Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa
Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044

We own and operate Deer Run Farm, a certified organic beef-producing farm. This is a grass and forage based cow/calf to finished beef operation. It has been certified organic since 1999. Prior to 1995 we farmed conventionally. In addition I have a business consulting company specializing on performance analysis methods and general management for organic and small farms.

As an organic animal farmer I have easily co-existed with neighbors choosing to use genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybeans and the industry that supports them. This is done with simple – although costly – measures to minimize genetic contamination of my crops and the crops of seed producers. Six years ago I heard of the possibility of GE alfalfa from an alfalfa seed grower. I was concerned that because alfalfa is a perennial, is pollinated over long distances and seed is grown in geographically confined areas with shared equipment that there is high probability of significant contamination between GE and non-GE varieties especially in seed production. This would have the effect of eliminating alfalfa from the organic production model.

This concern is high because alfalfa is an important part of my production system just as it is for most organic meat and dairy producers and elimination would have significant, negative economic impact.

I was hoping that a strong strategy for containing contamination would evolve but it has not. The draft EIS does nothing to mitigate my concerns. I strongly reject the conclusion of the draft that Glyphosate-Tolerant alfalfa should be moved to non-regulated status.

Genetic Contamination

The primary deficiency in the study is the conclusion that genetic contamination between GE alfalfa and other alfalfa can be contained to some fraction of one per cent. The rationale for this conclusion relies on all farmers of seed and forage following “Best Practices” defined by the patent holders. In the real world “best” is an “ideal” with actual practices always something less than that – and always with some cases significantly less. Here are the specific problems with the effectiveness of the practices. The bullets correspond to those in the FGI “Best Practices” on page 103 of the EIS.

• On selling seed. Good practice but exactly how is it detected and contract terms enforced? In addition, this subject brings up something that was mentioned in the input comments to the EIS but not addressed by the EIS. A seed producer asked what action from the patent holder would follow if the producer had planted a non-GE alfalfa for seed and it was significantly contaminated (his question used 10% as an example) through no fault of his own. This question should have a second part: if the producer sells the seed it will be contaminated. He has nothing to force him to test for the genes. Will the sale be contested by the patent holder? The EIS is deficient in not addressing these questions.
• Beehive removal. There is a significant deterrent to accomplishing the intent. The hives are not the property of the farmer under contract. Unless the apiarist is party to the license contract what is keeping him/her from removing his own property? Further, there is no provision for hives owned by others on land owned by others but adjacent to fields where GE alfalfa is grown. The EIS does not address these situations.
• Isolation. This is covered in two bullet points. The first establishes isolation distances. The second puts all responsibility on maintaining these distances on producers who wish to grow non-GE seed. Not surprising because the methodology is parallel to that for organic grain crops. This just plain won’t work in practice for alfalfa. With isolation distances in miles it is obvious that not all non-GE seed producers will have control over land between GE fields and their own fields. Without control they will run the risk of having someone between the two locations decide to grow either GE alfalfa for seed (required to register) or forage (not required to register) after they have made the decision to plant their fields. At the very least it guarantees non-GE alfalfa producers will be put at a significant competitive disadvantage. APHIS knows this. There is no plan in the EIS to control it. This is a major flaw in the whole case made for deregulation.
• Stand removal. Sounds good on paper but in practice complete stand removal is problematic. I’m not a seed grower but I’ve talked to 3-4 of them, I’ve talked to degreed university forage specialists and I have seen correspondence that indicate this to be virtually impossible to achieve. As a user of non-GE seed I have no faith in the methodology concluded in the EIS to stop contamination.
• Cleaning of equipment. As an organic producer we have to do equipment cleaning. It’s very difficult to achieve. Combines have hiding places for big seeds like cereal grain where it is even more likely for small seeds to hide. Unless you have a custom operator who does only organic crops you will have contamination. The EIS takes a very naïve stance on this subject.
• MTA requiring forage to be cut at 10% bloom. They may “require” it but field conditions make it impossible. Fields can be too wet at that point. Fields can change hands during mid-season. Plants can be missed at cutting. Seeds can be accidentally dropped anywhere leading to plants not in fields to be cut. Seeds can be co-mingled with non-GE seeds and planted. I’ve seen all of this right here in my county and on my own farm. The EIS totally misses the real-world situation.

Organic Production Practices & Markets

From the standpoint of someone who understands the characteristics and economics of the organic market and organic production systems there are several areas where the EIS misses the reality of the facts of the real world.

1.     Alfalfa is much more important to organic producers than to their conventional counterparts. Thus not having organic alfalfa available because of contamination would have a dramatic and negative cost impact. Factors that make alfalfa more valuable for organic producers are:

