Seed Today 1Q 2011 : Page 4

Edi T or’s No TE Common Ground A Publication of Country Journal Publishing Company 3065 Pershing Ct • Decatur, IL 62526 217-877-9660 • FAX: 217-877-6647 www.seedtoday.com • joe@seedtoday.com Joe W. Funk Editor Publisher/Sales Manager/Circulation Deb Coontz Jerry Perkins, Karl F. Ohm Associate Editors Production Manager/Assistant Editor Jody Sexton Rebecca Jackson Art Director Sy McElvain Bookkeeper Jeff Miller, Mark Avery Sales seed Today is published quarterly and mailed to members of the following seed associations: • American Seed Trade Association • Atlantic Seed Association • Independent Professional Seed Association • Northern Seed Trade Association • Pacific Seed Association • Southern Seed Association • Western Seed Association The magazine is free of charge to qualifying individuals in the United States and Canada. Foreign subscription rate is $60 per year. Brought to you by the publishers of Grain Journal, Milling Journal, BioFuels Journal and industry specific F.Y.I. E-newsletters. A few days befor e the USDA announced the un-restricted commercial cul-tivation of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa on January 27, Secretar y of USDA Tom Vilsack issued an open let-ter “in an attempt to find common gr ound wher e the balanced interests of all sides could be advanced.” He might as well have saved his breath. If there Joe W. was any evidence indicating common ground between the anti-and pr o-GM camps befor e the alfalfa deregulation announcement, all traces were removed after the announcement. The day following the USDA announce-ment, opponents of transgenic seed tech-nology – i.e., proponents of organic food production – let loose with a volley of harsh criticisms declaring war against the USDA and all crops genetically modified. “Fighting a Common Enemy on the GMO Battlefield” headlined the news release issued by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), plaintiffs in the 2007 suit that challenged the USDA’s initial decision to deregulate RR alfalfa. Referring to those in support of RR alfalfa as “the enemy,” the CFS vowed to continue its battle and promised to sue the USDA and continue the “fight.” These are not the kind of thoughts that acknowledge the “common ground” Vilsack was seeking. Indeed, these words indicate that any negotiated agreement is completely out of the question. ceed if one side denies the other the right to exist. In the debate over RR alfalfa, the pro-organic side gives no ground whatsoever by taking the position that genetically modified crops should be banned, denied existence, and prohibited from use. There is no room for coexistence when one side does not concede the other’s Funk right to exist. The most ironic part of this whole debate is that a substantial por tion of the argument by the pro-organic side is the right to pursue their chosen farming method that eschews plant biotechnology. The irony is that by opposing the de-regulation of RR alfalfa, they are denying the vast majority of growers their right to choose. It is an “all for me, nothing for you” position even though the “me” oper-ates at most, one percent of U.S. cropland. A Moving Target Negotiation Basics When two parties come to the negotiat-ing table in search of an agreement, they both must recognize at least a small area of common ground. If neither side can not find even a sliver of common ground, then there is essentially no possibility of a negotiated agreement. The first, most basic common ground is the right of the opposing side to exist. There is nowhere for negotiations to pro-When Congr ess passed the O rganic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990, there was room for common ground even though genetically modified crops were not yet on the market. The OFPA outlines a system of process verification by which products can be certified “organic.” That system is still in place, but it has gradually been superseded by a quantitate standard above and beyond the official USDA standards. The de facto standard has become one of zero tolerance for any DNA or proteins associated with a transgenic process. Until there is acknowledgement by both sides that the other has the right to exist and until there is at least a small tolerance for unintended genetically modified material in organic products, you will have a bet-ter chance of winning the Mega Millions lottery jackpot than of seeing coexistence accepted by the organic industry. Joe Funk, editor joe@seedtoday.com 4 First Quarter 2011

Editor’s Notes

Common Ground A few days before the USDA announced the unrestricted commercial cultivation of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa on January 27, Secretary of USDA Tom Vilsack issued an open letter “in an attempt to find common ground where the balanced interests of all sides could be advanced.” He might as well have saved his breath. If there was any evidence indicating common ground between the anti- and pro-GM camps before the alfalfa deregulation announcement, all traces were removed after the announcement. The day following the USDA announcement, opponents of transgenic seed technology – i.e., proponents of organic food production – let loose with a volley of harsh criticisms declaring war against the USDA and all crops genetically modified. “Fighting a Common Enemy on the GMO Battlefield” headlined the news release issued by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), plaintiffs in the 2007 suit that challenged the USDA’s initial decision to deregulate RR alfalfa. Referring to those in support of RR alfalfa as “the enemy,” the CFS vowed to continue its battle and promised to sue the USDA and continue the “fight.” These are not the kind of thoughts that acknowledge the “common ground” Vilsack was seeking. Indeed, these words indicate that any negotiated agreement is completely out of the question. Negotiation Basics When two parties come to the negotiating table in search of an agreement, they both must recognize at least a small area of common ground. If neither side can not find even a sliver of common ground, then there is essentially no possibility of a negotiated agreement. The first, most basic common ground is the right of the opposing side to exist. There is nowhere for negotiations to proceed if one side denies the other the right to exist. In the debate over RR alfalfa, the pro-organic side gives no ground whatsoever by taking the position that genetically modified crops should be banned, denied existence, and prohibited from use. There is no room for coexistence when one side does not concede the other’s right to exist. The most ironic part of this whole debate is that a substantial portion of the argument by the pro-organic side is the right to pursue their chosen farming method that eschews plant biotechnology. The irony is that by opposing the deregulation of RR alfalfa, they are denying the vast majority of growers their right to choose. It is an “all for me, nothing for you” position even though the “me” operates at most, one percent of U.S. cropland. A Moving Target When Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990, there was room for common ground even though genetically modified crops were not yet on the market. The OFPA outlines a system of process verification by which products can be certified “organic.” That system is still in place, but it has gradually been superseded by a quantitate standard above and beyond the official USDA standards. The de facto standard has become one of zero tolerance for any DNA or proteins associated with a transgenic process. Until there is acknowledgement by both sides that the other has the right to exist and until there is at least a small tolerance for unintended genetically modified material in organic products, you will have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions lottery jackpot than of seeing coexistence accepted by the organic industry. Joe Funk, editor joe@seedtoday.com

Previous Page Next Page

Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here