GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto and the USDA, by Andrew Kimbrell

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/gmo-science-deniers-monsanto-and-the-usda_b_6904606.html

Kimbrell on seed saving and seed banks

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/save-our-seeds/seed-saving-and-seed-banks/

Seed Saving and Seed Banks

INTRODUCTION
By Andrew Kimbrell

My first experience with the perils of large scale seed banks was the scandal that erupted over the Fort Collins collection in the mid 1980s. Journalists had published stories dramatically detailing the grossly negligent manner in which deposits to the seed bank were treated. Numerous seed deposits were spilling out onto the floors of the facility, the facility was woefully understaffed, there was no testing of the seed and a virtually complete failure of required regeneration — in short a seed saving disaster. A legal petition by my organization to rectify the decision seemed to get the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) attention. But when no real action resulted we litigated. I was a very active member of that legal team. As such I reviewed much of the material in the case that documented USDA’s complete disregard for the safety and integrity of the seeds under its care.

******

This has been one of the bases for CFS’ longstanding concerns about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Not surprisingly these fears have recently been justified. In December 2010 NordGen, the entity overseeing Svalbard, fired its Director Jessica Kathle. Some at NordGen believed that she was a “scapegoat” for the seed bank’s well known problems including continuing deficits, significant understaffing, and failure to do routine tests on the deposited seed to determine viability.

******

There is however yet another important concern about Svalbard. The Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), which supports the operational costs of Svalbard, has received almost $30 million dollars in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Global Diversity Trust, “Funding Status 1-1-2011.” http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php)This is by far the largest support of any non-governmental entity. As is well known, the Gates Foundation has very close working ties to Monsanto. The Gates Foundation invested $23 million in Monsanto in 2010 to help the company through some financial woes, and has been a determined supporter of spreading Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops throughout the developing world. In 2006 the Gates Foundation hired Rob Horsch, a former Monsanto Vice President and a key scientist involved in the creation of the company’s Round Up Ready crops in the 1980s, as their Senior Program Officer for their International Agriculture Development Program. This Monsanto connection to Svalbard is very troubling as the corporation owns almost a quarter of all the world’s commercial seeds and is the world’s leader in the genetic engineering of crops and the patenting of plant genetics (including plant genes, cells and seeds). Monsanto has also had a decade long history of persecuting and prosecuting thousands of farmers for saving seeds.

GE meat in our food supply?

September 21, 2010

Contact: Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director, (202) 547-9359
George Kimbrell, Senior Staff Attorney, (571) 527-8618
Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst, (703) 231-5956

MISGUIDED FDA OPPOSITION TO LABELING COULD LEAVE
PUBLIC PERMANENTLY IN THE DARK ON GE ANIMALS

Recent Polls Shows 91% of Americans Oppose GE Animals; CFS calls for clear, mandatory labeling

Rockville, MD (September 21, 2010) - After a two-day public hearing on the approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption, the AquAdvantage GE salmon, FDA held a public hearing today to discuss whether or not these GE fish should be labeled as such should they be approved. A 60-day public comment period on the labeling issue will be open until November 22, 2010.

“This transgenic salmon is the first GE animal intended for food, yet the human health impacts of eating these GE fish are completely unknown,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director at the Center for Safety (CFS). “These GE fish also pose unacceptable risks to wild salmon and the marine environment.” These “unknowns” were raised repeatedly at yesterday’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) hearing, and the Committee was unable to come to any conclusion as to the safety or efficacy of the GE salmon. The hearing on labeling is premature given that the VMAC has not approved this salmon for human or animal consumption.

The public has not been quiet about the possible approval of GE salmon. In fact, over 300 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants signed joint letters to the FDA opposing the approval of AquaBounty’s GE salmon. CFS and a coalition of allied groups also submitted 172,000 comments from individuals opposing the approval and urging clear, mandatory labeling should the fish be approved despite overwhelming public opposition (CFS comments to the VMAC and the joint letters can be found on our website).

Announcements by FDA officials and speakers today suggest that the Agency may not require labeling of GE salmon should it be approved. While FDA is operating under the fiction that transgenic animals are “new drugs,” the Agency does not feel that they need to be labeled in the same way that drugs are.

A Lake Research Partners poll commissioned by Food & Water Watch and released yesterday found that 91 percent of Americans believe FDA should not allow genetically engineered fish and meat into the marketplace; 83 percent felt strongly that it should not be allowed. Additionally, a 2008 Consumers Union nationwide poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent strongly agreed with this.

