The issue of GMO alfalfa is a hot topic in Canada these days, especially considering the series of protests planned for tomorrow, April 9th, across the country. There’s been a lot of hype around the issue, but here I’ll try to boil it down to a few key points:
- The End of Organic Farming? Some people claim that the approval of RoundUp Ready (RR) alfalfa will spell the end of organic farming. In my opinion, this statement is overblown. It is true that alfalfa is a very important crop for organic farmers, and losing the option to grow this crop would cause hardship and inconvenience to many farmers. But this scenario is not likely to play out: despite over 15 years of GMO corn and soybean production, it is still possible for organic farmers to grow these crops, and it is still possible to find uncontaminated seed for these crops. GMO alfalfa has been grown in the US since 2011, and there hasn’t been significant negative impacts on organic farmers yet.
Having said this, the approval of GMO alfalfa would likely increase direct and indirect costs for farmers, including organic farmers, who wished, or were required to maintain a GMO-free status, since they would need to make extra efforts to source non-GMO seeds. This would be a particular concern for sprout growers. - Contamination The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) has produced a report entitled “The Inevitability of Contamination from GM Alfalfa Release in Ontario” It does a thorough job of describing the risks and routes of possible contamination of non-GMO alfalfa seed from RR alfalfa, based on real-world situations. Too many proponents of this crop tend to focus on the theory and protocols of crop and seed production, rather than considering what happens “down on the farm.” And given the track record of the biotech industry with respect to every other GM crop, “inevitable” is an apt term.
- Market Impact As the report cited above also points out, Canada exports much of its alfalfa production to countries which are either reject GMO products outright, or are hesitant to accept them: the approval of GMO alfalfa and the inevitable contamination that will occur poses a significant threat to these markets. Canadian consumers are also likely to express strong reservations about consuming alfalfa sprouts grown from GMO-contaminated seed – it strikes much “closer to home” than other GMO crops currently on the market.
- Declining Benefits, Increasing Risks Do we really want or need this technology? To date, forage stands, including alfalfa, are rarely, if ever, sprayed with any herbicide. Marketing a GMO alfalfa will certainly benefit the seed companies and the herbicide manufacturers and retailers, but the number of farmers benefiting from this technology will be relatively small compared to the number who will experience added costs, more headaches, decreased options, and lost markets.
Furthermore, RoundUp Ready technology is already failing across the continent as a growing number of weeds develop glyphosate resistance. Adding another glyphosate-tolerant crop to the mix can only increase application of the herbicide, thereby increasing selective pressure for resistant weeds. It would reasonable to consider this an outdated technology that is becoming irrelevant, and it’s little wonder that the seed company would be pushing for registration: they need to recoup their investment in the crop while there’s still some demand for it.
It’s also worth noting that the herbicide RoundUp and its active ingredient glyphosate, are coming under growing scrutiny for their negative impacts on environmental and human health. - United Opposition Along with the “usual suspects” of organic farmers, organizations, and consumer groups who have been traditionally opposed to all GMO crops, there are a number of “mainstream” agricultural organizations urging the Canadian government to deny or delay the registration of RR alfalfa seed varieties. The Dairy Farmers of Canada and Quebec’s largest general farm organization, the UPA, have both expressed their concerns regarding cross-contamination, co-existence, and loss of markets.
Comparing the costs, risks and benefits of this particular product, it’s easy to understand why it is generating such widespread opposition. It’s something that the vast majority of farmers either don’t need or don’t want. Some may argue that the principle of “choice” and “free markets” should be paramount: that the seed should be registered for sale, and then “let the market decide” if there’s demand for it. This perspective may be valid for ordinary widgets, but when we’re talking about biological organisms with the ability to spread and proliferate once released into the environment, we need to invoke a higher standard. GM alfalfa, if approved, will affect the choices, markets, and livelihoods of farmers across Canada for a timeframe that could extend well beyond the useful life of the product. Why take such a great risk for so little in return?
