Biotech in the SCOTUS

Exciting news—our policy issue has made its way into the highest level of the judicial system!

Well, maybe exciting is the wrong word, since the fact that the case has been dragged so far is only a testament to the bullying power of Monsanto, and very little good is likely to come of the verdict, but nevertheless—it is interesting to watch GE regulation being debated on the national stage, environmental policy being applied, and precedents being set.

The case I’m referring to is Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, and it marks the first time biotech regulation has been brought before the Supreme Court.

A brief summary of the case and what’s at stake:

In 2005, the USDA decided that GE alfalfa did not pose any significant environmental concerns, declined to prepare an environmental impact statement (I remember talking about these!), and put no restrictions on the planting, harvesting, or selling of the crop. Geertson Seed Farms, part of a coalition of small organic farmers and environmental organizations from Oregon and California, disagreed with that deregulation and brought a suit against Monsanto (the producer of the GE alfalfa) and the USDA. They alleged that the deregulation had occurred without sufficient environmental review, and as such violated the National Environmental Policy Act (I remember this too!). They additionally asserted that cross pollination from GE alfalfa to their alfalfa threatened “irreparable harm” to their livelihoods.

Alfalfa is used primarily as livestock feed, and is wind pollinated. The alfalfa in question in the case is a Monsanto product referred to as “Roundup Ready,” because it has been engineered to be resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup. GE crop and herbicide are sold as a package; Roundup Ready fields can be doused in the herbicide without fear of damaging crops. Application of Roundup has dramatically increased the viability of “no-till” farming, which reduces erosion and prevents runoff of soil and chemicals into the waterways.

Current regulations stipulate that buffer zones of a certain size must separate GE fields from normal fields, though there is controversy over whether the buffers required are really big enough to ensure the crops remain separate. If farmers who make their living selling organic alfalfa cannot guarantee that their crop is GE free, they are unable to sell it to organic dairy farmers. They are also unable to market their crops overseas; most countries besides the US have not approved the Roundup Ready gene.

The District Court that first saw the case agreed with the farmers that possible contamination from GE pollen constituted “irreparable harm” to their livelihood. They ordered the USDA to conduct an EIS, as stipulated under NEPA, and issued an injunction on the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa until the EIS was complete.

Monsanto appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, which twice ruled in favor of the farmers. Monsanto then took the case to the Supreme Court. The issues at stake are whether the USDA violated NEPA by declining to prepare an EIS in 2005, and also whether the risk posed by GE pollen really does constitute irreparable harm to the farmers.

It is fairly unusual for the SCOTUS to take an appeal that has twice been denied by a Circuit Court. Environmental activists are worried that the Circuit Court’s decision is likely to be overturned. Of the thirteen cases involving NEPA that have been brought before the current Supreme Court, not one of them has been decided in favor of NEPA. The sitting court will be even more conservative leaning than usual; Justice Breyer has excused himself because his brother is one of the District judges who originally saw the case.

So far the case has dealt very little with the larger arguments for and against GE crops, and has dealt more with minute policy issues. Does a court have the right to overrule the action of an agency (the USDA) when the agency is the acknowledged expert on the matter at hand? Does “irreparable harm” have to be unquestionable, or could it only be a possibility? The ruling will set a precedent for how NEPA is applied to issues of biotech crops, and whether GE crops continue to be legally indistinguishable from normal crops. Both sides frame the issue as a matter of choice. Monsanto contends that the injunction robs farmers of their choice to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa (at least until the EIS is complete) while the farmers contend that unintentional pollination deprives them of their choice to grow GE-free crops.

Oral arguments concluded last week. The Court will likely reach a decision in June.

In the midst of all this, on May 3^rd the New York Times dropped another headline bombshell (sort of): a series of stories about farmers’ emerging battle against Roundup Resistant weeds.

While alfalfa has been the focus of the current debate, the Roundup Ready gene is present in many other crops. Roundup Ready crops account for 90% of the soybeans and 70% of the corn and cotton grown in the US. Roundup, or its generic name: glyphosate, has been called “a one-in-a-hundred-year discovery that is as important for global food production as penicillin is for global human health.” It is a broad-spectrum herbicide (i.e. it kills everything) that is easy and safe for humans to work with and breaks down quickly, reducing environmental impacts.

The effects of its overuse sound quite monstrous. Ten different resistant weed species have appeared in 22 different states. Pigweed, which can grow 3 inches a day and is sturdy enough to damage harvesting equipment, has developed a glyphosate resistance and is infesting farms across Tennessee. To combat resistant plants, farmers are returning to older weed-control techniques, mixing herbicides into the soil and regularly plowing over their fields. Regular plowing not only means more time and labor, but more erosion and runoff into waterways. The use of other herbicides means that both farmworkers and the environment are exposed to higher and more persistent levels of toxicity.

