For almost a year we have been anticipating this. It was one of the specific items that I brought up during the Changemakers contest as to why we needed the grant money. I’m talking, of course, about the ability to syndicate feeds from contributor’s blogs – but not only that – to have it automatic, hands-free, and self-formatting for this blog. Like many a layperson might be able to imagine a genetically engineered plant that they would not know how to transform, setting up this capability was beyond the coding abilities of the geneticists editing this blog. I for one, have learned about html and php through fiddling as a geneticist might make a mutation and study its downstream effects. Although the metaphor may seem backwards, it makes perfect sense to me to see lines of computer code as if they were analogous to genes and not the other way around. But like many genes in a genome database, there’s no easy annotation for special features for blog plugins that don’t yet exist. Rather than wait for natural variation to give something for bloggers to select for, we had to call on the help of an intelligent designer to produce it ex nihilo.

Charles Johnson created the highly versatile plugin, FeedWordPress, which allows you to subscribe to feeds on other blogs to import their posts into your own. It was perfect for a group blog like Biofortified with authors that already have their own blogs to manage, except it imported the whole post without any pleasing front-page breaks. I got in touch with Charles and he agreed to design us a special modification for FeedWordPress that will automatically insert “more” tags where we want them to, after a certain number of words, paragraphs, or where the original break was inserted on the imported post. This took a little chunk of cash from our grant, but that’s what it is for, after all! When we got to arranging the deal, Charles was very quick and thorough and it appears to be working perfectly! While testing it on our near-isogenic testing server, rather than having any errors itself, the modification helped me diagnose errors on the testing server instead! A big thanks to Charles for helping us transform (pun intended) our blog! I fully expect that others will be able to benefit from this modification in future releases of his plugin add-ons.

I just activated the plugin on the blog. Now, David Tribe and Pam Ronald will be able to have posts that they choose cross-post from their blogs effortlessly, and that is only just the beginning. As we gather more regular contributors, we can add more blogs to the syndication roster. I have set up David’s feed, and it has already imported several of his posts. For some reason, the most recent two that he selected have not imported, but that may be because the plugin thought they were already imported. I encourage you to check out one that was missed, on the World Wildlife Fund and its position on GE. I’ll keep a close eye on the continuous update process to make sure his posts are coming through properly in the future. But if you’ll look a few posts below this one, you’ll find some very troublesome news about public grape disease research involving genetic engineering being vandalized in France. It will be great to have the news that David scours from the ‘net showing up here as well!

Pam is also ready to go:  Science Blogs has made a special feed that she can assign posts to that will lead to here. I’m waiting on (hopefully) just one little modification before I set it to blast our blog with her gene gun full of commentary. While you can comment on David’s posts here, comments for Pam’s posts will be sent to her blog.

Happy blogging, and let us know if you see any glitches.

Science Cabaret airs on WICB 91.7 fm, a community radio station in Ithaca NY, every Sunday evening from 7-7:30 pm Eastern time. That means that the interview we recorded on Friday will be broadcast tonight for those who are in the Ithaca area. Tune your old radio wave receiving devices to 91.7 fm, or if you are not in the area or are a grad student buried deep underground in the lab (as is common on Sunday evenings), you can listen to a live stream of the show here.

If you miss the show, we’ll let you know when the podcast version is online.

We also talked about a new super-secret project that we haven’t yet announced here on the blog, as we’re finishing up some accompanying materials that will go along with it. Actually it shouldn’t be that secret as you can find it just by navigating. Maybe you have found it already? If you listen to the show you’ll know where to look. Our discussion also got me thinking about a couple issues which might make it into some blog posts soon. And I’m finally going to get some audio edited and put online to satiate everyone while you wait for the podcast of Science Cabaret on Air.

Also, Jenny works for the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat project at Cornell, so maybe we’ll see a guest post about their work on stopping Ug99 here at Biofortified?

It looks like I am sleepy, but maybe that is because I was looking down toward my interviewer, so next time I shall imagine I am talking to someone much taller, like Shaq. I can understand why they edited out my diatribe about biotech companies plotting to take over the world,** but what about my plug for Biofortified?

* Note: no exchange of currency was involved in this interview. But I think there was a blood oath or a pinky swear in there somewhere.
**Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Supreme Court of the United States (Source: SupremeCourt.gov)

In what (for me) seemed like no time at all, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has issued its ruling on the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case. In a landslide 7:1 ruling (with one recusing), the high court has lifted the nationwide ban on planting genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant alfalfa. What does this mean for GE alfalfa and sugar beet plantings that have been affected by the courts?

Although the social media chatter over the case was mostly characterizing it as crucial to win to “stop” GE alfalfa, it was really more about what the proper course of action is for the GE regulatory process, and whether a court can issue an injunction against planting GE crops while the environmental impact statement (EIS) is being drafted, without having to provide evidence of harm. For more background information, read my previous post about the case. In essence, the court was considering whether the lower court was right in “remanding” the GE alfalfa back to the USDA to determine whether it was ok to plant, while also issuing an injunction preventing them from saying it was ok to plant until the EIS is complete.

SCOTUS ruled that the lower court acted wrongly by remanding and enjoining at the same time.

The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review.

(…)

Most importantly, respondents cannot show that they will suffer irreparable injury if APHIS is allowed to proceed with any partial deregulation, for at least two reasons. First, if and when APHIS pursues a partial deregulation that arguably runs afoul of NEPA, respondents may file a new suit challenging such action and seeking appropriate preliminary relief. Accordingly, a permanent injunction is not now needed to guard against any present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm. Second, a partial deregulation need not cause respondents any injury at all; if its scope is sufficiently limited, the risk of gene flow could be virtually nonexistent. Indeed, the broad injunction entered below essentially pre-empts the very procedure by which APHIS could determine, independently of the pending EIS process for assessing the effects of a complete deregulation, that a limited deregulation would not pose any appreciable risk of environmental harm.

This sort of ruling was suggested by reading the transcript of the hearing – it sounded like they were interested in the double-barrier that the lower court had erected. By sending the alfalfa back to the USDA the lower court was saying that the USDA needed to figure out what to do about the alfalfa and whether it can be planted in the future. But by also issuing an injunction the court was saying that the USDA could not decide what to do according to its procedures unless the EIS is fully complete, which means no partial deregulation, which would be allowing some RR alfalfa plantings to go forward. In a bizarre twist, the lower court also said that farmers currently growing it could continue growing it. So essentially the court was saying that the USDA could not decide to allow some farmers to grow it while the EIS is pending because of environmental risk, but the court could. The SCOTUS latched onto that contradiction in their ruling:

First, the impropriety of the District Court’s broad injunction against planting flows from the impropriety of its injunction against partial deregulation. If APHIS may partially deregulate RRA before preparing a full-blown EIS—a question that we need not and do not decide here—farmers should be able to grow and sell RRA in accordance with that agency determination. Because it was inappropriate for the District Court to foreclose even the possibility of a partial and temporary deregulation, it necessarily follows that it was likewise inappropriate to enjoin any and all parties from acting in accordance with the terms ofsuch a deregulation decision.

