Why Genetically Engineered and Organic (or Non-GE) Crops Cannot Co-Exist

March 5, 2004
>From <www.grain.org>

Confronting Contamination: Five reasons to reject GM co-existence

People all over the world are looking to Europe , where the hard-fought
moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is about to be lifted
and where the struggle is now on to determine what will take its place.
Genetic contamination is at the centre of the debate and much is being said
about thresholds, co-existence and preserving ³consumer choice². But there's
a lot that's not being said, particularly when it comes to how Europe's
decisions will affect the rest of the world. The larger issues at stake are
in danger of disappearing in the minutiae of official negotiations.

Genetic contamination should be seen for what it is: an inevitable
consequence of GM agriculture and the cornerstone of the biotech industry's
efforts to make the global acceptance of GM crops a fait accompli. The
biotech industry wants its opponents to believe that the only option left is
to ³manage² the co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. They want us to
abandon the fight to stop genetic engineering and to turn our efforts to
salvaging remnants of non-GM agriculture, in much the same way that they've
tried to co-opt the struggle for biodiversity into a non-threatening
campaign to protect global Ohot spots'. But such co-existence will
inevitably lead to a two-stream system of global food and agriculture ­ a
GM-free niche market for the very rich and a GM-polluted supply for the rest
of us < with the same few corporations controlling both streams from seed to
supermarket. In the face of this, more and more people are working
courageously, with whatever means they can, to keep farms, zones, provinces,
states, countries and regions GM-free.

Here are five reasons why the issue of contamination must lead to a complete
rejection of GMOs:

1. The only way to prevent contamination is not to grow GMOs

Agriculture does not take place in a laboratory. Pollen travels. Seeds
travel. Food travels. And they do not travel in nice, neat predictable ways.
Insects can transport pollen over kilometres. So can the wind. The ability
of seeds to stay in the soil for years before germinating can make things
even more complicated. And there is no way to guarantee against human error
and activity, whether it be scientists mistakenly sending GM seeds around
the world to unsuspecting colleagues , people smuggling seeds across
borders, farmers sowing the grains of GM food aid, or biotech companies
frequently violating biosafety regulations. This is only logical: food and
agriculture have always been about exchange, experimentation and trade and
this is no different in the current context of globalisation.

Nobody is denying this basic fact in the European debate around
co-existence. Study after study demonstrates the impossibility of practicing
GM-free agriculture next to GM agriculture. This is why the co-existence
negotiations are actually about thresholds (determining what levels of
contamination are ³acceptable²) and liability (assigning responsibility for
the inevitable contaminations that will occur). And this is why the GM
industry is not serious about participating in any co-existence plans that
might actually keep GM and non-GM agriculture separate and assign liability
where it is due, as Bayer's recent decision to abandon the commercialisation
of its GM maize in the UK goes to show. The most practical and
cost-effective way to prevent GMO contamination is not to grow GM crops at
all. Given that the arguments for growing GM crops are pretty weak from a
farmer perspective and weaker still from a consumer perspective, there is no
good justification for all the added effort and cost that it takes to bring
GMOs into the agricultural system.

2. Damage control measures obstruct good farming practices

The proposed European plans for co-existence make it clear that separating
GM and GM-free agriculture requires massive regulatory intervention. Crops
have to be segregated by distance and barriers, seeds have to be certified
as non-GM, funds need to be established to compensate non-GM farmers for
contamination, post-harvest handling systems need to be developed, and so
on.

The end result is far more control over farmers. They will be forced to
conform to ³co-existence² practices that have little to do with good
farming. There will be more bureaucracy, paperwork, and pressure for
certification and far less flexibility in deciding what to grow, when and
how to grow it, and how to sell the harvest. Seed saving and exchanges, if
they are not prohibited, will be much more complicated. The future of non-GM
agriculture will be a tightly regulated system governed by onerous contracts
that will leave farmers more vulnerable to the power of agribusiness.
Moreover, for those countries without the resources for such regulatory
intervention, there simply won't be a future for GM-free agriculture once
GMOs are allowed in.

3. Contamination increases corporate control over agriculture

It's no big secret that the GM industry's interest lies in pushing GM crops
as quickly and as widely as possible across the globe. Industry has raced to
get its GM crops into the fields before biosafety regulations and public
opposition set in. But it would be wrong to assume that the GM industry does
not want some form of regulation for its products.

Big business likes regulations that enable it to control the market, while
not preventing it from selling its products. Industry's lax attitude to the
Oblack market' for GM crops, such as that for Bt cotton in India or Roundup
Ready soybeans in Romania , is just a temporary phenomenon. It likes this
initial contamination because it puts authorities in an awkward position,
and puts pressure on them to approve the crops. But once they attain this
initial objective, the big companies quickly move in to squash the Oblack
market' and take control. This is what is happening in Argentina and Brazil.