Agriculture experts say that such actions could lead to “higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs, and more pollution of land and water.” The president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts calls Roundup resistance “the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen.”

While the NYT reports the story as a breaking revelation, scientists point out that the development of resistant weeds is evolution at its most basic, and no one should be surprised. Resistance has been predicted ever since Roundup was first produced in 1993, although until recently Monsanto dismissed the problem as “science fiction.” Experts seem by and large to agree that the solution is to diversify both crops and weed control methods, limiting the use of glyphosate in order to prolong its effectiveness.

The biotech companies, in turn, have responded to the issue by crafting a whole new set of crops resistant to different pesticides. One company is in the process of engineering corn and soybeans that are resistant to 2,4-D, a chemical that is best known as one of the main components of Agent Orange.

It remains to be seen how (and whether) these new findings will impact the Supreme Court case. It is interesting that the farmers, while basing their case around NEPA, seem to be arguing more from an economic standpoint; their ability to make a living is threatened by GE contamination. The issue of Roundup resistant weeds seem to pose a much clearer environmental threat. The responses of farmers to the nonviability of Roundup have direct consequences for water quality and plant diversity in ecosystems that border farms. This seems to strengthen the case that the USDA was shirking its duties in not conducting an EIS. Perhaps this will underscore the need for a robust NEPA that is capable of holding the USDA accountable.

If a precedent is set that an EIS must be conducted before biotech agriculture is put into use, it could have impacts on the regulation of GE animals as well as crops. Some GE animals, such as farmed GE salmon, pose environmental threats because there is the potential for them to escape and mingle with wild population. With other animals--cows, sheep, goats--there is the possibility that bacteria in their intestines could take in the engineered genes and then transmit them to wild animal populations like deer. Previously, impact statements have never been required for biotech. Engineered genes in crops are treated the same as externally applied herbicides, while engineered genes in animals are counted as drugs. The recognition that all GE falls under the jurisdiction of NEPA would have a major impact on how biotech is regulated.

One final note: Roundup has been around for nearly 20 years, though glyphosate, its generic form, has only shown up in the past three. How convenient for Monsanto, that all of these glyphosate controversies have erupted only after their patent ran out. They could not have planned it better.

Articles:

Nelson, Gabriel. "Supreme Court to Take First Look at Genetically Modified Crops in Case With NEPA Implications" New York Times. 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 7 May 2010.

Neuman, William, and Andrew Pollack. "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds." New York Times. 4 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010.

"Invasion of the Superweeds." New York Times (blog). 6 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010.

Enviropigs to the Rescue?

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/)

(http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/enviropig-touted-for-eco-friendly-excrement/19423497)

Recent articles in the National Geographic Daily News and AOL News discuss government-run Environment Canada’s approval for limited production of pigs genetically engineered to excrete less phosphorus. Upon first thought, the new technology sounds admirable for its potential to limit phosphorus in runoff and thereby slow eutrophication. On second consideration, however, the possibility poses some problems. Like genetic engineering to create pain-free livestock, genetic engineering of pigs to excrete less phosphorus is akin to medicating the symptoms without treating the fundamental problem. The entire premise of industrial livestock production is problematic and unsustainable. Genetically engineering pigs condones, even perpetuates, an inherently flawed and unsustainable system, thereby making it difficult for the development and implementation of more creative and sustainable solutions.

Researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario recognized that pig farms contribute to a significant proportion of eutrophication (a process by which excess nutrients create algal blooms in water sources, causing them to become anoxic dead zones). To mitigate this problem, they have developed a pig – the “Enviropig” – that better digests plant phosphorus. Industrial pig farmers primarily feed their pigs corn (in the U.S.) and cereal grains (in Canada). Unmodified pigs need phosphorus, but are unable to break it down from these foods. To handle this problem, many farmers add the enzyme phytase to their feed. The University of Guelph program has modified pigs to produce phytase, which is secreted with saliva. As the saliva mixes with the feed, the enzyme breaks down the indigestible phytate. The gene added to produce this enzyme comes from the E. coli genome paired with a mouse DNA promoter. Modified pigs are able to transmit the new gene to their offspring. Because these animals can digest grain phosphorus, farmers will not need to supplement feed and pig manure will contain less phosphorus. See the University of Guelph “Enviropig” website (where the above picture came from) for more information: http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/.

