As you know this past Thursday, the USDA announced its decision to deregulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Alfalfa is an important crop for many organic dairy farmers and despite a growing body of scientific evidence against GE crops, the USDA decided to allow planting of GE alfalfa without any oversight or protections for organic farmers. We believe that the USDA decision favors the interests of the biotech industry, and deals a major blow to both organic farming and the public’s right to choose foods free of GE contamination.
It is crucial that those of us who care about organic and feeding our families food free of GE ingredients join together and act. We hope you’ll take the time to read this letter below from Maria Rodale, Michael Pollan, and the organic community and learn how to take action.
We also hope you’ll share it with your on-line and off-line communities. Here is the direct, easily sharable link: http://huff.to/g0qE1u
LETTER FROM THE ORGANIC COMMUNITY
We stand united in opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to once again allow unlimited, nationwide commercial planting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers.
Last spring more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the USDA highly critical of the substance and conclusions of its draft EIS on GE Alfalfa. Instead of responding to these comments and concerns, including expert comments from farmers, scientists, academics, conservationists, and food safety and consumer advocates, the USDA has chosen instead to listen to a handful of agricultural biotechnology companies.
USDA’s decision to allow unlimited, nationwide commercial planting of
Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa without any restrictions flies in the face of the interests of conventional and organic farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice. USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of American farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.
The Center for Food Safety will be suing on this decision.
In the coming months, we will be seeing USDA proposals to allow unrestricted plantings of GE sugar beets, and GE corn and soy crops designed to resist toxic pesticides, such as 2-4D and Dicamba, highly toxic pesticides that pose a serious threat to our health and the environment. To win these critical and difficult battles, the entire organic community, and our allies in the conventional food and farming community, will have to work together.
Now is the time to unite in action. We need to work together to restore sanity to our food system, stop the deregulation of GE crops and join together against the forces that are seeking to silence hundreds of thousands of Americans.
As we move forward, we are united in opposing genetically engineered organisms in food production and believe that pressure to stop the proliferation of this contaminating technology must be focused on the White House and Congress. The companies responsible for this situation are the biotech companies whose GE technology causes genetic drift and environmental hazards that are not contained as the deregulation of genetically engineered alfalfa goes forward. The organic community stands together with consumer, farmer, environmental and business interests to ensure practices that are protective of health and the environment.
We urge you to join us today.
Sign up to receive action alerts:
http://cfs.convio.net/site/PageNavigator/Register
Consider making a donation to the legal effort ahead:
https://secure3.convio.net/cfs/site/Donation2?1311.donation=form1&df_id=1311&JServSessionIdr004=vqetvh6lh5.app306a
Let the White House know that you do not support the deregulation of GE alfalfa:
http://ota.capwiz.com/ota/issues/alert/?alertid=24747501
Sincerely,
Christine Bushway, Organic Trade Association
Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides
Michael Funk, United Natural Foods Inc (UNFI)
Elizabeth Henderson, NOFA Interstate Council
Gary Hirshberg, Stonyfield Farm
Liana Hoodes, National Organic Coalition
Kristina Hubbard, Organic Seed Alliance
Faye Jones, Midwest Organic Sustainable Education Service
Robby Kenner, Robert Kenner Films
Andrew Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety
Russell Libby, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners (MOFGA)
Ed Maltby, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA)
Robyn O’Brien, Allergy Kids
Keith Olcott, Equal Exchange
Michael Pollan, Author
Maria Rodale, Rodale Inc.
Eric Schlosser, Author
Robynn Schrader, National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA)
George Siemon, Organic Valley
Michael Sligh, Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)
Megan Westgate, Non-GMO Project
Maureen Wilmot, Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF)
Enid Wonnacott, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT)
I’m a bit confused…your site says…
“In the coming months, we will be seeing USDA proposals to allow unrestricted plantings of GE sugar beets, and GE corn and soy crops designed to resist toxic pesticides, such as 2-4D and Dicamba, highly toxic pesticides that pose a serious threat to our health and the environment.”