• The study focuses on dry matter yield, quality and market price of alfalfa hay as main parameters for evaluation of trends and markets. (Pp 48-51) This approach looks at alfalfa primarily as a cash crop. Organic production and conventional grass based pasture models approach alfalfa and other crops in a system of production with the saleable product being meat or milk or milk products. An important cost difference for hay grown in an animal system versus as a cash crop is the availability of animal manure as a nutrient source. A cash crop system usually depends on purchased nutrient inputs – in the case of alfalfa this is usually potash. Organically approved sources of purchased potash are, on average, double conventional sources. By careful use of animal sources, the cost of producing hay on our farm is about the same as hay production on non-organic farms in our area. Yields since we became certified are no different than when we used conventional practices. The conclusion on pp 48 and 49 that “value” or “price” of organic alfalfa is 15-20% more expensive than conventional is confused. The study mixes the concepts of price, value and cost. Price comes from the dynamics of the supply and demand of hay in a market. This has only slight relationship to cost. If you don’t purchase alfalfa hay then cost is the cost of production and not the market price.
• Alfalfa is high in protein (20% or so if harvested right) and with hay costs about equal to conventional hay this provides forage protein at conventional costs. Protein from organic grain sources is 2.5 to 3 times more expensive than conventional protein. For example, early last year our local price for conventional 44% soy meal was $325/ton while organic meal was $960. Therefore, using protein from alfalfa is an important cost containment practice.
• Chemical and petroleum based nitrogen fertilizer is not available to organic producers. Nitrogen is available in the form of animal manure but often not in sufficient quantity on a self-contained animal farm. Legumes like alfalfa are a good source of nitrogen for crops following alfalfa and accompanying it as in mixed hay and pasture.
• Because alfalfa is a perennial it has the potential through management to persist as a hay crop. The same is true of grasses grown with it. On our farm, for instance, we let alfalfa go to full bloom or beyond at least once a year to build root reserves and make sure there is stubble left in the fall to mitigate damage from icing. We regularly have stands last 6-8 years. This cuts down on total cost of hay because establishment cost is spread over more years. On erodible land this dramatically cuts down on soil loss. Weeds in these grass/alfalfa stands are not a problem with timely cutting.
• Organic producers must graze animals more than conventional farmers. This is currently driven by consumer preference but is now part of the NOP. Alfalfa is an important addition to pastures. It makes them more drought resistant and is a perennial legume versus many popular pasture legumes that are not.
• There is an overlapping niche market where alfalfa is extremely central: grass fed beef and milk from grass fed cows – both organic and non-organic . Contrary to the model explained first on p 139 where beef is finished in feed lots and thus has little input from alfalfa, the grass fed producers in the upper Midwest make ample use of alfalfa in pastures and harvested forage. Feed is usually 65% of total cost of an animal going to slaughter and composed entirely of legumes and grass. It is common for the legume content to be 60-70% of hay and 50% of pasture. The legume of choice in hay is alfalfa and about half of the graziers use alfalfa in their pastures.

2. Throughout the EIS there are many descriptions of market trends and forces in terms of averages or majorities. See especially pages 56-60. The conclusion seems to be that the consumer-driven market for GE food is not real because on average American eaters don’t care if they eat GE food – especially after education. This may be true but there is a small group of people who consider themselves well educated on these subjects and totally reject GE food. You may disagree with their “education” but that’s what they believe. These consumers have this and other reasons for buying organic. This is nature of a niche market. Table 3-16 indicates that the organic niche is growing at a CAGR of 24% for dairy and 38% for beef. To those of us who sell organic products to this niche, growth rates of this magnitude allow pricing and other marketing opportunities that are important. In real terms that means we can sell organic pasture based beef at $2.00 per pound Hot Carcass Weight (after processing, transportation and all marketing costs) versus conventional at $1.40 (USDA AMS Feb 2010). Thus, if we lost organic certification and had to sell on the conventional market we’d experience a 30% reduction in revenue per head.

3.     Nowhere in the EIS is there mention of producer preference per se for non-GE feed for his cattle – that is, not solely driven by market or the NOP. This would include anyone not convinced of the safety of the modified proteins found in GE feed/food. (See page 33 of EIS.) There is a long list of studies that say it’s no different than other proteins found in foods but there is a list (shorter) of compelling studies that say differently. With the emergence of epigenetic research the whole subject becomes even more important. Therefore, some elect to stay with traditional feed/food and avoid the risk. With approval of GE alfalfa this choice will be taken away as conventional alfalfa is significantly contaminated.

4.     The EIS discussion of organic alfalfa seed doesn’t fit with reality. On pp 53, T12 & T13, the study implies that there are so few sources of organic seed that organic farmers use non-organic seed free of prohibited coatings. (The EIS leaves out a crucial proviso: there can be no GMO’s in such seed.) I have four local sources of organic alfalfa seed. I have purchased certified organic alfalfa seed for six years without difficulty. Attachments 1 and 2 are lists of seed producers and suppliers who have alfalfa seed. Of course there are few suppliers; only 3,000 acres of organic alfalfa were seeded last year. And it is true that there are fewer varieties available than for non-organic alfalfa. However, the most important attributes from variety differences are winter hardiness, pest resistance and disease resistance; there is an array of these attributes that along with good management make these seed varieties quite sufficient for organic systems.

I am extremely concerned that if Glyphosate-Tolerant GE alfalfa is de-regulated that American and Canadian alfalfa seed sources will be contaminated so much as to mean alfalfa can no longer be certified organic and, for that matter, anyone electing to use non-GE alfalfa will no longer have that choice. I will be faced with some very painful alternatives. One alternative is to keep alfalfa in our system but give up organic certification. This means a 30% reduction in revenue with the same cost – not really a solution. Another alternative is to move to other forage legumes that can be certified organic. This will result in our needing about 40% more land to keep the same revenue (the difference in yield from alfalfa to the next best: red clover.) It would also result in more establishment events and increased possibility of erosion because these other higher yielding legumes are not perennials.

GE alfalfa should not be deregulated.