And to sum it all up:

In sum, the District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the possibility of planting in accordance with the terms of such a deregulation. Given those errors, this Court need not express any view on whether injunctive relief of some kind was available to respondents on the record before us. Nor does the Court address the question whether the District Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before entering the relief at issue here. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

So what does this mean about GE alfalfa plantings, can farmers just start buying and planting the herbicide-tolerant legume? No, what was lifted by the court was the injunction that prevented the USDA from allowing some farmers to plant GE alfalfa under partial deregulation. The court did not touch on the issue of whether it was right to re-regulate the alfalfa, or on the issue of whether an evidentiary hearing was required. What they did do was determine that the broad injunction was not justified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and is saying that it is up to the USDA to assess whether it can partially deregulate the alfalfa should it choose to do so. Until that happens, no new alfalfa plantings can happen.

The dual remand/injunction nature of this situation has led to a lot of confusion in the first few hours of the news coming out. While the traditional news sources are getting it mostly right as lifting the ban, others are saying almost the opposite. The Center for Food Safety, the anti-GE lawyer group that led the legal battle in the first place, is also calling it a victory! Their statement has been carried through social media networks quickly. They said:

The Center for Food Safety today celebrated the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Geerston Farms, the first genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court.  Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts’ rulings, the judgment holds that a vacatur bars the planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs.  It is a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the Farmers and Consumers it represents.

“The Justices’ decision today means that the selling and planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal.  The ban on the crop will remain in place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and they officially deregulate the crop.  This is a year or more away according to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be subject to further litigation if the agency’s analysis is not adequate,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “In sum, it’s a significant victory in our ongoing fight to protect farmer and consumer choice, the environment and the organic industry.”

In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held: “In sum…the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa) can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made.” (Opinion at p. 22).The Court also held that:

• Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.
• The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.

Uh oh… whenever you see an ellipses (…) check what was removed. Here is the full paragraph:

In sum, we do not know whether and to what extent APHIS would seek to effect a limited deregulation during the pendency of the EIS process if it were free to do so; we do know that the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made. In light of these particular circumstances, we hold that the District Court did not properly exercise its discretion in enjoining a partial deregulation of any kind pending APHIS’s preparation of an EIS. It follows that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming that aspect of the District Court’s judgment.

The court did not rule that no RR alfalfa can be grown, this paragraph says that the court knows what the lower court ruled and its implications. So that’s nothing new. The whole previous section is filled with discussion of what exactly was meant by the lower court’s ruling, so this is a summary of that section. The court did not address whether the lower court was right in sending the alfalfa back to the USDA, from page 3 of the syllabus:

Because petitioners and the Government do not argue other-wise, the Court assumes without deciding that the District Court acted lawfully in vacating the agency’s decision to completely deregu-late RRA. The Court therefore addresses only the injunction prohibiting APHIS from deregulating RRA pending completion of the EIS, and the nationwide injunction prohibiting almost all RRA planting during the pendency of the EIS process.

As if that was not enough spin for the Center For Food Safety to use to declare victory, they also appear to have invented a new part of the ruling that is not even in there.

Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.

The court did NOT rule on what would be required for partial regulation, in fact they emphatically declared that they were not ruling on that issue:

We do not express any view on the Government’s contention that a limited deregulation of the kind embodied inits proposed judgment would not require the prior preparation of an EIS.

(…) [note- you can check my ellipses if you want - nothing important left out]

Because APHIS has not yet invoked the procedures necessary to attempt a limited deregulation, any judicial consideration of such issues is not warranted at this time.(p19)

In fact, the ruling did mention in several places that a partial deregulation would involve an Environmental Assessment or EA (less involved than EIS). Page 9: (emphasis added)

In order for a partial deregulation to occur, respondents argued, the case would have to be remanded to the agency, and APHIS would have to prepare an EA “that may or may not come out in favor of a partial deregulation.”

And Page 10:

Nor is any doubt as to whether APHIS would issue a new EA in favor of a partial deregulation sufficient to defeat petitioners’ standing.

And most importantly, on page

If the agency found, on the basis of a new EA, that a limited and temporary deregulation satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, it could proceed with such a deregulation even if it had not yet finished the onerous EIS required for complete deregulation.

Keep in mind this is not the SCOTUS ruling that an EA is the appropriate action for partial deregulation though they seem to assume it, and they are certainly not saying that an EIS “may be required.” Granted, an EA could be challenged legally, but there is a difference between an EA and an EIS that goes beyond just how they are spelled.

I have left a comment on the CFS website asking for them to point out where in the decision they supposedly rule on this issue, but I expect, as before, that my comment will be moderated out of existence. Here it is for posterity:

Hi, I’m a little unclear about one statement made above about the SCOTUS ruling:
“Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge. ”
My reading of the ruling indicates otherwise – they said on the bottom of page 19:
“We do not express any view on the Government’s contention that a limited deregulation of the kind embodied in its proposed judgment would not require the prior preparation of an EIS.”
They also mention that a partial deregulation would involve an EA, not an EIS. Could you please point me to the passage in the ruling that supports what was included in your post?

Keep in mind, this press release was issued from the same lawyers that lost the case. As Mica Veihman from the Monsanto blog quips on twitter: “Wonder what Center for Food Safety’s statement would have said if the decision were the reverse. Hmmm…..” Still, you can’t fault them for being optimistic, just for making stuff up.

There is a silver lining for their side, however. The court did decide that conventional non-GE farmers and organic farmers have standing to claim that they can be harmed by cross-pollination of GE crops in court even if the cross-pollination has not yet occurred:

For example, respondents represent that, in order to continue marketing their product to consumers who wish to buy nongenetically-engineered alfalfa, respondents would have to conduct testing to find out whether and to what extenttheir crops have been contaminated. (p11)

Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis. (p13)

While you could say they are harmed by doing additional testing, at the same time they are charging more for such ‘verified’ food via the Non GMO Project. As standing was necessary for the merits of the case to be addressed at all, it is a thin silver lining to those that want to use the desire of some farmers not to grow any GE plants at all as a means to prevent others from growing any at all. And the level of risk of harm was determined by the court not to be sufficient for an injunction.

So what other implications will there be for GE crops, like sugar beets? They, too, have been sent back to the USDA for a full EIS rather than just an EA. It appears that although the court in that case did not yet grant an injunction against the sugar beets, the judge indicated it was possible, which this could prevent . It could mean that farmers could continue to grow GE sugar beets under partial deregulation despite the fact that the USDA has to draft an EIS for complete deregulation of the beets. The alfalfa is nearer to approving its EIS than the beets, so as I said before the implications for the beets will probably be greater than the alfalfa.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

It seems that the USDA may change its policy of doing the Environmental Assessment before the Environmental Impact Statement, so if that is the case I doubt many other crops being affected by this sort of thing. Except, perhaps, if the CFS or someone else successfully gets a court to reject an EIS and send it back to the USDA, this ruling could probably affect partial deregulation in that case.

Finally, as a 7:1 ruling, this is not a split-decision “blame Clarence Thomas for working for Monsanto 30 years ago” situation. (Which as a more legally-educated science blogger Ed Brayton confirms is not an issue.) This is an overwhelming ruling against the injunction preventing partial deregulation of the alfalfa, and it could set a precedent for lower courts on how they are able to determine what the USDA can or cannot do. The extreme measures of an injunction were ruled as not warranted in this case, which could affect others.

