The Secretary of Agriculture would be required to grant a permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, regardless of environmental impact.
While many Americans were firing up barbecues and breaking out the sparklers to celebrate Independence Day, biotech industry executives were more likely chilling champagne to celebrate another kind of independence: immunity from federal law.
A so-called ďMonsanto rider,Ē quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations bill, would require Ė not just allow, but require - the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed. All the farmer or the biotech producer has to do is ask, and the questionable crops could be released into the environment where they could potentially contaminate conventional or organic crops and, ultimately, the nationís food supply.
Unless the Senate or a citizenís army of farmers and consumers can stop them, the House of Representatives is likely to ram this dangerous rider through any day now.
In a statement issued last month, the Center For Food Safety had this to say about the biotech industryís latest attempt to circumvent legal and regulatory safeguards:
Ceding broad and unprecedented powers to industry, the rider poses a direct threat to the authority of U.S. courts, jettisons the U.S. Department of Agricultureís (USDA) established oversight powers on key agriculture issues and puts the nationís farmers and food supply at risk.
In other words, if this single line in the 90-page Agricultural Appropriations bill slips through, itís Independence Day for the biotech industry.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has sponsored an amendment to kill the rider, whose official name is ďthe farmers assuranceĒ provision. But even if DeFazioís amendment makes it through the House vote, it still has to survive the Senate. Meanwhile, organizations like the Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, FoodDemocracyNow!, the Alliance for Natural Health USA and many others are gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures in protest of the rider, and in support of DeFazioís amendment.
Will Congress do the right thing and keep what are arguably already-weak safeguards in place, to protect farmers and the environment? Or will industry win yet another fight in the battle to exert total control over our farms and food supply?
Biotechís ĎLegislator of the Yearí behind the latest sneak attack
Whom do we have to thank for this sneak attack on USDA safeguards? The agricultural sub-committee chair Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) Ė who not coincidentally was voted "legislator of the year for 2011-2012" by none other than the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto and DuPont. As reported by Mother Jones, the Biotechnology Industry Organization declared Kingston a "champion of Americaís biotechnology industry" who has "helped to protect funding for programs essential to the survival of biotechnology companies across the United States."
Kingston clearly isnít interested in the survival of Americaís farmers.
Aiding and abetting Kingston is John C. Greenwood, former US Congressman from Pennsylvania and now president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. No stranger to the inner workings of Congress, Greenwood lobbied for the ďfarmers assurance provisionĒ in a June 13 letter to Congress, according to Mother Jones and Bloomberg, claiming that ďa stream of lawsuitsĒ have slowed approvals and ďcreated uncertaintiesĒ for companies developing GE crops.
Greenwood was no doubt referring to several past lawsuits, including one brought in 2007 by the Center for Food safety challenging the legality of the USDAís approval of Monsantoís Roundup Ready alfalfa. In that case, a federal court ruled that the USDAís approval of GMO alfalfa violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of Roundup. The USDA was forced to undertake a four-year study of GMO alfalfaís impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During the four-year study, farmers were banned from planting or selling the crop Ė creating that ĎuncertaintyĒ that Greenwood is so worried about.
Read the rest of the article here