Conscious Choice: GMOs Cause Organic Industry Concern

March 2000

GMOs Cause Organic Industry Concern

by Barbara Haumann

The pervasiveness of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in U.S. agriculture is of growing concern to the organic industry. Because of the impact of GMOs on organic production, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) supports a moratorium on the use of GMOs in all agricultural production.

OTA notes that because genetic engineering works by moving DNA between species in ways that are not possible in nature, this technology has the potential to cause unintended effects on the environment and on human health.

Organic certification organizations already prohibit the use of GMO seeds or other products of GMOs in organic production. The American Organic Standards, adopted by the OTA October 20, 1999, state: "Genetically engineered/modified organisms or products produced by or though the use of such organisms are not compatible with the principles of organic production (either the growing, manufacturing, or processing) and are not permitted under these standards."

Despite organic industry prohibition on the use of GMOs, genetic engineering in agriculture still poses a direct threat to the organic industry. For example, there is evidence pollen from genetically engineered plants can contaminate nearby organic fields. In one instance, tortilla chips produced organically were rejected for import into Europe because they were found to contain genetically altered ingredients. The source of the gene material was a neighboring field of genetically modified corn.

The widespread use of plants engineered to contain the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is of particular concern to organic producers. Looking at Bt as an example can clarify the risks of using GMOs in agriculture.

Bt — A Case in Point

Historically, both conventional and organic farming operations used naturally occurring bacteria Bt as a crop application against insect pests; this use was limited only to a particular time in the growing cycle. By inserting the Bt bacteria into the DNA of certain crops, however, scientists have created synthetic pest-protected plants which have the Bt pesticide in the stalk, leaves and pollen, and which can generate the toxic effects of Bt for their entire life, including during decomposition.

Under normal applications, Bt’s crystal protoxin — a precursor to the toxin — simply degrades within one to two days when exposed to sunlight without forming the toxin, according to Sally V. Fox of Vreseis Ltd., a scientist and organic farmer. However, Bt-engineered corn contains the active toxin.

"We have no idea what the long-term activity of this active toxin will be in our soils, to non-targeted animals, within the plants themselves, or in the mammalian gut when the products of these plants are consumed," Fox said.

In fact, researchers at New York University and the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Investigations have shown that Bt toxin is exuded into the soil by the roots of Bt corn. Their results, published in the December 2, 1999, issue of Nature, found the toxin persisted in various soils for at least 234 days.

The organic industry is concerned that genetically altered plants may endanger species and potentially reduce biological diversity. For instance, it is known that Bt is not specific to plant pests but can also kill beneficial insects, including monarch butterflies. A Cornell University study showed that pollen from Bt-engineered corn killed monarch larvae in lab experiments. Subsequently, entomologists John Obrycki and Laura Hansen at Iowa State University have reported similar effects with genetically engineered corn in the field. Although a one-time, high-level dose of Bt may kill a few nontarget insects, a Bt-engineered plant containing the toxin in all of its parts and exuding it into the soil can poison nontarget insects over an entire growing season. It is this new pattern of use which makes genetically engineered Bt plants environmentally dangerous.

The environmental impact may include loss of diversity, poisoning of the soil, risk of resistance to Bt, and pervasive uncontrolled spread of GMOs. These effects, in turn, threaten the livelihood of organic farmers.

The organic industry has warned that if insects become resistant to Bt, organic growers will lose natural Bt as a pest control. Without Bt, organic farmers will be left with far fewer effective strategies, while conventional farmers, who also have relied on Bt sprays, will have to turn to pesticides that are more toxic.

Labeling issue

Organic industry representatives are among those seeking mandatory labeling for GMO products. At recent public hearings held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on genetically engineered foods, numerous organic industry spokespersons asked the FDA to change its current policy.

OTA pointed out that organic producers take great care to offer customers a quality product with only the limited use of synthetic processing materials or ingredients. "Now producers are faced with not only the problem of contamination in the field but, more fundamentally, even the inability to be sure they are choosing non-genetically engineered minor ingredients — because they are not labeled."

OTA added: "Until a full, independent testing program is completed, the public interest is not served by denying the public the choice of eating non-genetically engineered food."

OTA also rebutted the argument that products not made with GMOs can be voluntarily labeled. "The burden of labeling should not be on the producers of conventional or organic food — they are not the ones introducing this new technology The burden should be on the companies seeking to market the new products," OTA said.

This article originally appeared in What’s News in Organic, Issue #13, February/March 2000. Reprinted with permission. Visit the Organic Trade Association web site.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: