From: Scientific American

In 2005, a federal judge halted the planting and sale of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa to hear arguments about whether the ban should stay in place while the government carries out an environmental impact statement (EIS) into the likelihood that bees will carry human-modified genes from one alfalfa field to another. This was one of many cases filed in an effort to prevent Monsanto from selling genetically modified seeds of alfalfa marketed under the Roundup Ready brand.

>> NPR reports about the genetically modified debate.

Now, flash forward to 2009. Having conducted its first ever EIS on genetically engineered products, the USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009, and opened it to a 60-day public comment period.

It appears that the regulatory agency supports the release on GE crop seeds into the marketplace. But Zelig Golden, an attorney with the Center for Food Safety, has serious concerns about the quality of the evaluation and its impact on subsequent investigations into GE safety. He comments:

The EIS dismisses the significance that GE alfalfa will broadly contaminate non-GE alfalfa. Opinions, studies (published or unpublished), anecdotal stories, and testing data about how contamination will occur and /or demonstrating that contamination has in fact occurred are critical.

The EIS also dismisses the significant adverse economic effects that GE contamination will have on non-GE conventional alfalfa seed or hay growers (e.g., export markets), or dairy production that rely on non-GE and organic alfalfa hay for forage. Studies (published or unpublished), anecdotal stories, and economic analysis showing harm through contamination is essential, especially markets that are GE sensitive or reject GE outright.

Parker Wilde summarizes the conclusions of the draft EIS:

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 [genetically modified organism] 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 Missouri-based Monsanto disputes such concerns, stating that cross-pollination is unlikely and that the environment would benefit because less weed killer would be used.

But, courts were still concerned by the process the USDA took to evaluate the risks associated with disseminating these products in the marketplace. The decisions below were appealed to the Supreme Court, under the caption Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms. The SCOTUS has now acted on the case, saying it will consider overturning the court order that stopped Monsanto Co. from selling RoundUp resistant crops, including the alfalfa seed at issue in this case. Monsanto is also litigating the issue of GE sugar beets, and this decision will have broad impacts for the multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, which has control over 90% of the GE seed market. The decision, however, will be issued without one of the most liberal voices on the bench. Justice Stephen Breyer has recused himself from the case because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued the initial decision against Monsanto.

Anyone with an interest in conventionally-grown or organic crops should watch out for the Court’s decision. While Monsanto may be able to increase the production output of crops by making them resistant to the application of RoundUp in a laboratory, farmers practicing organic and conventional techniques will have to be especially vigilant of inadvertent contamination of their crops with Monsanto-pantented seeds. The consequences may be dire. For one, the farmer may have to pay Monsanto copyright infringement fines for the use of its patented products, as in the case of Candian farmer Percy Schmeister.  But, more importantly, the cross contamination may cause the farmer to lose his organic certification.

Posted by Krystyna on February 3, 2010 at 4:25pm.