I hope this clears things up, and while the CFS continues to call their defeat a victory, I don’t think it will actually be added to their list of victories. The ban was defeated, not upheld.

It was so ordered.

More resources:

• Monsanto Press Release
• CFS Press Release
• BusinessWeek
• Reuters (on NY Times)
• Saint Louis Dispatch
• SCOTUS Wiki

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Information purposes only and yadda yadda yadda. Please correct any misunderstandings in the comments.

I’m happy to report that the initial testing phase of the features of this new database has been completed, and I am putting together the final version of our interface both on the front end and the back end. The whole system will work within the Biofortified blog posts and hasn’t necessitated dipping into our extensive war chest. But we will need a little bit of help from you.

Readers will be able to browse and search on the basis of:

• Crop studied
• Type of study (nutritional/feeding/basic genetics/etc)
• Funding (independent/corporate)
• Peer-reviewed or not
• Findings (positive/negative/ambiguous)

On each page, we will have:

• Complete, linked citation (including Pubmed author links)
• Abstract
• Specific funding sources
• Impact factor summary
• Our own summary of the findings and significance of the study
• PDFs when possible (open access, future permissions, etc)

There were a couple other ideas we tossed around such as the study location and special areas that display the title of the journal and link to it (in addition to the links in the citation), but that is making it a bit complicated and we’re trying to keep it simple. If there is some information about these studies that you would really like to see included in this database, please let me know in the comments, as coding is ongoing! We hope to have it online and ready for entries at the end of the week.

Finally, we’re stuck on one important detail: what to call this database? We’ve been calling it the “safety study database” while working on it, however, many of the studies are not, strictly speaking, safety studies. Many of them are studies that compare GE crops to their conventional counterparts (and different genetic modification methods) on the basis of gene expression or other changes. These do have safety implications, but less directly. There are feeding studies, nutritional and biochemical analysis, and research on substantial equivalence. What would you call such a resource? Help us brainstorm!

The first thing that occurs to me in this discussion about the hybrid seed is that there still is a lot of misinformation flying around about it. Beverly Bell, who ‘sounded the alarm’ about farmers supposedly planning to buy and then burn the donated hybrid seed, continues to make stuff up about the situation. While Monsanto never offered to donate GE seeds, Bell claims that the Haitian Agricultural Ministry rejected such an offer. Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association assumes it to be true and expands upon the tall tale:

“Monsanto wanted initially to dump GMO seeds on Haiti, but even the corrupt Haitian government knew that this would spark a rebellion, so Monsanto cleverly decided to dump hybrid seeds instead.”

However according to Monsanto, they never offered GE seeds, ever.

Bell and Cummins both repeat the claim that hybrid seed cannot be saved, or is worthless to save. Also not true. The traits of saved hybrid seed will have a distribution of combinations of their parents’ traits, but will still grow. I would like you to watch this short video which contains an interview with an “Agronomist” named Mark who is taking part in apparent protests against Monsanto in Haiti.

I put “Agronomist” in scare quotes because they profess to having expertise in agronomy and yet they make false statements that a responsible agronomist would not make. Again, he repeats the claim that hybrid seeds cannot be saved, but he also continues to drum up opposition to the seed donation on the idea that they could be GMOs! (Even though the interviewer points out that they are not.)

There is also a very troubling thread of paternalism going on here. After the dire food needs of developing countries, the most troublesome issue as I see it is when people in industrialized nations decide to tell people who are worse off what they can or cannot do. It seems that everyone’s got a vision for the ideal agricultural situation in Haiti – some would like to see them produce enough food to feed the country with hybrid seed, others would like to see them stick to traditional (low-yielding) open-pollinated varieties. Few have mentioned the possibility that Haiti could develop its own local high-producing hybrids down the road. So is everyone just telling the Haitians what to do? No, there is an asymmetry.

The seeds are donated to the nation of Haiti, and will be distributed within the country at a low price to those that wish to buy and plant them. The seeds are not being given out for free, which keeps local seed producers from being driven out of business by having to compete against free seed. No one is forced to grow these seeds if they don’t want to (unless of course you agree that Haiti has a shortage of  seed). And farm inputs to help the seeds grow are also being donated.

The above protest was organized by Mouvman Peyizan Papay (MPP), the organization that Mark the “agronomist” works for. I find it troubling that someone who is conveying false information about hybrids is intimately connected with the initiation of this protest, which means that they could have misled all these protesters with the justification for the protest. (The protest was also apparently against the Haitian president, which is why I called it an ‘apparent protest against Monsanto.’) If they have led the farmers to believe that the seeds cannot be saved, then they have treated these people as mere means to some political or social end, which is wrong.

Indeed, what is the reason for the protest? Is it just to convey the message that ‘We think money would be more help to us than seed and we would like our government to understand that,’ that would be one thing. But I don’t think so. The purpose of this protest may be to stop the hybrid seed donation, which is where the paternalistic asymmetry comes in.

Monsanto is not limiting the choices available to the Haitian farmers by making this donation, however, several well-meaning people and organizations are trying to limit their ability to choose this seed. By continuing to falsely claim that the seeds are genetically engineered, or covering up the fact that the seeds can be saved but just do not breed true, they are also trying to mislead the farmers into rejecting the seed on prejudice.

Developing countries have many different kinds of food and farming systems, and they should be able to choose how they want to do it. I mentioned before that maybe there could be a local hybrid seed economy, with a few breeders specializing in hybrid versions of Haitian crops. (I’m sure that Monsanto would like to open up a Haitian breeding station and sales office  someday as well.) Part of the reaction to this seed donation is the fear of change – that small subsistence farmers in Haiti will be unable to adapt to a changing agricultural system and will be left behind to continue into poverty. At the same time, preventing them from having the option of moving beyond mere subsistence is also leaving them behind in a different way. Haiti imports at least 50 percent of its food, continually leaving them dependent upon foreign aid in both food and money (which the agronomist above preferred). Tariffs and subsidies play a role, but do does local production capacity.

In response to the dependence argument, Ewan commented,

The norms of farming have changed over time – with the advent of hybrids seed saving has become less the norm and more an oddity – this is a trend you’ll often see when a manufacturing process becomes so highly specialized as to require experts to do it – breeders create new hybrids, farmers farm – breeders probably wouldn’t make the best farmers (they’re trained as breeders) farmers probably not the best breeders etc – that’s how any discipline advances, higher specialization leading to a better end product.

Along with the misinformation about hybrids, there has been an upwelling of opposition to the very idea of hybrids themselves. Ronnie Cummins doesn’t like them, people on blogs don’t like em, there are even companies trying to literally bank off of a recent opposition to hybrid seed. But what these people are missing is that although you have to pay someone to produce your hybrid seed (or take special measures to produce them yourselves), the yield or other trait benefits you get outweigh the cost of producing them. Otherwise farmers wouldn’t buy them. Helene who recently stopped by Biofortified said

you want to create “hybrids” (though from what I’ve read Monsanto’s version of hybrids could never occur on their own in nature), fine

In Givin’ props to Hybrids, blogger DeLene writes about a recent paper about hybridization and its demonization as being unnatural. While DeLene is talking about hybrids between species (and animals at that), these perceptions are connected. Hybrids happen in nature, more often than genetic ‘purists’ would like to think.

