[Scpg] Notice on GMO action at USDA

[steven sprinkel]

Hello,



An obscure division of the USDA called the Animal Plant Health Inspection
Sevice (APHIS) opened a Public Comment Period late in January in which they
seek public guidance on the creation of an Environmental Impact Statement on
new GMO releases into the environment.



Imagine that.



And the products the government is proposing to sign off on include
pharmaceuticals and industrials grown in the open. To be more plain, drugs
and vaccines, dancing in the wind. Biologicals-grown under a Defense
Department contract? Who knows what the suicide machine is going to do now,
however, you may participate in the effort to call a halt to further
contamination of the environment. I will be sending a bit more on this for
your perusal. Please feel free to delete any further mention of APHIS or
Docket No. 03-031-2 if you want to ignore it. You must refer to Docket No.
03-031-2 in any communications with APHIS.



I am sending my final comments first because they set the stage.

They are long because they need to be.



I will send the original Federal Register publication of the APHIS proposals
next.

And I will also send some snappy one-pagers lately put together by other
organizations.



Please email or send comments to APHIS soon. The publiccomment period ends
on 23 March.



the email is regulations at aphis.usda.gov



Remember that you have to put Docket No. 03-031-2 in the subject box.



Thank you.



Steve Sprinkel

****************************************************************************
*******************************





Docket No. 03-031-2





DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


7 CFR Part 340




Environmental Impact Statement; Introduction of Genetically Engineered
Organisms




AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.




16 March 2004




Docket No. 03-031-2

Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,

Station 3C71, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,

Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

.

Respondents:


Center for Regenerative Agriculture, Ojai, California

Maricopa Farm, Ojai

The Farmer and The Cook, Meiners Oaks, California






We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the creation of an
Environmental Impact Statement on the introduction of genetically engineered
organisms under the auspices of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
USDA.


Since 1996, we have been at odds with the unprecedented mobilization to
adopt an experimental kind of agriculture utilizing novel technology which
has been generally approved on the basis of stated but unproven equivalency
to previous crops and hybridization methods. Our impression was and remains
that reasonable questions concerning public safety, animal health,
safeguarding the environment, and commercial acceptance were swept aside
because of a politically motivated unwillingness to take the required time
to diligently examine recombinant gene manipulation and transfer in
accordance to the stakes and complexity inherent to the technology. As far
back as 1998 we openly inquired about the role that APHIS should play in
regulating GMO releases into the environment in order to keep genetic
contamination from occurring. We are glad to see the Service take up this
task.


Unfortunately, we now observe a world-wide trend towards adopting levels of
GMO contamination in order to facilitate trade. In this we see an
affirmation of our original concerns, as well as further evidence that
commerce governs science. The principle as well as the result cannot be very
well defended by sincerely curious citizens, be they regulators, consumers,
or farmers.


Tolerances are now considered, whereas in previous official decision-making
and government pronouncements, contamination was considered remote. And now
we observe the adoption of the term adventitious in order to describe
contamination as if it were merely an unforeseen accident. But we, among
millions of others, saw this day coming, because the contamination we now
observe was expected, and had been calculated, and the shame of it is that
the risk was predicted by the laity, and not by those in seemingly a better
position to grasp the risk and forestall it through the power entrusted to
them and their standing within the scientific community.


As farmers, we demand that the seed we plant and products we harvest not be
contaminated with genetic material which we do not want and which will
affect the merchantability of our crops. Where else in commerce is such a
limitation acceptable? The fact is that we are rushing towards a day in
which there will be no alternatives.  We consider genetic contamination a
form of trespass, and a taking, that the government condones through
improper regulation and intentional inaction. We need to strenuously
underscore the significance of those errors even while anticipating
satisfactory results through the creation of the EIS.


We most sincerely hope that the forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement
can address past as well as contemplated releases in a manner that has heard
the voices of all stakeholders.





