An interesting article about the USDA and one very warped view on organic
farming. From GRIST via gmwatch.--Tom
===================================================
2.That's just Beachy
USDA research chief concerned about 'safety of organic food'
Tom Philpott
GRIST, 2 Mar 2010
http://www.grist.org/article/usda-research-chief-concerned-about-safety-of-o
rganic-food/p
GUADALAJARA, MEXICO - In another post, I'll explain why I'm in Mexico for
the next two weeks, and how I came to attend a conference sponsored by the
UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, titled "Agricultural
biotechnologies in developing countries: Options and opportunities in crops, forestry,
livestock, fisheries, and agro-industry to face the challenge of food
insecurity and climate change."
For now, I want to report on a fascinating interaction I had there with
Roger Beachy, director of the USDA’s newly formed National Institute of Food
and Agriculture.
First, a little context. NIFA, as it is known, is essentially the USDA's
research wing - it sets the agenda for the kind of research the agency
funds. Meaning NIFA may have a pretty substantial effect on the kind of food
system we'll have in the future, because today's research shapes tomorrow's
farming.
As I and others have reported before, Beachy ascended to the NIFA post
from a long-time perch at the Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis,
which he led from 1999 until last year. The Danforth Center, a non-profit
research institute associated with Washington University in St. Louis, describes
itself like this:
"The Danforth Center was founded in 1998 through gifts from the St.
Louis-based Danforth Foundation, the Monsanto Fund (a philanthropic foundation),
and a tax credit from the State of Missouri."
The Danforth Center's ties to GMO seed giant Monsanto run deep; Monsanto
CEO Hugh Grant sits on Danforth's board of directors, along with several
others associated with the agrichemical giant.
It seems safe enough to call Danforth Monsanto's not-for-profit research
wing; and to describe Beachy is an industrial-ag man through and through.
His performance at the FAO conference did nothing to dispel that notion.
From what I can tell, the confab, which took place at a sterile Hilton in
a nondescript section of Guadalajara, hinges on the notion that GMO seeds
are the only hope for the future of human existence on planet Earthm - and
that farmers in "developing countries" are pining to use them. In other
words, for Roger Beachy, head of NIFA, the question isn't whether
patent-protected biotechnology is appropriate for small-scale farming in the global
south; but rather how best to establish it there.
Ironically, as I'll show in a later post, farmers - most glaringly Mexican
farmers - were all but banned from attending. (This small farmer was waved
in after flashing his Grist business card.)
Earlier today, I approached Beachy after a breakout session he moderated
on how best to train developing-nation scientists in the techniques of
biotechnology.
I introduced myself and handed him my business card. "Oh, we know Grist,"
he said affably. "Don't you guys have an interesting take on improved
crops?"
"We try to have an interesting take on everything," I replied with a grin.
"Including quote-unquote improved crops." I then asked if he would be
available to take a few questions on the record.
At this point, a woman named Rachel Goldfarb moved into our conversation.
Identifying herself as Beachy's chief counsel, she informed me that he
couldn't give interviews without the approval of the USDA's communications
department. I replied that I would happily initiate that process in hopes of a
future interview, and we exchanged business cards.
But then Beachy and I proceeded to have a short, cordial back-and-forth
anyway. He said he was only interested in conducting interviews that directly
pertained to science; he wasn't keen to hash out people's "spiritual
objections" to GMOs.
I replied that I was mainly interested in hearing about NIF'’s research
priorities. In certain parts of the USDA bureaucracy—I was thinking about
Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Merrigan, but didn't mention her - organic
agriculture is taken quite seriously. Would NIFA be funding research for organic
ag?
Beachy' s reply stunned me - and it also, I think, stunned his chief
counsel. "I'm concerned about the safety of organic food," he said. Come again?
"I'm concerned about the issue of microbial contamination with organic…."
At this point, Goldfarb cut him off. "This is just the sort of thing he
should not be discussing without approval," she said. This conversation, she
indicated, was over. We then shook hands and took our leave.
"Microbial contamination" of organic food ... I assume Beachy was
referring to the fact that organic farmers rely on manure (along with
nitrogen-fixing cover crops) for fertility, whereas conventional farmers rely mainly on
synthetic nitrogen. And manure, I surmise, carries microbes, so, watch out
for organic!
There's an irony here. Beachy's agency, the USDA, oversees organic
standards; and the rules are very strict about how manure can be used in crops
systems. To put it briefly, manure can't be applied unless it's a)
well-composted, which destroys pathogens; or b) has been aged in the field for at
least 120 days before harvest.
By the way, in areas near concentrated-animal feedlot operations (CAFOs),
conventionally managed cropland gets routinely doused by raw manure as a
fertilizer—and regulation of this practice is notoriously lax.
Irony aside, I got the impression from Beachy that NIFA won't be directing
much research cash at organic ag. But I still hope to get that interview,
and will proceed through the proper channels in hopes of making it happen.
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
|