Finally, the shape of the discussion about the Haitian hybrid seed donation reveals what it is really about. First, when the claim was flying around that the seeds were genetically engineered, that was the reason why the seed donation was bad. Then when that wasn’t even true it was because the seeds are hybrids and that is why they are bad. Now, the discussion is shifting away from hybrids to how the seeds have been treated with common “toxic” fungicides to prevent them from rotting in the soil. The real reason, which will come as no surprise to those who read this blog regularly has little to do with any of those reasons – it is mostly because the donating organization is Monsanto. Look at all the people cheering the symbolic destruction of these seeds on the Non-GMO Project facebook page. You’d think that they would be happy that the seeds aren’t genetically engineered. Nope – it’s entirely about Monsanto.

I for one, think that the seeds should be treated with fungicide. Besides my personal experience with the difficulty of getting non-treated seeds to germinate well in my lab’s nursery field each year, there is a real biosafety reason why seeds donated to Haiti must be treated for fungi: To protect the farms of Haiti from contamination with new strains of crop-eating fungal pathogens that are not native to the island. If any organization is sending seeds grown from crops elsewhere in the world and they are not treating the seeds to kill hitchhiking bugs, they are putting Haitian agriculture at risk. Whenever my lab sends seeds to be grown in our Winter Nursery in Puerto Rico or Mexico, we have to not only treat the seeds, but also include one seed from each packet in a big batch to test for pathogens before importation.

Imagine an alternate situation where Monsanto did not treat the seeds with fungicide – I could easily imagine the opposition claiming that Monsanto is trying to infect Haiti with exotic fungi so that they will become dependent upon them in some other fashion. Does Monsanto have to anticipate every bio-political move and misunderstanding before making a humanitarian gesture? Damned if you do…

I would like to end on one important point. Some people are saying that Monsanto is only doing this for PR purposes. You’ll have to ask them about that because I’m not privy to any motivations other than what they have already said publicly. They sound like they are genuinely trying to help, although people suspect otherwise. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. Monsanto’s intentions do not affect whether or not these seeds will help Haitian farmers. Buy the seeds. Plant them. Grow enough food to feed your family and your neighbors’ too. Thumb your nose at Monsanto and don’t buy hybrids after this again. What matters most is that the people in Haiti have the power to grow what they want and rebuild the food security of their country however they see fit. And if Haitian farmers decide that they like or don’t like these seeds, and choose to grow or not to grow them in the years ahead, that is their choice, not yours or ours. That’s what it comes down to.

I’ll leave the last phrase to Helene:

I think it’s wrong to prevent anyone from having a choice

Previously, I showed how Jim Riddle’s 10 reasons why genetic engineering is incompatible with organic agriculture apply equally well to plant breeding. But many plant breeding techniques are allowed in organic agriculture. So how can these characteristics apply to both breeding and genetic engineering while one is compatible and the other is not? The answer lies in a tangled web of invalid logic and unsound argumentation. It requires not only misrepresenting genetic engineering, it also misrepresents organic agriculture. Let’s go through point by point. (You might need a cup of coffee or a stiff drink)

1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.

Riddle starts off with a convoluted argument here. I have seen this articulated elsewhere and each time I read it it raises the hair on my back where my prehensile tail should be. This is a mangling of evolutionary biology as well as a misrepresentation of organic agriculture. Most of the foods we eat have not ‘evolved with us’, some of them have only been widespread in the human diet for hundreds of years, some less. And thousands of years is still too short of a time span for us to have evolved resistance to everything harmful in what we eat, nor is there a cohesive way to define foods that are perfectly safe and digestible for us as a result of such evolution. Additionally, the only recent human dietary evolution I am aware of is lactose tolerance past childhood, and not everyone has it (I don’t). This came about when a recent mutation gave dairy-dependent populations a competitive advantage over their lactose-intolerant forebears. Even if we evolved tolerances to different foods, they would probably only be in specific populations, too.

So because genetic engineering can introduce a novel protein that we have not eaten before, so too can plant breeding. Case in point: Organic Kiwifruit. This is a recent introduction into our diet, and it has been known to cause allergic reactions. Yet, this is not cause to exclude it on the principle that it brings novel substances into the human diet. Therefore, the presence of novel substances is not a reason to differentiate between what is or is not compatible with organic agriculture. Finally, there is no evidence that GE crops are the cause of any rise in allergies. As for the claim about diabetes and obesity – this is simply grasping at straws.

2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.

As with the allergy claim above, Riddle is confusing correlation with causation when talking about impacts on insects. Even so, the monarch butterfly claim is easily addressed by an authoritative resource published by the USDA. The caddisfly claim is probably based on a flawed paper (debunked here by Anastasia) that did not use proper controls. As for the lacewings, I have not heard this claim before so I had to look it up. It took all of one minute. But the one that I object to more personally as a beekeeper who follows the news is his claim that GE crops may be the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. Here he has not been paying attention to the research that has come out about CCD and is repeating cultural mythology that even Wikipedia debunked years ago. These are the kinds of claims that distract researchers from the real problems that need investigating and delay their solutions.

The fact is, you can use genetic engineering to improve the ecological impact of farming, just as you can with breeding. Some alterations may make the ecological impact worse, while some may make them better. But throwing a blanket of misinformation over the entire technology and generalizing in that fashion does not do anyone justice. Even if the only example of a GE crop was one that harmed the environment, it would not mean that all GE applications will do so. Moreover, organic agriculture is not a guarantee that the ecological impact is superior. Excessive tillage and erosion can and does occur. There are cases where organic farms are worse than their conventional counterparts. Should tractors be banned from organics?

Finally, if rBST would not mesh with organic livestock requirements, then don’t allow rBST. But because something like herbicide tolerant soybeans would obviously not work with organics, that doesn’t mean that Bt corn or cotton can’t.

3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite — an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level – the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.

Let’s not beat around the bush beans. Organic agriculture is an attempt to control nature through trying to set up a more harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem. Since when is plowing the soil with a tractor, spreading composted manure, and spraying crops with Bt-toxin producing bacteria not trying to control nature? Organic agriculture is best described as a more biological approach to farming as opposed to the more “chemical” approach that it was a response to. In that sense, genetic engineering can fit in perfectly. And it can be used to foster a more harmonious relationship with the natural world. Traits such as drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and disease and pest resistance are examples where genetic engineering can (and in some cases has already) benefit farming through reducing their ecological impact. Spreading less manure (or getting more out of it, watering less, and having to employ fewer inputs to control pests and diseases can help organic agriculture do just what it has set out to do. If you say, “well, you can work on those traits with breeding,” then you have already admitted that trying to control the genetics of a plant is compatible with organic agriculture.

Every time a breeder makes a cross between two plants he or she is creating an organism that has never before existed. And every time a breeder crosses two plants, the genetic combination represented by the offspring has never before existed. And that’s how nature, how evolution works – by creating new combinations. If the absence of new combinations was a criterion for organic, then there would be no plant on this planet or breeding method compatible with organic systems.

4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach – know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.