James Munsch
S995 Bagstad Lane
Coon Valley WI 54623

The Mark News
by Alexandra Morton – Professional biologist; Founder of non-profit Salmon Coast Field Station for research.

As I stand behind a young mother at the market checkout counter, the biologist in me wonders if my species no longer recognizes food. Item after item bears no resemblance to any food item that our species evolved to consume. Even the apples in the plastic bag were too toxic for any insect to touch. This would be like watching a mother bear trying to feed her cubs rocks and empty shells. I would not give that bear’s lineage high potential for survival. I look sadly at the mother, who without a doubt is trying her best to please and feed her children. She is just too distant from her roots as a living creature on planet earth to recognize what real food looks like.

Ten thousand years ago, glacier melt-water scoured the rocky British Columbia coast and the humans that first stepped into this landscape could barely survive. Birds brought the seeds of the hardy little shore pine, empty rivers beckoned to salmon as they swam past. Forest, fish, and humans hung on and eventually flourished.

These people’s lives depended on salmon and salmon are dependable because they return on a very precise schedule. The world around them can prosper if they set their clocks to the salmon. Legends and rules steeped the culture of the first people. They must have damaged some salmon runs and they must have learned from that, because without our current wealth of understanding of salmon biology, they managed the wild salmon runs extremely well.

They did this because their lives depended on it. I would argue we are no different today. In a world of corporate food experiments gone bad, there should be a global body created immediately to safeguard the remaining natural systems that produce clean air, food, and water. B.C. is one of these systems, and our wild salmon are a food resource we may dearly wish we had better managed.

Consider this. The city of Vancouver is a world-class city, producing waste like all other cities and yet one of earth’s largest wild salmon runs is still trying to migrate through its streets. This is a miracle, a gift no other city in the world can boast of! But, like the young mother, the city no longer recognizes food. The fish are vanishing and we don’t care because we think it has nothing to do with us.

Oh the folly of us humans. It pulls deeply at me as I have children and know we are risking their lives simply because we are disconnected and foolhardy. We actually think fish farms will feed the world. We drill deep into the earth, suck up oil, refine it, pour it into generators, all to throw food – real fish caught and moved the length of the planet and made into pellets – into pens where over-fed, fat farm fish defecate tons daily, despoiling the natural systems around them.

Lift your heads people and look at the sky. Power we cannot even measure blows storm clouds, oxygenating the ocean with waves, pouring water into watersheds where billions of salmon hatch. As they flow from the rivers, trillions of natural solar panels absorb the sun, making food which salmon collect and carry back to us land dwellers, and lay it at our feet even as they start the cycle over again.

This is the stuff of life. This is what made us. This is what we need. This is food security. We will live or die as a species based on whether we relearn how to work with the planet or not.

Sustainable agriculture is the fastest-growing sector of the food industry. On the other hand, less than 1% of American cropland is farmed organically.

In light of this conundrum, what keeps the organic farmer going?

I spoke with Richard Wiswall, author of The Organic Farmer’s Business Handbook: A Complete Guide Managing Finances, Crops, and Staff – and Making a Profit, to find out more about what it’s like to be an organic farmer in these tough economic times.

“The future of organic is very, very solid in spite of level sales,” says Wiswall. A farmer first and author second, Wiswall is seeing a groundswell of new organic farmers entering the marketplace, which he and others attribute to the writings of Michael Pollan, films like Food Inc., and the increased concern surrounding food safety issues in general.

However, there are big speed bumps in the way of an organic farmer’s success.

GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms, provide what Wiswall dubs as a “very dark cloud” for the organic farmer. Not only do GMOs operate outside the boundaries of nature, they are the source of expensive lawsuits for farmers. Companies like Monsanto regularly accuse farmers of “stealing” their seeds, even though GMO-tainted pollen often lands in an organic farmer’s land unknowingly via mother nature.

Other issues with GMO foods include:

* GMO seeds are costly to patent and by law, can’t be saved for replanting. This is a far cry from the claims that GMOs help poor farmers from around the world
* GMOs need increased levels of toxins to control weeds, an unsafe option both ecologically and from a human health standpoint.
* GMOs are artificially injected with foreign proteins. Check out Robyn O’Brien’s book The Unhealthy Truth How Our Food is Making Us Sick – And What We Can Do About It to learn how foreign proteins are negatively affecting human health.

GMO “developers have not failed at making huge profits in a system where farmers are forced to market on volume, and have no market rewards for nutritional quality or penalties for ecological impact,” according to Timothy J. LaSalle.

Another huge challenge for organic farmers are Good Agricultural Practices or GAP, which audits food growers for safety standards (see the debate about one such GAP program, the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, which is raging on OrganicAuthority.com). While the premise is solid – to ensure food is safe – GAP certification can be cost-prohibitive for small organic farmers, ranging from $5,000-$10,000. Plus, the strict standards of sanitization required by GAP are geared for big corporate agriculture – not organic farmers.

With food safety issues on the rise, insurance companies are also heavily involved. “Insurers are pressuring retailers for GAP certifications, and retailers are pressuring farmers,” says Wiswall.

The light at the end of the tunnel

According to Wiswall and others, one of the challenges faced by organic farmers is price. In a tight economy, many consumers aren’t as likely to spend the on-average 20% extra for organic products.

But a look at Maine’s Own Organic Milk Company, or MOOMilkCo, showcases how consumers are willing to rally around the healthiest, most fairly-produced product – regardless of price.