In his comments today, CFS Senior Staff Attorney George Kimbrell asserted that “labeling in the 21st Century cannot be based on 20th Century policy decisions.” The FDA currently uses its 1992 interpretation of “material” to inform its decisions on labeling, an interpretation that occurred prior to commercialization of any transgenic animal.

CFS and others have also criticized the process established by FDA. “After the numerous concerns raised by the VMAC yesterday, it is inappropriate to hold a hearing on the labeling of a product the Agency has yet to approve,” said George Kimbrell. To ensure meaningful public comment and confidence in the Agency’s processes, the agency should have separately convened the labeling hearing, after any initial decision on approval. “This is a backwards process at best and a dog and pony show at worst - labeling is not an adequate substitution for proper regulation and safety assessments,” added Kimbrell.

Apparently heeding public outcry about the lack of a public comment period on the approval of GE salmon itself, FDA announced yesterday that after the VMAC meetings, the Agency plans to publish the final environmental assessment (EA) as well as issue a notice in the Federal Register establishing a 30-day public comment period on the EA.

“It is totally unacceptable for GE fish not to be labeled if approved for commercial use,” said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center. “Consumers want more information about the foods they buy and feed to their families, not less. Leaving consumers in the dark not only prohibits them from making informed choices, but without mandatory tracking and labeling of these GE fish we may be putting public health at risk as well.”

“We strongly oppose FDA approval of GE salmon,” said Andrew Kimbrell. “Should FDA decide to approve the AquAdvantage GE salmon despite overwhelming consumer opposition and potential threats to the environment, human health, and native salmon populations, we urge that clear, mandatory labeling be unconditional.”

# # #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS currently represents over 125,000 members across the nation. Materials about GE fish including fact sheets, sign-on letters and testimony delivered to the VMAC are available on the web at: www.ge-fish.org

*CFS has worked with many states to pass laws and regulations on GE fish: California, Washington, Oregon, Maryland, Michigan, Florida and Alaska have all passed laws or rules regulating GE salmon, and Alaska requires labeling for any GE fish product.

Heather Whitehead
True Food Network Director, the Center for Food Safety
hwhitehead@icta.org
t 415/826-2770 f 415/826-0507 c 510/501-8092
truefoodnow.org | ge-fish.org | centerforfoodsafety.org

Supreme Court Case a Defeat for Monsanto's Ambitions

Andrew Kimbrell
Center for Food Safety

It should be no surprise that Monsanto's PR machine is working hard to spin the truth in this morning's decision in the first-ever Supreme Court case on genetically engineered crops (Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms). Despite what the biotech seed giant is claiming, today's ruling isn't close to the victory they were hoping for.

The 7-1 decision issued today by the Supreme Court was on the appeal of the Center for Food Safety's (CFS) successful suit, which resulted in a ban on GMO alfalfa. And, while the High Court ruled in favor of Monsanto by reversing an injunction that was part of the lower court's decision, more importantly, it also ruled that the ban on GMO alfalfa remains intact, and that the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa remains illegal.

This point, which seems to be lost in some news reports, is actually a huge victory for the Center for Food Safety and - most importantly - for the farmers and consumers who we represent.

The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction against planting was unnecessary since, under lower courts' rulings, Roundup Ready Alfalfa became a regulated item and illegal to plant. In other words, the injunction was "overkill' because our victory in lower federal court determined that USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws when it approved Roundup Ready alfalfa. The court felt that voiding the USDA's decision to make the crop legally available for sale was enough.

A different ruling could have had far-reaching ramifications that might have extended beyond our borders, affecting the health and status of world markets for U.S. alfalfa, and impacting the fastest growing sector of the US agriculture market - organic. But the court clearly saw that, and opted instead to rule very narrowly.

And yet, Monsanto is out there in a public statement saying that they've won a great victory. They claim that they're ready to sell Roundup Ready Alfalfa seeds now, and that they hope that their farmers should be able to plant by fall 2010. It's a canny statement, but neither of those potential situations is by any means possible at this point. The bottom line: the ban on planting Roundup Ready Alfalfa still stands.

The Center is victorious in this case in several other ways: most importantly, the High Court did not rule on several arguments presented by Monsanto about the application of federal environmental law. As a result, the Court did not make any ruling that could have been hurtful to National Environmental Policy Act or any other environmental laws. In addition, the Court opinion supported the Center's argument that gene flow is a serious environmental and economic threat. This means that genetic contamination from GMOs can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective.

This Court opinion is in many ways a victory for the environment, the Center for Food Safety, for farmers and for consumers and a defeat for Monsanto's hopes of a green light. To represent this opinion in any other way is just spin.

