USDA decision works against farmers’ best interests

The government doesn’t always get it right.

I’m no Tea Partier, but it’s true: the government doesn’t always make the right calls on the important issues of our time. This is often the case when it comes to food legislation, which has largely been hit-and-miss over the years.

That’s not to say that the USDA’s achievements in the past have been futile. It has done much to keep consumers safe and aware of the risks and problems that come from eating certain foods such as meat.

If you were thinking of feasting on a romantic meal of organic ribeye fed with natural grown feed this Valentine’s Day,  however, you might want to take advantage of that opportunity sooner rather than later, especially after a recent move by the USDA that might make such products difficult to find in a few years.

Last month, the USDA deregulated the use and planting of genetically modified alfalfa. Alfalfa is a widespread crop in America, used largely as feed for livestock, like cattle.

A new roundup-spray resistant seed is at the heart of the debate about the deregulation.

Many farmers advocated for the genetically modified alfalfa seed, arguing it was a matter of cost and convenience.

And like many GMOs, the benefits of planting  the modified alfalfa seed are obvious: higher yields, greater resistance to infection and  lower food costs.

But now some experts are raising their objections alongside those of organic farmers who have protested the USDA’s move, stating that the deregulated planting of roundup-ready alfalfa might lead to cross-contamination, ultimately leading to an inability for organic farmers to grow a pure product on pure soil.

Tom Vilsack, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, reassured organic farmers, stating that measures would be taken to prevent cross-contamination. He promised  $1 million toward research and also proposed increased research into the subject.

But many are unconvinced and are preparing for an unstoppable spread of GM alfalfa across America.

“Some degree of cross-pollination will occur regardless of what mechanism is going to be put in place,” Jeff Wolt, an agronomist at Iowa State University told the Associated Press.

But there are other, more sinister problems that can arise from eliminating regulation and safeguards.

The growth of herbicide and pesticide resistant weeds is one problem. The list, unfortunately, goes on.

It seems that, for all its might, the USDA slipped up in forging ahead with the deregulation deal without considering, or planning for, the potential of destroying the livelihoods of organic alfalfa farmers.

The uncontrolled spread of genetically modified alfalfa could severely restrict the ability of organic farmers to find good land with pure soil distanced from the modified alfalfa fields.

Frederick Kirschenmann, who works at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, knows this for a fact. He manages a farm and noted that there needed to be two miles between fields to reduce the chance of cross-contamination.

Unfortunately, he had to give up growing organic canola about a decade ago, after Roundup Ready canola seeds became a big contender in the seed market.

“So much Roundup Ready came into the area, there was no way to find a way to put in a field that was at least two miles from a field with the GMO crop,” Kirschenmann said.

And so it appears that history is set to repeat itself. Vilsack, of course, will continue to pledge efforts to prevent contamination of pure seed stock and pure fields. But for now, the deregulation of genetically modified alfalfa remains.

As of today, the USDA has not yet come up with a comprehensive plan to protect organic crops and their farmers.

Eddie Kim is a sophomore majoring in print journalism. His column, “Food As Life,” runs Thursdays.