MOOMilkCo consists of 10 organic dairy farms that were dropped by “big milk” manufacturer H.P. Hood. This new brand of company will funnel 90% of the company profits directly to the farms as payment for their milk. The remaining 10% will be retained for the business end of the company, which is a joint effort of the Maine Farm Bureau and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.

“This company is not set up to make money,” writes David Bright, Farm Bureau Marketing Committee member and the MOOMilk’s secretary. “It is set up to allow the farmers to make money farming.”

According to Bright, there is an “extremely large demand” for local farm products in Maine and New England, which is working in the company’s favor. “Consumers want it and the retailers are welcoming our milk into their stores.” In fact, several hundred people have logged into their web page – http://MainesOwnOrganicMilkCompany.com to indicate support and pledge to buy the milk, which will initially be available in Maine and New Hampshire.

As for growth, prospects are bright; sales negotiations are in process with Shaw’s and Wal-Mart, and cream, half & half, butter, yogurt, ice cream and other products may become part of the brand in coming years (in the meantime, these by-products will be organically certified and sold into the wholesale market).

Show and Tell: The Future of Food

MOOMilkCo. is an inspiration; a business community that has banded together to make the freshest, healthiest organic product available in a country where huge agri-business doesn’t make it easy to achieve.

Transparency is a vital start: the more people start to think about the origins of their food and ask questions, the better for the organic farmer. After all, organic farming, in its most simple form, is raising crops and animals for food in a way the laws of nature intended.

“I think that in 30 years, there won’t be a difference between organic and conventional foods,” says Wiswall. This hope is already a reality in Europe, where ‘every day,’ store-bought food is what Americans know as organic.

Why is nutritionally inferior food that is GMO-grown and sprayed with synthetic toxic chemicals considered our nation’s “normal” food? Our food – as a matter of course – should all be nutritionally-rich, free of toxic chemicals and GMOs. It is the pure food grown on organic farms; a beacon of hope for the future of our food and the health of our nation.

Laura Klein is the publisher of OrganicAuthority.com and LauraKleinGreenClub.com. She is also the TV Host of Better Living with Laura Klein and The Andrew and Laura Show. She is a passionate organic foodie and promoter of all things green.

Farmers and veterinary surgeons are giving antibiotics to animals often to prevent rather than treat disease, which is contributing to the problem of antibiotic resistance through food, claims a UK organic group.

Antimicrobials are chemicals such as antibiotics used in veterinary and human medicine.

Resistance to antibacterials in animals is rising, meaning that the risk of animal-based food becoming contaminated is higher.   At the same time, antimicrobials are also becoming less effective in fighting human infections.

The Soil Association claims that an over-reliance on antibiotics in farming is resulting from the need to to control potential disease problems in crowded environments:

‘Unfortunately, the congestion problems associated with intensive rearing of animals means that the conditions are ripe for the spread of bacteria among the livestock,’said organic farmer and policy adviser to the Soil Association Richard Young.

He claims that organic systems are designed with the objective of reducing the potential for disease but where antibiotics are used in organic farming there is a long withdrawal period before the meat can be sold for consumption.

Cost pressures
Young told FoodProductionDaily.com that a growing pressure on intensive farmers, chicken producers in particular, to meet consumer and retailer expectation on rock bottom prices is reducing their margins and encouraging the use of drugs so that they can meet delivery times.

“The routine use of low-level antibiotics over a prolonged period in animals rather than a short, sharp one-off treatment is encouraging resistance in livestock,” said Young.

Human medicine
However, Young admits that the widespread prescription of antibiotics by doctors, often unnecessarily in the case of minor ailments, coupled with the fact that patients do not often finish the course, is also causing resistance problems in humans.

But he claims that while doctors are coming under increased pressure to prescribe antibiotics more sparingly to patients, the same pressure is not being applied to farmers.

“No one wants to stop farmers using antibiotics when they are genuinely needed. However, there are a number of very serious problems now developing and the evidence increasingly suggests that food is part of the problem,” argues Young.

Review sought
He is calling for an urgent review of the overall situation followed by clear recommendations to ensure the situation does not reach crisis point.

Young said that consumers should have access to more information, either through pack labeling or other schemes, about the level of antibiotic usage and welfare standards applied in relation to meat products so that price is not the only factor informing their purchase choices.

Regulatory view
The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) panel on biological hazards (BIOHAZ) claims that more needs to be done to ensure that the food we eat does not become a “carrier” for antimicrobial resistant agents which could leave the body open to health risks.

The regulator adopted a redrafted opinion last week which claims that the growing use of antimicrobial agents in food could be damaging human resistance to bacteria.

Alun Jones, senior spokesman for EFSA, told FoodProductionDaily.com that there is a need to keep a close eye on this issue to ensure all potential entry points into the food chain for such resistant bacteria are controlled.

The agency is calling on all stakeholders, including the national food safety authorities, to apply effective risk management in this area.

The Biohaz panel said that controls operated at the pre-harvest phase and those aimed at limiting antimicrobial usage are potentially the most effective and as such are capable of playing a major role in reducing the occurrence of AMR bacteria in food.

In collaboration with Monsanto Chemical Company and California Sea Grant, Hawaii Sea Grant Director Gordon Grau is characterizing the efficacy and safety of Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone in raising aquacultured tilapia.

