Note: More damning evidence against the “coexistence” of GE crops and organic farms. As GE corn and soybeans have contaminated organic crops, we can expect that, if legalized, GE pine and poplar trees will likely contaminate non-GE trees growing in forests nearby industrial plantations. This concern, frequently raised by opponents of GE trees, has also been voiced by some of the leading proponents of GE trees as one of the risks. But hey, maybe the bears, birds and bees will just have to buy some better crop and habitat insurance.
-The GJEP Team
March 10, 2014. Source: Beyond Pesticides
New data finds that organic farmers are growing increasingly concerned with genetically engineered (GE) crops cross-pollinating and contaminating their fields. This contamination can lead to serious economic losses for organic farmers and has created tension between neighbors. The data comes at a critical time as USDA is advancing the notion that “coexistence” between GE and non-GE growers presents no problems for the organic market. USDA has been widely criticized in organic circles because its decisions to deregulate numerous GE crops place the burden of reducing contamination on non-GE growers.
A survey, released by Food and Water Watch and Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM), finds that a third of U.S. organic farmers have experienced GE contamination in their fields due to the nearby use of GE crops, while over half of these growers have had loads of grain rejected because of unwitting GE contamination. These rejections can lead to big income losses for farmers, with a median cost of approximately $2,500 per year, according to the survey. Additionally, several farmers report annual losses of over $20,000 due to the need to establish buffer zones, while limit the threat of contamination from their neighbors by taking contiguous farmland out of production.
In the survey, organic farmers also express their frustration that efforts to reduce contamination fall squarely on their shoulders. Nearly half (45 percent) of respondents say that they would not purchase crop insurance intended to cover costs associated with GE contamination. Of the 35 percent of respondents who answered that they would purchase insurance for GE contamination-related losses, more than three-quarters of them (78 percent) believe that the added premium for coverage should be paid by GE patent holders or GE patent holders and GE users.
One farmer responded to the survey, “If [GE] was not here this would not be going on. It’s their contamination that’s the problem but we have to guard against something we have no control over. How do you even get a patent on something you can’t control? The whole object is control and that is not our [organic farmers’] problem.”