By Michelle Venetucci Harvey
As of a recent court hearing, a
multinational biotech company feels threatened, thousands of farmers in
the Pacific Northwest see impeding doom, and half of the US sugar
industry is potentially depleted. What could be causing all this
ruckus? The sugar beet.
This month’s ruling
by US District Judge Jeffrey White halts the use of
genetically-modified (GM) sugar beet seeds until an environmental
impact study (EIS) can be conducted. The GM crop is resistant to
Roundup, a Monsanto-produced herbicide, which allows farmers to spray
herbicides on their fields without damaging crops. (The ruling doesn’t
impact sugar beet crops that have already been planted this season, but
will potentially inhibit new plantings until at least 2012, when the
study might be completed.) Sustainable food advocates are ecstatic while Monsanto is looking at a potential loss in the billions, but Pacific Northwest farmers are caught in the middle.
Introduced back in 2005, sugar beets had the fastest adoption rate
of any GM crop in the United States; 95% of the sugar beets in the
United States are now GM crops, and beet sugar accounts for half of the
sugar in the country. Many sugar beet farmers are concentrated in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and almost all of the seed comes out of
Willamette Valley in Oregon. Farmers are worried that there are no
longer enough conventional seeds and herbicides in storage to replace
all the GM seeds currently in use. It’s not a surprise that they are uneasy with the court decision, since they may struggle to sustain their crop yields without the GM sugar beets.
This lawsuit stems from organic seed producer Frank Morton in
Oregon, who was afraid his crops would be contaminated by nearby GM
sugar-beet seeds. In a struggle reminiscent of David and Goliath,
Morton has fought against the threat to his business posed by the
rapidly spreading use of GM seeds. Contamination of his crops could
happen if his sugar beet plants are fertilized with GM pollen carried
by wind from nearby fields, seed cleaning facilities, or even passing
trucks (It also doesn’t help that Monsanto’s GM seeds are patented,
which means the company can sue farmers for unlawful possession of
Monsanto property if land becomes contaminated, even accidentally, with
patented seed). Not only would contamination render Morton’s crops
inorganic and technically Monsanto property, but there are worrisome
accounts of Roundup resistant weeds developing across 22 states.
Morton has been working with the Center for Food Safety since January 2008,
and in September 2009 they won a case in which Judge White ruled that
the National Environmental Policy Act had been violated by the USDA in
its rush to deregulate GM sugar beets. (In order for a GM crop to gain
nonregulated status, the USDA has to have proof that the crop isn’t a
plant pest or a threat to the environment, and thereby no longer needs
to be regulated by the USDA.) Morton and the Center for Food Safety
have since filed an injunction on the use of all GM sugar beets, which
resulted in this month’s court ruling.
How did we get to this point? Back in 2005 the federal government
approved Monsanto’s GM beets for unrestricted use, and their usage
quickly spread. Farmers liked the fact that the Roundup resistant GM
beets seemed to be increasing crop yields, and Monsanto claims
that the “genetic enhancement of agricultural products” will ultimately
make farming more sustainable through raising crop yields and better
protection against insects and disease. However, the legitimacy of
Monsanto’s claim has been increasingly called into question by
sustainable agriculture advocates; a 2009 report put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS) shows that despite 20 years of research and over 10 years of
commercialized practices, GM crops have not increased US agricultural
yields—and have actually driven up the price of production for farmers.
Furthermore, while conventional practices that use chemical inputs do
show a marginal increase in yield, the detrimental effects that
chemicals have on our environment and human health are costly. The UCS
report notes that conventional agriculture is responsible for “more
heat-trapping emissions to the atmosphere than transportation,” and is
a major source of water pollution leading to “dead zones.” If the
effects of climate change, such as extreme heat, droughts, and
flooding, make farming more difficult, why perpetuate the conventional
practices that contribute to the problem?
In terms of social sustainability, groups such as the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD) found that the emphasis on GMOs
has increased research and development in this sector, subsequently
contributing to a loss in funding, support, and knowledge of
alternative agricultural practices. The IAASTD has stated that
investment in agroecological models (which follow whole-ecosystem
approaches to agricultural development) offer environmentally and
socially sustainable alternatives that are also capable of high yields
under proper management. However, even though the promised high-yield
of GM sugar beets is short-sighted logic
at best, farmers and industry people are predicting economic hardship
as a direct result of this ruling that suspend their use. It may be
true that some farmers will be put at an economic disadvantage because
of the ruling, but they wouldn’t be in this position if Monsanto had
been held accountable in the first place.
It should be noted that White’s ruling isn’t necessarily commentary
on the safety of the GM crop. Rather, it critiques the process (or lack
thereof) that the USDA went through to grant unrestricted use of the GM
sugar beet. This follows the 2007 alfalfa ruling,
which was the first instance of a court revoking the approval of a GM
crop until an EIS could be completed. At the time, the court placed a
nationwide injunction of all sales of Roundup-Ready alfalfa, though the
Supreme Court lifted the injunction earlier this summer. Monsanto is
claiming victory, but the Center for Food Safety points out that the
recent alfalfa ruling is the first to include genetic contamination
from GM crops within the definition of “environmental harm.”
We don’t yet completely understand all the implications that
genetically modified crops will have on our agricultural systems. White
had it right to take a more precautionary approach. It’s a step that
can help create more accountability for agricultural regulation.
Monsanto is becoming the Goliath of the seed industry in the United
States, but in the case of GM sugar beets we’ll see if David wins out
in the end.
Originally posted at The Daily Score, a Sightline Institute blog.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