CFS statement on NRC report

NRC Report on Genetically Engineered Crops Misses the Mark on “Sustainability”

April 13, 2010

Genetically Engineered Crops Are Already Having Negative Impact on Farm Sustainability in the United States

The Center for Food Safety today released a statement in response to a National Research Council (NRC) report that purports to address the impact of genetically engineered (GE) crops on “farm sustainability,” understood to include farmer economic welfare as well as the environment. Center for Food Safety Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell reacted to the report, which was released this morning by NRC in Washington, DC:

At issue is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology, which is found in over 70% of GE crops grown on 130 million acres in the U.S. Roundup Ready crops are engineered to survive direct application of glyphosate, the active ingredient of Roundup herbicide, which would kill or injure a conventional crop. Roundup Ready crops do not increase yield. Rather, they have provided about a decade of convenient, labor-saving weed control by facilitating vastly increased and more frequent use of glyphosate, perhaps the most effective weed-killer ever developed.

The costs of what the NRC calls ‘excessive reliance’ on Roundup Ready technology are legion. In just 14 years, the Roundup Ready system has triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, in the same way that an overused antibiotic fosters resistant bacteria. Resistant weeds lead to increased pesticide use, which in turn harms the environment and human health. The leading independent study demonstrates that Roundup Ready crops and resistant weeds have increased use of herbicides (weed-killing pesticides) by 383 million lbs. over what would otherwise have been used in the 13 years from 1996 to 2008. Resistant weeds also trigger greater use of soil-eroding tillage, and in some cases manual hoeing to remove weeds, as well as higher production costs.

Significantly, glyphosate-resistant weeds are becoming so prevalent as to undermine the efficacy of glyphosate itself in ever more areas of the country. In response, companies are introducing crops resistant to non-glyphosate and multiple herbicides – an ultimately futile approach that will simply deepen the pesticide dependence of the American farmer.

In short, the biotech industry’s flagship product is proving to be inherently unsustainable, digging its own grave after just a decade and a half of use, and driving development of still other short-term fixes that will in turn rapidly become obsolescent.

Center for Food Safety is not certain what ‘sustainability’ means to the NRC. In our view, it should mean farm technologies and practices that remain effective and enhance productivity over many generations, not flash-in-the-pan innovations (like Roundup Ready technology) that drive their own obsolescence in just a decade or two.

Unfortunately, the rapid takeover of the seed supply by pesticide-biotechnology companies means that farmers have ever fewer conventional seed options. Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company, followed by DuPont (#2) and Swiss-based Syngenta (#3). Other pesticide manufacturers with a large stake in the seed industry include Dow Agrosciences, and German-based Bayer CropSciences and BASF Plant Science. It should not be surprising that these pesticide companies are developing new GE seeds for use in tandem with weed-killing pesticides they also sell.

Farmers are increasingly turning away from Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds to conventional seeds due to astronomical GE seed prices, resistant weeds, and the ability to legally save and replant conventional seeds. (Seed-saving, a traditional practice in the U.S. and around the world, has been made illegal with patented Roundup Ready seeds.) Demand for conventional soybean seeds has outstripped supply in at least five states, which means that some farmers who want to “go conventional” are unable to do so thanks to shortage of conventional seeds.

The declining availability of conventional seeds – due in part to atrophy of public sector breeding programs – is hopefully one topic the Department of Justice and state attorneys general will explore in their ongoing investigation of anticompetitive effects of seed industry concentration. Other issues include anti-farmer seed patents, the astronomical cost of GE seeds, and a number of anticompetitive practices used by Monsanto. Monsanto has used its seed patents to wring anywhere from $85 to $160 million from U.S. farmers for allegedly saving and replanting the company’s patented seeds.

Monsanto’s latest quarterly financial report shows a massive 19% drop in earnings, which directly reflects the farmer revolt against overpriced and increasingly ineffective Roundup Ready technology. The result would have been still worse for the company if farmers had had an adequate supply of viable conventional seed alternatives to draw on.

In the end, the NRC makes too much of short-term benefits of certain GE crops, and fails to appreciate the inherent unsustainability of the pesticide-promoting technologies being offered by the industry. In addition, there is too little concern for the many adverse impacts of seed industry concentration and seed patents on farmers’ welfare.

