Rapid City Journal
By Adrea J. Cook
After years of opposing the expansion of Roundup Ready alfalfa in South Dakota and across the nation, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s endorsement of a Congressional effort to release the genetically modified perennial for fall planting frustrates alfalfa grower Pat Trask of Elm Springs.
“It’s a frustrating disconnect when one’s congressional representative becomes an advocate for re-motivating the federal APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) agency to go back in and do something that was just defeated in the Supreme Court,” Trask said.
Trask was in Washington, D.C., last April when the Supreme Court heard arguments on a federal court’s permanent injunction banning the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa. He has been an opponent of herbicide resistant alfalfa since Monsanto released the genetically altered perennial.
The genetically modified forage has the potential to destroy the certified organic and conventional alfalfa industry because it will genetically contaminate and alter those crops, according to Trask.
Herseth Sandlin is one of 75 members of Congress who recently sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asking USDA to craft rules permitting the fall planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa while USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service completes an environmental impact statement on Roundup Ready alfalfa.
“By increasing production capabilities and providing low-cost feed options, genetically modified crops such as Roundup Ready alfalfa can help South Dakota’s producers and benefit our agricultural economy,” Herseth Sandlin said in an email response. “I have heard from a wide range of alfalfa and dairy producers in our state who rely on Roundup Ready alfalfa to maintain their competitive edge.”
The bi-partisan letter was signed by several ranking members of the House Ag Committee and 25 other members of the Ag Committee.
Vilsack also received a letter bearing the signatures of 56 congressional lawmakers encouraging him not to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Both letters followed a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a permanent injunction banning the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed until the environmental impact statement is completed.
Trask was involved in the initial federal lawsuit against USDA that ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court.
Producers and seed dealers are “victims of Monsanto’s deception” about what the Supreme Court decision really means, Trask said.
Roundup Ready alfalfa is part of an arsenal of glyphosate-resistant crops Monsanto started marketing through Forage Genetics in 2005.
Glyphosate is an herbicide used for weed control on cropland. Monsanto pioneered the development of Roundup Ready food crops. By growing crops that are genetically resistant to Roundup, producers can use the herbicide to control weeds in their crops.
The introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa was heralded by some agricultural organizations and producers as a safe, cost-effective alternative for improving hay yields.
Trask and Oregon alfalfa seed producer Phil Geertson, along with the Center for Food Safety, and others filed the initial lawsuit against USDA after it deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa.
More than 200,000 acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa were planted after the deregulation. The genetically modified forage was planted in 48 South Dakota counties, but exactly where is closely protected information. Alfalfa growers have limited access to information on the location of fields within a five-mile radius of their fields, but the information is not readily available to the general public.
Planting of the genetically engineered perennial has been on hold since a northern California federal district court judge issued a permanent injunction in 2007 prohibiting the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed until the environmental impact statement is completed.
At that time, the judge said USDA violated the National Environmental Protection Act by deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa before completing the environmental impact statement and vacated, or voided, the deregulation.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, but USDA appealed the injunction and Monsanto, an international leader in agricultural biotechnology, intervened in the appeal.
The commercial harvesting and sale of seed is an integral part of Trask’s Elm Springs farm and ranch operation.
Trask and Geertson have a different perspective on Roundup Ready alfalfa. Their concern is also shared by others opposed to genetically modified organisms.
When the USDA deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa, Geertson warned Trask that if its planting and production were not stopped, the production of conventional alfalfa seed industry and organic industry would be gone immediately and permanently.
Unlike other Roundup Ready crops, Roundup Ready alfalfa is a perennial plant that emerges every year. In addition, alfalfa relies on cross-pollination usually by bees or the wind to produce seed. Preventing the cross-pollination of Roundup Ready alfalfa with other alfalfa varieties is not realistic, according to Trask.
“Containment of gene flow is virtually impossible,” Trask said.
A Monsanto spokesman said Tuesday that Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, another producer of alfalfa seed, support USDA taking steps that would allow alfalfa growers to resume planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa as soon as possible.
“Forage Genetics and Monsanto have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed available to deliver to farmers as soon as seed sales are allowed,” Tom Helscher said.
Contrary to some reports, the Supreme Court decision did not open the door for the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa, according to George Kimbrell, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety.
“The only thing that was at issue in the case before the Supreme Court was what, if anything, was going to be done with Roundup Ready alfalfa while the USDA did the environmental impact statement,” Kimbrell said.
“The fact that they had to do this rigorous environmental review of potential harms to the environment and farmers was not appealed by USDA or Monsanto,” Kimbrell said. That was the first ruling made by the lower court in 2007, he emphasized.
USDA expects to complete the environmental impact statement next year, Kimbrell said.
Monsanto appealed for the right to permit continued planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa while the environmental impact statement is being completed.
“After the decision, the most important thing is nobody’s planting Roundup Ready alfalfa, they couldn’t plant it before the decision,” Kimbrell said. “It’s still illegal to plant it.”
However, that doesn’t mean they won’t be planting it in the future, Kimbrell said.
USDA could, if it wishes, issue interim rules that would allow regulated planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa between now and the completion of the environmental impact statement, he said.
“They’ve given no indication that they are going to do that,” Kimbrell said.
“Whatever is going to happen with the future of Roundup Ready alfalfa is going to be determined by that environmental impact statement,” Kimbrell said.
The Supreme Court made it very clear that should the USDA decide to do something prior to the completion of the environmental impact statement, the alfalfa growers and their supporters have the right to challenge that decision for compliance with environmental law, Kimbrell said.
That decision will have to wait for USDA’s next step, Kimbrell said.
And, while everyone waits to see if USDA will issue interim rules in time for the fall planting, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s subcommittee on Domestic Police held its first hearing on July 28 to take testimony on the spread of superweeds – glyphosate-resistant weeds.
Contact Andrea Cook at 394-8423 or [email protected].