His research will help gather information essential for determining whether this hormone has practical value in improving production and in reducing costs in the aquaculture of finish and shellfish. Grau’s laboratory has established the recombinant bovine growth hormone does have significant growth-promoting effects in tilapia.

The studies indicate the recombinant bovine growth hormone may have considerable practical value in tilapia aquaculture, and studies are now aiming at developing a practical method for treatment of tilapia fry.

Contact: Gordon Grau, Director, Hawaii Sea Grant, Phone: (808) 956-7031; Email: sg-dir@soest.hawaii.edu

ATLANTA — A new organic baby formula that is sold in the United States has an ingredient that has been banned in Europe. CBS 46 investigated how the formula is still allowed on our shelves.

New mother Renee Ross reached for Similac’s Organic Infant Formula for her son Mekhi’s first meals. In fact, the newborn gift bag she was given when she checked out of the hospital after giving birth to Mekhi had a can of the formula.

“It’s organic, so I figured it should be OK,” she said.

The controversy is over the type of sugar used in the formula: sucrose, or cane sugar. Some pediatricians warn that sucrose can harm babies. Sucrose-sweetened baby formulas are banned in Europe. Experts are concerned about the proliferation of childhood obesity rates, among other health concerns.

“Sucrose tends to be five times sweeter than lactose and too much of any sugar can cause problems, but especially sucrose. There can be problems with dental damage, problems with tooth decay, excessive weight gain, and sucrose tends to make people overeat,” said Dr. Jennifer Shu, a pediatrician at Atlanta’s Children’s Medical Group.

CBS 46 spoke to Similac’s chief medical officer, Dr. Russ Merritt, on the phone. “There’s just no evidence this small amount of sucrose in an infant formula has an adverse effect on health, development or subsequent obesity,” Merritt said.

CBS 46 asked Merritt about their choice for sucrose as a sweetener. “In this instance, we found that the formula behaved better in how it mixes up quickly and dissolves for mothers,” Merritt said.

The sweetener of choice for baby formulas is lactose, which is found naturally in mothers’ milk. But Merritt said that organic lactose is hard to come by, and they wanted an organic formula. ‘”ecause of the demand for organic milk products there is very little lactose available in the market place,” Merritt said.

While the Food and Drug Administration does regulate infant formula, the agency does not determine which sugars can be used by a manufacturer. So CBS 46 called health experts to ask for their thoughts on the use of sucrose as a sweetener in baby formula. The opinions were not unanimous.

A member of the American Academy of Pediatrics that sits on the National Committee on Nutrition said he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with sucrose in formula. He said that when it comes to sweeteners in baby formulas, all sugars are basically created equal.

A pediatric gastroenterologist at Emory University who performs research on the effects of sugar doesn’t think the use of sucrose is a good idea. She says there are too many unknowns.

Local food label expert Kerry McLeod, who looks at the ingredients in food products to determine their healthiness, also weighed in on the matter. “That’s insane,” she said. “You do not want a brand new baby getting the taste of a refined sugar like that. I would absolutely not recommend this to any new mom.”

Shu acknowledged that there’s a lot of conflicting information out there, so it’s best to always talk to your baby’s pediatrician first.  “Anytime there is a large group of people concerned, I think it warrants consideration, and further discussion and research,” Shu said.

Ross said regardless, she will not look at things the same way.  “Moving forward, it’s just going to be about making better choices,” she said.

In late November, Cornucopia staff arranged a meeting with USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight to discuss concerns and problems with the now-implemented mandate requiring pasteurization of all raw almonds grown by domestic producers for sale in the U.S.

For more than an hour, Cornucopia’s two codirectors met in Washington, DC with three high-ranking USDA officials with the bulk of the discussion centered on almonds. Interestingly, we learned that half of all the comments coming into the Secretary’s office at this time are on almonds!

People across the country are upset with the pasteurization plan and want the ability to again buy raw, untreated domestically grown almonds. We want to thank and congratulate all our collaborators on helping elicit such a strong response.

As you know from our website, we have also been asking people to print out, sign and send us a proxy letter that we will to hand-deliver to Washington decision makers. We used this meeting as an opportunity to deliver a stack of well over 1500 letters. It was an impressive moment. And we were told that all of these new contacts will have to be logged in with the thousands of previous public comments received on this issue.

(As more letters continue coming into our office, we will continue to deliver them directly to the USDA, please encourage anyone who has not submitted a proxy yet to download one from our website and send it to us.)

We were asked why there was such a public outcry on this rule with the officials expressing their surprise and amazement at the level of public concern. We explained the diverse desires of consumers, the demands of product manufacturers, and the mounting negative impact of the rule on family farmers and organic farmers who are losing markets and income from the pasteurization plan.

A number of almond farmers have reported to us that they have lots tens of thousands of dollars in sales, experienced higher than expected processing costs, and are seeing store shelves now carrying foreign almonds where their product used to be on display. Some are even worried that they may go out of business. And the large industrial-scale growers – who demanded this plan – are feeling little pain as they sell the vast majority of their product abroad where pasteurization is not required.

We offered a compromise proposal for USDA to consider, one that we believe can help resolve this situation. We suggested that USDA support a plan allowing for the sale of untreated American grown almonds with a warning label. The warning label serves two purposes: it allows for continued freedom of choice in the marketplace and it allows those marketers who want the option of continuing to “pasture as” raw almonds.