I was under the impression that roundup ready crops were resistant to roundup, and that 2-4D, and Dicamba were totally different compounds! Pesticides are not even in the same discussion as herbicides! How can we take our leaders seriously if what they post is a total fabrication!!!
Lets use the truth before our own members start to mistrust us!
Hi Les: We’re sorry if it was unclear. Pesticides are a general category that encompass herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc. And herbicides represent nearly 2/3 of all pesticides used in the U.S., far more than insecticides, for instance. Yes, Roundup Ready crops are only resistant to Roundup. 2,4-D and dicamba are different herbicides. Dow has developed 2,4-D-resistant crops, Monsanto has dicamba-resistant crops. Neither are approved yet. They will be marketed to farmers as “solutions” to Roundup-resistant weeds. If they gain approval we suspect that the use of the chemicals will increase dramatically, and as has happened with Roundup, weeds will evolve resistance to them as well.
[...] yeah, I hooked up with Stonyfield’s website and fired off a letter to our President. I figure it’s the least I could do in support of our [...]
Stonyfield Farms…. this is what another site is saying about your company….
“A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it’s time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto’s controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for “coexistence” with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.”
And ….
“The CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack’s previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as “Governor of the Year” in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail.”
Is any of this true?
Hi Laurie –
The Organic Consumers Association article you refer to is nearly completely devoid of truth. No deal was cut between Organic Valley, Stonyfield, WFM and Monsanto. The leadership of Organic Valley, Stonyfield and Whole Foods continue to be 100% in favor of a complete ban on GMO alfalfa and have each taken significant steps – including funding legal challenges to the USDA – to force the USDA to prevent GMO alfalfa from entering the environment.
To learn more, we encourage you to read the recent blog post from Gary Hirshberg, our CE-Yo: http://www.stonyfield.com/blog/2011/01/29/the-organic-community-must-come-out-swinging-at-the-right-opponents/#comments
Thanks for reaching out to learn more -
Stonyfield Amy
The huge focus of the organic community on GE crops is really a shame. I buy organic foods because I care about the process of how they are grown. Yellow tomato, red tomato, purple tomato, the specific variety isn’t what makes something organic; it’s whether it is grown with respect for the soil, environment, and human health. Pesticides, fertilizer runoff, tilling the soil to death, stuffing animals with hormones and antibiotics; all these are bad for the environment, bad for animals, bad for workers, and might make less healthy food. But why can’t GE crops be part of sustainable agriculture?
GE is not natural. Well neither is a field full of only alfalfa. And for that matter, as Danl points out neither is anything we grow. We have artificially selected crops for traits that we want for millenia; all GE does is make the process more efficient. As for changing DNA being bad… well microbes swap DNA all the time. And viruses transfer DNA between animals they infect.
As a supporter of sustainable organic agriculture, I am disheartened by the fight against GE crops because it is a red herring distracting from the real values we need to support: reduced pesticide and fertilizer runoff, proper treatment of animals, and general respect for the environment. There’s no reason why GE can’t coexist with and even further those goals.
Well, if it is all about the chemicals using on the plant for you, then you should realize that the purpose of Monsanto’s GMO products are in direct opposition to organic. Their patented gene is meant to resist Roundup so that more of this herbicide can be used than ever before. That will impact the environment in the water and no one seems to be that concerned about the wildlife also eat in farm planted fields. This is has a bigger than just “us.”
There’s certainly an argument to be had about the specific impact of Roundup-Ready GMOs. If farmers spray a whole lot of roundup and don’t intersperse non-roundup plots to prevent resistant weeds, then certainly the impacts can be bad for the environment. But again, that’s not the plant, its the way the farming is done.
I don’t defend Roundup-ready in particular, but people don’t seem to talk about the specific issue of roundup-ready. Most who are opposed seem to oppose all GMOs on principle without a real good reason. If we could theoretically engineer plants that can outcompete weeds on their own so no pesticides are needed, fix nitrogen on their own so no extra fertilizer is needed, and are more productive so less land is needed, wouldn’t that be a net gain for the environment whether those plants were bred or engineered? Or if we could make rice more nutritious so people in developing countries didn’t suffer nutrient deficiencies, wouldn’t that be a net plus for humanity?
