GMOs and the Organic Farm:
Measuring Impact and Issues

By Erica Walz


In a nationwide survey conducted by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), certified organic farmers have reported the first direct financial and related operational impacts associated with the threat of contamination by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). With recombinant-DNA technologies excluded for use in organic farming by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) standards, and a variety of strict tolerances for GMO contamination imposed on organic growers by foreign and domestic buyers, these survey results illustrate a pressing need for further consideration by growers, processors, certifiers and regulators.

Survey Says…
The 4th National Organic Farmers Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace, is OFRF’s first survey to focus specifically on organic farmers’ experiences in the organic market. In spring 2002, OFRF mailed a 22-page survey to certified organic farmers throughout the U.S., with 1,034 farmers, or 16%, responding. Of these, 67% are full-time farmers, up from 62% in the 1997 OFRF survey. Fifty-one percent of respondents had made a transition from conventional farming to organic farming, an increase of 10% from 1997, and 36% indicated they have a mixed operation, up from 24% in 1997.

The survey population, developed from producer certification lists voluntarily provided by organic certification agencies, also indicated that the average number of acres farmed organically increased to 184, up from 140 acres in 1997. In addition, 44% of respondents reported some percentage of market expansion for their organic products in 2001, with 19% indicating expansion of 20% or more. Positive growth was also reported, with 92% of organic farmers surveyed indicating that they were able to obtain price premiums for organic goods in 2001.

Conducted with support from True North Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and contributors to OFRF’s general program fund, the survey contained eight sections, asking organic growers a series of questions in each area. These sections included: (1) farm profile; (2) production and product detail; (3) marketing of organic products; (4) organic market conditions in 2001; (5) information and services; (6) marketing orders and organic; (7) GMOs and organic; and (8) demographic data for each growing operation.

Nine survey questions assessed growers’ experiences with GMOs in organic farming operations. OFRF’s analysis of the responses to these questions indicate that coping with the threat and consequences of GMO contamination is a recent development for organic farmers, and one which will, if this trend continues, have a significant impact on the broader organic food chain, including processing operations, foodservice establishments and retailers. According to OFRF Executive Director Bob Scowcroft, in 1998 when the foundation conducted their previous survey, GMO contamination was not yet a national issue. “These new survey results based on the 2001 crop year document that significant impacts have begun to occur within a very short time frame. If this continues, what we’re seeing now will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg.”

GMO Contamination: The Growers Speak
When asked what they believed was the risk of exposure and contamination of their organic farm product(s) by GMOs, 46% of 1,008 survey respondents rated their risk of contamination as moderate or greater, with 30% characterizing their contamination risk as high or very high. Respondents ranked five sources of contamination risk (Figure 1). Respondents identified contaminated seed stock as their primary concern (with 48% ranking their perceived risk as high or very high), followed by GMO pollen drift in the field (42%) and contaminated farm inputs other than seed (30%). Such inputs might include genetically modified seed inoculants, or manures and composts from materials obtained from off the farm. The latter contamination, for example, might occur because livestock are fed with materials that contain GMOs, which is then deposited in manure, or other composted material may contain some level of GMO grain stock.

Nearly half of organic farmers identified contaminated seed stock as their primary GMO contamination risk. Farmers are becoming aware that the biotechnology industry’s promise to maintain the genetic integrity and viability of the world’s natural seed stocks has not held. Recent reports indicate that indigenous corn seed stocks in Mexico have been contaminated with GMOs, as well as the primary soybean seed bank at South Dakota State University. Given the breadth of the contamination and the fact that it happens even in extremely controlled and/or remote environments, it is not surprising that those surveyed perceive contaminated seed stock as the number one risk to their organic operations.

Twenty-three percent of organic farmers surveyed identified GMO contamination during processing as a moderate to high risk. The concern appears to center on cases in which the organic raw material supplied by one farm might be contaminated by other raw materials at the processing plant through comingling or inadequate equipment cleanout. This possibility emphasizes the challenges faced by food processors of getting processing equipment entirely clean and sanitized.

What kinds of measures are organic growers taking, then, to reduce the risk of exposure to GMO contamination of their agricultural products? Nearly half of the survey respondents indicated that they have taken some measures to protect their organic farms from GMO contamination (Figure 2). As shown, 52% of respondents indicated that they have not taken any measures to prevent the risk of GMO contamination of their products. This group is primarily comprised of vegetable and tree fruit producers for which GMO contamination currently is not an issue and/or has not yet had a definitive impact on operations. Respondents who indicated that they have or are taking preventive measures are typically soy and corn producers. Approximately 80% of soybeans in the U.S., for example, are produced with genetically modified seed.

The greatest percentage of respondents, 24%, indicated that they have communicated with neighboring farmers about GMO risk to their farms as a measure to prevent GMO contamination. Communicating with conventional farming neighbors is a previously established practice among organic farmers to reduce pesticide and herbicide contamination risk. Since there is historical precedent for organic farmers to communicate with neighbors, broadening the conversation to include potential GMO drift issues appears to be an obvious first-measure response by organic growers.