1. Regulatory requirements for genetically modified organisms introduced
into the environment do need to be established to prevent the accidental
dispersal of undesirable and often economically damaging plants and other
organisms which contaminate adjoining or successive crops and fields.  We
feel that contamination of this kind is more economically damaging than that
encountered by naturally occurring noxious weeds such as those on the
Federal List.  A farmer or handler may screen onionweed (Asphodelus
fistulosus) from a harvested corn crop, but removing unapproved genetics,
for example Starlink CRY9C, is impossible.

When GMO crops were first contemplated, significant documented concern was
raised about artificial genetics that might not be adequately contained.
Over the past ten years, as GMO crop production has grown, much evidence has
accumulated which justifies those early predictions about our inability to
confine the genetics.

Our long standing concern regards not only situations involving, for
example, corn pollen traveling into adjoining crops that affect the purity
and marketability of the neighboring crop, but as well the deposition of
potentially harmful genetic material from Bt crop residues which some
research indicates has a negative affect on the diversity of soil
micro-organisms.. Here we also reference two university-based (Iowa State
and Cornell) studies on mortality to lepidopteran larvae inadvertently
consuming drifted Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn pollen, which at the very
least indicates that perhaps much broader unintended affects are possible.
Intrastate and interstate transport of commercialized GMO crops disperses
seeds known to provoke unacceptable risks to the environment and to
commerce. Given that such dispersals are possible, we are concerned about
the potential that experimental genetics may have been released unwittingly
and go unnoticed in either wild plants or commercial crops.


Stopgap actions have been required to manage a technology which "sound
science" promised had been fully reviewed. When lepidopteran resistance to
Bt was discovered just a few seasons after Bt crops were introduced, the
USDA and the EPA, strongly advised producers to plant Bt crops in refuge
patterns aimed at sequestering the genetics in order to maintain the
efficacy of topically applied Bt materials as well as the GMO Bt crops. Up
to the present day, no published research on non-target lepidopteran
morality from GMO Bt crops (meaning other than European corn borer) has been
offered. The negative implications to the environment that might arise from
widespread mortality of non-target pests must be addressed.

Many novel introductions have been promoted without enough research to prove
that GMO technology was sincerely and objectively appraised. The plan to
introduce modified inoculant bacteria used on alfalfa created a disturbing
precedent when the inoculants were first commercialized. Research on
potential negative impacts to the environment is scant. The whereabouts of
all the synthetic microbes laid into those alfalfa fields can not even be
surmised.


If APHIS does establish regulatory requirements, our chief concern is that
we may not be able to adequately foresee the potential circumstances which
we are trying to avoid. To rephrase the Department's final question: What
environmental considerations should not influence this change in regulatory
scope?


The most important environmental consideration is that the novel technology
of crop gene modification cannot be arrested once it has been released. In
retrospect, events of the past few years indicate that we might be able to
redefine at least a few of the genetically modified crops not just as
noxious weeds, but as plant pests, according to the definitions provided in
the Plant Protection Act (PPA) and listed in the Supplementary Information.
This argument may go beyond the scope of the question at hand, however,
genetically modified crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis  toxins are a
case in point. After observing how genetic drift from a GMO corn or canola
crop may readily contaminate nearby fields holding the same species,
affecting the market value of both organic and conventional crops, setting
the stage for legal tests over patent infringement, prompting extraordinary
measures to maintain general purity of harvests, and leaving residual,
viable seed in the harvested field ready to prompt further problems when it
sprouts in the spring to come, one may even reluctantly have to admit that
GMO crops can be understood as pest plants, according to the PPA.