The Fanning Mill 
Sue Black- Black Family Farm
April 8, 2013
Allow me to respond to your analysis of whether GMO alfalfa could be the end of organic farming. Alfalfa is a fundamental tool in all aspects of agriculture. As well, alfalfa is the Foundation Species of Organic agriculture:
1) Alfalfa is the prime livestock feed in Canada. All species can utilize alfalfa for maximum health and growth
2) As a fertilizer, alfalfa enriches the soil, acting to replenish nitrogen and other essential nutrients.
3) Alfalfa is the main method of perennial weed control for organic farmers. Because alfalfa has a deep and aggressive root system, it out -competes other weeds, leaving fields clean for successive crops. This is an underused strategy on todays’ chemically intensive farms.
There can be no doubt that x-pollination will occur with round-up ready crops. There will be no putting the genie in the bottle.
Canola is an example. Although growing organic canola was once a profitable option for Canadian farmers, it is no longer possible to grow organic canola in Canada due to unavoidable x- pollination with today’s GMO varieties. If GMO alfalfa is released, it will undoubtedly pollute our environment, and permanently remain in our ecosystems.
The prime difference between the contamination potential of GMO alfalfa and GMO corn or soybean, is the Level of Risk for Contamination.
Unlike corn or soybean, alfalfa is a perennial crop. Volunteer alfalfa plants grow along most of the ditches and roadways in Canada. You will find feral alfalfa plants everywhere in our country. Because bees will spread polin 2 or 3 miles and wind can pollinate up to 10 miles, one must expect that the GMO plants cannot be contained. RMake no mistake! Release of GMO alfalfa will ultimately contaminate all other species.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 8, 2013
Thanks for the comment, Sue. I think we both agree about the inevitability of contamination, and you do a great job of explaining why the risk of this happening in alfalfa is even greater than it is for other crops. (I’m not sure quite what you mean about “ultimately contaminate all other species” – perhaps you’re referring to varieties of alfalfa?).
As for whether this would spell the “end” of organic farming, I’m still not convinced. For this to happen, at least two things would be necessary. First, it would have to be impossible to produce any non-GMO alfalfa seed, anywhere. Secondly, following this, it would have to be impossible for organic farmers to find suitable alternatives to alfalfa in their crop rotations. Even if we concede the first point, it’s hard to imagine the second.
Personally, I don’t think that the “sky is falling” rhetoric is particularly helpful to the cause – it damages our credibility and chances of collaboration with the larger agricultural community, and it threatens to undermine consumers’ trust in organic foods (think of the “crying wolf” fairytale we learned as children).
However, let me be absolutely clear that the decline and ultimate loss of alfalfa as an option to organic farmers would be an extremely costly and regrettable consequence of the approval of GMO alfalfa, and it is certainly not an option I am willing to entertain, especially considering that any “benefits” will be marginal and very likely short-lived.
Thanks again for adding your perspective to the discussion, and I hope spring finds its way to Manitoba soon!
LikeLike
Sue Black- Black Family Farm
April 9, 2013
Yes I meant ‘ species of alfalfa’
I am not saying that organic farming would be at an end, but we would have to completely reinvent our system of farming. We would likely not find another plant, that could be the perfect livestock feed, while fertilizing the fields and cleaning them of weeds.
There is very little benefit to any party but Monsanto, in the release of GMO alfalfa. It is diabolical and criminal that they are able to destroy a farming system. We live in a sick world.
LikeLike
Lori Ann Regnier
April 9, 2013
I agree with Sue. Alfalfa is a perennial and crowds out weeds so Round Up is totally unnecessary. We use it as a mulch around our vegetables and as bedding for our chickens. The only reason Monsanto would make Round Up ready alfalfa is to patent the seed and sell more R., Round Up. There is no benefit to the farmer and much harm.
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 9, 2013
I agree that RR alfalfa may not be necessary, due to the specific biology of alfalfa. In that case, won’t it just edge itself out of the market? It seems to me that those who buy it think there is a valid reason for it. Unless you are saying that farmers are so stupid that they’ll buy a more expensive product for no reason?
