(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2008) On September 2, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers. Beyond Pesticides is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. Although the suit (Geertson Seed Farms, et al. v. Johanns) was brought against U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forage Genetics and Monsanto entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that, “Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.” “This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, lead plaintiff and counsel in the lawsuit. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2008) As the debate over how to solve the global food crisis heats up, experts criticize many in the mainstream media for promoting pesticides and genetically engineered seeds as solutions to global hunger. In a recent critique, Francis Moore Lappe, author of the famous book Diet for a Small Planet and co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute, says the media, in this case NPR, are off the mark in identifying the underlying causes of the food crisis and fail to look at the hopeful stories of farming communities that are succeeding with agro-ecological methods. Ms. Lappe writes, “On every continent one can find empowered rural communities developing GM-free, agro-ecological farming systems. They’re succeeding: the largest overview study, looking at farmers transitioning to sustainable practices in 57 countries, involving almost 13 million small farmers on almost 100 million acres, found after four years that average yields were up 79 percent.” As an example, she points to what may be the “pesticide capital of the world,” Andhra Pradesh, India,where “pests developed insecticide resistance and genetically modified (GM) cotton failed to live up to Monsanto’s promises.” After significant crop losses and farmer suicides there, many communities […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2008) High food prices, climate change and increasing concern over fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest in new genetically modified (GM) technology in the European Union (EU), which has long been wary of foods derived from tinkering with the genetic make-up of plants. The European Commission has said it believes GM crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply, although it added in June that expediency should not overrule strict scientific scrutiny of the use of GM technology. A European Commission-sponsored Eurobarometer opinion poll last month showed a slight increase in knowledge and acceptance of the technology. New consumer interests in GM seed varieties, which are likely to be more resistant to drought and able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water, have increased. In a similar opinion poll conducted in March, the number of EU respondents saying they lacked information on GMs fell to 26 percent, compared with 40 percent in the previous, 2005 survey.  Fifty-eight percent were apprehensive about GM use and just 21 percent in favor, down from 26 percent in favor in a 2006. The European Union has not approved any GM crops for a decade and the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2008) Pesticides manufactured by Bayer (Germany), Syngenta (Switzerland), Monsanto (USA), BASF (Germany) and Dow Chemical (USA) pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to a new Greenpeace Germany report, “The Dirty Portfolios of the Pesticides Industry.” The report provides the first-ever ranking of the world’s leading agrochemical companies based on the hazards and risks of their pesticides on human health and the environment. These five companies together account for 75 percent of the world market and 46 percent of the pesticides they sell worldwide are particularly hazardous substances. Monsanto has the portfolio with the highest proportion, 60 percent, of pesticides that are particularly toxic to humans and the environment. However, Monsanto only ends up in the middle of the overall ranking due to its small share of the market. The overall ranking not only takes into account the hazardous properties of the various pesticides, but also the quantities that are sold worldwide. Pesticides manufactured by Bayer pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, according to the report. “Our ranking shows how toxic the business of the leading agrochemical companies still is,” said Greenpeace chemicals expert Manfred Krautter. “Politicians must […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2008) While the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) High Level Conference on Food Security in Rome convenes June 3-5, 2008, some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are trying to shed light on the fact that as hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are hungry, agrochemical companies that make pesticides and genetically engineered seeds are making record profits. Although UN chief Ban Ki-moon has declared the summit a success with “a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come,” many NGOs fear that the policies will only continue in the model of the green revolution, which ushered in the widespread use of pesticides and fertilizers in farming. This model favors large agrochemical companies that manufacture pesticides and genetically engineered seeds and perpetuates the environmental and social devastation that goes hand in hand with industrial agriculture. The Food Summit in Rome follows the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (also sponsored by the FAO) conference held in April of this year, which stressed the importance of agroecological and organic approaches to farming in order […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2008) The sowing of gene-altered corn, called MON810, in France this spring will not be allowed until further scientific evidence on its safety is reviewed. This ruling came after growers argued that they faced serious economic harm if the ban on genetically modified crops was not immediately released before the start of the spring planting season. The French Conseil d’État last week upheld the ban instituted February 7 of this year, after concerns were raised by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, on the heath and environmental benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In the ruling, presiding Judge Jean-Marie Delarue pointed out that the safety of the product needs further study. The ban would therefore be upheld until a ruling could be made on the scientific underpinning. Hearings are expected to be held in the coming months. The French Ministry of Agriculture initially imposed the ban on GM products, stating that it should remain in place until European authorities completed a review of the product. Review is required every ten years. Efforts to overturn the ban were led by the General Association of Maize Growers in France and several biotechnology companies, including Monsanto, which engineered MON810, and Pioneer, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2008) Two studies have just been released, one by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a promoter of genetically-engineering crops,  and the other by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Friends of the Earth, each with differing conclusions on the impact of genetically engineered (GE) crops on the health of our food systems. The debate is one that has existed for years, particularly as GE seeds have spread worldwide, now accounting for 280 million acres of cropland in 23 countries. Reports have historically provided significant documentation of herbicide-resistant weeds developing as a result of heavy reliance on the chemicals crops are bred to tolerate. Insect resistance has also been recently discovered. Legislators have recognized the need to protect farmers from GE contamination and resulting lawsuits from seed developer Monsanto. Concerns over a litany of health and environmental risks from GE crops continue. The timing of these two studies highlights the disparity between how the GE industry represents its product and how public interest groups evaluate the effects and risks they see to farmers and consumers alike. The ISAAA study, entitled Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007, celebrates the first twelve […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2008) The first state bill on genetically engineered (GE) crops passed through its first committee in February, 2007, and the latest revision is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, January 24. While AB 541 has been pared down considerably