Real Farming: Real Organic; Vermont farmer David Chapman and farmer/author Eliot Coleman explain why the integrity of the USDA organic seal is at risk if hydroponic and contained animal feedlot operations are allowed to be certified as organic.
Showing posts with label USDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USDA. Show all posts
Friday, October 27, 2017
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Farm Bill HR6083
Tell Congress: No Free Pass for Monsanto!
By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director
Organic Consumers Fund, July 17, 2012
Urgent action is needed today! The House version of the Farm Bill contains a provision that would give Monsanto and the other biotech companies a free pass for new GMOs and the increased herbicide use they cause.
TAKE ACTION!...Urgent action is needed today!
Monsanto has launched a series of sneak attacks on organic and non-GMO farmers and consumers. They began by attaching a rider to the U.S. House of Representatives' 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would make it impossible for organic and non-GMO farmers and seed growers to defend themselves against GMO contamination. (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm)
The rider would allow new genetically engineered crops to be planted even when courts rule that the US Department of Agriculture has approved them illegally. According to the courts, this results in "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."
***Now, they've gotten a similar provision attached to the House version of the Farm Bill! ***
This even more dangerous provision would stop the EPA from reviewing new and expanded uses of pesticides (often caused by the introduction of new herbicide-resistant GMO crops) and require the USDA to make the approval of new genetically engineered crops easier and faster, limiting USDA review to 180 days.
While the USDA has never rejected a new GMO crop, public opposition, environmental concerns, and litigation to protect farmers have slowed new approvals. These Monsanto "riders" give Monsanto and the other biotechnology companies a free pass for new GMOs. According to the Center for Food Safety, these new riders would:
--Outlaw any review of GE crops' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or any other environmental law, or by any other agency other than USDA. For example, harm to protected species could occur without any input from our expert wildlife agencies.
--Prohibit other agencies from offering expert input in the review process and instead limit review to solely USDA under the PPA. However, meaningful review would likely be eliminated by this rider, as USDA's analysis of potential harmful impacts is barred from informing any approval decision. The agency is also barred from using its broader statutory authority granted in the PPA of 2000, and instead is limited to its old 1957 Federal Plant Pest Act authority.
--Force the backdoor approval of GE crops, even if USDA has not reviewed and approved them, through unreasonably short deadlines, which, if not met by the agency, would default to immediate approval and commercialization. The provisions would also bar any agency funds be spent on impacts analysis beyond the riders' narrow and time-forced approval.
--Codify a dangerous national policy of allowing transgenic contamination in crops and foods, risking loss of GE-sensitive domestic and export markets and loss of biodiversity.
--Limit EPA's oversight of biotech crops engineered to produce or contain a pesticide by forcing the agency to choose the least burdensome choice for industry, regardless of environmental consequences.
(I included the text for the Bill below: If you don't want to read all the mumbo jumbo, scroll down to the last section it will blow your mind)
Related Articles:
Monsanto: Above the Law? Video-Report
The Worst Farm Bill in History
Text of the Monsanto Farm Bill rider:
SEC. 10011. PETITIONS TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.
a) PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. The Plant Protection Act is amended by inserting after section 411 (7 U.S.C. 7711) the following new section:
SEC. 411A. PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.
a) PETITION. A person may petition the Secretary for a determination that an organism that is subject to regulation by the Secretary as a plant pest under this Act is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act.
b) REVIEW OF PETITION.
1. ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS REQUIRED. In reviewing a petition submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct the following with respect to an organism that is the subject of the petition:
A. PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. An assessment of the likelihood that such organism is a plant pest.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. An analysis of any likely adverse effects of such organism on the soil, water, air quality, non-target organisms, and listed threatened and endangered species and the critical habitat of such species for the environment in which such organism is likely to be grown or otherwise used under the conditions specified in such petition.
2. DETERMINATION. The Secretary shall issue a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act if the Secretary determines, based on sound science and the plant pest risk assessment conducted under paragraph (1)(A), that an organism is not likely to be a plant pest.
3. REVIEW PERIOD.
A. INITIAL REVIEW PERIOD. Not later than one year after the date on which the Secretary determines that a petition submitted under subsection (a) is complete, the Secretary shall complete the plant pest risk assessment and the environmental analysis required under paragraph (1) and issue a determination with respect to such petition under paragraph (2).
B. EXTENSION. The Secretary may extend the one-year review period referred to in subparagraph (A) for a petition for one additional period of not more than 180 days if the Secretary determines that additional review is necessary. The Secretary shall notify the person who submitted the petition, in writing, of the reasons for the extension and an estimate of the time period necessary to complete the review.
4. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET TIME PERIOD. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if after completing the plant pest risk assessment, but not the environmental analysis, required under paragraph (1), the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that an organism is a plant pest and does not grant or deny a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism within the time period required under paragraph (3), such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of this Act.
5. EFFECT ON PESTICIDE REGISTRATION. In the case of an organism containing a plant-incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) with respect to which an application for registration of the plant-incorporated protectant is pending under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a et seq.), a determination made under paragraph (2) 10 that an organism is not a plant pest or the deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not be effective until the registration of the plant-incorporated protectant contained in such organism is approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 16 136a et seq.). If such registration is not approved, a determination made under paragraph (2) that an organism is not a plant pest or a deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not become effective.
6. SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. Notwithstanding a determination that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (2) or that such organism has been deemed not to be a plant pest under paragraph (4), the Secretary may issue a determination, based on information discovered after the date of such determination or the date on which the organism was so deemed and sound science, that an organism is a plant pest for purposes of this Act.
7. PUBLIC NOTICE.
A. NOTICE. The Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register of
i) the grant or denial of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to an organism; or
ii) the deeming that such organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4).
B. RISK ASSESSMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall provide to the person who submitted a petition under subsection (a), and make available to the public, the risk assessment and environmental analysis prepared under paragraph (1) with respect to such petition.
c) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED FOR PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.
1. EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS PERFORMED. Not withstanding any other provision of law, the environ mental analysis required under subsection (b)(1) and as specifically described in such subsection shall be the only analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism that is the subject of a petition submitted under subsection (a) required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such a petition.
2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR OTHER ANALYSES. No funds made available by any Act shall be obligated, expended, or used for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism conducted for purposes of this section other than the environmental analysis required under subsection (b)(1).
3. PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall not require or solicit any financial assistance from a person submitting a petition under subsection (a) for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism or for any other analysis or procedure not specifically authorized by subsection (b)(1).
d) USE OF DATA FROM PERMITS FOR PURPOSES OF PETITION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT AN ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall use data collected under a permit issued by the Secretary under section 411(a) with respect to an organism, among other relevant data, for purposes of the review of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism.
b) AUTHORITY OF REVIEW FOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO PERMITS. Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) is amended
1. by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following new subsections:
c) LIMITATION ON ANALYSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the analyses or procedures required under the regulations issued by the Secretary under the Federal Plant Pest Act and continued in effect in accordance with section 438(c) shall be the only analyses or procedures required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a).
d) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in reviewing an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) that is not excluded from environmental review under regulations issued by the Secretary in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection (or any successor regulations), the Secretary shall conduct an environmental analysis described in section 411A(b)(1)(B). Such analysis shall be the only environmental analysis or procedure required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such an application.
c) TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.
1. COMPLETENESS.
A. COMPLETENESS OF PETITIONS. Not withstanding any other provision of law, including section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such petition to be complete and maintain the status such petition had in the process for the review of such petition on such date under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.
B. COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including subsection (c) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) (as amended by subsection (b)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of such section (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such application to be complete and maintain the status such application had in the process for the review of such application on such date under subsection (a) of such section.
2. USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
A. USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of a petition submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to an organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)) for purposes of a petition submitted under subsection (a) of such section with respect to such organism.
B. USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to such organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under subsection (d) of such section (as amended by subsection (b)) with respect to such organism.
3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN PETITIONS.
A. PENDING PETITIONS WITHOUT A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. Notwithstanding section 411A(b)(2) of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the length of the period for the review of petitions submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section for which a plant pest risk assessment has not been completed on or before such date of enactment.
B. PENDING PETITIONS WITH A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT.
i) DEEMING OF CERTAIN PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to each covered petition, if the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that the organism that is the subject of such covered petition is a plant pest and the Secretary does not grant or deny such covered petition not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
ii) COVERED PETITION DEFINED. In this subparagraph, the term "covered petition" means a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for which a plant pest risk assessment and an environmental assessment have been published and a notice and comment period on each assessment has been completed as of such date of enactment.
4. REGULATIONS. Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 10012. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANT PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
a) RELOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE RELATING TO NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) is amended
1. by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
2. by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection:
e) NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK.
1. IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall establish a program to be known as the 'National Clean Plant Network' (referred to in this subsection as the 'Program').