There’s a lot that needs to be reformed about agriculture today, and I wish people would spend their time and effort fighting the fights that really matter.
Really appreciate the discussion, especially Buzz who asks about the pros and cons. Like any approach to farming(including organic) Roundup ready alfalfa RRA has pros and cons. But if you ask alfalfa hay growers, they would very much like the opportunity to try the technology. Remember that organic hay is about 1% of all alfalfa acreage.
The pros: RR alfalfa is a very effective weed control technique. If you think weeds are not a problem in alfalfa, you’ve never walked through an alfalfa field. Each year, animals are harmed and even killed by weeds in alfalfa, some of which are poisonous. Also, currently, alfalfa herbicides such as hexazanon are showing up in surface waters – Roundup replaces those, so there is an environmental benefit to the technology. Economically, farmers will benefit – if not, they’ll reject the technology and won’t buy the seed!
The cons: If only Roundup is used in this system, weed shifts will occur. This is a problem with repeated use of any herbicide, not necessarily GMOs. Gene flow is a problem with seed production, not really with hay production which is 99% of the acreage, since hay is cut very regularly, and hay managers don’t want lots of flowering, much less seed production. The alarmists have made a lot of this issue, but hay growers understand it well. Fortunately, there are management solutions to the problems of gene flow and weed resistance.
Myth: That the introduction of RRA will put organic folks out of business. Organic alfalfa and milk production has thrived since 2005 and will continue to do so. “concerns’ about genetic pollution don’t equal reality.
True: Genetic modifications of plants has been occurring for thousands of years. Native Americans selected and ‘made’ maize from old wild types of teosinte. Triticale was an artificial cross between wheat and rye developed in the 1950s – and a very useful crop to (even organic) dairies.
I don’t give a whit about Monsanto, but since I work a lot with haygrowers, it’s important to ask them about their needs, not just listen to political activists or big agribusiness companies.
In the days when pesticides were first used, farmers had no clue that they were risking their health. They were sold a bill of goods on how great it would be and how it was harmless. Do you know that some farmers even stood out in citrus groves while they were being sprayed without any protective gear? They did not know that they would suffer with neurological disorders, liver and kidney diseases, lung conditions, and cancer, just to name a few, later in life because of this “harmless” chemical that would “improve” their life.
Likewise, we do not know enough about the impact GMO and the heavy use of Roundup will have.
Please think about this on a deeper level. We are ONE with each other and the Earth. “Dust to Dust”. Start GE’g the food, changes the DNA of animals and the people who benefit from the produce. It’s a way to genetically favor races. Causes infertility. Who eats organic food???? Race and class selection.
There’s a lot at stake here. It’s more than feeding masses of people. There is a life story here. It’s not just killing insects and creating a more robust crop. Look deeper.
I am very disturbed to find that the government is still controlling our food industry for the good of the political machine and those who control it. Remember Monsanto has always been called on by the government to make products for their needs at the time, without the conscience thought of what the effects will be later on. During the Vietnam war they made “Agent Orange” with devestating effects of cancer for those who were sprayed with it, breathed it in, or touched it. Then we have the GM Soy bean with its resistance to bugs problem and contamination of “clean, organic” crops. I am really sick of this. I don’t believe that we really live in a democracy. I think it’s just a sham. I don’t feel we are being protected by our government at all! We are being exploited for the almighty dollar.!!!!
I don’t really have an issue with the GM seeds, as there is a do the right thing pull in both directions. Environmentally, obviously organic is advantageous. But the GM seeds have higher yields, they are more resistant to insects, and can provide food at a lower cost. Given what is currently going on globally with food inflation and a growing middle class in China, India, etc., doing what we can to encourage crop production for the food supply, and doing what we can to end crop production for energy supply, a lot of lives can be saved and there will be more political stability.
What does need to be done is to blunt the ability of GM seed makers from suing farmers who inadvertently have their crops contaminated with proprietary seeds from neighboring farms.
