Organic Dairy Wants Stronger Cloning Ban

More than 850 organic dairy farmers came out strongly against the use of cloned animals and their offspring in organic livestock farming.

They issued a number of statements just a week before the National Organic Standards Board - the citizen advisory panel to the USDA's organic program - takes up the issue in a hearing. The Food and Drug Administration late last year issued an opionion that is expected to lead to the approval of cloned animals in the food supply as soon as this year.

The livestock committee of the NOSB recently recommended a ban on clones, but left open the issue of whether progency should be banned as well. (See our previous post for background on the issue).

"...it is imperative that progeny of clones be unequivocally disallowed as well as clones,"  the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association said. "This is not a question to be taken up when the need arises in the future—the need is here now.  Cloned bulls are in existence whose semen is destined for the artificial insemination market should the ban on cloning be lifted." 

The main way cloned animals are expected to come into the food supply, is through progeny rather than through cloned animals themselves. FOOD Farmers, the group that includes NODPA and the Western and Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliances, said:

It does not matter that there is no test to determine whether an animal is derived from cloning or not. The National Organic Program is a process based program, not a test based program. As with field histories, purchased feeds, etc., we producers have to verify through our recordkeeping, affidavits, and paper trail that the organic standards process has been followed. So too will it be necessary to document that no cloned livestock or progeny are brought into a herd of organic livestock or transitioned to organic production. If the necessary documentation is not available on animals, then they will not be able to be considered for organic production.

The individual farms sell to Horizon Organic, Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, Humboldt Dairy, as well as through smaller cooperatives including Upstate Farms Cooperative, Organic Choice and LOFCO, independent manufacturers and direct to the consumer.

They issued statements Friday, the day comment was due at the USDA.

Tracking Spinach in Space

The conventional produce industry is taking a number of steps to restore confidence after the e. coli outbreak last year, including (finally!) tracking produce from the field.

According to this Wall Street Journal story (subscription required)

Dole Food Co., the world's largest producer of fresh vegetables, recently started using radio-frequency identification tags to track leafy greens as they move from fields to trucks and through processing facilities. The system will allow Dole, whose bagged spinach was implicated in the September E. coli outbreak that killed three people and sickened more than 200, to trace contaminated produce not only to a particular farm, but also to a specific part of a field, says Eric Schwartz, president of Dole fresh vegetables.

At the same time, Western Growers, whose members grow, pack and ship half of the nation's fresh produce, is helping develop a global-positioning system enabling growers to track their goods through the supply chain. In addition, many big produce buyers are spelling out how growers should monitor their farms for possible sources of contamination, including wild hogs and deer, flooding and polluted irrigation water -- and insisting on guarantees that the directions are followed.

Here's why the industry's taking such steps.

"Because of the problem with record keeping, we are not able to trace back to a single location," says Jack Guzewich, director of emergency coordination and response at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "We end up with multiple locations, multiple farms. And we have to visit them all."

In the organic food industry, at least, tracking back to the field has been required since regulations took effect in 2002.

Meanwhile, the FDA issued non-binding guidelines on the produce industry to address the e. coli outbreaks.  The Times reported Tuesday:

The F.D.A. is suggesting that the fresh-cut produce industry constantly monitor and control vulnerable places in the production cycle where the bacteria are likely to form.

The guidelines also call for record keeping for recalls and covers personal health and hygiene of workers and sanitation operations.

As the Times noted, the FDA guidelines - which lack any teeth - are lagging behind what the industry is already doing.

Eat GM Rice, But Don't Grow It

You can eat unapproved genetically modified rice, but don't try to grow it.

So says the USDA, according to a story from Dow Jones reporter Bill Tomson published Monday (subscription required).

The USDA banned planting of Clearfield CL131 rice that was apparently contaminated by an unapproved strain of genetically modified rice. The ban applies to seeds produced in 2005-2007.

Now the USDA is moving toward a food safety assessment for the unapproved rice. "We're still coordinating with the (Food and Drug Administration) to get some sort of determination ... on safety," USDA Under Secretary Bruce Knight said.

In the meantime, there's no prohibition on allowing grain from those seeds into the food supply.

Thomas Sim, a director at USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Services, told Dow Jones any material "not intended for seed" and "in the channels to be milled" will not be affected by the ban. The rice produced last year from Clearfield CL131 seeds is not distinguishable at the mills.

GMO Seed Sales Halted

A federal judge Monday threw out the USDA's approval of genetically engineered alfalfa and issued a temporary injunction to halt sales of the seed.

The unprecedented ruling follows a hearing last week in the case brought by the Center for Food Safety against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for approving GE alfalfa without conducting the required Environmental Impact Statement.

While Monsanto and its allies claimed that delaying the sale or planting of their GE seed would harm farmers, the judge found otherwise. “Disappointment in the delay to their switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa is not an interest which outweighs the potential environmental harm…” posed by the GE crop, he wrote.

The LA Times reports:

The seeds ... are now in their second season of use. Such genetically engineered seeds are grown in 200,000 of the nation's 23 million acres of alfalfa, widely grown for hay and animal grazing.

The seeds were re-engineered so that alfalfa plants can resist the ill effects of another Monsanto product, a widely used herbicide known by the trade name of Roundup. As a result, some farmers say, they can get greater crop yield and better quality alfalfa.

California is the nation's No. 1 alfalfa producer with about 1 million acres under cultivation. The state's 2004 harvest was worth $853 million.

The ban will remain in effect until the judge considers lifting it or making it permanent. Monsanto is banking on increasing the acreage by convincing federal Judge Charles R. Breyer at an April hearing that farmers can use so-called Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds without contaminating neighboring fields.

Did an Organic Advisory Panel Punt on Cloning?

By Samuel Fromartz

That's the question we're asking and here's why.

The USDA's National Organic Program said in January (pdf) that a cloned animal cannot be organic. But it wanted a recommendation from its main citizen advisory panel on what to do about progeny - that is, the offspring of clones, which is the main way that clones will enter the food supply.

Rather than answer that question head on, however, it appears that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) - the main citizen advisory panel to the USDA on organic food regulations - has sidestepped the issue.

The NOSB's livestock committee came out with a <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/CommitteeRecommendations/March_07_Meeting/Li
vestock/CloningRec.pdf">policy recommendation on cloning (pdf) that sounds, well, wishy washy when it comes to progeny. The document states:

The NOSB concurs with the NOP and believes that the existing federal organic rules prohibit animal cloning technology and all its products. To strengthen and clarify the existing rules, the NOSB recommends that the NOP amend the regulation to ensure animal cloning technology, and all products derived from such organisms be excluded from organic production.

So far so good. But then the next sentence reads:

Furthermore, the NOSB is very concerned with the issues involving the progeny of animals that are derived using cloning technology, and will work with the NOP on further rulemaking recommendations as issues are identified.

What we're wondering is why the NOSB didn't outright recommend that the progeny of clones be banned as well? Evidently, one NOSB board member was wondering the same thing in this 6-to-1 vote on the recommendation.

The dissenting vote (Kevin Engelbert) reflects a belief that the Livestock Committee should also recommend a rule change ... to prohibit livestock, progeny of livestock, reproductive materials, or any other products derived from animals produced using animal cloning technology (includes somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning methods) from being used as a source of organic livestock.

Reached by phone, Engelbert told me that the committee was concerned that there was no test on the market to identify progeny. He argued that the availability of a test should not be the benchmark by which to judge this technology. On principle, progency should be banned and farmers and certifiers should work toward that principle.

As the recommendation states: "If the FDA does not require clones to be tracked, consumers are very likely to turn to organic products, under the assumption that clones are not allowed in organic production."

We could not have said it better, which is why it's in the NOSB's interest to come out on a firm stand against the progeny of clones - just as it did with clones themselves. Comments on this issue can be made for the upcoming NOSB meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 27-29.

The Little-Known (Non-GMO) Rice Mutant

As you probably know, if you've been reading the news or this blog, rice farmers have been scrambling to find seed that's not contaminated with traces of genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant rice. (The Washington Post looked at the issue Sunday).

There's a curious fact about the current debacle that you probably haven't heard, though, perhaps because journalists don't want to confuse their readers. You know that popular "conventional" variety in which traces of genetic engineering were most recently found? Clearfield 131? Well, it's also a herbicide-tolerant line of rice. It contains a genetic mutation that allows it to tolerate doses of certain chemical herbicides. Scientists created that genetic change by soaking rice in mutation-inducing chemicals. Similar "Clearfield" varieties have been on the market for years, and nobody outside the rice industry paid much attention.

There's really no difference in the potential risks posed by these two kinds of herbicide-tolerance -- one created through genetic engineering and one created by mutation-causing chemicals. So why is one kind exempt from public scrutiny and government regulation, while the other kind sets off trade embargoes? Probably because genetic engineering, unlike chemical mutagenesis, arrived on the scene full of hype and hubris, promising a new creation. Those grand ambitions, as much as anything, provoked the anti-GMO backlash.

- Dan Charles

Organic "Power Brokers" Hit D.C.

We're outing the power lobbyists of organic farming!

But first a few questions.

Do they work on the famed "K St." corridor in Washington, D.C.? No. Are they on a first-name basis with senior lawmakers in Congress? No. Do they have a big Washington association behind them filled with former administration officials and congressmen? No. Do they stay at expensive hotels in town? No.

Actually, they're farmers who had to stay in a hotel way out in Maryland.

Left to right: Tony Azevedo, Double T Acres, Stevenson, Calif.; Kathie Arnold, Twin Oaks Dairy, Truxton, N.Y.; Maureen Knapp, Cobblestone Valley Farm, Preble, N.Y. all certified organic farmers.

