Tell USDA: GMO Contamination of Organic is not OK

[Guest guest]

Forwarding the message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Organic Coalition

 

www.NationalOrganicCoalition.com

 

 

Dear Neil,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TELL USDA THAT GMO CONTAMINATION OF ORGANIC 

IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!

 

 

Sign on to the

Letter below - and forward to your networks.

Write your own comments [go to http://ga3.org/campaign/Aphis3]

GMOs Threaten Livelihoods, Markets, and Loss of Trust in

the Organic Label

 

 

 

 

 

SIGN ON TO THIS LETTER TO USDA URGING FAIRNESS,

TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE REGULATION OF GMOs.

 

 

 

 

 

NOW IS

THE TIME TO TELL THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION TO  REGULATE GMOs  TO PROTECT

ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMS FROM  CONTAMINATION.

 

 

 

 

Please sign on by 5 pm eastern June 26 by

emailing Liana Hoodes (liana) with your:

Name:_________________; Email: ____________

Farm and/or Business name: _________, City,

State: ___________ 

Individuals may sign on as well.

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

DRAFT LETTER FOR SIGN-ON

 

 

June 29, 2009

 

 

SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY

 

 

 

 

 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD

 

 

APHIS, Station 3A-03.8

 

 

4700 River Road

 

 

Unit 118

 

 

Riverdale, MD  20737-1238

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Proposed Rule and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for

the Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms, APHIS Docket 2008-0023

 

 

 

 

 

Cc: USDA Secretary Vilsack

 

 

       USDA Deputy

Merrigan

 

 

 

 

 

We, the undersigned members of the U.S.

organic community, are writing to express our serious concerns about the

proposed

USDA regulations for genetically engineered (GE) crops.  The current proposed

regulations fail to address long-standing gaps in oversight, and in

fact create new ones that endanger the livelihoods of organic farmers and the

health of the organic foods industry.

 

 

 

 

 

This rulemaking

process is an important opportunity for the Department of Agriculture to develop

and implement an effective strategy to prevent further GE contamination of the

organic seed and food supply.  Inaction

will decrease public confidence in the USDA certified organic label, may lead

to erosion of markets for organic food both in the U.S. and abroad, and will

harm American organic farmers as organic production is increasingly " offshored "

to countries better able to provide GE-free supplies, such as Argentina and

China.  Continued inaction may also

undercut the potential contributions of organic agriculture to the mitigation

of climate change impacts, conservation of topsoil and biodiversity, and

reduction of toxic agrochemical inputs to the land, air and soil.

 

 

 

 

 

We applaud USDA for extending its public comment period on

these rules and request the Secretary to revise the proposed rules to provide

new safeguards for organic farmers and

others who wish to plant seeds or eat foods that are free of genetically

engineered materials.  Below, we describe

how unregulated cultivation of GE crops harms the organic community and propose

some principles and changes to the rule needed to preserve organic integrity.

 

 

 

 

 

Transgenic

Contamination of Organic Threatens Livelihoods, Markets and Loss of Trust in

the Organic Label

 

 

 

 

 

The public's trust in the integrity of the organic label is essential

to the continued vitality of the organic foods industry.  The organic

community earns that trust by strict adherence to the letter and the spirit of

the National Organic Standards (NOS), which, among other requirements, prohibit

the use of synthetic pesticides and genetically engineered seeds.  The

National Organic Program's prohibition on use of GE seeds was the outcome of

massive public opposition to preliminary rules that would have permitted them,

a strong sign of the importance of this issue to organic consumers.[1]  More

than 75% of consumers believe that they

are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.[2]

 

 

 

 

 

Through no fault of their own, however, organic farmers and

food companies are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their customers'

demands and expectations for produce that is free of GE contaminants.  This is

due to the widespread cultivation of

GE crops in the complete absence of any regulation to prevent/mitigate their

cross-pollination or admixture with organic crops.  The result - pervasive

contamination of the

organic/non-GE food, feed and seed supply with GE materials - threatens to

undermine trust in the integrity of the organic label and cause lasting harm to

this vibrant industry.  Indeed, there is

already ample evidence of harm.

 

 

 

 

 

Contamination of organic and conventional seeds and crops is

widespread and has been documented around the world.[3]  A recent report

documented 39 cases in 2007

and more than 200 in the last decade.[4]  The harms incurred by organic farmers

and

food companies from transgenic contamination are myriad, and include: lost

markets, lost sales, lower prices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic

certification, expensive testing and prevention measures, and product

recalls.[5] 

 

 

 

 

 

In at

least one case, pervasive transgenic contamination has eliminated an entire

organic sector.  According to an article

in the journal Nature Biotechnology:

 

 

 

 

 

" [T] he introduction of transgenic

herbicide-tolerant canola in Western

Canada destroyed the

growing, albeit limited, market for organic canola. " [6]

 

 

 

 

 

There

are literally hundreds of instances of U.S.

organic and non-GE farmers being adversely affected by contamination from

genetically engineered crops.[7]  A few of many examples are cited below: 

 

 

 

 

 

*    According to a conservative estimate by the Union of Concerned

Scientists in 2001, U.S.

organic corn growers lose over $90 million annually due to transgenic

contamination.[8]

 

 

 

 

 

*    Organic grain elevators in Minnesota

(Earthwise) and North Dakota (SK

Foods International) have reported rejection of 2% to 5% of incoming loads due

to GE contaminants.[9]

 

 

 

 

 

*    In the year 2000, North Dakota farmer Tom

Wiley lost $10,000 on a contract to supply non-GE, food grade soybeans to a

Japanese buyer when his agent tested his load and detected 1.37% transgenic

contamination.[10]

 

 

 

 

 

*    Organic dairy farmer Albert Straus started testing corn fed to

his 300-head dairy herd in 2007, and found that about one-third had GE

contaminants.  He now tests every lot of

grain he buys.  According to Strauss: " I

started to test our products to see if there was an issue or not.  It turned out

there was an issue.  There is so much contamination. " Strauss is

now adding a label to his dairy products to alert his customers to the GE

contaminants,[11] though

doing so puts him at risk of losing markets.

 

 

 

 

 

Widespread

contamination of U.S.

corn, soybeans, canola, and other crops prevents many American farmers from

meeting the demands and reaping the rewards of the organic marketplace.  The

result? 

Organic production is

" offshored " to countries better able to provide GE-free supplies. 

 

 

 

 

 

*    Organic grain supplier Clarkson Grain Company of Cerro

Gordo, Illinois, obtains

organic seed corn from Argentina,

where it is possible to isolate the seed field with a three-mile buffer

zone.  According to president Lynn

Clarkson: " I would be happy to do it in Illinois,

Indiana, or Iowa,

but I can't find that degree of segregation with any reliability. " [12]

 

 

 

 

 

USDA should not continue to ignore the reality of

contamination, which can occur at many stages of the farming, grain-handling

and seed production process.[13]  The US

government can ill afford to jeopardize one of the most promising sectors of

our agricultural economy.

 

 

 

 

 

Prevention of GE Contamination is Vital to the Continued

Growth and Success of the Organic Industry

 

 

 

 

 

The contamination threat to organic is not the fault of

organic farmers.  It is the result of the

adoption of genetically engineered crops without rules in place to prevent the

spread of GE traits.  Organic farmers are

doing what they can.  They often conduct

expensive testing to confirm the purity even of reputedly GE-free seeds.[14] 

Others use buffer zones and practice

" temporal isolation, " or plant earlier or later than GE crop-growing neighbors

to mitigate contamination risk, though often to no avail.[15]  Without rules

requiring GE crop developers

and growers, rather than non-adopters like organic farmers, to shoulder the

burden of preventing contamination, the threat of contamination will only

worsen. 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted above, this is more than a theoretical concern -

the organic canola industry has already been " destroyed " in Canada

thanks to pervasive transgenic contamination. 

U.S.

organic alfalfa growers could very well suffer a similar fate if Roundup Ready

or other GE alfalfa is introduced under the " anything goes " system that

prevails at present.

 

 

 

 

 

In our view, the regulation of GE crops must be based on the

principles of:

 

 

 

 

 

-       

Fairness,

 

 

-       

Transparency, and

 

 

-       

Accountability

 

 

 

 

 

The present system is:

 

 

 

 

 

Unfair, since the entire burden of preventing transgenic

contamination falls squarely on the shoulders of the organic producer, and on

organic consumers caveat emptor. 

This is not only unfair, but completely unworkable. 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-transparent, since the complete lack of required testing

for transgenic contamination (e.g. of seed stocks) makes it certain that many

contamination episodes go undetected, at least until ad hoc testing leads to

unanticipated " discoveries " of

contamination that disrupt the marketplace, harm organic producers, and

undermine confidence in the organic label; and

 

 

 

 

 

Unaccountable, since there is no assignment of liability for

the financial consequences of transgenic contamination episodes, resulting in

litigation

that seldom fairly compensates the injured parties.