It is very interesting that Riddle includes unpredictable consequences in his list of things that organic agriculture does not have. In some respects such as requiring manure to be composted if it is to be spread on crops that are anywhere near harvesting, there is a measure of precaution in organic agriculture. But in the area of the genetics of plants, the organic rules are in fact contradictory on this note. Let me start by asking you, what is the most disruptive thing you can do to modify the genetics of a plant – the one that has the highest risk of unintended consequences? And is it allowed in organic agriculture?

The answer is not “genetic engineering, and no” – it is “mutagenesis, and yes.” Using radiation or chemicals, you can create random mutations all over the genome of a plant. Then you look at thousands of plants that have gone through this process and pick out some that have interesting traits that you can use. Finally, this trait is bred into the crop that you grow. But along with your desired trait there are many other unknown changes that have occurred in the genome and there is no way of knowing where they are except by sequencing the whole thing. Several studies have compared mutagenesis to genetic engineering in its potential to cause unintended consequences, and GE has always come out looking good. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences compared the risks of unintended consequences between different methods, and concluded that yes, mutagenesis is the worst offender. Mind you, the risks of all the methods they surveyed are low, but if you are going to start drawing lines about acceptable risks, clearly the reason why mutagenesis was ‘grandfathered’ into organic ag and genetic engineering was excluded has nothing to do with relative risks.

We have eaten many foods made from crops that have been modified by mutagenesis, and to no ill effect. The same with genetic engineering. What is interesting is that regular old plant breeding has had its fair share of unintended consequences. That’s why I brought up the potatoes and celery because the old traditional way has caused more harm than the newer methods.

5. Transparency. Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The “substantial equivalence” regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public’s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.

While there is nothing in the Organic rules that mandates transparency at every level, Riddle is making a philosophical point here. And that is that ideally, organic agriculture involves making it easy for consumers (producers, farmers, etc) to know everything about the food that they are eating. Currently in the U.S., labels are not required for foods produced involving genetic engineering when it does not change the nutritional or culinary aspects of the food. It is also not prohibited, either. The FDA even has suggestions for how producers can voluntarily label their products as being ‘produced through biotechnology’ and such. Therefore, you can have complete transparency of foods that are genetically engineered and grown in an organic system.

Let’s imagine that today, the Rodale Institute came into a bunch of money and decided that they wanted to start up a genetic engineering project. They could do it completely open-source, tell everyone what they are doing and how they are doing it, and send the resulting plants to independent labs for additional testing. Riddle is not separating the technology from his views of the current regulatory structure. Perhaps he means to say that the regulations that current crops have gone through does not meet his criteria for what would be necessary, but you could, if need be, add additional requirements for GE crops that will be allowed into the organic system. It is simply not true that there have been no independent tests of GE crops, nor that they are virtually unregulated, either. Just take a brief look at this list to get an idea how much scrutiny goes into these crops.

Plant breeding is almost completely unregulated, and harmful mistakes have been made through just rubbing flowers together and growing what came of those crosses. We have no idea what the breeding history is of any of the produce in the supermarket, whether conventional or organic, so where is the transparency on plant breeding here? Polls have shown that a sizable number of people, (40%) believe it or not, want to know if the plant they eat are hybrids!

I would like to know whether any of the organic produce that comes from California has been hand-weeded (by latin-American laborers) – a backbreaking practice banned from conventional ag – but the Organic sector fought for an exemption. No conventional or organic produce must be labeled with what pesticides it has been sprayed with (And there are organic pesticides.) I daresay full transparency is not a characteristic of any agricultural system we have today.

6. Accountability. Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances, including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers through “genetic trespass,” with no required containment or accountability.

Organic food is a premium market. Before genetic engineering came along, it set itself against conventional agriculture that was largely dependent upon artificial inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. Organic did not want to to have anything to do with that. But like gene flow through pollen, pesticides and fertilizers also have “spillover” effects. Organic agriculture promises its customers that they will make an extra effort to keep these substances from coming in contact with their crops. It would make no sense for a small percentage of organic farming operations to demand that the other 98-99% of farms stop using anything that could ‘contaminate’ their crops and lower their value in a premium market. But that’s not exactly what Riddle is arguing here. Actually, he is arguing something quite bizarre.

This is the formal argument:

A. Organic standards do not permit GE crops

B. GE crops can ‘contaminate’ organic farms through pollen drift, potentially causing harm because they are not permitted.

C. Therefore, GE crops will not work if allowed into the organic standards.

Do you see what the argument is? It is a circular argument. GE crops shouldn’t be allowed in organics because… GE crops aren’t allowed in organics. Note that his objection to gene flow only works while GE is prohibited from organic agriculture. If the standards were changed today, it would no longer be an objection. And as a circular argument, it is also invalid.

Finally, although Riddle does not state that GE is a “prohibited substance,” his wording implies that GE is a prohibited substance in the organic standards – whereas it is actually an “excluded method.” Testing is required only for prohibited substances, too. While there are no maximum thresholds for GE traits in organic fields, without any requirement to keep all genes out or test for them it doesn’t follow that organic farmers are being harmed economically by a low-level presence (LLP) of transgenes. Since Riddle is the Organic Outreach Coordinator for UM, it would be important not to gloss over the distinctions in the NOP requirements, and instead ensure that everyone understands exactly what the NOP requirements are. For an excellent discussion of these distinctions, I suggest reading If your Farm is Organic, must it be GMO Free?

7. Unnecessary. It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.

Healthy crops involve an interplay between the soil, the weather, the genetic potential of plants, pathogens and pests, and the human health aspect involves a further interaction with human physiology, food preferences and how much time you leave yourself to cook. So while organic agriculture often criticizes conventional agriculture for being too “reductionistic,” here Riddle is reducing our health to merely the health of the soil. While some nutrients are elevated (and a few depressed) in some organically grown crops, largely there is little difference between conventional and organic foods. While research should continue on how growing methods can affect nutrient levels (particularly a plant’s response to stress), there is a huge amount that can be gained through altering the genetic potential of the foods that we grow. This can be accomplished through breeding for nutrient content and bioavailability, and where there is little genetic variation for such traits (or pressing need such as beta-carotene and iron-enriched staples in developing countries) this can also be done with genetic engineering. Take a look at my post about enhancing calcium content in carrots and lettuce for an example.

As for soil erosion, herbicide tolerance in GE crops has contributed positively to the adoption of “no-till” agriculture. While organic no-till research is ongoing (I have seen some such plots myself and they do not look pretty to the eyes or by the numbers), soil erosion has been lessened through reducing the need to plow up and disturb the soil. While many anti-GE people argue that it has not, even Charles Benbrook from the Organic Center has told me (in a recorded interview, not yet posted) that he accepts that it has. He also penned that Bt corn and Bt cotton have reduced insecticide applications considerably.

There is nothing about genetic engineering that says that you need to mono-crop on your farm. Furthermore, there is nothing about genetic engineering that prevents a farmer from planting a cover crop after harvest. This is a complete misunderstanding of what genetic engineering is – it is a tool for modifying the genetics of an organism – it is not an agricultural system or a philosophy on how things are to be grown. Just like you can breed a crop for a particular agricultural system (low input, for example) so, too, can you engineer a crop that is appropriate for such a system.