However, I do wonder about the claims that non-GE alfalfa will be irrevocably “contaminated” (gotta love that loaded term) by GE alfalfa pollen (same goes for canola). Perhaps things are different in Canada, but in the US, in order to certify seed as actually being what the bag says it is, seed has to be grown according to certain guidelines. The guidelines mostly rely on distance from sexually compatible crops. For the highest quality seed, the distances have been tested to ensure 99.9% purity. So, as long as you are buying certified seed, you’ll get what you pay for. Distances are reduced for crop production compared to seed. This won’t change with RR alfalfa.
Some people may not want to buy seed, and that’s ok too. They can follow the AOSCA guidelines and keep the same purity levels. Further steps can be taken, by planting borders of either the same crop or a different crop to act as a sink for any incoming pollen from other fields.
With alfalfa it’s especially easy because when you are planting alfalfa for hay instead of for seed, you can just harvest before it goes to seed. As I understand it, alfalfa used for hay has to be harvested before it goes to seed to ensure the highest quality hay. As long as you’re harvesting properly, you’re good to go – even without the distance or borders. Now, sometimes rain can interfere with harvest dates of course, so distance or borders can be a good backup. Ideally, both non-GE and GE fields will have borders and proper harvesting times so everyone gets what they need – that’s coexistence.
Now, canola is a bit more difficult because it has to go to seed before harvest, but it’s an exaggeration to say that GE canola is the end of non-GE canola. While canola pollen can travel very far, the grand majority of pollen falls within about 10 meters of the field. Again, borders can be used to help cut back on pollen flow. In the case of annual crops, you also have the option of staggered planting dates if you coordinate with your neighbor so the majority of pollen from one field will be dead before the other field becomes receptive.
If your neighbor refuses to play nice and you are legitimately damaged by cross pollination, you sue for trespass – same as you would if they sprayed pesticide on your crop, if their cows got loose and wrecked your property, etc. If it’s expected that voluntary coexistence will be a problem, perhaps regulations can be created to allow farmers wishing to grow non-GE alfalfa the minimum distance, or to create non-GE zones – although such regulations can be difficult due to land rights for those who do wish to grow GE.
LikeLike
Richard
April 10, 2013
Hi Rob,
I think this quote is appropriate: “Be informed and use this technology wisely as part of an overall well-managed system,” he advises. “Respect your neighbor’s desire and right to produce organic crops on his/her farm and work together so both of you can achieve your goals.” I found it here… http://hayandforage.com/hay/alfalfa/roundup-ready/weigh-benefits-cost-rr-alfalfa-0504?intlink=rceoc
Benefits of RR alfalfa
1. Lower seeding rates needed to establish stand. This can offset the higher cost of the seed.
2. Better weed control compared to alternative herbicides and better yield (other herbicides damage initial stand and lower yield).
3. Lower herbicide cost compared to alternatives.
Cross-pollination should not be a major issue. As Anastasia points out, alfalfa should be cut prior to going to seed. Therefore there should not be any cross-pollination in normal circumstances. Even if a non-RR crop goes to seed , your neighbours RR crop needs to flower as well. Not only that, but should a seed fall, it would have to sprout and out- compete the existing alfalfa stand to become established.
As for the comment that the only need for the crop being to sell more roundup, this quote would seem to contradict that idea…”If weeds are controlled early in the seeding year, only one herbicide application may be needed throughout the alfalfa stand’s life”
If the desire is to get a high quality cut from the first stand, RR alfalfa may be a good alternative…
“As expected, total first-cutting yield favored the untreated control plots. On average, they yielded 1.2 tons of dry matter per acre, but more than half was weeds. Early applied glyphosate plots yielded just under 1 ton/acre of nearly pure alfalfa, and the other herbicide treatments produced slightly higher total yields but less alfalfa”
Above quotes from… http://hayandforage.com/alfalfa/kill-weeds-increase-yields-glyphosate
As far as GMO cross pollination into alfalfa sprouts, is that really a concern? Are alfalfa sprout seeds sourced from the same varieties as forage seeds? I’d be more worried about food borne illness from sprouts than a low level cross pollination with a GMO trait. http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/foodborne-illness-outbreaks/organic-sprouts-cause-of-german-e-coli-o104h4-outbreak/#.UWTussu9KSM
(Note – I reference the article above, not because they were “local organic” sprouts, but rather because it lists the long series of illnesses from sprouts. We should be more concerned about the food borne illness than about GM traits that are safe for consumption).
