Impossible Burger: Industrial Scam with a Side of Glyphosate

A couple of articles have come across my radar lately that are worth noting, and they fit in with some conversations I've been having, both casually and work-wise. Those conversations have to do with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laboratory-produced synthetic meat products—the industry likes the hygenic "clean meat" label because it doesn't have the "dirty" association with farms and killing animals for food—and glyphosate, the active ingredient in the pesticide Roundup made by Monsanto, which has been found guilty of causing plaintiffs' cancers in three recent trials, as well as being labeled a carcinogen by the state of California.

Impossible burger.

The articles involve the Impossible Burger, which its manufacturer enthusiastically lauds as "making meat using plants, so that we never have to use animals again. That way, we can eat all the meat we want, for as long as we want. And save the best planet in the known universe." It claims to taste just like meat, too, and to "bleed" (i.e. leak juices) when cooked just like a normal hamburger.

All this good news has the tech-bros in Silicon Valley and the VC dudes weak in the knees and climbing over each other to finance products that can be industrially manufactured by the zillions and sold to a public clamoring for healthy, climate-friendly, humanely produced food.

Aerial spraying of pesticides.

What the manufacturer, Impossible Foods, has neglected to say amid all this hoopla is that the soy proteins used in its burgers are derived from soybeans that were genetically modified to resist applications of Monsanto's Roundup—sold as "Roundup Ready" seeds—that is used to kill weeds that might compete with the soy plants in the field and/or impede harvest. Roundup is also sprayed on fields just before harvest to dessicate, or dry out, the soy plants before harvest.

The organization Moms Across America, with a mission to educate the public about the dangers of GMOs and toxins in the food supply, recently published an article titled "GMO Impossible Burger Positive for Carcinogenic Glyphosate" that describes tests done by Health Research Institute Laboratories showing that the levels of glyphosate detected in the Impossible burger "were 11 times higher than the Beyond Meat Burger [a competing lab-produced product]. The total result (glyphosate and its break down AMPA) was 11.3 parts per billion (ppb). Moms Across America also tested the Beyond Meat Burger and the results were 1 ppb."

Monsanto's Roundup sold for home use.

"This new product is being marketed as a solution for 'healthy' eating, when in fact 11 ppb of glyphosate herbicide consumption can be highly dangerous," according to Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America. "Only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to alter the gene function of over 4000 genes in the livers, kidneys and cause severe organ damage in rats."

It must be noted here that almost no mention is made of agricultural workers and the dangers they and their children face from exposure to this toxic pesticide, which can cause damage during pregnancy and developmental delays in addition to causing cancer and other health issues.

The article goes on to list the ingredients in the Impossible Burger, which it says could contain as much as 80 percent genetically modified ingredients like sunflower oil, potato protein, yeast extract, cultured dextrose, modified food starch and many others in addition to the soy protein.

Another problem with the soy protein in the Impossible Burger is described in an article from the Organic Consumers Association. It states that "in the messy world of soy studies, where 'soy' can be defined as almost anything with soy in it, there are just as many studies showing no or only marginal benefits, and in some cases, potential for harm" from diets high in soy. Contrary to the beneficial reputation of fermented soy products like tofu or miso, these highly processed soy proteins are made from defatted soybean flakes that have been washed in either alcohol or water to remove the sugars and dietary fiber. "Alcohol is the most common process, as it produces products with a neutral taste. But the beneficial isoflavones in soy are removed by this method. Soy protein concentrate has the lowest level of healthful isoflavones—including daidzein, genistein and glycitein—of any form of processed soy."

But the biotech industry isn't taking all this lying down. An article describing the steps manufacturers are taking to undermine media reports states that "the biotech industry is particularly focused on taming controversies surrounding GMOs and the chemicals that are used on genetically modified crops, including Monsanto’s weedkiller glyphosate. The world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate is critical for the successful cultivation of GMO corn and soybeans. A recent study found that the chemical’s use by farmers has jumped fifteen-fold since 1996.