To come back to the issue of Riddle’s “Healthy Soil” reductionism, if it was all due to healthy soil then there would be no need for plant breeding just as he believes there is no need for genetic engineering. Finally, there is no evidence that genetic engineering has lowered the nutritional content of foods – another piece of cultural mythology espoused.

8. Genetic diversity. Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.

Technically, when you insert a transgene into a plant, you are increasing genetic diversity. To my knowledge, there are no prima facie requirements in organic agriculture to increase the genetic diversity of their crops within a species. Nevertheless, there is a tendency in organics toward open-pollinated (OP) varieties that contain a mixture of alleles for different genes. You can create OP varieties from a mixture of genetic stocks, and there is nothing about genetic engineering that dictates that you cannot include transgenes in an OP variety. If you were to do that with genes still covered by Monsanto patents you might run into a legal problem with breeding your own Bt sweet corn variety, however when those patents run out (first one will run out in 2014) there is nothing preventing you from doing that. But aside from GE traits that are currently commercialized, traits that benefit OP varieties could be developed through genetic engineering, or traits that benefit any variety can be incorporated into an OP variety.

Not all genetic variation is good. As I pointed out with breeding, the point of artificial selection is to eliminate bad traits. You do not want variability in important traits like how well the plant grows or whether it tolerates various stresses that impact the plant. You do want genetic variation in other genes that may give your population a degree of robustness. Imagine a bag of grass seed that you buy from the grocery store. Many of you may not know this, but these bags of grass seed may have a diverse mix of different species (usually 3) that thrive in different conditions (wet/dry, sun/shade) so that no matter how varied your yard is, you still get a full lawn. Sometimes they can have grass seeds from the same species that simply have genetic diversity for these traits. But some kinds of diversity you don’t want might be grass that grows to different heights or different shades of green. You definitely do not want genetic diversity of that kind.

Organic growers may want to go for this kind of robustness in OP varieties simply because they don’t have the insect, pest, and disease controls available to conventional growers, but there is no such requirement in organic rules. You can have a farm that grows a single genetically identical hybrid variety of corn and call it organic. Many probably do.

GE crops, as I learn more about how the system works, are not genetically uniform across the country or the world. GE traits are licensed out to different seed producing companies, and depending on the details of those license agreements they may be combining those GE traits with the genetics of corn, soybeans, or cotton that is adapted to different regions or contain other useful traits. It has been claimed that GE crops reduce genetic diversity – but to my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed scientific paper that supports this claim. So Jim Riddle’s description of genetic engineering’s effect on genetic diversity is at the least false on its face and at the most a mere hypothesis.

So on this argument we have seen that not only were the premises false, the logic was unsound. Because if increasing genetic diversity was required in organic agriculture, then any plant breeding that reduces that diversity would be incompatible with the system. (BTW, a recent paper examining the genetic diversity of 8 crop species over the last century has revealed that the regional genetic diversity has not gone down, so breeders, you’re doing it right!)

9. Not profitable. According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.

This is often a claim made by opponents of genetic engineering, who suggest that farmers that grow them lose money. One or two studies may be cited in support of this claim, ignoring many other studies that say the opposite. The truth is, whether or not you make more or less money growing (current) GE crops will depend on the unique situations that your farm presents. If you have lots of weed pressure, herbicide tolerant crops will probably make you more money. If not, you won’t get anything for the higher price of the seed. If corn borers and rootworm beetles are running rampant in your area, “stacked” GE corn would help you reduce your pesticide costs and raise your yields (even The Organic Center and the UCS agree on that). But if you don’t have those problems you might be wasting your money.

You don’t need to know all these things to understand that farmers are making money planting GE crops – the mere fact that the adoption levels are so high and are stable means that farmers are benefiting from them and a large part of that is probably due to profit. For those who are unsatisfied with shooting from the hip like that (as I am), the National Academy of Sciences just release a huge report on the impacts of GE crops, and one of the areas they examined was profitability. What did they conclude?

Many adopters of genetically engineered crops have experienced either lower costs of production or higher yields, and sometimes both.

Read the report, it’s over 200 pages of science goodness. So it seems that farmers can make more money if they carefully choose GE crops that benefit them.

Finally, Riddle’s claim that GE crops has lowered the profitability of farms rests on poor logic. Because organic farms may make more money than conventional farm as a whole does not mean that the use of genetic engineering by conventional farms is the cause for that disparity. That is not even a valid claim.

10. No consumer demand. Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over 275,000 people said “no GMOs in organic,” in response to the first proposed organic rule in 1997. “Organic” is the only federally regulated food label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.

Given the fact that many leaders in the organic community use fear of genetic engineering to try to get more people to buy organic, it would come as no surprise that there isn’t much support for GE among organic consumers. But if you polled consumers about whether they wanted their produce to have their genetics altered through breeding and hybridization, how many would stand up and say ‘Yes!’? If you instead asked consumers whether they wanted their produce to taste better, be healthier, more colorful, cheaper, have fewer pesticide residues, etc, you might find more support.

Indeed, there are many things that consumers are looking for that genetic engineering can help provide. For instance, there are several examples of traits that enhance healthful aspects of lettuce, carrots, tomatoes, rice, and soybeans. The first health-oriented (and thus consumer-oriented) crop will soon be commercialized in the US, a soybean that produces Omega-3 fats in its oil. We may soon find a cultural collision occurring among the more health-oriented consumers.  As Organic agriculture continues to claim health benefits, a portion of their market is probably buying it because they think they will be getting more nutrients. There will be people forced to make a decision between a perception of health benefits from organic production and demonstrated health benefits from future GE crops. They may look at an Omega-3 soy product and wonder why it cannot also be organic?

When Anastasia and I met with Michael Pollan back in January, this is one of the things we talked about. And Michael said that he believes that such consumer-oriented traits are going to shift public opinion to accept GE crops. When consumers are more confident in the benefits of such traits, will organic agriculture begin allowing the certification of GE crops grown organically to meet that demand? Will Jim Riddle change his position based upon mere demand?

And does that mean that there must be demand for organic pesticides from consumers before they are approved?

Conclusion

Jim Riddle’s article for the Rodale Institute has gotten some attention, and put forward some arguments why he thinks that genetic engineering is not compatible with organic agriculture. I have demonstrated that not a single one of these ten arguments is adequate for justifying why some genetically engineered traits could not be included in an organic system, and indeed, that these reasons as given can also be used as reasons to exclude even basic plant breeding from organic agriculture. I have shown that most of these arguments are based upon misleading or factually incorrect premises, and/or invalid logic.

Debunking Jim Riddle’s arguments is one thing, but he could always decide to make different ones. Indeed, I invited him to be a part of the discussion in the first post, which he declined to do, but he did say this:

When I said “organisms that have never previously existed in nature” and “novel genetic constructs,” I was referring to corn with bacteria genes and all other transgenic organisms that could otherwise never exist, without listing every such example. I did discuss the unintended impacts of Bt corn, which are the result of inserting the gene for Bt toxicity into every cell of the corn plant, which is something that has not and could not occur through natural or traditional breeding.

My entire article focused on why transgenic organisms are not compatible with organic production, so I see no need to outline my concerns further.

