the different alfalfa markets and a farmer’s right to choose to grow different alfalfa seeds. There were also disagreements on the extent of
USDA’s role in the coexistence process and on best management
practices to prevent GMO contamination.
The group sent Vilsack a report detailing the common ground and
differences they found and wrote: “We are encouraged to report that
goodwill can be created among people willing to work together in the
hope of finding a better path forward.”
Caving in to Special Interests
GM agribusiness interests saw USDA’s coexistence initiative and
proposed partial deregulation of GM alfalfa as a threat to future GM
crop approvals. Seven farm groups and the Biotechnology Industry
Organization sent a letter to President Obama objecting to USDA’s coexistence policy. Although many other countries have put strict restrictions on GM crops, and some have even banned them, Vilsack was
summoned to face a hostile House Agriculture Committee that challenged his authority to restrict plantings of this GM crop. An editorial
in Forbes magazine even called for his firing.
The pressure on Vilsack caused Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at
the Organic Center and Coexistence Working Group member, to
comment, “What’s next, a public flogging in the shadow of the Lin-
coln Memorial?”
In the end, USDA bowed to the pressure and decided on full
deregulation. “Approving unrestricted GM alfalfa is clearly a case of
USDA caving in to special interests over public good,” says Liana
Hoodes, director of the National Organic Coalition (NOC).
percent of alfalfa is treated with herbi-
cides. It grows so densely that it
crowds out weeds.”
GM alfalfa will also pass on its her-
bicide-tolerant trait to wild alfalfa,
which will become another source of
pollen and seed that can contaminate
conventional and organic alfalfa
fields. The EIS also ignores the im-
pact on honey. Bees will gather nectar
from GM alfalfa plants, which they
will then consume and convert into
honey. “This is another entry point
for GMOs (into organic foods),” says
Jim Riddle, organic outreach coordi-
nator at the University of Minnesota.
Why GM Alfalfa Is a Big Concern
The lawsuit against GM alfalfa galvanized the organic industry because it represents a major contamination threat. Alfalfa is used as
feed for all organic livestock and is
the most common legume grown
in organic crop rotations. Siemon
has said that GM alfalfa “threatens
the fabric of the organic industry.”
GM alfalfa is pollinated by bees
and other insects that travel great
distances and it grows wild near
roads and ditches. Experts see
major weaknesses in the USDA’s
assessment of GM alfalfa. Bill
Freese, senior policy analyst at the
Center for Food Safety, says the EIS
doesn’t address the problem of
weed resistance to Roundup herbicide, which is growing exponentially across the U.S. “Weed
resistance is becoming huge issue,”
he says. Freese and others question
the need for GM alfalfa. “Only 7
Can’t Coexist Without the ‘Co’
The question remains: is coexistence of GMO and organic even possible? Some organic industry
members believe it is. Tom Stearns,
president of High Mowing Seeds, an
organic seed supplier and plaintiff in
the lawsuit to stop GM sugar beets,
says “Coexistence is better than trying
to ignore the problem. It is important
to talk to USDA and Monsanto instead of disagreeing so wholeheartedly that we don’t want to engage
Non-GMO Project Sees Continued Growth
Sales of Non-GMO Project-verified products are increasing at an annual rate of
24 percent, greater than whole grain or fair trade product categories. There are now
more than 4000 products enrolled in
the Non-GMO Project from 206 brands;
more than 1700 SKUs are verified, including many organic products.
Millions of Americans saw a close-up
of the Non-GMO Project seal when it
was featured in an episode of Dr. Oz last
December that focused on the dangers of genetically modified foods. Also, a new
bilingual version of the seal in English and French is starting to appear on products
in Canada. The strong sales growth of non-GMO-verified products gives food manu-
facturers another good reason to join the Project in addition to avoiding GMOs,
says Megan Westgate, Non-GMO Project executive director. “It is also a good in-
Ingredient suppliers are also getting their products verified, many because of re-
quests from their food manufacturer customers. This was one of the goals of the
Non-GMO Project, according to Westgate. “A food manufacturer will enroll and
find out that an ingredient is already verified, which makes the whole verification
process faster and easier for them.”
The first Non-GMO Month, held in October, was a great success with more than
600 retailers participating. “Non-GMO Month resonated with retailers and their
customers; they want information about non-GMO options,” says Westgate.
