The document discusses several sustainability standards and initiatives that are being developed for agriculture. It notes that the ANSI Leonardo/SCS standards seem to favor an organic model, while The Sustainability Consortium based at the University of Arkansas is seeking input from producers. It also discusses the NRDC Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops and challenges around getting grower participation. Overall, it analyzes different approaches to sustainability standards between specialty crops and commodities.

1. Illinois Soybean
Association
July 24, 2012
Chicago IL
Thomas P. Redick
Global Environmental Ethics Counsel, LLC
www.geeclaw.com

2.  ANSI Leonardo/SCS standards tilt to organic
model.
 The Sustainability Consortium – Univ of Arkansas
based, seeking input from producers
 Major food and ag companies paying $50,000 to play
 Now seeking more grower input without paying $10,000?
 NRDC Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops:
 Technology neutral, but very few biotech crops in specialty
(squash, sweet corn in small amounts – apples on way?)
 Grower participation/data quality a barriers - “value
proposition” needed to get growers to fill out forms, disclose
 New round of funding from UDSA $761k, 10/2011-9/2013
 National Initiative on Sustainable Agriculture (NISA)

3.  “Keystone Field to Market” for commodities in pilots
 Bunge N. America -- Nebraska
 Syngenta – Mississippi Basin
 WWF Sustainability standards are all “Roundtables”, e.g.:
 Industry, NGOs, Retailers, Producers – balanced
 Crop-specific – otherwise too complex
 Healthy Grown Potato (Wisconsin) – shelf space?
 RT Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)
 UK Green marketing law invalidated it
 RT Responsible Soy – first sale to Unilever 2011
 EU RED recognizes it for certifying producers

4.  Jason Clay “freeze the footprint of food” via top food
companies cutting impacts but double production.
 Global Harvest Initiative (www.globalharvestinitiative.org)
 Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (www.saiplatform.org)
 “21st Century technology allows faster selection.”
 Food companies are all cutting energy usage, water,
waste and want their supply chain to follow along
 Unilever: 100% of agricultural inputs “sustainable” and
reduce footprint via LCA by 50%, but double revenue.
 Unilever, Nutreco and Rabobank will “bundle” carbon
 Kelloggs commits to 15% reductions – supply chain next to
reap the same “low hanging fruit”

5.  Wal-Mart environmental goals:
 100 percent renewable energy
 Reach “zero” waste
 Sustainable packaging
 Wal-Mart “sustainability index” reaches overseas
 Sustainable seafood requirements drove South
American changes in fisheries practices
 Chinese small producers signed up to meet index
 Do not fall into the 5% that fail to meet the supply
specification du jour that takes 5 years to sort out!

6.  EU Renewable energy directive – ADM touting
compliance
 Japan/UK “Voluntary” Carbon contracts on
more products
 UK Green Marketing Law & US FTC “Green
Guides” Liability
 Asian soy crushers starting to ask US soy to
prove it is sustainable

7.  USDA uses voluntary support (WTO “green
box”) for environmental measures
 Crop insurance? Report annually (erosion etc.)
 Energy Efficiency audits using ANSI standard (ASABE)
 Funding innovation in agri-environmental management.
 House Farm Bill may cut these programs
 Environmental Protection Agency role
 Funding - e.g., Lodi Wine Group grant for integrated pest
mgt on pesticides
 Clean Water act – Trading credits with factories, dairies etc.

8.  Specialty & Commodity
 US has “Keystone Field to Market” for commodities,
 Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops etc.
 Sustainability Consortium still figuring out its path
 Production contracts allow tracing to farm
 “Precautionary Agriculture” (Organic/EU/UN)
 Plenty of Food, Poor distribution, African political strife
 ANSI Leonardo/SCS standards tilt to organic model
 Rainforest Alliance, EU’s “SAI”, Global GAP
 UN “Agroecology” & “Livestock’s Long Shadow” don’t
mix --- “natural” nutrients start with emitting animals
 Organic model needs protection from “GMO” mix-in?

