|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
Jun. 24, 2010 AgNetwork.com writer Dan Murphy reports: Steve Welker, Monsanto's alfalfa business lead, suggested Tuesday that farmers could begin planting the crop this fall. But Alito wrote that no RRA "can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place," and USDA isn't expected to issue an EIS until spring 2011. In an hour-long news conference yesterday, David F. Snively, Monsanto's senior vice president and general counsel clarified Monsanto's stance. He said that he's hopeful APHIS will partially deregulate RRA while the EIS is pending. "They had a proposal developed to allow interim planting [before the district court's injunction was imposed]," he said, "and we hope they come forward with that." He said that the Court's ruling won't materially affect alfalfa exports to such major markets as China, Japan and South Korea, noting that "ample supplies" of conventionally grown alfalfa were available. "We don't expect any disruption of the global export market," he said. AgNetwork.com Contributing Editor Dan Murphy was able to ask Snively several pointed questions concerning the agri-giant's perspective on Monday's Supreme Court ruling, which are summarized below. AgNetwork.com: The groups opposed to the approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa-particularly the Center for Food Safety-always pose a question that capsulizes their opposition: "Why do we even need an herbicide-resistant alfalfa? What's the benefit to farmers?" How do you answer that? Snively: It's a matter of choice on the part of farmers. They're the ones who need to decide if this crop is one that's suited to their operations. If [RRA] saves them multiple trips across the fields, and thus makes growing more efficient and profitable, it should be their decision whether to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa or not. There were about 5,500 growers using RRA, planting it on more than 220,000 acres. We trust their decisions, and recognize that if RRA isn't in their best interests, then they're not going to buy the seeds. AgNetwork.com: What about crop drift? Doesn't that cause problems with "genetic drift" on adjacent fields where other farmers might be cultivating conventional or organically grown alfalfa? Snively: No, there really isn't a big problem with that. When you get down to the molecular level, if a few bees pollinate one crop to another doesn't mean you turn your other field into a Roundup Ready field. The amount of [genetic material] is infinitesimal, and you don't necessarily have gene uptake. AgNetwork.com: But if I may quote what Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of the Center for Food Safety, told AgNetwork.com, "USDA's organic regulations do not set standards for 'biological pollution,' as they do for herbicide drift. The standards say that if your crop contains GMOs-which are easily detectable-you could lose your organic certification." How do you respond to that? Snively: Andy is being very cute with his answer, and deliberately confusing issues here. Let's be clear: Any organic certification is based on your manner and method of how you produce whatever crop is certified. When he suggests that if you had some substantial contamination, you could lose your contractual ability to sell that crop [as organic], that's a different deal from losing your organic certification. AgNetwork.com: That's separate . . . Snively: Yes, that's totally separate situation, and frankly, it is scientifically implausible to have substantial cross-contamination from a pollen standpoint. Co-existence has been around for many years, and this is a hypothetical situation that's being spun by the Center for Food Safety. You have to ask yourself: What's their game plan here? To block this technology and take this choice away from farmers who want to use it. They're hijacking the livelihoods of millions of American farmers by these rigid, extreme views. Snively finished by emphasizing that, "For all the chatter on the Internet about this ruling being a 'huge breakthrough' for environmentalists, that they now have legal standing to bring all sorts of litigation against biotech crops, that is a total misreading of what the Supreme Court said on legal standing for a regulatory challenge. This ruling has nothing to do long-term with the issues of biotechnology and whether there are private causes of action." For more on the background and impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on Roundup Ready alfalfa, log onto www.monsanto.com/roundupreadyalfalfa Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
