Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] GM alfalfa, fwiw

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflj@bellsouth.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>, Market Farming <marketfarming@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] GM alfalfa, fwiw
  • Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:03:06 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] GM alfalfa, fwiw
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:53:00 -0600
From: Douglas Hinds <cedecor@GMX.NET>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Margaret Lauterbach's post raised an significant point:

In spite of the fact that GE seeds carry unacceptable, documented
risks for the environment and public health, they now dominate the
market for a number of important crops, in the USA.

How could that be?

Because the manufacturers of GE seeds have been able to manipulate
public policy and the control the regulatory process by virtue of
their economic power and the nature of the US political system (only
elected officials can make policy and in the USA, winning elections
requires access to considerable resources).

So we have a situation in which:

GE seeds can be approved for release without an adequate Risk
Assessment Process, because either an adequate Risk
Assessment Process has not been adequately defined by legislation or
the application of existing legislation has been lax and/or
discretional.

Applicants can carry out their out Risk Assessment Studies and do
not have to submit their data to either public scrutiny or
professional peer review (claiming competitive secrets carries more
weight than the public interest).

Those who have conducted independent studies that have uncovered
defects in either the effects of GE plants and foods or the
regulatory process have been ignored or attacked and the mass media
has been threatened with aggressive legal actions should they dare
to publish those unfavorable discoveries.

In addition to the above, the principle means by which the Bio-Tech
Industry has been able to accomplish their goals (market share and
economic gain) has been:

Officially "Substantially Equivalent" (but poorly defined) Status;

Legal ownership of their patented products; and therefore

The ability to proceed legally against those that save (what they
consider to be) their seed;

Avoid mandatory labeling of GE products and impede the voluntary
labeling of GE gene-free products;

Avoid accountability for the damages done; and

Prevent States, Counties and Cities from declaring their entities
to be "Recombinant Genetically Engineered Gene Free".

So what has to be done? (Because this is an extremely serious
problem that can't be ignored):

Continue to educate farmers and consumers;

Promote and proceed with litigation and legislative initiatives
designed to resolve these legal issues (demand Accountability and
Protection for both seed saving and contaminated Farmers and
Consumers, adequate Testing, application of the Precautionary
Principle, Intellectual Property Rights vs. the Public Interest, the
right -and the exercise of it- for States, Counties and Cities to
establish Transgenic Gene Free Zones); and above all

Organize those with a legitimate interest in doing battle with those
who consider Corporate Profits to be more important than the
Biosphere and Public Health.

(BTW - at the point that Monsanto realized they would be unable to
prevent Argentines from saving and replanting their patented seeds,
they decided to not introduce that particular crop -I don't recall
which- in Argentina).

--

Douglas

I asked my representative to the Idaho legislature how the state
would protect alfalfa growers from claims of seed theft by Monsanto
if GM pollen contaminated their fields. I don't know the legality of
my "sharing" the response from the state dept. of agriculture, but I
am adding the response. There was an attachment in Word 8, I
think. I don't think this list allows attachments, so if you want to
see it, contact me at melauter@earthlink.net. Margaret L

Representative King forwarded your email dated January 28, 2011, regarding
the recent decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant
Health Inspection Service (USDA, APHIS) to deregulate alfalfa that has been
genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide commercially known
as Roundup. The concern you have expressed in your email is regarding
genetic drift from Roundup ready alfalfa into conventional alfalfa crops.
If genetic drift occurs, your stated concern is that a conventional
producer may be liable to Monsanto for a technology fee.

USDA, APHIS published along with its Record of Decision to deregulate
Roundup ready alfalfa a question and answer document that I am attaching
with this email. This Q & A document explains what USDA, APHIS intends to
do to address the concern you expressed to Representative King.

Your email, however, more specifically asked what the State of Idaho will
do to protect the concerns of conventional alfalfa growers. Under the
Idaho State Department of Agriculture's (ISDA) laws and rules it implements
there are no express or implied authorities to regulate, restrict or
prohibit the planting of genetically modified alfalfa within the state.
USDA, APHIS is responsible for providing regulatory oversight for
genetically modified organisms and recourse for harm, if any, will be found
in their laws and rules.

The ISDA strives to have a strong working relationship with USDA, APHIS.
Your concern regarding genetic drift will be passed on to our contacts at
USDA, APHIS.


Brian J. Oakey
Deputy Director
Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture




  • [permaculture] Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] GM alfalfa, fwiw, Lawrence F. London, Jr., 01/30/2011

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page