So now we get to the real argument. I’m sure that you could detect it as an undercurrent in many of the ten arguments that he gave. Many of them depended entirely upon this argument, and by not bringing this objection to the forefront it is preventing us from actually getting to the real arguments, and we spend all our time talking about mere cursory arguments. Allow me to venture a guess as to the real reason why the organic sector is against genetic engineering in agriculture, but it comes as no surprise why it did not ‘officially’ make Riddle’s list, because it is a silly argument. Are you ready? Here it is:

Genetic Engineering just isn’t “Natural!”

And of course, neither are tractors, plows, computers, refrigerators, or anything else that humans make that are perfectly fine to use on organic farms, or with organic food. Naturalness is not a property of matter, it is a description of the process by which is was generated, that exists only in degrees, not absolutes. As proponents of organic agriculture rightly argue that humans are a part of the natural world and should not consider ourselves independent of nature, to claim that what human beings do is unnatural depends on excluding human beings from nature. You could say that it is only natural that humans do genetic engineering, as we seek to improve our lives with science and technology. Indeed, gene transfer happens between species in nature as well – it is called Horizontal Gene Transfer – apparently Nature has no respect for the “natural” integrity of species boundaries.

Jim Riddle spent his entire article that was supposed to be about why transgenic organisms are incompatible with Organic Agriculture not even talking about why specifically transgenic organisms are incompatible. Why specifically are new proteins introduced by transformation not allowed, while introducing many unknown proteins through wide crosses are allowed? So we are left still without a rational reason why they shouldn’t be allowed. And it took evaluating ten bad reasons to get to it. I think Jim Riddle does need to outline his reasons further, don’t you?

We need your help, Jim

Granted, Jim Riddle’s article is written for the Rodale Institute, and does not represent the opinion of the University of Minnesota, but his position as the UM’s Organic Outreach Coordinator is important to bring up. He has chosen to educate the public about organic agriculture as a career, and while trying to defend this important agricultural system from a perceived threat, has made several misrepresentations of that very agricultural system. In the discussion over genetic engineering in agriculture and the potential of integrating it into organic growing systems, we desperately need the help of those who are knowledgeable about organic to faithfully represent this form of agriculture.

And we need people who have such know-how to freely admit that there are ways that genetic engineering and organic can work together to improve agriculture, even if it goes against current regulations or personal misgivings. If there is a rational justification for excluding genetic engineering from organic agriculture in principle, then we need to see the real arguments and not invalid post-hoc justifications.

Stay tuned for part III in which I will discuss the enormous error that every response to the idea of GE/Organic has made and what critics need to respond to… or ultimately agree.

Also, thanks to Anastasia Bodnar for taking a look at this post before I hit “publish!”

When I read the news a few weeks ago I was at first puzzled, and then inspired. Jim Riddle, Organic Outreach Coordinator for the University of Minnesota, wrote an article for the Rodale Institute outlining 10 reasons why genetic engineering is incompatible with organic agriculture. This is one of the issues that we tackle quite often here at Biofortified. So here are his ten reasons:

1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.
2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.

3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite — an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level – the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.

4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach – know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.

5. Transparency. Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The “substantial equivalence” regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public’s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.

6. Accountability. Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances, including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers through “genetic trespass,” with no required containment or accountability.

7. Unnecessary. It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.

8. Genetic diversity. Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.

9. Not profitable. According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.

10. No consumer demand. Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over 275,000 people said “no GMOs in organic,” in response to the first proposed organic rule in 1997. “Organic” is the only federally regulated food label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.

Convinced? I considered that maybe he is right. Furthermore, as I continued to think about it, I could only conclude that plant breeding itself is incompatible with Organics as well. You know, rubbing two flowers together. I will now outline 10 good reasons why plant breeding is incompatible with Organic Agriculture. You might notice some similarities.

1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. Bred crops and foods are comprised of novel mutations and combinations of genes which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food.

2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of genetics-based plant breeding, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between monocultures and colony collapse in honeybees. Crop residues have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems.

3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Plant breeding is based on the exact opposite — an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level – the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature. Every time a breeder makes a cross between two plants he or she is creating an organism that has never before existed.

4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach – know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, breeding of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Potatoes and celery touched by the hands of plant breeders have caused documented skin and health problems in consumers and farm workers.

5. Transparency. Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial breeding is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary breeders rights for corporate profits. The almost complete absence of a regulatory framework has allowed the breeding industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of “artificial selection” labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public’s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.

6. Accountability. Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances. When a plant breeder creates an organism that has not existed before and releases it into the environment, its genes know no boundaries and can contaminate organic crops. Novel or untested (and unknown) genes in wild relatives can infiltrate organic fields by “genetic trespass” and no one – absolutely no one is accountable for this genetic drift.

7. Unnecessary. It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, plant breeding has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as breeding, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.

8. Genetic diversity. Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Plant breeding has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping varieties. Although plant breeders may start with more diverse stock, the breeder purposefully selects only the genetics that they “want” to see in the field. By selecting beneficial traits they are reducing genetic diversity and thus plant breeding should not be allowed to happen in organic agriculture.

9. Not profitable. According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of conventionally bred varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.

10. No consumer demand. Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be subjected to breeding. In fact, there is a growing demand for “wild” foods that have not had their genetics altered by fallible human beings. By incorporating conventionally bred crops into organic agriculture, we would be further eliminating the consumer’s ability to choose these more “natural” foods. There is no public poll which indicates that consumers of organic (or conventional for that matter) foods desire to have the genetics of their crops altered by plant breeding.

It is entirely clear that “conventional breeding” is just that – breeding for conventional agriculture and not for Organic systems. There can be no compromise on this issue, and this is not a drill.

Okay this is a drill.

Evaluating Jim’s Riddle

If you’ve made it this far, you will no doubt notice that it is virtually identical to mine. Yep, a lot of cutting and pasting was involved. Actually, no, not a lot. I added some more information to some of them, some more depth and historical examples in one case. What is accomplished by rewriting his arguments in this fashion is that if they make sense, then the logic transfers over and you must either accept the new conclusion – or – reject the first one.  But banning plant breeding from organic agriculture is absurd, and I’m sure that Jim Riddle would agree. Therefore, his article presents a riddle: how can these characteristics apply to both breeding and genetic engineering while one is compatible and the other is not?

Discuss, and stay tuned for part II – wherein I take a hard look at Riddle’s arguments.

*Orgenic (Or-gene-ick) refers to the idea of combining Organic agriculture with Genetic Engineering.

Observers filing through to see a portion of the hearing. photo credit: Monsanto via Twitpic

There is certainly a lot of commotion about the first ever US Supreme Court hearing involving genetically engineered crops, which is being held today. The case is Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms, (SCOTUS Wiki) and depending on how this turns out, it could mean the end of genetically engineered alfalfa forever or the eventual destruction of all organic dairies, right? Well, no. So what is the court case about?

