"Produced in a state that grows GM crops, we cannot guarantee that this product is GM free." Vilsack controversially calls for coexistence of Roundup Ready and conventional alfalfa

On the 20th of December 2010, the US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack held a meeting to discuss proposed conditional deregulation of Forage Genetics’ Roundup Ready alfalfa and has since been criticized for politicizing science based regulatory issues. How this issue is handled will affect the deregulation of any other GM food or fuel crops in the US in future.

Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack:

“What we’re having is a discussion to try to take the courts out of determining who gets to farm and who doesn’t get to farm. We’ve seen a rapid adoption of biotechnology in alfalfa and many other areas of agriculture. At the same time, we’ve seen a substantial expansion and growth in organic production. We want both of them to survive and we want both of them to be profitable—and we want both of them to be able to sort of co-exist in the same neighborhood. We need the capacity to produce more on less—the capacity to use less pesticides and chemicals and water—in an ever-increasing demand globally for food. At the same time, this organic operation is very profitable. It can help small farmers stay on the farm. It can help repopulate rural communities and there’s greater consumer demand for it. So we need to figure out how to do both.”

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready range of products is genetically modified to resist the Roundup glyphosphate herbicide. In theory, this allows herbicide to be used on crops without decreasing crop yields. Under the Plant Protection Act, if scientific trials show the crops are safe they can be deregulated, so that they could be freely planted anywhere.

A number of industry players and alfalfa growers (both GM and conventional) attended the meeting. Vilsack was criticized by the Wall Street Journal for including political opponents of GM in making a regulatory decision rather than leaving the matter to scientists, stating that this could politicize the issue permanently. The three options under discussion were to continue to regulate Roundup Ready alfalfa, deregulate it completely or to deregulate it in certain areas. This final option caused the most debate. At the meeting Vilsack is said to have called for “coexistence” between the GM crop and non-GM varieties in the marketplace. However, despite a USDA environmental impact assessment of RR alfalfa being released, the health and safety aspects of the crop were apparently not mentioned once during the meeting, to the dismay of many opponents of GM crops present.

The concept of coexistence between the crop types is controversial. Easing the legal restrictions here increases the risks of contamination. A move like this would be a blow with the idea that products containing GM material should be labeled so that consumers may have a choice. The international standards on GM contamination are restrictive to the point of impracticality and are in need of reform. “Zero tolerance” on GM contamination simply isn’t possible; even small amounts of genetic material can be spread in many ways, for example pollen from GMOs. However, the effects of contamination might be inconsequential; tiny amounts of modified DNA (which will still break limits) are very unlikely to have any effects according to scientists. Even while Roundup Ready crops were regulated weeds resistant to Roundup have appeared. While some might rush to blame GM contamination for this, natural means often cause resistance to develop. However the apparent avoidance of this issue during the meeting is worrying. The indirect effects of increased herbicide use are a concern that isn’t often explored.

Farmers using the Roundup Ready alfalfa report greater yields, so there is a commercial benefit to producing crops this way. Some farmers are firmly against GM however and draw the line at growing any GM crop. While they will have a market supplying GM free alfalfa to those who choose not to use GM crops, will this market shrink? More and more people are considering GM to be a viable tool for providing food to a growing global population. Roundup Ready alfalfa might one day out-compete conventional alfalfa and ultimately remove this choice. 

If deregulation were to happen in only some parts of the country, however, this would become more pressing. If one state, for example, were to allow Roundup Ready alfalfa to be grown there, would local GM opposed farmers be outcompeted? Or would this allow places for both ways to thrive? The conditions proposed here would limit the percentage of crop acres that could be used to produce the GM variety, making it unlikely that out competition will happen. The limits may be restrictive to the GM growers, but this is still a step towards coexistence.

Vilsack has a point; if GM crops are going to be produced they must co-exist with conventional crops, and the proposed deregulation with limits might well achieve that. But with the thresholds for GM material being as low as they are, increases in GM production will accidentally contaminate conventional production more often. Instead of more customer choice, we might see more disclaimers saying that manufacturers can’t guarantee products that are GM free for those who want a choice.