Connect With Us
Can GM and Organic Get Along?
print 
Bob Quinn, an organic wheat farmer in Montana, says there ought to be four conditions to any plan for "co-existence" between genetically modified and organic crops.
Despite fierce opposition from businesses, organizations and consumers supporting organic agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined it will approve the full deregulation or modified deregulation of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. The agency will announce its decision on, or shortly after, January 24.
The USDA is pushing for “coexistence” between organic and genetically engineered farmers. Organic advocates wonder if such a “middle ground” is possible. This negotiation is taking place in the conflict over GE alfalfa.
Things are heating up. Today (Jan. 20), the House Agriculture Committee will hold a public "forum" on the issue. And two days ago, senators Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, and Pat Roberts., R-KS, and U.S. Representative Frank Lucas, R-OK, sent USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack a letter asking him to deregulate GE alfalfa without restrictions.
On December 17, the USDA released its environmental impact statement (EIS) of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA produced the EIS in response to a federal judge, who asked for a more thorough analysis of the potential environmental, economic and health impacts of GE alfalfa before the USDA approved deregulation.
Although the EIS outlines three options for GE alfalfa (continued regulation, full deregulation or conditional deregulation), the USDA has made it clear it will deregulate this crop by the end of January 2011, pushing the two sides into “co-existence.”
The USDA’s decision was bad news for organic farmer Bob Quinn of north-central Montana.
Though Quinn’s main cash crop is organic wheat, like many others in the organic industry he believes that deregulating GE alfalfa to any extent establishes a precedence that will have long-term consequences for all organic farmers, the land, the USDA organic label program and consumers seeking to avoid genetically engineered products.
Khorasan wheat. Quinn has spent decades resurrecting, protecting and marketing an ancient grain known as khorasan.
The exact origin of this “unadulterated” variety of wheat is unknown, though it was first brought to the U.S. from Egypt in the 1940s. Marketed as Kamut, this whole grain has tested to be far superior in nutritional value and digestibility than its genetically modified wheat counterpart.
Quinn’s concern is that the USDA’s deregulation of GM alfalfa represents a disregard for the work and principles of the organic industry and its producers, as well as the safety of consumers. (Listen to Bob Quinn here.)
Quinn said all of the discussions regarding potential damages to organic producers from GE crop contamination are really part of a much larger problem.
“It’s very frustrating,” he said. “We’re now being told that we need to ‘co-exist,’ yet we’re dealing with an industry that claims full ownership without accepting any of the liability that comes with that.”
The USDA has asked the organic industry to work on a program that would allow the “co-existence” of GE alfalfa with organics, and has allowed 30 days to work out compromises within the EIS that would regulate how this co-existence between GE and organics would take place.
Quinn said the biotech industry has a responsibility to be able to control what it produces, and, at a minimum, four points need to be addressed.
Following Europe’s example, the first step, Quinn said, is labeling.
“The consumers have a right to know what they’re buying and eating, and it has to start by labeling foods that contain GE (genetically engineered) or GM (genetically modified) products.”
Second, Quinn said that in order to eliminate the risk of cross-pollination or contamination of non-GM crops, the GM plants should be made sterile.
“Their gene jockeys can do just about anything — at least that’s what they sell themselves on. They have the capability of producing a male sterile (plant) to prevent out-crossing, or a sterile pollen,” he said.
Next, Quinn said that all GM seeds should be required to be marked.
“We need an inexpensive, yet reliable way to distinguish GM seed from non-GM seed at any point in the handling system,” Quinn said, “a marker visible under a UV light or something similar, so as to prevent accidental contamination during handling.”
And lastly, Quinn pointed out the absolute need for the biotech industry to be held accountable for the products they manufacture and the results they produce.
Quinn's wheat is used to make Kamut products. He worries that should organic and GM crops be raised side by side — the apparent position of the USDA — his fields could be contaminated. “These companies must be liable for what they’re doing so we don’t have farmers suing farmers when neither is technically at fault,” Quinn said. “If we look back over the past several years, we could easily say that billions of dollars have been lost due to GM contamination, and that’s just on the basis of market pricing. We haven’t even begun to discuss how the environmental damages equate to dollars and cents.”
