Alfalfa, bees, pollen and harvesting are rarely talked about in the U.S. Supreme Court.That changed in late April when the court heard oral arguments in the case of Monsanto Co. versus Geertson Seed Farms.The issue is technically a narrow legal matter: was a lower court right to grant an injunction on growing genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa while the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted a study on the environmental impact of growing the crop?An injunction can be granted only if it prevents irreparable harm.Geertson argues the commercial release of genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa will lead to GM genes getting into non-GM alfalfa. That would cause irreparable harm to alfalfa seed growers because many of their markets will not buy seed if it has GM content.Canadian alfalfa seed and forage producers are watching the case with interest.Weldon Hobbs, an official with the Irrigated Alfalfa Seed Producers Association of Alberta, said commercial production of GM alfalfa in the U.S. would in all likelihood also result in low level contamination in Canadian alfalfa and forage seed supplies.Hobbs supports the notion of assessing market harm before releasing GM crops, but is not convinced Bill C-474, which seeks to make a market impact review part of the registration process for new GM crops, is the best solution.Hobbs believes many alfalfa seed producers are not opposed to GM crops, but most are concerned about the risk of GM contamination through commingling and cross pollination.”We’re not necessarily against the use of new technologies, but we do believe that the way these new crops come into existence should be studied as to their impact on the growing environment and the economic environment,” he said. Even field trials involving unregistered GM alfalfa varieties pose a risk to the seed industry, Hobbs added. The manner in which GM trials are conducted may also warrant further investigation to minimize the risk of gene escape and market damage.”It seems like … the impact of pollen flow in alfalfa species probably hasn’t been explored enough,” Hobbs said.In an effort to receive regulatory approvals for Roundup Ready alfalfa in Canada, Monsanto has confirmed that it conducted field trials at 12 undisclosed locations in Western Canada in 2008 and 2009.Monsanto spokesperson Trish Jordan said the company consulted with industry groups and took all necessary precautions to ensure that cross pollination with feral and non-GM alfalfa crops would not occur.”We worked very closely with all the alfalfa stakeholders and with the Canadian Seed Trade Association to ensure that our field trial program on Roundup Ready alfalfa did not generate any export market impact for alfalfa seed growers,” she said.”We also worked with all the provincial seed growers’ associations to carry out the trials. and we changed our isolation distances to ensure (the plots) weren’t in close proximity to seed growers. There have been absolutely no reported incidents of stewardship issues or market impacts arising in either 2008 or 2009.”The exact locations of Monsanto’s test plots were not disclosed because it deemed them a potential target for vandalism and sabotage.”Clearly activism is a concern,” Jordan said.”We’ve had history in the past with our wheat program where people trespassed and ripped up and damaged our trials and … we don’t want that to occur again.”However, assurances from biotech companies are not enough for Hobbs and others interviewed for this report.They argue that there have been documented cases of gene escape in spite of assurances, commingling of GM and non-GM crops is a recognized problem and agricultural markets for Canadian flax and American rice have been damaged.Together, they add, these events point to the need for a new system in which GM crops are managed more carefully and contamination risks are minimized.Components of that system could include:* development of standardized testing assays for all crops;* implementation of routine, proactive testing regimes for all commodities grown in Canada;* changes to the grain handling infrastructure to reduce the risk of commingling;* a transparent industry-wide technical review of all protocols surrounding the testing and production of GM crops;* more studies assessing the risk of cross pollination in crops such as alfalfa and wheat;* the establishment of reasonable and internationally recognized tolerance levels for low level contamination.Some also say the assessment of potential market harm should be adopted as a condition of varietal registration in Canada.Leigh Marques believes there are no easy solutions.His company, Quantum Biosciences in Saskatoon, was the first private lab in Canada authorized to test flax for GM contamination to the minute detection levels demanded by Europe.He believes GM crops are here to stay so biotech companies and industry groups must work together to ensure that all stakeholders are allowed to pursue their own business interests without interference or economic loss.”With GMOs, it’s difficult to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak,” Marquess said.”In terms of production, the advantages of GMOs are clear and demonstrable…. It is a way to produce high quality food more efficiently and at a lower cost.”At the same time, I think now that there’s been a precedent set … with flax and with inadvertent releases in other crops such as corn and rice, it really behooves us to step back and look at our markets.”Industries that rely on exporting to GM sensitive countries such as Europe and Japan should be able to investigate that thoroughly, he said.”If these are significant and strategic markets for an industry, I think there may be a reason for all parties involved to say, ‘hold it, let’s put the brakes on this and really assess things carefully.’ “
Read Also
Alberta’s beets a sweet domestic segment in Canada’s sugar supply
The sugar beet industry is showcased during a Farm to Table tour, as Taber features the last remaining sugar beet processing plant in all of Canada.