Obviously you have heard the propaganda but have not read the research studies. GMO does not create higher yields, but lower ones per acre, although they are working to genetically improve that as well they say. Plant GMO seeds are not less costly per acre because the farmer has to buy the seeds every year as he is not allowed to keep any from his own yield. AND they are using more Roundup to poison the land than ever before. Plus many countries have not only banned the use of GMO, but refuse food sent to them by the U.S. that is GM even when desperately needed.
I really appreciate this letter and post. Earlier in the week many friends sent me a sensational article that made it sound as though Stoneyfield was ok with it all and I was hesitant to condem. I am so happy to see yoir response. Monsanto is a thorn in everyone’s side, many people just don’t get it.
The article says GE alfalfa “flies in the face of the interests of conventional and organic farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice…” How does allowing GE alfalfa adversely impact Organic farmers? Are you saying that this will cause crop contamination or that cows on organic farms will eat the GE alfalfa and that would make say yougurt developed from those cows not truly organic? How does it impact consumer choice? I want to support, but I also want to understand the true issues.
Christina,
There’s a great movie, Food Inc. you may want to check it out. However, the nutshell version is this: GE Alfalfa is now at risk of cross pollinating/contaminating with non-GMO/GE alfalfa. Furthermore, Monsanto the company that owns the patent on GE Alfalfa has been known to prosecute those farmers whose crops are inadvertently cross pollinated. Food Inc. explains this much better than I can, however…it does set the stage for the organic industry to be put at risk and yes, those animals that used to be raised on organic alfalfa (which is very important because a cows digestive system can not process corn feed) will no longer truly be organic and thus your milk, yogurt, ice cream, cheeses, meats are also no longer organic.
Science has shown us some wonderful things…unfortunately, Genetically Engineered foods are not one of them.
It would be helpful if pros and cons of Monsato’s GE Alfalfa were spelled out here (ideally without bias). I like science and making a genetically engineered plant doesn’t have to be a bad thing. That’s how we have the fruits and vegetables that we have today, isn’t it?
I like Stonyfield yogurt, but I’m not going to blindly protest something I don’t understand.
Its true, science brings about some wonderful things. This isn’t one of them. Alfalfa is a huge crop for farmers and very important for dairy farmers. Organic standards prohibit the use of GE/GMO’s–so to risk the potential that these crops can be cross pollinated/contaminated–that puts the organic farmer at a great disadvantage.
And you’re correct in a sense, that many of the items we have today are hybrids–but a hybrid is very different then genetic engineering. Many times a farmer could graft pieces of a plant together and create something new. The GE, is created artificially. They are taking chemical components and adding them to the natural product–breeding two natural products together is a different process. The GE alfalfa is engineered so that it works better with Monsanto’s Round-Up pesticides, sounds yummy doesn’t it?
Thank you for doing this. I responded to the email right away via the prior post and the quick and easy links you all provided. THANKS
[...] WE STAND UNITED IN OPPOSITION TO GE ALFALFA. [...]
Why can’t we hit Monsanto where it matters? Their pocketbooks, they have a relationship with Scotts Miracle Gro
http://thescottsmiraclegrocompany.com/aboutus/brands/roundup.html
Scott’s is the US exclusive partner to sell Round Up, this seems like a perfect opportunity to boycott those companies with ties to Monsanto.
I, for one, will not purchase ANY Scotts products going forward. I will encourage other members of my family to do the same and I hope that others who read this will discover more companies with ties to Monsanto and “out” them. Perhaps this is one little way where we can teach these mega-corporations that they are the ones leaving a path of destruction behind them.
Monsanto has far too much influence in government agencies that are supposed to be protecting us.
Monsanto IS the government! Got it? They are the Program. Until people understand what’s going on, they will continue blindly living in their picture perfect, postcard world damaging the environment that is so intimately themselves.
The Normalcy Bias
The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.
Denial
Denial is a defense mechanism, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:
simple denial – deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimisation – admit the fact but deny its seriousness
projection- admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.