AlfalfaI don't much like judicial activism, so when I see the Supreme Court do something that I don't agree with, I do tend to get my undies in a bunch. I cannot help but see the new corporatist bent of this Supreme Court. Back in the day, I'd applaud this sort of thing--I am a man of corporations and money. I worship at the altar of the business world. Can I wear a U.S. dollar in my lapel? Can I tell you something--America is best when business is king.
In my old age, I have been confronted with my brilliant grasp of history, law, and ethics. I know these things inside and out. I am master of the collision of politics and law and money. I know of which I speak, and this is not a good thing for the long-term health of this republic:
The Supreme Court has lifted a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, despite claims they might harm the environment.
In a 7-1 vote Monday, the court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds that are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup. Justice Stephen Breyer took no part in the case because his brother, Charles Breyer, is the judge who issued the injunction.
It was the first Supreme Court decision involving genetically modified crops.
It won't be the last time, I gather, since genetically modified crops are the way of the future. This is because we have animals to feed and people to feed, most of whom are overseas. Americans are fed quite well, thank you very much. There's money to be made from the starving masses overseas.
Should we use genetically modified crops? Sure, if they've been tested and won't harm people. This all started because a judge felt that this product hadn't been studied enough. Do you want someone you love to glow in the dark and crap strands of diseased colon? Of course not. The problem here is that genetically modified alfalfa wasn't given an assessment based on how it is combined with a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto. A judge said, no, you can't roll this out until you test how this works. What sane person would have a problem with that? I want Monsanto to make money and I want the alfalfa yield to be higher than it is now. That's good for America.
If you fail to take these concerns into account, you are whistling past the graveyard, sir:
Concerns with Roundup Ready Alfalfa:
1. Increasing Monsanto Control Over Farmers
Like Monsanto's other biotech varieties, farmers who use RR alfalfa will never own the plant or the seed. Instead, they will be leasing a product under a one-sided technology use agreement (TUA) with many restrictions. For instance, Monsanto reserves the right under these contracts to physically inspect (i.e. trespass) and remove crop samples to insure compliance. In North America, Monsanto has a long history of sending "extortion" letters to farmers whose fields tested positive for their other GMO crop varieties, threatening lawsuits if they did not pay for their "use" of the patent.
Herbicide resistant GMO crop varieties are widely perceived by farmers as just another way to encourage dependence on expensive inputs. Predictably enough, the introduction of RR varieties led to a five-fold increase in glyphosate use across the U.S. Because alfalfa is perennial and often grown for 3-5 years in a row, the introduction of RR alfalfa could well increase overall herbicide use - by an estimated 200,000 more pounds per year in California alone.
In fact, Croplan Genetics application guidelines encourage farmers to use Roundup on RR alfalfa even when no weeds are present: “So why spray whether there are weeds or not? Not all of the seedlings established by Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed sources will be Roundup resistant. Up to 10% of the seed will produce none resistant plants. These seedlings are no different than weeds in the fact that they are competing for nutrients, sunlight, water and space; therefore, optimum stand establishment is best achieved by controlling both weeds and non-Roundup Ready alfalfa plants early.”
As with other GMO crops, the promised yield gains and cost savings may not materialize, leaving farmers holding the bag for the higher seed price that always comes with Monsanto's patented technologies. Currently, the tech fee per 50-lb bag of RR alfalfa is $125 east of the Rockies and $150 west of the Rockies. For a typical Midwest farmer, seeding at 12 lbs/acre, this translates into an extra $30 per acre above conventional alfalfa seed prices.
2. Potential Loss of Foreign Markets
An estimated 5% of U.S. alfalfa production is exported - 2.9 million metric tones in 2002 alone worth $480 million. About 75% of this forage market is in Japan where consumer awareness and resistance to GM Os is high. The European Union (EU) is also moving towards labeling and traceability of all GM Os, including animals that consume GMO as part of their diet. It is likely that products derived from animals fed RR alfalfa could be subject to labeling and thus lead to a further decline in U.S. agricultural exports. In fall 2005 Monsanto announced it had already obtained permission for export of RR alfalfa into Mexico, and that it was also negotiating with officials in Canada, Japan, Korea and Taiwan to do likewise.