2. REQUIREMENTS. Under the Program, the Secretary shall establish a network of clean plant centers for diagnostic and pathogen elimination services
A. to produce clean propagative plant material; and
B. to maintain blocks of pathogen-tested plant material in sites located throughout the United States.
3. AVAILABILITY OF CLEAN PLANT SOURCE MATERIAL. Clean plant source material produced or maintained under the Program may be made available to
A. a State for a certified plant program of the State; and
B. private nurseries and producers.
4. CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION. In carrying out the Program, the Secretary shall
A. consult with
i) State departments of agriculture; and
ii) land-grant colleges and universities and NLGCA Institutions (as those terms are defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); and
C. to the extent practicable and with input from the appropriate State officials and industry representatives, use existing Federal or State facilities to serve as clean plant centers.
b) FUNDING. Subsection (f) of section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as so redesignated) is amended
1. in paragraph (3), by striking "and" at the end;
2. in paragraph (4), by striking "and each fiscal year thereafter." and inserting "; and"; and
3. by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"5. $71,500,000 for fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.".
c) REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISION. Section 10202 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7761) is repealed.
d) CLARIFICATION OF USE OF FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as amended by subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
g) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW. The use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds under this section to provide technical assistance shall not be considered an allotment or fund transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation for purposes of the limit on expenditures for technical assistance imposed by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i).
SEC. 10013. AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION OF PLANTS.
a) REGULATION OF PLANTS UNDER PLANT PROTECTION ACT. Subject to subsection (b), any living stage of a plant, including any nucleic acid or other genetic material as contained in such plant, shall be exclusively subject to regulation under statutes under which the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue regulations with respect to plants, including the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
b) REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. A pesticidal substance contained in a plant shall be subject to regulation as a plant incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
c) REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. The regulations issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to plant-incorporated protectants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), including section 3(c)(1)(C) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(C)), section 3(c)(2)(A) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(A)), section 7 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136e), section 8 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136f), section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136g), and section 17 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136o), shall
1. be based on sound science;
2. use the least burdensome requirements; and
3. provide for exemptions from the requirements otherwise applicable to pesticides that are not plant-incorporated protectants.
d) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
1. PLANT. The term "plant" has the meaning given such term in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702).
2. PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCE. The term "pesticidal substance" means a substance or a mixture of substances that
A. is contained in any living stage of a plant that
i) as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, is subject to part 340 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations; or
ii) has been determined not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(2) or deemed not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(4); and
B. is intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
SEC. 10014. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON REGULATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report on the measures taken and proposed to be taken by the Secretaries and the Administrator to provide for balanced and appropriate regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology products, by
1. reducing regulatory burdens on research conducted by academic institutions, small businesses, and public entities in developing lower-cost plant and animal sources of food, feed, fuel, and fiber developed through biotechnology, with special emphasis on minor use crops, orphan crops, and sources of protein;
2. identifying categories of products developed through biotechnology for which a history of safe use has been established and providing with respect to such products reduced data requirements, expedited review periods, exemptions from regulation, and other measures, as appropriate, based on sound science; and
3. developing and implementing a cohesive national policy for the low-level presence of agronomic biotechnology material in crops, including grain and other commodity crops, for food, feed, and processing.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
The Story about GM Seeds
Susan Brannon-Robens
9, June 2011
Genetically Modified (GM) seeds have been introduced into the world from the early 1990’s. The seeds are mainly soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. The seed was developed to increase food production, lower production costs and lower the amount of pests that destroy the crops. The process is the insertion, deletion or transfer of genes. They add a genetic material into an organism. GMO’s are used in biological and medical research, the production of pharmaceutical drugs, gene therapy and agriculture.Monsanto is the company located in Missouri, that develops and patients the GM seeds. In 2007, Monsanto’s seeds were planted on 246 million acres (1,000,000kn2) throughout the world. Monsanto developed “triple-stack corn” that contains Roundup Ready 2 weed control technology with YieldGard Corn Borer and YieldGard Rootworm insect control and tops the market in the U.S. The forecast is by 2014 they will plant 56 million acres in the US. (Check BioTech) I must insert here the concept of growing our food injected with pesticides, that are eaten by cows, pigs, pets and humans does not make any sense. We all know that what we eat absorbs into our bodies. Many of the products on the grocery store shelves contain some type of corn by-product. This is not like the corn of yesterday, but genetically modified with the insertion of Roundup a weed killer accepted by the USDA?
The crops are called “Biotech Crops” that reflects the latest technology, in agriculture in order to “save our hungry world”. Yet the facts, are that there is enough food for the world, including the developing countries. The problem is that we don’t get the food over to developing countries. However, that is another issue for a different article.
