Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

GMO: genetically modified organics?

Farmers and processors organize against genetic contamination

Posted by Tom Philpott at 3:19 PM on 13 Mar 2008

Read more about: agriculture | GMOs | organic food | food

Here in the United States, upwards of 70 percent of corn and 90 percent of soy are genetically modified. Given that corn and soy end up in just about everything -- livestock rations (and thus meat, milk, and eggs), nearly all processed foods, and even our gas tanks, avoiding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is tricky.

One way is to shun all processed food and animal products, and simply eat fruit, non-soy veggies, and non-corn grains. (I assume U.S. fruits and veggies aren't GM, despite a recent, and likely erroneous, report to the contrary.)

A less strenuous way, theoretically, would be to buy only certified-organic foods, since USDA code restricts GMOs from organic food. But that strategy is iffy, because GMOs are capable of "contaminating" non-modified seed strains. Corn, particularly, is a "promiscuous pollinator" -- pollen from GM fields can blow onto organic fields, introducing their "traits" into crops.

Reuters reports that organic farmers, processors, and retailers are organizing to fight GMO contamination. They want the USDA to set up a system to test and certify organic foods as GMO-free.

Evidently, the problem isn't abstract. Albert Straus, who runs the highly regarded Strauss Organic Family Creamery in northern California, supplements his pasture-based feed system with organic corn for lactating cows.

He started testing the organic corn he buys a year ago, and found that fully one-third of it had been contaminated by GMOs.

liability

Of course, the corn farmers would really rather not see this happen.  In addition to likely losing their organic certification, they would also be liable for licensing fees to Monsanto or whoever owns the genes in their no-longer-organic corn.

Of course, widespread testing would probably reveal widespread contamination, which might provide the basis for a class-action suit against Monsanto, etc for loss of income, disruption of business, etc.  Potentially such a thing could grow big enough to really hurt the GMO pushers.  But that's a hell of a gamble, for the farmers.

Yes, offense is best

Yes, indeed, rather than waiting for the Monsanto machine to crush you (like the poor Canadian Percy Schmeiser), all organic growers should have their crops tested and, where they are found to be contaminated with genes that Monsanto has tampered with, band together and sue for damages, just as businesses sue people who vandalize their wares.

Pursue Monsanto and its ilk under a extreme negligence theory, saying that, since Monsanto knew its customers intended to plant its seed in the open, it was negligent for failing to ensure that its tampered gene seeds could not contaminate the fields and be taken up by nearby farms.

Since the risk of exactly this outcome was widely discussed before the frankencrops left the labs, Monsanto had a duty to the nearby growers to take special care to avoid letting their genes spread.

The 5% Project

GMO: genetically modified organics?

With all due respect to supporters of the organic industry, it makes no sense to wholesomely condemn genetically modified foods. There's a lot of hostility towards GM foods. The blog, GMO Africa, in a posting entitled, "Stop this violence against science, perhaps, has captured the public's attitude towards GM Foods. The 64-million-dollar question is whether this kind of hostility is justified at all. I have heard people say GM foods are unsafe for human consumption. But others, including experts in agricultural biotechnology, believe otherwise. The biotech behemoth, Monsanto, runs a Web site called Conversations About Plant Biotechnology, which contains video interviews of people like Norman Borlaug and Jeffrey Sacchs extolling the benefits of genetically modified foods. Now, who's right on  whether GM foods are safe or not to humans and the environment?

skewed science

The fact that Monsanto, the source of the overwhelming majority of the GMO in the world, runs a website that includes proponents is hardly evidence that GMOs are safe.  The issue is not really that we know they're dangerous for human or animal consumption; it's that they've never been adequately tested so there's no guarantee they're safe. There have in fact been a number of incidents showing evidence of risks. Monsanto has so thoroughly infested the FDA and USDA that we can't look to regulatory agencies to ensure safety. One reason Monsanto has fought so hard and so successfully against labelling is to protect against the possibility of enormous lawsuits if it's found, for example, that rBGH causes cancer 20 years later in kids who drank the milk. How could such a thing even be found, let alone proven, when we have no way of knowing who was exposed and who was not?
One thing rarely discussed is the most extreme example of the negligence of the GM industry--biopharming. Several years ago, there were 300 secret locations throughout the US in which GMO crops were being raised to produce valuable chemicals, primarily drugs, in the oils of crops. The true madness is that they were allowed to use food crops--corn and tobacco are the most familiar and convenient plants to use for this modification, so they are growing corn laced with powerful drugs, in places like Nebraska. Corn and other grains are grasses; they're wind-pollinated. the germ-plasm will mix with non-GMO strains miles away. There have been at least a couple of cases in which these plants contaminated food supplies via second-generation volunteers coming up in the fields the following year. In California, the rice growers association pushed to be allowed to uce rice for biopharming, despite the fact that it would render any rice grown in California unsellable outside the US. But what did they care? Rice for food is nowhere near as profitable per acre as rice used as a vehicle for drug production. But such decisions, made in the infinite wisdom of capitalist "rationality," threaten the US and world food supply. It's possible that there is a valid use for biopharming as a much cheaper way to produce valuable drugs. But this shocking lack of basic regulation shows the problem with genetic engineering today: we have a technology in which the basic science is still in its infancy yet the application is far advanced. It's easy to grab quick profits and use the nation as your guinea pigs, as long as the political system  enables you via a lack of responsible legislation and the corporate media enable you by keeping the public in the dark.

fair and balanced

In the interest of fully exploring this "conflict", it would be nice if one of the official Grist contributors would write a review of...

Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, by Pamela C. Ronald and R. W. Adamchak....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195301757

... or perhaps interview the authors.

This book looks at the potential value of combining genetic modification with organic farming practices. It was written by a plant geneticist and an organic farmer who care very much about the health of human beings, our society, and the environment.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks