The last time we wrote about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), three big stories were in play: GM Alfalfa, GM Sugar Beets, and GM Salmon. Now, there’s more.

On January 27^th, the USDA announced its approval of the planting of GM alfalfa without restrictions. This was a reversal from what organic industry leaders thought was going to happen, but it seems that the industry had pretty much given up on getting GM Alfalfa banned outright. They were reluctantly supporting coexistence as the next best alternative. Agriculture experts say President Obama pushed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in the direction of an approval without restrictions in order to appear more business-friendly to the biotech industry. Whatever the rumor mill, coexistence could have imposed some important restrictions, like isolation of GMO crops from non-GMO crops to prevent contamination. Yet, even that met with failure.

You might think the flowering little clover plant is nothing but a poetic prop in a Willa Cather novel, but alfalfa is a crop crucial to the organic industry because it serves as the main feed for organic dairy cows. Contamination at feed level can work its way all through the organic food chain to milk, yogurt, ice cream, cheese, sour cream, and even packaged products that contain milk solids, potentially making the USDA organic label meaningless.

Unfortunately, no matter what, contamination is likely even if precautions are taken because alfalfa is so widely planted in the U.S. and because it’s pollinated by busy bees. And it is a losing battle: Separating the crops doesn’t prevent worker bees from flying up to five miles to pollinate (and possibly contaminate non-GM alfalfa with GM material). For an organic dairy farmer’s take on the matter, read this statement from Albert Straus of Straus Family Creamery. He has been fighting the contamination of his feed sources by GMO’S ever since 2006, when he first discovered contamination in organic corn.

On the heels of the alfalfa decision, on February 4, the USDA announced it would partially deregulate GM Sugar beets.

What partial deregulation means in this case is that the beets are approved until the environmental impact statement can be completed in May 2012. GM sugar beets have already been planted in the US (and ripped out) after Federal Judge Jeffrey White ruled in December that a proper environmental report hadn’t been conducted. According to the New York Times, in this latest action, the USDA essentially overruled the judge by approving the replanting of the crop at the request of Monsanto and KWS, a German seed company.

As if that weren’t enough to be depressed by, there’s more: The FDA is poised to approve the first genetically modified animal for human consumption, GM salmon. Watch this video for a sadly entertaining take on why this is an awful idea. Many Congress people are working to stop this because neither they nor their constituents want to eat GM salmon.

The problem with these “developments” in food and crop science is that we’ll never get a full and accurate picture of the safety or health risks of GMOs as long as the developers of the technology control the information that is available.

As the salmon video points out, the research studies regarding safety are often done by the developers themselves. An op-ed in Sunday’s LA Times by scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union for Concerned Scientists details how the bio-tech industry restricts independent research into bio-tech crops by withholding seeds and ultimately chooses who does the research through heavy funding of university agriculture departments.

Non GMO activists are often attacked for being “irresponsible”, withholding progress for mankind, and generally living in the dark ages but a healthy skepticism about industry-funded research is not irresponsible. What is irresponsible is our government’s ability to approve unproven technology that could be dangerous. Until we have better assurance through independent research that GMO’s are safe for the environment, us, and will not contaminate non-GMO’S, we should oppose them on principle.

Here’s what you can do:

1. Go to Food Democracy Now and join the campaign against GMO’S. Tell Obama to overrule the USDA.

2. Give money to the Center for Food Safety’s fight to stop GMO alfalfa.

3. Sign the petition to stop GMO Salmon.

4. Learn about and support the non-GMO Project.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Erin Collins

The GMO industry is like an out-of-control forest fire. Just when you think one section is tamped down, another spark is fanned into flames.

Just like a forest fire, there are many fronts in this fight, making it difficult to keep track of current developments.

Then there are the weapons at the fighters’ disposal. On one side of the battle, we have the equivalent of 5 gallon water buckets in the form of activist group petitions, email newsletters, and calls to Congressional representatives. On the other side, there are air tankers in the form of money and the influence it can buy (even to the point of influencing foreign governments). Increasingly, there’s something much more insidious than that on the side of GMOs – I’m going to go ahead and call it espionage.

Earlier this month, The Guardian reported that recently released WikiLeaks cables documented how diplomats in the Bush Administration had attempted to influence The Vatican to voice its support for biotech crops. Other leaks showed how embassy officials in France had urged the U.S government to retaliate, through unfavorable trade policies, against countries in the EU that refused to approve GMO crops.

Equally shocking, an article in The Nation last fall about Blackwater (the private security firm that has come under fire for its role in Iraq regarding massacres of innocent civilians, and has since rebranded) detailed how Monsanto hired Total Intelligence Solutions (a firm owned by Blackwater founder and owner Erik Prince) to infiltrate and spy on anti-GMO groups. The article states that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008-09 to act as an intelligence arm of Monsanto to survey the Internet activity of activist groups and protect the Monsanto brand. Internal emails obtained by The Nation talked about how individuals from Total Intelligence could join activist groups (especially animal rights activists) and report back on group activities.