"One tactic industry allies employ to discredit questions about GMOs is to narrow the discussion to food safety. Pro-GMO scientists and writers mock experts and critics, by portraying them as loonies who think eating a bag of corn chips is akin to ingesting a bottle of arsenic. But this is a misleading line of attack, since GMO concerns are wide-ranging, including how well they are tested for safety, their impact on agriculture and the ecosystem, and the toxicity of glyphosate."

The article quotes author Michael Pollan as saying, "The industry’s PR campaign to reframe the GMO debate and intimidate journalists through harassment and name-calling has been remarkably successful in my view."

It remains to be seen if the recent guilty verdicts have any effect on people's willingness to subject not just themselves, their children and their pets to these pesticides, but their communities and the air, water and climate that we all depend on.

Photo of boxed burger from Wikipedia.

Food News: A Climate Solution; Herbicides in Wines; Neonicotinoid Pesticide Ban

Instead of fearing carbon, a Yale University lecturer is suggesting we farm it. In his recent book with the brain-numbing title The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security, author Eric Toensmeier describes a system of "carbon farming" that is being developed in Veracruz, Mexico.

In an article about the book on GreenBiz.com, Toensmeier writes about an effort initiated by Ricardo Romero, a former cattleman who became concerned about the degradation of his pastureland from traditional ranching practices. He started a small cooperative called Las Cañadas which is demonstrating that a combination of methods like planting native trees, reintroducing cattle—a technique called silvopasture—as well as managed grazing, fodder banks and planting certain perennial crops, can feed people, build more fertile soils and contribute to ecosystem health without forcing communities to radically change their diets.

While not claiming that this is a turn-key solution to climate change, he posits that it is a step in the right direction and, if adopted globally along with a massive reduction in fossil fuel emissions, could contribute substantially to changing our current situation.

* * *

Before you toast the end of climate change as described above—it is, after all, just being modeled on a small scale—you might want to know that the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and recently declared a "probable carcinogen" by the World Health Organization, has been found in random testing of 10 California wines.

A study, initiated by the group Moms Across America after 14 brands of German beer were found to have traces of the herbicide, and described in an article in the Digital Journal, found that that the wines, including some organic wines, had residues that exceeded the limit of .1 micrograms per liter allowed for drinking water.

"Using the Microbe Inotech Lab of St.Louis, Missouri…a total of 10 different wines from large and small vineyards in the Napa Valley, Sonoma and Mendocino counties in California were tested. According to the final report, the contamination of conventional wine was 28 times higher than organic wine."

The article goes on to state that "wine growers on conventional farms say that glyphosates are probably in the manure and/or fertilizers they use from animals fed genetically modified grains" and that "one big concern is for the folks who buy organic products, expecting to get what they are paying for." It says that the organic wine was probably contaminated by overspray, or "drift," from neighboring farms using the herbicide.

Cheers!

* * *

Efforts to ban neonicotinoid pesticides, the systemic neorotoxin linked to global bee die-offs, got a boost last week from the state of Maryland, according to an article in the Washington Post. Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, is expected to sign legislation passed by both houses of the state legislature to "ban stores from selling products laced with neonicotinoids to homeowners who tend to lather too much [of the pesticide] on trees and gardens."

Maryland's ban only applies to non-commercial uses of the pesticide, leaving "farmers and professionals who better understand how to apply them in a way that poses a lesser threat to bees…exempted by the law when it takes effect in 2018." Anyone who remembers the 2013 poisoning of more than 50,000 bees in Oregon by a commercial landscape company may disagree with this assumption.

Of this move by Maryland, Aimée Code of the Xerces Society, a national organization that promotes invertebrate conservation, said, "This is a great step forward to curb the use of chemicals that are causing dramatic harm in the environment."

Last year the Portland City Council banned pesticides containing neonicotinoids on city-owned property despite heavy pressure from industry lobbyists, though the pesticide is still widely available from suppliers and nurseries for use by commercial companies and private individuals. Wholesale nurseries routinely apply it on bedding plants used in commercial landscaping and for home gardens.