Quinn speculated that if Monsanto were to start getting billed for the clean-up expenses incurred from damaging run-off from the chemicals required to grow GM crops, things might start to change.
“As far as I know, we haven’t tried to put a price tag on the dead zones in the Gulf, and I don’t know if that’s even possible,” the farmer said, “but at the very least there needs to be some accountability.”
Lisa Hare is a Nebraska writer.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
The Yonder's weekly digest
Most Popular
Topics
- Ag and Trade
- Arts and Culture
- BioFuels and Energy
- Broadband and Tech
- Cool Places
- Education
- Environment
- Food
- Growth and Development
- Health
- Immigration
- Main Street Economics
- Media
- People to Know
- Politics and Government
- Racing For '08/Archive
- Racing for 2012
- Religion and Faith
- Special Projects
- Travel/Recreation
- Wildlife
Comments
Double standards?
Wait, so this plant of mysterious origin is ok? Heh. If anyone in a biotech company tried that they'd be run out of town for sure.
But alright--can you provide the links to the testing that showed safety and non-allergenicity? And that nutritional information you indicated?
And since it's presumably different from other wheat, is this farmer concerned that his pollen might contaminate and adulterate other farmer's wheats?
Get it right!
"Kamut, this whole grain has tested to be far superior in nutritional value and digestibility than its genetically modified wheat counterpart." What GM wheat counterpart? There are no GM traits approved.
"Quinn speculated that if Monsanto were to start getting billed for the clean-up expenses incurred from damaging run-off from the chemicals required to grow GM crops, things might start to change.
“As far as I know, we haven’t tried to put a price tag on the dead zones in the Gulf, and I don’t know if that’s even possible,” the farmer said, “but at the very least there needs to be some accountability.”
GM corn has allowed farmers the ability to use no-till practices and thus dramatically reducing runoff. There are at least 3 peer reviewed studies showing that. How about some accountability to tell the truth? Mr. Quinn uses the standard organic line - avoid the truth and scare people about agriculture in order to increase the price they get for organic products.
Comment from Wyoming
We received a note from Phillip Hartman, a Wyoming farmer, about this issue. He forwarded a letter he wrote to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. The letter, in full, is below:
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
I am greatly concerned that USDA/Aphis is about to make a decision concerning the deregulation of "Roundup Alfalfa" based on political, emotional, personal opinion and so called "market requirement" influences on what is supposed to be a "science based" EIS conclusion and recommendation.
As a farmer and alfalfa seed producer in Wyoming I have been anxiously awaiting the EIS on this very important issue. I produced RR Alfalfa Seed for three years until my contract expired. I have been denied the opportunity to raise the crop of my choice for several years while this EIS is completed. This return to "regulated status" has cost me money in lost production while I wait for the EIS. I have reluctantly accepted this because I agree that we must all follow the law. At the same time I have been denied the legal right to raise RR Alfalfa Seed I have two organic growers, east and west of me, that have continued to enjoy the privilege of raising organic alfalfa seed and forage. These organic operations have suffered no economic injury these past 4 years. I have actually suffered loss of income in the hundreds of thousands of dollars the past 4 years because my right to grow RR Alfalfa Seed has been restricted. IF some illegal "buffer zone" is enacted who will be allowed to raise their crop of choice?? Will it be me or my organic neighbors? This issue would be one of many to decide if option III with geographic restrictions is enacted.
With no disrespect intended, Mr. Secretary, it is now time for USDA/Aphis to continue to follow the law and completely DEREGULATE alfalfa and allow those of us who wish, to plant RR Alfalfa Forage and produce RR Alfalfa Seed with NO restrictions.
The very extensive EIS that was done by your agency has concluded that GE Alfalfa poses NO PLANT PEST RISK (as described in 7 U.S.C. 7711(c)(3)). No restrictions are required, needed or mandated considering that the EIS has come to this conclusion. Indeed, 7 U.S.C. 7712(a) states that USDA has NO authority to impose any further restrictions on this crop.
Again, I and the alfalfa industry as a whole, have patiently followed the law in NOT planting or continuing to grow any GE Alfalfa Seed and I expect my government to follow the law just as we have.