Having a warning label is by no means our first choice but might be the only politically expedient option at this point in time and a number of growers and handlers that we have spoken to have supported this compromise position.

The warning label approach is something that is already done for other foods sold in the U.S., such as some fresh, unpasteurized fruit juices. We know that FDA would have to be involved with such a labeling action, but we fully believe that if USDA throws its weight behind the proposal (along with the thousands of consumers and commercial interests who would support this) that such an approach would likely gain approval at the FDA.

USDA officials also questioned us on a second and companion solution — a pasteurization exemption for organic almond growers. The organic sector has not been implicated in any of the past contamination problems associated with almonds. Organic growers have their own set of mandatory protocols and best management practices that are employed in their orchards which substantially lower the salmonella contamination risk.

An exemption for organic growers would greatly diminish the harm that is being caused to these farmers who are losing marketshare to imports. This might be a good fallback compromise position although we are afraid that it will leave many growers and consumers of conventional almonds disadvantaged.

Our proposed solution to the situation was not rejected, but was met with some expression of support. In fact, one of the participants described our meeting as”rather constructive.” We were asked to send the officials a formal letter outlining the specific remedy to the problem, which we have since done.

Clearly for this proposal to gather more support from USDA, it will have to be further discussed and approved of by others at Agency (((you can’t get much higher up than the folks we were talking to and the meeting was sanctioned by Knight))). We were encouraged by what we heard and how the offer was received.

But that doesn’t mean we are going to sit around waiting for their decision. We are building support for a potential legal challenge with attorneys. We made certain that the officials in this meeting knew that we are prepared to go to court and challenge the almond pasteurization rule over its many and unexpected adverse impacts should this compromise proposal be rejected. We tried to impress upon them that time was of the essence in crafting a compromise before going to court.

We are continuing to network with other organizations around the country while gathering more information from farmers hurt by the rule and from retailers and product manufacturers who are shifting to untreated raw foreign almonds to meet consumer demand. And we will be talking with more members of Congress about all of this.

Most of all, we need you to help keep the heat turned-up on the USDA. Please continue sharing with us any information, thoughts, and/or questions that you think would be useful in this campaign.

Because the negotiations with the USDA are at a critical moment we would encourage you to reach out to your members, customers and network of friends and family asking them to download one of the proxy letters from the Cornucopia website and mail it back to us — if they have not already done so. We want a steady stream of these letters delivered to the USDA every week or two until we are finished with the negotiations.

Together, let’s keep the pressure on.

On December 28, 2006, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Draft Risk Assessment on meat and milk from cloned animals.

The FDA concluded that animal cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), “results in an increased frequency of health risks to animals involved in the cloning process.” The CVM found that, “surrogate dams are at risk of complications from birth” and “the frequency of live normal births appears to be low, although the situation appears to be improving as the technology matures.” (1)

Despite the documented negative impacts on animal health, the CVM concluded that, “extensive evaluation of the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

In sum, the CVM concluded that meat and milk from healthy cloned animals are “virtually indistinguishable” from meat and milk from non-cloned animals with no “biologically significant” differences in composition.

Impacts on Organic Agriculture

According to the FDA report, one of the initial technical steps in animal cloning is cell fusion. DNA is transferred from one cell to another. As such, the practice is prohibited in organic production under the National Organic Program (NOP) regulation as an “excluded method.”

Excluded methods, which are not allowed in organic production or processing, are defined as, “a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion” (2)

Animal cloning is not allowed for organic production under the NOP for several reasons. Since cloning relies on cell fusion, it is explicitly prohibited in organic production. Clearly, it is not possible under natural conditions. It is not considered compatible with organic production, since cloning narrows the gene base, while organic production relies on maintenance of a broad and diverse gene pool.

In addition, cloning is dependent on the use of artificial hormones to induce labor of surrogate dams. The use of artificial hormones to induce labor is prohibited in organic agriculture.

Animal Husbandry Issues

During cloning, an animal’s DNA is inserted into an egg, where the DNA has been removed. The resulting embryo is implanted into a surrogate mother, where it forms a genetically identical copy of the original animal.

But even if two animals have identical genes, they can turn out differently if those genes are turned on or off at different times, or are sequenced differently from the original sequence. These unpredictable genetic variations are linked to the high failure rate of cloned animals. Many clones die during gestation or shortly after birth, while some are born with deformed heads or limbs or problems with their hearts, lungs or other organs.(3)

In its report, the FDA admits animal health problems, by stating that “some animals involved in the cloning process (i.e., cattle and sheep surrogate dams, and some clones) are at increased risk of adverse health outcomes relative to conventional animals.”  “Cows and ewes used as surrogate dams for SCNT-derived pregnancies appear to be at increased risk of late gestational complications.”  “There is an increased risk of mortality and morbidity in perinatal calf and lamb clones.”(4)

The NOP regulation requires organic livestock producers to establish and maintain preventative livestock health care practices and accommodate the health and natural behavior of the animals. Breeding practices, such as cloning, that result in “adverse health outcomes,” “increased risks of late gestation complications,” and “increased risks of mortality and morbidity” do not meet the NOP’s proactive health care requirements.

Unlabeled Clones and the Organic Market

While the CVM report concludes that livestock products from healthy clones are likely to be safe for human consumption, the FDA has not ruled on whether or not cloned animals and their products will need to be tracked and labeled.