Here in the Northwest, Code said that while large nurseries often sell plants that are bred to "look pretty" but are often treated with pesticides because they are more susceptible to pests, smaller nurseries stock more native plants that aren't as vulnerable to local pests. In a win-win for pollinators and gardeners, she said that "our native bees prefer native plants" because they have higher levels of the pollen and nectar the bees are seeking.

So when you're out shopping for plants for your gardens, ask your local garden center if the plants you're interested in were treated with neonicotinoids, and consider purchasing native plants. Our bees will thank you!

Photo of bumblebee by Beth Nakamura for the Oregonian.

Food News: Toxins in PDX Gardens; FDA Begins Testing for Glyphosate in Vegetables

Two stories from the food policy website Civil Eats caught my eye recently. If you like these kinds of stories, consider a subscription to support their reporting on food system issues. I do!

Who hasn't heard about the high levels of toxins found in moss samples surrounding two glass factories in Portland, and then the devastating results of air pollution studies in the metro area? An article on Civil Eats about the city's soil crisis echoed a question I'd had, and that was: If the air and the soil around those factories is polluted, what about my friends in those neighborhoods who garden and raise vegetables to feed their families?

It's hard to think that those leafy green lettuces, juicy red tomatoes and carrots might be contaminated, too. Writer Elizabeth Grossman queried Portland public officials about these concerns and got a disturbing answer. She writes, "Oregon health and environmental authorities have admitted 'it is difficult to say for sure.' They’ve…recommended that people should avoid eating produce grown within a half-mile of the highest mapped metal concentrations until further notice."

Having your soil tested for heavy metals is an expensive process, and Grossman reports that while the EPA has guidelines for levels of heavy metals at toxic waste sites, it has no guidelines for garden soils. The article recommends that if gardeners want to grow vegetables, mitigation efforts include deep raised beds filled with clean soil and compost, and keeping those beds away from roof drip lines that could wash contaminated particles into the soil.

Grossman winds up by asking about the health effects of eating vegetables from contaminated areas and coming into contact with contaminated soil. "Children, says Tulane [University School of Medicine research professor Howard] Mielke, are 'extraordinarily sensitive.' He says there’s not enough research into exposure to soil contaminants so available information is limited. 'You get the runaround with people saying it’s probably safe,' when it may not be, he says. Mielke calls the soil information gap 'enormous.'"

* * *

It's a good news/bad news situation regarding herbicides, at least when it comes to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world. An article on Civil Eats by Carey Gilliam starts off with the bad news: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never tested foods like soybeans, corn, milk and eggs for residues from this herbicide, much less established guidelines for how much, if any, might be safe.

Gilliams reports the good news is that, as a direct result of a recent declaration by experts at the World Health Organization that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, the FDA is going to start testing for residues of the herbicide on certain foods. She writes that "the FDA’s move comes amid growing public concern about the safety of the herbicide known as glyphosate, and comes after the U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) rebuked the agency for failing to do such assessments and for not disclosing that short-coming to the public."

Additionally, she reports that "critics say several studies have linked glyphosate to human health ailments, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney and liver problems, and because glyphosate is so pervasive in the environment, even trace amounts can be harmful due to extended exposure." A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee, who spoke under condition of anonymity, said that the FDA plans to initiate testing on corn and soybeans.

Food News: Lead Contamination; EPA Tweaks Data on Herbicide; Lax USDA Regulators

The brouhaha over rampant development in the Portland metro area has been intensifying, with residents banding together to fight what they see as a Wild West-style climate for developers who feel they can knock down houses with impunity and throw up shoddily constructed McMansions in their place while city regulators take a hands-off approach.

But it's not just the Northwest's densely populated cities that are finding it tough to get a handle on the impacts of people flocking to our mild climate and livable communities. A shocking investigative report by Oregon Public Broadcasting's EarthFix environmental reporting team revealed that in more rural parts of the region, schools, homes and daycare centers have been built over old orchard sites where the soil is contaminated with lead and arsenic.

Worse, Washington "state’s Department of Ecology knows about this, and has for decades. But many parents and caregivers still do not, despite the risks these chemicals pose specifically to children."