The division between the biotech seed industry and downstream agribusiness
is another temporary phenomenon. Alliances and mergers between the two
industries will take off if and when the European and Japanese moratoriums
on GM imports come to an end, giving rise to tightly controlled ³identity
preservation² systems, where farmers grow particular varieties under
contract to corporations dictating what inputs they must use. These identity
preservation systems, whether for non-GM or ³value-added² GM crops, will be
based on certified seed. Meaning, in order to ³guarantee² the identity of
their crops, farmers will have to grow their crops from seeds purchased from
the company, leaving no room for seed saving or exchange. Farmers growing
farm-saved seed will have to sell their crops outside of the non-GM stream,
unless they can find informal local markets.

In the end, a small set of corporations or corporate alliances will emerge
with complete control over the agriculture and food system, controlling both
the GM stream, whether it be bulk commodities like Roundup Ready soy or
³value-added² GM crops, and the non-GM stream, turning it into an expensive
niche market for the rich, much like organic agriculture has become. Just
look at Romania , where the only certified non-GM seed available is seed
imported by Pioneer Hi-Bred from the US!

4. Contamination is an act of aggression

Most discussions of contamination focus on the ³thresholds² of GM that
consumers and industry will accept in ³non-GM² products. But for many
people, any GM contamination is an attack on their most sacred, fundamental
beliefs. The most glaring example of this is the recent contamination of
maize in Mexico.

For the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Guatemala, maize is the basis of
life. In the creation story of the Maya, maize was the only material into
which the gods were able to incorporate the breath of life and the gods used
it to make the flesh of the first four people on Earth. For other peoples of
Mexico, maize itself is a goddess. Maize has been the fundamental food of
Mexicans for centuries and thousands of varieties provide an amazing range
of flavours, consistencies, recipes, nutrients and medicinal uses. It has
kept indigenous peoples alive in the face of discrimination, poverty and
plundering. It has become equally key and often equally sacred for peasant
communities in Mexico and in many other parts of the world. The vast
majority of Mexicans will not hesitate to tell you ³we are the children of
maize². So, when the people of Mexico discovered that their maize was
contaminated by GMOs, they saw it as a violation of what is most sacred to
them. Alvaro Salgado of the National Center to Support Indigenous Missions
(CENAMI) expressed the popular sentiment: ³Contamination isn't just one more
problem. It's an aggression against Mexico's identity and its original
inhabitants.²

5. The poor will suffer the most

There is simply no way that poor countries of the South will be able to
implement the kind of co-existence measures being proposed in Europe. You
only have to look at the situation with pesticides to understand the
disparity in regulations and implementation between the North and the South.
Whenever GMOs are introduced into Southern countries, contamination is
inevitable, even if the GMOs come in as grain for food aid. But it's not
just the ease with which contamination can occur that is so problematic for
the South; it's also the implications.

The stakes are much higher in the South, since the poor are highly
vulnerable to any disruptions in local agriculture, local food supplies, and
local customs. Southern countries are also in a weak position vis-à-vis
their exports. While they rely on agricultural exports for much of their
foreign exchange, the export markets are controlled by Northern companies,
who are free to block exports from Southern countries if they fail to meet
the thresholds for contamination set by importing countries or even the
companies themselves. The push for GM comes from the North, but it is the
North that will end up dominating the non-GM market, if GMOs make their way
into Southern countries.

The only practical option for Southern countries is to close their borders
to all imports of GMOs. Such a move, however, takes a level of political
courage that seems to be eluding many governments in the South. The
unrelenting pressure from the biotech industry, the US government and their
allies is often too much. In this context, support for ³co-existence² in the
North is an attack on solidarity with the people of the South. It will only
encourage the spread and domination of GMOs over the South's agriculture.

Getting back to basics

There is no acceptable justification for GMOs. There is already more than
enough knowledge and technology for farmers to practice agriculture in ways
that will feed the world's population, look after the planet, and support
the wellbeing of rural communities. Who cares if these practices aren't
profitable for big agribusiness? GMOs are obstacles that prevent us from
moving in the right direction and we need to treat them as such. The only
possible position in support of pro-farmer, ecological agriculture and in
solidarity with the world's peoples, is a complete rejection of GMOs.

A longer and fully-referenced version of this article will be published in
the April 2004 issue of Seedling, and is available at <www.grain.org>

Against the Grain is a series of short opinion pieces on recent trends and
developments in the areas of biodiversity management and control. It is
published by GRAIN on an irregular basis, and is available from our website:
www.grain.org. Print copies can be requested from GRAIN, Girona 25, E-08010
Barcelona, Spain