Tell USDA That You Care About GE Contamination of Organic Food!

[Guest guest]

Tell USDA That You Care About GE Contamination of Organic Food!

 

Instructions:

_Click here to take action_

(http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS/355bkgn92jejixdw?) on this issue

 

 

Campaign Expiration Date:

February 15, 2010

 

Dear xxxxxxx

 

 

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of

Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically

engineered

(GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE

alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the plant on the

environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous analysis known as an

environmental impact statement (or EIS). USDA released its draft EIS on

December 14,

2009. A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. This

is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop.

Therefore, the final decision will have broad implications for all GE

crops.

 

 

CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not

taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers

seriously. USDA’s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE

alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the

environment. Instead USDA has completely dismissed the fact that contamination

will

threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products.

And, incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers

care about such GE contamination of organic!

 

 

USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of

organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic

material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product, despite the fact

that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products

without GE ingredients when they buy organic.

 

 

USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to

prevent genetic contamination, and that there is no evidence to the

contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that

contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with

these same business-as-usual practices in place!

 

 

USDA predicts that the approval of GE alfalfa would damage family farms

and organic markets, yet doesn’t even consider any limitations or protections

against this scenario. Small, family farmers are the backbone and future

of American agriculture and must be protected. Organic agriculture provides

many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic

opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming

system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued

vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to

protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent

environmental, consumer, and economic losses.

 

 

Tell USDA That You DO Care About Genetic Contamination of Organic Crops

and Food!

 

 

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):

 

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044

 

 

Below is the sample letter:

 

 

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044

 

 

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

 

 

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

 

 

In USDA's Environmental Impact Statement (Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044) on

genetically engineered alfalfa, USDA claims that there is no evidence that

consumers care about contamination to organic alfalfa and alfalfa-derived

foods from Monsanto's GE Roundup Ready alfalfa. As an organic consumer, I can

tell you that I DO care.

 

 

Prohibition of genetic engineering (GE) is a fundamental tenet of the

Organic Standard. In fact, the organic rule's failure to exclude GE from its

first version was one of the main reasons why 275,000 people like me filed

public comments in 1997, at the time the largest outpouring of public

participation in the history of U.S. administrative procedure. Consumers care

deeply about organic integrity, and GE is fundamentally not organic. Polls show

that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products

without GE ingredients when they buy organic.

 

 

USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of

organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic

material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product. The Organic

Standard

requires that livestock feed for animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and

other animal products is 100 percent organic. As the Court found in the

lawsuit that required this EIS, to " farmers and consumers organic means not

genetically engineered, even if the farmer did not intend for his crop to be so

engineered. " Whether or not the end product is impacted is not the issue.

Farmers' fundamental right to sow the crop of their choice is eliminated

when it is contaminated with transgenes, and so is the public's ability to

support meaningful organic food and feed production. Consumers like me will

reject GE contamination of organic by any means or at any stage of

sustainable food production.

 

 

USDA claims that Monsanto's seed contracts require measures sufficient to

prevent GE contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. In

the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that contamination

had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same

business-as-usual practices in place! In general, where other GE crops were

approved without restriction, contamination of organic and conventional

seeds and crops is widespread and has been documented around the world. A

recent report documented 39 cases in 2007 and more than 200 in the last

decade. The EIS itself acknowledges that GE contamination may happen and

includes

studies that honey bees can cross-pollinate at distances over 6 miles, and

Alkali bees at 4-5 miles, much further than any distances under Monsanto's

" best practices. "

 

 

As a consumer, I care about the contamination of organic foods and crops,

and I expect USDA to do everything the agency can to protect organic

farmers and consumers. The organic industry provides many benefits to society:

healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and

urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality

of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is

imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production

systems from contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic

losses. USDA must include in its decision adequate protections against this

grave harm.

 

 

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxx

--------

 

 

Instructions:

_Click here to take action_

(http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS/355bkgn92jejixdw?) on this issue

 

 

 

Campaign Expiration Date:

February 15, 2010

 

 

 

 

If you received this message from a friend, you can _sign up for Center

for Food Safety_ (http://ga3.org/cfs/join.html?r=dpf6CG1aH22GE) .

(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)