GMO Contamination? USDA Says 'Get Insurance' 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - With around 90 percent of corn, 90 percent of soy, and 80 percent of cotton grown in the U.S. being genetically modified, the risk of contamination puts organic farms at risk of losing their organic status and conventional farmers at risk of losing sales to countries that don’t allow imports of GMO foods.

Completely ignoring the role of Monsanto and other GM giants, a USDA advisory board called AC21 (short for the Advisory Committee on 21st Century Agriculture) has released a report recommending that the government offer a special form of crop insurance for farmers concerned about GMO contamination. AC21 is meant to represent the industry as a whole but around three-quarters of the participants represent groups or organizations affiliated with big agribusiness. This move effective transfers responsibility for GM contamination from the GM companies to the farmers who are forced to use these toxins to stay in business.

A press release from the National Organic Coalition stated: "This proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing [GMO] contamination while making the victims of [GMO] pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination," it said.

One bright spot is that AC21 specifically asked the USDA to quantify and measure the economic harm to farmers caused by genetic contamination. Should USDA ever gather and publish that data, it could have a great effect of the policy, but as the saying goes – Don’t hold your breath.

While the talk goes on, the coming crisis in industrial agriculture looms ever nearer and the growing ineffectiveness of Monsanto’s genetically modified Roundup Ready crops results in the increased use of even more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D (aka Agent Orange).

The stalemate that occurred with the AC21 report is merely another symptom of this larger crisis of understanding and knowledge among those who control our food system. Farmers, however, know there’s a problem. And many might opt for alternatives if the USDA stood up and gave them a real choice.

______________________________________

One of the big debates in agriculture right now involves "coexistence" between farmers who use genetically modified or GMO seeds and those who don’t. This is far more than an academic debate; in question is the risk of "contamination" of conventional or organic crops by GMO crops. The wind, insects, and even the farmers themselves can inadvertently cause this type of cross-pollination, and it puts organic farms at risk of losing their organic status and conventional farmers at risk of losing sales to countries that don’t allow imports of GMO foods.

Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is stepping in. Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, a USDA advisory board released a report recommending that the government offer a special form of crop insurance for farmers concerned about GMO contamination.

The USDA advisory group, called AC21 (short for the Advisory Committee on 21st Century Agriculture), is meant to represent the industry as a whole. The group included participants from all sectors of agriculture: large, small, conventional, and organic, including executives, farmers, and researchers. In reality, however, around three-quarters of the participants represent groups or organizations affiliated with big agribusiness, such as the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Soybean Association. And while USDA Chief Tom Vilsack had the good sense not to put a Monsanto representative on the board, DuPont, another major biotech firm, managed to get its top lawyer appointed.

So it should come as no surprise that organic trade groups attacked the board’s conclusion as far too generous to the interests of the biotech industry and the farmers who use its seeds. According to Reuters, the National Organic Coalition lashed out in a press release:

"This proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing [GMO] contamination while making the victims of [GMO] pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination," it said.

But the reality of the report is less conclusive. The authors themselves acknowledge that "members of the AC21 are not in agreement" on whether contamination is even a problem, much less on how to compensate for it.

In general, the report reads like something the members came up with under bureaucratic duress. There are no real, specific recommendations, merely a list of "things USDA could do" to address genetic contamination (which the report says may or may not be occurring) if one day it chooses to do so.

If there is anything of real value in the report, it’s that AC21 specifically asked the USDA to quantify and measure the economic harm to farmers caused by genetic contamination. At this point there is very little data on just how much and where contamination is occurring. And what data does exist has been gathered by anti-GMO advocacy groups. Numbers coming from the USDA will carry far more weight. Should USDA publish that data, it could do more to affect policy than anything else in the report.

What this report does conclusively establish, however, is the huge and growing chasm between practitioners and supporters of industrial-scale agriculture and their sustainable counterparts.

The board participants themselves recognized this problem. In one of several extended comments attached to the report, boardmember Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center declared that it "does not embody significant compromise" and "dodges key issues."

In short, no bridging the agriculture chasm here.

__________________________