CFS calls for a moratorium on approvals of all new pesticide-promoting GE crops; an end to utility patents on seeds such that farmers can again save and replant seeds from their harvest; and serious antitrust remedies to break up the ongoing takeover of the seed supply by pesticide companies. The Federal government should commit significant new funds for independent, public-sector breeding programs. Without strong, decisive action of this sort, the pesticide-seed-biotechnology conglomerates will continue to saddle farmers with increasingly expensive, pesticide-promoting seeds that represent the complete opposite of sustainability.

Click here to view the footnoted version of CFS’s statement

Andrew Kimbrell: A Victory for Democracy – Another Blow to Monsanto

At last a government agency has rejected a genetically modified crop. The twist is that this crop, Bt eggplant, was not rejected by the U.S. government, but by the government of India.

Read more on The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/obamas-choice-of-vilsack_b_153213.html?view=screen

Andrew Kimbrell: Obama's Choice of Vilsack AgriBusiness as Usual at USDA?

Subdued approval greeted President-elect Obama's choice of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture last week. This came from mainstream environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, and even organizations that have been critical in the past of the Iowa governor's policies. Vilsack comes across in nearly all of the stories written last Tuesday and Wednesday as a solid choice, someone reliable from a farm state who understands farmers.

But, a day or two later the complexion of the Vilsack nomination had changed somewhat. First, the announcement was made in a slightly odd fashion, leaked out ahead of time, as though the Obama transition team were expecting some flak for their choice. In addition, Vilsack -- notably -- had removed himself from the running before jumping back in just prior to his selection by the president-elect.

Today, the lukewarm reception Vilsack initially received has turned into real heat as the Obama transition team finds itself in the fire over the former Governor's appointment. President-elect Obama identified Vilsack as representative of the kind of "new leadership" Washington needs. But now, even those who initially greeted the nomination with some enthusiasm are wondering if Vilsack isn't a signal of business as usual at the USDA, and beyond.

First of all -- as Politico reports -- there is the farm subsidy money that Vilsack has received over time from USDA. According to the piece, from 2000 to 2006, Vilsack and his wife collected $42,782 in subsidies from USDA. In addition, "Vilsack is a partner at a lobbying law firm (Dorsey & Whitney) that trumpeted his advice to clients on agribusiness development and renewable energy -- a job that appears to bump up against Obama's promise to bar appointees from working on issues related to their employment for two years." The former Governor recognizes the conflict of interests, and claims he will do everything he can to address the problem, and if he must, he will forgo the payments.

If only that was the sole reason to question the choice of Vilsack; $42K may not be enough of a figure to inspire concern. Vilsack's positions on biotechnology and ethanol are far more troubling.

For those of us who have serious health and environmental concerns about genetically engineered (GE) crops, cloning, and industrial agriculture in general, it would be difficult to pick someone with a worse track record. Vilsack was even named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization for his "support of the industry's economic growth." Small wonder. Under Governor Vilsack, the state of Iowa invested millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in dubious biotechnology start-ups, such as cow cloner Trans Ova Genetics ($9 million) and pharmaceutical corn developer, ProdiGene, Inc. ($6 million). Iowa's investment in ProdiGene was particularly unfortunate. The company not only proved a financial failure, but in 2002, an Iowa cornfield that became contaminated with the company's genetically engineered pharma corn had to be destroyed. One hopes Mr. Vilsack has learned from this experience. He also supported (some say instigated) a bill in 2005 that pre-empted cities and counties from regulating GE crops more strictly than the state or federal government. On biotechnology policy, Vilsack is far from the visionary we had hoped for.

Vilsack has also been a big supporter of ethanol, as is President-elect Obama. On this issue, they're clearly in synch, but their enthusiasm is terribly misplaced. The latest science demonstrates clearly that corn-based ethanol exacerbates rather than mitigates global warming, while so-called "cellulosic" ethanol from crop waste and prairie grass (which might have value, the jury is still out) is years away from commercial use. Even some of ethanol's strongest supporters in Congress, like Senator Tom Harkin, have come to question corn-based ethanol. President-Elect Obama and Mr. Vilsack should make elimination of federal subsidies for corn-to-ethanol -- which now total several billion dollars per year -- a top priority.

However, Vilsack has made some promises that are easy to rally behind. He says he supports biotech firm liability in cases of contamination episodes. He has also said that USDA should require companies to demonstrate no harm to markets for conventional and organic crops before approving new GE crops.

All this would be welcome, but so far, there is little to indicate that Mr. Vilsack would be the watchdog so promised. There is increasing disappointment in the choice, so we must watch his actions to see if he deserves the public's trust. If he fails on any pledge, it's up to consumers, farmers, and lawmakers to hold his feet to the fire. Ultimately, it is the President-elect's food, farm and energy policies that will guide the USDA in the new administration. While not perfect, there is much promise in these policies.