In answer to the organic community's complaints I would offer the following:
1) In the NOP standards, rules and regulations I would assume GMO crops would come under the category of an "excluded method" or "prohibited substance" as this seems to be the only place GMO crops might fit in and there is no specific reference as to WHAT organic standards would deal with GMO crops..
2)There is no statement, rule or regulation specifically mentioning any reference to "GMO" or "GE" crops so that the conclusion above is the only reasonable one.
3)The NOP regulations themselves put any burden there MAY be on the organic farmers themselves. (considering the results of the EIS there actually is no "burden" as the GMO crop of Alfalfa has been determined to NOT be a "PLANT PEST").
4)The NOP regulations recognize there may be "background levels of synthetic pesticides" of which they refer to as "unavoidable residual environmental contamination" or "UREC". This "residual contamination" as they describe it would also fall into the category of "prohibited substance"....couldn't this also apply to a "low level presence of a GMO crop"?? It seems that the presence of a GMO crop is being singled out as some unacceptable contaminant when literally thousands of other chemicals, pesticides, and products are EXCEPTED as "unavoidable".
5)Given the acknowledgement of "unavoidable contamination" and the tolerance (5% of EPA tolerance) for "prohibited substances" the NOP standards themselves require actions to minimize any contamination of the organic crop. These are recognized measures such as "buffer zones and physical barriers such as a "row of trees to prevent drift of prohibited substances". When these measures are taken by an organic grower they are considered to be accepted measures to allow certification at 100% even with the presence of these "prohibited substances" in the final organic product. In other words an organic crop with "low level presence" of
GMO traits can be certified to be 100% organic provided all guidelines of growing the crop are followed. Organic Certification is "PROCESS BASED" and does not rely on "ZERO TOLERANCE FOR PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES".
In conclusion I would offer the following summation concerning organic growers:
Organic growers may be found in compliance with organic requirements, even if GMO's are found in the final product, because the presence of GMO's is not , in itself, a violation of organic requirements. The NOP standards along with the rules and regulations that are attached to them are the nationally recognized laws that govern all organic growers in the United States. They have been introduced, modified and adopted by the vast majority of organic growers in the United States. If there are a small percentage of organic growers who wish to enter into contact with a buyer, foreign or domestic, and guarantee that buyer a product that is beyond the NOP standards then he is doing so at his own risk and should be the only party accountable for that contract requirement and that additional risk.
The means for organic growers and gmo growers to "coexist" are already in place within the NOP Standards. If there is any contamination it works in both directions. As a grower of a GMO crop I will suffer the same level of contamination that the organic grower MAY suffer from my crop. The difference is the gene inserted into the GMO crop is readily identified with a simple test. The contamination I will suffer from the organic crop is not easily identified, that doesn't mean it is not an issue in my crop. The fact is, the company that I contract with excepts and understands it to be minimal. The organic grower would not even consider the fact that on organic alfalfa seed crop could be a "plant pest". The EIS done by your agency has determined that GMO Alfalfa is NOT A PLANT PEST as well.
I urge you to follow the law, acknowledge the EIS, and deregulate ALFALFA FORAGE and ALFALFA SEED production in the United States WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS so that those of us who wish to raise a GMO crop can again enjoy the freedom to plant the crop of our choice. We have been denied that freedom long enough and our rights need to be recognized. THANK YOU Mr. Secretary.
from the author
In last week's story entitled, 'Organic Industry Calls For Biotech Accountability,' a reference was made to genetically modified (GM) wheat.?Presently there is no commercially available GM wheat on the market.
In 2004, Monsanto abandoned efforts to commercialize Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant wheat following protest by farmers, consumers and health and environmental groups. However, last July, Monsanto announced that it would reenter the GM wheat arena. Rather than herbicide-resistance, it said it would focus its efforts on developing new engineered varieties that give "higher yields, better nutrition, and greater resistance to drought, disease, and other aspects of climate change."
In his comments pertaining to current study comparisons to Kamut, Mr. Quinn was alluding to "conventional" wheat.
From Bob Quinn
Bob writes that his comments regarding dead zones in the Gulf referred to nitrate run-off not GM crop prodduction.
Also, any who would like to read studies comparing Kamut brand wheat to modern wheat can visit Kamut.com.