The National Geographic Daily News article claims that the new technology will also cut costs to famers by ending the need for supplementing feed and helping them better meet U.S. “zero discharge” rules which prohibit nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from livestock facilities. Farmers currently attempt to comply with these rules by collecting waste in lagoons until it can be used as fertilizer.

What most disturbs me about the National Geographic article is its entirely positive framing of the pig development. First of all, I’m not quite sure what the author was implying with her discussion of the pig’s impact on farmers’ meeting the “zero discharge” rule. If the pigs decrease the amount of phosphorus runoff, that’s great for the water systems, but as far as I can tell some will still enter runoff (and what about nitrogen?). It seems to me that pig farmers should still have to hold waste in lagoons as the discharge will never fall to zero.

Phosphorus is not the sole problem with industrial pig farming. In his article for AOL, Thier quotes Tom Philpott, Grist.org’s food editor, as saying, “It’s not just the phosphorous in industrial pig s---t that causes trouble downstream. It's also full of nitrogen, which feeds dead zones and puts nitrates in folks' drinking water. Indeed, waste from factory pig farms is essentially an industrial pollutant: It contains ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide and heavy metals." Livestock – especially those fed diets that do not match the diets they have evolved for, as is the case at most, if not all, industrial operations – contribute significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Industrial agriculture is a major culprit in human-induced climate change, and as such, a culprit in shortening the lifespan of life itself. Shouldn’t we consider the system as a whole rather than attempting to fix each problem individually? There’s a chance that any change will have negative consequences, whether they be increased production of other pollutants or possible unstudied health impacts. We are not constrained to the industrial food system and CAFO-style production. We can produce livestock for consumption without feeding them grains they aren’t meant to eat and growing them in dense herds on small areas. Of course, we cannot grow nearly as many pigs free range as we can industrially, a fact that brings me to a discussion of values.

Most Americans have become accustomed to eating meat whenever they desire it. Any legislation that decreases meat availability or increases cost, then, may pose an affront to their freedom of choice. Few legislators would support any bill likely to provoke such outrage – they are trying to stay in office.

At the same time, many Americans are drawn to the idea of the American wilderness as a symbol of purity, beauty and strength. Show them pictures of fish kills from eutrophication due to CAFO production, and they’re likely to want to stop the pollution.

Combine this desire for meat anytime, anywhere, with this emotional response to the “natural” world and you’ve got the reasons for the “Enviropig.” It’s an easy “solution” that doesn’t compromise freedom of choice – and even offers potential savings to farmers. Many of the proponents of the “Enviropig” call upon the value of a healthy economy and insinuate better standard of living for the farmers. As Paul Sundberg, vice president of the U.S. National Pork Board, told National Geographic, "Pork producers are in favor of any technologies that can increase their competitiveness." What could be better than technology that lets us continue living as we have while bettering the environment?

But the “Enviropig” does not even begin to tackle the whole of the environmental and social problems created by the pork industry. Maybe it’s a little “greener” – but not much. I worry that the “Enviropig” will create a sense of complacency, that after we’ve made one facet a little greener we can continue with business as usual. We see this all the time; the media gets excited about some environmental issue (say the Exxon Valdez spill, maybe even the current spill) and covers it intently for a while. Once the oil is cleaned up a little and there are fewer dead birds to take pictures of, the media quiets and the general public settles back into business as usual, believing that “clean up” is enough.

The “Enviropig” framing reminds me of the suggestions in the leaked Luntz Research Company memo in its attempts to make something inherently unsustainable appear “green.” The memo states “facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them.” Framing always elevates certain aspects of an issue over another, but I worry that the media coverage of the research may be overlooking the facts on a system-wide level to focus on those at the level of a singular detail. When the public is not made aware of the system-wide effects of a certain issue (here, pork farming), they cannot make informed decisions (which, I would argue, is essentially the goal of framing Luntz style).

As I mentioned previously, other ways to solve the problems of the industrial pork (and agriculture in general) industry exist. Consumers can make a difference here. If we all choose to eat locally raised, more sustainable pork (meat)– whether by raising our own, endorsing social entrepreneurship, or creating a subsidized community food system so that everyone can afford it – we will send a message to the industry that we support sustainable practices. The more people who do this, the more emphatic the message will be. A similar situation occurred with the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH). Consumers showed their discomfort at the use of the hormone, and many companies stopped using it on their cows. As I said earlier, legislators are unlikely to sign onto agrarian reform bills they fear will be overly contentious and without enough support. I encourage everyone to speak to their representatives about the troubles with industrial agriculture. If enough people press legislators, we may have a shot at working to subsidize more sustainable, smaller-scale operations over the polluting industry.

