Sorry, that should have been Stonyfield no Stonybrook. Here is their response.
I have been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened. -- Mark Twain
----- Original Message ----- From: <
CRelations@stonyfield.com>
To: <
andeanfx@midrivers.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:23 PM
Subject: Stonyfield Farm
>
> Hello ,
>
> On Thursday the USDA announced a policy that supports the interests of
> Monsanto and big biotech and deals a major blow to organic farming. They
> decided to “deregulate” genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, meaning to
> allow its unrestricted use. In the months leading up to this decision, a
> coalition of us has been working ceaselessly to fight for any and all
> alternatives. I’ve personally spent days, nights, weekends and vacations as
> we worked right though the holidays along with our colleagues to try to
> prevent this chemical giant from steamrolling over farmers,
consumers and
> organic foods supporters. So, it is particularly sad for me to report to
> you that in this latest round, which is surely just one chapter, they won
> and we lost.
>
> Making matters worse, on the day of the decision, the Organic Consumers
> Association distributed an inaccurate, irresponsible and frankly appalling
> letter that attempted to pin the blame for the USDA’s decision squarely on
> Stonyfield, Organic Valley and Whole Foods. OCA’s letter is blatantly
> untrue and dangerously misleading, but also deeply divisive at a time when
> we all need to be focused on immediate actions necessary to stop this new
> policy from going into effect.
>
> Let me first state the obvious – leaving aside the fact that USDA’s own
> organic standards do not allow the use of genetically engineered crops,
> Stonyfield is absolutely and utterly opposed to
the deregulation of GE
> crops. We believe that these crops are resulting in significantly higher
> uses of toxic herbicides and water, creating a new generation of costly
> “super” weeds; pose severe and irreversible threats to biodiversity and
> seed stocks; do not live up to the superior yield claims of their patent
> holders; and are unaffordable for small family farmers in the US and around
> the world. We believe that organic farming methods are proving through
> objective, scientific validation to offer far better solutions. We also
> believe that unrestricted deregulation of GE crops unfairly limits farmer
> and consumer choice.
>
> Thursday’s decision and the long and hard fought battle leading up to it
> began in 2005 when the USDA deregulated GE alfalfa for the first time.
> Stonyfield actively supported the organic community’s challenge to the
>
deregulation and eventually the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
> In 2007, the Court ruled there could be no deregulation without the USDA
> making a full assessment of GE alfalfa’s environmental impact and the court
> placed an injunction on planting of GE alfalfa.
>
> Since then, Monsanto and big biotech have spent tens of millions lobbying
> in Washington and funding studies that support the use of GE alfalfa. These
> biotech giants have terrifyingly deep pockets. But despite their efforts,
> organic advocates were able to persuade the USDA that organic interests
> must also be considered. And so, for the first time, the USDA in recent
> months convened stakeholder groups of pro- and anti-biotech organizations
> including farm groups, manufacturers, industry associations and non-profits
> to try to reach a consensus on GE alfalfa. This was essentially an
attempt
> to convene meetings between the Davids and Goliaths. Given the overwhelming
> firepower on the other side, and a decade’s worth of biotech-funded
> “science”, it was a bold and worthy attempt. Stonyfield, Whole Foods,
> Organic Valley, and the Organic Trade Association along with many other
> organic advocates including the Non-GMO Project, Organic Farming Research
> Foundation, National Cooperative Grocers Association, National Organic
> Coalition, Beyond Pesticides, and the Center for Food Safety brought
> forward our arguments for a complete ban on GE alfalfa.
>
>> From the outset of these stakeholder discussions, it was clear that GE
> alfalfa had overwhelming political, legal, financial and regulatory support
> and thus the odds were severely stacked against any possibility of
> preventing some level of approval, just as has been the case with
GE
> cotton, soy and corn. Keep in mind that, according to Food and Water Watch,
> biotech has spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying
> Congress since 1999. Their lobby expenditures more than doubled during that
> time. In 2009 alone they spent $71 million. Last year they had more than
> 100 lobbying firms working for them, as well as their own in-house
> lobbyists.