3. Contamination of Non-GMO Animal Feed
As has been well documented in the case of Bt corn and RR canola, there is potential for "genetic flow" between fields planted with RR alfalfa and other nearby non-GMO alfalfa fields and pastures. Besides wind, insects are particularly good at transporting pollen over long distance, and bees are known to travel several miles in search of alfalfa. Most alfalfa hay is cut after some of blossoms have already produced pollen. Alfalfa allowed to reproduce also yields some "hard seed" that can remain viable in soil for years.
This threat is of special concern to alfalfa seed growers and dairy/livestock producers who stand to lose their value-added markets and organic certification. Alfalfa seed production is concentrated in just a few northwestern states and provinces and could be vulnerable to genetic contamination. For those farmers who rely on managed intensive rotational grazing (MIRG), Monsanto's RR alfalfa offers no real benefits, since a healthy pasture has no real "weeds." In fact, straight alfalfa often yields less fodder per acre than more diverse forage systems.
4. Creation of New Weed Management Problems
The main rationale offered by the biotech industry for introducing RR alfalfa is that it provides farmers with simpler weed suppression. This is in line with the vast majority of genetic research in agriculture (98% according to one recent USDA survey) geared towards making production easier, not necessarily to improve nutrition or protect the environment. While there are currently 90 weeds identified for U.S. alfalfa (with 20 major herbicides applied in response), the actual adverse impact of weed pressure on alfalfa production is debatable and may be mostly limited to just a handful of specialized large-scale alfalfa operations in western states such as California.
As with other GM Os, though, there is a clear danger of "gene flow" between RR alfalfa and conventional alfalfa varieties, as well as between alfalfa and wild relatives, such as sickle medic (Medicago sativa spp. falcate), a common naturalized weed in North America. Given the promiscuous genetic dominance of GM Os, this could mean rapid transfer of glyphosate resistance traits to other plants in the environment.
Those in the business of prairie restoration, as well as many conservationists and officials interested in controlling invasive plants on public and private lands, are concerned that the introduction of herbicide-resistance traits in a perennial like alfalfa could make their job more difficult. As super weeds emerge, chemical control will have to shift to more toxic, persistent, and less desirable herbicides such as 2,4-D and Paraquat.
5. Unknown Environmental and Animal Health Impacts
The fact that alfalfa has a taproot up to 20 feet deep and complex symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria exacerbates the potential environmental consequences. Alfalfa is an important crop in many field rotations, contributing up to 200 kg of soil nitrogen per acre per year. Researchers in Arkansas, though, have found an adverse impact on symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with soybeans after treatment with glyphosate. Scientists have also noted an increase in the presence of the fungal disease, Fusarium, on RR crop varieties. Impacts on other soil biota remain unknown.
Also largely unknown is the impact on animal health when GM Os constitute such a high percentage of the diet. For instance, RR alfalfa would likely be added to a total mixed ration (TMR) for livestock that may already contain Bt corn, RR canola cake/meal, RR soy, and/or Bt cottonseed cake/meal. What impact the addition of RR alfalfa will have on the intestinal flora/fauna in ruminants, their nutritional uptake, and susceptibility to pathogens is poorly understood and deserves further study.
Well, the Supreme Court has finally weighed in, and instead of saying, of course you can't sell or market or distribute something that hasn't been tested, they have shown a corporate-friendly streak a mile wide and they have said that no one should get between profits and safety. Except when it comes to drugs, of course. And consumer products. You know, car seats, and things like that. And food. You can't sell food unless you prove it won't kill people. But this stuff? Cool beans, I guess.
I hope it's safe. I hope it doesn't harm people. If it does, Monsanto will go through something similar to what BP is going through, and that won't make me happy at all.
I lament the populist hectoring of good businessmen. That's why I want good businessmen to do things the right way in the first place. Buying off the Supreme Court doesn't really seem like something Teddy Roosevelt would approve of, now is it?
Seed Newsvine
Wednesday, September 1, 2010 
The delusions of Ed Schultz are beginning to form their own legend:
Norman Rogers