At a minimum, there should be mandatory tracking and labeling of cloned animals and animal products as:

• The best way to prevent entry of cloned animals and their products into the organic food system;
• The only way to conduct long-term epidemiological studies;
• The only way determine with any level of certainty the effects on human health;
• The best way to protect consumer confidence in the food system;
• The only way to protect consumers’ rights to know about the foods they consume; and
• The best way to protect the interests of conventional livestock producers, who are likely to suffer negative economic impacts from un-segregated products, similar to what has happened with losses related to un-segregated GMO rice.

Introduction of Experimental Technology

While cloning may prove to be a benign technology in the long run, there is no shortage of highly productive breeds and lines of livestock. There is no shortage of meat or milk in the U.S. In fact, meat and milk markets are often depressed due to over-production.

This experimental technology introduces an inherent, and often overlooked, danger — narrowing of the gene base. Biologically speaking, a species’ survival is directly linked to genetic diversity. With a broad and deep gene pool, a species, whether wild or domesticated, is better positioned to adapt to new disease threats and environmental changes. For instance, a species with a narrow gene pool can collapse when animals encounter unanticipated diseases.

The FDA report states, “The Center assumes that if clones were to pose food consumption risks, the only mechanism by which those risks could arise would be from inappropriate epigenetic reprogramming”(5) Despite the fact that many cloned animals die during gestation or develop abnormally due to a misarranged genetic code, the FDA assumes that only those animals which appear to be healthy and normal would enter the human food chain, since they are “virtually indistinguishable.”

The report goes on to state that animal clones can develop with apparently normal functions, but with subtle sub-clinical physiological anomalies. “These could include alterations in key proteins affecting the nutritional content of food and leading to dietary imbalances.”(6) Because these animals appear to be normal, their products would find their way into the human food supply. Tracking of cloned animals is imperative for products from animals with sub-clinical anomalies to be identified and studied.

The concept of cloned animals and their products being “virtually indistinguishable,” is similar the doctrine of “substantial equivalence,” used earlier by the FDA to justify the untracked and unlabeled introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It is not a scientific standard. It is not even a rational standard, since the products of these technologies are proprietary for the profit of their developers. It is an economic and political conclusion weighted to the benefit of the technology companies and based on a favorable, but flawed assumption — the similarity of appearance.

Who Gains from Unregulated Cloning?

In the short-term, the presence of unregulated and unlabeled meat and milk from cloned animals will help further differentiate organic products from un-segregated conventional livestock products. This will likely result in more consumers purchasing organic products.

Corporations who control the technology and proprietary strains of cloned animals will profit through increased dependence of farmers on proprietary sources of genetic material.

The absence of tracking or labeling protects technology companies and users of cloned animals from liability. Without traceability, the determination of harm, should harm occur, is virtually impossible.

The Draft Risk Assessment does not address the potential economic effects of allowing the unregulated use of animal cloning without traceability or labeling. No other country has approved food from cloned animals. Unlabeled introduction of cloning has the potential to seriously diminish consumer confidence, further depressing domestic and export markets for conventional livestock products.

A December 2006 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that 64 percent of consumers said they were uncomfortable with animal cloning, with 46 percent saying they were “strongly uncomfortable.” Likewise, an online poll conducted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune immediately after FDA’s announcement found that 60% of respondents said that they would not eat food products from cloned animals.

Prior to full approval, a comprehensive economic impact analysis must be conducted to examine the technology’s impacts on existing markets for conventional and organic livestock products.

1. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm
2. 7 CFR 205.2 Terms defined. USDA National Organic Program Final Rule, October, 2000.
3. New York Times, December 29, 2006, “F.D.A. Tentatively Declares Food From Cloned Animals to Be Safe” By Andrew Pollack and Andrew Martin.
4. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm
6. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm

Jim Riddle is the Organic Outreach Coordinator for the University of Minnesota and past chair of the National Organic Standards Board.

Bill McKibben
Mother Jones
November/December 2006 Issue

Ten percent of a two-year-old’s nouns are brand names; by the time an American child heads to school, he or she can recognize hundreds of logos. Disney is now putting its cartoon characters on fresh fruit, arguing (perhaps correctly) that it’s the only way to get kids to eat it. If that’s the world we’re born into, is it any wonder we want corporations to solve our biggest problems as well? Isn’t it a parent’s job to protect us? And besides, who else has the capital and the power to do what needs to be done in the face of a crisis like global warming?

Any sign that corporations might be willing to take on the job is greeted with an enthusiasm that borders on delusion. When John Browne, the head of British Petroleum, gave a speech in 1997 admitting that global warming exists, and announcing that business must respond “to the reality and the concerns of the world in which you operate,” people began calling him the “Sun King.” The head of California’s Environmental Protection Agency ventured that “this bold move will set the world stage for other companies to emulate.” BP commissioned green roofs for its filling stations, along with a whole slew of ads touting its vision for a world “beyond petroleum.” And there is every reason to think Lord Browne was sincere — he’d studied the problem, knew it was big, and was willing to buck the rest of the industry in saying so.

Browne was not the only executive thinking aloud about how corporations relate to the rest of the world. His comments came as the debate over “corporate social responsibility,” long a preoccupation for people in fuzzy sweaters, was about to explode into mainstream business culture. The movement has now spawned a booming industry in consultants and conferences; just this summer the World Business Council on Sustainable Development issued a manifesto titled “From Challenge to Opportunity,” filled with pictures of baking deserts and disease-stricken peasants, but also with promises to “seek greater synergy between our goals and those of the society we serve.” BP signed on, and so did everyone from Adidas to Procter & Gamble.