The court case is not actually about GE alfalfa, although this legal battle began with alfalfa. In 2006, several groups joined together led by the Center for Food Safety to sue the Secretary of Agriculture over the deregulation of roundup-ready alfalfa produced by Monsanto. The USDA had conducted an Environmental Assessment according to its GE crop approval policies and concluded that there were no big issues that they needed to investigate further. If they had found any in the assessment they would have moved on to the much more involved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The court case over GE alfalfa was decided in 2007, with US District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer saying that the USDA should have done the full EIS, and placed an injunction on future plantings of GE alfalfa until such an EIS is conducted by the USDA. Farmers already growing the alfalfa could continue to grow it.

Since then, the case was appealed a couple times by Monsanto, leading up to the Supreme Court. The case is not about the specifics of alfalfa cross-pollination, organic farms, or export markets – it is actually just about the specific details of what is required to grant an injunction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At one point, an evidentiary hearing was part of the short list of issues, but that has been dropped and this is what we have left:

(1) Whether plaintiffs under the National Environmental Policy Act are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction; (2) whether a district court may enter an injunction sought to remedy a NEPA violation without conducting an evidentiary hearing sought by a party to resolve genuinely disputed facts directly relevant to the appropriate scope of the requested injunction; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it affirmed a nationwide injunction that sought to remedy a NEPA violation based on only a remote possibility of reparable harm.

So while this is a case involving GE alfalfa, in many ways it is not even about genetic engineering. I had an hour-long conversation with one of the lawyers that filed an amicus brief (in favor of the anti-GE side) and learned a bit about the process and the issues involved. Essentially, it is over whether a court can grant an injunction (based on the NEPA) without presenting evidence of future harm, or even relying on remote possibilities. I would like to point out a few interesting observations I have made about this case and what it will mean or how it is being presented by either side.

First, this will very likely not matter very much for GE alfalfa. The injunction that prevents planting new stands of Monsanto’s forage will be lifted when/if the USDA approves the new draft EIS, which was completed in November 2009. What did they find? Well, pretty much the same thing as the original Assessment, just 1476 pages long. If Monsanto loses the case, the EIS may go through and the alfalfa gets approved again. If Monsanto wins the case, the injunction is lifted and farmers can plant GE alfalfa again while waiting for the EIS. So while some people have framed the case in terms of “stopping GM Alfalfa” it will probably not ‘stop’ the alfalfa at all. One of these two paths to approval may just be slower than the other.

Second, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Monsanto, then that may have profound implications for the GE sugar beet situation. The same process of EA —> injunction —> EIS is playing out, and if I understand the legal issues involved, the greater effect of this case will probably be that it could allow GE sugar beet plantings to continue. (There was apparently a bentgrass field trial affected by something similar, too.)

Third, there is talk at the USDA about requiring all GE crops to undergo an EIS right from the start, and if that is the case, then it may not matter much for future GE crop regulation. I think there will be greater implications for other cases involving the NEPA, but I do not know enough about it to have any prediction of which result would be good or bad. The idea of requiring evidence before action is appealing, but I suppose I could find an example where we don’t have evidence and we would want to pause and conduct further research before continuing. How would the (near-zero) likelihood of the Large Hadron Collider causing a black hole fare under either outcome if someone wanted to stop its operation? (If it was in the US, that is.)

There has been a slough of amicus briefs filed in support of either side, and I think it is kind of funny that each side only mentions the briefs filed in their favor. The Center for Food Safety’s “full list of amici” has only their own supporters in the list. (The same with Monsanto’s press release) The SCOTUS Wiki has everything.

Interestingly, one of the amicus briefs written by the Union of Concerned Scientists clearly states that GE crops have increased yields (3-4% in corn), while the Center for Food Safety’s page states that the UCS report found they have not. I left a polite comment on this page last week pointing out that the report Failure to Yield did in fact estimate a yield increase, and while I could see that comment for several days pending moderation, I no longer see it. It may have been deleted. Does the UCS know that the CFS disregards their research findings – even when they put those findings in an amicus brief filed in favor of the CFS?

It is also interesting to note that the Consumers Union poll that was misrepresented by the CU itself has also made it into some of these briefs as evidence that organic consumers would reject “contaminated” organic foods and that farmers would lose their markets. In reality, the biased poll showed the opposite – that most organic consumers do not care or care little. The lawyer I talked to that filed one of the briefs, however, did not read the references used as evidence in the brief, and was only representing the interests of their clients (Also had no personal stake in the outcome). So take the statements about genetic engineering in these briefs with a grain of salty soil.

A lot has been written about alfalfa and markets and such in the amicus briefs, and it is possible that the justices could decide to rule on things that are more specific to GE crops, such as who has authority in deciding what is appropriate regulation of crop releases.

Finally, I would like to comment on one of the controversies surrounding the justices themselves. Justice Breyer has recused himself because the judge that issued the ruling in 2007 was his brother. That’s a pretty cut-and-dry conflict of interest. However many anti-GE individuals have been calling for Clarence Thomas to also recuse himself from the case because he used to work for Monsanto… 30 years ago.

I know of no case where working for an organization for a few years (1976-79) would be a conflict of interest after 30 years of time has passed (Now 31). My entire life isn’t even that long. I do not think that Thomas should have recused himself from the case (and he didn’t) because of the huge amount of time that has passed. It’s different people, a different company, and different issues.

The calls for his recusal instead stem from an analysis of Thomas’s politics and his assumed likelihood of ruling in favor of Monsanto. The court is split 5-4 on the conservative-liberal continuum, and Breyer was one of the liberal justices. With his recusal, that would make it 5-3, which worries the anti-GE folks. When I attended Zelig Golden’s talk at the MOSES Organic conference (former CFS lawyer whose name is still on the case), he talked about this worry as well, specifically mentioning the political split. However, genetic engineering in agriculture, despite their best efforts, is not a very politically polarizing topic. Predominantly liberal groups that oppose GE crops have been trying to link it to G.W. Bush and G. H.W. Bush policies, while Clinton and Obama do not appear to be very different. Heck, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, is an advocate of GE crops. So to base demands for Thomas’s recusal on a political analysis is problematic.

Indeed, as some of the interests that are against GE alfalfa are businesses themselves, the CFS might find Thomas deciding in their favor. Even some who call for his recusal point out that his vote is not automatic. And I’ll be the first to say that I have an immense distaste for Clarence Thomas’s politics, particularly his views on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, Abortion, etc. But these are not good reasons to justify his recusal from cases involving those issues, as much as I would want him to.

I am no legal scholar or historian, but it seems to me that if conflicts of interest are to stretch back to employment that is older than three decades, it will reduce the ability of the highest court in the land to do its job considering that each justice is a lawyer and has worked for lots of places, and know a lot of people. How many years since employment is too close for comfort, anyhow? Have Supreme Court Justices recused themselves for more years, or not recused themselves for fewer?

One of the important things that the court does is discuss and deliberate amongst themselves, and needlessly excluding voices from that discussion reduces the number of innovative legal solutions that the court can offer. While this case may set legal precedent for other NEPA cases in lower courts, this debate over 31 years since employment as a conflict of interest risks setting a social precedent that could harm other cases as well.

Mica at Monsanto has also commented on the case, and here is the first Associated Press article about the hearing. Scuttlebutt in Twitter is that the Supreme Court is “going down a disastrous path” by suggesting that the USDA should be in charge of GE crops. Outrageous! Let the dire predictions begin.

The case is expected to be decided in early June.