Nineteen percent of organic farmers surveyed indicated that they have increased the size of the buffer zones with neighboring farms. As noted in the NOP final rule, the size of buffer zones are variable, based on the conditions on the ground. With particular products that are wind-pollinated, such as corn, increasing the buffer zone may prove somewhat useful as a measure to reduce the risk of GMO contamination.

In terms of cropping activities, respondents highlighted three types of measures to reduce the risk of exposing crops to GMO contamination. These are: adjusting the timing of crop planting (15%); altering cropping patterns or crops produced (13%); and changing cropping locations (9%). These measures can present significant disadvantages to the organic farmer, however. For instance, changing the timing of one’s cropping can be particularly onerous, given that planting times are usually determined by weather and field conditions. When the window of conditions is right, conventional farmers may go out to their fields and plant, while an organic producer might wait for another window of optimal conditions in the hope that by the end of the growing season their pollination period will be different from neighboring GMO crops. Similarly, the organic grower may have to take more drastic steps and stop growing a particular crop altogther. It may be safer to discontinue growing corn, particularly if the organic producer is growing in a high-risk area, surrounded by conventional farms growing GMO corn, or to grow the corn on a parcel far removed from such areas.

OFRF surveyers also asked organic farmers whether they’ve conducted GMO testing on some portion of their organic farm seed, inputs or farm products, and 17% of respondents affirmed that they had conducted such testing. Of those, 11% reported that they received positive test results for GMO contamination on some portion of their organic seed, inputs or farm products. (Again, 83% of respondents indicated that they have not conducted GMO testing, and the majority of these producers are comprised of vegetable or tree fruit producers for which GMOs have not yet become an issue.)

In addition, 27% of respondents have conducted GMO testing either as requested or required by an organic certifier or a product buyer. This is understandable given that the organic industry is a largely market-driven enterprise, rather than an industry solely driven by regulation. The NOP rule, for example, states that if GMOs are found during product testing, an investigation to determine the source of the contamination will occur. It is assumed that GMO contamination of organic product is accidental in nature because organic producers do not purchase licensing agreements to use GMO seed. As noted earlier, because GMOs are so difficult to contain, they can become ubiquitous background contaminants in the environment similar to pesticides. The difference, however, is that there is a minimum tolerance level allowance for pesticides, whereas no scientific or regulatory body has identified a percentage allowance for GMOs to date. At the end of the day, organic product buyers and certifiers are under tremendous pressure from the marketplace to assure that products labeled as “organic” do not contain GMOs, and as such, many are taking the position that if they test product and find it contaminated, that product will be rejected and returned to the supplier.

GMO testing of seed, inputs or organic product accounted for 4% of direct costs (or damages) incurred by organic farm operations. While the majority (92%) of respondents reported no direct costs or damages related to the presence of GMOs in agriculture, the 8% of farmers who have incurred such costs cited loss of organic sales or markets due to actual or perceived contamination risk; loss of sales due to presence of GMOs in organic product; or loss of organic certification due to presence of GMOs in organic product.

Only 10% of the OFRF survey respondents felt that a regulatory framework is in place to adequately protect their organic farm products from damages due to GMO contamination (Figure 3). This may be due to the fact that there is not a completely straightforward regulatory framework in place. During the drafting of the NOP organic rule, industry stakeholders requested that the final rule include a strong position statement on GMOs. Although the NOP final standard does prohibit GMOs from use in production of products that bear the certified organic label, GMOs are considered “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the primary agencies that regulate GMOs. This will likely continue to be an area up for further dialogue among stakeholders in the organic industry.

What Next?
Ultimately, these survey results reveal that the impacts of GMOs on organic farming operations are beginning to surface. Five years ago, the problem was not on the radar screen for most organic producers, yet today, 8% of organic farmers have actually borne some direct costs as a result of GMO contamination of their crops. This trend may continue unless drastic regulatory measures are taken or genetically modified products suffer from their own inadequacies over time and are rejected by the market, as occurred with Monsanto’s Flavor-Savr tomato.

With 80% of this year’s soy crop and 30% of the corn crop identified as grown with GMO seed stock, the potential for GMO contamination organic products is an unfortunate reality. Although the organic growers surveyed will continue to do what they can to prevent contamination, it may be increasingly less possible due to contaminated seed stock. The OFRF’s 4th National Organic Farmers Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace, along with emerging data on the impact of GMOs from scientific and regulatory bodies worldwide, point to the need for continued dialogue about GMOs.

Erica Walz is Program Associate with the Organic Farming Research Foundation, based in Santa Cruz, CA. OFRF’s mission is to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming practices. She can be contacted at erica@ofrf.org.

The full OFRF survey can be found at www.ofrf.org