Disclaimer: I work for Monsanto, but the opinions I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 10, 2013
Thank you to both Anastasia and Richard for sharing your perspectives – it’s good to hear both sides of the story! I think I’ll have to continue to respectfully disagree: while you’ve both done a fine job of explaining how things should work, how things happen in practice are often much more complicated.
1. Field production of seed is only one step in a process that presents a myriad of possible routes of contamination – from harvesting, transportation, cleaning, sorting, packaging, and more: experience with other GMO crops has shown us that maintaining seed purity is extremely difficult, despite all the regulations and protocols in place. How can we reasonable expect things to be any different this time, especially given the nature of alfalfa?
2. As Sue Black pointed out earlier, feral or volunteer alfalfa can be found growing in non-cropped areas across the country, providing an uncontrolled source for cross-pollination, regardless of how well an alfalfa crop is managed for forage production. Extreme weather events could also result in alfalfa fields going to seed, despite the best intentions of the farmers involved.
3. Richard’s contention that the crop won’t increase RoundUp sales because “only one herbicide may be needed” is rather disingenuous, given that at the moment, precisely zero in-crop applications of RoundUp are used to establish or maintain alfalfa stands!
4. Anastasia’s comment that the product may “edge itself out the market” is a valid one, but it ignores the fact that once this product is released into the environment, there’s little of hope “recalling” it: it will persist long after the seed stops being sold.
All things considered, I still return to the same question: given the scope of the risks involved and the limited, short-term benefits to a relatively small number of producers, is it really worth introducing this product?
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 10, 2013
For further insight, I came across this discussion last night: it seems to be extremely difficult to find farmers who want or like this product, even from those who already grow GMO crops!
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 10, 2013
“there’s little of hope “recalling” it: it will persist long after the seed stops being sold”
That’s not true. A trait only persists if there is an evolutionary advantage to having it. If Roundup is commonly used to control roadside or other weeds, for example, then those weeds (including feral alfalfa and canola) will have selective pressure on them to develop glyphosate resistance. If they happen to acquire the trait from cross pollination (or seed spill, etc) then yes, they will be likely to keep the trait, or they will be under pressure to mutate and evolve the trait themselves. However, if Roundup is not used on those weeds, or if weed control is properly managed with a rotated or mixed set of herbicides to prevent resistance (which should be done regardless of whether GE is involved), then there is no reason for the trait to persist at anything but very low levels – not high enough to significantly “contaminate” any alfalfa stands.
One thing that I find silly about this whole discussion is the “otherness” of GE. If the Roundup resistance had been developed with mutagenesis or selective breeding, no one would care. No one cares about Clearfield canola, for example. If RR alfalfa doesn’t end up being released, I can guarantee there are people furiously working on non-GE RR alfalfa.
As for whether the trait will be useful for those who choose to use it, it’s just not true to say that no one uses herbicides on alfalfa. For example: http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/WS/WS-11-W.pdf
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 10, 2013
Hi again, Anastasia. Here in Canada (the parts I’m familiar with anyway) roadside weed control is now primarily accomplished by mowing (if at all), so there would be little selective pressure for or against glyphosate (as organic farmers like to joke, no weed has ever developed “iron resistance”). It still remains that it’s a serious gamble to assume that the trait will persist at “insignificant levels” – as the Triffid flax example shows, the “impossible” does happen, and it only takes a few seeds in the wrong place at the wrong time to cause devastating loss.
As for the “otherness” of GE, that’s an entirely different debate. I think for the purposes of this discussion, we need to acknowledge that according to the standards that govern organic agriculture, the import restrictions of certain countries, and the perceptions of many consumers, GMOs are a distinct “other” – that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with, silly or not. (Exploring this “otherness” is a great idea for a future blog post, though – maybe we could collaborate on that!) Thanks again for your contributions.
