stumbleupon
RSS
Sustainable Food  |  Feb 2, 2011 4:01 AM EST

As a Justmeans staff writer for the Sustainable Foods editorial department, I explore the disparity between consumerism and independence through the topic of sustainability. As a self-described 'urban homesteader' I look to find the balance between a sustainable lifestyle and use of corporate convenience. I don't necessarily want to live without electricity, but I want to be comfortable if eve...

Justmeans Weekly News
sent to your inbox

GM Alfalfa Backlash

2969857224_66bf4b78dfThe deregulation of RoundUp-Ready alfalfa brought with it a hurricane of outrage from food advocates all over the country. The subject was debated and hashed out, working its way through the processes of acceptance, now that the government had chosen the side that many consumers wished they hadn't.

Like one organic farm had said, Tom Vilsack was put in a hard place. Undoubtedly, it was a difficult decision to make; one that would not settle easily no matter how it panned out. He chose agribusiness over consumer opinion. With his decision, many of us felt defeated and hopeless for the future.

Even the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) weighed in on the topic with a reactionary piece practically boycotting Whole Foods and Stonyfield Farms, saying, "Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack."

Stonyfield Farms responded gracefully responded with, "on the day of the decision, the Organic Consumers Association distributed an inaccurate, irresponsible and frankly appalling letter that attempted to pin the blame for the USDA's decision squarely on Stonyfield, Organic Valley and Whole Foods. OCA's letter is blatantly untrue and dangerously misleading, but also deeply divisive at a time when we all need to be focused on immediate actions necessary to stop this new policy from going into effect.."

They continue their argument poignantly by stating that, "[the] USDA's own organic standards do not allow the use of genetically engineered crops, Stonyfield is absolutely and utterly opposed to the deregulation of GE crops. We believe that these crops are resulting in significantly higher uses of toxic herbicides and water, creating a new generation of costly "super" weeds; pose severe and irreversible threats to biodiversity and seed stocks; do not live up to the superior yield claims of their patent holders; and are unaffordable for small family farmers in the US and around the world. We believe that organic farming methods are proving through objective, scientific validation to offer far better solutions. We also believe that unrestricted deregulation of GE crops unfairly limits farmer and consumer choice."

The most concerning effect of the deregulation of alfalfa, in common opinion, is that once GMOs start to crossbreed, we won't know how to stop it. Sure, we'll have a little seed on hand for "safety" [of course this begs the question that if GM seed is so "safe" and so "well-tested" why would we need backstock of organic seed?] but what if that seed gets crossbred, too? And then, how will we define "organic"? What is likely to happen is a total re-definition of what organic is, because for certain commercial crops, organic won't be available any more. Let's hope that small farms, urban homesteads and community gardens keep the seed-saving tradition going. They'll be worth more than gold one day.

Photo credit: by laihiu