from its first and most progressive incarnation, it includes two very important measures to protect farmers whose crops are contaminated by nearby GE fields. The first provision states, “A farmer is not liable for the breach of a seed contract or for patent infringement if a product, in which the seed labeler, or patent holder or licensee, has rights, is possessed by the farmer or found on real property owned or occupied by the farmer and the presence of the product is de minimis or not intended by the farmer.” A frequent criticism of Monsanto and the company’s overwhelming market share of seed is its tendency to sue farmers who did not plant GE seed, but whose fields were contaminated by a neighbor’s GE variety. In a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell said, “These lawsuits and settlements are nothing less than corporate extortion of American Farmers.” (See Daily News from January […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2008) Agribusiness giants Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto have successfully persuaded the state of Minnesota to reconsider their water-quality limit for the chemical, acetochlor. Scientists representing the industry presented their own studies to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and explained that the state’s original draft limit for acetochlor was too strict. Despite three years of research conducted by the state, scientists from Dow and Monsanto presented officials at the MCPA with six published studies- one of them in Chinese- which they claimed were overlooked by the state when determining the standard for acetochlor in waterways. As a result, the MPCA has decided to allow 3.6 parts per billion of acetochlor in rivers, more than twice the concentration of the 1.7 parts per billion previously proposed. As a result, three of five streams classified as ”˜impaired’ by acetochlor, including a popular trout stream in southeastern Minnesota, can no longer be considered polluted. Some environmental advocacy groups question whether the MPCA gave favorable treatment to the pesticide makers, claiming that other research that suggest that the chemical can cause ecological damage have not been seriously considered. “It looks like there’s a double standard, that industry can come in […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2008) The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has struck an arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in four states a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant a majority of Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. Farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota need to plant 75-80% of their crops with Monsanto’s (and only Monsanto’s) GM seeds to receive the “premium rate discount”. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that promotes herbicide use; the Monsanto brands are resistant to Roundup (main ingredient, glyphosate) and contain chemicals that kill insects and other plants. Monsanto’s deal is legal, according to USDA officials, who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance passed by Congress. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and show resistance to insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies. “We knew it would look that way,” said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2007) Seven years ago, the introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets, along with other crops like potatoes and rice, was shelved at fears that consumers would not support their use. Sugar beets, which produce about half of the United States sugar (almost all of which is used domestically), are used in foods like candy, cereal, and baking products. The failure of the GM beet’s initial introduction was based on unwillingness from companies like Hershey and Kellogg to provoke consumer protests. Now, the marketplace seems to have changed enough that such big sugar-buying companies are less hesitant to buy Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” beet (which are tolerant of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate). According to Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles, her company “would not have any issues” buying them because “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.” “Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said American Crystal Sugar president David Berg of the switch. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.” Most other companies, including Hershey and Mars, are refusing to comment on the subject, which has kept these developments quiet until recently. Despite the corporate perception of public opinion on GM crops, […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2007) According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, as of January 1, 2008, dairy products with labels such as “growth-hormone free” will be illegal in the state. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff announced the decision last month after convening a 22-member Food Labeling Advisory Committee to look into false or misleading claims in “absence labeling.”The ruling covers all dairy products sold in the state, forcing some out-of-state manufacturers, in effect, to make Pennsylvania-only packaging. So far, the state Department of Agriculture has notified 19 companies that their labels must change. Of the three principal types of labeling affected by the ruling, getting rid of “growth-hormone free” milk labels has proven most controversial.The PA Department of Agriculture explained its decision in a statement on its website, “[S]ome milk labels contain statements such as ”˜hormone-free,’ but all milk contains hormones. Some labels also claim the absence of synthetic hormones, but there is no scientific test that can determine the truth of this claim.” Organic labeling, Mr. Wolff said, involves a certification process that includes surprise audits, so the department does not currently intend to interfere with it. Some food safety advocates believe […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2007) The Wisconsin Natural Resources Defense Board recently passed stricter limits on allowable groundwater levels of alachlor-ESA, the breakdown product of the herbicide alachlor, cutting in half the standard to 20 parts per billion (ppb). The reduction from the previous standard of 40 ppb was prompted by the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which has tried to pass a similar measure in recent years, only to be blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate. Officials hope that a Democratic majority will ensure adoption of the new standard. The board voted 7-0 in favor of lowering the allowable groundwater level of alachlor-ESA, after DNR cited studies showing the chemical causes blood problems in rats. Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (DATCP) tests in 2001 showed alachlor-ESA in 28 percent of private wells tested, in spite of its declining use (on less than a quarter of the state’s 100,000 acres of corn). A similar proposal was rejected by the board in 2005, when DNR refused to agree to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules’ request to allow Monsanto, manufacturer of alachlor, to fund a separate study in addition to the state’s data. Monsanto, as expected, issued […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2007) Scientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) have discovered a gene that enables crops to tolerate being sprayed with dicamba. Citing previous experience with glyphosate resistant crops, environmentalists are concerned that this will increase use of a toxic herbicide while negatively impacting health and the environment. This new gene expands the range of genetically engineered (GE) crops available to farmers. The most popular are currently marketed as “Roundup Ready,” or tolerant of glyphosate, by Monsanto Company The discovery is being touted as a way to provide another option in areas where weeds have built up a resistance to glyphosate. Indeed, biochemist Don Weeks, who headed the UNL team, said, “Importantly, we think that this technology will help to extend the lifetime of the Roundup Ready technology. Some Roundup-resistant weeds have emerged in recent years, but working dicamba products into a weed-control strategy with Roundup could help counter that trend and lead to more complete weed control.” In fact, the dicamba-ready technology could appear in fields as part of a “stacked” seed, which is tolerant to both glyphosate and dicamba. Said Mr. Weeks, “It is highly likely that [Monsanto] would stack our gene with the Roundup […]