LikeLike
Anastasia
April 10, 2013
Quick note – I am not “for” RR alfalfa. I’m just interested in the subject from an academic and practical point of view. As I’ve said before, I’m not pro GMO, just pro science 🙂
LikeLike
Richard
April 10, 2013
Hi Rob,
Thanks for a polite conversation. On your number 3, I was not trying to be disingenuous. I agree that Roundup sales will increase 100% for over-the-top applications on RR alfalfa. Now, maybe I am overly-sensitive but one of the perceptions I have seen is that RR alfalfa will “force” farmers to “slather” (or some such loaded word) their fields with Roundup. My point was meant to illustrate that the Roundup applications will not be overly significant. It is an alternative to other herbicide applications (if you apply herbicides to your alfalfa). I think the chart in the second link of my original comment is very illustrative of why someone might want RR alfalfa.
I will not pretend to understand the alfalfa export market in Canada, so I will not comment on the potential impact is to export markets. I think what we saw with flax exports to Europe was due to the flax being for human consumption as opposed to animal feed (even though that trait was approved for human consumption in Canada and the US). I guess it depends on your perpective on low-level presence of the RR trait in the crop. Is the traits existence acceptable at low levels for the export market? Is any presence totally unacceptable to you as an organic grower, or do the organic rules allow for low-level presence? These are questions FGI – the seed company selling RR alfalfa – and Canadian farmers will need to answer.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 10, 2013
Thanks for the clarification, Richard. I can tell you that there is currently zero tolerance for the presence of GMOs in organic agriculture. Whether or not low-level presence would be acceptable to export markets is something that would need to be determined. But wouldn’t it be prudent to make these determinations before approving the product for release? So far, however, regulators have refused to consider anything other than “science” (i.e. based on the information selected and supplied by the company, does it do what it says it does and can we assume “substantial equivalence”?) in their decision-making process. This needs to change, and the sooner the better.
LikeLike
Richard
April 11, 2013
Is zero-tolerance “fair” and appropriate, or is it political and ideological? I am going “corporate” here with my references so please keep that in mind when considering the source of my following comments, but I would like to hear your “organic” perspective…
Is it true that you can have low levels of non-organic products in your crop (“contamination”) and still maintain organic certification? e.g. you will not lose organic certification if there is low level non-organic insecticide drift. On the other hand, there is “zero-tolerance” for adventitious presence GM traits. (Note – “adventitious presence” is the pro-GMO loaded term equivalent to the anti-GMO loaded term “contamination” 🙂
Here is my reference for my above comment: “Today, some organic bodies wish to apply a very stringent de minimis co-existence threshold for GM crops on their members (not as a legislative standard, but as a requirement for certification). This is neither practicable nor reasonable. This push by some to withhold certification if GM material can be detected would set an ever-changing and unreasonable threshold. Nor is it consistent with current organic certification practices, which reflect the reality of agricultural practices, and have tolerance levels for other products and material (including pesticides, rat faeces, non-organic seed etc). Indeed, with the exception of standards for GM presence, all organic production standards relate to management practice alone, and have nothing to say about final product quality.” from http://www.croplife.org/coexistence
The members of croplife.org include my employer and can be found here http://www.croplife.org/our_members
Again – I am employed by Monsanto, however, the opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily that of my employer…I guess other than where I reference an organization funded by my employer – what I am really trying to say is I am not being paid to post here, I am doing this on my own time because I am personally interested in the issues and discussions.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 11, 2013
Hi Richard. You’ve asked some pertinent questions here and made some valid points. I’ll try to give you the “organic” perspective, but please keep in mind that I’m only speaking for myself here, and not on behalf of the organic sector in any way, shape, or form!
You are correct that organic standards recognize that trying to achieve total purity with respect to environmental contaminants (i.e. absolutely no detectable pesticide residues, ever) is an impossible goal in a polluted world (the rains will fall and the wind will blow). (Having said that, tests consistently show that organic produce have significantly fewer, and lower levels of pesticide residues than non-organic produce). To date, GMOs have been considered separately, and subject to a zero-tolerance policy.