The report said that "until the 1950s, Northwest apple growers spent decades spraying lead arsenate pesticides in a never-ceasing battle against the codling moth, which once threatened the country’s most productive tree fruit region. That spraying contaminated an estimated 187,000 acres of former orchard lands throughout Washington—an area that exceeds the size of Seattle and Portland combined."

It quotes Frank Peryea, professor emeritus at Washington State University’s Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center in Wenatchee, who studied lead and arsenic for decades, as saying, "Anything spilled or sprayed that reached the ground 100 years ago is still within the top foot of soil."

* * *

These are good days to be a corporate giant, especially if you're dealing a government agency.

A recent investigative story in the Chicago Tribune revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has blithely "tossed aside" data on the dangers of the World War II-era weed killer 2,4-D, which for decades that same agency had labeled as a dangerous, potentially cancer-causing chemical. By tweaking some numbers, the article said, "the agency’s scientists changed their analysis of a pivotal rat study by Dow [Chemical Co.], tossing aside signs of kidney trouble that Dow researchers said were caused by 2,4-D."

Dow is seeking to revive the herbicide for use in combatting so-called "superweeds" that have become resistant to Roundup, a weed killer developed by Monsanto in the 70s. In the early 2000s, in order to combat these resistant weeds, "Monsanto genetically engineered corn and soybeans to make them immune to its best-selling weed killer, [which] the company pitched …as a way to reduce overall use of herbicides and usher in an environmentally friendly era of farming." Instead, in an "old lady who swallowed the fly" move, the use of herbicides in American agriculture skyrocketed and now "chemical giants are giving the next wave of genetically modified crops immunity to the weed killers of generations past."

Dow has combined its 2,4-D with glyphosate, the active ingredient found in Monsanto's Roundup. This is despite "studies [that] found increased odds of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hypothyroidism and Parkinson's disease among people who used the chemical [2,4-D] as part of their jobs. In June, the WHO's cancer research agency ruled that 2,4-D is a possible carcinogen."

The result of the EPA tweaking the research data? "The Obama administration’s EPA now says it is safe to allow 41 times more 2,4-D into the American diet than before he took office" and that "U.S. children ages 1 to 12 could consume levels of 2,4-D that the World Health Organization, Russia, Australia, South Korea, Canada, Brazil and China consider unsafe." I wonder if Michelle Obama, with her focus on children and nutrition, is aware of this?

* * *

An article in the Capital Press in Salem, Oregon, reports that a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) internal agency audit uncovered that its own biotechnology regulators "don’t take past non-compliance problems into account when approving new field trials for regulated genetically engineered crops."

What that means is that when these biotech crops are planted out in the field and something goes wrong, like pollen from the biotech crops contaminate a neighboring field, which may render the contaminated crops unusable, the violation of USDA protocols is not taken into account when approving future trials by the same applicant.

The article states that "auditors found one instance where an organization was repeatedly allowed to conduct field trials even though it was cited for 122 incidents, including failing to 'devitalize' the crops, having the crops persist in the environment and moving them without authorization."

Most concerning is that the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) "doesn’t have a handle on what is being planted out there," according to Bill Freese, the non-profit Center for Food Safety’s science policy analyst.

Food News: Perdue, Carcinogens, Academia for Sale

Perdue Farms, the 800-pound gorilla of the poultry business, has bought the Niman Ranch brand in a move that's seen as its "transformation into one of the largest suppliers of premium meats," according to an article in the New York Times. You may recall that, in 2013, Perdue bought the assets of Washington state's Draper Valley poultry brand in a bid to expand into the "natural" and "organic" arena.

It was way back in 1969 that Bill Niman moved from Minnesota to California to accomplish what a rock anthem  of the time urged: "Got to get back to the land and set my soul free." Starting with a few pigs, goats and chickens, he gradually switched to raising cattle. When the property was bought by the State of California for a cool $1.3 million to make Point Reyes National Seashore, he began production in earnest, marketing his "natural" beef under the Niman Ranch label and taking on investors.

