ROLE PLAYING ACTIVITY
Reading assignment for all groups:
McGinnis, E. E., M. H. Meyer and A. G. Smith (2010). Sweet and Sour: A Scientific and Legal Look at Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet. Plant Cell 22: 1653-1657.
We will participate in a role-playing exercise as our discussion. Each group will be assigned a role to play during this exercise. The roles are:
1) APHIS (Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service)—the USDA entity charged with regulating genetically modified plants;
2) Center for Food Safety—a non-governmental organization that opposes genetically modified crops;
3) The plant biotechnology industry—loosely assume that this industry created the GM technology, is marketing the herbicide-tolerant sugar beet seeds to farmers, and is processing the beets into sugar;
4) Farmers growing herbicide-tolerant sugar beet as a root crop in the Red River Valley, MN;
5) Farmers growing herbicide-tolerant sugar beet as a seed crop in the Willamette Valley, OR; and
6) Organic farmers in the Willamette Valley, Oregon growing Swiss chard and table beet seed growers.
This packet includes background information and guidelines to help you in this role-playing exercise. It will also include the identity of the role you are playing and a basic guide about the organization you are representing. The description is a start for what people in your sector are thinking about, the concerns they may have, and the special knowledge they may bring to the discussion but you are expected to develop these ideas by doing additional online research.
Every individual in the group should develop a personal identity that would justify why you are serving as a representative for this sector of society. This should include your job, title, education, background, and career experience but can even expand to family history, etc. Take on this identity during the role-play exercise and do not step out of it.
What does it mean to deregulate a genetically modified crop?
APHIS is responsible for deciding whether a genetically modified crop can be deregulated. Deregulation means that the crop can be commercialized and grown like any other conventional crop. This means that the crop can be planted, harvested, and transported without additional restrictions. In direct contrast, a regulated GM crop cannot be grown without a permit from APHIS. The permit process is typically used for field trials prior to deregulation and requires very strict containment procedures.
Herbicide –tolerant and Roundup Ready
We will use herbicide-tolerant and Roundup Ready (“RR”) as synonyms. Both the alfalfa case and the sugar beet case involve crops that are tolerant of the herbicide, glyphosate (commercial name Roundup).
How did the Court rule in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms and in Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack?
The article was written prior to the outcome of two pending GMO cases. This past summer was very active for GMO litigation and much has changed.
The lower courts previously ruled that APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement before deregulating Roundup Ready Alfalfa. The lower court vacated APHIS’s deregulation of RR alfalfa which means that it was returned to regulated status. In addition, the lower court also prohibited APHIS from doing even a partial deregulation of that crop until the environmental impact statement has been prepared. Monsanto appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the lower court had the authority to vacate APHIS’s decision to deregulate RR alfalfa. However, the lower court overstepped its bounds when it prevented APHIS from taking an interim measure such as issuing a partial deregulation of RR alfalfa. An example of a partial deregulation would be if APHIS decided to allow the planting of RR alfalfa in a certain geographical areas only or subject to certain limitations.
After the Supreme Court set precedent in the RR alfalfa case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack followed suit. The District Court vacated APHIS’s deregulation of RR sugar beet. However, it did not prohibit APHIS from doing a partial deregulation provided that it complies with all required environmental regulations. APHIS is now preparing an environmental impact statement. It estimated that it will take two years to complete. However, APHIS is probably overly optimistic about its timeline. Environmental Impact Statements can take many years to complete and can cost millions of dollars. APHIS is now considering an interim partial deregulation.
In Feb 2011, the USDA, in a move that seemingly expands its regulatory powers over crop biotechnology, for the first time "partially deregulate" a genetically modified crop. USDA is permitting farmers to plant genetically modified sugar beets this year only if they adhere to rules designed to prevent the plant's wind-blown pollen from reaching organic fields, where its biotechnology traits could spread.
What are APHIS’s options for herbicide-tolerant sugar beet?
