USDA Won't Investigate GMO Alfalfa Contamination

USDA says it won't take action to determine origin of alfalfa harvested from field believed to be seeded in a non-GMO variety due to the crop's deregulation


"For nearly a decade,Center for Food Safety has vigorously opposed the introduction of GE alfalfa, precisely because it was virtually certain to contaminate natural alfalfa, among other severe environmental and economic harms," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. "We warned this administration and the industry repeatedly of the significant risk to farmers and the environment.  Tragically, neither listened, and this latest contamination is the result of that negligence."

The USDA announced this week that the discovery of genetically modified material in a non-GM alfalfa field in Washington is a "commercial issue" and will not be investigated by the agency. GM alfalfa has been deregulated – or approved by the USDA for commercial sale – since 2011.

The contamination, which could either be a result of cross pollination or direct contamination of purchased seed, was first reported to the Washington Department of Agriculture in August. The presence of GM material was confirmed Sept. 12, a spokesman said.

GM alfalfa opponents say the contamination could threaten trade of the crop because many importing countries, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia, reject GM materials. According to the Center For Food Safety, which challenged the deregulation of GM alfalfa in a federal court tin 2006, the situation highlights "the inadequacy of the U.S. regulatory structure for GE crops."

But according to the WSDA, testing of the alfalfa revealed that while it did contain "a low-level presence" of the GM trait that makes it resistant to glyphosate application, the levels were "well within ranges acceptable to much of the marketplace."

"There is strong market demand for Round-Up Ready alfalfa and conventional alfalfa varieties, including those with low-level presence of Round-Up Ready traits, both domestically and abroad," a WSDA statement concluded. Like the USDA, it will not be taking further action to determine the cause of the contamination.

Instead, the discussion is likely to spill into the commercial realm. According to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection service, the presence of approved GE traits in a non-GE crop is a commercial issue and "the agriculture industry has approaches to minimize their occurrence and manage them when they occur."

The alfalfa situation is different from the discovery of GE wheat in an Oregon field this spring because GE wheat is not commercially available. Testing of such varieties are still regulated by USDA.

The discovery does, however, shake loose continuing uncertainty on the part of special interest groups that previously litigated against GM alfalfa's deregulation. FarmFutures

Africa shouldn't take GM crops lightly, but neither can it ignore their potential

Jane Karuku is president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

Boosting food production is vital for Africa's long-term prosperity – that means all viable options should be properly considered

Concerns about biosafety may have deterred some African governments from embracing GM technology. Photograph: Ian Waldie/Getty Images

In the unlikely event that I had forgotten just how controversial and polarising genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are, the past few days would have provided a very sharp reminder. Last week, our organisation, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), released a 204-page report (pdf) into the state of Africa's agriculture. It covered, in detail, the wide range of obstacles and challenges facing African countries as they seek to transform their agricultural productivity, as well as considering what opportunities there are to deliver this ambition.

Perhaps inevitably, however, our mention of GMOs dominated coverage of the report. We saw headlines such as "Agra helping agribusiness conquer African agriculture", and accusations that our organisation was promoting "genetically modified colonialism".

With hindsight, we should not have been surprised by this reaction. After all, our report noted how the controversial and complex nature of GMOs can make it incredibly difficult to hold a reasoned debate. It is why companies, organisations and scientists tend, when they can, to steer clear of voicing their opinions on the subject. All fear their position will be exaggerated.

I also have to acknowledge that the words used by the author of that specific chapter were open to misrepresentation, a mistake we must accept. What they don't do, however, is herald any change in Agra's long-established position on GMOs – a position which, I believe, reflects the cautious and balanced approach needed when considering any new technology.

GMOs are currently grown in only three countries – South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt. The slow adoption of this technology stems from various factors, not least a cautious approach that recognises all technologies come with risks as well as benefits.

These risks must not be overlooked, particularly as many African countries are still putting in place biosafety regulations – both on paper and in practice. It is no surprise that a number of African governments feel they still lack the capacity to manage GM technology adequately.

Equally important are the controls that many countries outside our continent have placed on GM crops. These controls have an impact on Africa's current trade and could undermine its potential as a major supplier of food to the rest of the world.

In the long run, however, Africa – a continent where one in four people still go hungry, and where annual food imports exceed $20bn – must carefully examine the potential of all new technologies to boost food production. This does not mean pushing GMOs or any other technology on reluctant governments or citizens. Agra believes it is the responsibility and prerogative of African governments to determine their position on GMOs.