2.  APHIS should revise existing regulations in order to acknowledge the
risks inherent to the introduction of all genetically engineered species,
any inadvertently contaminated and viable hybrid progeny and all subsequent
residues. Based on our experience, since genetically engineered varieties
were commercially produced, evidence in hand justifies concern that
USDA/APHIS should recognize that there are unknown consequences resulting
from the introduction of novel, genetically modified organisms. We feel that
it is not necessary to expand the definition for noxious weeds with respect
to accidental dispersal of undesirable genetically modified plants into the
environment because any release that affects the natural genome of wild or
cultivated plants or their populations, or the dependent ecology, or the
biological diversity of the environment should be recognized as a noxious
invasion of an otherwise stable ecology. Allowing novel species endowed with
genetics of unknown function, or designed to embody or release
plant-protectants, without full EPA review is just as unwise, in our
opinion, as it has been to allow novel species to be released that have been
reviewed by EPA. We have been wary of this agricultural technology for some
time and unfortunately our concerns have proven to have been justified. The
research upon which approvals were given did not seek to truly prove or
disprove that there would be undesirable results from the general
introduction of genetically modified organisms. We have noted that crops
designed to produce pharmaceutical properties have been mishandled. We have
noted that feed crops have contaminated food crops resulting in great loss
in capital and that the insurance and property markets have been adversely
affected.

The risk to the organic sector should not be underestimated, because
evolving standards for contamination allowances, both for domestic use and
export are moving towards zero. Through no fault of their own, organic
farmers discover that their crops are unfit for sale. The risk to the
environment due to the release of genetically modified organisms must
include affects to migratory wildlife, including non-vertebrates, as well as
microorganisms. We cannot ignore the entire food chain. APHIS should not
consider granting exemptions for any 'low-risk' categories of releases,
because the risks have never been measured fundamentally. Our impression is
that the stakes are so high, the risks so great, that nothing short of
perfection is desirable in the management of this technology. Hermetic
laboratories are the best places to continue GMO experimentation.





3. Because GMO technology is in its infancy, we are certain that flexibility
is unwarranted until all risks have been appropriately measured. We
appreciate the need to be specific in addressing environmental factors that
should be identified if the current decision-making process is changed.
However, environmental changes already are taking place, which should serve
as ample motive to not relax existing procedures. It is not the time to
delineate genetic traits in order to allow more rapid commercialization. We
feel that commercial interests have not proven that they are willing to
follow existing regulations, which, for example, would have kept seed stocks
safe, or not allowed experimental GMO crops to commingle other crops in the
field. Instead, APHIS should establish much more comprehensive guidelines
which would maintain the purity of the environment.

A whole systems approach needs to be adopted so that the entire ecology is
understood and measured when contemplating introductions. We believe that
the notion of "minor unresolved risks" lacks scientific credibility.
Examples of what constitutes a "minor risk " could be helpful in responding.
The introduction of man-made, experimental genetics into the environment
must be recognized as an act of potential and proven risk.




4.The introduction into the environment of any kind of species genetically
engineered to produce pharmaceutical or engineered compounds is unwise at
this time. We feel that the industry has not proven itself capable of
confining the technology. We feel that fuller disclosure of at least some of
the species under consideration could help in the formulation of a more
complete response. That being said, we are concerned that contamination of
wild plants may result if crop species are not utilized. And because
contamination has occurred broadly throughout the processed food chain due
to incidental exposure through unclean handling machinery and, as well,
unknown sources of contamination, probably in the field, we feel it is
unwise to move forward with this aspect of the technology. If the sources of
contamination are unknown, how may APHIS be able to address appropriate
action to take in order to halt the spread of unwanted genetic material into
the environment?




5.We feel that it is appropriate to regulate non-viable plant material,
insofar as it is non-viable material that has caused significant commercial
losses to farm products thought to be free of any contamination. Unapproved
non-viable genetic material may not be a constituent of crops and processed
agricultural products destined for many export markets. As noted already,
many export market authorities are considering zero and near-zero
contamination rates for specific as well as general GMO crops and plant
products.




6.We feel it is not appropriate to liberalize the existing regulatory
framework because individual states should not be expected to have the
appropriate resources and trained personnel available to make the same kind
of decisions now within the authority of APHIS. Funding programs and
facilities, and finding competent personnel could be a burden to many state
governments. More so, we have little confidence in producers. We feel that,
while adopting non-food and non-feed crops is an improvement on the
direction industry had been moving in, the record for control and
confinement does not justify relaxed regulation. We base much of our concern
on the fact that the competency of industry and regulators is already in
question because the risks associated with the utilization of food or feed
crops for GMO pharmaceutical applications should have been identified much
earlier during the permit process. The potential risks to human and
livestock health, the environment, and to commerce, should
pharmaceutical-bearing crops be released, have been criticized within the
private sector for over six years.