9.  USDA regulatory overhaul segregated RR
beets pending final approval.
 US Litigation about coexistence
 National Env. Policy Act (NEPA) injunctions
 Nuisance-Negligence liability under common law
Overseas Regulatory Moves Hitting US Producers:
 State “nonGMO” zones, at home and abroad
 West Coast – CA , OR, WA, BC (Canada)
 EU cities and Austria etc.

10.  Area planted worldwide increased by 10%+
each year over last 15 years
 Pockets of resistance in the EU and markets
that depend on it (Africa)
 NonGM zones pop up in EU, US and Latin
America
 More EU nations banning planting of biotech
corn
 Four California counties votes to go Non
GMO

11. Hey, man,
don’t ban
my biotech
marijuana!
 2005 snapshot
 Brown are
Marin, Trinity, Mendocino No thanks, we
 Add Santa Cruz ’06 like GMOs!
 All the rest – No way! B.t. corn is
 Community standards for safer for
nuisance can be statutory livestock!
 Industry stopped NonGM
in production ag counties
 VT backed down from its
seed purity law and cannot
pass bio-liability

12.  Borrowing from “Non-GM” zone movement, standards bar
biotech (genetically modified, “GM”)
 US Green Building Counsel unfortunately may be adopting
anti-GM FSC standard just as biotech trees show up on
scene?
 Rainforest Alliance sustainable ag standard anti-GMO
 Tech-neutral WWF RT on Responsible Soybeans (S.America)
 Non-GMO grower must maintain buffer in GM area
 Unless local law or practice requires segregation of GM
 RT Sustainable Biofuels – Technology neutral now.
 Global GAP – similar requirement to prevent migration. Also
considering whether this should apply in US, Canada, (Arg.
too?)

13. “Precautionary Approach” applied to all ag?
 Precaution keeps benefits from market for testing
hypothesis after hypothesis, using “weight of
evidence” analysis
 Reduced agricultural chemicals, mycotoxins, positive
increase in soil etc. are well documented benefit of biotech
crops
 Organic crops cannot do “no till” conservation tillage
 Organic “mycotoxin risk” under-estimated?
 B.t. corn reduces in some well-documented studies
 Latin American mothers and babies paying for ignorance
 Balanced approach applies precaution to organic too.

14. Life Cycle Analysis Standards – Which method wins,
and where? Is Organic ag more sustainable?
 Most organic crops cannot do “no till” – need biotech crops,
herbicides
 UK Prof. cites “lower yield” + “limited biodiversity benefit” of
organic farming. Not “sustainable” or “best/only agriculture”.
 Not enough manure to go around, making organic approaches a
niche market – even when governments legislate organic in 25% of
farms (e.g., Sweden)
 More fuel used to get same yield
 Tilling weeds uses more tractor passes across a field, and more fuel
 Energy use of laborers, more of whom are required,
 Residue in no-till is a “skin” or solid surface that will support
tractor/ sprayer wheels in wet field – in and out quicker, more
reliable yields.
 “Halo” effect of B.t. crops benefits nearby organic corn.
 Organic consumers always an elite minority?

15.  2007 - California judge stopped Roundup Ready Alfalfa
 2009 -- California judge stopped Roundup Ready Sugar
Beets on same basic “protect nonGMO” theory
 2010 – US Supreme Court rules on RR Alfalfa
 No Nationwide Injunctions!
 USDA must contain “contamination” using partial approval
 2011 – USDA approves RR Sugar Beets partial planting
(not in parts of California, Oregon etc. -West Coast seed
production).
 Bottom Line – middle path through AOSCA and other
certifiers of seed purity – coexistence possible, but not
cheap.

16.  2008 Farm Bill encouraged specialty crops,
funding energy audits etc. and ordered USDA to
overhaul biotech regs.
 USDA overdue in mandate to revise regs, under
pressure to expand authority beyond “plant pests”
to regulation “other effects” of “noxious weeds”.
 USDA formed AC21 committee to advise it on
coexistence (again) which might find common
ground.
 U.S. industry, courts establish “due care” for
commingling at low levels (“LLP” or “AP” ), but EU
has “zero tolerance” which complicates exporting