In 2007, Niman left the company in a dispute with his partners over the changes they were making in the animal husbandry protocols he had established. He returned to raising cattle on pasture and without the use of hormones and antibiotics under the new BN Ranch brand. (He was contractually prevented from using his own name on the new brand.) How the sale to Perdue will affect the Niman Ranch business, and its reputation, is a matter of speculation.

* * *

In a "notice of intent" issued in early September, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has said it plans to label glyphosate, an agricultural herbicide and the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, as a chemical "known to the state to cause cancer."

In addition, an article in the East Bay Express noted that research by the World Health Organization (WHO) recently found that glyphosate "is probably carcinogenic to humans" and linked it to "the steep decline of monarch butterflies." It also reported that there are "new alarms about potential negative health impacts tied to Roundup," including a recent study suggesting that "long-term exposure to tiny amounts of the chemical (thousands of times lower than what is allowed in drinking water in the US) could lead to liver and kidney problems."

So if you're walking down the street with your dog and notice your neighbor out with a sprayer attached to a jug of the stuff, maybe cross the street and avoid that place in the future.

* * *

And in more Monsanto news, this time about its products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the New York Times reports that—no surprise here— the company has been paying off academics to say nice things about them. The article said that an e-mail the company sent to an academic researcher gushed that "professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this debate [about GMOs] and support in their states, from politicians to producers. Keep it up!"

In what it calls "a billion-dollar food industry war," companies like Monsanto and, to a much lesser degree, even some organic food industry companies have funded academic research to try to sway public and political opinion in their direction.

It quotes one academic as saying, "They want to influence the public. They could conduct those studies on their own and put this information on their website. But nobody would believe them. There is a friggin’ war going on around this stuff. And everyone is looking to gain as much leverage as they can."

Photo of a field of genetically modified canola in Washington County in Oregon.

Oregon's GMO Labeling Battle: One Week to Go

First of all: please vote.

Second? Vote, dammit!

Okay, now that we have that out of the way: My family voted last week, as we usually do, sitting around the dining room table after dinner with the voter's pamphlet and our ballots, pointing at the ridiculous pictures ("Look, a pirate's running for Representative. Awesome!"), decoding the screamy endorsements then dropping our ballots off at the local public library. So now I'm going to jump into the fray and tell you why I voted for Measure 92 to require labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients.

Luckily we only watch television shows online, so aren't subjected to the overwhelming barrage of ads talking about how the earth is going to spin backwards on its axis and life as we know it will end if the measure does or does not pass. (Though the barrage of ads for pharmaceuticals, cars and cleaning products have nearly the same deadening effect.) And since I'm not going to out my family members here, I'll just talk about my own reasons.

My first reason is, of course, a selfish one. I want to know what goes into the food I buy and feed my own family. For me, labeling will help me make decisions about which products I want to buy and which I'd rather not purchase. Labels like "certified organic" and certification from the Non-GMO Project help me to know what I'm thinking about buying, but getting those certifications is voluntary and costs a lot of money. Companies that don't want to disclose that information simply don't have to, hiding behind other labels like "natural" or "sustainable."

Now, my own feelings about what I feed my family shouldn't be the standard for the rest of the world (though everyone would be so much better off if they'd just listen to me), but, as is pointed out in a Washington Post article titled "The GMO Debate: 5 Things to Stop Arguing About," there's my concern that the use of genetically modified crops in agriculture has caused an increase of tsunami-like proportions in the use of pesticides, and that "we need to start building more transparency into our agricultural system so consumers can vote with their wallets for the kind of system they want to see." Amen.

Further, an article by Tom Philpott in Mother Jones magazine said that in a just-released paper published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Sciences Europe, by Chuck Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, "GMO technology 'drove up herbicide use by 527 million pounds, or about 11 percent, between 1996 (when [Monsanto’s] Roundup Ready crops first hit farm fields) and 2011.'" The article continues: “But then weeds started to develop resistance to Roundup, pushing farmers to apply higher per-acre rates. In 2002, farmers using Roundup Ready soybeans jacked up their Roundup application rates by 21 percent, triggering a 19 million pound overall increase in Roundup use."