Now that we know what we’re up against weapon-wise, here’s a rundown of current hot spots in GMOs:

GE Alfalfa: The most urgent issue right now is the imminent approval of GE alfalfa by the USDA. Read about how GE alfalfa will jeopardize organic food and farmers here. Take Action here. You have until February 16^th.

GE Salmon: The FDA decision on GE salmon is stalled so the fight has moved to California. With the feds unwilling to listen to consumer groups, these issues are increasingly up to the states. In the event that GE salmon is approved, California has a bill that would require any GE salmon sold in California to be labeled. Take action here.

GE Sugar Beets: In early December, Judge Jeffrey White, a Federal Judge in Northern California ordered genetically modified sugar beets to be pulled from the ground and destroyed after determining that the beets were approved by the Agriculture Department and planted illegally without proper environmental review. Now the USDA and the sugar industry are predicting a shortage of sugar, but it’s a shortage they manufactured. When Judge White originally ruled that the USDA had violated environmental laws by not conducting a full review before approving the crop in 2005 he warned that future beet harvests would likely need to rely on conventional seed. According to the New York Times, the judge expressed irritation that the USDA and Monsanto waited almost a year after his ruling to enact interim measures to ensure farmers would have enough conventional seed. No action to take on this one right now, but definitely an issue to watch.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Olibac

Monsanto has been making headlines again. It seems Monsanto, the agri-biotech mega-corp, is a bad seed indeed.

Where to start? First off, sugar beets.

This super sweet variety beet is used in 44 percent of all U.S. sugar production. After the USDA approved planting Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beet seeds genetically altered to withstand Roundup herbicide sprays in 2008, 95 percent of beet seeds planted the following year were Monsanto seeds. Wha?

Then earlier this fall, a federal judge ruled against the USDA’s approval citing lack of adequate studies surrounding the GM seeds. The result? A report estimates that total U.S. sugar production will be reduced by 20 percent in 2011, due to a shortage of conventional seed availability.

Once again, Monsanto’s monopolizing of seed in this country back-fires (surprise!) resulting in a genuine shortage of real and diverse seed supplies. (Aren’t you glad the corporation has been suing farmers for storing seed?)

You would think by now, the USDA and farmers alike might be suspect of any Roundup Ready seed given the latest news: Monsanto is now paying farmers to use its competitors’ herbicides in conjunction with Roundup. Why? Because, as many warned might happen, new “super weeds” have developed a resistance to Roundup due to its repeated use, making Roundup no longer effective. Good thing our farmers have Roundup Ready GM seeds – not!

Kudos to Europeans for attempting to anticipate disaster before it hits. Earlier this month, Europeans gathered over a million signatures in the hopes of putting a stop to genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation in the EU through on online charter organized by Greenpeace and Avaaz. Unfortunately, while it is required by law that the European Commission re-consider approvals with so many signatures, it won’t put a freeze on GM cultivation during deliberation.

Image: kevinpoh

The more I learn about Monsanto and its seed patenting, genetic modifying and monopolistic tendencies, the more I worry about where our food supply is headed. As such, I eagerly accepted my friend’s invitation to visit the Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Bank in Petaluma.

The Seed Bank is fittingly located in a beautiful historic 1920′s building in downtown Petaluma that previously housed a Sonoma County branch of Bank of America. The high vaulted ceilings make idyllic browsing amongst the rows and rows of seeds.

Perhaps most impressive were the number of varieties of cucumbers and eggplants. Amazing when you consider the typical grocery offers one, maybe two varieties of each vegetable at most. Here they housed over 30 varieties of cucumbers alone, such as the Hmong Red, Parisian Pickling or one of our favorites, the Jaune Dickfleischige.

And eggplants! With over 40 varieties of eggplants, I was astounded to learn that eggplants come in all shapes and sizes, and often resemble tomatoes. Biodiversity, represent!

All and all, the Seed Bank offers over 1400 varieties of seeds. In addition to vegetables, they offer a large swathe of flower and herb seeds, as well as gifty-type products such as pickles, aprons and postcards, or more utilitarian items in the form of gardening tools or “how-to” books.

Luckily, many other heirloom seed companies exist throughout the country. My mother raves about the Seed Savers Exchange in Decorah, Iowa and many offer mail-order. I highly recommend jumping on the heirloom seed bandwagon when planting this spring season. You too could grow Chioggia Beets and Purple Podded Pole Beans!

