What if the USDA didn't know how to be green? Part I

The United States Department of Agriculture is the government's arm for leadership on agricultural issues, a natural setting to be green and support the nation's farmers. Yet the seething debate on whether Genetically Engineered (GE) crops should be labeled, if even allowed, in US agriculture has hit a boiling point. Monsanto, one of the largest global GE crop companies, is at the center of the current debate, with other giant companies such as Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta AG, Dow AgroSciences,and DuPont hiding in the background.

The USDA was sued in 2006 for approving Monsanto's Round Up Ready Alfalfa by the Center for Food Safety. They argued the long-term impacts including an environmental impact statement (EIS) had not been considered nor conducted. The contamination risk GE crops pose to organic crops, small farms, and animal operations is high, and extensive research has proven that the containment measures required have failed to protect surrounding farms. Tomorrow, March 3^rd, is the last day for the USDA commentary period. If you would like to be green and support organic farms, small farmers, animal farmers, and the integrity of farming, please visit the Center for Food Safety's website or the True Food Network to review the issues and send in a letter.

To provide some background, the GE crop debate is not new, nor a neutral topic. Despite intensive marketing campaigns that GE crops are the same as Mendel's plant hybridization, the scientific perspective identifies GE crops as those containing genes not belonging to plants. For instance, the injection of a salmon gene into tomato plants to provide cold weather resistance. This type of gene manipulation, although an interesting area of technology, can significantly alter the ecology of the land and plants as well as have negative health effects on humans and animals alike. The debate has been greatly silenced in the US, but the European Union openly declared GE crops "Frankenfood" and has banned them from US exports. Organizations asking for at least GE labeling for consumer awareness consumer fell on deaf ears in the US, resulting in Millions against Monsanto, among other campaigns.

Companies, such as Monsanto, have what is called a 'seed monopoly' over the Midwest and portions of Canada. Farmers who originally owned farmers had to sell their property during the 1970s farm crisis. Companies such as Monsanto purchased the land, which they lease back to the farmer, and then strongly suggest what the farmer will plant year after year. They outfit them with their seeds that require their company's special herbicide formula and complimentary pesticide. The farmer is now locked into a company's product system, a strategic business move.

Surrounding farmers are at risk of GE seed contamination and a subsequent lawsuit by the seed company. Monsanto has an extensive history of sueing, and winning, against farmer's whose seeds have been contaminated by their GE crops. They claim the farmer's have committed patent infringement and must pay a technology fee, based on the assumption that the farmer stole their intellectual property (yes, we are still talking about seeds, seeds similar to dysfunctional smart phones). They have sued farmers, which are already displeased that their own crops have been contaminated and therefore are less valuable. They pick cases based on proximity to grain spills, GE crop test sites, or are within the estimated wind carrying distance.

GE crops are a lose-lose for farmers in the United States, in particular organic, small-scale, and animal operations. What will you do about it?

Photo Credit.