And “by 2011, farms using Roundup Ready seeds were using 24 percent more herbicide than non-GMO farms planting the same crops," Benbrook is quoted as saying. By that time, "'in all three crops [corn, soy, and cotton], resistant weeds had fully kicked in,' Benbrook said, and farmers were responding both by ramping up use of Roundup and resorting to older, more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D."

All those pesticides don't just disappear in a puff of non-toxic smoke. They're seeping into the soil and the groundwater, washing into our rivers and streams, being blown by the wind and carried by birds, insects and passing traffic and ending up in the oceans. Not to mention that genetically modified crops can cross-pollinate with organic crops of the same species, potentially costing organic farmers their certification, as well as a loss of income from that contaminated crop.

If I can help to stem this tide of pesticides and other damages by filling my grocery bag with products that don't contain genetically modified organisms, then I'd like to do that. But first those products would have to be labeled, wouldn't they?

More reading:

"More Money, Fewer Facts: Final Week of Oregon's GMO Labeling Race" by Hannah Wallace truth-checks some claims being bandied about in commercials and materials.

Top photo from Oregon Right to Know.

GMO Wheat in Oregon: Monsanto says, "Huh?"

It's a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. Ten years after a strain of Monsanto's so-called "Round-Up Ready" wheat was tested in Oregon (Wait, you didn't know that?) the same strain of the wheat, which was abandoned by the company and was said to have been completely destroyed, has been found in an Eastern Oregon farmer's field.

Subsequently, Japan, which bans "organisms modified by modern biotechnology (living modified organisms)," has summarily canceled existing and future orders for NW wheat. Other countries are threatening to do the same in what could amount to a blow to Oregon's wheat crop valued at between $300 million and $500 million dollars.

What does Monsanto have to say in its defense? Well, it's floated accusations of "industrial sabotage" by unnamed parties, but basically, as Stephen Colbert quotes in the clip above, it says "it is completely mystified by the appearance of the wheat."

In the meantime, I'm going looking for my deerstalker and Calabash.

Seeds of Life: David vs. Goliath

This interview with organic seed grower Frank Morton of Wild Garden Seed in Philomath was done before the landmark decision in favor of the organic growers who sued the USDA over the deregulation of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beet seeds. It's a great explanation of the suit (based on a previous court ruling on GMO alfalfa), and a portrait of someone I consider a state treasure.

Beet Beat: The Fight Begins in Earnest

Now that a federal judge has ruled against the process that the FDA used to deregulate the planting of genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready sugar beet seeds, industry giants like Monsanto that get their income from those seeds and the pesticides and chemicals those crops depend on are screaming mad.

In a recent report on NPR's business program, Marketplace, it's pointed out that more than half of the country's sugar comes from sugar beets, almost all of which are grown from Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds. Luther Markwart of the American Sugar Beet Growers Association is quoted as saying "This is a food security issue. We need to make sure that we have a good, strong, viable domestic beet-sugar industry."

Reporter Mitchell Hartman also spoke with Oregon plant breeder and seedsman Frank Morton (left), who produces and sells organic seed for his Wild Garden Seed in Philomath, Oregon. Morton, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, says it's also a food security issue for him and the other organic growers in the Willamette Valley where nearly all of the country's GE sugar beet seed is grown.

"If biotech traits show up in my seeds, then my seeds are worthless," Morton said of his beet and chard crops that are susceptible to cross-pollination from the GE beet pollen. "If my traits show up in conventional or biotech seeds, it's not a big deal to them, it does not destroy their value. It's an asymmetrical relationship we have here."

Judge Jeffrey White has ordered the FDA to produce an environmental impact statement which, the program says, could take years. And on December 4, the plaintiffs are going to ask the judge to issue a permanent injunction "to halt the sale and planting of GE sugarbeet seeds now and into the future, until the USDA does its job to protect consumers and farmers alike," said Zelig Golden, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety.

The Marketplace report continues, "in a similar case, a judge banned Roundup Ready alfalfa; Monsanto's appealing that decision to the Supreme Court. If there's a ban on sugar beet planting nationwide, it's doubtful there's enough conventional seed in storage to lay in a crop next spring."

Rather than blaming the organic seed industry and farmers like Frank Morton, not to mention the courts, for this problem, maybe we need to look at the corporations that put us in this position in the first place.

Read the other posts in the series: The Beet Beat, In The Wind, The Wheels of Justice, The Wheels of Justice, Part 2.

Photo of Frank Morton by Mitch Lies for the Capital Press.

Beet Beat: The Wheels of Justice, Part 2

My mailbox, like yours, is often full of stuff I don't want and didn't ask for. But once in awhile something appears that makes me shout "Woo hoo!" and dance on the porch. (Fyi, after sixteen years my neighbors have become used to these displays.)

Today was such a day. When I opened the box and pulled out my copy of the Capital Press, an ag newspaper, who should be looking up at me with his big blue eyes but Frank Morton, plant whisperer and activist owner of Wild Garden Seed in Philomath, Oregon. I wrote a profile of Frank for Edible Portland magazine and was taken not only with his passion for plant breeding but his commitment to keeping our common biological heritage out of the hands of corporations.

So it wasn't surprising when he joined a consortium of organic-seed growers, organic farmers and environmental and consumer groups in suing the US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) for deregulating the herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" sugar beet seeds developed by Monsanto. Not only to protect his own organic beet and chard seed business from being contaminated from the pollen of the genetically engineered sugar beets also grown in the Willamette Valley, but also to safeguard the crops of organic farmers from the same potentially devastating contamination.

"This is not a political concern," he says in the article titled Organic Grower Inspires Beet Lawsuit. "I was concerned that contamination events would begin to occur that would make my seed worthless."

He initially was not inclined to file a lawsuit. As a member of the Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association, he said he tried to bring up his concerns several times.

"I wanted to talk about this and talk about the impact of having genetically modified crops be a part of the specialy seed mix here in the valley," he is quoted as saying. "But no on wanted to talk about it. It was almost like it was an off-limits subject."

Now that a federal judge has issued a ruling against the USDA's deregulation process, the consortium is asking for an injunction banning new plantings until the environmental assessments are complete. Morton has little sympathy for the genetically modified sugar beet growers who are complaining the injunction would damage their businesses, saying it was obvious that the judge was going to rule against the USDA.

"They painted themselves into a corner with a spray paint can," Morton says. "If there is no beet sugar (next year), it's not my fault and it's not the judge's fault.

"I do feel vindicated," he said, "because everything I said to my fellow seedsmen, the judge has now agreed with."

The full text of the article is available at the Capital Press website, along with a companion article on the reaction of genetically modified sugar beet seed growers. Photo at top by Mitch Lies for the Capital Press.

Read the other posts in the series: The Beet Beat, In The Wind, The Fight Begins in Earnest and The Wheels of Justice.

Beet Beat: The Wheels of Justice

Once in awhile the good guys win, and yesterday justice gave a big ol' smack upside the head to genetically modified seed developers and the people who regulate them. In the process it may help save organic seed growers in Oregon as well as consumers who don't want to eat genetically modified produce.

Harvesting organic seeds at Gathering Together Farm in Philomath.

A little over a year ago I wrote a post about a lawsuit filed by a consortium of organic-seed growers, organic farmers, and environmental and consumer groups against the US Dept. of Agriculture for deregulating the herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" sugar beet seeds developed by Monsanto (read a summary I wrote at Culinate.com). The lawsuit charged that the U.S. Department of Agriculture violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before deregulating RoundUp Ready sugarbeets.

The reason this is important to organic seed growers and consumers of organic produce in Oregon? Because nearly all of the seeds for sugar beets in the United States are grown in the Willamette Valley. Nearly all of those plants and the seeds they produce are genetically engineered. Their pollen can travel on the wind as far as five miles from its source (read a 2001 EU study here), cross-pollinating with fields of organic beets and chard and contaminating the entire crop. And since Oregon only requires a 3-mile "isolation zone" between fields, the problem becomes evident.