The environmental repercussions of pork production extend far beyond phosphorus in runoff. Pork production plays a significant part in climate change – which is a problem way bigger than anything the “Enviropig” can handle. Let’s look for solutions outside of the industrial agriculture paradigm.

Works Cited:

Luntz, Frank. The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America.  

Food to Infertility?: The Danger of GMO's

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html)

In the midst of the Monsanto court case, groundbreaking GMO research was released to the press this past week. On April 20th, Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology reported on the matter for the Huffington Post.

Biologist Alexy Surov had conducted a routine joint-study by the Institute of Ecology and Evolution (of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and the National Association for Gene Security exploring the impacts of diet on hamsters. Over a two year period hamster lineages were assigned to test groups fed varying amounts of Monsanto's GM soy. Although a typical study, the results were anything but. By the third generation, there was a marked difference between hamsters fed almost exclusively GM soy and those who received none. Those on the maximum GM diet had lost "the ability to have babies. . . suffered slower growth rates, and high mortality rate among the pups". Perhaps one of the most bizarre characteristics seen in maximum GM hamsters was increased incidence of hair growing in the mouth. While the occurrence may have resulted from the stress of living in a laboratory, this normally rare condition was seen in unprecedented high numbers.

Although remarkably ominous, Surov himself warns against jumping to conclusions too quickly. He attests that in addition to GM differences, the crops may also have unusually high levels of the herbicide Roundup. Further research is essential before any concrete causal relationships can be determined.

Despite the groundbreaking nature of Surov's study, he is not the first to reveal the potentially detrimental impacts of a GM diet on animals. Since their introduction in 1996, evidence against GM's has sprouted up around the world: from experiments on rats in Russia to Iowan pig and Indian buffalo farmers. A study at Baylor College of Medicine even discovered that rats living in GM corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior". In each instance heavy GM diets were correlated with high infant mortality, damaged sperm, and frequent abortions.

However, far from utilizing these findings as a jumping-off point for further research into the potential health impacts of GMO's, these scientists face harsh criticism. In the case of Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, her results on GM soy's impacts on rats led to the trashing of her office, ridicule, and orders to cease doing any GMO research. As such, there has been little incentive to conduct further research or support within the scientific community.

Class Connections:
First and foremost, this piece screams blatant disregard for the precautionary principle. Although the European Union has decided GMO's are guilty until proven innocent, American industry has welcomed the technology with open arms. Current FDA regulations place the responsibility for ensuring GMO safety on the very companies that produce them. With profits on the line, there is little incentive to conduct research showing their product could have adverse affects. Implementing new GM technology under this regime means that long-term and widespread testing isn't conducted in the lab but rather on consumers. This means that we won't discover the true impacts GMO's can have on our health until it may be too late. Human health should be our topmost priority, not Monsanto's profits.

This recent development also plays directly into our discussion of the role of science in making environmental policy. It asks the question: is perfect knowledge necessary before action? GMO issues mirror those of mercury a couple decades ago; a marked lack of regulation despite scientific research showing its necessity. Our current GMO regulations are operating under the decisionist model of policy making: "The deliberations and judgments of the scientific or technical experts follow from the judgments of politicians" (Hulme). When studies showing the negative health impacts from GMO's are released, they are met not with additional funding and policy movement, but political backlash (due to strong farm lobbies??). Scientists like Irina Ermakova find themselves pressured away from their GMO research. Although this approach supports political agenda it forces scientific data to take a backseat.

Considering this recent development from a consumer standpoint it may become an environmental justice issue. While better labeling would allow consumers to transition towards a healthier organic and GMO-free diet, that's only true so far as it's affordable. Those without economic means may be left with few options except consuming GM food. This economic disparity disproportionately places the adverse health impacts on low-income or uneducated sects of our population. GMO's are an unseen environmental hazard that will negatively impact these communities from the inside out, from the very food they eat.

My Thoughts:
In addition to making me question what I'm eating for dinner, this article made me re-evaluate the role of science in making environmental policy. As an aspiring scientist myself, I think it is time the scientific community took a stronger stance about getting their "unfavorable" findings included in policy making. It is time for researchers to stop acting as pure scientists who just discover findings and leave it be and become active participants. Whether this should take the form of Hulme's "honest brokers" (who lay out all options) or "issue advocates" I don't know, but something's got to give. Important scientific research shouldn't be forced to take second stage. All valid findings should be given equal weight in making policy. It should not be a matter of whose research is more politically favorable but rather what is going to protect the health of our children.

Works Cited:
Hulme, M. "The Performance of Science." Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2009