The previous two court cases have clarified that APHIS can proceed with the following options:
1) Issue a partial deregulation for the interim to allow planting in certain geographic areas and/or under certain conditions;
2) Wholly deregulate the HT sugar beet, allowing it to be grown anywhere anytime; or
3) Refuse to deregulate HT sugar beet, allow for farmers to harvest existing beets, but no more planting.
The Debate
Each group is assigned a role and perspective to consider the above options. You will be asked to address the advantages and disadvantages of each option (1-3 above) from the viewpoint of your assigned stakeholder.
Group 1: APHIS (Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service)
APHIS is a subunit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is charged with regulating genetically modified plants. As a whole, the USDA’s mission is to promote U.S. agriculture in all forms including GM, conventional, and organic production. APHIS is concerned that the return of RR sugar beet to regulated status would cause a domestic sugar shortage for 2011 as sugar beet production supplies half of our sucrose supply. However, APHIS is also concerned with abiding by the Court’s concerns about coexistence with the organic industry. You can find APHIS’s actual position online.
Group 2: Center for Food Safety is a non-governmental organization that opposes genetically modified crops in all forms. CFS was the plaintiff in the RR sugar beet lawsuit. Check out its website at to research its stance. You will also find that its attorney, George Kimbrell, is widely quoted in the news media.
Group 3: The plant biotechnology industries, you should assume that this industry created the GM technology, is marketing the seeds to farmers, and is processing the beets into sugar. In essence, you are being asked to represent the ideas of groups such as Monsanto (creator of Roundup ), seed companies that created RR sugar beet (like BetaSeed and SESVanderhave) and sugar processors such as American Crystal Sugar and the Southern Minnesota Sugar Beet Cooperative. Sugar beet is a multi-billion dollar industry in the Midwest and provides jobs for thousands. Look into the availability of conventional seed and conventional herbicides for next year. An industry representative, Luther Markwart, is quoted extensively in the news media.
Group 4: You have been assigned the role of representing farmers growing herbicide-tolerant sugar beet as a root crop in the Red River Valley of Minnesota. Minnesota farmers prefer RR sugar beet because it provides efficient weed control, better than they have ever had. Approximately 95% of the sugar beet farmers outside California have already transitioned to RR sugar beet and they are anxious about the uncertainty of spring planting. Investigate how RR sugar beet has changed their farming practices. You do not have the same concerns as growers of RR sugar beet seed in Oregon, because there are not producers of organic table beet/Swiss chard seed in the Midwest.
Group 5: You have been assigned the role of farmers growing herbicide-tolerant sugar beet as a seed crop in the Willamette Valley, OR. Sugar beet seed has been grown in the Willamette Valley since after World War II. You are now sharing the valley with organic Swiss chard and table beet growers and there is the chance for cross-pollination between these sexually compatible crops. Make sure to talk about isolation distances and the Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Crop Association. Also talk about male sterility. The Organic farmers in the Willamette Valley, Oregon growing Swiss chard and table beet seed.
Group 6: You have been assigned the role of organic farmers in the Willamette Valley raising Swiss chard and table beet seed. These crops are sexually compatible with RR sugar beet and there is the possibility of cross-pollination. Sugar beet pollen can blow many miles. You are concerned because your organic customers do not want to purchase Swiss chard or table beet seed contaminated with the RR gene from sugar beet. You are also concerned that you may not be able to export your seed to foreign countries that are less accepting of genetically modified crops.
In the debate you will:
1) introduce yourself to the class, as your character! This should include your job, title, education, background, and career experience, but can even expand to family history, etc.
Enjoy yourself--you take on this role to learn about how stakeholders with this perspective would participate in the discussion, what questions would be important to them, and how diverse ideas can be shared and common understanding created.
2) Which option would your assigned stakeholder advocate? If you pick (1) the partial deregulation option, describe the terms of the partial deregulation (geographic and conditions).
3) Support your option in terms of scientific, economic, and cultural justifications.
4) What are the potential adverse effects of the proposed options?