Alfalfa ruling controvertial

More News Wreck closes I-15 Alfalfa ruling controvertial Psychiatrist speaks on PMC Hear the train a coming Sports

POCATELLO — Growers who use Roundup Ready alfalfa to control weeds and reduce costs will not be able to plant the product until the USDA completes an environmental impact statement that addresses the potential for genetic contamination, a process that could take up to two years.

A federal judge on May 3 made permanent a temporary injunction that stops the sale and planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed, which was developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto and sold by Forage Genetics International of Nampa. The product is genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s popular weed killer.

The ruling was monumental as it is the first time a federal court has banned a genetically modified crop approved by the USDA.

Alfalfa is the top forage crop in Idaho, which produces about 5 million tons of it per year. With estimated total revenues of $373 million in 2006, hay was the state’s second most valuable crop last year, behind potatoes.

The court battle over Roundup Ready alfalfa has divided growers into two camps: those who support use of the genetically modified alfalfa to control weeds and those who worry its use could harm sales by cross-contaminating conventional and organic alfalfa.

The California judge’s decision stemmed from a suit brought by the Center for Food Safety and others against the USDA, which deregulated RR alfalfa in 2005.

A March 12 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer halted sale of RR alfalfa seed and banned any planting of the product after March 30. His order doesn’t prevent the harvest, use or sale of RR alfalfa planted before that date.

The court did agree with Monsanto that the product poses no threat to humans or livestock.

Breyer’s ruling focused on procedure. He ruled that the USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service violated the National Environmental Protection Act by failing to conduct a full environmental impact statement before deregulating RR alfalfa.

APHIS conducted an environmental assessment of the product, but the court determined the agency failed to take a hard look at the possible environmental impacts, including whether the product could cause significant economic harm to conventional or organic growers.

“The harm to these farmers and consumers who do not want to purchase genetically engineered alfalfa or animals fed with such alfalfa outweighs the economic harm to Monsanto, Forage Genetics and those farmers who desire to switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa,” Breyer wrote in his May 3 decision.

Breyer also ruled that farmers must make the location of existing fields planted with the seed public within 30 days.

Some growers are also concerned that use of RR products could lead to the development of “superweeds” resistant to herbicides.

Millions of acres of other Roundup Ready crops, such as corn, canola and soybeans, are planted each year in this country and Breyer’s ruling does not affect those products.

Following the judge’s ruling, USDA officials said they would conduct a full environmental impact statement, which is more thorough than an environmental assessment.

An estimated 220,000 acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa were planted in the U.S. before the March 30 deadline. Demand for the product was rising quickly and Monsanto had expected roughly 550,000 acres to be planted in 2007.

An estimated 21 million total acres of alfalfa will be planted in the U.S. this year. Used mainly as livestock feed, it is the fourth most widely planted crop in the U.S. and the nation’s third most important crop in terms of value.

Organizations that represent both grower groups are taking a cautious approach, supporting use of the product as long as it doesn’t affect conventional and organic growers.

Obviously, growers who want to use the product didn’t like the judge’s ruling, said Ron Platt, president of the Idaho Alfalfa and Clover Seed Growers Association. But, he added, “Growers who grow conventional or organic varieties … are certainly in favor of the injunction.”

Roger Crane, a Declo farmer, said he was pleased with the results he got from using Roundup Ready alfalfa. He planted 120 acres of it in July and another 110 in September. He said the July patch “looks really good right now. I was happy with it.”

He said right next to the patch of RR alfalfa he planted in July is another “really weedy field with regular hay.” He said he sprayed that field with all types of chemicals n “I spent as much on chemicals as I did on seed” -- and “it still doesn’t look near as good as the Roundup Ready field.”

On the flip side are many conventional and organic alfalfa growers who worry cross-contamination of their crop with genetically engineered alfalfa will hurt sales.

Platt said markets that don’t accept genetically modified products use a very simple yet effective test that detects even very small amounts of GMO genes.

“The test is very simple; like a pregnancy test, it shows up positive or negative,” Platt said. “If the market you’re selling into has zero tolerance for GMO, any contamination is a problem.”

During the case, Monsanto and Forage Genetics officials claimed that academic studies and real-life examples proved the two types of cropping systems can successfully co-exist with proper stewardship and planting.

“The last decade has shown that biotech and organic crops have successfully co-existed,” Jerry Steiner, Monsanto’s executive vice president, stated in a news release. “We support a farmer’s right to choose biotechnology, organic or conventional crops with the proper stewardship practices that make co-existence feasible.”

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed by American Farm Bureau Federation, the organization urged the court to allow farmers to continue planting and using biotech alfalfa as long as they follow the terms of a proposed USDA order that “thoroughly protects conventional and organic alfalfa producers.”

“Increased application of advances in biotechnology like Roundup Ready alfalfa seed can improve marketability, ease environmental concerns, raise income by lowering input costs and improve the quality and quantity of farm products,” the AFBF brief stated. “The farmers who want to share in these important benefits can and should co-exist with those farmers who choose to produce their crops without the use of biotechnology.”

AFBF also contended that a permanent injunction would likely harm the public interest “by discouraging the future use of biotechnology in agriculture.”

Sean Ellis is publications editor for Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. He can be reached at (208) 239-4347 or sellis@idahofb.org.

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!

Rate File: Select Rating: * ** *** ****

Reader Comments

Submit a Comment

Commenting Rules

Report a Comment