 

 

 

 

 

Suggested Revisions

to the Proposed Rules

 

 

Eliminate

" Non-Regulated Status " and Adopt Commercial Permitting Instead

 

 

APHIS should end its practice of unconditionally removing GE

crops and their progeny from its oversight through a " determination of

non-regulated status. "   This deregulation

decision is normally sought by companies prior to commercial introduction of a

GE crop.  Instead, APHIS should retain

authority to monitor and regulate GE crops under commercial permits whenever

and wherever their commercialization presents the risk of contaminating

sexually-compatible non-GE/organic crops. 

This step is in line with a recommendation made by the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) in a recent report.[16]  Commercial permits should

be issued only with

conditions requiring the GE crop developer and/or grower to employ

scientifically sound isolation measures to prevent contamination of surrounding

(organic) crops; to pay for third-party, independent testing for transgenic

contamination upon the request of neighboring (organic) growers; and to enact

other needed measures, such as geographic restrictions on GE crop cultivation,

to prevent contamination.

 

 

   

 

 

Eliminate the Low

Level Presence Policy:

 

 

In its revised regulations

implementing the Plant Protection Act, USDA has proposed to codify its existing

" Low Level Presence " policy (LLP).  The

LLP policy allows APHIS to take no recall or similar action when unapproved,

experimental GE crops grown in field trials are found contaminating commercial

(including organic) food, feed or seed. 

Exposure to experimental GE crops contaminating food may pose health

risks, yet the LLP policy contains no protocols for assessing such potential

harms.  Despite its appellation, the LLP

policy proposes no quantitative, maximum threshold for contamination, so " low

level " means whatever level of contamination in fact occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

Most importantly, by making

such contamination " non-actionable, " the LLP policy will greatly reduce the

incentive of biotech companies to strive for 100% containment.  Under LLP,

biotech companies testing new GE

crops (sometimes on thousands of acres) will have little incentive to assume

the expense of adequately isolating their experimental plots to prevent

transgenic contamination in the first place. 

USDA should eliminate this unscientific policy, and instead make " zero

tolerance " of contamination its management goal by mandating recalls whenever

experimental GM crops are found contaminating the organic food, feed or seed

supply.  While " zero tolerance " may not

always be achievable in practice, setting the bar lower, as the LLP policy

does, will undoubtedly lead to more frequent contamination episodes.

 

 

 

 

 

Fully implement the Congressional mandates in the 2008 Farm Bill

 

 

With the adoption of the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress mandated that APHIS

" improve the management and oversight " of GE crop field trials (§ 10204),

implement measures outlined in the agency's " Lessons Learned " document prepared

in the wake of the 2006 'Liberty Link' rice contamination debacle, and adopt a

series of other new measures to mitigate transgenic contamination.  The proposed

rules, however, fail to comply

with many of the Farm Bill mandates, such as requiring representative samples

of GE crops to be retained by GE crop field trial permit holders, submission of

contingency and corrective action plans to address contamination episodes, and

use of cutting edge science and technology to ensure effective isolation of GE

crops grown in field trials from commercial supplies, among several

others.  APHIS must revise its proposed rules

to comply with these Congressional mandates.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

     The organic industry provides many benefits to

society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family

farmers, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment.  

However, the continued vitality of this

sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic

production systems from contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer,

and economic losses.  The USDA's revision

of its agricultural biotechnology regulations under the Plant Protection Act

offers an important opportunity to develop measures to ensure a fair,

transparent and workable regime.

 

 

We respectfully request that you give our

recommendations to this end serious consideration as you move forward with this

important process.  We would be happy to

discuss these matters further with you at your convenience.

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National

Organic Coalition,

 

YOUR Name (and Organization/Farm)

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] 65 Fed.

Reg. 13513-14 (proposed Mar. 13, 2000).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2] Kiki

Hubbard, Organic Industry to Address

Contamination, Envirovore. Mar.

14, 2008, at http://envirovore.com/content/view/69/1/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[3] See, e.g., New Study Finds GM Genes in Wild Mexican Maize, New Scientist,

Feb.