As Azevedo says: "We go in the front door and get a nice reception but I imagaine that there's other people going in the back door."

Azevedo and others were in town suggesting that Congress allocate more money for organic farming in the current round of the farm bill -- at least to a level commensurate with its growing role in agriculture. The Modesto Bee had a good piece on the issue. The farmers seek

- a $50 million-a-year grant program to assist farmers in adopting organic practices (which would be a new program)

- $5 million annually to help farmers offset the cost of attaining organic certification (refunding an existing program now out of money). This is the only subsidy specifically for organic farmers, amounting to a grand total of $500 per farm, to offset the costs of organic certification.

- a $25 million-a-year organic farming research program (about double the level currently).

Right now organic food is about 3 percent of the food supply. So if it were to get 3 percent of the $2 billion USDA research budget, that figure would amount to $60 million. Azevedo and others don't think that will happen. They even worry that the $25 million they're seeking now is a long shot.

How much does organic research get now? About $12 million in total, according to Mark Lipson of the Organic Farming Research Foundation.

FOOD fight for Tougher Organic Rule

Organic dairy farmers, who for several years have been trying to get a tougher organic grazing regulation, formed a group last week to get this measure passed.

Organic dairy farmers from Maine to California met in LaCrosse, Wisconsin - home of the Organic Valley dairy co-op - on February 23rd and formed FOOD Farmers (Federation of Organic Dairy Farmers).

Why is this an issue? Because some larger-scale dairies have been loosely interpreting the requirement that livestock have "access to pasture." The regulation is so vague it allows some operations to feed their cows primarily on feedlots - not on pasture.

The group is pushing for a regulation for organic dairy animals to consume at least 30% of their food needs (dry matter intake) from pasture for the entire growing season, but for no less than 120 days. The USDA’s National Organic Program is currently in the process of more clearly defining the current standard that requires all ruminant animals, which includes dairy cows, to have access to pasture. "The addition of feed and time requirements will result in a verifiable nationwide standard unlike any other organic standard in the world," the group said.

Let's cut to the chase: this proposed regulation has been around since 2005, but the USDA has so far dragged its heels on implementing it. The vast majority of organic dairy farmers want it. Consumers support it. The only thing standing in the way is the regulatory machinery of the government.

So expect a FOOD fight to make it happen.

EXCLUSIVE - Dean Foods Cloning Document

At the request of readers, here is a copy of the document we obtained.

EXCLUSIVE - Top U.S. Dairy Bans Milk From Clones

The top U.S. dairy company, Dean Foods, has adopted a policy statment banning milk from cloned cows, a copy obtained by Chews Wise shows.

This is a potentially significant step, since the Food and Drug Administration in December released its recommendation to allow food from cloned animals. The FDA has an open comment period on this issue that runs through April 2.

Dean Foods, with more than $10 billion in sales, is by far the largest dairy company in the nation. So even if the FDA allows cloning to go ahead, this policy may put the brakes on the development of clones, at least in the dairy industry.

The company also owns Horizon Organic, the top organic milk company. Other organic milk companies, such as Stonyfield Farms, Organic Valley, and Straus Family Creamery, have pledged not to take milk from any cloned cows. Non-profit organizations, such as the Center for Food Safety, have also been waging a campaign against cloning.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the Maryland Democrat, has introduced legislation to require labeling on packages of cloned foods: "This product is from a cloned animal or its progeny.''

Dean Foods "Position Statement: Milk From Cloned Cows" reads:

Based on the desire of our customers and consumers, Dean Foods will not accept milk from cows that have been cloned. If the FDA does approve the sale of milk from cloned cows, we will work with our dairy farmers to implement protocols to ensure that the milk they supply to Dean Foods does not come from cloned cows.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to conclude that milk from cloned cows is safe. Our decision not to accept this milk is based on meeting our consumers’ expectations. We see no consumer benefit from this technology.

Numerous surveys have shown that Americans are not interested in buying dairy products that contain milk from cloned cows and Dean Foods is responding to the needs of our consumers.

if (typeof window.Delicious == "undefined") window.Delicious = {};
Delicious.BLOGBADGE_DEFAULT_CLASS = 'delicious-blogbadge-line';

Cracking Down on GMO Opponents

Here's a map revealing states that ban local counties from enacting seed legislation. This lobbying move occurred after Mendocino and Marin counties in California successfully legislated bans on GMO seeds in 2004. Agbribusiness got to work to prevent further such actions around the country. Here's a map laying out the activity (in red), from Enviromental Commons.

--
Click to enlarge map

Environmental commons also details the status of these laws.

Not surprisingly, the laws have been passed in key agriculture states where the planting of GMO corn and soybeans are prevalent. An attempt to pass such a bill failed in California in 2006.