Or as Federal District Court Judge White said in his ruling, "In light of the large distances pollen can travel by wind and the context that seed for sugar beets, Swiss chard and table beets are primarily grown in one valley in Oregon, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that deregulation may significantly effect the environment."

The decision was announced today on the Organic Seed Alliance blog, and you can now download a pdf of the full text of the decision. The remedy phase of the case will occur on October 30. I'll keep you posted!

---

UPDATE (9/24/09): Read the sugar beet industry's response to the ruling here.

Read the other posts in the series: The Beet Beat, In The Wind, The Fight Begins in Earnest, The Wheels of Justice, Part 2.

Photo of seed harvest by Torsten Kjellstrand for The Oregonian.

Beet Beat: In The Wind

In a very well-written story, Oregonian reporter Scott Learn picked up on the subject I posted about last February on the danger to Oregon's organic beet and chard growers from GMO sugar beets. Titled "Oregon's Organic Farmers Fight Genetically Modified Seeds," Learn lays out the issues that led to a lawsuit filed by a consortium of organic-seed growers, organic farmers, and environmental and consumer groups to stop the growing of so-called Round-Up Ready sugar beet seeds.

As I wrote in a summary on the issue for Culinate.com, the lawsuit alleges that wind-blown pollen from these GMO beets could contaminate nearby crops of conventional sugar beets as well as other closely related crops, such as chard and table beets, and harm the burgeoning organic farming and organic seed-production industries in the valley.

The availability of organic chard and table beets at farmers’ markets and stores could also be affected if the produce is found to be contaminated by cross-pollination (or outcrossing) between the GMO beets and nearby fields of organic vegetables. A European Union study conducted in 2001 found that wind-blown sugar-beet pollen could be detected up to five miles from its source. The state of Oregon only requires three miles of isolation between GMO fields and non-GMO fields.

The Oregonian's Learn also spoke to seedsman and activist Frank Morton, whom I profiled for Edible Portland magazine.

"'Who's responsible if it isn't on a leash?' says Morton, sunburned, earnest and blunt. 'I'm a certified organic seed grower, and if (his crops) were to get contaminated with any detectable amount of transgenic sugar beet pollen, my product becomes worthless.'"

Read the other posts in the series: The Beet Beat, The Fight Begins in Earnest, The Wheels of Justice, The Wheels of Justice, Part 2.

Photo of threshing organic chard for its seed at Gathering Together Farm in Philomath, Oregon, by Torsten Kjellstrand for The Oregonian.

The Beet Beat

There has been sugar from genetically modified sugar beets in your Hersheys bars for nearly three years now. And lest you Mars Bars eaters think you're off the hook, they've got GMO sugar in them, too. Though the sugar industry says that since the sugar doesn't contain any DNA, just sucrose, there's nothing to worry about. The candy people themselves aren't saying anything, hoping that the issue will just go away.

The sugar beet

The reason I know this is because there was a lawsuit filed last week by a consortium of organic-seed growers, organic farmers, and environmental and consumer groups against the US Dept. of Agriculture for deregulating the herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" sugar beet seeds developed by Monsanto (read a summary I wrote at Culinate.com).

Table beets

You may be saying, with good reason, "Why should I care? I don't eat candy bars." And you'd have a point. Except that the Willamette Valley is the primary source of sugar beet seeds in the country, and those Roundup Ready seeds are being planted this winter.

Chard

Again, you could say, "So what?" But, you see, the sugar beet is essentially the same plant, beta vulgaris, as the red and yellow table beets and chard that you serve to your family. All of these depend on wind-born pollen to develop seeds, and this pollen can travel (according to an EU study in 2001) as far as 5 miles away from its source.

And since Oregon only requires a 3-mile "isolation zone" between fields, the problem becomes evident. That's why the organic farmers and seed growers were so alarmed that they went to court to try to stop it, and why you should care. I'll definitely be keeping you apprised!

Read the other posts in the series: In The Wind, The Fight Begins in Earnest, The Wheels of Justice and The Wheels of Justice, Part 2.