21, 2009; Rex Dalton (2008) Modified

genes spread to local maize: findings reignite debate over genetically modified

crops, Nature, 456 (7219), 2000, at 149; The Institute for Nutrition and

Food Technology (INTA), Chile enters the

list of countries contaminated with GMOs: A report from INTA has detected

transgenic

contamination of maize in the fields of central Chile, Oct. 22, 2008;Graeme

Smith, Illegal GM Crops Found In Scotland, Herald, Sept. 13, 2008; Elizabeth

Rosenthal, Questions on Biotech Crops

with No Clear Answers, N.Y. Times, June 6, 2006; Gene Flow underscores growing

concern over biotech crops,

Associated Press, Sept. 22, 2004; Andrew Pollack, Can Biotech Crops be Good

Neighbors?, N.Y. Times, Sept. 26, 2004;

Lyle F. Friesen et al., Evidence of

contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in Western Canada

with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits, 95 Agron. J.,

1342-1347 (2003); Simon Jeffery, Rogue

genes: An unauthorised strain of GM crops has been found across England and

Scotland., Guardian, Aug. 16, 2002; Alex Roslin, Modified Pollen hits organic

farms:

Genetically altered strains spread by wind, Toronto Star, Sept. 30, 2002; Fred

Pearce, The Great Mexican Maize Scandal, New

Scientist 2347, June 15, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[4]

Greenpeace International. GM

Contamination Register Report 2007, February

28, 2008, at

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/gm-contamination-register-\

2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[5]See, e.g., K.L. Hewett, The Economic Impacts of GM Contamination

Incidents on the Organic Sector, 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena,

Italy, June 16-20, 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[6] Smyth et

al .(2002).  Liabilities and Economics of Transgenic Crops, 20 Nature

Biotechnology, June 2002, at 537-541.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7]See, e.g., Bennett Hall, Battle over Beets,

Corvallis-Gazette-Times, May 30, 2009; UM

Researcher Cites GE Contamination; Genetic Herbicide Resistance Found in Seeds,

Bangor Daily News, Jan. 13, 2006; Scott Miller & Scott Kilman, Biotech-Crop

Battle Heats Up as Strains Mix

With Others, Wall St. J., Nov. 5, 2005; 

Paul Elias, New 'Gene Flow'

Problems Concern Crop Producers, Associated Press, Sept. 23, 2004; Erica

Walz, Fourth National Organic Farmers'

Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace, Organic

Farming Research Foundation, 2004; David Barboza, As Biotech Crops Multiply,

Consumers Get Little Choice, N.Y. Times,

June 10, 2001; Anthony Shadid, Blown

profits --Genetic drift affects more than biology - US farmers stand to lose

millions, Boston Globe, Apr. 8, 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[8] Jane

Rissler & Margaret Mellon, Comments

to the Environmental Protection Agency on the Renewal of Bt-Crop Registrations,

Union of Concerned Scientists, Sept. 10, 2001, at 14. 

http://web.peacelink.it/tematiche/ecologia/bt_renewal_ucs.pdf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[9] Hugh

Warwick & Gundula Meziani, Seeds of

Doubt: North American farmers' experiences of GM crops, 27, Soil

Association 2002,  at

http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/9f788a2d1160a9e580256a71002a3d2b\

/9ce8a24d75d3f65980256c370031a2d0/$FILE/SeedsOfDoubt.pdf  (follow " GM " hyperlink

under Why Organic? at

bottom of page; then follow " Reports " hyperlink under GM on the left side of

the screen; then follow hyperlink to the report).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[10] Id. at 28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[11] Carey

Gillam., U.S. organic food industry fears GMO

contamination, Reuters, Mar. 12,

2008, available at

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1216250820080312.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[12] Testing Methodologies in Tracing, Segregating

and Labeling Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology: Proceedings, Center

for Food and Nutrition Policy, Feb.

25, 2003 at 54, available at

http://cfnap.umd.edu/Outreach/Conference%20Proceedings/pdfs/Biotech_Proceedings.\

pdf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[13]

Margaret Mellon & Jane Rissler, Gone

to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Food Supply, Union of

Concerned Scientists, 2004, available at

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/seedreport_fullrepor\

t.pdf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[14] Warwick,

supra note 9, at 30 (story of Iowa

farmers Roger and Amy Lansink).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[15] Jerry Perkins, Genetically

modified mystery, Des Moines Reg., Aug. 10, 2003, available at

http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry8dc3.html?recid=1968.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[16] Genetically engineered crops: Agencies are

proposing changes to improve oversight, but could take additional steps to

enhance coordination and monitoring, Report to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate, U.S. Government

Accountability Office, GAO 09-060, Nov. 2008, at 30-32.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Information

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liana

Hoodes

 

        National Organic

Action Plan

 

        National

Organic Coalition

3540

Route 52

 

Pine Bush, NY  12566

 

Phone and Fax:  845-744-2304

 

www.NationalOrganicCoalition.org

 

Liana

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~