Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Genetically engineered alfalfa isn't necessary
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021504823_pf.html
By Barbara Damrosch Thursday, February 17, 2011; T09

Alfalfa's roots go deep in the soil and deep in history. Prized by the 
ancient Persians, this high-protein "Queen of Forages" is still treasured. It 
is the fourth-largest crop grown in the United States, primarily for feeding 
cattle. And it is the latest one to fall to the Empire of Monsanto.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's recent decision to deregulate the use 
of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) has alarmed many in the farming 
community, and beyond, who expected better from this administration. I 
suppose the kindest thing you could say about this genetically engineered 
seed - developed to allow the plant to withstand applications of Roundup 
herbicide - is that it's unnecessary.

Alfalfa competes well with weeds in a well-managed system. But when RRA is 
grown, weeds will develop resistance to Roundup, as they have with the other 
crops that carry the Roundup Ready gene, such as corn, soybeans and cottons 
(sugar beets are next). This resistance could lead to the introduction of yet 
more powerful transgenic remedies that, in turn, would fail.

Polling has shown that most Americans dislike the idea of genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs) being introduced into the food supply, which is why 
the agricultural lobby blocks the labeling of products containing them. And 
no one fears the galloping GMO trend more than farmers - organic or otherwise 
- who bank on selling GMO-free alfalfa hay, or meat from animals not tainted 
by eating RRA.

Many farmers now grow or source seed abroad to avoid cross-pollination from 
Monsanto crops. In seed production, alfalfa is pollinated by far-ranging 
bees, which makes it especially vulnerable to such biological trespass.

It is possible that, in time, forces will prevail that are not motivated by 
profit, and will rethink the whole GMO approach to food. It may become clear 
that none of it works very well, that it presents more problems than it 
purports to solve, and that agricultural science might be put to better use.

But here's the main point about GMOs: You can't recall them the way you can a 
car or a plastic toy. They're out there for good. And no one knows what their 
full impact will be.

I recently came across a little book called "DDT - Killer of Killers," 
written in 1946 by two chemical engineering professors named O.T. Zimmerman 
and Irvin Lavine. It's easy to poke fun at the pictures of housewives 
spraying DDT all over their kitchens, and at the authors' giddy assurances of 
that poison's worth, lacking any knowledge of its unintended consequences.

We'd like to think we've learned how to correct such mistakes, and we have. 
Faced with pollution, we've cleaned up much of America's air and water. But a 
new kind of pollution is being forced on us with no widespread agreement on 
its efficacy or consensus on its safety. Twenty years ago it wasn't there; 
now it affects the majority of food produced in this country, without our 
consent. We've said "No," but is anybody listening?

localliving@washpost.com Damrosch is a freelance writer and the author of 
"The Garden Primer."