Farmers are starting to take a stand against genetically modified seeds. Those who don't want their fields contaminated with GM seeds really have no say in the matter as the wind can blow the seeds to a field regardless if it is organic or not. This is a significant problem for organic farmers because according to the Department of Agriculture, 90% of all soy, corn, canola, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. last year were transgenic. Another problem that arises is the lack of transparency in labeling foods that contain GM foods. However, the average American consumer wants to know if the food they are eating has been genetically modified according to a poll conducted in October of 2010 by Thomson Reuters.
Back to the organic farmers. GM seeds that drift into an organic farmer's field will disqualify that farmer from their organic certification. This affects plant farmers as well as animal farmers, since organic cows cannot be fed with GM plants. Reactions from farmers vary. Some farms (like Stonyfield) accept the drifting seeds since the USDA chose not to regulate them. Other farms are calling for more labeling of GM seeds and foods rather than trying to stop them all together, where smaller farmers are protesting the unregulated drifting GM seeds totally. The USDA suggested to these small farmers to leave a "buffer zone" between their farms and their neighbors' farms, but this is costly and has not proven to be effective.
Farmers have joined together to file a class action lawsuit against the biggest GM bully, Monsanto. This is interesting since it is usually Monsanto who sues the small farmers for saving their seeds. The real issue is contamination of organic farms. How can farmers reconcile the presence of both organic and GM seeds on their farms? As GM seeds become more popular and widespread, will we have to change the definition of organic? Or can the small farmer rise up against the Monsanto Goliath and receive the justice they deserve? Farmers can be activists in this movement, but consumers must be vocal about this contamination as well. If Monsanto and the small farmers see that consumers demand uncontaminated organic foods, then legislation should be passed to reflect this sentiment.
This is a very interesting issue, and one that will presumably keep growing in importance here in the US. GM crops have been quite contentious in Europe for some time, and have been banned from many countries in the EU I believe. Although the concerns about GM crops are often overblown, in situations like this one involving organic crops, the concerns about crop integrity are a valid concern and one that is difficult to overcome.
ReplyDeleteHaving this choice is however very much a luxury. The choice between using GM crops or not is a privilege that much of the world does not enjoy. In Africa, for instance, many regions would benefit greatly from Gm crops that are more heat resistant. They are unable to use these crops, but not by choice. Rather, the european countries which supply African countries with significant aid place restrictions on what these countries can use it on, and so the european attitudes about GM crops are enforced in those regions that would benefit most from their use.
I think this article presents a very delicate issue that affects the rights of both sides of farmers. While the efforts of small organic farmers are unfortunately undermined by the "GM bully", the GM farmers also retain the right to plant their GM crops. And since GM seed contamination appears to be unintentional, I imagine it would be hard to hold these corporations accountable.
ReplyDeleteThis of course leads into the bigger issue of what it really means to be organic. In the market today, the word organic is tossed around a lot, with little clarity for the consumers as to what part of said product is in fact "organic." I, like many consumers, it appears, would appreciate a level of information in regards to the food we buy. Along those same lines, the farmers that invest money and energy to grow "organic" deserve the GM-free crop they are advertising.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, for food to be organic in an official sense, they must follow a costly process to meet the strict criteria of organic certification which is determined by USDA Accredited Certifying Agents that usually operate within a given state. A product may fall short of meeting that criteria for a number of reasons but may be grown using "organic methods" and this is a step under "certified organic." One of the largest problems with Monsanto's GM seeds and their lawsuits against small farmers for seed saving is the fact the cross-pollination that occurs. A farm that wishes to provide non-genitically modified corn but is situated close by or adjacent to a Monsanto GM corn farm will likely end up growing some gm corn through drifting or cross-pollination. While it may be 'hard to hold these corporations accountable' for the unintentional contamination, it is unfair that organic farmers cannot grow non GM corn unless isolated from vast farming areas strictly devoted to farming subsidized GM corn. It is especially unjust to take civil action against a farm whose organic integrity is actually being unfairly undermined and encroached upon by a GM crop. In the larger picture this is the first time in the history of mankind that a corporation, in this case a agribusiness and biotech giant named Monsanto, has a patent on life itself. I feel this has dangerous implications for the path of genetic modification, if the foods of the future all have technology patents that monopolized the market for seeds in such a manner under threat of litigation, we may come to an age where no one really can grow their own food.
ReplyDelete