


At the same time, we must at least consider USDA's 2,300-page environmental impact statement, which acknowledges the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa—a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad.

The rapid adoption of GE alfalfa has clashed with the rapid expansion of consumer demand for organic foods. This clash led to litigation and uncertainty. Such litigation will potentially lead to the courts deciding who gets to farm their way and who will be prevented from doing so.

Surely, there is a better solution that acknowledges agriculture's complexity, while celebrating and promoting its diversity.

Tom Vilsack

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture


The new rules for biotech alfalfa that Mr. Vilsack is considering, if enacted, would lead to a significant and costly reversal of previous policies. They would limit economic freedom and stifle scientific innovation, setting a precedent that allows politics and fear-mongering to supersede science.

Technological advancements have helped farmers of other crops produce bounties unimaginable just a generation ago in environmentally sustainable ways.

The USDA's regulatory system is the blueprint for systems being implemented around the world. It serves as a blueprint because it is science-based, credible and works. Allowing non-science criteria, litigation and politics to be part of the regulatory approval process will be disastrous for the USDA's reputation—and the quality of its work.

Mary Boote

Des Moines, Iowa