Which is nice. The question is, what does it amount to?

Take BP. In 2004, its revenues from solar power were almost $400 million; its total revenues, almost entirely from hydrocarbons, were $285 billion. In other words, the company has gone beyond petroleum to the tune of about one-sixth of 1 percent of sales (see “It’s Not Easy Being Green,” opposite page). And the news gets worse from there. The leak disaster that led to this summer’s sudden shutdown of BP’s Alaska pipeline turns out not to have been sudden at all. Back in 1992, when a whistleblower raised concerns about corrosion in the pipeline, BP responded with a corporate crackdown that a federal judge said was “reminiscent of Nazi Germany.”  Elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal reports that federal regulators are investigating whether BP tried to influence crude-oil prices using information about its Oklahoma pipelines and storage tanks; in a separate probe, investigators are trying to figure out if BP gamed gasoline prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Meanwhile, the company’s top American executive was cochairman of the Bush reelection campaign in Alaska. Not very far beyond petroleum, that.

There is no question that entrepreneurs with a social bent can do enormous good — especially until they decide to go public or sell out to a larger corporation. And they can do well at the same time, connecting with a reasonably large block of motivated consumers. If I need paper towels, they’re damn well going to come from Seventh Generation. I would probably wear Patagonia jackets even if they weren’t so incredibly warm.

But these tend to be one-off deals. Ben and Jerry didn’t seem to change the way Hagen and Dazs viewed the world. Somehow, Bounty has been willing to leave the thoughtful paper towel market to Seventh Generation. For several decades now, environmentalists have been citing the work of Ray Anderson and Interface (see “The Carpet Cleaner,” Page 56), and it’s a great example — but why is there still only one Ray Anderson?

Often the difficulty is built right into a company’s business model. It makes scant difference whether Wal-Mart starts stocking organic food or not, because the real problem is the imperative to ship products all over the world, sell them in vast, downtown-destroying complexes, and push prices so low that neither workers nor responsible suppliers can prosper. (In fact, Wal-Mart’s decision to sell organic food will almost certainly mean the final consolidation of the industry into the hands of a few huge growers that ship their produce across thousands of miles — not to mention that the people ringing up the organic groceries will still make below-poverty wages and taxpayers will still be footing the bill for their health care. There’s something gross about buying a healthy carrot from a sick company.)

By the same token, though, business models can propel companies forward even if the CEOs couldn’t care less about the planet: Dow and DuPont have cut their carbon emissions by upward of 50 percent this decade, simply because their managers started to pay attention to energy costs and figured out that efficiency went straight to the bottom line.

“Will business save the world?” turns out to be the wrong question. The right question is “How can we structure the world so that businesses play their part in saving it?” And the answer to that, inevitably, is politics.

Some of it is the politics of public awareness. It’s no accident that Vermont and Oregon are hotbeds of do-good capitalism; in these places attitudes have shifted so that conscience pays. Many of us have worked like crazy to get people excited about, say, hybrid cars, and, aided by rising oil prices, the propaganda has begun to succeed.

But mostly we need politics of a more straightforward, and entirely unglamorous, variety. If you want energy companies to rearrange their portfolios so that way more money goes to renewables and way less to hydrocarbons, the best way forward is not to appeal to the CEO’s conscience — it’s to pass laws to push him in the right direction. This is what has happened in Europe, where regulators told car manufacturers last August to cut vehicles’ greenhouse emissions by 25 percent — or else (see also “The Muscles From Brussels,” Page 62). “The car industry should be aware that we are watching the situation very closely,” one official told reporters, adding that the EU “will not hesitate to replace the carrot with the stick.” There’s nothing particularly European about that logic — witness the efforts in the United States of a few bold state attorneys general, who in the face of federal inaction have begun to sue major carbon emitters on their own. They may not win — but the threat of liability has already gotten big polluters to talk about offering voluntary carbon cuts in exchange for legal immunity. In an August report, the investor activist group Ceres quoted a Goldman Sachs analysis that put possible global warming liability on the same scale as the fallout from asbestos. That kind of information will grab a CEO’s attention in a hurry.

Helping corporations do the right thing through regulation — which, it should be noted, also levels the playing field so that a greenish BP doesn’t have to worry about a dirty Exxon Mobile is not exactly a new idea. It’s more or less what we used to do, in the long period from Teddy Roosevelt and the trustbusters on to about the 1980s.

One reason for the shift is the enormous political power of corporations, which they use almost exclusively to boost their own profits. But in a way, you can’t blame them for that. The strange part is how little opposition the corporate agenda meets anymore — how many of us have accepted the ideological argument that as long as we leave commerce alone, it will somehow, magically, solve all our problems. We could compel Big Oil to take its windfall profits and build windmills; instead we stand quietly by, as if unfettered plunder were the obvious and necessary course.

Explaining this mystery may bring us back to where we started. In the childlike enchantment we’ve lived under since the Reagan era, we’ve wanted very much to believe that someone else, some wavy-haired ceo, would do the hard, adult work of problem-solving. In fact, corporations are the infants of our society — they know very little except how to grow (though they’re very good at that), and they howl when you set limits. Socializing them is the work of politics. It’s about time we took it up again.