New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Despite lawsuits and rulings, genetically modified sugar beets will probably be planted this spring.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is allowing beet farmers to plant Roundup Ready sugar beets this year while they complete an environmental impact statement.
About half of U.S. sugar is derived from sugar beets. The agriculture and biotech corporation Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2008 after successfully introducing modified corn and soybeans. The Roundup Ready seeds are designed to withstand applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, which allows farmers to spray fields without killing their crop.
But U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled last year that GM sugar beets needed an environmental impact statement before farmers could continue to use them. On Feb. 16 he heard arguments in a lawsuit related to his December ruling saying that all GM sugar beet seedlings should be uprooted before the environmental impact statement is completed. (Note: An earlier version of this story gave an inaccurate description of the issues at stake in the Feb. 16 hearing.) Environmental groups are also asking whether APHIS can legally deregulate the GM seeds when the court-mandated environmental impact assessment is not finished.
Third-generation beet farmer Don Steinbeisser, Jr., president of the Montana-Dakota Beet Grower’s Association, said if he can plant Roundup Ready beets in April, this will be his fourth year using the genetically modified seed. He thinks Roundup Ready beets are necessary for the industry.
“It makes it more profitable and better environmentally,” he said, since Roundup Ready beets don’t require tilling and he uses less herbicide to control weeds.
Steinbesser said while the Roundup Ready beet yield is about the same as non-GM beets, using them prevents the occasional bad year. According to the Sugar Industry Biotech Council, using less herbicide means “reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced soil erosion, reduced soil compaction and enhanced water conservation.”
Organic Seed Alliance is one of the plaintiffs in a suit against APHIS for allowing GM sugar beets. OSA Director of Advocacy and Communications, Kristina Hubbard, said genetic engineering could undo the work her organization does to protect the genetic integrity of seeds. Hubbard calls GM seeds a “short-lived solution” that creates long-term problems with chemical-resistant weeds.
Hubbard said while farmers might need less herbicide for the first few years, studies show that in the long term they’ll end up using more. This study for the Organic Center used USDA data to show that in the last 13 years farmers using GM seeds used 318 million more pounds of pesticides as the weeds developed a resistance to Roundup.
Other studies, Hubbard SAID, show that GM crops don’t increase yield, which pro-GM groups say is the selling point of genetic engineering. A Union of Concerned Scientists report, “Failure to Yield,” finds that traditional plant breeding techniques are more effective at increasing yields.
“I believe [traditional plant breeding] can provide seed systems necessary for feeding the world,” Hubbard said. So far, genetic engineering only promotes use of more chemicals, she added.
Another concern with GM seeds is the unintended spread of the gene. Sugar beets differ from other GM plants because the commercially planted crop doesn’t usually produce seeds.
Hubbard said it is a concern, though mainly in the small part of the Willamette Valley in Oregon where most of the world’s sugar beet seeds are produced. Beets, like alfalfa, are wind pollinated, and studies on genetically modified alfalfa have shown their pollen can travel up to 12 miles.
That could be a serious problem for the seed producers in the Wilamette Valley. “The reality is that complete isolation is not going to be possible,” said Hubbard.
The full environmental impact statement from APHIS isn’t due until May 2012.
“Other studies, Hubbard SAID, show that GM crops don’t increase yield, which pro-GM groups say is the selling point of genetic engineering. A Union of Concerned Scientists report, “Failure to Yield,” finds that traditional plant breeding techniques are more effective at increasing yields. ”
This is incorrect. Failure to Yield actually concluded that GE corn has increased the total US corn yield by 3-4%. They call this amount “marginal”, however it is 1/5 of the total yield increase in corn over the same period. Also, the report did not calculate the contribution of plant breeding to yield increases, it only looked at GE. So while plant breeding doubtlessly contributed to yield increases (and probably more than GE did) there are other factors involved such as improvements in management, fertilization, soil, etc.
“So far, genetic engineering only promotes use of more chemicals, she added.”
This is also not true, for instance the Bt trait reduces the use of insecticides (while also contributing to increased yield), and there are other traits that exist such as virus resistance in papayas, and soon, drought tolerance and omega-3 fatty acid-containing soybeans. GE is a tool for generating traits, and while there are issues with herbicide tolerance traits (roundup ready, etc), this can also be achieved through mutation breeding and it is not a characteristic exclusive to GE.
Roundup is absorbed by the plants sprayed with it, and its poisons are passed on to the consumer. It has also caused the development of superweeds that damage harvesting machinery.
Genetically engineered (GE) monoculture is inherently dangerous, more susceptible to disease than natural crops. Big agti/biotech and CAFOs are sources of food-borne illnesses. Organic crops and organically raised animals are our only sure source of health-giving food.
GE crops have been independently proved to cause life-threatening allergic reactions, obesity, diabetes, pancreatitis, cancer, lupus, aborted fetuses, low sperm count, birth defects, in utero fetal death, infertility, brain damage, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, degenerative nerve diseases, stroke, random on/off gene activation, toxin production by the gastrointestinal tract, dysfunction of the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, pancreas, and brain, and permanent mutation/injury of DNA. Those who knowingly put this filth into our food supply are murderers who are committing domestic terrorism and crimes against humanity.
Hugh Grant (Monsanto’s ceo) and his co-criminals (Monsanto pawns) Tom Vilsack (USDA), Michael Taylor (FDA), Rajiv Shah (USAID), and Islam Siddiqui (US Chief Agriculture Trade Negotiator) should be prosecuted for assault on public health, domestic terrorism, and crimes against humanity.
This has nothing to do with helping boost production or any other “good” virtue…follow the money. They will treat this the same as they have soy beans where are creating a monopoly on seed that Monsanto “owns” so you can’t even grow and save your own anymore. And, the poor nearby farmers who do not buy their seeds will soon have their crops contaminated with them so now Monsanto “owns” theirs as well.
This is about creating a monopoly…remember, once a few big corporations own our country’s food supply, those companies can be purchased by foreign interests…wait until our food supply is owned by other countries. It has already happened with all of our shipping lines and is starting with our infrastructure.