It is said that out of 14 million farmers who grew biotech crops in 2009, 90% of them were poor farmers from developing countries. In China, 7 million farmers grew cotton (Bt. Cotton), 5.6 million grew cotton in the Philippines. The commercial value of biotech crops grown in 2008 was 130 billion US dollars. (ISAAA)
As of 2009/2010 data there are a number of seeds that are in our food system:
Soybens: USA 93% World 77%
Corn USA 86% World 26%
Cotton USA 93% World 49%
Alfalfa produced from 2005-2007 banned until January 2011, currently legal
Hawaiian
Papaya USA 80%
Tomotes Taken off the market commercial failure
Rapeseed USA 93% World 21%
Sugar cane no data
Sugar beet USA 95% World 9%
Zucchini USA 13%
Monsanto found it easy for the farmers in America to use and purchase the GM seeds, but later discovered the European market is concerned about mixing crops grown from GM seeds next to conventional and organic crops. Japan and the entire European Union, have outright banned GMOs and products associated with them. In the end, Monsanto settled for developing countries as another marketing target.
For example, Monsanto controls more than 60% of commercial seeds in India including “hybrids” that combine different crop varieties. However there has been a reported increase in suicides of over 200,000 Indian farmers since the introduction of the GM seeds. Physicist, Vandana Shiva blames the suicides in part on farmer indebtedness to be forced to buy the seeds each planting year at rising costs. The seeds cannot be used to plant a new crop from the last years crop. The seeds arrived in India in 2002 and the price of the seeds has jumped from Rs. 7 a bag that covers one acre to Rs. 750. There are no regulatory systems in India, and “Monsanto sells its GMO seeds on fraudulent claims of yields of 1,500 kilograms a year when farmers actually harvest 300 kg a year on average.” The developing countries are told, you can grow more for less, control the pests, make money from your farms, and help your society to diminish poverty. Some of the seeds are drought protected, injected with oils for nutrition to increase health. My question, is this Monsanto a corporation statement really true?
In America, the Obama administration decided in January 2011 to radically approve unrestricted production of biotech Monsanto “Roundup Ready” alfalfa and sugar beets creating our food system dependent in a handful of corporations, with only profit to guide them. In spite of the World Health Organization’s concerns over the spread of GM crops and the indirect effect on food safety and security, the GM seed use continues to expand. The concept of creating and selling patented GM seeds is based on corporate control with the need to be purchased each season eliminating the right for farmers and consumers to choose what they will eat and grow.
At this time, at least 2,391 farmers in 19 states have been sued for “seed piracy”. Monsanto has an annual budget of 10 million dollars that is solely devoted to investigating and prosecuting farmers. When a farmer buys the Monsanto seeds, they sign an agreement that they will not save the seeds and replant them. More than 275,000 farmers buy the seeds under this agreement. What I do not understand is why America is so willing to “trust” corporate control to the most important of concerns, our food system.
In addition there are health and ethical concerns, the quality and impact of farming, the use of pesticides, and threat to native and natural species are other major issues. Since their commercialization in 1992, GMO’s have had a startling correlation with the explosion in food borne illnesses, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related illnesses.
GMO’s allow for the breeding of super weeds that can both resist their pesticides and decimate the land. GMOs, in essence, stem from an infant science that has been thrust upon the world in the last two decades. How can cross cropping not exist? Bees fly around and carry its pollen from one plant and crop to another, the wind blows carrying with it Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. If you eat meat or dairy, you consume alfalfa and corn, the leading source for hay and food for cattle. GMO products are not allowed in the USDA-certified foods and soon it will be all but impossible to find organic milk and meat. The bill has already passed and the decision was made in spite of organic farming groups, activists, and watch groups who number into the tens of thousands.
Bt. Cotton has also shown some diverse effects through the years, Bt. Cotton first controlled the pests and reduced the amount of insecticides need by 90%, but the Bt. Cotton has created new pests, and to control the new pests, farmers are using 13 times more pesticides than they were using before the introduction of Bt. Cotton. (Huffington Post April 2009)
Organic farming groups, food outlets and activists responded to the deregulation of GM alfalfa:
"The 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."
Commenting on the ruling, in a Joint Statement U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Peter DeFazio said:
"This long approval process began as a search for a workable compromise, but it has ended as a surrender to business as usual for the biotech industry. USDA officials had an opportunity to address the concerns of all farmers, whether they choose to farm genetically altered crops, conventional crops, or organic crops, and to find a way for them to coexist. Instead, what we now have is a setback for the nation's organic and conventional agriculture sectors. Instead of settling this issue, USDA's decision regrettably guarantees further rounds in the courts."
When our leaders approve the expansion of the use of seeds that endanger biodiversity and the farmers’ choice, we should have an outcry as a nation. This regulated control over our food system; our lifeblood and food supply is not a little thing and is not a democracy.
Related Articles:
Related articles:
Labeling of GMO Food Products sign the petition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
