you say tomato, i say GMO

[EWerb]

Below please find all you can eat on GMO's - Lots of good insights and up to
date info on NOP. 
- eric werbalowsky

This is forwarded by Steve Gilman  President, NOFA Interstate Council
Ruckytucks Farm 130 Ruckytucks Road Stillwater, NY  12170,
sgilman at netheaven.com

Hello All --   

Herein are some materials related to further developments with USDA's proposed
Organic Program. The number of comments received by USDA thus far -- over
100,000 -- is the highest response in the history of rulemaking and if we can
keep the momentum going we may easily see 150,000 by the end of the comment
period, April 30th.    

While Monsanto may be seen as backing down in the enclosed news story--
Excuuuse me -- OFPA-1990 specifically forbids USDA from ADDING anything to the
National List and NOSB has already ruled Genetically modified organisms are
prohibited substances. Period.   

Monsanto seems to be conceding that the inclusion of GMOs as Organic is not
NOW possible, given the tremendous widespread and vociferous response against
the Rule, but they are also keeping the door open, suggesting  that when we
peons finally become "better informed" after a  three year delay, THEN the
USDA can insert it into the Organic regs.... Perhaps by then they can stack
NOSB with their own minions who will be there to represent their interests.
Quite easily done since the Secretary has the power of appointment.   

What we really need to call for is a 3-year moratorium on the USE of GMOs (and
sewage sludge on farmland and food irradiation, for that matter). Sec.
Glickman already had to back down, saying the Big 3 were only put in the Rule
for comment. Since these technologies and practices have already  been
unleashed on our food system, a full, public discussion is long overdue.    

While we have the public ear we should not only educate what Organic
positively is, but also what the ongoing negative ramifications of these
industrial inputs really are -- and finally hold that national/international
debate. There are also other avenues. The NOFA Interstate Council joined in a
petition to EPA with Greenpeace and some 60+ other organizations to stop the
field release of transgenic Bt crops. EPA has had to open the case to consider
new (that is non-Agribusiness) science and information. The next step is a
lawsuit. Similarly, there's another case we are participating in with NCAMP et
al to require EPA to divulge inert ingredients. Even the New York State
Attorney General has joined in on that one.   

Since we are responsible for tapping into and helping to unleash a veritable
grassroots groundswell of truly awesome proportions we need to provide the
focus and leadership to keep it all going once the comment period is over. The
issues will still be there and so will the public concerns. USDA may have to
duck now, but they're still there with all their special interests too. This
happens to be an election year as well and Congress needs to continually hear
these concerns and be prompted to act in the public interest. We also have to
translate this groundswell into a mandate for the investment of public funds
through our Land Grants and Extension to get the "O-Word" into the funding
mainstream and get some support to the researchers on the cutting edge of bio-
intensive/organic. We are a constituency for bio/alternative/organic
agriculture and need to get better at advocating our needs and demands.  

Best, Steve Gilman 

       NOFA   ---- from AgNet, Guelph University: -------   

MONSANTO ASKS USDA TO DELAY DECISION ON WHETHER GENETIC CROPS ARE ORGANIC 

Apr. 17/98 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REKHA BALU  

Monsanto Co., in what this story calls a move likely to please consumer
groups, is asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to delay for at least
three years a decision on whether genetically engineered crops could qualify
as organic.  

In a letter to the department, the St. Louis company noted that both the use
of biotechnology in agriculture and the production of organic food are still
evolving. It added that after such a delay, "a better, more informed decision
can be made as to whether and how to make plants improved through
biotechnology eligible for organic certification."  

The story says that many consumer and organic-farming advocates contend that
organic means that the crop and the growing conditions should be naturally
occurring, and thus genetically altered crops shouldn't be considered organic.

Others, such as Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and the American Seed Trade
Association are submitting comments in favor of including genetically altered
products in the organic standards.  

The story says that Monsanto's suggestion could offer the USDA some relief
from having to mediate between organic farming advocates and a biotechnology
industry that the USDA has heralded as an answer to many of the world's
agricultural problems.  

The USDA comment period on its proposed rule for national standards for
organic production ends April 30. The biotechnology question has prompted a
deluge of comments from consumers strongly opposed to it. Monsanto was cited
as saying that after three years, there will be more data on what it called
the "positive impact" of the crops. The U.S. has had only three seasons of
commercial planting of genetically altered crops, but already close to one-
fifth of soybeans grown have been genetically changed. The U.S. currently
doesn't label which foods contain genetically modified crops.  

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, was cited as
suggesting that some biotech companies wanted to use the small, but powerful,
organic market as a proving ground for their products' credibility. Walter
Fehr, director of biotechnology at Iowa State University, was cited as saying
that with such strong consumer opposition and still-limited data, the USDA
should take biotechnology out of the discussion for now, adding, "Now is the
absolutely wrong time." Even if genetically altered crops were approved for
organic classification this year, they would have to be grown in soil free of
synthetic chemicals.  