I’ve got some good news and some bad news. We are now keenly aware of what’s lurking in our food – from pesticides to antibiotics to hormones – and it isn’t pretty. Dairy ads of yesteryear boasted bold, yet innocuous words like “creamy” and “delicious,” so when I recently drove past Tillamook‘s giant billboard shown above, shouting the words: “No Artificial Growth Hormones: We love our cows the way they are,” I didn’t quite know what to make of it. Tastefully triumphant or utterly depressing? This certainly isn’t your mother’s yogurt, thank goodness. But now we’re being marketed toxin-free food they way it always should have been made to begin with and we’re being charged extra for it!

Tillamook’s stance on the use of artificial bovine growth hormone is as follows: “From research, we determined that using milk produced without artificial growth hormone supplementation better meets our consumers’ expectations about our brand – a brand associated with premium quality, consistent and best tasting products.” The “farmer owned since 1909 county creamery,” based in Tillamook, Oregon is certainly keeping up with the times. This latest ad campaign is preying on widespread consumer fears about the toxins that exist in food. But should ads like this be applauded or met with dismay?

Before I move on, let’s take a look at what artificial bovine growth hormone actually is. We all know to avoid it and we’re familiar with the now thankfully widespread “NO rBGH” label on dairy products, but here’s what we’re really glad it isn’t in our dairy products.

Developed and brought to the table by agricultural giant Monsanto in 1993, rBGH – short for recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and also known as rBST recombinant Bovine Somatotropin – is a synthetic growth hormone which is injected into cows to make them grow faster and artificially produce 10 to 15 percent more milk. In addition to the harmful effects this hormone has on cows, from deformities in calves to staggering increases in mastitis of cows’ udders, stress and malnourishment, rBGH is also cited by the Cancer Prevention Coalition as increasing cancer risks in humans.

Bottom line? I’m feeling both triumphant and depressed over Tillamook’s towering ad statement. Triumphant that indeed more and more companies are taking a stand against using growth hormones in the cows that produce their products, but depressed that this destructive hormone was ever brought to the market in the first place. It’s like going to a dinner party and having the host expect you to thank them for not poisoning your food. And we have to wonder, are we just scratching the surface here? What also still lies in our food and what’s to come?

Image: Tillamook“>Tillamook

According to Consumers Union, 95% of consumers in the U.S. want products containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled. Yet, in 1996 the FDA ruled that genetically modified foods were not substantially different from others and need not be labeled. Then, in January 2009 as the Bush administration headed out the door, the outgoing FDA ruled that it wouldn’t require the labeling of genetically modified meat or fish.

What’s going on here? We’re told that the free market works because of the rational behavior of informed consumers. How can consumers make intelligent choices when the information they need is deliberately held back by government influenced by powerful corporations?

We’ve talked about the power seed giant Monsanto exerts on our government before. Did you know that Monsanto’s hydra-like tentacles of influence extend across the globe? Let’s explore how the company was able to introduce its GM soybean technology to Brazil.

There was a point in the early part of this century when Monsanto wasn’t doing too well. It couldn’t sell its products in Europe. Nobody wanted them. Americans were getting anxious about consuming foods made from GM seeds. Monsanto needed a new market. A big new market. We’ve already talked about how the soy industry in Brazil has led to slavery and deforestation. The soy industry in Brazil has also had a big impact on Monsanto, essentially saving the company from ruin.

According to a policy brief from Food First, and other sources, Monsanto used illegal tactics to push their GM technology on Brazilian farmers and then strong-armed the Brazilian legislature to make the technology legal.

Brazil had a ban on planting of GM seeds in effect since 1998, but it was one of the only holdouts in South America. Brazil’s neighbor, Argentina, was a large producer of GM soy. Monsanto encouraged farmers in Brazil to plant its “roundup ready” GM soybeans that were illegally imported from Argentina in defiance of the ban. Monsanto knew that once its seeds were in the ground they would be able to make a case for intellectual property rights. Armed with their patents, the company’s lawyers went to the courts to solidify its new Brazilian market.

By arguing that Brazil was impeding its legal right to collect royalties on its intellectual property (the seeds), Monsanto made its case and GM soy was legalized in Brazil in 2003. Still, the essential companion to Monsanto’s Roundup-ready GM soy, the herbicide Roundup, was not legal yet. In 2004, a congressman from southern Brazil pushed through a series of federal amendments legalizing the herbicide. This same congressman purchased a large farm from Monsanto for one-third of the market price. The Brazilian government is investigating the congressman for corruption.

You may be thinking that you’re not eating GM soy because you buy organic. But if you eat organic food that contains soy lecithin (and you probably do since its in everything) check back in two weeks when we wrap up our soy series with a piece about soy lecithin. We’ll explore why the organic rule allows small amounts of non-organic ingredients in organic products and learn that it’s not that simple.

Want to learn more about the drama behind GM foods? Check out this link to news articles from different sources that will give you a good idea of Monsanto’s trials, successes, machinations, and manipulations over the past few years.

Image: Mike138