>
> In December, to no one’s surprise, the USDA took a complete ban of GE
> alfalfa off the table as an option, leaving only two choices: complete
> deregulation or deregulation with some safeguards to protect organic
> farmers, which they called “co-existence.” The choice we were faced with
> was to walk away and wait for the legal battle in the courts or stay at the
> table and fight for safeguards that would attempt to protect organic
> farmers and consumer choice, still
maintaining the option for legal battle
> later. A smaller coalition of organic interests participated in the
> meetings with the clear caveat that any decision to deregulate GE alfalfa
> must include restrictions that protect organic farmers and consumers’
> choice. When faced with the overwhelming reality that GE alfalfa would be
> released despite our best efforts, we believed fighting for some safeguards
> to protect organic consumers and organic farmers was the best option.
>
> We specifically advocated that any regulatory approval must ensure: (a)
> protection of seed purity – for organic farmers’ use, and as insurance in
> case something “crops” up that causes a later reconsideration of the use of
> biotechnology; (b) organic farmers whose crops become contaminated by GE
> alfalfa must be compensated by the patent holders for their losses due to
> losing
their organic certification; and (c) the USDA must oversee all
> testing and monitoring of GE crops to ensure compliance as part of its role
> in protecting all US agriculture. Needless to say, the biotech coalition
> was firmly opposed to all three caveats, but we remained united and fought
> hard for them.
>
> Not once did Stonyfield consider buying what Monsanto was selling – nor
> will we ever. We have never wavered from our position in defending organic
> and opposing GE crops. Back in the 1990’s we went head to head with
> Monsanto over synthetic growth hormones and we were the first US dairy to
> pay farmers not to use rBGH. We have been fighting them ever since, and
> will continue to do so. In the days since this very sad decision, we have
> convened multiple times with our fellow organic advocates and have already
> begun to plan and invest in our next wave of
legal, lobbying and
> educational efforts.
>
> The fact remains that we cannot and will never stop fighting this battle.
> The problem with the unrestricted deregulating of GE crops is that the
> dangers of contamination are permanent and irreversible. Whereas Congress
> has enacted other legislation to correct and reverse past transgressions,
> for instance the Clean Air Act and clean water legislation, a “clean crop
> act” would never be able to undo the damage and losses caused by GE crops.
> Therefore, the time to fight for these restrictions is now.
>
> We will continue to fight to protect the organic farmers who grow healthy
> food and the consumers who have every right to choose organic. We will
> continue to push for unbiased scientific findings about the harmful effects
> of GE crops. And we will work hard to give our consumers the assurances
> they
need that organic remains free of anything genetically engineered. The
> battle will now move from the government agencies back to the courts, but
> we also need new and stronger legislation that addresses toxic herbicides,
> and threats to biodiversity, seed protection and other ecological costs.
>
> But I need to take a moment to address the misguided and fallacious OCA
> attack on Stonyfield, Whole Foods and Organic Valley. Their missive has
> generated many questions in the last couple of days. I have read them with
> a heavy heart. I have no idea about their motivations. I have never met
> Ronnie Cummins and he certainly has never asked me for my views on these
> issues. But simply put, instead of fighting with each other, we need to
> fight Monsanto and the forces that are causing the voices of hundreds of
> thousands of Americans who support organic to be silenced. All of us
who
> are opposed to the USDA decision to deregulate GE alfalfa must speak with
> one voice. Anything less keeps us divided and distracted. I hope that
> readers of the OCA communications will convey your disappointment with
> their tactics. These misleading actions do nothing to advance our cause.
>
> I hope that you will continue to be passionate about this incredibly
> important issue facing the organic industry and that you will join us in
> the fight in any way you can. Stay tuned as we prepare the next assault.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Hirshberg
> Stonyfield Farm President and CE-YO
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland