soil erosion. In 2009 in Georgia, half a million acres of cotton were weeded by hand, at a cost of $11 million, to remove noxious, glyphosate-resistant pigweed, increasing per acre weed control costs from $25 to $60-100 per acre. The Midwest is also seriously impacted. Noxious tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) resistant to glyphosate and two to three other classes of herbicides is spreading throughout the Corn Belt. Weed scientists in Illinois warn that it is poised to become an “unmanageable” problem that could soon make it impractical to grow soybeans in some Midwestern fields.

The replacement of conventional alfalfa with Roundup Ready alfalfa in rotations already dominated by Roundup Ready corn (70% of national acreage) and RR soybeans (93% of national acreage) would sharply increase glyphosate selection pressure and spur glyphosate-resistant weeds to evolve still more rapidly, as even supporters of RR alfalfa concede, exacerbating the many harms noted above. And to what end? RR alfalfa provides very little countervailing benefit, because alfalfa is a crop that simply does not require weed-killing chemicals. It grows vigorously in dense stands that crowd out weeds, and regular mowing effectively controls those that do emerge. This explains why just 7% of alfalfa hay acres in the U.S. are treated with any herbicide at all, and why USDA projects that substantial adoption of herbicide-promoting RR alfalfa would increase herbicide use by up to 23 million lbs. per year.

Or, 23 million reasons why the manufacturer of Roundup is cheering today.

Yes, we know that the introduction of GMO crops can result in greater and more cost-efficient crop yields, which translates into lower feed costs to ranchers and lower beef prices at the supermarket. But what in the world has ever been intrinsically desirable about this? Artificially low beef prices---that is to say, the cost of GMO-fed livestock versus the cost of their organically-fed counterparts---stimulate overconsumption; Americans stuff themselves with more than 60 pounds of the stuff per year (only Argentines consume more per capita), with accompanying diet-related illnesses and healthcare costs stretching into the billions of dollars annually:

Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.

The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.

Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.

"The bottom line is we found an association between red meat and processed meat and an increased risk of mortality," said Rashmi Sinha of the National Cancer Institute, who led the study published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

There's also the the myriad of disastrous environmental impacts of industrial beef production beyond whatever happens when you inject 23 million pounds of Roundup into our topsoil each year, but that's the subject of another post. Oh, and let's not forget the absurdly wasteful energy costs required to produce each pound of beef versus other nutrients.

Finally, the USDA's concerns notwithstanding, the higher-yield, lower-cost economics of biotech have tended to discourage more costly traditional (i.e., organic) farming methods while encouraging the establishment of less biologically-diverse monocultures nearly everywhere GMO crop seeds have been introduced---often, with calamitous consequences. (For the record, I consume beef, too. It's just not my primary source of proteins.)

If Michelle Obama really wants us all to eat healthier and live longer, she really needs to have a little chat with Secretary Vilsack---and perhaps with her husband, too.

---Vitelius