Biotech seeds pose a threat to organic farmers, environment

[Guest guest]

GMW: Biotech seeds pose a threat to organic farmers, environment

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:00:29 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

 

Biotech seeds pose a threat to organic farmers, environment

By Brian Tokar

Times Argus, March 25, 2005

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050325/NEWS/503250361/102\

4

 

Once again, the problem of genetically engineered crop varieties (GMOs,

or " genetically modified organisms " ) and their consequences for Vermont

farmers is being debated in the Statehouse. Gov. Douglas and

Agriculture Secretary Steven Kerr continue to assert that if Vermont

farmers

would simply communicate better with their neighbors, there would be no

need for further legislation to address this vexing issue.

 

" Coexistence, " not regulation, we are told, is the answer to Vermont

farmers' problems with GMOs. Unfortunately, the Agency's statements over

the past year represent an extremely shortsighted approach to a growing

and increasingly serious problem. In Vermont, and worldwide, the market

for organic and other identity-preserved non-engineered crops is

growing rapidly, while the market for GMOs is highly contested and

controversial. The Agency's approach offers no comprehensive

protection for

non-GMO growers, and no legal requirement for GMO growers to

cooperate. This

is an unacceptable situation for the vast majority of Vermont farmers

who have little to gain and possibly everything to lose from this

unreliable and highly disruptive new technology.

 

The problem of transgenic contamination of organic and other

non-engineered crops has become increasingly widespread. In Canada,

farmers have

detected varieties of canola that are simultaneously resistant to three

different chemical herbicides, as a result of cross-pollination of

different varieties genetically manipulated to be herbicide tolerant.

These

have come to be viewed as " superweeds, " requiring increasingly virulent

weed killers to remove them.

 

In Mexico, small amounts of genetically engineered feed corn imported

from the U.S. have been planted experimentally by some farmers, leading

to the widespread contamination of indigenous corn varieties with

transgenic DNA in nine Mexican states. A 2004 study by the Union of

Concerned Scientists showed detectable genetic contamination of

several popular

varieties of corn and soybeans sold as non-GMO seed for commercial

planting. In response, grain mills across the US have begun testing crops

for GMO contamination, and rejecting shipments that test even slightly

positive.

 

In the European Union, governments and NGOs have been debating the

issue of " coexistence " for more than two years, but only after a de facto

five year moratorium on the introduction of any new engineered crop

varieties, and the passage of stringent, continent-wide rules for GMO

food

labeling and for tracing ingredients from farm to finished product. A

2002 study by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre reported

that it would be " virtually impossible " to maintain levels of

contamination low enough to satisfy the requirements of organic food

processors;

for conventional corn crops, a " coexistence " policy would cost farmers

approximately $150 per acre, rising to 9 percent of their crop's value

in areas of more intensive production.

 

The rules currently under discussion in Europe would place a clear

burden of proof and expense on those who would introduce GMOs to any

region

previously free of these crops. Since the emergence of commercial

genetically engineered varieties in 1996, commercial producers of

genetically engineered seeds have created a climate of secrecy and

intimidation

among farmers. More than 90 farmers have been sued by Monsanto alone for

a variety of claimed contract violations, and an unknown number have

been pressured to settle out of court and sign punitive gag orders. We

know from press reports that Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million

devoted to legal action against farmers, and that farmers whose crops

are contaminated by Monsanto's GMO pollen have little recourse to

protect themselves. That is why the clear assignment of liability to

commercial producers of GMO seeds is a major focus of this year's debate.

 

It would take a profound change of culture on the part of GMO growers,

along with legal changes, for them to begin sharing detailed

information about their varieties and practices. What incentive do GMO

growers

have to begin talking more openly with their non-GMO farmer neighbors?

This cannot happen without specific changes in statute, and it would be

aided significantly by a moratorium on GMO seed use until all the

underlying legal, scientific and environmental issues can be adequately

addressed.

 

Most at risk are the growing numbers of organic growers in Vermont.

Whereas inadvertent genetic contamination is not sufficient grounds for a

farmer to lose organic certification, processors and distributors of

organic crops, as well as highly in-demand GMO-free conventional crops,

routinely test for contamination. A farmer could remain certified, but

find him or herself unable to sell their crops as organic, losing the

important price premium that has helped save numerous Vermont farms in

recent years.

 

For all these reasons, farmer advocates have united with

environmentalists and people working for safer food to support the

current Farmer

Protection Act in the Vermont Legislature (S. 18), as well as a pending

proposal for a ten-year moratorium on GMO use.

 

Today, several genetically engineered varieties of field corn and a

small amount of soybeans are being grown here. Federal approvals are

under

way, however, for the release of GMO vegetable crops, alfalfa, turf

grass, and even fish and trees. Today, GMO use in our state is relatively

limited, far below the national average even for corn and soybeans. If

Vermont agriculture is to thrive, it is important that we take

meaningful action before it is too late.

 

Brian Tokar is the director of the Biotechnology Project at the

Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield, and has edited two books

on the

science and politics of genetic engineering.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Rejecting a bright biotech idea makes no sense

03/25/2005

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050325/NEWS/503250358

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------