Current Topics in GMO Reports and Initiatives

By Ken Roseboro


A new research paper claiming genetically modified (GM) and organic crops now coexist successfully in North America “without causing any economic or marketing problems to non-GM or organic growers” is based on a misrepresentation of facts from a 2002 survey of organic farmers that actually documents how GM crops are negatively impacting organic farms in the United States.

As acreage in both GM and organic crops increases in North America, there are concerns about how the two styles of agriculture will coexist. Organic farmers are reporting increasing incidents of GM crops contaminating their crops through wind-borne pollen or commingling in grain handling, which results in economic damage to organic farmers who cannot sell their tainted crops. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has said that coexistence between GM and organic should be a “national priority,” and coexistence initiatives have been launched in several U.S. states.

Dubious Claims
A recently released paper, titled “Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?” published by UK-based PG Economics Ltd., claims coexistence between GM and organic has been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers. The paper also states that claims by “anti-GM groups” that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America are “greatly exaggerated” and that coexistence measures have “been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years.”

However, a closer look reveals that the paper’s conclusions are heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) that shows the complete opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers.

The paper’s authors, Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, distorted some facts from the OFRF survey and ignored others to arrive at their dubious conclusion that GM and organic coexist successfully.

The OFRF survey was the first to look at the emerging problems associated with genetically modified organisms on organic farms. The survey found that 8% of organic farmers incurred direct costs or damages related to the presence of GMOs. In their paper, Brookes and Barfoot flip the findings upside down, stating that “92 percent of all organic farmers had not incurred any direct, additional costs due to GM crops being grown nearby.”

There are other examples of findings turned upside down. The OFRF survey found that 27% of respondents have had a GMO test either requested or required by an organic certifier or a buyer. Brookes and Barfoot state that “73 percent of organic growers said they had never been required to test for the presence of biotech material in their crops.”

The survey states that 48% of the survey respondents indicated that they have taken some measures to protect their organic farms from GMO contamination. Brookes and Barfoot change that to “52 percent of farmers said they didn’t consider it necessary to change the way they farm to protect their crops from biotech material.”

While some facts from the OFRF survey were misrepresented, others were ignored. Brookes and Barfoot ignored the fact that 46% of the survey respondents rated the risk of exposure and possible contamination of their organic farm products by GMOs as moderate or greater, with 30% characterizing their farm’s risk as high or very high.

Commenting on PG Economics’ findings, Erica Walz, OFRF survey coordinator, says, “They saw what they wanted to see and used what they wanted to use.”

The main problem with PG Economics’ paper is that it ignored the fact that the OFRF survey was nationwide and included organic farmers in areas where GM crops, such as corn and soybeans, are not grown. In fact, the survey had 1,034 respondents, but only 100 to 150 produced corn or soybeans and were at risk from contamination by GM crops.

Farmers who live in Midwestern states, where the majority of GM corn and soybeans are grown, reported significant impacts. “When you look at farmers in Corn Belt states, it’s a totally different picture,” says Walz.

In these states, 70% to 80% of respondents reported negative impacts from GMOs, says Walz. In addition, up to 88% of organic farmers in Midwestern states said they took some measure to protect their farms from GMO contamination.

An organic farmer in Iowa, Roger Lansink, says that several organic grain buyers don’t even test for GMOs. “They are afraid they would have to reject loads of grain because of positive tests,” he says.

Finally, Brookes and Barfoot ignored the comments of OFRF executive director Bob Scowcroft, who said in a statement released with the survey, “In 1998, GMO (genetically modified organism) 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 trend continues, what we’re seeing now will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg.”

Perhaps Brookes and Barfoot should survey organic farmers in the Midwest and ask them how successfully their farms coexist with GM crops. It is likely they would gain a very different perspective than the one they promote in their paper.

NAS Report Suggests Assessing GMO Safety
According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Institute of Medicine, federal agencies should assess the safety of genetically altered foods—whether produced by genetic engineering or by other techniques—on a case-by-case basis to determine whether unintended changes in their composition could adversely affect human health (www.national-academies.org). NAS was commissioned by the USDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the potential for adverse health effects from genetically engineered foods compared with foods altered in other ways and to provide guidance on how to identify and evaluate the likelihood of those effects.

“All evidence to date indicates that any breeding technique that alters a plant or animal—whether by genetic engineering or other methods—has the potential to create unintended changes in the quality or amounts of food components that could harm health,” said committee chair Bettie Sue Masters, Robert A. Welch Foundation Distinguished Professor in Chemistry, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. “The possible impact of such compositional changes should be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether and how much further evaluation is needed.”

Genetic engineering is not an inherently hazardous process, the report says, but the resulting food should be examined to determine if the inserted genes produce toxins or allergens. Unexpected changes are more apt to occur if genetic material is transferred between distantly related species. Because all methods can cause these changes, the committee concluded that attempts to assess food safety based solely on the method of breeding are “scientifically unjustified.” The report offers a framework to guide federal agencies in selecting the route of safety assessment.

Consumer groups said the report affirmed that GE foods could have unintended negative consequences. Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate at Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, said, “We are particularly concerned that the NAS Committee recommends that if genetically engineered foods contain novel chemicals whose effects on health are unknown, that the food should be allowed on the market, and assessed through monitoring. In essence, it recommends using consumers as guinea pigs to assess the safety of the food.”

Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist with Center for Food Safety (CFS), said, “The NAS report tells us we’re eating potentially harmful genetically engineered foods that we don’t know much about.”

Both Consumers Union and CFS advocate mandatory pre-market safety approval for GE foods and mandatory labeling.

The NAS committee that generated the report was composed primarily of experts in favor of biotechnology. Consumers Union pointed out that the one consumer representative on the committee is not American, and does not work for the organization she lists as her affiliation in the roster of committee members. The committee member, Jennifer Hillard, is listed as affiliated with Consumers Association of Canada (CAC). While she worked for CAC on a government-sponsored project carried out in cooperation with Monsanto and other biotech companies, she left there in 2002. CAC subsequently sued her for defamation and won. According to CAC President Bruce Cran, she does not represent the organization.

Ken Roseboro is editor and publisher of The Non-GMO Source, a monthly newsletter that helps food producers respond to the challenges of genetically engineered foods, and The Non-GMO Sourcebook, an annual directory of suppliers of non-GMO and organic products. He is author of Genetically Altered Foods and Your Health, a consumers guide to GE and organic foods that was recently published by Basic Health Publications. He can be reached at ken@non-gmosource.com.