-- A couple of stories picking up on the Monsanto letter.  

MONSANTO JOINS DEBATE ON ORGANIC FOODS 
Apr. 18/98 Reuters/ The Guardian Weekly WASHINGTON 

To date, a staggering 100,000 comment letters have been posted or e-mailed to
the USDA on its plan. Nearly two weeks still remain before the USDA ends the
mandated comment period and most major companies and agri-business groups have
yet to make their views public. Most oppose the proposal to allow organic food
labels to include bioengineered material, leading some industry experts to
fear the USDA might be paralyzed into taking no action at all.  

Monsanto, the St. Louis-based giant seed and biotechnology company, told USDA
it should go ahead with its organic food standards but defer the biotech issue
for three years.  

In a letter to the USDA, Monsanto said a three-year delay would give the
department and the public more time to understand "the positive impact" of
biotechnology.  

Monsanto vice president Linda Fisher was quoted as saying in the letter that,
"Biotechnology is an evolving agriculture production technique, as is organic
food production." In three years, "we believe a better more informed decision
can be made as to whether and how to make plants improved through
biotechnology eligible for organic certification."  

One food industry official was quoted as saying, "Monsanto's letter may offer
USDA the out they've been looking for on the ticklish biotech issue. This will
give USDA a graceful way to put the issue aside for now."  

The Guardian story noted that as Monsanto prepared to mount a multi-million
dollar public relations campaign to convince European shoppers of the
ecological and global benefits of GM foods, it admitted that it had
underestimated ethical and scientific concerns and had pushed its products on
to the market without explanation.  

Philip Angell, Monsanto's US director of corporate communications was quoted
as saying, "We made mistakes which we regret. We should have listened more
carefully."  

A PUBLIC FORUM ON GENETICALLY  MODIFIED  ORGANISMS 
May 8, 1998 (from a press release, Forwarded by C. S. Prakash, Center for
Plant Biotechnology Research, Tuskegee University (prakash at tusk.edu)  

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the British
Embassy will convene a public forum on genetically modified food products from
9:00AM to 5:00 PM on May 8 in Washington, DC.  

Advances in genetic engineering are making it possible to create truly novel
organisms by combining the genetic material of unrelated organisms. For
example, genes from bacteria, viruses, and insects are being spliced into
staples of our food chain, including potatoes, corn, rice, apples, and squash.
While these novel food substances are not known to be dangerous, they may
carry some ecological or health risks.  What safety standards, therefore,
should be applied before they are publicly available?  What nutritional value
should be expected?  What information about them should be made available to
consumers? Why have genetically modified food products been accepted in the US
much more readily than in Europe?  These and other issues will be discussed at
the forum, with ample opportunity for those attending to participate in the
proceedings.  

The morning session will include an overview of current and imminent
scientific capabilities for genetically manipulating microbes and crops as
well as presentations on industrial and consumer perspectives on the promises
and pitfalls of genetically modified food products.  The afternoon session
will feature a panel responding to questions on the science of genetically
modifying natural food products, the consequences of doing so, public
acceptance of this new technology and the types of policies that should be in
place.   Rather than a series of presentations, the panel will be organized as
a dialogue, with a moderator posing questions to panelists and encouraging
participation by the audience.  

The forum is free and open to the public, but space is limited so you must
register if you plan to attend.  Contact Sanyin Siang at AAAS via phone: (202)
326-6792, fax: (202) 289-4950, or email: ssiang at aaas.org.  A registration form
is also available on the AAAS Web site:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/gmoforum.htm 

Where:  AAAS Auditorium, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC  (enter at the
H and 12th Street entrance) 
When:   Friday, May 8, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 

PROGRAM 
9:00 am   Welcome and Introductions Lester Crawford, Director, Georgetown
Center for Food & Nutrition Policy 
Opening Remarks Rita R. Colwell, President, Biotechnology Institute,
University of Maryland 
9:15       Scientific Overview Liebe F. Cavalieri, Professor of Environmental
Science, State University of New York at Purchase 
10:00        Break 
10:30      Industrial Perspective Rob Horsch, Director of Science &
Technology, Agracetus Campus, Monsanto 
11:15      Consumer Perspective Margaret Mellon, Director of Agriculture &
Biotechnology, Union of Concerned Scientists 
12:00pm   Lunch (will be provided)  - ew sez: read the damn labels or bring
your own gruel!! 
1:30      Panel Discussion Moderator: Lester Crawford, Director, Georgetown
Center for Food & Nutrition Policy Participants: Liebe F. Cavalieri, Professor
of Environmental Science, State University of  New York at Purchase Rebecca
Goldburg, Staff Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund Thomas J. Hoban,
Professor of Sociology & Food Sciences, North Carolina State University Rob
Horsch, Director of Science & Technology, Agracetus Campus, Monsanto Sally L.
McCammon, Science Advisor to the Administrator of the Animal & Plant
Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture [Representative from Europe -
TBA] 
3:30       Closing Remarks 
4.00       Tea