Ten good reasons why GMOs are not compatible with organic agriculture
Here are 10 essential points that show why GMOs
are incompatible with organic production:
1. Basic science:
Humans have a
complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have
evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to
make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are
comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the
human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible
food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a
dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related
diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction
of GMO crops and foods.
2. Ecological impact:
Organic agriculture is based on the
fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and
terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a
dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails,
lacewings, and caddis flies, and there may be a relationship
between genetic engineering and colony collapse in
honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to
persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified
rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk
output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy
cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.
3. Control vs harmony:
Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite -- an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level - the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.
4. Unpredictable consequences:
Organic
agriculture is based on a precautionary approach - know the ecological and
human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a
practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic
modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted
consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic
sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown
outcomes.
5. Transparency:
Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The "substantial equivalence" regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry.
The absence of labels has
allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply
without the public's knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track
public health benefits.
6. Accountability:
Organic
farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect
organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances,
including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops
do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers
through “genetic trespass,” with no required containment or accountability.
7. Unnecessary:
It is well
established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and
healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods,
including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing
abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental
resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed
to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the
application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases
in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower
nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster
mono-cropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop
rotations are required.
8. Genetic diversity:
Organic
farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic
diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact
opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on
mono-cropping GMO varieties.
9. Not profitable:
According to
the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Agriculture
Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over
expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has
lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to
farm more land in order to stay in business.
10. No consumer demand:
Consumers
are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over
275,000 people said “no GMOs in organic,” in response to the first
proposed organic rule in 1997. “Organic” is the only federally regulated food
label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically
engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence
of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.