There were high hopes that Obama would choose a Secretary who would bring real change to the beleaguered USDA. Though more progressive candidates were passed over, Tom Vilsack may not prove to be the AgriBusiness-as-Usual choice that his record would suggest. Some who know him say he is a good listener, and we should not rule out the possibility of change. A president elected on a platform of change needs to implement it nowhere more urgently than in food and farm policy. This nation needs nothing short of a New Green Deal to reverse the Bush administration's abysmal food safety record and assault on the environment through its promotion of industrial agriculture. Although we remain hopeful with the choice of Tom Vilsack, we also have to remain very alert.

Corn as fuel has hurt world food supply

BY ANDY KIMBRELL

June 20, 2008

Rising food prices are a hardship here at home, but they're truly disastrous for many beyond our borders. The staggering 83 percent rise in food prices reported by the World Bank over the past three years hits developing nations hardest. It's a complex situation with many causes, but the crisis is teaching us important and urgent lessons.

First among these is what we've learned about biofuels. Once considered the "green" solution to foreign oil dependence, corn ethanol has morphed into a humanitarian and environmental disaster. Diverting one-quarter of America's massive corn harvest from food to fuel has nearly crippled the globalized food system. A bushel of corn fetches about three times the price it did two years ago, one big reason for quadrupling tortilla prices in Mexico. Wheat and soybean farmers, lured by higher profits, switched over to corn. As a result, supplies of those crops are limited and wheat prices have risen an astronomical 130 percent since 2007, exacerbated by poor Australian harvests.

If you thought corn ethanol was at least lessening our dependence on foreign oil, think again: Ethanol displaces only 3 percent of our oil use. Additionally, the journal "Science" recently published research suggesting that biofuels are worsening global warming as well as hunger. High demand for energy crops is driving deforestation, which in turn releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases that far exceed minor reductions provided by the energy crops themselves.

Even those who embraced biofuels so enthusiastically a year ago are beginning to see what a chimera they actually are. Until alternative technologies are embraced, crop-based biofuels will continue to deprive the hungry of desperately needed food.

The second lesson: our industrialized approach to agriculture essentially transforms fossil fuels into human food. Food production American style consumes mountains of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, over half-a-billion pounds of petroleum-based pesticides, and millions of gallons of fuel to drive farm equipment each year. Processing food and getting it to market consumes still more. The cost of a pound of beef, a gallon of milk or a box of cereal climbs ever higher, entangled with the skyrocketing price of oil.

A third lesson is that biotechnology can provide no solution. Biotech firms are pushing the idea that genetically engineered, or GE, crops will feed the world. But two decades of costly research has not produced a single marketable GE crop with increased yield, drought-resistance, enhanced nutrition or other attractive traits touted by boosters. What has succeeded are "herbicide-tolerant" GE varieties - engineered to survive application of weed killers - which remarkably make up 81 percent of the world's biotech crops. Small wonder that weed killer use is rising, and resistant weeds are proliferating.

To top it off, university studies show that Roundup Ready soybeans - which make up more than half of all biotech crops - get 6 percent lower yield than their conventional counterparts and are more susceptible to drought.

Despite these failures, government and biotechnology firms continue to tout genetic engineering as a magic bullet. Meanwhile, hundreds of conventional breeding and agroecological solutions remain unimplemented, thanks to draconian cuts to public sector agricultural development programs.

These lessons all remind us to beware the quick fix. H.L. Mencken famously observed that "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." We're seeing right now that easy answers are destined to be failures, and changing our habits - always more difficult than simply buying something new - hold the answers.

If petroleum inputs are increasing costs, we need to use less of them. We should support organic farming without pesticides and without petroleum-based fertilizers. If genetically engineered crops are failing, we should instead promote readily available, high-yielding conventional varieties bred for drought resistance.

Through the lens of this crisis, we also see the sense in buying abundant, locally grown foods. Since they travel less and now cost less than processed food or produce flown from across the globe, local crops are looking more and more attractive. They're also fresher, more healthful and more beneficial to consumers. And, in buying them, we support local farmers.

The food crisis is conjoined to the fuel crisis, and this has opened our eyes to the flaws in our food production and distribution practices. It has also, thankfully, pointed us in the direction of real solutions - if we as consumers, policymakers and businesspeople are bold enough to make the needed changes.

Andy Kimbrell is founder and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Food Safety.

Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.