This position is the subject of a great deal of debate within the organic community (there is rarely a single, “organic” perspective on big issues like this!). Some people believe that if the organic community continues to reject all traces of GMOs, GMOs will eventually go away, or at the very least, there will be legislated protection/compensation put in place for organic growers. Part of this argument is that while consumers may understand and accept the impossibility of achieving zero chemical residues all the time, they will not tolerate the presence of GM material in any way, shape, or form. To them, implementing a threshold level of GM contamination/adventitious presence is an admission of defeat in a war they are not prepared to quit fighting. Other people argue much along the same lines as what you’ve quoted: we now live in a world where, like it or not, GM material is an unavoidable contaminant, just like pesticide residues, and everyone, consumers included, is going to have to learn to live with it. To them, it’s better to implement a threshold and enforce it rather than continue to pretend the problem is eventually going to go away. I’m honestly not sure which position will hold sway as the organic standards are revised and updated over the coming years. Maybe some other organic growers will chime in here to add their perspectives.
Thanks again for participating in this discussion, Richard – my belief is that if we can start to understand how “the other side” views things, we have a much better chance of building a better future.
LikeLike
Paul
April 15, 2013
Hello Rob,
It was very Intersting reading your article about GE alfalfa & reading through all the comments! I’m an organic dairy farmer from the US where GE alfalfa has been approved for planting now for two years and yes we are still certified organic and to best of my knowledge we have no contamination of GE alfalfa (yet). All the alfalfa seed we buy has been certified non-GMO and has been tested for contamination
I know contamation is less likely when a farmer is growing hay just for animal feed but for a seed producer it a whole different ball game. Alfalfa plants are not really wind pollinated but pollinated primarily by the wever bee and these bees can travel and pollinate up 5 miles away so actually having a buffer zone around a alfalfa field, rather it is non-GMO or GMO is useless because the bees can’t tell the difference between them. Some non-GMO seed producers have had to relocate their production facility’s far away from GE alfalfa fields. In a nutshell it just has made it more of a hassle for non-GMO seed producers to grow their seed.
What upsets me the most is that organic & non-GMO seed producers half to take all these precautions to avoid contamination and the producers growing seed for RR alfalfa don’t half to take any precautions to avoid their GE alfalfa from contaminating with non-GMO alfalfa fields and are not required by the USDA to do so.
I really think its only a matter of time before GE alfalfa contaminates all alfalfa seed sources. Contamination can happen in many different ways and sometime by unforeseeable methods (too many to mention).
I really can’t understand why anyone would want to plant RR alfalfa anyways, it cost double of what non-GMO alfalfa costs and spraying roundup isn’t exactly cheap either! Usually most farmers breakup their hay fields after 4 or 5 years because the stand starts getting thin because of driving on it with all the haying equipment. Not only that but the roundup residue can build up inside the root system of the plant because alfalfa is perennial plant. The way roundup is designed to work is that when it comes in contact with any part of the plant (rather it is a weed or a RR alfalfa plant) then it moves through out the whole plant and gets distributed to all the growing points of the plant. One of the growing points would also be the root system. Any animal that eats this plant will be always getting some roundup residue into their body.
I know that some people will disagree with some of my above statements but their is plenty of good science to backup these claims. Of course the biotech industry is trying to hide this because as always profits come before safety with them.
Anyways I really enjoyed reading your article and couldn’t resist jumping in on this discussion.
Thanks and hope you have a great week!
Paul
LikeLike
vitamins flaxseed oil
May 8, 2014
I read this post completely about the difference of latest and preceding technologies, it’s amazing article.
LikeLike
Mary Wales
May 24, 2016
Hi Rob, this was a great read. I’ve always thought that your points 3 and 4 are enough to not have this technology. If farmers don’t spray alfalfa already – a RR variety just seems unnecessary. And I would hate to see the Canadian ag sector at a lose when it comes to trade – just like what happened to flax …
LikeLiked by 1 person
rob
May 26, 2016
Thanks Mary. I agree – as I wrote in other posts on this subject, it’s actually very hard to find farmers (conventional or organic) who see any real value in this technology. It’s unfortunate that our governments, who are otherwise very heavily trade-oriented, refuse to consider the impact on export market access in the approval process for GMO crops.
LikeLike