7.We feel that, based on the voluminous criticism of GMO crop technology
prior to and during commercialization, specifically warning of the
eventuality of contamination, that APHIS cannot claim adventitious presence
to justify arbitrary levels of contamination. Genetic pollution was
predicted widely, and now it is commonplace. Low-level occurrence should not
be unexpected but is a certainty instead. We cannot conceive of a
circumstance in which low-level occurrence should be allowed.




8.We do not feel that it is wise for APHIS to adopt expedited review for, or
allow exemptions for imported GMO agricultural commodities. We feel that
given the uncertainties of the day, accepting approvals from countries
exporting GMO materials into the US, no matter their intended use, would
expose the environment and public health to unnecessary risk. We feel it
would be unwise for APHIS to assume that officials elsewhere would provide
the same level of professionalism and have the same kind of rigorous
training as found at USDA. Contaminants are too easily overlooked and
testing would be costly as well as inconclusive. We are also concerned that
the concept may not be in complete harmony with the evolving
responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security, which we feel would
eventually be concerned about the potential for un-inspected or
intentionally contaminated shipments known to have been expedited according
to this proposal.




9.We feel that there is no justification to exempt other genetically
engineered plants from movement restrictions. We question the comparison of
Arabidopsis with "other similar genetically engineered plants", because
Arabidopsis is unique in a number of ways. Arabidopsis has been carefully
studied for over one hundred and thirty years, has been the chief resource
in the study of plant biology and plant genetics, and is the subject of over
700,000 electronic publications and no doubt thousands of others in print
form. Arabidopsis is a universally accepted research tool, and though we are
concerned about the transport of any genetically modified organisms, we feel
it would be best to maintain current regulations regarding transport as they
are. Under current circumstances we feel it would not be in the public's
best interest to liberalize existing criteria, and we are certain that no
species are at this time suitable for the same exemptions granted to
Arabidopsis.





10.We can conceive of no areas where APHIS should consider relieving
regulatory requirements because risk has never been sufficiently measured.





11.We feel that safety standards are best left to a single authority and
that APHIS should continue to prescribe container requirements for shipment
of genetically engineered organisms. The record for the private sector does
not justify relaxation of standards. Our impression is that the cost of such
containers may be the motive for seeking changes and we feel that the GMO
industry will be able to afford agency-devised containers.




Thank you for the opportunity to make this contribution.





Steven Sprinkel

Maricopa Farm

Ventura County, California




President, Ojai Center for Regenerative Agriculture





----- Original Message -----
From: "Santa Barbara Permaculture Network" <sbpcnet at silcom.com>
To: <scpg at arashi.com>; <ccpg at arashi.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: [Scpg] Looking for someone to build an earthbag wall in Santa Cruz


> Are you aware of any contractors in the Santa Cruz, Ca. area that have
> experience in earthbag construction? I have no experience and very little
time
> to attempt this myself. Any leads would be appreciated.
> Barbara
>
>
>
>
> On 3/12/04 6:06 PM, "Kelly Hart" <kellyhart at greenhomebuilding.com> wrote:
> >
> > barbara,
> >
> > Earthbags work very well for landscape retaining walls, and can be
filled
> > with virtually any kind of native soil. The bags do have to be plastered
> with
> > something to keep the sunlight for destroying them.
> >
> > Kelly
> >
> > question: Can earthbag construction be used for retaining walls in the
> > landscape? The native soil in fairly heavy clay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Santa Barbara Permaculture Network
> > (805) 962-2571
> > sbpcnet at silcom.com
> > www.sbpermaculture.org
> >
> > "We are like trees, we must create new leaves, in new directions, in
> order to
> > grow." - Anonymous
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Scpg mailing list
> Scpg at arashi.com
> https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/scpg