But neither does it mean slamming the door shut on discussion, debate or research that might provide real benefits. So why does Agra not fund research, awareness campaigns or the development of GMOs adapted for Africa? We believe there are cheaper, readily available technologies that can effectively help smallholder farmers improve their harvests and yields.

Through our programme for Africa's seed systems, we are supporting the development of improved crop varieties – developed through conventional breeding methods – of key food crops, such as maize, cassava and beans.Importantly, we are also making sure that when these improved crops are developed, they find themselves in the hands of African farmers.

We are working with 16 national research institutes and farmers across Africa to develop seeds suited to our continent's varied environments. We are supporting the development of local entrepreneurs and companies who can distribute these seeds, along with fertiliser and other technologies, and helping to improve access to finance so that farmers can buy them.

These initiatives are making a difference. Last year, schemes supported by Agra produced enough seed of improved varieties to plant an estimated 3.85m hectares (9.6m acres). Throughout the continent, the adoption of our new varieties – none of which are genetically modified − is leading to record yields. For example, a recent study of an improved variety of maize seed in Kenya has shown yields increasing by a third.

We are seeing real progress across the continent; for the time being, therefore, our focus will remain on conventional breeding methods. For better or for worse, depending on who you ask, GMOs are unlikely to impact African food security in the near future. In the meantime, we need to have an informed, dispassionate conversation that includes all parties. The Guardian

Big money battle over GMO labeling initiative

A multi-million dollar advertising battle just launched that could determine how much you know about what goes into your food. It's about Initiative 522 on the November ballot. The initiative requires labels on food that has been genetically engineered.

"The question here is if we're going to be able to figure out what's in our food, if we have a right to know if genetically engineered ingredients are being used in our food," said Aaron Ostrom of the Yes-on 522 campaign.

Initiative supporters don't necessarily claim that such ingredients are unsafe. In fact, unless you shop very carefully, it's likely you consume some form of genetically modified food every day.

But there was trouble recently for Washington exports when some genetically modified wheat was found in Oregon, because Governments in Asia and Europe refuse to buy such crops.

Still, opponents say the initiative places a huge burden on our state's farmers.

"For farmers who would want to farm some GE crop, and some non GE crops they would have to essentially run two entirely farming organizations," said Dana Bieber of the No-on-522 campaign.
And opponents believe the initiative would confuse consumers. "Take the example of a steak," Bieber said. "A steak will come from a cow that has been fed GE grains so there is GE in the steak. It's exempt from Initiative 522 that's where we as consumers get misled."

But consumers, like grocery shopper, Olga Rohlfsen, are also anxious for information. "I feel like I'm responsible to give my kids some good food I would love to know when I buy food what's in it," Rohlfsen said.

Initiative sponsors have gone to court because they accuse opponents of trying to hide their big money donors like Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Opponents deny the accusation and say their donations are fully reported. KIROTV

Washington university remains neutral on GMO labeling measure

Washington university remains neutral on GMO labeling  measure  

Washington State University has issued a statement that it plans to remain neutral on Initiative 522, which would require labeling of all foods in that state that contain genetically modified organisms.Although faculty members have the right to express individual opinions, they do not represent those of the university, provost and executive vice president Daniel Bernardo wrote in the statement."Our role as one of Washington State’s premier research universities is limited to providing objective, science-based information to inform decision makers," he wrote.I-522, also known as the "People's Right to Know about Genetically Engineered Food Act," was originally pushed by Chris McManus, a Tacoma-area advertising agency owner who founded "http://www.labelitwa.org" target="_blank">www.labelitwa.org.The measure goes before Washington state voters in November. The Grower

China: Cotton and papaya only GM products for commercial use

Cotton and papaya only GM products for commercial use

There are only two kinds of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products permitted for commercial production in China - cotton and papaya, a news report said.

Agricultural authorities have granted certificates of safety to four types of GM produce - cotton, rice, corn and papaya, of which only cotton and papaya have been allowed for commercial production, Xie Jiajian, a research at Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, told the People's Daily in a report published on Monday.

An earlier online post listed allegedly GM food, including cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, mini pumpkins.

The online post was inaccurate, the report quoted experts from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science as saying.

Genetically modified beans, corn, cotton, rapeseed and beet for industrial use could be imported after receiving a certificate of safety, according to the report. China Daily