Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on biotech alfalfa in April

By DAVE WILKINS

Capital Press

One Idaho farmer will be watching with particular interest when the U.S. Supreme Court looks at genetically engineered alfalfa later this year.

Phil Geertson of Greenleaf is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in 2006 by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Geertson and others who oppose Roundup Ready alfalfa.

The suit, Geertson Seed Farms v. USDA and Monsanto, resulted in a federal court-ordered halt to the commercial planting of the crop in 2007.

Now, three years later, the Supreme Court will review the case on an appeal by Monsanto. The court is expected to hear oral arguments in April.

This will be the first time the high court has weighed in on the risks of genetically engineered crops. Of the more than 10,000 cases appealed to the Supreme Court each year, only about 1 percent are accepted for oral arguments.

At one time Geertson was growing about 1,000 acres of alfalfa seed in Northern Nevada, Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho. He became concerned in the late 1990s when Monsanto and Forage Genetics began talking about their plans to release Roundup Ready alfalfa. The new genetically modified variety would be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, Monsanto's popular broad-spectrum herbicide.

The USDA deregulated the crop in 2005 and farmers began growing the crop commercially.

Convinced that his conventional alfalfa varieties would be contaminated with the new glyphosate-tolerant gene, Geertson moved his production to Canada.

Roundup Ready alfalfa "will ultimately have a very destructive impact on the American alfalfa seed industry," Geertson said in an interview with Capital Press.

"I've contracted seed production in Canada so I know that the seed that we're selling is not contaminated," he said.

Geertson and the Center for Food Safety won the first round in the legal battle in 2007 when a federal judge in Northern California ordered USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to conduct a full environmental impact statement, or EIS, and issued an injunction blocking further planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa until the study was finished.

EIS completed

APHIS completed a draft EIS document late last year and has recommended that Roundup Ready alfalfa be deregulated and that farmers again be allowed to grow it. The public comment period ends March 3.

Geertson said the draft EIS, at more than 1,400 pages, is still inadequate. He believes it fails to properly assess the risk of contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa crops, the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds and lost export markets.

He said some studies even suggest that some glyphosate could end up in the milk of cows that consume Roundup Ready alfalfa.

After two years of study, government scientists concluded that Roundup Ready alfalfa has no adverse effects on human health and that glyphosate is less toxic than other herbicides now used on alfalfa.

"Although glyphosate (use) may likely increase in alfalfa agriculture due to the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa, the number and use of other, more toxic herbicides will decrease, and there is no significant impact of glyphosate on weediness of alfalfa, glyphosate-resistant weeds, human health and safety, land use or the physical environment," the draft EIS stated.

Geertson remains unconvinced. The presence of feral alfalfa plants around the edge of roadways, fields and vacant lots virtually guarantees that widespread contamination will occur, he said.

Geertson isn't opposed to all genetically modified crops, he said.

"Genetic engineering is a very important scientific advance," he said. "But we need to carefully research it and be very cautious about releasing any of these things into the environment. They should not be released to the environment until they're proved to be safe."

Impacts on market

Geertson said the licensing arrangements and fees associated with Roundup Ready alfalfa favor large, international seed companies to the near exclusion of small family operations like his. Forage Genetics is the exclusive licensed seed producer.

Farmers who grow conventional alfalfa will likely see a reduction in demand if Roundup Ready alfalfa gains widespread adoption, the USDA acknowledged in the draft EIS.

Geertson knows that many farmers don't agree with him about the risks of Roundup Ready alfalfa.

"They're very angry at us that we stopped it," he said.

Rod Christensen, administrator of the Kennewick, Wash.-based Western Alfalfa Seed Growers Association, said some producers his organization represents are eager to grow Roundup Ready alfalfa again while others are still leery of the crop.

"We have growers on both side of the issue," Christensen said. "But I believe that APHIS' examination has been exhaustive. I don't think they have left one stone unturned.... They have gone to great lengths to make sure they have considered every person's concern about this."

Monsanto and Forage Genetics have developed stewardship agreements that growers will be required to follow, including maintaining isolation distances between Roundup Ready fields and conventional and organic fields.

"At the end of the day, it's about knowing your neighbor and what he's growing," Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper said.

With the proper stewardship protocols in place, biological contamination should be a "nonissue," he said.

Growers know that violation of the stewardship protocols could jeopardize their use of the technology, Kasper said.

They had the product very briefly before it was taken away and don't want to lose it again, he said.

"They want this technology and they fought hard with Monsanto to get it back in the marketplace," Kasper said.

The National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance has also adapted a set of best management practices intended to ensure the coexistence of Roundup Ready alfalfa with conventional and organic production.

A Supreme Court decision, expected sometime this summer, could be pivotal. It will be the first time the high court has weighed in on the risks of genetically engineered crops.

But uncertainties remain. It's unclear whether the timing of the Supreme Court ruling would affect the bureaucratic process for deregulating the crop -- or if a final regulatory decision would render the Monsanto appeal moot.

One thing is certain: The industry is eager for a decision, regardless of what it is.

The hay industry has been pushing APHIS to issue a final decision.

"We're certainly hoping for a decision prior to the end of the year," NAFA President Beth Nelson said. "We just need an answer."

To learn more

For information about Roundup Ready alfalfa:

* USDA has a history of Roundup Ready alfalfa, links to the 1,476-page draft environmental impact statement, directions on submitting comments and related court rulings at www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/alfalfa.shtml

* Geertson Seed Farms Owner Phil Geertson, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, lays out the arguments against Roundup Ready alfalfa at www.geertsonseedfarms.com

* Monsanto's Web site dedicated to the biotech forage crop is at www.roundupreadyalfalfa.com