|
ISIS Report 18/03/08
Genetically Modified Alfalfa: Scope of an Improved Environmental Assessment
Prof. Joe Cummins
This report was submitted to the USDA on behalf of ISIS
 |
 |
In 2006 the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) determined that glyphosate tolerant alfalfa
was no longer subject to regulation by government. In 2007, a court action
ruled that the deregulation process was invalid and contrary to the national
environmental protection act, as the APHIS environmental assessment
(EA) was faulty. APHIS now intends
to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Monsanto Company and Forage
Genetics International alfalfa lines designated events J101 and J163. Before
that, it is seeking public comment on the scope of the pending EA (Docket
No. APHIS–2007–0044: Environmental Impact Statement; Determination of Regulated
Status of Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0044).
This notice identifies potential
issues and alternatives that will be addressed by the EIS and requests public
comment to further delineate the scope of the issues and regulatory
alternatives. Comments had be received
by 6 February
2008.
The original faulty
EA - USDA/APHIS Environmental
Assessment Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International Petition 04-110-01p
for Determination of Non-regulated Status for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Events
J101 and J163 October 2004 - was judged inadequate by Charles Breyer on
13 February
2007.
Lawyers from the Center for Food Safety raised a number of questions particularly
related to the spread of the modified genes to organic and conventional alfalfa
crops and on the development of glyphosate resistant genes. Judge Breyer ruled
that APHIS failed to answer these substantial questions, concluding instead
that any environmental impact is insignificant because gene transmission is
the problem of the organic and conventional farmers and weeds always develop
resistance to herbicides. As such reasons are not “convincing” and do not
demonstrate that the agency took a “hard look” at the potential environmental
impacts of its deregulation decision, he ordered APHIS to prepare an environmental
impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
as requested by
the plaintiff.
The judgement exposed the cavalier manner in which APHIS had put
forward opinions based on little or no evidence, making claims such as, in the event of gene transmission, the impact is not
significant because it is the organic and conventional farmers’ responsibility
to ensure that such contamination does not occur. The GM alfalfa rested
on a “no significant impact” decision based on this absurd conclusion in APHIS’
original EA, which made no inquiry into whether those farmers who do not want
to grow genetically engineered alfalfa can, in fact, protect their crops from contamination. It
also reasoned that federal organic standards do not require the testing of
inputs or products for genetically engineered genes and that the unintentional
presence of the engineered genes will not “necessarily” constitute a violation
of national organic standards [1].
Judge Breyer’s order did
not deal with the potential impact on the modified alfalfa on the health of humans and animals and APHIS’
opinion that the GM alfalfa was harmless to humans and to animals was accepted
in the absence of any evidence that it was so.
The scope of the new EIS proposed by APHIS [2] for consultation include, for
example, consideration of impacts on organic alfalfa production, weed resistance
to glyphosate, gene flow from GM alfalfa seed production, economic impacts
on organic farmers. Will increased glyphosate usage related to the GM crop
affect soil and water quality? What about impacts of the glyphosate usage
on threatened or endangered species, or the health and safety of human beings?
What about the health and safety of human beings and livestock exposed to
GM alfalfa, such as allergy and other immune effects? Can the adverse effects
of using GM alfalfa be mitigated? What are the consequences of mitigation
on the coexistence of organic and conventional alfalfa production and export?
Are there other potential impacts?
All of the scope items listed by APHIS, and more are worth fully
investigating. We must request the EIS to
address a fuller range of topics than is required in the court order, and
discussion should be open to findings and reports completed after the defective
EA was completed in 2004.
One aspect requiring fuller comment is the mindset of those preparing the
EIS. As pointed out in an earlier comment submitted on the original EA of
2004 [3], there was an apparent bias toward unsupported opinions rather than
references to relevant empirical studies. It is imperative that the new EIS
should be produced by a fresh group of APHIS staff members who had not been
involved in the original EA, those hew members should be committed towards
full and unbiased reporting based on empirical evidence.
This is No. 40 of ISIS’ submissions to USDA.
References
- Breyer C. IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 06-01075 CRB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GEERTSON SEED FARMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.MIKE JOHANNS,
Secretary of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, et al.,Defendants.
Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 83
Filed 02/13/2007 Page 1 of 20
- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS–2007–0044]
Environmental Impact Statement; Determination of Regulated Status of Alfalfa
Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide GlyphosateFederal
Register 1198 Vol. 73, No. 4 Monday, January 7, 2008.
- Cummins J. Roundup ready
alfalfa [SANET-MG] Archives 2004, http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/SoilWiki/message-
archives/JoeCummins/msg00330.html
| |
|
