Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

 From: , Organic Consumers Association, More from this Affiliate
Published January 14, 2008 09:34 AM
Will Current Organic Standards Save us from GMO Contamination?
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/29224

Early Beginnings in the 80's

Widespread development and use of organic standards began in the 1980's to
safeguard and systematize an alternative way (organic) of agriculture and
handling food. Among a detailed list of prohibited substances in organic
systems are chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers.
Because the organic system recognized from the start that it would likely
remain a small component of agriculture, and that contamination would
inevitably happen through background pollution such as polluted water, air
and drift, it proposed a system based on a "practice standard," rather than
on measuring the purity of an end product. This practice standard defines
and prescribes certain methods that are designed to eliminate (or minimize)
the potential for contamination from the list of prohibited substances.
Thus testing has not been relied on as a primary method to verify organic
integrity, and instead a system and philosophy of following an "organic
practice standard" has been adopted worldwide.

Organic standards also recognized that contamination from the prohibited
substances would diminish over time if applications were stopped. This is
one rationale for requiring a 3-year transition in order to bring
conventionally managed land into an organic system. After 3 years of
organic management it was felt that the land would re-generate itself and
the toxic substances sought to be avoided would have diminished
sufficiently to call it organic. Another motivator was to allow a practical
means for farmers to get into certified organic production.

Then Came the 90's

Genetic modification of the DNA of plants and animals through laboratory
splicing of genes from various species began to be released into our common
environment and agriculture in the mid to late 1990's. This presented a new
form of contamination to organic, and standards began to incorporate
non-GMO clauses. Because nobody knew very much about genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) and their effect on agriculture and food, it was assumed
that being another contaminant to organic, the previous practices build
into the standards would suffice to deal with this also.Was this a valid
assumption?

Two significant differences between pesticides and GMOs.

1) Dilute or concentrate

We have learned that pesticides and other toxins will generally diminish
over time when left in our environment. They will typically move about and
dilute in the natural environment and break down eventually. This justifies
the rationale that preventing further addition of pesticides is the best
approach (practice) to avoid contamination.

GMOs however do not diminish when released into the environment as they are
an alteration made to a living organism which can reproduce. For instance
experience has shown that a small level of escaped GMOs from a field of
canola plants will increase its presence in non-GMO canola fields each
following season. Additionally it has been found to cross pollinate with
nearby weeds of similar botanical families. Even small amounts of GMO
contamination will increase over time after being released into agriculture
and the environment.

2) To see, or not to see.

Pesticides, and the other (non- GMO) materials prohibited in organic can be
seen. They typically come in a can, jug or bag with a label on it. In some
situations drift of applied pesticides from conventional non-organic
neighbor fields could blow onto certified organic crops, and the practice
standard approaches this potential risk through requiring buffer strips and
other specific actions on the part of the certified organic farmer.

Also the organic inspector is trained to spot when, for instance,
herbicides may have blown into and contaminated the organic crop. The
standard then requires that which has been contaminated to be removed from
the organic stream.

GMO contaminated seeds are not labeled and cannot be identified with the
naked eye, nor can viable seed have the GMO contaminated portion recognized
and separated out from the non-GMO seeds. At this time the only testing
methods available require the grinding (and destroying the germination
viability) of the seeds.

So a farmer preparing to plant seed has no sure way of knowing if the seed
stock has been contaminated (even if it is certified organic) unless he or
she conducts a test.When the farmer plants contaminated seed, the following
crop is more contaminated.

The additional challenge with GMOs

Few doubt that the practice standard has provided a practical and effective
solution to ensure the best possible organic integrity of products in a
world where the very air and water is contaminated.

Do we now also need to ask:

Ӣ Do the organic standards have to catch up with the unique threats
presented by GMO contamination?

Ӣ Should the organic standards require testing as a practice in order
to "see" GMO contamination?

Are our heads in the sand?

!

Right now we are repeating the mantra that GMOs are not allowed in
organics. Yet standards do not require nor encourage use of the practical
and relatively affordable tool of testing for GMOs to see the
contamination. Climbing levels in organic may be happening right in front
of our closed eyes.

It is to be expected that the void created by the unaddressed GMO challenge
is fertile ground for new initiatives utilizing GMO testing.When testing is
applied to finished products and GMOs are found, it's too late to remedy
and may alarm organic consumers.

This could have a devastating effect on organic suppliers and farmers, if
they are not simultaneously supported to use testing as a tool to minimize
contamination at the source.

By supporting farmers to test seed through updating the standards, the
solution is applied at the root of the problem rather than being forced to
react to pressure from consumers where the problem can be felt, but not
remedied.

Whether we are more fearful of "consumer backlash" or "growing
contamination levels" our common issue is protecting organic. The time to
tackle this threat to organics has come, and initiatives such as the Non-
GMO Project, and the newly formed OTA Biotechnology Taskforce are signs
that through common motivation we can find solutions.

We may be damned if we do, but we will be more damned if we don't-tackle
the GMO issue head on.